sparta landfill site sparta township kent county, michigan · 2020. 7. 31. · kent county,...

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

mck LVK L:\Work\19324\Admin\Rpt\FSTxtUpdt4-24-OO.doc 1 04/24/00


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

AOCARARCERCLACOPCDQOEPCFFSGCCGSIKCDPWKCHDMCLMCLGMDEQMDNRNCPNPDESO&MPCBPOTWPRORAORISACMSARASDWASLERASLRAsvocTBCU.S. EPAVASVOC

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

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

Eid LVK L:\Work\19324\Admiri\Rpt\FSTEXT3.doc 111 08/11/99

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.

• Section 5 presents a list of references.

Eid LVK L:>Worka9324>Admin'.Rpt\FSTE\T3.doc 1-1 08/11/99


1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Sparta Landfill site is an inactive landfill located at 10322 Alpine Avenue, N.W., in Sparta Township,

Kent County, Michigan. The closed landfill occupies approximately 26 acres of property and is located

one-tenth of a mile northeast of the Rogue River at it's closest boundary; although directly west of the

landfill, the Rogue River is located approximately two-tenths of a mile away. The City of Rockford,

10.75 miles downstream of the Sparta Landfill, uses the Rogue River as a municipal water source.

Figure 1 shows the site location relative to major area topographic features. Figure 2 shows topographic

features at the Sparta Landfill site.

1.2.2 WASTE DISPOSAL/OWNERSHIP HISTORY

Mr. Robert Schwab owned and operated about 12 acres of the landfill beginning in the 1940's. In 1972,

Kent County ("the County") began operation of the Sparta Landfill on property adjacent to the Schwab

Dump. In 1973, the County acquired the Schwab Dump property. The licensed landfill accepted

municipal and commercial refuse and industrial wastes under Michigan Public Act 87. The landfill was

closed in 1977.

1.2.3 PAST RESPONSE ACTION ACTIVITIES

Beginning in 1977, groundwater contamination was detected in the vicinity of the Sparta Landfill. In

August 1979, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (now functioning as the MDEQ)

detected organic compounds in samples from on-site monitoring wells as well as from nearby residential

wells. At the request of local residents, the County installed four water supply wells for the residents

located southwest of the site.

In 1981 and 1982, hydrogeological investigations were completed by MDNR. On September 23, 1993,

KCDPW signed a Consent Order with the U.S. EPA to determine the potential threat to the public health

caused by the release of contaminants from the Sparta Landfill. Under the presumptive remedy of the

Consent Order, the KCDPW agreed to "cap" the landfill prior to initiating the RI in accordance with the

Administrative Order of Consent (U.S. EPA, 1993). A flexible membrane liner system (landfill cap) was

installed in August 1995.

mck LVK L:\Work\19324\Admin\Rpt\FSTxtUpdt4-24-OO.doc 1-2 04/24/00

:-\>fUfeJ reastbtlin- Siucly.v.?r:.: .'.xii!'!.': S.:s At--:.' C:>:itt\ Michigan

\:t Max >"2 ana Juh Iu^.: ercjncuaicr sarr.pL-5 \ \ e r e collected from on-site monitoring \\clls by

\\arz\-. Inc i \ \ "arz \n> The J'.:iv I-"." sampl ing a:?, included the collection of three surface uatcr

vamp]c< and :nrce residential uc i : sampies The Rl ua> conducted in lu<^ Tr.e results of the RI was

preserved in {irit:i>!J.iJU'r <:>:*•' .V.'\^i. i'.r.v .Vt'»\.i'.\;.' !>:\\'.\!:s^'-<"' Jicmr: <r /'JL' Sparta Landfill Site.

V\7r;.7 /«•«»:<'::." AV»;: f o:,'.-.-;. A/. w' •:.?.:': (Earth Tech. >^uai Grounduaier samples \\ere collected

dunnc the Rl in Ma> !0>J6 The ongma! RJ subminai d.n.:e uas October 1°% The most recent revision

uas dated Ma\ iuuw

Ir. Februarv !^«JX. ground\\a:cr 5arr.ples \\cre collected from on-sitc monitoring \\ells The results of this

samplini: was presented in G»-,.:.>:*:.w:.v .;»:.; ,V'.r'^ci I''.T\ r ( ':irri. ':.' Cc'w.7:o':y Technical \tcmorandnm

i'- Kf .S;XT-,\T I.it>\i-.;: .S;;i' .V\;'.'.7 .'tr... .:,-:;;- ^.-: Co;,.::. A/;^:;^.7>; Ma\ 15. 1998 (Eanh Tech. 1999b)

A draft monitoring plan I Eanh Tech. lvyc»ci uas subm:nec to the L S EPA and MDEQ in March 1999

The grounduater momtonng ueils were sampled m accordance \ \ i th the draft momtonng plan in March

]W The results of this monitcnng e\ent are included in this report in Appendix A Comments on the

draft monitoring plan were receded from the I S EPA or June 2. 1999 (L S EPA. 1999b) KCDPW

submitted a response lener to L S EPA on June 15. !°^9 (KCDPW. 1999a) In addition, the second

quarterh monitoring event \\as performed m June lg^M . houe\er. the FFS does not incorporate the results

1.3 SL M.MARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION RESL LTS

A summan of the RJ results, as presented in the Rl report, are presented in this Section Section 1 4

incorporates a discussion of the RI anahncai data ( 19>J6i and subsequent anahticaJ data derived from the

Februan 1998 and March 1990 sampling e\ents

1.3.1 GEOLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY

A comprehcnsne descnption of the site's geology and rndrogcolog> is pro\ided in the RJ report (Earth

Tech.

Figure 2 shows locations of borings and cross-section traces Three hydroeeolocical units were identified

and characterized

• the upper sand and gra\ ei aquifer.

Q8 11 99

Focused Feasibility SludySpana Landfill Site, Kent County, Michigan

• the clay aquitard underlying the upper aquifer; and

• the lower sand and gravel aquifer underlying the clay aquitard.

Figures 3 and 4 are cross-sectional depictions of these units. The water table of the upper aquifer is present

a few feet below the base of the landfill. The 15 to 35-foot thick clay aquitard beneath the upper aquifer

serves to mitigate the vertical migration of contaminants from the upper aquifer to the lower aquifer. Based

on nearby water supply well records, approximately 40 to 177 feet of clay further protects the underlying

bedrock aquifer of the Michigan Formation. The bedrock aquifer is used as a source of drinking water by

nearby residences. The hydrogeologic characteristics of the upper and lower aquifers are summarized

below:

Upper Aquifer

Groundwater occurs in the upper sand and gravel unit and flows from the northeast to the southwest toward

the Rogue River. The average groundwater velocity in the upper aquifer is approximately 3.46 ft/day

(1,262 ft/year). The upper aquifer is underlain by continuous clay till.

Lower Aquifer

Groundwater occurs in the lower silty sand and gravel aquifer under confined or semi-confined conditions

and flows from the northeast to the southwest toward the Rogue River. The groundwater velocity in the

lower aquifer was calculated to be 0. 17 ft/day (62 ft/year).

1.3.2 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER CHEMICAL

CHARACTERIZATION

The RI incorporated historical analytical data (May 1992 and July 1993) as well as data generated from

the implementation of the RI. A summary of the RI is presented in this section. Section 1.4 includes a

discussion of the RI data and additional data collected in February 1998 and March 1999.

Upper Aquifer

• Benzene was the only organic compound detected in groundwater at concentrations exceeding the

maximum contaminant level (MCL) or Michigan's health-based drinking water criteria during the

RI. The only benzene exceedance concentrations were from vertical aquifer sampling (VAS)

locations. The VAS w:ere performed to evaluate the general quality of groundwater throughout the

Eid LVK l.:'\Vork>1932.4\AdmimRpt FSTEXT3.doc 1-4 08/11/99

-i-.i\:h:l;t\ Siudv:':*«: i. M:iftn>an

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\

1.VK L V* «k S9j:-t AJmin RfK FSTrlXT.- i-x 1 -5 CS 1 1 99


Surface Water

Surface water is a potential secondary transport mechanism because impacted groundwater from the upper

aquifer could feasibly migrate to the Rogue River. However, the RI groundwater historical and RI surface

water analytical data support the determination that impacted groundwater is not discharging to the Rogue

River at concentrations that pose a threat to human health and the environment.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyl

(PCBs), and pesticides were not detected in the surface water samples collected from the Rogue River

during the July 1993 and May 1996 sampling events. With the exception of total cadmium, no inorganic

analytes were detected at concentrations exceeding Michigan's GSI criteria. Cadmium was detected in one

of three surface water samples; however, the exceedance was not replicated in the duplicate sample

collected at that location (SW-03). This detection was not believed to be related to the landfill because

cadmium was not detected above 5 ug/L in groundwater samples collected in 1992, 1993, and 1996.

Ammonia nitrogen was detected in all three surface water sampling locations at similar concentrations.

The detected concentrations were below Michigan's site-specific GSI criteria.

KCDPW will submit a mixing zone determination application to the MDEQ to further evaluate whether

groundwater impacts could potentially impact surface water.

1.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER IMPACT

This interpretation of the extent and nature of groundwater impact presented in this section is based on

analytical data collected from permanent monitoring wells during the RI (May 1996), in February 1998

and March 1999. Groundwater analytical results from each shallow monitoring well ( PZ-04, MW-01,

MW-02, MW-03, MW-04, MW-05, MW-07, MW-08, MW-09 and MW-11 and each deep monitoring

well MW-03D, MW-07D, and MW-08D were compared to Michigan's Generic Residential Drinking

Water Criteria (DW Criteria), groundwater contact criteria (GCC), volatilization to indoor air (indoor air

criteria) and GSI Criteria (MDEQ, May 1999). For a summary of Part 201 cleanup criteria, please see the

first eight pages of analytical summary tables provided in Appendix A. Analytical data from MW-01,

MW-02, MW-03, and PZ-04 were compared to GSI criteria because the wells are the closest to the Rogue

River ;md are currently designated at GSI wells. MW-03D, MW-07D, and MW-08D were conservatively

compared to GSI criteria. Analytical summary tables (Tables Al through A13 of Appendix A) for each

mck LVK L:\Wortc\19324\Admin\Rpt\FSTxlUpdt4-24-OO.doc 1-6 04/24/00

well present detected concentrations of the 1996 and 1998 sampling events along with all data for March of

1999 These tables highlight exceedances of applicable MDEQ criteria The DW criteria presented in the

tables incorporate both MDEQ's health-based and aesthetic criteria; whereas previously submitted reports

only incorporated health-based criteria The MDEQ commonly considers aesthetic and health-based risks;

whereas, the U.S. EPA usually recognizes health-based nsks.

The March 1999 data have not been previously presented: therefore, the analytical reports for the March

1999 sampling event are provided in Appendix A Figure 2 presents locations of groundwater monitoring

wells sampled during one or more of the sampling e\ents

1.4.1 UPPER AQUIFER

Groundwater monitoring wells screened in the upper aquifer include MW-01, MW-02, MW-03, MW-04,

MW-05, MW-07, MW-08, MW-09. MW-l I. and PZ-04. All of these well except PZ-04 were installed

prior to the implementation of the RJ Of these wells. MW-08 is an upgradient monitoring well.

Comparison of analytical data to MDEQ catena indicate that the concentration of detected analytes from

the 19%, 1998, and 1999 sampling events are below the indoor air criteria and GCC criteria. However, a

few metal analytes and nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations were above the DW (aesthetic or health-

based) criteria from the 1996, 1998 and 1999 sampling events The analyte, the DW (health-based or

aesthetic) criteria, and the maximum and minimum concentration are summarized in Table 1 and discussed

below

VOCs and SVOCs in groundwater were not detected at concentrations exceeding the DW (health-based and

aesthetic) criteria.

No VOCs or SVOCs were detected in upgradient M\V-08 and downgradient monitoring wells MW-01,

MW-03, MW-09, and PZ-04 during the March 1999 sampling event. VOCs benzene and

U-dichloroethane were the only detected at MW-02 and/or MW-07 during the March 1999 sampling

event These VOCs were detected at trace concentrations (less than 2.6 ug/L). During the May 1996

and/or February 1998 sampling events. VOCs benzene, chlorobenzene. chloromethane. chloroethane,

1.4-djchlorobenzene. and 1.1-dichloroethane. were delected at low concentrations at MW-03. Carbon

disulfide was detected at MW-l 1 during the May 1996 sampling event hi addition, SVOC naphthalene

was detected at low concentrations at MW-03 dunng the May 1996 and/or February 1998 sampling events.

rack L\TC LWott 19314.A<fcMRpiFSTx:li><* 4-24-00 Ax 1-7 04/24AX)

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.

mck LM( L:\Work\19324\Admin\Rpt\FSTxtUpdt4-24-OO.doc 1-8 04/24/00

• 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,

1998, and 1999 sampling events is presented below

Coauauaaats Exceeding Michigan's GSI Criteria in Groundwater Collected fron GSI Moahoriag Wells

Manganese ug/L(dissolved or total)

Zinc ug/L( dissolved or total)

Un-ionizedAmmonia ug/L(calculated fromammonia nitrogen)

Banumug/L

Silver ug/L(dissolved or total)

GSICriteria(•g/L)

895H

282 66 H

29(AD)

190

02(M)

MW-01Dowog radical

U20-«7(D)

267-J3580(D)

U

MW-4BDowng radical

3542.1

U10-iO(D) B32-15 (D)

MDU0.2(D)MPB 0,6(T)

MW-«3Dowagradieat

3I6-810(D)

PZ-4MDowgradicBt

U20(DXT)-26 (T)

14.5-17 9 (D)

65{D)

(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

estimated

U Not detectedShaded cells indicate exceedance

LVK L Wort I932< .\irnr,RptFS Tut p<» 4-:4-00 Ax 1-9 04/24/00

With the exception of barium and silver, the intrawell concentration trends were discussed above. Total

and/or dissolved silver was only detected at MW-01 and PZ-04. The detected concentration of silver is

0.3 ug/L in MW-01 and 0.5 in PZ-04. The method blank silver concentration was 0.6 ug/L. Although

these data did not undergo a CLP Data Validation process, it is likely that if the data were validated this

detection would be assigned an R code since the concentration of silver is twice as high in the method

blank. Data assigned a R code indicates unusable data. If these data were assigned an R code, then the

data could not be used for evaluation of remedial alternatives, risk assessment, and engineering design. The

risk assessment (Appendix B) indicated that the isolated silver detection was eliminated because it was not

of sufficient quality (RAGs, 1989). Under RAGs if the detected analyte in the groundwater sample is less

than 5X the concentration in the method blank then the data is not usable. Since the silver concentration is

less than the concentration in the method blank, silver data are not considered valid or usable.

Furthermore, silver was not previously detected in MW-01 or PZ-04 at concentrations exceeding the GSI

criteria. For these reasons, silver GSI exceedances are not a concern.

Barium was only detected above the GSI criteria in GSI well MW-01. The concentrations of barium at

MW-01 are stable.

1.4.2 LOWER AQUIFER

Groundwater monitoring wells screened in the lower aquifer include MW-03D, MW-07D, and MW-08D.

Each of these wells were installed during the RI. Of these wells, MW-08D is an upgradient monitoring

well. Figure 2 shows well locations.

VOCs and SVOCs were not detected in downgradient monitoring wells MW-03D and MW-07D or

upgradient monitoring well MW-08D at concentrations exceeding DW or GSI and criteria in 1996, 1998

and 1999.

A summary of parameters that exceed DW criteria from the 1996, 1998 and 1999 sampling events are

presented below:

mck L\T< L:\Work\l 93 24\Admin\Rpt\FS TxtUpdt 4-24-OO.doc 1-10 04/24/00

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


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 StudySparia Landfill Sile. Kent County; Michigan

lexicological reference doses for this element Lead, benzene, and manganese did not contribute

significantly to risk.

Because the Focused Risk Evaluation relied on data from RI vertical aquifer sampling and permanent

wells, the risk evaluation could not be considered as representative of current conditions. Moreover, the

VAS results did not meet Data Quality Projective Level FV

As a result, a revised screening level risk assessment was developed based on more recent data of sufficient

quality.

Earth Tech prepared the SLRA. presented in Appendix B and summarized below, using only groundwater

monitoring data from the 1996, 1998. and March 1999 groundwater monitoring events.

1.5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (COPCs) AND DETERMINATIONOF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS

COPCs are those chemicals that have data of sufficient quality for nsk assessment purposes, and exceed

MDEQ criteria (or odier criteria if MDEQ criteria are not available) for protection of human health.

Chemicals included in monitoring and ecological evaluations are not necessarily limited to the COPCs

identified in the screening level risk assessment (SLRA)

A simple screening process was used to identify preliminary and final COPCs. Preliminary COPC were

identified in three steps:

• evaluation of data quality objectives:

• comparison to criteria, and

• comparison to background concentrations

The first step was evaluation of the data quality objectives (DQO) of a particular data set. The Vertical

Aquifer Sampling (VAS) data collected in UK remedial investigation were not used to identify COPCs

because the VAS data did not meet the minimum DQO for nsk assessments. Other remedial investigation

data and monitoring data were retained for further evaluation with the screening process.

nek LVK L Work l9324.AdmriRpcFS TaLpft-t-M-GO doc 1-13 04/24/00


The second step compared detected concentrations of chemicals to criteria for the protection of human

health developed by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. These criteria included

residential drinking water criteria. Aesthetic (taste and odor) criteria were also considered in this step.

Other guidelines were used if state criteria were not available. This step resulted in elimination of

chemicals with concentrations below health-based (or aesthetic-based in a few cases) from the preliminary

list of chemicals of potential concern.

The third step in the identification of the preliminary COPCs consisted of comparing chemical

concentrations in downgradient wells to concentrations in the two upgradient wells (MW-08 and MW-08D

for the shallow and deep aquifers, respectively). This step did not result in elimination of any chemicals

from the list of potential COPCs for the upper aquifer. Iron, manganese and ammonia nitrogen were

retained as COPCs for the lower aquifer even though these chemicals were detected in the background well.

This was done because of the potential communication between the two aquifers.

The preliminary COPCs are identified in Table Bl and B2 of Appendix B.

The final COPCs were identified by evaluating specific analytical data for suitability for use in risk

assessment. Zinc was eliminated as a COPC because the concentrations appeared to be associated with

zinc-galvanized well casings rather than the landfill. To ensure that this elimination was valid, an

additional monitoring well, MW-03-99, constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), was installed within

11 feet of a galvanized well (MW-03). Both wells were sampled and analyzed for metals and VOCs. The

results indicate that the high concentrations of zinc in the older galvanized wells are due to the galvanized

well ceisings. The analytical data do not indicate that zinc was masking or affecting other parameters.

Silver was eliminated as a final COPC because the isolated silver detection was not of sufficient quality.

The US. EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (1989) indicated that if the detected analyte is

less than five times the concentration in the method blank then the data are not usable. Since the silver

concentration was less than the concentration in the method blank, these silver data were not considered

valid and silver was not included as a COPC.

The resulting COPCs derived from the screening process, described above, is summarized below:

rack LVK L:\Work\19324\Admin\Rpt\FSTxtUpdt4-24-OO.doc 1-14 04/24/00


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


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.

mck LVK L:\Work\19324\Admin\Rpt\FS TxtUpdt 4-24-OO.doc 1-16 04/24/00

.'•Wa.v«.'u' risibility Study"y;if;:i Michigan

2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND

APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs t and other criteria To Be Considered

(TBCi uere evaluated prior to iderr.ifyru: rerr.edia! aiierr.atr. es CERCLA requires thai the e\aluation of

aiiemair.es for remedial action at 2 sue must consicer the extent to uhich each altematue will attain or

exceed ARARs under federal and state public health and environmental requirements

Applicable requirements are those standards that specifica!i\ address a specific substance, remedial action.

location, or some other circumstance at a site. prov ided the sue satisfies all of the prerequisites of the

requirement Relevant and appropriate requirements arc those standards which address problems or

situations sufficienth similar to those encountered at the site, if their use is well suited to the particular site

because it satisfies the objecmes and origins of the requirement

The ARARs must be applicable or rele\ant 2nd appropriate to

• the substances at a site.

• the circumstances of the release, and

• the nature of the remedial action

In addition to defining ARARs. the National Contmgenc\ Plan (NCP) directs that other non-promulgated

criteria. ad\ isones. and guidance issued bv federal or state governments that are not legally binding may be

used as criteria, although the> do not have the same status as potential ARARs. However, these TBC

criteria arc considered with ARARs in determining the appropriate criteria for assessing cleanup or

technology requirements to protect human health and the environment

GencraJh. there are three types of ARARs and TBCs

• Chemical-Specific requirements that establish acceptable concentrations of a chemical that may be

found in. or discharged to. the environment and that arc protective of human health and theenvironment

• Action-Specific requirements are performance, design, or other action-specific requirements are

tcchnologv or activity-based requirements or limitations on remedial or corrective actions These

ARARs establish controls or restrictions on particular kinds of activities related to the managementof materials, pollutants, or contaminants

Jj; l'-"K :. "Acri. :*}:•» AJrnuiRpt FS7F\~ ;,x 2-! 081199


• Location-Specific requirements are restrictions placed on the concentration of hazardous

substances or activities because they occur in special locations. For example, specific

requirements may be necessary for activities within a 100-year floodplam.

An initial screening of potential ARARs is presented in Table 2 A discussion of these potential ARARs is

presented in the following sections. The ARARs do not include state or federal health and safety

regulations that may apply to construction and operations at the site. The ARARs presented here focus on

the media that may be affected by the remedial alternatives: surface water and groundwater.

2.1 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Chemical-specific requirements identify1 acceptable concentrations of a specific chemical that may be found

in or discharged to the environment during remedial activities.

2.1.1 SURFACE WATER

The potential chemical-specific ARARs affecting remedial actions for surface water at the site are

identified Table 2. The following discussions provide additional information regarding chemical-specific

ARARs affecting surface water at the site.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA), the EPA has established primary drinking

water standards as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which are the maximum levels of specific

chemicals allowed in water delivered to any user of a public water system. The MCL for each chemical is

established as close as possible to the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for that chemical,

considering technology, treatment techniques, and other factors such as cost. The MCLG is based only on

human health.

Secondary MCLs are based on taste and odor of drinking water and are not health-based. Secondary

MCLs are not enforceable under CERCLA or the SDWA and so are TBC criteria under these acts.

However, secondary MCLs are referenced by Michigan Act 451, Part 201 and are enforceable under this

act.

Clean Water Act (CWA)

The goal of the federal Water Pollution Control Amendment of 1972, commonly known as the Clean Water

Eid LVK L:AVork\19324'Admin>Rpf,FSTEXT3.doc 2-2 08/11/99

.'•ucHfi'ii J-'easihtlitv Snulv.\"ijr;.: l.amii}U.<::<: Ken: d>unt\. Michigan

Ac: of 1°~2 iCWAl . is to eliminate the J:scharuj ot" pollutants to the nation's waterways This is

accomplished through the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminat ion S>siem (NPDES) Permit Program

The Clean Water Act is a ro:er.::a: ARAR because d:*charce of treated groundwater is an alternative

considered for :he site

Water Quaiu\ Cntena are promulgated under the Clear: Water Act. and these are chemical specific

ARARs Michigan ES ful lv delegated bv the Federal government to implement the Clean Water Act The

Federal cntena are incorporated into Michigan Act 45 1 Pan ? 1 - Water Resources Protection - as water

qualn> \alucs and standards These \ allies and standard? are enforceable under Act 451 Pan 31

Michigan Act 451, Pan 201 - Environmental Response

The state water quafiiv \alues and standards t\picalh appiv 10 a point source mixing zone in the stream.

which is defined as 25% of the °5° > exceedance flo\\. or one-quarter of the flow that is exceeded 95°o of

the time Surface \\ater quaht\ \\ould need to meet these \a lues or standards after mixing with the

rccen ing stream

The slate water qualit> values and standards are also .ncorporatcd as chemical specific cleanup cntena for

groundwatcr into Michigan Act 451 Pan 201 - Environmental Response Under Pan 201. these values

and standards are enforces in ground\\ater at the point \ \here the groundwater discharges to surface water

There is pro\ision in Pan 201 tor considering mixing in the receiving stream to develop groundwater

cntena that are protective of surface vvater

2.1.2 Groundwater

The potential chemical-specific ARARs affecting remedial actions for groundwater at the site are identified

Table 2 The following discussions pro\idc additional information regarding the chemical-specific ARARs

affecting grounduatcr at the site

Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA)

While the SDWA provides some standards for groundwater source protection, the emphasis of the act is on

assuring the qualitv of dnnkmg water when it reaches the user (rather than on the quality of the source

suppK) However, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the National

Contingency Plan (NCP) state tha: MCLs have the status of ARARs for groundwater when the MCLGs for

Rpt FS7::\T3 i-c 2-3 081199


a specific chemical arc not an ARAR and the MCLs arc relevant and appropriate under the circumstances

of the release MCLs are ARARs whenever groundwatcr is potentially useful as a drinking water source

(March S. 1990 NCP).

Michigan Act 451 Part 201 - Environmental Response

Part 20 1 has established groundwater cleanup criteria for many chemicals based on protection of drinking

water, surface water and indoor air. Part 201 provides these criteria for different types of potential

exposures, including residential use and use in commercial or industrial situations. Part 201 and these

criteria are ARARs for the Sparta Landfill.

2.2 ACTION SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Action specific requirements are limitations placed on certain actions affecting the remedial action. Action

specific requirements for Sparta Landfill apply primarily to discharges of treated groundwater to surface

water and to storm water discharges.

2.2.1 SURFACE WATER

Discharge of treated groundwater and leachate would require compliance with state implementation of

NPDES requirements. These requirements would include treatment of the water, effluent limitations,

monitoring of the effluent and reporting of monitoring results. An operator certified by the state is also

required to operate the treatment system. The federal Clean Water Act is an ARAR for alternative that

involve discharge of groundwater to surface water after collection and treatment.

Discharge of treated water to a publicly owned treatment plant (POTW) may require pretreatment to

certain standards established by the Clean Water Act and Part 3 1 . There may also be local standards for

discharge to the local POTW. These pretreatment standards and local standards are ARARs for

alternatives that involve discharge of treated groundwater to a POTW.

Substantive compliance with state NPDES permits for discharge of stormwater associated with industrial

activity and/or with construction may also apply. These permits usually do not require monitoring, but do

require certified operators and regular inspections. The storrmvater regulations may be ARARs for

remedial alternatives that involve earth moving activities.

Eid LVK L:\\Vork\19324\Admin\Rpt\FSTEXT3.doc 2-4 08/11/99

:'t'fu.vJrt-whtluy Siuth>r.:r;.: .'.<7':.;'J.V.\'.'t' \cr:: t'>.>;in!\. Michigan

Construction activities arc also regulated b\ the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act In The Kent

Counu Road Commission administers this act m K^n i C oumv Both ihe permii for discharge associated

v.nb ccnsiruciion ac t iv i t i es and the so:! erosion and sedimentation control pcrmii require a .VtJ;.' l.rosion

.;';.; .V.«':»:<.'::.T:.O': (\>•:'.<•». .".,••: Tr.e So:: Erosion and Sedmieniation Control Act a potential ARAR forj"

remedial actions that i n v o l v e earth moving a c t i v i t i e s

Remedial actions must comph v.;:h the rec'-iremcn:s or" Michigan Act 451 Part 2<Jl These requirements

include, among other things, appro-, a! of a Remedial Action Plan bv the state and possiblv enforceable

restriction on use of groundwater for drinking \\ater near the Spana Landfill Part 201 is an ARAR for

remedial actions (including no action* at the landfill

Michigan Act 45 i Pan 115 - Solid Waste Management - requires monitoring at landfills and provides

some specifications for that momtonng Pan 115 is an ARAR for the landfill

Abandonment of geotechnical wel l s is regulated b> Michigan Act 45! Pan 141 - Geotcchnical Wells

Pan 141 is an ARAR for the landfill if \\ells arc abandoned

2.3 LOCATION-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Location-specific ARARs are restrictions placed on remedial actions based on the location of the site and

other features that could be impacted b> a remedial alternate e These restncuons may limit the type of

remedial action that can be implemented and ma> impose additional constraints on the remedial action,

such as preserving or protecting environmental or cultural resources Potential location-specific ARARs

for the site are in Table 1 These ARARs are further discussed bclou

Certain actions, especially construction and placement of permanent structures, within the flood plain of the

Rogue River require compliance with Executive Order No 11988 Actions in flood plains may also be

regulated b> Michigan Act 451 Pan ? 1 In general, placing underground structures such as a groundwater

extraction system, are allowed in flood plains The flood plain regulations are ARARs for some remedial

actions in the flood plain of the Rogue River

Construction activities that mav affect historic and archaeological resources are regulated by the Federal

Archaeological and Histonc Preservation Act and the Historic Sites Act These Acts are ARARs if

construction activities affect sites that are alread> listed, or s.ies that are eligible for listing, on the National

Register of Historic Places Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer is necessary to

i;;:.'. K :. Acri. :-.->:-: -Urrur. Rpt FSTr.VT'- j-x 2-5 081199


determine if there is potential for such resources to be present. These acts are ARARs for some

construction activities, but not including activities on the landfill itself.

Off-site remedial activities may affect endangered or threatened species regulated cither by the Federal

Endangered Species or Michigan Act 451 Part 365 - Endangered Species Protection. An initial step in

compliance with these acts is consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the Michigan

Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division. These consultations have been completed for the

landfill and surrounding areas, and no threatened and endangered species were identified. Therefore the

federal and state acts regarding threatened or endangered species are only ARARs if such species are

identified in the area.

Michigan has been delegated authority to implement the Federal Clean Water Act, including Section 404,t^/

which regulates certain activities in wetlands. Wetland are present along the Rogue River near the landfill.

Michigan Act 451 Part 303 - Wetlands - regulates certain activities in wetlands, including dredging, filling

or draining that could be associated with installing and operation a groundwater collection system. Part

303 is an ARAR for regulated activities in wetlands. Michigan also regulates activities in inland lakes and

streams, including Rogue River. Act 451 Part 301 - Inland Lakes and Streams is an ARAR for remedial

actions affecting the river, such as installation of an outfall structure for discharge of treated groundwater.

The Rogue River is a "Natural River" designated pursuant to Michigan Act 451 Part 305 - Natural Rivers.

Certain construction activities located in or near the river require substantive compliance with this act.

Part 305 is administered through local zoning. Part 305 is an ARAR for regulated activities near the river.

W

Eid LVK L:\Work\19324\Admin\Rpt\FSTEXT3.doc 2-6 08/11/99


3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The objective of this section of the FFS is to identify remedial alternatives that are applicable to conditions

at the Sparta Landfill site. Based on the low impact of this site and already established presumptive

remedy, the US EPA and the KCDPW agreed on limiting the alternatives to: (1) no action; (2) monitoring

with institutional controls; and (3) extraction and treatment of groundwater (U.S. EPA February 1999a).

A detailed evaluation of select alternatives is presented in Section 4.0.

3.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES AND PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS

In Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites (U.S. EPA, 1993a), the U.S. EPA office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response has identified containment of the source as the presumptive remedy

for municipal landfill site, where waste pose a relatively low long-term threat or where treatment is

unpractical. In the CERCLA FS process, remedial action objectives (RAOs) are developed to protect

human health and environment The RAOs for media of concern, surface water and groundwater,

(US EPA, February, 199%) are to:

• prevent a risk-based exposure to contaminants in groundwater via ingestion, dermal adsorption,and inhalation;

• prevent the migration of contaminants from groundwater to surface water above risk-based

criteria; and

• prevent a risk-based exposure via ingestion, adsorption, and bioconcentration of contaminants that

may potentially migrate to the Rogue River.

Preliminary remedial action goals (PRGs) are a subset of the RAOs and consist of specific chemical

concentrations that are protective of human health and the environment. Under the presumptive remedy for

CERCLA municipal landfill sites, development of PRGs for on-site groundwater is unnecessary because

the elements of the presumptive remedy are presumed to achieve the PRGs. For potential off-site

groundwater impact, PRGs that were used to evaluate risks in the Screening Level Risk Assessment

(SLRA), provided in Appendix B. were based on MDEQ's generic residential criteria (MDEQ, 1999) and

US EPA's Tap Water Criteria (US EPA Region 9. Preliminary Report, June 1999).

act. LVK L Wot 19314.A«tam RptFS Tttl>* 4-24-00 doe 3-1 04/24/00


3.3 GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS

This section presents general response actions that meet the RAO identified in Section 3.2. The U.S. EPA

guidance (U.S. EPA, 1993b) document establishes containment as the presumptive remedy for the

landfilled material at CERCLA municipal landfills such as the Sparta Landfill site. Presumptive remedies

are the preferred technologies for common categories of site, based on historical patterns of remedy

selection and U.S. EPA's scientific and engineering evaluation of performance data on technology

implementation.

The U.S. EPA guidance eliminates the need for the initial identification and screening of technologies,

process options, and alternatives typically required as part of a CERCLA FS. The presumptive remedy of

containment for the Sparta Landfill includes one or more of the following components:

• Capping the landfill;

• Groundwater monitoring;

• Institutional controls (groundwater use ordinance); and

• Extraction and treatment of groundwater exceeding PRGs near property boundaries.

3.4 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Under CERCLA, the first step of FS is to develop and screen an inclusive list of all potential remedial

alternatives that could be implemented at a site to achieve the RAOs. This FFS does not include this step

because the U.S. EPA, MDEQ, and KCDPW agreed to focus the list of alternatives to three likely

scenarios (U.S. EPA, February 1999a). These alternatives include:

• No action

• Monitoring (including a mixing zone determination and groundwater water use restriction

ordinance)

• Groundwater extraction/control and treatment

The selected remedial alternatives are briefly described in the following paragraphs; however, more detailed

information is presented in Section 4.0.


3.4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

The No Action alternative serves as a basis to which all other alternatives are compared. Under this

remedial alternative, no active remedial action, institutional action, or long-term monitoring would be

implemented. According to the NCP, the No Action alternative must be carried through to the detailed

analysis of alternatives

Under this alternative, long-term care (e.g., cap maintenance) currently being performed for the landfill

would continue.

3.4J ALTERNATIVE 2: MONITORING

This alternative involves development and implementation of a groundwater monitoring program, routine

evaluation of data trends, the incorporation of the results of the mixing zone determination completed by

the MDEQ, and the use of the groundwater use ordinance control.

The data obtained from the groundwater monitoring program must demonstrate that concentrations of

COPCs are stable or decreasing based on observable trends in groundwater monitoring data. The

difference between this alternative and die No Action alternative is that under this alternative, groundwater

monitoring and a groundwater use ordinance would continue. The natural attenuation evaluation, mixing

zone evaluation, die proposed groundwater monitoring program, and the institutional control for

groundwater use (ordinance) for this remedial alternative are discussed below.

3.4J.I Natural Attenuation Evaluation

Monitored natural attenuation is a recognized remedial alternative (U.S. EPA, 1999b). During the March

1999 sampling event, groundwater samples were analyzed for bioattenuation parameters. These data as

well as the organic and inorganic analytical results were used to evaluate the capacity of the upper and

lower aquifer to naturally attenuate the COPCs The data are summarized in Table 3. The analytical data

are presented in Tables Al through A13 To evaluate whether the upper aquifer has a capacity to

btoattenuate volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the upgradient mean concentration of select

bioattenuation parameters were compared to the mean concentration of downgradient wells. An indication

of bwactivity potential was determined using ASTMs Guide for Remediation of Natural Attenuation at

Petroleum Release Sites (ASTM. 1997) and also U S EPA's Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural

Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water (US. EPA, 1998). The evaluation using these

at± LVK L Work l932«A<fcn«i'R|>rFS T«Lp<* 4-24-00 doc 3-3 (W24AK)


guidance documents indicated that anaerobic conditions are present in the upper aquifer. These data

suggest that reduction of organic constituents may occur, but that inorganics may be mobilized with

groundwater flow.

The analytical results were evaluated using the U.S. EPA screening process for evaluating natural

attenuation of chlorinated solvents in groundwater, (U.S. EPA, 1998). The screening indicated that there is

"adequate evidence" of anaerobic degradation within the upper aquifer. Further evidence of anaerobic

conditions is the increase concentration of ammonia nitrogen in the monitoring wells located near the

landfill (MW-03 and MW-07). Under reducing conditions metals such as iron and manganese, naturally

present in the aquifer, may be converted to their more soluble forms as organic compounds are

biodegraded. The increased concentrations of manganese and iron and the dominant absence of SVOCs

and VOCs analytes in the monitoring wells near the landfill is evidence that this natural process is

occurring. However, there is a reasonable probability that these analytes will naturally attenuate with time,

since the production of leachate will be minimized by the cap and the upper aquifer will revert from

reducing or anaerobic to oxidizing or anaerobic conditions.

As part: of the monitoring remedy, bioattenuation parameters were analyzed for the first quarter of 1999, in

accordiince with the draft Groundwater Monitoring Plan (GWP) (Earth Tech, March 1999). The revised

GWP (Earth Tech, April 2000) incorporates additional analyses and evaluation of biottenuation

parameters. These data will be used to assess natural attenuation at the Site in the future.

3.4.2.2 Mixing Zone Evaluation

A mixing zone evaluation was presented in the Groundwater and Surface Water Current Conditions

Technical Memorandum of the Sparta Landfill Site Sparta Township Kent County, Michigan (Earth

Tech, 1998). This mixing zone evaluation was based on the maximum concentration of select chemicals

detected during the RI and is included in Appendix C. In addition, KCDPW is developing a mixing zone

application (MZD), in accordance with MDEQ Operational Memorandum # 17, September 8, 1998, for

submiltal to the MDEQ. The mixing zone evaluation results will be considered part of the monitoring

remedy.

The 1998 mixing zone model illustrates that if impacted groundwater migrates to the Rogue River at

concentrations exceeding the GSI criteria, the groundwater discharge to the river would not adversely affect

the quality of the surface water due to mixing of the discharged groundwater with the surface water.



However, the mixing zone determination from the SWQD-MDEQ will ultimately determine whether

additional action may be necessary to protect the Rogue River.

3.4JJ Institutional Controls

Groundwater use is currently mitigated by the Kent County Health Department's Water Supply

Regulations for Kent County. Michigan (KCHD. 1996) a copy of which was provided in Appendix P to

the RI (Earth Tech, 1999). This regulation requires a permit to install a new water supply or modify an

existing one. The permit is subject to approval by the Health Officer, who may impose limitations or

conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health or groundwater quality. Since this regulation is

currently in effect no additional activities are necessary to utilize this regulation. However, a groundwater

use ordinance was developed by Kent County for Sparta Township and submitted to the MDEQ on

January 10, 2000. A copy of this proposed ordinance is provided in Appendix F. This ordinance is

included as part of the monitoring remedial alternative

In addition to the permanent enforceable institutional controls afforded by the KCHD regulations and the

new Sparta Township groundwater use ordinance, local knowledge of the well replacement and of the

continued presence of the landfill discourage installation of private wells within the shallow unconsolidated

aquifers (upper and lower aquifers) in the vicinity of the Sparta Landfill site.

3.4.2.4 Groundwater Monitoring Program

The revised groundwater monitoring program Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Sparta Landfill Site

(Earth Tech, 2000) for this remedial alternative has been prepared and submitted to the U.S. EPA and

MDEQ. The Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Sparta Landfill Site listed wells to be monitored, the

monitoring frequency, parameters, data quality objectives, a laboratory quality assurance/quality control

plan, and proposed report format The Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Sparta Landfill Site is

incorporated by reference and adopted as the groundwater monitoring program.

Twt) years of quarterly groundwater monitoring and reporting is proposed, followed by 3 years of annual

monitoring. The first four quarters of groundwater monitoring were conducted in accordance with

Revision 0 of the Groundwater Monitoring Plan (Earth Tech. 1999). The second four quarters of

groundwater monitoring will be performed in accordance with Revision 1 of the Groundvvater Monitoring

Plan (Earth Tech, 2000) At the end of the 3-year period of annual groundwater monitoring, a 5-year

n*± LVK LW«kl«I4.Adrnm>J^FST«lw* 4-2440 doc 3-5 04/24/00


review would be conducted in accordance with the standard NCP protocol for CERCLA sites. However,

for cost estimating purposes, it is assumed that annual monitoring will be conducted for the next 25 years,

for a total of 30 years.

3.4.3 ALTERNATIVES: GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION AND TREATMENT

This remedial alternative involves groundwater extraction and treatment, and natural attenuation of

groundwater not captured by the extraction system. Groundwater would be extracted from upper aquifer,

treated to remove metals, and discharged into the Rogue River under a NPDES permit. Although there is

not sufficient evidence that the lower aquifer is significantly impacted with COPCs at concentrations above

risk-based levels, remediation of the lower aquifer by groundwater extraction and treatment is incorporated

into the FFS as a conservative measure. Future groundwater analytical results may allow the statistical

evaluation of the data to determine if the COPC concentrations in downgradient wells (MW-03D and

MW-07D) are representative of background water quality.

For the purposes of this FFS, Earth Tech based the conceptual design of the groundwater extraction and

treatment system on several assumptions. These include assumptions related to the width of the capture

zone, orientation of extraction wells, saturated thickness of the aquifer, hydraulic gradient, hydraulic

conductivity, the number of extraction wells required, treatment type, and treatment unit sizing. These

assumptions are based on the results of the RI and are documented in Appendix D, and form the basis for

the discussion below.

Earth Tech has made other assumptions for cost estimating purposes. One example of such an assumption

is that the extraction wells would be 6-inch diameter wells each equipped with an electric submersible

pump, and individual piping along a common pipeline to the groundwater treatment building. This and

other cost-related assumptions are documented in the cost estimate backup documentation provided in

Appendix E.

3.4.3.1 Groundwater Extraction System

Based on the assumptions in Appendix D, a total of 12 groundwater extraction wells screened within the

upper aquifer will be necessary. Extraction wells would be installed within the property boundary. The

distance of groundwater capture downgradient from the line of extraction wells was estimated at

mck L\TC L:\Worlc\19324\Admin\Rpt\FSTxtUpdt4-24-OO.doc 3-6 04/24/00

focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site. Kent County, Michigan

approximately 420 feet, which does not quite reach PZ-04 (upper aquifer monitoring well). Under this

remedial alternative, constituent concentrations at PZ-04 would naturally attenuate.

The upper aquifer groundwater extraction wells would be spaced approximately 50 feet apart and located

along the western, southwestern, and southern portions of the property boundary as shown on Figure D-l

in Appendix D. Groundwater would be pumped at a estimated rate of approximately 50 gpm/well, for a

total of 600 gpm (0 864 MGD) from the upper aquifer

Groundwater would be recovered from each of the lower aquifer extraction wells at an estimated rate of

2 to 3 gpm for a total recovery rate of 6 to 9 gpm The additional volume from the lower aquifer wells

would be treated with the 600 gpm recovered from the upper aquifer.

3.4.3.2 Groondwater Treatment System

A groundwater treatment system would be installed on the property to treat extracted groundwater for

metals and ammonia nitrogen To simplify the evaluation, chemical treatment with polymer and sulfite

salts has been assumed for cost estimating purposes (although it is acknowledged that other technologies

may work as well or better). The groundwater treatment system would include a flash mixing tank for

chemical addition, followed by a 50-foot diameter clanfier tank for flocculabon and settling, sludge

handling and periodic disposal, and treated water discharge to the Rogue River. Sludge would be handled

through chemically assisted gravity thickening and operation of a belt filter press, followed by Subtitle D

landfill disposal of filter cake It is presumed that sludges are non-hazardous, based on the concentration of

lead relative to other constituents in groundwater (see Table D-l in Appendix D) that contribute to the

mass of solids generated.

A treatability study in conjunction with an extended duration groundwater pumping test would be required.

The treatability study and pumping test would provide the design basis for the groundwater extraction and

treatment system. The design flow rate, pump sizing, influent and effluent concentrations, chemical usage

rates, sludge generation rate, and characteristics would be determined. Alternative technologies could be

considered and evaluated as appropriate at this stage

A pre-engmeered building would be used for chemical storage, flash mixing of chemicals, maintenance

equipment and controls. The clanfier and sludge handling system would be located outside the building,

and, therefore, fitted with appropriate covers and frost protection

mcfc LVK L »'o»k 1932*AAnm'Rp* FS Txll p* 4-24-00 doc 3-7 04/24/00

Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site, Kent County. Michigan

4.0 DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This section of the FFS contains a detailed analysis of the remedial alternatives developed in the preceding

section US. EPA guidance for CERCLA sites (U.S. EPA, 1988) requires an evaluation of alternatives

based on the following nine criteria:

1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

2. Compliance with ARARs

3. Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment

4. Short-Term Effectiveness

5. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

6. Implemcntability

7. Cost

8. Support Agency Acceptance

9. Community Acceptance

The first seven criteria provide a basis for the comparative analysis of all alternatives presented in this

section. Criterion No. 8 (Support Agency Acceptance) and Criterion No. 9 (Community Acceptance) will

be addressed following public comment on the FFS. Figure 5 presents the elements of the nine evaluation

criteria.

MDEQ remedial alternative evaluation criteria under NREPA 451, Part 201, Rule 299.5603(1), generally

parallel U.S. EPA's nine criteria, the primary difference being that the U.S. EPA criteria are organized

differently than MDEQ's criteria. The MDEQ criteria correlate to the U.S. EPA criteria as indicated in

Table 4.

U.S. EPA has established containment as the presumptive remedy for CERCLA municipal landfills

(U.S. EPA, 1993). Consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), U.S. EPA found containment to

be an appropriate alternative for municipal landfills because the volume and heterogeneity of the waste

generally make treatment impracticable.

Eid LVK L:AVork'19324\AdminRprPSTEXT3.doc 4-1 08/11/99

StudyX";:1-:.? !.anJf:ll X:ip. Ken; c'oi/mi. Michigan

4.1.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF Hi MAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

T3:is evaluation criterion considers the eftec::-. eness oi a remedial alternative 10 protect human health and

cm ircnmcni Evaluation of o\ era!! protect;-,eness cf a remedial ahcmaiivc focuses on whether ihc remedial

oplion achieves adequate protector, and hou risks posed bv the site are minimized This criterion considers

elements of ether evaluation cr i te r ia , such as long-term arid shon-ierm effectiveness and compliance with

ARARs and thus is interrelated w i t h ether eva lua t ion c r i t e r ia "Die remedial alternative must pass this

ihrcshold cntenon to remain in the e\ aluation

Protection of human health is assessed b\ exaluaur.c ho\\ sue risks from each exposure pathway arc

diminated. reduced, or controlled through :he specific remedial opuon

1.i.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs

This cntcnon is also a threshold criterion because the alternative must achieve compliance with the ARARs

lo be considered as a site remedv or if compliance is not achie\ed. a justifiable ARAR waiver must be

obtained Section 121(d> of Supcrfund .Amendment and Reauthonzation Act (SARA) mandates that, for

aJ) remedial actions conducted under CERCLA. cleanup activities must be conducted in a manner that

complies with the ARARs

4.1.3 REDUCTION OF TOXICITV. MOBILITY. AND VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT

The degree to \\hich the remedial altemame reduced the toxictrv mobility, and volume through treatment

is assessed under this cntcnon This information pro\ ides part of the basis for comparison of alternatives

to assess their tangible benefit relative to their incremental costs The information may be qualitative or

quantitative in nature, as appropnate

4.1.4 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS

The short-term effectiveness of each alternative is assessed based on the nsk associated with the remedial

action to the community, workers, and environment dunnc implementation of the remedial action, and the

Jimc required to achieve the RAOs Mitigation measures to provide protection are a key issue in this

determination

:..; i.'-X L "Aoci :•»};•» .-UnunRFi FS7F.V7-ic 4-2 081199


4. l .5 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE

This criterion addresses the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the

environment over time, once RAOs are achieved. The focus of this criterion is to evaluate the effectiveness

of each alternative by considering the potential for future unacceptable risk and continued attainment of

RAOs

4.1.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY

Evaluation of an alternative under this criterion addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of

implementing an alternative and the availability of materials and services required for implementation.

Analysis of technical feasibility addresses the ability of the alternative to be constructed, the reliability of

the technology, and potential ability to monitor the effectiveness of the alternative. Administrative

implementability addresses the feasibility of activities needed to coordinate construction (such as permits

and easements) and to complete the remedial alternative (such as deed restrictions).

4.1.7 COST

The tota.l cost of each alternative is based on the sum of the direct capital costs (materials, equipment,

labor), :.ndirect capital costs (engineering, contingencies, licenses or permits), and present worth of

operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Present worth costs are developed for each alternative to

provide a common basis for comparing substantially different alternatives. Present worth costs are

calculated by multiplying the sum of annual O&M costs by an appropriate present worth factor. In this

FFS. th; present worth factor computed based on a 30-year post-closure period, a discount rate of

5 percent and an inflation factor of 3 percent.

4.2 INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

The individual analysis of alternatives is presented in Table 4. The purpose of the individual analysis of

alternatives is to evaluate each remedial alternative independently against the subcnteria under the seven

criteria evaluated in a feasibility study. This information is used in developing the comparative evaluation

of remedial alternatives, presented below.

Eid LVK L:\Workil9324'Admin.Rpt\FSTEXT3.doc 4-3 08/11/99

4J ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

This section provides a comparison of the three alternatives using the criteria presented in Section 4.1, as

summarized in Table 4.

4J.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The No Action alternative would not be protective in the future as no monitoring data would be available

to alert the community of potential new well contamination. The Monitoring alternative would be

protective since this monitoring data would monitor contaminant concentration and document progress

towards the cleanup criteria. The Groundwater Extraction and Treatment alternative may provide more

aggressive protection of human health and the environment after several pore volumes of the impacted

portion of the upper and lower aquifers are removed However, quicker achievement of the cleanup criteria

does not provide more overall protection to human health and the environment.

4.3.2 COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs

The No Action alternative does not comply with the ARARs, as the RAO for groundwater is not met.

Both the Monitoring and Groundwater Extraction and Treatment alternatives comply with ARARs.

The discharge permit required under the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment alternative is regulated

under NREPA 451, Parts 31 and 41, as indicated in Table 1 Sludge testing and disposal is regulated

under the solid and hazardous waste regulations identified in Table 1

4 J J REDUCTION OF Toxicrrv, MOBILITY, AND VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT

The No Action alternative does not provide treatment, but the other two remedial alternatives provide

treatment through natural attenuation processes. Natural attenuation processes actually occur even under

the No Action alternative, but monitoring to confirm the effectiveness of natural attenuation would not be

provided under the alternative The concentrations of metals and ammonia nitrogen in the upper aquifer is

expected to generally decrease over time, as leaching through the cap is mitigated and the upper aquifer

reverts to aerobic conditions

The Groundwater Extraction and Treatment alternative also provides removal of nearly 26 million

gallons of groundwater per month (based on 600 gpm continuous pumping) or one pore volume of the

estimated impacted portion of the upper and lower aquifers every 3 months (based on calculations in

toA LVK L W<»kl932*A<hmn>R|irFST>alp*4-7+-00<Joc 4-4 04/24AX)


Appendix D). The actual mass of COPCs removed is uncertain, but if concentrations remain the same in

groundwater treatment system influent as estimated based on currently available data from groundwater

monitoring wells, a very conservative mass removal rate may be estimated. The potential removal rates

(pounds/month) for the groundwater extraction treatment option are summarized in Table D-l of

Appendix D.

4.3.4 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS

The No Action alternative is the least effective alternative in the short term and does not achieve RAOs in

the short-term.

The Monitoring alternative provides the information obtained from the groundwater monitoring program

to alert the community of potential future reduction in risks associated with new well installation. It is

unknown how long it will take for groundwater concentrations of COPCs to decrease to meet the RAO

under this alternative. An unqualified potential reduction in the time to achieve the RAO for groundwater

may be afforded by the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment alternative. However, short-term

physical hazards related to construction are posed to workers and trespassers.

4.3.5 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE

There is no significant difference between the remedial alternatives under this criterion. In all cases, the

potential for completion of the exposure pathway exists. The No Action alternative does not control future

risk as well as the Monitoring alternative and the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment alternative.

Monitoring will at least track/trend the long-term impact to determine whether additional remedies are

required. The long-term benefit of groundwater extraction is unclear, as groundwater extraction and

treatment remedies have fallen out of favor in the past several years, having been deemed by U.S. EPA and

other independent organizations to be costly, ineffective, and unnecessary at achieving cleanup goals in

typical applications.

4.3.6 IMPLEMENTABILITY

The No Action alternative would require the least effort to implement, but would provide little information

to document that the remediation objectives have been met.



Implementation of the monitoring alternative would be relatively easy and would not be disruptive to the

environment This alternative would also provide the additional information necessary to document the

fluctuation in groundwater quality and meeting the remediation objectives.

The groundwater extraction system would be the most difficult to implement. This alternative would be

costly and very disruptive to the environment Construction of the recovery wells, collection system, and

treatment system would be labor intensive Additionally, the operation of the system and decommissions

would require substantial effort. This alternative would also require permits from several local and state

agencies

4J.7 COST

There are no costs associated with the No Action alternative. Costs for the other two alternatives are

summarized in Table 5. Additional details are provided in Appendix E.

It is uncertain how much maintenance would actually be required under each of the other two alternatives.

Chemical usage rates and sludge generation quantities and costs are also uncertain. The assumptions used

for cost estimating purposes are documented in Appendices D and E.

4.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

Based on the comparative evaluation of the three remedial alternatives presented above, the Monitoring

alternative is the recommended remedial alternative The lack of current and likely future site risk suggests

that the Grouodwiter Extraction and Treatment alternative is not warranted, and the difference in costs

is not justified. The Monitoring alternative is appropriate, as opposed to the No Action alternative,

because continued groundwater monitoring is necessary to verify- achievement of the RAOs.

mdk LVK L Wotk 19314 AAmnRpl FSTctpdl 4-24-00 doc 4-6 0474/00

l-'ocused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site. Kent County, Michigan

5.0 REFERENCES

ASTM. 1997 ASTM Guide for Remediating Natural Attenuation at Petroleum Release Sites.

Earth Tech. 1997. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment

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.

Eid LYK UWork'19324\AdminVRpt\FSTE\T3.doc 5-1 08/11/99

.rocust.\i f-'easibiiiH Study,V\:r;.: l.anafu! >':.v. Kent County. Michigan

I S EPA. !^ub June 2. !•"•"- Lerurc-'ardin.: the Monitoring Pian

L S EPA. ii o- A /<>•: . :->r^j '

icj 10 Koni Coum> Department of Public \\'orks

RCfi-i Corrccavc Acnon. and

L S EPA. . June 1999

:.VK :. »otk (•»}:* AiiminRpt FSTF\T5 ix- 08 11 99

TABLES

Table 1

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

Shaded cells indicate exceedance.

Mck\Eid\\GRRS01\data\Work\19324\Admin\Rpt\FSTEXT3.doc

Tnblc 2

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 |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

e l l V I I O M I l l C ' M l

Kid t.VK l.:\Work\l9324^Admin<Thl>Tahlc 2.doc

cTable 2

(continued)Potential ARAR's

Sparta Landfill

Description Prerequisite(s) Requirement Citation Comments

A ction-Specific

Point Source Discharge ToSurface Water

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

AKAK if wel ls ate abandoned

Kid I .VK l.:\Work\l9324'AdiTiirHTbKrahle 2.doc

Table 2(continued)

Potential ARARsSparta Landfill

Description Prerequisite(s) Requirement Citation Comments

Location Specific

I. Within Flood Plain Action that will occur inlowlands, relatively flat areasadjoining inland and coastalwaters, or other flood-proneareas.

Action to avoid adverse effects,minimize potential harm,restore and preserve natural andbeneficial values.

Executive Order on FloodplainManagement, Exec. Order Nol l ,988;40CFR6.302(b)andAppendix A.

May he an ARAR if floodplainsare present.

2. Within a Flood Plain Occupy, fill or grade lands in aflood plain

Substantive compliance withpermit requirements andconditions.

Michigan Act 451 part 31 -Water Resources Protection -and Michigan AdministrativeCode.

AI^AR if regulated activi t ies arelocated in 100- year Hood plain

3. Within Area Where ActionMay Cause IrreparableHarm, Loss or Destructionof Significant Artifacts.

Alteration of terrain thatthreatens significant scientific,prehistorical, or archaeologicaldata.

Action to recover and preserveartifacts.

Archaeological and HistoricPreservation Act; 16 USC. ct.seq.;40CFR6.302(c)

May be an ARAR if scientific,prehistoric, historic orarchaeological data exist for thesite.

4. Historic Project Owned orControlled By FederalAgency.

Property included in or eligiblefor the National Register ofHistoric Places.

Action to preserve historicproperties; planning of action tominimize harm to NationalHistoric Landmarks.

Historic Sites Act; 16 USC 641et. scq.:40CFR6.3()l(a);National Historic PreservationAct, Section 106 (16 USC.470et. seq.); 36 CFR Part 800.

An ARAR if the site is on or iseligible for the NationalRegister of I listoric Places

5. Critical Habitat UponWhich Endangered Speciesor Threatened SpeciesDepends

Determination of endangered orthreatened species.

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-)

< )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

rodtied Feasibility Satdy^TJT- L^rj-'.i. S.if \tr: Cauat\: Michigan

TABLE 4

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

C

Shoil- lrmi K

( nimmnnlN illlilI •IIXHIllllllfllllll I'inlnllntI

Wlllkl ' l I ' lnll-Clinil

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 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

Ease of UndertakingAi^jij^rjaj U/^ryl^^i-ll

If Necessary

liasily implemented. Easily implemented. I'.asily iinplemcnled

Ability to MonitorEffectiveness of Remedy

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)

Page 1 of4

MetalsAluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIIron, dissolvedron, total7erric IronFerrous IronLead, dissolved.ead, totalMagnesium, dissolved

Magnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, totalvlercury, dissolvedMercury, totalNickel, dissolved

Nickel, total'otassium, dissolved'otassium, totalSilver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, totalnorgamcs

AlkalinityBOD, 5-dayChemical oxygen demandChloride

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

Residential &Commercial I

Drinking WaterCriteria

50 (V)50 (A)50 (A)

2,000 (A)2,000 (A)5.0 (A)5.0 (A)

NANA

50 (M)50 (M)

NANA

100 (A)100 (A)300 (E)300 (E)

NANA

4.0 (L)4.0 (L)4.2E+54.2E+550 (E)50 (E)2.0 (A)2.0 (A)100 (A)100 (A)

NANA3434

1.6E+51.6E+52,4002,400

NANANA

2.5E+5 (E)

Groundwater SurfaceWater Interface

Criteria

NA150(X)150(X)

190190

4.78 (H)4.78 (H)

NANA100100NANA

1 72.24 (H)11

NANANANA

30.95 (H)30.95 (H)

NANA895895

0.2 (M)0.2 (M)

1 24.27 (H)124.27 (H)

NANA

0.2 (M)0.2 (M)

NANA

282.66 (H)282.66 (H)

NANANANA

Part 201 Generic Groundw ater Cleanup CriteriaSparta Landfill(Units as Giveni

Page 2 of4

Imorgwia (COM.) I niaNitrogen, Ammonia ugLUnionized Ammonia (cold water) ugLNitrogen, nitrate 'nitrite ugLNitrogen,Nitrogen,TKN

Nitrate ugLNitrite ugL

ug/LPhosphorus, total ugLHardness,Sulfide

(EDTA) as CaCO3 ug/Lug/L

Carbon Dioxide ugl.Sulftte ug/LTotal organic carbon ug/LTurbidityPH

NTUS.U.

Conductivity umbo&cmTemperature deg. COrvgen, dissolved ugl.Eh mV

Residential &„ ... Groundwater SurfaceC ommercial I

r^. i «- Water InterfaceDnnkine water _ . .

_ " . CntenaCntena

ID (N) (AC)NA 29 (AC)

10.000 NA1 0.000 (A.N) NA1,000(A,N) NA

NA NA63.000 NA

NA NANA NANA NA

2.5E-5 (E) NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NANA NA

t-'olfdlf Organic* I nittAcetoneBenzene

ug/Lug/L

Bromochlorofnethane ugL

Bromofonn ugLCarbon disulfide ugLCarbon Tetrachloride ugL«« f \,C- u pQCOOCI ^izene ugLCntorodibromomeihane ugLChloroform ugLChloromethane ugl.Chloroethane ugL

, 2- DibrofDoethane ugL. 2- Dkhlorobenzene ugL, 3- Dkhlorobenzeoe ugL.4-DkliIr....!.-.. ,_.- i inTKxoueiiTciie ug L, 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane ugl.

Dichlorobromomethane ugL1 . 2- Dichloropropane ugLc is- 1. 3- Dichloropropene ugLtrans- 1,3- Dkhloropropene ugL1.1-Dichloroeihane ugLI . I - Dichtoroethx lene ue L

730 1,7005.0 (A) 200 (X)

NA NAin i<IU J3

lOO(A.W) 890800 34000

5.0 (A) 45 (X)100 (A) 47

100 (A. W) 150100 (A. W) 170(X)

66 7300220 9400

0.05 (A) NA600 (A) 16

600 3875 (A) 130.2(A) NA

lOO(A.W) 18050 (A) 290 (X)

NA NANA NA880 62000

70 (A) 63(X)

Part 201 Generic Groundwater Cleanup CriteriaSparta Landfill(Units as Given)

Page 3 of4

Volatile Organics (coni.)1, 2- Dichloroe thanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-HexanoneMethylene Chloride2-ButanoneMethyl isobutyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroeth y lene1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane1,1, 2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethylcneTolueneVinyl chlorideXylene, totalSemi-Volatile Organics3henolB is(2-chloroethyl)ether2-Chlorophenol2-Methylphenol3is(2-chloroisopropyl)ether

4-Methylphenoln-Nitrosodi-n-j)ropylaminelexachloroeth aneNitrobenzenesophorone

2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol3is(2-chloroethoxy)methane,2,4-TrichIorobenzene

2,4-DichlorophenolNaphthalene[-Chloroaniline

Hexachloro-l,:!-butadiene)-Chloro-m-cresol2-Methylnaphthalenelexachlorocyc lopentadiene

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol,2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

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



5.0 (A)70 (A)100 (A)74 (E)1,000

5.0 (A)13,0001,800

100 (A)5.0 (A)

4.3200 (A)5.0 (A)5.0 (A)790 (E)2.0 (A)280 (E)

4,4005.0 (M)

45370NA37

5.0 (M)61

5.0 (M)90020370NA

70 (A)73

260NA11150260

50 (A)77

730

Groundwater SurfaceWater Interface

Criteria

360 (X)IDID18

NA940 (X)2200

ID80

45 (X)78 (X)

200330 (X)200 (X)

1401535

210NA2282

NAIDNA

6.7 (X)180(X)570(X)

ID12

NA301913

NAID

NAIDID

5.0 (M)NA

Part 201 Generic Groundwater Cleanup CriteriaSparta Landfill(Lniis as Given)

Page 4 of4



Ground water SurfaceWater Interface

Criteria

Semi- yof tale Orgmnia (cont.)2-Chtoronaphthakne2-NhroanilioeDimethyl pbthalaieAcenapfatfaykae2,6-DinJtrMoluene3-NhroanilneAcenapbtbene2,4-Dinhrophenol4-NioophcnolDibenzofunn2,4-DinJtrotolueneDietfayl pbthalate4-Chlorodipbaiyl etherFluoreoe4~Nhroaniline4,6-DinJtro-o-cresoln-NhrosodipbenylamJne4-Bromodiphenyl etherHexacbJorobenzenePentacfaloropheDolPhenanthreoeAnthraceneCarbazoleDt-o-butyl phthalateFluonotheoeP>TtneButyl benzyl phthalate3 .S'-DidilorobenzidineBenzo(a)anihraceoeChnseneBis<2-eth> t hex\l)phthaJateDm-octyl phthalateBenzo(b)i1uoraniheneBcnzoOcJfluorantheneBenzo(a)p>Teoe

Dibenz(aJi)anthraceQeBenzo(ehi)per> tcneGasaEthaneEdnleneMethane

Lnits

ug,Lug,!.ugl.

ug'"L

ug/Lug/Lugl.

ug.1.ug/Lug/L

ug/Lugl,ug/Lugl.ug-Lug,/Lug/L

ug'Lug/LugLug^ug-Lug/Lug.1.ug'LugLugLugLugLug.LL'nitsu§LugLueL

1.800NA

73.00026NANA

1,300NANAID

5.0 (M)5.500NA880NA

20 (M)170NA

1-0 (A)1.0 (A)

2643 (S)

43880

210(S)140 (S)1.200

1.95.0 (M)

12060 (A)

1305.0 (M)

125 0 ( M )5.0 (M)5.0 (M)

26

NANAID

NANANAIDNANA19

NANA4

NANANA12

NANANANAID

6.69(H)5.0 (M)

ID10(M)9.71.6ID

14(X)0.3

NAID32IDID

NAIDIDID

NA

NANAID

Table AlSummary of MW-01 Groundwater Analytical Data

Sparta Landfill, Michigan(Units as Given)

Page 1

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:MetalsAluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, tofcilCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIIron, dissolvedIron, totalFerric IronFerrous IronLead, dissolvedLead, totalMagnesium., dissolvedMagnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, totalMercury, dissolvedMercury, totalNickel, dissolvedNickel, totalJotassium, dissolvedJotassium, totalSilver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, total'norganics



MW-01960526707

5/9/96

------------------.-.----------------

----

MW-01960876A-02

5/10/96

-U l

-U10

---

33800-------

112--.

l.:;fSi.ffi$fj..

9770-

37-

U0.2-

U20-

B1940---

BU 4960-

i;XO:.",J3$88-

120000U1000

U 200003000

MW-011876672/4/98

-Ul.O

-10

---

55000-------

U20--.

Ul.O-

13000-

87-

U0.2-

U20-

1800---

U2000-

1170-

103000U1000

U 20000U2000

MW-Oldup1876682/4/98

-U l . O

-10

---

56000-------

U20--.

Ul .O-

13000-

37-

U0.2-

U20-

1800---

U2000-

1170-

1140001300

U 20000U2000

MW-01E219518

3/31/99

-U20U20

--

0.71

1800018000

--

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

100•-•.;--.•.• .•••. ••.-.• .• .•.•.••..•.•.'.•

LS&I3SI100

U100U3.0

••- >''T:C: &1

39003900U20U20U0.2U0.2U25U25850

12000.3

MPB0.6U1000U 1000

267298

59000U1000

8800U 10000

Table A1Summary of MVV-01 Groundwater Analytical Data

Sparta Landfill, Michigan(Units as

Page 2

Site ID:Sample ID: 96(Dale:Inorfmma (COML) I nilsNitrogen, Ammonia ug/LUnionized Ammonia (coldwater) ug/LNitrogen, nitraie'nitrite ug'"LNitrogen, Nitrate ug/LNitrogen. Nitrite ug/LTKN ug/LPhosphorus, total ug/LHardness, (EOT A) as CaCO3 ug/LSulfide ug/LCarbon Dioxide ug/LSulfate ug/LTotal organic carbon ug/LTurbidity NTUpH S.U.Conductivity umhos/cmTemperature deg COxygen, dissolved ug/LEh mVVolmttie Orgmiuct L'nitsAcetone ug/LBenzene ug/LBromodJoromethane ug/LBromomethaoe ug/LBroroofcnn ug/LCarbon disulfide ug/LCarbon TetrachJonde ug/LCMorobcnzene ug/LChJofod*romomethane ug/LChJoroform ug/LChtorofnethane ug/LChloroemane ug/L. 2- Dibromoethane ug/L, 2- Dichlorobenzene ug/L, 3- Dichlorobenzene ug/L. 4- Dichlorobenzene ugl., 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane ugl.

Dkhlorobromomethane ug'L1.2- Diciloropropane ugLcis- 1 . 3- Dichloropropene ug/Ltrans- 1 .>- Dichloropropene ug/L1 . 1 -Dkbloroeihane ug/L1. 1- Dichloroethylene ug'L

MW-01 MW-OI MW-01 MW-Oldup)526707 960876A-02 187667 187668

5,9/96 5 '1 0/96 2/4/98 2/4^98

U 100 U 100 U100U Uj U

3660 17000 JMM-.

J*920 520 USOON180 100 90

--.

U 10000 12000 11000J7000 4900 5300

73 456.79 6.79465 46553 S3

MW-01E2195183/31/99

U50U-

1700U100

-20

62000U200510055003900

27J21267.4

641035

U100U 10 - U I . O Ul .O U 1.0

U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0

U 10 - U I . O Ul .O U5.0Ul .O

U 10 - U l . O Ul .O U l . OUl .OUl .O

U 10 - U l . O Ul .O U l . OU 10 - U l .O U l . O U l . O

U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0|

---

-

Ul .OU l . OU l . OU l . OUl.O

L 10 - U 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.0U l . O



Page 3

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:

Volatile Organics (cont.)1, 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1 , 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-HexanoneMethylene Chloride2-Butanonc:Methyl isolmtyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1, 1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroelhyleneTolueneVinyl chlorideXylene, totalSemi-Volatile OrganicsJhenolBis(2-chloroethyl)ether2-ChIorophenol2-MethylphenolBis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether4-Methylphenoln-Nitrosodi-n-propylamineiexachloroethaneNitrobenzenesophoron«

2-Nitrophe:nol2,4-Dimethylphenol)is(2-chloroethoxy)methane,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

2,4-Dichlc rophenolNaphthalene[-ChloroanilineIexachloro-l ,3-butadiene)-Chloro-m-cresol

2-Methyln aphthaleneiexachlorocyclopentadiene

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol


MW-01960526707

5/9/96

--------------

U10---

U10-------------

U10U10

-------

MW-01960876A-02

5/10/96

-----------------

-----------------------

MW-011876672/4/98

--------------

Ul .O--

Ul.O-------------

Ul.OUl .O

-------

MW-Oldup1876682/4/98

--------------

Ul .O--

Ul.O-------------

Ul .OU l . O

-------

MW-01E219518

3/31/99

Ul.OU 1.0Ul.OUl .OU50U5.0U50U50

Ul.OU .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U3.0

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

Sparta Landfill, MichiganiL'nits as Given)

Page 4

Site ID: MW-01 MW-01 MW-01Sample ID: 960526707 960876A-02 187667Dale: 5.-9/% 5/10/96 2/4/98

Srmu- y»lmtUt Orgmitics (conL) I nits2-Chloronaphthaleoe ug/L2-Xitroaniline ug/LDimethyl phihalate ug/L - -Acenapfathylene ug/L - -2,6-Dinitrololuene ug/L - -3-Nitroaniline ug/LAcenapfcthene ug/L2,4-Dinitropbenol ug/L4-Nitrophenol ug/LDibenzofurao ug/L2.4-Dinitrotoluene ug/LDtethyl phthalate ug/L4-CWorodipbenyl ether ug/L - -Fluorene ug/L4-Nitroaniline ug/L4.6-Dinitro-o-crcsol ug/Ln-Nhrosodiphenyiamine ug/L4-Bronxxliphenyl ether ug/LHexacnJorobenzene ug/LPaiUchJoropheno) ug/LPhenanlhrene ug/LAnthracene ug/LCarbazofe ug/LDi-o-butyl phthalate ug/L - -nuoranibeoe ug/LPyrene ug/LButyl benzyl phthalate ug/L3.3'-D»chlorobenzkiinc ugl.

MW-01 dup1876682/4/98

----------------------------

Benzo(a anthracene ug/L - . . .

MW-01E219518

3/31/99

U5.0U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U 1.0U5.0U5.0U10U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0

Chry«ne ug/L - - - - U 5.0Bis<2-€thyl hexyOphdialate ug/L U 10 - U 1.0 U 1.0 U 5.0Di-n-oclyl phthalate ug/L - - - - U 5.0Benzo(b»fluoranlhene ug/LBenzo(klfluoran(hene ug/L - -Benzo(a|pyrene ug/Llndeno(l^3-<:d)pyTene ug^L

U5.0U5.0U5.0

-Diben2(Ui)anthraceoe ug/L - . . .Benzo(ghi)peT>lene ugfL - -Gmsa UnitsEthane ug.'L - . . .EUiykne ug/L - . . .Methane ue/L - . . .

U5.0U5.0U5.0

U5.0U5.0

U2000

Table A2 .**-.Summary of MW-02 Groundwater Analytical Data


Page 1

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:MetalsAluminum, totalArsenic., dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIIron, dissolvedron, total;erric Iron7errous Iron^ead, dissolved.ead, totalMagnesium, dissolvedMagnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, totalMercury, dissolvedMercury, totalNickel, dissolved

Nickel, total'otassium, dissolved'otassium, total

Silver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolved

Zinc, totalnorganics


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

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

ug/LUnitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

MW-02960540307

5/15/96

-BW3.8

-B32

---

132000-------

<;:"S>J$0---

:- • x-; "Jf&Wi-

32100-

r-:-i;:v.;;;;.i740-

U0.2-

U20-

3100---

J 15400-

J1480-

4960004000

260007000

MW-021876692/4/98

-6.2

-45

---

116000-------

fe :!!$$?

-

-

-

Ul .O-

17000-

f:;>:pf:£790-

U0.2-

U20-

4200---

U2000-

1040-

3530009500

U 200002900

MW-02E2 19465

3/30/99

-U20

---

U0.5-

115000---

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0

i;|£j3ill-

83007600

MAU3.0-

26000-

l;:,:Qe«3<!(-

U0.2-

U25-

3000-

MDU0.2-

2100-

578-

422000MD6500

97000MSU 10000

Table A2Summary of M\V-02 Groundwater Analytical Data

Sparta Landfill, Michigan(Units 35 Given)

Page 2

Sue ID:Sample ID:Dale:

litorgmitia (coat)Nitrogen, AmmoniaUnionized Ammonia (coldwater)

Nitrogen, nitrate nitrite

Nitrogen, NitrateNitrogen, NitriteTKNPhosphorus, totalHardness. (EOT A) as CaCO3SulfideCarbon DioxideSulfateTotal organic carbonTurbidHy

PHConductivityTemperatureOxygen, dissolvedEhVolmlUc Orgmiucs

AcetoneBenzeneBromochJoforoethaneBromomethaneBroroofbnnCarbon disul fideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzeneChlorodibromomethaneChloroformChloromethane

Chloroethane, 2- Dibromoethane, 2- Dichlorobenzene

. 3- Dkhlorobenzene

.4- Dichlorobenzene, 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane

[>ichlorobromomethane

, 2- Dichloropropanecis- 1 . 3- Dkhloropropcne

trans- 1 .3- Dkhloropropene1,1-Dichlorocthane

1.1- Dichloroethylene

I nitsug'Lug'L

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LNTUS.U.

H mhos/cmdeg.Cug/LmV

Units

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug'Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug'LugLug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LUE'L

MW-02960540307

5'15/96

119082.1

30--

J 197080

---

11000J4700

-----.

-U 10

---

U 1 0-

U 10--

U 10U 10

---

U 10-----

U 10-

MW-021876692/4/98

14M96.5

U20--

1900U20

---

1100077002046.367607.0

--

-U 10

---

U10-

U10--

U10U10

---

U10-----

U10-

MW-02E2 194653/30/99

51035

-140

U100-

60432000

4505200092006500

136.477257.4

2540-20

-U100

1.4U l . OUl .OUl.OU5.0U l . OUl .OUl .OUl .OUl .OU l . OUl.OU l . OUl .OU l . OUl .OU 1.0U l . OUl .OUl .OUl .OU l . O

Table A2Summary of MW-02 Groundwater Analytical Data


Page 3

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:Volatile Organics (cont.)1, 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-HexanoneVIethylene Chloride2-ButanoneVf ethyl isoburyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroethyleneI, 1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1,1, 2-TrichloroethanerrichloroethyleneToluene

Vinyl chlorideXylene, total^emi-Valatile Organics'henolJis(2-chloroethyl)ether

2-Chlorophenol2-Methylphenol3is(2-chloroisopropyl)ether-Methylphenol

n-Nitrosodi-n-propylaminelexachloroethaneNitrobenzenesophorone

2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol

lis(2-c liloroethoxy)methane,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

2,4-DichlorophenolNaphthalene-Chloroaniline[exachloro-1 ,3-butadiene

)-Chloro-m-cresol2-Methylnaphthalene

exacr lorocyclopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LUnitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L.ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

MW-02960540307

5/15/96

--------------

U10--

U10--------------

U10--

----

MW-021876692/4/98

--------------

U10--

U 10--------------

U10-------

MW-02E2 19465

3/30/99

U1.0U l . OU l . OUl.OU50

U5.0U50U50

Ul .OUl .OUl .OU l . OUl .OUl .OUl .OU l . OU3.0


U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

Table A2

Summary of MW-02 Groundwater Analytical Data


Page 4

Site ID:

Sample ID:

Date.

Sfmu-ypUaUe Orfmiua (conL)2-ChJoronaphihaJcne

2-Xitroaniline

Dimctbyl pbihalate

Acemphthylene

2,6-Dinitrotoluenc

3-Nitroanilioe

Aceiuphthcne

2,4-Dinitrophenol

4-Nitropbenol

Dibenzofuran

2,4-Dinmo4oluene

Dicthyl pbthalate

4-CUorodipnenyi ether

Fhiorene

4-Nrtroaniline

4,6-Dinitro-o-ciesol

n-Nitrosodiphenylamioc

4-Bromodiphenyl ether

HexacUofobenzene

Pentachtaropbenol

Pheiunthrenc

Anthracene

Carbozofe

Di-o-buryl phthalate

Fluoranthene

PyreneBuryl benzyl phthalate

Benzo(a)anthracenei

Chrysene

Bis<2-ethyl hcx\l)phthalate

Di-n-octyl phthalate

BenzoO>)nuoranthene

Benzo(k (fluoranthene

Benzo(a)pyrene

Indeno( 1 2 J-cdipyrene

Dibenz(aj))anthracene

Bemo(ghi)per>kne _

GtSB

Ethane

Ethylene

Methane

Units

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

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

MW-02960540307

5/15/96

L'nitsug/Lug/Lug'L

MW-02187669l<4/98

U 10 U 10

MW-02E2194653/30/99

U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U20

U5.0U20U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0Ul.OU5.0U5.0U I O

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

U400U4004500



Page 1

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:Metals

Aluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, i:otalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIron, dissolvedron, total

Ferric Ironrerrous Iron.ead, dissolved

Lead, totalMagnesium, dissolvedMagnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, total

Mercury, dissolvedMercury, totalNickel, dissolvedNickel, total'otassium, dissolved'otassium, total

Silver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolved

Zinc, totalnorganics


Units

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

ug/LUnitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

MW-03960526705

5/9/96

-S25.6

-210

---

221000-------

:;I ;;|::-T27JW!£S---

BJN2.6.

41600-

?;£::;;i:ix:3;i';Z? 3lS

-

U0.2-

U20-

B 15600---

J 17500-

J1490-

830000130006400015000

MW-031885122/18/98

-23

-180

---

213000-------

lll'll^^ajp---

Ul.O-

23000-

IffliSlflie.

U0.2-

U20-

9900---

7800-

63-

637000160007400012000

MW-03E219517

3/31/99

-22

---

U0.5-

194000---

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0

KH-l^oji-

296009800U3.0

-52000

.

U0.2-

U25-

9700-

U0.2-

3400-

53-

8160001800017000

U 10000

Table A3


Sparta Landfill. MichiganiL'mts as Given >

Page 2


Inorgmnia (com)Nitrogen, AmmoniaUnionized Ammonia (coldwater)Nitrogen, nitrate TutriteSitrogen, NitrateNitrogen, NitriteTKNPhosphorus, totalHardness, (EDTA) as CaCO3SulfideCarbon DioxideSulfateTotal organic carbonTurbiditypHronductivityTemperatureOxygen, dissolvedEhVoUOt OrgmniaAcetoneknzenekomochJoromethane

r. -morofnomcinaneJromofonn

Carbon disulfideCarbon Tetrachloridef*\ i icnkriOutuztucrhJorodibromomcthane

ChloroformChtoromeihaneChloroethane,2- Dibromoethane.2- Dkhlorobenzene

1 , 3- Dkhlorobenzene1,4- Dkhlorobenzene1. 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropaneDkhlorobromomethane1. 2- Dkhloropropanecis-l, 3- Dichloropropenetrans- 13- Dichloropropene1,1-Dkhloroethane1.1- Dkhtoroethylene

L'nitsug/Lug/L


^mhos/cmdeg.Cug/LmV

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

MW-03960526705

5/9/96

11000758.9U40

--

J* 15400N70

---

U 10000J9900

------

-J**5

---

U 10-

j i e--

J4J4

---

J 2-

ug'Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L Jlug/L

MW-031885122/18/98

5800399.9

U20--

6000U100

---

U 1000013000

2626-22130711.5

--

-J1.5

---

UIO-

J1.9--

UIOUIO

---

UIO-----

UIO-

MW-03E219517

3/31/99

1500103.4

-U100U 100

-30

842000260

3090002200012000

5639131914.71510-85

U100Ul.OUl.OU l . OUl .OU5.0Ul.OU l . OUl .OU l . OUl .OUl .OUl.OUl .OUl .OUl .OUl .OU l . OU l . OUl .OUl .OUl .OU l . O

Table A3



Page 3

Site ID:Sample DD:Date:

Volatile Organics (cont)\, 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbeazene2-HexanoneMethylene Chloride2-ButanoneMethyl isobutyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1,1, 2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethyleneToluene

Vinyl chlorideXylene, lotalSemi-Volatile Organics'henol3is(2-ch !oroethyl)ether

2-Chlorc phenol2-Methylphenol5is(2-ch loroisopropy l)ether

4-Methylphenoln-Nitrosodi-n-propylamineiexachloroethane•Jitrober^enesophorcine

2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dim ethy Iphenol)is(2-chloroethoxy)methane,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

2,4-DichlorophenolNaphthalene-Chloroanilinelexachloro- 1 ,3-butadiene>-Chloro-m-cresol

2-Methy [naphthalenelexachlorocyclopentadiene



MW-03960526705

5/9/96

--------------

U10--

U10--------------

J2-------

MW-031885122/18/98j

--------------

U10--

U10--------------

U10-------

MW-03E219517

3/31/99

Ul.OUl .OU 1.0U l . OU50U5.0U50U50Ul .OUl .OU .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U3.0

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

Table A3Summary of M\\-03 Groundwater Analytical Data

Sparta Landfill, MichiganfL'nin as Given)

Page 4

Sue ID:

Sample ID:Date:

Semi-VottaU Qrgmiucs (com.)

2-OUoronaphUukne2-NitroanilineDimethyl phthalateAcenaphthylene2,6-Dinitrotoluene3-NhroanilineAcenaphthene2,4-Dmitrophenol4-NitTOpbenolDibenzofuran2,4-DinhrotolueneDiethyl phthalate4-ChJorodfpbenyl ether

4-Nitjaaniline4.6-Dmitro-o-eresoln-Nmosodiphenylamine4-Bromodiphcnyl etherHexadiloiobcnzenePcntachJoropheooiPhenanthrene

AnthraceneCarbazoleDi-o-butyl phthalaieFluorantheoePyrcoeButyl benzyl phthalate3J'-DichlorobenzidineBcnzo(a)aDihraceoe

CnryseoeBis(2-ethyl hex> l)phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateBenzoO>)fluoraniheneBenzo(k)fluoranlheneBenzo(a)pyrene

Units

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

MW-Q3960526705

5/9/96

KfW-031885122/18/98

U 10 U10

MW-03E2195173/31/99

U5.0U20U5.0

U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U20U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20

U20U5.0U5.0U5.0Ul .OU5.0U5.0U 10U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

Dibenz(aJi)anihraccneBenz<Mfghi)peryleneGmsa

EthaneEihykneMethane

ug/L

ug/LI' nits

ug/L

ug/L

ua/L

U5.0

U5.0

U200U2002300



Site ID:Sample ID:Date:MetalsAluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, totalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIron, dissolvedron, total7erric Iron?errous Iron.,ead, dissolved.ead, total

Magnesium, dissolvedMagnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, total

Mercury, dissolvedMercury, totalNickel, dissolvedNickel, total'otassiurri, dissolved

Potassium, totalSilver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, totalnorganics

AlkalinityBOD, 5-clayChemical oxygen demandChloridenorganics

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

Jnits

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

Jnits

MW-04960520703

5/7/96

-Ui .O

-B33.5

---

58700-------

---

? ::5* •*;.' $R:- • : :' JfJNfi 0i4-

26000-

24-

U0.2-

U20-

BUI 020---

BU 4880-

J1030-

----

MW-041876712/4/98

-1.2

-49

---

55000-------

£. :•:•:*:•:•.': .-: :•:-:•:•'.•:•.*••??:* •?!

-

-

-

UI.O-

26000-

24-

U0.2-

U20-

1100---

3900-

63-

----


Sparta Landfill. Michigan'Units as Given)

Page 2

She ID:Sample ID:Date:

Nitrogen, AmmoniaUnionized Ammonia (coldwaler)Nitrogen, nitrate-tiitriteNitrogen, NitrateNitrogen. NitriteTKNPhosphorus, totalHardness. (EDTA) as CaCO3SulfideCarbon DioxideSulbfcTotal organic carbonTurindirypHConductivityrcmperanveOxygen, dissolvedEhVolatile Orgmnics

AcetoneBenzeneJromochloromethane

)romofbnnCarbon disul fideCarbon Tetrachloride

ChJorodibrorooroethanerhiorofonn

ChloromethaneChloroethanel,2-D*rornoethane, 2- Dichlorobenzene

1. 3- Dichlorobenzene1. 4- Dichlorobenzene1 , 2- Dftromo- 3- chloropropane>ichlorobromomethane. 2- Dichloropropane

cis-1. 3- Dichloropropenetrans- 1.3- Dichloropropene1.1-Dichloroethane. 1 - Dichloroethy lene

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LNTUS.U.

ji mhos/cmde&Cug/LmV

t«ttug/Lug/Lug/Lim/Tug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lnn/fUg/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

MW-04960520703

5,7/96

------------------

-U 10

-

.

U 10

U l f\IU

-U 10U 1 0

---

U 1 0-----

U 10-

KfW-041876712/4/98

------------

157J74808.6

--

-U10

-

_

U10

I II t\U I U

-U10U10

---

U10-----

U10-



Page 3

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:Volatile Organics (cant.)1, 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylben2£ne2- HexanoneVIethylene ChlorideMethyl E'thyl Ketone4- Methyl- 2- PentanoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1, 1, 2, 2- Tetrachloroethane1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1,1, 2- TrichloroethanerrichloroethyleneToluene

Vinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)Semi-Volatile OrganicsPhenolBis (2-Chloroethyl) Ehter2- Chlorophenol2- Meth> IphenolJis (2-C'tiloroisoropyl)- Ether- Methylphenol

"1- Nitrosodi-n-PropylamineHexachloroethane>Jitroberizenesophorone

2- Nitrophenol2, 4- Diinethylphenol, 2, 4- Trichlorobenzene

2, 4- DichlorophenolNaphthalene- Chloioanilinelexachlorobutadiene- Chloro- 3- Methylphenol

2- MethylnaphlhaJene[exach'!orocyclopentadiene

2, 4, 6- Irichlorophenol2, 4, 5- Trichlorophenol

Units

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

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

MW-04960520703

5/7/96

--------------

U10-.

U10-------------

U10-------

MW-041876712/4/98

--------------

U10--

U10-------------

U10-------

Sparta Landfill, Michigan' L'nils as Given)

Page 4

SitelD.Sample ID:Dale:Semii-VolmiUe Orgitiia (nut.)2- Chkronaphthakne2- NitroanilioeDimethylphthalaleAccnaphtbylene2,6- Dmitrotoluenc3- NitroanilioeAcenaphtneoe2, 4- Dmitrophcnol4- Nrtropheno!Dibcnzofuran2, 4- DinitrotoiueneDktfaylpbthalate4- Qikrophenylphenyl-EtherTuorene4-Nitnanilinc4, 6- Dmitro-2- MethylpbenolN- Nrooso- di- Phenylamine4- Bromophenyl Phenylether4exachlorobenzene"benanthreneA llf lf la li ••!•AiMimteueCarfaazoleDi- a- But>1phthalalenuoraotbene•yreneButyl Benzyl Phthalate1. 3'- Dichknobenzkline

Bis(2-<thyl hex> l)phthalateknzo (b) Fluoranthene)enzo Ik) Fluorantheneknzo (a) Pyrene

Indeno ( 1 . 2, 3- cd) Pyrene)ibenzo (a, h) AnthraceneJenzo (g. h, i) Per> lene

GmsaEthaneEthykaeMethane

I nitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

MW-04960520703

5'7/%

---------------------------

U 10-----

ugLr/ucugLugL

MW-041876712/4/98

---------------------------

U10------

--

ueL



Page 1

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:Metal

Aluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, totalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIron, dissolvedron, total:erric Iron'errous Iron,ead, dissolved,ead, total

Magnesium, dissolvedMagnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, totalMercury, dissolvedrfercur}, totalNickel, dissolvedNickel, total'otassium, dissolved'otassium, total

Silver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, totalInorganicsAlkalimtyBOD, 5-dayChemical oxygen demandChloride

Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L'ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

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

MW-05960538205

5/14/96

-U l

-B19

---

63300-------

B41.5---

BJN 2.4-

24300-

157-

U0.2-

U20-

B2640---

BU 3020-

J955-

----

MW-051876722/4/98

-Ul.O

-49

---

63000-------

546---

Ul.O-

27000-

209-

U0.2-

U20-

5400---

4700-

170-

----

Table ASSummary of MW-05 Groundwater Analytical Data


Page 2

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:Inorginia (com)Nitrogen. AmmoniaUnionized Ammonia (coldwater)Nitrogen, nitrate'nitriteNitrogen, NitrateNitrogen, NitriteTKNnt *- > . •rnO&pnonjs, looiHardness. (EDTA) as CaCO3Total organic i^ibooSulfkfeCarbon DioxideSultateTurbiditypHConductivity

fcMI|^«««Mifc

Oxygen, dissolvedEhVolmale Orfmiua

AcetoneBenzeneBromochloromeihaneBoronomethaneBromofonnCarbon disulfideCarbon TetrachlorideChlorobenzenei_ niofDaiDfornofnetnaneChloroformChtoromethaneChloroethane, 2- Dibromoethane. 2- DkhJorobcnzcne, 3- Dkhtorobenzene. 4- DichJorobenzene. 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane

Oichlorobrontornethane1 , 2- Dichloropropanecis-1,3- Dkhloropropenetrans- 13- Dkhloropropenel.l-Dkhloroethane1. l-Dichloroeth>-lene

Units

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L1ICT/1Ug/L.

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LNTUS.U.

umhos/cmj__ ^deg.Lug/LmV

L'nits

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

MW-05960538205

5/14/96

------~

--------

--

-U 10

---

U10-

U10

_

JU10U 10

---

U10-----

U 10-

MW-051876722/4/98

------~

-----

U1.19556A f9.6

-

-

U10---

U10-

U10

_

U10U10

---

U10-----

U10-

Page 3

Site ID:

Sample ID:Date:

Volatile Organics (cont)

1, 2- Dkhloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- Dichloroethylene

Ethylbenzene2- HexanoneMethylene ChlorideMethyl Ethyl Ketone4- Methyl- 2- Pentanone

StyreneTetrachloroethylene1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane1, 1, 1- Trichloroethane1, 1,2- TrichloroethanefrichloroethyleneToluene

Vinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)Semi-Volatile Organics

'henolBis (2-Chloroethyl) Ehter2- Chlorophenol2- MeihylphenolBis (2 Chloroisoropyl)- Ether- Me Jiylphenol

N- Nilrosodi-n-PropylamineTexachloroe thane

<Jitrobenzenesophorone

2- Nitrophenol2, 4- Dimethylphenol

Bis(2 -chloroethoxy)methane

1, 2, 4- Trichlorobenzene

2, 4- Dichlorophenol

Naphthalene4- Chloroaniline

Hexachlorobutadiene

4- Chloro- 3- Methylphenol2- Methylnaphthalene

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

2, 4, 6- Trichlorophenol

2, 4, 5- Trichlorophenol

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

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

ug/Lug/L

ug/Lug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

MW-05

9605382055/14/96

--------------

U10--

U10--------------

U10-------

MW-05

1876722/4/98

--------------

U10--

U10--------------

U10-------

Table ASSummary of M\V-05 Groundwater Analytical Data


Page 4

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:Stmi-VolmtUt Orgenics (cont) Units

2- Chloronaphthalene ug/L2- Nrtroanilinc ug/LDimethytphthalale ug/LAcenaphthylene ug/L

MW-05 MW-05960538205 187672

5/14/96 2/4^98

----

2, 6- DinhnMoluene ug/L5- NhroanitineAcenzphthene

ug/Lug/L

--

2, 4- Dinitrophenol ug/L4- NhropbenolDibenzofuran

ug/Lug/L

--

2, 4- Dinrtrotoluenc ug/LDKthylphthalale ug/L4- Chlorophcmtphcnyl-Ethcr ug/LFtuortne4-Nrtroanihne4, 6- Dmitn>-2-N- NBTOSO- <b-

ug/Lug/L

Mcthylphenol ug/LPhenylamine ug/L

----

4- Bromopbcnyl Phenytaher ug/LHcxachlorobenzoK ug/LW I..I lllltn..,.KjuumiuicAntbraccocCarbazofe

ug/Lug/Lug/L

---

Di-D-Butylphthalate ug/LFluonnthenePyrtzK

ug/Lug/L

--

Butyl Benzyl Phthalate ug/L3, 3f- Dichlorobenzidine ug/LBis(2-cth>l hcxyl)phthalatc ug/L JU6 U10Bcnzo (b) Fluorantbene ug/LBoizo (k) Fluoranthene ug/LBenzo (a) Pyrene ug/LIndcno (1,2,3- cd) P>TCDC ug/L -Dibcnzo (a, h) Anlhracene ug/LBcnzo (g, h. i) Pmlene ug/LGtsaEthaneEihykrKMethane

L'nia

u&'"Lug/Lug/L

---

Table A6Summary of MW-07

Groundwater Analytical DataSparta Landfill, Michigan

(Units as Given)

Page l

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:MetalsAluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIron, dissolvedran, total:erric Iron7errous Iron-ead, dissolved,ead, totalMagnesium, dissolvedvlagnesium, total

Manganese, dissolvedManganese, totalvlercury, dissolvedvlercury, totalNickel, dissolved•Jickel, total'otassium, dissolved'otassium, total

Silver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, to:alZinc, dissolvedZinc, totalnorganics

AlkalinityBOD, 5-dayChemical cxygen demandChloride


MW-07960532213

5/13/96

•n::''x'iii*!i2U l

-B73.5B84

--

6940073700

---

14--

:v:\E§;}3!f$::|;::-;--';-i'T:j[$4c

--

NU1.5•:;.':-'3NS:33V7

3170033300

21.539.5

U0.2-

U20-

B1050B1180

--

J 15100J 17900

77.5: : j 6520

304000U5000

U 200007000

MW-07960532214

5/13/96

•^r"'. ^Û l

-B71.5B81

--

7160074406

---

12--

':V;;V\':;\j&7JB

I^Hy:f:Ti&3tf--

JNU6.3i'Qjfiri!!

3200033400

21.539.5

U0.2-

U20-

B1050B1250

--

J 16300J 18100

J346' . . . , . J493<Ji

3080004000

U 200007000

MW-071876742/4/98

U2002.7

-230240

-.98000

105000---

U10--

i rf3|j$$Illltiîiitt

--

Ul.O1.9

4100044000

3539

U0.2-

U20-

28003100

--

2100022000

240430

4300007300

U2000012000

MW-07E2 19466

3/30/99

_

U20---

U0.5-

101000---

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0

Ii;3.f5$i.

17506000U3.0

.

37000-

•S!:! :::-

U0.2-

U25-

5400-

U0.2-

17000-

396-

441000120001100011000

MW-07 dupE2 194673/30/99

_

U20---

U0.5-

101000---

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0

^ÊlPlI.

17606000

U3.0.

37000-

|I!!51: !!-

U0.2-

U25-

5300-

U0.2-

17000-

383-

4470005300

1100011000

nmr\iap\Vnw fSPI.R 1Q174071 -\ \Rmnrf5-TahleAf i Printed 4/7/00


Groundwater Analytical DataSparta Landfill. Michigan

fL'mis as Given)

Page 2

She ID:Sample ID:Date:Inorgmnia fcoitt) L'nittNitrogen. Ammonia ugLUnionized Ammonia (coldwaler) ug/LNitrogen, nitrate nitrite ug/LNitrogen. Nitrate ug/LNitrogen, Nitrite ug/LTKN ug/LPhosphorus, total ug/LHardness, (EDTA) as CaCO3 ug/LSulfkfe ug/LCarbon Dioxide ug/LSulfifte ug/LTotal organic carbon ug/LTurbidity NTUpH S.U.

MW-07 MW-07 MW-07960532213 960532214 187674

5 13 '96 5/13/96 2/4/98

370 370 260025.8 25.5 179J

U20 U20 U20--

J* 630 J* 75« 27*0N 80 N 8* 90

.

.

.

22000 22000 220MJ2100 J2500 520*

716.91

Conductivity umhos/cm - - 860Temperature deg. COxygen, dissolved ug/LEh raVVolitilt Orgmnia Units

Acetone ug/LBenzene ug/LBromochlorotnethane ug/LBromomethane ug/LBromoform ug/LCarbon disulfide ug/LCarbon Tetrachloride ug/LChlorobenzene ug/LChlorodibromomethane ug/LChlorofonn ug/LChloromethane ug/LChloroethane ug/L, 2- Dibromoethane ug/L, 2- Dkhlorobenzene ug/L. 3- Dkhlorobenzene ug/L, 4- Dkhlorobenzene ug/L, 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane ug/L

DKhlorobrotnornethane ug/L1 . 2- Dichloropropane ug/Lcis-1. 3- Dichloropropcne ug/Ltrans- 1 ,3- Dichloropropene ug/L1,1-Dkrhloroethane ug/L1.1- Dichtoroethylene ug/L

10.-

-

L'10 U10 U10--.

U 10 U 10 U10-

U 10 U 10 U10--

U 10 U 10 U10U10 U10 U10

---

U10 U 10 U10-----

U 10 U 10 U10-

MW-07E2194663/30/99

5900406.9

-U 100U 100

-10t

42200*U2005900*220M52MUl .O6.7383511.7

262*-6t

U1001-1

Ul .OUl .OUl .OU5.0Ul .OUl .OUl .OU l . OU l . OU l . OUl .OU l . OUl .OU 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0

2^U 1.0

MW-07 dupE2 19467

3/30/99

6000413.8

-U 100U 100

-

100424000U20051000220005200Ul.O6.7283011.6

2790-60

U 1001.1

U 1.0Ul.OUl .OU5.0Ul .OU l . OUl .OU l . OUl .OU l . OU l . OU 1.0Ul .OU 1.0U 1.0U l . OU l . OU 1.0U l . O

2.4ui.o!

(Units as Given)

Page 3


Volatile Organics (conl)1, 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-HexanoneMethylene Chloride2-Butanon<:Methyl isobutyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane1,1, 1 -Trichloroethane1,1, 2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethyleneTolueneVinyl chlorideXylene, totalSemi-Volatile Organics'henolJis(2-chloroethyl)ether

2-ChloropJienol2-Methylp!tienolBis(2-chlo:roisopropyl)ether4-Methylphenoln-Nitrosodi-n-propylaminelexachloroethaneNitrobenzenesophorone

2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethyIphenolJis(2-chloroethoxy)methane,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

2,4-DichlcrophenolNaphthalene

4-ChloroanilineJexachloro-l,3-butadiene>-Chloro-in-cresol

2-Methylnaphthalene[exachloiocyclopentadiene



MW-07960532213

5/13/96

--------------

U10--

U10--------------

U 10-------

MW-07960532214

5/13/96

--------------

U10--

U10--------------

U10-------

MW-071876742/4/98

--------------

U10--

U10--------------

U10-------

MW-07E2 19466

3/30/99

Ul .OUl.OUl .OU 1.0U50U5.0U50U50

U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U3.0


MW-07 dupE2 19467

3/30/99

Ul .OUl.OUl .OU 1.0U50U5.0U50U50

Ul.OU .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U l . OU 1.0U3.0

(Units as Gi\-enl

Page 4

Site ID: MW-07 MW-07 MW-07Sample ID: 960532213 960532214 187674Dale: 5 13/96 5/13/96 2/4/98

S«w-KW«Jzfe Orfmnks (conL) (.'nits2-Chloronaphthalene ug/L

MW-07E2194663/30/99

U5.02-Nitroxniline ug/L - - - U20Dimethyl phihalate ug/L - - U 5.0Accnapfalhylene ug/L - - U 5.02^6-Dinitrotoluene ug/L - - U 5.03-Nrtroaniline ug'L - - U20Acenaphthene ug/L - - - U5.02,4-Dinitrophenol ug/L - - U204-Nhrophenol ug/L - - - U20Dibenzofuran ug/L - - U 5.02,4-Dinitrotoliiene ug/L - - U5.0Diethyl phthalate ug/L - - U 5.04-Cbkirodiphenyl ether ug/L - - - U 5.0Fluorene ug/L - - - U5.04-Nhroaniline ug/L4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ug/L - -D-Nrtrosodiphenylamine ug/L - -4-Bromodiphenyl ether ug/LHexachlorobenzene ug/L

U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0

Pentachloropheool ug/L - - - U 1.0

MW-07 dupE2 194673/30/99

U5.0U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U20U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U l . O

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



Page 1

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:MetalsAluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIron, dissolvedron, total?erric Iron^errous Iron,ead, dissolved,ead, totalMagnesium, dissolved

Magnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, totalvlercury, dissolvedMercury, total

Nickel, dissolvedNickel, total'otassium, dissolved'otassium, total

Silver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, totalnorganics

AlkalinityBOD, .'5-dayChemical oxygen demandChloride


MW-08960520702

5/7/96

-U l

-B25

---

77900-------

U20---

BJN2.3-

31300-

U10-

U0.2-

U20-

B4740---

J 16000-

*J..'',' $?$$-

256000U1000

U 2000050000

MW-081876662/4/98

-Ul.O

-23

---

53000-------

U20---

Ul.O-

20000-

U10-

U0.2-

U20-

3700---

7100-

250-

175000U 1000

U 2000019000

MW-08E2 194703/30/99

-U20

---

0.6-

81000---

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0

U100-

U100U100U3.0

-28000

-U20

-U0.2

-U25

-4300

-U0.2

-11000

-734

-

263000U1000U500037000


Sparta Landfill, MichiganlUniis as Given)

Page 2

She ID:SampkID:Date:

Inorganics (coat.) UnitsNitrogen. Ammonia ug/LUnionized Ammonia (coldwater) ug/LNitrogen, nitrale/nitrite ug/L'Nitrogen, Nitrate ug/LNitrogen, Nitrite ug/LTKN ug/LPhosphorus, total ug/LHardness, (EDTA) as CaCO3 ug/LSulfide ug/LCarbon Dioxide ug/LSul&K ug/LTotal organk carbon ug/LTurbidity NTUpH S.U.Conductivity ^mhos/cmTemperature deg. COxygen, dissolved ug/LEh mVVolaUe Orgmnia UnitsAcetone ug/LBenzene ug/LBrofDOchloromethane ug/LBromorocthane ug/LBromoform ug/LCarbon disulfide ug/LCarbon TetrachJoride ug/LChlorobenzene ug/LChlorodibromomethane ug/LChloroform ug/Lrf*TlljL.JLm^«l».mJ ..»/fCnlorometnane ug/LChloroethane ug/L. 2- Dibromoethane ug/L. 2- DkUorobenzene ug/L. 3- Dkhlorobenzene ug/L. 4- Dichlorobenzene ug/L. 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane ugl-

Dichlorobromomethane ug/L1 , 2- Dichloropropane ug/Lcis- 1 , 3- Dichloropropenc ug/Ltrans- 13- DicrUoropropene ug/L.l-Dichlorocthaoe ug/L

1. l-Dkhloroethylene ug/L

MW-08 NfW-08 MW-08960520702 187666 E2 19470

5/7/96 2/4/98 3/3(V99,

HTJU100 U100 50U U 3.45

103M 45005000

U100HT J* 530 U 500

N170 U20 U10- 334000

U200169000

18000 13000 17000J 1600 1400 1400

1.6 47J3 7.06472 6278.4 9.6

150

U100U10 U10 Ul .O

U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0

U 10 U10 U5.0U 1.0

U10 U10 Ul .OU 1.0U 1.0

10 U 10 U 1.0U 10 U10 U l .O

U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0

U 10 U10 Ul .OU 1.0



Page 3


Volatile Organics (cont)1, 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-HexanoneMethylene Chloride2-ButanoneMethyl isobutyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1, 1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1, 1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethyleneTolueneVinyl chlorideXylene, totalSemi-Volatile OrganicsPhenol3is(2-chloroethyl)ether

2-Chlorophenol2-MethyIphenolBis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether4-Methylphenoln-Nitroiiodi-n-propylaminefexachloroethane

Nitrobenzenesophorone

2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol}is(2-chloroethoxy)methane,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

2,4-DichlorophenolNaphthalene-Chloioanilinelexachloro-l,3-butadiene

p-Chloro-m-cresol2-Methylnaphthalenelexachlorocyclopentadiene



MW-08960520702

5/7/96

--------------

U10--

---

U10-----------

U10-------

MW-081876662/4/98

--------------

U10--

---

U10-----------

U 10-------

MW-08E2 19470

3/30/99

U l . OUl.OU 1.0Ul.OU50U5.0U50U50

U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U3.0


Sparta Landfill. Michigan/Units as Given)

Page 4

Site ID:Sample ID:Date;

Sfmu-Votmiae Orgmnics (conL)2-ChJorooaphlhalene2-NitroanitineDimethyl phthalaleAcenaphthylene2,6-DimtnXoluene3-NitroaniliocAmanhfhenen< % mjirrnirharb

2,4-Dinrtropbenol4-NitrophenolDibenzofuran2,4-DinJtrotohieneDietfayt phthalate4-Chlorodipheml etherFluorcne4-Nhroaniline4,6-Dinhro-o-cresoln-Nhrasodipheny lamme4-BroiDodiphcnyl etherHexacbJorobenzenePrnfvhbvnnhfnnlniijt iii^uyi^m/i

[ftefuntfafeoeAothractneZaitoazoleDi-o-butyl phihalateFluoranthenePyreaeButyl benzyl phthalate3J'-Dich)orobenzidiDe3en2o(a)aiithraceTieChiyseneBis(2-«thyl hexy DphthaJate>i-n-octyl phthalaie)en2o(b)fluoraniheneJenzoOOfluoranthene3ciuo<a)p>TCoendeno< 1 3-cd)pyreneIhben4aji)anthiacene)enzo(ghi)peT> leneCmsaEthaneEthyleneMethane

Unitsu&tug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lno/TUJg/i^

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/0-ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lugl.ug/Lug/Lugl.ug/LtVwttug/Lug/1.UE'l.

MW-08960520702

5/7/96

------

---------------------

MW-081876662/4/98

------

.--------------------

-'- '

JU7 U10-

MW-08E2 194703/30/99

U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U20u s n\J J.U

U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U I . OU5.0U5.0U10U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0

U 5.0U5.0

U2000



Pagel

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:MetalsAluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totaJChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIiron, dissolvedron, total;erric Iron?errous Ironêad, dissolvedêad, totalMagnesium, dissolved

Magnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, totalMercury, dissolvedMercury, total•Jickel, dissolvedNickel, total'otassium, dissolved'otassium, total

Silver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, totalnorgania

AlkalinityBOD, 5-dayChemical oxygen demand

Chloride

Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LUnits

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

MW-09960538203

5/14/96

-B1.5

-B28.5

---

68400-------

U20---

,;;.;.;-4;ll;:;|iif:ii-

23000-

OlÎMF^ffJ-

U0.2-

U20-

B2120-----

J724------

MW-09960538204

5/14/96

-U l

-B38

---

72200------.

B24---

JN4-

23900-

l;SS)D3--iiS^-

U0.2-

U20-

B2200-----

J722------

MW-091876732/4/98

-2-

75---

97000-------

'430---

Ul.O-

33000-

SSEIM-

U0.2.

U20-

2500-----

150------

MW-09E2 19469

3/30/99

-U20

---

U0.5-

144000.

--

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0

'••••••".'•" :- 24SB.

U1002400

U3.0-

40000-

IsSIOtli-

U0.2-

U25-

2300-

U0.2-

6000-

1000--

2650001400

U5000U 10000

Table A8Summary of MNV-09 Groundwater Analytical Data

Sparta Landfill, Michigan'Units as Gi\*enl

Page 2

Site ID:Sampk ID:Dale:

litorfmnks (cant.)Nitrogen. AmmoniaUnionized Ammonia (coldwatcr)Nitrogen, nitrate/nitriteNitrogen, NitrateNitrogen, NitriteTKNPhosphorus, totalHardness, (EDTA) as CaCO3SulfideCarbon DioxideSul&teTotal organk carbonTurbiditypHConductivityTempentufeOxygen, dissolvedEhVotmale OrgmmiaAcetoneBenzene9romocnloromcthane3romorocthane3romofonnCarbon disulfideCarbon TetrachJoridcCUorobenzeneChtorodibromoaKthaneChlorofonnrhlororoethane

CbJoroethane1 . 2- Dibrorooethane,2- Dkhlorobenzene, 3- Dkhlorobenzene,4- Dkhlorobenzene, 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane

Dkhlorobromomethane1 . 2- Dichloropropanecis-1. 3- Dichtoropropenetrans- 1 3- Dichloropropenel.I-Dichloroethane1.1- Dichloroethylene

I' nits

ug/LugLug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LNTUS.U.

umhos/cmdeg.Cug/LmV

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

MW-09960538203

5/1496

------------------

-U 1 0

---

U10-

U 10--

JU 10U 10

--

MW-09960538204

5/14/96

------------------

-U10

---

U10-

U10--

JU10U10

--

-U 10 U10

-

MW-091876732/4/98

------------

186.947189.8

--

-U10

---

U10-

U10--

UIOU10

--

MW-09E2 19469

3/30/99

U50U-

170U 100!

-U I O

542000990

74000180002400

I

6.738598J

3350_«

U100Ul .OUl .OU l . OUl .OU5.0U l . OU 1.0U 1.0U l . OU l . OU l . OUl .OU l . OU l . O

UIO-

-ugLug/Lug/Lug/L U 10 U 10 U10ugL

U l . OU l . OU l . OU 1.0U l . OU l . OU l . OUl .O

Page 3


Volatile Organics (cont.)1 , 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans-1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-HexanoneVIethylene Chloride2-ButanoneMethyl iso butyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane1,1, 1 -Tri<:hloroethane1, 1,2-Trichloroethanefrichloroethylene

TolueneVinyl chlorideXylene, totalSemi-Volatile Organics'henol

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether2-Chlorophenol2-Methylphenol)is(2-chloroisopropyl)ether-Methylphenol

n-Nitrosod i-n-propy laminelexachloroethaneNitrobenzenesophorone

2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethyIphenol

lis(2-chloroethoxy)methane,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

2,4-Dichlc rophenolNaphthalene-Chloroaniline[exachloro- 1 ,3-butadiene

)-Chloro-m-cresol2-Methylnaphthalene

lexachlorocyclopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol


MW-09960538203

5/14/96

--------------

U 10--

U10---------

.----

U 10-------

MW-09960538204

5/14/96

--------------

U10--

U I O--------------

U I O-------

MW-091876732/4/98

--------------

UIO--

UIO--------------

UIO-------

MW-09E2 194693/30/99

U l . OUl.OU 1.0Ul .OU50U5.0U50U50

U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U3.0


U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

Page 4


Sernii- Vftoile Orgmiua (cant.)2-CWorooaphthakoc2-XrtroanilineDimctfayl phthalateAcenaphthyleoe2,6-Dinitroioluene3-NitroaniIineAcenapothene2,4-Dinitropbenol4-NitrophenolDibenzofina2,4-DinhrotolueneDktfayl phthalate4-OikvninUmvt rttwrT^T_ lUua •vinirirfc n j 1 yilrvi

Huorene4-Nitroaniline4,6-Dinhro-o-cresoln-Nitrosodtphen) Umine4-Broroodiphenyl ether-lexachlorobenzenePentachlorophenoltKnantfarcne

Anthracenef* a • i i la.armzoieDi-o-butyl phthalatenuorantbene*yrene

Butyl benzyl phthalate3,3'-DtdilorobenzidiDeknzo(a)anthnceoerhrysene

Bis(2-etfayl hcryDpbthalateDi-n-oct> 1 phthalateknzo(b)fluorantbene

Benzo(k)fluorantheneBenzo<a)p>7eoelndeno< ! J-cd)p>TcoeDibenz(a4>)anihraceneBenzoighDperyleneCtsoEthaneEth>'leneMethane

Units

ug/Lug/Lug/1.ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Li|O/f**6/*-p

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

MW-09960538203

5/14/96

------------

-----------------

U 1 0----

MW-09960538204

5/14/96

------------

.

----------------

U10----

ug/Lug/Lug/LI' nitsug/Lug/Lug,L

MW-091876732/4/98

------------

-

----------------

U10---|

----

---

MW-09E2 19469

3/30/99

U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U20U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U S 0J.U

U5.0U20U20U5.0U5.0U5.0Ul .OU5.0U5.0U10

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0IU5.0U5.0U5.0

U100U100

U2000



Pagel

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:MetalAluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, totalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIIron, dissolvedIron, totalFerric IronFerrous IronLead, dissolvedLead, totalMagnesium, dissolvedMagnesium, toialManganese, dissolvedManganese, totalMercury, dissolvedMercury, totalVickel, dissolvedNickel, total'otassium, dissolvedPotassium, totalSilver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, totalInorganics



MW-11960532216

5/13/96

-U l

-U10

---

39400-------

B73.5---

JN3.3-

42500-

•:•:•:-.•:• ••:•••••: ••:• ;-:•:•::•:•>-••*••-.•.;•:•:•mm-s&m-U0.2

-B23.5

-B3530

---

J 30800-

J730-

• ----

MW-11960538201

5/14/96

-----------------------

-------------

----

MW-111877472/5/98

-Ul.O

-10

---

27000-------

29---

Ul.O-

24000.

&-

U0.2-

U20-

2100---

24000-

330-

----


Sparta Landfill, Michigan(Units as Given>

Page 2

Site ID: MW-11 MW-11Sample ID: 960532216 960538201Dale: 5 13/96 5/14/96Inorganics (com.) L'nitsNitrogen, Ammonia ug/LUnionized Ammonia (coldwater) ug/LNitrogen, nitrat&'nitrite ug/LNitrogen, Nitrate ug/LNitrogen, Nitrite ug/LTKN ug/LPhosphorus, total ug/LHardness. (EDTA) as CaCO3 ug/LTola] organk carbon ug/LSulfkic ug/LCarbon Dioxide ug/LSul&te ug/LTurbidiry NTUpH ! S.U.Conductivity umnos/cmTMiii^uligf deo f*

Oxygen, dissolved ug/LEh raVVolmale Orgtnia Unitx

Acetone ug/LBenzene ug/L U 10Bromochloromethane ug/LBoromomethane ug/LBromofonn ug/LCarbon disulSde ug/L 16Carbon Tetrachloride ug/LChlorobenzene ug/L U 10ChtorodibrorDomethane ug/LChloroform ug/LChlorometnane ug/L L' 10Chlof oethaoc ug/L U 1 0, 2- Dibromoethane ug/L, 2- DichJorobenzene ug/L. 3- Dkhtorobenzene \igfL, 4- DtchJorobenzcnc ug.'"L - U 1 0, 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane ug/L>ichlorobromoinethane \ig/L

1.2-DichJoropropane ug/Lcis-1,3- Dichtoropropene ug/Ltrans- 1 3- Dichloropropene ug/L1,1-Dichloroethane ug/L L 101 . I - DichJoroethylene ug/L

MW-111877472/5/98

-

158.174639 f

U10

U10

U10

U10U10

U10

U I O



Page 3

^

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:Volatile Organic* (cent)

1 , 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2- HexanoneMethylene ChlorideMethyl Ethyl Ketone4- Methyl- 2- PentanoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1, 1, 2, 2- Tetrachloroethane1, 1, 1- Trichloroethane',1,2- Trichloroethane

V,

rrichloroethyleneTolueneVinyl ChlorideXylene (Total)Semi-Volatile OrganicsPhenolBis (2-ChIoroethyI) Ehteri.- Chlorophenol4- MethylphenolBis (2-Chloroisoropyl)- Ether4- MethylphenolN- Nitrosodi-n-PropylamineHexachloroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone2- Nitrophenol2, 4- Dimethylphenol1, 2, 4- Trichlorobenzene2, 4- DichlorophenolNaphthalene4- ChloroanilineHexachlorobutaJiene4- Chloro- 3- MethylphenolL- MethylnaphthaleneHexachlorocyclopentadiene2, 4, 6- Trichlorophenol2, 4, 5- Trichlorophenol

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

MW-11960532216

5/13/96

-----

-------

U10-

--

------------------

MW-11960538201

5/14/96

-----

---------

U10--

----------

U10-----

'-

MW-111877472/5/98

----

;-------

U10-

U10--

----------

U10-------

Table A9Sum man. of MW-11 Groundwater Analytical Data

Sparta Landfill, Michigan/Unite as

Page 4

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:Srmu-VoiftUe Orfmnia (coat.)2- Chloronaphthalene2- NitroanilineDunethylphthaJateAcenaphthykne2.6- DinitrotohKDe3- NitroanilineAceaapbthene2.4-Dinrtrophenol4-NitropbenolDibenzonnn2,4-DinitrotohjeneDiethylphthalatet- CbJoropbeaylphcnyl-EtherFhioreae4-Nitroaniline4,6- Dinhro-2- MethytpbeaolN- Nhroso- <fr- Pben> laminc4- Bmnopheoyl Phenyletfaer

And*CartczokDi- n- ButylphlhaiateFluonotbaiePyreneButyl Benzyl Pbthalate3, 3'- DichlocobenzidineBis(2-cth>l hexy1)phthalateBenzo (b) FluoranlheneBenzo (k) FluorantbeneBenzo (a) PyreneIndeno(l,2,3-cd)P>TeneDibenzo (a, h) AnthraceneBenzo (g, h, i) Pen kneGmsejEthane^thylene

I Methane

Unitsug/Lug/Lug,!.ug,Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LI'nittugLugLugl.

MW-11960532216

5/13/96

MW-11960538201

5/14/96

MW-111877472/5/98

JU3 U10

Table A10Summary of PZ-04 Groundwater Analytical Data


Pagel


Aluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, inChromium, VIIron, dissolvedIron, totalFerric IronFerrous IronLead, dissolvedLead, totalMagnesium, dissolvedMagnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, total

Mercury, dissolvedMercury, totalNickel, dissolvedNickel, totalPotassium, dissolved'otassium. totalSilver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, d issolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, total'norganics



PZ-041877745

2/5/98

lllllilP1.71.76593U5

101000118000

U1011

--

.-

872013400

---

&12700033000

;gf|p;|;:|I45M!f<p!;N:>:l78!K

----

2901200

--

3000030000

-26

3310002000

2400067000

PZ-04E219519

3/31/99

-U20U20

--

U0.5U0.5

114000112000

--

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.08360843025605800U3.0U3.0

2700028000

mmm&W-M'-ISM

U0.2U0.2U25U25320380

U200MPB0.5

3700039000

U20U20

300000U1000

22000118000

Table A10

Summary of PZ-04 Groundwater Analytical DataSparta Landfill, Michigan

(L'nils as Given}

Page 2

She ID:Sample ID:Date:InorfvmNitrogen,

a ^r<wrt.> t'/tiftAmmonia ug/L

Unionized Ammonia (coldwater) ug/LNitrogen.Sitrogcn,Nitrogen,TKN

nitrate 'nitrite ug/LNitrate ug/LNitrite ug/L

ug/LPhosphorus, total ug/LHardness, (EOT A) as CaCO3 ug/LSulfide ug/LCarbon Dioxide ugl.Suite ug/LTotal organic carbon ug/LTurbiditypH

NTUS.U.

Conductivity junhos/cmTemperature deg. COxygen, dissolved ug/LEh mV

PZ-04 PZ-041877745 E219519

2/5/98 3/31/99

210 26014.5 17.9

-U100U100

680230 129

3840MU200740M

U 10000 280M11000 100M

396 36.69 6.44822 8766.8 8.9

149*-85

VotmaU Orgfiuct I'nitsAcetoneBenzene

ug/Lug/L

Bromochloromethane ug/LBromoroethanc ug/LBromoform ug/LCarbon disulfide \ig/LCarbon Tetrachloride ug/LChlorobenzene ug/LChlorodibrofnoinethane ug/LChloroform ug/LChJoromethane ug/LChloroeihane ug/L. 2- Ditrornoethane ugT,, 2- Dichlorobenzene ug,'L, 3- Dichlorobenzene ug/L, 4- Dichlorobenzene ug/L. 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane ugl.

Oichlorcbromomethane ug.L1 , 2- Dkhloropropane ugLcis- 1.3- Dichloropropene ugLtrans- 1 J- Dichloropropene ugL1 , 1 -Dichloroethane ug>L1.1- Dichlorocthylene ug/L

U 100Ul .OU l . OUl .OUl .OU5.0Ul .O

U10 U l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0

Page3

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:Volatile Organics (cont.)

1, 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-HexanoneMethylene (Chloride2-ButanoneMethyl isobutyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloro sthylene1,1,2, 2-T<;trachIoroethane1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1, 1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethyleneTolueneVinyl chlorideXylene, totalSemi-Volatile OrganicsPhenolBis(2-chloroethyl)ether2-Chlorophenol2-MethylphenolBis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether4-Methylphenoln-Nitrosodi-n-propylarnineiexachlorc ethaneNitrobenzene'sophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol3is(2-chloioethoxy)methane1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene2,4-DichlorophenolNaphthalene

4-ChloroariilineHexachloro-l,3-butadiene)-Chloro-m-cresol

2-Methylnaphthaleneiexachlorocyclopentadiene



PZ-041877745

2/5/98

----------------.

-----------------------

PZ-04E219519

3/31/99

U l . OU l . OUl .OUl .OU50

U5.0U50U50Ul.OUl .OUl .OU l . OUl .OUl .OU l . OU l . OU3.0

Sparta Landfill, Michigan(Units as Gi\-em

Page 4


Semti-VdmtUe Orgmiucs (coat)

2-Chtoronaphthakne2-NitroanilineDimethyl phthalaieAcenapbthykne2,6-Dinitrololuene3-NitroanilineAcenapbthenc2,4-Dinilropbcnol4-NitrophenolDibenzofuraD2,4-DinkrololueneDielhyl phthalale4-Chlonxliphenyi etherFTuorenc

4-Nitroaniline4.6-Dinitro-o-cresoln-Nrtroaodiphenylamine4-Broroodiphenyl etherHexachkxobenzenePentachiorophenolPhenanthreneAnthraceoeCarbazrieDi-n-bulyl phthalateFhioramhenePyreneButyl benzyl phthalate33'-Dk±k>robenzidineBcnzo(atanthracencChryseneBis(2-ethyl hex)l)phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateBenzofb)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluoranthene

Bcnzo(a)pyrenelndeno( 1.2 J-cd)pyrcncDibenz(a4i)an(hracene

B<nzo(ghi)per>-|eneGmsa

I'nits

ug/LUg'l,

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LugLug/Lug'Lug/LugLugLI'nits

PZ-04

18777452/5/98

PZ-04

E2195193/31/99

EthaneEthykne

Methane

ugLug/LuaL

U5.0U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0Ul .OU5.0U5.0U10

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

U20U20

U2000

Table AllSummary of MW-03D Groundwater Analytical Data


Pagel

Site ID:Sample ID:Date:MetalsAluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, totalBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIIron, dissolvedIron, totalFerric IronFerrous IronLead, dissolvedLead, totalMagnesium, dissolvedMagnesium, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, tctalMercury, dissolvedMercury, total

Nickel, dissolvedNickel, total^otassium, dissolvedi'otassium, totalSilver, dissolved

Silver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, total'norganics

AlkalinityBOD, 5-dayChemical oxvgen demandChloride

Units

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

ug/Lug/Lug/L

ug/Lug/LUnits

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

MW-03D960526706

5/9/96

BU166U l

-B37.5B41.5

--

4780050100

---

U10--

U20lSS!£:pst

--

JNU3JNU1.5

2080022300

B13B14.5

U0.2-

U20-

B2130B2300

--

J 13200J 14700

JU 10JU10

----

MW-03D1876752/4/98

-I- ;;:• /"'^"gjjifijiU l . O

-52

140--

39000166000

---

17--

210

--

U l . O

&91900054000U1028$

U0.2-

U20-

43003100

--

1800013000U10

73

----

MW-03D2195153/31/99

.

U20---

U0.5-

51000---

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0

Ililllli!U100

600IMAU3.0

-20000

-U20

-U0.2

-U25

-1000

-0.2

-12000

-U20

-

265000U1000

MAU 5000U 10000

MW-03D dupE219516

3/31/99

_

U20---

U0.5-

51000---

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0

;l.;ltifltt.iiii-

U 100600

U3.0-

21000-

U20-

U0.2-

U25-

1000-

0.5-

12000-

U20.

263000U 1000U5000

U 10000


Sparta Landfill, Michigan'L'nits as

Page 2

Site ID: MVSample ID: 9605Date:Inorganics (cent) L'nitsNitrogen, Ammonia ugLUnionized Ammonia (coldwater) ugLNhrogen, nitrate/nitrite ug'LNitrogen, Nitrate ug'LNitrogen. Nitrite ug'LTKN ug/LPhosphorus, total ug/LHardness, (EOT A) as CaCO3 ug/LSulfide ug/LCarbon Dioxide ug/LSulfate ug/LTotal organic carbon ug/LTurbidity NTUpH S.U.Conductivity umhos'cmTemperature deg. COxygen, dissolved ug/LEli mVVotmtUe Orgtitia L'nits

Acetone ug/L[VnTrrw Ug/L

Bromochkrornethane ug/L»•• 1 iTDiunmiueuuiie ug/LBromororm ug/LCarbon disulfide ug/LCarbon Tetrachloride ug/LChlorobenzene ug/LChlorodibrornomethane ug'LChloroform ug/LChfaromethane ug/LChloroethane ug/L. 2- Dibromoethane ug/L, 2- Dichlorobenzene ug/L. 3- Dichlorobenzene ug/L, 4- Dichlorobenzene ug'L, 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane ug'L

Dkhlorobromomethane ug'L1 , 2- Dichloropropane ug'Lci$-l, 3- Dxrhloropropene ugLtrans- 13- Dichloropropene ugLI.l-Dichloroethane ug'L1.1- Dichloroethykne ueL

^'-03D MW-03D26706 187675IVW 2/4/98

-U U-------

\fW-03D2195153/31/99

35024.1

-U100U 100

-100

262000

MW-03D dup

E2195163/31/99

36024.8

U 100U 100

80260000

U 200 U 200844M 6800MM 57001300 1300

612 12 127.55 7.10 7.13470 463 468H.l 12-2 12.4

950 790-*5 -85

U100 U 100U 10 U 10 U I . O U 1.0

Ul.O U I . OUI.O U I . OUI.O U I . O

U 10 U 10 U5.0 U5.0UI.O U I . O

U 10 U 10 UI .O U I . OUI .O U I . OU I . O U I . O

U 10 U 10 UI .O U I . OU 10 U 10 U I . O U I . O

U I . O U I . OU I . O U I . OU I . O U I . O

U 10 U 10 U5.0 U5.0UI .O U I . OU I . O U I . OU 1.0 U 1.0UI.O U I . OU 1.0U 1.0

U 10 U 10 U 1.0

U 1.0U 1.0U 1.0



Page 3


Volatile Organics (coni.)1 , 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-HexanoneMethylene Chloride2-ButanoneMethyl isobutyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1, 1,2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethy leneTolueneVinyl chlorideXylene, totalSemi-Volatile Organics

PhenolBis(2-chloroethyl)ether2-Chlorophenol2-MethylphenolBis(2-chloroi sopropyl)ether4-Methylphenoln-Nitrosodi-n-propylamineHexachloroethaneNitrobenzeneisophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol3is(2-chlorocthoxy)methane1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

2,4-DichIoro phenolNaphthalene

4-Chloroaniline-lexachloro- 1,3-butadiene)-Chloro-m-cresoI

2-Methylnaphthalene-lexachlorocyclopentadiene



MW-03D960526706

5/9/96

--------------

J2--

J4-----------

' ---

U10-------

MW-03D1876752/4/98

--------------

U 10--

U10--------------

U10-------

MW-03D2195153/31/99

Ul .OU l . OUl .OUl.OU50U5.0U50U50

U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U3.0

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

MW-03D dupE219516

3/31/99

U 1.0U l . OU l . OUl.OU50

U5.0U50U50

Ul.OU .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0Ul .OU3.0

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

Sparta Landfill, Michiganas Given)

Page 4

Sue ID:Sample ID c

Dale:

Semi-Volatile Organic* (conL) {.'nits

2-Chloronaphihalene ugL2-Nitroanihne ugLDimethyl phthalate ugLAcenaphthylene ugL2,6-Dinittololuene ug/L3-Nrtroaniliue ug/LAcenaphthene ug/L2,4-Dinitropbenol ug/L4-Nitropbenol ug/LDibenzofuran ug/L2,4-Dinitrotohiene ug/LDtethyl phlhalfle ug/L4-Chlorodiphenyl ether ug/LFhtorene ug/L4-Nhroaniline ug/L4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ug/Ln-Nitrosodiphenylaniine ug/L4-Broraodiphenyl ether ugT-Hexaditorobenzene ug"LPentachloropheool ug/LPbenanthreoe ug/L

Anthracene ug/LCarbazole ugT,Di-n-butyl phihalale ug/LFhjorantheoe ug/L

Pyrene ug/LButyl benzyl phthalate ug/L3J'-Dkhlorobenzidine ug/LBenzo<a)anlhracene ug/LChryxne ug/LBis(2-«th>l hexyl)phthalaie ug'LDi-n-octyl phthalate ug'LBenzo(b)fluorantbene ug'LBenzo(1c)fluoranthene ug'LBenzo(a)p>Tene ug'L

Indeno( 1 .2J-cd)pyrcne ug'LDibenz(aji)anthracene ug'LBenzol ghi)per>lene ug'LGmsa L'nits

Ethane ugLEthykne ugLMethane ueL

MW-03D MW-03D NfW-03D>60526706 187675 219515

5/9/96 2/4^8 3/31/99

U 20U 5.0U5.0U 5.0U20

U 5.0U20U20

U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0

MW-03D dup

E2195163/31/99

U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

U20 U20U20 U20

U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0Ul .O U l . OU5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U10 U 10 ,U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0|U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U20 U20

U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0

U 10 U 10 U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0

U5.0 U5.0U5.0 U5.0

U2000 U2000

Table A12Summary of MW-07D Groundwater Analytical Data


Page 1


Aluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, tola!Barium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium., dissolvedChromium., totalChromium, IIIChromium, VIIron, dissolvedron, total7erric Iron'errous Iron^ead, dissolved^ead, totalMagnesium, dissolvedMagnesium, total

Manganese, dissolvedManganese, total

Mercury, dissolvedMercury, totalNickel, dissolvedNickel, total'otassium, dissolved•otassium, total

Silver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, totalnorganics



MW-07D960532215

5/13/96

-U l

-B49.5

---

47100-------

230---

-22900

-33

-U0.2

-U20

-B1530

---

U8930-

JU10-

----

MW-07D1876772/4/98

-Ul.O

-67

---

46000-------

480---

Ul.O-

20000-

40-

U0.2-

U20-

1200---

7900-

U10-

----

MW-07DE2 19468

3/30/99

-U20

-•

-U0.5

-52000

---

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0m

-U 100

600U3.0

-20000

-27

-U0.2

-U25

-940

-U0.2

-7000

-U20

-

220000U 1000U5000

U 10000

Table A12Summary of MNV-07D Groundwater Analytical Data

Sparta Landfill, Michigan

Page 2

(L'nils as Given)

She ID:Sample ID:Dae:Inorganics (cotO.)

Nitrogen, AmmoniaUnionized Ammonia (coldwater)Nitrogen, nitrate 'nitriteNitrogen, NitrateNitrogen, NitriteTKNPhosphorus, totalHardness, (EDTA) as CaCO3SuJfideCarbon DioxideSulfeeTotal organk carbonTurbidityPHConductivityTemperatureOxygen, dissolvedEhVoUtile Organic*

AcetoneBenzeneBroroochloromethaneBromomethaneSromoformCarbon disulfideCarbon TetrachloodeChloiobenzcneChtorodibromornethaneChlorofonnChlororaetfaaneChlorocthane, 2- Dibromoethane.2- Dkhlorobenzene, 3- Dichlorobenzene. 4- Dkhlorobenzene. 2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane

Dichlorobromomethane1 . 2- Dichloropropanecis- 1 , 3- Dichloropropenetrans- 1 J- Dichloropropene1,1-Dichloroethane1.1- Dichloroeihylene

Units

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LNTUS.U.

umhos'cmdeg.Cug/LmV

Units

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug'Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LuaLug/L

M \V-07D MW-07D960532215 187677

5 '13 '96 2/4/98

-U U----- ,-----

517.3245010.5

--

-U 10 U 10

---

J3 U10-

U 10 U10--

U 10 U 10U 10 U10

--•

U 10 U10-----

U 10 U10-

MW-07DE2 194683/30/99

23015.9

-U100U100

-

60216000U200

34068001000

77.5339312J

2840OR

U100Ul .OUl .OUl .OU 1.0U5.0Ul .OU l . OUl .OUl.OU l . OUl .OU 1.0U l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU 1.0U l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU l . O



Page 3


Volatile Organics (cont)1, 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Didiloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-Hexanom:Methylene (Chloride2-ButanoneMethyl isobutyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1,1,2, 2-Ti:trachloroethane1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1,1, 2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethyleneTolueneVinyl chlorideXylene, totalSemi-Volatile OrganicsPhenolBis(2-chloioethyl)ether2-Chlorophenol2-Methylphenol3is(2-chloi oisopropy l)ether4-MethyIphenoln-Nitrosod i-n-propy lamineHexachloroethaneNitrobenzenesophorone

2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dimethylphenol3is(2-chloToethoxy)methane1 ,2,4-TrichJorobenzene

2,4-DichlorophenolNaphthalene

4-Chloroanilineiexachloro-l,3-butadiene)-Chloro-m-cresol


2,4,6-TrichlorophenoI2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

Unitsug/Lug/Lug/LUg/L

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

MW-07D960532215

5/13/96

--------------

U10--

U 10--------------

U 10-------

MW-07D1876772/4/98

--------------

U10--

U10--------------

U I O-------

MW-07DE2 19468

3/30/99

U l . OUl .OUl.OUl .OU50U5.0U50U50Ul.OU .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U3.0


U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

Table A12Summary of M \V-07D Croundwater Analytical Data


Page 4


Semii-Volatile Orgmiucs fcont)

2 -Chloronaphthakne2-Nitroanilroe

Dimethyl phthalateAcenapbthylene2,6-Dinitrotoluene3-NitroanilineAceuaphthcnf.2.4-Dinitropbenol4-Pi III UfJUCJKM

Oibcnzofuran

2,4-DindrotolueneDiethyl phthalaie4-ChJorodiphenyl etherFtuorene4-Nitromiline

4,6-Dinjtro-o-<Tesoln-Nitrosodipbenylaniiiie4-Bromodiphenyl etherfiexachlorobenzenePentachloropheool•M -•Pueujuueue

I nits

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

Aothnceoe ug/LCarfaazofe ug/L

Di-o-butyl phthalate ug/LFluonnthene ug/LPyreoe ug/LButyl benzyl phthalate ug/L3.3'-Dichlorobenzidine ug/L

Benzo(a)anthracene ug/LChrysene ug/LBis(2-eth>l hexyl)phthalaie ugLDi-n-octyl phthalate ug/L

Benzo(b)fluorantbene ug/LBenzo(k)fluoranthene ug/LBenzo(a)p>Tene ug/Llndeno(l,2,3-<d)pym>e ug/L

Dibenzlaji)anthracene ugLBenzo(ghi)pervlene ug'LGases I' nits

Ethane ug/LEthylene ugLMethane ueL

MW-07D960532215

5'13,'96

------

.----------------------

U 10-------

---

MW-07D187677274/98

------

_

-----

MW-07DE2 19468

3/30/99

U5.0U20U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U C A5.0U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U 1.0U5.0U5.0U 101U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U5.0U5.0

U 10 U 5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0U5.0

U5.0U5.0

U2000



Page l


Aluminum, totalArsenic, dissolvedArsenic, toialBarium, dissolvedBarium, totalCadmium, dissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, dissolvedCalcium, totalCobalt, dissolvedCobalt, totalChromium, dissolvedChromium, totalChromium, fflChromium, VIIron, dissolvedtron, totalFerric IronFerrous IronLead, dissolvedLead, totalMagnesium, dissolvedVfagnesiurn, totalManganese, dissolvedManganese, totalMercury, dissolvedMercury, lotalNickel, dissolvedNickel, to(al'otassium, dissolvedJotassium, totalSilver, dissolvedSilver, totalSodium, dissolvedSodium, totalZinc, dissolvedZinc, totalnorganics


Unitsug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LUnits

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

MW-08D960520701

5/7/96

-B3

-B31.5

---

60000-------

£%y^*W---

BIN 2.4-

26500-

,,...,....,:,.,.:,.. ,......:£ g

i.S:::SS;i.;i; ::;-?:;:;:,;?M

-

U0.2-

U20-

B1570---

U 10000-

JU10-

2660002000

U 200008000

MW-08D1876652/4/98

-2.2

-38

---

58000-------

jm;i£:Mk---

Ul.O-

24000-

49-

U0.2-

U20-

880---

7100-

U10-

2550001700

290002300

MW-08DE2 19471

3/30/99

-U20

---

U0.5-

62000---

U5.0-

U5.0U5.0

lifeiii::^^*

-

U1001600

U3.0-

23000-

45-

U0.2-

U25-

810-

U0.2-

6800-

U20-

2710001600

U5000U 10000

Table A13Sum man, of MVV-08D Groundwater Analytical Data

Sparta Landfill, MichiganiL'mts as Gi\en)

Page 2


Inorganics (coat)Nitrogen. AmmoniaUnionized Ammonia (coldwater)

Nitrogen, nitrate/nitriteNitrogen, NitrateNitrogen. Nitrite

TKNPhosphorus, totalHardness. (EDTA) as CaCO3SulfideCarbon DioxideSuUateTotal organic carbon

TurbiditypHConductivity

Oxygen, dissolvedEhVolmalf Orgmnia

AcetoneBenzenefromodiloromethane

3romofonnCarbon disulfideTarbon Tetrachlonde

ChlorobenzeneChlorodibromomethanerhlorofonn

ChloroniethaneChloroethane

, 2- Dibrorooethane1. 2- Didilorobenzene. 3- Dkhlorobenzene. 4- Dkhlorobenzene, 2- Difcromo- 3- chloropropane)khlorobromome thane

. 2- Dkhloropropanecis- 1 , 3- Dichloropropenetrans- 1 J- Dichloropropene

,1-Dichloroethane. 1 - Dkhloroeth\ lene

i'niougl-Ug/L


umhos/crnj__ f~>deg.Lug/LmV

I' nits

ug/Lug/Lug/LUO/I&*-

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/LugLug/Lug/Lug/LugLug/LugLugL

MW-08D960520701

5/7/96

HTJ610

42.1

110--

HTJ*55«JN 100

---

U 10000J2400

---

.-

-U 10

-

-

U 1 0-

U 10--

U 10U 10

---

U 10-----

U 10-

MW-08D1876652/4/98

46031.7

U20--

U500110

---

U 100001300

17738487o B8.9

-

-

U10-

.

U10-

U10--

U10U10

---

U10-----

U10-

MW-08DE2194713/30/99

34023.5

-U100U100

-100

296000U2001400054001300

57.214331 A 103

OR

U100Ul .OUl.OU l 0l.u

Ul .OU5.0Ul.OUl .OU l . OUl .OUl .OU 1.0Ul .OUl.OUl .OU l . OU l . OU l . OU l . OU 1.0Ul .OU l . OU 1.0



Page 3


Volatile Oiganics (conl)\, 2- Dichloroethanecis-1, 2- Dichloroethylenetrans- 1, 2- DichloroethyleneEthylbenzene2-HexanoneMethylene Chloride2-ButanoneMethyl isobutyl ketoneStyreneTetrachloroethylene1,1,2, 2-Tetrachloroethane1,1, 1-Trichloroethane1,1, 2-TrichloroethaneTrichloroethyleneTolueneVinyl chlorideXylene, totalSemi-Volatile OrganicsPhenol3is(2-chloroethyl)ether2-Chlorophenol2-MethylphenolBis(2-chlcroisopropyl)ether4-Methylfhenoln-Nitrosodi-n-propylamineiexachloroethaneNitrobenzenesophorone

2-Nitrophenol2,4-Dimelhylphenol3is(2-chloroethoxy)methane1 ,2,4-TrichIorobenzene2,4-DichlorophenolNaphthalene

4-ChlorOcinilinelexachloro-1 ,3-butadiene)-ChIoro-m-cresoI




MW-08D960520701

5/7/96

-'

--------

'---

U10--

U10--------------

U10-------

MW-08D1876652/4/98

--------------

U10-

•

U10----------

.---

U10-------

MW-08DE2 19471

3/30/99

Ul.OUl .OU l . OU 1.0U50

U5.0U50U50

U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U .0U3.0


Page 4

EthaneElhykneMethane

L'nits

ugLugLugL

Site ID:Sample ID:Dale:

Sfmu-ytlmtUe Orgtnics (cant.)

2-Chloronaphthakne2-NitroanilineDimethyl phthalateAcenapblhylene2,6-DinkrotoJuene3-Nitroanilioe

A t FiiJM J0|^i^T T ffflMBHlr\ in.

2,4-Dimtropnenol4-NhrophenolDibenzoruran2,4-DinitrotolueneDidfayi phthalate4-CWorodipbenyl etherFluoreoe4-Nitroaniline4,6-Dimno-o-cresolD-NitrosodiptKnylamine4-Broroodipbenyl etherHexachlofobenzenePentachloropnenol•*• _miTifnainniny

A iiltiiminvJJUII flb«>«flb

CarbazoleDi-D-buyl phthalaterii i i. miti ••> •riuuiaiiinenePyreneButyl benzyl phthalate3 '-Dk±lorobenzidineBenzo(a)anthraceneChrysencBts<2-<thyl hexyl)phthalaleDnn-octyl phthalaie

Bouo(l>)fluorantheoe

L'nits

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L110/TU^/L,

ug/Lug/Lug/Lug/Lug/L

MW-08D960520701

5/7/96

------

-

----

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

MW-08D1876652/498

------

-

----------

ug/Lug/Lug/Lno/TUg/L,

ug/L

--

.

ug/L

MW-08DE2194713/30/99

U5.0U20

U5.0U5.0U5.0U20Us nJ.v

U20U20

U5.0U 5.0|U5.0U5.0U5.0U20U20U5.0U5.0U5.0Ul .OU5.0U^ n3.U

U I OU5.0

ug/L - - U5.0ug/L - - U5.0ug/L - - U5.0ug/L - - U20ug/L - - U5.0ug/L - - U5.0ug'L JU2 U10 U5.0ugL - - U5.0ugO- - - U5.0

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/L - - U 5.0

Benzotaipyrene ug'L - - U 5.0Indeno(1^3-cd)p>Tcne ug'L - - U 5.0Dibenzfaji)an;hracene ugL - - U 5.0

Benzo(ghi)perylene ug'L - - U 5.0

L'5.0U5.0

U2000

TriMatrixLaboratories. Inc.

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Kent County DPWProj: Sparta Landfill

Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 Samples

Submittal Number: 34326- :Location:Contact: Jennifer L. RicePhone: (616) 975-4500

FB (Field MW-02 MW-07 QuantitationBlank) Limit

Units

Lab Sample Ko: 219464 219465 219466

Project Specific FractionUSEPA 8260


'Wroject Specific FractionRSK-175

Arsenic, DissolvedCadmium, DissolvedCalcium, DissolvedChromium, DissolvedChromium, TrivalentChromium, HexavalentIron, DissolvedLead, DissolvedMagnesium, DissolvedManganese, DissolvedMercury, DissolvedNickel, DissolvedPotassium, Dissolved.Silver, Dissolved

^.^Ddium, DissolvedZinc, DissolvedAlkalinity, TotalChlorideNitrogen, AmmoniaNitrogen, NitrateNitrogen, NitriteSulfateChemical Oxygen Demand

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

<20<0.5<1.0<5.0<5.0<5<100<3.0<0.50<20<0.2<25<0.10<0.2<1.0<20<1.0<10<0.05<0.10<0.10<1.0<5.0

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

<20<0.5115

<5.0<5.0<515900

*<3.026

* 6130<0.2<253.0

*<0.22.1578422

*<100.510.14

<0.109.29.7

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

<20<0.5101

<5.0<5.0<57750

<3.03755

<0.2<255.4

<0.217396441115.9

<0.10<0.102211

200.51.05.05.051003.00.50200.2250.100.21.0201.0100.050.100.101.05.0

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

Page

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)

Sar^le-d f/:rare Sampled:Ti-e Sarpled:E-ate Received:Tire received:

£ . ~; . r f43;£ . 53.4-E-£312c - -»~2 E. •»

~ ' - ~*- -1 -~ . £

. Larsor.- - - - c z

1 E : 2 2- -. -. - • i c

- - . • =

• -j

2 . 1C4225 . 2

<D.25917506.73£2511.72.62

-6Z<. 1£.0

3. Larson03 '30/95

14:18

03 /30/5S17:15

T

f*

2.i _0.C.10T^

50.r,

ii0.

C-/> t

•J021•0c cn

1

1

mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lug/L S

pH Unitsumhos/cmdeg . Cmg/LmVMTUmg/L

See atracr.ed 3iate~er.t c:

rase

'-~?l - * '. -T-V 'fit1

.TriMatrixLaboratories Inc.

ANALYTICAL REPORT



Submittal Number: 34326- JLocation:Contact: Jennifer L. RicePhone: (616) 975-4500

MW-07 DUP MW-07d MW-09 QuantitationLimit

Units

Lab Sample No: 219467 219468 219469



^roject Specific FractionRSK-175

Arsenic, DissolvedCadmium, DissolvedCalcium, DissolvedChromium, DissolvedChromium, TrivalentChromium, HexavalentIron, DissolvedLead, DissolvedMagnesium, DissolvedManganese, DissolvedMercury, DissolvedNickel, DissolvedPotassium, DissolvedSilver, Dissolved'odium, Dissolved

c, DissolvedAlkalinity, TotalChlorideNitrogen, AmmoniaNitrogen, NitrateNitrogen, Ni.triteSulfateChemical Oxygen Demand

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

<20<0.5101

<5.0<5.0<57760

<3.03754

<0.2<255.3

<0.217383447116.0

<0.10<0.102211

<20<0.552

<5.0<5.0<5600

<3.02027<0.2<250.94

<0.27.0

<20220<100.23

<0.10<0.106.8

<5.0

<20<0.5144

<5.0<5.0<52450

<3.0401660

<0.2<252.3

<0.26.01000265<10<0.050.17

<0.1018

<5.0

200.51.05.05.051003.00.50200.2250.100.21.0201.0100.050.100.101.05.0


Page

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

JriMatrix

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Kent County DPW?r::: Sparta Landfill

C-r:_::-.dv.ater Mcr.it::S--r: Xarrr. 1?5? Samples '.e :

^uar.titation Units

?r.cspr.:ru5. TctalHar dr.es s. 'SCT.V' as Ca:Car:;:-. Tctal Croar.ic

*~-W-l-«T. ^- • • • -I-„ &• • * -».. •- • -* A » ^r

F^rrir Ir-r.pH .Field

r^icx rcter.tial .Fi7--rtidity FieldFerrous Ircr. 'Field)

5422.40.99*~«^ ••

< ICO6 . ~3r* r*o^y£.32.35

-5

2.4

1.20.1ICO

mg/Lmg / Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lug/L ^pH Unitsumhos/cmdeg. Cmg/LmVNTUmg/L

I. Larsor arscr.1 - • C C

ire Sa.-r.pled:•ate ?.ereived:ire rereived:

D. Larson03/30/99

12:36

03,'30/9917:15

C? = Z--- ci P.ar.ge

rare

TriMatrixLaboratories Inc.

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Kent County DPWProj : Sparta Landfill


Submittal Number: 34326- 2Location:Contact: Jennifer L. RicePhone: (616) 975-4500

MN-08 MW-08d QuantitationLimit

Units

Lab Sample No: 219470 219471



Specific FractionRSK-175DissolvedDissolvedDissolvedDissolvedTrivalentHexavalent

Arsenic,Cadmium,Calcium,ChromiumChromiumChromiumIron, DissolvedLead, DissolvedMagnesium, DissolvedManganese, DissolvedMercury, DissolvedNickel, DissolvedPotassium, DissolvedSilver, Dissolved"odium, Dissolved

c, DissolvedAlkalinity, TotalChlorideNitrogen, AmmoniaNitrogen, NitrateNitrogen, NitriteSulfateChemical Oxygen Demand

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

<200.681

<5.0<5.0<5<100<3.028<20<0.2<254 .3

<0.21173426337

<0.055.0

<0.1017

<5.0

<20<0.562

<5.0<5.0<51340

<3.02345

<0.2<250.81

<0.26.8

<20271<100.34

<0.10<0.105.4

<5.0

200.51.05.05.051003.00.50200.2250.100.21.0201.0100.050.100.101.05.0


Page

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 ^

Tri Matrix

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Kent County DPW 34325- 3

.fer L. P.Lce

Juantitaticn Unit:

_ . - -*

Pr. spr.cr'-s, TotalH=rir.ess. E-TA) as C;

S-lfids

Ferric Ircr.?H !ri6ld.C-^ctivity FieldField Terperature *~~~±zy. Potential .Fisl:Turbidity FieldiFerrous Ircr. Tield)

Sa.tpled cy:2-ate Sar.pled:Tire Sarrled:"ite received:

Larsor.

C.CI2.21.0C.20 - 11001 . DC50 . '

C.I

mg/Lmg / Lmg / Lmg / Lmg.' Lmg/Lug/L SBpH Unitsumhcs •• cmdeg. CmVMTUmg/L

C? = Cut zi P.ar.ge

* ',:••-••'_ <'":.].':'. r:,1: he :.:",*_. . ^".. c\, -T. -"

PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 8260

Kent County DPWProj: Sparca Landfill

Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: FB (Field

Blank)

Submittal Number 34326- 3Date Sampled: 03/30/99 Time: 15:55Date Received: 03/30/99 Time: 17:15Analysis Date: 04/02/99Lab Sample No: 219464

ParaTieter

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulfide1,1-Dichloroethylene1,1-DichloroethaneChloroform1,2-DichloroethaneMethyl Ethyl Ketone1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon TetrachlorideDichlorobromomethane1,2-Dichloropropanecis-1,3-DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneChiorodibromomethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Resultug/L

<5.0<100<5.0

1.8

<1.0<50

Parameter Resultug/L

Benzene <1.0trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <1.0Bromoform <1.04-Methyl-2-Pentanone <502-Hexanone <50Tetrachloroethene <1.0Toluene <1.01,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <1.0Chlorobenzene <1.0Ethylbenzene <1.0Styrene <1.0Xylene (Total) <3.0cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0Bromochloromethane <1.01,2-Dibromoethane <1.01,2-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,3-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,4-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,2-Dibromo-3- <1.0chloropropane

Page

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


Kent County DPWa r a

"- r ~ j **. d w a ~ ** r V"— • — •£_c-: Xarrr. 15-r? Samples

15:5517:15

Blar.:-.

=esul:ug/L

<5 .C2-yetr.ylpr.er.ol£is (2 - rhl~rciscpr3pyl 1

... -J_.4 - Chi crcpr.er.ylcher.v

4 -Methylphencl::-lcitrosodi-n- rrHexarr.lcrcethar.e

< .<5 .

2 -Kit r^pnencl2 , •« -~:-ethylpr.er.ciBis '2 - rr.l^rcetr.cxyi -Xetr.ar.e

<<5<5

4,6-Tir.itrc- <202-Xetr.ylpr.er.clN-N'itrcsc-di -PhenylaTr.ir.e <:5 . 04-=rr-rpher .yl Fher.ylether <:5.0Kexachlcrcrer.zer.e < 5 . 2rer.tacr.lcrocher.rl <1.0rr.er.ar.tr.rer.e

Napr.tr.alene4 -rr.lrr-ar.il ir.e

2 u t y . p j~. t h a l a t e

2 - Ch 1 cr cr.ap.w.r ha 1 e.-e2 - !l; trc3r.il i ne^>. 0* ^"f* •^V-Wa* J»*-A*. .s.—y_j,..—a .a.6Acer.apr.thylene2 € -2ir.;trctol'jer.e

Acer.aphther.e

<z.< " ..< 5 . '<5 . '<7" i< 5 . '<2 I

< . C

<5.0

<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

PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONRSK-175


Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1959 SamplesSample: FB (Field

Blank)


Parameter

EthaneEthylene

Resultug/L

<5.C<5.0

Parameter

Methane

Resultug/L

<2000

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

Tri Matrix

PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 826C

Kent Cour.ty DPW

— . --i-,a-o- V -

•*•*•— »v.* K*

3. '22.''55 Ti-e.- 15:22

L2C S 2 ~ C 1 £ N'C: 2 1 5 4 £ 5

Parameter

Kstr.vler.e Cr.lcndAretcr.eCarter. 2is-lfide

e-har.e

1,2-richl^roe-har.eXeir.yl Ethyl Ketone; , 1, :-rrirr.lcrcetr;ar.eCarter. Tstracr.Icride

:. 2 -Cirr-lor-prcpar-.ens--.j- — i -•"• -—ropropsr.s

4 -Xetr.yl - 2 - Pentaror.e2 -Hexsr.cr.eTetrarr. Irrcethene

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

1 , 3 -; i :r. Icrobenzene1 , 4 -2irr.l~rccenzene1 . 2 -ZicrcT.o-3 -

1.4

<D«

:1.0

:3.C

:1.0

:1 C1

:1.0- " if>•- A. . %>

:1.0

:1.0

:1.0

cl.C

•• r.-\:iv: ,v T: .\'..-.\r.\

TriMatrix

Kent County DPW

PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONUSEPA 827C

1555 S a ~ c 1 e sate Kereivei: C3. 3C/55 Tirr.e: 17:15

.-ara- Resu-t

Eis <2-Chlcrcethvli Ether <£.:

Ether4-yethylpher.cl <:N -I!»* rc sc-i i * r. - Pr^cvl ar*1. *r.e <"Hexarhlcrcethar.e <:

Nitrcber.zer.e <:<;<:

2.4-ri-ethylpr.er.cl <:Eis 2-Chlcrcethcxy - <:Kethar.e

1.2.4-7richlcrrber.zer.e <:Naphtha ler.e <:4 - Thlcrcar.i 1 ir.e <'.Kexachlcrcb-tadiene <:4-Chlcrc-3-Xethylpher.cl <:2-Xethylr.aphthaler.e <:Hexarhlcrccyclcpe.icacier.e <•2.4,6-Trichlcrcphencl <:

* - rrjlcrcr.apr.tr.a-er.e2-:;itrcar.ilir.eIirr .ethylphthalate

3-N;trc3r.ilir.e <Acer.apr.ther.e <

cluenerieti-.ylphthalate

4,€-~ir:itro-2-Xetr.ylpher. = lN-!:itrrso-ii -Pher.ylar-.ir.e4 -Brcr.cpher.yl Pher.ylethe:Kexa~r.lcrcber.zene?er.t acr. Icrcphencl

Ar. t r. r 2 r e r. e

21 - r. - Eu t y 1 p'r. t ha 1 a t e

?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

<2C<5.0<5.0<5 .C<5.C

<5 .C<20<2C

<5.0<5.S<5.0<1.0<5.0

<5.0<1C<5.0<5. C<5.C<5.C<20<5.G<5.C<5.C

<5.0<5.C<5. 0<5. C<5.C<5 .C<5.C

Pane

r:Vj:r.\

Fax !

Groundwacer MonitoringSubm: Marcrh 1999 SamplesSample: MW-02


Parameter

EthaneEthylene

Resultug/L

<400<400

Parameter

Methane

Resultug/L

4500

Page 12

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

?a=e 13

.i\ .616'

Kent County DPWFroj : Spar'ia Landfill

Groundwater MonitoringSubm: MarciT 1999 SamplesSample: MW-07

Submitcal Number 34326- 3Date Sampled: 03/30/99 Time: 14:18Date Received: 03/30/99 Time: 17:15Analysis Date: 04/03/99Lab Sample No: 219466


Phenol <5.0Bis (2-ChlDroethyl) Ether <5.02-Chlorophenol <5.02-Methylphenol <5.0Bis (2-ChlDroisopropyl)- <5.0

WEther4-Methylphsnol <5.0N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine <5.0Hexachloroethane <5.0

Nitrobenzene <5.0Isophorone <5.02-Nitrophenol <5.02,4-Dimethylphenol <5.0Bis (2-Chloroethoxy)- <5.0Methane2,4-Dichlorophenol <5.01, 2 , 4-Trichlorobenzene <5.0Naphthalene <5.04-Chloroaniline <20Hexachlorobutadiene <5.0

^ <4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol <5.0^"^2-Methylnaphthalene <5.0

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <5.02,4,6-Trichlorophenol <5.02,4,5-Trichlorophenol <5.0

2-Chloronaphthalene <5.02-Nitroaniline <20Dimethylphthalate <5.0Acenaphthylene <5.02,6-Dinitrotoluene <5.03-Nitroaniline <20Acenaphthene <5.02,4-Dinitrophenol <20


4-Nitrophenol <20Dibenzofuran <5.02,4-Dinitrotoluene <5.0Diethylphthalate <5.04-Chlorophenylphenyl- <5.0EtherFluorene <5.04-Nitroaniline <204,6-Dinitro- <202-MethylphenolN-Nitroso-di-Phenylamine <5.04-Bromophenyl Phenylether <5.0Hexachlorobenzene <5.0Pentachlorophenol <l.OPhenanthrene <5.0

Anthracene <5.0Carbazole <10Di-n-Butylphthalate <5.0Fluoranthene <5.0Pyrene <5.0Butyl Benzyl Phthalate <5.03,3'-Dichlorobenzidine <20Benzo (a) Anthracene <5.0Chrysene <5.0Bis (2-ethylhexyl)- <5.0PhthalateDi-n-Octylphthalate <5.0Benzo (b) Fluoranthene <5.0Benzo (k) Fluoranthene <5.0Benzo (a) Pyrene <5.0Indeno (1,2,3-cd) Pyrene <5.0Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene <5.0Benzo (g,h,i,) Perylene <5.0

Page 14

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 >

JriMatrixIre


Kent County DPWrta Lar.afil_:r.d'»>'at er Xc

XV* -"

Suc-ittal :."j~ier 3452€- 3late Sa-.plei: C3'3: ,'r5 Ti~e: 14:18rate r.ereivei: C3'3D/35 Tir.e: 17:15

Etr.ar.eEtr.vler.e

Xerr.r. 4000

rase

.-..." • :.I::.T, .-' 7: V.::r \ iS.-:.)-.,'nc>.

Laboratories Inc.


Kent County DPW

Proj: Sparta LandfillGroundwater Monitoring

Subm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-07 DUP


Parameter

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethaneMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulfidel,1-Dichloroethylene1,1-DichloroethaneChlorofom1,2-DichloroethaneMethyl Ethyl Ketone1,1,1-TrichloroethaneCarbon TetrachlorideDichlorobromomethane1,2-Dichloropropanecis-1, 3-DichloropropeneTrichloroetheneChlorodibromomethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane

Resultug/L

<5.0<100<5.0<1.02.4

<50

. .0

. .0

. . 0

. . 0

. .0


Benzene 1.1trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <1.0Bromoform <1.04-Methyl-2-Pentanone <502-Hexanone <50Tetrachloroethene <1.0Toluene <1.01,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <1.0Chlorobenzene <1.0Ethylbenzene <1.0Styrene <1.0Xylene (Total) <3.0cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <l.OBromochloromethane <1.01,2-Dibromoethane <1.01,2-Dichlorobenzene <l.O1,3-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,4-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,2-Dibromo-3- <1.0chloropropane

Page 16

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


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

B i s 2-Chlcrcettv/Ll Ether < = .

2-Xethylpher.cl < 5 .S:s (2- Zr.lcrcisoprcpyl i - <E.Ether4 -Xe.hylpher.cl <5 .!:-;:itrcsoii -r.-Prcpylamir.e <5 .

r-i'cer.zrfurar.2 , 4 -Tir.itrrtcluer.e-i et hy1pht ha 1 at e4 - rhlrrrpher.ylpher.yl -

<2C<5.C<5.C<5.C<5.G

<5.C<2C<2C

Nitrcber.zer.e

2 . 4 - r i-ethylpher.olBis 2-Thlcrcethcxy -Methane

1 . , 4 - . r i rr.croer.zer.eNapr.tr.aler.e

Hexa aiier.e- Thlorc- 3-KeihyLphenoi

Hexachl~rccyclspentadien*2,4.6-Trichlcrcphenol2,4,S-Trichlsrcphenol

2-SitrcanilineZi^ethylphthalateArenaphthylene

Arer.aphther.e2,4-rir.itrcphenol

<5

< E

< E<£

<2!

< E< E<5<2!< 5<2 i

K-'."itr;s^-di- Phenylar.ine <5 . G4-Brc~rph.er.yl Pher.ylether <5.0Hexarhlsrrber.zene <5.DPer.tarhlorrpher.ol <1.0?he-. = r.threr.e <5.C

An t h r a ~ e r. e < ^

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

Ir.der.r 1,2,3-cd Pyrene <5.CZicenzr (a,h': Anthracene <5.0Ber.zr r.h.i,/ Perylene <5.C

Faae

' - - ' • • • -" -"- " •:.;.]•. :.T! r. T'.."-'..•-: r \ l_iK>r.::,iric>.

Kent County DPWFroj : Spar'ia Landfill

Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-07 DUP

Submittal Number 34326- 3Date Sampled: 03/30/99 Time:Date Received: 03/30/99 Time:Analysis Date: 04/12/99Lab Sample No: 219467

14:1817:15

Parameter

EthaneEthylene

Resultug/L

<5.0<5.0

Parameter

Methane

Resultug/L

<2000

Page 18

'] Ins ivpui I s lu i l l not Iv r

ood i h i u r .uk\\ . i \ si; •

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


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 =

?ar=-.eter

5r~-~T.ethar.eVinyl ZhlcriieCr.lrroethar.eXethvlene Cr.lcridAretcne

1 , 2 - Di cMethyl1.1. l-T

Ethyl Ketonericr.lcroe~haneTetra chloride

< -. -

4 -Kethy l - 2 - Fer.tar.^r.e <502~r~ex3 '~ . — *~e <3*^Tetrarr.lcrcether.e <1 .C

1 . 1 , 2 . 2 -Tetrarhlcroetr.ane <1. CChir r -benzene < I . CEthylbenzene < l . CC

fc _ _

•- • « < j. C

Xyler.e ,7ctal) <3.C-is-i, 2-ni-r.loroether.e <l.Otrans -1,2-Dichlcroethene <1.0

c""'CT,e"" har.hlcrceth2

, -^cr.crcer.zene, 3 -2.rr.l^rcber.zer.e

her. z er.e

Page 15

:.-•.:.-:..-••. , : Tr:V..-.:::\ US«:.:-.•?.>.>. In

-.--••:• -:r -~>-->.v • r.i\

Laboratories Inc.



Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-07d



Phenol <5.0Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether <5.02-Chlorophenol <5.02-Methylphenol <5.0Bis (2-Ch]oroisopropyl)- <5.0Sther4-Methylphenol <5.0N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine <5.0Hexachloroethane <5.0

Nitrobenzene <5.0Isophorone; <5.02-Nitrophenol <5.02,4-Dimethylphenol <5.0Bis (2-Chloroethoxy)- <5.0Methane2,4-Dichlorophenol <5.01,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <5.0Naphthalene <5.04-Chloroaniline <20Hexachlorobutadiene <5.04-Chloro-3-Methylphenol <5.02-Methylnaphthalene <5.0Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <5.02,4,6-Trichlorophenol <5.02,4,5-Trichlorophenol <5.0

2-Chloron,aphthalene <5.02-Nitroaniline <20Dimethylp'ithalate <5.0Acenaphthylene <5.02,6-Dinitrotoluene <5.03-Nitroaniline <20Acenaphthene <5.02,4-Dinitrophenol <20


4-Nitrophenol <20Dibenzofuran <5.02,4-Dinitrotoluene <5.0Diethylphthalate <5.04-Chlorophenylphenyl- <5.0EtherFluorene <5.04-Nitroaniline <204,6-Dinitro- <202-MethylphenolN-Nitroso-di-Phenylamine <5.04-Bromophenyl Phenylether <5.0Hexachlorobenzene <5.0Pentachlorophenol <1.0Phenanthrene <5.0


Page 20

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 -

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 <;

Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-09


12:3617:15

Parameter

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl ChlorideChloroethe.neMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon Disulfide1 , 1-Dichloroethylene1 , 1-DichloroethaneChloroform1 , 2-DichloroethaneMethyl Ethyl Ketone1 , 1, 1-TrichloroethaneCarbon TetrachlorideDichlorobromomethane1 , 2-Dichloropropanecis-1, 3-Di chloropropeneTrichloroe^theneChlorodibromomethane1, 1 , 2-Trichloroethane

Resultug/L

<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<5.0<100<5.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<50<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0<1.0


Benzene <1.0trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <1.0Bromoform <1.04-Methyl-2-Pentanone <502-Hexanone <50Tetrachloroethene <1.0Toluene <l.O1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <1.0Chlorobenzene <1.0Ethylbenzene <1.0Styrene <1.0Xylene (Total) <3.0cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0Bromochloromethane <1.01,2-Dibromoethane <1.01,2-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,3-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,4-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,2-Dibromo-3- <1.0chloropropane

Page 22

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


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

2-::-.trcar.i'.-.r.^"i-rethylpntha:Arer.apr.tr.yler.s

< 5 .< 11< 5 . 2< 5 . "< 5 . -

<2 C

< 5 . C

< 5 . C<20

K - K - - i r c = c -d i - Phenylarr.ine <5 .04 -arr-rpr.er.yl Pher.ylerher <5 .0Hexarhl - rcbenzene <5.0

? lurrar.tr.e.-.e?-yrer.e5-j-yI Be.-.zyl Phthalate3 , 1' -"icr.lcrcber.zidiTieBer.zc 2 AnthraceneChryser.e

3is 2 -e thylhexyl) -P 'r. * ri a 1 a ~ s

2i -r. - C r t y l p h t h a l a r eBer.zt c Flurrar.iher.eBer.zr •: ~l-crar.ther.eBer.zr = P-.'rer.e

, 2 , 3 - c d ) Pyrene

<1D< 5 . C< 5 . C< 5 . C<5.0<20<5.0< 5 . C< 5 . C

< 5 . C<5.C< 5 . G<5 .0<5 .0

2i'ce~.z~ a, i~., Ar.thracene < 5 . CSer.z; g, h, i, ) Perylene <5 .0

Fa=e 2:

FJ\

Tri Matrixlaboratories Inc.



Grou.ndwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-09


12:3617:15

Parameter

EthaneEthylene

Resultug/L

<100<100

Parameter

Methane

Resultug/L

<2000

24

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-

Phenol <5.0Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether <5.02-Chlorophenol <5.02-Methylphenol <5.0Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl)- <5.0Ether4-Methylpnenol <5.0N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine <5.0Hexachloroethane <5.0

Nitrobenzene <5.0Isophorone <5.02-Nitrophenol <5.02 , 4-Dimethylphenol <5.0Bis (2-Chloroethoxy)- <5.0Methane2,4-Dichlorophenol <5.01, 2 , 4-Trichlorobenzene <5.0Naphthalene <5.04-Chloroaniline <20Hexachlorobutadiene <5.04-Chloro-3-Methylphenol <5.02-Methylnaphthalene <5.0Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <5.02,4,6-Trichlorophenol <5.02,4,5-Trichlorophenol <5.0



4-Nitrophenol <20Dibenzofuran <5.02,4-Dinitrotoluene <5.0Diethylphthalate -<5.04-Chlorophenylphenyl- <5.0EtherFluorene <5.04-Nitroaniline <204,6-Dinitro- <202-MethylphenolN-Nitroso-di-Phenylamine <5.04-Bromophenyl Phenylether <5.0Hexachlorobenzene <5.0Pentachlorophenol <1.0Phenanthrene <5.0


Page 26

""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" )

TriMatrix

PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONRSK-1T5

Rest County DPW Sut'ittal Nu-ier 34325-

S-t-r.: y.arrr. irr? Sa-ples ^-.alysis "ate: :4,'12/39

?ara-.eter .-.esu.t Parameter Result

Etr.ar.e <=.: Xetr.ar.e <2COC

Pane 2-7

Chloromethane <1.0Bromomethc.ne <1.0Vinyl Chloride <1.0Chloroethene <1. 0Methylene Chloride <5.0Acetone <100Carbon DiE;ulfide <5.01,1-Dichloroethylene <1.01,1-Dichloroethane <1.0Chloroform <1.01,2-Dichloroethane <1.0Methyl Ethyl Ketone <501,1,1-Trichloroethane <1.0Carbon Tetrachloride <1.0Dichlorobromomethane <1.01,2-Dichloropropane <1.0cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <1.0Trichloroethene <1.0Chlorodibromomethane <1.01,1,2-Trichloroethane <1.0

Page 28


Benzene <1.0trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <1.0Bromoform <1.04-Methyl-2-Pentanone <502-Hexanone <50Tetrachloroethene <1.0Toluene <1.01,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <1.0Chlorobenzene <1.0Ethylbenzene <1.0Styrene <1.0Xylene (Total) <3.0cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0Bromochloromethane <1.01,2-Dibromoethane <1.01,2-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,3-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,4-Dichlorobenzene <1.0l,2-Dibromo-3- <1.0chloropropane

' 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 -

:: -K11 rcscdi - r.- ?rc-py 1 axinHexa 3r. 1 rr-et har.e

Nitrccer.zer.e

e <z . -

Bis 2-Chlcrcethcxy - <=v.ethar.e

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.-.\

10:4617:15

Parameter

EthaneEthylene

Resultug/L

<5:0<5.0

Parameter

Methane

Resultug/L

<2000

Page 30

w

" 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


Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: Trip Blank



Chloromethane <1.0Bromomethane <1.0Vinyl Chloride <1.0Chloroethane <1.0Methylene Chloride <5.0Acetone <100Carbon Disulfide <5.01,1-Dichloroethylene <1.01,1-DichlDroethane <1.0Chloroform <1.01,2-Dichloroethane <1.0Methyl Ethyl Ketone <501,1,1-Trichloroethane <1.0Carbon Tetrachloride <1.0Dichlorobromomethane <1.01,2-Dichloropropane <1.0cis-1, 3-Dichloropropene <1.0Trichloroethene <1.0Chlorodibromomethane <1.01,1, 2-Trichloroethane <1.0



Page 32

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 : ;

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Kent County DPW

3ro-rdwater Xonitorinr ror.-ar-.- Jsr.r. ifer 1. = ioe

SW-^3d W-C3d ~-p y,:-:2 ântitatio-

a*~^3i^*~^* f c^- •* — -• _ • — . - , *a •. "7

•JSEPA 52-::- * ** -a-- . w-_3

*-or.rj"i c .- *»

r.SX-1^5

Arser.io. Dissolved <2C <2: 22 20CadT.ii;-. Dissolved <C.S <C.5 <C.5 c.5â"*—"^— *^»c^*K*"'»'i ^" ^* "«' -f*

Chro"i^n:. îssclved <5.C <E.C <5.C 5.C•'*tj'"OT --]j*-*"^''-3*^— " < = < " < CC < c " r " S^

C~ro~i-j~. Hexavaler.r <5 <5 <5 5Iron. Dissolved 3~: 35C 394CO 100Lead. Dissolved *<2.1 <2.0 <3.C j.oXag-esiur.. Dissolved 2: 21 52 C.50Xar.gar.ese. Dissolved <2C <2C €4C 20.Ver~-~.'. Dissolved < C 2 < C 2 < C 2 0 2KioVcel. Dissolved <25 <25 <25 25?otassi-jT, Dissolved 1.: 1.0 5.7 0.10c-'.-e- --ss_-..0-> - - -c <"2 r 71 ~ •So>di-T. . Dissolved 12 12 3.4 i.oZir.o. Dissolved <2: «2C 53 20AlKalir.ity. Total 26: 263 516 l.oTr.loride <i: <10 <10 10::irro>gen. A-rr,or.ia C.35 C.3£ 1.5 0.05Nirroger.. Nitrate <:.:: <:.i: <:.i: o.lCKitroger.. Nitrite <C.i: <:.1C <0.10 0.10Sulfate 6.: 5.7 22 i.o~i-]e— — a1 Dx*.'3°"" D'a~a"i"d •< !-~ <=~ "7 C0

Units

ug/Lug/LmT/Tici^ / i_i

ug/Ltin /TLiy / iJ

ug/Lug/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Ltirr /Tuy/ j_i

ug/Lmg/Lnrr /Tug/ij

mg/Lug/Lrr,g/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/LmT /Tftly/

:.--K-.-

TriMatrixLaboratories, Inc.

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Kent County DPWP r o j : 55parta Landf i l l



MW-03dMS/MSD

MW-03d DUP MW-03 QuantitationLimit

Units

Lab Sariple No: 219515 219516 219517

BOD, (5-Day)Phosphorus, TotalHardness, (EDTA) as CaC03Carbon, Total OrganicSulfideCarbon DioxideFerric IronpH (Field)Conductivity (Field)Field Temperature *cOxygen, Dissolved (Field)Redox Potential (Field)Turbidity (Field)Ferrous. Iron (Field)

Sampled by:Date Sampled:Time Sampled:Date Received:Time Received:

* See attached Statement of Data Qualifications

Page 34

0.102621.3

..0.28.4::1007.1046312.20.95-85120.6

0.082601.3

<:0.26.8

<:1007.1346812.40.79

-85120.6

180.03842120.26309296006.39131914.71.51

-8559.8

D. Larson03/31/99

09:1203/31/99

14:10

D. Larson03/31/9909:12

03/31/9914:10

D. Larson03/31/9910:39

03/31/9914:10

1.00.012.01.00.20.11001.0050.10.1110.1

mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lug/LpH Unitsumhos/cmdeg. Cmg/LmVNTUmg/L

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(

.TriMatrix


Kent County DPW?rc;: Sparta Lanirill

Grcundwater Xcritr:S-r.--. Xarrh l?rr Sar-.cles

"ate .-.e reive-: 3/31/95ri~e : C9 • 12ri^e: 14:10

rara-eter

i: rcTO—s* ..anVinyl ChlorideChlrroethar.e

--4 -Xetr.y

. e t r a

, 3-rirhlcrcprcper.e <1.C

l-2-Fer.ta.-.cne <50

e.rarr. 1 rrcethene I. C

1 , l --irr.lcroerr.ar.e-Tetrarhlcroeihar.e <1 . C6 r. z £ r. s <1C

Herhyl Ethyl Ketcr.e

Carbor, Terrachloride-ichlsrsbrorasse^hane

cis- ?roper.e

ityrer.eXyler.e Tctal)cis-1,2-Tichlcrcethenetrar. s-1,2-2 ichlcrcethene= rc~crr. 1 crcrr.etr.ar.e1, 2 -2icrc~cethar.e1.2 -"irr.lrrc

1 4 -" i ~h 1 crcter.zer.e

pane

<3.C<1.0

<1.C<1.C<1.C^

?aae 35

-> -"5--?;? • F.I\ 6! H:-:- 3

Groundwater MonicoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-03d

MS/MSD



Phenol <5.0Bis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether <5.02-Chlorophenol <5.02-Methylphenol <5.0Bis (2-Ch:.oroisopropyl) - <5.0Ether4-Methylphenol <5.0N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine <5.0Hexachloroethane <5.0

Nitrobenzene <5.0Isophorone <5.02-Nitrophenol <5.02,4-Dimethylphenol <5.0Bis (2-ChLoroethoxy)- <5.0Methane2,4-Dichlorophenol <5.01,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <5.0Naphthalene <5.04-Chloroaniline <20Hexachlorobutadiene <5.04-Chloro-3-Methylphenol <5.02-Methylnaphthalene <5.0Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <5.02, 4, 6-Trichlorophenol <5.02,4,5-Trichlorophenol <5.0

2-Chloronaphthalene <5.02-Nitroaniline <20Dimethylphthalate <5.0Acenaphthylene <5.02, 6-Dinitrotoluene <5.03-Nitroariline <20Acenaphthene <5.02,4-Dinitrophenol <20


4-NitrophenolDibenzofuran2 , 4-DinitrotolueneDiethylphthalate4-Chlorophenylphenyl-EtherFluorene4-Nitroaniline4,6-Dinitro-2 -MethylphenolN-Nitroso-di-Phenylamine4-Bromophenyl PhenyletherHexachlorobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenanthrene

AnthraceneCarbazoleDi-n-ButylphthalateFluoranthenePyreneButyl Benzyl Phtnalate3 , 3' -DichlorobenzidineBenzo (a) AnthraceneChryseneBis (2-ethylhexyl) -PhthalateDi-n-OctylphthalateBenzo (b) FluorantheneBenzo (k) FluorantheneBenzo (a) PyreneIndeno (1,2,3-cd) PyreneDibenzo (a,h) AnthraceneBenzo (g,h,i,) Perylene

<20<5.<5.<5.<5.0

<5.0<20<20

<5.0<5.0<5.0<1.0<5.0

<5.0<10<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0<20<5.0<5.0<5.0

<5 . 0<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0

Page 36

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


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

y c X 2

Result

rthar.e

3"7

. " . . . " " r.v. > • • • , - • : T - V..i:r.\ L/.^.'-jiono. I ru

• ' . : . - - - - - - - - - : • '•:- -~5--3»V • F.i\ kPl

Groi.ndwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-03d DUP



Chloromethane <1.0Bromomethane <1.0Vinyl Chloride <1.0Chloroethnne <1.0Methylene Chloride <5.0Acetone <100Carbon Disulfide <5.01,1-Dichloroethylene <1.01,1-Dichloroethane <1.0Chloroform <1.01, 2-Dichloroethane <1.0Methyl Ethyl Ketone <501,1,1-Trichloroethane <1.0Carbon Tetrachloride <1.0Dichlorob:romomethane <1.01,2-Dichloropropane <1.0cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <1.0Trichloroethene <1.0Chlorodibromomethane <1.01,1,2-Trichloroethane <1.0


Benzene <1.0trans-1, 3-Dichloropropene <1.0Bromoform <1.04-Methyl-2-Pentanone <502-Hexanone <50Tetrachloroethene <1.0Toluene <1.01,1, 2,2-Tetrachloroethane <1.0Chlorobenzene <1.0Ethylbenzene <1.0Styrene <1.0Xylene (Total) <3.0cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0Bromochloromethane <1.01,2-Dibromoethane <1.01,2-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,3-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,4-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,2-Dibromo-3- <1.0chloropropane

Page 38

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.



Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-03d DUP


Parameter

EthaneEthylene

Resultug/L

<5.0<5.0

Parameter

Methane

Resultug/L

<2000

Page 40

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 )

TriMatrix

PRCJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONCSEPA 8260

Kent County DPW

Srr-jr.-waier Mte Sarpled: C3 '51 .95 Tiir.e: 1C:39te P.ereived: C3 "31/55 Tirr.e: 14:10.alysis ~ 3 - e : C- i / ' : £ , ' 55

Paramete r

Vir.vl Cr.lcrid*Cr.lcrDeir.ar.e

s s r. z e r. et r a r . s -1 ,3 -"icr. Icrocrccer.e

4 -Vetr.yl - 2 - Fentanrr.e2 -rexar.rr.e

<5C

Carter. Tetrarr.lcride <:

ns-1. j-Eicr.lrr-proper.e <:

1 . 1.2-Tr;rr.lcrcerr.ar.e <

_.-._rrrrer.zer.e < 1 . CErr.ylcer.zer.e < 1 . C5"" \r **" **d < 1 '^Xyler.e 'Tc -a l ; < 3 . Gcis-1,2-2ichlcrceihene <1.Crrar.s-1, 2-Dichlrroether.e <1.05rcTr r'r. Icrorr.eihar.e <1.0

1, 3 -~irr.lorrber.zene <1 .C

?a=e

Phenol <5 . 0Bis (2-Ch:.oroethyl) Ether <5.02-Chlorophenol <5.02-Methylphenol <5.0Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl)- <5.0Ether4-Methylphenol <5.0N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine <5.0Hexachloroethane <5.0

Nitrobenzene <5.0Isophorone <5.02-Nitrophenol <5.02,4-Dimethylphenol <5.0Bis (2-Chloroethoxy)- <5.0Methane2,4-Dichlorophenol <5.01,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <5.0Naphthalene <5.04-Chloroaniline <20Hexachlorobutadiene <5.04-Chloro-3-Methylphenol <5.02-Methylnaphthalene <5.0Hexachlorocyclopentadiene <5.02, 4,6-Trirhlorophenol <5.02,4,5-Trichlorophenol <5.0





Page 42

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

TriMatrix


Kent County D?W 34326-1C: 3914:10

Pararerer Parameter Resul.ug/L

2300

43

• • " •-. •" •.;.!•. .ir. ,-! Tr.\:.;::;\ " I'VV.IJ.TH.- .

ANALYTICAL REPORT


Grounciwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 Samples

Submittal Number: 34326- :Location:Contact: Jennifer L. RicePhone: (616) 975-4500

MW-01 PZ-04 QuantitationLimit

Units

Lab Sample No: 219518 219519



Specific FractionRSK-175

Arsenic, DissolvedArsenic, TotalCadmium, DissolvedCadmium, TotalCalcium, DissolvedCalcium, TotalChromium, DissolvedChromium, TotalChromium, TrivalentChromium, HexavalentIron, DissolvedIron, TotalLead, DissolvedLead, Total'agnesium, Dissolved

^Magnesium, TotalManganese, DissolvedManganese, TotalMercury, DissolvedMercury, TotalNickel, DissolvedNickel, TotalPotassium, Dissolved

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

Enclosed

<20<200.71.01818

<5.0<5.0<5.0<5100350

<3.09.43.93 .9

<20<20<0.2<0.2<25<250.85

<20<20<0.5<0.5114112

<5.0<5.0<5.0<583608430

<3.0<3.0272819201840

<0.2<0.2<25<250.32

20200.50.51.01.05.05.05.051001003.03.00.500.5020200.20.225250.10

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

Page 44

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

.TriMatrixLai/o-acoocs IK

AJUO.YTICAL REPORT

Kent County DPW:-:-.; : Sparta Lar.of::

Cro-r.ivater X: .iter L. Rice

See attached Statement of Data ^ualif icat :or.

^uar.titation Units

Silver. dissolvedSilver. TotalSoiiur, rissclveiSodiMT.. TotalZir.o. "issclveiIir.c. TotalAlkalinity. TotalChlorideNitrcoer.. .-moma

::itrocer.. N'ltriteS-lfateCr.er.ical Cxyger. De.-oand

Phosphorus. TotalHardness. EDCA! as CaCC!Carton. Total Craanic

C n r 1 & - —

Field Temperature *COrygen. dissolved (Field?edox Potential (Field

Ferrous Iron >Field

Sampled by:Tate S-irr.c 1 ed:Tire ?ar.pled:late received:Tire received:

Larsor: -. • c,:

C . 1 ZC.2f", "*.

l.G"[ r

232Cl.C1CC . C 5C . " DC . 1 C^ . Hrf

5.C1.0C.C12.01 . C0.2", T

IOCl.CO5C.I0.1110.1

mg/Lug/Lug/Lmg / Lmg/Lug/Lug/L ^mg/Lmg/Lmg / Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lug/LpH Unitsumhos/cmdeg . Cmg/L SmVNTUmg/L

Laboratories. Inc.



Groandwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-01



Chloromethane <1.0Bromomethane <1.0Vinyl Chloride <1.0Chloroethane <1.0Methylene Chloride <5.0Acetone <100Carbon Disulfide <5.01,1-Dichloroethylene <1.01,1-Dichloroethane <1.0Chloroform <1.01,2-Dichloroethane <1.0Methyl Ethyl Ketone <501,1,1-Trichloroethane <1.0Carbon Tetrachloride <1.0Dichlorobromomethane <1.01,2-Dichloropropane <1.0cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <1.0Trichloroethene <1.0Chlorodibromomethane <1.01,1,2-Trichloroethane <1.0

Page 46



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

Tri Matrix


Kent Cmir.ty DPW 34226- 3. J3 TlT.e: 11 : 37'.:":'- Ti-e: 14:10

?ar=~eter

2 -X&t r.vlcr.er.c 1

< ;

"vl £ther <5< 5< 5

rprcpyl - <5

2,4-~ir. itrrt

4 - Zr. r~ -

Hexarhlrrcerhar.e < ~ . Z

< 5 . D<5 . C<5.0<5 . 0

< 5 . C

<20

ICitroter.zer.e

2-Nitrcpher.cpr.er.clcetr.cx-/E;s 2-

y.etr.ar.e2 . 4-2icr.lrr2pher.1 . 2 . 4 -Tricr.lcrcbI«"apr.tr.aler.e4-rr.lrrcar.:Hexarhlrrcturadiene

er.zer.e

< 3 . C

< E . Z< 5 . I

<=<5

N - N n r c s r - d i -Pher.ylanine <5 . 04- = rcTCpher.yl Pher.ylether < 5 . GHexach l crcber.zer.e <5 .0

r r.er.sr.t r.rer.e < 5 . C

Hexachlcrccuradiene <54 - Chloro- 3 -y.ethylchencl < 52-Merhylr.aphrh2ler.e <5Hexachlrrccj'dcper.tadier.e <52 . 4 . € -7richlcrcpher.cl2 . 4 . 5 -7rirr.lcrcpher.cl

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.



Gro'jndwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: MW-01


Parameter

EthaneEthylene

Resultug/L

<5.0<5.0

Parameter

Methane

Resultug/L

<2000

Dage 48

In- ivpon >h.i!l nol lit reproduced CM.vpl in full. wiihoul \vruu-n .uiihi>nz;Uion ol TnM.iirix L.\hiirjinrics. IniIndividual s;uii|ili.' rcsulis u-l.\lc link1 u> the xiniplc to^.ici.1

1'i.l Hi l l> r.irkw.iy SC • PC Ro.\ 8886^2 • GranJ R;ipi<Js. Ml 4s)58S-86^2 • uM6i 975-4500 • Tax (MM

TriMatrix

PROJECT SPECIFIC FRACTIONCSEPA 8260

Kent County D?w?rc;: Sparta lar.dfill

3rc _:r.-«ater Xcr.iccr ir.-S_c~: Xarcr. Irr? Sa-plesSa-cle: PZ-C4

12:3514:10

i-X£tr.yl-i-?e:2 -Hexsr.cr.e

rarbcr. bisulfide <l

1, 1-Tichlcroetr.ar.e <:

ar.e

1.1.1 -Tr ic r.i crest r.aneZarbcr. Tetracr.Lcride

1.2-~icr. :crcprcpane

Tr i cr*. 1 ores «"5r.s

1 , 1 , 2 , 2 -Tecrachlcroethar.e <1. CCr.lrrccer.zer.e < 1 . C

Xyler.e 7--sl.'cis -1, 2 -Zicr.lcrcethenetrar.s -1, 2 -r^rr.lc-roetr.er.eH r~—TT *~1<". 1 "*<*"c*^'*^*~2ric'^ 2 -**••**• -*•*• —* •* *- — -^o

1.2-2icr.lcrcr:enzer.e1, 3 -^irr .Icrofcer.zene1,4 -Z.cr.lcrcter.zer.e1, 2 - Z i r r c~c - 3 -

Paae

Laboratories. Inc.


Kent County DPWProj -. Sparta Landfill

Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: PZ-04


Parameter

PhenolBis (2-Chloroethyl) Ether2-Chlorophenol2-MethylphenolBis (2-Chloroisopropyl)-Ether4-MethylphenolN-Nitrosodi-n-PropylamineHexachloroethane

NitrobenzeneIsophorone2-Nitrophenol2,4-DimethylphenolBis (2-Chloroethoxy)-Methane2,4-Dichlorophenol1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneNaphthalene4-ChloroanilineHexachlorobutadiene4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol2-MethylnaphthaleneHexachlorocyclopentadiene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4,5-Trichlorophenol

2-Chloronaphthalene2-NitroarilineDimethylphthalateAcenaphthylene2,6-Dinitrotoluene3-Nitroar.ilineAcenaphthene2,4-Dinitrophenol

Resultug/L

<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0

<5.0<5.0<5.0

<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0<5.0

<5.0<5.0<5.0<20<5.0<5.0

000

<5<5<5<5.0

<5.0<20<5.0<5.0<5.0<20<5.0<20



Anthracene <5.0Carbazole <ioDi-n-Butylphthalate <5.0Fluoranthene <5.0Pyrene <5.0Butyl Benzyl Phthalate <5.03,3'-Dichlorobenzidine <20Benzo (a) Anthracene <5.0Chrysene <5.0Bis (2-ethylhexyl)- <5.0PhthalateDi-n-Octylphthalate <5.0Benzo (b) Fluoranthene <5.0Benzo (k) Fluoranthene <5.0Benzo (a) Pyrene <5.0Indeno (l,2,3-cd) Pyrene <5.0Dibenzo (a,h) Anthracene <5.0Benzo (g,h,i,) Perylene <5.0

Page 50

" 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


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




FieldBlank

QuantitationLimit

Units

Lab Sample No: 219520

Project Specific Fraction EnclosedUSEPA 8260

Project Specific Fraction EnclosedUSEPA 8270

Specific Fraction EnclosedRSK-175

Arsenic, Dissolved <20Cadmium, Dissolved <0.5Calcium, Dissolved <1.0Chromium, Dissolved <5.0Chromium, Trivalent <5.0Chromium, Hexavalent <5Iron, Dissolved <100Lead, Dissolved <3.0Magnesium, Dissolved <0.50Manganese, Dissolved <20Mercury, Dissolved <0.2Nickel, Dissolved <25Potassium, Dissolved <0.10Silver, Dissolved <0.2"odium, Dissolved <1.0

Dissolved <20Alkalinity, Total <1.0Chloride <10Nitrogen, Ammonia <0.05Nitrogen, Nitrate <0.10Nitrogen, Nitrite <0.10Sulfate <1.0Chemical Oxygen Demand <5.0

200.51.05.05.051003.00.50200.2250.100.21.0201.0100.050.100.101.05.0


Page 52

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

Carbor. ~i oxide

_

Field Te-peracure »CCxyjer. , Dissolved 'Fie I?eds>: Poter.t lal (FieldTuriiiii-v Field1

Ferrous Ircr. ; Field

Sar.pled by:Date Sar^led:Tir.e Sarr-pled:2-ate ?:* reived:Tir.e received-.

:. Lars:• -. -, • :

•3.312.C

0.1

0.1

mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lug/L ^pH Unitsumhos.'cnideg. Cmg/LmvMTUmg/L

-E • ro [

Groundwater MonitoringSubm: March 1999 SamplesSample: Field

Blank


13:1614:10


Chloromethane <1.0Bromomethane <1.0vinyl Chloride <1.0Chloroethane <1.0Methylene Chloride <5.0Acetone <100Carbon Disulfide <5.01,1-Dichloroethylene <1.01,1-Dichloroethane <1.0Chloroform 3.51,2-Dichloroethane <1.0Methyl Ethyl Ketone <501,1, l-Tric:hloroethane <1.0Carbon Tetrachloride <1.0Dichlorobromomethane <1.01,2-Dichloropropane <1.0cis-1, 3-D:.chloropropene <1.0Trichloroethene <l.OChlorodibromomethane <l.O1,1,2-Trichloroethane <1.0


Benzene <1.0trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <1.0Bromoform <1.04-Methyl-2-Pentanone <502-Hexanone <50Tetrachloroethene <1.0Toluene <1.01,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <l.OChlorobenzene <1. 0Ethylbenzene <1. 0Styrene <1.0Xylene (Total) <3.0cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <1.0Bromochloromethane <1.01,2-Dibromoethane <1.01,2-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,3-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,4-Dichlorobenzene <1.01,2-Dibromo-3- <1.0chloropropane

Page 54

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


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

Wetnar.e

Kapr.ihaler.e<<5

AnthraceneC a r b s z c l e

2 -y.ethylnaphthalene <::Hexarnlcrsryclacentadier.e <l2 .4 .6 -Tr i rh lc rcphenol <:2 .4 .5-Tr ichlcrcphencl <:

2-rh:srDnaphthalene < l

Arer.aphthyler.e2 , €-2ir.it.rotclue~e3-J.":troar.ilir.eArer.aphther.e

rl-crar. thene!>•/ 1" 6 r. sauiyl Ber.zyl Phthalate3 , 3 ' -~ i chlorober.zidineSer.zc = Ar.thrarenerhryser.eBis 2 - ethylhexyl -?hth=late2i - r . -Cc ty lph tha la te3er.zc 't Flusrar.ther.eBer.zr k r lucrar.theneBer.zc .a Pyrer.e

' '. , 2 , 3 - cd ) Pyrer.e

<5.C<10<5.C<5.0<5 .0<5.C<20<5.C<5.0

< 5 . C< 5 . C<5.0<5 .0<5 . 0

-icer.zc ,a,h; Anthracene <5.C3enz2 ig.h.i. Ferylene <5.G

Laboratories Inc.



Groundwater MonitoringSubnu March 1999 SamplesSample: Field

Blank


Paraneter

EthaneEthylene

Resultug/L

<5.0<5.0

Parameter

Methane

Resultug/L

<2000

56 - End of Analytical Report

'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.

Section B2 - Conceptual Site Model

Section B3 - Receptor Identification

Section B-l - Chemicals of Potential Concern

9?M AJn.ni Rp< R! ApndxB I >* *--*•*& *>c B-1 0475AX)

Section B5 - Pathway Exclusion Rationale

Section B6 - Exposure Point Concentrations

Section B7 - Risk Characterization, and

Section B8 - Uncertainty Evaluation

Section B9 - Conclusions, and

Section BIO - References.

B2 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

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

L:\Work\19324\Admin\Rpt\RIApndxBUpdt4-24-OO.doc B-2 04/25/00

assessment This very conservative assumption, therefore, results in a highly conservative assessment of

the potential for adverse health impacts to current and fu ture receptors associated with the site.

BJ RECEPTOR IDENTIFICATION

B3.1 Current Receptors

Groundwater flowing downgradient of the landfi l l could potentially reach human and environmental

receptors. However, because an alternate water source (bedrock aquifer) has been provided to residents

in this area, risk to human receptors is belie\ed to he within the US. EPA acceptable risk range of IxlO"4

to IxlO"5 . A Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA)r Appendix S of the RI report,

concludes that there was no ev idcnce that Sparta Lcndfill was causing concentrations in surface waters to

exceed applicable Water Quality Values and Guidelines Each of these receptor groups is discussed in

more detail below.

Human Receptors of the L'pper and Lower Aquifers

Drinking water wells have been installed in a deep aquifer that is known to be hydrologically separated

from the upper aquifer. This water supply is used by current residents downgradient of the site. The

locations of current water v\clls are presented on Figure 3 of the RJ Report (May 1999). Efforts to

determine the use of the upper aquifer by residents was initiated in 1979 following the detection of

contaminants in on-site monitoring wells Following that investigation several shallow potable wells

were replaced with deep wells The replacement of these wells is discussed in Section 1.2.3.1 of the RI

Report.

Such use precludes current exposure to potentially impacted water and supports the conclusion that the

groundwater pathway for this water-bearing zone is currently incomplete (Figure Bl). Although transfer

to the lower aquifer has been conservatively assumed in the CSM. the provision of the clean water source

originating from the bedrock aquifer effectively interrupts the exposure pathway. As a result risk has

been mitigated for the current residents

Environmental Receptors of the l-'pper and Lwer Aquifers

As noted in the extent of contamination discussion provided in the RJ . the Rogue River lies downgradient

of the landfill. A 1997 Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) was conducted to evaluate

the potential for adverse impact to environmental receptors in the Rogue River (Earth Tech 1997). Data

collected for this ecological risk assessment and presented in the RI report suggest that groundwater in the

L WcA WM Airnm Rpl RlApndvB I ?•£ -i-:-»-*X> doc B-? 04,75/00

vicinity of the site continues to contain constituents at concentrations that exceed the GSI criteria. For

this reason, a mixing zone application (MZD) will be submitted to the MDEQ for a determination.

Although the SLERA concluded that there was no evidence that the Landfill is causing concentrations in

surface waters to exceed Water Quality Values and/or ecotoxicity values this conclusion was based on

one surface water sampling event. Additional surface water sampling (four quarterly sampling events)

has been incorporated into the revised Groundwater Monitoring Plan (April 2000).

B3.2 Future Receptors

Human Receptors of the Upper and Lower Aquifers

Constituents have been detected in the upper and lower aquifers exceeding MDEQ's generic residential

drinking water criteria in groundwater collected from monitoring wells downgradient of the Landfill, yet

upgradient of residential properties. Contamination is; however, confined to saturated zones that are

hydrologically separated from the deep wells drilled for the provision of a potable residential water

supply.

To prevent exposure to impacted groundwater, a groundwater use ordinance will be relied upon. Kent

County has submitted an ordinance to the MDEQ for their review.

Thus, although future human exposure to contaminated groundwater is unlikely, these downgradient

residential receptors have been retained as a future potentially exposed population for the purposes of the

RI/FS. In this context, all routes (i.e., oral, dermal, and inhalation) of exposure will be evaluated.

Environmental Receptors of the Upper and Lower Aquifers

Changes in the local topography related to agricultural activities, road modifications and land use changes

may modify drainage to surface water (i.e., the Rogue River or Lettinga Pond) and thus alter flows and

associated contaminant input to the river. Because an accurate prediction of such changes is highly

uncertain it has been assumed that significant modifications in the local flow regime are unlikely to

change in the future. Furthermore, as noted in the SLERA, it is believed that the presumptive remedy

employed (i.e., capping the landfill) will eliminate water intrusion into the landfill resulting in an overall

decrease in the mass of constituents that may leach through the landfill (Earth Tech, 1997). Although

groundwater is assumed to be impacted with chemicals derived from landfill waste, the overall impact to

receptors associated with surface water is likely to diminish with time, indicating that risks are likely to be

acceptable in the future. In addition, the 1998 mixing zone evaluation indicates that there was no risk to

surface water; however, a MZD application will be submitted to the MDEQ for a determination.


B4 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (COPC)

This sccnon identifies chemicals of poceniial concern (COPC) for the purposes of the screening level risk

evaluation. COPCs are those chemicals that have data of sufficient quality for risk assessment purposes,

and exceed MDEQ criteria (or other criteria if MDEQ criteria are not available) for protection of human

health Chemicals included in monitoring and ecological evaluations are not necessarily limited to the

COPCs identified for the screening level risk assessment

A simple screening process v\as used to identifv preliminary and final COPCs. Preliminary COPC were

identified in three steps:

• evaluation of data quality objectives:

• comparison to criteria and

• comparison to background concentrations

The first step was evaluation of ihe data qualirv objectives (DQO)of a particular data set. The Vertical

Aquifer Sampling (VAS) data collected in the remedial investigation were not used to identifv- COPCs

because the VAS data did not meet the minimum DQO for risk assessments. Other remedial investigation

data and monitoring data were retained for further evalua t ion with the screening process.

The second step compared detected concentrations of chemicals to criteria for the protection of human

health developed b\ the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. These criteria included

residential dnnkmg water criteria Aesthetic (taste and odor) criteria were also considered in this step.

Other guidelines were used if state criteria were not available This step resulted in elimination of

chemicals with concentrations below health based (or aesthetic-based in a few cases) from the preliminary

list of chemicals of potential concern

The third step in the identification of the preliminary COPCs consisted of comparing chemical

concentrations in downgradient wells to concentrations m the two upgradient wells (Nf\V-08 and

MW-08D for the shallow and deep aquifers, respective!)) This step did not result in elimination of any

chemicals from the list of potential COPCs for the upper aquifer Iron, manganese and ammonia nitrogen

were retained as COPCs for the lower aquifer even though these chemicals were detected in the

background well(s). This was done because of the potential communication between the two aquifers.

The preliminary COPCs are identified in Table BI and B2

9?:-« VJmm Kp< RIApnJvB I >4 -t-H-GO doc B-5 04 25/00

The final COPCs were identified by evaluating specific analytical data for suitability for use in risk

assessment. Zinc \vas eliminated as a COPC because the concentrations appeared to be associated with

zinc-galvanized well casings rather than the landfill. To ensure that this elimination was valid, an

additional monitoring well, MW-03-99, constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), was installed within

11 feet of a galvanized well (MW-03). Both wells were sampled and analyzed for metals and VOCs. The

results indicate that the high concentrations of zinc in the older galvanized wells are due to the galvanized

well casings. The analytical data do not indicate that zinc was masking or affecting other parameters.

Silver was eliminated as a final COPC because the isolated silver detection was not of sufficient quality.

The U S. EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (1989) indicated that if the detected analyte is

less than five times the concentration in the method blank then the data are not usable. Since the silver

concentration was less than the concentration in the method blank, these silver data were not considered

valid Eind silver was not included as a COPC.

Tables. Bl and B2 list the final COPCs for the upper and lower aquifers, respectively. These chemicals 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 U.S. EPA.

B5 PATHWAY EXCLUSION

A key component of an expedited risk assessment under SACM is the justified elimination of exposure

pathways that do not require further evaluation. Figure Bl provides a brief listing of the technical

rationale for exclusion of specific pathways and routes of exposure at the Sparta Landfill. This rationale

is discussed below.

Current Oral, Dermal, and Inhalation Exposures

All current exposure routes via the groundwater pathway are deemed incomplete as discussed earlier.

Thus, these routes require no further evaluation for the current scenario.

Future Oral, Dermal, and Inhalation Exposures

The drinking water criteria developed by the MDEQ do not generally protect against dermal and

inhalation routes of exposure (MDEQ 1999). However, for the COPCs identified at the site, the drinking


\\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.


B9 CONCLUSIONS

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.

L:\Work\19324\Admin\Rpt\RlApndxBUpdt4-24-OO.doc B-10 04/25/00

Table B1Preliminary and Final Chamlcala of Potential Concam

Uppar AqulfarSparta Landfill

I'HI 1 IMINAHV C.OPC

Aliitnltium, IftfftlRtflum. Hl»nlv»d

Barium, luulIron, <lu«iilv*d

Irnn, lout1 •«!(, llltt*nlv»(l

1 Mil, IIIKI

Mnnij4Mi**a, tnlalNHmtJon. AmmnnU

Nllrnu*". Nllr«t»-NIHIU

line, InKI

flKIAI COPC» |

B*flum, rtl»n!v«dBarium, tali)

Iron, dlttnlv«dIron, lol«l

LMri. dlMnlvldL«ad, tiital

1

M«nq«n»«». icitiilNllrdQVn, Ammonia

NHrngin, Nllr«l« Nllfll*

, WELL lOCAIIONS/NUMBeM

MW O/. P^ O4MW03". MW07"MW07"MW <>?. MW li:i. MW 04. MW 04. MW 07. MW 00. IV MMW01. MW 07. IV 04MWIH MW o; MW04 MW OB MW 07MWOI. MW 07. IV 04

IV l>4MWn;" MW01". MW07"MW01 MWim

MW07

MOTES

l.u Uwn N^vun 1 M«Mfi «««l CuioMiMm (Mt.1-1 «. IIM uv/l)

t li Bpitft HpgHlH • ItaHHh n«*etl rnl0M4 (HNIl«l 1 lIMug/l)

hit*mh HBUHM • Health H«Mtl ' («•«• |PMU*I 1 «I04 utfA 1

••• lh««i ^M|«I«I Ai lhmt*t f« l ( l^ iv^ 1

• t« lh«n ^ wlBlcl Ailtim 1 Bval (^ u(|A )

•« -UA

WIM IMl in IJ| )IWIMII< w«ll

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

••• ' Imlii nlpn "•' ppilnnr.n nf I'ml 201 (.niunclwnlor »urlai.o Wnloi Inlprlnrn Crllntlo (OS!) nnil upgindlnnl w«ll

L \woih\1 B3?4\pio|«cudm\O1&d2

Table B2Sparta Landfill

Preliminary and Final Chemicals of Potential Concern

Lower Aquifer

Sparta Landfill

Preliminary COPCs

Aluminum, total

Iron, dissolvedIron, total

Lead, dissolvedLead, total

Manganese, totalSilver, dissolved

Nitrogen, Ammonia

Final COPCs |f

Aluminum, T

Iron, dissolvedIron, total

Lead, dissolvedLead, total

Manganese, total

Nitrogen, Ammonia

WELL LOCATION/NUMBERS NOTES

MW-03DMW-03D. MW-07D, MW-08D'MW-03DMW-07DMW-03DMW-03D. MW-08DMW-03DMW-03D", MW-08D-"

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


Future: COCs Non-Volatile

Current: Bedrock Supply Used


Future: No Dermal Absorption


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:

DP HUB m:\KentCty\19324.07YTechMemo C-l KC-Spaita 1908

• 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)


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

Zone Monitoring Wells HighestWell/Sample

MW-07

Ce(mg/L)

0.051

Date

0.051 5/13/96

Total

Qb (L/day) (Quarter of flow)Total Ml

Total Cm (mg/L)

Zone Monitoring Wells

/L) 0.0015:S) 53w) 32416157vlb 48624.2352L) 1.51E-03

Lead, dissolvedSparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing

Highest CeWell/Sample (mg/L)

MW-04 0.0104

HNV #:WV:HCL:FCV:

Zone Evaluation

Date

0.0104 5/7/96

Qe MeL/day mg/day

988207 5039900000

988207 50399

0.19 mg/LNA mg/LNA mg/L

0.0309 mg/L

VOTotal

Cb (mg/L) 0.0015Qb ICFS) 53

Qb (L/day) (Quarter of flow) 32416157Total Mb 48624.2352

Total Cm (mg/L) 0.0003

HNV #:WV:HCL:FCV:

Qe MeL/day mg/day

988207 102770000

988207 10277


0.0309 mg/L

F:lvandark\projact»\taladyna\Mlxmg2 Page 4

J

Arsenic, dissolvedSparta Landfill; Rogue Rlvar Mixing Zone Evaluation


HP-04

CeImg/L)

0.264

Date

0.264 4/18/96

Total

Cb Img/L)Qb ICFS)

Qb IL/day) (Quarter of flow)Total Mb

Total Cm |mu/U

0.001153

3241615735657.77248

0.0078

HNV *:WV:HCL:FCV:

Qe MeL/day mo/day

988207 2G088700000

988207 200887

NLS rng/LNA mo/LID mo/L

0.1500 rno/L

F:!vandarfc\proJecti\t«ledyne\Mlxlng2 Page 6

Nitrogen, ammoniaSoarta Landfill: Rogue River Mixing Zone Evaluation

Zone Monitoring Wells Highest CeWell/Sample (mg/L)

MW-03 11 11

Date

5/9/96

Total

Cb (mg/L)Qb (CFS)

Qb (L/day)Total Mb

Total Cm (mg/L)

0.153

12966462712966462.72

O.OQ32

HNV#:WV:HCL:FCV:

Qe MeL/day mg/day

988207 1087028000000

988207 10870280

NA mg/LNA mg/LNA mg/L

0.2900 mg/L

F:lvanderk\projects\taladyne\Mixlng2 Page 7

AssumptionsK ft/day

144.43 MW-01181.01 MW-03252.43 MW-07

187.5716 Geomean

Q= KAIA « 60,000 ft2K- 187.6 ft/dayI • 0.0031

34893.6 ft3/day988207.3 L/day

F:lvandark \projacti\taladyna\Mlxlng2 Paga 8

1] ATTACHMENTS

1 MIXING ZONE CALCULA TIONS

HYDRA ULIC CONDUCTIVITY = 0.01

r

document2

KC-Sparta 1920

Ethyl Banian*Sparta Landfill; Rogua Rlvar Mixing Zona Evaluation

Zone HighestWell/Sample

MW-03D 151-54')

Ce(mg/LI

0.056

Date

0.056 4/16/96

Total

Cb Img/L)Ob (CFS)


Total Cm (mg/L)

0.01 Less Than53

32416157324161.568

5.01 E-03

HNV i:WV:HCL:FCV:

Qe MeL/day mo/day

3187766 17851500000

318/ /B6 1/H51T)

8.90 mg/lNA mg/lNA mg/l

0.018 mg/l

t/1

F:lvanderfc\proj«cti\teledyne\Mlxlng P«0» t

1 ~1 ' 1 , ] ~"1 "".• ... _ . . J J

( C

XylenesSparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing Zone Evaluation

Zone Monitoring Wells Highest Ce Date Qe MeWell/Sample (mg/L) L/day mg/day

1 MW-03D (51-541) 0.091 0.091 4/16/96 3187766 2900872 03 ' 04 05 06 0

Total 3187766 290087

Cb (mg/L) 0.01 Less than HNV #: 83 mg/LQb (CFS) 53 WV: NA mg/L

Qb (L/day) (Quarter of flow) 32416157 HCL: NA mg/LTotal Mb 324161.568 FCV: 0.035 mg/L

Total Cm (mg/L) 8.15E-03

n

F:lvanderk\projects\teledyne\Mixing Page 2

Zinc. TotalSparta Landfill; Rogua Rlvar Mixing Zona Evaluation

Zone Monitoring Wells Highest Ce Date Qe MeWell/Sample Img/L) L/day mo/day

1 MW-07 6.52 6.52 5/13/96 3187766 2078-123100000

Tota| 3187/CiG 207R4231

Cb Img/LI 0.01 Less than HNV #: 22 mg/LQb ICFS) 53 WV: NA mg/L

Ob (L/day) (Quarter of flow) 32416157 HCL: NA mg/LTotal Mb 324161.568 FCV: 0.283 mg/L

Total Cm (mg/L) 5.84E-01Zinc. Dissolved

Sparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing Zone Evaluation

Zone Monitoring Wells Highest Ce Date Qe MeWell/Sample Img/L) L/day nig/day

1 MW-01 3.58 3.58 5/10/96 3187766 114122012 03 0

0Total 3187766 11412201

«•ptf Cb (mg/L) 0.01 Less than HNV #: 22 mg/LI Qb (CFSI 53 WV: NA mg/L

Qb (L/day) (Quarter of flow) 32416157 HCL: NA mg/L§ Total Mb 3.24E + 05 FCV: 0.283 mg/L


F:lv«nderk\projacU\taledyne\Mlxlng Pago 3

r -

Lead, totalSparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing Zone Evaluation


MW-07

Total

Ce(mg/L)

0.051 0.051

Date

5/13/96

Qe MeL/day mg/day

3187766 16257600000

3187766 162576

Cb (mg/L) 0.0015Qb (CFS) 53



HNV #:WV:HCL:FCV:


0.0309 mg/L

Lead,dissolvedSparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing Zone Evaluation


MW-04

n

1so

ho

Total

Cb (mg/L) 0.0015Qb (CFS) 53



Ce(mg/L)0.0104 0.0104

Date

5/7/96

QeL/day

Memg/day

3187766

HNV#:WV:HCL:FCV:

3187766


0.0309 mg/L

331530000

33153

F:IVBnderk\projects\teledYne\Mixing Page 4

Arsenic, dissolvedSparta Landfill; Rogue Rlvar Mixing Zona Evaluation


HP-04

Ce(mg/L)

0.264

Date

0.264 4/18/96

Total

Cb (mg/L)Qb (CFS)

Qb (L/day) (Quarter of (low)Total Mb

Total Cm

0.001153

3241615735657.77248

2.36E-02

HNV #:WV:HCL:FCV:

Qe MeL/day mo/day

3187766 84157000000

3187766 HI If) 70

NLS mg/LNA mg/LID mg/L

0.1500 mQ/L

F:lvandarfc\projecti\t«ladyna\Mlxlno Rifle 6

Nitrogen, ammoniaSparta Landfill; Rogue River Mixing Zone Evaluation

Zone Monitoring Wells Highest CeWell/Sample (mg/L)

MW-03 11

Total

Date Qe MeL/day mg/day

11 5/9/96 3187766 3506542100000

3187766 35065421

Cb (mg/L)Qb (CFS)

Qb (L/day)Total Mb

Total Cm (mg/L)

0.153

12966462712966462.72

2.64E-01

HNV #:WV:HCL:FCV:

NA mg/LNA mg/LNA mg/L

0.2900 mg/L

n

5V

F:lvanderk\projects\teledyne\Mixing Page 7

AssumptionsK ft/day

144.43 MW-01181.01 MW-03252.43 MW-07

187.5716 Geomean 112560 ft3/day3187766 L/day

Q= KA» ft/dayA= 60.000(t2K- 187.6I - 0.01

F:lv*nd«rfc\proj«cti\teledyne\Mlxlng p,ge 3

APPENDIX D

Calculations and Evaluations of the

Groundwater Extraction and Treatment Alternative

Table D-1Calculations of Estimated Influent and Effluent Concentrations and Removal Mass

Focused Feasibility StudySparta Landfill Site

Kent County. Michigan

Influent EffluentConstituent Concentration LimitAluminum, totalBarium, totalIron, dissolvedLead, totalManganese, dissolvedNitrogen, Ammonia

Other ParametersHardness as CaCO3

SulfateTotal Organic Carbon

TOTALS

692.71 200

237.91 200

72,461.46 300

51.32 15

2,041.87 50

4,078.27 29

Assumed Mass MassConcentration Removed Removed

Removed (Ib/day) (Ib/mo)492.71 3.5525 106.5738

37.91 0.2733 8 2004

72,161.46 520.2899 15608.6977

36.32 0.2619 78565

1,991.87 14.3615 430.8459

4,049.27 29.1955 875.8663

Percentof Total

Mass009%

001%

1323%

001%

037%

074%

520,000.00 NA

14,864.71 250,000.00

6,350.00 NA

445,846.67 3214.5901 96437.7044

14,500.00 104.5462 3136.3848

6,350.00 45.7840 1373.5202

81.74%

2.66%

1.16%

As3933 117986

tons of 30% solids/month = 1 97100%

tons ol30%solids/month

NOTES:

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.

Where: Q = pumping rateK = hydraulic conductivityh = effective saturated thicknessi = horizontal hydraulic gradient

Pi

540 gpm or0.0430 cm/sec or

22 feet0.015

3.1416

103950 ft3/day121.0 ft/day

EstimatedEarth Tech, 1999aEarth Tech, 1999aEarth Tech, 1999aEstimated

(MW-08 to MW-02)

Calculation: Q/(2* (pi) * i* h*K)

414 feet Estimate of downgradient capture.

L:\work\projects\19324\projadm\ctzoneX2 8/10/99]

Appendix 0

Lower Aqulftr Capture Zone CalculationsSparta Landfill

Problem

Solution

Where

Calculate (he capture ton* perpendicular to the now or capture zone width

Dated on Javandel and Ttang (1986). the capture rone of multiple well*, pumping it Q it given by

nQ/(?Kbi)

Q - pumping raleK = hydraulic conductivityb = saturated aquifer thicknessi hoii/nrilal hydraulic gradientn number ol wells

2 25 gpm0 0059 cm/sec

9 feel00034

i

oror

433 ft3/day Estimated16 7 ft/day Earth Tech. 1999a

Earth Tech. 1999a (Geomean MW 030 MW 0/1) nnd MW OHO)Farth Tech. 1'19'Ja (MW 08 to MW 0?)F slimated

C.ilculdlion nU/(?Kbi)

1270 leet Capture Zone Perpendicular to groundwattr flow.

A inoie i fiir.orv.-ilivi! Calculation n parallel to flow or rapture /one Ipnglh nr stagnation point

Where Q " pumping rate 7 gpm orK hydtaulir, conductivity 0 0059 cm/sec or

h - effective saturated thickness 9 feeli - lioiuontal hydraulic gradient 0 0034

pi 31416

Rased on March 1997 and Oct 1996 static water levels

Calculation Q/(2' (pi) • C h'K)

1348 fl3/day Estimated16 7 fVday Earth Tech. I999a

Earth Tech. I999a (Geomean MW 03D. MW 070. and MW 08t>) ~Earth Tech. 1999a (Geomean plus std Dev For MW 030. MW 07D. and MWEstimated

419 feet Estimate of downgradlent capture.

\worli\pro|ecl9\19324\pro|adm\cl2onedeep 8n 0/99)

10.000 C 10.500 E 11.000 C II.SOC C

A R T H

E A R T H g » | T E C

CLIENT

PROJECT "

CALCULATION SHEET

SUBJECTDate

Date

. -C.

fC

PAC*.

b =

3C

3? —

i L

TO

F053 Genera!

K A P, 7 M

tyca • . - -

CLIENTCALCULATION SHEET

SUBJECT _.

PAGE ___ _.

PROJECT NO.

Preoaieo bv

OF _(

Reviewed by

Approved bv

Date

Date

Date

Tie)

Cfcr^CXT i

feo

7o

4AT 79

Rev. 10/98 SCALE: 5 sq./cm F052/General

IXC I •: joo e

=

9/99 TUE 14:22 FAI 616 940 4396 EARTH TEC GR MI SHEBOYGAN IL i)001

EARTH TECH5555 Glenwood Hills Pkwy SEPO Box 0874Grand Rapids, Ml 49586-0874

Company: _ £>?>£/">/

C S I M I L E

Date:Fax#: _Phone #:

From:Location: GRAND RAPIDS, Ml

Project tSubject: <;

Direct Dial #:Sending From Fax #:D (616) 942-6499 - Glenwood Bldg 1st floor

JBt (616) 940-4396 - Glenwood Bldg 2nd floorD (616) 940-4397 - Glenwood Bldg 3rd floorD (616) 949-6023 - Charlevoix BldgD (616) 954-3774 - Survey

Comments: '- A/e*tf F* T

Ike* =• /.

of-

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

« T H

APPENDIX E

Cost Estimate Back-Up

FLOW OF FLUIDSTHROUGH

VALVES, FITTINGS, AND PIPE

By the Engineering Department

CRANE

©1988 — Crane Co.

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

"25 64.1 5 041 2 . 3 3 111.2 p 72

2 8 40

0 574 0.044 2V2" 10 OS-U 7o5 0.073 13 440 "So 0.108 0 070 0.0461 43 0.224 1 01 0.094 31 "1 0.375: 1 .34 0.158 0 80?

2 3') 0.561, 1 P8 0.234 OO2 87 0.786 2 01 0.327 30335 1.05 2 35 0.436 523 83 1.35 2 rf 0.556 744 30 1.67 . 3 02 0.668 OS

4 78 2.03 3 35 0.839 2 175 74 2.87 4 0: 1.18 2 oOo 70 3.84 4 no 1.59 3 (147 p5 4.97 i 3o 2.03 3 478 (X) 6.20 1 0 .03 2.53 3 01

P SP 7.59 i t> 70 3.09 4 3411 .07 11.76 ' 8 38 4.71 ' 5 4314 3c 16.70 10 05 6.69 P 511 0 . 7 5 22 .3 1 1 . 7 3 8.97 7.POIP 14 28.8 13 42 11.68 8 PP

. . :l! 00 14.63 0 77

. . . . . . . . . 1 0 8 5

! . . . . . 13 0014 12

10" : : :1 03 0.0542 03 0.0592 2 4 0.0712 44 0.083

: 2 04 0.097 12"

2 85 0.112 2 01 0.0473 05 0 .127 2 15 0.054 143 25 0.143 2 20 0.0613 4o O . l tO 2 44 0.068 2 0:3 .MI 0.179 : 5* 0.075 2 11

3 So 0.198 2 72 0.083 2 254 07 0 .218 2 87 0.091 2 374 48 0.260 3 li 0.110 2 t-14 88 0.306' 1 44 0.128 2 855 24 0.355 3 . 7 3 0.150 3 OS

5 70 0.409 4 01 0.171 3 320 10 0.466 4 3(1 0.195 3 SoP 5| 0.527 4 50 0.219 3 7"7 32 0.663 5 lo 0.276 4 278 14 0.808| 5 . 7 3 0.339 4 74

10 17 1.24 i 7 . 1 7 0.515 5 031 2 . 2 0 1.76 '8 PO 0.731 7 1 114 .24 2.38 JO 03 0.982 8 30IP 27 3.08 i l 1 .47 1.27 o 4R18 31 3.87 12 i)0 1.60 10 (v

2 0 . 3 5 4.71 14 33 1.95 11 8513.37 :24 41 6.74 ]17 20 2.77 .14 2115.6017.8220.05

22.2826.7431.1935.6540.1044.56

28 40 9.11 20 07 3.74 IP Ml. 22 03 4.84 18 OP

. . 25 70 6.09 ,21 .34

. . 28 PP 7.46 2 3 . 7 1. '34 40 10.7 28 45

33 IP

0.159 0 117 0.061 3/i"0.345 0 42: 0.0860.539 0 52^ 0.167 0 301 0.0330.751 0 I - J 3 0.240 0 Irl 0.041 . , „1.25 0 8 4 4 0.408 0 4M 0.102 1 1 Vi

1.85 1 0<- 0.600 0 002 0.155 0 371 0.048 1 Vi"6.58 : II 2 . 1 0 1 20 0.526 0 743 0.164 0 42Q 0.044

13.9 3 17 4.33 1 M 1.09 1 114 0.336 0 P44 0.090 0 473 0.04323.9 4 22 7 .42 2 41 1.83 1 4U 0.565 0 Mf 0.150 0 p30 0 07136.7 5 2!- 11 .2 3 01 2.75 1 bo 0.835 1 . 0 7 3 0.223 0 7SS 0.104

51.9 p 33 15.8 3 ol 3.84 2 21 1 .17 1 2O 0.309 0 «4o 0.14591.1 1- 45 27.7 4 81 6.60 , 2 "7 1.99 1 72 0.518 1 2p 0 .241

10 5o 4 2 . 4 p 02 9.99 3 71 2.99 . 2 15 0.774' 1 i(< 0 3610 03 21 .6 • 5 57 6.36 , 3 22 1.63 , 2 37 0.755

0.056 3</2 12 03 37.8 ; 7 . 4 3 10.9 • 4 2o 2.78 , 3 . l o 1.28

0.063 0 H2 0.041 4" 0 .28 16.7 ; 5, 37 4 .22 ' 3 04 1.930.114 0 "74 0.056 1 1 . 1 4 23.8 1 o 44 5.92 , 4 73 2.720.151 1 14 0.07J 0 882 0.041, 12. °° 32.2 : 7 51 7.90 5 52 3 640.192 1 30 0.095 01 0.052 1 4 . 8 5 41.5 8 5>> 10.24 ! o 30 4.650.239 1 4p 0 .117 13 0.064, , o p7 12.80 , 7.04 5.85

0.288 1 . 1 - 2 0.142 2o 0.076' 5" MO 74 1 5 . 6 6 : 7 8 8 7.150.406 1 "5 0.204 51 0.107 12 8O 2 2 . 2 , 0 .47 10.210.540 : 27 0.261 7o 0.143 1 12 0.047. '11 .05 13.710.687 2 oO 0.334 2 . 0 2 0.180! 1 . 2 8 0.060' ,„ [ 1 2 . 02 17.590.861 2 "2 0.416 2 . 2 7 0.224 1 44 0.0741 6 | |4 .20 22.0

1.05 3 25 0.509 2 52 0.272 1 Kl 0.090 111 0.036,15 78 26.91.61 4 Oo 0.769 3 15 0.415 201 0.135 1 lo 0 . 0 5 5 ^ 1 0 7 2 41.42 . 2 4 4 8 7 1.08 3.78 0.580 2 4 1 0.190 I o 7 0.07713.00 5 pn 1.44 4 41 0.774' 2 81 0.253 1 04 0.102:3.87 0 40 1.85 ' 5 04 0.985j 3 21 0.323 2 . 2 2 0.130i 8

4.83 7 30 2.32 5 o7 1.23 1 Pi 0.401 2 50 0.162 1 44 0.0435.93 8 12 2.84 o 30 1.46 4 01 0.495 2 78 0.195- 1 nO 0.051

8.36 0 74 4 .02 7 5o 2 . 1 1 4 81 0.6831 3 33 0.275 1 O2 0.0729.89 10 53 4.09 8 l« 2.47 5 21 0.797; 3 ol 0.320! 2 08 0.083

11 3p 5.41 8 82 2.84 5.1-2 0.919^ 3 8O 0.367' 2 24 0.09512 17 6.18 0 45 3.25 ' 0 02 1.05 4 IP 0.416 2 40 0.10812 Q8 7.03 10 08 3.68 ; P 42 1.19 4 44 0.471 2 SP 0 .12113 80 7.89 10 71 4.12 . P 82 1.33 ! 4 72 0.529 2 . 7 1 0.136

. 14 l-l 8.80 11 .34 4.60 ! 7 22 1.48 5 00 0.590 2 .80 0.151

II "7 5.12 7 P2 1.64 5 27 0.653' 3 04 0.16612 Pfl 5.65 8 02 1.81 - 5 55 0.720 3 21 0.18213 85 6.79 ! 8 82 2.17 P 11 0.861 3 . 5 3 0.2191 5 1 2 8.04 I o p3 2.55 P Po .02 1 85 0.258

10 43 2.98 7 22 .18 4 17 0.301

II 21 3.43 7 78 .35 4 40 0.34312 03 3.92 8 33 .55 4 81 0.392

. . .12 83 4.43 8 88 .75 511 0.4430.042 . . 11 (-4 5.00 o 44 .96 i 5 45 0.4970.047 . . 1 4 4 4 5.58 <> <*« 2.18 i 5 77 0.554

0.052 :|5 24 6.21 10 .55 2 . 4 2 \ P 00 0.6130.057 16 ' IP 04 6.84 I I . 10 2.68 I P 4 I 0.6750.068 ... (17 05 8.23 12 22 3.22 , 7 05 0.8070.080 2 18 0.042 . . ! . . . 11 13 3.81 ' 7 70 0.9480.093 2 3t- 0.048 • • ! • • u ••" 4-«S 8 " ' - ' I

0.107 2 54 0.055 (15 55 5.13 8 .98 1.280.122 2 72 0.063 18 l l p p p 5.85 0 P2 1.460.138 2 00 0.0711 • 17 77 6.61 10 2P 1.650.172 3 27 0.088 2 58 0.050 10 oo 8.37 ; | 54 J.080.209 3 (-3 0.107 2 87 0.060 ... 22 21 10.3 12 82 2.55

200.321 4 54 0.163 1 SO 0.091 ,A, IP 01 3.940.451 5 45 0.232 4 .30 0.129, 1 4t- 0.075 24 |Q 24 5.590.607 P 35 0.312 5 02 0.173; 4 04 0.101 22 44 7.560.787 7 2o 0.401! 5.74 0 .2221 4 b2 0.129 1 10 0. 05225 t.5 9.800.990 8 17 0.503 P 4P 0.280 5 20 0.162 1 50 0 .0652887 12.2

1.21 "OR 0.617 7 17 0.340 5 77 0.199 1 <>0 0.079 ... . .1.71 1080 0.877 8 P| 0.483 P PI 0.180 470 o . l l l ...2.31 12 71 1.18 ' 1 0 0 4 0.652 80S 0.376 5 5Q 0.150 ...2.99 14 52 1.51 11 47 0.839 0 21 0.488 P. 18 0.1923.76 IP 14 1.90 12 PI 1.05 ilO IP 0.608 7 18 0.242 ..

4.61 18 IS 2.34 14 34 1.28 II 54 0.739 7 P8 0.294 ..6.59 21 .70 3.33 17 21 1.83 1 1 8 5 1.06 P5R 0.416 . . .8.89 25 42 4 .49 20 OR 2.45 IIP IP 1.43 11 17 0.562

. 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



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)

$66,300 $334,100

$6,300 $238,600$251,700 $5,301,800$251,700 $6,830,600

NOTES:

(1)

[2)

(3)

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)

Total Annual O&M Costs

Years 1 & 2$$$$$

$

27,0007,000

194,00039,78066,300

334,080

Years 3 to 30$$$$$

$

-7,000

194,0004,2606,300

211,560

L:/work/32067/eng/c_sum 8/11/99 3:54 PM

C»*3 EMI

ine-*«: A-D** ner"

CAjPfTAJ. COST OF CONSTRUCTION

IE *^-w *a»!C OH »llJ»lltK»l

5*u:;rilir«ic'ie SC'-cr Sa~oi i;i'«ii jiu; tn: :ac»V»I vrrtier

ifcel s»rq

* ine-saatftemonoeseaJOJ

IUJMLJ SW~

linear tact

— «<eacr«:c'^:c'

«i:r•:•:'

tacf

«00<

eacrV:c'

,-x ;.:•$• r:v Coi'i'iieni

• S -exc 5 ••:.:.: s», o. occa nws--•e-a- S j-.t T i-^rês o^ê' rêr oeole*** iSfee;

•.-« 5-2 5 - t - x vat•1 111M3 I14J.400•I Sli- 53 'M as^^-e^ s-'.e D*et.a"a'.-Dr a'-.c access roaas comp**c

••:•« S^ S." lr i;-maimusioian-;••? 5> S'i "€ ajntiriuous samo»r>3

S' 5 ;j 6-ine-. SOHW^'C::« 5_" 5 " -<s : s-ncn scuw.'C

-•:.— i -.a ^^•ne'&'O" ai'^ws ten seme wasieage 5-tooBSiH

• atf :*•:••*•• 3 car • 'so: a^cwe soeer plus ••4noifne4.:« S:- SC56« sanaseai

S - - 6 S- K: 1-4001:« S'* Si;j Portsano cemert

ano e«j»noawes lestng. cocnmaxirS'CC-onjmtor norroj orsposj1 cC 5OM3 «as»

r uigt SC SC 136 XC: lestmg fir amer ««>. 12 [00 gallons nau

TMrtw coltat pao. outer casing •tSo :o

-*»C ' 2 «P plus pprig connecww » «•>

toot i ao tiyae II/IJTS J-r>cr 311 12 o«ks 4 Steel MUM pound

J»pms «Dn<o> • SCC

co pc«^ lengpi oasee on ax>age wngd 9! [>pngSC^ T • nn- E pipe conwuous roll mji oual poes to

eaon«el

Mcc :c s-joc -neters lor eacx

5y -^.'CfMCXCJK COTOUlC tool S6COC J-500C

Bleeder lor jc e ? tump mocn

cu&c we 1313 Si-243 enu secton = S tea < 3 <MI

Tiwvr So tana aide «ara l&X ena sector = 2 toee i 3 lecc

Bono* tare BaxSite S-S6S and s«c*on r 2 toct i 3 tod

S^KHII cuee nra U3333f or = 1 *ff t 3 1eet no Stockpiling. Load kom

uoaone nau> ID mi. nonfozadous disposal

12K S' 042

120030 S240S P^y^x^ co*v>BCticji i froni rnjftfcio to 6-*XJi conHBCMf

vj too v: •: S3ST5suâs* ar«a wong pipeline = i51ee< i 1250 teet subcc

anu aang access n9aa - ^StoettSUVTOTAL CAWTAL COST Sie'ooc

tIAMXUPS ON CAPITAL COST ESTMATE&cmm*XFJ**aimt Stnton inaoc S\ <f subtotal cap«at costs£ngnMrms S3' Xf e\ rt suMota) cap*a) cosei=VTTi0 S3 X-: •«! -i-frtT"tcrmrjtao^ CfflnttnatntTf S54 X>: 15S ol suMoo capoi oasts

SUBTOTAL GLOBAL MARKUPSTOTAL CAPTT AL COSTS

S ' - e »:ssc: XT

AMMUAL OPERATION ft MAMTEMANCE COST4 »9Mr WAH 3^

C Manvnancr <ung sufw Sc :* V2 is:

• s--4«c $-'4*:Assuming € HP total. 24 frlf, nifi*ju"

t1* 31 capital «Bmnos C.O.andE; taerauoc mamour '** SV S'JC'Z i nourTnorOvel

TOTAL ANNUAL COST $j- »:PRESEMT NORTH OF OftM So • : x.; 3C ^ 5S iraen«st 3S mtakor

TOTAL PRCSCMTT ««ORTM COST $• "CMC

ail/991 18PM

Table E-3Cost EstimateGroundwater Extiaction. Three Wells in Lower Aquifer



ItemNo Work ItemCAPITAL COST OF CONSTRUCTIONA Mob/Demob. Site Preparation

B.C.

D

-

F

Access RoadWell Installation

SetupDnllingSplit Spoon SamplingWell plig (end cap)Well sci een

Well casing

Filter packBentonite sealGrout

Drums, IDW management

Development Water MgtWell CompletionWell Development

Pump, w/controls

Transmission Pipe Installationfrom well to treatment system

Piping. Ittings

Piping rianifold

Electric.il ConduitTrench sxcavationTrench 3ox Rental, Usage

Borrow sand. load, haul,spread, compact

Spoils Management

Backfill from stockpile,compaction

Pipe Ccnnections toTreatment System

Surface restorationSUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST

Units

lump sum

linear footwelleachfootfoot

eachfoot

foot

footeachfoot

drum

galeacheach

each

foot

foot

pipe

footcubic yardcubic yard

cubic yard

cubic yard

cubic yard

each

sqfoot

NoUnits

0

033

237129

330

225

543

180

60

1.60033

3

1,000

1,500

3

1,0000

0

0

0

0

3

0

UnitCost Total Cost

$5.000

$13$12,113

$250$42$36$77$23

$13

$21$116

$14

$155

$0.50$500$500

$2,641

S48.50

$407

$600.00

$40.00$3.23$0.72

$5.65

$12000

$2.50

$200.00

$010

$0

$0$36,300

$750$9,987$4,644

$231

$690

$2.925

$1.134$346

$2,430

$9.300

$900$1.500$1.500

$7.923

$48,500

$6,105

$1.800

$40,000$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$600

$0$93,000

Comment

5% of capital costsclear&grub. 1 2 inches gravel over geotextile, 16feet

wide

assumes site preparation and access roads completed12-inch mud rotary

continuous sampling6-inch. SCH 40 PVC6-inch. SCH 40 PVC

nominal dimension allows for some wasteage; 5-foot silttrap below screen

1 foot below end cap, 1 foot above screen, plus 1-foot finesand seal

1-footPortland cement

mud. cuttings, and expendables testing, coordination,$lOO/drum for nonhaz disposal of solid waste

management, testing, fill tanker truck, 12,000 gallons haulto POTW. discharge fee

concrete collar, pad, outer casing w/lock2 hours/well at 5 gpm/well

4-inch submersible, electric. 0.3 - 7 gpm, <=140 feet head,1/2 HP; plus piping connection to well

1 inch dia. Piping from 3 wells, 45 feet below ground

total piping length based on average length of piping,SDR 21. HOPE pipe, continuous roll, individual pipes to

each well

Inside building, w/valves. flow meters for each pipe

Two 2-inch PVC conduits w/feeder for up to 2 pumpmotors each

end section = 5 feet x 3 feetend section = 2 feet x 3 feet

end section = 2 feet x 3 feet

end section = 2 feet x 3 feet; incl. Stockpiling, Load fromstockpile, haul 10 mi, nonhazadous disposal .


Piping connection from manifold to 6-inch connector

surface area along pipeline = 1 5 feet x 1 250 feet; surfacearea along access road = 16 feet x 1250 feet

MARKUPS ON CAPITAL COST ESTIMATEConstruction-Related ServicesEngineeringPermitsConstruction Contingency

SUBTOTAL GLOBAL MARKUPSTOTAL CAPITAL COSTS

$6,000$7,000

$750$14,000$27,750

$120,750

6% of subtotal capital costs8% of subtotal capital costs

well installation15% of subtotal capital costs

ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTA^.)

PowerMaintenanceOperation

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTPRESENT WORTH OF O&M

KWHlump summanhour

9,7981

36

$0.06$4.640

$50

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST

NOTESExcept -as noted, costs are from RS Means

$588$4,640$1,800$7,000

$158,000

$280,000

Assuming 1.5 HP total, 24 hr/day operation5% of capital item nos. C, D, and E

1 hour/month/well

30 yr; 5% interest; 3% inflation

1999, Environmental Remediation Cost Data , and as modified based on experience

c xtchS 8/11/99 1 18PM

Ftx^sett feasibility StudyScarta Landfill Site

Kent Counfy. Michigan

Cosl EstimateGsountfarater Treatment

n#- V: Li- :'«& A'C"1* ogif o" 's '-".5 C:s'

CAPITAL COST OF CONSTRUCTIONA McoTte-cc S-w P-eaara^ci- --c s_— ' S2~ ~'.'.B D'fri-.'e"-, :,: SCJT^ Lar.r 11 -— c s_- ' Sr i-rt

c f lasr Mn.ri; svMe-n .— c i-~ ' 52; ;•::Coajjascr Focaitatrar'

D t ecpeatiaira Cartfer .ess* ' S2&. .v.E Acaesso-es •-— c w- ' S'-s Iv!

F SwSge Harding S*saem .u<-e s~f" ' S2OC' CO!

Corcrats amc Fiiasft **»ng SjSeinG &ji«Smg so ':cc '=.= S'2-"

M E,*csnca* Cormecaio'' ur-c 4^— ' S ' 0 V.'~.SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST

MARKUPS ON CAPITAL COST ESTIMATECcnss-jCCci -ReaoK; Serwces

Tteataeuiiy SsuOy am! Pumpng TestE.rQinceirinQMfill IN |H

Oor<ES3r\j'C&>c^ O&nQngepicySUBTOTAL GLOBAL MARKUPSTOTAL CAPITAL COSTS

ANNUAL OPERATION * MAMTENANCE COSTA f cnw K-A»« 733 sac s; :-6B Maimenance -kjrip s^— • S'i 'r.<~.C Ose'aeic^ -w.i jr -la-: S !D c*«nicas *j»-c s .— ' s-tc :o:

E Suxsoe Ospcsta xr 6QC S12CTOTAL ANNUAL COSTPRESENT WORTH OF O*M


':•.= Ccs:

S2-?MS.= 3f 5

sr: DJC

S2E1 DDC

S' iOX

S20C DCO

S225CX:

s-; DO:SJ-9 :a

S35 X-C

i&COOCJJ€ X/D

55 X'se^ x>

5253 >:•5:22 ?'j

S-J-' j33516 -y.5-9 20:SA: x-:

$72000S:=.4 DOC

n 3&: DOC

552-DCiOO

Comment

5S of capital costsiV o* ie»"s C tnrougn G below

2 > cf«mea! siofage :an<is wtTa^sfef sumos and feedCOIITD *er : « mixing an* nwe' 'c' oeWery of sutfrte

sarts an<j polymer

SC'-'oo: Qa E5C gem casaCT> w siudge collectionsystem

pc>tr>5 gauges samjxie ports betiween units

25-1col ca ihckerMng tank, plate Alter press.appunena'xes- S js fifter cake storage

15 * 25 wooC frame, fegfibng. f*eal vertts. on concretes:at <or fasfi rnang system, ana grourxtwater extraction

we* controller

new sei-vce podes. power panel, connections tocontrollers

6S at sutxotai capital costsRefne estvnatet! Oow 'ate. nfuenveffluent

concentrations select cnemeatts and dosage rates.sludge testing and evaluation of aftematne technologies

8% of suMotai capital costspreparaeon and fee for QuikJing penmrt

i S% dt suacotai capital costs

Assumng 1C HP total 24 nr day operation3V of capital «ern nos C through G

40 hour/monthpolymer and sutfrte salts

50 !c*vHrontri at 30V sokds skjdge toadng. hauling, andSuDMte D landM disposal

30 yr 5% merest 3% inflation

StOTESCoses are ""wn RS Means T99S En-,-r:rv C:aData anc estimaicx expenence

&'11/99 1 18PM

Table E-5Cost EstimateGroundwater Discharge



ItemNo. Work Item UnitsCAPITAL COST OF CONSTRUCTIONA. Mob/Demob, Site Preparation lump sum

Transm ssion Pipe Installationfrom treatment system to Rogue

B. River foot

Piping, fittings footTrench excavation cubic yardTreich Box Rental, Usage cubic yardBorrow sand, load, haul,spread, compact cubic yard

Spoils Management cubic yard

Backfill from stockpile,compaction cubic yard

C. Rip-rap Outfall sq footZ>. Surface restoration sq foot

SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST

No Unit TotalUnits Cost Cost

1 $2.200 $2,200

1,000 $44.40 $44,400

1,000 $13.47 $13,470556 $3.23 $1,794556 $0.72 $400

222 $5.65 $1,256

222 $120.00 $26,667

333 $2.50 $833

90 $9.93 $894450 $0.10 $45

$47,000

Comment

5% of capital costs

6-inch, 4.5 feet below ground

SDR 21 HOPE pipingend section = 5 feet x 3 feetend section = 2 feet x 3 feet


end section = 2 feet x 3 feet; incl. Stockpiling, Load fromstockpile, haul 10 mi, nonhazadous disposal

end section = 3 feet x 3 feet6 x 15 foot lean concrete rip-rap/headwall/splash slab, no

reinforcement, incl prepsurface area along pipeline = 15 feet x 30 feet

MARKUPS ON CAPITAL COST ESTIMATEConstruction-Related ServicesEngineeringPermitsConstruction Contingency

SUBTOTAL GLOBAL MARKUPSTOTAL CAPITAL COSTS

$4,000$6,000

$10,000$7,000

$27,000$74,000

8% of subtotal capital costs12% of sustotal capital costs

discharge permitting15% of subtotal capital costs

ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST

A. Effluent Monitoring

First Two Years sample

Next 28 years sample

PRESENT WORTH OF O&M


NOTES:Except as noted, costs are from RS Means,

52 $765.00 $39,780

12 $355.00 $4,260

$160,000

$230,000

weekly monitoring for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals, incl.Sampling, analysis, data management

monthly monitoring for metals only, incl. Sampling,analysis, data management

2 years for "First Two Years" monitoring; 28 yrs for "Next28 years" monitoring; 5% interest; 3% inflation

1 999, Environmental Remediation Cost Data , and as modified based on experience.

c discM 8/11/99 1:18 PM

mni/ f'naMlulily .SdS/».iff.i / ,1/irffiH S'fO

h««if ("i'i/"/v. Michigan

TABIK K-ft( o«l KtilmilrQuarterly (irognilwitlcr Monitoring iml Krporllng

II) Work I *<

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

 . n I M I I I in 

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

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 )

Casl

S12IS42S42S19S22

Alkalinity

ChlorideNitrogen. AmmoniaNitrogen. Nitrate "NitnteSulfateCODBODPhosphorus

Subtotal Analytical Costs

LABOR

S2SSPS26S22S16S17S28S30

S430

Labor: 12 wells x 3 hr well x S50 hr =

TOTAL

SI. 800

S2.230

n j ?? PM Pace .• L: work 19324 eng alt 2

APPENDIX F

Groundwater Use Ordinance

SPARTA TOWNSHIP D R A F T

ORDINANCE NO.

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.

•J6J66S

-4-

sparta landfill site sparta township kent county, michigan · 2020. 7. 31. · kent county,...

Documents