williams russell johnson inc - final work plan

EPA Region S Records Ctr.

fr C C 9243630

FINAL WORK PLAN

HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL

RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

VOLUME I - TECHNICAL SCOPE OF WORK

FEBRUARY 1989

Prepared For:

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEmergency and Remedial Response Branch

Region V230 South Dearborn StreetChicago, Illinois 60604

This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency under Contract No. 68-01-7403. The material contained herein is notto be disclosed to, discussed with, or made available to any person orpersons without the prior expressed approval of a responsible official ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Document No.: 002-CCJM-WP-4006-0

W.A. No.: 2-5L3D

002/31

Williams . russell and Johnson, inc.

mna\nmmrm . planner* . •r2001 L Street, N.W.Suite 406Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone (202) 872-9144

Facsimile (202) 872-9147

March 2, 1989

Ms. Beverly KushActing Regional Project OfficerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency230 S. Dearborn StreetChicago, IL 60604

Mr. Michael YangRemedial Project ManagerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency230 S. Dearborn StreetChicago, IL 60604

Subject: Final RI/FS Work PlanHunts Disposal Landfill SiteRacine County, Wisconsin

"Work Assignment No.: 2-5L3D

EPA Contract No.: 68-01-7403

Document No.: 002-CCJM-WP-4006-0

Dear Ms. Kush and Mr. Yang:

Williams-Russell 4 Johnson, Inc. (WRJ) 1s pleased to submit for yourapproval the Final Work Plan for RI/FS activities at the Hunts DisposalLandfill Site located In Racine County, Wisconsin.

The Final Work Plan for the Hunts Disposal Landfill Site addresses theitems requested in the Statement of Work (SOW) provided by EPA under WorkAssignment 2-5L3D. Additions or deletions to this Work Plan have beendiscussed with Mr. Yang as necessary and are based on comments from U.S.EPA and the State of Wisconsin.

The costs for completion of the activities are based on REM V contractlabor rates. Costs also represent direct and Indirect components pluscosts for subcontractors. The costs associated with the activitiesdescribed herein are provided in Volume II and reflect comments providedby U.S. EPA and the State of Wisconsin.

002/30

Ms. Beverly KushMr. Michael YangMarch 2, 1989

If you have any questions, please contact us

Very truly yours,

WILLIAMS-RUSSELL AND JOHNSON, INC.

<t P.E'roject Manager

JT:sjrEnclosures

cc: Mr. Leon McLemore (PM-214F), Contracting Officer, U.S. EPAThomas Whalen, P.E., (WH-548E), Project Officer, U.S. EPAFile - WRJ-Wash., DC, CCJM-Chicago & CCJM-S1lver Spring

JOHNSON & MALHOTRA, P.C.ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS •

March 2. 1989

Mr. John W. TuckerW11 Hams-Russell & Johnson, Inc.2001 L Street, N.W.Suite 406Washington, O.C. 20036

Subject: Final RI/FS Work PlanHunts Disposal LandfillRacine County, Wisconsin

Work Assignment No.: 2-5L30

EPA Contract No.: 68-01-7403

Document Control No.: 002-CCJM-WP-4006-0

Dear Mr. Tucker:

Enclosed for your review and transmlttal to U.S. EPA 1s the Final WorkPlan developed for Hunts Disposal Landfill Site. This document reflectscomments received from U.S. EPA and should be submitted for finalapproval.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me.

Very truly yours,

C. C. JOHNSON & MALHOTRA, P.C.

^i^wf; ftSidney F. Paige, DYEnv.Site Manager

SFP:sjr

Enclosure

cc: FileDocument ControlRegion V File

002/28

200 WEST ADAMS STREET • SUITE 1601 • CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60606 • (312)621-3944

PERFORMANCE OF REMEDIAL PLANNINGACTIVITIES AT SELECTED UNCONTROLLED

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE DISPOSAL SITES (REM V)

U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO.: 68-01-7403

FINAL WORK PLAN

FOR

HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILLCALEDONIA, WISCONSIN

EPA Work Assignment No.: 2-5L3D

REM V Document No.: 002-CCJM-WP-4006-0

Prepared By: gvSidney F. Pa1^» D. Env. "lSite Manager

Date:

Approved By: /ft»y Uy^^K^ Date: /<W 3Rn W. Tuctcer, P.E.M V Program Manager

002/18

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsADI Acceptable Daily IntakeAWQCs Ambient Water Quality CriteriaCCJM C. C. Johnson & Malhotra, P.C.CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act

CES Compliance Enforcement SectionCLP Contract Laboratory ProgramCR Community Relations

CRL U.S. EPA Central Regional LaboratoryCRP Community Relations PlanDWEL Drinking Water Equivalent Level

EA Endangerment AssessmentERRB Emergency and Remedial Response BranchFS Feasibility Study

HA Health Advisory

HDL Hunts Disposal Landfill

HSP Health and Safety PlanISER Initial Site Evaluation ReportLEL Lower Explosive Limit

MCL Maximum Contaminant LevelMCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MSL Mean Sea Level (Ground elevation reference point)

NCP National Contingency PlanNPL National Priorities ListODCs Other Direct Costs

OF 60 Optional Form 60

O&M Operation and MaintenancePFS Phased Feasibility StudyPHE Public Health Evaluation

002/25

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

(Continued)

PRP Potential Responsible PartyQAC Quality Assurance CoordinatorQAO Quality Assurance OfficeQAPP Quality Assurance Project PlanQA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality ControlRAS Routine Analytical ServiceRAMP Remedial Action Master PlanREM Remedial Engineering ManagementREM V REM Program and Contract (U.S. EPA No. 68-01-7403)

REMIS REM V Information Data Base SystemREMTECH REM V Technical Data Base (repository for analytical data)RI Remedial InvestigationRI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

RPM Remedial Project Manager (U.S. EPA-Reg1on V)SAP Sampling and Analysis PlanSARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizatlon Act

SAS Special Analytical ServiceTM Technical Memorandum

USACE United States Army Corps of EngineersUSGS United States Geological SurveyU.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection AgencyVOCs Volatile Organic CompoundsWA Work AssignmentWACR Work Assignment Completion Report

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesWMI Waste Management, Inc.WRJ Williams-Russell and Johnson, Inc.

002/25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Site Location and History 1-11.2 Site Status and Project Type 1-41.3 Overview 1-6

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING 2-1

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 2-1

2.1.1 General Surface Features 2-32.1.2 Physiography 2-42.1.3 Topography and Cover 2-52.1.4 Soils 2-52.1.5 Geology 2-62.1.6 Groundwater Patterns 2-72.1.7 Surface Waters 2-82.1.8 Climate 2-9

2.2 SITE HISTORY 2-9

2.3 CONTAMINATION PROBLEM DEFINITION 2-12

2.3.1 Waste Disposed at Site 2-122.3.2 Hazard of Contaminants 2-142.3.3 Degree of Site Contamination 2-19

3.0 INITIAL EVALUATION 3-1

3.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3-1

3.1.1 Migration Pathways 3-13.1.2 Potential Receptors 3-43.1.3 Environmental and Public Health Effects 3-5

3.2 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS ANDREMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES 3-6

3.2.1 Identification of General Response Actions 3-73.2.2 Performance Criteria and Standards for Remedial

Technologies 3-143.2.3 Approach to Technologies Evaluation and Alternatives

Development and Screening 3-14

002/24

4.0 WORK PLAN RATIONALE

4.1 Existing Data and Data Quality Requirements

4.2 Data Quality Objectives

5.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK

5.1 Task 1.0 PROJECT PLANNING

5.2

5.3

5

55

5

55

.1.

.1.

.1.

.1.

.1.

.1.

Task

5555

.2.

.2.

.2.

.2.

Task

55

55

55555

55555

5

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

.3.

1

23

4

56

2

1234

3

12

34

56789

1011121314

14

Subtask

SubtaskSubtask

Subtask

SubtaskSubtask

1

11

1

11

.1 -

.2 -

.3 -

.4 -

.5 -

.6 -

Initial Project Planning And SiteEvaluationSite Health And Safety PlanQuality Assurance Project Plan

Assessment of the Need ForInitial Remedial MeasuresReview of Existing InformationTask Management and Quality Control

.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS

SubtaskSubtaskSubtaskSubtask

.0 FIELD

SubtaskSubtask

SubtaskSubtask

SubtaskSubtaskSubtaskSubtaskSubtask

SubtaskSubtaskSubtaskSubtaskSubtask

Subtask

2222

.1 -

.2 -

.3 -

.4 -

Community Relations Document (s)Public MeetingSupport ActivitiesTask Management and Qulity Control

INVESTIGATION

33

33

33333

33333

3

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

.10

.11

.12

.13

.14

• If

- Mobilization/Demobilization- Site Boundary Survey (Legal

And Study Area)- Site Topographic Survey- Preparation of SubcontractorProcurement Documents

- Source Characterization- Radiological Investigation- Magnetometer Survey- Soils/Sediment Investigation- Residential Well Water

Investigation- Air Quality Investigation- Surface Water Investigation- Hydrogeologic Investigation- Phase Two Work- Handling of Project Generated

Hazardous Waste- Task Management and Quality Control

4-1

4-1

4-10

5-1

5-2

5-10

5-115-115-115-12

5-12

5-12

5-135-14

5-155-155-165-185-19

5-225-235-235-245-315-32

5-34

ii

002/24

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

'

TASK 4.0 SAMPLE ANALYSIS/VALIDATION

TASK 5.0 DATA EVALUATION

TASK 6.0 ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT

5.6.1 Subtask 6.1 - Contaminant Identification5.6.2 Subtask 6.2 - Exposure Assessment5.6.3 Subtask 6.3 - Toxicity Assessment5.6.4 Subtask 6.4 - Risk Characterization5.6.5 Subtask 6.5 - Task Management and Quality Control

TASK 7.0 TREATABILITY STUDY/PILOT TESTING

TASK 8.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS

5.8.1 Subtask 8.1 - Draft Report5.8.2 Subtask 8.2 - Final Report5.8.3 Subtask 8.3 - Public Meeting5.8.4 Subtask 8.4 - Task Management and Quality Control

TASK 9.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SCREENING

5.9.1 Subtask 9.1 - Preliminary Remedial TechnologiesScreening

5.9.2 Subtask 9.2 - Assembly of Alternative RemedialActions

5.9.3 Subtask 9.3 - Initial Screening of Alternatives5.9.4 Subtask 9.4 - Effective Screening5.9.5 Subtask 9.5 - Implementability Screening5.9.6 Subtask 9.6 - Cost Screening5.9.7 Subtask 9.7 - Candidate Listing Summary5.9.8 Subtask 9.8 - Task Management and Quality Control

TASK 10.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION

5.10.1 Subtask 10.1 - Short-Term Effectiveness5.10.2 Subtask 10.2 - Long-Term Effectiveness and

Performance5.10.3 Subtask 10.3 - Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility,

and Volume5.10.4 Subtask 10.4 - Implementability5.10.5 Subtask 10.5 - Cost5.10.6 Subtask 10.6 - Compliance With ARARs5.10.7 Subtask 10.7 - Overall Protection of Human Health

and the Environment5.10.8 Subtask 10.8 - State Acceptance5.10.9 Subtask 10.9 - Community Acceptance5.10.10 Subtask 10.10 - Task Management and Quality

Control

5-34

5-35

5-36

5-375-375-395-405-40

4-41

5-41

5-415-415-435-43

5-43

5-43

5-445-455-465-475-485-485-48

5-49

5-49

5-49

5-495-505-505-50

5-515-515-51

5-51

m

002/24

5.11 TASK 11.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT 5-51

5.11.1 Subtask 11.1 - Preliminary Draft Report 5-515.11.2 Subtask 11.2 - Revised Draft Feasibility

Study Report 5-535.11.3 Subtask 11.3 - Public Meeting 5-545.11.4 Subtask 11.4 - Final Feasibility Study Report 5-545.11.5 Subtask 11.5 - Task Management and Quality Control 5-54

5.12 TASK 12.0 POST RI/FS SUPPORT 5-55

5.12.1 Subtask 12.1 - ROD Preparation Assistance 5-555.12.2 Subtask 12.2 - Work Assignment Completion Report

(WACR) 5-555.12.3 Subtask 12.3 - Task Management and Quality Control 5-55

5.13 TASK 13.0 ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT 5-55

5.13.1 Subtask - Task Management and Quality Control 5-56

5.14 TASK 14.0 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORT 5-56

5.15 TASK 15.0 EXPEDITED RESPONSE ACTION (ERA) PLANNING 5-56

6.0 COST AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS 6-1

6.1 COSTS 6-1

6.2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS 6-1

6.2.1 Assumptions Related to Major Project Cost Items 6-26.2.2 Assumptions Related to Schedule/Sequencing 6-36.2.3 Assumptions Related to the Anticipated

Scope of Work 6-4

7.0 SCHEDULE 7-1

8.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 8-1

8.1 KEY INDIVIDUALS 8-1

8.2 OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 8-2

8.3 LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY 8-3

8.4 QA RESPONSIBILITY 8-3

9.0 TEXT REFERENCE/BIBLIOGRAPHY 9-1

iv

002/24

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1-1 SELECTED RESULTS FROM NUS SAMPLING PERFORMED AT 1-5HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL IN NOVEMBER, 1984

2-1 LIST OF WASTE MATERIALS DISPOSED AT HUNTS DISPOSAL 2-13LANDFILL

2-2 COMPOSITION OF PRINTING INK DUMPED AT SITE FROM 2-15MILWAUKEE JOURNAL/SENTINEL

2-3 COMPOSITION OF SHOE POLISH FORMULAS DISPOSED AT SITE 2-16

2-4 OTHER MATERIALS DISPOSED AT SITE 2-17

2-5 LIST OF POTENTIAL RESPONSIBLE PARTIES (PRPs) 2-18

4-1 DATA REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 4-3

4-2 DATA QUALITY SUMMARY 4-7

4-3 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LEVELS APPROPRIATE TO DATA USES 4-12

5-2 RATIONALE FOR PLACEMENT OF NEW GROUNDWATER MONITORING 5-27WELLS AT HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL

5-3 FORMAT FOR RI REPORT 5-42

002/23

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1-1 HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL, REGIONAL LOCATION 1-2

1-2 HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL AREA LOCATION 1-3

2-1 HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL GENERAL FEATURES 2-2

3-1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF CONTAMINANT PATHWAYS AT HUNTS 3-2DISPOSAL LANDFILL RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

4-1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF CONTAMINANT PATHWAYS AT HUNTS 4-2DISPOSAL LANDFILL RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

5-1 HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL EXISTING MONITORING WELLS 5-17

5-2 HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL SURFACE WATERS AND SEDIMENTS 5-21

5-3 HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL PROPOSED MONITORING WELLS 5-26

5-4 HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL EXISTING AND PROPOSED 5-30MONITORING WELLS

7-1 SCHEDULE FOR RI/FS AT THE HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL SITE 7-2

v1

002/23

Hunts Disposal LandfillWork PlanRevision: FINALSection: 1Date: February 1989Page No.: 1 of 6

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Work Plan has been prepared to define the scope of activities requiredto accomplish the Work Assignment (No. 2-5L3D) for a Remedial Investigationand Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Hunts Disposal Landfill (HDL) sitelocated in Racine County, Wisconsin. The Work Assignment was issued onSeptember 17, 1987. Site specific information for the development of thisWork Plan was obtained from the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (U.S. EPA), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), andvarious departments within Racine County, and data gathered from othersources during the preparation of the Initial Site Evaluation Report(ISER).

1.1 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY

The Hunts Disposal Landfill (also known as the Caledonia Landfill) is aninactive 35 acre dump/landfill which accepted municipal and industrialwastes from 1959 to 1974. The landfill is located in a 79 acre parcelwhich is currently owned by the Racine County Parks Department. Thisproperty is located in a sparsely populated agricultural area of CaledoniaTownship, Racine County, Wisconsin (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The landfill andassociated study area are located south of the Racine-Milwaukee County LineRoad, (also known as Eight Mile Road), approximately 1.5 miles west ofHighway 32 in the northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 4 North, Range22 East, Town of Caledonia, Racine County, Wisconsin (United StatesGeological Survey (US6S) 7 1/2-minute, Franksville, Wisconsin Quadrangle).The landfill is just east of Chicago 4 Northwestern (C&NW) Railroad tracks(Figure 1-2).

The site is located in the 50 year flood plain of the Root River which runsalong the southwest side of the site property. The local surrounding

topography is relatively flat with little change in grade. The moundcomprising much of the landfill rises approximately 15 to 25 feet above thesurrounding land. The flood plain in which the landfill is located is

002/22


approximately 660 feet in elevation above mean sea level (MSL).

The deposits that underlie the landfill area include sand and graveldeposits (which were mined locally), and clay- and silt-rich glacial tilldeposits. These glacial and post-glacial materials are typically 50 to 150feet thick and overlie the Silurian dolomite bedrock.

Contamination probably originating from the HDL has been detected in soil,surface water, and groundwater samples collected on and adjacent to thewaste-filled area (NUS, 1985). Results of samples collected and analyzedby U.S.EPA's Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) are shown in Table 1-1. Nobackground samples were taken in conjunction with the samples shown inTable 1-1.

1.2 SITE STATUS AND PROJECT TYPE

The HDL was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) on July 21, 1987during the List's most recent update. Being on the NPL means that the siteis designated for investigation under the U.S. EPA Superfund Program. Todate, there has been only one major investigation pertaining togroundwater, surface water, and soil contamination in the vicinity of thesite study area (NUS, 1985). This study was limited in nature and does notinclude sufficient information to determine present and future effects thatthe HDL site may have on the area's environment and nearby receptors.

In September 1987, a work assignment was issued by U.S. EPA for performanceof a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) for the HuntsDisposal Landfill area. This work assignment (No. 2-5L3D) is underU.S. EPA contract No. 68-01-7403, Performance of Remedial Planning

Activities at Selected Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites(REM V).

002/22

Madison

Area of Rgure 1-2

Wisconsin

Illinois

Rockford

RGURE 1-1. HuntsDisposal Landfill,Regional Location

Seal* Approximate: r-12mi)M

ndiana

CALEDONIA

MT.PLEASANT

LAKE

MICHI

GAN

RGURE 1-2. HuntsDisposal Landfill,

Area LocationSeal* Approximate: 1" -1.25 miles

TABLE 1-1


SELECTED RESULTS FROM NUS SAMPLING PERFORMEDAT HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL IN NOVEMBER, 1984

Sample Typeand Designation

Soil #17

Soil #14

Groundwater #6

Surface Water #10

Chemical Detected

1,1-Dichloroethane1,1,1-Trichloroethane

CadmiumNickelTin

ArsenicBariumCalciumChromiumCobaltIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseNickelPotassiumSodiumVanadium

BariumCalciumChromiumCobaltIronMagnesiumManganeseNickelVanadium

Concentration

57 ppb10 ppb

14 ppm64 ppm87 ppm

20 ppb407 ppb898,000 ppb64 ppb33 ppb66,600 ppb37 ppb417,000 ppb3,330 ppb77 ppb10,700 ppb13,600 ppb99 ppb

216 ppb131,000 ppb25 ppb8.4 ppb26,500 ppb61,000 ppb1,940 ppb24 ppb39 ppb

Soil samples from east and south areas of landfill. Groundwater andsurface water samples from east edge of landfill.

Source: NUS Draft Report - Site Inspection.

002/22


The RI/FS is being conducted under the auspices of the U.S. EPA's CERCLAEnforcement Section. Current project activity consists of the preparation

of planning documents (health and safety plan, quality assurance projectplan, sampling plan, the work plan, and the subcontractor procurementdocuments for the surveying and monitoring well installation).

1.3 OVERVIEW

This Work Plan describes the technical approach developed for the RI/FS

scheduled for the Hunts Disposal Landfill, the activities to be performed

in order to complete the RI/FS, and the schedule for these activities. An

estimate of the level of effort and the associated costs required to

complete the planned activities are provided in a separate volume.

The following provides an overview of the remaining eight sections of thisWork Plan. Section 2.0 (Site Background and Physical Setting) provides areview of available information including the results of the initial site

visit. Section 3.0 (Initial Evaluation) presents the conceptual model for

the site and describes potential environmental and public health effects.

Based on available information, this section also outlines a preliminary

assessment of general response actions and remedial technologies. Section4.0 (Work Plan Rationale) offers a review of existing data and details the

data requirements and data quality objectives that are presently believednecessary to develop a site remediation plan. Section 5.0 (RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study Scope of Work) provides a discussion of thetasks necessary to complete the RI/FS at HDL. Section 6.0 (Costs and Key

Assumptions) describes general issues pertaining to estimated costs and any

assumptions used in those estimates. The schedule for RI/FS Project tasks

is presented 1n Section 7.0. Section 8.0 (Project Management) details

operational, laboratory, QA, and other management responsibilities and

lists key personnel. References are listed in Section 9.0.

002/22


2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING

One of the initial steps during the Work Plan preparation phase of theRI/FS process is the evaluation of available site Information. Availableinformation has been collected from files at EPA Region V Offices, WDNR andother local sources. Additional information may be obtained as a result ofinteractions with community organizations during the early stages of theRI/FS. The following sections present an overview of available informationon the site. A more extensive discussion of these topics can be found inthe Initial Site Evaluation Report (REM V, Doc. No. 002-025-RT-AAAF-l,February, 1988) which has been prepared for this site.

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The HDL site is located in a lightly populated rural area north-northwestof Racine, Wisconsin (Figure 2-1). The Hunts Disposal Landfill is aworked-out sand and gravel pit that began operation as a landfill in 1959.In 1976, Racine County purchased approximately 79 acres, including thesite, (from the Boundary Corporation) and is the current owner of the site.

Following the discontinuance site of operation in 1974, the site was tohave been abandoned pursuant to existing state regulations. In 1982, ajoint effort was undertaken by the Racine County Parks Department and WasteManagement of Wisconsin, Inc. to recover and seed those portions of thesite that either were not properly abandoned in 1974-75 or had experiencedsignificant erosion since abandonment.

Farming presently is the dominant land-use activity in the surrounding

area. Past commercial activity in the immediate vicinity of the siteincluded the mining and processing of sand and gravel. These activitiesoccurred both at the site and at gravel pits to the west and southwest ofthe site. The sand and gravel operations have ceased; the only remnantsare the water-filled gravel pit located on site property and the two

002/21

Etgntmile (County Line) Road

Site Boundary(not fenced)Old Gravel Pits

(water-filled)

FIGURE 2-1 HuntsDisposal Landfill,General Features

Scale Approximate: i" - 1000'


abandoned pits located just west of the Root River. A police shootingrange is now located just north of the southern-most of these two pits.The HDL site is now a part of the Racine County Park system. About 40homes are found within 1/2 mile of the site. One mile to the west, in thevicinity of the Caddy Vista School, is a large (approximately 150 homes)rural community. The Chicago and Northwestern (C&NW) Railroad runsnorth-south along with western edge of the property.

2.1.1 General Surface Features

The landfilled portion of the HDL site occupies approximately 35 acres of a79 acre parcel. The landfill is bordered on the west by poorly-drainedland between the fill and the C&NW railroad tracks. To the southwestbetween the landfill and the Root River is a narrow strip of wooded land(about 50 to 150 feet wide). Marshland extends along the southern andeastern sides of the site property. Woods and farmland lie beyond themarsh to east. North of the landfilled area is a large lake (Figure 2-1).The landfill is mounded approximately 15 to 25 feet above the surroundingarea.

Access to the site is provided at the northwest corner of the propertythrough a heavily damaged locking gate. A fence extends 10 to 20 feet ineach direction to the east and west of this gate. As a result, it is notdifficult to walk directly onto the site by passing around the ends of thisfence. It is also possible for suitably equipped vehicles or horsebackriders to easily enter the site via this same pathway. A dirt road leadssouth to the landfill from the gate.

The lake immediately to the north of the landfill is approximately 20 to 25acres in area and drains through a culvert into the marshy area west of thelandfill and ultimately into the Root River. It appears to have beenformed due to both the filling (with infiltrating groundwater) of an

002/21


excavated area, and as a result of ponding behind the landfill. Oldtopographic maps indicate that drainage from the north once flowed souththrough the present landfill area.

A wooded area lies east of the lake and northeast of the landfill. Pilesof what appears to be excavated soil are common near the shores of thelake. These piles may have been present for a long period of time sincethey are often populated with sizable trees (up to 1 foot in diameter). Amarshy area in this woods may be the source of what appears to be ironhydroxide-containing waters that flow into the lake.

Farmland lies south of these woods and east of the landfill. At the timeof the initial site inspection this farmland was planted with winter wheat.Southeast of this field is the nearest home to the landfill, which is atthe north end of Mallard Road and about 1/4 mile from the site.

The area south of the site is marshy, partially wooded land that is part ofthe flood plain of the nearby Root River. Pools of standing water can beobserved in this area.

The river bank is wooded and well drained where the landfill adjoins theriver. The river is about 25 to 40 feet wide and consists of alternatingpools and riffles. Debris along the river indicates past floods at up to 5feet above levels observed during the initial site visit.

The area between the west side of the landfill and the railroad tracks ismarshy with large areas of standing water.

2.1.2 Physiography

The HDL site is located in the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands PhysiographicProvince. This province is characterized by bedrock controlled alternatingridges and intervening valleys which typically produce a rolling to

002/21


moderately hilly topography. However, in some localized areas (morainal ordrumlin fields) the topography can be quite Irregular (Paull, 1977).

The site is adjacent to the Root River and is located in the floodplain onthe river's northeast bank.

2.1.3 Topography and Cover

Excluding the landfill, the area topography is relatively flat with littlechange in grade. The base of the landfill is approximately 660 feet aboveMSL. The actual disposal area 1s mounded about 15 to 25 feet above thesurrounding topography, the top being gently rolling and sides slopingsteeply downwards. Runoff from the surface of the landfill is in alldirections, as evidenced by the numerous rain gullies observed on the sideslopes.

Earlier attempts to recover and seed the surface of the landfill have hadmixed success. Cover deficiencies consist of gullies, eroded slopes, andthe absence of vegetative cover over portions of the landfill. However,thick grass growth generally was observed on the portions of the landfillwhere the cover and top soil were adequate. This grass cover was ingreater quantities along the south and west sides than on the north andeast sides.

2.1.4 Soils

The Sebewa, Warsaw, Kane, Matherton, and Montgomery soil series are foundin and around the site and typically occupy flats, depressions and highterraces along major drainages (SCS, 1970). All except the Montgomeryseries are underlain by sand and gravel glacial outwash. The excavationsand filling that have taken place at the site have destroyed the originalsoil distribution, but some areas of the site property have not beendisturbed and the described soils are expected to be present at these

002/21


locations. These soils are typically poorly drained, loamy soils withvarying quantities of silt and clay.

2.1.5 Geology

Geologic structure in southeast Wisconsin is strongly influenced by theWisconsin Arch, a Precambrian basement high located 1n the north-centralportion of the state (Ryllng, 1961). Paleozoic sedimentary rocks on theeast flank of the arch dip eastward toward the Michigan basin (Ryling,1961; Paull, 1977).

Regional geology in southeast Wisconsin is typified by deeply burledPrecambrian basement rocks overlain by a wedge of Paleozoic sedimentaryrocks. A mantle of glacial material covers bedrock throughout the region.The Paleozoic rocks have been uplifted, tilted eastward, and differentiallyeroded to form a series of north-south trending cuestas and interveningvalleys (Paull, 1977). The resistant Prairie du Chien Formation andSilurian dolomites stand out as ridges while the softer Upper Cambriansandstones, Middle to Upper Ordovician, and Devonian units form low-lyingvalleys. Pleistocene glaciation extensively modified the landscape,depositing glacial drift over widespread areas.

In Racine County, Silurian dolomites form the near surface bedrock, and areoverlain by surficial deposits comprised of late Wisconsin glacial till andoutwash (Lindbach et al., 1983; Wisconsin Geol. Survey, 1970).

Well logs in the vicinity of the site (Sec. 3 T.4N. R.22E.) show"limestone" bedrock at an average depth of 83 feet (NUS, 1985). These logs,along with the shallow soil borings (NUS, 1985) from the site, indicate 55to 151 feet of interbedded clays, fine to medium-grained sands, and somegravel overlying bedrock.

002/21


2.1.6 Groundwater Patterns

Three principal water-bearing units and a major aquitard are found insoutheastern Wisconsin.. These Include a lower sandstone aquifer, anintermediate dolomite aquifer, and a surficlal glacial aquifer (USGS 1956;USGS, 1970). A dolomitic shale aquitard impedes flow between the dolomiteaquifer and the underlying sandstone aquifer (USGS, 1970).

The lower sandstone aquifer is an important regional source of groundwater.It includes Cambrian and Ordovician sandstones (the Mount Simon, EauClaire, Diesbach, and Franciscan Formations) along with some Ordoviciancarbonates (the Prairie du Chien Group and Galena dolomites) (WisconsinGeol. Survey, 1956). The Mount Simon and Dresbach Formations are the mostprolific. The Platteville Limestone and Galena dolomites yield only smallamounts of water (Wisconsin Geol. Survey, 1956).

Recharge to the sandstone aquifer occurs by percolation through theoverlying glacial and carbonate deposits. Groundwater is discharged to theRock and Fox Rivers and their tributaries. Some water is also dischargedthrough the overlying rocks to Lake Michigan. Artificial discharge resultsfrom heavy pumpage (Wisconsin Geol. Survey, 1956).

The Maquoketa shale is a major regional aquitard predominantly composed ofdolomitic shale with thick dolomite units near the top of the formation.Thickness varies between 180 and 250 feet. Except for the upper dolomiteunits, the Maquoketa yields relatively little water and forms a hydrologicbarrier between the overlying Niagara and glacial aquifers and thesandstone aquifer below. A comparison of a structural contour map and thesite elevation suggests approximate depth to the top of the formation atHDL is 400 feet.

002/21

Hunts Disposal LandfillMonk PlanRevision: FINALSection: 2Date: February 1989Page No.: 8 of 20

The Intermediate dolomite or "Niagara Aquifer" is the main water-bearingunit overlying the Maquoketa shale (USGS, 1970). The aquifer includes theSilurian Niagara Dolomite, Devonian dolomites in portions of Milwaukee,Ozaukee and Shebogan Counties, and dolomite units of the upper Maquoketa(USGS, 1956; USGS, 1970). Recharge of the dolomite aquifer occurs bydirect precipitation on outcrops and by percolation through overlyingglacial deposits. Discharge is to streams and Lake Michigan. Artificialdischarge to wells 1s also Important (Wisconsin Geol. Survey, 1956). Theprivate residential wells near HDL obtain their water from this bedrockaquifer.

The surficial glacial deposits form a water table aquifer that is locallyhydraulically connected to the dolomite aquifer (Wisconsin Geol. Survey,1956). Permeability and percolation rates of the glacial deposits vary andthe most permeable material occurs in western Racine County (Ryling, 1961).

Regionally, water moves laterally from west to east through the glacialmaterial, with thin interbedded clay beds restricting vertical movement(Ryling, 1961). This glacial aquifer and the underlying dolomite aquiferprovide the only source of groundwater in parts of the region where salinewaters occur 1n the lower sandstone aquifer.

2.1.7 Surface Waters

Regionally, drainage systems are relatively youthful and poorly developed.For the most part, drainage is controlled by glacial deposition and erosion(Paull, 1977).

The site lies in the Root River watershed. The Root River is a shallow,meandering stream cut into terminal and ground morainal deposits (SWRPC,1966). A fresh water wetland is located about 0.5 miles north of the site

and local drainage apparently flows across the site before reaching theRoot River (Wilharm, personal communication, 1987).

002/21


2.1.8 Climate

The climate in the Caledonia area is continental, modified somewhat by LakeMichigan, with precipitation fairly evenly distributed throughout the yearand severe temperatures. Winters in this area are long, cold, and snowy,with streams and small lakes generally frozen from early in December tolate in March. Spring is slow in coming and consists of alternate warm andcold periods. Mean annual precipitation and temperature are 30.94 inches

and 42.4°F, respectively. The area receives an average of 37 inches ofsnowfall annually.

2.2 SITE HISTORY*

The site is a worked-out sand and gravel pit that began operation as anopen dump in 1959 following the issuance of a permit to Harold Itzenhuiserby the Racine County Board of Adjustments. Mr. Itzenhuiser operated thesite until 1962. During his tenure, Mr. Itzenhuiser primarily acceptedhousehold refuse, construction waste, and other debris. Paint-relatedmaterials and acids also may have been accepted. Investigations executedby both WDNR and the Oak Creek Public Engineer recommended that a sanitarylandfill method of waste disposal be carried out. These investigationsfurther recommended that no decomposable material be placed in water areasand defined the types of materials to be transported to the site. By 1961garbage and rubbish burning in an open-pit was observed at the site. TheTown of Caledonia made a request that this practice be discontinued and thesite be closed. In response, the Zoning Administrator indicated that theBoard of Adjustments must have proof of violation of contract before anyaction could be taken.

* Data in this section is from Planning Research Corporation, 1986.

002/21


A review of existing records Indicates that from 1959 to 1962, about 50 to70 drums a year each containing 40 to 50 gallons of waste newspaper Inkwere disposed at the site. The waste newspaper Ink had the followingcomposition: hydrocarbon oil - 85%; carbon pigment - 10 to 12%; andgreases, hydrocarbon resins, wetting agents, and anti-wear compounds of3 to 5%. Solvents (consisting of kerosene, naphtha, and mineral spirits)have been also dumped at the site. The solvent and newspaper Ink wasteswere generated by Journal/ Sentinel Company of Milwaukee.

The site was purchased from Mr. Itzenhulser 1n 1962 by Clayton Hunt whooperated the landfill until 1971. A letter 1n 1962 from Mr. Hunt to theZoning Administrator requesting permission to operate the dump, indicatesthat problems existed at the site and that Mr. Hunt was aware of the pro- .blems.

Mr. Hunt supposedly continued the non-acceptance of industrial wastes andliquids. But, logs maintained by Mr. Hunt, site operators, generators, andother landfill-associated personnel, indicate that three fifty-five gallonsteel drums containing spent methyl ethyl ketone were dumped at the site.Miscellaneous industrial wastes such as tannery wastes and solids were alsodumped at the site.

In July 1970 and again in June 1971, S.C. Johnson and Son Inc. used theirown trucks to transport various types of waste chemicals to the site.These wastes were accepted by the operator (Response letter from ClaytonHunt, 1987).

In June of 1964, an agreement was made between Mr. Hunt and PittsburghPlate Glass Company for disposal of four railroad car tanks coated witharsenic acid sludge. The volume of sludge involved is estimated at 110cubic feet (estimated by PPG Industries). According to records, the tanks

002/21


were washed, cut, and burled under supervision. Entries 1n Mr. Hunt's logindicated acceptance of chromic adds with a composition of 50% acid and50% water. Beryllium in barrels has also been indicated to have beendisposed at the site. Further, from 1970 to 1974, about 300 to 500 drums ayear of waste newspaper Ink having the same composition as describedearlier were dumped by the Journal/Sentinel, Inc. In this case, the inkand solvents were mixed together before being dumped.

In June of 1971, the solid waste disposal Section of WDNR conducted a siteinspection. Several violations were observed and recommendations weremade. During 1971, the site was purchased by Elmer J. Lauer and Joseph A.Magestro, Sr., and shortly thereafter, Caledonia Corporation assumed opera-tion of the newly named Caledonia Corporation Landfill.

By 1972, Caledonia Corporation drew a legal agreement with the Town ofCaledonia detailing the conditions for operation of the southern portion ofdisposal site. In 1973 the Caledonia Town board adopted a resolution thatCaledonia Corp operate only the southern portion of the landfill. Again,an inspection report by WDNR directed the termination of leachate seepage,coverage of waste materials, and clean-up of windblown paper.

The site was closed in 1974, and in 1975 the deed was transferred from theCaledonia Corporation to the Boundary Corporation (Elmer Lauer and JosephMagestro served as officers in both the Caledonia and the BoundaryCorporations). In 1976, Racine County purchased approximately 79 acres,including the site, from Boundary Corporation. Racine County is thecurrent owner of the site.

Following closure in 1974, the landfill was to have been abandoned pursuantto existing state regulations. An inspection conducted by WDNR inSeptember 1975 noted deficiencies 1n final cover and top soil depths,

002/21


severe gully erosion on some slopes, and absence of vegetative cover overportions of the landfill. Based on a WDNR site Inspection report, theseconditions still existed when Racine County purchased the site in 1976.

In 1982, a joint effort was undertaken by the Racine County ParksDepartment and Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc., to recover and seedthose portions of the site that either were not properly abandoned in1974-75 or had experienced significant erosion since abandonment. Theextent of completion of abandonment activities was never documented andcover deficiencies are evident today.

2.3 CONTAMINATION PROBLEM DEFINITION

2.3.1 Waste Disposed At Site

Information concerning the waste disposed at HDL has been obtained from:

o Documents which describe the wastes permitted at the site,o Interviews with knowledgeable persons (e.g., employees, site

operators, etc.),o Information obtained from PRPs in response to EPA requests,o Observations by local residents and complaints to city, ando Observations and documents from WDNR.

Table 2-1 provides a compilation of waste materials known to have beendisposed at the site. It was the presence of cadmium and tin 1n soilsamples; iron, manganese, and chromium 1n water samples; and other toxic,persistent, flammable, and volatile wastes which prompted WDNR to proposethat HDL be considered as a Superfund site.

002/21


TABLE 2-1

List of Waste Materials Disposed at Hunts Disposal Landfill

Reported Waste Disposed at Site

Printing Ink

Printing Ink Solvents

Waste Solvents50% Concentrated Chromic AcidShoe Polish ResidueWaste PaperGlueBeryllium

Solid Waste (Domestic)

Acid WasteAfter-Burn Ash from Refineries/Refractories

Arsenic Sludge

Source: Planning Research Corporation, 1986.

002/21


Other information on landfill contents Includes analyses of on-s1te soilsamples collected in 1984 by the FIT Team, which detected1,1-dichloroethane (57ppb) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (lOppb).

Although detailed analytical data are generally not available for mostwaste materials sent for disposal, composition of the ink solvents andprinting ink residue disposed at the HDL are provided in Tables 2-2 and2-3. Table 2-4 lists some of the other pollutants disposed at the site.

When analytical data is not available on the composition of wastematerials, it is sometimes possible to use indirect means to generallycharacterize the kinds of waste materials expected to have been disposed ata site. For example, the listing of PRPs presented 1n Table 2-5 includesnames of organizations known to have generated wastes ultimately depositedin the HDL. Knowledge of the generator (and their industrial activity)help provide general information concerning the kinds of wastes generated.

2.3.2 Hazard Of Contaminants

The potential hazards associated with any uncontrolled hazardous waste siteare directly related to 1) the chemical nature and concentration of wastematerials disposed at the site, 2) the extent to which waste contaminantsare allowed to come into contact with receptors, and 3) the hazardconditions associated with the presence of the waste materials, (e.g.,explosive conditions produced by methane generation). The extent to whichthese hazards become realized will depend on the waste materials present,their physical, chemical and toxicological properties, the conditionspresent at the site especially those conditions which influence the offsitemigration potential of waste contaminants, and the proximity of receptors.

002/21


TABLE 2-2

COMPOSITION OF WASTE NEWSPAPER INK DUMPED AT SITE FROM

JOURNAL/SENTINEL INC. PRINTING COMPANY

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF NEWSPAPER INK

Hydrocarbon 011 85%

Carbon Pigment 10 to 12%

Additives Depending on batch of Ink, they had acontribution of 3 to 5% In the ink.

o Greaseso Hydrocarbon Resinso Wetting Agentso Anti-wear Compounds

COMPOSITION OF SOLVENTS DUMPED AT THE SITE FROM

JOURNAL/SENTINEL INC. PRINTING COMPANY

Kerosene

Naphtha

Mineral Spirits

Source: (Journal/Sentinel Inc., 1987)

002/21


TABLE 2-3

COMPOSITION OF SHOE POLISH FORMULAS DISPOSED AT SITE

BY

S.C. JOHNSON & SON INC.

NAME: SHOE POLISH FORMULA FROM 1966-1970

Dyed Pigmented

Water 82 - 83% 76 - 77%Modified Acrylic Polymer 10 - 11% 12 - 13%Alkali Soluble Resin 3% 4%Polyethylene Wax 1.5% 2%Surfactants 1.5% 2%Tributoxyethyl Phosphate 0.3% 0.4%Chloromethoxypropylmercuric Acetate 200 ppm 200 ppmPigments 2.9-3.1%Dyes 0-0.5%

NAME: SHOE POLISH FORMULA FROM 1961 - 1966

Modified Polystyrene resin 6.5 - 8%Acrylic Styrene Copolymer 5.7 - 7.2%Emulsifiable Polyethylene 0.2 - 2%Refined Shellac 0.2 - 2%Water 80 - 84%Phenyl Mercuric Acetate 200 ppm

Pigment (scuffed) 0.37%Dye (self-shining) 0.12%

Oleic Acid <0.2%Morpholine <0.2%Borax <0.2%Tributoxyethyl Phosphate <0.2%

Source: (Johnson Wax; S.C. Johnson & Son Inc., 1987)

002/21


TABLE 2-4

OTHER MATERIALS DISPOSED AT SITE

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF ARSENIC SLUDGE FROMPITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS INDUSTRIAL, INET"

Arsenic Dioxide 110 cubic feet as sludge coated onwalls of tankers

Source: (PPG, Industrial Inc., 1984)

COMPOSITION OF WASTE DISPOSED BY DELCO ELECTRONICS & AC SPARK PLUGUNIT OF GENERAL MOTOR?

Chromic Acid 50% water - 50% acid

Beryllium In Barrels

Source: (Mr. Clayton Hunt, under oath, Feb. 1987)

002/21


TABLE 2-5

List of Current Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)for the Hunts Disposal Landfill

Caledonia Township, Racine County, Wisconsin

OWNERS AND OPERATORS

Mr. Harold ItzenhulserMr. Clayton HuntCaledonia CorporationBoundary Corporation

WASTE GENERATORS

PPG Industries, Inc.S.C. Johnson & Sons Inc.Journal/Sentinel Co. MilwaukeeWestern Publishing Company, Inc.General Motors (Delco Electronics & A.C. Sparks Plug)American Motors Corp, Wisconsin

CARRIERS AND TRANSPORTERS

Best Disposal Co.J.M. Disposal Co.United Waste SystemsTrash Collection Inc.Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc.

002/21


The major threats which may be associated with a waste site are possibleexposures to toxic materials deposited at the site. The nature of thesethreats is categorized below:

o Potential chronic or acute effects from direct contact with wasteor waste contaminated soil and sediments.

o Potential chronic or acute effects on receptors from exposures tocontaminated ground and surface water.

o Potential chronic or acute effects resulting from exposures togaseous substances emitted directly from the landfill to theatmosphere.

o Potential chronic or acute effects from direct contact withleachate or leachate contaminated soil.

The threat is all the more acute at HDL, because the site is being used forrecreational purposes, such as swimming, fishing, snowmobiling and snowskiing. The fact that the site is used for hunting, provides thepossibility of introducing potentially toxic materials into food materialsconsumed by human populations.

2.3.3 Degree Of Site Contamination

Contamination ascribed to the Hunts Disposal Landfill has been detected insoil, surface water, and groundwater samples collected on and adjacent tothe waste-filled area (NUS, 1985). One soil sample taken on the sitecontained low levels of the volatile organics 1,1-dichloroethane and1,1,1-trichloroethane. A different soil sample from the landfill containedelevated levels of cadmium and tin. Two groundwater samples and a closelyassociated surface water sample taken at the eastern edge of the landfillcontained anomalous levels of chromium, iron, and manganese.

002/21


During the NUS sampling In 1985, the monitoring well that 1s located on thelandfill proper was not sampled. However, earlier sampling of that welland the two wells just off the landfill to the east showed "significantvariation between wells 1 and 2 which are located along the proposed chan-nel alignment and well 3 which 1s located within the landfill limits" (Cityof Oak Creek, 1984). The details of the results of this sampling effortare presented in Section 5.3.1 of this Work Plan. cThe implication thatthis letter makes is that the groundwater below the landfill issignificantly more contaminated than that found in the wells adjacent tothe site. The exact results of that sampling were not available at thiswriting.

002/21


3.0 INITIAL EVALUATION

The potential for adverse environmental impact due to hazardous wastedisposal sites arises when hazardous substances migrate to off-sitelocations. The probability and severity of the impact will depend on thetoxicological and physical properties of the migrating materials, thetendency for wastes to leave the site via available pathways, the quantityavailable for migration, and the extent to which receptors are exposed tothe migrating substances.

3.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

3.1.1 Migration Pathways

There are four major pathways by which contaminants at the Hunts DisposalLandfill site may migrate to off-site locations and cause potentiallyadverse impacts on public health and the environment:

1. Groundwater2. Surface water3. Gaseous emissions to the air and windblown contaminated particles

Figure 3-1 shows these four potential pathways of contaminant migration andillustrates the conceptual model for HDL.

Groundwater

The following statements provide an overview of the situation of the HuntsDisposal Landfill in relation to the potential for release of hazardouscompounds into the groundwater:

o The native material along the bottom of the landfill is probablysand and gravel and, therefore, will be relatively permeable.

002A/03

sw

Contaminated Surface Water and *,',',„_,/,• / . . . . . ...~ .. . - . «... contaminated / Material and Vapor / >

"' ' * / / / / /t/ /Sediment From Landfill

RootRiver

NE

Contaminated Surface Water andSediment From Landfill

Lake NorthTOP OF WA i hH i ABLb mts&tfe.̂ *• of Landfill

Discharge ofContaminated Groundwater

PREDOMINANTLY SAND AND GRAVEL,GLACIAL AND RECENT SEDIMENT

PREDOMINANTLY CLAY AND SILTWITH SOME SAND AND GRAVEL LENSES

DOLOMITE BEDROCK AND AREA:RESIDENTIAL WELL AQUIFER :

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ! , ! , , , , , , • , , , , I

FIGURE 3-1

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OFCONTAMINANT PATHWAYS

AT HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL,RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

C.C. Johnson & Malhotra. P.O.


o While discrete layers of less permeable material (silt and clay)have been located In boreholes onslte, these layers or lenses arethought not to be continuous in the area of the landfill.

o The cover material used during site closure is also permeable andallows precipitation to infiltrate into the landfill.

o Depth to the water table at the site is very shallow 1n thesurficial aquifer. Topographic maps prepared during operation ofthe landfill indicate that groundwater was present in low parts ofthe fill area. Therefore, wastes are in direct contact withgroundwater in some or all of the landfilled areas.

o Surface water flow in the nearby Root River will have a directeffect on groundwater flow beneath the site. At low flow periods,the river may receive significant contamination from groundwaterderived from the site area.

Based on the above, then there is a good chance that hazardous compoundsmay leave the landfill via the groundwater pathway by means of lateral andvertical flow within the underlying sand and gravel zone and by migrationinto surface water flow in the Root River. The site investigation will bedesigned to determine if wastes are leaving with groundwater, the pathwaytaken, the extent of the contaminant plume, and the contaminantconcentrations within the plume. The interrelationship between groundwaterand surface water also will be evaluated.

Surface Water

Surface water is present in the landfill area as the large lake to thenorth of the fill, the Root River to the south and southwest of the site,and in marshy areas at the southern and eastern margins of the landfill.Contaminants may migrate to these surface waters via groundwater or surfacewater runoff. One surface water sample from the marshy area immediatelyeast of the site was found to contain elevated levels of barium, calcium,chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, and vanadium.These same metals were also found at elevated levels 1n groundwater samples

002A/03


from the two off-fill monitoring wells. These data Indicate a potentialrelationship between the contamination of surface and groundwatersimmediately to the east of the site. The site investigation will determineif other surface waters are being contaminated by the landfill and thepaths by which this contamination may be taking place. Of particularconcern is the possibility of hazardous compounds from the landfillentering the Root River by either surface runoff or groundwater dischargeand hence causing exposures downstream of the site.

Atmospheric Emissions

The landfill is probably generating methane gas which could migrate intothe immediately surrounding soil. In light of available informationregarding other materials deposited at the site, it is probable that toxicand/or other volatile gases could migrate along with methane. These gaseswould be released into the atmosphere directly through the surface of thelandfill. Contaminated materials which have dissolved in ground or surfacewater may also become a source of gaseous contaminants via volatilizationfrom the free surface. Thus, there are a number of pathways by whichgaseous contaminants from the Hunts Disposal Landfill may be released intothe atmosphere.

Inspection of the site reveals that the cover is inadequate in severalareas. If waste or waste contaminated soil is exposed in these areas, thepotential exists for migration of contaminants via windblown particles.Air monitoring performed for health and safety requirements during theinitial site inspection revealed no problems. However odors were noticed.

3.1.2 Potential Receptors

Potential receptors are all biota which because of their proximity to thesite or a contaminant migration pathway, may become exposed to potentiallyhazardous compounds originating at the site. At the HDL Site, a potentialhazard is that landfill waste may be migrating into the community drinking

002A/03


water supply. Community residents who use private water wells as theirmain source of drinking water would be the major potential receptors ifcontamination was moving into groundwater.

If contaminated runoff or groundwater discharge into the various surfacewater bodies, another, larger group of potential receptors could beaffected. These receptors include domestic animals or wild life that livein, drink from, or consume plant or animal life living in the large lake tothe north of the site, the small standing water areas to the east and southof the site, or the Root River. If humans consume these animals, they,too, would be part of this potential receptor family. In addition, humanscould be exposed during recreational activities (such as swimming) in thelake or the Root River.

The Hunts Disposal Landfill 1s part of the Racine County Park System. Ifthe area continues to be used for recreational activities, users may ingestor inhale toxic materials that may be present in the soil or are emitted asgases from the landfill. Other potential receptors for this route ofexposure include any animal life that may live on or frequent the site.

While not considered to be a current major problem at the site, arearesidents may also be adversely affected if the Hunts Disposal Landfillemits toxic gaseous substances at high enough concentrations to produceadverse effects at off-site locations. Potential receptors include peopleand other biota downwind of the site. However, it should be noted that theambient monitoring (using the HNu and exposimeter) during site visitsfailed to show contamination of waste ambient air.

3.1.3 Environmental And Public Health Effects

The environmental and public health effects of contaminants which may bepresent in the area of the Hunts Disposal Landfill will depend on 1) theactual concentrations of the contaminants present, and 2) the extent to

002A/03


which the public and elements of the environment (biota and/or non-livingelements) are exposed to contaminants, and 3) the toxldty of thecontaminants present.

The major potential route of exposure for the public in the vicinity of HDLis the ingestion of water which may be contaminated. The magnitude of suchan exposure and the nature of the resulting effect will be based on theconcentration of the contaminants present 1n the water, the amount of wateringested and the toxicity of the contaminants.

Members of the general public who enter the site unsupervised, run the riskof injury from either direct contact with potentially toxic leachates orsurface waters, contact with potentially contaminated soil/sediment, orinjury from fire or explosions which may be induced as a result of theiractions.

Unpleasant odors were noticed at certain portions of the site during theinitial site visit. No odor problems were noticed off-site. Monitoringequipment (HNu, with 10.2 EV lamp) did not detect the presence of organicvapors at the site. Odors are typically considered a nuisance effect.However, because odors were noticed, some exposure may be possible.

3.2 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS AND REMEDIAL

TECHNOLOGIES

The identification of general response actions and their associatedremedial technologies is the next critical element in the development ofthe RI/FS Work Plan. The preliminary general response actions presented inthis Section are based upon the existing information obtained for the HDLsite during the Initial Site Evaluation. These preliminary generalresponse actions were utilized during the formulation of the ProjectSampling and Analysis Plan. The criteria for and the approach to the

002A/03


evaluation of these remedial technologies, as well as the Identification ofdata requirements also are presented in this Section. It is noted thatthese remedial technologies have been identified on a preliminary basis andas more information becomes available via RI activities, additionalappropriate technologies may be identified for consideration during theFeasibility Study.

Based upon review of available information concerning the HDL site, it hasbeen determined that the initial categories of potential site problems are:

1. presence of wastes at the site;2. contaminated soils;

3. contaminated groundwater;4. surface water and sediment contamination; and5. air pollution.

The following topics are discussed in the preliminary assessment ofgeneral response actions:

1. preliminary identification of general response actions andassociated technologies, performance criteria and standards forremedial technologies; and,

2. approach to alternative evaluation.

3.2.1 Identification Of General Response Actions

The preliminary general response actions with respect to the problems atthe HDL site are:

1. No Action2. Containment

002A/03


3. Excavation and Removal4. Removal of Selected Wastes

5. On-Site Treatment6. Off-Site Treatment

7. On-Site Disposal

8. Off-Site Disposal9. Pumping

10. Development of Alternative Water Supply

In the course of the RI and the FS activities, additional general responseactions and associated technologies may be added for evaluation as

appropriate.

Wastes at the Site

The preliminary general response actions identified as appropriate forremediation of the waste at the HDL site are: no action, containment,

complete removal, partial removal, on-site treatment, off-site treatment,on-site disposal, off-site disposal, pumping and the development of an

alternative water supply. The remedial technologies preliminarilyidentified for consideration and utilized as guidance in the development ofthe Work Plan are:

1. Capping - Capping with a highly impervious material to restrictinfiltration through the wastes. This alternative would include

provisions for gas collection and flaring.

2. Stabilization/Solidification - of the wastes in order to fix the

wastes and decrease the migration potential of contaminants.

3. Excavation and Removal - Excavation and removal of all bulk solid

wastes.

002A/03


4. Excavation and Removal of Selected Wastes - Excavation and removalof portions of the landfill containing Identifiable wastes.

5. Treatment - Treatment of waste material. This treatment couldinvolve air or steam stripping, incineration, biologicaldegradation, chemical degradation, soil washing/flushing or acombination of these procedures.

6. Off-site Treatment - This could consist of collection andseparation technologies followed by separate treatment of thewaste streams at off-site facilities.

7. On-site Disposal - The disposal of the wastes on-site would bedependent upon the ability to permit the proposed facility underRCRA or upon the utilization of one of the other technologies torender the materials non-hazardous as defined under RCRA.

8. Off-site Disposal - Off-site disposal would involve thetransportation and disposal of the wastes in a regulated hazardouswaste facility located elsewhere in Wisconsin or another state.

Contaminated Soils

While the general response actions for contaminated soils would be the sameas for the wastes at the site, not all of the above remedial technologieswould be appropriate. The technologies identified initially for thedevelopment of the Work Plan were:

1. Capping - Capping with an impervious material and installation ofa methane gas collection system and flare.

2. Excavation and Removal - Partial or complete excavation andremoval of contaminated soils. Contamination in this instancewould be by definition of one of the criteria identified later in

002A/03


this Section. The definition of contamination would determine theamount of soil required to be removed/treated at the HDL site.

3. On-site Treatment - On-site treatment of the soil could involve aphysical-chemical or biological process whereby the contaminantconstituents of concern would be removed from the soils.

4. Off-Site Treatment - This would only differ from on-site treatmentwith respect to the location of the treatment facility. Thespecific remedial technologies would be the same with respect tophysical-chemical requirements.

5. On-site Disposal - The disposal of the contaminated soil andwastes on-site would be dependent upon the ability to permit thefacility under RCRA or upon the utilization of one of the othertechnologies to render the materials non-hazardous as definedunder RCRA.

6. Off-site Disposal - This would involve the disposal of thecontaminated materials at an approved off-site RCRA facility.

Contaminated Groundwater and Water Supply

The general response actions considered in this preliminary assessmentfor the development of the work plan with respect to groundwater and watersupply were: no action, containment, on-site treatment, off-sitetreatment, and development of an alternative water supply.

The remedial technologies considered for these actions are:

1. Continued Monitoring - Continued sampling and analysis of existingmonitoring and private drinking water wells at and adjacent to thesite.

002A/03


2. Capping - Capping with a highly impervious material to restrictrecharge from entering the groundwater through the overlyingwastes and/or contaminated soils. The cap would include provi-sions for gas collection and flaring. Other remedial technologiesin conjunction or separate from capping would include theconstruction of containment barriers, such as slurry walls, groutcurtains, French drains, etc. The purpose of these remedialtechnologies is to prevent the migration of contaminants from adefined area of contamination.

3. Pumping - This remedial technology could be used in conjunctionwith other technologies such as capping and/or on-site or off-sitetreatment. The purpose of pumping would be to intercept orotherwise change the groundwater flow patterns, such that thefuture movement of contaminants into the groundwater would nolonger present a hazard to the environment or human health. Thisalso could involve pumping the treated groundwaters back into thegroundwater system.

4. On-site Treatment - On-site treatment remedial technologies wouldinvolve the use of the pumping technologies followed most likelyby treatment in a physical-chemical or biological system forremoval of organics or other contaminants. A more specifictreatment process identification will be performed and additionaldata obtained via the RI.

5. Off-site Treatment - Off-site treatment remedial technologiesconsidered in this preliminary assessment are direct discharge toa newly constructed or existing waste water treatment facilitylocated in the nearby area and/or construction of a sewer lineconnection to a nearby wastewater treatment plant. Pre-treatmentof the discharge stream could be required, with such facilities

002A/03


being located on-s1te at HDL or off-site at the municipalwastewater treatment plant.

6. Development of Alternative Water Supply - An alternative watersupply could involve extending an uncontaminated local municipal(Racine or Oak Creek) to the area, along with implementation of awell abandonment program for those water sources affected by thesite contamination problem.

Surface Water and Sediment Contamination

Several response actions considered with respect to the surface waters andassociated sediments at the site were: no action, containment, and completeor partial removal. The remedial technologies associated with theseresponses would be:

1. Continued Monitoring - Periodic sampling of surface waters andsediments at and around the site.

2. Capping - Capping as described previously.

3. Landscaping - Regrading and revegetation of the site to minimizeerosion of cover materials, runoff from the site into the nearbysurface waters, and the infiltration of precipitation into thelandfill.

4. Runoff/Run-on Control - Reconstruction of drainage patterns withcollection of runoff in sedimentation basins and/or controllingdischarge through a silt screen. Runoff from the areas adjacentto the site (including flooding of the Root River) would bediverted around the site to minimize run-on potential.

5. Dredging - Dredging of the sediments associated with surfacewaters may be necessary. In the event that this technology is

002A/03


implemented, additional controls to minimize sediment migrationduring these operations would be required. This could Involvecurtain barriers. It also may require dewater1ng/sol1dificationof the dredged materials depending on the ultimate disposal meansfor these materials.

Air Pollution

The general response actions involved with air pollution problems would beprimarily focused on dispersion of partlculates, volatile compounds and/ormethane-based explosion hazards are not considered to be a major problem atthe HDL site. These responses would include no action, containment,treatment, and removal. The remedial technologies considered were:

Long Term

1. Capping - Capping to prevent the existing contaminated dust andsoils at the site from being dispersed by the wind. Capping wouldinclude gas collection and flaring.

2. Treatment and/or Removal - Treatment of the wastes and soilsto remove the contaminants and/or removal to off-site disposalareas.

Short Term

1. Monitoring - Collecting samples through the use of air samplingequipment during periods of remedial activity in which airbornedispersion is suspected.

2. Dust Control Measures - Implementation of dust control measuressuch as spraying of water and/or other dust suppression agentsover the site or more specifically in those areas in which

002A/03


remedial activities are being conducted that could result 1ndispersion of airborne partlculates.

3. Site Cover - The areas from which contaminated partlculates maybecome airborne would be covered with clean soil or an imperviousmaterial.

3.2.2 Performance Criteria And Standards For Remedial Technologies

Based upon available information, volatile organic chemicals and metals arethe primary contaminants of concern at the site. Therefore, the initialphases of the RI will be directed primarily toward the characterization andquantification of site contaminants and migration pathways, and the controlof these contaminants. If other contaminants are identified, the focus ofthe remedial measures will be adjusted to reflect the proper management ofthose contaminants in the evaluation of alternatives in the FS efforts.

The goals for the remediation efforts will address the water quality of thesurface and ground waters, air quality, and soil and sedimentcontamination. With respect to surface waters, the criteria to be met havebeen developed by the state. These standards are set forth in Wisconsinstatutes, Chapters NR 102 and NR 104. Monitoring well data will beassessed with respect to Wisconsin statutes, Chapters NR 140.

The set of criteria for groundwater apply only to drinking water and arederived from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The criteria that willmost likely apply for the HDL area are the primary (health-related,enforceable under law) standards. In addition to the drinking waterstandards, the U.S. EPA has published Health Advisories (HAs) that providetechnical guidance that is useful in assessing the contamination ofdrinking water. For compounds not addressed by ARARS, levels establishedin the EA will be used.

002A/03


3.2.3 Approach To Technologies Evaluation And Alternatives Development AndScreening

Each remedial technology will be evaluated based on site specificimplementability as outlined in Section 5.9 of this work plan. Thosetechnologies surviving this screening will be combined to form alternativeremedial actions.

Each alternative remedial action considered at the site will be evaluatedutilizing the procedures and criteria outlined in Sections 5.9 and 5.10 ofthis Work Plan. In the initial screening process, the comparative costs,implementability, and effectiveness for each alternative will be deter-mined. Based upon this comparative evaluation, alternatives will beeliminated which: 1) are not effective in contributing to the protectionof public health, welfare and the environment, 2) are either unreliable ornot applicable to the specific site problem, or 3) have costs that farexceed other equally effective alternatives. The surviving remedialalternatives will be subjected to a more detailed evaluation based upon thecriteria presented in Section 5.10. As necessary, other criteria may beadded in this evaluation process as the RI/FS progresses.

002A/03

Hunts Disposal LandfillWork PlanRevision: FINALSection: 4Date: February 1989Page: 1 of 12

4.0 WORK PLAN RATIONALE

The investigation activities that are proposed in this Work Plan for theHDL are based upon present data concerning the landfill and contaminationassociated with it. Another major factor that has guided the formulationof the technical approach presented in this document is the knowledge thatthe very nature of a landfill such as HDL (a 39-acre landfill that containsvery low average contaminant concentration) limits the alternativesavailable for site remediation. This section presents the rationale forthe proposed RI/FS at HDL.

4.1 EXISTING DATA AND DATA QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

The conceptual environmental situation for the HDL is presented anddiscussed in Section 3 of this document. Figure 4-1 is a copy of thatconceptual model here reproduced for convenience. Table 4-1 lists whatanalytical data are currently available for the site and what samplingactivities are proposed to address the listed data deficiencies.

Due to the volume of material present in the landfill (39 acres by 20-25feet) and the probable low average concentration of contaminants found todate, remedial alternatives involving large-scale treatment or removal areprobably not feasible. Mitigation of on-site exposures will probably beaccompli.shed by containment alternatives (e.g. capping) and exclusion ofprospective receptors.

Residential wells all draw water from the dolomite bedrock found in thearea (Figure 4-1). Because of the presence of the thick and probablyrather impermeable clay and silt glacial material that overlies thedolomite aquifer, it is unlikely that the landfill will pose a threat tolocal drinking water supplies. The major off-site threat of exposure tolandfill-derived contaminants thus appears to be from Root River surface

002/06

sw

Contaminated Surface Water and contamlnat/d A, ! rJ/vf'6Sediment From Landfill / Contaminated^/^Matena. and Vapor , ,

RootRiver

NE

Contaminated Surface Water andSediment From Landfill

Lake NorthTOP OF WATER TABLE gggg&gafe t̂ Of Landfill

Discharge ofContaminated GroundwaterDischarge of

Contaminated Groundwater

PREDOMINANTLY SAND AND GRAVEL,GLACIAL AND RECENT SEDIMENT

PREDOMINANTLY CLAY AND SILTWITH SOME SAND AND GRAVEL LENSES

DOLOMITE BEDROCK AND AREARESIDENTIAL WELL AQUIFER

1 ' ' ' FIGURE 4-1

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OFCONTAMINANT PATHWAYS

AT HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL,RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

C.C. Johnson & Malhotra. P.C.

TABLE 4-1

DATA REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

Data Presently Available Data Gaps and/or Deficiencies Proposed Sampling Activities

o Four surflclal soilsamp Ies co11ected bythe FIT Team showedlow levels of two volatileorganic contaminantsand elevated levelsof cadmium and tin.

o No background soil samplescollected, therefore no Informationavailable about what levelsof organ Ics and Inorganicswould normally be found Inthe sol I In that area.

o Too few samples were takento make a cone I us Ive statementabout soil contamination atthe landfill.

o Perform surflclal soilsampling over the landfilland surrounding areas.

o Background samples w i l lbe Included.

o To attempt to confirm Initialfindings, the four locations previouslysampled by the FIT team w i l l be located(as close as possible) and resampled.

o Any leachate stained areas or discoloredsol I w i l l be sampled.

o Three monitoring wellsCity of Oak Creek. Thesewere Installed by thewells were sampled 3 timesby Oak Creek, but onlyfor gross parameters(BOD, COD, pH, etc.)

o No background monitoring wellsInstalled.

oWell Installed In landfill (well S3)was never sampled and analyzedfor RAS organ Ics and Inorganics.

o In order to confirm previous resultsand assumptions, resample all 3 existing monitoringwells and request full CLP analyses. Request fast-turnaround on data to enable theresults to be evaluated prior tofuture welI Installatlon activity.

TABLE 4-1 (Continued)DATA REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

o Three residential Hell sampleswere collected by the FITteam.

o Four sediment and four surfacewater samples were collectedby the FIT team - elevatedlevels of various Inorganics werefound.

o A more Intensive sampling effortIs required so as to fully evaluateresidential well water quality nearthe landfill.

o Too few samples taken toenable a detailed scenarioof sediment/surface watercontamination to be formulated.

o No background samples were collected.

o No sediment sample collected at depthfrom the lake or river.

o Ten residential homes w i l l besampled at drinking waterdetection limits. Thissampling w i l l occur simultaneously with thesampling of existing and newly Installedmonitoring wells. This w i l l allow theevaluation of all water quality to occur atthe same time and the analysis performedunder the same conditions and by the samelaboratory. In addition, residential waterresults cannot be effectively evaluatedunless they can be compared to the onsltemonitoring well groundwater analysis results.Its not anticipated that any residential wellcontamination exists because the residentialwell water source Is found In the dolomitebedrock. This Is displayed In the conceptualmodel Figure 4-1.

o Twenty surface water and twentysediment samples w i l l be collected.

o Areas w i l l be chosen for the collectionof background samples

o Previously sampled locations w i l l bebe located and re-sampled (If possible)to confirm Initial findings.

o No water samples taken at depthfrom the lake or river.

o At least ten samples w i l l betaken at depth from the lake and/or river.

o No samples taken In area wetlands. o Wetlands w i l l be sampled.

TABLE 4-1 (Continued)DATA REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

o Two of the three wells weresubsequently sampled bythe FIT team for RASorgan Ics and Inorganics.However they did not samplethe well completed In the landfill(Well f3). Elevated levels ofvarious Inorganics were foundIn the sample from well 03.

o Too few Installed to providea complete picture of groundwatercontamination.

o No deep bedrock wells.

o Eighteen wells w i l l be InstalledIn glacial drift nests of two (one shallow, onedeep) at various locationssurrounding the landfill. Because It Isanticipated that In the area of thelandfi l l groundwater Is movingtowards the Root River, some wellnests have been positioned atvarious locations between thelandfill and the River toIntercept any groundwater In thatarea. The shallow and deep wellconfiguration allows an evaluationto be made as to whether shallowgroundwater Is more contaminated.This w i l l enable a groundwater plumeto be more accurately delineated.

o Three deep bedrock wells w i l l be located In thearea of the landfill.

o Two medium depth wells w i l l be locatedwithin the landfill.

o At least two rounds ofgroundwater sampling w i l l beperformed to confirm any findings.


water or sediments (possibly contaminated by direct runoff from thelandfill or from discharge of landfill-derived groundwater). Therefore,potential remedial alternatives may include technologies that would preventsurface water from leaving the landfill area and entering the river (e.g.surface water collection systems) and technologies that prevent offsitemigration of contaminated groundwater (e.g. slurry walls or pump and treatsystems). If highly contaminated sediments are present in the Root River,limited removal technologies may be implemented.

Using existing data, the following tentative conclusions concerningcontaminants emanating from HDL can be drawn:

o Within the site boundaries, exposure to contaminants consist ofexposure to unburied waste on the landfill proper, contaminated soildirectly associated with waste, surface water immediately adjacent tothe landfill (e.g. the lake to the north of the site and standing waterat the southern and eastern edges of the site), sediment below thesesurface water bodies, ingestion and inhalation of airborne waste andsoil particles, and inhalation of potential vapor phase waste emittedfrom the landfill surface.

o Beyond the site boundaries, the most likely exposure modes are throughpotentially contaminated groundwater, potentially contaminated surfacewater from the Root River, and potentially contaminated Root Riversediments.

With these tentative conclusions as a framework, data requirements wereformulated and the data deficiencies listed in Table 4-1 were observed.Table 4-1 also lists the proposed sampling activities needed to remedythese deficiencies. Table 4-2 lists these sampling activities and furtherlists other activities that are also deemed necessary to characterize thelandfill area to the level presently thought necessary to complete the site

002/06

Section: 4Date: November 1968Page: 1 of 56

TABLE 4-2 DATA QUW.ITY SUMWY

Activity

Objective

SampleExisting Wells

Samples fron existing

PerformRadiologicalSirvey

Surface radiation In

PerformGeophysicalSurvey

Geophysical surveying

SampleSurface Soils

Surflclal soil

SampleSediments

If the lake, Root

SampleSurface Water

Surface water has beenwells will be used toconfirm previousfindings by the FITTeam. They will enableinformation to be obtainedon the levels of contami-nants 1n on-site monitoringwells. This Informationwill be useful to thefield geologist during theplacement and Installationof new wells.

the area will bechecked by perfor-ming a radiologicalsurvey. It is a onetine precautionarymeasure undertakenbecause 1 wilted Infor-mation exists aboutthe waste types. Itis not anticipatedthat any readingswill exceed 2-3times the backgroundlevel.

will be conducted todetermine whetherthere are locationswith a concentrateddistribution ofburled objects.Only magnetometersurvey techniqueswill be used.

sanples will be col-lected in order tocharacterize theextent of sirfacesoil contaninationat the site. Inaddition, Informationwill be acquired onthe extent of sirfacemigration of contani-nated materials.Sanpleswill beanaljeed for organicand inorganiccontaninants.

River or other bodiesof water possess con-tamination, dependingon the method of depo-sition and on thenature of the contani-nant, underlyingsediments couldexhibit levels ofcontamination.Sedinent sanpleswill be taken andanalyzed to measurethe extent of con-tanination (if any).

Identified as a poten-tial migration pathwayfran the site. Thelake borders the land-fill and overflow andrut-off eventuallydrains into tte RootRiver. Because theRoot River Is themajor surface drainagefeature in the areaand empties Into LakeMichigan, It will alsobe included in surfacewater sampling acti-vities. Sampleanalyses will be usedto determine if con-taninants are presentIn the surface water.Total metals and dis-solved metals willboth be performed todetennlne the mode andmediun of transport.

PrioritizedDataUse(s)

Risk Assessment

Site Characterization Site Characterfeatlon Site Characterization

Eval uation ofAl tematives

Engineering Design

Risk Assessnent

Eval uation ofAl ternatives

Engineering Design

Site Characterization

Risk Assessnent

Eval uation ofAlternatives

Risk Assessnent

Evaluation ofAlternatives

Engineering Design Engineering Design

002/06

TABLE 4-2 DATA QUALITY 9LMWY (Continued)

Section: 4Date: November 1988Page: 3 of 56

Activity

Objective

Install GrourUaterMonitoringWells

Groirdxater monitoring well

Strvey ObtainWell 4 Water LevelElevations Measiranents

Water level measurements will be

Sanple GrouxUaterMonitoringWells

Gromtater sanpleswill be

SanpleResidentialWells

Residential well sanpllngInstallation will be under-taken In order to provideaccess to the groindwaterirder the site area. Thewell swill be in nests oftwo to enable a determinationto be mate about grourt/aterqualIty and behavior atdifferent depths. Soil sanpleswill also be sent into the labfrom various depths to beanalyzed for contamination.

used to detennlne the vertical andhorizontal directions of ground-water flew in the site area.

collected in order to assessthe chanical qual ity of thegroundrfater In the sitearea. Organic and Inorganicanalyses will be performed.Dissolved metal analyses andtotal dissolved solidsanalyses will also be performed.

will enable the evalua-tion of water qjalityin the connuiity sir*rounding the landfill.All sanples will beanaljeed for organic sand inorganics anddrinking water detectionUnits utilized.

PrioritizedDataUse(s)


Evaluation of Alternatives



Engineering Design

Risk Assessnent



Engineering Design

Risk Assessnent


Engineering Design

Analytical Levels* Site Characterization: LevelsI 4 IV

Evaluation of AlternativesLevels I 4 IV

Risk Assessnent: LevelsIV 4V

Site Characterization:Levels I, IV 4V

Engineering Design:Levels IV & V

Risk Assessnent: LevelsIV 4V

Eval uatfon of Al ternatives:Levels IV 4 V

Engineering Design:Levels IV 4 V

* See Table 4-3 for definitions of analytical levels.

002/03

Section: 4Date: Noveiber 1968Page: 2 of 56

TABLE 4-2 DATA QUALITY SIWWY (Continued)

Activity

Analytical Levels*

SampleExisting Wells

PerformRadiologicalSurvey

PerformGeophysicalSurvey

Risk Asscssnent:Levels I 4 II

SanpleSurface Soils

Risk Assessnent:Levels IV & V

SampleSedtants


SampleSurface Water


Site Characterization:Levels I A IV

Site Characterization:Level I

Site Characterfeatlon:Levels I A II

Evaluation ofAlternatives: LevelsI 4 II

Engineering Design:Levels I A II

Evaluation ofAlternatives: LevelsIV 4V


Site Characterization:Levels I, WAV

Eval uation ofAlternatives: LevelsIV 4V

Engineering Design:IV 4V

Evaluation ofAlternatives: LevelsIV 4V


See Table 4-3 for definitions of analytical levels.

002/03


risk assessment and to complete the feasibility study. The generalobjectives of the proposed investigation program are as follows:

o Determine the extent of waste on the site property. Waste is presentlybelieved to be confined to the mounded landfill. However, the geophys-ical surveys will be used to confirm or extend this waste area.

o Determine the extent and level of contamination of soils, sediments,surface waters, and groundwater on the site property. Each of thesemedia will be sampled as described in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Also, airmonitoring will be a part of all activity on the site for health andsafety purposes.

o Determine the extent and level to which contamination has migrated fromthe landfill to surrounding areas. Primary pathways of concern aresurface water and groundwater. Residential wells, although not likelyto be contaminated, will be sampled to confirm water quality.

o Gain a detailed understanding of the geohydrologic and hydrologicsetting for the HDL area. Subsurface stratigraphy will be determinedfrom existing well and boring logs combined with detailed logs obtainedduring installation of the proposed monitoring wells. Water levelmeasurements in existing and proposed monitoring wells and from surfacewater bodies that appear to be expressions of the water table will beused to determine local groundwater flow directions.

o Provide data necessary to conduct the endangerment assessment and dataneeded to perform limited engineering design for the feasibility study.Attaining the four objectives listed above should also provide the dataneeded for these two data uses. For example, the determination ofgeotechnical parameters for subsurface soils will take place during

002/06


the installation of monitoring wells. The levels and geographicaldistribution of contamination encountered in the site characterizationwill feed directly into the risk assessment.

4.2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Considering the data objectives needed to characterize the Hunts DisposalLandfill area, data quality objectives (DQOs) were formulated to ensurethat the proposed sampling and other data gathering procedures wouldprovide data of sufficient quality. The DQOs are summarized in Table 4-2.Table 4-3 lists the analytical levels that are appropriate for various datauses in an RI/FS.

The DQOs deemed appropriate for the HDL RI/FS are as follows:

o Chemical analysis of all media except residential well water will beconducted at Level IV, standard CLP RAS protocol. These completeanalyses are necessary due to the wide possible range of wastematerials deposited at HDL. Residential water will be analyzed usingthe lower drinking water SAS detection limits (Level V).

o All other activities (e.g. air monitoring, radiological survey,geophysical survey will be conducted at "field" analytical levels.Given the nature of the site as now understood and described above,higher analytical levels do not appear necessary.

002/06

TABLE 4-3SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL LEVELS APPROPRIATE TO

DATA USES

DATA USES ANALYTICAL LEVEL

SITE CHARACTERIZATIONMCtNTORNGDURMQ LEVEL'MPl£MENTATION

SITE CHARATEHIZATIONEVALUATION Of ALTERNATIVES .„_ -ENGfEERKiDESGN icvu.*MOMTORNQDUHNGMPLEMENTATON

RISK ASSESSMENTPRPDETERMtiATDNSITE CHARACTERIZATIONEVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVESENSIEERMG DESIGN LEVEL WMOMTORNGOURJNQIMPLEMENTATION

RISK ASSESSMENTPRPDETERMNATDNEVALUATION Of ALTERNATIVES irwa.iv

ENSNEEflMQDESCN

RBK ASSESSMENT LEVEL VPRPDETERMNATDN

TYPE OF ANALYSIS

- TOTAL ORGANIC/INORGANICVAPOR DETECTION USNGPORTABLE NSTRUMENTS

- FCLO TEST KITS

- VARCTY OF ORGANCS BYGC; INORGANICS BY AA;XRF

- TENTATIVE K>; ANALYTE-SPECFC

- DETECTION LMITS VARYFROM LOW ppm TO LOW ppb

- ORGAN CSflNORQANICSUSNG EPA PROCEDURESOTHER THAN CLP CAN BEANALYTE-SPECIFIC

- HCRA CHARACTERBTC TESTS

- HSL ORGANCSANORGANICSBY GCA4S; AA; ICP

- LOW ppb DETECTION UMfT

-NON-CONVENTtALPARAMETERS

-METHOOSPECFCDETECTION LMITS

-MOOFCATONOfEXBTNG METHODS

- APPENDIX 8 PARAMETERS

LIMITATIONS

• NSTRUMENTS RESPOND TONATURAU.Y-OCCURMQCOMPOUNDS

• TENTATIVE ID

- TECHNnUES/MSTRUMENTSLMITED MOSTLY TOVOLATILES, METALS

-TENTATIVE DM SOMECASES

- CAN PROVIDE DATA OFSAME QUALITY ASLEVELS IV. MS

• TENTATIVE DENTFICATONOF NON4CL PARAMETERS

- SOME TME MAY BE REOUKDFOR VALUATION OF PACKAGES

- MAY REOURE METHODDEVELOPMENTMODFCATION

- MECHANISM TO OBTAMSERVICES REQUnESSPECIAL LEAD TIME

DATA QUALITY

- f NSTRUMENTS CALBRATEDAND DATA INTERPRETEDCORRECTLY. CAN PROVDENDCATION OF CONTAMMATION

- DEPENDENT ON OA/OCSTEPS EMPLOYED

- DATA TYPICALLY REPORTEDN CONCENTRATDN RANGES

-SMtAR DETECTIONLIMITS TO CLP

•LESS RIGOROUS OAQC

- GOAL 6 DATA OF KNOWNQUALITY

- RIGOROUS OA/QC

- METHOO-SPECFC


5.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK

The REM V RI/FS Program typically consists of the fifteen standardizedtasks listed below:

Task 1 Project PlanningTask 2 Community RelationsTask 3 Field InvestigationTask 4 Sample Analysis/ValidationTask 5 Data EvaluationTask 6 Assessment of RisksTask 7 Treatability Study/Pilot TestingTask 8 Remedial Investigation ReportsTask 9 Remedial Alternatives ScreeningTask 10 Remedial Alternatives EvaluationTask 11 Feasibility Study ReportsTask 12 Post RI/FS SupportTask 13 Enforcement SupportTask 14 Miscellaneous SupportTask 15 Expedited Response Action (ERA) Planning

The use of standardized tasks not only facilitates the document reviewprocess, but also ensures that the major topics usually associated withRI/FS projects are addressed during the development of the Work Plan.However, because each site has a widely varying assortment of specificconditions and differing RI/FS objectives, individual tasks on the list mayor may not be implemented for a particular project.

The RI is conducted concurrently with the FS. The FS is designed toselect the most desirable alternative for remediation of the site. Apre-design will then be developed for the remedial alternatives selected.

The following paragraphs describe each of the tasks and subtasks comprisingthe RI/FS. The deliverables and work products resulting from these tasksare also described.

002/03


5.1 TASK 1.0 - PROJECT PLANNING

The project plans will be the instruments of control for all fieldactivities associated with this project. There are three major projectplanning documents: The Work Plan, the Health and Safety Plan (HSP) and

the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (which includes the Sampling andAnalysis Plan (SAP) as an appendix). These planning documents define the

scope of activities required to accomplish the work assignment, provide

descriptions of field sampling and analytical protocols, describe qualityassurance/quality control procedures for field operations, and providehealth and safety protocols.

The HSP will be completed prior to submittal of the Work Plan. Much of thegeneral information comprising the QAPP will also have been compiled prior

to submission of the Work Plan. However, details of the sampling andanalysis program for the site will not be finalized until the technicalapproach described in the Work Plan is approved by U.S. EPA'. Finalizationof the QAPP will proceed after consensus is reached among U.S. EPA and WDNRofficials concerning which activities should be included in the Work Plan.During Task 1.0, project personnel will utilize currently available

information to further refine the planning documents in preparation forRI/FS activities.

5.1.1. Subtask 1.1-Initial Project Planning And Site Evaluation

This task includes the efforts related to the initiation of the RI/FS.

Some elements of this task include:

o Preparation of the Work Plan Memorandum

o Kickoff Meeting

o Initial Site Evaluation and preparation of Initial Site Evaluation

Report (ISER)

002/03


RI Scoping

o Determination of Applicable or Relevant and AppropriateRequirements (ARARS)

o Identification of preliminary remedial alternatives

o Preparation of the Work Plan

These elements typically are completed before and during the preparation ofthe Work Plan. Results of these efforts are presented in the ISER and inthe Work Plan (Section 1 through 4 of this document).

5.1.2 Subtask 1.2 • Site Health And Safety Plan

The Health and Safety Plan is developed by assessing the health and safetyconditions present at the site with the goal of providing protection forREM V field investigation personnel and the surrounding public. For theHunts Disposal site, the objective is to ascertain whether the site:

(1) Has potentially hazardous levels of contaminant compounds in thewater, air, and soil; or,

(2) Contains areas with dangerous physical features (such as dangerousterrain or explosion hazards) which could adversely affect RIpersonnel during their site investigation.

The assessment will be conducted pursuant to U.S. EPA procedures and withrespect to OSHA standards using available information and observationsmade during initial site visits.

The HSP will be updated as needed to reflect unanticipated hazards orchanges in the operating conditions encountered during the site investiga-tion. The Health and Safety Plan will specify field monitoring to be

002/03


performed and protective clothing and equipment to be worn by site workers.Site waste characteristics will be identified and an evaluation done onpotential site hazards. Levels of personnel protection and decontaminationprocedures will be specified. Prior to the performance of work onsite,personnel at nearby medical facilities will be contacted and provided withdescriptions of the nature of site activities, the kind of materialspresent at the site, and other information which would help prepare medicalfacilities to provide emergency medical care to REM V personnel.

5.1.3 Subtask 1.3 - Quality Assurance Project Plan

A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) will be developed for the sampling,analysis, and data handling aspects of the remedial investigation. TheQAPP document prepared during the project planning phase of the RI/FS willbe refined in accordance with the activities included in the approved WorkPlan. The Draft QAPP will be submitted to U.S. EPA Region V and WDNR forcomment and approval.

The QAPP will be consistent with the requirements of U.S. EPA's Region V QAguidance, and provisions of the REM V Quality Assurance Program Plan. TheQAPP will include the scope of work, a schedule of tasks, and the intendeduse of the data. The QAPP will identify sample types, sampling locations,sampling procedures, sample labeling, documentation, and sample custodyprocedures. Routine procedures for determining data accuracy, complete-ness, representativeness, precision, and comparability will be discussed.Quality Control (QC) procedures will be incorporated into the QAPP. TheQAPP will also identify, by reference, sampling, packaging and shippingprocedures, preventive maintenance and schedules for equipment, and themethodologies for conducting field analysis of samples. Performance andsystem audits, including the audit frequency, will be prescribed by REM VQA personnel and will be in accordance with U.S. EPA Regional guidance.

002/03


5.1.4 Subtask 1.4 - Assessment Of The Need For Initial Remedial Measures

Activities scheduled for the RI/FS are designed to assess whether siteconditions warrant a remedial response. Initial remedial measures (IRMs)consist of remedial actions which, due to conditions present at the site,may have to be implemented before the RI begins. Usually these actions maybe necessary to prevent or mitigate immediate and substantial risks topublic health, public safety, and/or the environment posed by the site.

Although there is currently a locked gate across the main entrance to thesite, there is evidence that the public's access to the site is notrestricted. This evidence consists of worn pathways adjacent to the gate,horse tracks, hunting blinds, camp-fire remnants, litter, informationobtained from local personnel concerning the use of the site bysnowmobilers and swimmers, and the direct observation of bow and riflehunters during the Initial Site Investigation (ISI). In addition, the gatesuffered substantial damage when a vehicle apparently drove into it.

In order to decrease the public's access to the HDL site, it is recommendedthat the following IRMs be effected as soon as possible.

o The damaged gate should be repaired so that it is free swinging andextends completely across the site entrance.

o An appropriately sized chain link fence should be installed alongthe site frontage along County Line (Eight Mile) Road. The fenceshould extend to the property line of the adjacent parcels on theeast and west of the site, and then continue far enough south so asto discourage the entry of persons from the roadway. Proper signsshould be placed on the fence identifying the property as a FederalSuperfund site and prohibiting trespassing. To the extentpossible, attempts should be made to keep the design of the fence

002/03


consistent with: 1) probable remedial activities which may takeplace at the site and 2) Racine County's future plans for use ofthe property.

5.1.5 Subtask 1.5 - Review Of Existing Information

As mentioned previously, the information on contamination potential of thehunts disposal landfill is limited.

Some of the information which is not known about the site includes:

o Whether contamination from hunts disposal can affect the area'sresidential water supplies.

o Direction of groundwater movement in the vicinity of the site.

o Significance, magnitude, and nature of leachate flow from thelandfill into the Root River.

o Regional, sub-regional and local dynamics of groundwater movement,

An important component of the remedial investigation phase of the projectwill be directed at obtaining available information pertaining to theseissues. In order to efficiently obtain this information, an extensivereview of available information will be performed. Activities to beincluded in this preliminary investigation include:

o Review of existing well logs, data concerning area hydrology andgroundwater usage in the area,

o Review of the data collected from PRPs,

002/03


o Interviews with local well drillers and other knowledgeableindividuals (e.g., City of Oak Creek, county engineers, etc.),

o Review of latest available analytical data from residential welltesting,

o Review of historical aerial photographs.

5.1.6 Subtask 1.6 - Task Management And Quality Control

The success of the RI/FS depends on sound project management. The SiteManager is the focus of project management activities. The Site Manager isresponsible for performing the following activities during the RI/FS:

o Selecting, coordinating and scheduling staff for task assignments,

o Controlling budget and schedules,

o Ongoing monitoring of project status,

o Monitoring subcontractors,

o Attending periodic review meetings,

o Ensuring that U.S. EPA chain-of-custody, sampling, analysis andQA/AC requirements and procedures are followed,

o Ensuring that the health and safety plan prepared for the RI isupdated as necessary and followed,

o Managing the assigned work,

o Project close-out, including the Work Assignment Completion Report,

002/03


o Establishing and maintaining of project record-keeping systems,

o Producing and submitting of required reports, Including monthlyfinancial and technical status reports and quarterly award feeperformance event reports.

W111lams-Russell & Johnson (WRJ)

Williams-Russell * Johnson will oversee the review of documents by the REMV Team for QA purposes and will be the focal point of support concerningtechnical and financial issues.

Required Technical and Financial Management

Support will be provided through review of technical reports and providingfinancial management tools such as Monthly Progress Status Reports.

Site Technical and Financial Management

The Site Manager will be responsible for all technical and financialaspects of the project. The Site Manager will work with WRJ's staff forimplementing the requirements in Task 2.0 (Community Relations). (It isrecognized that WRJ will perform the bulk of the CR activities.)

Technical Coordination Meetings

The Site Manager will meet with the RPM as needed to and discuss thebudget, schedule and status of the project. Meetings may also be held, asneeded, with U.S. EPA Section managers, Unit managers, and WONRrepresentatives to discuss project status and address problem areas.

002/03

Hants Disposal LandfillWork PlanRevision: FINALSection: 5Date: February 1989Page: 9 of 56

Quality Control

Quality control is the set of checking and review procedures whichrepresents the first stage in the overall process of ensuring the qualityof work products. Prepared documents will undergo stages of internalreview prior to submittal to U.S. EPA and WDNR. Following the author'snormal review, deliverables will undergo peer review and, then formal REM VTechnical review. Associated with each phase of review will be sign-offforms designed to document that the review has taken place. Theseprocedures will be performed on all deliverables and major work productsgenerated during the RI/FS.

Quality Assurance

Quality assurance consists of the set of procedures designed to confirmthat quality control activities have been appropriately implemented. Avariety of system and performance quality assurance audits will beperformed by the REM V Quality Assurance Director.

The Site Manager is responsible for overseeing the overall RI/FS activitiesand for ensuring their quality. The Site Manager will review the dailywork activities of project team members and will provide technical andmanagerial guidance as needed to maintain quality and minimize the cost ofthe work products. The Site Manager is responsible for ensuring that thespecific requirements of the QAPP are satisfied during RI/FS activities.

Review of Deliverables

The Site Manager also will coordinate with CCJM personnel and REM Vpersonnel so that major deliverables and summary documents are reviewed bya team of quality control/assurance reviewers for technical accuracycompleteness before their release to U.S. EPA.

002/03


System Audits

A system audit will be conducted on all components of measurement systemsto determine proper selection and utilization. The system audit includesevaluation of administrative, field, and laboratory procedures.

Performance Audits

Quality assurance audits are performed to assure that quality controlmeasures are being utilized to provide data and documents of acceptablequality and that subsequent calculations, interpretation, and other projectoutputs are checked and validated.

Performance audits will be conducted by the REM V Quality AssuranceDirector. REM V team members selected by the REM V Program QualityDirector will conduct these audits. One of the focal points of the auditswill be on the analytical and data generation systems utilized within theproject. Data provided by others will also be subject to audit.

5.2 TASK 2.0 - COMMUNITY RELATIONS

The REM V team has prepared and submitted a draft and final CommunityRelations Plan (CRP) for the Hunts Disposal Landfill site, at the specificrequest of U.S. EPA. The CRP will describe community concerns regardingthe site and outline a program of community relations activities that willhelp U.S. EPA meet the concerns of the community. It will include sectionson site background, community background, history of community involvement,key community concerns, objectives of the community relations program,community relations activities, a schedule for community relationsactivities, a mailing 11st of interested parties, and possible locationsfor public meetings and information repositories.

002/03


All work on the community relations plan will be Initiated by U.S. EPA'sRegion V Superfund Community Relations Coordinator and coordinated with theEPA Remedial Project Manager, WONR's Public Information Center, the REM VCommunity Relations Specialist and the REM V Site Manager.

In addition, all work under this task will be conducted in compliance withSuperfund community relations policy and Community Relations 1n Superfund:A Handbook (Interim Version, September 1983).

5.2.1 Subtask 2.1 - Community Relations Document(s)

Under this subtask, a "kick-off" fact sheet announcing the Initiation ofthe remedial investigation for the site will be prepared. It is likelythat a system of periodic updates will also have to be prepared describingthe progress of the RI.

5.2.2 Subtask 2.2 - Public Meeting

Support for the RI/FS "kick-off" public meeting will entail publicizing thepublic meeting through newspaper ads and attendance at the meeting.

5.2.3 Subtask 2.3 - Support Activities

REM V Technical staff is expected to attend public meetings, providecomment on fact sheets, and review fact sheets. The technical staff willprovide any additional support for community relations activities asneeded. The REM V Community Relations Staff will provide communityrelations services as required in support of the Hunts Disposal RI/FS.

Deliverables

The major deliverable for the project planning task is the CommunityRelations Plan (CRP). Deliverables for the RI Phase of this project

002/03


Because it is known that non-hazardous metal objects (such as car bodies,kitchen appliances, etc.) are likely buried at the site, the emphasis ofthe geophysical investigation will be to assess whether there areidentifiable portions of the landfill in which metal objects areconcentrated and to determine if metal objects are buried in areas near thelandfill and at drilling locations. If present, the locations of theseconcentrations will be compared with other field investigation results(including soil and monitoring well samples) to determine if the remedialoption of a partial removal should be explored further.

The conductivity survey will be performed using EM equipment to attempt tolocate a contaminated groundwater plume and to provide data on thesubsurface geology. The EM survey will be conducted by U.S. EPA personnel.

5.3.8 Subtask 3.8 - Soils/Sediment Investigation

The objective of the soil investigation is to investigate selected areas ofthe site for contaminants that could migrate or already have migrated fromthe landfill through leaching, erosion and/or windborne dust. The soilinvestigation also may help in the characterization of the kinds ofmaterials disposed at the site. It will be important to characterize theextent to which surficial soils are contaminated and to assess the riskthat surface materials pose due to migration into Root River and to sitepersonnel. This subtask will determine the horizontal extent ofsoil/sediment contamination. Split-spoon samples taken during installationof monitoring wells and discussed below in Section 5.3.12 will be used tohelp define the vertical extent of soil contamination.

Exact sampling locations will be determined during site reconnaissance.Sampling stations will be established before sampling commences. Eachsampling location will be marked with a numbered stake, and its positionidentified with respect to grid points established for the site.

002/03


For planning purposes, 1t 1s estimated that a total of 35 surfidal soilsamples will be taken during this task. Locations at which samples will betaken Include:

o areas surrounding the filled portion of the siteo observed drainage pathso areas adjacent to surface water bodieso soils in contact with observed leachate seepso selected portions of the cap materialo selected portions of exposed landfill material

In addition, a number of background samples will be collected in locationsoutside the site boundary to further assess natural soil conditions in thearea. All samples will be analyzed for TCL organics and TAL metals by theCLP. Special Analytical Service (SAS) protocols will be developed for anyanalysis which is not normally included in the full CLP RAS protocol andwhich may have been identified as a potential hazard. All samples (soiland sediment) will be visually characterized and described.

Samples will be taken in accordance with EPA Region V and REM V QA/QCprocedures. Therefore, the required number of duplicate samples will be inaddition to the number of samples estimated above. The budget is based onthe estimated number of samples provided in this document. The number ofsamples is subject to change depending on new information obtained duringthe RI.

Sediment samples will be collected in the Root River, in streams to thenorth and west of the site and in the lake north of the landfill. Riversediment locations will be selected upstream, adjacent to site property,and downstream of the site. All sediment sampling locations will coincidewith surface-water sampling locations (Figure 5-2).

002/03

Marshy Area

Eightmile (County Line) Road

Site EntranceSite Boundary(not fenced)Old Gravel Pits

(water-filled)

• t

Sevenmile Road

Surface Water andSediment SamplingLocations

FIGURE 5-2. HuntsDisposal Landfill,

Surface Waters andSediments

Scale Approximate: 1" - 1000'


Sediment samples will be collected in accordance with procedures outlinedin the REM V Field Technical Guidelines and other U.S. EPA approvedprocedures. Sediment sampling locations will be selected to coincide withlocations for surface water sampling. The river sediment samples will becollected to assess contamination of near-shore sediments possibly causedby seepage of contaminants through soils toward the river. Samples will betaken near shore along the southwestern boundary of the site property.Other river sediment samples will be collected in areas where finesediments are being deposited and will include the top 6 inches of sedimentmaterial.

It is estimated that 21 locations will be selected for sediment samplingwith one sample collection at each location. Several will be riversediment samples from the Root River. Other samples will be taken atselected locations in the area of the landfill. A number of backgroundsamples will be collected in locations outside the site boundary to assessnatural sediment conditions in the area. Samples will be taken inaccordance with U.S. EPA Region V and REM V QA/QC procedures. Therefore,the required number of duplicate samples will be in addition to the numberof samples listed above. The number and locations of samples to be takenmay be changed subject to new information obtained during the RI.

5.3.9 Subtask 3.9 - Residential Hell Water Investigation

The residential well water investigation will consist of obtaining samplesof potable water from area residential wells. These samples will provideinformation on the potential health risks to the community due to theingestion of well water potentially affected by site contaminants.

During the field investigation an inventory of residential wells will bemade. Available well logs will be obtained and well owners will becontacted to obtain information. Additionally, other sources of drinkingwater near the site will be determined. A map showing the locations of

002/03


residential wells and other water sources will be produced. The map willIdentify wells that were sampled during the field investigation.

It is estimated that 10 residential well water samples will be taken. Theresidential well samples will be selected to provide an adequate assortmentof upgradient and downgradlent locations in the vicinity of the landfill.Samples will be analyzed by the CLP for TCL organics and TAL metals usingdrinking water detection limits.

Samples will be taken in accordance with U.S. EPA Region V and REM V QA/QCprocedures. Therefore, the required number of blanks, duplicates, and

matrix spike duplicates will be in addition to the number of samplesestimated above. The budget is based on the number of samples provided inthis document. The number of samples is subject to change depending on newinformation obtained during the RI.

5.3.10 SUBTASK 3.10 - AIR QUALITY INVESTIGATION

No air quality investigation is planned for the Hunt's Disposal Landfillsite. The air quality will be monitored throughout site activities forhealth and safety purposes.

5.3.11 SUBTASK 3.11 - SURFACE HATER INVESTIGATION

The extent, nature and possible impacts of surface-water contamination willbe determined. The Root River is the major surface drainage feature in thearea of Hunts Disposal Landfill and therefore will be the main focus ofsurface water sampling. However, surface-water samples will also becollected in the lake located 1n the abandoned gravel pit north of thesite, and from other surface water bodies near the site.

Surface-water sampling locations are shown in Figure 5-2. Stations will be

located upstream, adjacent to the site, and downstream for the river.

002/03


Estimates of stream cross-sections and streamflow will be developed for theRoot River. Stream flow estimates will also be made by using the measuredflow data (at USGS gauges) and drainage area ratios. All informationconcerning the flow in the Root River will be gathered from availablesources.

Sampling methods will be specified in the project's Sampling and AnalysisPlan. All samples will be field screened and sent to the CLP laboratoryfor analysis for TCL organics, TAL metals and hardness. Availableinformation sources will be utilized to determine the optimal times forcollecting the samples.

For planning purposes, it is estimated that a total of 21 surface-waterlocations will be sampled during the RI/FS. Ten of these locations alsowill include deep samples.

Samples will be taken in accordance with U.S. EPA Region V and REM V QA/QCprocedures. Therefore, the required number of blanks, duplicates, andmatrix spike duplicates will be in addition to the number of samplesestimated above.

The budget is based on the estimated number of samples provided in thisdocument. The number and locations of samples are subject to changedepending on new information obtained during the RI.

5.3.12 Subtask 3.12 - Hydrogeologlc Investigation

A detailed groundwater investigation will be performed in order to furtherassess the hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer(s) within the sitearea, and to obtain groundwater samples that can be consideredrepresentative of the chemical quality within the associated aquifer(s).Emphasis will be on the acquisition of data for groundwater flowinterpretation and information needed to complete a thorough FeasibilityStudy.

002/03


There are three existing monitoring wells within the site study area whichcould play a part in this investigation (See Figure 5-1). If the wellsprove to be usable and accessible, these wells will be sampled and waterlevel measurements taken. Although QA/QC during Installation of thesewells is currently unknown, this will be taken into account when reviewingand analyzing the analytical data.

It is estimated that a total of 18 monitoring wells will be installed atthe site. Sixteen of these wells will be located 1n eight "nests". Eachnest will consist of a shallow well and a deep well. One of these nestswill be located between the landfill and Root River to assess the impact ofthe groundwater on the River. The other two wells will be single shallowwells. One of these wells will be located between the landfill and RootRiver and the other will be located on the southern edge of the landfill.Preliminary locations and depths of the new monitoring wells are shown onFigure 5-3. The rationale for each monitoring well location is provided inTable 5-2.

For this investigation, two different well depths will be used to collecthydrogeologic data. Shallow monitoring wells will be screened from 5 to 15feet below the ground surface. These wells will provide Information onwater table hydrology and will intercept any contamination that may befloating on top of the water table. Deep wells will be completed betweenthe 20 and 40 foot range, depending on the geology of that well locationand if there are indications of contamination (from the head spaceanalysis). These wells will give information on deeper potentialcontaminant migration routes. The well borings will be drilled by asubcontractor utilizing hollow stem auger drilling methods. The wells willbe constructed of 2 inch diameter PVC pipe.

In addition to the moniter wells described above, three landfill monitorwells will be installed. The locations of these wells will be based on

002/03

Marshy Area

Eightmile (County Line) Road

Site Entrance Site Boundary(not fenced)Old Gravel Pits

(water-filled)

Sevenmile RoadProposed Monitoring Wells

(All proposed well locations includeboth shallow and deep wells

except well locations 4 and 10which have only shallow wells)


Proposed MonitoringWells

Scale Approximate: T-1000'


TABLE 5-2

RATIONALE FOR PLACEMENT OF NEWGROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLSAT HUNTS DISPOSAL LANDFILL

(Refer to Figure 5-3 for locationof wells; wells 1, 2 & 3 are

existing monitoring wells)

Well Placement Rationale

4, 5, 10 & 11 Placed to intercept shallow (Location Nos.4, 5, 10 & 11) and deep (Location Nos. 4 & 11)groundwater flow from the landfill toward theRoot River.

7 & 12 Placed to intercept shallow and deep ground-water flow north from the landfill (LocationNo. 7) and east from the landfill (LocationNo. 12).

13 Placed to determine if groundwater contamina-tion has migrated a significant distancesoutheast from the landfill. Also needed tohelp establish regional groundwater flowsystem.

6, 7, 4 9 Assumed to be background locations. However,will be used to confirm this assumption andplace limits on groundwater contaminantmigration to the north (Location No. 8), thenortheast (Location No. 6), and southwestbelow the river (Location No. 9). Also neededto help establish regional groundwater flowsystem.

002/03


the results of the geophysical surveys, data from the split spoons, HNuscreening data and water level measurements.

Three monitor wells will be located within the landfill boundaries. Thesewells will be approximately 40 feet deep but the exact depth and locationwill be determined in the field based on data collected during theinstallation of the shallow and deep monitor wells and the geophysicalinvestigation. A 40-foot depth was used to estimate installation costs.These wells will be installed and constructed in a manner similiar to theshallow and deep wells however, channel pack screens may be used to preventloss of the gravel pack in landfill voids. The purpose of the landfillmonitor wells is to provide some information concerning waste and leachatecharacteristics and to provide information concerning groundwater levelsand flow patterns.

Details concerning the materials, screen length, slot sizes, and otherparameters pertaining to the wells are provided in the Sampling Plan andthe Invitation for Bid (IFB) documents.

At the first deep well, the boring will be continually split-spoon sampledto a depth of approximately 60 feet to establish the geologic conditions atthe site. During the drilling of the remaining deep monitoring wells ateach well nest, continuous split-spoon samples will be collected until justbelow the water table and at five foot intervals thereafter or where thereare any apparent changes in lithology. An experienced geologist will beresponsible for classifying all soil samples, recording any pertinentdrilling information, and determining the final depth of screen placement.

As a part of the budget preparation, it is estimated that two soil sampleswill be retained at each of the well clusters. Thus there will be a totalof 20 split-spoon samples. These samples will be analyzed by the CLP forTCL organics and TAL metals. The selection of which samples to be

002/03


submitted for analysis will be based primarily on the results of HNu headspace monitoring which will be detailed in the QAPP. Also, at each of thesampling locations, one undisturbed sample (Shelby tube) will be retainedfor laboratory determination of grain size, permeability and porosity.

Groundwater samples will be collected from the existing monitoring wellsand the newly installed wells. Figure 5-4 shows the relative positions ofall wells to be sampled. The groundwater samples will be analyzed by theCLP for TCL organics using the drinking water SAS which includes lowerdetection limits. Standard TAL metals analyses will be performed onfiltered samples.

On at least four occasions (including wet and dry periods), water levelswill be measured in all of the monitoring wells. For each well, locationand elevation of top of riser will be determined (using surveyingtechniques). This elevation will then be tied to a common datum. Fromthis information groundwater elevations will be calculated for use inpreparing groundwater contour maps, and determining vertical and horizontalgroundwater flow gradients.

Slug tests will be attempted on each of the newly installed monitoringwells. (It is anticipated that only a few of the shallow wells will beamenable to slug testing. Results from slug testing of the deep wellsshould be acceptable.) These tests will be used to assure the well isfunctioning properly and to estimate the hydraulic conductivity(permeability) of materials spanning the screened interval of each well.

The newly compiled hydrogeological and analytical information will be usedtogether with previously compiled data to perform the following tasks:

•

o Prepare groundwater elevation contour maps;

o Prepare a groundwater contamination (plume) contour map;

002/03

Marshy Area

Eightmila (County Line) Road


(water-filled)

Existing Monitoring Wells

Proposed Monitoring Wells

Sevenmile Road(All proposed well locations includeboth shallow and deep wells

except well locations 4 and 10which have only shallow wells)


Existing and ProposedMonitoring Wells

Scale Approximate: 1" - 1000'

Hunts Disposal LandfillHOP? PlanRevision: FINALSection: 5Date: February 1989Page: 31 of 56

o Estimate groundwater flow velocities and directions;

o Prepare geologic cross sections (as possible) using available welllogs and logs obtained during monitoring well installation;

o Address the present and future degree of health hazards posed by thelandfill;

o Determine the extent of contaminated soils using the SoilContamination Evaluation Methodology;

o Classify the aquifer(s) beneath the site according to the U.S. EPA'sGround Water Protection Strategy Document;

o Identify any data gaps and make recommendations for further sitework (if any) in order to provide the information necessary tocomplete a thorough Feasibility Study.

5.3.13 Subtask 3.13 - Phase Two Work

The second phase of the field work at the Hunts Disposal Landfill willconsist of installation of three bedrock wells (if required) and a secondsampling of the monitor wells, residential wells, and surface water. Asoil gas survey may also be performed. The phase two work would be doneduring the spring or summer to assess climatic variations in the sampleresults and after the results of the phase one samples have been obtainedand reviewed.

One of the bedrock wells will be located upgradient and two at downgradientlocation. For cost estimating purposes, it is assumed that the depths ofthe bedrock wells will be 90 feet. The purpose of the bedrock wells is todetermine if the deeper aquifer is contaminated and obtain information onthe groundwater flow gradient and direction. The bedrock monitor wellswill be installed and constructed in a manner similar to the shallow and

002/03


deep monitor wells. The bedrock wells will be installed during the phase 2work (Section 5.3.13 Subtask 3.13 - Phase Two Work), if phase 2 activitiesproves necessary.

A second round of samples will be collected for full TCL analysis from eachmonitor well (23 total plus duplicates and QA/QC samples). Those resi-dential wells sampled during the first phase of the field investigationwill be sampled during the second phase. Sampling additional residentialwells has not been budgetted in this work plan. The budget provides forsampling 10 residential wells during the second phase. Surface watersamples will be collected from all of the locations sampled during thefirst phase.

The soil gas survey will be conducted if the results of the phase one workindicate that additional information is necessary to define the limits ofthe landfill, the extent of contaminant migration, or determine thepresence of gas on the landfill. The soil gas investigation would beconcentrated at the boundary of the landfill. Some samples would be takenon the landfill to correlate the results from other areas. The soil gassamples will be analyzed on-site using a portable gas chromatograph.Approximately 75 samples will be collected and analyzed.

All of the results of the second phase of the field investigation will beincorporated into the RI report as revisions to the report, as an appendixor as an addendum. How the results are incorporated will depend on thestatus of the RI report when the results of the second phase samples areobtained.

5.3.14 Subtask 3.14- Handling Of Project Generated Hazardous Waste

All soil and water samples, soil cuttings, purge water, etc., will bescreened by HNU headspace analysis. Any samples with readings abovebackground will be treated as a hazardous material and drummed. All drums

002/03


wm be marked according to their contents. Waste materials generatedduring the Installation of any one well will be handled similarly if anyone sample shows contamination levels which are above background. Forexample, if headspace analysis of a soil sample collected during drillingof a borehole indicates that contamination is above background levels, allother waste materials (other soils samples, development water, purge water,etc.) generated during the drilling of this well (or from other wellsincluded in the well nest) will be treated as hazardous wastes. If nocontamination is detected, drilling spoils, purge water etc., will not betreated as hazardous material and will be disposed of in the vicinity ofwhere the materials were generated.

Prior to disposal, analyses will be made of drum contents in order todetermine the optimal disposal method. The analysis will Include volatileorganics and inorganics.

Generated materials deemed as hazardous or potentially hazardous during theremedial investigation will be drummed by waste type and stored on the sitepending disposal after the RI. Decontamination water and disposableclothing and gear will be drummed separately from all other wastes.Separation of wastes will allow easier and more cost-effective disposal.

Approximately one drum of drill cuttings and four drums of development andpurge water will be generated per monitoring well installed. Another drumof purge water per well will be generated during sampling. Approximatelyten drums of disposable clothing, and miscellaneous material also will begenerated.

Drummed materials will be stored at the HDL Site in a designated stagingarea. The staging area will conform where appropriate to the State ofWisconsin requirements and regulations for temporary storage areas. At theend of the RI, these materials will be appropriately disposed at off-sitelocations selected on the basis of the level of contaminants found indrum.

002/03


Hazardous wastes generated by RI activities will be managed according toResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations and otherapplicable regulations 1n the State of Wisconsin. There are no costestimates for drum disposal Included In the budget. However, costs havebeen Included in the project budget to cover the sample analysis chargestypically assessed by hazardous waste disposal facilities prior toaccepting wastes. Operators of disposal facilities need to haveinformation on the properties of the waste material before they are able tohandle it appropriately. Cost estimates also Include drum supply, deliveryand staging activities.

Because waste types will be segregated, 1t is assumed that 15 samples willbe adequate to provide the waste disposal facility with the informationneeded to select disposal options for all waste categories. Informationconcerning the nature of the waste, the recommended disposal options anddisposal costs will be forwarded to U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA will complete thenecessary disposal forms (with U.S. EPA designated as the Generator) andsupply the funds needed for disposal. The REM V team will makearrangements for final disposal using the forms and funds provided byU.S. EPA.


Task Management and quality control procedures described above under(Subtask 1.8) of the "Project Planning" will also be followed duringexecution of this task.

5.4 TASK 4.0 - SAMPLE ANALYSIS/VALIDATION

Data validation consists of the independent review and quality assessmentof all laboratory analytical data generated by field sampling activities.Formal data validation will be performed by U.S. EPA's CRL. REM Vpersonnel will accept the laboratory data 1n accordance with CRL'sassessment.

002/03


Therefore, only data which has been deemed acceptable by the CRL will beused in further analysis within the RI/FS.

While it will not be necessary for REM V personnel to perform datavalidation, effort will be required to review the validated data packagesand convert the laboratory information to an easily usable andunderstandable format. Specific tasks will be to:

o Summarize pertinent analytical values (those showing contaminantsbeing detected) from the validated packages to evaluatecontamination at the site.

o Entry of lab data into the REM V analytical data base managementsystem.

o Obtain reports from the REM V data base which display contaminantinformation pertaining to the site.

o Perform necessary computations on the data for use in subsequentanalyses.

5.4.1 Task Management and Quality Control


5.5 TASK 5.0 - DATA EVALUATION

Contaminant migration and environmental/health effects data obtained duringthe RI activities will be used to characterize the contaminant andgroundwater system dynamics of the site. Specific inputs to this task

002/03


Include results of the hydrogeologlcal Investigation, Information onpotential pollutant migration pathways and analytical data associated withthe collected samples.

Contaminant transport models (groundwater, air, surface water, etc.) may beselected and used to help define the environmental and health consequencesof site contamination problems. While the model(s) will also be useful inanalyzing alternative remedial approaches in connection with the subsequentfeasibility study, the focus of this task will be its use in understandingexisting site conditions.

At the HDL Site, the emphasis will be directed towards the ground andsurface water media. The dynamics of air emissions will also be addressed,but at this time this media is thought to be of limited significance as athreat to public health and the environment.

5.5.1 Task Management and Quality Control


5.6 TASK 6.0 - ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT

The Endangerment Assessment (EA) will be performed in a manner consistentwith current U.S. EPA guidance documents on the conduct of RIs, FSs andEAs. An EA is performed for sites targeted for enforcement action. The EAwill be designed and performed to constitute the Public Health andEnvironmental Analysis of the "No Action" remedial alternative. The EAdocument will summarize the findings of the EA process in a concise formatwhich provides adequate documentation for the determination of risk whichmay be posed as a result of the site. It will be a stand-alone documentand may be used to support CERCLA legal actions.

002/03


According to U.S. EPA's guidance, EAs are conducted 1n four steps:

o Contaminant identification: Determination of the contaminant(s) ofconcern at the site.

o Exposure assessment: Analysis of the extent and duration ofexposure to the contaminant(s) of concern.

o Toxicity assessment: Determination of the health and environmentalhazards associated with exposure to the site's contaminant(s) ofconcern.

o Risk characterization: Estimation of the incidence of adversehealth/environmental effects resulting from exposure to thecontaminant(s) of concern.

5.6.1 SUBTASK 6.1 - Contaminant Identification

The purpose of this subtask is to identify the contaminants present at thesite which are expected to pose the most significant hazard for theenvironment and public health. Identifying the contaminant(s) of concern(often referred to as "indicator chemicals"), involves consideration of thechemical's toxicity, persistence, mobility, and the quantity of thecontaminant present. Review and screening techniques will be used toselect the -contaminant(s) which are most representative of the importantphysicochemical and toxicological hazards posed by contaminants present atthe site. The selected chemical(s) will be the focus of subsequentassessment efforts.

5.6.2 Subtask 6.2 - Exposure Assessment

The exposure assessment element of the EA consists of the following four

002/03


activities as they relate to the contaminant(s) of concern identified inthe previous subtask:

o Developing an estimate of the amount of contaminant released intothe environmental media.

o Predicting the environmental fate and transport of thecontaminant(s) following release.

o Characterizing the exposed population(s) in terms of the numbers ofindividuals, their sensitivity and other relevant factors.

o Estimating the resultant exposure level or dose for the exposedpopulation.

Estimates of the amount of contaminant released by the landfill will bedeveloped from a combination of analytical and modeling results.

Based on the nature of contaminants and the media in which they may befound, potential exposure pathways and points of exposure can beidentified. Currently available information (which is recognized to bepreliminary and incomplete at this point in the RI), indicates that thefollowing pathways and points of exposure may require analysis at the HDLsite:

o Exposure by ingestion of groundwater and/or direct contact (e.g.showering or bathing),

o Transport into surface water and exposure by ingestion and/or directcontact (e.g. swimming),

o Transport via surface erosion and runoff to nearby property,

002/03


o Direct contact with materials on-site,

o Inhalation of gaseous contaminants,

o Tracking of potentially contaminated surface materials offsite,

o Exposure of wildlife or domestic animals to soils on-site or inoff-site drainage areas,

o Uptake of hazardous substances by local crops.

Examples of populations which may be at risk from potential exposure to thecontaminant(s) of concern at the HDL site include: 1) persons with privatewells which may come in contact with contaminants migrating from the HDLsite, 2) persons in close proximity to the site who may become exposed topotentially toxic atmospheric emissions from the landfill, and 3) personsusing the site for close contact recreation.

For each of the exposure pathways identified, a quantitative assessment ofthe likely human exposure to contaminants identified at the Hunts Disposalsite will be conducted. In order to perform this assessment, severalexposure scenarios will be analyzed (selected from the list of possiblepathways). Using information generated during the RI, each exposurescenario will define routes of transport, receptors at risk, andcircumstances and routes of exposure. Concentrations of selectedcontaminants will be estimated and the magnitude of exposure for eachreceptor category will be calculated.

5.6.3 Subtask 6.3 • Toxldty Assessment

U.S. EPA's guidelines for the preparation of EAs specify that a toxicityassessment be performed to determine the nature and severity of the healthand environmental hazards posed by contaminants present at the site. The

002/03


toxicity assessment consists of a qualitative evaluation of the toxicity ofthe contaminant, followed by an assessment of the dose-responsecharacteristics of the contaminant. The toxicity assessment involves thedevelopment of a toxicity profile based on laboratory, clinical andepidemiological data (as compiled from recent scientific reviews andcurrent scientific literature). The dose-response assessment considersquantitative indices of acute and chronic toxicity, including exposurelevels which serve as environmental guides and standards.

5.6.4 Subtask 6.4 - Risk Characterization

This subtask builds on the results obtained from the preceding subtasks andculminates with an estimate of the chance that an adverse health orenvironmental effect will occur. Actual and potential risks will beaddressed, including carcinogenic/noncarcinogenic risks, environmentalrisks and risks to public welfare. As with the other elements of the EA,all activities will be performed in accordance with applicable U.S. EPAguidance. In all cases, contaminant levels will be compared with ARARs,when available.



Deliverables

The work product of this task will be a document which summarizes: 1) thecontaminant(s) of concern at the site, 2) the exposure potential ofreceptors to contaminants present at the site, 3) toxicity issues relatingto the contaminant(s) of concern, and 4) the risk posed to the environment,

002/03


public health and welfare by contaminants present at the HDL site. Thesedocuments will be distributed to U.S. EPA and WDNR for review and comments.

5.7 TASK 7.0 - TREATABILITY STUDY/PILOT TESTING

In consideration of remedial technologies, additional testing may have tobe performed to determine the overall implementability, operability,reliability, and cost-effectiveness of a particular treatment alternative.Based on available information pertaining to the HDL site, it is assumedthat treatability study testing will not be necessary. As additional databecome available, a work plan for this activity will be developed (ifappropriate).

5.8 TASK 8.0 - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

5.8.1 Subtask 8.1 - Draft Report

The methods, results and conclusions of the remedial investigation will becompiled and published in a draft report. The format for the RI Report is

presented in Table 5-3. Five copies of this report will be submitted toU.S. EPA and five copies will be submitted to WDNR. The report will

document the level and extent of contamination, and the potential

endangerment of public health and environment.

It should be noted that Section 9.0 of the RI Report (Public Health and

Environmental Concerns), will consist of a brief summarization of

information presented in the EA document. (See Section 5.6 of this Work

Plan.) The EA will be produced and submitted along with the RI Report.

5.8.2 Subtask 8.2 » Final Report

Following the receipt of comments from U.S. EPA and WDNR the REM V teamshall prepare a final RI Report (along with a final EA document).

002/03


TABLE 5-3

FORMAT FOR RI REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 SITE BACKGROUND INFORMATION1.2 NATURE AND EXTENT OF PROBLEM(S)1.3 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY1.4 OVERVIEW OF REPORT

2.0 SITE FEATURES INVESTIGATION2.1 DEMOGRAPHY2.2 LAND USE2.3 NATURAL RESOURCES2.4 CLIMATOLOGY

3.0 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES INVESTIGATION3.1 WASTE TYPES3.2 WASTE COMPONENT CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR

4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION4.1 SOILS4.2 GEOLOGY4.3 GROUND WATER

5.0 SURFACE-WATER INVESTIGATION5.1 SURFACE WATER5.2 SEDIMENTS5.3 FLOOD POTENTIAL5.4 DRAINAGE

6.0 AIR INVESTIGATION

7.0 BIOTA INVESTIGATION (If Performed)7.1 FLORA7.2 FAUNA

8.0 BENCH AND PILOT TESTS

9.0 PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (SUMMARY OF EA DOCUMENT)9.1 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS9.2 PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

002/03


These final documents shall be submitted to U.S. EPA and WDNR for approval.


At the request of EPA, the REM V team will participate in a public meetingto assist EPA in presenting the results of the Remedial Investigationstudy. Time for attendance and effort for preparation of visual aids andother presentation material has been budgeted into this Work Plan.


Task Management and quality control procedures described under Subtask 1.6Task Management and Quality Control will also be followed during executionof this task.

5.9 TASK 9.0 - REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES SCREENING

Based upon the results of the RI activities, general response actions andthe associated remedial technologies will be identified, defined, andscreened. As appropriate, the general response actions previouslyidentified in Section 3.2 will be expanded or reduced.

5.9.1 Subtask 9.1 - Preliminary Remedial Technologies Screening

The identified preliminary remedial technologies will'undergo an initialscreening to eliminate those technologies with site specific implementationor waste characteristic problems. Those technologies found to beunreliable or which have site specific implementation or significanttechnical problems will not be considered further.

002/03


5.9.2 Subtask 9.2 • Assembly Of Alternative Remedial Actions

Those technologies which have passed the technology screening will be usedto assemble alternative remedial actions for each medial of concern. Forthe HDL site the following minimum alternatives and categories ofalternatives will be developed:

1. No action;

2. A treatment alternative that would eliminate the need for long-termmanagement (including monitoring) at the site;

3. An alternative that uses treatment to reduce the toxicity,mobility, or volume of site waste, (thus reducing the risks posedby the site);

4. A number of alternatives which range between ones which do notrequire long-term management (as in item "2" above), and ones whichutilize treatment (as in item "3" above).

5. An alternative that involves containment of waste with little or notreatment, but that provides protection of human health and theenvironment primarily by preventing exposure or reducing themobility of the waste;

6. To respond to potential groundwater contamination, a number ofalternatives that would restore groundwater to levels specified by

-4ARARs or in the case of carcinogen to a cancer-risk range of 10to 10~ for maximum lifetime risk over a range of restorationrates. One alternative shall be developed that restores groundwater to a 10 lifetime risk level within five years. Fornon-carcinogen for which ARARs are not available, groundwaterrestoration levels will be determined by the risk assessment.

002/03


For each alternative developed, potential Federal and State applicable orrelevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and other criteria,advisories, and guidance related to the technology will be Identified.Containment or disposal requirements for residuals or untreated wasteassociated with the alternative will be identified also.

5.9.3 Subtask 9.3 • Initial Screening Of Alternatives

The alternative remedial actions will be screened according to criteriapresented in Section 300.68 of the National Contingency Plan. On the basisof this screening, a list of remedial alternatives will be selected formore detailed analysis. An attempt will be made to select an alternativefor each of the above criteria for detailed analysis. Alternatives thatare clearly infeasible or inappropriate will be eliminated. If allalternatives addressing any one of the six general alternatives orcategories listed above (Section 5.9.2) are eliminated in this initialscreening process, one of these eliminated alternatives that would addressthis general alternative or category will be presented in the feasibilitystudy report so as to demonstrate the reasons for its elimination. Thecontainment alternative and no action alternatives will be carried throughthe initial screening to the detailed analysis.

The first criteria for screening of the preliminary remedial alternativeswill be the alternative's effectiveness. The alternatives will beevaluated as to whether they adequately protect human health and theenvironment; attain Federal and State ARARs or other criteria, advisoriesor guidance; significantly and permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility,or volume of hazardous constituents; are technically reliable; or areeffective in other respects.

The second criteria for screening is the alternative's implementability.Alternatives will be evaluated as to the technical feasibility and

002/03


availability of the technologies each alternative would employ; thetechnical and institutional ability to monitor, maintain, and replacetechnologies over time; and the administrative feasibility of implementingthe alternative.

The third criteria for screening is the cost of the alternative. Anevaluation of the costs of construction and any significant long-term coststo operate and maintain the alternative will be made. None of thealternatives will be eliminated solely on cost. Cost will be used as acriteria for comparison of those alternatives which provide similartreatment and environmental protection.

Innovative technologies will be carried through the initial screening ifthere is reasonable belief that they offer potential for better treatmentperformance or implementability; fewer or lesser adverse impacts than otheravailable approaches; or lower costs for similar levels of performance thandemonstrated treatment technologies.

5.9.4 Subtask 9.4 - Effectiveness Screening

The objective of this phase of the screening process is to eliminate thosealternatives that do not adequately protect human health and theenvironment; fail to attain Federal and State ARARs or other criteria,advisories, or guidance; fail to significantly and permanently reduce thetoxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous constituents; are nottechnically reliable; or are ineffective in other respects. Thosealternatives that prove unreliable or ineffective will be eliminated.

EPA's interim guidelines for the preparation of Public Health Evaluations(PHEs) specify that a risk assessment should be conducted by comparingexposure levels with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements(ARARs). Examples of these requirements are the Ambient Water QualityCriteria (AWQCs) for protection of human health and aquatic life that have

002/03

Hunts Disposal LandfillMonk PlanRevision: FINALSection: 5Date: February 1989Page: 47 of 56

been developed under the Clean Water Act. These requirements apply to manycompounds that have been Identified at the HDL site. Other applicablerequirements Include the Interim drinking water standards developed underthe Safe Drinking Water Act and the ambient air quality standards developedunder the Clean Air Act. The latter standards have been developedprincipally for metals and other inorganic parameters.

Standards and criteria for chemicals that may be Identified under the RIwill be reviewed to verify their applicability or relevance andappropriateness to the exposure circumstances under review. Standards andcriteria judged to be applicable or relevant and appropriate will becompared with the predicted human exposure levels to judge the degree andextent of risk to public health. For chemicals without ARARs, toxlcityprofiles will be compiled based on recent scientific reviews and currentscientific literature. These will be used to develop proposed actionlevels for the specific exposure circumstances of the HDL site. Forcarcinogenic substances, these action levels will be based on U.S. EPA'spotency factors ("unit risks"). For non-carcinogenic substances, theaction levels will be developed based on other effects, using theADI/safety factor approach.

The extent of potential impacts on the environment (including plants,animals, ecosystems, and aesthetic resources) will be assessed by comparingthe ambient concentrations of chemicals that were derived during the humanexposure assessment with applicable standards or action levels.

5.9.5 Subtask 9.5 - ImplementablHty Screening

This phase of the screening process is intended to eliminate alternativesemploying technologies that are infeasible or unavailable; technologiesthat are technically or Institutionally unable to be monitored, maintained,or replaced over time; and technologies that are limited by administrativeinfeasibility in their implementation.

002/03


5.9.6 Subtask 9.6 - Cost Screening

The implementation cost of each alternative remedial action will beconsidered, including construction and long-term costs. An alternativethat far exceeds the costs of other alternatives evaluated and that doesnot provide substantially greater public health or environmentalprotection, or technical reliability will usually be excluded from furtherconsideration unless there is no other remedy that meets applicable orrelevant and appropriate requirements.

5.9.7 Subtask 9.7 - Candidate Listing Summary

A list of the potential remedial actions will be summarized for detailedanalysis in the Alternatives Screening Memorandum. Alternatives notselected for analysis will be documented with an explanation of why theywere not listed for future analysis in the remedial action selectionprocess.

5.9.8 SUBTASK 9.8 - Task Management And Quality Control

Task Management and quality control procedures described above underSubtask 1.6 Task Mangement and Quality Control will also be followed duringexecution of this task.

Deliverable

An Initial Screening Memorandum will be prepared and presented to the U.S.EPA and WONR discussing the alternatives retained for future analysis.This information will discuss in general terms the advantages anddisadvantages of each of the alternatives retained for further analysis.

002/03


5.10 TASK 10.0 - REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

The alternatives that remain after the initial screening will be subjectedto a detailed evaluation. Action-specific Federal and State ARARs andother criteria, advisories, and guidance to be used in the analysis andselection of a remedy will be identified. The analysis will be conductedat a level of detail sufficient to allow U.S. EPA to select from a set ofdefined and discrete hazardous waste management approaches.

The alternatives will be evaluated against the following criteria:

5.10.1 Subtask 10.1 - Short-Term Effectiveness

This evaluation criteria addresses the effects of the alternatives on thecommunity, workers and the environment during the implementation of thealternative

5.10.2 Subtask 10.2 - Long-Term Effectiveness And Performance

The magnitude of the remaining risk, ability to meet performance goals,degree of management, monitoring, and maintenance requirements and thepotential need and ease or replacement are factors which will be evaluatedas part of this subtask.

5.10.3 Subtask 10.3 - Reduction Of ToxicHy, Mobility, And Volume

Each alternative will be evaluated on its ability to reduce toxicity,mobility and volume of the waste.

002/03


5.10.4 Subtask 10.4 - Implementability

Component measures of implementability include:

o Technical feasibility of the alternative,

o Administrative feasibility of implementing the alternative,

o Availability of equipment, specialists, or off-site capacity,and;

o Feasibility of providing an alternative water supply to meetground-water needs, the potential need for ground water, and theeffectiveness and reliability of institutional controls.

5.10.5 Subtask 10.5 - Cost

Component measures of cost include:

o Short-term capital and operation costs,

o Long-term operation or maintenance costs.

Where appropriate, present worth analysis may be used to comparealternatives.

5.10.6 Subtask 10.6 • Compliance With Arars

All of the alternatives will be evaluated to determine how each complies

with ARARs.

002/03


5.10.7 Subtask 10.7 - Overall Protection Of Human Health And TheEnvironment

The objective of this analysis is to summarize the degree to which eachalternative is protective of human health and the environment. Thisassessment includes components of other evaluation criteria.

5.10.8 Subtask 10.8 - State Acceptance

Technical and administrative issues and concerns of the state will beidentified under this subtask.

5.10.9 Subtask 10.9 - Community Acceptance

Public concerns and inputs identified are incorporated into the evaluationprocess as part of this subtask.


Task Management and quality control procedures described above underSubtask 1.6 Task Management and Quality Control will also be followedduring execution of this task.

5.11 TASK 11.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

5.11.1 Subtask 11.1 - Preliminary Draft Report

The preliminary draft report will summarize data developed during theremedial alternatives assessment process. The project team will recommend

002/03


an alternative or combination of alternatives for implementation at thesite. The recommended remedy shall be selected from among thosealternatives that meet four findings:

1. The alternative shall be protective of human health and theenvironment. This means that the remedy meets or exceeds ARARs orhealth-based levels established through a risk assessment whenARARs do not exist or when they are waived.

2. Except under those circumstances listed below the alternative shallattain applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and Statepublic health and environmental requirements that have beenidentified for a specific site.

3. The alternative shall be cost-effective, accomplishing a level ofprotection that cannot be achieved by less-costly methods.

4. The alternative will utilize treatment technologies and permanentsolutions to the maximum extent practicable as determined bytechnological feasibility, availability and cost effectiveness.

The selection of the appropriate remedy should reflect two preferences:

1. Selected remedies involve treatment that significantly reduces thetox-icity, mobility, or volume of hazardous constituents as aprincipal element.

2. Selected remedies that minimize the requirement for long-termmanagement of residuals.

An alternative may be selected that does not meet applicable or relevantand appropriate Federal and State public health or environmentalrequirements under the following circumstances:

002/03


1. The alternative is an interim remedy and will become part of a morecomprehensive final remedy that will meet applicable or relevantand appropriate Federal and State requirements.

2. Compliance with the requirement will result in greater risk tohuman health and the environment than alternative options.

3. Compliance with the requirements is technically impracticable.

4. The alternative will attain a standard of performance that isequivalent to that required under the otherwise applicablestandard, requirement, or limitation through use of another methodor approach.

5. The state has not consistently applied, or demonstrated theintention to consistently apply, the requirement at other remedialactions in the state.

6. The alternative will not provide a balance between the need forprotection of human health and the environment at the site, and theavailability of Fund monies to respond to other sites that maypresent a threat to human health and the environment.

For cost estimating purposes, a total of five copies of the preliminarydraft FS report will be submitted to the U.S. EPA and three copies to theWDNR. It is estimated that this report would be less than 100 pages oftext with eight oversize drawings.

5.11.2 Subtask 11.2 - Revised Draft Feasibility Study Report

The REM V team will revise the preliminary draft FS to consider andincorporate review comments as warranted. The draft FS will be adequate to

002/03


support U.S. EPA's needs during the public comment period before U.S. EPA'sdevelopment of the Record of Decision (ROD). This document will besubmitted to U.S. EPA and the WDNR within 10 working days following receiptof the agencies' comments.


There will be a minimum 3-week public comment period on the revised draftFS report. The U.S. EPA Region V staff will hold a public meeting duringthis comment period to receive comments and answer questions on the recom-mended remedial alternative. The REM V team will assist U.S. EPA inanswering those questions received during the public hearing and reviewphase and will consider them in the final report. One meeting inCaledonia, Wisconsin has been budgeted for these purposes.

5.11.4 Subtask 11.4 - Final Feasibility Study Report

Following the public comment period, the final FS report will be submittedfor EPA and WDNR approval. The final report will incorporate the publiccomments on the revised draft report. A responsiveness summary will beincluded in the final FS Report as an Appendix. Five copies of this reportwill be submitted to the EPA and three copies to the WDNR.

5.11.5. Subtask 11.5 - Task Management And Quality Control

Task Management and quality control procedures described above underSubtask 1.6 Task Management and Quality Control will also be followedduring execution of this task.

002/03


5.12 TASK 12.0 - POST RI/FS SUPPORT

5.12.1 Subtask 12.1 - Rod Preparation Assistance

If requested, assistance will be provided to the U.S. EPA in preparation ofthe ROD. No activities will be started without specific authorization fromthe RPM. A small budget for this task has bee provided.

5.12.2 Subtask 12.2 - Work Assignment Completion Report (WACR)

The WACR will be prepared by the Site Manager at the completion of theRI/FS. This document will summarize RI findings, the alternative of choicefor remediation, and the status of the budget.


Task management and quality control procedures described above underSubtask 1.6 Task Management and Quality Control will also be followedduring execution of this task.

5.13 TASK 13.0 - ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT

This task provides for participation in meetings between U.S. EPA and thevarious PRPs previously identified. It is assumed that there will beminimum participation by the REM V team in the PRP meetings and that theseservices will be provided at the request of the RPM. Therefore, nobudgetary costs have been provided for this subtask.

002/03


5.13.1 SUBTASK 13.2 - TASK MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL

Task management and quality control procedures described above underSubtask 1.6 Task Management and Quality Control will also be followedduring execution of this task.

5.14 TASK 14.0 - MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORT

This task will be used to report on work that is associated with theproject but is outside the present scope of standardized tasks. Atpresent, there are no activities assigned to this task.

5.15 TASK 15.0 - EXPEDITED RESPONSE ACTION (ERA) PLANNING

At present, there are no plans for ERA activities at this site, other thanthe IRMs described in an earlier section of this document.

002/03


6.0 COSTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS

This section describes issues pertaining to project costs and theirdevelopment. Detailed costs estimates for the activities proposed for thisRI/FS project are presented in Volume II of this work plan.

6.1 COSTS

The detailed costs estimates for HDL RI/FS are presented in Volume II ofthis work plan. In Volume II costs are provided for each of the followingmajor cost categories related to this project:

0 Technical Labor Costs0 Clerical Labor Costso Expenses (travel costs, per diem, etc.)o Other Direct Costs (ODCs, equipment, etc.)o Subcontractor Costs (well installation, surveyor, security, etc.)

Volume II also includes spreadsheets with detailed project estimates by thenumber of hours for each labor category, the associated dollar amounts forthe stipulated number of hours, and dollar amounts for the Expense, ODC andSubcontractor elements.

6.2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS

The costs provided in Volume II are estimates and are, therefore,predicated on a variety of assumed conditions and situations. Factors usedin the derivation of specific cost items, (e.g., per diem rates, assumedtransportation costs, etc.), are stipulated as necessary along with each ofthe estimates provided in Volume II. Information included within thespreadsheets of Volume II provide all necessary information concerning theinformation/assumptions which may have been used in deriving specific cost

002/07


estimates. The assumptions on which costs estimates have been based arepresented in this section. These assumptions can be categorized into threebroad groups:

o Assumptions related to specific major costs items, ando Assumptions related to schedule and/or the sequencing of

activitieso Assumptions related to the anticipated scope of work.

6.2.1 Assumptions Related to Major Project Cost Items

Except for labor, the three major individual cost items anticipated for theHDL RI/FS are:

o Well installation subcontracto Surveying subcontracto Security subcontract

The following paragraphs discuss the key assumptions related to the

project's major cost items:

o A successful bid will be obtained through one round of biddingfrom a reputable monitoring well installation subcontractor whichis within the amount estimated for this service in the Volume II.A total of 23 shallow, deep and bedrock wells will be drilled.

o A successful bid will be obtained through one round of biddingfrom a reputable registered surveyor to perform property andelevation surveys in accordance with required specifications.

o A security subcontract will be executed with a local firm capableof providing the necessary services.

002/07


o All laboratory analyses will be performed by the CLP.

o There will be no additional need for activity pertaining to thepreparation of topographic maps or aerial photography inconnection with the HDL RI/FS.

Other assumptions which are crucial to the development of cost estimatesare:

o Due to the inadequate amount of health and safety equipmentavailable to supply all REM V projects, it is expected that asubstantial budget will have to be allocated for equipment rental.

o The magnetometer and portable GC will be the only pieces ofequipment requiring rental.

6.2.2 Assumptions Related to Schedule/Sequencing

While RI/FS project activities are designed to take place as a smoothlyflowing sequence of activities, the typical RI/FS project rarely occursin this manner. Nevertheless, one of the assumptions on which the costestimates are based is that project activities will proceed in a reasonablysmooth progression.

A planned period of performance has been developed for each of the proposedproject activities. Additional costs will be incurred if there are majordeviations in these periods of performance. For example, a reasonableschedule has been established for the period of time that it should takefor well installation. REM V staff will need to be present during thesewell installation activities, and the technical labor hours estimatesinclude provisions for this activity. If the well installation processtakes substantially more time than anticipated, (e.g., due to drillingequipment breakdown or unexpected geological conditions), then technicallabor hours will increase until well installation is completed. Depending

002/07


on the length of the delays, this type of situation could result insubstantial unanticipated additional costs, as well as schedule delays.

Therefore, it is generally assumed that project activities will proceed inaccordance with the schedule presented in Section 7.0 of this Work Plan.It is specifically assumed that the following two items will occur in atimely manner:

o Well Installation Activitieso Review of Documents

6.2.3 Assumptions Related To The Anticipated Scope Of Work

It is anticipated that there will be no substantial additions to the scopeof work as proposed in this Work Plan. As described in Section 4.0, thereare a limited number of options for the HDL and available data suggeststhat the overall level of contamination at the site is low.' If the resultsof the early phases of the RI prove otherwise, there will likely besubstantial changes in project scope and costs.

002/07


7.0 SCHEDULE

The schedule of major tasks for the RI and FS phases of the Hunts DisposalLandfill project is presented 1n Figure 7-1.

002/17

Cantt ChartHUNTS DISPOSAL L«NDF1L SCHEDULE

Project: I«MIS 22-NOV-19BB

Jl

Startl-Jun-l9B3

Droll WP37.00 Dy* W

IPA WP Rev.61. DO Dy* W

Sub. Prcc50.00 Dy* W

Find «rP15.00 Dy* W

FIELD85.00 Dy* W

Dolo VoM.60.00 DTI W

Data EvaL30 00 Or« W

Draft Rj Rp't40.CO Oyi «

Risk Aavnt.25.00 Dri W

Ptvue 2 Samp20 CO byi N

Data Valid.60.00 Dyi W

Ml. Screen.25.00 Dr» W

EPA Rl Rev.30.00 Dyi W

Ml. Evol.15.OO Dyt W

Dralt FS Rpt10.00 Dy« W

Ent. S'uppbrt0.00 Dy* W

EPA FS Rev.30 CO Dy* W

Data Evd5.00 Dy* N

Find Rl RptI5.00 Dy* W

Find F'j pptJ» CO D-/1 W

foil fl/lb20.1/0 O/u W

End20-NOV-1989

1in Ji

«•

J8Sll *i 4 S<

•

p 0,:l N

'

» D1

EC J<

989m Feb M

* AfIT M

l̂ l̂ l̂ l̂ l̂ M

or Jim JL

•̂ •••̂ •Vi

t *

^^m

•a. S

_

••̂ ^

ep a

m^—

~

Cl N

'

^H

av D*c

1

mf̂ ^m

«•


8.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Williams-Russell & Johnson (WRJ), as prime contractor, has overallresponsibility for the REM V RI/FS at the Hunts Disposal Landfill site.C.C. Johnson & Malhotra, P.C., (CCJM) is a member of the REM V Team and

will perform the field investigations and prepare the RI report. Another

REM V Team Member, Geoscience Consultants, Ltd (GCL) will assist with field

investigations. CCJM will perform the development, screening andevaluation of remedial action alternatives; develop the pre-design of theselected action; and prepare the related reports. WRJ will provideadministrative oversight, QA/QC for all deliverables, and will providespecialty services in the area of community relations. The endangermentassessment will be performed by a team comprised of personnel from AEPCO,Inc. (AEPCO; another REM V Team Member) and CCJM personnel. All four firmswill provide project management as appropriate to their responsibilities.

All deliverables will be issued by WRJ.

8.1 KEY INDIVIDUALS

Key individuals directly involved in the performance of the RI/FS for theHunts Disposal Landfill site include the following:

John W. Tucker (WRJ) REM V Project ManagerSidney F. Paige (CCJM) Site ManagerRobin Clark (CCJM) Field Manager

Robert Turner (WRJ) Site Health and Safety OfficerCheryl Lucus (GCL) REM V Health and Safety Manager

Bhusan Sawhney (WRJ) REM V Quality Assurance DirectorBrian Hobbs (GCL) Senior Hydrogeologist

Charletta W. Jacks (WRJ) Community Relations Coordinator

002/17


8.2 OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Operational responsibilities are those involving execution and directmanagement of the technical and administrative aspects of this project.The following responsibilities have been assigned for the RI/FS at theHunts Disposal Landfill site:

o Remedial Project Manager (RPM)Michael A. Gifford, U.S. EPA, Region V, CES

o Community Relations DirectionSue Pastor, U.S.EPA, Region V, Office of Community Affairs

o State of Wisconsin Project Manager, HDLGary Edelstein, WDNR, Solid Waste Division, Madison, Wisconsin

o REM V Project ManagerJohn W. Tucker, REM V, WRJ

o Site Manager/Principal InvestigatorSidney F. Paige, REM V, CCJM

o Community Relations Planning/ImplementationCharletta W. Jacks, REM V, WRJ

o Field ManagerRobin Clark REM V, CCJM

o Principal Investigator, Pre-DesignJames Susan, REM V, CCJM

o Principal Investigator, Risk AssessmentSidney F. Paige, REM V, CCJM

002/17


8.3 LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY

Laboratory responsibilities are those Involving the performance ofanalytical services, the preparation of Special Analytical Services (SAS)requests and/or field laboratory procedures, and the assessment ofanalytical data including review of tentatively identified compounds. Thefollowing responsibilities have been assigned for the RI/FS at the HuntsDisposal Landfill site:

o RAS and SAS from Contract Laboratory ProgramDr. Tsai, U.S. EPA, Region V, CPSM-CRL

o Central Regional Laboratory (CRL) Analytical ServicesUnassigned, U.S. EPA, Region V, CRL-D1rector

o Preparation of SAS RequestsSidney F. Paige, REM V, CCJM

o Data Assessment for RAS and SAS from CLPContract Program Management Section, CRL

o Data Assessment of Analytical Services from CRLQC Coordinator, CRL

8.4 QA RESPONSIBILITY

Quality Assurance (QA) responsibilities are those involved with monitoringand reviewing the procedures used to perform all aspects of this projectincluding data collection, analytical services, and report preparation.Primary responsibility for project quality rests with the Site Manager.

t Ultimate responsibility for project quality rests with WRJ. Prior to anyQA review by WRJ and the REM V Team, any work performed by the REM V Teamfirms — CCJM, WRJ, GCL, AEPCO — will be reviewed by the QA Reviewer forthat firm. Specific QA responsibilities for the RI/FS at Hunts Disposal

Landfill have been assigned as follows:

002/17


Overall QA for REM V ActivitiesJohn W. Tucker, REM V, WRJ

Overall QA for CLP/CRL ActivitiesQuality Assurance Office. U.S. EPA, Region V

Field Sample Management CoordinatorSidney F. Paige, REM V, CCJM

QA for Field ActivitiesSidney F. Paige, REM V, CCJM

QC for Field ActivitiesRobin Clark, REM V, CCJM

QA for RAS from CLPSupport Services Branch, OERR, EPA HQEMSL Las VegasContract Program Management SectionCRL

QA for SAS from CLPQuality Assurance Office, U.S. EPA, Region V

QA for Analytical Services from CRLQC Coordinator, CRLQuality Assurance Office, U.S. EPA, Region V

Performance and Systems Audits of RAS from CLPU.S. EPA, EMSL-Las Vegas

Performance and Systems Audits of CRLQuality Assurance Office, U.S. EPA, Region VQC Coordinator, CRL

Systems Audit of Field ActivitiesDeputy Quality Assurance DirectorUlric Gibson, REM V, CCJM

REM V QA ReviewREM V, Technical Committee

CCJM QA ReviewSidney F. Paige, REM V, Region V, CCJMJames Susan, REM V, CCJM

WRJ QA ReviewUnassigned

QA/QC Summaries for Revised RI and FS/CD ReportsSidney F. Paige, REM V, CCJM

002/17


9.0 TEXT REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

City of Oak Creek, 1984. Letter from Udo L. Wllharm, City Engineer,to Vincent W. Kalvin of WDNR, dated June 13, 1984.

NUS Corporation Superfund Division, 1985. Draft Report-SiteInspection Report and Hazardous Ranking System Model, Hunts DisposalLandfill, Caledonia, Wisconsin, July 21, 1985.

Paull, R.K., and Paull, R.A., 1977. Geology of Wisconsin and UpperMichigan.

Planning Research Corporation, 1986. Draft final report HuntsDisposal Site Responsible Party Search prepared for U.S. EPA office ofWaste Programs Enforcement Washington, D.C. May 15, 1986.

RTECS, 1983-84. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances1983-84. Supplement, Vol I & II.

Response letters by potentially responsible parties receiving Noticeof Potential Liability letter, 1987. •

Ryling, R.W., 1961. A Preliminary Study of the Distribution of SalineWater in the Bedrock Aquifers of Eastern Wisconsin. USGS InformationCircular No. 5, prepared in conjunction with University of Wisconsin,Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey.

SWRPC, 1966. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission,Water Quality and Flow of Streams in Southeastern Wisconsin: TechnicalReport Number 4, November 1966.

SCS, 1970. U.S. Department of Argiculture, Soil Conservation Service1970. Soil Survey of Kenosha and Racine Counties, Wisconsin.

U.S. EPA Region V, 1987. Action Memorandum from Valdes N. Adamkus,Regional Adminstrator, to Basil G. Constantelos, Waste ManagementDivision. Sept. 1, 1987.

U.S. EPA Region V, 1987. Notice of Potential Liability andinformation request certified letter regarding release or threatenedrelease of hazardous substances, pollutants and contamination at HuntsDisposal Landfill: April 17, 1987.

USGS, 1956. Dresher, W.J. Ground Water in Wisconsin. USGSInformation Circular No. 3, prepared in conjunction with University ofWisconsin, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey.

002/16

Hants Disposal LandfillWork PlanRevision: FINALSection: 9Date: February 1989Page No.: 2 of 2

USGS, 1970. Hutchinson, R.D. Water Resources of Racine and KenoshaCounties, Southeastern Wisconsin. USGS Water-Supply Paper 11887.

USGS, 1983. Llneback and others. Quaternary Geologic Map of theChicago 4°x6° Quadrangle, United States. USGS M1sc. InvestigationSeries Map 1-1420 (NK-16).

Wilharm, udo, 1987, City Engineer, City of Oak Creek, Personalcommunication, phone call with Dr. Sidney F. Paige

Wisconsin Geological Survery, 1970. Black, R.F., and others.Pleistocene Geology of Southern Wisconsin. Wisconsin GeologicalSurvey Information Circular 15.

002/16


Include the kick-off fact sheet, summaries of public meetings, and possibleperiodic updates. The schedule for community relations activities andassociated deliverables will be based on technical milestones of theremedial investigation and will be included in the HDL CRP.


Task management and quality control procedures described above under(Subtask 1.8) of the "Project Planning" will also be followed duringexecution of this task.

5.3 TASK 3.0 - FIELD INVESTIGATION

The field investigation will provide the necessary data to conduct a riskassessment for the site and develop remedial alternatives. The fieldinvestigation is designed to be conducted in two phases. The majority ofthe work will be conducted in the first phase and is described inSubsections 5.3.1 through 5.3.12. Subsection 5.3.13 describes the work tobe performed during the second phase of the field investigation.

5.3.1 Subtask 3.1 - Mobilization/Demobilization

This subtask includes all activities necessary prior to and after the fieldwork. Setting up the field trailer, obtaining equipment, on-site surveyingand other initial activities are included.

Demobilization includes those activities required after the field work hasbeen completed.

002/03


5.3.2 Subtask 3.2 - Site Boundary Survey (Legal And Study Area)

Shortly after site mobilization, property boundaries will be determined.Site boundary conditions will be established to determine ownership forareas under Investigation (Important for obtaining permission to gainaccess to all areas where Investigation activities will take place). Siteboundary surveys will be performed by initially reviewing existing taxrecords, county records, department of public works plans and plansmaintained by the local planning agency. The site will then be surveyedusing a local registered surveyor to accurately identify the propertyboundaries owned by the Racine County. It is anticipated that theseservices will be performed via the subcontracting vehicle.

A reference grid will also be established as part of the site boundarysurvey. This grid will aid in the accurate location of sampling points,and will also be used during the radiological survey. (See Section 5.3.2of this document for a description of the radiological survey.) It 1sproposed that the reference grid be a square grid with 200 feet centersover the entire site. However, smaller node distances may be necessary dueto technical requirements of the field investigation and any additionaldata needed regarding the extent of the plume. Any such changes will bemade with guidance from the U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager. Theestablishment of the grid will be included as a part of the surveyingeffort which will be performed by licensed REM V Team surveyors orsubcontractors.

The location of existing structures (e.g., bridges, railroad tracks) withinthe survey area will be identified based on existing sources and shown onthe base map. Information provided will Include type of service,materials, size, and depth, if available.

002/03


The elements comprising this task will be coordinated with aerialtopographic and ground-based surveys to ensure that no Inconsistenciesexist.

5.3.3 Subtask 3.3 - Site Topographic Survey

A site map and a topographic map will be prepared In sufficient detail toshow all water bodies, buildings, roads, utilities, paved areas, easements,existing well locations, right-of-ways, property limits and all otherfeatures of importance to the RI/FS. The site map will be based onavailable maps and information obtained during the field visits. The siteand topographic maps shall be of sufficient detail and accuracy to show thelocation of the investigation activities expected to be performed at thesite. Topographic maps will be produced at a number of different scales tobest accomplish specific project needs.

Based on information obtained during discussions with the local officials,no commercial topographic maps for the area are available. Therefore,arrangements have been made with U.S. EPA's Environmental MonitoringSystems Laboratory (EMSL) to have the area topographic maps prepared forthe HDL site. Information concerning the area to be included in thetopographic maps was provided to EMSL personnel and aerial photos wereobtained after snow melt and prior to the appearance of foliage. It isanticipated that topographic maps produced from these aerial photos will beavailable for use shortly after site mobilization. If the availabletopographic maps do not have the necessary detail, then subcontractors willbe procured to produce the required topographic maps as part of this RI/FS.The basic maps will be produced on mylar so that copies can be made. Thesite map will be tied into an area-wide reference coordinate system such asthe one used by the USGS.

002/03


5.3.4 Subtask 3.4 • Preparation Of Subcontractor Procurement Documents.

Under this subtask, specifications and other contract documents necessaryfor the procurement of subcontracting services will be prepared.Anticipated subcontracts for the Hunts Disposal Landfill site includedrilling and surveying.

All subcontracting documents will be prepared in compliance with the REM Vsubcontracting requirements and procedures.

5.3.5 Subtask 3.5 - Source Characterization

At the. HDL site, the source consists of the on-s1te waste materialscontained in the landfill. Available information (See Tables 2-1, 2-2, 2-3and 2-4) indicates that a wide variety of materials are known to have beendeposited at the site. It is probable that substances not included inTables 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 have also been deposited at the site.

An indication of the types of materials present at the site can be obtainedby sampling substances which may be leaving the site. For the HuntsDisposal Landfill site, the media to be sampled include: 1) groundwaterobtained from monitoring wells located on-site or in close proximity to thethe landfill, 2) flows of leachate (if present) from the landfill'ssurface, 3) observations made during site visit, and 4) from informationfrom various sources.

The nature and comprehensiveness of the available analytical data will bereviewed before determining the magnitude of sampling activities requiredfor the source characterization phase.

002/03


Landfill Monitoring Wells

Precipitation which infiltrates and percolates through landfilled wastematerials may leach some contaminants. If precipitation is allowed toinfiltrate the surface of a landfill, the percolating leachate will tend tomound. As a result, a water well drilled into a landfill may yield water(leachate) which will provide information on source materials present.

While not necessarily representative of the entire landfill, analyticalresults from monitoring well MW3 installed within the landfill for the Cityof Oak Creek, may give an indication of some of the materials present inthe landfill. Figure 5-1 shows the location of this well. Thisanalysis was only for gross water quality parameters. During early stagesof the present RI/FS, a sample from this well will be analyzed for the fullTCL in order to characterize the water found within the portion of thelandfill communicating with this well.

Surface Leachate Flows

No surface leachate flows were observed during the ISI. However, if suchflows are noted during the RI, samples will be obtained. The samples willbe subjected to the full CLP RAS protocol.

5.3.6 Subtask 3.6 - Radiological Investigation

The Work Assignment for this RI/FS requires that a radiologicalinvestigation of the site area be performed. It is not anticipated thatradioactive materials are present at the landfill, however 1n order toverify that no surface radiation is present in the area of the landfill, awalk-over site survey will be performed using a Gelger counter. Prior toperforming the survey, the background radiation level will be established

002/03

Marshy Area

Eightmila (County Line) Road


(water-filled)

Sevenmite Road

Existing Monitoring WellsFIGURE 5-1. HuntsDisposal Landfill,

Existing MonitoringWells

Scale Approximate: 1" > 1000'


by surveying undisturbed areas in the vicinity of the site. The sitesurvey will consist of site traverses on 100 foot spacings with acalibrated gamma ray detection meter. Readings will be observedcontinuously and recorded at 100 foot intervals along each traverse. Anyanomalous readings will be noted. Any area measuring higher than thebackground radiation level will be subjected to a more detailedinvestigation. A beta and alpha survey will be performed after the gammainvestigation and will focus on landfill areas where there has beensignificant erosion of cover materials.

The budget for this subtask is based on the assumption that no areas willexceed background radiation levels. If areas of high radiation arediscovered, a work assignment amendment would be sought in order toinitiate further studies. The specific work required to furtherinvestigate the site would be determined if the need arises.

Deliverable

If any areas of high radiation are detected, a technical report outliningfindings and recommendations will be prepared for submittal to the U.S. EPAand WONR. If it is determined that there is no radiation hazard at HuntsDisposal Landfill, the radiation survey map and acquired data will bepresented in the RI report.

5.3.7 Subtask 3.7 - Geophysical Survey

A geophysical survey will be conducted by U.S. EPA to determine whetherthere are locations with a concentrated distribution of buried metalobjects. The primary geophysical techniques to be used for thisinvestigation will be magnetometer and conductivity surveys. The surveyswill be concentrated at the apparent boundaries of the landfill todetermine the extent of fill and/or contamination in soil or groundwater.

002/03