RI/FS WORK PLAN ADDENDUM (COVER LETTER ATTACHED) · GEA/ndj/GEA [ndj-107-84] cc: Mr. Jack Dowden...

Na 0 0 0 0 0 8WARZYN

'i & Scienrrsts"en!tii ServicesManagement

.jter Resources

•j,i-r«rnn'r;ii Art .->••,,• •.

13452.99Mr. Jae LeeRemedial Project ManagerU.S. EPA - Region V230 South Dearborn Street 5HS-11Chicago, Illinois 60604

Re: Hagen Farm RI/FS Work Plan Addendum

Dear Mr. Lee:

At the request and authorization of Mr. Jack Dowden, we are providing youthree (3) copies of the Hagen Farm RI/FS Work Plan Addendum. This documentaddresses the Phase 2 Site Investigation along with a Source Control OperableUnit Feasibility Study.

We are transmitting copies of this document under this letter to theWisconsin DNR.

Please call us should you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

WARZYN ENGINEERING INC.

Gregory t./AsburyProject Manager

GEA/ndj/GEA[ndj-107-84]

cc: Mr. Jack Dowden (w/o Enclosures)Ms. Theresa Evanson - WDNR (3)

Warzyn Engineering IncOne Science Court

University Research P.irkPO Box 5385

Madison. Wisconsin 53705(608)273-0440

WORK PLAN ADDENDUMRemedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

Hagen Farm SiteDane County, Wisconsin

INTRODUCTION

This Work Plan Addendum addresses additional work to be performed as part of1) the Phase II Site Investigation (SI) and 2) a Source Control Operable UnitFeasibility Study (SCOU).

The scope of the Phase II SI was derived following the phased Iterativeapproach based on the results of Phase Ir and 1s outlined 1n TechnicalMemorandum Number 1 (Tech. Memo 1) and notes from the subsequent April 13,1989 Meeting between Waste Management of Wisconsin (WMWI), Unlroyal, U.S. EPA,Jacobs Engineering and Warzyn Engineering Inc. Objectives of the Phase II SIare to:

• provide Information regarding migration pathways, nature of the source,and extent and magnitude of contamination;

• fulfill specific data requirements of the applicable remedialtechnologies; and

• fulfill specific data requirements of the Endangerment Assessment (EA).The SCOU 1s Intended to present relevant Information needed to allow for theselection of a first phase site remedy. The SCOU will conform to Section 121of CERCLA; the National Contingency Plan (NCP), as amended; FS Guidance, asamended; and U.S. EPA policy. The OU process 1s comprised of:

• Development of Remedial Alternatives,

• Detailed Analysis of Alternatives,

• Treatability and Supplemental Remedial Investigations (1f necessary),and

• Operable Unit Feasibility Study Report.

Work Plan Addendum -2- July 12, 1989' Hagen Farm Site 13452.99

Dane County, Wisconsin

SCOPE OF WORK

SITE INVESTIGATIONThe Phase II SI Includes the following Work Plan Subtasks, associatedactivities and data quality objectives:

3.1 Source Characterization3.1.4 Leachate Head Wells - Source characterization for riskassessment and feasibility study analysis

3.2 Migration Pathway Assessment3.2.1 Meteorological Investigation - Contaminant characterization andtransport analysis for risk assessment

. 3.2.3 Hydrogeologlc Investigation - Contaminant characterization andtransport analysis for risk assessment and feasibility study analysis

3.3 Contaminant Characterization3.3.3 Groundwater Quality Assessment - Groundwater characterizationfor risk assessment and feasibility study analysis

Modifications or additions to the Work Plan necessary to Include Phase IIactivities are detailed 1n the following sections. Table 1 summarizesproposed Phase II activities using the format of Table 2 (Site InvestigationActivity Summary) of the Work Plan.

3.1 Source CharacterizationW 3.1.4 Leachate Head Wells

Additional leachate samples will be collected from leachate headwell LH-1 andgroundwater samples will be collected from the five source characterizationwells (SCW1 to SCW5) to supplement the leachate sampling. Sample collectionwill follow procedures described under Activities 3.1.4 and 3.3.3 In the WorkPlan and Sections 5.4 and 5.6 of the Sampling Plan (Appendix A of the QualityAssurance Project Plan QAPP). This Information will supplement previoussampling results. Samples will be analyzed for EPA TCL VOCs and THF, selectedmetals (barium, lead and mercury) and Indicator parameters (alkalinity,sulfate and chloride). Leachate Headwell LH1 and source characterizationwells SCW2 and SCW4 will also be sampled for EPA TCL BNAs (refer to Table 2).Analytical parameters are based on results of previous source characterization(Subtask 3.1).



3.2 Migration Pathway Assessment3.2.1 Meteorological InvestigationCollection of on-s1te meteorological Information will continue Into the PhaseII SI. This activity will remain as specified 1n the Work Plan (Activity3.2.1).

3.3 Contaminant Characterization3.3,1 Air Quality EvaluationFurther air quality Investigations will not be conducted. This 1s based uponWaste Management's assumption that at a minimum, a containment remedy whichmitigates air quality Impacts will be required and baseline risks do not needto be established to substantiate the need for a response action. A1r qualityIssues will be addressed 1n the Implementation analysis for action orientedalternatives. Baseline air quality risks.will be evaluated only if the NoAction alternative 1s selected for the Hagen Farm Site.

3.3.3 Groundwater Quality AssessmentThis activity Includes Installation of additional groundwater monitoring wellsand sampling of selected wells for selected analytical parameters. Welllocations and parameter selection are based on results of the SourceCharacterization and the Migration Pathway Assessment presented In Tech Memo 1and subsequently modified to Incorporate U.S. EPA comments.

Fifteen soil borings will be instrumented with groundwater observation wells,^ Including seven water table wells and eight piezometers. Eight wells will be

located south of the site, one well will be located north of the site, and sixwells will be located within the sit* property boundaries. A summary of thewell Installation program 1s presented 1n Table 2 (revised Sampling PlanTable 1). Proposed locations of these wells (except P22B) are Included 1nTech Memo 1, Drawing 13345-F9. Well P22B win be located near existing wellMW22. Locations may be modified based on field observations and consultationwith property owners. Procedures will be as stated 1n the Work Plan underActivities 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 with the following exceptions:

• Groundwater samples collected while drilling will be collected at 10 ftIntervals as specified 1n the Work Plan Modification dated August 25,1988. VOC analyses will be performed at Warzyn's analytical laboratoryrather than on-s1te.

Work Plan Addendum -4- July 12, 1989Hagen Farm Site 13452.99Dane County, Wisconsin

• VOC, pH and conductivity results will be used to determine depths forpiezometer screens, except 1n the case of piezometer P-17C. At thislocation, the screen will extend approximately 10 ft Into bedrock tomonitor the uppermost bedrock zone. Piezometer P-17B was previouslyInstalled directly above the bedrock during Phase 1. In the case of theother piezometers, 1f groundwater screening does not provide Informationto determine screen depth (e.g. no VOCs detected), the piezometer willbe screened at a depth which will maintain approximately 25 ft ofvertical separation between the piezometer and the water table wellscreens.

• If a piezometer 1s to be screened at a depth several feet or more abovethe bottom of the boring based on VOC results, the hole may be abandonedand a new boring drilled for well Installation.

• Note that these wells will be used to obtain groundwater levels andhydraulic conductivity tests will be performed on these wells as part ofActivity 3.2.3 (Hydrogeologlc Investigation).

Well construction details will be modified to Incorporate WMI specifications.A typical well diagram 1s shown 1n figure 1. Well construction will followFigure 2 of the Work Plan and Section 5.6 of the Sampling Plan (Appendix A,QAPP) with the following exceptions.

• The filter pack will be extended 5 ft above the top of the well screen.This distance may be reduced 1f geologic or hydrogeologlc conditionswarrant, to maintain the separation of aquifers or accommodate watertable well construction 1n areas of shallow groundwater. A 2-ftdistance was previously specified 1n the Work Plan.

• The filter pack seal will consist of a 2-ft clean fine sand filteroverlain by a 3-ft bentonlte pellet seal, overlain by a 6 1n. clean,fine sand filter. Previously, only bentonlte pellets were used.

• 10-ft locking anodlzed aluminum protectors will be Installed. A 6-1n.vertical clearance between the PVC well pipe and the top of protectorwill be maintained to facilitate optional Installation of a dedicatedsampling pump.

• Well protectors will be filled with dry bentonlte pellets below theground surface and coarse sand and/or pea gravel above the groundsurface. A 1/4 1n. diameter hole will be drilled 1n the well protectorto allow water to drain out of the annular space.

• Central1zers may be used as necessary to assure that the well screen andpipe are centered within the borehole.



Groundwater samples will be collected from 29 new and existing groundwatermonitoring wells and analyzed for selected chemical parameters determined bythe Source Characterization. Sample locations and parameters are summarized1n Table 3. A summary of sample types and numbers Is presented 1n Table 4(revised QAPP Table 3). Samples will be collected, handled and analyzed 1naccordance with protocols and procedures described In the Site Sampling Planand QAPP.

Prior to sampling previously Installed wells MW7, MW9 and MW12, they will beInspected and modified 1f necessary to meet the following criteria:

• Inner well pipe 1s capped,• protective casing can be lockedr and• concrete surface seal 1s Intact.

These wells will also be redeveloped prior'to sampling 1n accordance withWisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 141 guidelines and Activity 3.2.3 ofthe Work Plan. Locking steel protective casings on source characterizationwells SCW1 to SCW5 will be removed and replaced with anodlzed aluminumprotectors as. requested by WMWI.

OPERABLE UNIT FEASIBILITY STUDYThe purpose of the Source Control Operable Unit (SCOU) Feasibility Study forthe Hagen Farm Site 1s to develop and evaluate alternative response actionswhich will be protective of human health and the environment. The response

i . actions developed could be Initiated prior to Implementation of a full siteremedy and should be considered the first phase of remediation, consistentwith achieving a permanent overall remedy.

The SCOU will conform to Section 121 of CERCLA as amended by SARA; the NCP, asamended; and the FS Guidance, as amended. The SCOU will be comprised of thefollowing tasks:

Task 6: Development of Remedial Action Alternatives,

Task 7: Screening of Alternatives,

Task 8: TreatablHty and Supplemental Remedial Investigation (1fnecessary),


Task 9: Detailed Analysis of Alternatives,

Task 10: SCOU Feasibility Study Report, and

Task 11: Community Relations Support.

The Intent and purpose of each of these Tasks 1s outlined 1n the followingsections. The technical approach and schedule for each of these Tasks 1s alsodiscussed.

TASK SCOU 6 - DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVESThis task may be viewed as consisting of steps that Involve makingsuccessively more specific definitions of potential source control remedialactivities. These steps are described as follows:

TASK SCOU 6.1 - DEVELOP REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVESSite-specific objectives for source control remedial actions will beestablished for the Hagen Farm Site considering the description of the currentsituation, Information gathered during the RIf Section 300.68 of the NCP (asamended), U.S. ERA guidance, and the requirements of other applicable U.S.EPA, Federal, and Wisconsin environmental standards, guidance, and advisories.

These objectives will consist of source control operable unit-specific goalsfor protecting human health and the environment. They will specify: thecontamlnant(s) of concern; exposure route(s), and receptor(s); and anacceptable contaminant level or range of levels for each exposure route.

Acceptable exposure levels for human health will be determined on the basis ofrisk factors and contaminant-specific applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirements .(ARARs). Contaminant levels 1n each media of concern will becompared with these acceptable levels, which will be determined on the basisof an evaluation of the following factors:

* For carcinogens, whether the ehenlcal-spedflc ARARs within the U.S.EPA's target risk range of 10** to 10"', and whether achievement of eachchemical-specific ARAR will sufficiently reduce the total risk fromexposure to multiple chemicals?


• For noncardnogens, whether the chemical-specific ARARs are sufficientlyprotective 1f multiple chemicals are present at the site;

• Whether environmental effects (1n addition to human health effects) areadequately addressed by the ARARs; and

• Whether the ARARs adequately address the significant pathways of humanexposure Identified 1n the baseline risk assessment.

The ARARs for the specific contaminants of concern will be used along with therisk assessment process to establish acceptable exposure levels for thevarious chemicals.

TASK SCOU 6.2 - DEVELOP GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONSGeneral response actions describing those actions that will satisfy theremedial action objectives for the SCOU will be developed. These may Includetreatment, excavation, containment, extraction, disposal, Institutionalcontrols, or some combination of these.

TASK SCOU 6.3 - IDENTIFY VOLUMES OR AREAS OF MEDIAIn this subtask, an Initial determination will be made of areas or volumes ofmedia to which general response actions might be applied. This will be donefor each medium of Interest for the SCOU.

TASK SCOU 6.4 - IDENTIFY AND SCREEN REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PROCESS OPTIONSIn this subtask, a wide range of potentially applicable technology types andprocess options will be screened by evaluating the options with respect totechnical ImplementablHty. "Technology types" refer to general categories oftechnologies, such as chemical treatment, thermal destruction, solidification,capping, etc. "Technology process options" refer to specific processes withineach technology type. Various technology process options may exist 1n eachtechnology type. This screening will be accomplished by using Informationavailable from the RI to screen out technologies and process options that donot appear to be effectively 1mple«etitable at the Hagen Farm Site for sourcecontrol.


TASK SCOU 6.5 - EVALUATE PROCESS OPTIONSIn this subtask, the technology processes considered to be Implementable forsource control will be evaluated 1n greater detail before selecting one or twoprocesses to represent each technology type. One, or 1n some cases, two,representative processes are selected, 1f possible, for each technology typeto simplify the subsequent development and evaluation of alternatives withoutlimiting flexibility during remedial design. Process options are evaluatedusing effectiveness, Implementabmty, and cost criteria. These criteria areapplied only to technologies and the general response actions they areIntended to satisfy, not to the site as a whole. The evaluation willtypically focus on the effectiveness factor.

TASK SCOU 6.6 - ASSEMBLE ALTERNATIVESSCOU alternatives will be assembled using.a combination of general responseactions and the process options selected to represent the various technologytypes. Alternatives to be developed will Include at least the following:

• Treatment alternatives for source control that eliminate or minimizeneed for long-term management (Including monitoring);

• Alternatives Involving treatment as a principal element to reduce thetoxlcity, mobility, or volume of waste;

• An alternative that Involves containment of waste with little or notreatment but provides protection of human health and the environment,primarily by preventing exposure or reducing the mobility of the waste;and

• A no-action alternative.

The alternatives will be developed to present a range of actions for sourcecontrol at the Hagen Farm Site.

TASK SCOU 6.7 - ALTERNATIVES ARRAYTo obtain ARARs from the State and Federal agencies, a detailed description ofthe SCOU alternatives (Including the extent of remediation, contaminant levelsto be addressed, and method(s) of treatment) will be prepared. This documentwill also Include a brief site history and background, a site characterization


that Indicates the contaminants of concern, migration pathways, receptors, andother pertinent site Information. A copy of this Alternative Array Documentwill be submitted to the appropriate State and Federal agencies, along withthe request for ARARs.

TASK SCOU 7 - SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVESThis task 1s Intended to reduce the 11st of potential alternatives, which wereassembled 1n Task 6.6, to a more manageable number to be evaluated 1n detail.This task Is comprised of the following subtasks:

• The alternatives are further defined as appropriate;

• The refined alternatives are screened on a general basis consideringtheir effectiveness, 1mplementab1l1ty, and cost; and

• A decision 1s made, based on this evaluation, as to which alternativesshould be retained for detailed analysis.

TASK SCOU 7.1 - ALTERNATIVES DEFINITIONIn this subtask, alternatives will be further defined to form a basis forevaluation and comparison prior to screening. Sufficient quantitativeInformation to allow differentiation among alternatives with respect toeffectiveness, ImplementablHty, and cost will be developed. Parameters thatmay require additional refinement Include the extent or volume of contaminatedmaterial and the size of major technology and process options.

TASK SCQU 7.2 - SCREENING EVALUATIONIn this subtask, defined SCOU alternatives will be evaluated against short-and long-term aspects of three broad criteria: effectiveness,ImplementablUty, and cost. These are described as follows:

" Effectiveness - SCOU alternatives will be evaluated to determine whetherthey adequately protect human health and the environment; attain Federaland State ARARs and other applicable criteria, advisories, or guidance;significantly and permanently reduce the toxldty, mobility, or volumeof the hazardous constituents; are technically reliable; and areeffective 1n other respects. The consideration of reliability willInclude the potential for failure and the need to replace the remedy.


- Imp1ementab111ty - SCOU alternatives will be evaluated as to thetechnical feasibility and availability of the technologies that eachalternative would employ; the technical and Institutional ability tomonitor, maintain, and replace technologies over time; and theadministrative feasibility of Implementing the alternative.

* Cost - The cost of construction and long-term costs to operate andmaintain the alternatives will be evaluated. This evaluation will bebased on conceptual costing Information and not a detailed costanalysis. At this stage of the SCOU FS, cost will be used as a factorwhen comparing alternatives that provide similar results, but will notbe a consideration of the screening stage when comparing treatment andnon-treatment alternatives.

TASK SCOU 7.3 - ALTERNATIVES SCREENINGBased on the screening evaluation 1n Task 7.2, alternatives with the mostfavorable composite evaluation of the three screening criteria will beretained for further consideration during.detailed analysis. Alternativesselected will preserve the range of treatment and containment technologiesInitially developed, In addition to the no-action alternative.

TASK SCOU 8 - TREATABILITY AND SUPPLEMENTAL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONSData requirements not already available through the RI that are specific tothe SCOU remedial alternatives Identified for detailed analysis 1n Task 9 willbe Identified. These additional data needs may Involve the collection ofadditional site characterization data, supplemental remedial Investigations,or treatablllty studies to better evaluate technology performance.

TASK SCOU 8.1 - DETERMINATION OF DATA REQUIREMENTSAdditional data needs can be Identified by conducting a more exhaustiveliterature survey than was originally conducted when potential technologieswere Initially being Identified. The objectives of a literature survey are asfollows:

• Determine whether the performance of those technologies underconsideration have been sufficiently documented on similar wastesconsidering the scale and the number of times the technologies have beenused.

• Gather Information on relative costs, applicability, removalefficiencies, O&M requirements, and Implementablllty of the candidatetechnologies.


• Determine testing requirements for bench or pilot studies, If necessary.

TASK SCOU 8.2 - TREATABILITY TESTINGTreatablHty testing performed during an RI/FS 1s used to adequately evaluatea specific technology, Including evaluating performance, determining processsizing and estimating costs 1n sufficient detail to support the remedyselection process. It 1s not Intended to be used solely to develop detaileddesign or operating parameters that are more appropriately developed duringthe remedial design phase. Bench-scale or pilot-scale techniques may beutilized but, 1n general, treatablllty studies will Include the followingsteps:

• Preparing a work plan (or modifying the existing work plan) for thebench or pilot studies;

• Performing field sampling, and/or bench testing, and/or pilot testing;• Evaluating data from field studies, and/or bench testing, and/or pilottesting; and

• Preparing a brief report documenting the results of the testing.

Chapter 6 of the U.S. EPA's draft Guidance for Conducting RI/FS Under CERCLA(March 1988) provides Information regarding this Task.

TASK SCOU 9 - DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVESSection 121 (b)(l)(A-G) of CERCLA outlines general rules for cleanup actions,and establishes the SARA statutory preference for permanent remedies, and fortreatment and/or resource recovery technologies that reduce toxldty, mobilityor volume of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants. Further, 1tdirects that the long-term effectiveness of alternatives be specificallyaddressed and that at a minimum the following be considered In assessingalternatives:

• Long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal;

• Goals, objectives and requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act;

• Persistence, toxldty, mobility and propensity to bloaccumulate ofhazardous substances and their constituents;



• Short- and long-term potential for adverse health effects from humanexposure;

• Long-term maintenance costs;

• Potential for future remedial action costs If the alternative were tofall; and

• Potential threat to human health and the environment associated withexcavation, transportation and redlsposal, or containment.

Each alternative will be defined 1n sufficient detail to facilitate detailedevaluation and comparison. Typically this activity may Involve modificationof alternatives based on ARARs, refinement of quantity estimates, technologychanges, or site areas to be addressed.

i, • The U.S. EPA has developed nine evaluation criteria to be used 1n feasibilitystudy alternatives analysis. Consideration of the criteria 1s Intended tosatisfy the statutory requirements, and to enable the decision maker tocompare alternatives and select a remedy that will:

• Be protective of human health and the environment,

• Attain ARARs, or provide grounds for Invoking a waiver,

• Be cost effective,

• Use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to themaximum extent practicable, and

• Satisfy the preference for treatment that reduces toxldty, mobility orLj volume as a principle element (or provide an explanation for why It does^ not).

The evaluation of alternatives task 1s basically a three-stage process,consisting of the following:

• Detailed development of alternatives,• Detailed analysis of alternatives, and• Comparison of alternatives.

Each of these steps 1s described 1n the following sections.


TASK SCOU 9.1 - DETAILED DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVESEach alternative will be defined 1n sufficient detail to facilitate subsequentevaluation and comparison. Typically, this activity may Involve modificationof alternatives based on ARARs, refinement of quantity estimates, technologymodifications, or site areas to be addressed. Prior to detailed definition,the final conceptual alternatives will be agreed on by Waste Management andthe Agency.

TASK SCOU 9.2 - DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVESThe alternatives will be evaluated with respect to nine criteria. The nineevaluation criteria encompass technical, cost and Institutionalconsiderations, compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements, andstate and community acceptance. Each evaluation criteria Is briefly discussedbelow.

• Short-Term Effectiveness - The assessment against this criterionexamines the effectiveness of alternatives In protecting human healthand the environment during the construction and Implementation perioduntil response objectives have been met.

• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - The assessment of alternativesagainst this criterion evaluates the long-term effectiveness ofalternatives 1n protecting human health and the environment afterresponse objectives have been met.

• Reduction of Toxldty, Mobility and Volume - The assessment against thiscriterion evaluates the anticipated performance of the specifictreatment technologies.

• Implementabllltv - This assessment evaluates the technical andadministrative feasibility of alternatives and the availability ofrequired resources.

• Cost - This assessment evaluates the capital and O&M costs of eachalternative.

• Compliance with ARARs - The assessment against this criterion describeshow the alternative complies with ARARs, or, 1f a waiver Is required,how 1t 1s justified.

• Overall Protection - The assessment against this criterion describes howthe alternative as a whole achieves protection and will continue toprotect human health and the environment.

Work Plan Addendum -14- July 12r 1989Hagen Farm Site 13452.99Dane County, Wisconsin

• State Acceptance - This assessment reflects the State's (or supportingagency's) apparent preferences or concerns about alternatives.

• Community Acceptance - This assessment reflects the community's apparentpreferences or concerns about alternatives.

In addition to these nine evaluation criteria, one additional criteria 1srequired to be considered when evaluating operable unit alternatives. Thisbeing that each alternative must be compatible with possible overall siteremedies.

TASK SCOU 9.3 - COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVESAfter each alternative has been analyzed against each of the criteria, acomparative analysis will be conducted. The purpose of this analysis 1s tocompare the relative performance of alternatives with respect to eachevaluation criterion. The narrative discussion will describe the strengthsand weaknesses of the alternatives relative to one another with respect toeach criterion, and how reasonable variations of key uncertainties wouldchange the expectations of their relative performance. If Innovativetechnologies are being considered, their potential advantages 1n cost orperformance and the degree of uncertainty In their expected performance (ascompared with more demonstrated technologies) will also be discussed.

TASK SCOU 10 - OPERABLE UNIT FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTFeasibility Study activities and results will be described and documented 1n areport. A SCOU report covering previous activities will be prepared andsubmitted 1n draft form to the U.S. EPA and the WDNR for review and comment.A meeting will be scheduled to discuss U.S. EPA and WDNR comments prior topreparation of the draft final report by Warzyn.

The draft final SCOU report will be placed by the U.S. EPA 1n publicrepositories for public review and comment. Following the public commentperiod, should It be determined that, based on the public's comments, the SCOUreport requires revision, and 1f so requested, Warzyn will prepare and submitto U.S. EPA and WDNR such a revision, or, the U.S. EPA will prepare therevision Itself.

Work Plan AddendumHagen Farm SiteDane County, Wisconsin

-15- July 12, 198913452.99

TASK SCOU 11 - COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUPPORTA program for community relations support will continue throughout the SCOU FSprocess, through to selection of a source control remedy. This supportprogram will be consistent with that provided under the RI.

PFJ/MSR/skb/GEA/AJS/SGW[skb-600-46a]

LeachateHead-ells

SubtaskNo.

3.1

Soils 3.2Characterization

HydrogeologicInvestigation

Type*

LA

IK, LA

3.2 IH, FA

Surface Hater/Sediments 3.2 IHInvestigation

Meteorological 3.2 IHInvestigation

Groundwater 3.3 IK, LAQualityAssessment

TABLE 1PHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY SUMHARY

UORK PLAN ADDENDUMHAGEN PARK RI/FS

Description

Collect leachate samplesgroundwater samples from

. hollowor r t fw r f f l g t T O B F e r Split spoon soil sampleswill be collected at nine locations according to SPT methods.Samples will be visually classified in the field. Selectedsamples will be analyzed in the laboratory for particle sizedistribution and \ volatile residue.

= "̂™wi»' iw» •̂ ••" ^T"T 1̂1* L^V' -*»"• ••»)•!« — • • « ™••—•installed as part of the Groimowater Quality Assessment(Subtask 3.3). Screened augers or rotary boring with clearwater will be used during drilling. Water samples will beanalyzed on-site for pH and conductivity and at Warzyn 'sAnalytical Laboratory for VOCs. Groundwater level measurementswill be made at new and existing wells. Single well hydraulicconductivity tests will be performed at new wel ls.

Surface water elevations will be determined at three existingstaff gauge locations concurrent with groundwater levelmeasurements.

Meteorological information will be collected by on-site weatherinstrumentation.

Collect groundwater level M4sureaenu and groundwater samplesfrom tMMw-BfM MM mi «JtWla| •Mritarlng wtlls; analyze samplesfor parameters determined by Phase I Source Characterization(Subtask 3.1). Selected wells will include seven water table wellsand eight piezometers to be installed and incorporated into theHydrogeologic Investigation (Subtask 3.2).

NOTES

' IH • In-Situ MeasurementFA • Field AnalysisLA • Laboratory Analysis

" Anticipated number of samples does not include multiple rounds or parameters.

13114.07 JFK/skb/RCW/PFJ/JDO [j tv-400-05]

Results

Lab results for 1,selected parametersdetermined by Phase Isource characterization.

Soil boring logs, 1.lab analyses forparticle sizedistribution and %volatile residue,

Well construction 1.logs, fieldvertical profilesfor pH, conductivity, 2.and VOCs, groundwaterelevations and hydraulicvalues. 3.

Surface water level 1.elevations.

Alibi en t air 1.temperature, humidity,baronetric pressure,wind speed anddirection readings.

Groundwater 1.elevations andgroundwaterconcentrations ofselected chemical 2.parameters.

3.

Anticipated Ho. ofInvestigative

Utilization Of Data Samples**

Evaluate source contamination for 6 LAEndangerment Assessment (EA) andFeasibility Study (FS) analysis.

Characterize site soils for nioration pathway 15 LA (soil)evaluation, to determine potential contaminantcharacterization routes; serves as basis forEA and FS analysis.

Locate geological strata of potential (liquid)contaminant migration. 22FA(LA)

Estimate groundwater f low direction andrate for contaminant characterization.

Estimate vertical extent of subsurfacecontamination and locate piezometer screendepths,

Estimate potential for contaminant migration 3 IHfrom the site by surface water/sediment route.

Estimate potential of air for contaminant 4 IHmigration.

Evaluate extent and magnitude of groundwater LAcontamination. Z9 LA

2TTR

Supply data for the EA.

Provide a basis for remedial alternativescreening for the FS.

TABLE 2

Observation Proposed BoringWell Number Depth (ft)P17C

P22B

HW25

P25B

62

50

15

40

ProposedScreenInterval

57-62

45-50

5-15

35-40

HU26

P26B

HU27

P27B

HU28

P28B

HU29

P29B

HU30

P30B

MU31

PJF/skb/AJS[jlv-400-05a]

30

55

25

50

20

45

35

60

20

45

60

20-30

50-55

15-25

45-50

10-20

40-45

25-35

55-60

10-20

40-45

50-60

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PHASE I! OBSERVATIONWELL INSTALLATION PROGRAM

WORK PLAN ADDENDUMHAGEN FARM RI/FS

GroundwaterSample While Soil Sampling

MethodDrillingnone

none

none

none

none

none

none

none

SPT 25-50

none

SPT 0-40

none

SPT 0-55

none

SPT 0-50

none

SPT 0-45

none

SPT 0-60

none

SPT 0-45

SPT 0-60

Soil Samplefor Analysis

Rationale for WellInstallation

Evaluate vertical flow component and groundwater quality inbedrock south (downgradient) of the disposal area.Evaluate vertical flow component and groundwater qualityadjacent to and downgradient of the disposal area.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality near the drainage swale southeast (downgradient) ofthe disposal area.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality near the drainage swale southeast (downgradient) ofthe disposal area.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality southwest (downgradient) of the fill area.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality southwest (downgradient) of the fill area.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality south (downgradient) of the site.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality south (downgradient) of the site.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality adjacent to Sundby's pond, south of the site.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality adjacent to Sundby's pond, south of the site.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality southwest (downgradient) of the site.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality southwest (downgradient) of the site.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow component and waterquality south (downgradient) of the site.Evaluate horizontal and vertical flow components and waterquality south (downgradient) of the site.Evaluate background horizontal flow component and waterquality north (upgradient) of the site.

TABLE 3

PROPOSED PHASE II SAMPLINGWORK PLAN ADDENDUM

HAGEN FARM SITEDANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN

Parameters Sampling Locations

EPA TCL VOCs and THF, selected metals MW14, MW17, MW22, MW27, MW28,(barium, lead and mercury), EPA TCL P14B, P17B, P17C, P22B, P27B,BNAs and indicator parameters P28B, MW31, SCW2, SCW4, LH1(alkalinity, sulfate and chloride)

EPA TCL VOCs and THF, selected MW7, MW9, MW12, MW16, MW18,metals (barium, lead and mercury), MW21, MW23, MW24, MW26, MW29,and Indicator parameters (alkalinity, MW30, MW31, P7B, P12B, P26B,sulfate and chloride) P29B, P30B, SCW1, SCW3, SCW5,

PFJ/skb/GEA[jlv-400-05]

TABLE 4

SAMPLE TYPES AND ESTIMATED SAMPLE NUMBERSPHASE II SITE INVESTIGATION

WORK PLAN ADDENDUMHA6EN FARM SITE

: , 1 NO. OFMATRIX(l) : LA8(2) : SAMPLES

SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION (6) :(SUBTASK 3.1) : :

LEACHATE :ENSECO/RMAL: 1LEACHATE :ENSECO/RMAL: 1LEACHATE :ENSECO/RMAL: 1

LEACHATE -ENSECO/RMAL! 1

GROUNDWATER :ENSECO/RMAL: 5GROUNDWATER :ENSECO/RMAL: 2GROUNDWATER :ENSECO/RMAL: 5

GROUNDUATER 'ENSECO/RMAL? 5

MIGRATION PATHWAYS 1(SUBTASK 3.2) : :

SOIL : WARZYN : 15(OFF-WASTE BORINGS) :

GROUNDWATER : WARZYN : 22(SCREENING): :

CONTAMINANT CHARACTERIZATION:(SUBTASK 3.3) : :

GROUNDWATER :ENSECQ/RMAl! 29GROUNDWATER :ENSECO/RMAL: 29

GROUNDWATER :ENSECO/RMAL: 12GROUNDWATER :ENSECO/RMAL: 29

FIELDDUPLICATES

--

11

1

2

3

33

23

(3)FIELD

" BLANKS

--

--

--

--

11

(4)MATRIXSPK/DUP

--

21

--

--

3

1

TOTALSAMPLES

1i1

1

946

6

17

25

3633

1532

(5)TEST PARAMETERS

EPA TCL VOCs and THFEPA TCL BNAsSELECTED METALS (barium lead,

mercury)Alkalinity, 504, Cl

EPA TCL VOCS and THFEPA TCL BNAsSELECTED METALS (barium, lead

mercury)Alkalinity, S04, Cl

GRAIN SIZE AND VOLATILE RESID

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

EPA TCL VOCs and THFSELECTED METALS (barium, leadmercury)

EPA TCL BNAsAlkalinity, S04, Cl

(1) Leachate samples will be considered low or medium concentration. Groundwater samples will be considered lowconcentration.

(2) ENSECO/RMAL: Rocky Mountain Analytical Laboratory4955 Yarrow StreetArvada, Colorado 80002

Warzyn: Warzyn Engineering Inc.One Science CourtUniversity Research ParkMadison, Wisconsin 53706

(3) A trip blank for purgeables will be included with each shipment for leachate, ambient air, leachate vapor andqroundwater samples. Numbers listed for VOC analyses of liquid samples represent exposure blanks. Numberslisted for metais and total dissolved phosphorus analyses represent filter blanks.

(4) Sample numbers reflect extra volumes required for matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate analysis.

(5) See Appendix B for EPA TCL analyte list. See Appendix D for analyte list for volatiles analysis of leachatevapor and ambient air samples.

(6) Five water table wells (SCH1 through SCW5) were installed in the fill area and sampled as part of the sourcecharacterization along with leachate headwell LH1.

PFJ/jlv/JDD[jlv-400-05]

Date post:	03-Jul-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongduong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

RI/FS WORK PLAN ADDENDUM (COVER LETTER ATTACHED) · GEA/ndj/GEA [ndj-107-84] cc: Mr. Jack Dowden...

Documents