DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL - REMEDIAL … · CHAPTER 6.0 RI/FS WORK PLAN 43 ... Mississippi River and one mile north/northwest of downtown Minneapolis, ... Remedial Investigation/Feasibility

0 0 0 0 0

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY SUPPORT DOCUMENT

UNION SCRAP IRON AND METAL COMPANY

1608 WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

DELTA NO. 11-89-185

EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.

226659

DeltaEnvironmentalConsultants, Inc.

JUL 1 9. 89

P.1PCA, Ground \Vater4: Solid \Vaste Div.





DELTA NO. 11-89-185

Prepared by:

Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc.1801 Highway 8, Suite 114

St Paul, MN 55112((12) 636-2427

Jor/ IS, 1989

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 1.0 EVALUATION REPORT 11.1 Existing Data Review 2

1.1.1 Purpose 21.1.2 Existing Data Sources 21.13 Physical and Environmental Setting 2

1.1.3.1 Area of Investigation 21.1.3.2 Site Description 31.1.3.3 Topography and Surface Drainage 41.1.3.4 Geology 51.1.3.5 Hydrogeology 61.1.3.6 Previous Site Investigations 7

1.1.4 Site History and Operations1.1.4.1 Summary of Previous Land Uses 101.1.4.2 Description of Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company

Operations 111.1.4.3 Current Operations 12

1.2 Existing Ground Water Monitoring Wells Review 121.3 Topographic Survey 121.4 Problem Assessment

1.4.1 Contaminant Sources 131.4.2 Potential Migration Routes 141.4.3 Potential Receptors 151.4.4 Likely Remedial Action Objectives 151.4.5 Need for Interim Actions 161.4.6 Potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate RequirementsARARs) 161.4.7 Need for Treatability Studies 16

1.5 Health and Environmental Risks 171.5.1 Environmental Risks 171.5.2 Public Health Risks 181.5.3 Occupational Health Risks 181.5.4 Potential Health Risks Associated with RI Efforts 19

1.6 History of Response Actions 191.7 Identification of Alternative Response Actions 21

1.7.1 Soils 211.7.2 Ground Water 23

1.7.2.1 Containment 231.7.2.2 Treatment 24

CHAPTER 2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QAPP) 26

CHAPTER 3.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN 273.1 Introduction 273.2 Key Personnel 283.3 Employee Education and Training 303.4 Personal Protective Equipment 32

3.5 Work Limitations 323.6 Health Surveillance Program 333.7 Standard Operating Procedures 343.8 Contingency Plan 37

CHAPTER 4.0 SITE SECURITY PLAN 404.1 Background 404.2 Specific Security Measures 40

4.2.1 Access Control Measures 4042.2 Client, Contractor and Subcontractor Awareness 404.13 Post RI Activity Measures 41

CHAPTER 5.0 POTENTIAL RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEARCH 42

CHAPTER 6.0 RI/FS WORK PLAN 436.1 RI Work Plan 43

6.1.1 Shallow Soils Investigation 436.1.1.1 Soil Boring Locations 446.1.1.2 Soil Boring Drilling Methods and Depth 446.1.13 Soil Sampling Method and Intervals 446.1.1.4 Additional Sampling 46

6.1.2 Waste Characterization 476.1.3 Hydrogeologic Investigation 47

6.13.1 Deep Soil Borings 476.1.3.2 Water Table Well Borings 506.1.3.3 Monitoring Wells

6.1.33.1 Water Table Monitoring Wells 516.133.2 Deep Aquifer Monitoring Well 53

6.1.3.4 Water Level Measurement 556.13.5 Hydrogeologic Field Tests 55

6.1.4 Sampling and Analysis of Soil and Ground Water6.1.4.1 Soil Sampling and Analysis .-. . . 566.1.4.2 Ground Water Sampling and Analysis 56

6.1.5 Data Assessment (Validation) 576.1.6 Hydrologic, Geologic and Hydrogeologic Data Analysis

6.1.6.1 Data Presentation 576.1.6.2 Data Evaluation 58

6.1.7 Site Hazard Assessment 606.1.7.1 Contamination Assessment 616.1.7.2 Public Health Assessment 616.1.7.3 Environmental Assessment 62

6.1.8 Treatability Investigations 626.1.9 Remedial Investigation Report Format 63

62 Feasibility Study Work Plan 636.2.1 Introduction 636.2.2 Identification and Screening of Feasible Technologies 646.13 Development and Screening of Remedial Alternatives 656.14 Detailed Analysis of Acceptable Alternatives 686.15 Feasibility Study Report Format 72

7.0 PAYMENT SCHEDULE 73

8.0 TIME SCHEDULE 75

9.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN 76

10.0 WORK PRODUCTS 77

11.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 73

in





DELTA NO. 11-89-185

INTRODUCTION

This is the Support Document for the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (Rl/FS) for the Union

Scrap Iron and Metal Company site located at 1608 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

This document has been prepared by Delta Environmental Consultants, Inc. (Delta) pursuant to a Work

Order from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) dated June 26, 1989. Preparation of this

document was performed under the Multi-Site RI/FS contract between the MPCA and Delta.

The purpose of this document is to provide pertinent, site background data and present the scope of

Rl/FS activities. The Support Document objectives are to provide valuable information on the nature and

extent of the problem(s) associated with this site; produce site specific plans which guide security, health

and safety, and quality assurance measures during Rl/FS activities; present RI/FS work activities; and

detail time and payment iJ^Julcs.

This document includes the following:

• Evaluation Report

• Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

• Health and Safety Plan

• Site Security Plan

• Rl Work Plan

• FS WorkPteB

• Payment Schedule

• Time Schedule

• Management Plan

• Work Products

•g

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-S9-185Page 2

CHAPTER 1.0 EVALUATION RLl'ORT

1.1 Existing Data Review

1.1.1 Purpose

This report addresses the Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company site located at 1608 Washington Avenue

North, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Figure 1-1). The purpose of this report is to provide, from existing data,

background information on the site and a description of relevant area and site, surface, and subsurface

features. This information summarizes previous site activities, problem(s) associated with and resulting

from these activities and provides an overview of the physical and environmental setting.

The information presented in this report serves as a basis for development of the other portions (chapters)

of the RI/FS Support Document.

1.1.2 Existing Data Sources

The following is a list of existing data sources utilized and personnel contacted by Delta to develop this

report:

• MPCA files

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) files

• Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) Water Well Logs

• International Technology Corporation (IT Corporation) - Preliminary Draft Rl/FS Work Plan(Evaluation Report) - Union Scrap Site, March 1988

• Site Assessment for Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company, Roy F. Western, Inc. (Weston)

• Minnesota Historical Society Records

• Metropolitan Waste Control Commission files (MWCC)

• Mr. Bruce Bloomgren, Minnesota Geological Survey

1.1.3 Physical and Environmental Setting

1.13.1 Area of Investigation

The Union Scrap site is located in the SW1/4 , Section 15, T29N, R24W. The site's latitude and

longitude are 44° 59.73'N, 93° 16.80'W, respectively. The site is approximately 1,200 feet west of the

Mississippi River and one mile north/northwest of downtown Minneapolis, Minnesota (Figure 1-2).

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page3

The area surrounding the site is a general manufacturing area. The major businesses in the area are

involved in scrap metal processing. Other businesses scattered throughout the area consist or taverns,

cafes, and service stations.

This area of the city is generally depressed. Heavy equipment, cranes, loaders, etc. are used throughout

the area. Oily patches of soil, and oily residues are common on the streets and in many of the scrap yard

areas.

The areas north and south of the site are relatively flat, with most businesses residing on either

Washington Avenue or Second Street. This business district extends over a mile in both directions.

East of Second Street there is a gradual decline in elevation toward the Mississippi River. To the west

of the site approximately 100 feet is Interstate 94 (1-94) and beyond that residential areas of North

Minneapolis.

Aerial photos predating 1-94 construction in the late 1970's show the area along the west side of

Washington Avenue from several blocks south to several blocks north of the site to be businesses similar

to those now existing on Washington Avenue and Second Street i.e. scrap yards and auto salvage yards.

An October 1953 aerial photo from the photographic analysis performed by Lockheed (Lockheed, 1985)

shows auto salvage and scrap yards on both sides of Washington Avenue. Review of Minnesota Historical

Society records shows many of these businesses have existed in the area at least since the early 1930's.

1.13.2 Site Description

The Union Scrap site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Washington Avenue North

-»n^ 16th Aven'ie North (Figures 1-2 and 1-3). The site extends approximately 155 feet east to west and

125 feet north to south.


The site is bounded on the south by I6ih Avenue beyond which is currently an empty lot The aerial

photo sequence (Lockheed, 1985) shows the empty lot to have been an auto salvage area in 1953, 1964,

and 1969. In the 1979 photo, this area appears to be a scrap or waste processing area. Immediately east

of the site are two sets of Soo Line railroad tracks that serve the scrap yards and tie into Burlington

Northern Railroad (BNRR) lines northeast of the site. East of the tracks in the same block are two scrap

metal salvage yards. North of the site is an E-Z Stop convenience store and gas station selling kerosene,

diesel, leaded, and unleaded gasolines, and racing fuel. Several underground storage tanks are located on

the station property. In addition, fuel offloading piping and pumps are still in place along the Soo Line

Railroad tracks on the east side of the station. Immediately west of the site is Washington Avenue.

Continuing west, the land surface drops off sharply to an 1-94 access road; then further west, 1-94. The

elevation of the access road, which was apparently excavated during 1-94 construction, appears to be 25

to 35 feet below the site elevation. The site vicinity is shown in Figure 1-3.

The site is currently vacant and level except for some concrete debris and minor subsidence in the

northwest corner (Figure 1-4). Activities while the site was active are discussed in Section 1.1.4 Site

History and Operations. Additionally, a description and chronology of response actions at the site is

presented in Section 1.6, History of Response Actions.

1.1.3.3 Topography and Surface Drainage

This area of Minneapolis, which borders the Mississippi River, is underlain by terraced alluvial deposits

(Meyer, 1985). This type of terrace deposit is typically flat with little vertical relief, as evidenced by the

natural terrain surrounding the site (Figure 1-2). The primary vertical relief in the area is the 1-94 road

cut to the west of the site and the slope adjacent to the Mississippi River to the east. Surface drainage

and runoff are directed to the combined sanitary and storm sewers on Washington Avenue. This

combined sewer system is routed to the Pigs Eye Sewage Treatment Facility located south of SL Paul.

Line flow is bypassed to the Mississippi River during extreme precipitation events when the excess storm

flow volume exceeds the capacity of the sewer lines and the treatment capabilities of the facility. Figure

1-3 from the Preliminary Evaluation Report by IT Corporation 1988 (Appendix A) presents the locations

of the storm and sanitary sewers which serve the area.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185PageS

1.1.3.4 Geology

Meyer (1985) has prepared a metropolitan surficial geology map which indicates that the site is situated

on middle terrace alluvial deposits from the pre- and post-glacial Mississippi River. These middle terrace

deposits generally consist of sand, gravelly sand, and silty sand. They are typically overlain by fill material,

organic deposits, clay loam, or clay. The presence of these terrace deposits was verified by four soil

borings completed on site by Soil Exploration Company and Braun Environmental Laboratories for

previous investigative studies (Appendices C and D). The locations of these borings are presented in

Figure 1-5. The borings defined a layer of silty sand Gil and debris from three to Gve feet with fine to

medium poorly graded sand with traces of silt and gravel to a depth of 44 feet.

Information from the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) (Mr. Bruce Bloomgren, Personal

Communication) indicates that the unconsolidated deposits in this area are between 200 and 220 feet

thick. There is a potential that clay units may be present within the terrace deposits. These clays may

be either glacial till units or fine river sediments. Clay and till units have been identified from well logs

at various depths and locations in areas surrounding the site. The vertical and horizontal extent of these

units beneath the site may only be inferred until verified by on-site investigation. The presence of one

significant unit in several logs at similar depths suggests that it may be present beneath the site at a depth

of approximately 80 feet. It is not known if this unit continues down to the bedrock surface or if another

sand layer is present below.

Figures 1-6 presents a generalized regional geologic cross section of the metropolitan area. As shown

on Figure 1-6, a regional bowl-like structure is observed through the center of the area. This structure

is called the Hollandale embayment Also shown in Figure 1-6 are several deep bedrock valleys which

were cut by glacial meltwater and filled with glacial drift and alluvial deposits. The Union Scrap site is

located over one the these bedrock valleys which trends locally from the northeast to the southwest (Jirsa,

et.al, 1986). The site is situated on the southeastern slope of this valley. The first bedrock unii beneath

the site is believed to be the Prairie du Chien Group, which consists of the Shakopee and Oneota

Dolomites.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89- IBSPage 6

1.1.3.5 Hydrogeology

The Mississippi River is the regional discharge area for several of the major aquifer systems in the

metropolitan area. The incised bedrock valleys Oiled with coarse alluvial sediments provide a direct

hydraulic connection between the bedrock and the river in some locations. The Union Scrap site is

located only 1,200 feet west of the river. The water table alluvial aquifer, observed in well logs and from

the hollow stem auger borings completed by Braun in 1986, most likely discharges east to the Mississippi

River, with the river acting as a hydraulic boundary. The site is also located approximately 7,000 feet

upstream of the St. Anthony Lock and Dam, which controls the pool elevation of the river above it. It

is possible that seasonal fluctuations of the pool elevation of the river near the site could cause

intermittent recharge and affect flow directions and hydraulic gradients in the unconfined alluvial water

table. The effects of the river would be more pronounced in the coarse alluvial deposits, which typically

have low hydraulic gradients and would show quick responses to river level changes. A rise in the river

level could produce a more southern component in the flow direction. However, there is no current

evidence that this effect exists.

There are six primary aquifers in the twin cities metropolitan area. They consist of the following: glacial

drift, the Platteville Limestone, the St. Peter Sandstone, the Prairie du Chien Group and Jordan

Sandstone, the Ironton and Galesville Sandstones, and the Mount Simon and Hinckley Sandstones

(Norvitch, etal, 1973). Figure 1-6 shows these aquifer systems and the confining units between them. As

of 1982, approximately 80% of all ground water withdrawals in the metropolitan area were taken from

the Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer with the next largest amount being from the Mount Simon -

Hinckley Sandstones at 10% (Horn, 1983).

The Prairie du Chien Group is believed to be the first bedrock unit beneath the site based on information

from MGS. Considering that 80% of the ground water used in the metropolitan area is from this aquifer,

it is a primary concern. The water table alluvial aquifer above the Prairie du Chien Group, assuming a

depth to bedrock of 200 feet and a depth to water of 30 feet, has 170 feet of saturated thickness.

Although, if present, the lateral and vertical extent of a clay unit would alter the thickness, it is not

known if the Prairie du Chien and the alluvial water table aquifer are directly interconnected beneath the

site. There is no information regarding the piezometric head in the Prairie du Chien or the current water

table elevation at the site. It is not known if vertical gradients exist between the two aquifers. There is

evidence that the piezometric head in the Prairie du Chien - Jordan Aquifer has been depressed in the

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page?

downtown Minneapolis area in recent years due to increased development and greater use in summer

months. This phenomenon has also been observed in deep aquifer units (IT Corporation 1988, Figure 1 -

7). This could potentially induce downward vertical gradients from the surficial aquifer, allowing for

migration of contamination into the Prairie du Chien - Jordan.

The MPCA has published ambient ground water quality data for many major aquifers, throughout the

state of Minnesota (Sabel and Porcher, 1987). Ambient concentrations of several trace metals in both

surficial sand aquifers and the Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer are presented on Table 1-1. The primary

metal of interest at this site is lead. The mean value for lead in the sand aquifers is 3.22 micrograms per

liter (ug/1) with a standard deviation of 634 ug/l Lead levels as high as 44 ug/I have been observed. The

Prairie du Chien - Jordan has a mean lead concentration of 5.99 ug/1 with a standard deviation of 27.50

ug/1. The maximum lead value observed was 280 ug/1. This data is primarily from the Twin Cities

Metropolitan Area; however, some of the data are from other areas of the state.

Similar data for surface water quality of the Mississippi River in the Metropolitan area has been published

by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC, 1989). Table 1-2 presents the metal

concentrations for St. Anthony Lock and Dam sampling location in Minneapolis. As shown on Table

1-2, very low median concentrations are observed for all seven trace metals presented. Also shown are

the MPCA guidelines for river water quality.

From the data on ambient surface and ground water quality of the area, it is likely that the trace metals

present would be naturally observed at concentrations similar to those presented in Tables 1-1 and 1-2.

This data, in addition to that from upgradient wells, will be useful in determining background levels of

these metals and to evaluate the potential impact the site may have on trace metal concentrations in both

the surface water and ground water in the area.

1.1J.6 Previous Site Investigations

Several short term, limited scope investigations have taken place at the Union Scrap site over the past

ten years. This section supplements the reports by Weston, 1985 (Appendix B) and IT Corporation, 1988

(Appendix A) and provides a summary of previous investigative activities and results with a focus on on-

site, subsurface investigations.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185PageS

The earliest investigations concerning this site are recorded in MPCA file memos and correspondence

between and among MPCA, the city of Minneapolis, and Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company. One

early reference to the kinds of materials and wastes associated with the site is a letter from the

Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company dated April 1980.

This letter makes reference to discharges from the site to a 30-inch sanitary sewer line draining'south

along Washington Avenue. The line was inspected and found to contain 'lead material as much as one

foot deep". Preliminary results showed a total solids level of 72.4 percent with the lead concentration

being 55.4 percent expressed as lead (Pb) Le. approximately 550,000 parts per million (ppm).

From 1979 through 1988, there were several limited scope investigations related to this site. Results are

briefly discussed in Section 1.4 - Problem Assessment of IT Corporation's report. A summary of

investigations and findings are presented in Table 1-1 of the same report.

Also shown in Table 1-1 of the IT report, is that most sampling between 1980 and 1986 related to piles

of on-site wastes, surface soils, surface water run-off and ambient air. These wastes including surface soils

were removed during an EPA Emergency Removal Action in 1988. The importance of including this

information lies in presenting the magnitude and duration of serious contamination problems on this site.

Nearly all materials - waste or otherwise - which at various times covered most of the site were

contaminated wastes subject to leaching during precipitation and melting events.

Very little subsurface information is available. There were only two instances of soil borings, along with

subsurface sampling and analyses. These were performed by Soil Exploration Company in 1980 and

Braun Environmental Laboratories in 1986. The remainder of this section identifies specific site activities

from these investigations which provide background for the currcni RI/FS activities. Copies of or ig innl

documents are presented in Appendices C and D.

In August 1980, Soil Exploration Company along with Twin City Testing and Engineering Laboratory, Inc.

advanced two soil borings and took continuous soil samples at two on-site locations. These locations are

shown on Figure 1-5. Boring logs and chemistry results are presented in Appendix C. On-site soils were

found to consist of fill materials underlain by sandy alluvium. Boring SB-D showed a lowered pH of 4.3

standard units (s.u.) from five to nine feet below the land surface (BLS). The remainder of the soil

column generally had pH values ranging from 6 to 8 s.u.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 9

The lowered pH elevations correspond relatively closely with a zone of elevated sulfate levels ranging from

1,400 to 5,000 ppm from seven to thirteen feet BLS. Boring SB-E did not show elevated, teachable metal

or sulfate contamination or lowered pH.

In 1986, Braun Environmental Laboratories conducted a limited investigation at the Union Scrap site for

the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA). The investigation consisted of two test

borings with subsequent analysis for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), volatile organic compounds (VOC's)

and leachable metals including Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Lead (Pb),

Mercury (Hg), Selenium (Se), and Silver (Ag).

Boring locations are shown on Figure 1-5 and the logs and chemistry results are presented in Appendix

D. Both borings show fill materials to five or six feet underlain by alluvial sands to the end of the

borings, approximately 30 feet BLS.

Depth of sampling for VOCs is not indicated; however, no detectable amounts of volatile organic

compounds were detected in either boring.

Leachable metals (E.P. Toxicity Method) were analyzed in samples from 2.5 and 7.5 feet in both borings.

No significant leachable metals were found except lead. Leachable lead concentrations at the 2.5 foot

depth ranged from 6.5 milligrams per liter (mg/1) in ST-7 to 40 mg/1 in ST-6. Both of these samples

would be considered hazardous waste according to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

standard of 5.0 mg/1 in State and Federal regulations. At the 7.5 foot depth, ST-6 showed leachable lead

of 0.59 mg/1 and ST-7 at 5.4 mg/1. The sample from ST-7 would he considered hazardous wnsie.

Soils were analyzed for PCB's at the same depths as metals. PCBs were found in all samples. ST-6

showed a consistent profile with about 2.2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) at both depths. ST-7 had 130

mg/kg at 2.5 feet and 5.0 mg/kg at 7.5 feet The shallow sample in ST-7 exceeds the federal and state

criteria of 50 mg/kg for PCB's in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Minnesota Hazardous

Waste rules (Chapter 7045).

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Meial CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 10

In summary, these investigations indicate that lead and PCB contamination were present and widespread

in surficial soils. Elevated levels of sulfate and depressed soil pH were also in evidence. Leaching of

contaminants to underlying soils was also occurring at the site. This is seen in boring ST-7 with leachuble

lead above the standard of 5.0 mg/1 for hazardous waste at a depth of 7.5 feet.

1.1.4 Site History and Operations

1.1.4.1 Summary of Previous Land Uses

Records of the Minnesota Historical Society (speciGcally the Polk Directories for the city of Minneapolis

subsequent to 1930) have been screened for previous uses of the Union Scrap site and nearby properties.

Table 1-3 presents a summary of businesses by address and date(s) of occupancy.

The area has seen a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial properties. However, the most

enduring and largest area businesses were automobile salvage yards, scrap metal yards and petroleum

product storage and retail sales facilities.

The 1600 block of Washington Avenue has been the site of auto salvage operations from the 1930s until

the 1970s. These salvage yards lined both sides of Washington Avenue north and south of the site for

many years. The property north of the site, at the location of the current E-Z Stop gas station, has

been the location of retail gasoline sales since the 1930s. The Old Colony gas station operated there for

about 40 years. There is also a 1930 reference to BB Fuel Company located directly west across

Washington Avenue.

Northwest of the site across Washington Avenue, probably on the corner of Washington and 17th Avenue,

two manufacturing facilities operated for many years. From some time in the 1940s until the 1960s,

Great Western Laboratories operated a soap manufacturing plant. During the later 1960's and 1970's.

Advance Rubber Company operated in the same location.

Land use east and south of the site has been primarily scrap metal processing yards.

The first references to Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company at this location date back to the mid-1970s.

As can be seen in Table 1-3, this company also used portions of the 1500 block on Washington Avenue

for storage.


1.1.4.2 Description of Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company Operations

The Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company owned and operated a scrap metal and battery top and casing

processing facility at 1608 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The company has

occupied the property since the early 1970's and operated the facility on and off from the early 1970's

(approximately 1972) until 1983. The company filed for bankruptcy in 1985.

The principal operation at the site was processing of used battery tops and casings. These were hauled

by truck from the "Shafer" site several blocks to the south. The 'Shafer' site was also owned by the

Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company. These operations are described in Section 1.3, Operations and

History, of the evaluation report of the preliminary RI/FS Work Plan prepared by International

Technology (IT) Corporation in March 1988 (Appendix A). Additional information is provided in the site

assessment report Section 2.0, Site Location and History, for the Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company

prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston) for the Environmental Protection Agency in May 1985

(Appendix B).

Briefly, the battery parts were crushed in a hammer mill and sorted on a shaker table. Resulting

recyclables were lead oxide, battery posts, and the casing "pulp*. The rubber wastes were generally

landfilled. As recycling economics proved unfavorable and area landfills no longer accepted these wastes,

they were stockpiled on site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Weston, and IT

Corporation all found large piles of these and other wastes on site. Figure 1-7 presents a materials

processing schematic for the site. A materials balance for the operation is not available.

In addition to the battery operations, other materials were collected on site. MPCA and city of

Minneapolis file references indicate large quantities of electric motors were occasionally stockpiled. Also

electrical equipment such as transformers were found on site. The final item of significance is that drums

of material have been observed on site. These were observed to contain lead battery posts, but others

may have held various fluids.


1.1.4.3 Current Operations

There are no activities currently taking place at this site. In 1988, MPCA and EPA arranged for removal

and proper recycling and disposal of on-site soils and wastes. Additionally, the City of Minneapolis

demolished and removed the building. Following the removal actions, the site was backfilled and leveled

with clean Gil material.- The removal actions are discussed in greater detail in Section 1.6, History of

Response Actions.

1.2 Existing Ground Water Monitoring Wells Review

A well log search at MGS has identified the locations of 34 wells present within a one mile radius of the

site. These wells range from wells drilled in the early 1900's to as recent as 1986 and 1987. The wells

are completed from the surfkial sand aquifer down to the Mount Simon-Hinckley aquifer. Most of the

wells are water supply wells for business and industry. Table 1-4 presents a summary of information for

the 34 wells. This includes the unique well number, the location (township, range, section (T-R-S)), the

date drilled, elevation, total well depth, depth to water, elevation of water, and developed formation.

Figure 1-8 presents the locations of the 34 wells by unique well number within the one mile radius.

Two geologic cross sections have been prepared for the purpose of defining stratigraphy in the area of

the site. These two cross sections, as located on Figure 1-9, were chosen to aid in interpreting the

unconsolidated stratigraphy in the area as well as the presence of the filled bedrock valley, which the site

overlies. Figure 1-10 presents cross section A-A' which traverses from north to south in the area of the

site, while Figure 1-11 presents cross section B-B' which traverses from east-west just to the north of the

site. As observed in both cross sections a deep bedrock valley is present Also a fairly continuous clay

unit appears to be present beneath the site. These cross sections were prepared using the drillers logs

obtained from the MGS. Many of the logs are quite old and detailed logging of the glacial deposits was

uncommon. Therefore, the glacial derived units presented on the cross sections are the larger ono which

have been identified and appear to be continuous between locations.

1.3 Topographic Survey

Because of the small size (125 feet by 155 feet) and level nature of the site, the topographic survey will

be performed by Delta personnel prior to performing on-site Rl Geld activities. In preparation for the

topographic survey, points every 20 feet along the north-south and east-west boundaries will be staked and

marked. This will produce a 7 x 9 grid with 63 points on site to be measured for elevations. The survey

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinoootaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 13

instrument will initially be placed in a central location. The fire hydrant on the corner of 16th Avenue

and Washington Avenue and one other stable reference point (to be determined in the field) will be used

as reference elevations. These will be the first two points surveyed. While elevations of the 63 points

are surveyed, several "backsites" will be made to the two reference points to help assure vertical control

and data accuracy as the survey is conducted. In addition to the site topography, any significant on-site

features (depression and concrete rubble) and adjacent off-site features (side walls, buildings, utilities, etc.)

will be located and referenced relative to the site grid.

A site topographic map will be generated from the data collected. The map will use a scale of one inch

equals 20 feet and a topographic contour interval of 0.5 foot. Map elevations will be tied to the Mean

Geodetic Vertical Datum (MGVD) using the elevation of the hydrant on the corner of 16lh Avenue and

Washington Avenue as a reference elevation. If the hydrant elevation is not tied to the MGVD, the

hydrant will be surveyed to the nearest known elevation.

In addition, a local area plan map showing active businesses will be prepared using the local storm and

sanitary sewer map obtained from the city of Minneapolis as a base map. Delta personnel will conduct

a survey of the area within a two block radius of the site to identify the various industrial activities within

that area. Delta personnel will specifically look for and attempt to identify above and below ground

storage tanks, processing plants, cleaning facilities, scrap piles, or any other features which may have or

potentially could affect the Union Scrap site and the current RI/FS.

1.4 Problem Assessment

L4.1 Contaminant Sources

As noted in LT. Corporation's Preliminary Draft of the Evaluation Report for the Union Scrap site

(Appendix A), battery recycling operations were conducted at the site from the 1970's into ihe 1960Y

Some battery cracking may have taken place at this site. However, the principal operations related to

cracked battery case processing. Drained battery cases were brought to the Union Scrap site, fragmented,

sifted, sorted according to size, crushed, and finally sorted by specific gravity. The separated lead, rubber

chips, and plastic chips were then shipped off-site for recycling or disposal.


As the recycling business became economically infeasible, the waste accumulated on-site and contributed

to the soil contamination. Known and potential contaminant sources for the Union Scrap site are shown

below.

Source . Potential Contaminant

• battery casing and tops Pb, Cd, Cr, As, Ba, Hg, Ni, Cu. Sb, SO4

• salvage of small electric motors; Cu, oil

• bulking of unknown liquids in a Unknown fuels, other liquidstank located inside the building;

• electrical equipment handling, PCB'si.e. transformers;

• auto salvage; Waste oil, residual fuel, batteries, antifreeze fluid

• storage and transfer of drums; Unknown

• scrapping and salvage of miscellaneous Waste oilsheavy equipment and steel;

The recycling operations resulted in soil contamination at the site. Although pan of the site was covered

with a concrete pad, it was noted in IT Corporations report that 'there is no evidence that the operators

of the site contained or managed the wastes in accordance with hazardous waste facility standards or in

any way that would minimize the release of contaminants to the environment*. Identified contaminants

include: lead, cadmium, chromium, mercury, arsenic, nickel, copper, and polychlorinaied biphenyls (PCBs).

The MPCA obtained emergency clean up assistance from the EPA in March, 1985, which involved fencing

the site and covering waste piles with tarpaulins. Part of the waste was removed in 1986 and 1^87 with

the remaining waste piles and the upper 1-3 feet of contaminated soil removed in 1988. It is possible that

soil contamination remains at greater depths, posing a continuing source for ground water contamination

in the area. The nature and extent of any remaining contamination will be evaluated in the upcoming

RI/FS.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 1149-185Page 15

1.4.2 Potential Migration Routes

The site is not fenced or paved and therefore the surface soils may generate airborne dusts. However,

the upper 1-3 feet of contaminated soil was removed and replaced with clean Gil. It is unlikely that the

deeper soils would become airborne as dust Therefore, any remaining on-site contamination is not likely

to migrate from soil to air.

The metals and PCBs potentially remaining below the excavation removal depth beneath the site will, to

a great extent, adhere to soil particles. However, some leaching may occur, and may result in elevated

levels of these contaminants in the ground water. The nature and magnitude of ground water

contamination will be evaluated in the upcoming RI/FS.

Ground water in the unconsolidated sediments beneath the site is likely migrating towards the Mississippi

River, approximately 1200 feet to the east Any contamination in the ground water may be carried

downgradient and could eventually discharge to the river. Any metal and PCB contamination that would

reach the river would likely be adsorbed onto soil and organic particles, and would tend to deposit with

sediments in the river.

1.43 Potential Receptors

As long as the contaminated soils remain covered with clean backfill, persons living and working near the

site are not likely to accidentally inhale or ingest contaminated soils or dusts from the site.

Ground water between the site and the river is not likely to be used as a drinking water source.

However, any wells located downgradient of the site will be identified during RI/FS activities.

Additionally, the water intake for the city of Minneapolis is located in the Mississippi River several miles

upstream from the site. Consequently, the city's d r i : V ; : _ . ' . - : i :. ::::/.. :. !v i:•-.;M.I^J h\ this site

1.4.4 Ukelv Remedial Action Objectives

The objective of any future remedial action would be to meet the following nine evaluation criteria that

will be utilized in the Feasibility Study:

• short term effectiveness

• long term effectiveness

• reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume


• implementability

• cost effectiveness

• compliance with ARARs

• overall protection of human health and the environment

• state acceptance

• community acceptance

1.4.5 Need for Interim Actions

Interim actions have already been taken as pan of the MPCA's and EPA's mitigation and emergency

cleanup activities between 1985 and 1988. Wastes posing an immediate hazard to public and

environmental health have been removed, and the top layer of contaminated soil has been excavated, and

replaced with clean backfill. Therefore, until the RI/FS is completed, no further actions are

recommended.

1.4.6 Potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)

The site is located in an industrial area of Minneapolis. The surficial aquifer beneath the site is not

generally used for drinking water. However, potential ARARs for identified site contaminants based on

Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and other applicable or relevant and

appropriate requirements are presented in Table 1-5.

1.4.7 Need for Treatabilitv Studies

Presently, there is no need for treatability studies pertaining to metals in soils, since it is likely that any

metal contaminated soils would be either excavated and removed, or left in place and capped. Treatability

studies could be conducted to determine whether PCB-contaminated soils would respond optimally to

either biodegradation or thermal treatment. Other organic contaminants detected in the soil during the

RI would likely be treated by the same option chosen for PCBs. No ground water characterization

activities have been performed at the site to date. Thus, the need for treatability studies for ground water

cannot be ascertained at this time but may become apparent during the Rl.

The need for treatability studies will be re-evaluated during Rl/FS report preparation.


1.5 Health and Environmental Risks

Heavy metal, PCB, and any other contamination potentially remaining on the Union Scrap site may pose

risks to the environment, to workers, and to the general public. Remediation activities also may pose

health risks. The purpose of this section is not to present a complete risk assessment, but to briefly

evaluate these potential risks.

1.5.1 Environmental Risks

Any contamination remaining onsite may potentially affect off-site soil, ground water, surface water, or

air. Potential risks to these environmental media are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The site has been covered with approximately one to three feet of clean fill. However, the site is not

paved and infiltrating precipitation may cause any remaining compounds adsorbed to deeper soils to move

with the infiltrating water to ground water. Movement of the compounds could occur either as a dissolved

phase or in association with microparticulates. As they move with the infiltrating water and ground water,

contaminant molecules can also re-adsorb to coil particles. Therefore, deeper soils beneath the site and

soils and ground water downgradient of the site may be impacted.

The Mississippi River is located approximately 1,200 feet east of the site. Any contaminated ground water

from the site is likely moving towards the river and may eventually discharge to the Mississippi. If the

river is receiving contaminated discharge, fish in the river could be affected by these compounds.

Although the river water and fish could be affected by contaminants from this site, the magnitude of these

risks would depend on the type of fish and the nature and quantity of contaminants discharging with the

ground water.

Air is not likely to be affected by any contaminants from this site, since the site is covered with a one

to three foot layer of clean fill. Additionally, most of the potentially-remaining contaminants are likely

to be nonvolatile compounds such as heavy metals and PCBs. The clean soil should provide a protective

cover to minimize the release of any contaminated paniculates.


1.5.2 Public Health Risks

The Union Scrap site is located in an industrial area of Minneapolis. Other scrap recyclers are currently

operating in the area and may be contributing to ambient levels of contaminants in the environment near

the site. Public health risks due solely to any remaining contamination at this site may be difficult to

separate from risks due to the general environment However, for the purposes of this Rl/FS, public

health risks depend on the potential for exposure to environmental media contaminated with compounds

from this site.

The site currently is not secured with a locked fence and members of the public may freely enter the area.

However, the clean soil cover should minimize the potential for direct contact with contaminated soil.

Therefore, skin absorption of contaminants from the soil, or accidental inhalation or ingestion of

contaminated soil participates is unlikely.

The City of Minneapolis provides drinking water for residents and businesses in and around the site.

Ground water between the site and the river is not likely to be used for drinking. Therefore, the

potential for ingestion or inhalation of contaminants from ground water is slight.

Any contaminated ground water from the site may eventually discharge to the river. The river usually is

not used for swimming in this area thus people are unlikely to be directly exposed to contaminants from

the site through skin absorption during swimming. Any fish caught from the river and eaten may result

in human exposure to contaminants. However, many other sites posing environmental problems exist

along the river and it would not be possible to determine what portion of the contaminants originated

from the Union Scrap site at 1608 Washington Avenue. The magnitude of this mk cannoi currently

be quantified. It would depend, in part, on the nature and quantity of contaminants in the river, the

nature of the fish population, the amount of contnminmion in the f i«h, and the amouni of fish consumed.

1.5.3 Occupational Health Risks

The site is currently unoccupied and covered with clean backfill. Therefore, there are no risks to current

worker populations onsite. Businesses around the site are engaged in on-going scrap recycling activities

and workers at these businesses are unlikely to be significantly affected by any remaining contamination

on the Union Scrap site.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Inn and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelia No. 11-89-185Page 19

1.5.4 Potential Health Risks Associated with Rl Efforts

Activities associated with the RI could increase public and occupational health risks, simply because the

investigation is likely to expose potentially remaining contaminants. Drilling activities could increase the

release of any volatile constituents from the soil, and also any soil-adsorbed contaminants as pariiculaies.

Releases due to drilling are likely to be comparatively localized, and more an occupational inhalation or

skin absorption risk than a public health risk. Public health risks from inhalation are not likely to

increase significantly due to the localized nature of the potential releases and the effects of dispersion and

dilution in the atmosphere. Workers associated with RI efforts will wear appropriate personal protective

equipment (PPE) to minimize potential for exposure to any site contaminants. Use of PPE is specified

in Section 3.0, the Health and Safety Plan for this site.

Cuttings from drilling potentially could contain contaminants. Any contaminated runoff from these soils

could migrate to low areas and storm sewers in the area. To minimize human contact with these

contaminants, any exposed cuttings will be covered prior to disposal to reduce the potential for generation

of contaminated runoff.

1.6 History of Response Actions

This section presents a chronological listing of Response Actions at the Union Scrap site located at 1608

Washington Avenue. Each listing is supplemented with a short description of activities.

May1985 EPA Technical Assistance Team (TAT) performed a Site Assessment at the Union Scrap

Site. Samples were collected of on-site water, soil and rubber chips. Results showed highlead contamination in all samples. Recommendations were to control site access, removewaste piles, sample soils, cap the area to control airborn contaminants and install groundwater monitoring wells (Appendix B).

November1985 A security fence was constructed and waste piles were stabilized with tarpaulins.

October1986 The Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) retained Braun

Environmental Laboratories to advance two borings on the site and collect soil samplesfor analysis of PCBs, VOC, and teachable (E.P. Toxicity Method) metals. Results showedno indication of VOCs; however, PCBs and significant lead contamination was found(Appendix D).


December19867January1987 Mr. Richard Rosen, a potentially responsible party (PRP) arranged for removal of 773

tons of battery casing material to Louisiana.

October1987 EPA's, TAT took soil profile samples at six on-site locations. Results for total lead

showed significant contamination in surface soils up to 87,600 mg/kg. Lead contaminationat one foot dropped off significantly with the highest being 285 mg/kg. The highestconcentration at 3 feet was 242 mg/kg and at 4 feet, 34 mg/kg. An off-site backgroundsurface sample showed 492 mg/kg with 333 mg/kg at six inches. These were taken in aGeld 1/4 mile southeast of the site (Appendix E).

December1987 EPA Region V approves removal action.

April1988 EPA emergency removal action performed by O.H. Materials Corporation removed scrap

materials for recycling or proper disposal and upper one to three feet of contaminatedsoils for disposal. An underground storage tank was discovered and removed from theeast central property boundary. Some debris, the cement pad, and the building remainedon site. Waste materials were visible beneath the cement pad. Analytical results fromsamples collected during the remedial action are presented in Appendix F.

Surficial soils were most highly contaminated - up to 66,800 mg/kg total lead in theconcrete pad area south of the building. Other site areas showed less lead contamination.Lead levels decreased with depth, generally down to background levels i.e. less than 300mg/kg total lead within a couple of feet of the surface.

The rite was backfilled with clean fill from a residential area in north Minneapolis. Thefill was obtained from Mill City Excavating and Landscaping.

September1988 MPCA staff sampled several site areas for teachable metals and PCBs. Results indicated

elevated total lead in several samples and leachable lead levels (EP Toxicity Method) intwo samples making the sediment hazardous waste. These results are presented inAppendix G.

September1988 The city of Minneapolis arranged for demolition and disposal of the on-site building.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Stody Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 21

November/December1988 EPA performed a second removal action at the site removing debris, the cement pad, and

additional contaminated soils. The site was backfilled and leveled with clean fill. Theonly remaining debris on site is some concrete foundation rubble in the northwest cornerof the site. This material tested non-hazardous for lead.

In total, 3,000 tons of hazardous materials from the site were disposed. Additionally, eightrail cars of battery casings were recycled at a processing facility in Louisiana.

1.7 Identification of Alternative Response Actions

From a review of past remedial activities performed at the site along with data collected, the two potential

medias of concern are soil and ground water. Alternatives are grouped with respect to the media of

concern. It is noted that combinations of soil and ground water alternatives may be configured to

formulate alternatives if the RI reveals that the ground water has been impacted and soil conditions

warrant remediation.

Additionally, a no action alternative will be formulated that will prescribe no further work. Also, an

alternative prescribing monitoring but no further remedial activities will be configured.

1.7.1 Soils

It is noted that the likely contaminants that may be of concern at the site are metals (namely lead) and

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Reasons for the configuration of alternatives to address soil

contamination are protection against direct exposure to human health and mitigation of potential ground

water impacts due to leaching. Alternatives including the excavation of soils must provide for proper

disposal. Appropriate disposal hinges on the type and level of the contaminant.

Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Soils bv Landfilling

This alternative would include the excavation and disposal of contaminated soils at an approved

landfill. It is noted that soils contaminated with levels of halogenated organic compounds

(including PCBs) greater than 1000 mg\kg could not be landGlled.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinneutaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 22

Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Soils by Incineration

This alternative would include the excavation and disposal of contaminated soils at an approved

incineration facility. It is noted that metals and other inorganics present in the soils would not

be remediated by incineration; metals would be present in the ash. Thus, the metals would, if in

great enough concentrations, be disposed of at an appropriate landfill following incineration.

Excavation and On-Site Disposal of Soils by Incineration

This alternative would consist of the excavation and on-site incineration of contaminated soils.

As noted in the previous alternative, PCBs could be incinerated but any metals present would

require separate disposal requirements (e.g.landfilling).

Excavation and On-Site Disposal of Soils in a Vault

This alternative would consist of the excavation and on-site disposal of contaminated soils in a

vault The vault would be constructed of suitable impermeable materials. As noted in a previous

alternative, soils containing levels of halogenated organic compounds (including PCBs) greater

than 1000 mg\kg could not be disposed of in this manner.

Excavation. Soil Scrubbing and On-Stte Treatment

This alternative would consist of the excavation of contaminated soils with on-site treatment of

contaminants removed via soil scrubbing techniques. Water and surfactants, if required, would be

passed through the soils to flush the contaminants from the soil. The liquids would be collected

and treated to remove the contaminants. The type of treatment (physical, chemical or biological)

employed would depend on the contaminants encountered.

Capping the Site

This alternative would consist of sealing any subsurface contamination present by the placement

of a cap over the site. The cap would be constructed of material capable of restricting infiltration

of rainfall and surface runoff through underlying contaminated soils.


In-SItu Vitrification

This alternative would consist of implementation of the in-situ vitrification process to dissolve or

encapsulate the contaminants into a vitrified mass. The process uses an electric current that is

passed through electrodes placed in the ground. Heat created by the current melts soil and rocks

and decomposes organic material. Gases which may evolve from the process may be required to

be captured.

Soil Flushing

This alternative could be incorporated with ground water remedial alternatives (if ground water

remediation is warranted at the site) to promote the rate of leaching of contaminants from the

soils to the water table. This would effectuate a shorter time period for the remedial alternative.

Under this alternative, water would be added at the surface via infiltration gallery, pond or

sprayer. Depending on the contaminants found, chemicals may be added to increase the rate of

leaching.

1.7.2 Ground Water

The Remedial Investigation will evaluate the hydrogeological conditions at the site. Response actions•

focusing on ground water will only, be applicable if contamination is found.

If the Remedial Investigation concludes that ground water response actions are appropriate, a limited

number of remedial alternatives will be developed to define remediation levels within the risk range of

10"4 to 10~7 for maximum lifetime risk. Where feasible, one alternative will be formulated lo restore

ground water within five years to a 10"* fna<immn risk level.

If ground water response actions are warranted, the alicmuu,^ iiui ji.aj, L-*. iuaîbic can DC n.iûicJ a;,

either containment alternatives or treatment alternatives.

1.7.2.1 Containment

This alternative would consist of the placement of either a slurry wall or a grout curtain to prevent

migration of containments by restricting ground water flow. The grout curtain or slurry wall would be

installed by placement of an impermeable vertical barrier (e.g. bentonite slurry) around (he zone of

ground water contamination.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinneaotaDelta No. 1149-185Page 24

1.7.2.2 Treatment

Treatment alternatives may include in-situ treatment or treatment of extracted ground water. The type

of technology utilized to extract ground water would depend on hydrogeological conditions at the site.

The alternatives listed below do not speculate as to the type of extraction technology. However, possible

options include pumping wells, trenches and collection drains. The treatment technology chosen would

depend on the type of contaminants determined during the RI. The potential alternatives listed below

include a discussion of the treatment alternatives that may be feasible for the type of contaminants which

may be encountered (metals and/or PCBs).

Potential alternatives for the treatment of ground water are as follows:

Ground Water Extraction and On-Slte Treatment of Metals

This alternative would consist of the on-site treatment of extracted ground water for metals. Metals in

the ground water could be removed by either physical treatment or chemical treatment. Methods of

physical treatment that may be feasible are reverse osmosis or ion exchange. Methods of chemical

treatment would include raising the pH by the addition of chemicals to precipitate out the metals or

through the use of electroplating where dissolved metals are plated out onto electrodes through the

introduction of an electrical current. It is noted that all of the listed treatment technologies would require

proper disposal of metals removed from the extracted ground water.

Ground Water Extraction and Oil-Site Treatment of PCBs

This alternative would consist of the on-site treatment of extracted ground water for PCBs. PCBs in the

ground water could be treated either by physical treatment, chemical treatment or biological treatment

Physical treatment would be by carbon adsorption. It is noted that the PCBs removed from the waste

stream in this manner would require approved thermal disposal. Chemical treatment would include the

oxidation of PCBs through the introduction of hydrogen peroxide and\or ozone to the waste stream in the

presence of ultraviolet light Biological treatment would include aerobic or anaerobic digestion of the

waste stream depending on the isomers of PCB present.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MioneiouDelta No. 1149-185Page 25

Ground Water Extraction and On-Site Treatment of Metals and PCBs

This alternative would consist of the on-site treatment of extracted ground water for metals and PCBs.

Essentially, this alternative would be a combination of treatment technologies from the previous two

alternatives since there is no compatible treatment for ground water contaminated with metals and PCBs.

Ground Water Extraction With Discharge to Sanitary Sewer

This alternative would consist of the discharge of extracted ground water to the local publicly owned

treatment works (POTW) where contaminants are effectively treated or removed. This alternative may

be feasible where levels of metals and/or PCBs are within acceptable discharge limits.

ln-Situ Treatment

This alternative would consist of the implementation of an environmentally controlled system to allow for

in-place biodegradation of contaminants. This process may provide effective treatment of PCBs but would

not remediate any metal contamination.


CHAPTER 2.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN fQAPP)

This chapter is bound as a separate document titled the same as above.

e

sr


CHAPTER 3.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN

SITE NAME: Union Scrap

LOCATION: 1608 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota

DATE PLAN APPROVED:

REVIEWER'S SIGNATURE:

3.1 Introduction

The on-site activities of the remedial investigation include completion of soil borings, installation of

monitoring wells, and collection of soil and ground water samples. In order to appreciate the hazards that

may be encountered while conducting these activities, a summary of former siie operations, investigations,

and remedial activities is included below.

The Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company conducted battery recycling operations for several years during

the 1970's on a 0.4 acre site at 1608 Washington Avenue North. The area surrounding the Site was

historically an industrialized neighborhood characterized by numerous scrap yards. Piles of lead-

contaminated wastes from the recycling operation accumulated at the Site and remained onsite for over

ten years. Some battery cracking and associated acid disposal may also have occurred at the site.

Soils at the site contained lead at concentrations np to 59,000 parts per million (ppm). Samples of surface

water run-off from these soils, taken by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in March, 1980,

showed total lead concentrations of 120,000 ppm. Since dust generation from these soils was also a

concern, the MPCA collected air samples near the Site using a high volume sampler. Analytical results

indicated lead concentrations up to 5.8 ug/m3. In addition, localized areas of PCB contamination in soils

were detected.

Due to the high soil concentrations of these contaminants, MPCA staff requested and obtained a

committment for EPA emergency cleanup assistance in March, 1985, to remove the piles of lead-

contaminated material from the Site. The Site was fenced, covered with tarps, and posted with warning

signs. In December, 1986, and January, 1987, a private party removed a pile of scrap battery parts under

MPCA and EPA overview. In April, 1988, the EPA removed the remaining piles of scrap battery parts

and soils containing a total lead concentaiioo greater than 500 ppm, to a depth of one to three feet. A


building remained on the Site plus a large concrete pad outside the building that covered additional

battery debris.

In September, 1988, the City of Minneapolis demolished and removed the building and a portion of the

concrete pad. Remnants of the pad were left because battery parts were found embedded in (he concrete.

In November, 1988, the EPA removed the remaining concrete pad remnants and battery debris. The Site,

has since been back-filled with clean fill. A pile of concrete remains on the Site which is the remnants

of the building foundation. This material has been tested and found to be non-hazardous.

3.2 Key Personnel

Delta Corporate Health and Safety Officer

Delta Site Health and Safety Officer:

Delta Project Manager:

Delta Field Team Leader:

State's Authorized Agent:

MPCA Project Manager.

MPCA Technical Analyst:

MPCA Onsite Inspector:

MPCA Public Information Officer:

EPA Remedial Project Manager:

Steve Reynolds(612) 636-2427

Dawn Horsted(612) 636-2427

Barry O'Flanagan(612) 636-2427

Marty Moran(612) 636-2427

Debra McGovern(612) 296-6300

Douglas Robohm(612) 296-7717

Jan Falteisek(612) 297-1459

Jeff Reeder(612) 296-6300

Elizabeth Gelbmann(612) 296-7792

Tom Alcamo(312) 886-7278

Alternate: Steve Reynolds(612) 636-2427

Alternate: Paul Goudreault(612) 636-2427

Alternate: Erick Neher(612) 636-2427

Alternate: Nile Fellows(612) 296-7782

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 1149-185Page 29

PERSONNEL ROLES

Delta Corporate Health and Safety Officer (Corporate HSO)

The corporate HSO is responsible for safety training, health monitoring, development and implementation

of safety policies and procedures, and development of corporate safety programs. The corporate HSO is

ultimately responsible for ensuring that projects are accomplished in a safe manner.

Delta Site Health and Safety Officer fHSO)

The site HSO is responsible for development and implementation of the site health and safety plan

including the following items:

• determining the level of personal protective equipment to be worn;

• determining the decontamination procedures to be utilized at the site;

• conducting daily health and safety meetings before work begins onsite

• air monitoring for purposes of verifying worker exposure and proper selection of personalprotective equipment; and

• advising the project manager on any matters concerning the health and safety of employees or thepublic.

• the site HSO will be consulted before any changes in the recommended procedures or levels ofprotective clothing are made. The site HSO will have the authority and responsibility to changelevels of protection and, when necessary, shut down the operation.

Delta Protect Manager

The project manager has the primary responsibility for the fulfillment of the terms of the contract. The

project manager must oversee operations and ensure that all legal and safety requirements are met. It

is the project manager's duty to keep the project on schedule, within budget and to communicate regularly

with the client regarding the progress toward the specified goals. The project manager will have the

authority to upgrade levels of protection and shut down site activities if conditions warrant such actions.

Dcltii Field Team Leader

The Geld team leader is the on-site coordinator and overseer of operations. It is the field team leader's

duty to maintain site security, supervise the laborers and technicians, ensure thai all procedures (health

and safety, decontamination, protective equipment, etc.) are followed.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study SupportUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-39-185Page 30

MPCA Site Team Members

Members of the MPCA Site Team include the MPCA Project Manager, the MPCA Technical Analyst,

and the MPCA On-Site Inspector. Any member of the team may issue a Stop Work Order for ihe

following reasons:

• it is determined that conditions at the site may create a danger to public health and welfare orthe environment; or

• the Site Safety Plan has been violated.

Delta's Site HSO and Project Manager shall be verbally advised of the impending action. If the stop work

order is issued, it shall be presented in writing by one of the Site Team Members and shall be in effect

for a maximum of 72 hours.

MPCA PubHc Information Officer - The public information officer is responsible for releasing information

to the news media and the public concerning site activities.

3.3 Employee Education and Training

Regularly scheduled health and safety training sessions are presented by trained safety personnel, including

outside consultants. Topics are discussed in detail and demonstrated to personnel in a classroom/simulated

field environment. The training sessions include detailed procedures for emergency response. Personnel

attend both introductory and advanced safety training sessions. They participate in demonstrations and

conduct small study groups. Specialty training is given for topics such as the chemical characteristics of

substances likely to be encountered on a specific project. All personnel are encouraged to make

suggestions for improvement concerning any aspect of the safety training program.

The introductory training program given to personnel consists of 40 hours of classroom training in

accordance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120, which provides a basic overview of subject material and, where

applicable, equipment and procedural demonstrations. This initial training covers the following topics:


• General toxicology overview;

• Basic safety, personnel, and industrial hygiene practices;

• Field operating practices and procedures - limiting exposures, decontamination, buddy system, etc.;

• Operation, use, and maintenance of protective equipment and respiratory devices;

• Fit testing;

• Personal protective clothing - types and limitation;

• Contingency planning - response to minor spills, communications protocol, evacuation procedures;

• Operation, use, and maintenance of direct reading monitoring equipment;

• Sampling procedures; and

• Basic first aid and CPR training.

Eight hour annual refresher training incorporating the latest information on equipment improvements and

advances in safety and operating practices, are also part of the training program. Records of employee

training are maintained and updated regularly.

Sessions are rotated and updated on a regular basis to ensure that all operations personnel are proficient

and up-to-date on the topics. Safety training data sheets are utilized to document type and hours of

specific training for each employee. This helps to ensure that all employees are adequately trained for

their job assignments and are kept current in their training.

Prior to being assigned to a project, new personnel must be approved by the Corporate Health and Safety

Officer. Approval is based on completion of the required training program, safety consciousness, general

attitude and health screening.

Additionally, site specific training will be given to familiarize investigative personnel with actual conditions

and hazards which may be encountered at a site. This will include familiarizing personnel with primary

and secondary emergency escape routes, communications, emergency equipment location(s) and the

decontamination station.


Daily planning and safety meetings are conducted at project sites to inform each work team of its activities

and pertinent safety considerations. Hazard identification, warning, and contingency plans are developed

in advance, and employees are constantly briefed on their involvement should these plans be needed.

Personnel are encouraged to report potential and actual problems to foremen and/or supervisors during

the work day as well as during safety meetings.

3.4 Personal Protective Equipment

Level D protection will be worn during site investigation activities unless air monitoring results or sue

conditions warrant upgrading to higher levels of protection. The level D work uniform includes a hard

hat, safety shoes, safety glasses and/or a face shield. In addition, dust coveralls, boot covers, gloves and

dust masks will be worn to prevent dermal contact with, or inhalation of any contaminated soil. If normal

conversation cannot be carried on, hearing protection also will be worn.

A photoionization detector (hNu) calibrated to a benzene standard will be used to check for organic

vapors during drilling. Half-mask respirators with organic vapor cartridges and high-efficiency-particulate

(HEPA) dust filters will be used if vapors are detected in the breathing zone. HNu readings will guide

site activities at the following levels:

Action Level Action

5 to 50 units or 50 times background (breathing Use half-mask respirator with organic vapor

zone) cartridges and HEPA dust filters.

50 to 1000 units or 1000 times background Move offsite until levels are reduced.

(breathing zone)

Greater than 1000 units or 1000 times Eliminate all ignition sources, move out offsite,

background (breathing zone) notify the Delta Project Manager and the Site

HSO.

If necessary, the site and exposed drilling cuttings will be sprayed with water to control dust generation.

If organic vapors are detected with the hNu, or if site conditions become visibly dusty, personnel will don

half-mask respirators with organic vapor cartridges and high-efficiency-paniculate HEPA dust filters.


3^ Work Limitations

Temperature

In high ambient temperatures, follow heat-stress precautions:

• drink plenty of cool water or juice before becoming thirsty;

• take regular breaks at the designated rest station (Figure 3-1) out of direct heat and sunlight;

• increase the frequency of breaks with increasing heat or humidity;

• modify the work schedule, working during cooler times of the day and breaking during hot noonhours;

• check resting pulse and increase number of breaks if pulse does not return to normal.

In cold temperatures, follow hypothermia precautions:

• dress in removable layers to prevent sweating;

• carry protective raingear and use it before tain starts;

• drink warm liquids;

• monitor coworkers for signs of shivering, incoordi nation, or confusion.

Lighting

Work may only progress during daylight hours or under conditions of adequate lighting.

Utilities

No work may progress until all above-ground and buried utilities near the site ii. 'ed.

Maintain at least 15 feet clearance from overhead power lines. If unavoidably close to overhead or buried

power lines, turn power off and lockout circuit breaker. Avoid standing in water when operating electrical

equipment

3.6 Health Surveillance Program

All project personnel participate in a medical health monitoring program. This program is initiated with

a complete physical and medical history prior to any field work, and is continued on a regular basis. The

physical includes, but is not limited to, the following:


• audiogram;

• respiratory functions;

• complete blood count;

• renal panel;

• liver panel;

• metabolic panel;

• chest X-ray;

• urinalysis;

• physician's examination; and

• a thorough occupational health history.

This program was developed in conjunction with a qualified medical practitioner. Dr. Sipe and Dr. Lee,

with Coon Rapids Medical Center, are the consulting physicians in charge of the program. They can be

contacted at 612/780-9155.

Non-scheduled medical examinations may be conducted under the following circumstances:

• After acute exposure to any toxic or hazardous material;

• At the discretion of a project manager or health and safety officer or medical surveillancephysician when an employee has been exposed to dangerous levels of toxic or hazardous materials;and

• At the justified request of an employee.

The ability of on-site personnel to wear respiratory protection is certified by the medical surveillance

physician in compliance with 29 CFR Part 1910.134 and ANSI Z88.2 -1980. Medical surveillance records

are maintained by Delta's Corporate Health and Safety Officer.


3.7 Standard Operating Procedures

Personal Precautions

Eating, drinking, chewing gum or tobacco, smoking, or any practice that increases the probability of hand-

to-momh transfer and ingestion of material is prohibited in any area designated contaminated.

Hands and face must be thoroughly washed upon leaving the work area and before eating, drinking, or

any other activities.

Facial hair, which interferes with a satisfactory fit of the mask-to-face seal must be removed prior to the

use of an air purifying respirator.

Contact with contaminated surfaces or with surfaces suspected of being contaminated should be avoided.

Whenever possible, one should not walk through puddles, mud, and other discolored surfaces; kneel on

ground, lean, sit, or place equipment on drums, containers, vehicles, or on the ground.

Medicine and alcohol can potentiate the effects from exposure to toxic chemicals. Prescribed drugs should

not be taken by personnel on response operations if there is a likelihood of such potemiation.

All personnel must be familiar with standard operating safety procedures and any additional instructions

and information contained in the Site Safety Plan.

All personnel must adhere to the information contained in the Site Health and Safety Plan.

Work areas for various operational activities must be established.

Procedures for leaving a contaminated area must be planned and implemented prior to going to the site.

Work areas and decontamination procedures must be established on the basis of prevailing site conditions

and potential hazards.

Storing utensils, food, or food containers while on-site is expressly forbidden.


Ignition of flammable liquids within, on, or through improvised heating devices (barrels, etc.) or space

heaters is prohibited.

Approach or entry into areas or spaces where toxic or explosive concentrations of gases or dust may exist

is forbidden unless proper equipment is worn to enable safe entry.

Contact lenses should not be worn in any field work that involves splash or dust hazards.

Personnel will be aware of symptoms for toxic chemicals on-site and for heat or cold stress.

Respirators shall be cleaned and disinfected after each day's use or more often if necessary.

Prior to donning, respirators will be inspected for worn or deteriorated parts. Emergency respirators will

be inspected at least once a month and after each use.

The employee will be familiar with ail sections of the established respirator program.

Operations

All personnel going on-site must be adequately trained and thoroughly briefed on anticipated hazards

(e.g. Table 3-1), equipment to be worn, safety practices to be followed, emergency procedures, and

communications. Personnel will participate in health and safety meetings before beginning daily site

activities. Personal protective clothing and equipment will be distributed at the meeting before entering

the site.

Personnel will enter and leave the site at a designated point. The decontamination station and rest area

will be located near this access point (Figure 3-1).

Two air samples will be collected each day of field work using personal air sample pumps and fflter

cassettes. The samples will be analyzed for dust, PCBs, and metals including antimony, arsenic, barium,

cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel. One sample will be collected in the breathing zone on

site and one will be collected at the down-wind perimeter of the site. Both will be eight-hour samples.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Meial CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 37

Decontamination procedures will be as follows:

• remove contaminated dust coveralls, then masks and place in garbage recepticle;

• remove contaminated gloves and place in garbage recepticle;

• proceede to wash station - clean hands and face - pour used water into collection bucket;

• exit work area

Any required respiratory protective devices and clothing must be worn by all personnel going into areas

designated for wearing protective equipment.

Personnel on-site must use the buddy system when wearing respiratory protective equipment. Extremely

hazardous entries will not be attempted.

It is not anticipated that electrical equipment will be needed onsite. However, any electrical equipment

installations used to provide electric power and light for the jobsite, work practices incidental to the use

of electricity, and near-by elctrical/utility lines shall conform to OSHA Safety and Health Standards (29

CFR 1926.400 Subpart K) and NFPA 70 National Electrical Code. Subcontractors installing such

equipment will be responsible for compliance with the applicable standards and codes.

3.8 Contingency PJan

Copies of the following telephone numbers will be posted in site trailers, kept in all site vehicles, and

provided to personnel in charge onsite.

Emergency action • standard operating procedures

Hospital: North Memorial Medical Center, 3300 North Oakdale, Robbinsdale, MN, 612/520-5200

Hospital Emergency: 612/520-5542 or 911

Fire: 911

Police: 911

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Siuctv Supoon DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnetouDeha No. 11-89-185Page 38

Barry O'Flanagan, Delta Project Manager 612/636-2427

Dawn Homed, Delta Site Safety Officer 612/636-2427

Douglas Robohm, MPCA Project Leader 612/296-7717

Jan Falteisek, MPCA Technical Analyst 612/297-1459

Medical Emergencies

In the event of illness or injury, appropriate first aid should be administered while awaiting an ambulance

or paramedics. Delta project staff are trained and certified in first aid and CPR. A trained person will

be onsite during site activities.

Information regarding chemical exposure and personal medical history will be provided to hospital

personnel for anyone being transported to a clinic or hospital for treatment. Personal medical information

can be obtained through Delta offices in St. Paul (612/636-2427).

A water supply, telephone, and bathrooms are located at the gasoline station and convenience store just

to the north of the site.

Emergency Equipment

The following pieces of emergency equipment will be maintained on site:

• fire extinguisher

• 32 oz. eye wash

• wool blanket 62' x 82'

• first aid kit, including:thirty two 1* sterile adhesive bandagesone 1/2" x 5 yd waterproof tapeone 1" x 5 yd sterile gauzefive 2" x 2' sterile gauze padsfive 3" x 3" sterile gauze padsone triangular bandage, Tyvek, sterilefour PVP, 10% wipestwo medicated ointment, 1/8 ozone instant cold packtwo ammonia inhalantsone tweezersone cotton, 1 oz. sterileone Eye-Test eyewash 1 oz.two eye pads, sterile

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnetouDelta No. 11-89-185Page 39

one scissorstwo latex disposable glovesone 4" offset bandage compress

First Aid Measures

In the event that exposure symptoms occur, the following procedures will be used:

Ingestion: DO NOT induce vomiting; summon medical help.

Inhalation: Move victim to fresh air, seek medical attention.

Skin Exposure: Remove and replace contaminated clothing, flush with water.

Eye Contact: Flush eye immediately with copious amounts of water. Repeat until irritation iseliminated. Seek medical attention.

If time and circumstances allow, contaminated dust coveralls, masks and gloves will be removed, and the

injurred person's hand and face will be washed before transportation to the hospital.

Hospital Directions

North Memorial Medical Center

3300 North Oakdale Avenue

Robbinsdale, MN

Directions from site (see Figure 3-2):

• North 4 blocks on Washington Avenue to Broadway Avenue

• West approximately 2 miles on Broadway Avenue to Oakdale Avenue

• West (veer right off Broadway; follow hospital signs) on Oakdale to hospital

Total Distance: Approximately 3 milesTotal Time: 10-15 minutes

Note: Emergency routes are to be verified and driven prior to site activities.

w *- cI

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnoouDelta No. 11-S9-18SPage 40

CHAPTER 4.0 SITE SECURITY PLAN

4.1 Background

As discussed in previous sections, extensive cleanup has taken place at the Union Scrap site. No known

surface contamination exists on site. The extent of Delta's on and off-site activities will include a sue

topographic survey, advancing soil borings, collecting soil samples, installing monitoring wells, and

collecting ground water samples. The activities where limited and controlled access is appropriate are

during boring and well advancement and installation, soil sample collection, during well development and

while ground water sampling is taking place.

4.2 Specific Security Measures

4.2.1 Access Control Measures

Limiting site access during activities described in Section 4.1 Background will consist of setting up a

deterrent fence around the perimeter of the site during all on-site activities and around the drill rig and

well during off-site activities. The fencing and street barricades with lights will be of sufficient distance

to keep 'interested* parties a safe distance from operating machinery and potentially contaminated cuttings

and ground water. The perimeter fence will consist of metal fence posts set approximately 25 feet apart

with one band of bright perimeter tape with "Do Not Enter" or a similar deterring phrase printed on the

tape.

Overnight security will be provided through a security subcontractor for each night equipment or any open

boreholes will be left on site.

A Delta field representative will be responsible for setting up and maintaining site access control during

all drilling, well construction, and development and soil sampling activities. The project Quality Assurance

Manager will be responsible for any security measures during ground water sampling activities.

All site security measures will be documented. Any significant breaches of site security will immediately

be documented and reported to the MPCA and EPA.

4.2.2 Client Contractor and Subcontractor Awareness

Prior to Rl activities, all contractor and subcontractor personnel who will be overseeing and directly

involved in any of the above activities will be briefed on the need and reasons for site security.


Additionally, activities and responsibilities for setting up and controlling access will be delineated.

4.2.3 Post RI Activity Measures

Following completion of the Rl field activities on and off-site fencing will be removed. The ribbon and

fence posts will be either disposed or provided to MPCA for storage. No post Rl measures will be

required.

•2si&'?r

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinooouDelta No. 1149-185Page 42

CHAPTER S.O POTENTIAL RESPONSIBLE PARTY SEARCH

A potential responsible party search is not within the scope of this Work Order.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelia No. 11-89-185Page 43

CHAPTER 6.0 Rl/FS WORK PLAN

6.1 Rl Work Plan

The objectives of the remedial investigation program at the Union Scrap site located at 1608 Washington

Avenue North are to:

• Characterize near surface soils as a potential source of contamination to ground water.

• Characterize potential ground water contamination and evaluate ground water as a potentialpathway of contamination.

• Evaluate potential risks of the contamination to human health and the environment.

The RI Work Plan includes the following activities:

Shallow Soils Investigation

Waste Characterization

Hydrogeologic Investigation

Sampling and Analysis of Soil and Ground Water

Data Assessment (Validation)

Hydrologic, Geologic and Hydrogeologic Analysis

Site Hazard Assessment

Treatability Investigations

The following sections describe these work activities.

6.1.1 Shallow Soils Investigation

The near surface soils investigation is A***ffr* to evaluate the nature and approximate extent of any

remaining soil contamination left on site. The investigation focuses on the remaining fill material and

natural soils located beneath the base of the EPA Emergency Response Action excavation depth. It is

assumed that the backfill material which was imported on to the site following previous excavations is free

of contamination, and therefore will not be evaluated in this investigation. The purpose of the soils

investigation is also designed to collect a sufficient amount of chemical and physical site soil data to

complete the required Site Hazard Assessment, Site Feasibility Study, and Record of Decision (ROD).

The following discussion details the number and locations of borings, drilling methods, sampling intervals,

types of soil sampling, and other specialized sampling associated with the site soils investigation.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 44

6.1.1.1 Soil Boring Locations

With the information presented in Section 1.1.4 - Site History and Operations, it is known that the entire

site has had, at some point in time, potentially hazardous materials salvaged or stored on it. For this

reason, information about soil characteristics beneath the backfill to a depth of IS feet across the entire

site is required. Figure 6-1 presents the locations of 12 soil borings which have been located to provide

an adequate coverage of the site as well as targeting several locations in areas of higher contamination

as presented in Section 1.1.3.6 - Previous Site Investigations. The primary area where a greater density

of borings and sampling will be conducted is adjacent to and partially beneath the former concrete pad

area. This area is where a majority of the material unloading and on-site traffic was occurring during

facility operations.

The locations of these borings will be measured, staked, and identified prior to the initiation of the Geld

program. The shallow, near surface soil borings will be abandoned upon completion, with the exception

of three locations where three deeper stratigraphic soil borings will be completed as water table

monitoring wells. At these locations, the holes will be covered and secured to the extent possible until

the deep borings are completed. These deeper borings are discussed in Section 6.13.2, Water Table

Well Borings.

6.1.1.2 Soil Boring Drilling Methods and Depth

The shallow soil borings will be completed by use of 3 1/4 inch, interior diameter, continuous flight, hollow

stem auger (HSA). HSA drilling is preferred in the type of unconsolidated sediments known to be present

at the site. The 12 borings will be completed to a depth of approximately 15 feet below grade.*

6.L1.3 Soil Sampling Method and Intervals

The following soil sampling interval discussion is based upon the assumption that the interface between

the new backfill material and the old fill or natural sediment can be defined. Split spoon samples will

be collected continuously from the surface until the interface is observed. If this interface cannot be

defined soil sampling will commence at a depth of 2.0 feet below the surface. If this interface is found

deeper than 2.0 feet, a new zero point will be established and sampling will commence at that depth, with

previous samples discarded.


Four specific predetermined intervals have been chosen for the collection of soil samples. These intervals

are referred to as:

• shallow chemical sample

• intermediate chemical sample

• deep chemical sample

• base physical sample

The chemical samples will be collected by split spoon sampling techniques. The split spoon will be

hammer driven through an 18 inch interval Chemical samples will be retrieved directly from the spoon

as referenced in Section 2.6 - Sampling Procedures. The base physical sample will be collected using a

lined spoon. This apparatus, used for coarse uoconsolidated alluvial sediments, allows for the retrieval

of up to 18 inches of undisturbed soil within three, six inch long brass tubes which line the interior of the

sampler. The open ends of the tubes are then capped and sealed until completion of the physical soil

tests. Vertical permeability samples will be collected by lined spoon, while grain size/hydrometer samples

may be collected by lined spoons or split spoon sampling. The grain size/hydrometer samples are

composited for serving and are not required to be intact.

Shallow Chemical Samples

Shallow chemical samples will be collected at all 12 boring locations. The depth of this sample will be

from 0.0 to 1.5 feet beneath the interface. Six of the 12 samples will be submitted for chemical analysis

for the Target Compound List for organics (TCL) (Table 6-1) and Target Analyte List for inorganics

(TAL) (Table 6-2). The remaining six samples will be submitted for chemical analysis for a short list of

parameters. Table 6-3 presents the short list of parameters. The short list parameters includes soil

analyses for total and EP Toxicity Methods for metals. In addition, all soil samples will be laboratory

tested for pR Figure 6-2 presents the locations for the 12 shallow soil samples and the six samples to

be submitted for the TCL/TAL analyses. These six locations were chosen because previous sampling

showed elevated levels of contaminants in that area and/or it is an area where extensive site operations

occurred.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron tod Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 46

Intermediate Chemical Samples

The intermediate chemical samples will be collected at all 12 boring locations with all 12 samples being

submitted for the short list analyses (Table 6-3) and laboratory pH. The intermediate sample interval will

be from 1.5 to 3.0 feet below the interface. Figure 6-3 presents the 12 intermediate sample locations.

Deep Chemical Samples

The deep chemical samples will be collected at all 12 boring locations with 8 of the 12 samples submitted

for the short list analyses (Table 6-3). The remaining four samples will be analyzed for the TCUTAL

(Tables 6-1 and 6-2). All samples will be tested for laboratory pH. The locations of the deep chemical

samples and the four to be submitted for TCL/TAL are presented in Figure 6-4. The deep sample interval

will be from 6.0 to 7.5 feet beneath the interface.

Base Physical Sample

The base physical samples will be collected from the 8.5 to 10.0 foot interval beneath the interface or

below the lowest observed contamination. A total of four base samples will be collected and submitted

for completion of vertical permeability tests and grain size/hydrometer analysis. Figure 6-5 presents the

locations of the four physical soil samples taken at the base interval (distinguished as PS-A). Figure 6-

5 also presents the locations of other physical soil samples, PS-B to PS-E, which will be discussed in

Section 6.1.3 - Hydrogeologic Investigation.

6.1.1.4 Additional finmpljn,g

All near surface samples collected will be screened using a photoionization detector (PID) to monitor for

the presence of volatile organic contamination. Any odors noted will be reported. Also, visual

observations will be made and documented indicating the presence of any physical staining of soil samples.

If any visible or detectable organic contamination (by PID) is observed in the deep sample, the soil boring

will be continued. Additional split spoon samples will be collected at five foot intervals until no

contamination or staining is detected or observed or the water table is reached. Additional samples with

observed contamination at the five foot intervals will be submitted for chemical analysis for the short list

of parameters (Table 6-3). The deepest five foot sample in which no contamination is observed will be

submitted for the TCL/TAL analyses (Tables 6-1 and 6-2).

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Siudv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 47

Figure 6-6 presents a generalized schematic of a shallow soil boring indicating the depths of each of the

chemical soil samples and the base physical sample. As shown on Figure 6-6, two split spoon samples for

lithologic definition will be taken between the intermediate and deep soil samples taken for soil chemistry.

Table 6-4 presents a summary of all soil borings to be completed during the field work. The table

includes the numbers and estimated depths of each- boring type.

6.1.2 Waste Characterization

Characterization of wastes at the Union Scrap site is limited to the subsurface soils. All other waste

residue including the original contaminated surface soils have been removed from the site.

Subsurface soils will be characterized by analyzing samples collected at specific locations across the site

and as deep as 3 to 10 feet below the existing surface. A subset of the samples will be analyzed for

Target Compound List (TCL) (Table 6-1) and Target Analyte Last (TAL) (Table 6-2) compounds. All

other samples will be analyzed for a short list of metals - both EP Toxicity Method and Total Metals,

PCBs, (Table 6-3) and laboratory soils pR

Specific information on numbers, locations, and depths of samples was presented in Section 6.1.1. Specific

analyses and methods are presented in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (Chapter 2.0).

6.1.3 Hydrogeoiogic Investigation

This section outlines the hydrogeologic characterization studies planned for the completion of the remedial

investigation at the site. These studies are designed to evaluate the hydrogeologic conditions immediately

beneath and within 100 feet of the site, evaluate ground water quality, and evaluate the potential of

ground water as a pathway for migration of contaminants originating from the site.

6.1-3.1 Deep Soil Borings

Location

Based on available information, four deep soil borings are proposed: three borings to define the top of

the clay layer (which is believed to be at about 80 feet below the surface) and one boring to bedrock.

The first clay definition boring will be to the northwest of the site as shown in Figure 6-7. If the clay

layer is found as expected, two other clay definition borings will be completed at the locations shown on

Figure 6-7. If the clay layer is not found above 100 feet, these other two definition borings will not be

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Scudv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-183Page 48

completed. The discussion below under Drilling Approach describes these decisions and options in more

detail. The bedrock boring will be completed to the northwest of the site as shown in Figure 6-7.

Drilling Approach

The first soil boring northwest of the site as shown in Figure 6-7 will be completed using 3.25 inch interior

diameter hollow stem auger (HSA). This first boring will be a maximum 100 feet deep or a minimum

of 10 feet into a clay layer. This boring will be used primarily to determine if the clay layer is present

and at what depth, but also to determine the alluvial stratigraphy.

The hydrogeologic investigation drilling program has one key decision point which determines a significant

portion of the remaining schedule of work. This decision point is if the clay layer is defined at or

shallower than 80 feet in the first deep boring.

The following are three scenarios which will be completed depending upon the stratigraphy defined in the

first boring:

L Clay Layer 80 Feet or Shallower

If the clay layer is found to be 80 feet or shallower and greater than 10 feet in thickness, two additional

soil borings using 3.25 inch HSA will be completed at the locations identified on Figure 6-7. These two

borings will be used to define the lateral continuity and attitude of the clay layer. They will also be

completed a minimum of 10 feet into the layer.

A clay layer at less than 80 feet and more than 10 feet thick will mean that a deep aquifer well will be

completed beneath the clay layer northwest of the site. The installation of this well is described in

Section 6.133.2 - Deep Aquifer Monitoring WelL

IL Clay Layer Between 80 and 100 Feet

If the clay layer is defined between 80 and 100 feet in the first boring, two additional clay definition soil

borings will be completed. These borings will be used for defining the surface and attitude of the clay

layer. They will also be completed 10 feet into the clay or to a maximum depth of 100 feet.


If the top of the clay layer is between 80 and 100 feet, the deep aquifer monitoring well would be moved

to the alternate location south of 16th Avenue as shown on Figure 6-8 and be completed just above the

clay layer. This well is discussed in Section 6,13.3.2 - Deep Aquifer Monitoring Well.

III. Clay Layer Is Not Defined At 100 Feet

If the clay layer is not defined in the tint deep boring shallower than 100 feet, the two additional deep

borings will not be completed. In this case, the deep aquifer well will be completed to a depth of 80 feet

at the alternate location south-southeast of the site as discussed in Section 6.1.33.2, Deep Aquifer

Monitoring Well and as shown on Figure 6-8.

One deep stratigraphic boring will be completed. This boring will be completed using a 3 7/8 inch mud

rotary drill bit to the bedrock surface at an estimated depth of 220 feet below the ground surface. This

boring will be completed using mud rotary drilling. The location of the deep stratigraphy/bedrock boring

will be to the northwest of the site as shown on Figure 6-7.

LJthologic Sampling Methods and Intervals

During the completion of all soil borings in the hydrogeologic investigation, samples will be collected at

set intervals to determine the geologic lithoiogy beneath and immediately adjacent to the site. All soils

above the water table will be screened using a PID to monitor for the presence of volatile organic

contamination. These readings will be recorded on the boring log. The samples will be classified

according to ASTM D2487 in the field by the drill crew chief and the Delta geologist. These soil

classifications will also be recorded on the boring log along with information on sample recovery, "N"

value, and observed moisture content

The three soil borings which will be used to define the surface and attitude of the clay (if present) will

be sampled using split spoon standard penetration test methods (ASTM D1586-7). The split spoon

samples will be collected at five foot interval* from the surface to the termination depth of 100 feet or


until 10 feet of clay is identified. A sample of the clay will be collected after 10 feet of the clay layer

has been identified using a lined spoon and submitted for vertical permeability and grain size/hydrometer

analyses. This sample is identified as PS-C in Figure 6-5 which shows the sample location northwest of

the site. Split spoon sampling will also be completed at 10 foot intervals from the termination depth of

the first deep soil boring to the desired completion depth of the deep monitoring well if completed at

the northwest location (scenario I).

If the top of the clay layer is determined to be within 80 to 100 feet or is not defined at 100 feet

(scenario II or III above), then a deep boring will be completed south-southeast of the site (Figure 6-5)

incorporating split spoon sampling at 10 foot intervals. A lined spoon sample of the deeper sand will

be collected at 80 feet and submitted for vertical permeability and grain size hydrometer analysis. This

sample is identified as PS-E in Figure 6-5 which shows the sample location.

The deep stratigraphy-bedrock soil boring will be completed incorporating split spoon sampling at 10 foot

intervals. This sampling interval will begin at the termination depth of the Drst deep boring to the

northwest of the site. A lined spoon sample of the deep sand unit will be collected 10 feet below the

clay layer and sumitted for vertical permeability and grain size/hydrometer analyses. This sample is

identified as PS-D in Figure 6-5 which shows the sample location northwest of the site.

The same information will be recorded on the boring log as stated previously. The first 100 feet will be

recorded during the first HSA soil boring and the remaining stratigraphy to bedrock will be recorded on

the same boring log.

6.1.3.2 Water Table Well Borings

Location

Six water table well borings are proposed. These locations are presented in Figure 6-8 and are identified

as monitoring well locations.

Drilling Approach

The six water table monitoring well borings will be drilled using 4.25 inch HSA. Three of the boring

locations coincide with on-site, near surface, shallow soil borings. These borings will be completed directly

through the shallow borings. The remainder of these borings will be new boreholes.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iran and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 51

Lithologic Sampling Methods and Intervals

Split spoon standard penetration sampling will be completed at five foot intervals from the surface to a

depth of 45 feet for the water table monitoring well borings. Sampling will not be conducted at the three

locations where the deeper borings used for clay definition were completed and logged previously.

Samples will be collected from five feet below the water table (estimated at 40 feet) by split spoon for

grain size/hydrometer analysis at each water table monitoring well boring location. These samples are

identified as PS-B on Figure 6-5 which also shows their locations.

6.13.3 Monitoring Wells

6.1.?.? 1 Wntpr TiiMe Monitoring Wells

Location

Six water table monitoring wells will be installed at the locations shown on Figure 6-8. One water table

monitoring well is proposed 100 feet to the northwest of the site, across Washington Avenue. This well

is proposed to be used as an upgradient monitoring well. Three wells are located on site. One is located

in the former concrete pad area which was a known high activity area. A second on-site well is located

in the north central area and is located to determine if the convenience store and gas station to the north

may be a potential contributing source for any observed ground water contamination. The third on-site

well is located in the east central area and will be used as a potential downgradient well. Two additional

wells are located to the south of 16th Avenue and are positioned as potential downgradient wells. The

number and locations of the wells provide! adequate coverage of the area to determine ground water

quality relative to any contamination originating on site and to determine the hydrogeologic flow regime

in the area of the site. River stage elevation data from near by gauging stations will be acquired from

the Army Corp of Engineers and compared to water table elevations to aid in evaluating any potential

influence the lock and dam may be having on the water table.

The proposed locations of these six monitoring wells are approximate. The exact locations will be

determined in the field based on the prcjeacc of any physical obstructions at the proposed location. Also,

the off-site locations proposed are tentative pending the acquisition of the proper permits and access

rights from the property owners.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Meial CompanyMinneapolis, MinnetouDelta No. 11-89-185Page 52

Water Table Monitoring Well Construction, Materials, and Development

The six water table monitoring wells will be installed and completed according to the Minnesota

Department of Health (MDH), Water Well Code, Chapter 4725.

The drilling of the monitoring wells using HSA will continue until it is determined that the boring has

penetrated 10 feet into the water table. This will be determined by measuring the depth to water below

the surface with a water level indicator and by observing the moisture content of the split spoon samples

being retrieved from the boring. Once the proper depth is reached the well will be installed through the

auger. The sand pack will be emplaced through the auger with measurements being taken frequently to

insure that the desired thickness is achieved.

As the sand pack is emplaced, the auger will be hoisted upward, allowing the sand to fill the borehole

surrounding the well. Once the sand pack is emplaced the remaining annular space will be filled using

Portland type cement grout. The grout will be pumped down through the remaining auger until it

completely fills the auger. The remaining flights of auger are then removed. This insures that the grout

will fill the borehole and not allow sloughing of natural sediments. The remaining upper portion of the

borehole will be topped off with grout and allowed to settle prior to capping with concrete and installing

the protective well cover.

The water table wells will be completed using 2 inch diameter, 15 foot stainless steel screens with schedule

40, 2 inch diameter low carbon steel riser. The screen will be #10 slot and will straddle the water table

with approximately ten feet into the water and five feet out. This will allow for water table fluctuations

to be observed without submerging the screen, especially if the wells will be needed for longer term

ground water monitoring. A stainless steel threaded coupling will connect the stainless steel screen to the

riser. Clean #30 slot filter sand will be used as the sand pack surrounding the screen. The sand pack

will extend three feet above the screen. The remainder of the annular space will be grouted to within

one foot of the surface using portland type cement A locking protective casing will be set using concrete

directly over the riser pipe which will extend approximately 2 to 2 1/2 feet above the surface. Three steel

protective bumper posts will be emplaced on a two foot radius from the well

Development of the water table monitoring wells will be accomplished by use of a small diameter

submersible pump. Each well will be pumped until clear water is observed. The wells will be surged to


insure that the sand pack has been properly developed. All development water will be contained until

chemical anlaysis can be performed on a representative sample. The water would then be discharged to

the sanitary sewer system if it meets the criteria set by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.

Development will be completed approximately two 4ays after the installation of the last well. This will

be completed by PACE Laboratories prior to sampling Of the wells.

6.1.3.3.2 Deep Aquifer Monitoring Well

Location

One deep aquifer monitoring well will be installed into the deeper alluvial deposits. Based on available

information, there is a laterally continuous clay layer at approximately 80 feet. It is proposed that the

deep aquifer monitoring well be completed into the first significant sand unit beneath this clay layer. The

clay layer is estimated to be 70 feet thick which means the deep aquifer well would be completed to a

depth of approximately 165 feet, IS feet below the clay layer. The location of the well is proposed to be

northwest of the site, nested with the shallow water table well at the same location as shown on Figure

6-8. The purpose of a deep well in this location is to provide potentiometric head information on the

sand aquifer unit below the clay. It is believed that the clay may be acting as an aquitard, potentially

retarding the downward migration of contaminants. It is also believed that the sand unit below would be

in direct hydraulic connection with the bedrock aquifer, believed to be the Prairie du Chien - Jordan

Aquifer. This well would then provide information on possible vertical gradients between the shallow and

deep aquifer systems.

An alternate downgradient location for the deep aquifer monitoring well is approximately 50 feet southeast

of the site is also shown on Figure 6-8. This location was chosen based on the possibility that the clay

layer is not present, or at a depth greater than 80 feet below grade. If either of these conditions is

observed, the deep aquifer well will then be completed 10 feet above the clay layer or to a maximum

depth of 80 feet within the same surficiai sand aquifer as the water table wells. At this location, the well

will be used as a control well for deeper water quality and to determine if any vertical gradients exist

within the surficiai sand aquifer.


Deep Aquifer Monitoring Well Construction, Materials, and Development

The deep aquifer monitoring well will be completed by use of mud rotary drilling techniques using

biodegradable drilling mud, which will not react with the soils potentially contaminated with heavy metals.

Installation of a surface casing into the clay is required to separate the two sand units. A 12 inch roller

bit diameter would be used for drilling to provide adequate space for sealing the 8 inch surface casing.

An 8 inch roller bit would then be used to complete the well to its termination. If the well is installed

at the alternate location, the drilling would be completed using an 8 inch roller bit with no surface casing

required.

An eight inch surface casing will be installed 10 feet into the clay layer through the 12 inch borehole.

Portland cement will then be tremied from the base to the surface of the annular space surrounding the

casing. The grout will be allowed to set for a minimum of 24 hours prior to the continuation of drilling.

This time is allowed so the grout will begin to set and provide a seal from the upper sand aquifer.

Drilling will then continue through the eight inch surface casing. Once the desired depth has been

reached, based on split spoon sampling and cutting observations, and the screen interval chosen, the four

inch diameter screen and riser will be set through the eight inch surface casing and mud-supported

borehole. The sand pack will be installed through a one inch tremie pipe to insure emplacement at the•

desired depth. Once the sand pack has been set, portland cement will be tremied from the base up to

fill the annular space of the remaining open borehole and in the eight inch surface casing which will serve

as a protective cover for the four inch riser. Spacers will be attached to the four inch riser to insure that

the riser and screen are centered within the borehole and surface casing.

If the well is installed at the alternate location to the southeast of the site, no surface casing will be

required and the well will be completed by mud rotary using an eight inch borehole and installing the four

inch diameter screen and riser directly into it The sand pack would be installed using the same tremie

method. Portland cement would be used to Gil the annular space to (he surface. A six inch diameter

locking protective casing would be installed over the riser pipe.

The deep aquifer well will be constructed using a five foot long, #10 slot, continuous wrap, stainless steel

screen. The top of the screen will be set * minimum of ten feet below the base of the clay layer. This

will allow for adequate separation from the finer sediments and quicker development. The sand pack

will be emplaced a minimum of five feet above the top of the screen. A #30 size clean sand will be used

Remedial Investigation/Fensibiliw Studv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 55

for the sand pack. The riser pipe will be stainless steel for the portion which is exposed within the sand

pack. The remainder of the four inch riser will be schedule 40 low carbon steel. The eight inch diameter

surface casing will be 0.28 inch thick low carbon steel. The remaining annular space above the sandpack

will be filled with portland cement Protective steel bumper posts will be emplaced around the well at

a two foot radius.

If the deep aquifer well is installed at the alternate location the materials will generally be the same

except the screen base will be 10 feet above the clay unit or 80 feet below the surface and the four inch

riser will be stainless steel for the entire submerged portion of the well. The riser above the water table

will be schedule 40 low carbon steel.

The development of the deep aquifer well will be accomplished by use of a three inch diameter

submersible pump which will be set at the screen interval. Development will be done by pumping and

surging to insure proper sand pack development Development will be complete when clean water is

observed. The development will be completed by PACE Laboratories a minimum of two days after

completion of the well and prior to the sampling of the wells.

6.13.4 Water Level Measurement

Water levels in the wells will be measured using a Slope Indicator Company water level indicator. This

is an electronic device which audibly indicates when the water table has been encountered. Water levels

will be measured as the borings are being completed. This information will be included on the soil boring

log. Additional water levels will be recorded following completion of the well, following development of

the well, prior to sampling, and prior to any field hydrologic parameter testing. Also the elevation of the

Mississippi River on the date of measurement will be obtained from (he nearest upstream and downstream

gauging stations. The top of the riser of each well will be surveyed and tied to the MGVD, utilizing

the same control points as the Topographic Survey, Section 1.3. The specific measuring point above

each riser will be permanently marked

6.1.3.5 Hvdrogeologte FteM Teats

Single well recovery tests will be conducted on each monitoring well. These tests are used in estimating

the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the material in which the well is screened. The test involves the

use of a "slug* of known dimensions which is placed into the well beneath the water table. This slug then


displaces water in the well which rises into the unsaturated screened zone (or casing, if submerged). The

ground water elevation is monitored by using a pressure transducer and data logger. This device collects

water elevation data at predetermined time intervals. The test is continued until the water level returns

to static conditions. The test is then repeated as the slug is removed from the well. A computer program

is then used to analyze the data and estimate the horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Thompson, 1987).

The slug will be constructed of a two or three inch diameter, four foot long capped stainless steel pipe.

The slug will be sterilized prior to use and between use in each well. Sterilization will be accomplished

by rinsing wuh alcohol scrubing with trisodium phosphate and water, and then rinsing with distilled water.

These tests will be completed following the second round of ground water monitor well sampling.

6.1.4 Sampling and Analysis of Soil and Ground Water

6.1.4.1 Soil Sampling and Analysis

The locations, type, intervals, and samplings methods for the collection of soil samples for chemical

analysis were discussed in Section 6.1.1 - Soils Investigation and are depicted in Figures 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, and

6-6. The locations, type, intervals, and sampling methods for collection of soil samples for physical

analyses were discussed in Section 6.1.1 - Soils Investigation and in Section 6.13 - Hydrogeologic

Investigation. This information is shown on Figure 6-5. Table 6-5 presents a summary of both the

chemical and physical soil samples which will be collected and analyzed for this investigation based on the

three scenarios presented. The numbers presented do not reflect additional sample analyses which will

be required for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC). The number and type of QA/QC samples

is referenced in Chapter 10 - Quality Assurance Project Plan.

6.1.4.2 Ground Water Sampling and Analysis

The sampling of each monitoring well will consist of purging the well while conducting a stabilization test

in accordance with the 1986 MPCA Guidelines for Ground Water Monitoring. The stabilization assures

that fresh ground water has recharged to the well The test consists of monitoring ground water as it is

removed from the well until the temperature, pH, and specific conductance have reached three consecutive

readings that are within ± 0.5 degrees cekhn, £ 0.1 pH units, and +. 5 percent, respectively. At this

point, the well has stabilized and the samples are collected as described in Section 2.6 - Sampling

Procedures. Samples will be collected using sterilized, dedicated, stainless steel bailers.


Ground water sampling will be done at two different times. The first round will be conducted a minimum

of two days following the completion of the last monitoring well. This two day time period allows for the

well to equilibrate and for the grout to begin to set All six shallow water table wells and the one deep

aquifer well will be sampled and submitted for chemical analysis for the TCL/TAL constituents. A

summary of the TCL/TAL constituents are presented in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. The second round of ground

water samples will be collected three days following the first round and will also be analyzed for the

TCL/TAL constituents.

6.1.5 Data Assessment (Validation^

The objective of this task is to review and assess field and laboratory data on the basises of quality and

meeting project objectives. Time included in this task for the subcontract laboratories is for data

validation. Delta will audit each laboratory as discussed in Section 2.1.2, Performance and System Audits.

Delta will audit all phases of Geld activity to ensure that field standard operating procedures are followed

and to document any problems.

The data base and investigation design will be evaluated against the project objectives and the appropriate

or relevant and applicable requirements. The evaluation will involve comparing the data generated during

the investigation with the data uses described in the QAPP Section 2.3.5, Project Objectives.

A document discussing data validation and the project evaluation will be developed and submitted separate

from the Remedial Investigation Report

6.1.6 Hvdrologic. Geologic and Hvdroteotogic Data Analysis

6.1.6.1 Data Presentation

The data generated during the remedial investigation work will be presented in several fashions. The first

will be in tabular form. This will include, but not be limited to, tables of PID readings taken from soil

samples during drilling, a table of all pertinent monitoring well elevation information, a table of all water

table elevations collected and river stage readings, a summary table of soil sample chemical results, a

summary table of soil sample physical results, and a summary table of ground water chemical analysis

results.


The second form of data presentation will be soil boring logs and monitoring well forms. The logs will

include all information collected during completion of the soil borings. This will include split spoon

sample number, depth, blow counts and N-value, soil classification and description, sample recovery and

any physical observations made during completion of the boring. The monitoring well forms will describe

the completed design-of the monitoring wells. These forms will be completed by the driller, with review

by the Delta geologist

Another form of presentation will be contoured data. This will include the contouring of water table

elevations and possibly concentrations of specific chemical parameters. The contoured water table

elevations will be used to determine ground water flow direction and hydraulic gradient. The chemical

concentration contours may by used to outline the presence of a plume of contamination.

The forms of data presentation discussed above will be used to present the pertinent information in a clear

and concise manner for the purpose of evaluation.

6.1.6.2 Data Evaluation

The data generated from the field investigation work will be used to evaluate the potential for migration

of any soil contamination identified on site or ground water contamination on site or immediately off site.

This evaluation will be based on soil or ground water characterization in five general areas. These include

soil chemistry, classification and distribution of geologic materials, ground water occurrence and flow

direction, ground water flow velocity, and ground water quality.

Soil Chemistry

The chemical and physical analyses to be performed on the on-site, near surface soil samples will supply

information on the type of contamination present, if any, and its horizontal and vertical extent on the site.

Analyses will also be performed to determine the teachability of the trace metals which have been

identified on site prior to the emergency removal actions. In addition to these chemical tests, physical

analyses of the soils will determine the vertical permeability of the soils under saturated conditions.

Using this information, the potential for downward migration of the remaining contamination to the

ground water may be evaluated.


Classification and Distribution of Geologic Materials

The geologic materials beneath the site will be determined through (he visual classification logging of soil

borings and by analyzing soil samples for grain size/hydrometer tests. By comparing the similarities or

variability from boring to boring across the site, the distribution of possible preferential pathways for

ground water flow as well as more impermeable zones can be delineated. This information will be used

in preparing geologic cross sections at the site. It will also be used in the evaluation of chemical ground

water data to explain the presence or absence of contamination in a given area.

Ground Water Occurrence and Flow Direction

The depth of the water table and the potentiometric elevation of the deeper aquifer will be determined

by measuring the elevation of the water in the wells.

The direction of ground water flow will be determined by using the measured ground water elevations of

the six water table monitoring wells and by using the Mississippi River elevation data. These elevations

will be used to produce a ground water table elevation contour map. The contour map will show lines

of equal ground water elevation that were generated using triangulation calculations. The horizontal flow

direction is then determined as perpendicular to the equal elevation lines from higher elevation

(upgradient) to lower elevation (downgradient). The average horizontal hydraulic gradient may by

calculated by taking the ground water elevation difference across the site divided by the horizontal distance

across the same interval Horizontal flow is considered likely due to the coarse nature of the sediments

believed to be present beneath the site.

The deep aquifer well along with its nested water table well will be used to determined if any vertical

component to ground water flow is present at the site. If the clay layer is present above SO t'eei in depth.

the well will determine if there is a vertical gradient either upward or downward between the sand units.

Also information from physical analyses of i&e clay will provide data on the vertical permeability through

the clay. This information will be used to evaluate the potential for migration through an aquitard to the

deeper aquifer system and potentially the Prairie du Chien • Jordan Aquifer.

If the deeper aquifer well is located above the clay layer, the deep well along with the water table well

will determine if there are vertical gradients witaia toe sand unit. Again, this information will determine

the potential for contaminant migration into the deeper. Prairie du Chien - Jordan Aquifer.


Ground Water Flow Velocity

The velocity of ground water flow will be evaluated using the horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimated

from single well recovery tests, along with the hydraulic gradient as measured from the ground water

elevation contour map, and the use of Darcy's Law. Darcy's Law takes the specific discharge of fluid

through a porous media divided by the effective porosity to yield the average water velocity. A range for

the porosity of the screened interval sediment will be obtained from available references. The aquifer

materials will have been classified during drilling and through the completion of a grain size/hydrometer

analysis for each screened interval. The calculated flow velocity may then be used to determine ground

water travel time. The flow velocity may only be valid for the given time frame observed, i.e. the date(s)

the water levels used to calculate gradients were taken. It is possible that hydraulic gradients may vary

seasonally or more often due to influences from the Mississippi River and the SL Anthony Lock and Dam.

At high river flow, the gradients would tend to decrease or flatten out, while at low flow conditions, the

gradients would be greater or steeper towards the river.

Ground water flow through the clay layer may also be calculated using the same procedure above and

information on the vertical permeability and the observed vertical gradient, if present

Ground Water Quality

Sampling of the ground water upgradient, downgradient, and directly beneath the site will help evaluate

any impact the site has had on ground water quality near the site.

The upgradieat well is important in that it '» typically used to establish the background water quality for

the area. Based on this water quality and knowledge of other potential contamination sources, flow

direction and velocity, and observed contamination on site, the existing effects and potential future effects

the contamination may have on environmental receptors can be evaluated.

6.1.7 Site Hazard Assessment

Delta will characterize the site hazards by dividing the assessment into three work items: a contamination

assessment, a public health assessment and an environmental assessment. The scope of each assessment

is described in greater detail below.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility S(udv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 61

6.1.7.1 Contamination Assessment

The purpose of the contamination assessment is to determine the severity of hazards associated with the

Union Scrap site. The assessment will include a description of the contaminants of concern.

Contaminants of concern will be chosen from the list of contaminants detected during the Rl sampling

activities. Factors such as the toxicity of the contaminant, its mobility in the environment, and the

quantity on site will determine whether the compound is chosen as a contaminant of concern.

The affected media will be characterized based on results from the RI sampling activities. Sampling

results will indicate the quantity of contaminants in the soil and ground water. No surface water exists

onsite. Transport mechanisms through the environmental media will be defined and, if appropriate,

impacts on physical features such as the Mississippi River may be evaluated through modeling. This

information will be useful in defining location-specific ARARs.

Finally, the contamination assessment will include recommendations regarding the need for further

remedial actions or study. These recommendations will be based on the type and quantity of hazardous

substances found onsite, and the potential for transport offsite, described in earlier sections of the

assessment.

6.1.7.2 Public Health AssessmentThe purpose of the public health assessment is to evaluate human exposure to contaminants from the site

in the absence of any remedial actions, and to delineate the health risks associated with these exposures.

Based on the chemical characterizations and transport information provided in the contamination

assessment, an estimation of the type and amount of chemicals released from the site will be provided in

the public health assessment The environmental fate of these contaminants will be described according

to the most recent, available published data on this topic.

The identity, size and character of human populations potentially exposed to contaminants from the site

will be described. The site is surrounded on three sides by industry and on the fourth by a city street and

freeway. The exposed populations could be workers at the surrounding businesses or citizens driving by

the site. Contaminant concentrations and migration pathways will help determine the exposed human

populations. These populations will be characterized more fully according to size and identity in this

section of the RI report


Contaminant concentrations and migration pathways will also help determine the manner of human contact

with any site contaminants. The type and severity of human health risks will be described based on the

toxicity of the contaminants and the potential for human contact with these contaminants. Human contact

may be restricted in certain instances. For example, fish consumption advisories on the Mississippi may

help limit the amount of any ingested contaminants. Fish advisories are currently posted for all species

from St. Anthony Falls to the Iowa Border.

6.1.7.3 Environmental Assessment

The purpose of the environmental assessment is to evaluate the effects on the environment around the

Union Scrap site, based on the potential for migration of contaminants from the site. The assessment will

include any chemicals that have already been released from the site, and will evaluate the potential for

future releases of contaminants to the surrounding environment.

Potential aquatic life or wildlife receptor populations will be characterized, based on contaminant

migration pathways and environmental fete data presented in previous sections. If possible, the chemical

concentration and exposure levels at the receptor populations will be defined. However, if the sampling

and environmental data are not sufficient, the concentrations and exposure levels will have to be described

in a qualitative or semi-quantitative manner. Based on this information, the method and significance of

potential exposures will be characterized.

6.1.8 TreatabtlitY Inveatigatlom

Treatability Investigations will be conducted as appropriate. The following activities will be conducted to

evaluate the need for treatabtlity testing:

• review existing site data.

• review available removal action data.

• review RI data.


Treatability Investigations will be proposed if the need is established during the review process to:

• Provide sufficient data to allow treatment alternatives to be fully developed and evaluated duringthe detailed analysts and to support the remedial design of a selected alternative

• Reduce cost and performance uncertainties for treatment alternatives to acceptable levels so aremedy can be selected.

If the need for Treatability Investigations is established, Delta may propose their delay u n t i l the Remedial

Design phase.

6.1.9 Remedial Investigation Report Format

A proposed RI report format is presented in Figure 6-9. This is the format suggested in the Multi-Site

II contract We will attempt to follow this format as closely as possible; however, project specific

modifications may be made in order to clearly and fully present RI results.

6.2 Feasibility Study Work Plan

Utilizing the conclusions of the Remedial Investigation, the Feasibility Study (FS) Report will be

formulated. The FS will be grouped into subtasks to allow for submittal to MPCA and EPA for review

and comment as they are completed. Subsections included in this task are:

• Introduction

• Identification and Screening of Feasible Technologies

• Development and Screening of Remedial Alternatives

• Detailed analysis of acceptable alternatives

The subtasks listed above will be discussed in detail

6.2.1 Introduction

Included in this subtask would be a description of the site, the site history, and a characterization and

identification of site conditions. Documents that will be referenced include the Evaluation Report and

Remedial Investigation Report for the site.

Remedial Investigmion/Feasibilitv Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 64

This section will focus on the characterization and quantification of on-site wastes and the risk assessment.

The risk assessment will include a determination of any completed and/or potential exposure pathways for

contaminant migration.

This information, along with public health/environmental concerns and contaminant-specific applicable or

relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), will be utilized in the formulation of remedial objectives.

The remedial objectives will be utilized in the following sections.

6.2.2 Identification and Screening of Feasible Technolouies

A master list of potentially feasible technologies will be developed. The list, which would address both

on-site and off-site remedies, will be screened with respect to site conditions, waste characteristics, and

technical requirements. Technologies will be grouped, where applicable, with respect to each medium of

concern..*

Technologies determined to be extremely difficult to implement, requiring unreasonable amounts of time

or reiving on insufficiently developed technologies will be eliminated or modified. Site conditions, waste

characteristics and/or other criteria (e.g. unreliability, operation and maintenance problems) that cause the

removal of technologies from the list will be given.

Additionally, ARARs will be utilized in determining whether a technology is feasible.

Similar processes for a given technology type will be evaluated to select a representative process. For

example, types of treatment of extracted ground water may include physical treatment. For physical

treatment of ground water the processes of air stripping (including multiple tower air stripping and hot

water air stripping) and carbon adsorption may be evaluated to determine the most representative process

for physical treatment Processes will be evaluated for effectiveness, implementability and cost (order of

magnitude).

From this list, potentially feasible alternatives will be developed by combining technologies.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. U-89-185Page 65

6.2.3 Development and Screening of Remedial Alternatives

The feasible technologies advanced from the screening of technologies will be incorporated as components

of remedial alternatives. For example, ground water extraction, ground water treatment and sanitary sewer

discharge would be three technologies which, together, would form one remedial alternative.

Remedial alternatives will be developed to effectuate a comprehensive site specific approach to the extent

it is feasible and appropriate. Categories of alternatives that will be included are the following:

• treatment alternatives for source control that would eliminate the need for long-term management(including monitoring)

• alternatives involving treatment as a principal element to reduce the toricity, mobility or volumeof wastes

• an alternative that involves containment of waste with little or no treatment, but providesprotection of human health and the environment primarily by preventing potential exposure orreducing the mobility of the waste

• a no action alternative

If the RI reveals that the ground water has been impacted, a limited number of remedial alternatives

within a performance range defined in terms of a remediation level within the risk range of 10"4 to 10'7 for maximum lifetime risk will be configured. Where feasible, one alternative will be formulated that

would restore ground water to a 10"* maximum lifetime risk level within five years.

The remedial alternatives developed following the guidelines of the previous subsection will be screened,

if deemed necessary to conserve dedicated resources, to reduce the number of alternatives to be analyzed

in detail by dismissing alternatives believed to be less promising.

Alternatives will be screened with respect to two categories: non-cost parameters and cost. Initially, the

alternative will be considered with respect to the non-cost parameters of environmental effects,

effectiveness and implementability. The parameters are described below.

Environmental Effects

inherently presents significant advene environmental effects

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Smdv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-39-185Pnje 66

Effectiveness

protection of human health and the environment

attainment of ARARs

reduction of loricity, mobility and volume (TMV) of hazardous contaminants

technical reliability including potential for failure and need for replacement

Implementabilitv

technical feasibility and availability

monitoring and maintenance requirements

administrative feasibility

time required to implement and achieve beneficial results

If it is determined that an individual alternative would not pose any adverse environmental effects, would

be effective and could be implemented, cost* would then be determined.

The focus of screening alternatives for cost is to evaluate whether the alternative provides cost-effective

remediation. Alternatives will be eliminated if costs are approximately a degree of magnitude higher than

other alternatives yet the alternative does not provide greater environmental benefits. Alternatives that

are more expensive but offer substantially greater environmental and health benefits will not be eliminated.

The categories of costs to be included are capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs. The types

of items which could be included under each category are listed as follows:

Capital Costs

relocation costs

costs of land acquisition or obtaining permanent easements

land and site development costs

costs of buildings and services

equipment costs

replacement costs

disposal costs

engineering expenses

construction expenses

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Stutlv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelia No. 11-89-185Page 67

state and local legal fees, licenses and permit costs

contingency allowances

startup and shake-down costs

costs of anticipated health and safety requirements during construction

Operation and Maintenance Costs

operating labor costs

maintenance materials and labor costs

costs of auxiliary materials and energy

purchased service costs

administrative costs

insurance, taxes, and licensing costs

a maintenance reserve and contingency fund

While there are many types of costs to be considered under each category for costs, the costs assigned

will be rough estimates obtained from applicable costing manuals (e.g. Means guide) and Delta's past

experiences. The objective during this phase of screening will be to estimate costs to achieve an accuracy

within -50% to +100%.

Following the completion of the estimates for costs, a present worth analysis will be performed to allow

comparison of costs incurred in the present or some time in the future. Present worth analyses will be

conducted based on a discount rates of 7% and 10%.

Through use of the screening process, the most promising alternatives as determined by (he previously

mentioned parameters will be forwarded for detailed analysis. The rationale for dismissing alternatives

will be included in the screening analysis. It is noted that the containment and no action alternatives will

be forwarded for detailed analysis regardless of the results of the screening process.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Siudv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 68

6.2.4 Detailed Analysis of Acceptable Alternatives

Detailed analysis of the alternatives advanced will consist of further definition of each alternative (e.g.

volumes or areas of contaminated media and integral technologies including performance requirements)

and determining the alternative's attainment of site specific remedial objectives and nine evaluation

criteria:

The nine evaluation criteria are as follows:

1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The degree that human health and the environment are protected will be evaluated. This maybe quantified in terms of percentages or in less specific terms such as 'partial* or 'complete.'

Existing and potential risks adequately eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment,engineering controls (e.g. containment) and/or institutional controls.

*.r

2. Compliance with ARARs

Identification of ARARs ancillary to each alternative and if in (act the ARARs can be attained.ARARs pertinent to each alternative advanced for detailed analysis would be requested from theMPCA and EPA prior to this phase of the FS. ARARs would likely include all applicableenvironmental statutes; guidance documents and advisories; standards for drinking water and airquality; health-based regulations; discharge limits; disposal considerations; and nonenvironmentalstate and local laws (e,g. building permits). Grounds for invoking a waiver would be described.Alternate Concentration Limits (ACL's) may also be applicable.

3. Long-Term Effectiveness

A determination of the magnitude of total residual risk (untreated waste and treatment residuals)anticipated to remain following implementation of the alternative.

The adequacy and suitability of controls (engineering and institutional) used to manage untreatedwater (if applicable) and treatment residuals.

Reliability of controls over time including potential need for replacement.

4. Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility and Volume (TMV>

The degree that the toxicity, mobility and volume (TMV) of hazardous contaminants will bereduced by implementation and operation of the alternative (e.g. percent of total, order ofmagnitude).


The treatment process chosen and the estimated total amount of contaminated media to betreated.

Amount of hazardous materials that will be destroyed or reduced including how contamination isaddressed through treatment.

Degree to which treatment is irreversible.

The type and quantity of residuals resulting from the chosen treatment process. Included will bea description of disposal of residuals, if applicable.

5. Short-Term Effectiveness

Any potential impacts on the surrounding community during the implementation of the remedialaction.

Any potential impacts on workers during the implementation of the remedial action and theeffectiveness and reliability of protective measures.

Potential impacts on workers during the operation of the remedial action and the effectivenessand reliability of protective measures.

Potential environmental impacts of remedial actions and the effectiveness and reliability ofmitigative measures.

Time required until protection is achieved.

6. Implementabllltv

a. Technical Feasibility

The difficulties and unknowns associated with each integral technology of the alternative.

The reliability of each technology associated with the alternative.

The ease of undertaking additional action, if required. Additionally, a description ofpossible additional actions that may be required.

b. Administrative Feasibility.

Identification of approvals and permits required to implement the alternative. Additionally,a description of the procedures and time required to obtain the required approvals andpermits.

T>,e ste"" «v>"'i.vpfi fo coordinnte with other aoencies nnd associated time reauirements.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumeniUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 70

c. Availability of Services and Materials

Identification of permitted facilities including treatment, storage or disposal capacity.

A determination of the existence of multiple vendors for a particular product or service.

The availability of needed equipment and specialists.

.The timing or scheduling of technology availability.

7. Costs

Capital (detailed in section 6.23)

Operation and maintenance (detailed in section 6.2.3)

Present worth (detailed in section 6.23)

8. Agency Acceptance

A determination of whether the applicable agencies scoping the work activities for the site wouldaccept the alternative. This determination would be made with consideration given to attainmentof remedial objectives and a review of the previously mentioned evaluation criteria.

9. Community Acceptance

A determination of whether the alternative would be accepted by the community.

The alternatives will then be compared to provide a performance assessment. Factors to be utilized in

the comparison of the alternatives will be the remedial objectives and the criteria detailed in the previous

section. The results of this subtask will be tabulated. From this analysis, a preferred alternative or group

of alternatives will be chosen.

The chosen alternative or group of alternatives will meet the following four requirements:

The alternative(s) is protective of human health and the environment.

The alternative(s) attains ARARs identified for the site. It is noted that the preferred remedy

may be one that does not attain ARARs if attainment results in greater risk to human health and

the environment, is technically impractible, or is not cost-effective when considering that Superfund

monies may be better spent on other sites posing a threat to human health and the environment.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MumeaocaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 71

The alternative(s) is cost-effective, accomplishing a level of protection that can not be achieved

by less costly methods.

The alternative(s) utilizes treatment technologies and permanent solutions to the maximum extent

practicable as determined by technological feasibility, availability and cost effectiveness.

The preferred alternative(s) will, if feasible, involve treatment that significantly reduces the toxicity,

mobility and volume of wastes on-site and minimizes the need for long term management of residuals.

Included in this subtask will be a recommendations section which will list and describe the preferred

alternative(s) determined from the feasibility study. Included (if applicable) will be a description of the

following:

• A description of the appropriate treatment and disposal technologies.

• A description of special engineering considerations needed for implementation (e.g. additional datacollection from a pilot study).

• A description of operation, maintenance and monitoring requirements.

• A description of off-site disposal requirements along with transportation considerations.

• A description of temporary storage requirements.

• A description of health and safety requirements for both on-site and off-site activities.

• A description of on-site or off-site treatment /disposal facilities. This review will focus oncompliance with applicable requriemeats of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA), the MPCA hazardous waste rules, and U.S. and Minnesota Department of Transportationrules.

• An environmental assessment that includes an evaluation of environmental effects attendant toeach alternative, an analysis of mitigating measures of the adverse environmental effects, adescription of physical and/or legal constraints and a description of federal and state regulatoryrequirements.

• A detailed cost analysis that includes a total cost (present worth of all capital costs and operationand maintenance costs) and an equivalent annual cost (determined from the total cost andestimated time period required for remediation).

Remeciinl Investigation/Feasihiliiv Study Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 72

6.2-5 Feasibility Study Report Format

A proposed FS Report format is presented in Figure 6-10. This is the format suggested in the Multi-

Site II Contract. We will attempt to follow this format at closely as possible; however, project specific

modifications may be made in order to clearly and .fully present FS results.


7.0 PAYMENT SCHEDULE

This payment schedule is for completion of RI Geld work and RI/FS reports for the Union Scrap site at

1608 Washington Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Table 7-1 details the cost estimate and Figure

7-1 shows Delta's project team.

We will be subcontracting work with PACE Laboratories, Inc., Braun Engineering, Inc. a well drilling

firm, a geotechnical drilling firm and a security subcontractor. These subcontractors are indicated on

Table 7-1.

Services, materials, and equipment are either provided by Delta or rented from local vendors. Any usable,

purchased materials will be turned over to MPCA following project completion.

The estimated cost for completing the Union Scrap RI/FS is 5264,096.26. The proposed budget, including

a 35% contingency, is 5356,529.95. The contingency includes money for potential disposal of hazardous

drill cuttings from on-site boreholes.

The following is a list of key assumptions involved in estimating the level of effort.

• Topographic Survey - Level of effort assumes an on-site topographic survey which provides a sitemap with 0.5 foot contour interval Also included is an area survey (two block radius) generatinga map of businesses, other potential sources and any area receptors.

• On-site Soil Sampling - This task assumes collection of three chemical and four physical samplesfrom 12 on-site soil borings which extend to approximately 15 feet below land surface. Analyticalcosts are for laboratory analysis of soil samples as outlined in Section 6.1.1.3, Soil SamplingMethods and Intervals.

• Hydrogeotogic Investigation - This task assumes installation of six water table monitoring wells,and one deep aquifer monitoring wett. Level of effort also includes sampling at specified intervalsfor stratigraphic definition and soil sample collection for grain size, hydrometer, and permeabilitytesting. Analytical costs are for soils laboratory work.

• Monitoring Well Survey - Level of effort for this task involves a survey of site wells, water levelmeasurements and slug testing of wells for infield permeability information.

• Ground Water Sampling and Analyses • This task assumes two rounds of ground water samplingand analyses by PACE Laboratories as well as oversight of PACE'S Geld activities by Delta.


• Security and Health and Safety - The level of effort for this task assumes health :md safetymeetings prior to work start up, daily health and safety audits, equipment available for Level Dand, as needed, Level C protection and, all equipment rentals or purchases necessary to provideon-site shelter and decontamination facilities. Security efforts involve cordoning off the site todiscourage entry and posting of a night security guard. Night time security will be subcontracted.

• Data Assessment - The level of effort included in data assessment involves field and laboratoryquality control audits, data validation, assessment of the data and providing a report on dataassessment for the MPCA and EPA.

• Site Hazard Assessment - This task involves all the elements of the Contamination, Public Healthand Environmental Assessments outlined in Section 6.1.7, Site Hazard Assessment.

• Treatability Investigation Evaluation - This task entails evaluation of RI data for the purposes ofdetermining if any treatability investigations are appropriate, what they would be and when theywould be performed.

• RI Report Preparation Draft/Final • This task includes the time and expenses for RI Reportpreparation and review meetings held to discuss various portions of the report. It also includesan estimate of the amount of time required to incorporate comments into the text, revise tablesand figures, and prepare a revised document Direct expenses are for travel to MPCA.

• FS Report Preparation Draft/Final - This ta»k includes the n'me and expenses for FS Reportpreparation and review meetings held to discuss various portions of the report. It also includesan estimate of the amount of time required to incorporate comments into the text, revise tablesand figures, and prepare a revised document Direct expenses are for travel to MPCA.


8.0 TIME SCHEDULE

Work activities will commence as soon as possible on issuance of the Work Order. Completion of the

RI field work is anticipated to require two weeks. Boring and well installation and soil sampling is

scheduled for week one and ground water sampling, well survey, and slug testing for week two.

Physical and chemical soil and ground water analyses should be completed by the end of week three.

Weeks three through five will be dedicated to preparation of the RI and FS reports. Draft reports are

anticipated for week five and final reports in week nine following a three week public comment period.

A time logic schedule has been developed and is included as Figure 8-1. Given the compressed time

schedule, it is imperative that the USEPA, MPCA, and Delta meet individual preparation and review

times. Delta cannot be accountable for MPCA or EPA activities which extend the proposed time

schedule.


9.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN

Completion of the Union Scrnn RTTS work can be cnm^^r] in x t imely, cost effective manner hv

committing adequate resources to the project Delta is prepared to do this. Additionally, planning and

maintaining open and frequent communication among MPCA, EPA, Delta, and subcontractor personnel

will be important for efficient project progress and completion.

To accomplish the activities presented in this Support Document, Delta will commence work immediately

upon RI/FS Support Document approval by the State's Authorized Agent and issuance of a Work Order.

RI field activities will begin as soon as possible following authorization. We anticipate five to six working

days to complete the on-site soils investigation and the hydrogeologic investigation. This assumes no major

set backs in the field. Following well installation and development, two rounds of ground water samples

will be collected one week apart.

One week turn around is expected for all sample analytical results. This allows Data Assessment to begin

during week 3 and Site Hazard Assessment and Evaluation of Treaiability Investigations to begin during

the fourth week following authorization. Portions of the RI and FS Reports will be submitted individually

in draft form as soon as they are completed. As MPCA and EPA comments are returned they will by

incorporated and the draft RI and FS Reports compiled. The draft RI report is scheduled to be available

for MPCA and EPA review early in week five and the draft FS report later the same week. The Final

RI and FS reports are scheduled for completion as soon as the comments can be incorporated following

the record of decision public comment period in September 1989.

This compressed schedule will be best accomplished through frequent meetings and updates of MPCA and

EPA personnel by Delta. We propose a schedule of weekly meetings at MPCA offices. The meetings

are proposed for Thursday afternoons and would likely last one to two hours. They are proposed for later

in the week so that week's progress can be presented, any unusual problems discussed and the next week's

planned activities presented. We feel these meetings can provide the MPCA and EPA with timely

information so the project can remain on course and on time.

Delta will inform MPCA and EPA prior to performing Geld activities and we encourage both agencies

to come on site during investigative and sampling activities.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Scudv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyMinneapolis, MinoeiotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 77

10.0 WORK PRODUCTS

First deliverable: Data Assessment (Validation) Report

Delta proposes to submit draft portions of the following RI/FS reports:

RI Report FS Report

Second deliverable:

Third deliverable:

Fourth deliverable:

IntroductionStudy Area Investigation

Physical Characteristics of theStudy AreaNature and Extent ofContaminationContaminant Fate and TransportBaseline Risk AssessmentSummary and Conclusions

Draft RI Report (all chapters)

Final RI Report

IntroductionIdentification and Screening ofTechnologiesDevelopment and Screening of Alternatives

Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Draft FS Report (all chapters)

Final FS Report

Two copies and one photo-ready copy of all documents will be submitted. As comments are received,

revisions will be made and the final report submitted.

Remedial Tnvesiigation/Fensibilitv Studv Support DocumentUnion Scrap Iron and Moial CompanyMinneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185Page 78

11.0 LIST OF REFERENCES

Braun Environmental Laboratories, 1986, Soil Borings and Analysis Union Scrap Yard, Minneapolis,Minnesota, October 1986.

Horn, M.A., 1983, Ground Water Use Trends in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, 1880 -1980, United States Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 83-4033.

International Technology Corporation, 1988, Preliminary Draft RI/FS Work Plan, Union ScrapInvestigation, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 1988

Jirsa, M.A., B.M. Olsen, B.A. Bloomgren, 1986, Bedrock Geologic Map of the Seven County Twin CitiesMetropolitan Area, Minnesota, Minnesota Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Map Series, M-55.

Meyer, G.N., 1985, Quaternary Geologic Map of the Minneapolis-SL Paul Urban Area, Minnesota,Minnesota Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map Series, M-54.

Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, 1989, 1987 River Quality Data Report, Quality ControlDepartment Report No. QC-87-154.

Norvitch, R.F., Ross, T.G., Brietkrietz, A., 1973, Water Resources Outlook for the Minneapolis-SL PaulMetropolitan Area, United States Geological Survey and Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area.

Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1985, Site Assessment for Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company, Minneapolis,Minnesota, May 1985.

Sabel, G., Porcher, E., 1987, Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program: An Appraisal of Minnesota'sGround Water Quality, 1987, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Soil Exploration Company, 1980, Report of Soil Borings, Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company, Plymouthand Washington Avenue sites, August I960.

Thompson, D.B., 1987, A microcomputer program for interpreting time lag permeability tests. GroundWater. V 25, No. 2.

Twin City Testing and Engineering Laboratory, 1980, Report of Chemical Analysis, Union Scrap Iron andMetal Company, October 1980.

c

i

TABLE 1-1

Ambient Trace Metals Concentrationsin Prairie do Cbfen • Jordan & Surflcial

Sand Aquifers in MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185

Prairie du Chien • Jordan

Mean

Std Dev.

Maximum

Minimum

Samples

Mean

Std Dev.

Maximum

Minimum

Samples

Eb

5.99

27.5

280

0.10

107

3.22

6.34

44

0.20

90

Cd

0.07

0.09

0.50

0.01

88

0.34

234

21

0.01

80

Cr

134

1.08

8

0.20

50

Surfldal

133

134

8

0.40

44

As

3.39

2.19

8

1.00

9

Sands

7.07

11.18

48

1.00

18

Nl

4.59

6.07

32

1.00

26

5.04

5.72

22

1.00

21

Zn

137.60

288.51

2,100

0.20

118

102.00

165.64

720

0.40

101

Cu

22.92

57.40

340

0.30

88

27.67

44.60

2A)

• 0.50

69

All values given as micrograms per liter (ug/1)Std Dev. - Standard DeviationSamples include the total number of analyse! used in the statistical analysis.

Source: Sabel, G., Porcher, E., 1987, Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program: An Appraisal ofMinnesota's Ground Quality, 1987. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

khv.719

TABLE 1-2

1987 Concentrations of Trace Metals in theMississippi River at St Anthony Lock and Dam

Delta No. 11-89-185

Parameter

PbCdCr, totalAsNiZnCu

Median

1.01.252.5

<1.0 - 3.5<0.1 - 0.2<1.0 - 1.9<1.0 - 4.2<1.0 - 1.6<5 - 301.1 - 2.8

Aquatic Life"Chronic Criteria

Guidelines

8.71.2503013815514

* = All values listed as micrograms per liter (ug/1)Samples collected bi-monthly, year rounda = Minnesota Rules 7050, based on 170 mg/I CaCO3 hardness, Mississippi River above St Anthony Falls.

Source: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, 1989, 1987 River Quality Data Report, Quality ControlDepartment Report No. QC-87-154

TABLE 1-3

Historical Summary of Area Businesses*1600 and 1500 Blocks of Washington Avenue North

Minneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11-89-185

Yearfsl Address Business

1930 1514 Residence1529 Sussman's Auto Parts1601 B-B Fuel Company1616 Minneapolis Auto Parts Company (ret)1629 Cleaners Equipment Supply Company

1937 1500 Vacant1514 Residence1529 Sussman's Truck and Auto Pans1601 B-B Fuel Company1608 Midwest Auto Wrecking1616 Minneapolis Auto Parts1629 Vacant

1946 1500 Vacant1514 Residence1529 Sussman's Auto Parts1601 B-B Fuel Company1608 Residence1616 Minneapolis Auto Parts1622 Old Colony Gas & Oil1629 Great Western Laboratories (soap mfrs)

1952 1500 Nate's Auto Parts (ret)1514 Residence1529 Sussman Auto Parts (wreckers)1601 Vacant1608 Arrow Auto Parts1616 Minneapolis Auto Parts Company (ret)1622 Old Colony Gas & Oil (station)1629 Great Western Laboratories (soap mfrs)

1957 1500 Nate's Auto Parts (ret)1514 Residence1529 Sussman Auto Parts (wreckers)1600-08 Speed Gems, a Division of Arrow Auto Parts Co.1601-23 Minneapolis Auto Parts Company (yds)1616 Minneapolis Auto Parts Company (ret)1624 Old Colony Gas & Oil Company (station)1629 Great Western Laboratories (soap mfrs)

1962 1500 Nate's Auto Parts (ret)1514 Residence1529 Sussman Auto Parts (wreckers)1601-23 Minneapolis Auto Parts (yds)1608 Metal Tool & Equipment Company (mill sups whol)

Alliance Steel Service Company (junk dealers)Willman & Son Trucking Company

1616 Minnapolis Auto Parts Company (ret)1624 Old Colony Gas & Oil Company (station)1629 Great Western Laboratories (soap mfrs)

1966-67 1500 Nate's Auto Parts (ret)1514 Vacant1529 Lisbon Truck Sales (used)1600 Auto Parts Inc. (used)1601 Minneapolis Auto Parts Company (yd)1608 Vacant1616 Minneapolis Auto Parts Company (ret)1624 Old Colony Gas & Oil Company (station)1629 Advance Rubber Company (mfrs)

1972 1500 Vacant1514 Vacant1529 Lisbon Truck Sales (used)1600 United Auto Parts, Inc. (stge)1601 United Auto Parts, Inc. (yd)1616 Mapco Minneapolis Auto Parts, Inc. (ret)1617 Mapco Minneapolis Auto Parts, Inc. (yd)1624 Old Colony Gas & Oil Company (staiion)1629 Advance Rubber Company (mfrs)

1976 1529 . Lisbon Truck Sales (used)1600 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (stge)1601 United Auto Parts, Ins. (yd)1616 Mapco Minneapolis Auto Parts, Inc. (ret)1617 Mapco Minneapolis Auto Paris, Inc. (yd)1624 Old Colony Gas & Oil Company1629 Advance Rubber Company (mfrs)

1977 1500 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (stge)1514 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (stge)1529 Lisbon Truck Sales (used)1600 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (stge)1617 Mapco Minneapolis Auto Parts, Inc. (yd)1624 Vacant1629 Advance Rubber Company (mfrs)

1981-82 1500 Union Scrap Iron and Meial Company (stge)1514 Union Scrap Iron and Meial Company (stge)1600 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (sige)1616 Vacant1617 Mapco Minneapolis Auto Parts, Inc. (yd)1624 Old Colony Gas & Oil Company (station)

1987 1500 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (stge)1514 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (sige)1600 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (stge)1616 Vacant1624 E-Z Stop - Crown Oil (station)

1989 1500 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (stge)1514 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (sige)1600 Union Scrap Iron and Metal Company (stge)1624 E-Z Stop - Crown Oil (station)

* Information obtained from Polk Directories; City of Minneapolis, for years listed above.

Even numbered addresses are on the east side of Washington Avenue North; odd numbered addresses are on thewest side.

klw.706

TABLE 1-4

Summary of Local Well Logs Vicinity of Union Scrap SiteMinneapolis, Minnesota

Delta No. 11-89-185

UniqueWell #

151591151600200255200265200266200267200268200269200270200271200348200349200350200353200588200589200590200593200609200610200611200612200615200616223722223995226101232301234562236155240632241275429308

T/R/S

29-24-22 ABBC-24-24-22 ABBC-29-24-10 DDBDBA29-24-14 BBBBAC29-24-14 BDBCB-29-24-15 ADDCBD29-24-15 ADCDCB29-24-15 ADCDBD29-24-15 BCBCCC29-24-15 CAACCB29-24-22 BCBBAA29-24-22 BBCDDD29-24-22 BBBDDB29-24-22 CACBCB29-24-10 DCBABA29-24-10 CCBACD29-24-15 BDBDCD29-24-16 BADBAB29-24-14 DDCBCD29-24-15 CDCBCA29-24-15 BCCDAA29-24-15 DADDDA29-24-22 ABCCBD29-24-22 DBBD--29-24-15 BDBDBB29-24-22 BAAABD29-24-16 CABD-29-24-11 CCCCDC29-24-15 ADBDBB29-24-09 DCDCCA29-24-10 DDBBDC29-24-22 CAABBB29-24-22 CAAB-

Date

19861986NA19341948193819621951NA195719591969NA195219301909NA1912NANANA19551932NA1972190119241933NANANA1939NA

BewtfonMGVP

827827823834835815810812842825830835835845812871830895838828834815835840834835869834818890826820822

i Depth(Feet)

3803806756503177009517096751313753642233776082107102321318536015238330793033021862630540957530154

DepthTo Water

5140NANA604352NANA1560497877NA50NA71NANANA4044NA4514353548NA172312

ElevationWater

776787NANA775772758NANA810760791757768NANA821824NANANA775791NA790821799799770NA809797798

Developedfrom

Ostp-OpdcOpdc-OjdnUnknownOpdc-CjdnOpdc-CjdnOpdc-CmtsCmtsOpdc-CmisOpdcPLTOpdc-CjdnOpdc-CjdnPLTUnknownUnknownOstp-OpdcUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownCmtsOstp-CjdnOstp-OpdcUnknownOpdcOpdc-CjdnUnknownOpdc-CjdnPLT

MGVD - Mean Geodedic Vertical DatumT/R/S • Township, Range, SectionNA • Information not availableOstp - Ordovician St. Peter SandstoneOpdc - Ordovician Prairie du Chien GroupOdjdn - Ordovician Jordan SandstoneCmts - Cambrian ML Simon SandstonePUTS • Unconsolidated Sands and GravebSource: Minnesota Geological Survey - Well Log Data Base

TABLE 1-5

Standard*, Criteria, and Guideline* 10 bt ConiUeradu Poumtal AppUcaMa or Krlennl MM) Appropriate ••quIrnMnU (ARARj)

Safe Drtaklni* Safe Drlnklne* MlnoeMta*Water Act Water Act tacoimmendedPrimary Frapoied Allowable

Maximum Maximum UralU farContaminant Coatamlnanl Drlnkmf

Level Lent WHar

Cfcu WMW Act*Water QotHlf Crtlertu

llunu llnllh\Viitr Hd Ftok ftah Conjumptkm

Cmaoournl

Aatimony

Anaaic

Barium

CHalan

dMomM**,total

**rl™

Uad

Mercury

Nickel

PCBi

fMCL>im/L

50

to*

10

90

.

50

2

•

.

/kfCMutfl.

•

-

sxnos

MO

-

2

-

(U

iKADanff.

50

1,500

5

120

1JOO

20

1.1

150

0.05

C«iiiamDil(in.uafL

101

30

1000

U

»

14

17

0.012

13S

0.00008'

Only uafL

631

30

none

U

10

14

ft

0.012

213

0.00008*

Office of DitoUof Wiltr ttaMt AdrtHriu*

I day, 10 KG 10 <l»j, 10 KG Chronic, 10KG 70 KG LlhlliM TO KGChild, at/1. ChHd. atfl Olid, uaj. Adult »«H, Adult »«/L

UOO

S

Nailwul AiaMcni4

Air Quulllj Slamlurdot/m}

MOO 240

1.000

1.1

150

») 40 CFR 141 and 143b) FR Miy 22. 1989. Vol. 54. No. 97c) MiniKtoU fUcommeadcd AlhxwM* Umiu (be Dn«b«| Wicer. MlwMMU DepifUMai of Halib. Reteue No,

2, November 19Md) Minnoou R«k» 7010, bMetf o» 170 i»lft CaCO3 hudaect. Mbdulppl River •beve SL Anthony Fills.e) Health Advteriu (ot LtfkMwiU ud Sevea laotpnio, U3. EPA Offlca of Dnnkiag Water, PM7-231536, March

19S7• 10-5 Cucar lUk

TABLE 3-1

Chemical

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Cadmium

Chromium

Exposure Limits* 1DLH1

0.5 mg/M3 (88 PEL) 80 mg/M3

0.5 mg/M3 (8-9) TLV

0.5 mg/M3 (88 PEL) Carcinogen02 mg/M3 (8-9 TLV)

0.5 mg/M3 (88 PEL) 250 mg/M3

0.2 mg/M3 (8-9 TLV)

0.2 mg/M3 (88 PEL) Carcinogen0.01 mg/M3 (89 TLV)

0.5 mg/M3 (88 PEL) 30 mg/M3

0.5 mg/M3 (8-9 TLV)

Health AnalysisUnion Scrap Site


Route of Entry* Symptoms*

inhalationcontact

inhalation,absorption,contact, ingestion

inhalation,ingestion, contact

inhalation,ingestion

inhalation,ingestion

skin, nose, throat, and mouth irritation,cough, dizziness, headache, nausea,vomiting, diarrhea, cramps, insomnia,anorexia, inability to smell, cardiacsensitization

ulceration of nasal septum,dermatitis, gastrointestinal disturbances,peripheral neuropathy, respiratoryirritation, hyperpigmentation of skin.Carcinogenic

upper respiratory tract irritation,gastrointestinal tract irritation, musclespasms, slow pulse, eye irritation, skinburns

pulmonary edema, dyspnea, cough, tightchest, substernal pain, headache, chills,muscle aches, nausea, diarrhea,emphysema, mild anemia. Carcinogenic

histologic fibrosis of the lungs.Carcinogenic

ChtmlcalPropcrties

P.P.:?V.P.: approx. 0Sol: insoluble

properties varydepending on specificcompound

properties varydepending on specificcompound

properties varydepending on specificcompounds

properties varydepending on thespecific compound

Table 3-1 ContinuedPage 2Delta No. 11-89-185

Chemical

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

PCBs

Exposure Limits

0.15mg/M3(8-9TLV)

0.1 mg/M3 (88 PEL)0.01 mg/M3 (8-9 TLV)

1 mg/M3 (8-9 TLV)

0.5 mg/M3 (8-9 TLV)

IDLH Route of Entrr

Not assigned inhalation,ingestion, contact

28 mg/M3 inhalation,absorption, contact

Carcinogen inhalation,ingestion, contact

Carcinogen inhalation,absorption,ingestion, contact

Symptoms

lassitude, insomnia, pallor, anorexia, lowweight, malnutrition, constipation,abdominal pain, collie, anemia, tremorsparalysis of the wrist

cough, dyspnea, bronchial pneumonia,tremor, insomnia, irritability, indecision,headache, fatigue, weakness, eye andskin irritation

dermal sensitivity, allergic asthma, nasalcavities, pneumonitis. Carcinogenic

eye irritation, acneform dermatitis,jaundice, dark urine. Carcinogenic

Chemical Properties


V.P.: 0.0012


P.P.: 349° FV.P.: 0.001 mmSol.: insoluble

IDLH:P.P.:V.P.:Sol:PEL-TLV:a _

b _

Immediately Dangerous to Life and HealthFlash PointVapor PressureSolubility in WaterPermissible Exposure LimitThreshold Limit ValueTLVs from the American .Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1988

1989. PELs from 29 CFR 1910.100 subparl 2, July 1, 19X8.from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' N1OSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. rSeplcmber 1985.

klw.719

TABLE 6-1

Target Compound List (TCL)Union Scrap


Volatile

ChloromethaneBromomethaneVinyl chlorideChloroethaneMethylene chloride

AcetoneCarbon disulfide1,1 • Dichloroethene1.1 - Dichloroethane1.2 - Dichloroethene (total)

Chloroform1,2 - Dichloroethane2 - Butanone1.1.1 - TrichloroethaneCarbon Tetrachloride

Vinyl acetateBromodichloromethane1,2 • Dichloropropanecis - 13 - DicbloropropeneTrichloroethene

Dibromochloromethane1.1.2 • TrichloroethaneBenzenetrans - 13 • DichloropropeneBromoform

4 • Methyl 1 - 2 - pentanone2 - HexanoneTetrachloroetheneToluene1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane

ChlorobenzeneEthyl benzeneStyreneXylenes (Total)

Contract Required Detection Limit

CAS Number \\bfcrufll Low Soil ug/kg

74-87-374-83-975-01-475-00-375-09-2

67-64-175-15-075-35-475-34-3540-59-0

67-66-3107-06-278-93-371-55-656-23-5

108-05-475-27-478-87-510061-01-579-01-6

124-48-179-00-571-43-210061-02-675-25-2

108-10-1591-78-6127-18-4108-88-379-34-5

108-90-7100-41-4100-42-51330-20-7

101010105

105555

551055

105555

55555

1010555

5555

101010105

105555

551055

105555

55555

1010555

5555

Table 6-1 ContinuedPage 2Delta No. 11-89-185

Semlvolatiles

Phenolbis (2-Chloroethyl) ether2 • Chlorophenol13 - Dichlorobenzene1,4 - Dichlorobenzene

Benzyl alcohol1,2 - Dichlorobenzene2 - Methylphenolbis (2 - Chloroisopropyl) ether4 - Methylphenol

N - Nitroso-di-n- dipropylamineHexachloroethaneNitrobenzeneIsophorone2 - Nitrophenol

2,4 - DimethylphenolBenzole acidbis (2 - Chloroethoxy) methane2,4 - Dichlorophenol1.2.4 - Trichlorobenzene

Naphthalene4 - ChloroanilineHexachlorobutadiene4 - CbJoro - 3 - methylphenol(para-chloro-meta-cresol)2 - Methylnaphtnalene

Hexachlorocycloentadiene2,4,6 - Trichlorophenol2.4.5 - Trichlorophenol2 - Chloronaphthalene2 - Nitroaniline

DimethylphthalateAcenaphtylene2,6 - Dinitrotoluene3 - NitroanilineAcenaphthene

Contract Required Detection LimitCAS Number W*r ugl Low Soil uiL/ki-

108-95-2111-44-495-57-8541-73-1106-46-7

100-51-695-50-195-48-7108-60-1106-44-5

621-64-767-72-198-95-378-59-188-75-5

105-67-965-85-0111-91-1120-83-2120-82-1

91-20-3106-47-887-68-359-50-7

91-57-6

77-47-488-06-295-95-491-58-788-74-4

131-11-3208-96-8606-20-299-09-283-32-9

1010101010

1010101010

1010101010

1050101010

10101010

10

1010501050

1010105010

330330330330330

330330330330330

330330330330330

3301600330330

330330330330

330

33033016003301600

3303303301600330

Table 6-1 ContinuedPage3Delta No. 11-89-185

Semlvolatiles

2,4 - Dinitrophenol4 - NitrophenolDibenzofuran2,4 - DinitrotolueneDiethylphthalate

4 - Chlorophenyl - phenyl etherFluorene4 - Nitroaniline4,6 - Dinitro - 2 - methylphenolN - Nitrosodipbenylamine

4 - Bromophenyl - phenyietherHexachlorobenzenePentachlorophenolPhenanthreneAnthracene

Di - n - ButylphthalateFluoranthenePyreneBufylbenTvlphthalate33' - Dichlorobenzidine

Benzo(a)anthraceneChrysenebis (2 - Ethylhexyl) phthalateDi - n - octylphthalateBenzo (b) fluorantbene

Benzo (k) fluorantheneBenzo (a) pyreneIndeno (1,2\3 - cd) pyreneDibenz (a,h) anthraceneBenzo (g4U) perylene

Pestiddes/PCBs

Aroclor - 1016Aroclor - 1221Aroclor - 1232Aroclor - 1242Aroclor - 1248

Aroclor - 1254Aroclor - 1260

Contract Required Detection LimitCAS Number Wt*r upl Low Soil ug/ky

51-28-5100-02-7132-64-9121-14-284-66-2

7005-72-386-73-7100-01-6534-52-186-30-6

101-55-3118-74-187-86-585-01-8120-12-7

84-74-2206-44-0129-00-085-68-791-94-1

56-55-3218-01-9117-81-7117-84-0205-99-2

207-08-950-32-8193-39-553-70-3191-24-2

12674-11-211104-28-211141-16-553469-21-912672-29-6

11097-69-111096-82-5

5050101010

1010505010

1010501010

1010101020

1010101010

1010101010

0.50.50.50.50.5

1.01.0

16001600330330330

33033016001600330

3303301600330330

330330330330660

330330330330330

330330330330330

80.080.080.080.080.0

160.0160.0

Table 6.2

Analyte

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumVanadiumZincCyanide

Target Analyte List for Inorganics (TAL)UokNi Scrap

Minneapolis, MinnesotaDelta No. 11.89-185

Contract Required Detection Limit fug/H*

2006010

20055

50001050251005

5000150.240

5000510

500010502010

Total metals concentrations in soil samples calculated from aqueous extract concentration and will bereported in mg/Kg.

TABLE 6-3

Short List Target Compounds for Soil SamplesUnion Scrap


Orgnnics • PCBsContract Required

Quantification Limits

Aroclor - 1016Aroclor - 1221Aroclor - 1232Aroclor - 1242Aroclor - 1248Aroclor - 1254Aroclor - 1260

Inorganic - Metals

ArsenicCadmiumChromium

CopperLead

MercuryNickel

ug/kg

80.080.080.080.080.0160.0160.0

ug/I*

10510255

0.240

* « Qualification limits for Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxitity test. Total metals concentrations and soilsamples calculated from aqueous extract concentration and will be reported in mg/Kg.

TABLE 6-4

Summary of SoH Borings and Monitoring WellsUnion Scrap


If clay is present If clay is present If clay not presentBORINGS above 80* between 80 and 100* above 100'

Depth KO. Footatt N_o. Footaite No. Footage•

15 feet - 12 180 feet 12 180 feet 12 180 feei45 feet 6 270 feet 6 270 feet 6 270 feet100 feet 3 300 feet 3 300 feet 1 100 feetbedrock 1 220 feet 1 220 feet 1 220 feetDeep Well 1 165 feet 1 80 feet 1 80 feet

MONITORING WELLS

Water Table4 5 feet 6 6 6

Deep Aquifer

Below Clay165 feet 1

Above Clay80 feet - 1 !

klw.713

TABLE 6-S

Summary of Soil Ground Water Samples and AnalysesUnion Scrap


SOIL SAMPLES

TCL/TAL

Short List

PhysicalVerticalPermeability

Soil Moisture

Grain Size/Hydrometer

If clay presentabove 80*

10

26

6

5

14

If clay presentbetween 80 and 100'

10

26

5

5

11

If clay notabove

10

26

5

5

11

present100'

GROUND WATERSAMPLES

Round 1 Round II

TCL/TAL 7 7

These numbers do not reflect additional samples which will be required for Quality Assurance And QualityControl. The QA/QC samples and numbers are discussed in Chapter 2.0 - Quality Assurance Project Plan.

klw.713

• UK 1 » IMK 4 • UK 1 • IMK « • IMK 7 • UK I • TDK * • UK M • t Mil 11 -• * * tn*4 • o • • Tr*M*klllly • • «• tut• t»»niil«iU • talurlnt • UMW »*tto» • t*wlty Mil • t.t« • Mu fxul* • InmtlfMUn • II i»»ii I *n». • It •<*»rt m*. " IMM.1

^ HH * lix«»«l«»»l«n • y»U tia^r • m* <ml«M» ••Mitt «n4 tafttr* MMMBM * - 11 • iwliMlw • *•», / rlnul • »r«f» / MnM o.

M T f . « . . • . « . . . . « .

*VMM * MUM CMf * MjM tJPI * MUM MCT * MM! CMT • MUM CM! * MUM MBT * MUM CMT

•MIKIMl MOT. 11.»o M.M* M.M* M.M • M.M* M.M* M.M* 4 tIB.M • M.M* M.M* M.M* M.M" 4 tIB.M ••WMCt, OM». II «.* • 1 ttf.M • « MM.M * M tl.lM.M • I M7.M • t tUM • 4 t1H.*» • 4 »m.4t • 4 •*».« • • »1M.M • M* M.Ul.M • » MK.M *• M* M.fH.4* •

• • I M.47 • M.M • t MM.!* • tt UM.M • M.M • M.M • 4 M2.M • 7 tM4.«t • U MM.7I • • »1«.M • » U1I.M • 41 MM.M *• 111 K.577.M •0». II W.» • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M *• • M.M •

•MUJKTfM*. I M.«* t M».M* I MW.M* M V1.1M.M • M.M* U OtT^t • • IH1.M • M tl.m.M • M*. tt.lM.M • 14 OI7.M • IM H.U1.M • 141 tt.M.M •• »7 tll.TM.M ••tlUt MM. II ll.tt. • M.M • ' M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M M11.H • M.M • M.M • M tlll.R • M.M •• Ii *4*1.M ••run raw. i 11.* • u tm.4i • « MM.M • M MK.U • ir MM.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M ti.iM.M • M trtt.n - in n.us.i* <*M*ntMMOI M.71 • 4 tU.M • M.M • M.M * M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • • M».M • M.M • » HM.M • M UZX.M ~ 4X MM.M <•CUM no. *.» • • Mt.41 • , M.M • M.M • M till.II • M.M • 4« MM.M • M.M • M.M * M.M • M.M • M.M ~ 71 MM.M <*OMU*1 T.Ti • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • M.M • • (44.M • « «**.»« • I M.M • Ml I771.M • M tZU.M ~ M4 M.1M.M <• • • • • • • • • • • * « * 4

• OM.M • . M.W.I* • M.4MV44 • Ofl.M • OTI.M • M.IM.tt • *1,*B.11 • n.tM.H • tT1»J» • lll.tM.M • M.tM.tt ~ 1*11 Ut.H1.17 <• MFT.M • MÎM* • M^MI • MU.4I • MttJI • M.M*.M • tt.7I7.4I • M.II*.» • *I.H*.M • IU.4W.14 • t7.M*.H ~ *4I.U4Ji <• • • • • • • • • • • • • i

• MM.M • ; m.mM • ! «M"~» • MM.R • MMJi • *MM.« • M.M.M • t7.BiVjr • M.IWJi • tt*.1W.Ii • tU.iHVM - M». 1*1.77 <• A j * ' ! * • • • • • • • • • I

• • j o » • • . • • • • • < • <

• «•.•• ! MM.M* M.HMi* MMi* • •.«!.•• • MJM* • iNMI • • •• «.*(7 i<M,«i.M* • •m.M* . . • n.mtjm<

MM.M* W».M« M».M* MM» *t*M • WS.M ~ tl.l• • 0 • • ••

. . . . . • • M .• Kta t^»nt»l«» . . . . . t1.*M.M • • K.4M.M •• m u m iminMrlm . . . . . . . mt.M « • • • • * «a*.• Mcvlty M m . . . . . . W7S.M • « • • • • * •»".• . . .•MIUIM (wtlm«o • • »N.Mi.M • I

• . MMM.N* • • tu.Mi.Mo t t . 4 M . M < > . . . . € » tm.tn.0.4SI.M* . . . . I l l " *•***'

•M.W tSB.41* t1.M»^« t1U.tJo tMT.4to O4I.no M41.il • MM.1» • «•».»• U.HI.V • M.441.MOO M.M1.4* <

M.10.140 trr.i«4.Mo M4.tJi.fi* ii.nr.i7o tw.nrîl ni.sm.7ro M.M4.tr- M.ru-no tt.ta.w BO.MI.B- tn.477.iio. u»4.Mt.»<. . . . . . . . . . « i. . . . . . . . . * • > Mt,4n.4t<o . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . .

* . . . . . . • • o » t tIM.M*.** <

eSOpiC/5

CANADA

UNON SCRAP ^ .SITE \ /

MINNEAPOLIS •• STXPAUL

IOWA

PROJECT NO.

10-89-185DATE

6/26/89

PREPARED ITMVM/PR

7^" A EnvironmentalConsultant*. Inc.

FIGURE 1-1SITE LOCATION MAP

UNION SCRAPMINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

im! H

MINNEAPOLIS NORTH. MINN.MINNEAPOLIS SOUTH, MINN.

45093-A3-TF-0241967

PHOTOREVISED 1972 AND I960DMA 7374 III SE-SERIES V«72

2000

SCALE IN FEET QUAOMANCLE LOCATION

FIGURE 1-2AREA TOPOGRAPHIC MAP


PROJECT NO.

10-89-185QATE

6/26/89

PREPARED BY

MVM/PR

D BYDeltaEnvironmentalConsultants. Inc.

J

ooo

4-E-Z STOP

CONVENIENCESTORE '

GAS SERVICEISLAND

PARKINGLOT

FORMERBUILDING

UNION SCRAPSITE

1606 WASHINGTON

VACANT

SCRAP METALSALVAGE

YARD

BUILDING

NORTH

100

SCALE: 1 IN. • 100 FT.

FIGURE 1-3VICINITY MAP

UNION SCRAP SITEMINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

PROJECT NO.

10-89-185DATE

6/27/89

PREPARED 91

BDO/PR DeltaEnvironmentalConsultant*. Ino,

LEGEND:

D

O

OVERHEAD LIGHT

UTILITY POLE

FIRE HYDRANT

FENCE

OVERHEAD POWER LINE

SITE BOUNDARY

CONVENIENCESTORE

CONCRETE RUBBLE M A-SURFACE DEPRESSION

ASPHALT

£-•FORMER

CONCRETE

AREA

///

L.J

16TH AVENUE

O--

VACANTLOT

~l

0

I40

ISOU: 1 IN. - 4Q FT.

BUILDING

FIGURE 1-4SITE MAP

UNION SCRAPMINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA

mojccr NO.10-89-185

6/29/89

MVM/PRMtaCnvtrenmwital

Inc.

L£CENOt

€

CONVENIENCESTORE

D

ASPHALT

StCN

FORMEROFFICE BWLWNO

f)SB-E

OONCNCICPAD /._j -»

sr-7

___

16TH AVENUE

0 BYi.. 1»980

PRCVIOUS SOIL BORING BTBRAUN DMRONUENTALLABORATOWeS. 10M

VACANTLOT

•"1

0

I

40

I

SCALE: 1 M. - 40 FT.

RGURE 1-5PREVIOUS SOIL BORING

LOCATIONS•UNION SCRAP

MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA

MOJECT ML

10-89-185MTE

6/29/89

MVM/PR A C«n»uM«iiU. In*.

A'

200 200

2 MILES

! KILOMETERSVERTICAL EXAGGERATION x 40

NATIONAL OEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929

EXPLANATION

WHg St. Lawranca-FranconlaGlacial drift aqulfar

Dacorah-Plattavllla-Glanwood confining bad

St. Patar aqulfar

Pralrla du Chlan-Jordan aqulfar

Swad confining bad

PHI Ironton-QaletvllU aquifvr

Eau Clalra confining bad

Mount Simon-Hlncklay aqulfar

FIGURE 1-6GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION

OF METROPOLITAN AREA (FROM HORN, 1983)UNION SCRAP

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTAPROJECT NO.

10-89-185DATE

6/26/89

PREPARED BY

MVM/PRD»ltoCnvtrenm«nfolConsultant*. Inc

BATTERY TOPS ANDPOLY CASES FROMTHE SHAFER PLANT

HAMMER MILLSHAKER TABLE

LEADOXIDE

BATTERYPOSTS

RUBBERPOLYPULP

BACK TOSHAFER TOBE MIXED

WITH PLATESAND SENT TOTARA CORP.

TOTARA CORP

TOLANDFILL

TOPLASTIC

RECYCLER

OPERATIONAL LIQUID DISCHARGE TO SANITARY SEWER

SfTE RUN-OFF DISCHARGE TO STORM SEWER

FIGURE 1-7MATERIALS PROCESSING SCHEMATIC

UNION SCRAP SITE1608 WASHINGTON AVENUE N.


PROJECT NO.

11-89-185DATE

6-28-89

PREPARED rrBDO/LS

EnvironmentalConsultants. Inc.

226101 0 MINNESOTA UMOUE WELL NUMMEft

N 2000I

SCALE IN FEET

FIGURE 1-8WATER WELL LOCATIONS


PROJECT NO.

10-89-185DATE

6/26/89

PREPARED IT

MVM/PR DittoEnvironmentalCenfuHontt, Inc.

2«et01 .WATER WELL IDENTIFICATION

0I

2000I

SCALE IN FEET

FIGURE 1-9GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION

LOCATION MAPUNION SCRAP

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTAMOJCCT NO.

10-89-185OAT

6/36/89

P*C?AftCD IT

MVM/PR0«lt«Cnvtr»npn«ntolConsultant*. Inc.

880-

830-

780 -

2

2< 730 _fct!2

§680-UJ

630-

580-

200

Opdg^

661

589 A ""*

Y.Y. '/.'.'.VS. O

|y5>^ •^St C

- •v:::-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-

-mmm: HY.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y

1 • • • • ; • • .

\

\

n t K *

_ __ _ ._ ~^

\

i i r r i ii i i i i i. 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1i i i i i ii i i i i ii i i i i ii i i i i ii i i i i ii i i i i i

\\

120

NORTH SOUTH »- A'

> ^ UJ 0 «

M i l 1s i _^-— -^

•::::::•YY.Y?. -

-.Y.-.-.7, ]

•.V.-.-f/.-f:

PiY.Y.Y.Y.Y.Y.

.•.•.•.-.•.pLTS.' j

^~* ~^w

-»_\'-v-v

: :M

*T"V~~\*^\ * |^<H

y

.-PLTS---

*:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:

L-,Y,.Y

IrA-.-.-.v.1 1 1 1 1 l\1 1 1 1 1 1 \

PMc i l l i 6*2I i i i i i \

' 53 03 0si r<<f~- |

•^

rvvY

^ST-

....L

>iitI I I I I I I I I

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1i i i i i i i i i

1 , 1 l l l i i i ii i

£

i f i . i ' ' I I '

NN

471

r 880

- 830

- 780

2 LEGEND:

0 . PLTS | SANDS AND GRAVEL9 .... Y.Y.I

_ 730 * .'• *** jW - J?UTS~— J CLAY

2 $2&£22] DECORAH P1ATTEMUES wy&y&i GUNMOOD FORMATIONS

- 680 ^ EE®|E| ST. fCTER SANOSTONE

(fpd4 I PRAIRIE DU CHKN GROUP

643 ELEVATION OF BOTTOM OF WELL

_ 630 ? ^TA UNAVAILABLE

FIGURE 1-10CROSS SECTION A - A*

- 580 UNION SCRAPMINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

ntojEcr ML fttmast w11-89-185 BDO/PR A

I IF BCWMCn Hv ^K_ i I WIU .

ySf ^ft'/X. CnvlroffMfMntalfi/?Q/nQ r\fm f/f/f^ r*n»ulMn»a bwt

200593 •WEST EAST •8-900 —

B50 —

BOO —

750 —

700

650

600 —

•43

T DATA UNAVAJLAflLC

— — »»n«e» CONTACT

653

r— 9CK)

h— eso

— 800

>— 750

— 700

— 650

— 800

OAT

MCOKAM6UNWOOD rOMMTlONS

ST. KTCX «A**T»e

PIMflUt 00 CHEN OHOUP

OZMOION or wn«M OF «a

FIGURE 1-11CROSS SECTION B - B*


PROJECT MO.

11-89-185DATE

6/30/89

PREPARED BY

BDO/PR:o BY

0«ltaEnv1ronm»ntolCentultantt. Inc.

CONVENIENCESTORE

LEGEND:

O SOIL BORING LOCATION

« MONnORING WELL LOCATION

S DEEP AQUIFER WELL LOCATION

• ALTERNATE DEEP WELL LOCATION

BOUNDARY TAPE

ASPHALT

SHADED REST AREA/-SUPPORT ZONE

WASH ZONE

O

D•utjj

FORMERCONCRETE

PAD

DECOmgsr"on

i '

* ! /i o i /m_.

o

oL

40

I

SCALE: 1 M. - 40 FT.

LAMP POST

FIRE ,6W AVENUE

O--

BUILDING

VACANTLOT

NOTE:

HOT ZONES WILL CHANGE EACH DAY WITH DRILLING ACTMTIES.HOT ZONES WILL INCLUDE THE AREAS 15 FEET IN RADIUSAROUND EACH DRILL RIG.SUPPORT/WASH/DECONTAMINATION ZONE LOCATIONS ARE PROPOSEDAND MAY HAVE TO BE CHANGED WTTH CHANGING SfTE ACTMTIESAND/OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.

FIGURE 3-1PRELIMINARY SITE HEALTHAND SAFETY ORGANIZATION

UNION SCRAPMINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA

PMUCCT NO.

10-89-185oat

7/10/89

PWWftED 91

MVM/PR

IH 6 is PIT

tNORTH

0 2000| |

SCALE FEET

FIGURE 3-2

HOSPITAL ROUTEUNION SCRAP


PROJECT NO.

10-89-185

DATE7-6-89

PREPARED 91DCH/LS

REVIEWED 91D*HoEnvlroConsultant*. Inc.

£«

\ «\v\\

J

5c:

3

D

( CONVENIENCESTORE

SIGN

' ' CD

FORMERBUILDING

1 ^_

I FORMER /1 CONCRETE /

i SSL /

ASPHALT

a

*"-"1 1

°! 0 '!

«

,\\

1 11 10 40

|

SCALE: 1 W. - 40 FT.

•: oU*°.

_ W<CA

n o• /

/i /o 1 /o

1STH

/ ^

/

O

o. . . o J

AVENUE

BUILDING

VACANTLOT

LEGEND:

O SHALLOW SOL BORING LOCATION

FIGURE 6-1SHALLOW SOIL BORING

LOCATIONS MAPUNION SCRAP


PROJECT Ha

10-89-185Bat

7/10/89

MVM/PR

CONVENIENCESTORE

D

ASPHALT

SIGN

oT O •

i-FORMER

CONCRETEPAD

AREA

*

/

O

-L*°-

o L__/ o..J

16TH AVENUE

740

SCALE: 1 W. - 40 FT.

VACANTLOT

1FGCND

O SHAI10W SAMPU LOCATION (SHORT UST)

• SHALLOW SAMPLE LOCATION (TCL/UL)

HGURE 6-2LOCATIONS OF SHALLOW

SOIL SAMPLF.SUNION SCRAP


matter MO.

_"owe"

7/10/89

PWPAWD ft

MVM/PRDeltaEnvtrConmiltonf*. hie.

CONVENIENCESTORE

SIGN

D

FORMERCONCRETE

PADAREA

/*/

t /i /i /L.Jo

ASPHALT

o

O

I6TH AVENUE

O-

0

I

40

I

SCALE: 1 IN. - 40 FT.

BUILDING

VACANTLOT

LEGEND:

INTERMEDIATE SAMPLE LOCATION(SHORT LIST)

FIGURE 6-3LOCATIONS OF

INTERMEDIATE SOIL SAMPLESUNION SCRAP


MO.11-89-185

DMC

7/10/89

PRCPMOD ft

A ltolta£±Cofnultanta. Inc.

LEGEND:

CONVENIENCE:STORE

SIGN

ASPHALT

o

F"ii

nii

1*°_

FORMERCONCRETE

PAD /

•

/» i

I /i /i /

oI

40

I

SCALE: 1 IN. - 40 FT.

16W AVENUr

BUILDING

> DEEP SAMPLE LOCATION(SHORT LIST)

\ DEEP SAMPLE LOCATION(TCLAAL)

0- -ft- 4--0 t"^ M"®" ^ ' M „ T ^) \

J VACANTLOT

FIGURE 6-4LOCATIONS OF

DFFP SOIL SAMPLESUNION SCRAP

MINNLAPOUS, MINNESOTA

MKMCCT MO.

11-89-185

7/10/89

PRtpMED VT

MVM/PRnv«*bwmw *i A'

Cencultonti. loo.

LEGEND:

Q SOIL BORING LOCATION

9 MONITORING WELL LOCATION

« DEEP AQUIFER WELL LOCATION

• ALTERNATt DEEP WELL LOCATION

PHYSICALSAMPLE LOCATION

PS- A 8.5 TO 10 FEET BELOW INTERFACE

PS-B 5 FEET INTO WATER TABLE

PS-C 10 FEET INTO CLAY LAYER (IF PRFSENT)

PS-D 20 PEET BELOW ClAY (IF PRESENT)

PS-E 70 FEET BELOW SURFACE (IF CLAY ABSENT)

ANALYSES

(1.2.3)"

(2)

(1.2.3)

(2)

(1.2)

1 VERHCAI PERMEABILITY

2 GRAIN SIZF./HYOROMETER

3 SOU MWSTURF.

FIGURE 6-5LOCATIONS AND TYPES OFPHYSICAL SOIL SAMPLES


PKOJCCT NO.

ft-89-185OWE

7/10/89

POCPMKD

O.HOEnvironmentalConsultant*, die.

SHALLOW SOU.BORING LOCATION

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

4 H

5 -A

6-J

SHALLOWSOIL

SAMPLE

MTENMEMOCSOL

SAMPLE

UTHOLOCYSPLTT

SPOONSAMPLE

UTHOLOGYSPLIT

SPOONSAMPLE

DEEPSOIL

SAMPLE

BASEson.

SAMPLE

INTERFACE

FILL ORNATURALSEDIMENT

FIGURE 6-6GENERALIZED SHALLOW

SOIL BORING SCHEMATICUNION SCRAP


PROJECT MO.

11-89-185DATE

7/12/89

PREPARED BY

MVM/PRD«HoCnvfroConsultant*. Inc.

LEGEND:

CONVENIENCESTORE

D

FORMERCONCRETE

PADAREA

ASPHALT

« '

I /

0

L40

I

SCALD 1 IN. - 40 FT.

16 H AVENUE

MJLDMQ

V/CANTIOT

LOCATION OF FIRST 0£EP SOB. BORtNG

LOCATION OF CLAY DEFINITION SOIL BORINGS (IF CLAY IS PRESENT)

LOCATION OF DEEP STRATIGRAPHY/BEDROCK SOIL BORING

FIGURE 6-7DEEP SOIL BORING



PROJECT Ha

11-89-185DA1C

7/10/89

PREPARED BT

MVM/PRD*MoCnvlr»nm*ntolConsultant*, Inc.

CONVENIENCESTORE

SIGN

o• J.'_-T-_ij.»ra.i_ij

FORMERCONCRETE '

PAD /

i*?-

•

I /

1 ___ /

16TH AVENUE

"^'Jr VACWTIOT

LEGF.ND:

9 LOCATION Of WATER TABLE MONITORING WELL

9 LOCATION OF DEEP AQUIFER WELL (IF CLAY PRESENT <flf )

• ALTERNATE LOCATION OF DEEP AQUIFER WELL(IF C(AY PRESENT > 80' OR ABSENT)

ASPHALT

"1

••*•»'

I ..

0

I40

SCALE; 1 IN. - 40 FT.

MNLOMG

TIGURE 6-8MONITORING WELL



PKIJCCT HO.

11-89-185BUTE

7/10/89

PRfMHID V

MVM/PR

. Inc.

FIGURE 6-9

Proposed HI Report FormatUnion Scrap Site


Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Report1.2 Site Background

1.2.1 Site Description1.2.2 Site History1.2.3 Previous Investigations

2.0 Study Area Investigation

2.1 Includes field activities associated with site characterization. These may include physicaland chemical monitoring of some, but not necessarily all, of the following.

2.1.1 Surface Features (topographic mapping, etc.) (natural and manmade features)2.1.2 Contaminant Source Investigations2.1.3 Meteorological Investigations2.1.4 Surface Water and Sediment Investigations2.1.5 Geological Investigations2.1.6 Soil and Vadose Zone Investigations2.1.7 Ground Water Investigations2.1.8 Human Population Surveys2.1.9 Ecological Investigations

2.2 If technical memoranda documenting field activities were prepared, they may be includedin an appendix and summarized in this report chapter.

3.0 Physical Characteristics of the Study Area

3.1 Includes results of Geld activities to determine physical characteristics. These may includesome, but not necessarily all, of the following:

3.1.1 Surface Features3.12 Meteorology3.13 Surface Water Hydrology3.1.4 Geology3.1.5 Soils3.1.6 Hydrogeology3.1.7 Demography and Land Use3.1.8 Ecology

4.0 Nature and Extent of Contamination

4.1 Presents the results of site characteri/ation, both natural chemical components andcontaminants in some, but not necessarily all, of the following media:

4.1.1 Sources (lagoons, sludges, tanks, etc.)4.12 Soils and Vadose Zone4.13 Ground Water4.1.4 Surface Water and Sediments4.1.5 Air

5.0 Contaminant Fate and Transport

5.1 Potential Routes of Migration (ie., air, ground water, etc.)5.2 Contaminant Persistence

5.2.1 If they are applicable (Le., for organic contaminants), describe estimatedpersistence in the study area environment and physical, chemical, and/or biologicalfactors of importance for the media of interest.

5.3 Contaminant Migration53.1 Discuss factors affecting contaminant migration for the media of importance (e.g.,

sorption onto soils, solubility in water, movement of ground water, etc.)5.3.2 Discuss modeling methods and results, if applicable.

6.0 Baseline Risk Assessment

6.1 Public Health Evaluation6.1.1 Exposure Assessment6.12 Toxicity Assessment6.13 Risk Characterization

6.2 Environmental Assessment

7.0 Summary and Conclusions

7.1 Summary7.1.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination1.12 Fate and Transport7.13 Risk Assessment

"72 Conclusions7.2.1 Data Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work122 Recommended Remedial Action Objectives7.23 Preliminary ARAR Identification by Media

Appendices

A. Technical Memoranda on Field Activities (if available)B. Analytical Data and QA/QC Evaluation ResultsC. Risk Assessment Methods

FIGURE 6-10

Proposed FS Report FormatUnion Scrap Site


Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Organization of Report1.2 Background Information

1.2.1 Site Description1.2.2 Site History1.2.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination1.2.4 Contaminant Fate and Transport1.2.5 Baseline Risk Assessment

2.0 Identification and Screening of Technologies

2.1 Introduction

22 Remedial Action Objectives •Presents the development of remedial action objectives for each medium of interest (i.e.,ground water soil, surface water, air, etc.). for each medium, the following should bediscussed:- Contaminants of interest- Allowable exposure based on risk assessment- Allowable exposure based on ARARs- Development of remedial action* objectives

23 General Response Actions •For each medium of interest, describes the estimation of areas or volumes to whichtreatment, containment, or exposure technologies may be applied.

2.4 Identification and Screening of Technology Types and Process Options -For each medium of interest, describes:2.4.1 Identification and Screening of Technologies2.4.2 Evaluation of Technologks and Selection of Representative Technologies

3.0 Development and Screening of Alternatives

3.1 Development of Alternatives •Describes rationale for combination of technologies/media into alternatives. Note: Thisdiscussion may be by medium or for the site as a whole.

32 Screening of Alternatives3.2.1 Introduction3.2.2 Alternative 1

- Description- Evaluation

- Effectiveness- Technical Feasibility and Implementability- Cost- Environmental Effects

323 Alternative 2- Description- Evaluation

3.2.4 Alternative 3

3.2.5 Summary of Screening

4.0 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Alternative Analysis4.2.1 Alternative 1

4.2.1.1 Description4.2.1.2 Assessment

- Short-Term Effectiveness- Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence- Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, and Volume- Implementability- Cost- Compliance with ARARs- Overall Protection- State Acceptance- Community Acceptance

422 Alternative 24.22.1 Description42.22 Assessment

- Short-Term Effectiveness- Long-Tenn Effectiveness and Permanence- Redaction of Mobility, Toxicity, and Volume

- Cost- Compliance with ARARs- Overall Protection- State Acceptance- Community Acceptance

423 Alternative 3

4.2.4 Summary of Alternatives Analysis

4.3 Comparison Among Alternatives

43.1 Short-Term Effectiveness4.3.2 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence4.33 Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, and Volume4.3.4 Implementability43.5 Cost4.3.6 Compliance with ARARs43.7 Overall Protection43.8 State Acceptance43.9 Community Acceptance4.3.10 Summary of comparisons among alternatives

4.4 Summary of Detailed Analysis

BibliographyAppendices

CONTRACT MANAGERROBERT M. KARLS

CONTRACT COORDINATORPAUL GOULDREAULT

PROJECT MANAGERBARRY O'FLANAGAN

PROJECTHYDROCEOLOGIST

MARTY MORAN

PROJECTENGINEER

JEFF MELBY

PROJECTTOXICOLOCIST

DAWN HORSTED

PROJECTGEOLOGIST

ERICK NEHER

PROJECTQA MANAGER

DAVID CRISMAN

FIGURE 7-1PROJECT TEAM ORGANIZATION


PROJECT NO.

11-89-185(ME

7/17/89

PREPARED XT

BDO/PR

9fD«ltaEnvironmentalConsultants, Inc.

•nsG90Mc/5

WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 5 WEEKS 6-8 WEEK 9cSCHEDULE TIMELINE IN WEEKSFOLLOWING ISSUANCE OfWORK ORDER

APPROXIMATE SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIESIN WORKING DAYS FOLLOWINGISSUANCE OF WORK ORDER

I 12 10 22 24

CRITICAL PATH

TASK 2

on mt xm.AND

CHUNCM. ANM.YM

TASK 6MPUMCNT SCCUBTT t

HCAI.TH MC urmr

TASK 3

OCOUMC AMWTMOCtOUMK

wv»ng*ncw wePHYSICAL iAMnf

coutcnoN

TASKS 7 * 10 TASKS 8 * 10 TASK 10 TASK 11

NONCMTKAL WJH

TASK 1

tMvn

TASK 4

wcu.wivrr

MOMCWTKAL PATH

TASK •

TASKS 10 * 11

*m*L re

fit

FIGURE 8-1RI/FS COMPLETION SCHEDULE

UNION SCRAPMINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA

11-89-IBS

7/13/89

BDO/PR A ~.S£