11.0000053

GNAU.SKA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL

CERCLIS NO. W!D980821656

ONAU.SKA,

Records Ctr. EPA Region 5 1111\111 \\1\1\ 942775

. \:_::t..:r.c'.· for Toxic Subs t3nces ; : : : rl Di scase Re�jslr\·. _,, L.. S. Public Health Ser\ice

JEC 29 1988 PRELIMINARY HEALTH ASSESSMENT ONALASKA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL LA CROSSE COUNTY ONALASKA WISCONSIN December 29, 1988

Prepared by: WISCONSIN DIVISION OF HEALTH MADISON WISCONSIN

Prepared for: OFFICE OF HEALTH ASSESSMENT AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY (ATSDR)

SUMMARY: The Town of Onalaska owns and operated Onalaska Municipal Landfill, located in La Crosse County, Wisconsin. Prior to capping the landfill in 1982, the equivalent of 2,500 drums of industrial solvent wastes along with other wastes are estimated to have been disposed on-site. Soils underneath the unlined disposal site are highly permeable. Studies showed that recurrent seasonal fluctuations in water levels allowed the groundwater to be in direct contact with a portion of the waste for extended periods of time. Chemicals in the landfill leach into the groundwater which may eventually discharge into the adjacent wetlands and the Black . Human exposure to contaminates from the site may occur via consumption of contaminated groundwater, fish or wild game, dermal absorption, inhalation, or from recreational activities on the Black River. It is recommended that the site access be fully restricted through the construction of a secure fence and that monitoring of groundwater, surface water, fish and game in areas adjacent to the site be performed on a scheduled basis. Residential wells should be evaluated for contamination and usage patterns. BACKGROUND: Bibliography of Data/Information Sources: Document Date of Document 1. Site Inspection Report 5/2/83 2. In-field Conditions Report 4/17/78 3. Preliminary Assessment 6/8/83 4. Report on Groundwater Monitoring 10/13/78 5. Field trip to Onalaska Landfill 9/7/82 6. Review of Groundwater Results 11/5/82 7. CH2M Hill Work Plan for RI/FS 8/88 8. Town of Onalaska Landfill, Enforcement No Date and Remedial/Removal Activities Summary

Brief Description of Site: The Onalaska Municipal Landfill is in La Crosse County, approximately 10 miles north of La Crosse, Wisconsin and 7 miles north-west of Onalaska, Wisconsin. The site is located near the confluence of the and within 400 feet of the Black River. The Town of Onalaska owned and operated the 11 acre landfill from 1969 - 1980. The landfill, sited on permeable soils, operated without surface water drain control or proper engineering plans and specifications. Adjacent to the site are farms, residences, a sportsman's club, and operational railroad tracks. Onalaska Municipal Landfill is reported to have accepted materials including waste solvents, naphtha, toluene, paint residues, industrial wastes, barium, inorganic chemicals, industrial waste oils, ink residues, municipal wastes, solid wastes, solvosol, asphaltum, mineral spirits, PTL-1009, transformer oil, gun oil, synthetic lubricants, insecticides and septic waste. Along with full barrels of solvent a 500 gallon tank truck partially filled with paint residues was buried at the site. In July 1982 a cap of compacted clay was placed on top of the landfill to prevent infiltration of rainwater. One residential well, 300 feet south of the site, was replaced because it exceeded Wisconsin drinking water standards for barium and five organic compounds.

SITE VISIT:

A site visit was conducted by Wisconsin Division of Health staff on August 30, 1988. The site is located in a rural, agricultural area with residential homes, a sportsman's club, and railroad tracks. There are no trespassing signs posted around site, a small metal shed on site, a locked gate at the opening of the site, and partial fence. There was evidence on-site that heavy farm machinery had harvested the grasses. The Black River is adjacent to the site. There was a bicycle path along the river and evidence of fishing, and other aquatic recreation, eg; boating, docks. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND PHYSICAL HAZARDS: ON-8ITS CONTAMINATION: Principal contaminants of concern in the groundwater include Trichloroethylene, Naphtha, Barium, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane, Toluene, 1,1-Dichloroethane, Xylene, and Ethyl Benzene.

OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION:

Sampling of residential and monitoring wells has shown groundwater concentrations exceeding drinking water standards or criteria for Trichloroethylene, Barium, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 1,1- Dichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene, Xylene, and Ethylbenzene. Concentrations of VOCs in one sampling well at the southwest perimeter of the site were orders of magnitude greater than other wells. Six existing monitoring wells are not secured with locking caps, therefore, it is possible that vandals could intentionally contaminate a well.

PHYSICAL HAZARDS: None identified. DEMOGRAPHICS: Distance to the closest residence is within 300 feet of the landfill, a population of 321 lives within a one mile radius of the site.

EVALUATION:

SITE CHARACTERIZATION:

ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA: Available information indicates that groundwater has been and is currently contaminated from site leachate. It is possible that surface water and soils may also be contaminated. Contaminants may be escaping from the site if the cap has been ruptured (heavy farm machinery has been used to harvest grasses), resulting in possible air contamination. Additional data needed include current on-site and off-site air monitoring, groundwater monitoring, soil sampling, river sediment water and biota sampling, and environmental fate and transport modeling. LAND USE:

Determination of recreational uses of surrounding and wetlands should be done. Investigate uses of landfill cap vegetation. Conduct fish consumption survey. QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE: Data from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has Quality Assurance approval. The Work Plan for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), calls for preparing a Quality Assurance Project Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL PATHWAYS: Potential environmental pathways may include: 1. On-site and off-site groundwater contamination. 2. Off-site surface water. 3. On-site and off-site soil. 4. On-site and off-site air. 5. Contact with or ingestion by animals of cap grasses. 6. Contaminant discharge from groundwater into river with potential uptake by biota and deposition in water and sediments. Groundwater flow during the majority of the year is to the south- southwest, toward one residential well and the wetlands bordering the Black River. Groundwater discharges from the site into the Wildlife and Fish Refuge which borders the Black River and . During the spring, runoff and groundwater flow is towards the south-southeast away from river. At times of high groundwater levels, groundwater may be in direct contact with the waste.

HUMAN EXPOSURE PATHWAYS: Potential human exposure pathways include ingestion and dermal absorption of contaminants in groundwater, or inhalation of contaminants that volatilize from groundwater (E.g., from showers and washing machines). Other possible routes for exposure include 1) dermal absorption of contaminants in surface water and soil, 2) inhalation of contaminants in wind blown dust or of volatile compounds in air, and 3) ingestion of contaminated fish or game. Until additional water, soil and air samples are collected and analyzed, the potential for these pathways cannot be determined.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS: Based on the available information this site is considered to be of potential public health concern. Potential human health risks could be caused by movement of landfill contaminants into the groundwater, soil, air or surrounding surface waters. Humans coming into contact with potentially contaminated air, water, soil or aquatic biota could be exposed to landfill contaminants at levels of health concern. For example, risks to human health could occur via chemicals in the landfill leachate migrating off-site into nearby residential wells and the Black River. Since the potential exists for contaminated air to be escaping through the cap, and the cap grasses and soil may be contaminated by chemicals originating in the landfill, human activities on the cap surface could pose a risk to humans working on the cap. There is evidence of tire tracks and cut grasses suggesting that the site grasses have been harvested. To prevent human activity on the potentially contaminated cap, access to the site should be restricted by construction of a fence.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that site access be restricted to ensure unauthorized persons will not get on-site. Additional monitoring of groundwater and surface water on and around the site should be conducted. Testing of landfill leachate for contaminant breakdown into water soluble materials or gas should be performed. The private wells including replacement well, should be evaluated for contamination. If sufficiently high levels of contamination are found, an alternate water supply should be recommended. Data should be gathered to determine if the landfill leachate discharges into the river and potential effects on persons using the river for recreational purposes. Aquatic organisms should be evaluated to determine if they pose a food chain exposure risk to consumers of potentially contaminated aquatic organisms.

Based on the available information, this site is considered to be of potential public health concern because of the risk to human health caused by the possibility of exposure to hazardous substances via air, groundwater usage or discharge into surrounding waterways. Further environmental characterization and sampling of the site and impacted off-site areas during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) should be designed to address the environmental and human exposure pathways discussed above. When additional information and data become available through ATSDR, (e.g., the completed RI/FS), such material will form the basis for further assessment by the State at a later date.

PREPARERS OF REPORT:

Karen Dixon David A. Belluck 12/28/88 2«-jui-aa

CROUIOWATER CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING OA INKING MATER STANDARDS OR C« I TEA I A ONALASKA SITE

Standard or Standard/ cMtcentrat ion cr i ter » cr i ter ia Mel 1 oale chemical ug/l Exceeded Level ug/l

Miller j-ii-86 Trichloroethene 4 MCLC 0 MQC-Riik 1 8 Barlua i»ao MCL 1000 9-16/17-86 1 . 1 .2.2-Telrachloroetharve 0.41 MQC-Rilk 0 17 Tr Ichloroethene 2.1 MCLC 0 aarlu» lOftO MCL 1000 3-is-aa Tr Ichlofoetnene 0.41 MO.C 0

well »2A }-n-a6 Barium 20SO MCL 1000 9-16/17-46 BarllM 10*0 MCL 10OO j-u-aa Barium laoo MCL 1000

•ell «3A 1-11-66 Barium 141O MCL 1000 9-16/17-66 Trlchloroelhene 0.14 MCLC 0 1-13-66 Trichloroethene 0. 11 MCLC 0

well »4 j-n-at i.i.-oichtoroetrtene 16 MCL 7 MCLC 7 OMHA 7 MQC-Riik 0.33 Trichloroethene 0.64 MCLC 0 Toluene 1J641 Pr 00 -MCLC 200O DMHA H10 xylen* 1640 P too -MCLC 440 O»-lA 4OO 9-i6/i7-«« i.i.-oichloroethene 1 86 MQC-Riik o j: i . i . i-Tr Ichlofoe thane 14O MCL 2OO MCLC JOO DMHA 200 Tr ichloroethene O.99 MCLC 0 i. i.2.2-Tetrachloroethane 510 HQC-Risk 0 1 1 Toluene 161O4 Proo-MCLC 20OO "QC-TOX 1SOOO OMHA 2»JO tlhylbeniene 10509 PC OP -MCLC 680 WQC-TOX 2400 OMMA 34OO xylene 71061 Prop-MCLC 440 OMHA 40O

j-is-aa i. i.-oichloroetnene 3 wQC-Ri»k 0 )) Trichloroethene 0.61 MCLC 0 1.1.2 . 2-Tet rachloroethane 944 MQC-Riik 0 17 Toluene 116SJ Prop-MCLC 20OO OMHA 2<10 xylene 1SO7 Prop-MCLC • >o DMHA too

« Deep 3-11-86 i.i.-Olchloroethene 3 MQC-Risk 0 1) Toluene 11641 Prop-MCLC 200O OMHA 24]0 xylene 12O8 Prop-MCLC 44O OMHA 4OO earlin 161O MCL 1OOO 9-i6/i7-a6 Tr ichloroelhene 0.12 MCLC 0 i . i . 2. 2-Tet rachlofoelhane 7.66 K)C-Ritk 0 17 xylene 621 Proo-MCLC 440 DHHA 400 3-ii-aa Trichloroethene O. 11 MCLC 0 CRITERIA KEY: MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level MCLC - Maximum contaminant Level coal Proo-MCLC - Proooted Maximum Contaminant Level coal nQC-Ritk - water Quality criteria at the 10-6 ritk level MQC-TOX - nater Quality criteria for toxicily protection JACKSON CO.

R-6-W

Town of North Bend J 1 \ M-3? V;?. r •!'.'•• &•'••'•••

^i- • r m* . * . .^ - - ^ %r^-fe.^ -.r

-. -. SANITARY LANDFILL SITE x -

XA/ARZYHJ MAP OF FLOOD-PRONE AREAS TOWN OF ONALASKA SANITARY LANDFILL ONALASKA- LACROSSE COUNTY WISCONSIN (Adapted From: "Map of Flood-Prone Areas" U.S. Geologlca1 ENGINEEFllfMa INC Survey. La Crescent, Minn-Wls. Topographic Quad. 1969.) OWN T7.*

The WDNR ordered the landfill closed by September 30, 1980, and in July 1982, the final cap was in place. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed and sampled in September 1982, Periodic groundwater sampling still continues. Some of the contaminants detected in groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells at the site included the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, trichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro- ethane, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and barium. The high- est concentrations of total VOCs were detected in monitoring wells in the southwest corner of the site.

The compounds 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1,2, 2-tetrachloroethane, and trichloroethane are potential carcinogens, and exposure to these compounds could occur through ingestion of ground- water. An increased cancer risk is associated with the lev- els of contaminants detected in samples from the monitoring wells in the southwest corner of the site. However, no one is currently ingesting this groundwater.

On May 2, 1983, an EPA Potential Hazardous Waste site inspec- tion report was submitted. In September 1984, the Onalaska Landfill was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).

GLT824/17 Section 4 COMMUNITY PROFILE

Onalaska Township occupies more than 37 square miles, with the City of Onalaska situated near its southwest corner. Selected demographic information is provided in Table 1 for both the City and the unincorporated portion of Onalaska Township. These data indicate that the City and Town are similar in terms of median income and population growth.

Currently, the City of Onalaska is estimated to have a population of about 11,000 people, or about 19 percent more than in 1980. Population forecasts suggest continued strong growth, with a projected City population of 16,000 by the year 2000. Based on past trends, the growth rate of the Town of Onalaska should be similar to that of the City.

Nearly 200 businesses are located within the City of Onalaska, The City includes an industrial park which houses a construc- tion company and a printing company, the two major industries in the area. The remaining business concerns in the City are primarily related to the service industry.

Recreation and tourism are the other major industries in the area. Fishing, boating, hiking, bicycling, golfing, and skiing are the most popular sports in the area.

GLT824/52 Table 1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS CITY OF ONALASKA AND ONALASKA TOWNSHIP

Onalaska Onalaska City Township Total Population (1980) 9,249 5,386 Percent Change 88.4 81.2 (1970 to 1980) Land Area (sq mi 1980) 5.2 37.8 Median Household Income $19,046 $20,092

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1983, County and City Data Book

GLT824/53 Section 5 OVERVIEW OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

HISTORY OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

The Onalaska Landfill is located in a rural area near the point where the Black River joins the Mississippi River. The area, which is called Brice Prairie, is not densely popu- lated; approximately 50 homes lie within 1-1/2 miles of the site. Of those, ten are located within a quarter mile of the landfill.

Most residents obtain their water from wells in the sand and gravel aquifer. Although studies have identified groundwater contamination beneath and to the south of the landfill, the wells of residents living near the site have shown no indica- tion of contamination with the exception of one well immedi- ately south of the site. Preliminary information compiled about site contamination indicates that it is unlikely that any other wells will become contaminated in the future.

During the 10 years the site was operating, community involve- ment included complaints to authorities, including the WDNR, about site conditions. Reports of foul odors and heavy smoke from the open burning of naphtha, an industrial solvent, resulted in the prohibition of all open burning, except for clean wood in a restricted area of the landfill. However, open burning continued to occur periodically.

One resident who lived next to the landfill filed a lawsuit claiming his well had been contaminated by hazardous wastes from the landfill. The suit was settled out of court in late 1982, and a new, deeper well was drilled on the property early the following year. This new well has remained free of contamination according to the results of groundwater monitoring studies.

Complaints about conditions at the landfill have ceased since the site was fenced and covered with a 2-foot clay cap in 1982. In an effort to beautify the site, the Brice Prairie Conservation Association planted trees there. The group has discussed the possibility of using the site for recreational purposes in the future, but only as an option to consider if landfill contents are removed.

KEY COMMUNITY GROUPS AND INTERESTED PARTIES

Residents of the Town of Onalaska are well informed about issues and events of importance to their community, and they maintain an ongoing interest in remedial activities at the site. Other individuals and groups that have expressed interest in the landfill include township, county, state, and federal public officials, and members of the Brice Prairie Conservation Association.

See Appendix A for a list of key community contacts.

COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND INFORMATION NEEDS

The effort to manage hazardous waste at the landfill has not become a controversial or divisive issue in the community. However, during interviews for this plan, residents, civic leaders, and public officials expressed concern about the economic impact on the community of site remediation and possible negative consequences of onsite remedial activity. ECONOMIC IMPACT

As the former owner and operator of the landfill, the Town of Onalaska is potentially liable for a portion of the cost of remedying contamination at the site. The amount of money the Town may be asked to pay is, by far, the community's major concern.

During interviews, local officials stressed that the township cannot afford a large cleanup bill. They are eager to see the project completed satisfactorily, but they want costs kept as low as possible. Some area residents are apprehen- sive that a tax increase could be required to fund remedial action at the site.

In a related concern, officials of the town want assurance that documentation about the landfill's disposal history is thoroughly researched and maintained to ensure that cleanup costs are apportioned appropriately among the PRPs.

ONSITE ACTIVITY

The community's other primary concern involves onsite testing and other construction work. Some residents worry that groundwater monitoring or other activities conducted during the remedial investigation could disturb the clay cap that covers the site, releasing contaminants into the environment. A similar concern exists if the remedy eventually selected for the site would involve removing the clay cap and the contents of the landfill.

Maintaining the site's appearance also is important to commu- nity members. The site is attractive and does not look like it was once used as a waste disposal facility. Planted with grass and neatly fenced, the site may easily be mistaken for an open field or farm land. Some residents are concerned that grass will not be replanted, roads and other damage will not be repaired, and equipment and refuse will not be removed from the site when remedial activities are finished.

OTHER CONCERNS

To a lesser degree, concern exists about the possible effect of the landfill on public health and the environment. Although contamination has not been found in wells near the site, some residents have expressed concern that their wells might be affected in the future if no remedial action is taken at the site.

The Town of Onalaska is located in an area known for its natural beauty, and preserving the environment is important to members of the community. The landfill is near the Upper Mississippi Wildlife and Fish Refuge, a wetland that is home to a variety of species of fish, migratory birds, and other wildlife. During most of the year, groundwater discharges under the site to the refuge, which borders the Black River. Some of the people interviewed questioned whether contamina- tion from the site could eventually reach the refuge in con- centrations great enough to harm fish and wildlife.

Community members want to be kept informed about site activi- ties and involved in the decisionmaking process. Community members said they want information about:

o Groundwater contamination and groundwater resources in general

o Hazards associated with the wastes disposed of at the landfill, especially solvents

10 Technologies available to remedy site contamination

Public meetings and other opportunities to obtain information and offer input about site activities

The Superfund program

GLT824/14

11 Section 6 COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM

During remedial activities at the Onalaska Landfill, the EPA will conduct a Community Relations Program that addresses com- munity issues and fosters two-way communication between the Agency and those interested in the Onalaska Landfill site.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES

The Superfund program emphasizes the importance of community involvement. The objectives of the EPA's Community Relations Program are to:

o Maintain open communication among the EPA, WDNR, those who live near the site, township, county, state and federal officials, and other interested individuals or groups

o Cooperate with effective, existing communication networks, such as civic organizations, to ensure that the community's information needs are met

o Provide residents/ agencies, local officials, civic leaders, and media with accurate, timely informa- tion about progress of remedial activities, the Superfund process and other crucial technical and administrative matters

o Ensure that the Agency continues to effectively communicate with the community about issues involv- ing the Onalaska site by being aware of changes in community concerns as remedial activities progress and revising the Community Relations Plan in light of these changes

12 COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES

The following community relations activities are suggested for the Onalaska site.

EPA PRESENCE AND CONTACTS

During the remedial investigation and feasibility study, the EPA will maintain ongoing contact with members of the commu- nity, either by phone or in person. When appropriate, brief- ings may be held for elected officials and other community and civic leaders to keep them apprised of activity at the site. During interviews, Town officials noted that U.S. EPA staff contacts seem to have changed frequently, making it difficult to know whom to contact.

NEWS RELEASES

New releases will be issued to local media to provide impor- tant information about site-related activities. Releases will be prepared to coincide with technical milestones and during the course of the work as needed. Copies will also be sent to other interested parties on the mailing list. If necessary, local officials will be contacted prior to release of important information to the media.

FACT SHEETS

Fact sheets will be prepared to coincide with important tech- nical milestones, public comment periods, and as needed. The first fact sheet will describe how the Superfund process works and tell those who live near the site what to expect during the remedial investigation, such as when workers will be onsite and the types of protective clothing they may wear.

13 Fact sheets will contain clear, accurate descriptions of tech- nical information prepared in a style and format that will encourage use and understanding.

Fact sheets will be filed at the information repositories, distributed to persons on the mailing list, and made avail- able at public meetings or other gatherings. The first fact sheet will include a glossary of technical terms and agency officials to contact if the reader needs more information. Interested parties will be encouraged to add their names to the mailing list through use of coupons or other mechanisms.

INFORMATION REPOSITORIES

The information repositories, which are listed in the Appendix, will be updated as necessary with the most current information about site activities.

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND AVAILABILITY SESSIONS

Public meetings and informal availability sessions are effec- tive ways to give the general public an opportunity to receive information and provide the Agency with feedback regarding site activities. Meetings or sessions will be planned to coincide with program milestones. Meetings or sessions will be announced in news releases and in fact sheets which will be distributed prior to the meetings or sessions. They will be held at a convenient location in the community, such as Holmen High School or the Town Hall.

Community relations activities are timed to coincide with technical milestones in the Superfund process or on an as-needed basis. See Appendix C for a schedule of community relations activities.

GLT824/15

14 Appendix A CONTACT/MAILING LIST

Onalaska Residents, Township, and County Officials Clarence Hanuness La Crosse County Board 2640 Bayshore Drive 0 La Crosse, WI 54601 Merle Paudler* George Hanuness Town Foreman Chairman N5781 CHOT La Crosse County Board Onalaska, WI 54650 W8213 Sternford Holmen, WI 54636 Carl Pedretti* Chairman, Town Board 6796 Keppel Road Holmen, WI 54636

Linda Carlson Clerk, Town of Onalaska Onalaska Town Hall W7052 Second Street Onalaska, WI 54650 State and Federal Officials

Senator Robert Hasten State Rep. Virgil Roberts 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue P.O. Box 8953 Milwaukee, WI 53201 Madison, WI 53708 Senator William Proxmire State Sen. Brian D. Rude 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue 319 South, State Capitol Milwaukee, WI 53201 Madison, WI 53702 Congressman Steve Gunderson 438 North Water Street Black River Falls, WI 54615 U.S. EPA Kevin Adler* 5HS-11 Susan Pastor* 5PA-14 Remedial Project Manager Community Relations U.S. EPA Coordinator 230 South Dearborn U.S. EPA Chicago, IL 60604 230 South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604

U.S. EPA Contractor

Phil Smith* Site Manager CH2M HILL

interviewed in person or by telephone GLT824/16-1 U.S. EPA Contractor Phil Smith* Site Manager CH2M HILL

Interviewed in person or by telephone Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Robin Schmidt* Mark Williams* Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources Bureau of Waste Mgmt. Bureau of Waste Mgmt. P.O. Box 7921 P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707 Madison, WI 53707

Media La Crosse Tribune WKBT-TV 401 North Third Street P.O. Box 1867 La Crosse, WI 54601 La Crosse, WI 54602

WRM Radio WLAX-TV P.O. Box 99 1305 Interchange Place La Crosse, WI 54601 La Crosse, WI 54603 WKTY/WSPL Radio WXOW-TV 704 La Crosse Street P.O. Box C-4019 La Crosse, WI 54601 La Crosse, WI 54602 WLXR Radio Don Behm P.O. Box 2017 Milwaukee Journal La Crosse, WI 54602 P.O. Box 661 Milwaukee, WI 53201 WLSU Radio 1725 State Street University of Wisconsin La Crosse, WI 54601 PRP Representatives

Kristine Euclid Sylvia Allen Stafford Law Finn Omark Industries P.O. Box 784 P.O. Box 39 Madison, WI 53701-1784 Onalaska, WI 54650 interviewed in person or by telephone

GLT824/16-2 Appendix B INFORMATION REPOSITORIES

La Croase County Library/ Onalaska Branch 230 Main Street Onalaska, WI 54650 Holmen Public Library 103 State Street Holmen, WI 54636

GLT824/16-3 Appendix C SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

Activity Timing EPA Presence & Contacts Ongoing News Releases Technical Milestones, As Needed Fact Sheets Technical Milestones, Public Comment Periods, As Needed Information Repositories Ongoing

Public Meetings As Needed Availability Sessions As Needed '

24/16-4