pela inc letter re: response to epa comments on … · 2020. 8. 15. · 102 response to comments on...

102

Response to Comments on Technical Memorandum No. 9AAnalysis of Alternatives (SCOU) for the

City Disposal Corporation Landfill(DUNN) Landfill

PELA 495210 October 31,1991

U.S. Environmental Projection AgencyCharles Wilk

Remedial Project ManagerJuly 15,1991

U.S. EPA Comments

General Comment*

1. The SCOU draft Feasibility Study Report should carry Alternative 1 (No-Action), Alternative V and Alternative VIthrough evaluation against the nine evaluation criteria. These Alternatives were selected because: (a) Alternative 1 is a No-Action alternative and required to be carried through as a baseline, and (b) Alternatives V and VI include active remediation oflandfilled waste in Cells 6 and 12.

RESPONSE: Comment acknowledged.

2. Although costs presented are included for discussion purposes only, costs presented for each alternative inAppendix C should be identical to costs presented for the same alternative In the text. Several discrepancies exist and shouldbe corrected.

RESPONSE:Study (FS).

The costs and backup data (in the appendix) will be consistent in the Draft Feasibility

Specific Comments

Page 8 Paragraph 2, Section 3.2.1.1, Cover A - Synthetic Cover.Alternative V includes the use of Cover A. Cover A does not meet the Wisconsin Administrative Codes [NR 504.07or NR 181.44(13)]. Cover A consists of a 1-foot thick compacted clay layer. The code required a 2-foot clay layer.Alternative V may continue to be considered If the performance of the 1-foot thick compacted clay layer can befurther verified.

RESPONSE: Although Cover A does not meet the minimum requirements of clay thickness for RCRASubtitle D (NR 504.07) or RCRA Subtitle C, the cover may be as effective as the other covers optionsbecause of the efficiency of the synthetic cover. As shown in Table 1 (Tech Memo 9A), Cover A is veryeffective in reducing Infiltration to about 1000 cubic feet per year and is virtually equivalent to Cover Cin terms of infiltration reduction.

10/30/91, WPS.1,13O:\4»20Q\Rt»pontt.BA

•RELaMoreaux&Assoctates-

P1ILA-Page 10 Table 1, Summary of Cost Effectiveness of the Capping Alternatives.

The U.S. EPA Hydraulic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model should be used to estimate the infiltrationrate for the current landfill covers. The Infiltration rate for the current conditions would serve as a comparisonbetween proposed covers and existing conditions. K H were to be determined that a proposed cover provides nomore protection than the current cover, then this would be a basis for eliminating the proposed cover.

RESPONSE: Due to the fact that the existing cover thickness and consistency varies across the site,it is difficult to determine a precise value of current infiltration through the cover. Using extreme cases,the infiltration may vary between 92,000 to 532,000 cubic feet per year. An average value may be460,000 cubic feet per year (Table to follow).

Page 13 Paragraph 2, Section 3.2.5.1, Purpose. jFurther discussion detailing the landfill gas extraction system monitoring program should be Included. For example,sampling intervals, duration of sampling, contaminants to be sampled and the permissible limits./The cost shouldbe calculated and added to all alternatives using the monitoring program.

RESPONSE: Additional details regarding landfill gas extraction system monitoring will be includedin the draft FS. (see Section 5.2.5.1, 3rd paragraph)

6 Paragraph 1, Section 5.1.1, Description.The text states that pulsed extraction of the landfill gas may be effective for approximately two years. Furtherexplanation and/or calculations substantiating this estimate should be included within the document.

RESPONSE: The two year estimate was used because It will take approximately two years for thecombined effects of the cover system and extraction system to dry the waste enough to reduce orhinder methane generation. Further explanation of a two-year demonstration will be provided in thedraft FS. (see Section 7.2.6.4)

page 26 Paragraph 2, Section 5.1.1, Description.The first sentence states that runoff from the landfill drains into nearby ponds or streams. This statement is partiallyIncorrect. Runoff may drain into Badflsh Creek but may not drain into nearby ponds. This statement should becorrected.

RESPONSE: The draft FS will not refer to ponds In Section 7.1.1.

10/30/91, WP9.1,13D:\405200\HMponM.SA

•R ELaMoreaux & Associates—'

-. .» ... ., . , .. - - . , . . . . .7*'-?^

. . , , , . . . - , . - . - .' " ' ' ' '

.r-"^"--i-"-'n"(r*'.'j¥.~ iWi. iar!SA.-':'.'»''.''--W :'.?:',w:-;'f ,'"*•'« V3.*" h. ":™".T»*a?*a>'— '-ar.-. •--- '- • r - - - - i r r iMnii W ifflar'l ' it" : i" . -Tin -IT 11 ;..-.-i T >. — " -

Water Balance Calculations for landfill Cover Alternatives

"Ourin Landfill Rnal Cover Design, Revised Cover "A" 3% Slope' • * * • • - • • • • • Poor Constaictkm QA, 1/7/92 " r ^. '*

- -. Average Construction QA, 1/24/92 t"*^*" * Excellent Construction QA, 1/11/92 ' ' r**T

ounn Landfill Rnal Cover Design, Revised Cover "A" 9% Slope-,, .'.!_„* :.„ JiPoor Construction QA, 1/24/92 ::;zir7.CZ^J

» , , : Average Construction QA, 1/24/92 „ ;v:.- -Excellent Construction QA, 1/24/92 " \"

4.

5.

6.

8.

Dunn Landfill Final Cover Design, Cover"B"S% Slope, 1/20/92 -

Dunn LarxSni Final Cover Design. Cover "B" 9% Slope, 1/24/92 .; —

J jnnUrKlf in Rnal C^verl sign, Revised Cover "C" 3% Slope (For Use in Evaluationof Cover "B/C")

. "Poor Construction QA, 1/24/92 r : ;.;V:"; "r:™ " :" r^r • ^Average Construction QA. 1/24/92 ^:^T7X:™^- *^- '

. Excellent Construction QA, 1/24/92 v'

Dunn Landrm Final Cover Design, Revised Cover "C" 9% Slope tFor Use in Evaluationof Cover"B^") --..

, ^»oor Construction QA, 1/24/92 ":" ~ - - - - : : :• -Average Construction QA, 1/24/92

Excellent Construction QA, 1/24/92

Determination of Leakage Factor, 12/30/92

•RELaMoreaux&Associates—.-.• • .-.I. ., .!fOfct

"<**»' r,-»THiMfc1' ''w .*«£W

II

EFFECTIVENESS OF CAPPING ALTERNATIVES

t

[

Cover

Existing

AAA

B

B/CB/CB/C

ConstructionQA

N/A

Poor*1^Average 2

Excellent*3

N/A

Poor*1^Average 2

Excellent*3

EstimatedInfiltrationRate (Cubic

Feet per Year)

460,000

34,90098822

111,100

91.10091,10091,100

PercentReduction

_.

92.499.899.99

75.8

80.280.280.2

CoverTotal Present

Worth ($)

«

2.733,000

2,753,000

2,434,000

Assumptions:

Water Balance

Maximum/Minimum Slopes of 9%/5% to 3% were used.

Cost Analysis

Landfill total acreage assumed to be 24.2, and 4.4 acres forCells 6 and 12.

*' Source control cost only. Does not include Ground water Control costs.Poor QA assumed in HELP Model - Leakage Factor assumed to be 0.01.Average QA assumed in HELP Model - Leakage Factor assumed to be 0.00025.Excellent QA assumed in HELP Model - Leakage Factor assumed to be 0.00001.

*1*2

*3

[32-10)90124.51

L

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNREVISED COVER "A" 3% SLOPEJANUARY 7, 1992 :J. BLAYNE KIRSCH

POOR GEOMEMBRANE QA = 0.01 VALUE

FAIR GRASS

LAYER

i

THICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINT

VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER6.00 INCHES0.4530 VOL/VOL0.1901 VOL/VOL0.0848 VOL/VOL

INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

0.1901 VOL/VOL0.002160000149 CM/SEC

THICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINT

LAYER 2

VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER18.00 INCHES0.4370 VOL/VOL0.1053 VOL/VOL0.0466 VOL/VOL

INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

0.1053 VOL/VOL0.001700000023 CM/SEC

LAYER

THICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITYSLOPEDRAINAGE LENGTH

LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER12.00 INCHES0.4170 VOL/VOL0.0454 VOL/VOL0.0200 VOL/VOL0.0454 VOL/VOL0.010000000708 CM/SEC

— 3 00 PERCENT250.0 FEET

-1-

riL

LAYER 4

BARRIER SOIL LINER WITH FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERTHICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITYLINER LEAKAGE FRACTION

12.00 INCHES0.3949 VOL/VOL0.2797 VOL/VOL0.1875 VOL/VOL0.3949 VOL/VOL0.000003200000 CM/SEC0.01000000

IL

GENERAL SIMULATION DATA

LI

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERTOTAL AREA OF COVEREVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTHUPPER LIMIT VEG. STORAGEINITIAL VEG. STORAGEINITIAL SNOW WATER CONTENTINITIAL TOTAL WATER STORAGE INSOIL AND WASTE LAYERS

68.71= 1055000. SQ FT

20.00 INCHES8.8360 INCHES2.6148 INCHES0.7586 INCHES

8.3196 INCHES

SOIL WATER CONTENT INITIALIZED BY USER.

CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA

SYNTHETIC RAINFALL WITH SYNTHETIC DAILY TEMPERATURES ANDSOLAR RADIATION FOR MADISON WISCONSIN

LMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX =2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) - 135END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 273

NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURES, DEGREES FAHRENHEIT

JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC

15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

-2-

rAVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

I

r

JAN/JUL

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

03

01

00

00

.83

.34

.35

.78

.000

.000

.000

.000

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

9648

5066

000000

000000

MAR/ SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

7791

0213

000000

000000

JUN/DEC

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

LATERAL DRAINAGE

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

PERCOLATION FROM

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

03

01

FROM

00

00

LAYER

00

00

.485

.669

.101

.309

LAYER

.2858

.2909

.2399

.1852

4

.0361

.0404

.0149

.0053

0.3.

0.1.

3

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

885303

287462

26452292

21821664

03270386

01360045

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

926334

549817

31841716

20291373

03820355

01280042

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

712766

747794

35552034

20402431

04060342

00740121

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

986014

837331

35182187

18302531

04200320

00560146

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.29020.2758

0.15320.2406

0.03920.0371

0.00450.0123

-3-

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20L

iI

rr.riiiuir

(INCHES)

PRECIPITATION 29.88 (3.

RUNOFF 0.005 ( 0.

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 26.068 (3.

LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM 3.2558 ( 1.LAYER 3

PERCOLATION FROM LAYER 4 0.4465 ( 0.x CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.100 ( 1.

******************************************

******************************************

PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

' LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 3

PERCOLATION FROM LAYER 4

HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER

978)

023)

248)

9322)

0925)

970)

********

********

(CU. FT.)

2626598.

458.

2291851.

286240.l

39256. 1'

8793.

*************

*************

PERCENT

100.00

0.02

87.26

10.90

1.49

0.33

********

********

1 THROUGH 20

(INCHES)

3.19

0.053

0.0326

0.0020

10.2

2.36

(CU. FT.

280454.2

4619.3

2869.7

176.8

207108.9

)

MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)

MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)

0.2646

0.0577

-4-

rL

III1I

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20• ^^^««««««««W«««MWW«»M.B«^*»W^^^^^^^W»W*M^»4

LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)

1 1.20 0.1992

2 3.54 0.1968

3 1.60 0.1336

4 4.74 0.3949

SNOW WATER 0.00

-5-

LrL DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGN

COVER "A" @ 3% SLOPES WITH AVERAGE QAJ. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

0.00025

iii

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1

VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYERTHICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

6.00 INCHES0.4530 VOL/VOL0.1901 VOL/VOL0.0848 VOL/VOL0.1901 VOL/VOL0.002160000149 CM/SEC

LAYER 2



LAYER 3

LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYERTHICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITYSLOPEDRAINAGE LENGTH

12.00 INCHES0.4170 VOL/VOL0.0454 VOL/VOL0.0200 VOL/VOL0.0454 VOL/VOL0.010000000708 CM/SEC3.00 PERCENT

250.0 FEET

f LAYER 4




[r

SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERTOTAL AREA OF COVEREVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTHUPPER LIMIT VEG. STORAGEINITIAL VEG. STORAGEINITIAL SNOW WATER CONTENTINITIAL TOTAL WATER STORAGESOIL AND WASTE LAYERS

681055000

20820

71SQ FT00 INCHES8360 INCHES6148 INCHES7586 INCHES

IN8.3196 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA


MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX =2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) - 135END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) « 273



15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

r AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

L

JAN/JUL

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

03

01

• o0

00

03

01

LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

00

00

PERCOLATION FROM LAYER

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

00

00

.83

.34

.35

.78

.000

.000

.000

.000

.485

.669

.101

.309

LAYER

.3166

.3292

.2442

.1865

4

.0010

.0010

.0002

.0001

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.

3

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9648

5066

000000

000000

885303

287462

29582707

22141664

00090010

00020001

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

926334

549817

34992123

20991369

00110009

00020001

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

712766

747794

38452462

21242440

00110010

00020002

MAY/NOV

2.771.91

1.021.13

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

,2.9861.014

0.8370.331

0.38470.2544

0.19020.2579

0.00110.0010

0.00010.0002

JUN/DEC

4.1.

1.0.

0.0.

0.0.

4.0.

1.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

4646

9268

000000

000000

477512

156130

32653106

15582437

00100010

00010002

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS ft (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

(INCHES) (CU. FT.) PERCENT

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

LATERAL DRAINAGE FROMLAYER 3


CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE

29.88 ( 3.978) 2626598. 100.00

0.005 ( 0.023) 458. 0.02

26.068 ( 3.248) 2291851. 87.26

3.6814 ( 1.9946) 323660. 12.32

0.0121 ( 0.0014) 1063. 0.04

0.109 ( 1.973) 9566. 0.36

PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

280454.2

4619.3

2995.4

4.5

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 3


HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER



3.19

0.053

0.0341

0.0001

10.6

2.36 207108.9

0.2646

0.0577

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20• •••• ^ •»»«« «W ***B4»«* ^ 4V ««« ^ fHI **HtV i


1 1.20 0.1992

2 3.54 0.1968

3 1.78 0.1482

4 4.74 0.3949

SNOW WATER 0.00

r

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "A" 3% SLOPE WITH EXCEfc&lT QA WITH A VALUE OF 0.00001J. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 11, 1992

-1-

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1



LAYER 2



LAYER 3



250.0 FEET

ILAYER

-2-

BARRI^R SOIL LINER WITH FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERTHICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITYLINER LEAKAGE FRACTION



iSCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERTOTAL AREA OF COVEREVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTHUPPER LIMIT VEG. STORAGEINITIAL VEG. STORAGEINITIAL SNOW WATER CONTENTINITIAL TOTAL WATER STORAGE INSOIL AND WASTE LAYERS

68.71- 1055000. SQ FT


8.3196 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA





r15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

i[r **************************************

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES

*- JAN/JUL

[II-IIiii^iI

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

sRUNOFF

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

J LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.833.34

0.351.78

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

0.4853.669

0.1011.309

LAYER

0.31750.3301

0.24420.1865

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.

3

0.0.

0.0.

9648

5066

000000

000000

885303

287462

29662718

22151664

***********

FOR YEARS

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

926334

549817

35082133

21001369

*************

1 THROUGH

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

712766

747794

38532473

21252440

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

7791

0213

000000

000000

986014

837331

38562554

19032580

*********

20

JUN/DEC

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.32750.3116

0.15590.2438


Ir

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

-3-

[rirLi^

i[iii.i.i:i.ir

******************************

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD.

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION


^ PERCOLATION FROM LAYER 4


******************************PEAK DAILY VALUES

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

************

DEVIATIONS)

(INCHES)

29.88 ( 3.

0.005 ( 0.

26.068 ( 3.

3.6928 ( 1.

0.0005 ( 0.

0.109 ( 1.

************FOR YEARS



^ HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER

MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER

MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER

4

(VOL/VOL)

(VOL/VOL)

******************************************FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END

LAYER (INCHES)

1234

SNOW WATER

1.203.541.784.740.00

-4-

*****************************

FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

(CU. FT.) PERCENT

978) 2626598. 100.00

023) 458. 0.02

248) 2291851. 87.26

9954) 324661. 12.36

0001) 43. 0.00

973) 9586. 0.36

*****************************1 THROUGH 20

(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

3.19 280454.2

0.053 4619.3

0.0341 2998.7

0.0000 0.2 :

10.6

2.36 207108.9

0.2646

0.0577

*****************************OF YEAR 20

(VOL/VOL)

0.19920.19680.14860.3949

Ir

L

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "A" @ 9% SLOPES WITH POOR QA - 0.01J. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1



I LAYER 2



LAYER 3



250.0 FEET

LAYER 4

BARRIER SOIL LINER WITH FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINER

LI

THICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITYLINER LEAKAGE FRACTION



r


68.711055000. SQ FT


8.3196 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA


MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX - 2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) « 135END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 273



15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

r JAN/JUL

irr*-i viii\i ^irii

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 03

STD. DEVIATIONS 01

RUNOFF

TOTALS 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 0y oEVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS 03

STD. DEVIATIONS 01


TOTALS 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 0y 0


TOTALS 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 00

************************

.83

.34

.35

.78

.000

.000

;ooo.000

.485

.669

.101

.309

LAYER

.3574

.2545

.4050

.4358

4

.0285

.0347

.0126

.0022

******

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.3

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

9648

5066

000000

000000

885303

287462

30000662

36501239

02650284

01120063

*****

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

9824

9794

000003

000012

926334

549817

42720467

39900910

03200215

00980089

*****

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

712766

747794

45983133

39137684

03410219

00360116

*****

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

7791

0213

000000

000000

986014

837331

29483007

25964407

03510226

00120124

*****

JUN/DEC

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.15810.4061

0.13680.4596

0.03330.0285

0.00080.0119

*********

I AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

i (INCHES)

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




29.88 <

0.005 1

26.068 1

3.3848 I

0.3471 I

0.070 I

( 3.978)

[ 0.023)

( 3.248)

[ 2.2047)

[ 0.0635)

[ 1.599)

(CU. FT.)

2626598.

458.

2291851.

297581.

30516.

6192.

PERCENT

100.00

0.02

87.26

11.33

1.16

0.24

X**********************************************************************


rPRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER

(INCHES)

3.19

0.053

0.1168

0.0016

5.8

2.36

(CU. FT.)

280454.2

4619.3

10268.3

141.7

207108.9



0.2646

0.0577

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20

LAYER

1

2

3

4

SNOW WATER

(INCHES)

1.20

3.54

1.01

4.74

0.00

(VOL/VOL)

0.1992

0.1968

0.0843

0.3949

IrirLii

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "A" @ 9% SLOPES WITH AVERAGE QAJ. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

0.00025

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1



i LAYER

VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER

\THICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY


LAYER



250.0 FEET

LAYER 4




i


681055000

20820

IN


8.3196 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA


MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX =2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 135END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 273



15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

*

tII*11

1 <-"

11111-111

*****************************

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN

JAN/JUL

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.833.34

0.351.78

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

0.4853.669

0.1011.309

LAYER

0.38380.2884

0.41290.4371

********

INCHES

FEB/AUG

0.963.48

0.501.66

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

0.8853.303

0.2871.462

3

0.32520.0973

0.37140.1263

***********

FOR YEARS

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

926334

549817

45650704

40270945

*************

J. THROUGH

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

712766

747794

49143350

39497750

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

7791

0213

000000

000000

986014

837331

32903218

26094480

***

20

******

JUN/DEC

4.1.

1.0.

0.0.

0.0.

4.0.

1.0.

0.0.

0.0.

4646

9268

000000

000000

477512

156130

19074310

13734659


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.00090.0009

0.00000.0000

0.00080.0009

0.00000.0000

0.0.

0.0.

00090008

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00090009

00000001

0.0.

0.0.

00090009

00000001

0.0.

0.0.

00080009

00000001

L AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20


L

I1I

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




29.88 ( 3.978)

0.005 ( 0.023)

26.068 ( .3.248)

3.7205 { 2.2583)

0.0104 ( 0.0003)

0.071 ( 1.604)

2626598.

458.

2291851.

1327097.

910. (\

6282. \

100.00

0.02

87.26

12.45

0.03

0.24

****************************************


PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER



(INCHES)

3.19

0.053

0.1181

0.0000

5.8

2.36

(CU. FT.)

280454.2

4619.3

10379.5

3.6

207108.9

0.2646

0.0577

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20• « ^ « ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 4»«B flK ^ ^ tfV»«»*IWB«« «


1.20

3.54

1.03

4.74

0.00

1

2

3

4

0.1992

0.1968

0.0860

0.3949

SNOW WATER

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "A" @ 9% SLOPES WITH EXCELLENT QA - 0.00001J. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1



LAYER 2



LAYER 3

LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER

I

THICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITYSLOPEDRAINAGE LENGTH


250.0 FEET

LAYER 4


L




II


68.711055000. SQ FT


8.3196 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA





15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

IIr

I--r1i ^

iiiiI ^'

ii

**************************************


JAN/JUL

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS

^ STD. DEVIATIONS

03

01

00

00

.83

.34

.35

.78

.000

.000

.000

.000

FEB/AUG

0.963.48

0.501.66

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

***********

FOR YEARS

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

*************

1 THROUGH

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

7791

0213

000000

000000

*********

20

JUN/DEC

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

LATERAL DRAINAGE

TOTALS

^ STD. DEVIATIONS

PERCOLATION FROM

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

03

01

FROM

00

00

LAYER

00

00

.485

.669

.101

.309

LAYER

.3846

.2892

.4129

.4371

4

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

0.8853.303

0.2871.462

3

0.32600.0982

0.37140.1263

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

926334

549817

45740712

40270945

00000000

00000000

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

712766

747794

49223358

39497750

00000000

00000000

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

986014

837331

32983226

26094480

00000000

00000000

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.19160.4319

0.13730.4659

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

I

[[L

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20••«•••»•______•«______________________________________«___—_—•_—__«».-—•


PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




29.88 ( 3.978) 2626598. 100.00

0.005 ( 0.023) 458. 0.02

26.068 ( 3.248) 2291851. 87.26

3.7305 ( 2.2586) 327969. 12.49

0.0004 ( 0.0000) 36. 0.00

0.071 ( 1.604) 6284. 0.24

L

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



(INCHES)

3.19

0.053

0.1181

0.0000

(CU. FT.)

280454.2

4619.3

10382.3

0.1

HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER



5.8

2.36 207108.9

0.2646

0.0577

LAYER

1

2

3

4

SNOW WATER

(INCHES)

1.20

3.54

1.03

4.74

0.00

(VOL/VOL)

0.1992

0.1968

0.0860

0.3949

rCOVER B:50F8

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "B" AT 5% SLOPESJ. BIAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 20, 1992

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1



[LAYER 2



250.0 FEET

LAYER 3

i BARRIER SOIL LINERTHICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY


COVER B: 6 OF 8


I

I


68.71= 1055000. SQ FT


13.3560 INCHES

SOIL WATER CONTENT INITIALIZED BY PROGRAM.

CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA


iMAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX =2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) - 135END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) - 273



15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

COVER B: 7 OF 8

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20L ________JAN/JUL

I

L[L

***

I1[1l v1

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS-X

STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS


TOTALS*/

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.833.34

0.351.78

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

0.4854.186

0.1011.249

LAYER

0.16270.1487

0.12240.0874

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.2

0.0.

0.0.

9648

5066

000000

000000

889372

283544

15741199

11200698

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

919341

559813

19061091

11000661

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000014

720762

752781

20211189

10471155

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

7791

0213

000000

000000

993010

807337

19761163

09601155

JUN/DEC

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

4.4380.512

1.1620.131

0.17390.1509

0.08500.1250

PERCOLATION FROM LAYER 3II

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.11940.1242

0.03550.0140

0.0.

0.0.

10731089

03920312

0.0.

0.0.

12440939

03480427

0.0.

0.0.

12800981

02190527

0.0.

0.0.

13210962

01690479

0.12470.1186

0.01460.0347

[[1i:i.i:i ,........................................

COVER B: 8 C

***********************************************************************AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




****************************

(INCHES)

29.88 ( 3.

0.006 ( 0.

26.627 ( 3.

1.8480 ( 0.

1.3758 ( 0.

0.020 ( 2.

*******************************************************

I PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARSI

ii1

iii

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 3

SNOW WATER>

LAYER 2

3



************************************************************************************

(CU. FT.) PERCENT

978) 2626598. 100.00

026) 512. 0.02

219) 2340922. 89.12

9630) 162472. 6.19

3193) 120953. 4.60

098) 1739. 0.07

**********************************************************1 THROUGH 20

(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

3.19 280454.2

0.062 5491.7

0.0181 1592.4

0.0062 541.7

19.5

2.36 207067.5

0.3862

0.0577

***********************************************************

. FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20

1 LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL)

1 1.20 0.1992

2 4.84 0.2689

3 10.32 0.4300

SNOW WATER 0.00

t**********:************************************************************************

COVER B@ 9%: -I- OF 4

Irt

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER »B" AT 9% SLOPESJ. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1



LAYER 2



250.0 FEET

LLAYER 3

BARRIER SOIL LINERTHICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY


[ COVER B @ 9%: -2- OF 4



IN

- 68.71- 1055000. SQ FT- 20.00 INCHES- 8.8360 INCHES= 3.5711 INCHES- 0.7586 INCHES

= 13.3560 INCHES

SOIL WATER CONTENT INITIALIZED BY PROGRAM.

CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA





15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

r COVER B @ 9%: -3- OF 4


w

JAN/JUL

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.833.34

0.351.78

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

0.4853.701

0.1011.320

LAYER

0.27000.2102

0.24670.1989

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.

2

0.0.

0.0.

9648

5066

000000

000000

886333

286525

25361140

23891061

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

927335

550817

30990733

20990740

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000012

710761

750790

32991217

20962086

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

7791

0213

000000

000000

990015

838334

30271544

21612082

JUN/DEC

4.1.

1.0.

0.0.

0.0.

4.0.

1.0.

0.0.

0.0.

4646

9268

000000

000000

467512

158130

21252518

14392746


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.09590.1070

0.04990.0270

0.0.

0.0.

09130862

04170461

0.0.

0.0.

11130718

02960498

0.0.

0.0.

11520753

01490552

0.0.

0.0.

11790742

00890510

0.0.

0.0.

11080948

00590476

COVER B @ 9%: -4- OF 4

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (8TD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

ri

(INCHES)

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




29.88 i

0.005 <

26.123 i

2.6039 I

1.1516 I

-0.008 I

( 3.978)

( 0.024)

[ 3.320)

[ 1.5896)

[ 0.3247)

( 1.891)

(CU. FT.)

2626598.

468.

2296658.

228930.

101241. j

-699. '

PERCENT

100.00

0.02

87.44

8.72

3.85

-0.03

II

I[[

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 3

SNOW WATER

(INCHES)

3.19

0.053

0.0329

0.0054

13.9

2.36

(CU. FT.)

280454.2

4684.6

2895.4

472.3

207072.3



0.3246

0.0577

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20•••»«••••••••••••••••«•••••••»*••««•••»••<


1 1.20 0.1992

2 4.22 0.2343

3 10.32 0.4300

SNOW WATER 0.00

riiii

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "C" 63% SLOPES WITH POOR QAJ. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

0.01

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1



i LAYER 2



LAYER 3



250.0 FEET

[LAYER 4


r:L




r SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERTOTAL AREA OF COVEREVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTHUPPER LIMIT VEG. STOINITIAL VEG. STORAGEINITIAL SNOW WATER CONTENTINITIAL TOTAL WATER STORAGE INSOIL AND WASTE LAYERS

ER

HAGE

NTENT

68.1055000.

20.8.2.0.


13.9008 INCHES


I1 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA





15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

rri:i:i.1 ;

.

1 ^_

11I

*********************

AVERAGE MONTHLY

*****************

VALUES IN INCHES

JAN/JUL

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS

s STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.833

01

• o0

00

03

01


I^

iI

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS>

00

00


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

00

00

.34

.35

.78

.000

.000

.000

.000

.485

.668

.101

.309

LAYER

.3165

.3290

.2442

.1865

4

.0012

.0012

.0001

.0001

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.

3

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9648

5066

000000

000000

885303

287462

29572706

22151664

00110011

00010001

***********

FOR YEARS

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

926334

549817

34982121

20991370

00120011

00010001

*************

1 THROUGH

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

712766

747794

38442460

21242441

00120011

00010001

MAY/NOV

2.771.91

1.021.13

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

2.9861.014

0.8370.331

0.38460.2543

0.19020.2579

0.00120.0011

0.00010.0001

JU*JL^^^**A•* »**««««««

20

JUN/DEC

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.32640.3105

0.15580.2438

0.00110.0012

0.00010.0001

IAVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS fi (8TD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

(INCHES) (CU. FT.) PERCENTI.

r

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




29.88 ( 3.978) 2626598. 100.00

0.005 ( 0.023) 458. 0.02

26.068 ( 3.248) 2291855. 87.26

3.6797 ( 1.9950) 323511. 12.32

0.0138 ( 0.0009) 1210. 0.05

0.109 ( 1.973) 9564. 0.36


(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

280454.2

4619.3

2995.1

4.3

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER



3.19

0.053

0.0341

0.0000

10.6

2.36 207107.8

0.2646

0.0577

rFINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20>B____>»»«»V«BMM»«__HI.BM»v,B__.«________»v««v»<


1 1.20 0.1992

2 3.54 0.1968

3 1.78 0.1482

4 10.32 0.4300

SNOW WATER 0.00

tDUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "C" @ 3 % SLOPES WITH AVERAGE QA = 0.00025J. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

FAIR GRASS

LAYER

ri



LAYER

i VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYERTHICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY


LAYER 3



250.0 FEET

LAYER 4




ISCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERTOTAL AREA OF COVEREVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTHUPPER LIMIT VEG. STORAGEINITIAL VEG. STORAGEINITIAL SNOW WATER CONTENTINITIAL TOTAL WATER STORAGESOIL AND WASTE LAYERS

68= 1055000

20820


IN13.9008 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA

SYNTHETIC RAINFALL WITH SYNTHETIC DAILY TEMPERATURES ANDSOLAR RADIATION FOR MADISON - WISCONSIN

MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX =2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) * 135END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) - 273



15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20»

Iiri\ \iiiL

Vn

!1

JAN/JUL

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS

_y STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS^

0.833.34

0.351.78

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

0.4853.668

0.1011.309

LAYER

0.31760.3301

0.24420.1865

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.

3

0.0.

0.0.

9648

5066

000000

000000

885303

287462

29662718

22151664

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

926334

549817

35082133

21001369

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

712766

747794

38542473

21252440

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

7791

0213

000000

000000

986014

837331

38562554

19042580

JUN/DEC

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.32750.3116

0.15590.2438


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

LAVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS « (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

L

r

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




(INCHES)

29.88 ( 3.978)

0.005 ( 0.023)

26.068 ( 3.248)

3.6929 ( 1.9954)

0.0003 ( 0.0000)

0.109 ( 1.973)

(CU. FT.)

2626598.

458.

2291855.

324669.

30.

9586.

PERCENT

100.00

0.02

87.26

12.36

0.00

0.36

r\^^Jt **********************************************************************


Li

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER

(INCHES)

3.19

0.053

0.0341

0.0000

10.6

2.36

(CU. FT.)

280454.2

4619.3

2998.7

0.1

207107.8



0.2646

0.0577

rLAYER

1

2

3

4

SNOW WATER

(INCHES)

1.20

3.54

1.78

10.32

0.00

(VOL/VOL)

0.1992

0.1968

0.1486

0.4300

I DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "C" 63% SLOPES WITH EXCELLENT QA = 0.00001J. BLAVNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1



LAYER 2



LAYER



250.0 FEET

LAYER 4

i:




i SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERTOTAL AREA OF COVEREVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTHUPPER LIMIT VEG. STOINITIAL VEG. STORAGEINITIAL SNOW WATER CONTENTINITIAL TOTAL WATER STORAGE INSOIL AND WASTE LAYERS

ER

HAGE

3=

NTENT

68.1055000.

20.8.2.0.


13.9008 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA


MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX =2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) - 135END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 273



15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20•_

LI[Ir1 ^~-

-*iii|

i-iir

JAN/JUL

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

RUNOFF

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.833.34

0.351.78

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

0.4853.668

0.1011.309

LAYER

0.31760.3302

0.24420.1865

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.3

0.0.

0.0.

9648

5066

000000

000000

885303

287462

29662718

22151664

MAR/SEP

1.3,

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9824

9794

000003

000012

926334

549817

35092134

21001369

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

712766

747794

38542473

21252440

MAY/NOV JUN/DEC

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

7791

0213

i\

000 1ooo i000000

986014

837331

38562554

19042580

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.32750.3116

0.15590.2438


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.0.

0.0.

00000000

00000000

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

rAVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

•

Lriii Jiiii• <-•

*:

1 "I11

(INCHES)

PRECIPITATION 29.88 (3.

RUNOFF 0.005 ( 0.

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 26.068 ( 3.

LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM 3.6932 ( 1.LAYER 3

PERCOLATION FROM LAYER 4 0.0000 ( 0.

CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.109 ( 1.**********************************************************************************

PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER


MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)**********************************************************************************

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END

LAYER (INCHES)

1 1.20

2 3.54

3 1.78

4 10.32

(CU. FT.)

978) 2626598.

023) 458.

248) 2291855.

9954) 324698.

0000) 1.

973) 9586.******************************************

1 THROUGH 20

(INCHES) (CU. FT.

3.19 280454.2

0.053 4619.3

0.0341 2998.8

0.0000 0.0

10.6

2.36 207107.8

0.2646

0.0577******************************************

OF YEAR 20

(VOL/VOL)

0.1992

0.1968

0.1486

0.4300

PERCENT

100.00

0.02

87.26

12.36

0.00

0.36****************

)

****************

SNOW WATER 0.00

IL

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "C" 69% SLOPES WITH POOR QAJ. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

0.01

FAIR GRASS

f LAYER 1


LAYER




I

I

LAYER 3



250.0 FEET

[I

I[

LAYER 4




rti


68.71« 1055000. SQ FT


13.9008 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA


iif

MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX =2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) - 135END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 273



15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

f AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20

f JAN/JUL

i:iLi -iii

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

03

0

.83

.34

.351.78

RUNOFF

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

00

00

03

01

LATERAL DRAINAGE FROMi[^iir

TOTALS

J STD. DEVIATIONS

00

00


TOTALS

STD. DEVIATIONS

00

00

.000

.000

.000

.000

.485

.668

.101

.309

LAYER

.3836

.2882

.4129

.4371

4

.0011

.0011

.0000

.0000

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.

3

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

9648

5066

000000

000000

885303

287462

32500971

37141263

00100011

00000000

MAR/SEP

1.983.24

0.971.94

0.0000.003

0.0000.012

1.9262,334

0.5490,817

0.45630.0702

0.40270.0945

0.00110.0010

0.00000.0000

APR/OCT

32

11

00

00

21

00

00

00

00

00

.01

.43

.29

.30

.000

.003

.000

.011

.712

.766

.747

.794

.4912

.3348

.3949

.7750

.0011

.0011

.0000

.0001

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

7791

0213

000000

000000

986014

837331

32883216

26094480

00110010

00000000

JUN/DEC

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.19050.4308

0.13730.4659

0.00100.0011

0.00000.0000

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 20


i

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




29.88 ( 3.978) 2626598. 100.00

0.005 ( 0.023) 458. 0.02

26.068 ( 3.248) 2291855. 87.26

3.7182 ( 2.2584) 326889. 12.45

0.0127 ( 0.0002) 1115. 0.04

0.071 ( 1.604) 6281. 0.24


(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

3.19 280454.2

0.053 4619.3

0.1181 10379.0

0.0000 3.7

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER



5.8

2.36 207107.8

0.2646

0.0577

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20»^»^» •» B ^» ^m m f*r m •» » » " » " m m-^m m mm * » » » » * B «*«•••* m «P mf^f^m •


1.20

3.54

1.03

10.32

0.00

1

2

3

4

0.1992

0.1968

0.0860

0.4300

SNOW WATER

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "C" @ 9% SLOPES WITH AVERAGE QAJ. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

0.00025

iiii

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1



ri

LAYER 2



LAYER 3



250.0 FEET

rrr

LAYER 4




I


68= 1055000

208

^* O

oIN


13.9008 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA


MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX =2.00START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 135END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) - 273



15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40

rriiiiuiiiiI N*

tifiii

**************************************


JAN/JUL

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 03

STD. DEVIATIONS 01

RUNOFF

TOTALS ' 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 00

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS 03

STD. DEVIATIONS 01


TOTALS 00

j STD. DEVIATIONS 00


TOTALS 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 00

************************

.83

.34

.35

.78

.000

.000

.000

.000

.485

.668

.101

.309

LAYER

.3846

.2892

.4129

.4371

4

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

******

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.

3

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

9648

5066

000000

000000

885303

287462

32600982

37141263

00000000

00000000

*****

***********

FOR YEARS

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

9824

9794

000003

000012

926334

549817

45740712

40270945

00000000

00000000

*****

*************

1 THROUGH

APR/OCT

3.2.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

0143

2930

000003

000Oil

712766

747794

49223358

39497750

00000000

00000000

*****

MAY/NOV

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

7791

0213

000000

000000

986014

837331

32983226

26094480

00000000

00000000

*****

*********

20

JUN/DEC

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.19160.4319 .

0.13730.4659

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

*********

IIr


I

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




(INCHES)

29.88 ( 3.978)

0.005 ( 0.023)

26.068 ( 3.248)

3.7305 ( 2.2585)

0.0003 ( 0.0000)

0.071 ( 1.604)

(CU. FT.)

2626598.

458.

2291855.

327973.

28.

6284.

PERCENT

100.00

0.02

87.26

12.49

0.00

0.24

\._>**********************************************************************


PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER



(INCHES)

3.19

0.053

0.1181

0.0000

5.8

2.36

(CU. FT.)

280454.2

4619.3

10382.2

0.1

207107.8

0.2646

0.0577

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20»^»W*^» m • • •A* «V ^m^m^m^m «•* B •» •» » m m m m m m m m m » »* *» » m » * » B^»4


1.20

3.54

1.03

10.32

0.00

0.1992

0.1968

0.0860

0.4300

SNOW WATER

DUNN LANDFILL FINAL COVER DESIGNCOVER "C" $ 9 % SLOPES WITH EXCELLENT QAJ. BLAYNE KIRSCH : JANUARY 24, 1992

0.00001

FAIR GRASS

LAYER 1

VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER

i

THICKNESSPOROSITYFIELD CAPACITYWILTING POINTINITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENTSATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY


LAYER



LAYER 3



250.0 FEET

I[

LAYER 4





68.71= 1055000. SQ FT

20.00 INCHES8.8360 INCHES2.6148 INCHES7586 INCHES

13.9008 INCHES


CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA





15.6070.60

20.5068.50

31.2060.10

45.8049.50

57.0035.10

66.3022.40


r JAN/JUL

[Et11 v

1II1

1 ^'

[1[111

PRECIPITATION

TOTALS 03

STD. DEVIATIONS 01

RUNOFF

TOTALS ' 00

^ STD. DEVIATIONS 00

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

TOTALS 03

STD. DEVIATIONS 01


TOTALS 00

^ STD. DEVIATIONS 00


TOTALS 00

STD. DEVIATIONS 00

************************

.83

.34

.35

.78

.000

.000

.000

.000

.485

.668

.101

.309

LAYER

.3846

.2893

.4129

.4371

4

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

******

FEB/AUG

0.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.3.

0.1.

3

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

9648

5066

000000

000000

885303

287462

32600982

37141263

00000000

00000000

*****

MAR/SEP

1.3.

0.1.

0.0.

0.0.

1.2.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

9824

9794

000003

000012

926334

549817

45740712

40270945

00000000

00000000

*****

APR/OCT

32

11

00

00

21

00

00

00

00

00

**

.01

.43

.29

.30

.000

.003

.000

.011

.712

.766

.747

.794

.4923

.3359

.3949

.7750

.0000

.0000

.0000

.0000

******

MAY/NOV JUN/DEC

2.1.

1.1.

0.0.

0.0.

2.1.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

0.0.

***

7791

0213

\ooo i000 i

000000

986014

837331

32983226

26094480

00000000

00000000

*****:

4.461.46

1.920.68

0.0000.000

0.0000.000

4.4770.512

1.1560.130

0.19160.4319

0.13730.4659

0.00000.0000

0.00000.0000

*********


(INCHES) (CU. FT.) PERCENTI

I

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION




29.88 ( 3.978) 2626598. 100.00

0.005 ( 0.023) 458. 0.02

26.068 ( 3.248) 2291855. 87.26

3.7308 ( 2.2585) 328000. 12.49

0.0000 ( 0.0000) 1. 0.00

0.071 ( 1.604) 6284. 0.24

I

I


(INCHES) (CU. FT.)

3.19 280454.2

0.053 4619.3

0.1181 10382.3

PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF



HEAD ON LAYER 4

SNOW WATER



0.0000

5.8

2.36

0.0

207107.8

0.2646

0.0577

FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 20P «•• ••^•^•••^B •• •• •*• B> •» •» » •» •» •» ••> «P> B BB B» «B> Bj «•* Bl Bl •!• «• ••» * B ^B ••< * «•» •• •• *


1.20

3.54

1.03

10.32

0.00

0.1992

0.1968

0.0860

0.4300

SNOW WATER

Foth & Van DykeClient:.Project:.Prepared by:.Checked by:.

.Scope I.D.:.

<fO - P

C,G

(/

- 4 - J2ft *=? rX^<ie

i I i i

~rr

...=, .2..

Foth & Van DykeClient:Project:Prepared hy-Checked by:

.Scope I.D.:.

———Page:.Date:

" The leakage fraction allows che model co simulate leaking syntheticliners. Leakage fraction is defined as the fraction of the horizontal area ofsoil through which percolation is. occurring under the leaking synthetic liner.

Brown et al. (1987) conducted laboratory experiments and developed pre-dictive equations to quantify leakage rates through various size holes throughsynthetic liners over soil. They assumed a uniform vertical percolation rateequal to the saturated hydraulic conductivity through a circular cross-sectional area of the soil liner' directly beneath the hole. They developed .predictive equations for the radius of this flow cross section as a functionof hole size, depth of leachate ponding and saturated hydraulic conductivityof the soil. They found that this radius of saturated flow was significantlygreater than the radius of the hole in the synthetic liner. Tor this report,the cross-sectional area of saturated flew was multiplied by the number ofholes per unit area of synthetic liner to compute the synthetic liner leakagefraction. Figure 5 presents these results. This figure provides guidance inchoosing synthetic liner leakage fractions for landfill modelling given a spe-cific level of synthetic liner degradation such as number of openings per unitarea or average spacing between openings.

Brown, K. W., J. C. Thomas, R. L, Lytton, P. Jayawikraaia, and S. C. Bahrt,1987. Quantification of Leak Rates Through Holes in Landfill Liners.EPA/600/ S2-87-062. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

c c

U)

muuen

mo_enenc

DLCD

CD.ai=

Upper bound is for 0.08-cm-diaLower bound is for 1.27-cm-dia

openings.openings.

Y777A KP =* 3,4 x 10KP - 3.4 x 10

100

500

IDDlC

CCDa.CD

cCD(D3:-*-*mCDCDC

Uaa.in•a

200 CD

av-

C10,-6 c

Synthetic Liner Leakage Fraction. LF

Figure 5. Synthetic liner leakage faction as a function of number ofopenings per acre and uniform grid spacing between openings. r V

Tiiiii laMjiaBg* IIP*" i*—• -imftpMn •niiftjo*(fcjaiiliij»i'>»*M»»-.i'>*« •**""-u"'.»•'*•'•'iiHi-Ji ati-iMimi i lifcMt*.-.-*«*-»—v,«.js~-a»]ijBlisBri5«a - • jft ^^^ i--^y feT*' ^3 fy-i'i-^-^y'' ~-y'•• 'i1*-"--0*-^.gy-tis. t^-^-*8—- •"" : ; r--^

"">• il>lafiim*i<~.**afca~-'

„____. .. . .. . ^^VÂ^ '.fWit i&iw'-'-'i,,•ff;iljiuif i ji«^«*i 'i«»^g*««^•»-.^^*^^^:VXA';^-:'i^*^â^fi"i'ii'-"'l;^1>•**•.. ">

-Wi.-Twjfr'.W. - •

miyi^î '"i"' **"•"•*« i.»rfc«iin*cw^.-<i«li<tfi)p»i<j ^~.i ftwaiaa>!»^ is » .iÂS.^-.... - -. ~~ *ii«.ws.i.4«_i-«MA=.'«* ;'.Ji..™-.«:?JE:,?. ,,WnfcTO"'..*r- 'JSiJ ialftSEJiKfeg-'.. ..g-jg ,J|B8j'.g t--iS'astKSBiEiatltDPtg-T"*.. ii'ili!!Bt'«l|Rl8iPto'-taa«S "V'*W.JSJEV." ..v r.." ;-.',S~..V."«-. - ^^ i Vyl ^P^J^V^^^ .ffii ff ? "- " ;TT::rFn\< -;F!:S»^ ^"^fr?*'*~iyii\mt i u, j •'gi»MJi»w*wy».>ifcjfti;,tiiiD. |P 'tJ-''''!t5f''' • ^H1 jfoj'." '^'^"'^fJf <««^y 'A*ji»" •y* *"*y.y*;>iff''! ""'••'' ^ SR.'" "i""1"™^1*;-ww* - wiip*";™—^^

^*-jS^J^£: j ^ fr ^^ '' ! ^^ ' ^siE^^ - f"-?^^

,.-«»- -1*1* .-"V-J* »'**»;:-»-—,. Tti ->»ft>fc.-'.- —••-*•- r'**1"1*;?*- -1„ V.-*-"

-iv-G-i*mr'o

jREATABILITY STUDY

DOCUMENT

Utter

PATE ISSUED

11,1091

ADDRESSED TO/SUBJECT MATTER

Wr.Chwte«VWk .

r 'rr rrt.' te^c :.-"'."'

ADDRESSEE"Mar* Smith

NO. OFPAGES

Utter

"Mofnorandum

,-July 12,1891 ^

Octotwr21.1991

Mr. March Smitfi '/;'.., - , .r .. ,.. *,- ...U+A".

--OeeBmcfch -- -Kevin Otaaiy

2

8

CONTAMINATED SOIL AND QROUNDWATZRHAQEN FARM SUPERFUND SITE

•"-.. STOUQHTON, WISCONSIN™-~-#0ROJBGT NUMBER 110CO

.1991i . , :--,ir,.-., - - ':rf :,-•-^.^^...•"fe-r-r-i ••••- . -••- -.-•7^*-- • --• '•;*S»r"= . ,t^flff..^.9ffn,— --,-

,L -j*fc" . . . . . . .-, .'1, «. .....„.•_-

r-vAH--1- ^m;*«r«. T»*T^T^T*TM*- .-• ^-«irB'^. .. -lum^ft

.fl iBII ip«Hi>JnMP^.-^" "â. w ., . .-.^.i._h. ^.^..-^>^j-..

;t1wn.i«WBZ| 140: ,*mAPp.:.• «*)!..* -..J...,

-PELaMoreaux&Associates..ff**lt-* '.Jl *biK.../ vVi

• ";,-s. •-' ,'i*Bf*ia-*»f*-.*- - f. • '<». «f,.iiSM>J'-jf !••••-?*•,"S3C 'SC : • :1S 'y c^3i3K 1 Fci}'!!SF- gS

.1i

»„

Waste Management of North America, Inc.Midwest RegionTwo Wcstbrook Corporate Center • Suite 1000P.O. Box 7070Westchester, Illinois 60154708/409-0700

June 11, 1991

\

Mr. Charles Wilk •Qty Disposal CorporationHazardous Waste Enforcement BranchU.S.EPA Region V230 S. Dearborn StreetChicago, Illinois 60604

Mr. Mike SchmollerProject CoordinatorCity Disposal CorporationWisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources3911 Fish Hatchery RoadFitchburg, Wisconsin 53711

•. »Dear Mr. Wilk and Mr. Schmoller:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that in the near future data and information 'will be available which has potential benefits for the City Disposal site and associatedRI/FS. __

Currently, Waste Management of Wisconsin (WMWI) is conducting treatability studiesfor the groundwater operable unit at the Hagen Farm Landfill site in Stoughton,Wisconsin. Hagen Farm is approximately 10 miles southeast of Qty Disposal. Recordsindicate that similar transporters and generators used both City Disposal and HagenFarm. As a result, the contaminants found in the groundwater at both sites are similar.For this reason the conclusions regarding groundwater treatability at Hagen Farm couldpotentially be applied to City Disposal.

WMWI has recently submitted City Disposal groundwater data to the consultantconducting the treatability studies for Hagen Farm. Their review of the data supportsthe premise that the Hagen Farm studies can be applied to City Disposal. If applied,the Groundwater Operable Unit Feasibility Study for City Disposal can be submittedwith a greater certainty that the remedy USEPA and WDNR selects will be effective.

WMWI is hereby requesting that USEPA and WDNR allow the Hagen FarmTreatability Studies to be applied at Ciw Disposal. By doing so, however, it should berecognized that ihe deliverable Technical Memorandum No. 9B, Detailed Analysis of

I/ '[•'[

rI

I

Alternatives (GCOU) will be delayed until September 1991 (it was originally scheduledfor July 25,1991). *Hie delay is necessary for the Hagen Farm treatability studies to becompleted, the data compiled and the final report issued. However, WMWI feels thatthe benefits to the City Disposal project and subsequent remedy selection warrant tfieschedule delay.

I have attached for your review the Hagen Farm Treatability Study Work Plan. Afteryou review it, please call me at 708--409-0700 with your comments and indicate whetheror not you approve of WMWTs proposal.

Sincerely,

March SmithRemedial Projects ManagerWaste Management of North America

attachments

MS:js

cc: Lois George, PELA (w/ attach.) -Dee Brncich, WMNA (w/o attach.)Rich O'Hara, WMNA (w/o attach.)Bill Schubert, WMNA (w/o attach.)Don Otter, WMWI (w/o attach.)

[r

I:

*

iirLi

07/16/91 12:39 C708 40Jr"773 1V/M N. AMERICA

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGIONS

230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

JUL121991BBPLY TO ATTENTION OF;

5HS-11Mr. March SmithRemedial Projects ManagerWaste Management of North America, Inc.Midwest RegionTwo Corporate Center, Suite 1000P.O. Box 7070

I Westchester, Illinois 60154".

Re: City Disposal Corp. Landfill Technical Memorandum 3a| Technical Memorandum 9t>.

Dear Mr. Smith

I The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) hascompleted its review of Technical Memorandum 3a of the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the City DisposalCorporation Landfill "Superfund" site.

'Based on the review of Technical Memorandum 3a, the U.S. EPA-finds that the information available for this site is generallysufficient to continue with the drafting of an EndangeraentAssessment, Remedial Investigation Report and Feasibility Reportsfor the site. One aspect of the project that needs furtheranalysis concerns the direction of ground water flow at the easternportion of the site. Specific comments concerning this aspect areincluded in the enclosed comments from our oversight contractor andthe Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The draft RemedialInvestigation Report should address the enclosed comments.

The u.S* EPA is also in receipt to your June 11, letter concerningthe a treatability study being conducted at the Hagen Farm site andits relevance to this site. Your letter proposes that submittal toTechnical Memorandum 9b be delayed to September 1991 in order toinclude the results of this treatability study in TechnicalMemorandum 9b for this site. The U.S. EPA considers your proposalto hold merit and we shall be discussing your proposal as well asschedule revisions with you shortly.

07/1B/91 12:40 O708 40»~773 ff/M X. AMERICA

If you have any questions concerning this letter please telephonat (312) 353-1331. . J.«S*MKM

Sincerely,

Charles wilkRemedial Project Manager

I Wcc: Hike Schraoller, WDNR

iiiiii

[i:

October 21, 1991

TO: Dee BmcichMarch Smith

FROM: Kevin O'Leary

SUBJECT: CITY DISPOSAL CORPORATION LANDFILL TREATABIIJTY MEMO

jSSS55 c90pggBg$g5Sgqgq$gSSSSSS^

I Per your request, the following memo analyzes treatment alternatives for City DisposalCorporation Landfill (CDCL) located in Dunn, Wisconsin. As pan of the Feasibility Studywork, alternatives for the remediation of contaminated groundwater will be analyzed. This

I memorandum evaluates the available groundwater analytical data and previous RI work to assess• groundwater quality and analyze treatment/remediation alternatives to provide data for use in the

. • Feasibility Study. . •

• !. The technical bases of this memorandum are supplied by the following documents:

I 1. "Technical Memorandum 3A for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, City DisposalCorporation Landfill, "P.E. LaMoreaux & Associates, April 1991 (including AppendicesG,H,andI).

^ 2. 'Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Hagen Farm Site, Technical MemorandumI Number 1, "Warzyn Engineering, March 1989.

3. "Treatability Study Report, Hagen Farm Site", Waste Management of North America,• September 1991.

4. Correspondence with Peroxidation Systems, Inc. concerning chemical oxidation of CDCL

I groundwater, July - September 1991..

The attached Table 1 provides a comparison of groundwater* quality for the CDCL and Hagen

I Farm sites. The geometric means from groundwater/source characterization wells for the twosites are provided for different parameters. The CDCL data presented was determined by takingthe individual geometric averages from shallow groundwater wells in the two zones of

I contamination and taking a flow weighted average of the two zones (based on a 10 percent flowfrom Cell 6 and 90 percent flow from Cell 12). The following can be concluded from Table 1and other available RI/FS information:

rr

L

Page 2October 21, 1991

Both site groundwaters have volatile organic contaminants with THF, ketones. (acetone, MEK), and toluene or xylehes as the most prevalent constituents.

4

Both site groundwaters have iron and manganese levels that exceed NR 140 PAL.However, the background groundwater at CDCL exceeds NR 140 PAL for ironand manganese.

The Hagen Farm site has substantially more contamination from semi-volatileorganic compounds than CDCL. Also, review of Hagen Farm and COCL RI/FSdocuments indicate that Hagen Farm has a higher concentration of organic* asmeasured by TOC/COD than CDCL.

\*~s Based on the similarities of the CDCL and Hagen Farm groundwater, as well as the similartypes of wastes accepted at the sties, the extensive treatabiiity study performed at Hagen Farmcan be extrapolated for analysis of CDCL. As determined in the Hagen Farm TreatabiiityStudy, there are four practical alternatives for successful CDCL groundwater treatment:

Metals Precipitation (by Chemical Precipitation) + Air Stripping + GACAdsorption

Metals Precipitation (by Air Oxidation) + GAC Adsorption

Metals Precipitation (by Air Oxidation) + Activated Sludge Treatment

Metals Precipitation (by Oxidation) 4- Chemical Oxidation

In the Hagen Farm Treatabiiity Study, all four alternatives were demonstrated to effectively treatthe groundwater. For CDCL groundwater, this also should be the case. However, there arerelative process advantages/disadvantages, as well as secondary process considerations toconsider for each alternative. Activated Sludge treatment of CDCL groundwater will requiresubstrate addition in order to keep the process stable. This is due to the low organic content(TOC) of CDCL groundwater. An activated sludge process would not readily allow pulsed orvariable groundwater pumping schemes. Also, given the complex hydrogeology of the CDCLsite, the secondary advantage of using activated sludge treatment in conjunction with in-situbioremediation is not present at CDCL, as it is with the Hagen Farm Site.

The GAC alternatives and chemical oxidation alternative for CDCL groundwater treatment allowfor use of pulsed or variable groundwater schemes. These processes are stable even with theanticipated reduction of organic constituent levels as site remediation progresses with time. Thepresences of the THF and ketones create process concerns for the GAC options. THF andketones are very weakly adsorbed on GAC due to their high solubility and small molecular size.The high solubility of these constituents limits the efficiency of air stripping. The removedorganics from

IIriiiiiii

Page3October 21, 1991

the gtoundwater are not destroyed, but rather adsorbed. A residual is .created with GACtreatment that requires off-site management, either by regeneration or land disposal. ChemicalOxidation is a preferred technology because it degrades the organic constituents into mineralizedcomponents (such as carbon dioxide). Although the presence of the THF and ketones affectsthe process, chemical oxidation destroys a very wide range of organic compounds.

Table 2 presents the design basis for CDCL groundwater treatment alternatives, and is based onthe process performance data from the Hagen Farm Study, vendor consultation, and projectedgroundwater quality for the CDCL site. Based on Table 2, preliminary construction andoperating cost estimates were developed for the different groundwater options.

Table 3 provides installed costs for the various options, while Table 4 presents operating costsfor treatment of CDCL groundwater. Activated sludge treatment of CDCL groundwater has thehighest installed capital costs ($2,495,000) with the lowest total operating costs (fixed andvariable) of $717,000 per year. Granular Activated Carbon Treatment has the lowest installedcapital costs of the four options ($ 1,825,700) and a relatively high operating cost ($976,400 peryear). The Air Stripping/Granular Activated Carbon option would have an installed cost of$2,053,000, with a total operating cost of $1,066,000 per year for treatment of CDCLgroundwater. The higher operating cost for the Air Stripping/GAC option is a result of usingvapor phase carbon in conjunction with the air stripper. The .high operating costs for both theGAC and Air Stripping/GAC options are related to the low adsorption capacity of GAC for THFand ketones. Treatment utilizing chemical oxidation would require a facility with an installed.cost of $2,375,000 and a total operating cost of $928,400 per year. As contaminant levelsdecrease over time, the Chemical Oxidation and GAC options develop cost advantages (relativeto Activated Sludge Treatment) because less power and chemical reagents will be necessary.(Reagent and power costs are the highest variable costs for these options.)

Based on process cost and performance concerns, the following conclusion/recommendations aremade regarding treatment of CDCL groundwater:

The Air Stripping/GAC option is not recommended for the CDCL groundwatertreatment due cost and performance issues related to the solubility and lowadsorption tendencies of the principal contaminants of CDCL groundwater(namely the THF, ketones).

Treatment of CDCL groundwater with GAC only is not preferred again due tocost/process concerns related to groundwater contaminants.

Activated Sludge processing may be cost effective; however, process stabilityconcerns remain due to low organic substrate levels. Also, secondary benefits forthe activated sludge process that exist at the Hagen Farm site, such asincorporation of the process into in-situ bioremediation, are not present at theCity Disposal site because of CDCL's complex hydrogeology.

t[ Page 4

October 21,1991

Chemical Oxidation is' recommended for treatment of CDCL groundwaterbecause: it is a destructive treatment technology, it will not be affected by the loworganic concentration in CDCL groundwater, it will reduce in operating costs asthe CDCL groundwater quality improves in time, and it can be operated in anintermittent manner to accommodate variable or pulsed groundwater pumping,

A pilot chenucal oxidation unit should be operated at the CDCL site to developoperating cost and design data. If pilot operation indicates substantially worsethan anticipated results, it is recommended that activated sludge be used atCDCL.

II[III

KO:hrrKO6091J1

ITABLE 1

"SHALLOW GROUDWATER QUALITY COMPARISONCDCUHAGEN FARM SITES

LI

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

ACETONEBENZENECARBON TETRACHLOR1DECHLOROETHANE1 ,1 -DICHLOROETHANE1 ,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHENEETHYL BENZENEMETHYLENE CHLORIDEMETHYL ISOBLJTYL KETONEMETHYL ETHYL KETONETETRACHLOROETHENETETRAHYDROFURANTOLUENETRICHLOROETHENEVINYL CHLORIDEXYLENES

SEVIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNOS

BENZOICACID2,4-DIMETHYL PHENOL4-METHYL PHENOLPHENOL1 .4-DICHLOROBENZENEBENZYL ALCOHOLBIS-(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHERNAPHTHALENE4-CHLORO-3-METHYL PHENOLDIETHYL PHTHALATEBIS-(2-ETHYL HEXYL)PHTHALATEDI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE

METALS. CONVENTIQNALS

CADMIUMIRONMANGANESETOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS

J :; ;- ii;i: v ;^*&*&•%!!&& j&jj&fAifp&Mfr.iicBbiiBj;Xi'*&:<&&:.4gh&Mpj:.:!jjiJ S? |iS;Si|S

2971.60.30.63.7

716.727.610.62600.6

52742822.41.5

44.3

2.1

3.5

1.5

1.46034.393

659100

$••**'? 3wft?Bik • BSH

gjKGW-g'ISllRlI

99

2620

569820

1066

780153243

381610261987

4.5185

4511473

MgjsjjpM$$$*t:

fciSft®llitlli*

0.067.. 0.5

8520

27215

0.110

68.60.18

0.0015124

(1200)(15)

(B)

(0.3)

115025

250000

L

I

TABLE2CDCLSITEGROUNDWATER TREATMENTBASIS OF DESIGN

FLOWNUMBER OF RECOVERY WELLSMETHOD OF EFFLUENT DISCHARGEEFFLUENT QUALITY PERFORMANCEFACILITY OPERATING FREQUENCYINFLUENT CONDITIONS—CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND—TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS—IRON—MANGANESE—BARIUM—ACETONE—METHYL ETHYL KETONE— TETRAHYDROFURAN .AIR STRIPPER INFORMATION .—AIR/WATER RATIO—REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES.VOLATILES—REMOVAL EFFICIENCY.THF & MEK—REMOVAL EFFICIENCY. ACETONEGRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON INFORMATION—ABSORPTIONACTIVATED SLUDGE INFORMATION— LOADING.F/M—SLUDGE YIELD—MIXED LIQUOR CONCENTRAT10N.MLVSS— MLVSS/MLTSS RATIO—AERATION TYPECHEMICAL OXIDATION INFORMATION—SYSTEM TYPE—CHEMICAL DOSAGE—POWER REQUIREMENT

155 GPM'*3

SURFACE WATER \HAGEN FARM TREATABiLITY RESULTS

7 DAYS/WEEK /

150mg/l60 mg/l10 mg/l4 mg/l1 mg/l

297 ug/l260 ug/l

• 5274 ug/l

100>90300

10mgTHF/gGAC

O.lgCOD/gVSS-day0.15gVSS/gCOD

2250 mg/l0.7

FINE BUBBLE

PEROXIDE+UV LIGHT30 mg/l H2O2

350 kWNOTES:' FLOW CHOSEN BASED ON CURRENT RUFS ESTIMATES

r

c c

TABLE 3CDCLSITETREATMENT FACILITY COST ESTIMATE

QROUNDWATER RECOVERY WELLS(3.IN STALLED)PROCESS EQUIPMENTINSTALLATION(@30%OF PROCESS EQUIPMENT)BUILDING/CIVIL WORK

FACILITY COST(FC)ENGINEERING,PERMITTING(@12% FC)CONTINGENCY,INSURANCE(@15% FC)

TOTAL INSTALLED FACILITY COSTS

$60,000$995,400$298.620$262.500

$1,616,520$193,962$242.476

$2,052,980

$60,000$861.600$256,480$257.500

$1.437,580$172,510$215.637

$1,825.727

$60,000$1,068,100

$326,430$490.000

$1,964,530. $235.744$294.680

$2,494,953

$60,000$1,194,000

$358.200$257.500

$1,669,700$224,364$280.455

$2,374,519

c cTABLE4

CDCLSITEGROUNDWATER TREATMENT

ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATE

LABORANALYTICALCHEMICAL

POLYMERGAG-LIQUIDGAC-VAPORLIMEHYDROCHLORIC ACIDPHOSPHORIC ACIDANTIFOAMSULFURIC ACIDCAUSTICHYDROGEN PEROXIDE

DISPOSALUTILITIESMAINTENANCEMISCELLANEOUSDEPRECIATIONINTERESTADMINISTRATION

li i:l | ||fe:|l j | Sy «II£j!$16/HR WAGE.1.33 FRINGE MULT.RCRA.QRTLY PRI.POL.MTHLY VOC's,

$2.00/#,FOR METALSPIOLOGICAL$1 .25/#,REGENERATION+SERVICE$1 .25/#,REGENERATlON-fSERVlCE$90/TON;1.5g/l DOSAGE$76/TON;1.7g/l DOSAGE$0.1 8/#$2.00/#,FOR BIOLOGICAL$0.06/#$0.15/1VENDOR QUOTE$350/TONHISTORICAL DATABASE@3% TOTAL FACILITr COSTS .@1 .5% OF TOTAL FACILITY COSTS30 YEAR, STRAIGHT LINE10% ANNUAL BOOK VALUEHISTORICAL DATABASE

TOTALCOSTS ' . - ; ; . - . s - . • • . . - . : ' . = ; : ; . . ! • : \,,.:^. -i^VjPROCESSING COSTS.$/GALLON ^ ::u^ i -. :: :-* :: ^

affifsmwB$r^H&ii-

$66,400$40,400

$40,800$282,300$121,000$46,700$38,700

$0$0$0$0$0

. $36,800$78,000$61,600$30,800$68,400

$106,100$48,000

;;?;V$1,066,006•m;i;$0,oi3t

i- Siilral$66,400$40,400

$40,800$447,800

$0$0$0$0$0$0$0$0

$36,800$52,100$54,800$27.400$60,900$94,300$48.000

ei!r$969;70Q"'ailH;.: $0,011 9:

'i-5tvi«8!!Ss*Ssit!'«;S8SSfe'iiS'l'&

TBE&I ltf$88,500$44,400

$61,100$0$0$0$0

$300$20,400

$0$0$0

$47,700$82,300$74,900$37,400$83,200

$128,900$48,000

£!!l$7t7im;i®!$o;ooea

*$ifiW«$66.400$40.400

$40,800$0$0$0

•$o$0$0

$25.900$84.600$26.000$36,800

$250,700$71,300$35,600$79,200

$122,700$48,000

Hif3ll $928#00;rnmrntimm

Waste Management of North America, Inc.3003 Butterfield Road • Oak Brook, Illinois 60521

ITIfITIfIfIf

IIIIIIHILII[I[IIII1-

REPORTTREATABILITY STUDY

CONTAMINATED SOIL AND GROUNDWATERHAGEN FARM SUPERFUND SITE

STOUGHTON, WISCONSINPROJECT NUMBER 110CO

Prepared for:

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. - MIDWEST REGIONTWO WESTBROOK CORPORATE CENTER, SUITE 1000

WESTCHESTER, ILLINOIS 60514

Prepared by:

WASTEWATER TREATMENT GROUPWASTE MANAGEMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

3003 BUTTERFIELD ROADOAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521

AQUEOUS PROCESS DEVELOPMENT - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTCHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.

1950 SOUTH BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, ILLINOIS 60134

SEPTEMBER 24, 1991

trrriri

iiILllII

Final Report

Treatability Study of Contaminated Groundwater

and Soil from

Hagen Farm Superfund Site,»

Stoughton, Wisconsin

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................... 10

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1-1

2.0 OBJECTIVES ......................................... 2-1

3.0 TREATABILITY STUDY APPROACH ......................... 3-13.1 Pump-and-Treat (Groundwater Treatment) ................ 3-1

3.1.1 Organic Compound Treatment Processes Description .... 3-13.1.1.1 Air Stripping .......................... 3-13.1.1.2 Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Adsorption ... 3-23.1.1.3 Chemical Oxidation ..................... 3-23.1.1.4 Biological Treatment .................... 3-3

3.1.2 Metals Treatment ............................ 3-33.1.2.1 Metals Precipitation ..................... 3-43.1.2.2 Ion Exchange ......................... 3-43.1.2.3 Reverse Osmosis ....................... 3-4

3.1.3 Groundwater Treatment Technology Summary ......... 3-53.2 In-situ Bioremediation .............................. 3-5

4.0 TREATABILITY STUDY PROTOCOL ......................... 4-1{ 4.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Analytical'" Procedures ..................................... 4-1

4.2 Pump and Treat with Non-Spiked Groundwater ............. 4-24.2.1 Sampling .................................. 4-24.2.2 Air Stripping ................................ 4-2

I 4.2.3 Aqueous Phase Carbon Adsorption ................. 4-3L

I L

ITITITIJITIIIIITIInruILIII I

4.2.4 UV/Peroxide Oxidation ......................... 4-34.2.5 Biological Treatment ........................... 4-44.2.6 Metal Precipitation ............................ 4-4

4.3 Pump and Treat with Spiked Groundwater ................ 4-54.4 In-situ Bioremediation .............................. 4-5

4.4.1 Soil Collection and Characterization ................ 4-74.4.2 Soil Biodegradation Study ....................... 4-84.4.3 Soil Column Study ............................ 4-8

5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................. 5-15.1 Pump-and-Treat with Non-spiked Groundwater ............. 5-1

5.1.1 Groundwater Characterization .............. ,. . . . . 5-15. .2 Air Stripping .......................... .l:. .... 5-15. .3 GAC Adsorption ........... ........... .j. .... 5-25. .4 Biological Treatment ...................../..... 5-35. .5 UV/Chemical Oxidation ......................... 5-4

n 5. .6 Metal Removal .............................. 5-55. .7 Non-Spiked Groundwater Treatabitity Study Summary . . . 5-6

5.2 Pump-and-Treat with Spiked Groundwater ................ 5-7

n 5.2.1 Spiked Groundwater Characterization ............... 5-75.2.2 Air Stripping ................................ 5-75.2.3 GAC Adsorption ............................. 5-85.2.4 Biological Treatment ........................... 5-85.2.5 Spiked Groundwater Treatability Study Summary ....... 5-95.2.6 Groundwater Treatability Study Conclusions .......... 5-9n 5.3 In-situ Bioremediation ............................. 5-105.3.1 Soil Characterization ......................... 5-105.3.2 Soil Biodegradation Study ...................... 5-135.3.3 Soil Treatability Summary ...................... 5-15

6.0 CONCEPTUAL PROCESS DESIGN/ECONOMICS ................. 6-16.1 Groundwater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • - • . . . • • . • 6-1

6.1.1 Option 1: Metal Precipitation (Lime Precipitation) + AirStripping + GAC Adsorption ..................... 6-1

6.1.2 Option 2: Metals Precipitation (Air Oxidation) + GACAdsorption ................................. 6-2

6.1.3 Option 3: Metals Precipitation (Air Oxidation) + ActivatedSludge ................................... 6-2

6.1.4 Option 4: Metal Precipitation (Air Oxidation) +UV/Chemical Oxidation ......................... 6-3

6.1.5 Groundwater Treatment Comparative Process Analysis . . . 6-36.2 Field Demonstration of In-Situ Bioremediation ............... 6-3

6.2.1 Conceptual Design ........................... 6-46.2.2 Sampling and Monitoring ....................... 6-5

^-/

I 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 7-1• 7.1 Pump and Treat Remedial Alternative ................... 7-1| J 7.2 In-Situ Bioremediation Alternative ...................... 7-2

irnnnnILUniILILILILILILIL

rrITITLT[TITn-III1IIfi-llIIII

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Hagen Farm Groundwater Quality Summary - Surface Quality Limits andNR 140 Groundwater Standards

Table 3.2 Average and Maximum Concentrations of Selected Metals Detected inGroundwater at Hagen Farm Site

Table 4.1 Constituents to be Analyzed for Hagen Farm Treatability StudyTable 4.2 Target Compounds Spiked for Hagen Farm GroundwaterTable 4.3 Characterization Tests for the Hagen Farm Soils in the Saturated ZoneTable 4.4 Soil Biodegradation Study - Operating Parameter RangesTable 5.1 Initial Characterization for Hagen Farm Groundwater - Compounds with

Concentrations Above Detection LimitsTable 5.2 Hagen Farm Bench-Scale Air Stripping Test ResultsTable 5.3 Steady-State Operational Results for Activated Sludge ReactorTable 5.4 Bench-Scale UV/Peroxide Test Conditions for Hagen Farm GroundwaterTable 5.5 Bench-Scale UV/Peroxide Test Results for Hagen Farm GroundwaterTable 5.6 Bench-Scale UV/Peroxide Test Results for Hagen Farm GroundwaterTable 5.7 Jar Test Results for Metal Precipitation With Sodium HydroxideTable 5.8 Jar Test Results for Metal Precipitation With LimeTable 5.9 Characterization of Spiked GroundwaterTable 5.10 Hagen Farm Bench-Scale Air Stripping Test Results for Spiked

GroundwaterTable 5.11 Compounds Detected in Bench-Scale GAC Column Test for Spiked

Hagen Farm GroundwaterTable 5.12 Steady-State Operational Results for Activated Sludge Reactor - Spiked

GroundwaterTable 5.13 Hagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Soil CharacteristicsTable 5.14 Hagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Study, Compounds Detected In Original

Soil SampleTable 5.15 Hagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Study, Compounds Detected in Soil

FractionTable 5.16 Hagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Study, Compounds Detected in Liquid

FractionTable 6.1 Hagen Farm Groundwater Treatment Basis of DesignTable 6.2 Hagen Farm Groundwater Treatment Facility Cost EstimateTable 6.3 Hagen Farm Groundwater Treatment Annual Operating Cost EstimateTable 6.4 Summary of the Cost Estimate for Hagen Farm Groundwater Treatment

[fIIITI

IIIIU^

IIIr,iii

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Hagen Farm Superfund Site - Process Schematic for Pump-and-Treat

I AlternativeFigure 1.2 Hagen Farm Superfund Site - Process Schematic for tn-Situ

Bioremediation AlternativeFigure 4.1 Schematic Diagram: Bench Scale Packed Tower Air StripperFigure 4.2 Schematic Diagram: GAC Column Test Set UpFigure 4.3 Schematic Diagram: UV/Peroxide Test ApparatusFigure 4.4 Schematic Diagram: Bench Scale Activated Sludge Biological ReactorFigure 4.5 Schematic Diagram: Jar Test Apparatus for Metal Precipitation TestingFigure 4.6 Schematic Diagram: Bench Scale Soil Slurry Bioreactors for Hagen Farm

ProjectFigure 4.7 Schematic Diagram: Bench Scale Soil Column Test for Hagen Farm

ProjectFigure 5.1 Hagen Farm Groundwater Air Stripping TestFigure 5.2 Activated Sludge Reactor Solids Accumulation vs. Time

I Figure 5.3 Hagen Farm Groundwater Iron Removal Using Air OxidationFigure 5.4 Hagen Farm Groundwater Air Stripping Test-Spiked GroundwaterFigure 5.5 Hagen Farm Groundwater Tetrahydrofuran Breakthrough Curve GAC

I Column Test for Spiked GroundwaterFigure 5.6 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors TOC Biodegradation (Reactor 1)Figure 5.7 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors TOC Biodegradation (Reactor 2)

I Figure 5.8 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors TOC Biodegradation (Reactor 3)Figure 5.9 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors TOC Biodegradation (Reactor 4)Figure 5.10 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors Dissolved Oxygen vs. Time - Day 8r Figure 5.11 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors Oxygen Uptake Rate vs. TimeFigure 5.12 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors Bacterial Growth (Reactor 1)Figure 5.13 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors Bacterial Growth (Reactor 2)Figure 5.14 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors Bacterial Growth (Reactor 3)Figure 5.15 Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors Bacterial Growth (Reactor 4)Figure 6.1 Hagen Farm Treatability Study Groundwater Treatment Option 1: Air

L Stripping/GAC Treatment Process Flow SheetFigure 6.2 Hagen Farm Treatability Study Groundwater Treatment Option 2: GAC

Treatment Process Flow SheetFigure 6.3 Hagen Farm Treatability Study Groundwater Treatment Option 3:

Activated Sludge Treatment Process Flow SheetFigure 6.4 Hagen Farm Treatability Study Groundwater Treatment Option 4:

UV/Peroxide Treatment Process Flow Sheet

rrITir

I FI

IK

i innINILIIIIn.ILILIL

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A - EPA's Correspondence for F039 DeterminationAppendix B - EPA's Target Compound List (TCL)Appendix C - Analytical Results for Initial Groundwater CharacterizationAppendix D - Analytical Results for Air Stripping TestAppendix E - Soil Permeability MeasurementsAppendix F - Combined Sieve/Hydrometer AnalysisAppendix G - Analytical Results for Soil Fraction

Hagen Farm Soil Biodegradation StudyAppendix H - Analytical Results for Liquid Fraction

Hagen Farm Soil Biodegradation StudyAppendix I - Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors

Dissolved Oxygen vs. Time

rrITrri

niiniiIKIILli-lt

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Hagen Farm Superfund Site, located in Stoughton, Wl, is a closed landfill in whichindustrial and municipal wastes had been previously disposed. The site is currentlyundergoing a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS) by Warzyn Inc., ofMadison, Wl, under contract to Waste Management of North America (WMNA).

Based on preliminary information, remediation of the Hagen Farm site would probablyinvolve three areas: the main disposal site; the contaminated groundwater; and soilsin the saturated zone. WMNA has indicated that the remediation of the main disposalarea will involve capping of the area and vapor extraction for the unsaturated (vadose)zone soils and waste for source control. Remediation mechanisms for thecontaminated groundwater and the saturated zone soils were evaluated.

A treatability study was performed by the Department of Research and Developmentof Chemical Waste Management (CWM) to evaluate various treatment technologies

and to assist U.S. EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

in the selection of a proper treatment process for the remediation of contaminatedgroundwater and saturated soil at the Hagen Farm site. Two remedial alternativeswere investigated; pump and treat, and in-situ bioremediation.

In the pump and treat alternative, groundwater is pumped to the surface through aseries of recovery wells and is treated in a groundwater treatment plant prior todischarge to a receiving water or a POTW. This method will provide containment ofthe site as well as provide proper treatment and disposal of the contaminatedgroundwater.

In-situ bioremediation is a method involving not only groundwater treatment (pump

and treat) but also re injection of the treated groundwater back into the aquifer toI clean up the contaminated soil and groundwater in the saturated zone. Oxygen,

nutrients, and if necessary, microorganisms are added to the groundwater to promote

II11

LFITITIT

ITITIIITLIII ' vIIIr.r.

biological activity in the saturated subsurface to degrade organics in the soil.

The treatability study for the pump and treat alternative employed conventionaltechnologies used in water and wastewater treatment including metal precipitation,air stripping, aerobic biological treatment carbon adsorption, and UV/chemicaloxidation. The treatability study results from both raw groundwater and groundwaterspiked with various organics indicate that the groundwater can be effectively treatedby a system consisting of metals precipitation and activated sludge treatment. A 100gpm facility consisting of these unit operations, as well as influent/effluent storageand discharge would have a capital cost of $2,359,000, with a total processing costof List/gallon.

To evaluate the possibility of in-situ bioremediation for the Hagen Farm site, soil fromthe site was characterized for various physical, chemical and biological parameters toprovide background soil information since none was available. At the same time, bothsoil bioreactor and soil column studies were conducted to evaluate the biodegradabilityof the organic contaminants in the Hagen Farm soil and to develop correlation on therate and the extent of biodegradation between a bioreactor condition and a subsurface

(column) environment.

'The characterization results for the saturated zone soil sample used for the treatabilitystudies showed little or no contamination with any of the 126 compounds on theTarget Compound List. Although this soil sample may or may not be representativeof the site soils, the results indicate that little or no water-insoluble and recalcitrantorganics are present. Most of the organics in soil are probably the ones found in thegroundwater which are biodegradable.

tf saturated zone soils are not contaminated, then only groundwater would needremediation. However, if the site saturated zone soils are contaminated, thenbioremediation is a potential methodology for soils treatment based on the followingobservations: the oxygen uptake rate (OUR) was high for the reactor receiving

I J microbial supplement; there was sufficient total organic carbon (TOC) in the soils to_ support the growth of microorganisms; contaminants currently found at the site are

I J biodegradable; and there was no metal toxicity observed during soil testing performed.. p If the recommended soil characterization shows that significant saturated zone organicI J contamination exists, an on-site field in-situ bioremediation study should be performed

to better evaluate the biodegradability of the saturated zone soil and the site

hydrogeology prior to full scale implementation.• y1 J

uuIIuIIIL

[fITIIrii

1111iiiirii i11aa

1.0 INTRODUCTIONb

The Hagen Farm Superfund Site, located in Stoughton, Wisconsin, is owned by WasteManagement of Wisconsin, Inc (WMWI). The site is now undergoing RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for remediation and eventual closure. WarzynInc., of Madison, Wl, is conducting the RI/FS.

The main disposal area of the Hagen Farm site is a 5.5 acre landfill which disposal ofa variety of industrial and municipal wastes including paint sludge, grease, and plasticsheeting. The site is located in an area composed primarily of silty sand and gravelwith a zone of clay-like material in the southeastern area of the site. Bedrock islocated at depths between 46 and 80 feet below the surface. The minimumseparation between refuse and the groundwater was observed to be 5 feet.Groundwater appears to be primary transport media for contaminants at the site.

Based upon information prepared by Warzyn Inc., in the June 1990 Conceptual SiteModel RI/FS report, it appears that contaminants in the wastes disposed of on-site

have already migrated to the underlying site soils and groundwater. The reportindicates that organic compounds (primarily petrochemicals and tetrahydrofuran) arethe dominant contaminants found in the groundwater, with a smaller number of

. inorganics (metals) also present.

The Remediai Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) for the Hagen Farm site source controlhas begun and involves waste consolidation; capping of the landfill, and in-situ vaporextraction. Remediation mechanisms for contaminated groundwater and saturatedzone soils have yet to be determined. At the request of WMNA and the approval ofUSEPA and WDNR, the Department of Research and Development (R&D) of Chemical

Waste Management, Inc. (CWM) investigated the feasibility of various treatmentoptions to remove the contaminants of concern in the groundwater and in thesaturated zone soil. WMNA personnel have indicated that two remedial alternativesare to be considered for the remediation of groundwater and saturated zone soil at

1-1

r.rorITuiitiuIIuII

^>

i11nan

the Hagen Farm site. They are:

1. Groundwater pump-and-treat method2. In-situ bioremediation

In the pump-and-treat method, groundwater is pumped to the surface through a seriesof recovery wells and is treated in a treatment plant prior to discharge to receivingwaters or a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) (see Figure 1.1). Theadvantages of pump-and-treat include containment of the site and proper treatmentand disposal of the contaminated groundwater. However, in many cases, this methodmay not treat the soil if that soil contains insoluble organics. Generally, the treatmentprocess employs conventional technologies used in wastewater treatment, such asair stripping, aerobic biological treatment, granular activated carbon (G AC) adsorption,UV/chemical oxidation.

The second remedial alternative, in-situ bioremediation, would involve reinjection ofthe treated groundwater back into the aquifer in order to remediate the contaminatedsoil and groundwater in the saturated zone (see Figure 1.2). Oxygen, nutrients, andif necessary, microorganisms, would be added to the groundwater to promote the

biological activity and degrade the insoluble organic contaminants in the soil.

In-situ bioremediation has the advantage of being able to treat the subsurface soilwithout excavation. However, its success depends not only upon the biodegradability

of the organics in soil, but also upon the site hydrogeology. In fact, the sitehydrogeology will significantly influence the oxygen and nutrient availability to themicroorganisms, and is thus important to the success of the project. Therefore, fieldtesting of this alternative is a necessary step prior to full-scale implementation.

Although site information indicates that two classes of spent nonhalogenated solventwastes (F003 and F005) were disposed on site, the U.S. EPA has indicated that the

1-2

rrITIIIT

groundwater will not be considered hazardous by the multi-source hazard code F039(See Appendix A for correspondence regarding this matter). Therefore, residuals fromany treatment or remediation will not be classified as hazardous by the F039 code.

This report describes the potential treatment processes for remediation of Hagen Farm11 groundwater and saturated zone soil, justifies and selects the processes analyzed for' the treatability study, and discusses the procedures and results of the treatabilityI study. Additionally, the report supplies conceptual design and process economic

analyses for the remedial alternatives.

I

I IIIII

Iaaar.r 1-3

[fITITIIIIII

IIn1111

2.0 OBJECTIVESThe objectives of the treatability study were as follows:1. Evaluate the various treatment technologies and select a proper treatment

process for the remediation of contaminated Hagen Farm groundwater andsaturated zone soil.

2. Propose and develop conceptual designs of the selected treatment processesfor contaminated Hagen Farm groundwater and saturated zone soil, based on

ithe results of Objective 1. \

I

iILIIr.r.'

irITITr

uiin

3.0 TREATABIL1TY STUDY APPROACHThis section analyzes potential treatment options for contaminated groundwater andsaturated zone soils, and provides the basis for unit operations studied in theTreatability Study.

3.1 Pump-and-Treat (Groundwater Treatment)Based on the initial groundwater characterization provided by Warzyn Inc., (see Table3.1), the contaminants potentially requiring treatment in the groundwater are generallycharacterized as organiccompounds (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], semi-volatileorganic compounds) and metals.

3.1.1 Organic Compound Treatment Processes DescriptionThe most commonly used processes for the treatment of organic compounds includeair stripping, granular activated carbon (GAC), ultraviolet (UV)/chemical oxidation, andbiological treatment. Each of these processes will be discussed in the following

paragraphs.

[I 3.1.1.1 Air StrippingRemoval of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is usually accomplished by air

I K_ stripping. In air stripping, organic compounds dissolved in the liquid phase aretransferred to the vapor phase by the increase of the contact area between liquid and

| stripping gas, which is generally air. This process is most effective for compoundsthat are volatile and can be stripped into the vapor phase easily. The counter-current

I packed column is the most common type of air stripper. In the counter-current

r packed column, contaminated groundwater is pumped to the top of the column,I. distributed across its diameter and allowed to flow downward, while air is

I simultaneously forced upward through the column. The exhaust air from the process-i. may require treatment with vapor phase carbon or catalytic oxidation prior toi discharge.

3-1

L

If]JIIuffIfIIIIIIuIIILUII

L

Air stripping cannot remove nonvolatile organic compounds or volatile compounds that

are very water soluble. For example, volatiles such as toluene and xylenes are easilystripped while 2-butanone (MEK) and tetrahydrofuran (THF) are not. Other treatmentprocesses, such as GAC adsorption, are generally used in conjunction with airstripping for removal of these compounds.

3.1.1.2 Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) AdsorptionGAC is an effective treatment process for removing organics from various waste-waters because GAC adsorbs a wide variety of organic compounds. Many of thevolatile and semi-volatile organics in Table 3.1 are adsorbable by GAC. However, thetwo main constituents, 2-butanone (MEK) and tetrahydrofuran (THF), are not asreadily adsorbable as other constituents like phenol. Adsorbability is related to thecompound's solubility, molecular size, and affinity for the carbon. Thus, the costeffectiveness of GAC depends on its adsorption capacity of the specific organiccompounds such as THF. GAC column testing of actual waste-water is necessary toevaluate the efficiency of the process to develop design parameters.

*

3.1.1.3 Chemical Oxidation

Chemical oxidation uses strong oxidizing agents to react and destroy organics in

groundwater. Among the generally considered oxidizing agents are chlorine, ozone,hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, and potassium permanganate. In most cases,ultraviolet (UV) light is used in conjunction with the oxidizing agents (such as

hydrogen peroxide and/or ozone) to improve the oxidation process efficiency.

Recent technological innovations have increased the applications for chemicaloxidation. However, chemical oxidation/UV treatment still has several limitations.

The process is very slow on alcohols, ketones and aliphatic compounds and saturatedvolatiles. In addition, the high cost of the chemicals used and the problems withscaling and blinding of the UV lamps have yet to be resolved. The groundwater atHagen Farm contains 2-butanone (MEK), phenol and benzyl alcohol which are difficult

3-2

ITIIIT

T

I f

I l

I j

I I

I I

I

LII

to treat by UV, and also contains considerable amounts of iron, calcium, andmagnesium which can cause scaling on the lamps. A treatability will evaluate thefeasibility of UV/H2O2 treatment.

3.1.1.4 Biological TreatmentBiological oxidation processes are widely used in the treatment of municipal andIndustrial wastewaters because of their ability to treat a large variety of water-solubleorgantcs and the cost effectiveness of the process. Given the nature of thecontamination of Hagen Farm groundwater (low concentration of substrate and high

removal requirements), aerobic biological processes would provide the best results.

The most widely used aerobic technology is the activated sludge process (ASP).Process modifications, such as adding powdered activated carbon (PAC) have beenused with ASP to enhance its performance with certain wastewaters. However, giventhe low affinity of certain constituents in Hagen Farm groundwater (namely tetra-

hydrofuran [THF], xylene, and ethylbenzene) to be adsorbed onto carbon, it is notbelieved that the use of PAC will dramatically improve the ASP process. Otherprocess modifications for the aerobic technology are the fixed-film reactors, in whichbiomass attaches to the surface of packing material and forms thin films.

Anaerobic biological processes are not generally capable of removing organics to verylow levels and will not be considered for this study.

3.1.2 Metals TreatmentDepending on the discharge requirements for the groundwater (NPDES, POTW, orrecharge), it may be necessary to remove metals from the Hagen Farm groundwater.Also, it may be necessary to remove metals (and solids) from a wastewater toimprove the efficiency of organic treatment processes. Groundwater metals data forHagen Farm are provided in Table 3.2. The metals which might cause treatment/discharge concerns detected in the initial characterization of Hagen Farm groundwater

3-3

ITfrriuii11iiuiii ^

11i

include iron and manganese. Commonly used treatment methods for these metals arechemical precipitation and air oxidation precipitation, ion exchange, and reverseosmosis.

3.1.2.1 Metals PrecipitationMetals removal can be accomplished through hydroxide, sufide, carbonate orphosphate precipitation. The most common form is hydroxide precipitation, whichtypically uses chemicals such as lime or sodium hydroxide. Lime and sodiumhydroxide raise the pH, forming relatively insoluble metal hydroxides which can beremoved by settling and filtration.

For removal of manganese and iron, precipitation by air oxidation can also be used.In many groundwaters, the iron is normally all in the ferrous (Fe*2J form and themanganese is in the bivalent state (Mn+2). The ferrous (Fe*2) form and bivalentmanganese (Mn+2) form are soluble and readily converted to the more insoluble ferric(Fe*3) and quadrivalent manganese (Mn+4J salts through aeration. They can then be

removed in subsequent treatment processes such as sedimentation or filtration.

3.1.2.2 Ion Exchange

Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by electrostatic forces to chargedfunctional groups on the surface of a solid are exchanged for ions or similar charge

in a solution in which the solid is immersed. Ion exchange is used for ultra highquality water treatment, primarily as a secondary or tertiary metals treatment processfor water. Synthetic resins are presently used for most Ion exchange applications.The potentially large flow and relatively high metals concentrations of the Hagen Farmgroundwater make the use of ion exchange uneconomical.

3.1.2.3 Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis (RO) is a process in which water is separated from dissolved salts

3-4

rrITIIIIIIII

iiiiiiii

r.i.

In solution by filtration through a semi-permeable membrane at a pressure greater thanthe osmotic pressure caused by the dissolved salt in water. RO has the advantage ofremoving dissolved solids such as chloride and metals that are less selectivelyremoved by other techniques. RO's principal disadvantages are that it is not designedspecifically to remove metals, it generates waste brine that requires further processingprior to disposal, and it is expensive. Since the predominant metals in Hagen Farmgroundwater can be removed by less expensive processes, RO was not considered forHagen Farm groundwater treatment.

3.1.3 Groundwater Treatment Technology SummaryBased upon the above available treatment technologies, the following conclusions canbe drawn regarding the treatment of Hagen Farm groundwater:

1. The potentially viable groundwater organic treatment technologies for HagenFarm include air stripping, GAC adsorption, biological treatment, andUV/chemical oxidation.

2. Metals precipitation by chemical addition or air oxidation may be needed to

remove Iron, manganese, arsenic, barium and lead from Hagen Farmgroundwater.

11 The treatability study performed analyzes these technologies for their treatmentefficiency and economic viability.n3.2 In-situ Bioremediation

|J_ There are a variety of remediation options for the clean-up of contaminatedgroundwater/soil which include such general technologies as biological,

L_ physical/chemical, immobilization, thermal, and in-situ treatment. Even for in-situ

. treatment of soils alone, there are various technologies available including vapor

extraction, soil flushing, in-situ solidification/stabilization, in-situ vitrification, and

3-5

rriiiiuuuIIIIIIII[111II

bioremediation. Selection of treatment options depends on various factors includingsite characterization data such as types of contaminants and their concentrations,types of soils and corresponding hydrogeological conditions, and applicability and costeffectiveness of the technologies. In-situ bioremediation has the advantage over asimple pump-and-treat system because it has the potential to remove more of theInsoluble organlcs adsorbed to the soil.

Soils at the Hagen Farm site which have been in contact with contaminatedgroundwater from the* disposal area may contain a variety of the organics. Some

, preliminary soil tests had been performed on selected Hagen Farm soil borings (seeWarzyn report number 13452 - RI/FS Technical Memorandum - Number 1, 3/89).

However, the results were limited to only soil moisture, type of soil, etc. Evaluationof the available soils characterization data indicate that in-situ bioremediation appearsto be a viable treatment option based upon the following facts regarding the Hagen

Farm site:

1. The depths of the soils in the saturated zones, which range from a minimum of5 ft to a maximum of 46 to 80 ft below surface, dictate the use of in-situtreatment technology.

2. The major contaminants in the groundwater (and possibly the soils) include

volatiles such as 2-butanone (MEK) and THF and semivolatiles such as phenolwhich are all very biodegradable.

3. Preliminary soil permeability tests indicate a favorable soil hydraulic conductivity

| _ for the transfer of nutrients and oxygen and/or surfactants into the saturatedzone soils. In addition, soil flushing is not needed since pump and treat will

I. already provide flushing of the organics.

I 4. Reinjection of treated groundwater from an on-site above-ground biological

I 3-6

IfIfIff

IfIfII.IFIIIIII

treatment system could possibly provide a source of bioaugmented, nutrientsupplemented water source for an in-situ treatment of the soils in the saturatedzone.

5. In-situ bioremediation, if applicable, is very cost effective, compared to othersoil remediation technologies.

Bioremediation processes are biological treatment processes that improve or stimulatethe metabolic capabilities of microbial populations to degrade organic residues. Theprocesses take into consideration the factors that affect microbial activity and modifythe existing conditions so that microbial degradation can occur. For example, ifinadequate nitrogen or phosphorus are available, such nutrients can be added toassure satisfactory microbial degradation. If the residues are too toxic, addition ofother chemicals or uncontaminated soil may reduce the toxicity to the point thatmicrobiat degradation can occur. If inadequate type or numbers of microorganismsare naturally present, acclimated organisms can be added.

Generally, in-situ soil bioremediation uses treated water to introduce bacterial culturedirectly into contaminated soils and aquifers. Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and

oxygen in the form of H202 are also added to provide the essential ingredients formicrobial biodegradation of organics in the subsurface. The site hydrogeology

I significantly affects the transfer and the availability of the nutrients and oxygen asL

well as the availability of microorganisms for the biodegradation of organics insaturated zone soils. A treatability study in the laboratory can only evaluate thepossibility of metals inhibition, the biodegradability of the organics, the requirement

for nutrients, and the need for the addition of bacterial cultures to enhancebiodegradation. It can not evaluate the site hydrogeology. Thus, field testing is anecessary step prior to full-scale implementation, if in-situ bioremediation is a viablealternative.

I

ILIII;

3-7

L

uII 4.0 TREATABIUTY STUDY PROTOCOL

This section describes the sampling, equipment operating and analytical procedures,as well as the quality assurance/quality control policy used during the performance ofthe treatability study. The treatability study involved investigation of the treatmentprocesses selected for consideration for remediation of groundwater and saturatedzone soil. Groundwater treatability work utilized both spiked and nonspiked (with sitetarget compounds) Hagen Farm samples. The soil treatment study was conductedusing screened nonspiked soils. The soil samples were not spiked for the followingreasons: (1) there was no previous contamination history upon which to determine thespiked concentration; and (2) it would not be appropriate to spike the soils with themajor organic compounds found in Hagen Farm groundwater (such as tetrahydrofuranand phenol) because these compounds are water soluble and would be treated in thegroundwater treatment scheme.

4.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Analytical Procedures

uIj^I]n[ I In^cder to ensure accurate, valid data, QA/QC procedures were used throughout the

Lsrvy. CWM has developed and implemented a QA/QC program to provide defensibleI data on a timely basis. All company laboratory and sampling personnel are required

to participate in this program. The CWM R&D laboratory performs instrument control

I ^ checks daily and uses quality control samples for instrumentation and wet chemistry. for bench scale process monitoring parameters. Samples were analyzed in accordancei^_ -^ with EPA Test Method for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846), Third Edition and

Standard Methods. 17th Edition.

Contract laboratories employed by CWM must also demonstrate quality controlpractices certified by CWM at least as stringent as CWM's program. EMS HeritageLaboratories, Inc., in Romeoville, Illinois was contracted for all nonroutine analyticalwork.

The groundwater quality varied widely during the treatability study. However, no

4-1

IfifIff

If•

1 1

f t

1 1

F

adjustment was made for the study because the fluctuation in groundwater qualitywas identical to the full-scale situation.

4.2 Pump and Treat with Non-Spiked GroundwaterSeveral bench scale studies were performed to investigate metal and organictreatment of the Hagen Farm groundwater. As mentioned in the previous sections,air stripping, carbon adsorption, biological treatment, U V/chemical oxidation and metalprecipitation were studied. A description of the procedures used in studying thesecandidate unit operations follow.

4.2.1 SamplingThe groundwater sampling, which was performed every two weeks for 14 weeks,produced 7 sets of samples. All samples were taken from Monitoring Well 22 byWarzyn Inc., personnel. During each sampling event, groundwater was pumped forabout 10 minutes before collection to allow water quality to stabilize. Two 40 mlsamples were collected for volatile organics analysis and 105 gallons were collected

for the treatability studies.

Seven 15-galIon buckets were used for each sampling. Each bucket was sealed withI . tape and placed inside a 30-gallon drum overpack for shipment. The overpacks were

filled with an absorbent material (com cobs) and shipped to CWM's Geneva ResearchI Center (GRC). The VOC samples were shipped in a cooler packed with ice packs and

accompanied the drum shipment.

4.2.2 Air StrippingI ! Groundwater underwent air stripping tests in a bench-scale packed tower air stripper

. as diagrammed in Figure 4.1. The packed tower stripper was filled with contaminatedl^_ groundwater and air was blown up through the packing in the tower. The design of

. the bench scale stripping test (size, packing type, height/width ratio, reactor/packing»,_ diameter ratio, and air/water flow ratio) enabled the scale-up of the results for the

I 4-2

trtrITITflIIII,IIII

li11i:

design of a full-scale packed bed air stripper.

The inlet air flow rate to the air stripper was controlled at 20 cubic feet per hour (CFH)to the seven-liter glass reactor. The packing media in the bench-scale air stripper was5/8" pall rings with a specific surface area of 104 ft2/ft3. This resulted in a reactor/packing diameter ratio of about 10 to 1.

The performance of the stripper was evaluated over a range of 25 to 200 cubic feetof air to cubic feet of water. Each test lasted about 2 hours. The differencesbetween influent and effluent VOC concentrations were used to estimate the VOCsin the vapor phase and to design a vapor phase carbon unit. Samples were taken ofthe tower initially and after treatment and analyzed for VOCs (see Table 4.1 forspecific VOCs analyzed). Very little semi-volatile organic compounds were expected

to be removed by air stripping and thus were not analyzed.

11 4.2.3 Aqueous Phase Carbon AdsorptionUntreated groundwater from the Hagen Farm site was treated in a fixed-bed GAC

11 column as shown in Figure 4.2. Groundwater was applied at a constant rate to thetop of a 2-inch diameter reactor containing approximately 500 ml of GAC. The

I effluent was collected over the 1 week test period for each sample and analyzed for^ the VOCs, semi-VOCs, and inorganic compounds listed in Table 4.1. In addition, the

I initial and final samples were analyzed for the parameters listed in the TargetCompound List (Appendix B) as well as for alkalinity, chloride and sulfate. Theadsorptive capacity of the carbon was determined from the breakthrough curve datagenerated from the column study.

4.2.4 UV/Peroxide Oxidation

Groundwater from Hagen Farm site was treated in a bench-scale UV test apparatusas shown in Figure 4.3. Peroxide was added at a dosage of 500 mg/l to a reservoircontaining the groundwater to be tested. The feed pump was then started which

4-3

[frrITITIT

IIII11ItILIJI

IL

circulated the ground water through the UV reactor and back into the reservoir thusproviding continuous mixing of the feed tank. For certain tests, the groundwater pHwas adjusted to approximately 5 and catalyst in the form of ferrous ammonium sulfatewas added to promote chemical oxidation reaction.

For each test run, samples of tested groundwater were collected at predeterminedretention times and characterized for the VOC's and semi-VOC's listed in Table 4.1.

Samples from Hagen Farm were also sent to two UV/peroxide system vendors,

I PURUS, Inc. and Peroxidation System, Inc., for treatability testing. The results from^_s

these tests were used to provide cost information for a full scale system for HagenFarm groundwater treatment.

4.2.5 Biological TreatmentGroundwater was treated in a bench-scale continuous flow activated sludge biologicalreactor as shown in Figure 4.4. Air was supplied to a 6.4 liter reactor through an airdiffuser at the bottom. The reactor was operated for more than 12 weeks to evaluatethe treatability of the groundwater and to develop scale-up information for full-scaledesign. The effluent was analyzed for all the VOCs, semi-VOCs, and inorganiccompounds listed in Table 4.1. In addition, the initial and final samples were analyzedfor the parameters listed in the Target Compound List (Appendix B) as well as foralkalinity, chloride and sulfate.

4.2.6 Metal PrecipitationGroundwater was tested in a series of batch tests for metal removal as shown in

Figure 4.5. Samples were taken prior to and after treatment, and analyzed for metalcontaminants (see Table 4.1 for the list of metal constituents to be analyzed). Threeadditional metals (manganese, calcium and magnesium) were also analyzed. Twochemicals, sodium hydroxide and time, were used to form and precipitate insolublemetal salts. Chemical dosages were optimized during these tests to determine the

4-4

rjITIIII

UIk

most effective dosage(s) of chemicals for metals removal.

In order to investigate iron and manganese removals by air oxidation, samples ofground water were purged with air. Samples were then taken at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75and 120 minutes of aeration time and analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS), pH,Iron, and manganese measurements.

4.3 Pump and Treat with Spiked Groundwater*

Since groundwater quality can vary widely from one location and onft sample toanother, the groundwater sample used for the treatability study might not reflect theactual characteristics in the groundwater. The treatability study was repeated with

I I the groundwater spiked with the representative concentrations of organics found inthe Hagen Farm groundwater. All experimental procedures remained the same using

I 1 groundwater spiked with organics at concentrations listed in Table 4.2. Since the

samples were not spiked with metals, no further metal precipitation testing was

II performed. The concentrations of these spiked compounds were selected from the

higher value of the historic concentrations in the initial characterization by Warzyn11 Inc., or Wisconsin Public Health Groundwater Quality Standards - NR 140 PAL.

luILnILILIII

4.4 In-situ Bioremediation

Bench-scale treatability studies for the bioremediation of saturated soils contaminatedwith organics are normally conducted to provide information concerning the feasibilityof their biodegradation. This study utilized bench-scale soil bioreactors to obtaininformation on the biodegradability (rate and extent of biodegradation) ofcontaminants in Hagen Farm soil within a relatively short period of time. Soilbioreactors can provide results much more quickly than can other laboratory testssuch as land treatment studies (soil tilling) or composting studies because an optimumgrowth environment is provided in the reactor. In addition to the soil bioreactors, soilcolumns were set up to obtain information on the degradation potential of the

4-5

[fIIIIIJIfuIIuQ

IIII

Lr.i:.

contaminants under conditions more indicative of those encountered in field in-situtreatment than in the well-mixed reactors. Soil column treatment using Hagen Farmsoil would provide some information on the availability of soil contaminants insubsurface conditions for in-situ treatment.

The soil bioreactor and soil column studies were designed to evaluate the followingparameters In two different growth environments (a bioreactor condition and asubsurface condition):

• Rate and extent of biodegradation for various organic contaminants such, as THF, xylene, phenols, etc.

• Nutrient requirement (nitrogen and phosphorus)• Oxygen source (aeration versus H202)• Microorganism requirement (addition of commercially available bacterial

culture)

11 The rate and the extent of bioremediation for the major contaminants in two different

environments are of significant value. Not only would the feasibility of

I;bioremediation, the time and other requirements necessary for the successfulbiodegradation of organics be determined, but also the relative rate of degradation

I W between a bioreactor condition and a subsurface environment could be established.The oxygen source requires evaluation since both aeration and hydrogen peroxide

[ addition have been successfully used in in-situ bioremediations. Bacterial populationswere monitored to see the effect of oxygen source and nutrient addition on indigenousand supplemental microorganisms. With sufficient nutrient and oxygen, a microbial

population size will respond to available biodegradable substrate(s). The study was

also designed to evaluate the change in biodegradability due to the addition of

r supplemental microorganisms. Finally, the need for nutrient addition (nitrogen andI . phosphorus) to the indigenous microorganisms alone was evaluated.

The information from these bench-scale treatability studies should be used in

4-6

[fITIT

ITI]IIUIIrLanI.

conjunction with site hydrogeological and soil characterization information in order todevelop the field pilot-scale testing requirements for in-situ bioremediation. Sitecharacterization, which includes soil characteristics, subsurface hydrogeology, and

microbial characteristics may limit the rate and/or extent of treatment of thecontaminated zone even when a bench scale biodegradation study shows promisingresults. Therefore a thorough site characterization may be necessary to determineboth the extent of contamination as well as engineering constraints and opportunities.

4.4.1 Soil Collection and CharacterizationThe soil sample received at the Geneva Research Center (GRC) from the Hagen farmsite was collected from bore hole BTB-1 at depths of 10 to 30 feet by Warzyn Inc.As previously noted in Section 3.2, the sampling methodology did not require theretention of volatile constituents of concern in the sample, as the feasibility of in-situbiodegradation is governed by the slower degradation rates of more recalcitant andgenerally less water soluble, less volatile organic compounds. The soils werecollected at the site using an auger and delivered to the GRC in 3 x 5 gallon buckets(approximately 2 cu. ft. total soil volume). This soil was subsequently screenedthrough a 1/4 inch mesh screen to remove coarse material which could not besuspended in the soil bioreactor. Two-thirds of the soil by weight passed the screen(90 kg) and the remaining one-third (gravel) was retained on the screen. Material

passing the screen was used for the soil characterization and for the bioreactor andsoil column treatability studies.

The screened soils were characterized for the physical, chemical and microbiologicalparameters listed in Table 4.3. Information from these tests was used for several

purposes. The hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) of the soil determines the abilityfor liquid transport through the soil to deliver nutrients or oxygen to the saturated soilsand allow movement of microbes. As the hydraulic conductivity of a soil is directly

related to its texture (e.g. sandy soils generally have higher saturated conductivities

4-7

i.

IIIIIIIIIIIJIh

LLL

than do finer-textured soils), soil texture was also analyzed. Bulk densities of the spilswere obtained in the permeability tests so that the soil columns could be packed topermeabilities similar to those obtained in the permeability test. Soil chemicalcharacterization of the Hagen Farm sample was performed to establish contaminanttype(s) and concentration(s) for those parameters on the Target Compound List (seeAppendix B). Cation exchange capacity was also measured to correlate the resultsof any contaminant flushing which may occur in the laboratory soil columns studiesto in-situ field studies. Finally, a bacterial enumeration (e.g. spread plate technique)was done to establish the bacterial population density of indigenous species prior tobiosttmulation in the treatabiltty study.

11 4.4.2 Soil Biodegradation StudyFour soil bioreactors were used to measure the feasiblity of biodegradation of the

11 organic compounds in the Hagen Farm soil. The reactors were set up according to theschematic shown in Figure 4.6. Nitrogen (40 mg/L) and phosphorous (5 mg/L) were

M added to Reactors 2, 3 and 4 in order to provide sufficient nutrients to the

microorganisms. Commercial microorganisms (2.5 x 10* cfu/gm dry soil) from SolmarI [ Corporation of Orange, California were added to Reactors 3 and 4. Oxygen was

supplied in the form of diffused air to Reactor 3 and hydrogen peroxide was added to

I ^ Reactor 2 and 4 to maintain the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration above 5 mg/L.. Operating parameter ranges for the four reactors are listed in Table 4.4. Each of theseI; reactors contained 19 percent total solids which consisted of screened soil and

a dechlorinated tap water. All reactors were mixed continuously to suspend the clay,

silt and finer sand fractions; the larger sand and gravel fraction were mixed and turned• I over three times per week. The reactors were monitored five to six times weekly for*L temperature, DO, and pH. Distilled water was added to each reactor as necessaryII during monitoring to maintain constant volumes. The liquid and solid contents of each'— of the reactors were sampled initially for chemical and microbial analyses, and again

on days 12 and 26 of the test.

4-8

uIIIIIfIIhU

IIliLLL

4.4.3 Soil Column StudyColumn studies were initiated to obtain information on the degradation potential of thecontaminants under conditions more indicative of field in-situ biotreatment than thewell-mixed reactors. The three bench-scale columns were designed to evaluate thefollowing parameters:

• Biodegradability of specific organic contaminants under subsurface

conditions,

• Presence of indigenous microorganisms, and• Requirement for an external source of microorganisms

Each of the 3.5 inch diameter soil columns contained compacted screened soilbounded by 3 to 4 inch upper and lower gravel beds. The reason that screened soilswere used in the soil columns was to have identical soils in both soil columns and

I I bioreactors so that results could be directly compared and correlated. The lowergravel beds rested on a felt geotextile, which in turn rested on a plastic support with

I] drain holes. Figure 4.7 shows the three soil column setups. Each soil column was

packed using 10 pounds of wet screened soil compacted with a weight to a density|J of approximately 150 Ibs./cubic foot. Tap water was introduced to the top of each

column to saturate the column and measure the column effluent rate. When a 4 inch

I ^ - head of water did not produce effluent from any of the three columns, a vacuum wasapplied to one column to force a flow. However, even with the applied vacuum,

II column effluent was virtually non-existent.

As a result, a smaller column (1 inch diameter) was set up with loosely packed soilto determine if water would flow under these conditions. A minimal water flow wasseen in this loosely packed soil column. The column was then backflushed andallowed to settle to repack the soil. Again, no flow was observed from the column.As it appeared that the soil density as well as fraction of fines in the soil wassignificant enough to preclude sufficient water flow through the column for sampling,

the soil column study was discontinued. Although these results indicate that the

4-9

rru screened soil would not provide conducive environment for in-situ bioremediation, theT original unscreened soil sample (which consisted of a third of gravel larger than 1 /4

inch diameter) may have different characteristics for in-situ applications. Ther preliminary field hydraulic conductivity results from Warzyn's investigation seem to

uuuuuI!IIII

indicate that is the case. Field testing of this process is recommended.

4-10

ITITI III II tflIIILII

5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS5.1 Pump-and-Treat with Non-spiked Ground waterThe treatability study was conducted on groundwater samples every two weeksshipped from the Hagen Farm Superfund site. The study results are presented anddiscussed in the following sections:

5.1.1 Groundwater CharacterizationTable 5.1 shows the results of the initial characterization of the Hagen Farmgroundwater. Only the parameters with concentrations above detection limits arediscussed here. The COD value of 390 mg/L is much higher than the previouslyreported value of 75 mg/L. The ammonia and phosphorus concentrations indicate thatphosphorus may be limiting if the groundwater is to be treated by a biologicaltreatment unit.

Metal results show that the high calcium (200mg/L), iron (27mg/L) and magnesium(80mg/L) concentrations could cause plugging problems for air stripping, carbonadsorption, and/or attached-growth biological processes if not properly removed. As

a result, pre-treatment for metal removal may be necessary. In an aerobic suspended-growth biological unit, iron and manganese may be oxidized and precipitated, thus no

, pre-treatment may be required. However, if metals accumulate to high levels in thereactor, then pretreatment may still be needed to ensure process stability.

Only three VOCs were detected in the groundwater sample, which confirms theprevious finding that ethytbenzene, tetrahydrofuran and xylene (total) are of significantquantity in the groundwater. All three compounds are highly biodegradable andshould be easily removed biologically.

LL

ILII

5.1.2 Air Stripping

The analytical results of the bench-scale air stripping test are attached as AppendixD and summarized in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 shows that only tetrahydrofuran (THF) and

5-1

ITIT

xylene (total) were of significant concentrations in the groundwater tested. In Table5.2, 97% of xylene was stripped at an air/water ratio of 25 and 99.9% at a ratio of150, whereas THF was only removed by 40% at an air/water ratio of 150. Figure 5.1shows the VOC concentrations versus different air/water ratios. This test furtherconfirmed that soluble compounds, such as THF, cannot be stripped easily.

The presence of the soluble organic compounds, (e.g. THF), makes it necessary to addan additional treatment process after the air stripper, if air stripping is to be used.However, these soluble organic compounds are fairly biodegradable and should beeasily removed by a biological unit, such as an activated sludge unit or liquid phaseGAC. A vapor-phase GAC adsorption or catalytic oxidation unit may be needed toreduce VOC emissions and would raise the overall cost for the treatment.Furthermore, the possibility of plugging by metal precipitates means that pre-treatmentmay be required that could make this process less economical.

5.1.3 GAC AdsorptionA lab-scale GAC column was used to evaluate the GAC adsorption capacity for theHagen Farm groundwater. The GAC study was conducted to study the breakthrough

characteristics of contaminants of concern in the groundwater. The reactor designwas based on an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 30 minutes and a total GACvolume of 500 ml.

IIIJIIIIILIL

The test was designed to treat the Hagen Farm groundwater which had received noI j_ pre-treatment. The test was terminated after only 1 day of operation because the

flow was severely restricted to half of its original rate in a day. It became apparentl]_ that suspended solids or metals had plugged the GAC and reduced the reactor_. capacity. Therefore, a pre-treatment unit would be needed to remove suspendedI _ solids in a GAC column influent to preserve GAC adsorption capacity. The suspended

. solids in the groundwater can be retained by a clarifier or a sand filter. MetalI precipitation would be required to remove the metals in the groundwater prior to the

I 5-2

[fIfIIIfIJI jIJIJIfIfI!II

GAC unit.

A GAC pump test for the Hagen Farm groundwater was conducted previously byWarzyn Inc., in December, 1990. Raw groundwater with no pre-treatment was usedfor the test, which occurred over ten days. Results of the test showed that GAC caneffectively polish the groundwater and that the GAC adsorptive capacity for THF isabout 4.5 mg THF/g GAC.

Since the groundwater contains suspended solids and metals that plugged the GACcolumn in the bench test, the test was repeated with groundwater pre-treated withair oxidation and filtration. In addition, the filtered groundwater was spiked to ensurethat all contaminants were properly considered in the test. This test was completedand the results of which are presented in Section 5.2.3 of this report.

5.1.4 Biological TreatmentA 6.4 liter bench-scale activated sludge reactor was used for the Hagen Farmgroundwater. The reactor was operated at a food-to-microorganism (F/M) ratio ofabout 0.1 gCOD/gVSS-d. The solids retention time (SRT) of the reactor wascontrolled at 65 days.

Phosphorus was added for microbial nutritional requirements in the form of phosphoric

acid, which was also used to adjust the reactor pH to below 8.0. The reactor wasmonitored daily for temperature, DO and pH. Influent and effluent CODs were

] measured every other day, while influent and effluent BODs were monitored onceevery two weeks. Two sets of data shown in Table 5.3 were collected after the

fllj_ reactor reached steady-state operation.

I

LLLL

BOD removals were over 92% with an effluent BOD of less than 4 mg/L indicating agood system performance, TSS in the effluent was also very low in the single digitrange reflecting a well-operated high SRT system. Table 5.3 shows the good

5-3

tfIIuIfIfuII

iaIL

removals of VOCs and semi-VOCs. Two major compounds, THF and xylenes, wereremoved to below detection limits.

Figure 5.2 shows data for the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) and mixed liquor

volatile suspended solid (MLVSS). The MLSS increased from 6000 mg/L to about

16,000 mg/L, while MLVSS only increased by about 1000 mg/L. According to Figure.5.2, the rate of inert solids accumulation was about 270mg/L-day, which wilt interferewith aeration if not controlled properly. The most likely source of these inert solidsare inorganic particulates in influent, such as clay particles, and/or iron and

. manganese precipitates. It is likely that a shorter SRT may reduce the solids build-upin the reactor. However, the shorter SRT will result in a higher F/M ratio andcompromise the effluent quality. Consequently, a pre-treatment unit such as

coagulation, flocculation and clarification for efficient TSS removal, is recommendedprior to the activated sludge system. This pretreatment may also be used for metalremoval by adding pH chemicals such as lime and NaOH, or allowing for air oxidationto induce metal precipitation.

5.1.5 UV/Chemical Oxidation

Two UV/peroxide tests were conducted on the Hagen Farm groundwater. The testconditions for these 2 runs are shown in Table 5.4. In both tests, a peroxide dosageof 500 mg/l was used. The reason that this dosage was selected was that oxidation

of organics only improved lightly with a dosage about 500 mg/l. In Test 2, pH wasadjusted to 5 and ferrous ammonium sulfate was added as a catalyst at a dosage of3.6 mg/l as Fe to promote oxidation reaction.

The data are summarized in Table 5.5. The analytical results show that none of the

59 VOCs and 78 semi-VOCs analyzed were above detection limits and only acetoneand bio(2-thylhexyl) phthalate were detected in the treated effluent. These values areinconsistent with previous work and with the characterization results from the twoUV/peroxide system vendors who had detected a high level of THF and xylenes in the

r 5-4I.

rr

uiiuITI;IfUUIIuIL

Hagen Farm groundwater samples. After careful evaluation, it is deemed that thedescription of these results is probably a result of laboratory errors and the analyticaldata will not be used.

The data from vendors show that UV/peroxide oxidation of THF and xylenes werefeasible. These results are summarized in Table 5.6. The test conditions to achievethese results included pre-filtration of the groundwater and UV/oxidation at a pH of5.0 with a H2O2 concentration of 200 mg/l. It also showed that there was very littlebenefit to using catalyst. These operating conditions will be used for sizing a fullscale UV/peroxide system and for developing cost estimates for a UV/peroxide systemfor comparisons with other treatment technologies in Chapter 6.

5.1.6 Metal RemovalMetal precipitation tests were conducted with sodium hydroxide and lime. The test

was performed with sodium hydroxide using a jar test apparatus. Table 5.4

summarizes the test results at various hydroxide dosages and indicates that iron andmanganese can be removed to acceptable levels at pHs between 8.4 and 9.3. Sincesodium hydroxide is more costly, the test was repeated with lime (see Table 5.5).Table 5.5 shows comparable results for iron and manganese in the pH range tested.

Based on the test results, a metal precipitation process operated with lime addition topH 9 or above should sufficiently remove inorganics such as Fe and Mn (and othermetals) as well as inert solids from the groundwater and prevent them fromcontributing to the inert solids build up, or plugging problems.

|_ An air oxidation test was also conducted to evaluate the feasibility of simple aerationto oxidize Fe*2 to Fe*3 which can then be removed by precipitation and/or filtration.

Thus, samples were taken over the aeration time of 120 minutes for iron analysis andthe results are shown in Figure 5.3. The results show that at least 60 minutes of

aeration time would be required to oxidize and remove over 25 mg/L of Fe to below

5-5

[fITIT1 •

iTuIT11IT-II11II11I'-LL11aar .ii

3 mg/L.

5.1.7 Non-Spiked Groundwater Treatability Study Summary

The experimental results can be summarized as follows:1 . Results of initial characterization of Hagen Farm ground water show that THF,

xylenes and ethylbenzene are detected in significant concentrations. Inaddition, iron and manganese are the two metals which have highconcentrations and may cause difficulties for subsequent treatment processes.I

2. Air stripping alone cannot remove the major contaminant, THF, and thus is nota preferred process in Hagen Farm groundwater treatment without additionaltreatment processes.

3. Due to the solid plugging problem, GAC column testing was stopped prior totest completion. A separate test involving air oxidation and clarification "pretreatment followed by GAC column adsorption for the spiked groundwater

was subsequently conducted. The results of this second test are presented inSection 5.2.3 of this report. A previous treatability study showed that theadsorptive capacity of GAC is about 4.5 mg THF/g GAC, which is a relatively •

low adsorption capacity for organics.

4. An activated sludge unit which was operated at 0.1 gCOD/gVSS-d (65 daysSRT) removed most organics from the Hagen Farm groundwater. BOD and TSS

values in the effluent were consistently less than 10 mg/L indicating good

operation and good performance. However, inert solids appeared toaccumulate in the reactor and they may hamper the treatment operation in thelong run. Thus, a pre-treatment unit to precipitate metals, (mainly Fe and Mn),

and TSS is required.

5. Metal precipitation tests exhibited good removal of metals. In the test

5-6

ITITTrITIItt-IIIILIII

ILIIIIIIIL

conducted with lime, iron and manganese were removed to low levels. Inaddition, arsenic and barium were both removed to satisfactory concentrations.Air oxidation induced precipitation also performed well on Hagen Farmgroundwater.

5.2 Pump-and-Treat with Spiked GroundwaterThe treatability study was repeated with Hagen Farm groundwater spiked with variousorganics at concentrations listed in Table 4.2. The purpose of spiking was to simulatethe worst case scenario of the groundwater chemical constituent concentration. The

results are presented and discussed in the following sections.

5.2.1 Spiked Groundwater CharacterizationThe Hagen Farm groundwater was spiked using concentrated stock solution prior tothe treatability testing. Groundwater concentrations before and after the spike arelisted in Table 5.9 for compounds of concern. Table 5.9 shows the similarconcentrations for both the target and the actual measurements. It also shows thedifficulties of spiking to low levels, because the detection limits of several compoundsare higher than the added concentration. In addition, the volatile nature of somecompounds made emission losses unavoidable during the preparation process.

5.2.2 Air Stripping

The analytical results of the spiked air stripping test are summarized in Table 5.10.THF was present at high concentrations. Unlike the previous (unspiked) test, MEKwas also present in significant concentrations. Even at an air/water ratio of 150, THFand MEK were only partially removed, confirming that air stripping cannot adequatelyremove soluble VOC's such as THF and ketones from the Hagen Farm groundwater.

Figure 5.4 shows the THF and MEK concentrations in the effluent of the air stripping

test using spiked groundwater. Concentrations of both organics decreased at thebeginning and stabilized after 60 minutes of operation. Results of this test show the

5-7

I'

same trend as those of the tests conducted with non-spiked groundwater.

5.2.3 GAC AdsorptionPrior to the GAC adsorption test, the groundwater was pretreated with air oxidationto remove iron in order to minimize the plugging problem previously encountered inthe unspiked GAC tests. Groundwater samples were aerated for four hours andfollowed by settling to remove the solids which eliminated the potential for GACcolumn clogging.

The results of the GAC test are shown in Table 5.11. the results show that THF wasthe only VOC and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate the only semi-VOC detected in theeffluent. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtha!ate appeared to be non-adsorbable since there wasan immediate breakthrough of this organics in the carbon column. Therefore, GAC

might not be suitable for the groundwater if bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate concentrationis present above the discharge limit.

The breakthrough curve for THF is plotted in Figure 5.5. The corresponding THF

adsorptive capacity for GAC is calculated to be 19 mg THF/g GAC at an influentconcentration of 55,000 //g/l. The THF adsorption capacity determined in this study,

along with the value of 4.5 mg THF/g GAC for an influent of 18,500//g/l, determinedin the previous pump test study, will be used to design a GAC adsorber. A value of10 mg THF/g GAC will be used for the design of the GAC system for Hagen Farm

groundwater. Since the adsorptive capacity of GAC increases linearly with theinfluent THF concentration, 10 mg THF/g GAC is selected for the process design.

This value is an estimate interpolated from the two experimental values.

5.2.4 Biological Treatment

The bench-scale activated sludge reactor was operated with spiked groundwater forover one month under the same conditions as those for the non-spiked groundwater.After achieving steady-state, two sets of samples were collected. The results of this

5-8

[fITITITIT

nntri

f.f.

test are summarized in Table 5.12. The results were very similar to the non-spikedtest: BOD concentrations in the effluent were lower than 5 mg/t, indicating goodtreatment efficiency. No VOCs were detected in the effluent, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was the only semi-VOC detected in the effluent. However, the phthalateconcentration was very low.

The biological sludge was not characterized for TCLP compounds. However, the full-scale treatment system design was based on the assumption that the sludge washazardous.

5.2.5 Spiked Groundwater Treatability Study SummaryThe experimental results can be summarized as follows:1. The spiked concentrations were fairly close to the target concentrations for the

Hagen Farm groundwater.2. The air stripping test confirmed the previous findings that soluble VOC's such

as tetrahydrofuran and methyl ethyl ketone are not very strippable. Thus, airstripping is not a preferred process for treating Hagen Farm groundwaterwithout additional treatment processes.

3. The GAC column study showed that the adsorption capacity of GAC for THFis low at a high concentration. The study confirms our previous results for non-spiked groundwater. Bis{2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was found to be non-

adsorbable even at a low concentration (10 //g/L or less).4. The activated sludge study for the spiked groundwater resulted in BOD

concentration of less than 5 mg/L and TSS less than 10 mg/L, indicating a very

good process performance.

5.2.6 Groundwater Treatability Study ConclusionsBased on the results from both studies, four possible treatment trains can properlytreat the Hagen Farm groundwater. They are as follows:1. Metal Precipitation + Air Stripping + GAC Adsorption

5-9

nITniinnii^nnn

iiiiL

2. Metal Precipitation + GAC Adsorption3. Metal Precipitation + Activated Sludge4. Metal Precipitation + UV/Chemical Oxidation

The cost analysis for these three options will be discussed in Chapter 6 of this report.Actual water quality of extracted groundwater during full-scale operation may be lesscontaminated than the water sample used in the treatability study, becausegroundwater will be collected over a much larger area having lower concentrations ofcertain compounds than were observed at monitoring well MW22. The actual waterquality and treatment costs will determine which treatment train to choose and ifindividual unit processes, such as metal precipitation, are necessary.

5.3 In-situ Bioremediatlon

5.3.1 Soil CharacterizationPhysical Characteristics

Laboratory hydraulic conductivity (permeability) studies were conducted at the Geneva

Research Center to estimate the permeability of soil from the Hagen Farm site whichwas used in the column studies. Measurements were obtained In triplicate for the

screened Hagen Farm soil using the triaxial-cell method with backpressure (SW-846

Method 9100, Section 2.8). The data tables for the three hydraulic conductivitymeasurements are attached in Appendix E.

The hydraulic conductivity of the screened soil as determined by this method was inthe range of 10"4 cm/sec. This range is within the range of values for unconsolidateddeposits such as glacial till, silty sand and silt (loess)1. However, it is an order ofmagnitude lower than the average of the values for the 18 wells at the Hagen FarmSite by Warzyn Inc. in March, 1989 (compare 1 x 10'* cm/sec to the average value

I 'Freeze, R. Allan and John A. Cherry. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979. p 29.

[ 5-10

i

ITITIT

LDII([l\II[IILLL11ILr.ii

of 4.1 x 10'3 cm/sec). The screening of the soil sample to remove coarse pebbleslarger than 1/4" during the study might have impacted the permeability since the labsoil columns did not produce effluent at a permeability in the 10"4 cm/sec range.Normally a permeability value of approximately 10*3 cm/sec is conducive to in-situbioremediation. It is recommended that field hydraulic conductivities be performed aspart of any in-situ field bioremediation studies,

The average bulk density of the soil used in the triaxial cells was measured at 2.12g/cm3 (132 Ibs/ft3). This value is comparable to the earlier density value of 150 Ibs/ft3

to which the soils were compacted in the columns (see Section 4.3.3).

A combined sieve/hydrometer analysis was performed on the soil using ASTM D-422

procedure for particle size analysis of soils (see Appendix F). Particle size sieving wasused to determine the percentage of gravel, the various sand fractions and a combinedsilt/clay fraction. The hydrometer analysis was used to determine the separatepercentages of sand, silt and clay. Sieve size was chosen based on the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) soil particle classification. Approximately 83

percent of the soil was sand and gravel, 14 percent was silt, and 3 percent was clay,which classifies the soil as a loamy sand based on the USDA soil texture triangleclassification. This again is an indication of the good potential for in-situbioremediation application at the Hagen Farm Site.

Table 5.13 summarizes the results discussed above for soil characterization.

Chemical Characteristics

The soil sample received at the Geneva Research Center (GRC) from the Hagen farmsite was collected from bore hole BTB-1 at depths of 10 to 30 feet by Warzyn Inc.As previously noted in Section 3.2, the sampling methodology did not require theretention of volatile constituents of concern in the sample, as the feasibility of in-situbiodegradation is governed by the slower degradation rates of more recalcitant and

5-11

[fITIIi riri

i ]uuuI!IILLLLLL

generally less water soluble, less volatile organic compounds.

The screened soil sample was characterized for the 126 compounds in the TargetCompound List. Analytical results for the compounds detected in the screened soilsample are presented in Table 5.14. These results show there is little or no detectableconcentrations of insoluble and recalcitrant organics in the original screened soilsample; all organic parameters except for acetone (measured at 70 //g/kg wetweight basis) and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (measured at 360 j/g/kg wet weightibasis) were below detection limits. However, this single sample shbuld not beconsidered as representative of site soils. A more comprehensive soil survey may bei /performed to determine soil contaminants and concentration levels in the saturatedzone. Some heavy metals were present in the soil, however, as discussed in latersections, no metal toxicity was seen during the bioreactor study. Unfortunately, due

to the time constraint of the study, both the soil biodegradation study and the columnstudy were initiated before the results of the original soil concentrations were

available.

Microbiological Enumeration

Microbial populations need to be monitored to see the effect of oxygen source and> nutrient addition on indigenous and supplemental microorganisms. With sufficient

nutrient and oxygen, the heterotrophic population should respond to availablesubstrate(s). These substrates can include organic compounds on the TargetCompound List (TCL), as well as existing biodegradable soil organic matter such assugars or proteins. As there was very little or no contamination of the soil with

compounds on the TCL, total heterotrophs (aerobic and facultative anaerobicmicroorganisms which can degrade a wide variety of organics) were analyzed todetermine the general bacterial population density. Results of a total heterotrophicplate count on the original soil sample collected in the saturated zone at a 10 - 30 footdepth showed there to be some microbiological activity in the soils for oxygen-utilizingbacteria. The total plate count was 1.6 x 10s cfu/g dry soil. There appears to be a

5-12

ffIIIII

IJIIliIJ11IIIIL

LLLL

significant bacterial population in the soil sample collected from the Hagen Farm siteat a level comparable to literature values for population densities found in severalshallow water table aquifers2.

5.3.2 Soil Biodegradation StudyThe four soil bioreactors were set up, monitored and sampled as detailed in Section4.3.2. Monitoring and sampling were discontinued after 30 days when the resultsshowed little or no biological activity in the reactors. Reactor conditions aresummarized in a schematic in Figure 4.5 and operating parameters are listed in Table4.3. The following is a presentation and discussion of the results of the soilbiodegradation study.

Organic Removal Efficiency

The analytical results of the performance of the soil bioreactors for contaminantremoval are given in Table 5.15 (soils) and 5.16 (liquids) (see also Appendices G andH for detailed results). As with the initial soil sample, the liquid and soil samples fromthe bioreactors for both sampling events showed there to be little or no existingorganic contamination. Total VOC and Semi-VOC's were less than 500^g/kg initiallyin the reactor. After 12 days of operation, the first sample indicated little or noorganics left.

J The TOCs for the soil fractions sampled on Day 12 were substantially less than thatof the initial values, indicating some degradation activity (see Figures 5.6 through 5.9

[ for Reactors 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). The TOC of Reactor 4 was substantiallylower (3,800 mg/L as compared to 31,000); it also had the highest OURs during the

|__ study. Variability in the Day 12 TOC values for Reactors 1, 2, and 3 may be a resultof inadvertent nonhomogenization of the soil during the sampling event.

2Canter, L. W. and R. C. Knox. Ground Water Pollution Control. Lewis Publishers,Inc., Chelsea, Ml, 1985. p 130.

5-13

lifUIIIIIIn

MuuII[^LIIIIII

I.r

Low levels of some heavy metals were detected in the samples (As, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg,and Zn). However, these did not appear to impact the existing microbial populationin the original soil sample or in the bioreactors.

Oxvqen Uptake Rate

The oxygen uptake rate (OUR), as determined from dissolved oxygen measurements,provides a quick and valuable indication of biological activity and hence biodegradationrates. Dissolved oxygen levels were measured on days 8, 16, 25, and 32 for all fourreactors (see Figure 5.10 for Day 8 results and Appendix I for figures showing Day16, 25, and 32 results). The data from the dissolved oxygen levels for these fourdays were used to calculate the oxygen uptake rates for each of the reactors (seeFigure 5.11). The OURs approached zero for Reactors 1 and 2 during these fourperiods. The OUR for Reactor 3 (which received air and microbes) was 0.6 mgO2/L/hr on the first day and decreased to zero for the remainder of the study. TheOUR for Reactor 4 (which received H202 and microbes) had the highest values of allfour reactors throughout the study, indicating the highest biological activity.

Microbiological Enumeration

This study was designed to evaluate the effects on biodegradation rate(s) of oxygensource and nutrient addition for indigenous and supplemental microorganisms. Withsufficient nutrient and oxygen, indigenous heterotrophic populations may increase insize in response to available substrate(s). Limitations to a sustained population

increase are generally the presence of toxic compounds (e.g., heavy metals, very highlevels of substrate, or production of a toxic metabolite). However, the rate ofpopulation increase of indigenous microorganisms may be sufficiently slow to warrantan initial addition of supplemental microorganisms which can utilize existing

substrate (s).

Microbiological enumerations were done on the initial soil sample, as well as on initialand Days 12 and 26 soils and liquids for all four reactors. Figures 5.12 through 5.15

5-14

uIIIII

IIII-liI]liIIII

liIIIILL.

show the results of the combined bacterial enumeration/ml of soil slurry for Reactors1-4, respectively.

In summary, the bacterial population densities for those reactors which had notreceived supplemental microorganisms (Reactors 1 and 2) decreased or remained thesame from initial levels after 26 days of operation. However, the bacterial densitiesincreased significantly for those reactors which received supplemental microorganisms(Reactors 3 and 4). The bacterial counts for Reactor 3 and 4 by Day 26 of the studywere 1 to 3 x 1010 as-compared to 2 to 3 x 10* for R1 and R2, a tenfold increase.The results supported the previous OUR data that supplemental microorganisms wouldbe required to promote the biological activity for Hagen Farm saturated soils. Theyalso indicated that very little difference in oxygen source, (air or H2O2) on bacterialgrowth.

5.3.3 Soil Treatability SummaryThe following conclusions can be drawn regarding the feasibility of in-situbiodegradation of organic contamination in Hagen Farm soils:

1. The saturated soil sample received for treatability studies was not contaminated

[ with compounds on the Target Compound List. This soil sample may or may- W

not be representative of on-site soils since the soil samples were screenedI through 1/4" mesh to remove coarse gravel for the soil bioreactor study. A

comprehensive survey/characterization of saturated soils may be performed to[j determine the contamination profile, strength, location and other

characteristics.

2. If the saturated soils are contaminated, then bioremediation is a potential on-site treatment method based on the following observations: the OUR was highfor the reactor receiving microbial supplement; there is sufficient TOC in thesoils to support the growth of microorganisms; contaminants currently found

5-15

ITIIIIIIUUUUIi

I

at the site are biodegradable; and there was no metal toxicity observed for thesample tested.

3. If in-situ bioremediation is selected, results from the TOC degradation, oxygenuptake rates and bacterial enumeration indicate that supplementalmicroorganisms may enhance the biological activity in Hagen Farm saturatedsoils.

4. The low flow rates found in the soil column test indicate that laboratory columnstudies for these soils will not provide Information for an evaluation of thebiodegradability of the organic compounds. On-site field tests could beperformed in order to evaluate the permeabilities of the subsurface materials.

5. Field in-situ biodegradation studies are needed if this option is selected as analternative for site remediation. If a groundwater pump-and-treat system (withon-site biological treatment units) is installed, the effluent from the biologicaltreatment units could serve as an influent for an in-situ field bioremediationtest. The effluent would also provide acclimated microorganisms for asupplemental source of organisms.

11

5-16

uIJIIIIIIIJIJ^IJuII

6.1.1 Option 1: Metal Precipitation (Lime Precipitation) + Air Stripping + GACI Adsorption

The process flow sheet for this option is given in Figure 6.1. The process consists

I ^ of pumping groundwater from recovery wells into a mixed equalization tank. Thegroundwater is pumped to a metals precipitation tank where lime is added to raise the

I pH. Lime precipitation is necessary to remove calcium and magnesium in the

groundwater to prevent scaling. The groundwater, which has polymer flocculantinjected into it, is then pumped into a clarifier to settle the inert suspended solids andmetal precipitates. Hydrochloric acid is then added to lower the groundwater pH. The

I _ clarified liquid passes into an air stripper which utilizes vapor phase carbon, and theninto GAC columns. The effluent is pumped into a holding tank and is ultimately

I— reinjected into the site via an injection well system. Sludge is dewatered prior to off-site disposal in a filter press.

II

LLL

6.0 CONCEPTUAL PROCESS DESIGN/ECONOMICS6.1 Groundwater TreatmentSection 5.1 listed four alternatives for successful treatment of Hagen Farmgroundwater:

Option 1: Metals Precipitation + Air Stripping + GAC AdsorptionOption 2: Metals Precipitation + GAC AdsorptionOption 3: Metals Precipitation + Activated Sludge

Option 4: Metals Precipitation + UV/Chemical Oxidation

This section describes these alternatives in greater detail and provides estimates onconstruction and operating costs for the various alternatives. Table 6.1 lists the basisfor design for all treatment options. The design flow of 100 gpm is based onpreliminary results of the pumping test conducted by Warzyn Inc., and is intended forcost comparison purposes among different treatment options.

6-1

truiiuiiriii

uiiL

The total installed capital cost for this treatment option (100 gpm) is $2,142,000 asIs indicated in Table 6.2. Table 6.3 provides an operating cost estimate. The totaloperating cost is estimated to be $0.0169/gallon (which includes variable and fixedcosts).

6.1.2 Option 2: Metals Precipitation (Air Oxidation) + GAC AdsorptionThe process flow sheet for this option is shown in Rgure 6.2. The process consistsof pumping groundwater from recovery wells into a mixed equalization tank, whichalso has aeration to oxidize and precipitate metals. . The groundwater which hasflocculant injected into it is then pumped into a flocculation chamber which flows intoa clarifier to settle the inert and metal suspended solids. The effluent from the metals/solids removal is passed through GAC columns prior to discharge into a holding tankwith subsequent reinjection into the ground. The solids are dewatered prior to off-sitedisposal.

The total installed capital facility cost for this option is $1,897,000 and these costsare detailed in Table 6.2. As indicated in Table 6.3, the total operating cost is$0.0158/gallon.

6.1.3 Option 3: Metals Precipitation (Air Oxidation) + Activated Sludge

The process flow sheet for the option utilizing activated sludge treatment of theHagen Farm groundwater is given in Figure 6.3. The flow train consists ofequalization and air oxidation/solids clarification (as previously described in Section

6.1.2), and aerobic biological treatment via the activated sludge process. The finalprocessed effluent would be pumped into a holding tank prior to reinjection into the

ground via a reinjection well system. The solids produced during treatment would bedewatered on site using a filter press and sent off site for disposal.

The total installed facility cost for this groundwater processing option would be

6-2

fftrFTITITI]IT-11IIII

6.1.5 Groundwater Treatment Comparative Process Analysisl] Table 6.4 summarizes the capital and total operating cost for the feasible treatment

alternatives for Hagen Farm groundwater. The Activated Sludge Process (ASP), while

I ^ having the highest capital cost, has the lowest operating costs. The ASP option couldalso provide necessary micro-organisms for in-situ soil bioremediation. It is, therefore,

[ the recommended treatment option for the Hagen Farm Site.

[LIIII

$2,359,000, as indicated in Table 6.2. The total ground water processing cost would

be $0.0119/gallon as indicated in Table 6.3.

6.1.4 Option 4: Metal Precipitation (Air Oxidation) + UV/Chemical OxidationThe process flow sheet for the UV/chemical oxidation is shown in Figure 6.4. Theprocess flow train consists of the previously discussed equalization and airoxidation/solids clarification, and UV/peroxide treatment. The process requires pHadjustment of influent and effluent to the UV/peroxide process. The final processedeffluent would be pumped into an effluent holding tank prior to reinjection. The solidsproduced during treatment would be dewatered on-site using a filter press anddisposed off site.

As indicated in Table 6.2, the total installed facility cost for this option is $514,000while the total operating costs would be $0.0039/gallon as indicated in Table 6.3.

6.2 Field Demonstration of In-Situ Bioremediation*

This section discusses the conceptual design for an in-situ bioremediation fielddemonstration study for Hagen Farm site soils based on results from the soilbioremediation study. The system design presented here is general in nature, as amore detailed design incorporating injection wells/trenches and extraction wells wouldneed the following information (which is to be developed later during the RD/RA

phase):

6-3

tr

ITuu

uIIIII1

ILliILtlI.l

1. Nature and extent of soil contamination at the site;2. Characterization of site geology and hydrogeology (to optimize the

location and type of injection system (e.g. shallow trench, well), and toInsure that this location will not be influenced by the of source controlmeasures); and

3. Installation of an above-ground contaminated groundwater pump-and-treat system (which would serve as a source of water for the injectionwells).

The In-situ field demonstration at the Hagen Farm site may consist of one or two trialsto be done concurrently: one to test the feasibility of in-situ biodegradation using theinjection and recovery wells and the other as a control with no injection.Alternatively, the pump and treat/reinjection system could be operated and monitoredwithout nutrient, oxygen or microorganisms for a control period. Then the nutrient,oxygen or microorganisms could be added to the reinjection water while observing thesoil remediation effect. The advantages gained by the use of in-situ bioremediationcan then be defined after comparing the results from the study to the control.

6.2.1 Conceptual DesignThe in-situ bioremediation field study will involve reinjection of the effluent from theabove-ground groundwater pump and treat system. All or a portion of the treatedeffluent from the above-ground groundwater system could be used for reinjection.The effluent would need to meet any applicable water quality standards for reinjectioninto a groundwater aquifer. Oxygen, in the form of hydrogen peroxide, and nutrients(nitrogen and phosphorous) will be added to the effluent prior to reinjection tostimulate aerobic microbial degradation. Results from the laboratory bioreactor

treatability studies indicate that supplemental microorganisms are probably requiredto enhance the biological activity in Hagen Farm saturated soils. However, addition

of commercial microorganisms may not be needed since the treated effluent willcontain microorganisms which have been acclimated to the contaminants in the

6-4

IIIIITI]I/I.I]IIIIItI

LL

groundwater.

6.2.2 Sampling and MonitoringThe injection/extraction system is expected to be operated while baseline and routinemonitoring of the subsurface soils and groundwater will be conducted to provide datafor evaluating the system's performance (e.g. contaminant reduction, nutrienttransport, biological activity) and to control its operation. The number of samples,sampling frequency, and analytical requirements for both soils and groundwater willbe developed in the detailed design when site characterization data becomes available.

LLI.

6-5

tfITIIIIIfIIIKn1111

2. Based on initial analysis of potential groundwater treatment unit operationsIf considered in the treatability study, air stripping, granular activated carbon,

biological treatment using the activated sludge process and UV/peroxideI \^_/ oxidation are the selected treatment candidates for organic treatment, while

conventional metal precipitation and air oxidation are the selected options forI metals treatment.

na

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the treatability study and conceptual design developed in thisreport, the following conclusions and recommendations are made for the Hagen Farmsite remediation:

7.1 Pump and Treat Remedial Alternative1. Initial groundwater characterization indicated that three organic compounds

(THF, xylene and ethylbenzene) as well as eight metals (arsenic, barium, lead,mercury, Iron, manganese, magnesium and calcium) are a concern in the HagenFarm groundwater. Iron and manganese are of concern because of thepotential plugging of treatment processes such as air stripping and carbonadsorption. Iron and manganese can be removed by either air oxidation ormetal precipitation. Calcium and magnesium are a concern because thesemetals can cause scaling and plugging in the air stripping tower. They can beremoved by chemical precipitation only.

3. Treatability study results and subsequent conceptual design of the fourgroundwater treatment options indicate that metals precipitation, followed bybiological treatment of the site contaminated groundwater is the recommendedgroundwater remediation option because of its high treatment efficiency forHagen Farm groundwater and lower cost. The activated sludge process couldalso provide acclimated supplemental microorganisms for in-situ bioremediation.The installed cost of a 100 gpm facility is estimated at $2,359,000 with the

7-1

ITIIIIIIIIIIIInuuuii.

total processing cost {including capital and operating) at 1.19C/gal.

7.2 In-Situ Bioremediation Alternative1. The soil sample received for treatability studies was not contaminated with

compounds on the Target Compound List. Because of random variation,sampling difficulties and the screening of the samples through 1/4" mesh toremove coarse solids for bioreactor testing, the soil sample may not berepresentative of site saturated zone soils. A comprehensive survey/

i characterization of these soils may be performed to determine the extent ofcontamination and need for remediation.

2. If the saturated zone soils are contaminated, then bioremediation has goodpotential as an on-site treatment methodology based on the followingobservations: the oxygen uptake rate (OUR) was high for the reactor receivingmicrobial supplement; there is sufficient organic material in the soils to supportthe growth of microorganisms; contaminants found at the site currently arebiodegradable; and testing performed Indicated no evidence of metal toxicity.

3. Field in-situ bioremediation studies would be the most optimum approach toevaluate the combined effort of site characteristics, including hydrogeology, soilprofiles, and biodegradation and will be necessary to confirm laboratory resultsfor Hagen Farm site.

7-2

IIIIIIII

11ij^

IjII1]1.[ v^"'

L1II

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 4.1Table 4.2Table 4.3Table 4.4Table 5.1

Table 5.2Table 5.3Table 5.4Table 5.5Table 5.6Table 5.7Table 5.8Table 5.9Table 5.10

Table 5. 11

Table 5.1 2

Table 5. 13Table 5.14

Table 5. 15

Table 5. 16

Table 6.1Table 6.2Table 6.3Table 6.4

LIST OF TABLES

Hagen Farm Groundwater Quality Summary - Surface Quality Limits andNR 140 Groundwater StandardsAverage and Maximum Concentrations of Selected Metals Detected InGroundwater at Hagen Farm SiteConstituents to be Analyzed for Hagen Farm Treatability StudyTarget Compounds Spiked for Hagen Farm GroundwaterCharacterization Tests for the Hagen Farm Soils in the Saturated ZoneSoil Biodegradation Study - Operating Parameter Ranges \Initial Characterization for Hagen Farm Groundwater - Compounds withConcentrations Above Detection Limits /Hagen Farm Bench-Scale Air Stripping Test ResultsSteady-State Operational Results for Activated Sludge ReactorBench-Scale UV/Peroxide Test Conditions for Hagen Farm GroundwaterBench-Scale UV/Peroxide Test Results for Hagen Farm GroundwaterBench-Scale UV/Peroxide Test Results for Hagen Farm GroundwaterJar Test Results for Metal Precipitation With Sodium HydroxideJar Test Results for Metal Precipitation With LimeCharacterization of Spiked GroundwaterHagen Farm Bench-Scale Air Stripping Test Results for SpikedGroundwaterCompounds Detected in Bench-Scale GAC Column Test for SpikedHagen Farm GroundwaterSteady-State Operational Results for Activated Sludge Reactor - SpikedGroundwaterHagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Soil CharacteristicsHagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Study, Compounds Detected in OriginalSoil SampleHagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Study, Compounds Detected in SoilFractionHagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Study, Compounds Detected in LiquidFractionHagen Farm Groundwater Treatment Basis of DesignHagen Farm Groundwater Treatment Facility Cost EstimateHagen Farm Groundwater Treatment Annual Operating Cost EstimateSummary of the Cost Estimate for Hagen Farm Groundwater Treatment

IfnIT.Ifni (r,INHii

m.

UItUs1I j

* (

III)'

ILn

PfiELtHlNARY CERTIFICATE

EMS HERITAGE LABORATORJES. INC.1319 MARQUETTE DRIVE

06-FEB-91COMpl»t«

RCMEOVILLE, IL 60441 22-FEB-91fTrtft \17fl tfiflA *" - ." "-. "- •t/uo;j/o-;ouu Prfntctf

22-FEB-91

lab |g ,C127991 iro NuiMr

WI. PROJECT-HAGEN...

06-FEB-91 14:00 !

: **port To Kit TO

1 CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCSILL LIU ACCOUNTINGGENEVA RESEARCH CENTER GENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUE 1950 S BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134 GENEVA, IL 60134

SMplt DttcrtpttonPROJECT; STATE OF WISCONSIN PROOKT-HAGEN FARMSAMPLE ID.: 026DESCRIPTION: GW CHARACTERIZATION

CYANIDE TOTAL (AUTOMATED) SW846-9012Arwlystz J. mm* AMlyttt fl«tt: 08*UI-f1 Irwtnmtnt: AUTO-ANAtYZit T«ti 6101.4. 0Prep: CYANIDE DISTILLATION SW846-9010

PtrMtttr ~"CYANIDE

RfMlCSOL

Dtt. Limit0,25

unit*mo/ko

PCS/PESTICIDE SCAN GC:ECO SW846-8080Aiutytti k. DOMINI An«ly«lf Ottti 13-Ftt-fll tmtnmrttt OC/ICO Tttti 0505.1. 0Prepj GC SEPARATORY FUNNEL LIQUID-LIQUID EXTRACTION SW846-3510

PtmnttwALPHA-BHC3ETA-BHCOELTA-BHCGAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)HEPTACHLORALDRINf HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDEENDOSULFAN IDIELORIN4 I4'-ODE .ENORI.NENDOSULFAN II4.4'.QDDENOOSULFAN SULFATE4,4'-DDTMETHOXYCHLORENDRIN KETONEALPHA-CHLOROANEGAMMA-CHLOROANETOXAPHENEPCB AROCHLOR 1016PCB AROCHLOR 1221PCB AROCHLOR 1232PCS AROCHLOR 1242PCS AROCHLOR 1248PCB AROCHLOR 1254

RuuteBOLBDLBDLBDLBDLBOLBOLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBOLBOLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBOLBDL

Dtt. Unit0.000050.000050.000050.000050.000050.000050.000050.000050.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00010.00050.00010.00050.00050.001

0.00050.00050.00050.00050.00050.0010

Unltimg/Lrrg/Lmg/L ,mg/Lmg/L

mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L

mg/L«9/L"9/Uma/LPig* 1

I

tf

irif

2:.9: :2::3 -'c,::: ».;;

nnunuILILILILILILIL

EMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC. Lab Sample IDs C12

PCS AROCHLOR 1260 '"****'OBC _

««tultBDL54

Ott. UMt0.0010

unit•8/LX Rec

6C SEPARATORY FUNNEL LIQUID-LIQUID EXTRACTION SW846-35IOAntlyitt N. KHZtl ttt'.ysff Ottet H-FCl-91 Tttt: >233.1. Q

INITIAL WEIGHT OR VOLUME"*"'FINAL VOLUME

•ttutt99010

Ott. LI nit UnlIlLml

CYANIDE DISTILLATION SV846-9010Anttyiti 0. JOUPN AnKyil* Olttf U-*FI-9f - Tttti »*01.4. 0

INITIAL WEIGHT OR VOLUME* "FINAL VOLUME

iMUtf10550

Ott. Lfnft

l

UnflGransml

\MERCURY CVAA ACIO DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SU846-7470 5Anclyiti J. UMI toilytli Ottti ll-ttl-91 . TUti PISI.f. 0

'•rtmtttrINITIAL WEIGHT OR VOLUMEFINAL VOLUME

Jteiult100100

Ott. k(»ft UnfnL«L

MERCURY CVAA SW846-7470Antlytti J. UMf Antlyvft Ottti 12-rci-91 Inttr tnti CVM Tttti N120.1. 0Prep: MERCURY CVAA ACIO DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-7470

MERCURY """*"'' BDLOtt. Ll«ft

0.0005unf

mo/L

GFAA ACIO DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SV846-3020Anttytti 1, KM* AnilyiU Ottti 12-ffl-91 Ttfti t».«. 0

INITIAL WEIGHT OR VOLU*Mrf*Mf

FINAL WEIGHT OR VOLUME

'KnuU5050

Ott. (.{Bit UnitfflLml

ARSENIC GFAA SW34S-7060Anttytti W. UATMCSSPrep: GFAA ACID DIGESTION ^W.TlL1 °*MI "-rtl-?1 ImtruBtnti 6fM TtttJ MlOJ.a. 1

OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3020Ptrntttr

ARSENIC

SELENIUM GFAA SV846-7740

Prep: GFAA ACIO DIGESTION

Rttult0.038

Ott. Itntt0.010

Unit

OF AQUEOUS* SAMPLES SW846-3020 ' "** '**" *™'*' °Pirmtttr

SFLTNIUMRHuU

amOtt. Ifntt

ft ArtCAUnit« /i

FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005 *• 3ATTHQ <ntiytit Oittr 09-H<*91

INITIAL WEIGHT OR VOLtwf"1*''FINAL WEIGHT .OR VOLUME

5050

tHUlC

Ttttt »1M,4. 0fttt. Ullt unit*

mL

Page 'I

•»">s-

w

iL1s

ii_

.L1

11

EMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC. Lab Sanple IDr C127991ALUMINUM ICP 5W846-8010 ,Anslysii N. JM Analysts Dalai 12*11-91 tnatnjnanti 1C* Tact: moi.j o iPrep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005 *

ALUMINUM *rW"*f Issult oae. L8DL _ i t

ANTIMONY ICP SW846-6010AAalysti *. MO Analysis Datat 12*11-91 tnatrwntnti 19 Tail:Prep: FAA OR ICP ACIO DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005

ParaMtarANTIMONY

>Mult oat. IBDL (

BERYLLIUM ICP SW846-6010Analyst: N. JM Analysts Datat 12-MI-91 fmtnmnti (9 TsstiPrep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SU846-3005

••natterBERYLLIUM

••suit Oat. uBOL 0

BARIUM ICP SV346-6010Analyst! ». JM Analysis Qatar 12-'H*9l tnstrussnt* 19 Tasti

Prep: FAA OR ICP ACIO DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005

BARIUM """*'"'tssult Dat. L

0.49 C

(•It Unit*^050 ma/L

moz.i. o

'»(t Ufltti3, .030 mg/L

N10S.3. 0

i«tt uniu ;0050 mo/L i

mo* .j. o

(•it Unfts.010 nra/L

CADMIUM ICP SW846-6010Analysti N. JM Analysts 9at*t 12-ril-fl inslnnant: 19 Tasti HIM. 3. 0Prep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW346-3005

•artfftttarCADMIUM

XstuLt Oat. IBDL 0.

init units0050 no/L

CALCIUM ICP SH345-6010Analyst: N. JM Analysis Ost*t 12-W-91 InttniMnti 19 Tastt N109.3. 0Prep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW84S-3005

•aramaurCALCIUM

iMUlt Oat. L200

nl( Units

CHROMIUM KP SW845-P010Anstraif ». JAO Analysfs OsM: 12-FM-91 IrvtriMnti 19 fast: MM0.3. 0

Prep: FAA OR ICP ACIO DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3003

CHROMIUM *rt-ltttr Aasutt Btt. LBDL 0

COBALT ICP SV846-6010

Prep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION V AVubu's's^PLETswKe-'loOS

COBALTRawitt Oat. L

BDL 0

•it units.010 mq/L

4111.3. 0

•It units.010 mq/L

COPPER ICP SV846-6010Anstyati N. JM Anslysfs Oaeai 12- 1-91 rnstnjnant: (9 Tssti M112.I. 0Prep: FAA CR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-300S

COPPER _ i<W*r lasult 0«t. IBOL 0

•It Units.020 fM/L

Page 3

I

frIT

frrriih1I11HII-I,rILILILI!

ENS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC. Lab SampU 10, C127991IKON ICP SW646-6010Af^tyut »• JAO «mlr*U Datti t2-Ff|-91 tntcrwnti ICP

Prep: FAA OR ICP ACIO DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005Ptrunttr

IRONItflutt

27.

tttt: Klis.j.

Ot?. Unft0.020

LEAD ICP SW346-6010APiiyttr w. MO Analyst* »«ees 12-W91 Irwtrumntt IVPrep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005

ParMvttrLEAD _

JlMUlt

JDL

MAGNESIUM ICP SV846-60IOAflilytti H. JAO Aftilyvfi Oitti 12-MI-91 irvtnmnt! ICP

Prep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846*300SParwvttr

MAGNESIUMRtMtf

80.

MANGANESt ICP SW846-6010AMtytti N. JAO Anslytfi Oittt 12-'CI-9t InatruMrtti IffPrep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3C05

PirvntrtrMANGANESE

ftttutt0.077

NICKEL ICP SW846-6010Anttytti N. JAO Amtytfi Oattt 12-ffl-91 trvtrumntt !C»Prep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW845-3005

ftftmtf_NJCKEL

««wlt_0.033

POTASSIUM ICP SW846-6010Anitxitt N. JAO Unalystt Oitfli 12-FCI-91 rrwtnmnti 1»Prep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW845-3005

»«r«i*ttrPOTASSIUM

*MUlt

21.

SILVER ICP SW846-6010f Anjlms «. JM AMtytU Oat*: 12-UI-fl inttrumicj l»( Prep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SU846-3005

P»rMict*fSILVER

HMUtt

8DL

Tttti M116.].

0«t. ll*tt0.050

TWII K11I.J.

0«t. Halt0.20

0

UAftl |ma/L :

1o •

Onfti ;

mo/L

0

Unfttma/L

Tttt: M119.3.

Ott. l!«it0.010

r««ti N122.3.

Ott. I (Aft0.010

r««t> M124.3.

9«t. limit0.20

r«iti NUO.J.

0«t. Lfflft0.010

SODIUM ICP 5V846-6010Anjlytt: M. MO Anitytf* 9«et: 1J.«|-91 Irwtnnmti f9Prep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005

*irw*urJOOIUM

t««jU38.

THALLIUM ICP 5W84C-C010AMlrft: ». JAO Aiulyif* Oar«t 12-fEI-91 imtnMne: f»Prep: FAA OR ICP ACIO DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005

FirwwtcrTHALLIUM

t«»Ut(BOL

TMt: N13L3.

0«C. KaU0.20

Ttsct M134.S.

fi«t. Llnlt0.30

0

Unit*IM/L

Q

unltimo/L

0

Unftimo/L

0

Units 'fPQ/L

0

Unit!mg/L

0

Unit*ma/L

Page 4

II

EMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC. Lab Samplt 10: C127991VANADIUM ICP SW646-6010Aittlytti N. JAO Ar*Lnf» o*C*t 12-W-91 tiutnjMnti IW Tm, M1U.S. 0

Prep: FAA OR ICP ACID DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005f«r«MC«r

VANADIUMftMult

BDLD*t. Unit

0.010Unftt t

mo/L

2INC ICP SW845-6030ttatyst: H. .'AO AnclytU Detti 1|-ril*f InitruMntt Iff T«t: M139.S. 0

Prep; FAA OR ICP ACIO DIGESTION OF AQUEOUS SAMPLES SW846-3005nr««ttr

ZINC*«ult

0.0360«e. Knit

0.020Unit* 1

ma/L tALCOHOLS BY 6C:FID SU846-8015 jAnalytli J, WITH Analyst* Oittt 1«-ffl-9t [ftttruwntt OC/PIO T«ti M90.0. 9 :

•rM«t»rISOBUTYL ALCOHOLMETHANOL •N- BUTYL ALCOHOLCYCLOHEXANONE

••witBDL8DLBDL

JOL '

ott. u«tt5.00.55.0o.s

Unttlmg/Lfl»9Amo/L

VOLATILE ORGANIC* 5W846-8240 !AMlyatt 1. »A«P An«lyv(i ptt«t 14-KI-91 tMtmnrtt: 8C/MI VM Ttsti dSiO.I* 0 !

ftrmrerACETONEBENZENE8RCMOOICHLOROMETHANEBROMOFORMBRCMOMETHANECARBON DI5ULFIDECARBON TETRACHLORIDECHLOROBENZENE

; CHLOROETHANE! CHLOROFORM

CHLOROMETHANE! DIBROHOCHLOROMETHANE;ctS-l,3.DlCHLOROPSOPENE

1,1-DICHLOROETHANE1,2-OICHLOROETHANE

i 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE1,2-OICHLOROPROPANEETHYLBENZENE2-HEXANONEMETHYLENE CHLORIDEMETHYL ETHYL KETONC4-METHYL-2-PENTANONESTYRENE1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANETETRACHLOROETHENETETRAHYDROFURANTOLUENE1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL)TRANS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENEI.M-TRICHLOROETHANE1.1,2-TRICHLOROETHANETRICHLOROETHENEVINYL ACETATEVINYL CHLORIDEXYLENE (TOTAL!

••tuttBOLBDLBDLBOLBDLBDLBDLBOLBOLBDLBDLBOLBDLBOLBDLBDLBDL3200BDLBDLBDLBOLBOLBDLBDL65000BDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDL20000

Btt. If «!t2000

500500500

1COO500500SCO

1000500

1000500500500500500500500

1000500

'10001000

500500500

2500500500500500500500

10001000

_ _500

Unluug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L ;ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lua/LPage 5

II

r53 22.91 :2.*13

ENS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC. Lab Saapl* ID: C127991»«rM*t*r

SURROGATE RECOVERY

DICHLOROETHANE-04TOLUENE-OdBROMOFLUOR03ENZENE

ALSO DETECTED

FTHYL ETHER

tMUlt

10110196

BOL

D«e. limit

5

Wtft»1

-

% Rec% Rac% R*c

uo/LGC/NS SEPARATORY FUNNEL LIQUID-LIQUID EXTRACTION SW349-3S10*n«lytti C. dCSIfkSKl Analysis Oitti 07-FII-91 Tnt: »I3S.4. 9

PtrmttrINITIAL WEIGHT OR VOLUMEFINAL VOLUME

••*ult9651

Dft, l'»lt On Iti imL i

SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC* (BASE/NEUTRAL ACID FRACTIONS) SW846-8270Antlyitt A. ItACSUXN Malytli Oit*: 08*ttl-91 freeruwitt K/*t SVM Tun 0305.3. 0

Prap; GC/HS SEPARATORY FUNNEL LIQUID-LIQUID EXTRACTION SW846-3510Pirawtcr

ACENAPHTHENEACENAPHTHYLENEANTHRACENE6£NZ(A)ANTHRACENEBENZO(A)PYRENEBENZO(B)FLUORANTHENEBENZO(GfH,I}PERYL£.NEBENZO(K)FLUORANTHENEBENZYL ALCOHOLBENZYLBUTYLPHTHALATEBIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANEBIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER3IS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER8IS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE4-BROMOPHENYLPHENYLETHER4-CHLOROANILINE

^2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE4-CHLOROPHENYLPHENYLETHERCHRVSENEDIBENZ(A,H)ANTHRACENEDIBENZOFURAN1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE1,3-OICHLOflOBENZENE1,4OICHLOR08ENZENC3,3'-OICHLORCBENZIDINEDIETHYLPtfTHAWTEOIMETHYLPHTHALATEDI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE2,4-OlNITROTOLUENE2,6-DINITROTOLUENEDI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATEFLUORANTHENEFLUORENEHEXACHLOROBENZENEHEXACHLOROBUTAOIENE

J1EXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE

KMUitBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLSOL8DLBOLBDLBDLBOLBOLBOLBOLBDLBDLBDLBOLBOLBDLBOL15BOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBDL

8tt. LlMft101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010201010101010101010101010

unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L -ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lu«/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Luo/LPage 6

22.91 12:1

IfrrLfifLf•""u1 v>1 ^-/

IIIIIIu- iik|I..1

|*-*

iiILII1

EMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC.F«rM»tcr

HEXACHLOROETHANEINDENO(1,2,3-CO)PYRENEISOPHORONE2-HETHYLNAPHTHALENENAPHTHALENE2-NITROANILINE3-NITROANILINE4-NITROANILINENITROBENZENEN-NITROSO-OIPHENYLAMINEN-NITROSO-OI-N-PRCPYLAMINEPHENANTHRENEPYRENEPYRIOINE1,2,4-TRICHLOR08£NZENEBENZOIC ACID4-CHLORO-3-HETHYLPHENOL '2-CHLOROPHENOL2,4-DlCHLOROPHENOL2,4-OIMETHYLPHENOL4,6-OINITRO-2-METHYLPHENOL2,4-OlNITROPHENOL2-METHYLPHENOL4-METHYLPHENOL2-NITROPKENOL4-NITROPHENOLPENTACHLOROPHENOLPHENOL2,4,5-TRKHLOROPHENOL2,4,6-TRKHLOROPHENOL

SURROGATE RECOVERY

2-FLUOROPHENOLPHENOL-05NITROBENZENE-052-FLUOROBIPHENYL2,4,6-TRIBROMOPHENOLTE3PHENYL-D14*Poor Mrrogrt* rtcmr/ du« to stapli wtr/x.

ALKALINITY TOTAL EPA 310.1AMlritl «. TftLJUlf Aiulytt* D«tif 1l-ffS*91

MrmttrALKALINITY

CHLORIDE SN 407AAralyte: L. OtAt AMly«lt OMtt 15-m- l

^•rMMtccCHLORIDE

Iftttult

BOLBOLBOLBOLEST8BOLBOLBOLBDLBOLBOLBOLBOLBDLSDLBOLBOLBDL 'BDLBOLBOLBDLBDLBOLBDLBDLBOLBDLBOLBOL .

0441338262$8

~

iMUll910

•wuti41

ab Sample I0«t. Unit

101010101050505010101010105010501010101050501010105050101010

TMtt G40S.2.0*t, Ltalt

4

TMt: QlOZ.i.Off. Llflfl

1,0

0: C127991Unltf

U9/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L !ug/L iug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L ;ug/Lug/Lug/L .ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

U9/L

X Rtc% Rtc 'X RtcX RtcX RtcX Rec

0Unit*

mo/L

0Unlu

mg/L

Page 7

ENS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC.SULFATE TURSIDIMETRIC EPA 375.4M»ly*ti L. OIAZ Analyst* Olttl iS-Ffl-fl

SULFATE "PW* " BOL ***Ul

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND EPA 405.1Analyst! 9. tI«LU-«t!*£IWJI An&ly*U Dit«: tt-Pfl-91

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN CEMANoT*' 53

CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (LOW LEVEL) EPA 410.2Aftalytti C. 9KICNAI Anilyfil Otffi OI'HI*91

•aramt'tr «MU1CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 390

PHOSPHORUS EPA 365.2AMtysti P. •UflLA-mxeMAN Anatyvf* Satti 20-'tl*91

i Paramstar fttsulfPHOSPHORUS 0.40

AMMONIA DISTILLATION EPA 350.3Analysts 9. RrNELU-IIIXflUUN Analysts 9«tti ie»m-t1

••rarattr AttuLtINITIAL WEIGHT OR VOLUME 200FINAL VOLUME 200

AMMONIA NITROGEN EPA 350.3AMty*tt 0. tlNfLU-ltfteXNAN Analml* 9*t»: 19*Pfl-91Prep: AMMONIA DISTILLATION EPA 350.3

ftrantttr RtsultNITROGEN. AMMONIA 30

KJELDAHL NITROGEN TOTAL (TKN) EPA 351.3Anatytt: 0. llHfLU-f tEKflNAM • Analytft Oitti 1i*m-91

Mramttr VHultHITWEM. KJELDAHL 23

. . . I«fl»l« ConmntAStmpJt splits v«r« proper// pr«erwrf it CT5 i«6s. >< wrJterf cofiservtd ifter tAe tddttt.on of pre5erwt//ey compared ttf tA*00t 5e7otif Detection limit1ST £stifMt*d Vilut

Prellnlnary Certificate :

Lab Sanple ID: C127991

Ttat: 01CS.3. 00*f> tfalt Untts ;

5 "iw/L !

T«tt: 8001. i. 0 i: 0tt. U*tt unit*

24 BW/L

r«ti 8301.2. 0e 9«t. Llnft unit*

40 IM/L

T«ti M24.1. 0fl«t!, Lfnfc Units

i 0.05 mo/L

Ttati »20S.4* 00«C. tfffU Unit*

nLmL

Ttatl 6203.4. 0

Bat. llutt Units0.5 : mo/L '

1Tt*et C202.4. 00«t. If n't Unlit j|

5 mo/I !lf

•o/or cAan^e vjfunprtserved splits.

Last Page 3

11 APPENDIX D

L Analytical Results for Air Stripping Test

LL

ILIL

C E R T I F I C A T E O F A N A L Y S I Srr

IT.r.r

i.r

S«nHc« location itteiEMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC. 25-F1319 MARQUETTE DRIVE. ~c5JROHEOVILLE, IL 60441 04-M;(708)378-1600 —— *T*

05-M

iv«d Lib (0EB-91 C12841Iil«tt PO NuiiMr«-91 WI.PROJECT-HAGFN...'t« Strict M

fltR-91 25-FEB-9I

••port T# Bill TO

CHEMICAL WASTE JUANAGEMENT, INC CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC

GENEVA RESEARCH CENTER GENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUE 1950 S 8ATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134 GENEVA, IL 60134

Smplt DtscrtptfonPROJECT: STATE OF WISCONSIN PROJECT-HAGEN FARMSAMPLE 10.: 052*02-25-91-00

IISII1 1

II[II!1.

I i

I '}

r VOLATILE OR6ANICS SW845-8240Analyst: S. ftrtttY Analysis Oat«r 28-FCI-91 fnfcrunnt: GC/N* VGA T«t: 0510.3. 0

•araJMttrACETONEBENZENECHLOROBENZENEDIBROHOCHLOROMETHANEETHYLBENZENEMETHYLENE CHLORIDEMETHYL ETHYL KETONETETRAHYDROFURANTOLUENE1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL)VINYL CHLORIDEXYLENE (TOTAL*ETHYL ETHER

ARROGATE RECOVERYOICHLOROETHANE-04

\ TOLUENE-08'SBROMOFLUOROBENZENE

1- 1i!r

RttuttBOL57BOLBDLBDLBOLBDL* 52000BOLBDL11* 1100010

9510089

Dot. Limit20

55555

105000

55

102500

5

Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

% RecX Recr. Recwquantitite<3 from I:SQQ aiiutfon tnilyzed on 3/1/91.

\.* See Hote for PirsaieterBDL Belo* Detection Unit

SiffpU Cemnts

uality Assurance Officer: Last Page 1

ITITirITHn

O F A N A

Sarvfca LocationEMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES,1319 MARQUETTE DRIVEROMEOVILLE, IL 60441*(708)378*1600

INC. 25-FPB-91Co^uta

04-MAR-91'Hntod

05-MAR-91

Lib (0Cl?fldi?PO

WI.PROJFCT.HAGFN

2S-FEB-91

••port TO

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT,WENOY MOUCHEGENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134

Hit To

INC CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. INCACCOUNTINGGENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134

S«npt« DescriptionPROJECT: STATE OF WISCONSIN PROJECT-HAGEN FARMSAMPLE ID.: 059-02-25*91*00

ALCOHOLS BY GC;FID SW846-8015•I"

II11uII

Analyit: j. SHITN AnatysU Data: 01-MAK-91 rnatn«antr GC/FtD Taat: 0490.0. 0Pararwttr

ISOBUTYL ALCOHOLMETHANOLN-BUTYL ALCOHOLCYCLOHEXANONE

RaaultBDLBDLBOLBDL

Oat. Lfarit2.5

0.502.5

0.25

Unitsmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmo/L

Saoplt ComantaBOL Below Detection Limit

IIiI -Quality Assurance Officer: Last Page 1

C t K r 1 F I C A r E OF A N A L Y S I S

EMS1319ROME(708

Sarvlca Location RtciHERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC. 25*F

MARQUETTE DRIVE. — c£jOVILLE, IL 60441 04-K)378-1600 —— BS

05-K

Hvtd Lab 10EB-91 CI28413»lata *0 NuttarAR-9L WI.PROJECT-HAGFM ...ittd S«f«t«dAR-91 25-FEB-91

•.•port To nit To

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCWENOY MOUCHE ACCOUNTINGGENEVA RESEARCH CENTER GENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUE 1950 S BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134 GENEVA, IL 60134

Sanpla DaacrfptfonPROJECT: STATE OF WISCONSIN PROOECT-HAGEN FARMSAMPLE 10.: 053-02-25-91-15

VOUTILE ORSANICS SW846-8240•1iiiiIIT

ft'• I

n1

r'n

Analyst: S. WSSiV Analyala Data: ZA-«t-9tParantar

ACETONEBENZENECHLOR06ENZENEDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANEETHYLBENZENEMETHYLENE CHLORIDEMETHYL ETHYL KETONETETRAHYDROFURANTOLUENE1,2-OICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL)VINYL CHLORIDEXYLENE (TOTAL)ETHYL ETHER

ARROGATE RECOVERY

DICHLOROETHANE-04TOLUENE-08BROMOFLUOROBENZENE

rnatruaants GC/MS VDAftaautt

BOLBOLBOLBDLBOLBOLBOL* 46000BOLBDLBOL330BOL

9610095

Taats 03 t 0.3.Oat. Limit

2055555

105000

55

1055

0Unit*

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LugAug/L

% RecX Rec% Rec

il 'Compound quantitated from 1:500 dilution analyzed on 3/1/91.

5*e Note for ParameterBelow Detection Limit

lt Coananta

Quality Assurance Officer: Last Page I

ffIfIfIf:

S«rvfc« LocationEMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC.1319 MARQUETTE DRIVE-ROMEOVILLE, IL 60441(708)378-1600

Itcafvfld_^5-FEB-91

ConpUtt04-MAR-91

Prtntvd_05-MAR-91

t«D 10

C128414PO Munwr

WI.PROJECf-HAGEN....S«rrctw>

25-FEB-91

••port re •III To


INC CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCACCOUNTINGGENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134

"ISwptt OtteHptlon

PROJECT: STATE OF WISCONSIN PROJECT-HAGEN FARMSAMPLE ID.: 060-02-25-91-30

/ALCOHOLS BY 6C:FID SW846-8015Analyst: J. WITN Analysis Oatt: 01-NAR-91 InstruMnt: GC/FIO Ttst: 0490.0. 0

I • »arafl»tar1 ISOBUTYL ALCOHOLIf METHANOLJl N-BUTYL ALCOHOL1 CYCLOHEXANONE

RMUlt

BDL60LBOLBDL

Ott. Limit2.5

0.502.5

0.25

Unitsmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lma/L

f

BDL Below Detection LimitSMplt ClMSHMtt

w

11ILILIL'I,uality Assurance Officer:ii A... a_ Last Page 1

rrifITIT,LfH

Sarvfea Lee* t IonEMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC.1319 MARQUETTE DRIVEROMEOVILLE, IL 60441*(708)373*1600

••port To


PROJECT: STATE OF WISCONSINSAMPLE 10.: 054-02*25-91*30

tflctivtd Lab ID25-FEH-91 CI28415

Co-*Ut- PO Nu-ear04-MAR-9I VI. PROJECT-HAGEN. . .

Print* Smplad05-MAR-9I 25-FEB-91

IfU Tft


Sampta DescriptionPROJECT-HAGEN FARM

IV

VOLATILE ORfiANICS SW846-82401

llII"1ll

Analyst! f. WiSET Analysis Data: 28-FCI-91 rnstruvantt GC/Mt VGU T««t: 0510.3. 0Paraaatar

ACETONEBENZENECHLOROBENZENEDI6ROMOCHLOROMETHANEETHYLBENZENEMETHYLENE CHLORIDEMETHYL ETHYL KETONETETRAHYDROFURANTOLUENE1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL)VINYL CHLORIDEXYLENE (TOTAL)ETHYL ETHER

(ARROGATE RECOVERYii1

i :OICHLOROETHANE-D4TOLUENE-08BROMOFLUOROBENZENE

Rasult8DLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDLBDL .* 39000BDLBDLBDL27BDL

88100107

Ott. Liait2055555

105000

55

1055

Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

% RecX Rec% Rec

•Compound quantitated froa 2:500 dilution analyzed on 3/1/91.

_*

'BOLSee to ft? for PanmeterBelow Detection Limit

SMpla C u

ILi-uality Assurance Officer; Last Page 1

c n i i r i U A I t OF A N A L Y S I S

irITifIT

S«rv*c« locationEMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC.1319 MARQUETTE DRIVE.ROMEOVRLE, IL 60441(708)378-1600

2S-FEB-91

04-MAR-91Print*

OS-MAR-91

L4b 10C128416PO

WLPROJECT.HAGFN

25-FEB-91Ktport To


•ill TO


SirnpU DwcrfptfonPROJECT: STATE OF WISCONSIN PROJECT-HAGEN FARMSAMPLE 10.: 061-02-25*91-60

. ALCOHOLS BY 6C;FID SW846-8015]T Anilyit: J. SMITH Araly*fi 0«tt: 01-MU-91 rmtniMnt: 6C/FfD Ttst: 0490.0. 0

PtCMMttr

ISOBUTYL ALCOHOLMETHANOLN-BUTYL ALCOHOLCYCLOHEXANONE

KnultBOLBDLBDLBDL

0«t. Umit2.5

0.502.5

0.25

Units

ma/L.

BDL Be Jew Detection Limit

§ J Quality Assurance Officer: ..; -.. O Last Page 1

C E R T I F I C A T E O F A N A L Y S I S

ifir

Sarvfca LocationEMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES. INC.1319 MARQUETTE DRIVEROMEOVILLE, IL 60441*(708)378-1600

25-FEB-91

04-MAR-91

05-MAR-91

L*D (0

-C1284j7_

Wl.PROJECT.MftFM

25-FEB.91

•apart To

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCWENDY MOUCHEGENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134

IfU To

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCACCOUNTINGGENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134

Stapla ottcrfptlonPROJECT: STATE OF WISCONSIN PROJECT-HAGEN FARMSAMPLE ID.: 055-02-25-91-60

iiuif

' ivwti *fcfc vnwnn*v<* wwe^v-w*^vAnalyst: S. IDSStT Anatysft Oatat 28-FCI-91

•araaatarACETONE -BENZENECHLOROBENZENEDIBROMOCHLOROMETHANEETHYLBENZENEMETHYLENE CHLORIDEMETHYL ETHYL KETONETETRAHYDROFURANTOLUENE1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL)VINYL CHLORIDEXYLENE (TOTAL)ETHYL ETHER

VitlRROGATE RECOVERY

•' OICHLOROETHANE-04TOLUENE-08

1 8ROMOFLUOROBENZENE

tnstnaajnt: GC/MS VM•aault

BOLBDLBDLBOLBOLBOLBDL* 36000BDLBDLBDL19BDL

93102101

Tast: 0510.3.Dat. Lfftft

2055555

105000

55

1055

0Units

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

% Rec% Rec% Rec

r * See Note for ParameterI BDL Below Detection Unit

Saapia Coaawu*

-Quality Assurance Officer: .., C.Q Last Page 1

C E R T l T l i A T E O F A N A L Y S I Siririrnir

Sorvfco LocationEMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES, INC.1319 MARQUETTE DRIVE.ROMEOVILLE, II 60441(708)378-1600

25-FFB-91Co^toto

04-MAR-91Prlntod

05-MAR-91

L«O IDC129418

WI.PROJECT-HAGEN

25-FEB-91Ktport To

CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT,WENDY MOUCHEGENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134

•III TO

INC CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. INCACCOUNTINGGENEVA RESEARCH CENTER1950 S BATAVIA AVENUEGENEVA, IL 60134

SampU OMcrlptlonPROJECT: STATE OF WISCONSIN PROJECT-HAGEN FARMSAMPLE ID.: 062-02*25-91-90

ALCOHOLS BY GC:F!D SM846-8015)irii

T- Anolyit: J. WITH ArulytU 0»tti 01-MAR-91 InttnMnt: GC/PtO T«t: 0490.0. 0

ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL """""METHANOLN-BUTYL ALCOHOLCYCLOHEXANONE

ftMUltBDLBOLBDLBDL

Dot. Unit2.5

0.502.5

0.25

Unitsn»9/Ln»9/Lmg/Lma/L

SOL Below Detection LimitSmplo Comnt*

uallty Assurance Officer: . t5-S. .0. Last Page 1

trITiri'iLI

Sorvfco LocationEMS HERITAGE LABORATORIES,1319 MARQUETTE DRIVEROMEOVILLE, IL 60441*(708)378-1600

INC.Rtcolvod

15-FEB-91Ceaptota

04-MAR-91

05-MAR-91

lab toC128419W Nuitar

WTPROJECT-HAGEN

25-FEB-9I••port To


•III TO


Sanpla OtccrfptlonPROJECT: STATE OF WISCONSIN PROJECT-HAGEN FARMSAMPLE 10.: 056-02*25-91-90

H.1 1

VOLATILE OR6ANICS SV840-8240Analyst: S. lUSStr Amly»f« Oatar 28*FEI-91 TnttruMnt: CC/Mf VGA T«fft: 0510.3. 0

•arawtarACETONEBENZENECHLOR08ENZENEOIBROMOCHLOROMETHANEETHYLBENZENEMETHYLENE CHLORIDEMETHYL ETHYL KETONETETRAHYDROFURANTOLUENE1,2-OICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL)VINYL CHLORIDEXYLENE (TOTAL)ETHYL ETHER:<(RROGATE RECOVERY

DICHLOROETHANE-04TOLUENE-08BROMOFLUOROBENZENE

••suitBDLBOLBOLBDLBDLBOLBOL* 31000BDLBDLBDL12BDL

•

91104101

Oat. Limit20555551025551055

Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L -ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

% RecX Rec% Rec

iIII

|| 'Compound quintitited from 1:500 dilution Milyzed on 3/1/91

-* See Note for Ptrimeter

•BDL Below Detection Unit

Ljjuallty Assurance Officer: Last Page I

i

If

LILILI

LI1 1 APPENDIX E

^ Soil Permeability Measurements

ILILILILit

IfIfIfIfilIlv

UUILn.I.ILILILILi

Data: March 15.1991

. To: Alan UWendy Mouche

From: • Paul Lear

SUBJECT: Parmaablllty for Hagan Farm Sampla

Parmeablllty measurements were obtained In trfpllcata for tha Hagen Farm sample I receivedfrom Wendy Mouche. The methodology used for the permeability tasting it contained In Section 2.8of USEPA SW-846 Method 9100. . <

The permeability of the Hagan Farm material as determined by the methodjls In the range ofI0*cm/s. Attached are data tables showing thraa permeability measurements for/each of the threereplicates.

IfITITii

UI

H

ILH

Parmaafcimy Maaaufamacila tef Sampla- Hagati Fann * Sampla

S*mp*aHa(gh((ein)

Sampla Otamatar (em)

S*mplaAra«(cm*2)

13,71

7.15

40.18

TlflM

(mta|

0.000.501.001.50£00ZSO

BurattaAPraaaura

(P^

aaiaat20.120.120120.1

BurattaARaadlng

(mgMM746.4641OO

SuraOaAChang*(mumai)

1.600014000140001400014000

8uratt»BPraaaura

(P*0

194194194194194194

BuraftalRaadlng

(mg12411.71041046.16.4

BunrttaBChang*(mUmln)

1.60001.80001.6000140001.4000

ParmaabAKy (cm/a)

14200

1.19CO4

Avaf*g«n(paQ

Avaraga Q (mUmin)

WarmaabOKy (em/a)

0.7700

1.04E04

Avarag«h(paO

1.10

Tlma

(min)

0.001.002403.004.005.00

BurattaAPraaaur*

(P«Q

20.120.1aai20.120.120.1

BurattaARaadlng

(mg847.0749.79.410.1

BurattaAChang*(mUmtn)

0.900004000040000.70000.7000

BurattaBPraaaura

(pal)

19419419419419.5194

BurattaBRaadlng

(mg1S.91541441341Z812.0

BurattaBChang*(mUmin)

0.80000.70000.70000.80000.8000

0.60

o.s0.60.60.6060.6

ILILIL

Tim*

(mtn)

0.000.501.001.50

2.00£50

- • Buratt*APraaaur*

(P*)

20.120.020.120.120.120.1

BurattaARaadlng

(mg

7464M1031141X1

One* AChang*(mLftnai)

140001JOOO140001JOOO1JOOO

Buratt*BPraaaur*

(P*0

184184184184184184

BurattaBRaadlng

(mg -

15.014.113412411.410J

BurattaBChanga(mUmki)

1.60001.60002.00001.60001.6000

Avaraga Q (mUmtn)

ParmaabUlty (em/a)

Avaraga PannaabOHy (cm/a)

1.6000

9.17&08

Av*n0ah(paO

161.51.81.61.61.6

U O b> U O OID ID <0 « tO M

U.

d d d d d

«t«l«*f »0o> OY n « of D>

I

II

q p q O q qo> e» o» a» e» *

3 s H 3I?s N- « If!

I rI tI II *1 1

I

«o d d d d

235333 I I

d - ri » K !f

mi

M* DIIIa a.

titttttltiI f

SSSSS3 i

I

*1 I .G

I

8S8S88d o ~ ~ ft clua A*sH

Ia.t*

r i __ J

r r

PP88

o o

1 f .8 8 8 8 S 8

i

S * ft88 Bl

t i

seccesm

Besses

II5II;

w w u u in IN

8

P P P r4 P PPP

I1

f

I I

8 .-« ajj a g

o o o o o o I>

*7

Issssss

p O O O -»8

I

P P P P

I i

u u o u b b p p o p p pM IN in in in in

IfIf

i;hi . APPENDIX F

I.VLLLLLLi

Combined Sieve/Hydrometer Analysts

rMarch 21. 1991

iii.hunUu

uILILILILn

Ms. Wendy MoucheChemical Waste Management1950 S. Batavia AvenueGeneva. IL 60134

RE: Grain Size Distribution Analysis on Soil Sample — STS Project No. 26804

Dear Ms. Mouche:

Please find attached three (3) copies of laboratory test data pertaining to the abovereferenced testing program. In accordance with your instructions, a combinedsieve/hydrometer analysis was performed on a sample delivered to our Nonhbrook testingfacility. The procedures followed ASTM D-422 for panicle size analysis of soils.Incorporated into the test procedure were specific sieves assigned by you.

We are pleased to have had the opportunity to be of service to you.

If you have any questions pertaining to the test data or if we may be of assistance toyou in any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully.

STS CONSULTANTS. LTD.

William P. QuinnLaboratory Manage

Irew E. HaubeK PIEPrincipal Engineer

WPQ/ngt/132.31

encl.

UConsulting Engineers

111 Pfinosttn ftoadNorthorook. Illinois 6006270S-Z72.W20/FU 70&4M.2721

ITUIT

STS CONSULTANTS, LTD.

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (ASTM D 422)

Project : CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENTBoring/Source:Sample Number: 1Depth (feet): -USCS Classification: (SM)Soil Description t FINE TO COARSE SAND,LITTLE SILT,TRACE FINE

GRAVEL——BROWN

STS Job No. : 26804Date i 3-20-91LL: - PL: - pi*WCs - SP.GR.: 2.65 Es

irnuUHir

SIEVE ANALYSIS —

SAMPLE WEIGHT: 103.06 GRAMS

SIEVESIZE

3/8"14• 10118135• 60• 140• 270

WEIGHTRETAINED

0.003,76

16.1010.5418.8424.76

9.641.32

PER CENTRETAINED

0.003 .65

15.6210.2318.2824.02

9.351.28

PER CENTPASSING

100.0096.3580.7370.5052.2228.2018.6417.56

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS —

HYDROMETER SAMPLE WEIGHT:

TEMPERATURECENTIGRADE

22.522.522.522.522.522.522.522.522.524.022.5

52.29 GRAMS

I ;I I11I LILIL

ELAPSEDTIME

0.250.501.002.005.00

15.0030.0060.00

120.00400.00

4229.00

ACTUALREADING

16.0015.5013.5012.0011.0010.008.508.007.506.506.50

ADJUSTREADING

11.5011.009.007.506.505.504.003.503.002.002.00

GRAINSIZE

0.09800.06950.04970.03550.02260.01310.00930.00660.00470.00250.0008

PER CENTFINER

17.7616.9913.9011.5910.048.506.185.414.633.093.09

II

IfIT STS Consultant! Ltd.

ST3 CONSULTflNTS LTD-PROJECT i ChErtlCflL WflSTEeO*lNC/SOl*CE:SAfiPLE NUHBERi 1DEPTH CfEET) iUSCS CLASSIFICATIONSOIL OeSCftJPTIGN i

GRflIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (flSTfl 0 422)STS JOB NO. i 26804

PL:

HNE TO COflRSE £flN04.ITTLE SILT.TRflCE FINECRflVEL—8ROMN

PI*2.65 EST.

O

HUiiU

inILILILii

IfU

niionj. APPENDIX G

i - Analytical Results for Soil Fraction•1 Hagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Study

ILLLILIL!L

APPENDIX Q

HAGEN FARM SOIL BIODEQRADATION STUDY. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SOIL FRACTION(all units hi rng/kg wet weight except es noted)

1

Cyanide

OriginalSol

<0.25

PCBs and Pestlcldas

Alpha BHCBeta-BHCDclta-BHCGamma -BHC (Llndane)HeptachlorAldrinHeptachlor EpoxldeEndosulfan 1Dieldrin4.4'-DDEEndrinEndosulfan II4,4'-DDDEndosulfan Sulfate4,4'-DDTMeihoxychlorEndrin KetoneAlpha -chlordaneGamma-chlordaneToxaphenePCB Arochlor 1016PCB Arochlor 1221PCB ArocNor 1232PCB Arochlor 1242PCB Arochlor 1246PCB Arochlor 1254PCB Arochlor 1260

< 0.006<0.008< 0.008< 0.006< 0.008<0.008< 0.008<0.008<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.016<o.oe

< 0.0 16<0.08<0-08<0.16<0.08<0.06<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.16

InitialReactor

Conditions

<0.26

Day 12

Reactor1

<0.2S

Reactor2

<0.26

Reactor3

<0.25

Reactor4

<0.2S

Day 26

Reactor1

<0.25

Reactor2

<0.25

Reaetcf3

<0.2S

Reactor4

<0.2S•

< 0.008<0-008<0.008<0.008<0.008< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008<0.016< 0.01 6<0.016<0.016<0-016<0.016<0.016<0.08

<0.016<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.16

<0.008< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008<o.ooe<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.016<0,016< 0,0 16<0.08

<0.016<0.08<0.08<O.I6<o.oe<0.08<0.08<0.08<o.oe<0.16<0.16

<0.008<0.008<0.008<0.008<o.ooa< 0.006< 0.008<0.008<0.016< 0.01 6<0.016< 0.01 6<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.08

<0.016<0.08<o.oa<0.16<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.16

<0.008<0.008<0.008< 0.006< 0.006< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008<0.016<0.016< 0.0 16<0.016< 0.0 16<0.016<0.016<0.08

< 0.0 16<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.08<0.08<o.oe<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.16

<0.008< 0.008<0.008<0.008<0.008< 0.008< 0.008<O.OOB< 0.01 6<0.016<0.016<0.016< 0.0 16<0.016<0.016<0.08

<0.016<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.16

<0.008<0.008<0.006<0.008< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008<0.008<0.016< 0.0 16<0.016< 0.01 6<0.016<0.016

. <0.016<0.08

<0.016<O.OB<0.08<0.16<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<o.oa<0.16<0.16

<0.008< 0.000<0.008<0.008< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008<0.008< 0.01 6< 0.01 6<0.016<0.016< 0.01 6< 0.01 6<0.016<0.08

< 0.01 6<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.16

<0.008<0.008< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008< 0.008<0.008< 0.008< 0.01 6<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.016<0.08

<0.016<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0,08<0-16<0.16

<0.008<0.008<0.008<0.008<0.008<0.008< 0.008<o.ooa<0.016<0.016<0.016< 0.0 16<0.016< 0.0 16< 0.0 16<0.08

< 0.0 16<0.08<o.oe<0.16<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.08<0.16<0.16

APPENDIX G (continued)HAGEN FARM SOIL BIODEGRADATION STUDYANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SOIL FRACTION(all units In mg/kg wet weight except as noted)

" .' '•'•-..••: :-^-yr:-Alcohols

Isobutyl AlcoholMethanolN-butyl AlcoholCyclohexanone

OriginalSoil b

NANANANA

InitialReactor •

Condition. :.•'.',. •;•:::;•.. ••::•::•.:•:;;•:;.•: • ; ' • '

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

• - . . . . . • ; " Day:;l2;::;v.;W'. V . - -:''ir'-£>

Reactor4:-i-1 ;;'":

<5.0<O.S<5.0<0.5

Reactor'-/.- 2, : : : •<; . • ;

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor•'VS 3-^i-

<6,0<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor:^h=4 :;.i

<5.0<0,5<5.0<0.5

V Day 26

Reactor";;i:.v..;,1 : ,

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor2

<S.O<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor3

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor4

<S.O<0.5<5.0<0.5

NA ' Not Analyzed

i"pl^ ^™ ^ ^ ^ F I ___ ' _1____ ' *.L 1

APPENDIX Q (continued) HAGEN FARM SOIL BIODEGRADATION STUDY, ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SOIL FRACTION(all units In mg/kg wet weight except as noted)

Volatile Organic* U/g/koj

AcetoneBenzeneBromodicNoromethaneBromolormBromomethaneCarbon DisulfideCarbon TetrachlorideCNorobenzeneChloroethaneChloroformChloromethaneDibromochloromethaneCis-1.3-Dichloropropene1 . 1 -Dichloroethane1,2-DichlofOfl thane1.1 -Dicnloroethene1,2-DichloropropaneEthylbenzene2 -Hoc a noneMethylene CNorideMethyl Ethyl Ketone4-Methyl-2-PentanoneStyrene1.1,2.2-TetrachloroethaneTetrachloroetheneTetrahydrofuranToluene1 .2-Dichloroethene (Total)Tran$-1,3-Dichloropropene1.1.1-Trichloroethane1 .1 ,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneVinyl AcetateVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)Ethyl'Ether

OriginalSon

70<6<6<6

<11<6<6<6<6<6

<11<6<6<6<6<6<6<6

<11<6

<11<11<6<6<6

<2B<6<6<6<6<6<6

<11<11<6<5

MtJal: Reactor

. Condition!

23'<S<B<6

<10<s<5<S

<10<B

<10<5<6<5<5<5<B<B

<106

16'<1O

<B<B<B78<5<5<B<B<6<5

< 10<10

<B<S

Day 12

Reactor1

<20<B<5<B

<10<5<5<5

<10<5

<10<B<B<B<6<6<B<B

<10<6

<10<10<5<6<6

<2S<B<B<B<5<B<B

<10<10<5

<10

Reactor2

<20<B<B<B

<10<5<5<6

<10<B

<10<B<B<B<5<B<5<6

<10<6

< 10< 10<B<6<S

<25<5<B<B<B<B<6

<10< 10<s

<10

Reactor3

<20<6<B<5

<10<6<6<B

<10<6

<10<B<6<5<5<6<6<6

<10<6

< 10<10<s<s<6

<26<6<6<6<S<B<B

<10<10<5

<10

Reactor4 : • :

<20<B<5<6

<10<6<5<6

<10<5

<10<B<5<5<6<B<B<B

<10<5

< 10<10<s<B<6

<2S<B<5<B<6<6<6

< 10<10<B

<10

Day 26

Reactor1

<20<5<6<5

<10<6<6<5

<10<5

<10<5<5<6<6<B<B<B

<10<B

< 10<10<B<5<6

<10<B<5<B<B<5<5

<10<10<B<6

Reactor2

<20<6<5<B

<10<5<S<6

<10<6

<10<5<B<6<6<5<B<B

<10<B

< 10<10<5<S<S

<10<B<B<B<5<5<B

<10< 10<5<B

Reactor3

<20<B<B<6

<10<5<B<6

<10<B

<10<B<5<S<6<B<5<6

<10a

<10<10

<B<6<S

<10<6<B<B<5<S<5

<10< 10<6<S

Reactor4

<20<S<B<S

<10<5<S<5

<10<B

<10<B<B<S<B<B<B<6

<10<5

< 10< 10<5<S<6

<10<s<B<6<S<s<6

<10< 10<6<B

Also detected in blank

APPENDIX G (continued)HAGEN FARM SOIL BIODEGRADATION STUDY. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SOIL FRACTION

(all units In mg/kg wet weight except as noted)

Saml-VoJetNe Organic* U/g/kgl

AcenaphtheneAcenaphthyteneAnthraceneBenz(A) AnthraceneBeruolAlPyreneBenzolBIFluorantheneBeruo(G.H,l)PeryleneBenzo(K (FluorantheneBenzyl AlcoholBerurylbutylphthalateBis(2-ChloroethoxylMethaneBis(2-Chloroethyl)EtherBis(2-Chloroisopropyl)EtherBis(2-Ethylnexyl)Phthalate4 -Bromopheny Ipheny lether4-Chloroaniline2-Chloronaphthalene4 -ChlorophenylphenyletherChryseneDibenz(A,H)AnthraceneOibenzoturan1 ,2-Dichloroberuene1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene1 .4-Dichlorobenzene3,3*-DichlorobenzidineDiethylphthalateDimethylphihalateDi-n-butylphthalate2,4 -Dinitro toluene2.6-OinitrotolueneDi-n-octylphthalateFluorantheneFluorene

OriginalSoil

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

360<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<660<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

InitialReactor

CoodlUont

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<660<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

Day 12

Reactor1

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<660<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

Reactor2

O30<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

. <33Q<330<330<330O30<330<330<330<330<660<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

Reactor>:••. 3

O30O30<330O30<330O30<330<330<330<330<330O30<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330O30<330<330<660<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

Reactor :4^ ;:. :

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330O30<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330O30<330<330<330<660O3O-O30<330<330O30O30<330<330

Day 26

Reactor1

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<660

— -O30<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

Reactor2

<330030<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<660<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

Reactor3

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<660<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

Reactor4

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330030O30<330030O30O30O30<330<330<660O30O30<330<330<330O30<330<330

APPENDIX Q (continued)HAGEN FARM SOIL BIODEGRADATION STUDY, ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SOIL FRACTION


OriginalSoil

,: > • • ' : / .

InitialRaactor

Condition*

•;• ;*.':;••••:••, Day 12 • v ..' \y ' i .'Reactor

1Raactor

; 2 /jRaactor

3Raactor

V 4 J',

Day 26

Raactor1

Raactor2

Raactor3

Raactor4

Saml-VolatNa Oroantcs 0/Q/kg) (CONTINUED)

HaxachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclopentadieneHexachloroethaneIndenod ,2,3-CDlPyreneIsophorone2 -MethylnaphthateneNaphthalene2-Nitroaniline3-Nitroaniline4-NitroanilirwNitrobenzeneN-nitroso-diphenylamineN-nitroso-di n-propylaminePhenanthrenePyrenePyridine1 ,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneBenzoic Acid4-Chloro-3-methylphenol2-Chlorophenol2,4 -Dichlorophenol2. 4 -Dimethyl phenol4.6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol2,4-Dinitrophenol2 -Methy (phenol4-Methylphenol2-Nitrophenol4-NilrophenolPentachlorophenolPhenol2,4 , 5-Trichlorophenol2 ,4 ,*6 -Trichlor ophenol ,

Total Solids (%)

<330030O30<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

92

<330<330030<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1GOO<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

83

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

87

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

89

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

88

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

89

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

85

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

83

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

84

<330<330<330<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<1600<330<330<330<330<330

<1600<330

<1600<330<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330<330<330

<1600<1600<330

<1600<330

85

APPENDIX G (continued)HAGEN FARM SOIL BIODEGRADATION STUDY, ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SOIL FRACTION


M*tals

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

Phosphorus

KJaktahl Nitrogen

TOC (dry weight basis)

pH (units)

Ammonia Nitrogen

CEC (mcq/IOOg dry weight)

Origins!SoU

3000<2.0<2.0

200.250.88

68,0005.02.27.3

6,5003.4

35,000180

<0.106.7

<10<1

<0.20240

<4.01415

99

NA

15.300

6.3

6.9

2.7

InitialReactor

Condition*

1300<1.0

1.16.6

<0.20<0.407.500

4.62.74.8590

<4.029,000

170<0.1

6.8250

<1.0<1.0

140<4.0<208.9

110

<110

31.900

NA

13

NA

Day 12

Reactor1

870<101.9

0.31<0.20<0.407,600

4.5<2.0

3.74,100<4.0

67,000160

<0.103.1300

<1.0<1.0

150<4.0<209.6

79

<67

13.000

NA

NA

NA

Reactor2

610<10<2.00.59

<0.20<0.407.700

3.6<2.0

5.23.700<4.0

40.000130

<0.102.4

<10<1.0<1.0160

<4.0<209.4

92

<6

21,751

NA

NA

NA

Reactor. 3 - . :

610<10

<2.00.68

<0.20<0.406.400

3.5<2.0

4.33.900<4.0

39,000140

<0.102.9

<10<1.0<1.0120

<4.0<209.1

96

<34

18,550

NA

NA

NA

Reactor. . : -4 - ^--

660<101.2

0.59<0.20<0.407.000

4.3<2.0

4.44,200<4.0

48.000160

<0.103.2

<10<1,0<1.0130

<4.0<20

12

96

<6

3,800

NA

NA

NA

Day 26

Reactor1

1.900<10

<1.011

<0.20<0.406,500

4.2<2.0

4.7640

<4.038.000

160<0.1

7.3350

<1.0<1.0200

<4.0<209.2

96

<110

6.000

NA

2.7

NA

Reector2

1,600<1.0<1.0

9.6<0.20<0.406.800

5.S4.05.6940

1440,000

160<0.1

12250

<1.0<1.0

150<4.0

2423

73

<110

19.000

NA

3.2

NA

Reactor3

1.600<1.0

1.27.8

0.21<0.406.100

4.92.46.3650

<4.022,000

120<0,1

6.8240

<1.0<1.0

140<4.0<20

10

100

<110

46,000

NA

19

NA

Reactor4

3,7001.12.016

0.24<0.4011,000

8.73.612

920<4.0

60,000310

<0.113

610<1.0<1.0250

<4.0<20

17

110

<110

43.200

NA

16

NA

NA Not Analyzed

iririrLI

1

LIAPPENDIX H

1 1 Analytical Results for Liquid Fraction* *- Hagen Farm Soil Biodegradation Study

I LIILLILIL

APPENDIX HHAQEN FARM SON. BIODEQRADATION STUDY. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LIQUID FRACTION

(all units In mg/L axcept M notadl

Cyanlda

PCB* and Pestlddat

Alpha-BHCBcta-BHCDclta-BHCGamma-BHC (Lindane)HeptachlorAldrinHeptachlor EpoxideEndosulfan 1Dieldrin4,4'-ODEEndrinEndosulfan II4,4'-DDDEndosulfan Sulfate4,4'-DDTMethoxychlorEndrin KctoneAlpha -chlordaneGamma -chlordarwToxaphencPCB Arochlor 1016PCB ArochJor 1221PCB Arochlor 1232PCB ArochJor 1242PCB Arochlor 1248PCB Arochlor 1254PCB Arochlor 1260

InitialRaactor

Condltlona

<0.01

< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.001< 0.001

< 0.0001< 0.0005< 0.0001< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.001

< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.000 5< 0.0005<0.0005<0.001< 0.001

Day 12

Raactor1

<0.01

< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.0001<0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.001<0.001

<0.0001< 0.0005<0.0001< 0.0005< 0.0005<0.001

< 0.0005<0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.001< 0.001

Raactor2

<0.01

< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005<0.00005< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.001<0.001

< 0.0001< 0.0005< 0.0001<0.0005<0.0005< 0.001

<0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005

< 0.001<0.001

Raactor3

<0.01

< 0.00006< 0.00005<0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005<0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.001< 0.001

<0.0001< 0.0005<0.0001<0.0005<0.0005<0.001

<0.0005< 0.0006<0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005<0.001< 0.001

Reactor4 • • - .

<0.01

< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.0001< 0.0001<0.0001< 0.0001< 0.001<0.001

<0.0001< 0.0006< 0.0001<0.0006<0.0005< 0.001

< 0.0005<0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.001< 0.001

Day 26

Raactor1

<0.01

'

< 0.00006< 0.00005< 0.00005<0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001<0.0001< 0.001<0.001

<0.0001<0.0005<0.0001<0.0005<0.0005< 0.001

<0.0005<0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.001< 0.001

Raactor2

<0.01

<0.00005<0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005<0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.0001<0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001<0.001<0.001

<0.0001< 0.0005< 0.0001<0.0005< 0.0005<0.001

< 0.0005<0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005<0.0005< 0.001< 0.001

Raactor3

<0.01

<0.00005<0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00006< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00006< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001<0.001< 0.001

<0.0001< 0.0005< 0.0001<0.0005< 0.0005<0.001

<o.ooos< 0.0005<0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.001<0.001

Raactor4

<0.01

<0. 00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005< 0.00005<O.OOOOS<0.00005< 0.00005< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.001< 0.001

<0.0001< 0.0005< 0.0001<0.0005< 0.0005<0.001

< 0.0005< 0.0005< 0.0005<0.0005<0.0005< 0.001< 0.001

APPENDIX H (continued)HAGEN FARM SOIL BIODEGRADATION STUDY, ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR LIQUID FRACTION

(all units In mg/L except as noted)

, . ' " .H'i.'' ' '• ' \.:'^

' • • : " " ' ' . ' ' ' ' - . . • • ' • • .''•'•

AlcoholsIsobutyl AlcoholMethanolN-butyl AlcoholCyclohexanone

A;Wtiai:,;;j,Reactor

Conditions

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

. - / . , , . .: .QWrt'^l^^^-Reactor; •'! • - ' • :

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor' ' 2 - V

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor:-:::T3-..::;r/

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor-V\.4,^

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

.:il^'.-"- •' Day 26

Reactor•:i-p1 • • ; • •

Reactor2

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor3

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

Reactor4

<5.0<0.5<5.0<0.5

F=


InitialReactor

Conditions

Volattte Organic! (jjg/U

AcetoneBenzeneBromodichloromethaneBromoformBromomethaneCarbon DisutfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenieneChloroethaneChloroformChloromethaneDibromochloromeihaneCis-1 ,3-Dichloropfopene1.1-Dichloroethane1,2 Dichloroethane1.1-Dichloroethene1 ,2-DichloropropaneE th ylbe rue ne2-HexanoneMethytene ChlorideMethyl Ethyl Ketone4 -Methyl-2-PentanoneStyrene1 .1 ,2.2-TetrachloroethaneTetrachloroetheneTetrahydrofuranToluene1,2-Dichloroethene (Total)Trans-1,3 Dichloropropene1,1,1 -Trichlor oethane1 ,1 ,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroetheneVinyl AcetateVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)

<20<5<5<6

<10<5<B<6

<10<B

<10<6<6<B<5<6<B<B

<10<B

<10<10<5<5<5

<25<5<5<B<5<5<5

<10<10<B-*R

Day 12

Reactor1

<20<6<5<5

<10<6<B<5

<10<B

<10<5<5<6<B<5<B<5

<10<B

<10<10<6<5<6

<10<5<B<5<5<B<5

<10<10" <B

*R

Reactor' . 2 ' : : . - . < •

BS<5<5<6

<10<6<B<5

<10<B

<10<B<B<B<6<6<B<B

<10<B18

<10<6<B<B

<10<5<5<B<B<B<B

<10<10<6«-R

Reactor•-"""..3 • '

Reactor4

<20<B<5<5

<10<B<5<8

<10<B

<10<6<6<6<6<5<6<B

<10<s

<10<10<B<5<B

<25<6<B<5<6<6<B

<10<10<5

^10

26*<B<5<B

<10<B<B<B

<10<B

<10<6<B<B<B<6<B<B

<10<B

<10<10<B<B<B38<6<B<B<6<B<B

<10<10<6

<10

Day 26

Reactor1

<20<B<5<B

<10<B<B<B

<10<B

<10<5<B<B<S<6<6<B

<10<B

<10<10<B<6<6

<2Bss~* -*tj-«~^1 0

<S<6<B<B<5

<10<10

<B<B

Reactor2

<20<B<6<B

<10<6<6<6

<10<6

<10<6<B<S<6<B<B<B

<107

<10<10

<B<B<B

<26<B<6<B<5<S<B

<10<10<S<B

Reactor3

<20<B<B<6

<10<B<B<6

<10<6

<10<6<5<5<6<B<B<6

<10<B

<10<10<6<6<B

<2B<6<B<6<S<s<6

<10<10<6<S

Reactor4

<20<B<6<6

<10<B<B<B

<10<S

<10<6<B<B<6<6<B<6

<10<B

<10<10<6<B<6

<2S<6<B<S<S<B<B

<10<10<6<B


InitialReactor

Condition*

Day 12

Reactor' .'• V . '

Reactor: : V 2 • •

Reactor. ,3

Reactor4

Day 26

Reactor1

Reactor2

Reactor3

Reactor4

Semi-Volatile Organic* fc/g/L)

AcenaphtheneAcenaphthyleneAnthraceneBenz(A)AnthraceneBenzo(A)PyreneBenzo(B)FluorantheneBenzo(G,H,l)PeryleneBenzoOOFluorantheneBenzyl AlcoholBenzylbutylphthalateBis(2 -Chloroethoxy IMethaneBis(2-Chloroethyl)£therBis(2 -CNoroisopropyDEtherBis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate4 -Bromopheny Iphenylether4-Chloroaniline2-Chloronaphthalene4-ChlorophenylphenyletherChryseneDibenz (A. HI AnthraceneDibenzofuran1.2-Dichlorobenzene1.3-Dichlorobenzene1.4-Dichlorobenzene3,3'-DichlorobenzidineDiethylphthalateDimethylphthalateDi-n -butylphthalate2,4-Dinitrotoluene2,6-DinitrotolueneDi-n-octylphthalateFluorantheneFluorene

<20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20


InitialReactor

Condition!

Day 12

Reactor1

Reactor2

Reactor3

Reactor4

Day 26

Reactor1

Reactor2

Reactor3

Reactor4

$eml*VolatUa Organic* U/Q/U (continued)

HexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclopentadienaHexachloroethaneIndenod ,2,3-CDJPyreneIsophorone2-Me thy (naphthaleneNaphthalene2-Nitroaniline3 Nitroaniline4-NitroanilineNitrobenzeneN-nitroso-diphenylamineN nitroso-di-n propylaminePhenanthrenePyrenePyridine1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneBenzoic Acid4-Chloro-3-rnethylphenol2-Chlorophenol2,4-Dichlorophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol4,6 Dinitro-2-methylphenol2,4-Dinitrophenol2-Me thy I phenol4-Methylphenol2-Nitrophenol4-NitrophenolPentachlorophenolPhenol2.4.5-Trichlorophenol2.4.6-Trichlorophenol

<50<50<60

<BO

<50

<60<BO

<50<BO

<50

<BO<60<SO

<50

<50

<50<BO

<50<BO

<60<BO<50

<BO

<60

<BO<60

<60<SO

<to

<50<BO<BO

<BO

<60

<BO<50

<50<50

<60<60<60

<60

<60

<BO<50

<60<SO

<BO<SO<BO

<60

<60

<60<BO

<60<60

<50

<50<50<50

<60

<BO

<50<50

<60<60

<50

<BO<BO<50

<50

<BO

<50<50

<50<50

<60

<50<60<BO

<60

<60

<SO<50

<to<60<50

<50

Total Solids 1%) 3.7 1.6 1.7 2.5


InitialReactor

Conditions

Metals

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZinc

Alkalinity

KJeidahl Nitrogen

TOG (dry weight basis)

Ammonia Nitrogen

Chloride

Sulfate

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Phosphorus

170<1.5

0.0301.7

0.0059<0.251.8000.300.210.77320

0.371,000

11< 0.0005

0.4325

< 0.050<0.01

110<150.53

1.4

300

<6

5.0

<0.01

25

110

210

6.7

Day 12

Reactor1

Reactor. - 2 ' : . : :

320<0.60

0.173.1

0.024<0.102,9000.520.31

1.1720

0.451,300

150.0100.67

49< 0.050<0.01

86<6.00.91

2.1

150

10

«

NA

7.5

150

260

•24

170<0.60

0.122.1

0.014<0.102,1000.300.210.844400.34920

110.0150.44

28<0.050<0.01

71<6.00.53

1.4

500

13

*#

NA

120

160

260

22

Reactor3

Reactor•:• 4 -

240<0.60

0.152.6

0.024<0.102.4000.400.270.98600

0.421,100

13<0.001

0.5837

< 0.050<0.01

120<6.00.71

1.8

1,600

8.9

3.0

NA

120

190

310

26

180<0.60

0.112.1

0.024<0.101.6000.310.210.744400.3270010

<0.0010.44

33< 0.050<0.01

110<6.00.55

1.4

950

30

6.0

NA

120

360

360

33

Day 26

Reactor1

260<1.6

0.0292.7

0.0088<0.251.9000.450.290.944600.46

1.10014

0.00220.62

41<0.060<0.01

82<150.76

2.0

150

<6

6.1

<0.01

8.0

150

260

15

Reactor2

210<1.S

0.0412.1

0.010<0.251.6000.340.230.77370

0.42890

110.0023

0.4834

<0.050<0.01

70<150.62

1.6

30

9.0

6.1

0.13

110

370

210

24

Reactor3

190<1.5

0.0452.1

0.0088<0.251.5000.320.240.74340

0.42860

120.0013

0.5034

< 0.050<0.01

110<150.56

1.6

26

10

6.6

<0.01

130

520

310

34

Reactor4

210<1.6

0.0402.7

0.01<0.251.6000.350.26

1.1BIO0.45870

160.0018

0.5733

<0.050<0.01

120<150.61

1.8

19

<6

8.4

<0.01

130

620

410

24

NA Not Analyzed

IIII

iii.LLLL

APPENDIX I

Hagen Farm Soil BioreactorsDissolved Oxygen vs. Time

_r . ; _j j it j i^^^^^^__ g^^^^^~ g^^^ jj f U^^*

FIGURE 1-1Hagen Farm Soil Bipreactors

Dissolved Oxygen vs Time - Day 16

6.251 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Time (hours)Reactor 1 — i— Reactor 2 Reactor 3 Reactor 4

j_ ._

3 7.75 -

FIGURE 1-2Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors

Dissolved Oxygen vs. Time - Day 25

4 6Time (hours)

8 10

Reactor 1 Reactor 2 -#- Reactor 3 Reactor 4

, j__ ,, PWIW ^HN^ HM|

FIGURE 1-3Hagen Farm Soil Bioreactors

Dissolved Oxygen vs Time - Day 32

2 3Time (hours)

Reactor 1 Reactor 2 -*- Reactor 3 - Reactor 4

APPENDIX D

Alternative Costs - Source Control(7 Pages)

Technology: Alternative I: No action, to include active extraction trenches and combustion ofvented air.

Site Name: Dunn LandfillDate: March 3, 1992

Technology: Alternative V: Same as Alternative II with the addition of vacuum extraction throughwells and installation of membrane cutoff wall at cells 6 and 12.


Technology:Site Name:Date:

Cover ADunn LandfillMarch 3, 1992

Technology: Alternative VI: Same as Alternative IV with the addition of vacuum extraction throughwells and installation of membrane cutoff wall at cells 6 and 12.


Technology: Cover B/C - no drainage/BSite Name: Dunn LandfillDate: March 3, 1992

Technology: Alternative VII: Same as Alternative III except deep well vacuum extraction andinstallation of membrane cutoff wall at cells 6 and 12.


Technology: Cover B - no drainage layerSite Name: Dunn LandfillDate: March 3.1992

(W5.1 3HW2) HDA4B5200CDCL-FSH.APP

•R E. LaMoreaux & Associates-

I

tTechnology:

Site Name:Date i

ALTERNATIVE I: No action, to include activeextraction trenches andcombustion of vented air.

Dunn LandfillMarch 3, 199£

Iten Description

CAPITAL COSTSVent /Trench-Sand4" Dia. Perforated PipeGeotextileHeader PipeDrip LegBlowerFlareFlare Installation

ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTSBlower Maintenance <£ yr)Flare Maintenance <£ yr)Monitoring (offgas, £ yr)Monitoring (gas &storn w)

Units

CYLFSFLFLSLSLSLS

HRHRLSLS

Quantity

8004, £0041, 100£,800

4111

104104

11

Unit Price

$4.14.0.£0.

1,000.5, 000.55, 000.55, 000.

100.100.

6, 100.8, 500.

SUBTOTAL-Const ruction Cost

5000150000000000

00000000

Total Cost

*3, 60058, 8006, 16556,0004, 0005,00055, 00055, 000

10, 40010,4006, 1008,500

*843f 565

LEGAL FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS AT 10% OF CONST. COST £4,357

ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COST

SUBTOTAL

CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL CAPITAL COST

ISUBTOTAL-Annual O ft M Costs FIRST £ YEARSISUBTOTAL-Annual 0 & M Costs AFTER 2 YEARS1(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 & M COST: FIRST £ YEARS(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 ft M COSTi AFTER FIRST £ YEARS!(ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS s FIRST 2 YEARS(ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS t AFTER FIRST 2 YEARS

36, 535

S304, 456

60,891

$365, 348

f 35, 400$8, 500

7,0801,700

S4£, 480$10, £00

1

r

ii

i (PRESENT NET VALUEI 9.0% Discount Rate; 5.0% Inflation RateI ___ __________________

*587f739

i Prepared bvr

Checked bv, jf JDate:

Date:

II

Technology:

Site Name:Date i

ALTERNATIVE Us Same as Alternative II withthe addition of vacuun extrac-tion through well* and instal-lation of membrane cutoff wallat cells 6 and 12.

Dunn LandfillMarch 3, 199S

I

Item Description

ITEMVent/Trench(VXT)-SandV/T-4" Dia. Perfor. PipeV/T-GeotextileV/T-Header PipeV/T-Drip LegBlowerFlareFlare InstallationSite FencingCover AVent/Well<V/W>-cell &&!£V/W-Header PipeV/W-Drip LegMembrane Curtain/wall

ANNUAL D ft M COSTSSite InspectionsTurf and Erosion RepairMowingEquipment & FacilitiesBlower Maintenance<5 yr)Flare Maintenance(5 yr)Monitoring (offgas,5 yr)Monitoring(gas &storm w)

Units

CYLFSFLFEALSLSLSLFLSEALFLSLS

EAftCflCLSHRHRLSLS

Quantity

8004, £0041,100£,100

4111

6,50014

£,700£1

4£4.££4.£

1£&0£60

11

Unit Price

$4.5014.000. 15£0.00

1,000.005,000. 0055,000.0055,000. 00

10.00l,8£i,7883, 000. 00

£0.001,000.0055,000.00

850. 00100.0050.00

£, 185.00100.00100.00

&, 100.008,500.00

Total Cost

$3,58,&,4£,4.5.55,55,65,

1,8£1,IS,54.£,55.

&008001&5000000000000000000788000000000000

3,4002,4201,210£, 185£&,000£&,0006,1008,500

SUBTOTAL-Construct ion Cost $£,239,353

FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS flT 10% OF CONST. COSTI______________________________________________;_______(ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE flT 15% OF CONST. COSTI______________________________________________________I SUBTOTALI __________________________

£23, 935

I 335,903

$£,799, 191

I CONTINGENCY flT £0% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTI______________________________________I TOTAL CAPITAL COSTI _ _IIIIII

559,838

$3,359,030

[SUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Costs FIRST 5 YEARSSUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Costi AFTER 5 YEARS

$75,815$17,715

CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 & M COST: FIRST 5 YEflRSCONTINGENCY flT £0% OF 0 & M COST: flFTER 5 YEARS

15,1633, 543

ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS: FIRST 5 YEARSANNUAL 0 ft M COSTSi AFTER 5 YEARS

$90,978$21,258

I PRESENT NET VALUE9.034 Discount Rate; 5.0% Inf la t ion Rate

$3,90S, 226

C

tri

Table No.Technology:Site NamesDates

Cover ADunn LandfillMarch 3, 1992

iir

(Item Description Units(

1,34,

(Native Soil CY(Cohesive Soil CY140 mil FML SF(Drainage Layer CY(Geotextile SF(Root Zone CY(Topsoil CY(Seed, Fertilizer, Mulch AC(Perimeter Shaping LSi

ANNUAL O ft M COSTSInspections EA

ITurf and Erosion Repair AC(Mowing AC(Equipment & facilities LSI___________________________________________________ISUBTOTAL-Construction CostI___________________________________________________(LEGAL FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS AT 10% OF CONST. COSTI_____________________________________________________(ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COSTI_____________________________________________________I SUBTOTALI___________________________________________________(CONTINGENCY AT 20% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTI______________________________________________________'TOTAL CAPITAL COST

Quantity

19,52119,521

1,054, 15239,043

1,054, 15258, 56419,521

24.21

424.224.2

1

Unit Price

2,

$4.007.000.508.000. 1157.009.00

100.00153. 00

850.00100.0034.50185.00

Total Cost

$76,084136,647527,076312,344121,227409,948175,68926,62034, 153

3,4002,420835

S, 185

$1,821,788

182,179

£73,£68

II

$2,277,336

455,447

*2,732,683

Prepared bv s Date: J/S/f

Checked bv: Date;

riiIi-

fI •«*

F11.[

' S

Technology: ALTERNATIVE VlsSaae as Alternative IV withthe addition of vacuum extrac-tion through wells andinstallation of membrane cut-off wall at cells 6 and 12.

Site Name: Dunn LandfillDates March 3, 1992

Item Description

ITEMVent /Trench (V/T) -SandV/T-4" Dia. Perfor. PipeV/T-GeotextileV/T-Header PipeV/T-Drip LegBlowerFlareFlare InstallationSite FencingCover B/C

{ Vent/Well (V/W)-cell 6&12V/W-Header PipeV/W-Drip LegMembrane Curtain/Wall

ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTSSite InspectionsTurf and Erosion RepairMowingEquipment & FacilitiesBlower Maintenance (5 yr)Flare Maintenance (5 yr)Monitoring (offgas,5 yr)Monitoring (gas &storm w)

Units


EAACACLSHRHRLSLS

Quantity

8004,20041, 1002,100

4111

6,50014

£,700£1

4£4.224.2

1260£60

11

Unit Price

$4.50. 14. 000. 1520.00

1,000.005, 000. 0055, 000. 0055, 000. 00

10.001,835,4793, 000. 00

£0.001,000.00

55, 000. 00

850. 00100.0050. 00

2, 185.00100. 00100.00

6, 100.008, 500. 00

Total Cost

$3,60058, 8006, 16542, 0004,0005,000

\ 55, 000J 55, 000/ 65, 0001', 835, 479

12,00054, 0002,00055, 000

3,400£,4201,210£, 18526,00026,0006, 1008,500

SUBTOTAL-Construct i on Cost $2, £53, 044

EGftL FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS AT 10% OF CONST, COST 225,304

, 1 ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COST 337.957'1 SUBTOTAL $2, 816, 305

1 (CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF CONSTRUCTION COST 563, £6111 TOTAL CAPITAL COST $3,379,566

t !SUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Costs FIRST 5 YEARS $75,815ISUBTOTAL-Annual O ft M Costs AFTER 5 YEARS $17,715

1 ICONTINGENCY AT £0* OF 0 & M COST: FIRST 5 YEARS 15,163ICONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 & M COST: AFTER 5 YEARS 3,5431

I 'I 1

11 ;• ii

ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS s FIRST 5 YEARS $90,978ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS: AFTER 5 YEARS $21,258

PRESENT NET WORTH $3,925,0089.0% Discount Rate; 5.0% Inflation Rate

Prepared bv D.t• i

Table No.Technology:Site NamesDates

Cover B/C- noDunn LandfillMarch 3, 1992

Drainage/B

lltea DescriptionII ITEMIClay140 Mil FML(Drainage Layer (sand)IGeotextile(Root Zone(Topsoil(Seed, Fertilizer, Mulch(Perineter ShapingI

ANNUAL 0 * M COSTS./Site InspectionsITurf and Erosion Repair(MowinglEquipnent & facilitiesI________________________IBUBTOTAL-Construction CostI ___ ____

Units

CYSFCYSFCYCYACLS

EftACACLS

Quantity

78,085191,6647, 100

191,66458,56419,52124. £

1

424.224.2

1

Unit Price

$12.500.708.000.1157.009.00

1, 100.0034, 153.00

850. 00100.0034.50185.00

Total Cost

$976,063134,16556,800£2,041409,948175,68926,62034, 153

3,4002,420835

2, 185

• 1,835,479

JLEGAL FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS AT 10% OF CONST. COSTI______________________________________________________(ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COSTI_____________________________________________________I SUBTOTALI___________________________________________________(CONTINGENCY AT 20% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTI_____________________________________________________I TOTAL CAPITAL COST

183,548

i £75,322

*2,£94,348

458, 870

$2,753,218

ri

Prepared bv: Date

Technology

Site Name:Dates

ALTERNATIVE UHxSaie as Alternative IIIexcept deep well vacuuaextraction and installationof aeabrane cutoff wall ateel Xft 6 and IS.

Dunn LandfillMarch 3, 1992

L

LIIItIII

Itea Description

IHMVent/Trench <V/T)-SandV/T-4" Dia. Perfor. PipeV/T GeotextileV/T Header PipeV/T Drip LegBlowerFlareFlare InstallationSite FencingCover BVent/WellCV/W)-cell 6&12V/W-Header PipeV/W-Drip LegMeabrane Curtain/Wall

ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTSSite InspectionsTurf and Erosion RepairMowingEquipment & FacilitiesBlower Maintenance(5 yr)Flare Maintenance(5 yr)Monitoring (offgas,5 yr)Monitoring(gas &storm w)

Units


EAACACLSHRHRLSLS

Quantity

8004,20041, 1002, 100

4111

6,50014

2,70021

424.224.2

1260260

11

Unit Price

4.5014.000. 1520.00

1,000. 005,000.0055,000.0055,000.00

10.001,622,4733,000.00

20.001,000.0055,000.00

850. 00100. 0050.00

2, 185.00100. 00100.00

6,100.008, 500. 00

Total Cost

3,60058,8006,16542,0004,0005,00055,00055,00065,000

1,622,47312,00054,0002,00055,000

3,4002,4201,2102, 18526,00026,0006, 1008,500

SUBTOTAL-Construction Cost $2, 040, 038

FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS AT 10% OF CONST. COST'

204,004I_____________________________________________IENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COSTI________________________________________________I SUBTOTALI________________________________________________(CONTINGENCY AT 20% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTI_____________________________________________I TOTAL CAPITAL COSTI_____________________________________________III

306,006

*2,550, 048

510,010

*3,069, 057

SUBTOTAL-Annual O ft M Costs FIRST 5 YEARSSUBTOTAL-Annual O & M Costx AFTER 5 YEARS

«75,815•17,715

CONTINGENCY AT 20% OF 0 & M COST: FIRST 5 YEARSCONTINGENCY AT 20% OF 0 & M COSTa AFTER 5 YEARS

15,1633,543

ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS* FIRST 5 YEARSANNUAL 0 & M COSTSi AFTER 5 YEARS

•90,978•21,258

PRESENT NET WORTH9.0% Discount Rate; 5.0% Inflation Rate

«3,617,£24

I

II[

Table No.TechnologySite Name:Date:

Cover B - No Drainage LayerDunn LandfillMarch 3, 1992

(Item DescriptionI( ITEM(Clay(Root Zone(Topsoil(Seed, Fertilizer, Mulch(Perimeter ShapingII ANNUAL Q ft M COSTS(Site Inspections(Turf and Erosion Repair(Mowing(Equipment & facilities

Units

CYCYCYACLS

EAACACLS

Quantity

78,08558, 56419,5£1£4. £

1

4£4.££4. £

1

Unit Price(dollars)

12.507. 009.00

1, 100.0034, 153.00

350. 00100.0034. 50

£,185.00

Total Cost(dollars)

976,063409, 948175,689£6, 62024, 153

3,400£,4£0835

£, 185

Iw[

SUBTOTAL-Construction Cost 1,688,473

OF CONST. COST(LEGAL FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS ATI______________________________________________I ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COSTI________________________________________________(SUBTOTAL

16£,£47

£43,371

£,0£8, 091

(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTI_____________________________________(TOTAL CAPITAL COST

405,618

2, 433, 709

Preoared bv Uofl 1

Checked bv Date

I

APPENDIX E

ARARs from U.S. EPA and WDNR - Source Control

ARAR Determinations(2 Pages)

City Disposal Corporation LandfillPotential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Source Control(2 Pages)

(WP5.1

-RELaMoreaux & Associates

Iri

i:

i

i

i

ARAR Determinations

Below are listed the ARAR's as determined by the Department based on thevarious remedial options presented. The Department may amend the list basedon changes or additions to the list of possible remedial actions for the site.

Alternative

1} Institutional controls,access controls, monitoringcover A or B

2) Institutional controls,access controls, monitoringcover A or B/C

3) Institutional controls,access controls, monitoringextraction, cover A or B

Preliminary IdentificationA or HA1 Code of Standards/Requirements

RA 181.49 Groundwater monitoring to Identify degre*and extent of contamination, hazardouswaste grounduater monitoring requirements

t

A 181 Any Mast* generated during the remedialInvestigation must be handled consistentwith hazardous waste requirements, generalhazardous waste management requirements

A 140 Groundwater standards and responserequirements

A 149 Laboratory certification for environmentaltesting

A 504,506.445 Landfill gas collection, treatment andhazardous air emission controls

A 508 Landfill monitoring requirements

A 504.506,514,516 Landfill capping, closure anddocumentation requirements

same requirements as alternative 1 above

RA 181.44(11)-(14)

same requirements ss alternative 1 above

Landfill capping, closure, monitoring andlong term care requirements

4) Institutional controls,access controls, monitoring,gas extraction, cover A or B/C A

t 181

same as alternative 2

181

Management requirements for hazardouswastes removed during construction of gasextraction systems

Management of hazardous wastes removedduring construction of gas extractionsystems

5) Institutional controls,access controls, monitoringtrench/vent system, cover A or B

6) Institutional controls,access controls, monitoringtrench/vent system, cover Aor B/C



£I

LIL

Alternative

7) Institutional controls,access restrictions.•onltoring, gas extraction,trench/vent system, cover Aor •

6) Institutional controls,•cease restrictions,tnnitorlng gas extraction,trench/vent system, coverA or I/C

* A or RA « Applicable (A) or potentially Relevant and Appropriate (RA)2 Code • Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter HR series

>r RA1 Code2



Preliminary Identificationof Standards/Requirements

II

[I[

f

II

IIIIIIfIII

City Disposal Corporation LandfillPotential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Source Control Operable Unit

All Alternatives. Each of the eight alternatives includes accessrestrictions, institutional controls, landfill cap and ground watermonitoring.

ARARs: Wis. Adm. Code NR. 600 series (formally NR. 181),including, requirements for ground water monitoring,management of hazardous waste resulting fromremedial activities, landfill capping, closure,monitoring, post closure maintenance and use, anddocumentation;

Wis. Adm. Code NR. 500 series, including 504, 506,508, 514 and 516. These solid waste regulationsinclude requirements for landfill gas collectionand treatment, landfill capping, landfill closure,monitoring, post closure maintenance and use anddocumentation;

Wis. Adm. Code NR 445, hazardous air emissionscontrol;

Wis. Adm. Code NR. 140, ground water qualitystandards and response requirements;

Wis. Adm. Code NR. 149, laboratory certification forenvironmental testing; AND

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)Subtitles C and D.

To Be Considered:Technical Guidance Document Final Covers onHazardous Waste Landfills and Surface ImpoundmentsEPA/530/SW-89/047

I"rii

IIII[IIII

Alternatives 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. and 8. These alternatives all includevacuum extraction, gas inj ection/extraction systems, and/orlandfill gas trench/vent system.

ARARs: Wis. Adm. Code NR 445, hazardous air emissionscontrol;

Title 40 of the Federal Code of Regulations(40 CFR) Part 50, National Ambient Air QualityStandards (NAAQS);

40 CFR Part 61, National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); AND

40 CFR Part 60, National New Source PerformanceStandards (NSPS).

To Be Considered:OSWER Directive 9355.0-28, U.S. EPA policy guidanceentitled Control of Air Emissions from SuoerfundAir Strippers_git_Super_fund Ground Water Sites.

"VT?* *?™<1"™T!PrT?*V"™yr"v

'..IK' -V:;t .--r.'•,'.•;.-*.. . .'.-

**r".'.."" '.?*.. "r ,."*""' "77* "~_""~""*~"^'**''.*"•*«* *Tt<*IIM. .. <Vr*#**~*llm* t*.r-•**-.-tir C,*1+f+ •* * Wo J**' ••' •'".•••K* 1" -' •***•**!** MHT. •• -"fill Hil •It^^i.-f,'^-

APPENDIX F__ r-- • - ^ - --- ^-. - ^%I^ ^ l^| VBT •*% »I *»'.V - - ^-»., — ,- . .- .v-' ' •.. - •-,*ofbvp»rF*W. , - 171 --. . . . . - - - , . • - - - - -v ,.„ -^ VirjL -hv^

•yMCTgm^ryJitj'. .-'r'trtMifti^fiaiii.i^ 'mr-1" •' m^ja'-ift *»••

"^"!!^?jrj* ^Alternative Costs - Ground-Water ControlT "., , .. -",.. /l. '"--'.-,.,1.1^ vtSPages)^.^....^.^^^^^ ._v^c..

Table No. Attemative 0Technology: Uo Action

-Site Name: 'Ounn LandfillDate: •-••- -March 6,1992

Table No. .. Attemative 7Technology: Air Stripping, Activated Carbon & Catalytic OxidationSite Name: Ounn LandfillOate: -March 5.1992

.TableNo. • -AlternativesTechnology: Air Stripping & Activated CarbonSite Name: Ounn Landfill ,-

-Date: ~ ——-March 5,1992

Table No. Attemative 9~ Technology: BtoremediationSite Name: Ounn LandfillDate: .March 3.1992

i Table No. -AKemativelOTechnology: ^Chemical OxidationSite Name: Ounn LandfillDate: -March 3,1992

-1>ELaMoieaux&As80Ciates-.ifc'-ai^ •'.-'•Ae f~-^~--' - •

" Li'r "'^'"

[I Table No.

Technology!Site Name:Datei

Alternative 0No ActionDunn LandfillMarch 6, 1992

It en Description Units Quant

ITEMN/A

ANNUAL 0 A M COSTSMonitoring LS

SUBTOTAL-Const ruction Cost

t '.EGAL FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS AT 10\s

ity Unit Price Total Cost

0 $0 «0

1 114,216 114,216

$0

* OF CONST. COST 0

(ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COST 0

(SUBTOTAL1(CONTINGENCY AT 20% OF CONSTRUCTION COST1(TOTAL CAPITAL COST1

$0

0

$0

1 SUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Costi FIRST 20 YEARS $114,216I SUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Costs SECOND 20 YEARS $114,2161(CONTINGENCY AT 20% OF 0 & M COST: FIRST(CONTINGENCY AT 20% OF 0 & M COSTi SECOND1(ANNUAL O ft M COSTSs FIRST 20 YEARS

, WNUAL 0 ft M COSTSs SECOND 20 YEARS

20 YEARS 22,84320 YEARS 22,843

$137,059$137,059

i

(PRESENT NET WORTH19.0% Discount Ratej 5.0% Inflation Rat*I _____ __

$2,350,832

Prepared bv; Date;

Checked bv: _s Pat i

t[[i:

ii[iiriL1

Table No. Alternative 7Technology: Air Strip, Act CarbSite Nane: Dunn LandfillDate: March 5, 199£

Ilten Description Units11 ITEM(Groundwater Recovery Sys. LS(Process Equipnent-Instal. LSISite Piping LS(Site Work and Buildings LS11 ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS(Labor LS(Analytical LS(Cheiicals LS(Carbon Replace. /Regener. LS(Power & Natural Gas ' LS'Residual Disposal LS

^^/Maintenance LS1 Adn in i strati on LS1ISUBTOTAL-Construction Cost1

Quantity

1111

1111111i

(LEGAL FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS AT 18% OF1(ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST.1i SUBTOTAL1

ft Cat Ox id

Unit Price

$170,8001,395,00845, 000195,000

71,000114, £16130, 880395, 8804£0, 00040, 88050, 8804£, 000

CONST. COST

COST

(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF CONSTRUCTION COST1(TOTAL CAPITAL COST11 SUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Costs FIRST 20 YEARS'SUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Costs SECOND 20 YEARS

V J(CONTINGENCY AT £8% OF 0 & M COST:(CONTINGENCY AT £8% OF O & M COST:1

FIRST £0 YEARSSECOND £0 YEARS

(ANNUAL O ft M COSTS x FIRST 20 YEARS(ANNUAL D ft M COSTS s SECOND 20 YEARS1(PRESENT NET WORTH19.0% Discount Rate; 5.0% Inflation Rat*1

m&jLi ntPrepared bv: wP**7 Dates */ *F/fZ

Total Cost

$178,0001,395,000

45, 000195,000

71,880114, £!€>130,088395, 0804£0, 00040, 88850, 0884£, 888

$1,805,000

180,500

£78, 750

$£,£5&,£58

451, £58

$£, 707, 500

$1,262,216$95, 406

£5£, 44319,031

$1,514,659$114,487

$19,992,307

r ^->1 Checked bv: A -S Date: *&(f * ——

[E

Table No.TechnologySite NaneiDate i

Alternative 8Air Stripping ft Activated CarbonDunn LandfillMarch 5, 1992

lltea DescriptionII ITEM(Groundwater Recovery Sys.(Process Equipntent-Instal.ISite PipingtSite Work and BuildingsII ANNUAL D ft M COSTS(Labor(MonitoringICheeicals'Carbon Replace. /Regener.

I >wPower, ^TResidual Disposal

(MaintenanceI Adain1strat ion

Units

LSLSLSLS

LSLSLSLSLSLSLSLS

Quantity Unit Price

$170,000975,00045,000185,000

62,114,130,420,35,40,50,42,

000£16000000000000000000

I___________________________________________________________________________ISUBTOTAL-Construction CostI___________________________________________________(LEGAL FEES, LICENSE ft PERMIT COSTS AT 10% OF CONST. COSTI___________________________________________________(ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COSTI______________________________________________________(SUBTOTALI__________________,________________________________(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF CONSTRUCTION COSTI______________________________________________________(TOTAL CAPITAL COST

Total Cost

$170,000975,00045,000185,000

62,000114,216130,000420,00035, 00040,00050, 00042, 000

$1,375,000

137,500

£06,250

$1,718,750

[[

343,750

$2, 062, 500

l£UBTOTAL-Annual O ft M Cost: FIRST 20 YEARSHSUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Cost: SECOND 20 YEARSI_____________________________________________(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 ft M COSTi FIRST £0 YEARS(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 ft M COSTi SECOND £0 YEARSI_______________________________________________(ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTSi FIRST 20 YEARS(ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS: SECOND 20 YEARSI_________________________:______________(PRESENT NET WORTH19.0% Discount Rate; 5% Inflation RateI_____________ _____ ______

$893,216$95,406

178,64319,081

$1,071,859$114,487

$16,842,038

Prepared by: Date: 3/S"/?

Checked by: Date:

[ Table No.Technology:Site Name:Date:

Alternative 9Bioremediat ionDunn LandfillMarch 3, 1993

L I Item Description Units11 ITEM

IlGroundwater Recovery Sys. LS(Process Equipment-Instal. LSISite Piping LS

: ISite Work and Buildings LS11 ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS1 Labor LS(Monitoring LS(Chemicals • LS(Power LS

v , Residual Disposal L S^Maintenance LS

(Administration LS1ISUBTOTAL-Const ruction Cost1(LEGAL FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS1

Quantity Unit Price

1 $170,0001 1,105,0001 65, 0001 £10,000

1 83, 0001 132,2161 48, 0001 40, 0001 53, 0001 70, 0001 4£, 000

AT 10% OF CONST. COST

(ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COST1

[ 1 SUBTOTAL

(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF CONSTRUCTION

I (TOTAL CAPITAL COST1 (

ISUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Cost: FIRSTI ^SUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Cost: SECOND

COST

20 YEARS20 YEARS

(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 & M CQSTs FIRST £0 YEARSr (CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 & M COST: SECOND £0 YEARS

(ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS i FIRST 20 YEARS(ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS: SECOND 20 YEARS

• (PRESENT NET WORTH19.0% Discount Rate; 5.0% Inflation

F ' ——————————11 Preoared bv: C/Pv»i Dater3/3y

1 Checked bv : -*?6 *- - Date: <?

Rat*

fa

/**——

Total Cost

• 170,0001, 105,000

65, 000£10,000

83, 000132, £1648, 00040, 00053, 00070, 0004£, 000

• 1,550,000

155,000

£3£, 500

• 1,937,500

387, 50®

•2, 325, 000

•468,216•95, 406

93,64319,081

•561,859•114,487

•10,301,833

I

I

Table No.Technology:Site Naue:Date:

Alternative 10Chepical OxidationDunn LandfillMarch 3, 1992

lltem Description11 ITEMIGroundwater Recovery Sys.1 Process Equipnent-Instal.(Site PipingISite Work and Buildings11 ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS(Labor(Monitoring(Chemicals'Power

i|sw/Residual Disposal(Maintenance1 Ad n i n i s t rat ion1

Units4.

LSLSLSLS

LSLSLSLSLSLSLS

Quantity

1111

1111i11

Unit Price

$170,000805, 00045, 000185,000

6£, 000114,21665, 000130,00040, 00085, 00042, 000

ISUBTOTAL-Con struct ion Cost1(LEGAL FEES, LICENSE & PERMIT COSTS AT 10% OF CONST.1(ENGINEERING & ADMINISTRATIVE AT 15% OF CONST. COST11 SUBTOTAL1(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF CONSTRUCTION COST1(TOTAL CAPITAL COST1SUBTOTAL-Annual O & M Costs FIRST 80 YEARS

WSUBTOTAL-Annual 0 ft M Costi SECOND 20 YEARS1(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 & M COST: FIRST £0 YEARS(CONTINGENCY AT £0% OF 0 & M COST: SECOND £C YEARS1(ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS: FIRST 20 YEARS(ANNUAL 0 ft M COSTS: SECOND 20 YEARS1

Total

$17080S45185

6211465130408542

$1,205

COST 1£0

180

$1,506

301

$1,807

$538$95

10719

$645$114

Cost

,000,000,000,000

,000,216,000,000,000,000,000

f

f

»

»

»

t

f9

»

»

1

»

000

500

750

250

£50

500

216406

643081

859487

(PRESENT NET WORTH19.0% Discount Ratej 5.0% Inflation RatI_______________________________

$10,926,379

Prepared bvs Date;

Checked bv: Date;

APPENDIX G

ARARs from U.S. ERA and WDNR - Ground-Water Control

TYPE OFDOCUMENT

Letter

DATE ISSUED

May 20, 1991

ADDRESSED TO

Ms. Dee Bmcich

ADDRESSEE

Charles Wilk

NO. OFPAGES

(WP5.1

-P E.LaMoreaux & Associates-

U773 W/-H N. AMERICA

rL

UNFTC5 STATB9 LNVtnCWMIMTAI PROTECTIONREGIONS

330 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.60604

i*

i

,caf incorporatedMs. Dee BrncichWaste Management of North AmiMidwest Region ""?Two Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 1000Westchester, Illinois 60154

mnX TO ATTCNTKM OF:

Re* City Disposal Corporation LanSfillApplicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Dear Ms. Brncich:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) andthe Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources have completedtho.1r rp.view &£ Technical Memorandum 6B, Alternatives ArrayDocument for the Grounci warer cunLj. 1 op&vablo TTnit for the CityDisposal Corporation Landfill. The principal purpose of thereviews were to identify pp gntial Applicable or Relevant andAppropriate Requirements for"alternatives described in theAlternatives Array Document.-,

Enclosed in this letter are lists of potential ARARs specific todescribed alternatives from the U.S. EPA and WDNR.

11Stefl in Vfte enclosures were based on the alternativespresented. These lists may be amended Ja* fe& aaditinna1information or changes to the alternatives presented. FinalARARs are identified at the time of signature of a Record ofDecision. Once a Record of Decision is signed for the remedialaction, U.S. EPA will not reopen that decision unless a new ormodified requirement calls into question the protectiveness ofthe selected remedy.

If you have any questions concerning this letter please telephoneme at (312) 353-1331.

DATE RECEIVED/SENTsiTinan.lv m OEEBRNOCH // / A) Osincerely, _ ems (^XZL /_& , <3Xn*;-A.-

cc/RGUTE: yDP. WS. HK, JD, QM 00, AK, RO, AS

Charles WilkRemedial Project Manager FILE SYSTEM:

FtWCODfc^cc: Mike Schmoller, WDNR; Eileen FureyT'&iCj 'Oou

MAY 22 is?

ciri.I:

U8--06--91 AMERICA , UIIJ

I

U.S. EPA List

Nine alternatives have been proposed for potentialapplication to the GCOU. Each alternative includes zoning/deedrestrictions and groundwater monitoring. Alternatives 1-3, 5 and7-9 include an extraction well system. Alternatives 1-2 and 7-8include air;stripping. Alternatives 1-3 and 7-9 includedischarging^treated groundwater to a local stream. Alternative 5proposes discharge of untreated or pretreated groundwater to alocal publically-owned treatment works ("POTW"), Alternatives 1and 7 call for catalytic oxidation of treatment emissions.Alternatives 2 and 8 call for activated carbon adsorption oftreatment emissions. Centralized carbon adsorption o£contaminated groundwater is proposed in Alternative 3: activatedcarbon adsorption at individual wells is proposed in Alternative4. (Activated carbon adsorption of treated groundwater isproposed as "effluent polishing" in Alternatives 7 and 8.) In-sxuu uisij?**ii»3dluL*~k< L- ^u*p>«»4 in Tiltornafivfr fi. fttlOYB"ffrWUnbiotreatment is proposed in Alternative 9.

ii

A. . ZONING, -FENCING/DEED RESTRICTIONS

/ Each of the proposed GCOU alternatives includesproposal's to restrict access to the site by means of zoningregulations, fencing requirements and deed restrictions. The

i

[M J\. AJlEKK.V ._. u u •*

I

ARARs pertinent to such proposals were listed in my memorandum of12/26/90, but are restated here for convenience:

Section(40 CFR S )

264.117(C)

264.310(b)(5)

A/RA/TBC

RA

RA

Standard/Requirement

post-closure use of propertyon or in which hazardouswastes remain

protect and maintain curvoyedbenchmarks

B. GRQUWDWATER EXTRACTION AND DISCHARGE

The following ARARs pertain to the GCOU's proposalsregarding an extraction well system, discharge of untreated waterto a POTW, and direct discharge of treated groundwater to surfacewater:

Section A/RA/TBC Standard/Requirement

I•

I(40 CFR § )S 122

§ 403.5

(Wis. Adm. Code)NR 102, 104,200, 217 & 219

NR 112

A

TBC

A (?)

NPDES requirements of CWA

POTW limitations

regulating discharge tosurface water, effluentlimits, discharge permitapplications, sampling/testingprocedures

regulates wells which singlyor collectively with otherwells on the property extract>70 gpm

WPDES permitr equ ir ement s

S 304

A

RA water quality criteria forspecific pollutants

I 4UH u773 \\ \[ .\. AMERICA

CWA Ambient WaterQuality Criteria RAfor Protection ofAquatic Life

RCRA Part 264 RA

ambient water quality criteria

RCRA groundwater monitoringrequirements

C. GROUNDWATER TREATMENT

1. Activated carbon adsorption*

Alternatives 3 and 4 propose activated carbonadsorption of contaminated groundwater. Alternatives 7 and 3propose activated carbon adsorption as "effluent polishing." Thafollowing ARAR may pertain to this alternative if the resultingspent carbon material is a TCLP hazardous waste or acharacteristic waste:

Section A/RA7TBC Standard /ReouireTnent

i (40 CFR §)268 RA

2. Air stripping.

RCRA land disposalrestrictions

Alternatives 1,2.7 and a -inrlnda propooalcAlLctj«iLivw» j. dijia / propose cataiYXlC oxidat.inn nf tr*armantemissions from the air stripper: alternatives 2 and 8 proposeaativn-Kr.rl i .«. IN.UI adtrUj.puJ.un or rs-4d«i»ent eiustripper, XllS following ftHftPs wniilri portainactions:

rrom tne air

Section A/RA/TBC eau irement

(Wic nrtmm i4nNR 160

NR 400-499

CAA Part 61

AA

A

RA

Wit.

Wis. protective action limits

regulates air emissions fromair stripping

NESHAPs for, inter alia, vinylchloride, benzene, radonf?)

,u »<J ,11 i '.' • X cIri

OSWER Directive9355.0-28

(40 CFR §)141.11-141,16

141,50

264.94

264.37

RA/TBC

RA/TBC

RA

RA

KPftControl of Air Erij.ssion fromSuperfund Air S-triooers atSuperfund Groundwater Sites

SDWA KCLs

MCL Goals for, inter aliafvinyl chloride

RCRA MCLs

general ground-watermonitoring requirements forany ground-water monitoringprogram developed to satisfy,inter alia. § 264.100

I

I

L

II

APPENDIX H

Vehicular Traffic EstimationSource Control AlternativesTable 6A, March 3, 1992

andTable 6B, March 4, 1992

(4 Pages)

(W5.1 3HW2) MDM052OTCDCL-FSR.APP

RE.LaMoreaux& Associates—'

Foth & Van DykeriUn». \A/iProject:.Prepared by:.Checked by:.

U

______Scope I.D.:.LAI^J -ill____ page •_

.Date:

VeUic/l rS>ou«ce

H s Af

V

Roar ,

V

T"

o

I'A't

1%

$-&,w,

14^400

Foth & Van DykeHunt- Wf lAW/

Prepared hr

Checked by:

Scope IJX:

Date:

VI s

Y/( s

A tk tC«/*C f

6y

t f

Y/l '"^Tr.fe - J?M, , " JUaS1 ^u.^A^'Wif

Foth & Van Dyke t&JO&a I LaHtf -ill

.Scope in- $0124-

*TO 11 IPrepared by:———<JQ n IChecked by:________ .Date:.

V

I; f£>4o

Jrtic &Ti'*6o«^«/ ftii-ec

STuM^T'Wkct

-h

6 J

V

i4/

Cv

fcii ft A )

OOP8cO

goo -

o

O

Foth & Van Dyke\A/7

Project:.Prepared by:.Checked by:.

.Scope in-———Page • 2

.Date:.

it«Uf*oH/i VI o

CDftoot

Soil seee>-/co- 0

- O

800O

0

TEKI

78,100O

76 /wo

£"00 --t<TAL

O

Lt

I

i

sconsn x\ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES** *X Ctrroll ft e*»*dny( Stcrattry

„. '&* X

DMrfetfUfc HttctM/y Jtoatf

Fftcfctiw. WT 537ffTELEFAX WOl 40I.27543M

Flk R*f: 3303April 4f 1991

Chuck Ullk, RPMUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyRegion V, 5HS-11, 230 Dearborn StreetChicago, IL 60604

Subject: Review of Technical Memorandum 9A Analysis of Alternatives(SCOU) for the City Disposal Landfill I

Dear Mr. WilV:

The Department has completed its review of Technical Memo 9A. The Departmenthnlieves the nemo does a very good Job in presenting and evaluating thepossible remedial options for the site. In particular, the report does a verygood Job applying the specific review criteria to each alternative. Based onit* review, the Department has concluded that Alternative V is potentially anAcceptable remedial option for the site. As discussed later, there areconcerns about the long term reliability of an artificial membrane without abackup infiltration barrier. In addition, the Department has concluded thatAlternative VI, AC proposed, is an acceptable measure. While not providingLhe same level of infiltration control as other options, this alternative doesinclude the range of source control actions necessary to adequately addresssite concerns. The Department believes both Alternatives V and VI can beretained for future review and discussion. The remaining four options are notrecommended by the Department to be carried forward for further review for thevarious reasons stated below.

Tn addition to these introductory remarks, the Department has the followinggeneral and specific comments on the memo.

eneral

1) In reviewing the first 18 pages of the report, a number ot specificdesign details were noted. Specifics such as trench spacing, depth ofcutoff wall, trench depth, number of extraction wells per cell, blowersizing, number of vent pipes, eec. «ro given. Th« Department interpret*all of these to be estimates only and that the exact design details willbe developed during the remedial design phase. The Department wants tobe clear that it is not agreeing to the specific design details discussedin this tech memo. Rather, we are agreeing to remedial approaches to brused.

rLiii

I

. . . .Chuck Wilk - April 4, 1991 2.

'}) The Department appreciates the complete evaluations done on each of theproposed alternatives. The explanation and application of the reviewcriteria is consistent with what is expected in the CERCLA process. Thepresentation of the evaluations made the Departments review of theremedial options very easy.

Specific Comments

Page 8, before the Department can make a final decision on the acceptability.of Cover A, more information on the proposed compacted soil layer is needed.Technical memos 1, 2 and 3 present a large volume of physical data describingthis existing cover material (I.e. soil depth, grain size curves, moisturedensity curves, etc.). The Department would like an interpretation of thisda La to describe what the characteristics of this compacted native soil layerwould be. Issues such «s degree of compaction, resulting permeability, soil

, lover thickness, etc. need to be addressed. The extent to which this soil' Uyor will provide a "backup" infiltration barrier Is a key criteria in

Department decision making. Also, more detailed information on the syntheticmaterial proposed for use Is needed.

The performance level of Cover A, as shown in Table 1, makes It an attractivealternative. However, concerns on long term effectiveness and the possibleneed for a secondary barrier need to b« resolved. (Please see Attachments Aand B for further discussion of the proposed use of Cover A).

I'nge 11, during the remedial design phase specific supporting information willha needed to document the proposed trench spacing and construction. There is

- a concern that the 2-foot proposed trench depth may not adequately address gasI concentrations deep In the fill. There nay be a need to use extraction wells* tti areas outside of cells 6 and 12. Also, there Is a concern that the

proposed 300-foot spacing may be too wide to adequately control gas

I conditions. Lastly, the detailed design will need to discuss handling^-/ condensate orodueed durinc «v«fAtn ftr»*r«Hnn.condensate produced during system operation

Page 19-26, these pages provide a good discussion of the review criteria andtheir proper use In evaluating remedial alternatives.

Page 26. Alternative I does not reduce Infiltration through the site and doesnot. adequately address the remediation needs for cells 6 and 12.Consequently, this alternative Is not acceptable to the Department. Theevaluation on pages 26-32 does a very good job of highlighting strengths andweaknesses of this proposal. Based on this review, the Department believesthis alternative does not satisfactorily remediate known site conditions andrecommends that it not be further reviewed during the Feasibility Study.

PaRe 32-39, Alternative II is an incremental Improvement over Alternative Ihrrauso it includes Cover A. The Department has already expressed itsconcerns about the use of Cover A. This proposal also docs not providespecific remedial measures to deal with cells 6 and 12. The Departmentholleves additional source control measures beyond capping and the trench gas

Chuck Wllk - April 4,V_m ^ 3.

i

[III

r*

iiiii

extraction system are needed to remediate the contamination sources in cells 6and 12. Based on the RI data available, cells 6 and 12 are acting as majorgroundwater contamination source areas. Since Alternative II does not containspecific actions to remediate these cells, the Department does not believethis option is acceptable and should not be carried forward to the FeasibilityStudy stage.

Page 36, if the extraction system is operated at higher vacuum pressure, itIncreases the importance of having a continuous low permeability layer below tthe membrane cover. This continuous layer will help protect the membrane fromincreased stresses because .of the higher operating vacuums.

Page 38, there needs to be some supporting information given for the estimated2-year compliance period for NR 445 Vis. Adm. Code.

Pago 40, there is a typographic error. This section should be titledAlternative III.

Page 40, the drainage layer design will need to incorporate measures toprevent sloughing of saturated sideslopes.

Page 40-44, based on the HELP model evaluation of the various caps. Cover Bdoes not perform as well as Cover A or Cover B/C. Consequently, alternativesthat use Cover B alone are not as effective and therefore less acceptable. In,addition, Alternative III does not address the remediation needs of cells 6and 12.

Alternative III Is not an acceptable measure to the Department because of theshortcomings in infiltration reduction in comparison to the otherpossibilities and in the lack of specific remedial options for cells 6 and 12.

As with the narrative describing Alternatives 1 and II, the discussion ofAlternative III and the use of the evaluation criteria was well done.

Page 45, Alternative IV, while again an incremental improvement over thepreceding three options is not an acceptable measure -because of the lack ofattention given to cells 6 and 12. The use of cover B/C does provide for afurther reduction of water through cells 6 and 12. Therefore its proposed useis an acceptable infiltration control option. However, when used alone, itdoes not adequately address migration from cells 6 and 12. Consequently, useof cover B/C will need to be done in conjunction with other remedial measuresas proposed in Alternative VI. The Department recommends this alternative notreceive further review.

Page 49, as stated Alternative V is an improvement of Alternative II with tli«inclusion of extraction wells for cells 6 and 12 and the membrane cutoff wall.Thn Department believes this is possibly an acceptable alternative. Questionson the use of cover A need to resolved. Once the capping issues areaddressed, a final decision on this option will be made.

Page 50, it should be stated that the installation of active gas extractionwells will remove more contaminants from the depths of waste. This In turnprovides more migration control and Is consequently somewhat more protectivethan Alternative II.

I

r.i:

I*

IIIIriii

Chuck Wlllc - April 4, 1991 - . 4,

Page 55, as proposed Alternative VI is an acceptable remedial measure. Thisoption addresses all the source control issues of concern. While notproviding the same level of infiltration control as Alternative V, there isimproved long tarn reliability of the proposed cover. This alternativeprovides for more contaminant removal from the waste mass, therefore is moreprotective than some of the previous options.

As stated earlier, the Department believes either Alternatives V or VI arepotentially acceptable. This position is reaffirmed by comparative analysis .conducted on pages 60-64. Alternatives V and VI include the range of sourcecontrol measures needed to address releases from the site. Each of the

I rejected options, while having individual strong points, do not completelyaddress the source control problem. Consequently, the Department believesAlternative V and VI can be retained for consideration and additional

I evaluation.

The Department has no specific comments on Appendices A, B, C or D.

This completes the Departments review of this memo. If you have questions orconcerns, please contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Michael R. SchmollerUydrogeologistEnvironmental Response Program

MRS:cmtSUM\TCH9A.KRScc: Pat McCutcheon - SD

Sue Bangart - Stf/3

i.iiii

Ir

f

07x16/1991 16:23 PROM US ERA REGION 5 RE?3 TQ/~ £10575 4343 P.09

Chuck Wilk - April 4, 1991 ' 5.

Attachment A

On March 19, 1991 WDNR staff visited the landfill to preliminarily evaluatethe feasibility of a synthetic membrane cap at the site. Based on initialobservations site slopes appear compatible with the use of a synthetic cap. .Also, during on site discussions, it was concluded that installation of thegas collection and vapor extraction trenching and piping would need to be donebefore the cap was placed. It is believed this would help address the concernof fitting the pipes through the cover and preventing any possible leakagearound the pipes. Also, it was noted that the level of gas production wouldhave to be reviewed to insure that excessive methane production would notcause long term problems with the cap. Furthermore, it was discussed that

\^> since the fill was fairly shallow (approximately 15-22 feet thick) andrelatively old (last waste filled in 1977) that differencial settling is notexpected to be a major problem. Lastly, the issue was raised of the need forreference information on the use of synthetic materials as caps ac other solidAnd hazardous waste disposal facilities.

Attachment^ B

The following narrative was provided by WDNR Central Office staff concerningthe proposed cover types. It provides a good discussion of Departmentconcerns specific to the proposed use of Cover A.

Different cover options are provided; cover A, cover B, cover B/C. and coverC. The upper components of these caps are the sama; the caps differ in thelov permeability barriers provided. Cover A provides a geontembrane over theexisting cover as the low permeability barrier (with estimated saturated

, hydraulic conductivity of 3.2 x ID"4) and uses the HELP model to estinateinfiltration through this cap. It is not clear how these values were derived,or how the interaction between the membrane and the lower soil layer wasmodeled. Flow through holes in geomembranes is dependent upon characteristicsof the underlying materials. A major assumption of the HELP model is that

, flow occurs only through soil pores. With the existing cap, significantfractures and macro-structure are likely to present. Flow through this macro-structure may not behave as porous media flow and it may not be appropriate f.omodel this flow using porous media assumptions. It is unlikely that theexisting cap presents a continuous permeability of 3.2 x 10* cm/sec. 1understand that the existing cover may meet the NK 500 materialspecifications, but does not meet placement specifications. The clay layermust meet both the soil specifications and placement specifications. I do notbelieve that compaction of the existing cap could effectively eliminate themacro-structure such that a consistent 1 x 10*T hydraulic conductivity would bepresent across the entire cap. Without the re-working of the existing coversuch that the macro-structure is removed. Uii» cap would noc be aa effectiveas is presented in the discussion of this alternative. I believe it isnecessary to strip the existing cover, test the material, and replaceacceptable clay soils in thin lifts such that the completed clay layer meetsplacement specifications throughout the 2 foot depth, prior to placement of Amembrane. Also, it ia unknown how much additional settlement will followClipping of this landfill. A low-permeability soil layer Is necessary belowthe membrane to not only limit Infiltration through membrane holes, but toprovide redundancy should settlement strain exceed the membrane eanacltv.

I:

i:LIrrfiii

RE. LaMoreaux & Associates, Inc.Hydrologists Geologists Engineers & Environmental Scientists

Via AirborneJune 20, 1991

Mr. Charles Witk.5HS-11Remedial Project ManagerCity Disposal CorporationHazardous Waste Enforcement BranchU.S. EPA, Region V230 South Dearborn StreetChicago, Illinois 60604

Mr. Mike SchmollerProject CoordinatorCity Disposal CorporationState of WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources3911 Fish Hatchery RoadFitchburg, Wisconsin 53711

RE: CDCL * Technical Memorandum No. 6BPELA Reference Number 495209

Dear Sirs:

I Transmitted on behalf of Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. is the document entitled.•Response to Comments on Technical Memorandum No. 6B, Alternatives Array Document (GCOU) forRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, City Disposal Corporation Landfill.'

If you have any questions, please contact March Smith, Remedial Project Manager(708-409-0700).

Sincerely,

Daniel S. GreenProject Manager

(T- i^Lois D. GeorgeVice President

Environment & EcologylDQ\pmb 13-D:\485200\Witk-Seh-U>1

Enclosures: Wilk -12 copies; Schmoller - 3 copies (2-Southern District/1-Central Office)

cc: March Smith Oliver JanneyDee Brncich Nick Odom, Jr.Jack Dowden

I Home Office: P.O. Box 2310. Tuscaloosa. AL 35403 205/752-5543 FAX 205/752-4043Offices: 2 Office Park. Suite 104. Mobile. AL 36609 205/342-8714 FAX 205/342-8714

P.O. BOX 6719. Lakeland FL 33S13 fi13/646.852S FAY a i i/R4fi.1042

r

riti

iii

Response to Comments on Technical Memorandum No. 6BAlternatives Array Document (GCOU)

For Remedial Investigation Feasibility StudyCity Disposal Corporation (DUNN) Landfill

PELA 495209 June 20, 1991

U.S. Environmental Projection AgencyCharles Wilk

Remediation Project ManagerMay 20, 1991

U.S. EPA Ust I

Nine alternatives have been proposed for potential application to the GCOU. Each alternative includes zoning/deedrestrictions and ground-water monitoring. Alternatives 1*3, 5 and 7*9 include an extraction well system. Alternatives 1-2 and7-8 include air stripping. Alternatives 1-3 and 7-9 Include discharging treated ground water to a local stream. Alternative 5proposes discharge of untreated or pre-treated ground water to a local publicly-owned treatment works fPOTW"). Alternatives1 and 7 call for catalytic oxidation of treatment emissions. Alternatives 2 and 8 call for activated carbon absorption oftreatment emissions. Centralized carbon absorption of contaminated ground water is proposed in Alternative 3: activatedcarbon absorption at individual wells is proposed in Alternative 4. (Activated carbon absorption of treated ground water isproposed as "effluent polishing' in Alternatives 7 and 8.) lit-situ bio-remediation is proposed in Alternative 6. Above groundbio-treatment is proposed in Alternative 9.

A. Zoning, fencing/Deed RestrictionsEach of the proposed GCOU alternatives includes proposals to restrict access to the site by means or zoning

regulations, fencing requirements and deed restrictions. The ARARs pertinent to such proposals were listed in mymemorandum on 12/26/90, but are restated here for convenience:

Section f4Q CFR SI

264.177(0)

264.310<b)(5)

A/RA/TBC Standard/Requirement

RA post-closure use of property on or in whichhazardous wastes remain

RA protect and maintain surveyed benchmarks

RESPONSE: Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. would like to clarify if, by citing 40 CFR 264, theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) Is asserting that affirmative evidence exists that the materialsIn the landfill are Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous. If so. WasteManagement requests access to such evidence. Waste Management believes that, while an argumentmay be made that hazardous waste regulations may be relevant to this site, they are not appropriategiven site specific conditions.

i

B. Ground Water Extraction and DischargeThe following ARARs pertain to the GCOU's proposals regarding an extraction well system, discharge of untreated

water to a POTW, and direct discharge of treated ground water to surface water:

Section f40 CFR §1

$123

§403.5

(6/11/91) 13-D:\495200\Response.6B

A/RA/TBC Standard /Requirement

A NPOES requirements of CA

TBC POTW limitations

•RELaMoreaux & Associates-

[

II

(Wis. Adm. Code)NR 102, 104, 200, 217and 219

NR 112

WPDES permitrequirement*

CAS304

CA Ambient WaterQuality Criteriafor Protection ofAquatic Ufe

RCRA Part 264

A (?)

RA

RA

RA

regulating discharge to surface water,effluent limits, discharge permitapplications, sampling/testing procedures

regulates wells which singly or collectivelywith other wells on the property extract>70 gpm

water quality criteria for specificpollutants

ambient water quality criteria

RCRA ground-water monitoring requirements

RESPONSE: No response to any ARAR cited with the exception of RCRA Part 264. With respect tothe relevance of 40 CFR 264, see response to comment EPA-A.

i C. Ground-Water Treatment

1. Activated carbon adsorptionAlternatives 3 and 4 propose activated carbon adsorption of contaminated ground water. Alternatives 7 and

8 propose activated carbon adsorption as 'effluent polishing.' The following ARAR may pertain to this alternative if theresulting spent carbon material is a TCLP hazardous waste or a characteristic waste:

Section (40 CFR SI A/RA/TBC Standard /Requirement

268 RA RCRA land disposal restrictions

RESPONSE: Comment noted; no response.

r

2. Air strippingAlternatives 1, 2, 7 and 8 include proposals for air stripping. Alternatives 1 and 7 propose catalytic

oxidation of treatment emissions from the air stripper: alternatives 2 and 8 propose activated carbon adsorption of treatmentemissions from the air stripper. The following ARARs would pertain to these proposed actions;

Section

(Wis. Adm. Code)NR140

NR160

NR 400-499

CAA Part 61

A/RA/TBfj Standard/Requirement

A Wis. ground-water standards

A Wis. protective action limits

A regulates air emissions from air stripping

RA NESHAPs for, inter alia, vinyl chloride,benzene, radon (?)

(6/11/91) 13-D:\495200\Response.6B

•RE.LaMoreaux&Associates-

r

L

F

I»

II

OSWER Directive9355.0-28

(40CFRSJ141.11-141.16

-141.50

264.94

264.97

RA

RA/TBC

RA/T8C

•RA

RA

ERA policy guidance entitled Control of AirEmission from Suoerfund Air Strippers atSupertund Ground-Water Sites

SDWA MCLs

MCL Goals for, filter alia, vinyl chloride

RCRAMCLs

general ground-water monitoring requirements forany ground-water monitoring program developed tocatisfy, Inter alia. S 264.100

RESPONSE: Please clarify the intent of the reference to WAC NR 160. NR 160 pertains to Federaland State Construction Grant Projects and would not seem to be applicable to this situation.

No response to any other cited ARARs/To Be Considered (TBCs) criteria with theexception of 40 CFR 264. With respect to the relevance of 40 CFR 264, see response to commentEPA-A.

State of WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources

Michael Schmoller, HydrogeologistEnvironmental Response Program

January 25,1991

Technical Memorandum 68

General Comment#1 Any groundwater remedial action taken at the site must be able to comply with the preventive action limits

set in ch. NR 140. Wis. Adm. Code. The compliance point for this site is the waste boundary. Ifcompliance with preventive action limits is proven not to be technically and economically feasible asspecified in s. NR 140.24, Wis. Adm. Code, the lowest technically and environmentally feasible ground-water concentration shall be achieved. In no case can the target cleanup level exceed state enforcementstandards.

For parameters for which no ch. NR 140, Wis. Adm. Code standard exists, the cleanup standard shall bebackground concentration*. If achievement of background concentrations is proven not to be technicallyand economically feasible, the lowest technically and economically feasible concentrations shall beachieved as the cleanup standards.

RESPONSE: The assertion that the point of compliance is the waste boundary is contrary to thepromulgated regulations of Wisconsin. Since there has been no assertion of affirmative evidence thatthe landfill contents are RCRA hazardous, a design management zone (DMZ) of 0 feet is inapplicable.Rather, a DMZ of 300 feet, or the limit of property ownership, in accordance with WAC NR 140.22 -point of standards application would seem to be applicable. If a non-promulgated Department ofNatural Resources (DNR) policy or guideline requires compliance at the waste boundary, it should becited as a TBC; ARARs are reserved for promulgated standards.

(6/11/91) 13-D:\495200\Response.6B

•RELaMoreaux&Associates

It should be noted for the administrative record that there exists no evidence that thePreventative Action Limits (PAL) standards or even all the Enforcement Standards (ES) are technicallyattainable. In fact, the presiding definitive work on ground-water remediation (Kerr Research Lab inAda. Oklahoma) has indicated that such standards cannot be achieved within the limits of existingtechnology.

i

General Comment#2 tt must be understood that all afr emissions from both source control and ground-water control remedial

measures must comply with the toxic air emissions criteria In ch. NR 445. Wis. Adm. Code. Thetechnologies retained for air emission control must meet the mandated performance levels.

The Department's concurrence with any remedial action to be taken at the site will be based oncompliance with ARARs. The performance criteria in ch. NR 140 and ch. NR 445, Wis. Adm. Code, arecritical criteria to be used in evaluating the adequacy of any remedial measures.


Page 11 On this page and In several other locations in the technical memo, the term 'regulatory limits" is used.This term need to be specifically defined. For ground-water quality the regulatory limits are the preventiveaction limits contained in ch. NR 140, Wis. Adm. Code.


Page 11 The regulatory concentrations that should be used to evaluate the significance of ground-waterconcentrations are preventive action limits - not enforcement standards. State ground-water law netspreventive action limits as the triggering levels for initiating response activities.


ii

Page 12 The Department does not have a record of a methylene chloride soil detect of 8.5 ug/kg (81.5} downslopefrom cell 6. Please provide the sample location and date for this result.

RESPONSE: The concentration of methlylene chloride was determined at 81.5 ug/kg from a soilsample collected downslope from cell 6. The sample (SD-7) was collected at location E400. N800 (gridreference). The organic constituents determined in surflcial soil samples are provided in a summarytable on page 33 of Technical Memorandum No. 3A, April 12. 1991.

(6/11/91) 13-D:\495200\Response.6B

•RELaMoreaux&Associates-

ii

Page 19 The conclusion that there is no landfill gas production and low gas pressures needs to be verified with fielddata. There have been past complaints from nearby residences about "smells' around Grass Lake. Itseems possible these odors are landfill gas migrating towards the topographic low of Grass Lake.

RESPONSE: Data collected and evaluated to date are presented in section 4.1.1 of TechnicalMemorandum No. 3A. April 12, 1991. The data indicate that the occurrence and venting of volatilegases Is minimum. WMWI concurs that additional data will be collected.

Odors are likely attributable to Bad Fish Creek. The discharge of which ispredominantly effluent from the Madison sewage treatment plant (24 to 52 million gallons per day).PELA personnel, while reading staff gages and stream gaging, have noted malodorous effluvium at BadFish Creek. In addition. Grass Lake comprises a water body and swamp where generation andmigration of natural organic gases can occur.

Page 20 In a practical sense, source control measures will likely reduce contaminant migration from the landfill -not completely preclude any transport.


Page 21 This page provides a good summary of the status of the ground-water studies and the conclusions thatcan be reached to date. The Department would like to see a proposed timeline for completing theadditional studies proposed at the bottom of the page.

RESPONSE: WMWI is currently considering technologies researched at other sites and will addresstreatability in detail in Technical Memorandum No. 9B and the Draft FS (GCOU).

Testing to determine aquifer characteristics and the area of influence from ground waterwithdrawal will be addressed In the Remedial Design (RD) Phase.

Page 24 This section on environmental monitoring correctly states that monitoring surface water and groundwaterquality are used to assess the performance of the remedial action. The concept of monitoring needs tobe expanded for both operable units to include * monitoring the performance of active source controlalternatives and the active gas collection system. If a technology is chosen to actively remediate cells 6and 12, such as vapor extraction, a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the remediation willbe required. Monitoring source contaminant concentrations in the waste before, during, and after theremediation will be essential to evaluating system performance.

RESPONSE: Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc. agrees that the concept of separate monitoringsystems and objectives needs to be expanded further in the Feasibility Study (FS) documents, but onlyto the extent that the monitoring goals and data quality objectives are defined. The actual details of themonitoring program should be addressed in the remedial design (RD) phase.

(6/11/91) 13-D:\*95200\Response.6B

•P. E.LaMoreaux& Associates—^

[t

I

Page 25-34 Section 5.4 provides a good general discussion of the various ground-water control, treatment anddischarge options.


Pag* 34*41 Section 6.0 provides a good general overview of the feasibility process for Superfund sites.


Page 38 As stated In comments on the SCOU, ARARs are not frequently used standards, but rather are legallymandated requirements that must be met In designing and Implementing remedial actions.

RESPONSE; Comment noted; no response.

Page 41-45 The Department agrees with the evaluation process discussed on these pages and summarized on Plate1. The retained technologies are likely the most promising alternatives. However, it must be clear that theretained air emissions treatment technologies must be capable of meeting state air quality rules. ARARsfor this process option, discussed In detail later, include air toxic substance emission controls. Theserequirements must be complied with.

RESPONSE: See responses to EPA comments B and C (pages 2 and 3 of this document).

Page 45-49 The department also agrees with the elimination process discussed on these pages and summarized onPlate 2. The remaining process options are believed to be the universe of practical alternatives available.


(6/11/91) 13-D:\495200\Response.6B

-RELaMoreaux&Associates—

The following table summarizes the Departments ARAR determination for the remedial measures proposed in this tech memo.

Table 1. ARAR DETERMINATION

Below are listed the ARARs as determined by the Department based on the various remedial options presented. Thedepartment may amend this list based on changes or additions to the list of remedial actions for this site.

Alternative

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

AorRA1

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Code/Statute2

NR 140 s.160

NR141

NR149

NR181

NR 105, 106

S. 144.04

NR44S

NR181

NR211

NR112

Preliminary IdentificationStandards/Requirements

Ground-water standards and response requirements

Monitoring well requirements

Laboratory certification for environmental testing

If the extracted ground water exhibits a characteristic hazardous waste,the water and discharges are hazardous until the characteristic is nolonger exhibited

Toxic substance effluent surface water standards.

Waste-water plan review requirements.

Toxic air emissions control requirements.

Same requirements as Alternative 1.

Spent carbon residues shall be treated as hazardous waste if the exhibithazardous characteristics, unless regenerated.




State waste-water pretreatment requirement for discharge to POTWs.


Injection of material to the subsurface is regulated under water supplycodes




A or RA - Applicable (A) or potentially relevant and appropriate (RA).

Code « Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter NR series;Statute • Wisconsin State Statutes

(6/11/91) 13-D:\495200\Response.6B

RELaMoreaux & Associates

L

r- • /-i ^*"v, fL~ •v ^^^ ^^ ^

r « S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYf" \ *$S?2 ? REGIONSI \<*W*y 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST. A ^~

\«w^ CMCAOOJUJNOIS 60604 pf\^ I |T ' I I j^.

JUL151991BEPLVTOATTEKTIONOF:

5HS-11Mr. March SmithRemedial Projects Managerwaste Management of North America, inc.Midwest RegionTwo Corporate Center, Suite 1000 \P.O. Box 7070 ]Westchester, Illinois 60154 /

Re: City Disposal Corp. Landfill Technical Memorandum 9a*

Dear Mr* Smith:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) hascompleted its review of Technical Memorandum 9a of the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)..for the City DisposalCorporation Landfill "Superfund11 site. Technical Memorandum 9ais an analysis of alternatives for the Scource Control OperableUnit (SCOU) of this site.

U.S. EPA and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)comments are presented in the enclosures. U.S. EPA and WDNRcomments should be addressed in the SCOU Draft Feasibility Study

-- Report.

Sincerely,

--

I lf you have any questions concerning this letter and commentsplease telephone me at (312) 353-1331.

•"• —

ii:i

Charles WilkRemedial Project Manager

cc: Mike Schmoller, WDNRBob Schoepke, M&E

c[I

c

[[II

*

IIIIIIIIIII

U.S. EPA CommentsTechnical Memorandum 9a

General Comments!1. The SCOU Draft Feasibility Study Report should carry-

Alternative 1 (No-Action) , Alternative V and Alternative vithrough evaluation against the nine evaluation criteria.These Alternatives were selected because; (a) Alternative iis a No-Action alternative and required to be carriedthrough as a baseline, and (b) Alternatives V and VI includeactive remediation of landfilled waste in Cells 6 and 12.

2. Although costs presented are included for discussionpurposes only, costs presented for each alternative inAppendix C should be identical to costs presented for thesame alternative in the text. Several discrepancies existand should be corrected.

Specific Comments;

1. page 8, paragraph 2, Section 3.2.1.2, Cover A - Synthetic

Alternative V includes the use of Cover A. Cover A does not.meet the Wisconsin Administrative Codes [NR 504.07 or NR181.44(13)]. Cover A consists of a 1 - foot thicX compacted,clay layer. The code requires a 2 - foot clay layer.Alternative V may continue to be considered if theperformance of the 1 - foot thick compacted clay layer canbe further verified.

2. page 10, Table 1, summary of Cost Effectiveness of theCapping Alternatives

The U.S. EPA Hydraulic Evaluation of Landfill Performance(HELP) model should be used to estimate the infiltrationrate for the current landfill covers. The infiltration ratefor the current conditions would serve as a comparisonbetween proposed covers and existing conditions. If it wereto be determined that a proposed cover provides no moreprotection than the current cover, then this would be abasis for eliminating the proposed cover.

c 07/16/1991 16:20 S OM US EPA REGION 5 RERB TO 82057524043 P.04

rL

I[

3. page 13, paragraph 2, Section 3.2.5.1, Purpose

Further discussion detailing the landfill gas extractionsystem monitoring program should be included. For example,sampling intervals, duration of sampling, contaminants to besampled and the permissible limits. The cost should becalculated and added to all alternatives using themonitoring program

4. page 26, paragraph 1, Section 5.1.1, .Description

The text states that pulsed extraction of the landfill gasmay be effective for approximately two years. Furtherexplanation and/or calculations substantiating this estimateshould be included within the document.

5. page 26, paragraph 2, Section 5.1.1, Description

The first sentences states that runoff from the landfilldrains into nearby ponds or streams. This statements ispartially incorrect* Runoff may drain into Badfish Creekbut may not drain into nearby ponds. This statement shouldbe corrected.

fi. page 29, paragraph 2, Section 5.1.5.2, fonount of HazardousMaterials Destroyed or Treated

The operational life of the active landfill gas extractionand combustion system should be indicated.

v. page 37, paragraph 4, Section 5.2.6.1, Risks to communityDuring Remedial Action

Further explanation/details regarding air contaminantmonitoring at the site boundary should be included. Theduration/intervals of monitoring should be stated.

8. page 40, Section 5.3, Alternative III

Alternative III is incorrectly labelled as Alternative II.This should be corrected.

9. page 49, paragraph 1, Section 5.4.8.1, gapital Costs

The installation costs for Cover B are presented in thecapital cost estimate for Alternative IV. This alternativeactually stipulates use of the combination Cover B/C. Thistypographical error should be corrected.

i.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTS PROTECTIONREGIONS

230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET\mft^ CHICAGO. IL 60604

PATE RECEIVED/SENTB*L MARCH SMITH -.. RE^vToiweMr^KriONOf.srre____ O4t.CC/RQUTt

I MUliJJg lay! PKf DP' ***' "*• W GM, Da WS-«o» ASHLEsvsreMT — — — —— —

I • Mr* March Smith FILECODE: ———,——j ;;-; -I v_y Remedial Projects Manager ————————W/0ATTACH

Waste Management of North America, Inc.

I Midwest RegionTwo Corporate Center, Suite 1000P.O. Box 7070weatchester, Illinois 60154

Re: City Disposal Corp. Landfill Project schedule

Doar Mr. Smith:

I Baaed on our recent telephone discussions concerning the conductand schedule of the Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility

I Study (FS) for the City Disposal corporation Landfill inI Wisconsin the following agreements haV6 been »ade. The operable1 unit approach for this project will be replaced with a final site

reaedy approach. Therefore, the RI Report and the FS ReportI shall investigate all releases at the site and evaluate remedialI technologies to address the entire site.

I The schedule for deliverables to the U.S. EPA is a* follows:Draft RI Report September 12, 1991

! • Fimil RT Report 30 days after U.S. EPA' comments on Draft RI Report

I Draft KS Report November l, i»»lFinal FS Report 30 days after U.S. EPA

I coanents on Draft FS Report

[ * 08/23/91 10:56 ^708 4QT 0773. . ..... .... -,,•masSSsi99£"iQm9 r\ JM us

rEPft REGION

If your understanding of tA. agreed flch.dule is different thanthe one above, please telephone as inaediately at (312) 353 1331

Sincerely,

CharlAfiRemedial Project Manager

cc: Mike Schnoller, WDKKBob Schoepke, H&E

I

pela inc letter re: response to epa comments on … · 2020. 8. 15. · 102 response to comments on...

Documents