EPA Region 5 Records Ctr. re Q. O .C O 0 Focused Feasibility Study Sparta Landfill Site Sparta Township Kent County, Michigan Preparedfor: ^ Kent County Department of Public Works o 1500 Scribner Avenue N. W. o Grand Rapids, MI 49504-3338 c f o $> Prepared by: **mi-^ ^ Earth Tech, Inc. n 5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway S. E. g, Grand Rapids, MI 49588-0874 c i_ c Original Submittal August 1999 ^ Revision 1 April 2000 en P^ o Earth Tech Project No. 19324 238700
239
Embed
Sparta Landfill Site Sparta Township Kent County, Michigan · 2020. 7. 31. · Kent County, Michigan Preparedfor: ^ Kent County Department of Public Works o 1500 Scribner Avenue N.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.
re
Q.
O.C
O0
Focused Feasibility Study
Sparta Landfill SiteSparta TownshipKent County, Michigan
Preparedfor:
^ Kent County Department of Public Workso 1500 Scribner Avenue N. W.o Grand Rapids, MI 49504-3338cfo$> Prepared by:
**mi-^^ Earth Tech, Inc.n 5555 Glenwood Hills Parkway S. E.g, Grand Rapids, MI 49588-0874ci_c Original Submittal August 1999^ Revision 1 April 2000
enP^o Earth Tech Project No. 19324
238700
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site, Kent County, Michigan
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-11.1 Purpose and Organization of Focused Feasibility Study Report 1-11.2 Background Information 1-2
1.2.1 Site Location and Description 1-21.2.2 Waste Disposal/Ownership History 1-21.2.3 Past Response Action Activities 1-2
1.3 Summary of Remedial Investigation Results 1-31.3.1 Geology/Hydrogeology 1-31.3.2 Remedial Investigation Groundwater and Surface Water Chemical
Characterization 1-41.4 Nature and Extent of Groundwater Impact 1-6
1.4.1 Upper Aquifer 1-71.4.2 Lower Aquifer 1-10
1.5 Screening Level Risk Evaluation 1-121.5.1 Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) and Determination
of Exposure Point Concentrations 1-131.5.2 Pathway Exclusion and Risk Characterization 1-151.5.3 Uncertainty Evaluation 1-15
2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT ANDAPPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS 2-12.1 Chemical-Specific Requirements 2-2
2.1.1 Surface Water 2-22.1.2 Groundwater 2-3
2.2 Action Specific Requirements 2-42.2.1 Surface Water 2-4
2.3 Location-Specific Requirements 2-5
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 3-13.1 Introduction 3-13.2 Remedial Action Objectives and Preliminary Remediation Goals 3-13.3 General Response Actions 3-23.4 Remedial Alternatives 3-2
3.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action 3-33.4.2 Alternative 2: Monitoring 3-3
3.4.2.1 Natural Attenuation Evaluation 3-33.4.2.2 Mixing Zone Evaluation 3-43.4.2.3 Institutional Controls 3-53.4.2.4 Groundwater Monitoring Program 3-5
3.4.3 Alternative 3: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment 3-63.4.3.1 Groundwater Extraction System 3-63.4.3.2 Groundwater Treatment System 3-7
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site, Kent County, Michigan
4.0 DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 4-14.1 Introduction 4-1
4.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 4-24.1.2 Compliance With ARARs 4-24.1.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment 4-24.1.4 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-24.1.5 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 4-34.1.6 Implementability 4-34.1.7 Cost 4-3
4.2 Individual Analysis of Alternatives 4-34.3 Alternatives Comparison 4-4
4.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 4-44.3.2 Compliance with ARARs 4-44.3.3 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment 4-44.3.4 Short-Term Effectiveness 4-54.3.5 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 4-54.3.6 Implementability 4-54.3.7 Cost 4-6
4.4 Summary of Alternatives Comparison 4-6
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
LIST OF TABLES
1 Contaminants Exceeding Drinking Water Criteria (1996-1999)2 Potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements3 Bioattenuation Parameters Summary4 Correlation Between MDEQ and U.S. EPA Evaluation Criteria5 Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Site Location Map2 Site Topography3 Cross-Sections A-A' and B-B'4 Cross-Section C-C'5 Criteria for Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Part 201 Cleanup Criteria/Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data (Tables Al-A13)/March1999 Analytical
B Screening Level Risk EvaluationC 1998 Mixing Zone EvaluationD Calculations and Evaluations of the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment AlternativeE Cost Estimate BackupF Groundwater Use Ordinance (Submitted to the MDEQ)
mck LVlv L:\Work\19:i24\Admin\Rpt\FS TxtUpdt4-24-OO.doc H 04/24/00
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site. Kent County, Michigan
Administrative Order of ConsentApplicable or Relevant and AppropriateComprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability ActChemicals of Potential ConcernData Quality ObjectivesExposure Point ConcentrationsFocused Feasibility StudyGroundwater Contact CriteriaGroundwater/Surface Water InterfaceKent County Department of Public WorksKent Count\ Health DepartmentMaximum Contaminant LevelMaximum Contaminant Level GoalMichigan Department of Environmental QualityMichigan Department of Natural ResourcesNational Contingency PlanNational Pollutant Discharge SystemsOperations and MaintenancePolychlormated BiphenylPublicly Owned Treatment PlantPreliminary Remediation GoalRemedial Action ObjectiveRemedial InvestigationSuperfund Accelerated Cleanup ModelSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization ActSafe Drinking Water ActScreening Level Ecological Risk AssessmentScreening Level Risk AssessmentSemi-Volatile Organic CompoundTo Be ConsideredUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyVertical Aquifer SamplingVolatile Organic Compound
hocused Feasibility StudySpana Landfill Site. Kent County, Michigan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Earth Tech. Incorporated. (Earth Tech) has prepared this Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report for the
Kent County Department of Public Works (KCDPW). addressing Sparta Landfill (site) in Kent County,
Michigan This FFS has been prepared as required by the Statement of Work in the Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC) for the site (U.S. EPA, 1993) and U.S EPA's February 3, 1999 letter correspondence to
KCDPW (U.S EPA. 1999a). The United States Environmental Protection Agency. Region V. (U.S. EPA)
is the lead agency, working in coordination with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ)
1.1 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
The purpose of the FFS is to identify and evaluate potentially applicable remedial alternatives for the site.
This report is an FFS (rather than a standard FS) because the number of remedial alternatives being
evaluated has been focused on the three most likely alternatives: (1) no action; (2) monitoring; and
(3) groundwatcr extraction/control and treatment (U.S. EPA, 1999a).
This FFS is divided into five sections:
• Section 1 presents the introduction to the FFS Report and presents background information about
the site including the site description and history, a summary of the Remedial Investigation (RI)results, an updated interpretation of the nature and extent of contamination based analytical data
presented in the RJ and thereafter, and a summary of Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA).
• Section 2 presents the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) including
chemical-specific requirements, action-specific requirements, and location-specific requirements.
• Section 3 identifies remediation alternatives that are potentially applicable to site-specificconditions
• Section 4 presents a detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives and evaluates each alternativebased on seven evaluation criteria (overall protection of human health and environment,compliance with ARARs, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility,or volume through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost). Support
agency acceptance and community acceptance will be addressed following receipt of commentsfrom MDEQ and the public comment period for the FFS.
aquifer The results frorr. :he VAS were no: .:;... zed 10 deiermme ihe groundvvatcr quality nor
c\a;ua:ed in the Focused R:sk Assessment because the anaMical results did not meet the Le\el I\'
Da::: Quahtv Objec t ives iDQOi The Focused R:-~. E v a l u a t i o n included in Append;\ R of the RI.ceterrr.irted that benzene :s not 2 corr.pound o:" concern
Pesticides were not detected in groundwater samples collected during the 19^6 RJ
Inorganic analvtcs arsenic and manganese v \ _ r e detected at concentrations exceeding the MCL orMichigan's health-based dnnkir.:: water cr i ter ia Arsenic cxceedances \\ere oni\ present in VAS
samples As discussed ibo-. e. VAS intbrmation \ \as no: uti l ized to determine ground\\ater qualtt\Hox\c\cr. the Focused Risk E\a;uat;on determined arsenic is not an anahie of concern
Inorganic anal\tes lead ar.d zinc exceeded the MCL and or Michigan's health-based drinking uatcrcriteria Tne lead and zinc concentrations na\ not be related to the landfill because elevatedconcentrations of these anai>tes ma\ be related to the gahanized \\ell casings Furthermore, theFocused Rjsk Evaluation indicated that lead is not an anaMe of concern
Nnratc-nitrocen concentrations exceeded the MCL and Michigan's health-based drinking watercatena in .\I\V-08 \\hich :s located upgrad:cn: from the landfill Ele\ated ammonia nitrogen
concentrations \\cre detected in doutigradien: monitoring uclls. suggesting an effect from thelandfill A MCL and Michigan health-based drinking uatcr criteria were not established forammonia nitrogen
Dunne the RJ. four sampling locations. M\V-01. MW-02. HP-02 and HP-03 (PZ-04) were
selected for companson to Michigan's grounds ater surface water interface (GSI) cntena Noorganic compounds were detected in ground^ ater samples collected from these locations whichexceed Michigan's GSI cntena Dissolved mercury zinc, and chromium were detected ingroundwater samples at concentrations exceeding Michigan's GSI cntena The chromium andmcrcurv exceedances were or.K found in VAS samples The zinc excecdances may be due to thegahanized well casing
A aunc r
The RJ indicated that impacted groundwater has not migrated to the lower aquifer Lead was detected
abo\c Michigan's health-based cntena but belo\\ the MCL at .\f\V-07D The Focused Rjsk Evaluation
determined that lead is not an anal>te of concern
Rcsiderjial MV.Vs
No organic compounds or inorganic anahies were present in groundwater samples collected dunng
residential sampling events conducted in Ju l> 1^°? and \1a\
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site, Kent County, Michigan
Based on the concentration of VOCs detected during the 1992 sampling event performed by Warzyn, Inc.
the following trends in the concentration of VOCs were found:
• Benzene concentrations at MW-02 decreased from 6 ug/L and 4 ug/L (duplicate sample) to1.4 ug/L, well below the residential drinking water criteria;
• VOC concentrations at MW-03 substantially decreased as follows: benzene (20 ug/L to
<1.0ug/L), chlorothane (15 ug/L to <1), ethylbenzene (160 ug/L to <1.0ug/L), and xylene
(160 ug/L to <3.0 ug/L); and
• Benzene and 1,1,-dichloroethane concentrations were relatively stable at concentrations slightlyabove the detection limit at MW-07.
As indicated in Table 1, only a few metals and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen exceeded DW criteria during the
three groundwater monitoring events. Concentrations of aluminum, iron, and manganese exceeded
aesthetic criteria, not health-based criteria. In addition, aluminum concentrations are below the U.S. EPA
Region 9 tap water criteria.
The highest concentrations of metals and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen are found in MW-02, MW-03, and
MW-07, directly downgradient from the landfill. Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen was also detected in upgradient
well MW-08 at comparable concentrations.
Based on available data the following trends for analytes that exceed DW criteria (health-based or
aesthetic) were evident for the downgradient wells. Future analytical data will provide additional data to
better develop trends.
• Dissolved manganese concentrations generally increased at MW-02, MW-07, and MW-09; stable
at MW-04 and MW-05; and decreased at MW-01 and MW-11. No clear trend was evident forMW-03 or PZ-04.
• Dissolved iron generally increased at MW-02, MW-03, MW-05, MW-07, and MW-09; stable at
MW-01 and MW-04, and decreased at PZ-04 and MW-11.
• Dissolved lead concentrations generally decreased at MW-01, MW-02, MW-03, MW-04,MW-05, MW-09, and MW-11 and were consistently not detected at MW-07 and PZ-04. In
addition, dissolved lead was not detected in all groundwater samples collected from the upper
aquifer during the March 1999 event.
• Total aluminum was only detected above the DW criterion at PZ-04 and MW-07. The
concentrations of total aluminum at MW-07 have decreased.
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site, Kent County, Michigan
• Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations generally increased at MW-01 and MW-02 and were not
detected at MW-03, MW-07, and PZ-04.
• The calculated un-ionized ammonia nitrogen concentrations at MW-02 and MW-03 havedecreased; however, for NfW-07 the un-ionized ammonia nitrogen concentrations have increased.
Dissolved zinc and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen were also detected in upgradient well MW-08; indicating the
nitrate-nitrite concentrations in the upper aquifer may be due to an alternate source other than the landfill
and that the galvanized casing of the upper aquifer wells may be leaching to groundwater, yielding a false
positive analytical result. Analytical data from monitoring wells MW-01, MW-02, MW-03 and PZ-04
were also compared to GSI criteria. A summary of parameters that exceed GSI criteria from the 1996,
(QC) Matrix QC results not available(AD) Calculated ciUenon(D) Dissolved concentraboo of snatyle(T) Total concentration of anaJMeJ Estnnatcd
H Cnteru adjusted Tor hardnessM. Calculated criterion is belou the anahtical target detection limit (TDL) tbenefore, the criterion defaults to TDLMPB Anahsis of the method preparation blank for this parameter had a positive value, therefore, this result is estimated.MD Matnx spike duplicate fell outside ibe laboratory established control limits. The sample result must be considered
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site, Kent County. Michigan
Contaminants Eiceeding Michigan's Drinking Water Criteriain Groundwater Collected from Deep Monitoring Wells
Parameter
Aluminum Ug/L
(total)
Iron ug/L(dissolved or total)
Lead ug/L(dissolved or total)
Manranw* »B/I -(dissolved or total)
DW Criteria(ug/L)
yf(Aesthetic Value)
lOCf(Aesthetic Value)
4
(Health-based)
50b
(Aesthetic Value)
MW-03DDowngradient
BU166CD-6200(T)
U20(D}-10,600(T)
JNU1(D>-6.9(T)
UKKD)-280(T)
MW-07DDown gradient
BU73
230(D>-600(D)
U1.0<D)-JN4.2
27(D)-40(D)
MW-08DUpgradient
BU75
602(1 90 a>k
U1(D)-BJN2.4 (D)
4503p7.5ff3>
(D) Dissolved anaryte concentration(T) Total anahte concentrationI! Not detectedB Reported value is less than CRDL but greater than OLJ Estimated valueN mdiralfs spike sample recovers »as not within control limits• No MDEQ health based criteria for aluminum or iron are available• MDEQ health-based criterion is 860 ug/L for manganese If this value, as opposed to the MDEQ's aesthetic
criterion of SO ug/L, is used as a comparison there are no exceedances of manganese in the lower aquifer.Sliaded cells indicate exceedanct
The following contaminant trends were evident in the upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells;
although, the total concentration of each anaJyte was not evaluated since sufficient data was not available.
Aluminum, iron, lead, and manganese are naturally occurring analytes.
• The dissolved iron concentrations increased at MW-03D. MW-07D. and MW-08D.
• Dissolved lead concentrations decreased ai Nf\V-07D and MW-08D Dissolved lead was notdetected in MW-03D
• Dissolved manganese was stable at MW-03D. MW-07D. and in MW-08D.
Since iron, kad and manganese were detected in both the upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells at
similar concentrations these analytes are not likely caused by the landfill.
The upper aquifer is underlain by a continuous clay till which separates the upper and lower aquifer. The
available hydrogeologic and analytical information does not indicate that the lower aquifer is impacted by
the landfill To be conservative, the analytical data from the lower aquifer (MW-03D, MW-07D, and
MW-08D) where compared to GSI criteria
LVK L Wok 19324 Adtam Rjn FS Talpdl 4-2-MX) ix 1-11 04/24/00
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site, Kent County, Michigan
Dissolved silver and un-ionized ammonia nitrogen (un-ionized ammonia) were detected in the lower aquifer
at concentrations exceeding GSI criteria in MW-03D and MW-08D, respectively. These exceedances are
summarized below:
• Dissolved silver was only detected above the GSI criteria in MW-03D in the groundwater samplecollected on May 31, 1999. Although the sample was not qualified as estimated, silver analyticalresults for the upper aquifer samples were qualified as estimated.
• The un-ionized ammonia nitrogen analytical results from upgradient MW-08D were above the GSIcriterion in 1996 and 1998 but not 1999. The un-ionized ammonia concentrations of downgradient
wells MW-03D and MW-07D were below the GSI criteria.
1.5 SCREENING LEVEL RISK EVALUATION
In response to the U.S. EPA's February 3, 1999 correspondence requesting that the risk assessment be
modified as presented in the RI, Earth Tech has prepared a screening level risk evaluation (SLRA). This
SLRA incorporates MDEQ's generic residential criteria which were developed using algorithms and
assumptions accepted by the MDEQ for all residential sites in Michigan. The MDEQ criteria are based on
an acceptable risk of 1.0 x 10~5. The SLRA is provided in Appendix B. This SLRA supplements other
human health and environmental risk evaluations prepared previously.
Previous risk evaluations include a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) (Earth Tech,
1997) that was conducted to assess potential impacts to environmental receptors in the Rogue River and the
Focused Risk Assessment provided in Appendix R of the RI (Earth Tech, 1999a).
The SLERA concluded that there was no evidence that the Sparta Landfill is causing concentrations in
surface water to exceed applicable Water Quality Values and/or ecotoxicity thresholds. The SLERA relied
on surface water data generated as part of the implementation of the approved RI. The revised
Groundwater Monitoring Plan, (Earth Tech, 2000) incorporates additional sampling and analyses of
surface water.
The Focused Risk Evaluation, included in Appendix R of the RI, concluded that only arsenic in
groundwater was potentially associated with the MDEQ carcinogen risk threshold of 1 x 10"5. Risk due to
arsenic: also exceeded the U.S. EPA risk range of 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"5. Arsenic concentrations exceeded
those Aat might be associated with non-carcinogenic adverse effects. However, the magnitude of the
exceedance was not considered substantial given uncertainty surrounding the development of the
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site. Kent County, Michigan
Aquifer Chemicals of Potential Concern
Upper Aluminum, Banum. Lead, Iron. Ammonia
Nitrogen (un-iomzed ammonia nitrogen).
Manganese, and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen
Lower Aluminum. Iron. Lead Manganese Ammonia
Nitrogen (un-ioruzed ammonia)
The above COPCs all occur naturally and may have other sources such as agricultural activities.
Aluminum was included in the list of COPCs only because it occurred in concentrations above the State's
aesthetic criterion. The State does not have a health-based criterion for aluminum, and the concentrations
were much less than the health-based criterion developed by the US. EPA.
l .5.2 PATHWAY EXCLUSION AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Water from the upper and lower aquifers is not currently used as a potable water supply and thus no
current pathways are complete The bedrock aquifer is the only potable aquifer in the vicinity of the
landfill Although unlikely, future use of the aquifers was considered plausible. Future use of the aquifer
will be mitigated through the use of Kent County's groundwater use ordinance which has been submitted to
theMDEQ
As only inorganic, non-volatile constituents were identified as COPCs, the inhalation exposure route via the
groundwater pathway was not deemed complete In addition, exposure might occur via the use of the
aquifers, the evidence supporting dermal uptake for the COPCs indicates that this exposure route
contributes insignificantly to overall intake Thus, the only exposure route and pathway deemed significant
and warranting further evaluation was the oral route via the groundwater pathway. Potential use of the
upper aquifer may result in potential non-carcinogenic risk associated with ingestioa of nitrate-nitrate
nitrogen, lead, iron, and manganese. Potential use of the lower aquifer may result in for non-carcinogenic
risk ?^ori?t«j with ingesbon of lead.
1.5J UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION
Risk assessment protocols have been developed to ensure protection of potentially exposed individuals
{U.S. EPA, 1989) An understanding of the uncertainty associated with estimated potential visits is an
important consideration in the e\aluation of remedial alternatives
m* LVK L Work 19324 AAmn RptFS Tal pdt 4-14-00 doc 1-15
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site, Kent County, Michigan
Significant sources of uncertainty in the risk assessment include the assumptions that:
• The COPC concentrations to which individuals are exposed are the maximum detected over thepast three years. Employing this assumption may over-estimate the risk because the actualexposure concentrations will probably be less than the maximum concentrations.
• Individuals currently using an alternative drinking water source (bedrock aquifer) will revert to use
of the upper or lower aquifers at the site. This assumption probably over-estimates risk becauseindividuals are unlikely to use the upper or lower aquifers.
• COPCs will continue to originate from the landfill with little if no attenuation. Employing thisassumption over-estimates risk because a major remedial action (capping) has been implemented
and because natural attenuation will likely continue to reduce concentrations of some COPCs.
f • In the future, individuals will drill into the upper or lower aquifers despite the fact that Kent
County permits are required to do so. Employing this assumption over-estimates risk because
licensed well drillers are required to obtain a permit. In addition, the future groundwater useordinance will further prohibit the installation of wells.
• The SLRA did not consider potential additive effects of potential exposures to several chemicals.This may, depending on the chemicals and their effects, tend to slightly underestimate risks.
• All source areas have been identified and considered in the risk assessment. Employing thisassumption under-estimates risk because there may be unidentified source areas. However, the
uncertainty associated with this assumption is low because the source area, a landfill, is welldefined.
• Non-carcinogenic risk is linearly proportional to COPC concentration. The application of several
uncertainty factors used to develop reference doses over-estimates risk.
Overall, the significant potential for risk to be over-estimated strongly suggests that expenditures for
remedial option implementation be carefully examined.
Earth Tech. 1999a Grounciwaier and Surface Water Remedial Investigation Report of the Sparta
Landfill Site. Sparta Township. Kent County, Michigan, May 1999.
Earth Tech, 1999b. Groundwater and Surface Water Current Conditions Technical Memorandum of the
Sparta Landfill Site. Sparta Township. Kent County, Michigan. May 15, 1998.
Earth Tech. 1999c. Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Sparta Landfill Site, Sparta Township. Kent
County, Michigan. March 1999.
KCDPW, 1999a. Response to EPA comments on the Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Sparta
Landfill Superfiind Site in Sparta, Michigan, June 1999.
Kent County Health Department, 1996. Water Supply Regulations for Kent County, Michigan.
MDEQ, 1998a Relevant Information for Reviewing Proposals on Natural Attenuation Through
Enhanced Bioremediation.
MDEQ, 1998b. Fundamental Principles of Bioremediation (An Aid to the Development of
Bioremediation Principles.
MDEQ, 1999. Revised Part 20J Operational Memorandum # IS Cleanup Criteria Tables. May 1999.
U.S. EPA, 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigation Feasibility Studies Under CERLCAIntenm Final (EPA 540-F-93-035).
U.S. EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund VI Human Health Evaluation Manual. U.S.
EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1993a. Docket No. V-W-93-C-206. Administrative Order of Consent RE: RJ/FS forGroundwater and Surface Water at the Sparta Landfill Site, Sparta Township, Kent County,
Michigan.
U.S. EPA, 1993b. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites (EPA 540-F-93-035).
U.S. EPA. 1998. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in
Ground Water.
U.S. EPA, 1999a. February 3, 1999 Letter Correspondence to Kent County Department of Public Works.
Contaminants Exceeding Michigan Drinking Water Criteria (1996-1999)Sparta Landfill, Michigan
Parameter
Aluminum(dissolved total)
Iron ug/L(dissolved ortotal)
I. cad ug/L
(dissolved ortotal)
Manganese ug/L(dissolved ortotal)
Zinc ug/I.(dissolved ortotal)
Nitrogen,nitrate/nititeug/L
I)W Criteria
("8/1 -)
50'(Aesthetic)
300'
(AestheticValue)
4 ug/L
50'(AestheticValue)
2,400
10,000
MW-01Downgradicnt
BU96 (D)
U20-350XT)
U1-94(T)
U20-87 (D)
267-J3580(D)
1,700-18,000
MNV-02Downgradient
BU73 (D)
3.620 - 34.000
U1-JN6.7(D)
1740-QC6130
578-J1480
U20-140
MW-03Downgradient
BU114(D)
27,900 - 39,400
U1(D)-DJN26(D)
316-81CKD)
53-J1490(D)
U20-U100
MW-04Downgradient
DVJ96 5 (D)BU 96 5(D)
388-570 (D)
U1-JN104
24(D)
J1030-63(D)
MW-OSDowngradienl
U50 (D)
B41 4-540
U1-BJN24(D)
1 57-200 (D)
170-J955(D)
MW-07Dotvngradient
U86.5 (13)-J.592 (T)
878(D)-7760(D)
U1-JNS51.5(T)
21.5(D)-54(T)
77.5(D>J6520(T)
U20-U100
MW-08I'pgradtenl
BU70 5 (15)
U20-U100
Ul 0-BJN2 3
VJ10-U20
250(D).J3490(D)
4500-10,300
MW-II9I)u\vngradient
ISU81 (O)
U20-2450(D)
U1.0-JN8 1(D)
474-1060(D)
150-1 (XXI
170
MW-11Dn^'ngradii-nt
1)1 ill* (D)
29-B73 5
Ul 0-JN3 3
59-126(13)
33()-J73()(|))
IV.-04Donngradient
2940 (T)
8360(D)-134(10(1)
13 0-5 2(T)
\4<JO(D)-1W(1(1')
U2<>-2f>(T)
l.'irio
DW: Drinking water criteria(T): Total analytc concentration(D): Dissolve analyte concentrationU: Not detectedJ: Estimated valueNA: Not availableQC: Matrix QC results are not available due to high analyte concentrationsN: Spike sample recovery was not within control limits.B: Reported value is less than CRDL but greater than IDL1 No health-based MDEQ criteria are available
Potential Applicable or Relevant and Approprinle Requirements (ARARs)Spnrla l.nmlfill, Michignn
Ihtwripllnn
( 'h
I Maximum ContaminantLevels (MC'l . ' s)
2 M . I M I I I I I M I < 'on l i i i i i i i i i in lI eve I Coals (MCI ( i ' s)
1 S u i l . n e Water l . l u a l i l v( ' i i l c i 1:1
Slnlc Su r f ace W/iIci(^ual i lv Standards andVnlue.s
,V Soil iiiul ( i ioundwnlcit ' lvnnupC' i t l c i iu
Walei delivered ID usei ofpuMic \\aler supply s\stern
Water used 01 po ten t i a l ly usedas ii source ol d u n k i n g \vnter
I tp.i h;ii|'C lo M i i h u e u;ilei usedIn .n | i i . i l u oi( ' . . i i ir , ins. \Mli lhk ',ind l iuin . ins . humim
( ni iMll l iphoi l 1)1 .H|ll.lla
Discharge lo SIM line wnler usedby :i(|tiiilit: oigiuiistiis, w i ld l i f einul (minims, hiiiiiaiiloiisiiinplion ol in|unlicOlglllllSltlS
Conccnlinlions ol (.lit-iinciilslluit exceed gcncnc i Icniuipcnlciiu
Hrqulrrnirnl
Wnlei used 01 poleuluilK usedloi luimim (onMititpiion mustmeel MCI's
unle i M U i u e shouldnol exceed MCl.d's
Siu l .ue u. i l i - i i i i i i ' . l tneel. u | i i . i l i c i In on H 1 1 1 lei 1.1 i ml sideD| m i x i n g /one :ind .n | i i , i ln.mile 1 1 1 lei hi evel v w l i e i c u i l l n nsin luce wnlcr
vviilet tnusl iuec(M(|UII | IC chronic c i i l cTin outsideof mix ing /one and iH|iialiciicule c i i l eun eveiyuhete wi l l i n isuiliite water
Keniedinl investigation andAclion I'levenlion of
c uxpnsuius
Kepoiling ol'oll'-sile i t i iginlion
Climlun
S.ile I )i i n k i n g Wiiiei Act( S i m ; A ) ( - i 2 use K I D ) , .mTl |< I ' .nl III .mil Snl>p.iils H( I
SDWA - K H ' I - K l - l l
Clean W.ilei Ai I ( 11
HSC l.^l )
Michigan Ad -ISI . I'arl 11Wak'i Kc-souices 1'ioleclioii andA d i i n n i s l i i i l i v c Code Kules121 I (Ml lo 121 I I I ?
Michigan Act 4 5 1 . 1 ' m l 2(11Mnviionnienlii l l<espouse itiulMichigan Adminis trat ive (.'ode
('ninnirnl*
Nol .in applu . i l>le i r i |unnik ' i i ll i i ' i .uise ( l i n i i i i i l \ \ . i l i - i , i l the -.liel l l | l |H ' l . I l l t l I l l W i ' l . l i | l l l lc | | I ' , l u l l
n .I'd Ini p i i l i l n d i i n k i n g u . i l i - ihu c i ipn i . i l i -d i n l n ,l.iU' I ' .ul . 'IIIt l l U ' l l . i loi | ' i i i i i ud \vaU- |
Non rn lo l i falik ' I'n.il'. I 11 ( '
A K A K ' s loi pioU-clion ol \ \aleii p i a l i h hu oipoi.i lcil Inleleience in lo pai l 20)I ' lomulualn c i i l e i n i
A K A K ' s loi pioteiMion ollininan lu-allh ami the
Surface water discharge oftreated effluent. (Applicable tostate NPDF.S programs)
Surface water discharge oftreated effluent.
Surface water discharge oftreated effluent.
Applicable federal \vatcr qualitycriteria for the protection ofaquatic life must be compliedwith when environmentalfactors are being considered.
The discharge must beconsistent with therequirements of the state'sWater Quality ManagementPlan approved by the KPA.
Discharge limitations must beestablished for all toxicpollutants that are or may bedischarged at levels greater thanthose that can be achieved bytechnology-based standards.
Clean Water Act (CWA)40CFR 122.44
An ARAR if theie will be apoint source discharge from llicsite to surface water.
See #5 below
40CFR 122.44(c) Not an ARAR, if usingtechnology based stantlaids
2. Storm Water Discharge Storm water dischargesassociated with industrialactivity through municipalseparate storm sewer systems orto the waters of the UnitedStates.
Stormwater run-off fromconstruction sites greater than 5acres.
Comply with EPA, NPDES, andstale storm water dischargerequirements.
Comply with federal and stateconstruction site permits forstormwater
40 CI;R Parts 122, 123, 124 andSection 402(p) of the CWA
Michigan Act 4 51, Part 31 -Water Resources Protection
ARAR if slormwatcr has ormay be exposed to industrialactivity.
Not an ARAR for construction.
Michigan Act 451 part 31 (secbelow) regulates runoff fromsites less than 5 acres in area
Eid I,VK I.:\Work\19324\Admin\Tbl\Table 2.doc
1 nblc 2(continued)
Polrnlinl ARAR'sSpnrtn l.nndfill
Drurripllon
A i -linn -.V/i«'< -ific (< •untinueii)
~\ Wiislvuiik't / Swliicc
Walci Nat ional I 'oll i i lanlDiscl i . i i f .u- I l im i imt ion
Sv.lrm ( N I ' D I S) IV l
•I Soil I I O M O N mul
Sr i l iMi rn ln l in i l Coiiliol
S Wiisli 'wak'l I'll' l i ra lmcnl
Cl l tn i a
(\ Kemedial Action (except
no-action)
7 Momloiing
K Well abandonment
t'rrrr<}ul«llr(i)
Waslcwalei mul waste malenal
into Mil line uulci
I ICISHIII mul inn nil (onliol IICIIMI . M l - . l l l l l l lOII
• . lanclanls (ot CMslinj ; SOIIKCS
Kcincilinl Action
(i iounilvvalui numiUinng
Ahiindoninciit of gcolcchniciil
wells.
Rrqutrtmmt
Siihslnnl ivc
|K' i ini l K i iu l i
- v v i l h
Si i l l - i t , ml i \r i (in ipli.im c \ \ i l l i
) ' i - iu ' i a l pc i i in l i n i i i l i l i i i n s .
mi lu l l ing n Soil I I O S K I I I anil
S r i l i i ncn l a l i on ( ' on l io l I ' l a l i anil
ni>, |M-i l ions b\ n < 'nl i l i i - i l
( tprialor
M m i i l i i i i n ) ' i r i | i i i i n iH ' l i l s |oi
U.I ' . l l 'U. l l f l i H ' . l l l l l l ' l l l I ,H l l l l \
Aclion I'lmi
Moinlonnn )C(|uiicincnts tin
solid VMISIC Imull i l ls
Mclhods for uhandoninunl
(
Mu II I J .MM Act - IS | , I'ill I H
Willf l Ui-MiilUi-s I ' lu lc i l ln l ) itllilMil l i i | 'an A.li - . l ia lnc C ink'
KuU-, ( .M K i l t ( ,M l . is ' il . ' < .)|d| l.M .'|').i . uu l
M u l i i f . i i i A i l - 1 ^ 1 I ' . i i l ' ' I S m lI lo-aot i .mil S i - i l n i i r i l l . i l l i i l l
( on l ln l Ki ' l l t ( ' c
l i ' l ' l l l a l i n n s
• I I ) C ) ] < - I U I S | ' i , ' l M - ; i l i i i i - n l
S l a ih l an l s lol I M s t i n ^ S I I I I K I '
I (Ki l l U'l'iil.'illons
M u l i i f n u At i - IM I'm I 2(11
l - 'nv i ion incn l i i l Kcsponsc
Ac I 451 I'm I I ISolid Waste
Michigan Act 451 Part 141 -
(icolochnical wells
AUAUs ll lli'.ik'il 01 l l l l l l r . i l i - i l
\\.ilci is i l i s i lui(.'i'il In l'( ) I \V ini l l l i - i IK In M i l l . ! ! i- u . i l , - | I 01 al
i i ' l ' i i l a h o i r . H I . I \ al ' .n . i pp l \
An A K A K lol pioU^ ( inn n|
• . i i i l a i f \ \ . i l c i All i oir.lnii l i n nai l i \ i lu 's i iui ' . l nu luil i1 - . i i t l . i i f
u a l r i i n i i i i l l m i l i n n O M i m i l i o l - .
; i l l lu 1 i o n . l i n e l i o n . i i i - . r .
A K A K s i l i r m c i h a l ; n Imn
i c s i i l t s in disi h.iici- In | '( )| \V
A K A K lo t nioi i i loinl na lu i a l
a l l cn i in l iD i i and ) ' ioi i iul \ \a lci
f \ l i ac l ion
A K A K Id i i n i u i i t o i i i i f t InI 'ail I I S
Action to conserve endangeredspecies or threatened species,including consultation with theDepartment of the Interior.
Endangered Species Act (16USC. 1531 ct. scq.);50CTRPart 200, 50 CFR Part 402
May be an ARAR if endangeredor threatened species exist onthe site. Consultation did notidentify threatened orendangered species.
6. Threatened or EndangeredSpecies
Collection, or removal ofthreatened or endangeredspecies.
Action to conserve threatened orendangered species. A permitis required for species removal.
Michigan Act 451 Part 365 -Endangered Species Protection.
May be an ARAR if threatenedor endangered species exist atthe site. MDNR WildlifeDivision did not identifythreatened or endangeredspecies.
Eid LVK L:\Work\19324\Admin\Tbl\Table 2.doc
Table 2(continued)
Potential ARARsSpnrtn l.nmlfill
7 Within ii VWtliuul
X Wi-ll.imls .mil Wiik' isollln- I l iu l i - i l Sl.iU-s
') Ai iml i rs in ii well.mil
ID Ai t i \ i l i r s in .nul In!.milI ; i k i - or Slic.uii
I I S i i i t c N i i l n i . - i l K i v i . - i s
Wl'llilllll IIS lll 'l ' ltll-ll l)\
I \i-niiivcOiilci I I ' ) ' ) ( ) Scilum7
Wfll i i l i i l s .ind \\.ih-ts ol llicI Imli- i l Sluli-s
K c - j ' i i l . i l i - i l IK l i v i l i i - x in ii\u-l l i i i i i l d i l l (liril| 'c. c l i i i u i .
i-li-)
< )< i npv. l i l t in f.i.ulc I.uids in al lnui lp l . l l l l
< >t i i ipv. t i l l orllooilpliiin
At lion lo i ivoul 01 i n i n i i t i i / i - lliri l i -sl i i i i l ion. loss in ( l r f . ' i , n l i i l i iMiol \u-lhnuK
t r i tc i i i l l . i \ \s .nul i r^ ' i i l . i l ions In)i l l r i l ^ i n ^ .mil l i l l i M ) . 1 u |>r t . l imnsol u i - l l : i l i i l s i i i u l u:ilfC. nl t in*I liuli'il Sl.iU-s
Sill'1.1.nil IM' i n i M | i | i ; i i u r \ \ l l l l
IHmi l l u- i | i i iu- i iu- t iK i i iuli n i i i l l l l n l l s
S l l l ' - . I . I M l l M ' I n i n p l l . U U l1 \\ I
| i i - i i i u l i i - i | i i i i i - M i r n K M i n i
S l l l l s t . l l l l l V C I l l i n p l l i l l K V U l l l l
pcimil H'c|iiiiriin.-nls midi i in i l i l i ons
I \i'i n i i v i - I >iik'i on I'mli'i l innol Wi- i l . i t i i l s |-\a- ( lu le i NnI I . ' H i d 1(1 (| |< (i U ) J ( i l ) . i l l i l
Appi- in l ix A
Si- i i io t i - l l l - l CliMii W.iU-i Ai tK A V A l MM I l< .> I I ) . .nul U» Kl I.1 I
l \ . l l l l H | M I I A l l - l ^ l I ' . l l l .'HI
W r l l . i l i i K Mi l I I I ) ' . I l lA i l n i i i i i ' . l i . i l n c ( 'oili' U u l r
M i i l n i M i i A i l - |S| I ' . i i l ? i ) |l i i l . i i n l I iJ.c , . i t n l S l i i M i i r . .mi l
M i i t i i l ' i i n A i l i i i i n i s l i i i l i v i - I ' l i i U -Knl i - P S I X I I P H I S'ld
M n l i i | M i i A i l ' I S I I ' i i i l I D S
N i i i u i i i l K i v n s
An A K A K lui .H l iMl i i - - . in\ \ i l l .uuK
Nnl ;ill Al( \ l< l> | - | . l l l ' . r I I I )
. i l i . - i n . i l n i - H I \ O | \ , " . , l n - , | | ' i i i | > i i iIll l l l l^'nl \ \ t l l . l l l iKu! \\.llrr.iil
(In- t l i u l i - i l Si.IK--,
A K A K 11 i . H I - . I I I I I l i nn . 1 1 1 1 \ i i i i - s. H i - lot . i l i - i l in .1 u r l l . i i u l
A K A K i l i u r . i M h I I D M . 1 , h M l. i n - I . > i . i l c i l i n .111 n i l . n u l l . i k i -• • I n - . n i l
A K A K 11 i i i i T ' i i n i l i o n ;u l i M l i i - -iili- l in i i l c i l in in i u - i i i l l n - K i i j ' i iK i v i - t . \ \ l i u I i i s i i n . i l i u i i l nvi'ii lc l in i ' i l In I ' i i M IDS
Kid I.VK !..\WorkM9!24\Adminn'bl>Tahlc 2 doc
Sparra Landfill Site. k'cnt ('ounty. Michigan
TABLESBIOATTENUATION PARAMETERS SUMMARY
SPARTA LANDFILL-KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN
Indicator
Alkalinity
Nitrogen, Nitrate
Sulfate
Carbon Dioxide
pH
Oxygen, dissolved
Temperature
Eh
Units
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
StandardUnits
ug/1
°C
millivolts
Shallow Aquifer Uppradicnt2
Minimum
175,000
5,000
13,000
169,000
7.06
NC
8.4
150
Maximum
263,000
5,000
18,000
169,000
7.23
NC
9.6
150
Mean
231,333
5,000
16,000
1 69,000
7.145
NC
9
150
N
3
1
3
1
2
NC
2
1
Shallow Aquifer Downgradicnt'
Minimum
59,000
50
5,000
5,100
6.22
1,490
5.5
-85
Maximum
830,000
1,700
28,000
309,000
8.17
6,410
14.7
35
Mean
362,947
315
14,864
89157
6.83
2,958
8.97
-40
N
19
7
17
7
17
7
17
7
Indication oI 'Mioacl iv i tv Potential ("
Increase indicates CO; generationthrough aerobic respiration, ironreduction, manganese reduction, sulfatcreduction, and denti i f ical ion
Depletion indicates use as an electronacceptor.
Depletion indicates use us an electronacceptor.
Depletion indicates melhanogenesis.
Insignificant difference between impactand upgradient
> 1000 -2000 aerobic
Sufficient to ensure oxvgen solubility.
< 750 anaerobic
NOTES:NC = Not Collected.N = Number of samples.1 ASTM 1 997. ASTM Guide for Remediation by Natural Attenuation at Petroleum Release Sites.2 Minimum and maximum values derived from analytical data set from May 1 996 - March 1 999 from MW-08.3 Minimum and maximum values derived from analytical data set from May 1996 - March 1999 from MW-01, MW-02, MW-03, MW-04, MW-05, MW-07, MW-09, MW-1 1 and
PZ-04.
EidLVK L:\Work\l9324\Admin\Tbl\Table 3.doc July 1999
CORRELATION BETWEEN MDEQ AND I SEPA EVALUATION CRITERIASPARTA LANDFILL
KENT COUNTY. MICHIGAN
MDEQ
NOTES
MDEQ =LSEPA =NREPA =
Cntcna Under NREPA 45 1 . Pan 2u 1 . Ru.e Corresponding L SEPA Nine Criterion299 5603 ! Numbensi
Rule 605
Rule 605
Rule 605
Rule 603 •
Rule 605 •
Rule 605
Rule 605 •
Rule 603 •
Rule 603 i
Rule 603 i
Rule 603 •
I ' . a - 1
I » b > 3 . 6 '
I MCI 2 .8
! i - d i 4
i «e> 1.5
i I' f r 7
'. >' s> 5
'. "hi 5. 6. 7
! "i> 1. 3. 5
i HJ I 6
I i - k i 9
Michigan Department of En\ironmental QualityUnited States En\ ironmental Protection AgcnoNatural Resources Em ironmental Protection Act
Ju:\ .'999
TABLE 5COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
SPARTA LANDFILLKENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN
roi. H.Si'J }'L'<.i\m\itty SiiictvS/hitiiJ l.tiuJtill Silt1. Kent ('oitnty. Michigan
Criteria
Overall Protection ofHuman Health and theEnvironment
Compliance with ARARs
Reduction of Toxicity,Mobility, and VolumeThrough Treatment
Treatment Process Used andMaterials TreatedAmount of HazardousMaterials Destroyed orTreated
Degree of ExpectedReductions in Toxicity,Mobility, and VolumeDegree to Which Treatmentis Irreversible
Type and Quantity ofResiduals Remaining AfterTreatment
No Action Alternative
Not protective, as hypothetical futurereceptors potentially exposed and nomonitoring would be conducted to alertof potential exposure.
Does not comply with ARARs.
None.
None.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
None.
Monitoring Alternative
Protective, if monitoring shows concentrations decrease.Potential remains for hypothetical future exposure duringmonitoring period.
Complies with ARARs, except that a downgradicnt sentinelwell is not available for hypothetical human exposure togroundwatcr.
Natural Attenuation.
Not quantified.
Reductions to acceptable levels anticipated.
Reversible for inorganics; irreversible for organics convertedor destroyed by natural attenuation.
Unqualified. Residuals remain in the subsurface.
(iroundwater I Extraction and Treatment Alternative
Protective, if monitoring shows concentrations decrease.Potential remains for hypothetical future exposure dur ingmonitoring period.
Complies with ARARs, except that a downpradicnt sentinelwell is not available for hypothetical human exposure togroundwatcr.
Groundwatcr extraction and treatment as described in text
Removals through groundwatcr treatment as follows (forcalculation, sec Table D-l in Appendix D):
• Iron -- 1 5,609 Ib mo• Lead - 7.85 Ib mo• Manganese ~ 43 Ib'mo
Reductions to acceptable levels anticipated
Irreversible for constituents removed in extractedgroundwatcr. Reversible for inorganics; irreversible fororganics converted or destroyed bv na tu ra l attenuation.
Sludges from metals removal estimated at 25 to 50 ton'mo.Remaining groundwatcr concentrations uncertain.
EidLM L:\Work\19324\Admm\Tbl\Table S.doc I of 3 July 1999
I inn- I I n l i l Ui - i t i c i l i i i l Ai l inni > ) > | i - i l i \ i v i (KM K)Ale Al ln i t i e i l
Fffri llvmrvi
mid IVniiiinrnir
M.l( ' l l lhnk' nl Kc'.lillKll Hl'.k
Imnlcmciiliihilih
Al'il i lv to ( 'oir.liiKl mid()pctn lc
Ni> Ar lH ' l l Alli 'lllilllU'
None
Nul iippln able
Nnl applicable
No i urn-ill nna i i i-|ilali|c nskI i in iU-t t |H>t rn t i . \ l Indue nsk
Ncl :i|i|iluulilc
Nnl ii|'|ilu iihlc
iig jiioMilo i n l i i i i i i i i l i o i i lii .lU'll r i i i t i i i i i i i i i l \ «l
l l ' ikx 1ISMH in l f l l \ \ l l l l III'" VM'II I M s L l l l . ' l l l l l M
Ni'l iipplli Illill1
I1 nk in iu n Mi <i nil H n ift 111 Mi l l - i w i l l i l r l c i i i i n i r w l i r n l< AI >III llll'Vl'll
No ' u i i i ' l i l iin.u i i / |>l . l l>lf ll '.k i'\isls I 'nk ' l l l i . l l Im l u l l l K - i i ' .k
•'nsily iinpk-incnlcd
MI nul l n i i i^ |i|i null", i i i l n i i i i . i l inn In . l ic i t 11 Hi in n mil \ nlj l l lU ' l l l i a l ll ' .k'i .r .MH l . l l l ' l l \Mll l 1H'\\ \M-II l l | - . l . l l l ; l t l i l t l
( ' u i i ' t i t i n I n ii i .u ti\ i t i v - t pir 'a nl | i l i \ MI ;tl l i . i / . i i i l 1 . In ln".|i.iv.ri'ini l Mlc Sill l i ' i u i i i f * .mil ^.'1'iu'i.il | i i i > l i " . M i i i i . i t pi . i i IKT \ \mi l i ll l i l l l ) J . lU ' v l i n i l l i ' l l l i c u \ i n i i i i i i r i i l . i l l i . i / . iu l - .
( ni i ' i l i i i i I n > M iu li\ ilii"i |)K".i'iil i m i n i u m pli\ MI .il l i . iAiuK InUnlkci ' , nil Mil' I Vtm. l l mi l l . l i t .Mul i l l l i : l l . i l l i i | | l i . i / . l l iK li t
wn ik i ' f i .Hi-' nn l lp : i l i l i -
I ' n k i t i m t i M i u n l i i t in^ i i M i l l ' . \ \ i t l iK l i i i i n i i r \ \ 1 i i n K A* >• ..u Ini 'x i'il ( MI MI I ii I \\ .iln i' \ l i . i i I n il i in . is .u i i I r i . t l r \\ A( Ii i l l . i i i i i n r n l l u l l i l i s m i k i m u n lun \ imi i I i
Nn i i n 11 'Ml i i n . i i i rp l . i l ' l i ' n-.k r \ i - . l ' . l ' i i l r n l i : i l I nl I n l i n e l l ' .ki nnlmlli'i! b\ nimnlmin^ :nn1 ^ i M i i i n l \ \ . i U ' i r \ l i :u I M M I
Aili'i|ii;ik' mul u-|i;\li|i- CMT)'| l l i ; i l ; i ' l " w i i ) ' i . n l i v i i l - . I ' l i l in i ' l \ \vis l lnl ; l \ : i l l : i l ' l c
I :IM|\ i i i ip l i ' incnk ' i l ex i rp l l l i . i l M | I I I | ' Im .-ilinn nl bi^icl i M l i i n i h i i M p . H i l v iK ' i i lnn ' i i l p lan l in:n ;H|\CIM'|\ nnp.'K'l
i i l ip lcn i f i i l . ' ih i l i lv
K l.:\H'ork\l9324\A<lmin\m\Table H do
f< /i .i.vrJ Ai ^ \i»i.i!yXptit'hi 1 tiHilfill Silt1. Ki'tit ( ' t i u n l \ : .\ lic
Criteria No Action Alternative Monitoring Alternative Groimdwater Extraction and Treatment Alternative
Not applicable. Easily implemented. Easily implemented
Ability to Obtain ApprovalsITOITI and Coordinate WithOther Agencies
Not applicable. Not applicable. Construction activities would be subject to Slate or localauthori ty, requiring their coordination
Availability of Off-SiteTreatment, Storage, andDisposal Services andCapacity
Not applicable. Readily available. Rcadilv available.
Availability of Equipmentand Technologies
Not applicable. Readily available Rcadilv available.
Cost
Capital Costs
Annual O&M Costs
Annual Cost - Year 1-2
Annual Cost - Years 2-30
Present Worth O&M Costs
Total Present Worth Cost
(Capital and O&M))
$0
$66,300
S6,300
$251,700
$251,700
SI.528.800
$334,100
$238.600
$5,301.800
$6.830:60()
EidLVK L:\Work\19324\Admin\Tbl\Table S.doc 3 of 3 July 1999
FIGURES
;.£fiR* TT ->p3Sfn '3 si .. i «« - •-• "• >—^"^ x s '—^-
Figure
Site Location Map
Kent County, Michigan
September 1996 19324.0E
A - PRE-EXISTING MONITORING WELLLOCATION
A - MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PZ-010 - PIEZOMETER LOCATIONHP-01* - VAS BORING LOCATION
StV-03® - SURFACE WATER MEASUREMENTAND SAMPLING LOCATION
BOERSUA(10279)
- RESIDENTIAL PROPERTYALPINE STREET ADDRESS
- PROPERTr BOUNDARY
— - - DRAIN TILE
- FENCE
A - DEEP MONITORING rtELL TO BESAMPLED QUARTERLY
A&O - SHALLOW MONITORING WELL TO BESAMPLED QUARTERLY
A A - CROSS-SECTION TRACE
DATE Of PHOTOGRAPHY OCroOtB 16. '995
125 250 500! • L-
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 2
SITE TOPOGRAPHY
SPARTA LANDFILLKENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN
A WEST
MW-0707D
BOERSMAR.W.
EAST SOUTH
HP-03/PZ-04
SCHWABHP-04 R.W.
S T A N T O tR.W
MW-07S/ MW-09/ MW-04/07D ' MW-05
• LOWER AQUIFER(SATURATED)
LEGENDLANDFILL FILL (APPROXIMATE)
670 -
660 -
650 -
640 -
630 -
620 -
E A P T H j'
A
^-vB 1 T
C/
~/*^ —rQ.-
ri,~ L^U
— ££
0C
o
Q
0Orr*"-O^
1E
r &o\ - GRAVELisz — i=D ^| °'Q| - SAND 4 GRAVEL ^^___^ p
\}—~^\ - CLAYO
P^fVJ - CLAY 4 GRAVEL
prri _ S|LT ^
' 'j||||[l|||| _ pf-AT
or_ "^1 ~ SANDSTONE o
H - WELL SCREEN 0
T - WATER LEVEL O(MEASURED MAY 6, 1996)
SAND 4 GRAVEL TO 580 FT. MSL '.GRAVELLY CLAY TO 525 T. MSL PIFZOMETRIC SURFACE -*GRAVEL 4 SAND TO 519 FT. MSL PIEZOMtTRIC bUKI-ACE __O
BEDROCK SANDSTONE REPORTED AT p ,., RFSIFIFNTIAI WATFR WFI 1 CLM T° 54° "' MSL ~i '519 Fl MSL H.W. ~ RESIDENTIAL WATER WELL BEDROCK SANDSTONE BFPQBTFn^T~
AT 540 n. MSL *- IAPPROXIMATE BOTTOM OF LANDFILL -i-"-l
c H SEE FIGURE 5 FOR LOCATION OF CROSS-SECTIONS
/
°
^ 1
O
o
o
Oo
o
o 11
5§
0 125 250 500
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEETVERTICAL SCALE 1" = 20'
FIGURE 3
CROSS-SECTIONSA- A' & B-B'
SPARTA LANDF LLKENT COUNTY. MICHIGAN
JULY 1999
- 670
- 660
- 650
— 640
- 630
SPLF-ABTRS07Q699
1S31M 06
SOUTHEAST
MW-03S/
LETTINGA
NORTHEAST C'
MW-08S/08D
MW-08S
C A R r H
AQUITARD ^-_-_^_-_
MW-08D
LEGEND
— v] - LANDFILL FILL (APPROXIMATE)
" Q| - SAND & GRAVEL
j?-"?^ - CLAY & GRAVEL
[U"1T| - SILT
L_ J-'-| - SANDSTONE
H - WELL SCREEN
Y - WATER LEVEL(MEASURED MAY 6, 1995)
— — — - PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE
R W. - RESIDENTIAL WATER WELL
APPROXIMATE BOTTOM OF LANDFILL
SEE FIGURE 5 FOR LOCATION OF CROSS-SECTIONS
GRAVEL TO 509 FT. MSLBEDROCK SANDSTONE REPORTED AT 509 FT. MSL
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
VERTICAL SCALE 1" = 20'
T E C H
FIGURE 4
CROSS-SECTIONC-C1
SPAPTA LANDFILLKENT COUNPr. MICHIGAN
JULV 1999 1932^ 06 j
Threshold Criteria:
Overal l Protection ofHuman Heal th and the
Envi ronment
How a l t e r n a t i v e p rov ideshuman health ande n v i r o n m e n t a l protection
Compliance w i t hARARs
• Compliance w i t h chemical -specific ARARs
• Compliance w i t h action-specific ARARs
• Compliance wi th location-specific A R A R s
• Compliance wi th other criteria,advisories, and guidances
Balancing Criteria:
Lona-TermEffectiveness
andPermanance
Reduction ofToxicity Mobil i ty,
and VolumeThrough
Treatment
Short-TermEffectiveness
Implementability
Magnitude of residualnsk
Adequacy andreliability of controls
Modifying Criteria:
State Acceptance
Treatment process usedand materials treated
Amount of hazardousmaterials destroyed ortreated
Degree of expectedreductions in toxicity.mobility, and volume
Degree to whichtreatment is irreversible
Type and quantity ofresiduals remainingafter treatment
CommunityAcceptance
Protection ofcommunity duringremedial actions
Protection of workersduring remedial actions
Environmental impacts
Time un t i l remedialaction objectives areachieved
Abil i ty to construct andoperate the technology
Reliabil i ty of thetechnology
Ease of undertakingadditional remedialactions, if necessary
Ability to monitoreffectiveness of remedy
Ability to obtainapprovals from otheragencies
Coordination with otheragencies
Availability andcapacity of off-sitetreatment, storage, anddisposal services
Availability ofnecessary equipmentand specialists
Availability ofprospectivetechnologies
Capital costs
Operating andmaintenance costs
Present worth cost
Notes: ARARs: Applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements.
E A R T H
July 1999 19324FIGURES
CRITERIA FOR DETAILEDANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
SPARTA LANDFILLKENT COUNTY. MICHIGAN
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Part 201 Cleanup Criteria/Groundwater Data
Table Al-13/March 1999 Analytical
APPENDIX A
Part 201 Cleanup Criteria/Grounds>ater Data
Table Al-13/March 1999 Analytical
Summary of Data QualifiersSparta Landfill
Code Qualifier DefinitionNote
Note
Note
ABB
B (inorg)HTIDIP
JK
MAMD
MPB
MSN
NANLVORP
QCRSuw(A)
(E)(G)
(H)
(K)(L)
(M)(N)
(P)(S)(V)
(W)
(X)
Detected parameters are listed for the 1996 and 1998 analytical data.
Bold values indicate an exceedence of the detection limit.Shaded values indicate an exceedence of Part 201 Residential Drinking Water.
Boxed values indicate an exceedance of Part 201 Groundwater Surface Water Interface Criteria (GSI) and Rule 57 Water QualityValues dated September 28, 1999.
The duplicate analysis was not within control limits.Analytical result below contract detection limit but above the instrument detection limit.The arialyte was detected in the associated blank as well as the sample.Reported value is < CRDL, but > IDL.Reported value is below Contract Required Detection Limit (DL) but above Instrument DL.Analysis performed beyond EPA established maximum allowable holding time.Inadequate data to develop criterion.Development of generic GSI value in process but not yet complete. This notation is equivalent to NLS as used in the August 18,1997 addendum to Operational Memorandum #8 and #14, and the Rule 57 Water Quality Values table presented on the SurfaceWater Quality Division's Internet homepage.Estimated value.Value is greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL), but less than the Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL).
Matrix spike accuracy's outside established limits but precision is within the limit, result is not considered estimated.Matrix spike duplicate fell outside the laboratory established control limits. The sample result must be considered estimated.The analysis of the Method Preparation Blank for this parameter had a positive value; therefore consider this result estimated.
The matrix spike recovery fell outside the laboratory established control limits.Indicates spike sample recovery was not within control limits.Not Available.Chemical is not likely to volatilize under most conditions.Out of range.Pesticide/PCB had greater than 25% difference between two columns. Lower Value is reported.Matrix QC results for this sample are unavailable due to high analyte concentrations.Quality control indicates that the data are unusable.Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA).Chemical not detected at specified detection limit.Post-digestion spike for furnace AA analysis is out of control limits, while sample absorbance is <50% of spike absorbance.Criterion is the State of Michigan Drinking Water Standard established pursuant to Section 5 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, ActNo. 399 of the Public Acts of 1976.Criterion is the aesthetic drinking water value, as required by Sec. 20120(1X5).US1 vjilue is pH or water hardness dependent. 1 he HJV tor the protection ot aquatic lite must be calculated based on the pH orlardness of the receiving surface water. Where water hardness exceeds 400 mg CaCO3/L, use 400 mg CaCO3/L for the FCVcalculation. The generic GSI criterion is the lesser of the calculated FCV, the wildlife value and the surface water non-drinkingwater value. For these chemicals, the soil GSI protection criteria will be based on the final generic GSI criterion determined by theGSI process described in this footnote.This value is hardness dependent. A hardness of 280 mg/L of CaCO3 was assumed based on the hardness of surface water samplecollected from the Rogue River.
Ihemical may be flammable and/or explosive. Criteria are under development.Higher ground water concentrations (up to 15 ug/L) may be acceptable if the soil concentration is less than 400 ppm and^rounclwater migrating off-site will not result in unacceptable exposures.Calculated criterion is below the analytical Target Detection Limit (TDL), therefore, the criterion defaults to the TDL.["he concentrations of all potential sources of nitrate-nitrogen must be added together and compared to nitrate criteria.fhese values are the final acute and chronic values, respectively.
Criterion is based on the chemical-specific water solubility limit.Criterion is the aesthetic drinking water value (secondary maximum contaminant level), as required by Sec. 20120(1)(5). Higherconcentrations (up to 200 ug/L) may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis.Concentrations of trihalomethanes in groundwater must be added together to determine compliance with the State of MichiganDrinking Water Standard of 100 ug/L. Concentrations of trihalomethanes in soil must be added together to determine compliance
with the drinking water protection criterion of 2,000 ug/kg.The GSI criterion shown is not protective for surface water that is used as a drinking water source. For groundwater discharges tothe Great Lakes and their connecting waters or discharges in close proximity to water supply intake(s) in inland surface waters, thegeneric: GSI criterion is the Surface Water Drinking Water Value (SWDWV). For chemicals with the (X) footnote, the generic GSIcriterion is the lesser of the SWDWV, the WV and the calculated FCV. The soil protection criteria are calculated based on the GSIcriteria developed using the procedure described in (G).
Summary of Data QualifiersSparta Landfill
C*dc Qualifier Definition
(AC) The GSI criteria for unionized ammonia are 29 ug L and f.- ug L lor coldwater and warm water streams, respectively.
The unionized ammonia concentration for comparison 10 :he GSI is calculated from the measured total ammonia
concentration based on pH and temperature for the receiving surface water and the discharge plume. The soil GSI PC
arc 580 ugKg and 1,100 ugKg for cokiwater and warmwater streams, respectively.
(AD) The unionized ammonia concentranon of each groundwaicr sample was calculated and compared to the coldwater GSI criteria of 29
Sources Pan 201 criteria 15 from VIDEQ OperaiionaJ Nfemorandum No 18. dated May 28. 1999
Part 201 Generic Groundwater Cleanup CriteriaSparta Landfill(Units as Given)
Phenantfarene ug/L - - U 5.0 U 5.0Anthracene ug/L - - U 5.0 U5.0Carbazofe ug/L - - U 10 U 10Di-D-bury! phthalate ug/L - - U5.0 U 5.0«— • -* rtriuorainncnc ug/L - - U 5.0 U 5.0Pyrene ug/L - - - U 5.0 U 5.0Butyl benzyl phthalate ug/L - - U 5.0 U 5.033'-Dichlorobenzidine ug/L - - - U20 U 20Benzo<a)anthracene ug/L - - - U5.0 U 5.0Chrysene ug/L - - U 5.0 U 5.0Bis<2-ethyl hexyl)phthalale ug/L U 10 U 10 U10 U 5.0 U 5.0Di-o-octyl phthalate ug/L - - - U 5.0 U 5.0Benzo(b)fluoranthene ug/L - - - U5.0] U 5.0Benzo(1c)fluoranthene ug'LBeri2o(a)p>Tcne ugl, - -lndeno(I^U-cd)p\Tene ug'LDibenztaji^thracene ug'L - -Benzo(ghi)perylene ue;LCasts I' nits
Ethane ug'L
U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0
U400Ethylene ug'L - - - U400
U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0
U5.0U5.0
Methane ugL - - - 4000 U 2000
Table A7Summary of MW-08 Groundwater Analytical Data
This ivpori shall not be reproduced except in fu l l , without wri t ten authorization of TnMamx L.ilior.iiones, Inc.I n d i v i d u a l sample results rel.iie only 10 the sample tested.
5555 Glenwood M i l l s P a r k w a y SE • PO Box 888692 • G r a n d R a p i d s . Ml 49588-8692 • i6161 975-4500 • Fax (616) 942-7 - r >
TriMatrix
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Kent Couaty DPW ittal rJurier: 34225- 3
= *-•:Jv:ar.t itation Units
?r. = spr.crus. TctalH*r ir.ess, E TA.' as CCarter.. Tctal Organicc- -* -Car her. TiFerric Ir?H Field
Field Terperature »CCxyje-r.. Dissolved 'Field?edc-x Potential {Field:•-v-.-j-.rs.^Y ~'e?d'Ferrc-JS Iron : Field)
Tlu> report sha l l noi be reproduced except in f u l l , w i t hou t wr i t t en au thor iza t ion of TnMamx Laboratories, Inc.I n d i v i d u a l sample results relate only to the sample tested
5555 C . l c n u o o d H i l U P a r k w a y >E • PC Box 888692 • Grand R a p i d s , Ml 49588-8692 • (6161 975.4500 • Fax (616) 9 4 2 - 7 4 6 3
Tlu> ivpon >li.ill run he reproduced except in f u l l , w i ihou l w r i t t e n au thor i za t ion ol 1 nMalnx Laboratories, Inc.I n d i v i d u a l sample results relate only to the sample tested
5555 v.',U-n\MVHl H i l l s P a r k w n y SE • PO Box 888692 • G r a n d R a p i d s . Ml 49588-8692 • ( 6 1 6 ^ 975-4500 • Fax (616) 9 4 2 - 7 4 6 ^
T i n - 11-poll sl i . i l l noi be ivpiodui.vi.1 cxccpl in l u l l , w i thou t wnuen aiuhonz.uion of T i i M a m x Lnbor.Hovii.-s. Inc.I n d i v i d u a l sample ivsulls rcl.nc only lo the sample icsiccl
i l l s r . n k u a x SE • TO Box SS8692 • Gr . ind R a p i d x Ml -+^588-86^2 • (MM S>75--t500 • Fa.\ (MM
TriMatrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 8270
Kent County DPWa r a
"- r ~ j **. d w a ~ ** r V"— • — •£_c-: Xarrr. 15-r? Samples
<5.0?l-j-rar.ther.e < 5 . C?yre-e < 5 . G3-jtyl Ber.zyl rh thala te < 5 . C3 , 3 ' - r i rh lc rcber .z ia ine <20Ser.zc ' = ' Ar.thracene < 5 . CCr.ryser.e < 5 . G3is [2-ethylr .exyl - < 5 . Cr h t h a l a t e-•- — _ r - - - , ^ ~ i - - v - = 1 i a - ~ c r.— - •• ^ — y ^ ^ . i _ . . a ^ a ^ e < ^ . C
Ser.zr b Flurrar.ther.e < 5 . CBer.zr < Fl-jcrar,thene <5 .0Ser.zo , a'. Pyrene < 5 . CIr.der.c 1 , 2 , 3 - r d ; Pyrene <5.C"icenzc i a , h : Anthracene < 5 . CBer.zo = . h , i , : Per^/lene <5 .0
.-ace
: - - - - - - : • -:- ---.-5.V • F.I\ (.f>i
TriMatrixLaboratories Inc.
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONRSK-175
Kent County DPWProj: Sparta Landfill
Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1959 SamplesSample: FB (Field
T i n - u'pon s lu l l noi !•><.• n.-pun.Un.i'il c.sec pi in f u l l , \ M i h n u i \ \ r i i u - n .uuhonz.un.in ol T r i M . u r i x Laboratories. Incl i H l i v n . k i . i l sample1 ivsulis n-l.uc mi l s 10 llu' s.iniplf Icsictl
3 5 5 = ) L ik -nwovJ l l i l U r . i i ' k s s . i y SE • I 'O l i v ' . x S88602 • C.r.mtl R. ipuls . Ml 4 L >5K8-8602 . ^16) Q75--+500 • Fax ( 6 1 6 ^ ^ ) 4 2 - 7 - t d
1.1,2.; -Tetrachlorcethar.eCr.I^rccer.zer.eEtr.vlcer.zer.eStyrer.eXyler.e Total)cis - 1 . 2 -CirhlDroether.et ra~.s - 1 , 2 -3 1 ch lcroecr:er.e5 r " c z r. 1 c r CT.e thane
?yrer.eS-tyl Ber.zyl Phthalate3 , 3 ' - r i rr.lcrcber.zidir.eEer.zc a v Ar.thraceneCr*.rvs er.eBis ' 2 -e thy lhexy i ; -Pr . thalate2i - r . -Ccty lphthala teBer.zc b Fl-j-rsntheneBer.zr k; FlucrantheneBer.zr a1 Pyrer.eIr.ier.: : i , 2 , 3 - c d ) Pyrene2;ber.z: :a,h' AnthraceneBer.zc ^, ri, i Per*/lens
This report >h . \ l ] not he reproduced except in f u l l , w i t h o u t w r i t t e n LUilhonz.uion o f T r i M j t n x Lahornlonci. In t .l iu l iv ic l iu i l s;\inplc results relate only to the sample tested
5555 Ok-nuood H i l l s P . i rku . iv >E • TO Box 888692 • Gr : tnc l R a p i d s . Ml 49588-8692 • (616) 975-4500 • Fax (616)
n ."Matrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONCSEPA 8260
Kent County DPW
Gr cur.dwster Mcr.i"crir.~--._—. xarch Irrr Sa~rles
Date Sa-cled. Cj .• 3C/55 Ti~e: 14:13Date received: C5-3D/55 Tirr.e: 17:15Analysis Date: :4/02.'5S
P.esj.t
rlcrcT.ethar.er c~c~-.e t r. ar.e
Acetcr.eCarter, ris-lfide1 1 -~ i cr.lc rcs'r.vler.e1 l - — i rr~. I ~rcst r.ar.e
< 1 .< 1. I< 1 . -<5 . C< 1' Z< E . -< 1 . "
2.5w r.. 3 r c r c r~ < 1. Cl . 2--irr.-crcerr.ane <; . :Xetr.yl Ethyl Ketcne <5!1.:. l-Trirr.lorcethar.e < l . :Carton Tetrarnlcride < 1 . Cr.icr.lcrctrcTjcc.ethar.e < i . :: .2-ricr.lcrcprc?ane < ; . :cis-1. 3--irr.lcrcprcper.e < l . CTricnlcrcether.e < l . :Cn I c r C'd i c r cro—e t nane <*1.1. 2 -TnchLcrcetr.ar.e < 1 . :
1.1
<5D
<5G
4 -Xethyl - 2 - Fer.tanone2 -Hexar. ~rsTe t r a or.»or oe *~ h°ne <i 0Tcl-jer.e <1.01 .1 ,2 ,2-Tet r sch loroe thane < l . 2Chlcnbenzene < 1 . CEtr.vlcer.zene <1 .CStyrer.e <1.0Xyler.e Tota l ; < 3 . Cr i = - 1 , 2 - D i c h l o r o e t h e n e <1 .Ctrans-1.2-Diohloroethene <1.CEro-rchloroTiethane <1.S
1, 3 -Di rr . lorobenzene < 1 . C1 .4 -D ich lo robenzene < 1 . C
Thi> ivpon sh.ill not hi- ivprodui.T(.l c.sccpi in l u l l , w i t h o u t wntu-n ;i iuhoriz:>non ol T r i N k u i i . x L.ihorntoncs, Inc.l n d i \ i ( . l u . i l s.impli.1 ivsul ts ri.-l.ui.- only in ihc sample tcsiccl
G k - n u o o J M i l l s r . i r k \ v . u SE • I 'O Box SS86S)2 • Gr.ind R . ipu l s . Ml 4^88-8692 • if 161 973-4500 • F.i\ ^6161 S I 4 2 - 7 4 6 >
l l noi lv ii 'piochKvi.1 i:\v_vpl i l l f u l l , \ \ i i l io iu w r i i i c n n i i lh i ' r iza i ion of TnM:\ i r ix L;ihoraiorics. Inc .l i i i . l i v K l u . i l s . i inplc resul ts rcliiif only 10 ihi- sample icslccl.
P .uku.r . SI! • TO DON SSS6'-)2 • G r a n d R a p i d s . Ml -NT88-8W • (6161 975-4500 • Ta.s ( 6 1 6 )
TriMatrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 8270
Kent County DPW
S~z--. Xarrh lr?3 Sa-ples
2 2t S S3"*C lei: C 2 ' 3 2 • 3 3 T ItT.e : 14:13~ 3 •• & ~ i i — £ . - - / o ™ - r ": ~ 2 ~~ 5 **~ * —• - ~ 7 ~T 5
F1 u "* r a *"" h e r. e < c r *Pyrene <5.0Butyl Benzyl Phthalate <5.03,3'-^ichlcrcbenzidine <203enzr :ai Anthracene <5.CChrysene <5.0Bis ;2-ethylhexyl)- <5.0Phthalate2i-r.-Cctylphthalate <5.03enzr t: Flurranthene <5.CBer.zr "<. Flurranthene <5.CBer.zc 2 r^/rene <5.C
i:pio<.Ui<.vd cxivpt m f u l l , u i i h o u i wn t i cn ;uiihonznuon o f T n M . > i n \ L.>hor.\ioncs. Incl i K l i M i l u . i l s.iniplc tvsul ih rcl.uc only to I!K' sample U'Slccl.
PO Box 8SSo<-'2 • Gr.incl R.ipids. Ml 4^)588-86^2 • (616^ 075.4500 • F;ix (616^ 942-7--
Tri Matrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 8260
Kent County DPW2 = te = =—lei: C3 ,'3C, 55 Time: 13:342ate r.eceivei: C3/3C '55 Ti~,e: 17:15Ar.alvsis late: 14 /:2;5 =
hi> report shal l not he reproduced except in f u l l , w i thou t w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n of TriM.im\ Laboratories. Inc .I n d i v i d u a l sample resu l t s relate only to the sample tested.
555^ Olcnwood M i l l s P a r k w a y SI: • TO Box 888692 • G r a n d R a p i d s . Ml 49588-8692 • (.6161 975-4500 • Fax ( 6 1 6 ) 9 4 2 -
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONRSK-175
Kent Coucty DPW Suc~:ttal .'."jrirer 3432=- 3
5_r~: Xarrr. :?j? Sa-ples Analysis rate: C4.'12 r =Sa-=le: :-rn-:~i L = r Sa~rle Nc : 2154£ =
Result
Etr.ane <:E-hvler.e <;
TriMatrixLaboratories Inc.
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 8260
Kent County DPWProj: Sparta Landfill
Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-09
T'n-. u-pon sli.ill noi lv ix-prodm-cd c.\ccpi in ( n i l . withoi . i l wruu-n iuiihoi iz.uion of TnMamx Laboratories. Inc.l n c l i \ u l iMl s.impit.1 rcMih> rckiii' onk u^ the siiniplt.1 icslccl.
5535 Gl t iuvoo i l H i l U P . i r k \ v ; u Sli • PO Box S88692 • G r n n d R n p i d > . Ml -t9588-8M2 • (616" 1 075-4500 • F;i.x
Tri Matrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 8270
Kent County DPW
Pr.sr.; I <
'
•" * s 2.- "**"*"'"""** s<"s""**"'CwV'*vi -
<20<5. C<5. 0<5 .C<5.C
Hexarhl crcethar.e
Nir.rcber.zer.eIssph^rcr.e2-Sitr=pr.er.cl
B:s ^-Cr.Lcrse'r.sxyl -Ke-r.ar.e
1 .2 .4 -Tr: rr.lcrster.zene
:ar.i.ine
2 - V.e t r.y 1 r. ap T.t h i 1 e r.eHexachlcrccyrlsper.tadien2. t,. 6-7richlcrs?hencl
This ivpon ^h.ill PKM be ivpri>i.kii.<.-(.l cxccpi in full. \utlu>ui wruu-n auihonzation of TnM.unx Laboratories. Inc.inilivn.lu:il sampk- rcsuks \\-\MC i^nly 10 ihc sampk- icsiccl.
(.'.k-nuoul Hills r.nku.u SI: • TO Box 88S692 • Gr.iml R.ipids, Ml 4s>588-S6'J2 • ^6161 975-4500 • Fax (61M
TriMatrixlX>vr.zr:?l In-
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONDSEPA 8260
Kent Co'^scy DPW?'~' -. Scarta lar.dfill
ci-- • a - v;.;. - i
Sui r ' i t t a l J.'-r^er 3 4 3 2 6 - 3
: C 3 ' 3 2 '' 51 5 T 1 T.e • *"?'15r. — ~
Resultug/L
Tr.l rrcetr.ar.eXei.'-.vler.e Tr.IcriieAretcr.e
rer.zer.etrar .s- l , 3 -Iirl-.lcrcprcpene <l .2E rc rc f c r r " ' < i . c4 -xetr.yl -2-?er.rar.or.e <5C2 -H-jxar.cr.e <53Tetracr . l r roethene < l . C
< . . -
1,1,1 -Tn ci*.Icrcsih3r.sCarter. Tetrarhlcriie
1 , 1 . 2 , Z-Tetrachlcroethane <1 .CCr.l^rcrer.zer.e < l . OE " h°.r 1 b s r. 2 e r. 9 < 1 CSryrer.e < l . oXyler.e , 'To ta l ) < 3 . Ccis- 1 , 2 --irr.loroethene <1.Ctrar.s- 1 , 2 -Dichloroerher.e <1 .C
, -icrc-.ce.ane2 - — i c.*~ lo^ — r snz°" ^i -"i"r~~ ci""i!ropzo"^6
, 4 -Ci rr. 1 ~rcber.zer.e, 2 -Tihrcrro- 3 -
. • . ; ^- 'Ti'. .c^:ot-
.TriMatrixLaboratories Inc.
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 8270
Kent County DPWProj: Sparta Landfill
Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-08
""lus rcpon sh . i l l noi K- ri.-piin.kii.ct! cxccpi in f u l l , wiihoiu wr i t t en ;milion:;UKin of T r i M j i n x L.ihoraioncs. Inc.l iul i \ 'itlu.il s.implc results rcUtc only in ilu- sample tested
=1555 i ' ,K-n\ \o.vl H i l l s P .nku.u >C • I 'O lnv\ 888692 • G r a n d R.ipids. Ml 49588-8692 • ( t ^ \ b ) 975-4500 • Fax (6161 942-746" )
' l l u > iv pun r-h.ill nol lit1 rcpri'duLvd cxi-i/pi in f u l l . \ \ i i l ioul writ ten .uuhorn;uion of TnM.unv Uiliouioncs, Inc.l n c l i \ - i t l u ; i l i.impli.1 rcsulis rcl.ilc on ly lo thi.1 sample icsloil.
H-d H i l l s P . i r k u . i v SE • PO l'-u\ 888M2 • Gi;nul R a p i d s . Ml 4Q5SS-86Q2 • ( .616) 975-4500 • Fax l M C > 1 Q 4 2 -
Tri Matrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONDSEPA 8270
Kent County DPW
S-": Xarrh Irrr Sa-cles
IC:4S
—-~ = " v " " 3 ~ ~ "~ e " C 4 '' C "
Lac Ss~cle !."c: 215-4'
=esult
= is .*'--r.-crcethvi; Etr.er < : . .
2-Xetr.ylpr.er.::lHis ^-Chlcrciscprcpyl) -
^ _ , - - , _ , _ ^ _ ^ L^ ** . w
21 e t hy 1 p ht h a I a t e4 - Chi rrrcher.vlcher.vl -
1. 2 . 4-Trichlcrccer.zene <E.Naphthalene < 5 .4-ChIcrcar . i l i r .e < 2 :Hexachlcrob-jtaiie.ie <E4 -Chlcrc.-3-y.ethyIpher.3l <~2-Xetr.yIr.aphthaler.e <5HexachlcrDcyclcper.tadiene <~ .2 .4 .€-Tr ich lcrcphenol <52. 4 . S-Trichlcropher.cl <5
2-Chlc-rcr.aphthaIerie <52-Kitrcar . i l i r .e <2:"i^ethylphthalate <£Acer.aphthylene <52 . S--ir.itrotol-jene <5
Acer.aphther.e <5 .2 , 4-2ir.itrccher.cl <2!
2-Methylpher.c:N - N i t r c s r - d i - Pher.y 1 ar.i ne ^5 .04-5rc-ccr.er.yl Fher.ylether ^ 5 . CHexacr. l crcber.zene < ;5 .CFer.tarr.lcrcpher.cl < 1 . C
acer.e
n ervrer.e3-jtyl Ber.zyl Fhthalate3,3' -Tichlcrcber.ziclir.eBer.zc a! Aj-.thracer.eChryser.eBis !2 -ethylhexyl ) -?h thai ate" i - r . -Cc ty lph tha la teSer.zc :; FlucrantheneSer.zc i< i Fl -cr ar.tr.eneBer.zc a P^'rer.eIr.rienc ' 1 , 2 , 3 - r d ) Fyrer.e
<D . C
<1D
< 5 . G<5 . C<20<5. C<5. C< 5 . C
< 5 . C< 5 . C<5.C<5.0< 5 . C
Diber.zc a , h , Ar.thracer.e <5.0g . h , i , ' Ferylene
F.-.\
TriMatrixLaboratories. Inc.
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONRSK-175
Kent County DPWProj: Sparta Landfill
Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-08d
" h i - - ivport sh.ill nol Ix reproduce.! except in lull, without wntien .uuhoriz;uion of TnM.urix bihonuories, Incl nd iv idu . i l s.imple resul ts ivl.uc only lo the sample lesiecl.
( . . I c n u o . H l H i l l s t \ > r k \ \ . i v sE • PO Box 8886>J2 • Cr.md R ; i p i d s . Ml 4g588-86 lr)2 • 1.6 1M s)75-4500 • Fax
TriMatrix
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Kent County DPW
Jer.r.ifer — . Rice
Juar.titatior. UnitsLimit
Lac Sa-ple Nc:
?rc;ect Specific Fracti" Er.clrse:•JSEFA =2?C
Sampled by:Eate Sarpled:
Date Received:Tir.e Received:
?aae
.Tri MatrixLaboratories Inc.
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONOSEPA 8260
Kent County DPWProj: Sparta Landfill
Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: Trip Blank
1 lu> u-poii shall not lii.' reproduced c.xci'pl in f u l l , w i thou l w n t i f n ;uuhonz.uion of Tr iM. i lnx Laboratories. IIKl n c l i M c l u . i l j-.uiiplc i \-suks rchnc only 10 i l i f s.miplc tcsiccl
H'J H i l l s i \ n k u a \ SC • PO Box SSSf->g2 • Or.nul R. ipuls . Ml ^^588-869;2 • 16161 975-4500 • I :a\ 1 6 1 6 ) g42 -74o : ;
Tin- u'pon fl i . i l l noi Iv ivpvodui.ccl c\i.vpi m l u l l , w i t h o u t wni icn ;uuluM'i: .uinn v>l TnM.ur ix Lulionuoncs. Irw[ n c l i \ i c l u . i l s.impli- K-Mil is rc'l.uc onK in i lu1 >.unplc u>u-d
G l c - n u o o J H i l l s P . i i K u . u SE • TO Box SS8602 • (.".i.md R . i p i c U . \ l l 4 ^ T S S - « 6 y 2 • ( M o 1 "Ti.- t ivi i1 • [ :n\ vM(
Tin-, ivpon >h.ill not he ii/pri'ikn.i:i.l csccpi in full, sviihoul wniu-n auihonn.mon of TriM.unx Lnhoraiono. Int.l i u l i \ idu. i l >.impli.- ivMihs ri.-l.iU' only to I!K- s.xnipU1 Icsicd
5=155 G l t n u o o d M i l l s F\uku.iy SE • TO BON 8SS692 • Gr.nu! R . i p i d s . Ml 4O588-8frs>2 • i M 6 i 975-4500 • F.ix ^61
Tri Matrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONRSK-175
Kent County DPW
S-_t- : Xarcr. I r r 5 Samples
Z = :e S=T.plei: : 3 ; 3 I - 5 s Tir.e: C5:122ate = e r e i v e = : C3 3 1 . 9 5 7i-re: 14:10A_-.= lv5is Ca -e - . CV-2/S5
T h i > i i - p i ' U -h . i l l not he ivpi ' i>t l i . i i .< . ' i . l cxtvpl in l u l l , \ vuhou i w r u i o n . in i lmrizni ior . o l TnM;un\ l . . \K>rau>ru-s. Incl n c l i v i t k i . i l s.inipU- result id.uc cmly lo ihc sample lo-tcd.
C U - n u o o J l l i l l > r . : :ku.u ST. • TO Box SS8o°2 • Gr.irul U. ip ic l s . Ml 4^5S8-86°2 • ^10) 975-4500 • T.IN ^16^ 041.7-
TriNatrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTION0SEPA 8270
Kent County DPWlite £a-.rlei: C2.-21.9r 7i-e: C9:12~ = te r .ere ived: C2 '21 '?3 Tir.e: 14:10
Lac Ss-rle *-"c : 21r51=
?ara~eter .-ara-eter
Ether4-xethylpr.er.cl
, •; - Zir . i t re re luer.ee- .r .ylphrhalate
r lucrer.e
<5. C<5.C<5.0<5.3
<5.0<2D<2C
2 - N i t rcp..er.c. <:2.4-2:retr.ylpr.er.cl <:Bis 2-Cr.lcrcetr.cxyi - <:Metr.ar.e2.4-2icr.lcropr.er.cl <:1.2,4-Trichlcrci:er.zer.e <:Nacr.thaler.e < l
."-N"i t r c s e - di - Pher.y 1 an-.ir.e <5 . C- = re-.rpher.yl Pher.ylether <5.Cex=rr.l:rci:er.zene <5.C
Ar.tr.rarer.eCarcazcleri-r. -Sjtylphtr.alare
Hexarr.lcrrb^tadier.e
2,4 .5-Tr i rhIcrcpher .o l
Arer.apr.tr.er.e^ r . - .^ , - ,o—- a - - l^ . ' i -^ - . . -_ -w I - . .= ..—
Pyrer.eButyl Ber.zyl Fhrhala te2 . 2 ' -" irr . l rrcfcer .zidineBer.zc .a - Ar.tr.raceneZhryseneSis ;2-e thylr .exyl) -Pr.tr.alste3i-r.-Cctylpr.tr.al ate3er.zc c Flucrar.ther.eSer.zc >: FluDrar.ther.eSer.zr = P~/rer.eIr.ier.c 1 . 2 , 3 - c d ) PyreneCicer.z~ a , r . , Ar.thraceneBer.zr ' - . h , i , ', ?er-/ler.e
<5.C<1C<5.C<5 . C<5.C<5.0<2S<5.0<5.0<5.0
<5.C<5.G<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.C
?age
Tri MatrixLaboratories Inc.
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONRSK-175
Kent County DPWProj: Sparta Landfill
Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-03d DUP
Tlu> report s l i . i l l not He reproduced excep t in f u l l , wi thout wr i t ten .uiihoriz.uion of Tr iM.ur ix Laboratories. Inc .lncliviclu;\l >.imple results re hue only to the sample tested.
G l e i i u - - v ' J H i l l s n . i rkwiu SE • PO Bo\ 888(^)2 • G r a n d R a p i d s . Ml 4^588-86^2 • (6161 975-4500 • Fn\ ( 6 1 6 )
T l n > ivpou >h.i l l noi lit- reproduced csi.i.-pi in f u l l , w i ihou t u n l i c n .•uuhoni.inon o f T n N U u r i x Laboratories, Incl n c l i \ ic.lu.il D imple rcMi l t s rcbtc onk u> ihc simple icsicd
UcnuooJ H i l l s I \ uku . i \ ^E • TO Box SSStW • Gr.incl R.ipuls. Ml 4O5S8-8692 • (616^ v>75-4500 • f;ix
1 hi-. ivpon sh. i l l no! Iv ivpivilui.cc.1 except in f u l l , vu ihou l \vn l i cn .u i lhor iz .u ioN o f T n M . i m x L:\horaioncs. Inc.l i H l i v k l u . i l s.implc resul ts ivl.Uc only 10 t !u- sample icMcd.
t . l c n w i u d H i l l s I ' . n k u . i x SI: • TO l>o \ S8S6s)2 • G r a n d R . i p i d s . Ml -^5S8-S6^>2 • v O l C ^ ^"1-4300 • F.i\ 16161
i1 ivprin.kiivi.1 c\i-i.-pi in f u l l , w i t l u u i l u n i U ' n aiuhi'nz.iuon ol TnM.un.s Laboratories, hi tl i n . l u n l i i . i l s.impli: result > rel.ue only in I!K- siiniplc losu'tl
53=1 v . ' . - n x u ' . u His I ' . i r \ \ . i \ ^ • HO BON SS86L)2 • drniul R . i p u l s . Ml -4^^88-8692 • i ,61(O S)75-4500 • Fax ( 6 1 6 ^ 942-7-"" i
2 -Ni t r ca r .~ i r i e z v c r . t r . a a i eAcer.apr.thyler.e2 , € -Zir.i trctcluer.3-Nitrca^i l ineAcer.apht her.e2.4-Dir. i trccher.cl
<5 . :
<2:< 5
< 5
< 5
<2;< 5
<2;
Ar.-hracer.eZarcazc le
F lucrar.ther.ePyrer.e5-jtyl Ser.zyl Fhthala te3 , 3 ' - r i c h l r r c b e n z i d i n e3er.zr ' = • Ar.thracer.eChryser.e3 i s 2 - e t h y l h e x y l > -? h t h a 1 a t e2i - r . -Cr iy lch th= :a te3er.zr c r lucra-ther.e3er.zc <. ? 1-jcrar.rher.e3 e r. z r 2 ?~v r e r^ °Ir.cer.r 1 , 2 , 3 - c c l i Pyrene
<5.0
<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0<20< 5 . C< 5 . C<5 . D
<5.C<5.0<5. 0<5.0<5.0
r,icer.zr : a , h , Anthracene < 5 . CBer.zc g , h , i , ; Ferylene <5 .0
41
^TriMatrixLaboratories Inc.
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONRSK-175
Kent County DPWProj: Sparta Landfill
Gro'jndwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-01
" h i < ivpo i t > h a l l no i he reproduced except in l u l l , \ \ n h o u i u i n u - n au ihon ia i ion of TnM.unx Laboratories, Inc .Individual sample results relate only to ihe simple tested.
I ' . l e i m o i H l H i l l s P a r k u . i v SE • TO Box S8S692 • G r a n d R- ipuJs . Ml -f.)=)MS-S6O2 • i.MO'1 ^75-4500 • Fax 1 6 1 6 ^
TriMatrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONRSK-175
Kent County DPW Suir-.ittaL '."u-irer 34326- 3?rr" : Srarta Lar.ifill late £=~plei: I3.'31/33 Tir.e: 12:35
3rc_r.i-.ater Xrr.itcrir.r r = te F.ereived: 23 31 53 Tir.e: 14:10S-r-: Xarrr. Irr? Sa~cles Ar.alysis "ate: C4/12/55
rara~eter r.ss-.t r=rarr.eter Result
Etr.vler.e <2!
?a=e 51
^TriMatrixLaboratories Inc.
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Kent County DPWProj: Sparta Landfill
Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 Samples
Submittal Number: 34326- 2Location:Contact: Jennifer L. RicePhone: (616) 975-4500
T ii:- report > \ \ . \ \ \ run l ie ri.-proclin.-otl except in f u l l , w i t h o u t wr i t l cn au thor iza t ion of T n M a t n x Laboratories, Ine.I n d i v i d u a l sample resulis rol.no only to the sample tested
55=,5 ( . ' . l enuoo. l H i l l s P . i i k u . i y SE • PO Box 888692 • G r a n d R . t p i d s . Ml 4s>588-869: • 1^16) 975-4500 • Fn.\ (616) 9 4 2 - 7 - r l
TriMatrix
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Kent County DPW
~ c r. t a ~ ~ -.
Lai: Sarple No:
Units
Fr.ospr.orus. TotalHarir.ess. ,E2TA; as Ca:Carbcr., 7-tal Crgar.ic
T u^ rcpon s l u l l noi Iv ivproclu<.i:(.l c.\i_vpl in f u l l , uuhoi . i l wr incn ;iiuhon;.ilion of TnM;\iri.\ LaKiMiorics. Inc .lnc.liviclu.il s-inipk1 rcsuhs rcl;uc only u> ilic >aniplc icsiccl.
i , k - i u \ o o J I h l U r . i i - k \ \ . i \ St • PO Bo.\ 888692 • G r n n d R . ip ids . Ml 4^588-8692 • (6161 Q75-4500 • Fax (616) 942-74r . >
TriMatrix
PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 8270
Kent County CPWar.d
Sa-ple.- FieldBlank
I_=c S5~rle !.~~ : 21552C
rara-eter .-.55 _- Z Result
r.-.er.c .= :s 2 - Zhlcrcerhyl ! Ethe
Bis 2 -Thlzrciscprcpyl > -
•» -Xerhylpher.cl
H^xarhlcrce-hane
I^itrcbenzer.e
<;<5< 5< E .
2-K-rcphencl2 . 4 -riff.e-hylcher.cl
2 . • J - r i r . i t rc tc luene < 5 . C" l e t h y l p h t h a l a t e <5 . "
r l uc r ene < 5 . C4 - N i t r r a n i l i n e <204 , £ - r i r . i t r = - < 2 C2 -y5 r h'/1 chenc 1S- j r i t r c s2 -c i i -FhenylaT.ine <5 . C4 -Brr-.rpher.yl Phenylether < 5 . GHexarhlcrcbenze.ie < 5 . CPer.tarhlcrccher.cl < 1 . C
'I ln> iv port >h.ill not K- ivproclucc'J cM-cpl in l u l l , u u h n u i wr i t t en juthivir^lion of TnM.itnx Uiliorntoncs, Inc.L n J i v i c l u . i l Dimple ri>ulls ivl.uc onk' u> ilic Cample icsictl
5555 C' . lc-n\MvJ H i l l s r . i rku.u SC • TO !H-\ 888092 • Gr.;:-J R . i p i c U . Ml 4^588-86^2 • IM61 075.4500 • F.IN (M61 t . ) 4 2 - 7 4 ( >
APPENDIX B
Screening Level Risk Evaluation
APPENDIX B
SCREENING LEVEL RISK EVALUATIONOF THESPARTA LANDFILL SITE
SPARTA TOWNSHIPKENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN
Preparedfor;
Kent County Department of Public Works1500ScribnerAve.,N.W.Grand Rapids, MI 49504-3299
Prepared by:
Earth Tech, Inc.5555 Glenwood Parkway SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49588
Original Submission August 1999Revision 1 April 2000
Earth Tech Project No. 19324
Bl INTRODUCTION
As a pan of the RI in 1997. Earth Tech submitted a Focused Risk Assessment (FRA) to the U.S. EPA to
determine risks to potential receptors associated uith the Sparta Landfill (Landfill) located in Kent
Count). Michigan This risk assessment concluded that, although a single volatile chemical (benzene)
and several inorganic elements could be considered chemicals of potential concern, only arsenic was
detected in concentrations that exceeded excess carcinogenic risk benchmarks (1 \ 10"5) established by the
Michigan Department of Environmental Qualitv (MDEQ) or the carcinogenic risk range (1 x 10"4 to 1 \
10'*) established b> the US. EPA to determine the need for additional investigation or remediation. In
order to provide the agcncv u i th a streamlined e\aluat ion of nsk via exposure to potentially impacted
ground water, the 1997 FRA made use of a vanetv of data collected over a relatively long time frame to
characterize the potential for adverse health effects
Because some of the data used for the 1997 FRA did not meet Level IV Data Quality Objectives (DQO)
and the lapse of time over which it had been collected, a Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) was
developed to more adequate!) characterize risk associated wi th contaminants currently believed to be
originating from the landfill To provide sufficient data for the determination of risk and development of
remediation options, data meeting the DQOs and collected from 1996 to 1999 were used.
Based on this more recent data this nsk evaluation has been developed as a screening level assessment to
aid in the identification and evaluation of remedial options at the Sparta Landfill located in Kent County,
Michigan.
Data used in the evaluation were obtained from the RI and implementation of the monitoring plan
conducted from May 1996 to March 1999 for organic and inorganic constituents in the upper and lower
aquifers beneath the landfill The approach emploved follows the conceptual guidelines provided by the
L1 S EPA in its Risk Assessment Guidance far Super fond (U.S. EPA 1989) However, consistent with the
Supcrfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM). which has been designed to speed all aspects of the
Supcrfund Process, this risk evaluation should be considered a focused assessment of the potential for risk
to receptors associated with the Site
Exclusive of this introduction (Section Bl) . this report consists of the following sections.
A health risk assessment conceptual site model (CSM) for a site schematically describes the relationship
between the source materials and the potentially impacted human receptor populations. It details the
various known and/or potentially contaminated environmental media at a site and then describes the
various exposure pathways by which the human populations may come into contact with the site
chemicals in these media. Using the CSM, risk can be determined if pathways are deemed to be
complete. For this to occur, per U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA, 1989), the pathways must have:
• a contaminant source;
• a viable transport mechanism from the source;
• an exposure point at which the receptor may contact a contaminant; and
• an exposure route (i.e., oral, dermal, or inhalation) that permits the contaminant to physically betransported into the receptor and affect target organs.
Unless each of these elements is present, exposure cannot occur and risk can be concluded to be
negligible. This premise has been used to develop the CSM for the site shown in Figure Bl.
Figure Bl indicates the primary contaminant source as the on-site upper aquifer. Constituent transfer in
the upper aquifer may be facilitated via physical processes such as advection and dispersion and may be
limited by adsorption to soils and particles. Ultimately, it is assumed that groundwater in the upper
aquifer, may be contaminated from waste material within the landfill although the presumptive remedy
(i.e., capping) is intended to reduce and eventually eliminate contaminant contributions to the saturated
zone. Despite the understanding that the upper and lower aquifers are hydrologically separated, the
model conservatively assumes, for the purposes of the assessment, that contamination from the upper
aquifer can move to the lower aquifer via breaching of the clay aquiclude that has been detected in the
area. While such a breach is considered unlikely, in certain instances, such as unauthorized well
installation, drilling, etc., in the vicinity of the site were considered plausible for the purposes of the risk
\\aicr criteria are considered protectse because thi dr inking water cntena are much less than the indoor
air inhalation or dermal contact criteria for residential use or dermal contact criteria are not available
Oral exposure \ia the grounduater pathway is potential!) significant and is evaluated in the sections.
B6 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
Exposure point concentrations (EPC) are the concentrations to uhich potential receptors may be exposed.
As indicated by the U.S. EPA (1989). the EPC " is regarded as a reasonable estimate of the
concentration likely to be contacted oxer time " Several approaches exist that allow a determination of
the EPC, including calculation of a 95°0 Upper Confidence Limit on the mean or assuming that the
maximum detected concentration is equal to the EPC (I S. EPA 1992). In any instance, the use of the
maximum detected concentration as the EPC pro\ ides a highly conservative estimate of exposure and
nsk
This report defines the EPC as the maximum COPC concentration detected in either the upper or lower
aquifer.
The EPCs are shown in Table B? and compared to re levant screening criteria established by the MDEQ
(1999) The significance of this comparison is discussed below.
B7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The MDEQ has provided genenc residential grounduater criteria under Part 201 of Act 451 based in
large pan on health considerations (MDEQ 1999) However, for aluminum, iron and manganese, the
cntena are largely aesthetic (taste and odor) and have not been used to characterize risk. U.S. EPA
Region 9 has developed health-based concentration for a luminum and iron that were used to determine
nsk to receptors MDEQ has established a health based criterion for manganese (860 ug/L) and lead
(4 ugL) In this report, the charactenzation of nsk invo lves a comparison of EPCs for contaminants of
concern to pnmary or alternate groundwater qjali ty benchmarks referred to above (Table B3).
Specifically, this companson calculates the ratio of the maximum concentration (EPC,n») to the health
based screening level (Table B?) A nsk is considered present if this ratio is greater than 1.
Using this methodology, described above, and health-based cntena referenced in Table B3, iron, lead,
manganese, and nitrate-nilnte nitrogen presents a potential human health risk in the upper aquifer and
lead presents a potential human health nsk in the lower aquifer.
L "A ori. !*?:•» AJmm Rp« RIApndxB I p<S -J-I-S-OC *x B-" 0-T25/00
B8 UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION
Risk assessment protocols have been developed to ensure protection of potentially exposed individuals
(U.S. HP A, 1989). An understanding of the uncertainty associated with estimated potential risks is an
important consideration in the evaluation of remedial alternatives.
Significant sources of uncertainty in the risk assessment include the assumptions that:
• The COPC concentrations to which individuals are exposed are the maximum detected over thepast three years. Employing this assumption may over-estimate risk because the actual exposureconcentrations will probably be less than the maximum concentrations.
• Individuals currently using an alternative drinking water source (bedrock aquifer) will revert touse of the upper or lower aquifers at the site. This assumption probably over-estimates riskbecause individuals are unlikely to use the upper or lower aquifers.
• COPCs will continue to originate from the landfill with little if no attenuation. Employing thisassumption over-estimates risk because a major remedial action (capping) has been implementedand because natural attenuation will continue to reduce concentrations of some COPCs.
• In the future, individuals will drill into the upper or lower aquifers despite the fact that KentCounty permits are required to do so. Employing this assumption over-estimates risk becauselicensed well drillers are required to obtain a permit. In addition, the future groundwater useordinance will further prohibit the installation of wells.
• This risk assessment does not consider potential additive effects of potential exposures to severalchemicals. This may, depending on the chemicals and their effects, tend to slightly underestimate
risks.
• All source areas have been identified and considered in the risk assessment. Employing thisassumption under-estimates risk because there may be unidentified source areas. However, theuncertainty associated with this assumption is low because the source area, a landfill, is
well-defined.
• Non-carcinogenic risk is linearly proportional to COPC concentration. The application of severaluncertainty factors used to develop health-based criterion tends to over-estimate risk.
Overall, the significant potential for risk to be over-estimated strongly suggests that expenditures for
remedial option implementation be carefully examined.
Concentrations in groundwatcr downgradient of the disposal area of Sparta Landfill exceed D\V (aesthetic
and or drinking water critena) criteria However, the low concentrations of naturally occurring COPCs
present little nsk to potential human receptors since domigradient residents do not use the upper or lower
aquifers The hvpothelical future use scenario (i e . the use of the upper or lower aquifers as a drinking
water source) is believed to be unlikely gi \en local restrictions regarding unpermitted well installation.
However. Kent Count} for Sparta Township has submitted a groundwater use ordinance to the MDEQ.
The purpose of this ordinance is to further restrict groundwater use in the vicinity of the Landfill. The
groundwater use ordinance w i l l ensure that people ere not exposed to impacted groundwater.
In addition, a NIZD application was submitted to the MDEQ for a determination The mixing zone
determination will assist in the evaluation of ecological risks associated with discharge of impacted
groundwater, if any, to the Rogue River
Continued grounduater monitoring as specified in the Groitnd-HCiicr .Monitoring Plan (April 2000) has
been initiated to evaluate future conditions
*?:•« Atom Rp« RlApndvB l>* * 24-00 doc B-9 W25/00
BIO REFERENCES
Earth Tech 1997. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of the Sparta Landfill Site. SpartaTownship, Kent County, Michigan.
Earth Tech 1997. Focused Risk Assessment for the Sparta Township Landfill. Appendix R, RemedialInvestigation.
MDEQ 1999. Revised Part 201 Operational Memorandum #18 Cleanup Criteria Tables. MichiganDepartment of Environmental Quality. Memorandum from Alan J. Howard, Chief,Environmental Response Division.
U.S. EPA 1989. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. RJsk Assessment Guidance forSuperfund: Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim. Publication540/1-89/002.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Supplemental guidance to RAGS: Calculating the concentration term. Memorandumfrom Larry G. Reed, Director of Hazardous Waste Site Evaluation Division, OERR, OERR9285.7-081.
U.S. EPA 1994. Guidance for Performing Screening Level Risk Analyses at Combustion FacilitiesBurning Hazardous Wastes. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Office of SolidWaste.
U.S. EPA 1999. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals 1999.Http://w\vw.epa.gov/region9/waste/sfund/prg
U.S. EPA 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document. Office of Solid Waste andEmergency Response Publication No. 9355.4-17A. EPA/540/R-95/128.
lt*k«vMl In tm tn HflllMll r*l«l»l In u«(v»rllfMl w«M . «»loy u»B
N O t l SAll vrtlu^-. IH.I" .ili<il m, nn,| I'n.l .'.'in 11 nii,lnnlinl I iniikiMU Wnlni Mnmla.'N unlr«» nlhniwl>n itiilir.mnil •• hnkrw" ^ In' IK itlrn i«n nnilmu n nf I'm I ,'(l 1 ( iilwalnr Sutlflf P Wntnr Inlpifnr.n I .rltarlaNoln = Inilinn ,M'|I. .tint nn n,[ nrilniK n III I'ml 7111 ' ..ocindwnlol Cnnlac I Clllonil
/Vof» •• ll.-iin o ni'li- ;ili"< ".i npilnni p ol I'ml 201 No«nlnnlinl C.iininilwnlnr Vnlnlill/nnon lo Inilooc Ait l.ihnlnllnn CrllorH* = Inilii nlp« ii|igimlipnl wf*ll
Less than Region 9 Health Based Concentration (PRG-3.6x \Q4 ug/L)Leu than Region 9 Health Based Criteria (PRG-1 .1 x104 ufl/L). In background well MW-08D. Retained as COPC since iron ii a COPC foi upper aquifer
Less than Federal Action Level of 0 015 mg/LLess than Federal Action Level of 0.01 5 mg/LLess than Region 9 Health Based Criteria (PRG-8.8 x104 ug/L). In background well MW-060. Retained a* COPC since manganese is a COPC for upper aquifer.Insufficient Data Quality to use in Risk A»se»imentDetected in Upgradient Well. Retained as COPC since ammonia nitrogen i* a COPC for upper aquifer.
NOTES:All values indicated exceed Part 201 Residenlial Drinking Water Standards, unless otherwise indicated as below.•• = Indicates exceedance of Part 201 Groundwater Surface Water Interface CriteriaNole= Underline indicates an exceedance of Pan 201 Groundwaler Contact Crilena.Nole - Italics indicates exceedance of Part 201 Residential Groundwater Volatilization to Indoor Air Inhalation Criteria.• = Indicates upgradient well"• = Indicates excsedance of Part 201 Groundwater surface Water Interface Criteria (GSI), and upgradient well.
L:\wofk\19324\piojadm\D1A(T2
Table B3Risk Characterization
Sparta Landfill
Upper Aquifer
FINAL COPCs
AluminumBarium, dissolved or Total
Iron, dissolved or TotalLead, dissolved or Total
Manganese, dissolved or TotalNitrogen, Ammonia
Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite
EPC maxug/L
2S40210
29^0051 5
6-307589
1ECOO
Health BasedCriterion
25COO2000
11. COO4
860NA
10000
Health BasedCriteria Reference
U S EPA Region 9 PRG
MDEQ Res HB-OW
U S EPA Regions PRG
MDEQ Res HB-DW
MDEQ Res HB-OW
NA
MDEQ Res HB-OW US EPA MCL
Ratio
00820.105358212.887.128
NA1.8
Risk
NoNoYesYesYesNAYes
Lower Aquifer
FINAL COPCs
AluminumIron, dissolved or TotalLead, dissolved or Total
Manganese, dissolved or TotalNitrogen, Ammonia
EPC maxug/L
€2001C600
59280
42 1
Health BasedCriterion
25COO11.000
4860NA
Health BasedCriteria ReferenceU S EPA Region 5 PRG
US EPA Region S PRG
MDEQ Res HB-OW
MDEQ Res HB-OW
HA
Ratio
0.1720.9641.7250.326NA
Risk
NoNoYesNoNA
L A'crk 15224 Dl&d2
ContaminantSource
TransportMechanism
SecondarySource
ExposureRoute
Adsorption,Advcction,Dispersion
Dermal
RECEPTORS
Current Use
CurrentResidents
Incomplete
Incomplete
Incomplete
Incomplete
Incomplete
Incomplete
Future Use
HypotheticalResidents
PotentiallyComplete
Negligible
Incomplete
PotentiallyComplete
Negligible
Incomplete
PATHWAY EXCLUSIONRATIONALE
Current: Mcdrock GW Supply Used
Current: Bedrock GW Supply Used
Future: No Dermal Absorption
Current: Bedrock GW Supply Used
Future: COCs Non-Volatile
Current: Bedrock Supply Used
Current: Bedrock GW Supply Used
Future: No Dermal Absorption
Current: Bedrock GW Supply Used
Future: COCs Non-Volatile
Figure B1
Conceptual Site Exposure Model
Sparta LandfillE A R T H
* ft/CD 1*
T E C H
Sparta19324
APPENDIX C
1998 Mixing Zone Evaluation
APPENDIX C
MIXING ZONE EVALUATION
This appendix presents Earth Tech's Mixing Zone Analysis for the discharge of potentially impactedgroundwater at the Sparta Landfill to the Rogue River. This evaluation is very conservative and is a"worst case" evaluation based on the available data. The evaluation is based on the MichiganDepartment of Environmental Quality, Environmental Response Division's Operational Memorandum# 17, Instructions for Obtaining Determinations on Mixing Zone-Based Groundwater Surface WaterInterface Criteria for Inclusion in Remedial Action Plans and Monitoring Compliance with Criteria forDischarges of Groundwater Contaminants to Surface Water (December 23, 1997) and on Administrativerules for Part 31 of Public Act 451 of 1994, as amended. The objective of this evaluation is to determineif there is a reasonable potential for groundwater impacted by the Sparta Landfill to cause concentrationsof chemicals in the river to exceed the Groundwater-Surface Water Interface (GSI) criteria.
The selected chemicals are the chemicals (except mercury) with concentrations in groundwater at one ormore locations that exceed the groundwater-surface water interface (GSI) criteria established pursuant toPart 201 of Public Act 451. Although concentrations of compounds detected in PZ-04 were consideredduring this mixing zone calculation (since PZ-04 is the closest monitoring point to the Rogue River), thehighest concentration detected in any monitoring well was used. This was a very conservative approachbecause some of the wells utilized are quite a distance from the landfill and likely not representative ofconcentrations at the actual groundwater-surface water interface. This selection considers everychemical (except mercury) detected at the landfill, regardless of background concentrations or sourcesrelated to well construction and sampling. Thus the selection of chemicals is conservative, and nochemicals have been eliminated from the evaluation that had concentrations above GSI criteria. TheScreening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (Appendix S of the Remedial Investigation) provides asummary of the analytical data.
Mercury was not included in the mixing zone evaluation because Part 31 does not allow mixing zones tobe used for mercury. Mercury was detected once in one temporary well at the analytical detection limitand was not detected in a duplicate sample from the same well. With the exception of this detection,mercury has never been detected during any sampling event.
The evaluation includes estimating the chemical loads to the river, estimating concentrations in themixing zone of the river and comparing the estimated mixing zone concentrations to the GSI criteria.
CHEMICAL LOADS TO THE RIVER
To evaluate the chemical load to the Rogue River from the Sparta Landfill, the rate of groundwaterdischarging to the Rogue River must first be calculated. To ensure that chemicals detected above the GSIcriteria were not a threat to the Rogue River, the volumetric groundwater flow rate (Qe) was calculatedbased on these conservative assumptions:
• The average aquifer thickness downgradiem of the landfi l l is 40 feet.
• All eroundwater xents to the Rogue Ri \ e r downcradient from the landfill and the plume isapproximate!) 1.500 feet wide when it discharges to the Rogue River. Therefore, the cross
sectional area I A) of the plume that discharges to the river is the saturated thickness (40 feet)
times the plume width 11.500 feet) which is 60.000 ft-.
• The hydraulic conductivity (K) of the aquifer is 187 6 ft/day. This hydraulic conductivity value
is the geometric mean of the hvdraulic conductivin values determined from slug tests performed
at MW-OI. MW-03. and MW-0~.
• The hydraulic gradient (I) varies from 0.01 to 0.0031. The hydraulic gradient of 0.01 is the
average hydraulic gradient across the landfill: whereas, the 0.0031 hydraulic gradient is
representative of the hydraulic gradient downgradient from the landfill.
These variables were used in Darcy's equation (Qe = K * A* I) to calculate the quantity- of water that
flows (Qe) through the 1,500-foot long segment Qe was calculated for both the 0.01 and 0.0031hydraulic gradients. The calculated Qe using a hydraulic gradient of 0.01 is 112,560 ftVday (1.30 ft3/sec);whereas, the calculated Qe assuming a hydraulic gradient of 0.0031 is 34.894 ft3/day (0.404 ftVsec.)
The load of each chemical that exceeded the GSI criteria was determined for both volumetricgroundwater flow rates (112,560 ft3'day and 34,894 ft3/day) based on the highest detection of eachchemical. The input variables and results are summarized in the following table.
Clerical
Ethyl benzene
Xylenes
Zinc, total
Zinc, dissolved
Lead, total
Lead, dissolved
Arsenic
Nitrogen, ammonia
HighestGrouodwater
CoRcentratMMi (Ce)or 95 % UCL
<"|&/L)
0.056
0.091
652
3.5
0.051
00104
0.264
11
SampkLocation Date
Sampled
MW-03D(51-54')(4'16'%)
MW-03D(51-54')(4 16^)
MW-07(5 1396)
MW-01 (5 10-96)
MW-07(5 13^6)
MW-04(5"796)
HP-04(4 18-96)
MW-C3(5996)
1=0.01
Load toRiver
(CcxQe)dug/day)
178,515
290.087
20,784,231
3,187,766
162^76
33,153
841,570
35.065.421
l=.0031
Load to River(CexQe)(mg/day)
55^40
89,927
6,443,112
3,537,782
50,399
10.277
260,887
10,870,280
DP EUB m XcmCtv 19324 OT.TccfaMcmo C-2Kc-Spana J909
MIXING IN THE RIVER
The potential concentrations of selected chemicals of potential concern in the Rogue River wereestimaled using a mixing zone model. The model is identical to the model used for developing wasteload allocations forNPDES permits from R323.1209 of the administrative rules for Part 31 of the NaturalResources and Environmental Protection Act, Public Act 451 of 1994, as amended. The model is:
where:Cm = ((Ce x Qe) + (Cb x Qb))/Qb+Qe
Cm = concentration in mixing zone;Ce = concentration in groundwater discharging to the river;Qe = flow of the groundwater discharging to the river;Cb = Concentration in background river samples; andQb = flow of the river.
The river flow (QbXused depended on the basis for the GSI criteria. The GSI criteria for arsenic, &hylbenzene, xylenes, lead , zinc and nitrogen ammonia are based on chronic toxicity to aquatic life (FCV).
The river flows were obtained from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The 95%exceedance flow for the month of lowest flow is 53 cfs. One quarter of the 95% exceedance flow for themonth of lowest flow was used for Qb for arsenic, ethyl benzene, xylene, lead and zinc. The 95%exceedance flow for the month of lowest flow was used for nitrogen ammonia. These flows are specifiedby administrative rules for Part 31 (R323.1090 and 323.1082).
The background concentrations of chemicals in the Rogue River was determined from the stream surfacewater analytical results.
COMPARISON TO GSIAVATER QUALITY VALUES
The GSI criteria are the same as the Water Quality Values developed pursuant to Part 31. The criteria forsome of the chemicals were adjusted to the river hardness. The concentrations of total ammonia nitrogenwere adjusted to un-ionized ammonia using the pH and temperature of the river. Appendix Q of theRemedial Investigation Report describes these adjustments. The adjustments are consistent with Part 31Water Quality Values.
A summary of the estimated concentration for each chemical in the mixing zone (Cm) is provided belowwith the applicable GSI and with these chemicals, this is the FCV.
Chemical
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Zinc, total
Zinc, dissolved
Cm (mg/L)for
1= 0.01
5.0 x 10-'
8.1 x 10-'
5.8 x 10-'
3.2x10-'
Cm (mg/L)for
1=0.0031
1.7x10-'
2.7 x 10-'
1.9 x 10-'
1.0 x 10-'
Chronic Toxicity toAquatic Life Value
(FCV)
1.8 x 10-2
3.5 x 10-2
2.8 x 10-'
2.8x10-'
DP HUB m:\KentCty\19324.07\TechMemo C-3
KC-Sparta 1910
Chemical
Lead, tout
Lead, dissolved
Arsenic, dissolved
Nitrogen, ammonia
; Cm (rag L)! for
1=0.01
46x 10
9.3 x 10-
2.4 x 10:
26x ia
! Cmdngl-): for
1=0.0031
Chronic Toiicity toAquatic Life Value
(FC\")
: 5\ 10 3.1 x ia:
3.0.x 10 3.1 x 10-:
- ,8x 10 1.5 x 10
00832 not applicable
unionized ammonia I 8x 10-" 5.8 x 10" 2.9 x ia:
•TMDL = 5x 10--"The concentration is adjusted to the rH and temperature measured in the n\er
Using the estimates of Qe and the most conservative estimate of the concentration of each chemical in theaquifer, there were only two exceedances of the GSI criteria. These exceedances were for total anddissolved zinc.
The source of the zinc is likel> the galvanized well casing that the older monitoring wells (MW01,MW02. MW03. MW04. MW05. MW07 and MW08) are constructed. The three newly-installed wells,MW03D, VfU'OTD. and MW08D. are constructed of stainless steel and groundwater collected from thesewells did not contain detectable quantities of zinc. In addition, groundwater collected from thebackground well, MW08, contained the second highest concentration of zinc. This lends support to theexplanation that the concentrations of zinc in the groundwater are unrelated to the landfill.
The mixing zone calculations indicate that groundwater associated with the landfill is not detrimentallyaffecting the Rogue River.
LLLL
DP HUB m KentOV 19324 CTTediMano C-4KC-Sparta 1911
11 ATTACHMENT A
1 MIXING ZONE CALCULA TIONS
] HYDRA ULIC CONDUCTIVITY = 0.0031
c:\my d.jcuments\attachmenta.doc KC-Sparta 1912
Ethyl BenzeneSparta Landfill; Rogue Rlvar Mixing Zona Evaluation
Zone HighestWell/Sample
MW-03D 151-54')
Ce(mg/L)
0.056 0.056
Date
4/16/96
Total
Cb (mg/L)Qb (CFS)
Qb (L/day) (Quarter of flow)Total Mb
Total Cm (mg/L)
0.01 Less Than53
32416157324161.568
1.66E-03
HNV i:WV:HCL:FCV:
Qe MeL/day mo/day
98R207 5534000000
988207 r>r>340
8.90 rno/lNA Kio/lNA mg/l
0.018 mg/l
oto
F:lvandarfc\projacta\taladyna\Mlxlng2 Page 1
-J
(
Zone
123456
Monitoring Wells
XylenesSparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing Zone Evaluation
HighestWell/Sample
MW-03D (51-54')
Ce(mg/L)
0.091 0.091
Date
4/16/96
Total
Qe MeL/day mg/day
988207 8992700000
988207 89927
Cb (mg/L)Qb (CFS)
Qb (L/day) (Quarter of flow)Total Mb
Total Cm (mg/L)
0.01 Less than53
32416157324161.568
2.69E-03
HNV#:WV:HCL:FCV:
83 mg/LNA mg/LNA mg/L
0.035 mg/L
VO
3?
F:lvBndertc\projectt\tBledvne\Mixing2 Page 2
Zinc, TotalSparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing Zont Evaluation
Zone Monitoring Wells Highest Ce Date Qe MeWell/Sample (mg/LI L/day my/day
1 MW-07 6.B2 6.52 5/13/98 988207 644311200000
Total 988207 (5/14311?
Cb (mg/L) 0.01 Leas than HNV *: 22 mg/LQb (CFS) 53 WV: NA m0/L
Qb <L/day) (Quarter of flow) 32416157 HCL: NA mg/LTotal Mb 324161.568 FCV: 0.283 mg/L
Total Cm Img/L) 1.93E-01Zinc. Dissolved
Sparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing Zone Evaluation
Zone Monitoring Wells Highest Ce Date Qe MeWell/Sample (mg/L) L/day mg/day
1 MW-01 3.58 3.58 5/10/96 988207 35377822 03 0
S °9 Total 988207 3537782v>
I Cb (mg/L) 0.01 Less than HNV #: 22 mg/L5 Qb (CFS) 53 WV: NA mg/LS Qb (L/day) (Quarter of flow) 32416157 HCL: NA mg/L
Total Mb 324161.568 FCV: 0.283 mg/LTotal Cm (mg/L) 1.0591E-01
F:lv*nderMproJecti\teledyne\Mixlng2 Page 3
Lead, totalSparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing Zone Evaluation
1. Concentrations are in ug/l, except as noted.2. Zinc not included due to presumed false positive detection.
3. Influent Concentration is the 95% upper confidence limit concentration except for other parameters, which areaverage concentration based on a biased selection of samples.4. Effluent Limit is lowest value from MNREPA Part 201 Generic Criteria.NA = Not applicable; no standard applies.5. Mass removed = X mg/l x 8.345 Mgal/day/(mg/l) x 0.864 Mgal/day6. For constituents with concentrations below their effluent limit, a removed concentration is assumed based onexperience.7. Concentration shown for metals is the higher of either total or dissolved.
8. Hardness "Assumed Concentration Removed" is "Influent Concentration"for iron and manganese, which contribute to carbonate hardness.
minus "Assumed Concentration Removed"
mass reml 8/10/99 2:03 PM
[ . f. 7 K
ttfCO
T E
.r 6.PROJECT
CALCULATION
/ -- /
Ob/tit /
-I ':
f
H>***'. f -,/
'
^tfL -^V^AC
\i
y
0
FQ52 Genera!
Appendix D
Upper Aquifer Capture Zone CalculationsSparta Landfill
Problem:
Solution:
Where:
Calculate the capture zone perpendicular to the flow or capture zone width.
Based on Javandel and Tsang (1986), the capture zone of multiple wells, pumping at Q is given by:
nQ/(2Kbi)
Q = pumping rateK = hydraulic conductivityb = saturated aquifer thicknessi = horizontal hydraulic gradientn = number of wells
43 gpm or0.0430 cm/sec or
22 feet0.015
12
8278 ft3/day121.0 ft/day
EstimatedEarth Tech, 1999aEarth Tech, 1999aEarth Tech, 1999a (MW-08 to MW-02)Estimated
Calculation: nQ/(2Kbi)
1244 feet Capture Zone Perpendicular to groundwater flow.
A more conservative calculation is parallel to flow or capture zone length or stagnation point.
t If you do not receive pages (including cover page), please call us as soon as possible(616) 942-9600 - Glenwood Bldg 1st floor(616) 940-4400 - Glenwood Bldg 2nd floor(616) 975-4600-Glenwood Bldg 3rd floor(616) 940-4300-CharlevoixBldg(616) 954-3770-Survey
All rights reserved. This publication is f u l l y protected bycopyright and nothing that appears in it may be reproduced,either wholly or in part, wi thout special permission.
Crane Co. specifically excludes warranties, express or implied, asto the accuracy of the data and other information set forth in thispublication and does not assume liabil i ty for any losses ordamage resulting from the use of the materials or application ofthe data discussed in (his publication.
Pipe
To
CRANE CO.104 N. Chicago St.
Joliet, IL 60434
Technical Paper No. 410
P R I N T E D I N U . S . A .
(Twenty Fifth Pr in t ing—I99I)
B-14 APPENDIX B - ENGINEERING DATA C R A N E
Flow of Water Through Schedule 40 Steel Pipe
Discharge
Gulli.ru.r<r
M i n u t e
Cubic 1 iper
Second
Pressure Drop per 100
i ty Drop i ty Drop i t>
Fee: Lhs Feel Lbs Fee;per per pc-r per per
Second S^j In Second S>; In Second
feet and Velocity in Schedule 40 Pipe for Water at 60 F.
Drop ity Drop ity Drop ity Drop ity Drop ' ity Drop
Lbs Feel Lh> Feet Lbs Feet Lb* : 1 cc: Lb« Feet Lbsper per per per per per per per per ; per per
Su In Second Sq In S"cond Sq In Second Sq In Second Sq In .Second Sq In
Vi" VV 3/s" Vi".2.3.4.5.6.8
12345
68
10IS20
2530354045
50607080SO
100125150175200
225250}TCit O
300325
350375400425450
475500550bOOb50
700750800HSO900
950000100200300
400500
1 6001 8002 000
2 SIX)3000350040004500
5000600070008 0009 OIK)
10000120001 4 0001600018 CM20000
0.0004460.0006680.0008910.001110.001340.00178
0.002230.004460.006680.008910.01114
0.013370.017820.022280.033420.04456
0.055700.066840.077980.089120.1003
0.11140.13370.15600.17820.2005
i 0 .22280.27850.33420.38990.4456
0.5013' 0.557
O hl 77. Ol it
0.66840.7241
0.77980.83550.89120.94691.003
.059
.114
.225
.337
.448
.560
.6711.7821.8942.005
2 . 1 1 72.2282.4512.6742.896
3.1193.3423.5654.0104.456
S.570(-.6847.7988.912
10.03
11.14
1 H 1.86 0 PIP 0.3591 .pu 4 ,21 () U24 0.903 0 5042 . 2 o 6.9e. i 23 i .6 i o t-7:: 62 10.5 1 54 2.39 0 840) 3" 14.7 1 85 3.29 1 014 52 25.0 2 40 5.4-1 1 34
5 P5 37.2 3 Ob 6.28 1 tv°11 24 134.4 • p IP 30.1 3 3o
. 2Q (li 5.83 .22 <H 3.18 118 47 1.85 12 77 0.723 . .32 P8 7.31 25 82 4.03 :20 77 2.32 14. Ih 0.907 ...I f - . 51 9.03 28 PO 4.93 23 OR 2 . 8 6 l | 5 . P 6 1.12 .. .
For pipe lengths oth:r than 100 feet, the pressure drop is proportional to thelength. Thus, for 50 feet of pipe, the pressure drop is approximately one-halfthe value given in the table . . for 300 feet, three times the given value, etc.
Velocity is a function of the cross sectionalflow area: thus, it is constant for a givenflow rate and is independent of pipe length.
for calculations for pipe other than Schedule 40, see explanation on next page.
C-fl=r-*»I
E-fl
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site
Kent County, Michigan
Table E-1Conceptual Cost Summary
Summary Cost Item
CAPITAL COST
Alternative 3:Alternative 2: Groundwater
Monitored Natural Extraction andAttenuation (1) Treatment w
$0 $1,528,800ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
Annual Costs - Years 1 and 2
Annual Costs - Years 3 to 30PRESENT WORTH OF O&M '"(Years 1 to 30)TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST (Capital and O&M)
Annual O&M cost assumes analysis of VOCs, SVOCs, and additional parameters in Table E-2 in groundwater monitoring wells andresidential wells for first two years of quarterly monitoring. Next 28 years assumed as annual monitoring with analysis for Table E-8parameters only. All costs rounded to nearest $100.
Annual O&M cost includes same monitoring program as for Alternative 2, plus O&M for groundwater extraction and treatment system,and effluent monitoring as described in Table E-5.Based on interest rate of 5%, inflation of 3%.
Summary of O&M Costs for Alternative 3: Groundwater ExtractionOperate Groundwater Wells - Upper Aquifer (Table E-2)Operate Groundwater Wells - Lower Aquifer (Table E-3)Operate Treatment System (Table E-4)Groundwater Discharge Monitoring (Table E-5)Groundwater Monitoring Costs (Same as Alternative 2)
Qunrlrrl) ArlMlIrtS.llll|llf I n l l r i l l l l l l i l l l l l A l L l l y M l
I'.ii.i Uu.ihiy HI-MI * jnil KqxitiI '|lll.lll l . lMr» I II Mil I lul ls . .Illll 1)1
< i i i i i | > . n I M I I I in < i r m - i i i I i i l i - iuI ' l l - | i . n r I .K ( . In . i i l i ' iK I r l l r t Kr |H i l l
Sr Knur
101 \IS
I'ro) MBr
1>
ii
1
H
<;ro/M)itr
K(,
•1
in
4>
U
( ADD
tt
t,
AilllllB
i»
M
InUl1 uhniIlllllfX
H7
1
1.'l-l
1
1 i
(>t
^7
I'HO.IK 1 I HAl«.tS
1 nlmr
IA.K.PMl IKV .'i|i|VSl,(,
V M'.
v>.' 'V. |S|
V 4 v |
H.K17
t >|irn«r«
I2,7«)VI . 1 'Ml
VII
VII
Ml
Ml
VII
VII
M2.710
tnUl K«l.
( n«l»
\I(..5H7VI.1 KSX
V.''l'lVM.f i
V ' 1 '•
VI.'
V-IM
V. |v |
M(i,'iH7
It.lM' K.lll- (I1)')'))
Uvnliciiill'ni[il_IciUll Cliuigrmil K.llc
17
Si 1 M|ll
Mnlitiin41 4470 4S11 I1 '
1 2 t OK
7
I'm; MJJI1 IIW
Id 411dl KH
' JH t
HIK II
13
lirn llvdr1 nw
I'lHI)1 1 Mi
S H
<X HI
i>0
I A l > l >Mnliiim
:: 41)IK itfi (17
Ml Kl)
?oAiliiun
NU'ilniniIK ')')
I.1 ,'Ks I 1
V, .ill
I'age I I \wnrkM<>.124'cng>all 2
Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site
Kent County, Michigan
TABLE E-7Cost EstimateAnnual Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting
ID Work Task
Annual ActivitiesSample Collection and AnalysisDala Quality Review and ReportI fpdate Tables, Trend Charts, and Drawing to Reflect DalaComparison to Generic CriteriaI'repare/QC Annual Letter ReportRevise ReportSubmit to Sparta
TOTALS
Sr Engr
1
1
Proj Mgr
12
221
8
Geo/Hydr
842
1042
30
CADD
4
4
Admin
22
4
8
TotalLaborHours
511
12102
1367
51
Base Rate ( 1 999)OverheadProfitTotal Charge-out Rate
17Sr EngrMedium
41.4470.4511 .19
123.08
7Proj Mgr
Low36.4061.88
9.83108.11
13Geo/Hydr
Low19.8033.66
5.3558.81
26CADDMedium
22.4938.23
6.0766.80
29Admin
Medium18.9932.28
5.1356.40
PROJECT CHARGES
Labor
$3,469si osS7WSftl.iSI 18S927S45I$451
$3,469
Expenses
$2,830S2.X30
$0$0SO10
SO$0
$2,830
TotalEstimated
Charges
$6,299$2.1>3X
S7<WS(> 1 5S I I SS<>27S451S45I
$6,299
8/11/99 1:33 PM L:\work\19324'enjj ' .alt_2
Focused Feasibility StudySoarta Landfill Site
Ken1 County. Michigan
TABLE E-8Cost EstimateAnalytical Costs for Annual Monitoring Parameters
Analytical Parameter
Metals by 6010Mercury (~4~0)Lead(6020)Chromium. Total (6020)Chromium. Hexavalent < ~ 1 9 6 )
An ordinance prohibiting the use of certain groundwater wells for the delivery ofwater for human consumption:
THE TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA HEREBY ORDAINS:
Section 1. Findings.
The Sparta Township Board hereby finds that the use of wells for the delivery oruse of water from or on certain premises for human consumption constitutes a potentialpublic health risk. The identified public health risk affects certain premises, definedbelow as the "restricted zone", that are located in the vicinity of the closed SpartaLandfill where there is a known and identified threat of contaminated groundwater. TheSparta Township Board has determined to prohibit certain uses of water from wellslocated in the restricted zone in order to protect and minimize public health risks.
Section 2. Definitions.
For purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply
a)The term "secondary water supplies" shall mean only water supplies fromwells.
b)The term "restricted zone" shall be defined as the area consisitng of theSparta Landfill located at 10216 Alpine Avenue and certain nearby parcels asdescribed below and shown on Appendix A:Parcel number Street Num. Street Name41-05-24-300-013 10185 Alpine AveNW41-05-24-300-021 10214 Alpine AveNW41-05-24-300-022 10216 Alpine AveNW41-05-24-300-020 10246 Alpine AveNW41-05-24-300-006 10279 Alpine Ave NW41-05-24-300-016 10295 Alpine AveNW41-05-24-300-017 10321 Alpine AveNW41-05-24-300-003 10345 Alpine AveNW41-05-24-300-007 10380 Alpine AveNW41-05-24-300-002 10385 Alpine AveNW41-05-24-300-009 10216 Alpine AveNW41.05-24-400-001 10216 Alpine AveNW
-1-
c) The term "human consumption'1 means use in food or drink intended forhuman ingestion, use in food preparation or food service, use in the interior of a dwellingor dwelling unit served by such well for any household purpose, and use in any buildingfor personal washing or ingestion by humans. The term "human consumption" does notmean use of water for irrigation.
d) The term "MDEQ" means the Michigan Department ofEnvironmental Quality or its successor agency.
e) The term "contamination" means groundwater contamination inconcentrations that exceed the residential drinking water criteria established by theMDEQ pursuant to Part 201, Environmental Remediation, of the NaturalResources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451 as amended, byoperational memorandum or rule.
Section 3. Prohibition of the Use of Secondary Water Supplies for HomanConsumption: Exceptions.
Unless specifically excepted by Sections 4 through 7 of this Ordinance, the use ofany secondary water supplies within the restricted zone for human consumption isprohibited after the effective date of this Ordinance. No new well may be installed withinthe restricted zone unless use of such well is solely for use other than for humanconsumption, such as, but not by way of limitation, for commercial or industrial non-contact cooling or processing purposes, construction de-watering, irrigation, MDEQ orUnited States Environmental Protection Agency approved groundwater monitoring orremediation systems, or public emergency.
Section 4. Exception: Water Scrvke Unavailable.
If an approved municipal water supply (or a private water source from premisesoutside the restricted zone) are unavailable to premises within the restricted zone and awell is tested and approved by the MDEQ, Drinking Water and Radiological ProtectionDivision or the Kent County Health Department, and written proof thereof is delivered tothe Township annually, a secondary water supply within the restricted zone may be usedtemporarily for water for human consumption until the municipal water supply (or privatewater source from premises outside the restricted zone) is available to the premises withinthe restricted zone. No split or conveyance of any premises shall be effective to render amunicipal water supply unavailable.
-2-
Section S. Exception: Special Well Techniques; Existing Special Wells.
On any premises within the restricted zone where special well constructiontechniques or screening of a well at a depth not affected by contamination would allowthe secondary water supply to be isolated from the contamination, the TownshipSupervisor shall, with the concurrence of the Kent County Health Department, execute awaiver allowing the use of a secondary water supply for human consumption. Specialwells have been installed by Kent County to serve residences within the restricted area ata depth not affected by contamination. These special wells existing as of the effectivedate of this Ordinance shall be permitted for use as a secondary water supply for humanconsumption.
Section 6. Exception: Non-Contact Cooling or Process Water.
The use of water from wells within the restricted zone for non contact cooling orprocessing for manufacturing or commercial activities, which use is approved by theMDEQ and all governmental agencies having jurisdiction, is permitted.
Section 7. Exception: Public emergencies. construction de-watering.
Use of wells within the restricted zone for public emergencies, construction de-watering purposes or for irrigation purposes shall not be prohibited by this Ordinance.
Section 8. Modification or Repeal of this Ordinance: Notice to Interested Parties.
In the event this Ordinance is considered for modification or repeal, where saidmodification or repeal will allow the use of secondary water supplies within the restrictedzone for human consumption, this Ordinance shall not be modified or repealed exceptupon 30 days notice to the MDEQ.
Section 9. Penalty; Permit Denial. Remedies.
a) Civil Infraction. Any person, corporation, firm, or other entityviolating this Ordinance, including but not limited to the maintenance, use orinstallation of a water supply for human consumption from a secondary watersupply as prohibited by this Ordinance, shall be responsible for a civil infractionand subject to a civil fine of not less than $50 plus costs and other sanctions foreach violation, as authorized by Sparta Township Ordinance No. 96-4, asamended, and other applicable laws. Repeat offenses under this Ordinance shallbe subject to increased fines in the amounts as provided by Ordinance No. 96-4.The Township Supervisor is the authorized Township official to issue and servemunicipal civil infraction citations for violation of this Ordinance.
-3-
b) Building or Improvement Permit. No permit for building, alterationor other required permit for a premises within the restricted zone or improvementthereon shall be issued by the Township for any premises found in violation of thisOrdinance, or where it is proposed to install or use a secondary water supply inviolation of this Ordinance.
c) |rjimctive Relief. The Township may further enforce this Ordinanceby action seeking injunctive relief.
Section 10. Scvembilitv.
In the event any pan of this ordinance is finally determined to be invalid orunenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said determination shall notaffect the validity of the remaining provisions.
Section 11. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days after publication.