OOOR83103
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY
STUDY
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
EPA 13-5M28.Q
W65328.00
JULY 14, 19S3
PD998.049.1
-------
OOOR83103
HAZARDOUS
SITE CONTROL
DIVISION
Remedial
Planning/
Field
Investigation
Team
(REM/FfD
•' ^
ZONE 11
CONTRACT W.-
68-01-6692
CH2MKH1LL
Environment
SOURCE CONTROL FEASIBILITY
STUDY
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
EPA 13-5M28.0
W65328.00
-------
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
Purpose 1-1
Scope of Work 1-1
Task 1: Work Plan and Background Information Development.... 1-1
Task 2: Development of Alternatives 1-1
Task 3: Initial Screening of Selected Alternatives 1-2
Task 4: Additional Engineering Studies 1-2
Task 5: Detailed Evaluation of Feasible Alternatives 1-2
Task 6: Conceptual Design 1-3
Task 7: Additional Requirements 1-3
Site Description 1-3
Site History 1-4
Extent of the Problem 1-6
Waukegan Harbor 1-6
North Ditch/Parking Lot Area 1-6
Assessment of Potential Impacts 1-7
Effects on Fish 1-7
Effects on Animals 1-8
Impacts on Public Health and Safety 1-8
Potential Impacts of No Action 1-9
Objectives and Criteria 1-11
Objectives 1-11
Criteria 1-12
2. PRELIMINARY SCREENING 2-1
Preliminary Screening Criteria 2-1
No Action 2-2
In-place Destruction 2-11
Ultraviolet/Ozonolysis 2-11
Biodegradation 2-11
Chemical Oxidation 2-12
Radiation (Gamma and Electron Beam) 2-12
In-place Fixation 2-12
Sorbents 2-12
In-place Stabilization 2-13
Impermeable Membrane Seal 2-13
In-place PCB Separation and Removal 2-13
Retrievable Sorbents 2-13
Bioharvesting 2-14
Oil-soaked Mats 2-14
Solvent Extraction 2-14
PCB-contaminated Solids Removal 2-15
Freezing Before Removal 2-15
Mechanical Dredges 2-15
Hydraulic Dredges 2-17
Pneumatic Dredges 2-19
PD998.064.1 iii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Excavation Equipment 2-20
Sediment Dispersal Control 2-21
Single Silt Curtain 2-21
Double Silt Curtain 2-21
Water-inflated Dam. 2-22
Sheet Piling 2-22
Surface Water and Groundwater Control 2-22
Cofferdam 2-22
Dewatering 2-22
Injection of Grout 2-23
Sheet Piles 2-23
Slurry Walls 2-23
Bypass 2-23
Grading 2-24
Pipeline 2-24
Lined Open Ditch 2-24
Temporary Pumphouse 2-24
Initial Solids Dewatering 2-25
No Dewatering 2-25
Lagoon on OMC Property 2-25
Portable Sediment Processing System 2-25
North Ditch as Dewatering Basin 2-26
Barge Storage 2-26
Thickening with Other Project Area Solids 2-27
Slip No. 3 as Dewatering Basin 2-27
Dehydro Drying Beds 2-27
Gravity Thickener 2-27
Secondary Solids Dewatering 2-28
Mechanical Dewatering/Belt Press 2-28
Air Dry and Treat with Other Solids 2-28
Fixation 2-28
Water Treatment 2-29
No Water Treatment 2-29
Flocculation/Sedimentation 2-29
Filtration 2-29
Carbon Adsorption 2-30
Klensorb 2-30
Ultraviolet/Ozonolysis 2-30
Catalytic Reduction 2-30
Wet Oxidation 2-31
High-Efficiency Boilers 2-31
Chlorinolysis 2-31
The Goodyear Process 2-31
The Sunohio Process 2-32
Use of North Shore Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment
Facility 2-32
Onsite Storage/Disposal . 2-32
Landfill 2-32
Containment/Encapsulation 2-33
PCB Extraction 2-33
Chemical Destruction 2-34
PD998.064.2 iv
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Biological Breakdown 2-34
Incineration and Landfill Ash 2-35
Water Disposal 2-35
Off site Storage/Disposal 2-35
Landfill 2-36
Incineration 2-37
Transportation 2-37
3. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES FOR INITIAL SCREENING 3-1
Slip No. 3 3-1
Alternative 1: Dredge-Fix-Dispose 3-1
Alternative 2: Dredge-Dewater-Fix-Dispose 3-1
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater-Dispose 3-2
Alternative 4: Dredge-Dewater-Incinerate-Dispose 3-3
Alternative 5: No Action 3-3
Upper Harbor 3-3
Alternative 1: Dredge-Fix-Dispose 3-3
Alternative 2: Dredge-Dewater-Fix-Dispose 3-3
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater-Dispose 3-4
Alternative 4: Dredge-Dewater-Incinerate-Dispose 3-4
Alternative 5: No Action 3-4
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor 3-4
Alternative 6: Contain-Dredge-Cap 3-4
North Ditch Area 3-5
Alternative 1: Excavate-Dispose 3-5
Alternative 2: Excavate-Incinerate-Dispose 3-5
Alternative 3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose 3-5
Alternative 4: Excavate-Contain-Cap 3-6
Alternative 5: No Action 3-6
Parking Lot Area 3-7
Alternative 1: Excavate-Dispose 3-7
Alternative 2: Excavate-Incinerate-Dispose 3-7
Alternative 3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose 3-7
Alternative 4: Contain-Cap 3-7
Alternative 5: No Action 3-7
4. INITIAL SCREENING 4-1
Engineering Feasibility 4-1
Dredging 4-1
Excavation 4-3
Sediment Dispersal Control 4-3
Surface Water and Groundwater Control 4-3
Bypass 4-4
Initial Solids Dewatering 4-4
Secondary Solids Dewatering 4-6
Fixation 4-6
Water Treatment 4-7
Containment/Encapsulation 4-8
Incineration 4-9
PD998.064.3
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Water Disposal 4-11
Off site Landfill 4-11
Transportation . 4-12
Estimated Incremental Costs 4-13
Slip No. 3 4-13
Upper Harbor 4-16
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor 4-17
North Ditch/Parking Lot Area 4-18
Environmental Considerations 4-20
Slip No. 3 4-20
Upper Harbor 4-25
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor 4-30
North Ditch Area 4-31
Parking Lot Area. 4-36
Recommended Alternatives for Detailed Evaluation 4-40
Slip No. 3 4-41
Upper Harbor 4-41
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor 4-42
North Ditch Area 4-42
Parking Lot Area 4-42
5. DETAILED EVALUATION—ENGINEERING AND COST ASPECTS 5-1
Slip No. 3 5-1
Alternative 2B: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose 5-1
Alternative 2D: Dredge-Dewater in Barges-Fix-Dispose 5-10
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose 5-15
Upper Harbor 5-18
Alternative 2B: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose 5-18
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose 5-21
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor 5-24
Alternative 6A: Contain-Dredge-Cap 5-24
Alternative 6B: Contain-Dredge Part of Upper Harbor-Cap 5-31
Subalternative I: Select Excavation 5-35
North Ditch/Parking Lot Area 5-39
Alternative 1: Excavate-Dispose 5-39
Alternative 3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose 5-45
Alternative 4: Contain-Cap (Parking Lot Area Only) 5-47
Alternative 4A: Excavate-Contain-Cap (North Ditch Area Only) 5-53
Alternative 4B: Excavate-Contain Part of E-W Portion of
the North Ditch-Cap (North Ditch Area Only) 5-57
Subalternative I: Select Excavation 5-64
6. DETAILED EVALUATION—ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 6-1
Part 1: Affected Environment
Climate 6-1
Noise 6-2
Topography 6-2
Geology 6-2
PD998.064.4 vi
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Soils 6-3
Groundwater 6-3
Surface Water Quality 6-4
Terrestrial Biota 6-5
Vegetation 6-6
Animals 6-7
Threatened or Endangered Species—Federal Classification 6-8
Threatened or Endangered Species—State Classification 6-8
Aquatic Biota 6-9
Fish 6-9
Benthic Macroinvertebrates 6-9
Phytoplankton 6-10
Zooplankton 6-11
Threatened and Endangered Species 6-11
Land Use 6-11
Population 6-12
Employment 6-12
Economic Activity 6-13
Transportation Facilities 6-13
Port Facilities 6-13
Highway Facilities 6-13
Railroad Facilities 6-14
Recreation and Tourism 6-14
Sewer and Utility Lines 6-14
Storm and Sanitary Sewers 6-14
Water Lines 6-15
Natural Gas Lines 6-15
Electrical Lines 6-15
Telephone Lines 6-15
Cultural Resources 6-15
Part 2: Impacts of No Action
Slip No. 3 6-16
Upper Harbor 6-16
North Ditch 6-16
Parking Lot 6-17
Impacts on Fish 6-17
Impacts on Animals 6-18
Impacts on Public Health and Safety 6-20
Socioeconomic Impacts 6-21
Part 3; Impacts of Alternatives
Slip No. 3 6-21
Alternative 2B: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose 6-21
Alternative 2D: Dredge-Dewater in Barges-Fix-Dispose 6-30
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose 6-38
Upper Harbor 6-47
Alternative 2B: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose 6-47
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose 6-55
PD998.064.5 vii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor 6-63
Alternative 6A: Contain-Dredge-Cap 6-63
Alternative 6B: Contain-Dredge Part of Upper Harbor-Cap..— 6-71
Subalternative I: Select Excavation 6-80
North Ditch/Parking Lot Area 6-84
Alternative 1: Excavate-Dispose 6-84
Alternative 3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose 6-89
Alternative 4: Contain-Cap (Parking Lot Area Only) 6-95
Alternative 4A: Excavate-Contain-Cap (North Ditch Area Only) 6-99
Alternative 4B: Excavate-Contain Part of E-W Portion of the
North Ditch-Cap (North Ditch Area Only) 6-106
Subalternative I: Select Excavation 6-114
7. ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 7-1
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 8-1
Appendix HEALTH SITE AND SAFETY PLAN A-l
PD998.064.6 viii
-------
TABLES
Table Page
2-1 List of Unit Processes for Remedial Action Alternatives 2-3
5-1 Detailed Cost Estimate, Slip No. 3, Alternative 2B:
Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose 5-8
5-2 Detailed Cost Estimate, Slip No. 3, Alternative 2D:
Dredge-Dewater in Barges-Fix-Dispose 5-14
5-3 Detailed Cost Estimate, Slip No. 3, Alternative 3:
Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose 5-19
5-4 Detailed Cost Estimate, Upper Harbor, Alternative 2B:
Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose 5-22
5-5 Detailed Cost Estimate, Upper Harbor, Alternative 3:
Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose 5-25
5-6 Detailed Cost Estimate, Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor,
Alternative 6A: Contain-Dredge-Cap 5-30
5-7 Detailed Cost Estimate, Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor,
Alternative 6B: Contain-Dredge Part of Upper Harbor-Cap... 5-34
5-8 Detailed Cost Estimate, Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor,
Subalternative I: Select Excavation 5-38
5-9 Detailed Cost Estimate, North Ditch, Alternative 1:
Excavate-Dispose 5-43
5-10 Detailed Cost Estimate, Parking Lot, Alternative 1:
Excavate-Dispose 5-44
5-11 Detailed Cost Estimate, North Ditch, Alternative 3:
Excavate-Fix-Dispose 5-48
5-12 Detailed Cost Estimate, Parking Lot, Alternative 3:
Excavate-Fix-Dispose 5-49
5-13 Detailed Cost Estimate, Parking Lot, Alternative 4:
Contain-Cap 5-52
5-14 Detailed Cost Estimate, North Ditch, Alternative 4A:
Excavate-Contain-Cap 5-58
5-15 Detailed Cost Estimate, North Ditch, Alternative 4B:
Excavate-Contain-Cap 5-63
5-16 Detailed Cost Estimate, North Ditch, Subalternative I:
Select Excavation 5-66
PD998.065.1 ix
-------
TABLES (continued)
7-1 Summary Table, Detailed Cost Estimate and Pounds of
PCBs Controlled, Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor . „ 7-2
7-2 Summary Table, Detailed Cost Estimate and Pounds of
PCBs Controlled, North Ditch/Parking Lot Area... 7-3
7-3 Ranking Procedure, Slip No. 3 7-4
7-4 Ranking Procedure, Upper Harbor 7-5
7-5 Ranking Procedure, North Ditch 7-6
7-6 Ranking Procedure, Parking Lot 7-7
PD998.065.2
-------
FIGURES
Section 1*
1-1 Location Map
1-2 Site Map
Section 3
3-1 Initial Screening Alternatives, Slip No. 3
3-2 Initial Screening Alternatives, Upper Harbor
3-3 Initial Screening Alternatives, Slip No. 3 and
Upper Harbor
3-4 Initial Screening Alternatives, North Ditch
3-5 Initial Screening Alternatives, Parking Lot
Section 4
4-1 Detailed Evaluation Alternatives, Slip No. 3
4-2 Detailed Evaluation Alternatives, Upper Harbor
4-3 Detailed Evaluation Alternatives, Slip No. 3 and
Upper Harbor
4-4 Detailed Evaluation Alternatives, North Ditch
4-5 Detailed Evaluation Alternatives, Parking Lot
Section 5
5-1 Conceptual Site Layout, Slip No. 3, Alternatives 2B,
2D, and 3
5-2 Conceptual Site Layout, Upper Harbor, Alternatives 2B
and 3
5-3 Conceptual Site Layout, Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor,
Alternative 6A
5-4 Conceptual Site Layout, Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor,
Alternative 6B
5-5 Conceptual Site Layout, North Ditch/Parking Lot
Area, Alternatives 1 and 3
*Figures are found at back of section.
PD998.066.1 xi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Section 5
5-6 Conceptual Site Layout, North Ditch/Parking Lot
Area, Alternative 4 (Parking Lot Area Only)
5-7 Conceptual Site Layout, North Ditch/Parking Lot Area
Alternatives 4A and 4B (North Ditch Area Only)
Section 7
7-1 Cumulative Project Costs Versus Cumulative Pounds
of PCBs Controlled
PD998.066.2 xii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
High levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in soil and
sediment in Waukegan Harbor and land owned by Outboard Marine
Corporation (OMC) near the North Ditch, a small tributary of
Lake Michigan, have been discovered by various public and
private organizations since 1976. Concentrations of PCBs
exceeding 30 percent on a dry weight basis (300,000 parts
per million (ppm)) have been found in localized areas at the
former OMC outfall. PCBs have penetrated into the layer
underlying the harbor sediments near this outfall. The PCBs
have spread laterally, contaminating soil, water, and sedi-
ment in Waukegan Harbor, Lake Michigan, and on adjacent land.
PCBs have also entered the aquatic food chain, bioaccumulating
in the top carnivores, such as salmon and trout.
The immediate threat that PCBs pose to the water quality of
Lake Michigan and the potential threat to human health have
prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to
commission this feasibility study to recommend the most cost-
effective source control remedial actions that are in accor-
dance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contin-
gency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR 300.
This feasibility study is based on the premise that only
PCBs in concentrations greater than 50 ppm need be addressed
because these concentrations are regulated by 40 CFR 761.
Previous investigations estimated that approximately
10,900 cubic yards (yd3) of sediment, sand, and silt in Slip
No. 3; 35,700 yd3 of sediment in the Upper Harbor; and
175,800 yd3 soil from the North Ditch/Parking Lot area are
contaminated with PCBs in concentrations exceeding 50 ppm.
The procedures followed to develop the recommended alterna-
tives for cleanup action included:
• Reviewing identified processes with the potential
for contributing to PCB removal
• Screening these alternative processes based on
engineering feasibility, environmental impact,
cost, and conformance with site-specific objec-
tives and the NCP
• Combining the processes that remained after screen-
ing into several remedial action alternatives for
Slip No. 3, the Upper Harbor, and the North
Ditch/Parking Lot area for further evaluation
PD998.067.1 xiii
-------
• Recommending cost-effective source control remedial
alternatives for each area (Slip No. 3, the Upper
Harbor, the North Ditch, and the Parking Lot area)
• Interacting regularly with the regulatory agencies
The source control remedial action alternatives listed below
were based on the feasibility study and consultation with
USEPA. The alternatives resulted from a screening procedure
that initially considered over 70 unit processes. The unit
processes retained for further evaluation were assembled
into the 21 alternative remedial action systems for initial
screening. Detailed evaluation of 16 alternatives and sub-
alternatives was conducted to address their advantages and
disadvantages.
The alternatives are consistent with the requirements of the
NCP for the selection of the lowest cost alternative that is
technologically feasible, protects human health and the envi-
ronment, and considers the need to balance funds under the
Superfund Program. In view of these considerations, the
five cleanup actions listed below comprise USEPA1s recom-
mended cleanup plan for the OMC site.
• Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor: Subalternative I.
This subalternative would be used only in con-
junction with Alternative 6B. PCB-contaminated
sediment, sand, and silt would be dredged from the
localized area near the former OMC outfall. This
material contains the greatest PCB concentrations
in the harbor and represents 92 percent of all the
PCBs now found in Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor.
This alternative would remove, fix, and dispose of
an estimated 5,700 yd3 of PCB-contaminated material
containing about 286,500 Ib of PCBs. The material
would be disposed of offsite in a licensed chemical
waste landfill. The estimated Order-of-Magnitude
cost is $3,150,000.
• Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor; Alternative 6B. A
cofferdam with a slurry wall would be constructed
around the perimeter of Slip No. 3, part of the
Upper Harbor sediments would be dredged into the
contained area, and then the containment area would
be capped. The estimated Order-of-Magnitude cost
is $6,100,000.
• North Ditch Area; Subalternative I. This subalter-
native would be used only in conjunction with Alter-
native 4B. PCB-contaminated soil would be excavated
from the localized areas in the Crescent Ditch and
Oval Lagoon. This material contains the greatest
PCB concentrations in the North Ditch area and
PD998.067.2 xiv
-------
represents 57 percent of all the PCBs now found in
the North Ditch/Parking Lot area. This alternative
would remove and dispose of an estimated 5,500 yd3
of PCB-contaminated soil containing about 440,500
Ib of PCBs. The soil would be disposed of offsite
in a licensed chemical waste landfill. The esti-
mated Order-of-Magnitude cost is $740,000.
• North Ditch Area: Alternative 4B. PCB-contaminated
soil would be contained and capped in the Crescent
Ditch/Oval Lagoon area. A pipeline to bypass the
east-west portion of the North Ditch would also be
constructed (with partial excavation of PCB-contami-
nated soil to install the pipe). The PCB-contaminated
soil from the bypass excavation would be placed in
the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area before capping
the area. The estimated Order-of-Magnitude cost is
$4,210,000.
• Parking Lot Area; Alternative 4. PCB-contaminated
soil would be contained and capped in the Parking
Lot area. The estimated Order-of-Magnitude cost
is $3,210,000.
The total estimated Order-of-Magnitude cost to implement the
above alternatives is $17,410,000.
Public comments will be received during the 30-day public
comment period. The USEPA Record of Decision issued at the
end of the public comment period will determine specifically
the alternatives to be implemented, with modifications,
if any, resulting from public comment.
A conceptual design will be prepared for the remedial action
alternative(s) selected by USEPA.
PD998.067.3 xv
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Source Control Feasi-
bility Study (FS) to evaluate alternative means to remove,
contain, fix, or otherwise treat polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) contaminated soils on the Outboard Marine Corporation
(OMC) site and PCB-contaminated sediments in the Waukegan,
Illinois, harbor. This work was authorized by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on March 18,
1983, by Work Authorization 13-5M28.0.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this FS is to recommend the most cost-effective
source control remedial actions in accordance with the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) promulgated
July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180-31243; 40 CFR 300). A conceptual
design of the selected remedial action alternatives, determined
by the USEPA Record of Decision, will be presented in a separate
report. The purpose of this report is to summarize the review
and screening process used to develop the recommended alter-
natives .
SCOPE OF WORK
A comprehensive description of the scope of work was presented
in the "Final Work Plan, Source Control Feasibility Study,
OMC Site, Waukegan, Illinois," USEPA Work Authorization 13-
5M28.0, dated March 28, 1983. A brief summary of the scope
of work follows.
Task 1: Work Plan and Background Information Development
This task included development of a detailed work plan for
conducting the FS; review of existing reports, maps, and
other data; development of a concise history of the site and
description of its current status; and a site visit.
Task 2: Development of Alternatives
Task 2 work included development of site-specific remedial
response objectives and screening criteria; identification
of remedial response alternatives, both from previous reports
and based on experience; and an assessment of existing tech-
nology potentially applicable to remedial responses at this
site. A comprehensive list of alternative unit processes
was then developed, and preliminary screening was done to
assess the potential applicability of each unit process to
each of four areas of the project site. To conclude this
task, the unit processes retained from the preliminary
PD998.051 1-1
-------
screening were assembled into remedial action alternatives
for each of the project areas. Five or six alternatives
were developed for each area. The alternatives selected
were reviewed by USEPA and State of Illinois staff (Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency and Attorney General's
Office).
Task 3; Initial Screening of Selected Alternatives
In this task, the alternative remedial actions developed in
Task 2 for each area were compared in terms of incremental
(comparative) costs, environmental effects, and engineering
feasibility. Based on the results of these comparisons, two
to four alternatives for each area were retained for more
detailed evaluation in Task 5. In addition, data gaps that
became apparent during Tasks 2 and 3 were identified, and a
laboratory testing program was proposed to USEPA to provide
information needed for conceptual design (see Task 4).
Task 4; Additional Engineering Studies
Initially, no additional engineering studies were included
in the scope of work. As a result of the data gaps identi-
fied in Tasks 2 and 3, USEPA authorized laboratory testing
to evaluate the practicality of using portland cement (or
other admixtures) to fix the contaminated sediments and to
provide additional information about sediment dewatering and
water treatment. It is anticipated that the results will be
available about August 1, 1983. They will be presented
under separate cover.
Task 5; Detailed Evaluation of Feasible Alternatives
The purpose of this task was to develop additional details
on the alternatives retained from Task 3 and to determine
which alternative would be most cost-effective. More de-
tailed engineering aspects of the alternatives were con-
sidered, the potential environmental impacts of each alter-
native were identified in more detail, and Order-of-Magnitude
cost estimates1 were developed for each alternative. The
results of this task were used to recommend one alternative
for each area. The recommended alternatives were discussed
with USEPA, and this report was prepared to summarize all
the work in Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 5.
xThe American Association of Cost Engineers defines an "Order-
of-Magnitude" estimate as "An approximate estimate made
without detailed engineering data. Examples include: an
estimate from cost-capacity curves, an estimate using scale-
up or scale-down factors and an approximate ratio estimate.
It is normally expected that an estimate of this type would
be accurate within +50 percent and -30 percent."
PD998.051 1-2
-------
After USEPA review of this report, a revised work plan will
be developed to complete the conceptual design of the
selected alternatives.
Task 6; Conceptual Design
Conceptual design of the selected alternatives will consist
of presenting, in report form, the data necessary to define
the significant aspects of the conceptual design so that the
design lead agency can accomplish the design. This task
will be completed in coordination with the next lead agency,
expected to be the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) .
The conceptual design report will include the descriptive
text and figures necessary to document the recommended de-
signs. Refined Order-of-Magnitude cost estimates for each
alternative and a master implementation schedule will also
be included. Authorization to proceed with Task 6 will be
released after public comments have been reviewed and the
USEPA Record of Decision has been made.
Task 7; Additional Requirements
This task includes project management, quality assurance,
and miscellaneous services not included elsewhere.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The OMC site is located near the intersection of Grand Ave-
nue and Sheridan Road on the west shore of Lake Michigan in
Waukegan, Illinois, about 37 miles north of Chicago and
10 miles south of the Wisconsin border (Figure 1-1).
Waukegan Harbor is an irregularly shaped harbor about 37 acres
in area. For purposes of this FS, the harbor has been divided
into two areas: Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor. These
areas are shown on Figure 1-2. The PCB concentration for
each of the two areas is also shown on Figure 1-2: Slip
No. 3 with greater than 500 parts per million (ppm) and Upper
Harbor with between 50 and 500 ppm. Water depths in the
harbor generally vary from 14 to 25 feet (ft) , with some
shallower depths in parts of Slip No. 3. The harbor sedi-
ments consist of 1 to 7 ft of very soft organic silt (muck)
overlying typically 4 ft of medium dense, fine to coarse
sand. A very stiff silt (glacial till) that typically
ranges from 50 to more than 100 ft thick underlies the sand.
The entire harbor is bordered by 20- to 25-ft-long steel
sheet piling, except at the Waukegan Port District boat
launching areas and at the retaining wall near the harbor
mouth. The sheet piles generally extend into the sand layer
above the glacial till.
PD998.051 1-3
-------
The North Ditch is a small tributary of Lake Michigan that
drains surface runoff from about 0.11 square mile (mi2) of
CMC and North Shore Sanitary District property. The ditch
also drains surface runoff from an area west of OMC property
and the railroad tracks. The North Ditch includes the 600-
ft-long, 20-ft-wide Crescent Ditch; the 240-ft-long, 20- to
40-ft-wide Oval Lagoon; and a 2,000-ft-long, 10- to 20-ft-
wide east-west portion of the North Ditch. The U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior measured the mean daily discharge of
the ditch between March and September 1979 as 1.8 cubic ft
per second (cfs), with a maximum discharge of 5.3 cfs. They
calculated the 5-year storm event to be 23 cfs (041).2
The Parking Lot area is located north of OMC's Plant No. 2
and is about 9 acres in area. There are three entrances to
the Parking Lot area: two fenced entrances in the northwest
corner of CMC's property and one fenced entrance southeast
of OMC's new die-cast complex at the intersection of OMC's
private road and Seahorse Drive. The generalized subsurface
conditions in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area consist of
typically 30 ft of compact, very fine to fine sand overlying
a stiff to very stiff silt (glacial till). The thickness of
the glacial till typically ranges from 50 to more than 100
ft.
SITE HISTORY
The presence of high levels of PCBs in soils and harbor sedi-
ments in the vicinity of the OMC plant was not discovered
until 1975. At that time, the Illinois Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (IEPA) sampled CMC's outfalls in search of the
source of PCBs discovered in a 1971 USEPA study. That study
showed PCB concentrations of 2.7 to 15.0 ppm in Lake Michigan
fish (021).
Discharges from OMC are believed to be one of the major sources
of PCB contamination in Lake Michigan. About 9 million pounds
(Ib) of PCBs were purchased from the Monsanto Company from
the early 1950's to 1971. These PCBs were used as hydraulic
fluids in die-casting machines and related equipment (001).
In 1971, Monsanto restricted sale of PCBs to closed system
uses (021).
Because the hydraulic systems in which the hydraulic fluids
were used leaked routinely, the fluids containing PCBs es-
caped from the die-cast machinery onto the surrounding floor
area. OMC has advised USEPA that 10 to 15 percent of all
PCBs purchased may have escaped through floor drains and an
2Numbers in parentheses refer to the last three digits of
the document control number. Refer to Section 8, Bibliog-
raphy.
PD998.051 1-4
-------
oil interceptor system. The floor drains discharged to the
North Ditch and Waukegan Harbor. USEPA estimates that the
discharge could have been as high as 20 percent (001, 068).
In 1976, USEPA began to regulate PCB disposal. OMC exten-
sively sampled outfalls and sealed two outfalls entering the
Crescent Ditch portion of the North Ditch, pursuant to an
Administrative Enforcement Order by USEPA and IEPA. OMC
declined to act on USEPA's demand for immediate action to
remove PCB sediments. After negotiations among OMC, IEPA,
and USEPA concerning responsibility for cleanup of the harbor
and the North Ditch failed, legal actions ensued that have
not been settled to date.
A third outfall, at the east end of the Crescent Ditch, cur-
rently discharges approximately 150,000 gallons per day (gpd)
of noncontact, once-through cooling water. This cooling
water supply partially originates from Slip No. 3 in Waukegan
Harbor (001).
Numerous scientific investigations have been conducted to
define the extent of the PCB contamination. Alternatives
for removal/destruction of PCB-contaminated sediments in the
harbor and the North Ditch area have been previously formu-
lated and proposed. A listing of the data used to conduct
the FS is presented in Section 8, Bibliography.
Remedial action, consisting of building a bypass around the
North Ditch, was attempted in December 1979. This activity
unearthed new areas of substantial PCB contamination beneath
OMC's North Parking Lot. The bypass construction was post-
poned in early 1980, when USEPA updated its preliminary re-
medial action alternatives assessment and ultimate disposal
and/or destruction alternatives to include the Parking Lot
area of contamination.
Also in 1980, a special congressional appropriation in the
USEPA budget and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) "Superfund" monies
became available to begin the cleanup of Waukegan Harbor.
USEPA contracted with WAPORA, Inc., to conduct an Environmen-
tal Assessment (EA) of the site. Funding, site constraints,
and the time schedule modified the feasible alternatives
discussed in the unpublished work by WAPORA, Inc. (002, 048) .
This funding was also used for planning and design work con-
ducted by Mason & Hanger. In March 1983, the State of Illinois
and USEPA signed the State Superfund Contract for this site,
which included funding for this FS to assess alternatives.
PD998.051 1-5
-------
EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
Waukegan Harbor
Based on Mason & Hanger's Addendum to Final Report, dated
May 1981 (008) , and Mason & Hanger's Second Addendum to Final
Report, dated March 1982 (016), about 42,900 cubic yards
(yd3) of upper sediments (muck) and 3,700 yd3 of deep sediments
(sand and silt) would have to be controlled to clean up areas
of contamination exceeding 50 ppm PCB in Waukegan Harbor.
These quantities were based on available data and were assumed
to be accurate to an order of magnitude (076). The addenda
define the following areas of PCB contamination:
• Slip No. 3—About 7,200 yd3 of muck at thicknesses
varying from 2 to 5 ft are contaminated by about
167,200 Ib of PCBs, with concentrations typically
exceeding 500 ppm. About 3,700 yd3 of sand and
silt at an average thickness of 7 ft are contami-
nated by about 138,000 Ib of PCBs, with concentra-
tions exceeding 10,000 ppm in a localized area
near the former OMC outfall.
• Upper Harbor—About 35,700 yd3 of muck at thick-
nesses varying from 1 to 5 ft are contaminated by
about 5,000 Ib of PCBs, with concentrations typi-
cally 50 to 500 ppm.
North Ditch/Parking Lot Area
Based on Mason & Hanger's Final Report, dated January 1981
(001), and on Weston's study of March 1982 (051), about
175,800 yd3 of material would have to be controlled to clean
up areas of contamination exceeding 50 ppm PCB in the North
Ditch/Parking Lot area. These quantities were based on avail-
able data and were assumed to be accurate to an order of
magnitude (076). The reports define the following areas of
PCB contamination:
• Crescent Ditch—About 28,900 yd3 of soil at an
average thickness of 25 ft are contaminated by
about 403,700 Ib of PCBs. Typically, concentra-
tions are 5,000 to 38,000 ppm. North of the die
storage area, about 2,300 yd3 of soil at an average
thickness of 3 ft are contaminated by about 2,000 Ib
of PCBs. Concentrations are typically about 200 ppm.
• Oval Lagoon—About 14,600 yd3 of soil at an average
thickness of 27 ft are contaminated. There are
about 85,500 Ib of PCBs in the top 5 ft of the
lagoon. Typically, concentrations in the top 5 ft
are about 26,000 ppm. There were no data on the
PCB concentrations or quantities below 5 ft.
PD998.051 1-6
-------
• North Ditch—About 25,000 yd3 of soil at an average
thickness of 25 ft are contaminated by at least
4,300 Ib of PCBs. About 200 ft of the western
portion of the ditch are contaminated with concen-
trations typically in excess of 5,000 ppm PCB, and
about 1,000 ft of the western and central portion
of the ditch are contaminated with concentrations
typically ranging from 500 to 5,000 ppm.
• Parking Lot—Beneath the eastern half of the exist-
ing Parking Lot, about 68,000 yd3 of soil at thick-
nesses varying from 2 to 12 ft are contaminated.
In the northwest portion of this contaminated area,
an additional 37,000 yd3 of soil at thicknesses
varying from 5 to 30 ft are contaminated. Approxi-
mately 277,700 Ib of PCBs are in these areas. The
northwest corner and an area east of the Parking
Lot are contaminated with concentrations typically
in excess of 5,000 ppm PCB. The southwest corner
of the Parking Lot is contaminated with concentra-
tions typically ranging from 50 to 5,000 ppm.
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Effects on Fish
The USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for protection of
freshwater aquatic life from PCB chronic toxicity is
0.014 parts per billion (ppb) (088). The lowest reported
toxic concentration for freshwater aquatic life for PCB
acute toxicity is 2.0 ppb (085). Total PCB concentrations
in the surface water at the CMC site vary from about 0.6 ppb
in Waukegan Harbor to less than 0.01 ppb in Lake Michigan
directly offshore from Waukegan Harbor. About 60 percent of
the total harbor PCBs in the water column is in the dis-
solved form. The water column PCB concentrations vary over
a range of about 1.5 to 2.0 orders of magnitude (035).
Fish accumulate PCBs in their tissues by uptake from the
water in which they live and by ingestion of aquatic organ-
isms, insects, and plants that have taken up PCBs from their
environment. It has been demonstrated that fish bioaccumu-
late PCBs to factors of 100,000 or more times the ambient
water concentrations of PCBs. Available data indicate that
PCBs are not excreted or degraded but are stored in skin and
adipose (fatty) tissue. In USEPA studies on Lake Michigan
fish, results ranged from concentrations of 2.7 to 187 ppm
PCB in fatty tissue for all species. PCB concentrations in
excess of 5 ppm were present in all trout and salmon more
than 12 inches long. Positive correlations between size of
the fish, percent fat, and age and the concentration of PCBs
dissolved in the water column have also been found. There-
fore, larger fish with a higher percent fat content, such as
PD998.051 1-7
-------
salmon and trout, accumulate high concentrations of PCBs.
Bottom feeders, such as carp, also accumulate very high PCB
concentrations from contact with PCB-contaminated bottom
sediments (002, 021).
Bioaccumulation has been shown to occur at positions higher
in the food chain. Carnivorous predators, such as large-
mouth bass, have markedly higher PCB concentrations than
species lower on the food chain (069, 002, 021).
Research has also shown that PCBs interfere with growth and
reproduction of several species of fish. PCBs in the water
column have been shown to inhibit phytoplankton photosynthe-
sis. This will limit the growth of fish that require phyto-
plankton as a food source. High PCB concentrations in bottom
sediments may interfere with the development of eggs that
are deposited on the bottom during spawning. Fish fry mor-
tality has a direct correlation to PCB levels in the water
column, thereby artificially reducing fish populations.
PCBs may ultimately act to diminish natural populations of
fish species (002, 021, 049).
Effects on Animals
Physiological effects on animals caused by PCB exposure or
ingestion include the following (069, 086, 087):
• Death of lower invertebrates
• Swelling of livers in various species
• Enzyme system disturbances in various species
• Growth inhibition in hamsters
• Decrease in immunosuppression in birds and mammals
• Hyperkeratosis, erethyma, blisters, and desquama-
tion in rabbits
• Decreased reproduction in minks
The fact that PCBs bioaccumulate in animal tissues is also
of concern because the contaminant remains in the food
chain. PCB concentrations bioaccumulate without being
degraded or eliminated and can reach levels that may be
toxic to those organisms at the top of the food chain (085) .
Impacts on Public Health and Safety
The magnitude of PCB effects on human health are not yet
known. However, a severe accident involving PCB contamination
of rice oil occurred in Kyushu, Japan, in 1968, implicating
PD998.051 1-8
-------
PCBs as a health hazard. The Japanese called the accident
Yusho (oil disease). The oil contained PCS concentrations
of 2,000 and 3,000 ppm, now known to be in combination with
chlorinated dibenzofurans and quaterphenyls (049, 065).
Health effects were documented in more than 2,000 persons.
Consumption of the contaminated oil resulted in skin lesions,
blindness, hearing loss, jaundice, and abdominal pain. Uter-
ine ulcers, stillbirths, and miscarriages also occurred.
Infants born to mothers exposed to the contaminated rice oil
exhibited skin, gum, and fingernail discoloration, indicating
that at least some of the contaminants crossed the placental
membranes. Other symptoms of Yusho toxicity in humans include:
swelling of joints, waxy secretion of eyelid glands, general
lethargy, joint pain, weakness and vomiting, abnormal menstrual
cycles, and weight loss (085, 086, 087, 002, 021, 049).
Occupational exposure to PCB mixtures has caused chloracne
and liver injuries in workers exposed to low levels. PCB
effects on worker health from occupational exposure have
also been documented (049, 002, 021).
Documented occurrences of high levels of PCB contamination
in humans have almost all resulted from consumption of contami-
nated foods, accidentally or through accumulation in fatty
tissues through the food chain. Inhalation of and skin contact
with PCBs are not considered a significant source of contami-
nation for the general public, but they are of concern in
occupational exposure. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards (29 CFR 1910) for an 8-hour
work shift exposure to PCBs in air is 1.0 milligram per liter
(mg/1) for PCBs with 54 percent chlorine (Aroclor 1254) and
0.5 mg/1 for PCBs with 42 percent chlorine (Aroclor 1242).
There is no OSHA standard set for PCBs with 48 percent chlorine
(Aroclor 1248). Samples taken by the Environmental Research
Group, Inc. (ERG) on September 3, 1980, for USEPA detected
Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1248 in Waukegan Harbor sediments.
Aroclor 1254 was below detection limits (079).
USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for carcinogenicity
protection of human health from ingestion of water and organ-
isms is 0.00079 ppb at the K>~5 risk level. Concentrations
that have a risk level of 10~5 are estimated to result in an
increase of one cancer death per 100,000 people who
experience PCB exposure over a lifetime. Total PCB
concentration vary from 0.6 ppb in Waukegan Harbor to less
than 0.01 ppb in Lake Michigan directly offshore from
Waukegan Harbor (035) . There is an emergency water supply
intake for Waukegan near the mouth of the harbor.
Potential Impacts of No Action
Under the No Action alternative, surface-water bodies, sedi-
ments, and soils would remain contaminated with a toxic substance
PD998.051 1-9
-------
regulated under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Socioe-
conomic impacts would continue and might include the following
(085) :
• Loss of fish for human consumption
• Reduction or loss of commercial fishing
• Decline in property values
• Depressed area growth
• Reduction in recreational activity, such as boating
and sport fishing
• Reduction in commercial harbor access due to lack
of harbor dredging
• Expenditures for laboratory analysis of area water,
soil, and biota samples
• Occupational exposure
• Expenditures for medical services
• Expenditures for legal services
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor. The No Action alternative will
leave an estimated 305,200 Ib of PCBs in Slip No. 3 with
concentrations in excess of 10,000 ppm in the localized area
of Slip No. 3 and in excess of 500 ppm in the rest of Slip
No. 3 sediments; and 5,000 Ib of PCBs in the Upper Harbor in
concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm. Approximately
98.4 percent of all the PCBs now found in Slip No. 3 and the
Upper Harbor sediments are located in Slip No. 3. PCBs in
these concentrations are regulated by 40 CFR 761 under TSCA.
Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor PCBs will continue to contrib-
ute to the estimated 22 Ib of PCBs released into Lake Michi-
gan each year from Waukegan Harbor water (based on a steady
state model) (035). The Waukegan area will continue to repre-
sent the most significant contributor to Lake Michigan PCB
contamination, since it holds the largest known uncontained
PCB mass in the lake basin. The potential for volatilization
of PCBs will continue, contributing to the estimated 12 to
40 Ib released from the harbor into the local airshed each
year (007, 030, 035). Channel dredging has been suspended
because of PCB contamination, and shipping access to the
harbor will eventually be eliminated. Harbor maintenance
dredging of PCB-contaminated soils is expensive because of
disposal and handling requirements. Huron Portland Cement
and National Gypsum are now and will continue to be directly
impacted, since they depend on the harbor to receive raw
material shipments.
PD998.051 1-10
-------
North Ditch/Parking Lot Area. The No Action Alternative
will leave an estimated 773,200 Ib of PCBs in the North
Ditch/Parking Lot area with levels of PCB contamination in
excess of 10,000 ppm in a localized area of the Crescent
Ditch and Oval Lagoon and between 50 and 10,000 ppm in the
rest of the North Ditch/Parking Lot area soils. Offsite
drainage that enters the North Ditch will continue to become
contaminated, discharging PCBs into Lake Michigan. It is
estimated that this source discharges 7 to 20 pounds per
year (Ib/yr) of PCBs into the lake annually (032, 035).
Existing volatilization of PCBs from the North Ditch waters
is estimated to be 15 Ib/yr (004). Although volatilization
of contaminated soils does not appear to be occurring now,
the potential exists if existing soils are disturbed (004) .
Grading, trenching, drilling, digging, or other activities
necessary for utility installation, drainage, or other con-
struction projects could cause volatilization of PCBs. Under
the No Action alternative, PCBs will continue to be released
into the airshed through volatilization.
Groundwater is within 3 feet of the surface of the Parking
Lot, resulting in contamination of these waters. It is esti-
mated that these slowly moving waters will begin releasing
some 8 Ib/yr of PCBs into Lake Michigan in approximately
60 years (002). This will result in further contamination
of local water and soil, which could continue for decades.
The hydrologic system is currently not well enough understood
to determine the extent of past or future PCB contamination
by groundwater movement from the North Ditch. Without cleanup
action, groundwater contamination will still exist.
OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA
The proposed site-specific remedial response objectives and
criteria for the OMC Hazardous Waste Site have been developed
in accordance with the NCP. These objectives and criteria
have been used to select and develop the remedial response
measures for the OMC site.
Objectives
The primary objectives of this FS are to:
• Recommend cost-effective source control remedial
action (s) in accordance with the NCP under statu-
tory requirements of CERCLA.
• Prepare a conceptual design of the remedial action
alternative (s) selected by the USEPA Record of
Decision.
PD998.051 1-11
-------
Criteria
To meet the project objectives, the following site-specific
criteria were used in considering alternatives and in develop-
ing our recommendations:
• Economic comparisons were made on a present-worth
basis, considering both initial construction (capi-
tal) costs, and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs, as applicable. For purposes of reducing
O&M costs to present worth, a 20-year life was
used, with a discount rate of 10 percent (as estab-
lished by Office of Management and Budget Circular
No. A-94).
• During initial screening, alternatives whose appar-
ent cost far exceeded (e.g., by a factor of about
10 or more) the costs of other alternatives were
usually excluded from further consideration, unless
there were substantially greater public health or
environmental benefits.
• During detailed analysis of the alternatives, the
primary cost selection criterion was to identify
alternatives that would remove or contain the great-
est mass of PCBs per present-worth dollar. In the
case of alternatives with approximately equal costs
per pound of PCBs removed, the selection criterion
was to remove, secure, or reduce exposure to mate-
rial most likely to adversely affect the public
health and welfare or the environment.
• In considering environmental effects, alternatives
were eliminated when long-term adverse environmen-
tal effects resulting from implementation would
exceed the long-term mitigation benefits expected
(i.e., the alternative is not expected to achieve
adequate source control). The potential effects
were evaluated based on engineering judgment, in a
qualitative manner; quantitative analyses were not
used.
• Alternatives were generally eliminated when it was
judged that the permit acquisition process would
unnecessarily delay (i.e., beyond mid-1984) project
startup.
• In general, alternatives that were suitable from
an engineering practice viewpoint and judged to
provide an adequate degree of protection of the
public health and welfare and the environment were
retained, when they could be accomplished in a
reasonable time (i.e., from mid-1984 to late 1986).
PD998.051 1-12
-------
Project timing was determined by USEPA to be a
critical criterion for the OMC site.
• Alternatives that relied on unproven or experi-
mental technology were generally eliminated since
their feasibility and reliability have not been
demonstrated.
• Alternatives that required special-order, special-
manufacture, or limited-availability equipment or
products, because of time delays, were generally
eliminated in favor of techniques using convention-
al/available equipment or products, when similar
results could be achieved.
• Commonly available, conventional construction and
process equipment and products were selected to
the maximum extent possible, whenever such items
conformed to the preceding criteria.
In summary, these criteria were directed toward developing
remedial actions that would be effective in cleaning up the
site, environmentally sound, economical, and constructible
in a timely manner with generally available procedures.
PD998.051 1-13
-------
JOB SITE
WAUKEGAN
HARBOR
WISCONSIN
CHICAGO
MAMMON
I*1
•
80
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
SOURCE- MASON AND HANGER (001)
W65328.00
FIGURE 1-1
LOCATION MAP
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
EPA 13-5M28.0
-------
OUTBOARD MARINE CORP
JOHNSON OUTBOARDS OIV
PLANT NO 2
SOURCE OF BASE: MASON AND HANGER (001)
t
I
t
t
T
1-
HURON
PORTLAND
CEMENT
CO
\
LEGEND
PCB CONCENTRATIONS
OVER 500 PPM
PCB CONCENTRATIONS
50 AND 500 PPM
BETWEEN
FIGURE 1-2
SITE MAP
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
EPA 13-5M28.0
W6S328.00
-------
Section 2
PRELIMINARY SCREENING
This section summarizes the preliminary screening of the
unit processes for remedial action alternatives. The unit
processes were evaluated based on the preliminary screening
criteria and in accordance with the other site-specific re-
medial response objectives and criteria discussed in Sec-
tion 1. The preliminary screening process narrowed the al-
ternatives down to five or six for each area. The retained
alternatives were evaluated in more detail during initial
screening (see Section 4).
PRELIMINARY SCREENING CRITERIA
All unit processes identified were subjected to preliminary
screening criteria to determine whether further evaluation
was warranted. Development of preliminary screening criteria
was based on existing technology, availability, time require-
ments, economics, and the overall remedial response objec-
tives and criteria presented in Section 1. The preliminary
screening criteria used to evaluate or eliminate unit pro-
cesses consisted of the following:
« Alternatives using unproven or conceptual tech-
nologies were eliminated based on critical timing.
• Alternatives previously evaluated and eliminated
by others were eliminated when CH2M HILL concurred,
based on elements of the NCP (cost, environmental
effects, and acceptable engineering practices).
• Alternatives that were inefficient or required an
unreasonable length of time to implement were elimi-
nated.
• Alternatives that were ineffective in reducing
exposure to or potential health effects of PCBs
were eliminated.
• Alternatives that were judged not technically fea-
sible were eliminated.
• Alternatives having conceptual costs that were not
cost-effective (i.e., with costs an order of mag-
nitude or more higher than other alternatives)
were eliminated.
• Alternatives not in conformance with the site-specific
objectives were eliminated.
• Alternatives not consistent with the NCP were elimi-
nated.
PD998.052 2-1
-------
The unit processes presented below describe various new tech-
nologies and also borrow from proven technologies developed
for other engineering fields with similar needs. A list of
potential unit processes for remedial action alternatives,
as well as a summary of the reasons for their further evalua-
tion or elimination, is presented in Table 2-1. Alternatives
were divided into the following categories according to their
applicability to the problem:
No action
In-place destruction
In-place fixation
In-place PCB separation and removal
PCB-contaminated solids removal
Sediment dispersal control
Surface water and groundwater control
Bypass
Initial solids dewatering
Secondary solids dewatering
Fixation
Water treatment
Onsite storage/disposal
Offsite storage/disposal
Transportation
NO ACTION
Under the No Action alternative, surface water bodies, soils,
and sediments would remain contaminated with a toxic substance
regulated under TSCA. Socioeconomic impacts would and might
include the following (085):
• Loss of fish for human consumption
• Reduction or loss of commercial fishing
• Decline in property values
• Depressed area growth
• Reduction in recreational activity, such as
boating and sport fishing
• Reduction in commercial harbor access due to lack
of harbor dredging
• Expenditures for laboratory analysis of area
water, soil, and biota samples
• Expenditures for medical services
• Occupational exposure
• Expenditures for legal services
PD998.052 2-2
-------
•
CO
4J
C
01
o
CJ
CO
1^4
H
ZZ
P
H
i-j
•a!
00
Z to C
CD 01 -1-4 4J
M rl A! O
/— H W •< rl r4
CO O H co
•< M 4J a.
UH CO CO O
O rJ M J
•< W O 4J
i-i MHZ 00 C
O CO M o C CU .C
CU W oo
.a c/j 3 4-i O co
tO H CJ -r4 _]
H U S O
0 0
Oi A
cu 4J .c si
rl 4J U
EH O -i 4J
M Z O i-l
Z Z O
b-
O rl
rl O
H 0) X)
M a. in
M O. tO
rJ 3 B
rO
p.
•H •
1-4 O
co z
CU
•H
4J
CO
C
rl
CU
4J
C
o
4J
CO
rH
3
g
3
CJ
O
to
O
•r4
f~\
j\
•a
rl •
CO *
M *
co-—
o
rH O
^J
C CU
CU rH
g X)
C to
o -a
iH CO
•rl !H
> ao
C OI
OI 13
O
n •(-)
CO rO
u
0 4J
CU O
UH B
UH
CU CU
& CO
4J
rH CO
co S3
CU CJ
33 P-i
X
X
X
X
X
-j<
X
3
o
H
CJ
Bd
H
crt
a
z
o w
M CJ
< PH
1
Z M
1 1
CU 01 rH
G CJ 4J iH
OI to O 10
O.rH B >
a. co
O I "
•r4 rH 4J
oi c a
1-1 rl O "O
J3 0
to UH E — O
c cu in C
3 CU 4J o
rH CO O *
X CO CO i-H UH
rH rH O 1-t
G -H 13 O rH
O OJ CU • —
> CO O
§Cfl O OI 'r4
rH CO X2
4J 4J U 3 4J
CO O G
X C " CD CU
CO X CJ s~* &
" rH CO in
•a co c i-< o J3
OI 4J O O. O O
CO -H 1 -3
O CO O) C " -— E
1-1 o ooi-4 i-i m
CJ Cu CO O O CU
CU 4J rl O O 4-1
" TD CO O *— ' •** tO
CU UH C
00 O, . X rH rH -rl
COCUx— In CD CO CO g
4JCUin OrH 3 3 -i-l
O ffl "to ^X CX *CU
4J CU -~- rl 1-H CU CU
O 4-1 O 1-1 O O rH
rHCOCU ,O CO G G rH
•HrlCO C0> O O 1-4
CU4J3 J 03 o CJ 3
,-^
g
to
cu
C
O
rl
4J
O
01
rH
CU
•o
G
B CO
0 Z
i-l to O
G to g H
CO O T3 CO •<
i-l -H ^ 00 X
CO 4J X '•^ I— t
X tO O fti
rH 13 S
O CO rH O W
C rl tO -H CJ
O 00 O 4J i-l j3 co Z
-3 CO O Oi M
rH CO
rH 1 4J O
•H 00 O i-4
UH C C 00
T3 O O
G 0) l-H rl rH
CO 03 O O
rH O X) 1-1
4-1 C rl £>
" O to
X c 4-1 si o
4J 3 1-4
•H "O X) UH XI
rH rH O O
•H 3 rl
X) • O C 00 cu
to C "3 <0 C to
4-1 i-t CXi-l G
CO CO CO to 00 CO
EC TO
13 OI O 0) "
H rt 1-1 B rl CU
to 4-1 . in -a s
rH tO y— 1-4 «
COrH tiin "DO! 4-J^^
4J.H uo cUri oim
CJ3 CO 4J3 UHO
41 <1) v-- CO 4J 1-4 O
UH CO O rl 3 rH v^
UH PQ CX 4J UH .
OICJ OrH CO /-» "Orl
cu o 4J G -«m 01 3
E C O to o 4J O
01 -a oo-ri cu to E o
4JCU -HO 13^3" i-l
1 rl X3 '^4 H rH rH
OOlH UH X CO O l—l
C 3 "UH rH 4J O "-H
OCT r-<3 rHCJ — • 1-H3
rH CU to to 30) CO
>H 3 UH UH CU 3 X
O rl O. 01 CO 01 XI O.1H
CU CU O OI 1 -r4 CU >
CU> O3 OEM OiH
rH-r4 B"O OrICO C4J
jaco ocu 3010 oo
COS CJl< CO4JO. CJCO
rJ
^
o
2
2
Q
z
rH <
CO
CU Z
C co O
O (H
•r4 CU H
4J c <;
CO CO OS
N rl •<
1-1 XI OH
rH g W
i-4 CU CO
•s E «
4-1 CU O
CO rH CU
a
co OI to W
4J CJ 01 O
c to e <
CU rH rl — !
XI D. 01 OH
IH 1 O. 1
OB E Z
CO M rH M
X
rH
•rl
CO
CO
O
a.
in co
O 4J
o c
•~^ 01
in co i— i
O co o
O CU CO
^— B
01
ao > oo
B i-l B
•rl 4J 1-4
4-1 CJ 4J
CO CU CO
CU UH 01
4J UH 4J
01
•a 13
01 CU 01
T! 4J . -r4
UH iH -— UH
E m
O i-l O O
B rH O C
M f\ *\^~^
t— i I-H r- f I-H in
cd cd CQ (Q O
3 3 3 3 O
a* a. a. Q.
u nj CO OI OI
CO OI £1
> > CO 4J
01 r. O G
•rf CO CO CU
ri x: i >
4J O rH i-H
CU -rl --4 O
e! (Q o co
•
J
J
33
s
33
o
X
•a
cu
a.
o
rH
• CU
00 >
B CU
•r4 13
C
CU 01
CU rl
-. cu
0 3
CO
13
1-H CU
CO U
•H C
4-1 CU
1-1 rl
C 0)
i-f UH
CU
00 rl
C
1-4 4J
r. O
3 B
•a
CO
c cu
o >
4J 4J
CO to
3 C
CO CU
> 4J
CU rH
CO
)H
OI •"
t-1 ^^
4J CO
rl
3 G
UH O
i-l
rl 4J
O 0
UH 01
CO
•a -^
cu
4J rl
u cu
CU XI
l-H S
01 3
CO B
CO i— t
CU O
CO rl
CO 4J
01 G
cj O
O 0
rl
Cu4J
G
4J CU
•ri g
C 3
3 0
O
m 13
4J
B O
CU 4J
CO
CU 01
!-. rl
a. cu
CU UH
rl CU
a;
a
a.
2-3
-------
t
0)
iH
4-1
CJ
cu
M-I
M-I
01
4J
CO
O
CJ
O
Z
fixed directl;
01
.a
T3
3
O
CJ
CO
4^
C
c
1-4
•a
cu
CO
13
cu
00
13
CU
13
l_i
CO
1 i
CU
I—I
n
>H
CO
CQ
O
Oi
required
ires closeoff
estimate
rations, and
CU 3 4J
oo cr o c
kl CU 4J CU
CO kl CJ
J2 4J C
-•-i O
C l-H O /->
o -H i-i co m
i-4 O M-l -O O
CO CuM-l i-l O
C CO -^ rH
01 13 O •
O-M-I CO iH
CO O • O
3 4J CO O
CO 4J 3 01 ^— '
kl O CO
4-1 O Q 4-1
c 0, e cu c
CU CO O kl CU
e c 4J cj s
T-4 CO 4J C 4-1
T3 kl O -r^ CO
oi u a cu
c
O 01
s e
4J
c
cu
4J
CO
cu
jj
4-1
c •
CO >,
4J 0
CO C
c cu
kl 1-1
CU CJ
Cui-4
CO UH
cu
•0
C 1-1
CO CO
00 cS
c s
•f-i ~^
g) yj
S nj
t— *
*»*fH
C CO
o >
irf CO
CO
C 4-1
CU O
a. c
CO
3 *
CO f"l
4J •
C O
II
T3 -r-(
•* CO
4J 3
•H
CJ •
CO 4J
Cu CU
CO CU
O <4-l
O m
Z r-l
m
§
13
CU
•H
3
cr
01
CU
u
CO
Cu
CO
00
C
•H
01
3
01
c
CO
E
CU
1-4
CO
C
CU
4-)
X
Cd
o
CN
CU
00
o^c
0) J2
CJ CJ
CO
H
CJ
'3
z a
CO
H
IH
kl O
cu .o
O- ki
Cu at
X
rH O
CO Z
8
fi
cu
13
oo
c
cu
cu
IH
fc.
CU
00
•o
CU
CO
o
1-1
c
co
A
u
00
CO
cu
•o
•a
CO
CU CU
Cu ^
Cu CJ
-H 3
o a
cu
3
CO
CO
cu
00
13
U
I-i
•a
3
"S
1-1
13
CU
O.
Cu
O
X
CJ
CU
D-
13
CO
CU
•e
cu
c
CO
O,
CO
CJ
13
i
CO
u
cu
•a
CN
co
m
o
oo
s
2-4
-------
nt treatmel
CO
4J
CO
C
IH
CU
a.
3
CO
•a
c
CO
w
c
iH
p4
cu
4J
CO
3
CU
•a
4J
c
CU
s
•o
cu
CO
CO
CO
cu
•H
•a
cu
CO
•a
cu
oo
•a
cu
•a
ft
CU
00
•a
cu
13 r*">
,—4
CJ 4J
iH O
rH CU
3 >H
CO f4
rH -O
•a
a cu
X
O MH
UH
CU
C J3
CO
4-1 i-H
3
•o o
CU 0
•H CO
3 4-1
cr c
cu cu
rH S
^-x
m
o
o
4J
C
g
Q^
•t-4
.3
cr
OJ
OJ
(—*
rO
CO
i-l
CO
CO
^
rH
C
o
s
o
o
4-1
0
z
T3
CU O
CQ 4J
3
jj
«• O
CU CU
l-H •!— l
02 a
CO 3
C CO
o
•H CU
4J 03
CO
CU >>
3 CO
cr e
c •«
o w
•H CO
CO O
C OH
CU
a, cu
M >
3 O
co S
cu
4J rH
c
cu o
S 4J
•H
•a n
cu o
CO 4J
00
O i-l
cu to
CU CO
rH 3
oo
CU C
a 1-1
production
•o
CU
4-1
CO
4J
CO
C
0
g
cu
•o
3
O
rH
n
CO
c
O
•H
4-1
U
•H
4J
CO
CU
4J •
O m
Q.O
SO
•H v—'
rH O
CO W
CU
4-1 00
C <0
CU 4J
O CQ
CU >:
O.r-1
M
o to
•3- cu
0 G
4J i-l
a. •>
3 -a
cu
CX4J
S to
3 cu
a. 4-1
?*i T3
CO rH
S CU
•rH
•« (4H
CU
rH 00
CO 1-1
r-J CU
•H 02
CO
CO rH
4-1
CU S
ft cu
M
>, IH
CO 3
2 0
(
-U
a
g
o.
0
rH
CU
cu
•o
I O
IH Cu
4-1 0
O 4J
C
4-1
• O
C CU
O —i
•H a
CO 3
C CO
cu
Q. cu
CO 03
3
CO >,
4-1 S
C
3 to
O
rH X
>l-l->
IH C
CU cu
> rH
•
X— v
in
o
o
CO
C
o
•H
4-1
O
4-1
to
CU
rH
•
"O
cu
•r-l
3
cr
cu
rH
CO
a
o
a.
CO
•a
A
4J
to
3
T3
A
cu
CO
•H
O
CO
£.
O
00
c
iH
CU
4J •
w~
3 in
cu O
\^^
*\
>% W
i- S
•a a)
r^ .Q
rH O
CU IH
> a
•r-i
•u >-,
CO 4J
rH iH
CU rH
IH 1-1
a
CU CO
4J 4J
•H W
to
CU
C CO
O 3
•H a
4-1 U
CO
> T3
CO rH
O 3
X O
O
u
o
CO
'4-1
o
oo
c
TH
^)
CU •
4-1 s~*
co m
3 0
CU O
•o ^
« CO
•a e
cu cu
•I-l ,0
3 O
cr w
cu a.
j^
CU 4J
4-1 -H
•H rH
CO -H
•O C8
CU -U
IH CO
CU
4-1 CU
CO CO
3 3
CU CO
Q 0
m
o
o
3
cr
cu
O
O
a.
•a
cu
rH
•iH
3
cr
cu
!H
o *->
O rH
•a
§
IH
JZ
oo
c
CO
CO C
CO CO
CO .C
O, 4-1
in
-,O
i O
CO
4J
C
CU
e
.rH
•o
CU
•a
o
z
cu
IH
OOH
i-l O
4-1 O
fa s^
cu
4-1 C
co i-l
4J )H
O 3
z u
o
O
s:
00
O
c
CO
oo
14H
o
CU
00
CO
CO
CU
^
4J
0
rJ
00
C
•H
^
to
OH
•a
c
CO
_r^
CJ
4J
a
x:
IH
O
z
00
c
•H 4-1
^ o
rH rJ
CO
OH
C
cu jz
U CJ
CO 4J
CU TH
rH Q
O
C
rH O
CO O
> M
O co
x: s:
u o
rH 4J
O -H
Z 0
X
H
c/i
CL co
B a
rH O
CO 2
l-H 3
IH CU
•rt C
< (J,
O
cu
4-1
S
CO
z
CU
N
O
o
C
cu
s
o.
•iH
3
cr
cu
c
o
CO
^
Cd
rH
CU
cx
CO
IH
CJ
CO
IH
CU
13
CO
O
•a
c
cu
c
o
£
cu
o
u
CO
to
no
CO
rH
a
00
c
CU
rH
3
13
CU
IH
I1
CO
3
oo
c
CD
m
O
S
2-5
-------
O
-*
Ol
oa
cu
CO
>v* Q
"£ r4
£
CU A
U CJ
01 -U
01 iH
rH Cl
CJ
rH§
I a
6 to
s a
« 01
00 4J
01 C C
CU i-l CU
•a a, s
•rH S IH
> 3 -0
O O. CU
rH CO
O.T3
c a
« tfl O!
IH 01
01 to -a
4-1 4J
eo n s
3 -H CJ
•o o co
c a. cu
3 IH
0 rH
rl rH 0
00 0) 4J
"O fO •
C CO ^v
CO 01 • r-l
rl O O
CU -H 2 o
CJ 3 *~-
co cr a.
UH O! *H 01
>H SH rH 03
3 CO O
01 •• BH
4J C
UH rH 1-f UH
O O O
Q.-O
5 a a) E
O 3 IH O
rH CO 1-1 1-1
UH 3 4J
C rH CT CO
•tH CO 01 N
rl rH •H
01 3 rH
CU 4J Ol i-l
CJ CJ J3 4-1
33 CO
•0 rH >,rH
01 4-1 CO O
an co s >
X
l/^
o
o
co
rH
CO
u
rH
Ol
CO
3
c
3
O
00
01
rH
01
^
Q
_!
cu m
> o
IH O
4J N^
0
CU CO
UH to
UH CU
Ol B
1 CU
01 fH
O 4-1
CJ CJ
CU
[ 1 l[ [
O UH
C CU
„ 11
rl 4J
CU CO
CO rH
3 CO
•a >
c u
3
o >,
00 rH
3
O
0
rH CU
UH rH
c -a
0]
01 01
01 O
u a.
3
Ol O
a: c
CO
3
CJ
3
; I
01
01
CU
•a
•H
o
a.
j,4
CU
CO
3
•o
c
3
0
rl
00
o
5 *
rH r-l
UH O
C O
01 4-1
Ol IH
0 O
3 a.
•o o.
CU 3
Qtf 01
•
y— V
H
O
O
rl
CU
4J
CO
3
•o
c
3
O
00
o
^
r-t
4-1
c
01
01
CJ
3
•a
cu
Pi
I
CU
U 01
CO CJ
rH tO
O.I4H
0) rH
-• 3
CO
O C
•H
S CO
CJ CO
0 rl
01
£ a.
•u a
r. 3
3 01
o oo
rH >H
^ C8
01 o
CJ CO
tO IH
14H -rj
in
3 rl
CO O
UH
CU
4-1 13
01 rH.^
1H CO
01 3 O
4J cro
CJ Ol ^-^
O> IH
rl rH
iH 4-1 CU
•a c 4-i
Ol Ol to
i O
•a o
3
O C
IH O
00 IH
4J
•o 0
01 3
u -o
CO O
C IH
TH a.
tO rH
4J *rl
C O
O CO
CJ
•a
CU 4J
CO C
rH iH
E
O CO
01 o
CU CJ
oo
IH T3
CO C
s: co
o
01 •>
•r4 4J
•a c
cj oi
rH >
O
01 E
01
O -1
3 U
•a 4J
cu co
ai 3
X
01
c
Ol
a
in
O
O
c
CU
X
X
rH O
01 J3
O, >H
O. CO
rH O
CO Z
-J
CU
^
•H
4-1
CO
C
rH
2
<
O
O
CJ
Pi
w
H
a
z
3
o
pi
CJ
Q
S
SO i-l
C 13
01
I
U
IH
3
00
C
•H
•o
CO
SH
CJ
Ol
a.
4-1 CU E
CO 00 C
iH CO O
XI C 4J
CU i-l CO
CO
01 IH T3
CO -O C
CO 3
O.T3 O
rX C rl
03 CO 00
01
00
tO
CJ
c
CU S
01 C
Ol O
a. to
4J O
rH 4J
CU
> CJ
>H O
CO 4-1
Ol
C 4J
O
01 Ol
c c
•rH C
01 o
CO U
,Q
•a
.C B
cj to
4-1
CO .C
CJ O
4J
CU Q _
B 3
4J Ol
rH C CO
rH Ol
co CJ E
4J 01 rH
CO CU O
B rl U
rH CJ CO
IH
01
O
B
01
§•
•D
01
C
3
O
s:
Q.
S
3
a.
,>,
CO
IH
O
C,
I
-*
co'
o
co'
a
PH
2-6
-------
3
CO
U
C
^
E
§
o
CJ
cd
CU
4J
c
3
"4-4
o
cu
CO
O
a.
CO
•H
•a
IH
O
**«^
•0
J^
O
3
IH
4-1
•
O ^*
4-1 in
O
cu o
•H *
4-1 CN
CJ O
CD O
MH
14H *s
CU H
> O
4-1 O
o
U h
cu
4J 4J
£3
x-s
o
o
CM
O
O
*\
(— (
o
o
•a
c
cd
rH
CU
rH
CO
rH
•H
CO
>
CO
CU
>
CO
r*.
4J
O
C
>,
Cd
•o
cu
4J
cd
4J
CO
C
£
QJ
*O
x
rH
rH
3
HH
CO
CO
CU
0
CJ
3
cu
!— 1
cd
0
CO
4J
o
•H
OH
.
i4H
.
rH
e
O
m
4J
3
O
CO
O
4-1
CO
3
cr
cu
4-1
C
01
3
<4H
&J
•
TJ
CU
CO
CO
•a
c
cu cd
rH rH
a.
E u
•H O
co z
TJ
01
3
cr
CU
00
c
•rH
^1
cu
4J
cd
3
cu
•a
>4H
O
cu
cu
00
CU
•o
CO
cu
o
3
•a
&
1
M-t
•<-!
TD
^
CO
CO
CO
CU
CJ
cu
^
cu
4J
o
•a •
B cu
CO >
•H
C 4J
0 CJ
i-l CU
4J 14H
CO 14H
rH CU
rH 1
CO 4J
4-1 CO
CO O
C CJ
•rl
4J
CU O
rH C
Q, CO
C
4J O
cu 1-1
CU 4-1
S CO
CO O
•
.,H
4-1
O
•a
c
Cd
rH
cu
l-H
a
CO
l-H
•H
CO
>
CO
cu
>
cd
.c
4j
O
c
>,
-g
^,
CU
0
cu
3
cr
IH
o
4J
f,
cu
•H
CO
CO
CU
CJ
X!
cu
CO
•rl
CO
•a
1-4
o
CO
<4H
O
^
4J •
•H IH
> 3
CO CJ
IH CJ
00 O
O >,
•H CB
MH e
.rH
O *O
CU CO
Q, O
CO r-l
" 'O
00 C
C CO
C CO
01 V
CU CJ
IH O
u >-
CO
cu
CU 4J
IH CO
•>H C
3 iH
cr s
CU iH
IH rH
CU
•a
rH O
3 4J
O
3 oo
c
CO T3
•a c
rH IH
§00
•a
CO B
3 Cd
o
cu •.
C &0
cu c
O 4J .
H 4J M
O iH ^i
£1 IH CJ
C 00-rl
O CU 4-1
z •a «
CO
•a
•H
rH
o
CO
4J
o
CU
•1—)
0
rl
a.
^1
CU
4J
o
4J
•H
3
X
•H
S
•a
c
CO
^
1^
•o
•r-l
^
in
o
o
4-1
IH
0
a.
CO
c
CO
IH
4-1
O
4-1
4-1
00
1H
CU
3
cu
Q
4_J
3
CU
l-H
•o
C
CO
O
4J
§T
cd
Cd
00
c
•H 4J
^ O
rl I-]
cd
Oi
cu .c
O CJ
CO 4-1
CU iH
^ Q
CJ
C
-i O
CO O
> 00
O of
£1
cd
4J
a.
cu
CJ
CJ
H
CO
rl O
cu .a
O. rl
o, co
X X
rH O
CO Z
X
o
M
3
a
CO
a
M
%
,J
•<
M
H
rH
00
C
IH
IH
•
OS
<
Q
Z
8
C/3
-U
rH
-------
CO
W
>
M
5
co
o
o
o
o
o
o
00
a.
O
4J
II
4-1
U
11
co
MH
O
vO
CU
00
CO
a.
N-*
l-l
1
CM
Xt
CO
H
S
3
z
o
rH
H W
0 H
< rH
V> CO
J M
•< Ed O
l-H H Z
O CO rH O
W < i-J •
S 3 rJ 00
W rH CN
S CO &
S "fi
Oc! o Z i
2a -^ en
2 o H
•^ bj
w S 00
1 _J
x: xi
4-1 CJ
)H 4-1
O 1-4
z a
o
o
CO
e
o
•r4
4J
CO
IH
I
O
B
CQ
O
CU
4J
B
1>
§
U OO
i-4 O
>4 O
X!
§
XI
O,
O,
B
CO
x;
CO
en
cu
E
U
CJ
§
CJ
ca
z
CU 00
•H O
>H O
o
4J
CU
•r-4
4J
CO
§
4J
p-t
OJ
IH i-l
•H 4J
3 O
cr u
cu MH
cu
co H
O CU
CJ 4-1
CO
W 3
4-1 XI
E 4-1
3^
S§
1) CO
1)
3 IH
O CO
l-H
CU
CO CJ
T3 CO j
IH O
3 O
CO
4J
s-
CJ
O
U
o
2
E
D
CJ
E
O
CJ
CQ
CJ
a.
00
E
IH
U
3
T3
cu
IH
CU
3
CO
S.
B
CU
IH
3
CO
CO
1)
l-l
a.
XI
00 4
T3
CU
X! rH IH
•H 3
«xi •> cr
op co co cu
CO IH
. CU
CU CJ ^
>-i O HI
IH >
E a-H
CO
4J 3
co i-l
4-1 E
X! 3 1) 3 H
O o 4J cro
IH l-i O CU O
CU 60 O. IH^
4J X
x x
XI X
X X
IH
M O
CU XI
O, IH
a. co
X X
rH O
co a
x x
•a
cu
CO
E
O
S
E
O
•a
CO
§
Xt
IH
CO
O
CO
X
f-l
o
o
M
o
CJ
3
•a
CO
o
CO
•a
§
u
CO
M
cu
rH
•i-l
O
XI
X
CJ
c
CU
MH
MH
D
CO
X
O
l-H
6
CU
u
o
b
a.
it cu
XI £
EH rt
o
i-4
IH
4J
CD X
1-4 4J
O -H
rH
XT<
U CJ
CO CO
4-1 PH
•H
C 4-1
CO B
CO CU
1) 4-1
IH CO
O CU
XI r<
COH
X! rl
4J CU
ti 4-1
O co
Z 3
cu
O
-------
cj
01
00
CO
Cu
X!
CO
H
c.
00
•> eOx-v
oo S in
c -o o
•H C O
•03
oo*
O IH CN
rH SOO
UH o
C CU CU
00 IH
•H 3 CU
X cr i-i
O CU IH
•H I- 3
2 cr
* cu
01 CU IH
i-J eg eg
o
cu 00
>.4J C
4-J CO iH
•H 3 IH
E -O o
•H C 4-1
o o c
Cu
o
rH
CU
>
0)
c
eg
S:
o
^
eg
CU
•o
CU
o
Cu
eg
00
c
00 IH
c o
O 3
eg
o
CO
CQ
o
OH
01
>
CN
o
o
o
in eg
r-ig £ .
CO O
>
co «
CU £>
coC
CM I-H ^i v_>
CO CU
01 >
eg
a
OC
co
3
Cu
CU
c
o
XI
CO
SO I
O 4.)
I-H CO
o o
c o
o 4->
cu O
H C
U CO
0> M
IH 4-1
IH CU
0) O
4-1 C
CO O
3 o
o
o
o
O
o
Cu
00
c
o
.2
u 01
O) > •
•H CU
E O
0)
c
to t>
JS CU
4-» CO
c
CU 0)
rH O
£
0)
>
•H
CU
o
0)
cu "o
I-H CU
03
£
•o
cu
CO
• c
CO 0)
01 u
03
o
OH
•o
cu
CO
• c
CO CU
0) O
cu
Cu
• o
CQ rH
cu cu
I-H >
II
•o
cu
• Cu
CO O
0) r-l
rH CU
1-1 >
•o
o c
CO
c
cu
o
•o
CU
.§•
CO I-H
eg cu
l-H >
"a •§
0) C
> o
01 4J
o eg
41 4J
oi.
4J CO
c
T3 CO
CU )H
CO 4-}
c
-H eg
HJCC
CU JS
o o
H) i-l
i- a
rH§
I Si
5 ccT
XX
X
H
CO
l-i O
0) XI
Cu M
a co
XX
I-H O
CO Z
XX
X
3
CO
Cu
o
c
CU
c
o
o
O)
•a
00
o
•a
c
eg
o
Cu
M
CU M
CO O
>H
0)
4J 3
CO 01
JZ
r-l >,
O i-l
0) r-l
JS 01
o-o
<; s
o
CO
CO
IH
o
o.
IH
o
CJ
c
ronmental Ri
g, Ohio
•r^ L-l
> 3
Cd co
E
C -H
O rH
0) S
r-l
O
e Manageraeni
y, Illinois
iJ 4-J
CO -H
3
i-H dj
CO E
0 3
01 O
J=
O
is Industrii
, Illinois
Jj ^
IH 4J
Ixi 3
O
ooo
c
iH 01
0 J
ea
i
, Illinois
X
• 4J
•Z, 3
O
01 O
i-< CU
"rl
0)
z
2
, Illinois
x
• 4-1
Z 3
0
01 O
4J
•rf OI
CO
S ,J
CU
z
, Illinois
>,
CU 4J
•H 3
CO O
O
4-1
IH 01
Cu CO
h -J
IH
<
Services, '.
o
r-i x:
CO CO
C H
0)
E «
C 0)
O CO
•H O
> «
c
Ed
CO
iri
O
CO
S
-------
o
•ft
4J
03
f~*
CO
o
00
CU
00
CO
Cu
N»'
1-1
I
CN
CD
r-l
£t
a
H
CO
S>
(H
H
<
§
Cd
3
^
•z,
O
t-H
H W
O H
< M
CO CO
hJ ^
< W O
MHZ
a co M o
a <: j .
S 3 J oo
W M CN
2 co s
3 -MO
OS O Z i
SQ •< en
« U H
^o
CO
a. »
M
6 0
_]
5 -g
4J CJ
>J U
O i-l
z a
)d
ti O
CU J3
a. h
CL CO
•
X
Id
CO
CU
C
to
x
0
CO
4_l
•a
co
o
t->
*i-f
CO
OS
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
N— '
en
cu
4-1
T-1
CO
CU
CU
u
JS
4-}
i-.
o
M-4
CO
r-d
.0
CS
U
N-l
a.
a.
<
X
x
X
X
X
^-s
CN
o
o
N^
w
cu
•u
CO
i-d
i— i
CO
Id
O
Ud
cu
f— 1
ja
CO
CJ
i-l
a,
a.
<
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
3)
>
T4
4J
CO
4J
»-4
•<
C
0
1-f
iJ
CO
h
cu
c
>rH
U
s
1— 1
Z
o
M
H
-i
H tn H
00
00
m
o
co
s
2-10
-------
Because of the estimated large mass of uncontained PCBs and
their persistence in the environment, the potential for adverse
impacts would remain high for many years (005, 001). The
advantage of the No Action alternative is that it would not
require an immediate capital expenditure under CERCLA. The
No Action alternative was retained for further evaluation
during initial screening.
IN-PLACE DESTRUCTION
Ultraviolet/Ozonolysis
The joint application of ultraviolet (UV) radiation and ozone
leads to significant oxidation of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
However, no attempts have been made to characterize end-products
or their toxicity. The reliance on UV radiation limits the
oxidation action to exposed surfaces. UV radiation would
not penetrate deep sediment deposits. The technology was
designed for use in a closed system rather than in-place
(005, 057). UV/ozonolysis has been eliminated from further
evaluation because of its limited effectiveness in miti-
gating the PCS problem due to deep penetration of PCB
contamination in soils and sediments.
Biodegradation
Biodegradation involves the use of biological agents (e.g.,
microbes, worms) to transform PCBs to nontoxic residues.
The agent must:
• Be site-selected to match the environment
• Be able to disperse throughout all contaminated
layers at all depths in both aerobic and anaerobic
environments
• Not be harmful within the food chain
• Be able to consume all types of PCBs present, in-
cluding highly chlorinated ones
• Not adversely disturb the existing ecology of the
area
To date, problems with in-place application and viability in
an uncontrolled environment have not been resolved (001,
005); therefore, biodegradation has been eliminated from
further evaluation.
PD998.052 2-11
-------
Chemical Oxidation
Chemical methods developed for in-place destruction of PCBs
have not been promising. One process is limited to the de-
struction of PCB-contaminated oils or liquids and is not
adaptable to detoxification of solids in aqueous materials.
Another process is limited to destruction of PCB liquids and
is not applicable to contaminated dredge sediment slurry or
in-place use. PCBs can be extracted from contaminated dredge
sediment slurry using an organic solvent, but not in very
large volumes and not in-place. Most strong oxidizing agents
have significant environmental impacts of their own and have
never been used in an open, aquatic environment (001, 005).
Chemical oxidation has been eliminated from further evalua-
tion because it is not technically feasible at this time.
Radiation (Gamma and Electron Beam)
Both gamma and electron beam radiation are capable of a step-
wise breakdown in the molecular structure of complex organics.
Sufficient doses of gamma radiation can carbonize organic
compounds, leaving no trace of the parent compound. Electron
beams produce a similar degradation of organic compounds at
lower energy levels. PCB levels were significantly reduced
in studies that used radiation to disinfect municipal sewage
sludge. Byproducts and their toxicity have not been inves-
tigated. No attempt has been made to test these approaches
in-place (005) . Radiation has been eliminated from further
evaluation because it is not technically feasible for in-
place application at this time.
IN-PLACE FIXATION
Sorbents
Sorbents are absorbent materials employed to treat contami-
nation resulting from soluble chemicals. It has been sug-
gested that these materials may be used to reduce desorption
from sediments by partitioning the contaminant between avail-
able physical and chemical phases. At equilibrium, PCB con-
centrations in each phase would have a constant ratio. Some
sorbents may reduce the availability of the contaminant in
the natural system because PCBs have a stronger affinity to
the sorbent than the sediment, which would then reduce the
ambient levels of PCBs. Large-scale experiments to prove
effectiveness have not yet taken place. Furthermore, some
areas are so highly contaminated that, even with a reduction
in availability of several orders of magnitude, contamination
levels would remain high (005). Sorbent fixation has been
eliminated from further evaluation because it may not be
effective in reducing PCB concentrations to levels below 50
ppm.
PD998.052 2-12
-------
In-place Stabilization
This process involves pumping a mixture of portland cement
and proprietary reagents into the contaminated sediments.
This is done at many points, until the sediment bed becomes
a series of vertical columns stacked side by side. The mix-
ture solidifies and traps sediment particles in an insoluble
silicon hydroxide matrix (001, 005). The process is similar
to grouting. There is no way of knowing how deep or how
thoroughly the stabilizing agents penetrate.
In Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor area, not only would com-
plete stabilization be difficult, but maintenance dredging
would require special dredging techniques to avoid equipment
damage from the hardened surface of the stabilized sediments.
Long-term stability of the treated sediments is not yet known.
The process was first used in Japan in 1973.
In the North Ditch/Parking Lot area, the stabilized sediments
would be rigid enough to serve as a foundation for construc-
tion projects, but it would be difficult to ensure that all
the PCBs were stabilized because of the inaccuracies of the
mixing process and variabilty in the depth of contamination.
This process is significantly more expensive than containing
and capping with slurry walls. For the above reasons, in-place
stabilization has been eliminated from further evaluation.
Impermeable Membrane Seal
Placement of an impermeable membrane over contaminated sed-
iments in the harbor would immobilize contaminants by block-
ing interchange of sediments and interstitial water with the
water column. Impermeable membranes have a finite life in
the environment, however, which makes this technique a tempor-
ary process. Breakdown is accelerated by such physical forces
as debris, strong currents, severe ice, dredging activities,
boat anchors, etc. It would also be necessary to vent the
seal to allow for escape of gases formed in the sediments as
a result of anaerobic biological activity. This venting
would compromise the purpose of the film (005). Therefore,
sealing with an impermeable membrane has been eliminated
from further evaluation.
IN-PLACE PCB SEPARATION AND REMOVAL
Retrievable Sorbents
Retrievable sorbents (see sorbents for definition) have the
ability to concentrate contaminants from water and sediments,
then be collected and removed. Some sorbents are rendered
retrievable by the incorporation of magnetic particles into
the media matrix, which can then be collected with magnetic
devices. However, as discussed above for in-place fixation
PD998.052 2-13
-------
using sorbents, some areas are so highly contaminated that,
even with a reduction of several orders of magnitude, the
contamination levels would remain high. Large-scale equip-
ment has not been developed for field implementation (005).
Retrievable sorbents have been eliminated from further evalua-
tion because they may not be effective at reducing PCS con-
centrations to levels below 50 ppm.
Bioharvesting
This process uses the ability of aquatic species to accumu-
late contaminants in their tissues. The species are placed
in the contaminated environment, then harvested and disposed
of in a suitable manner. This process is similar to the
treatment of sewage sludge by water hyacinths.
This is a slow process, however. Harvestable aquatic life
takes up PCBs from water. At the OMC site, PCB contami-
nation resides largely in sediments. Translocation of PCBs
from soils into plant life has not been observed. Consequently,
PCBs cannot be removed without desorption from sediments and
solution in the water column. Large-scale equipment for
harvesting has not been developed for field implementation
(005) . Bioharvesting has been eliminated from further evalua-
tion because it is not technically feasible.
Oil-soaked Mats
This approach is similar in concept to the retrievable sor-
bents in that it relies on the application of a medium that
has a higher affinity for the contaminant than the natural
system and is in a form that is readily retrievable. Tech-
nology for this process is conceptual and not available for
field implementation (005) . Oil-soaked mats have been elimi-
nated from further evaluation because the method is not tech-
nically feasible.
Solvent Extraction
Solvent extraction is conceptually like retrievable sorbents.
A lighter-than-water solvent with a high affinity for PCBs
would be mixed with contaminated sediments. PCBs would de-
sorb and enter the solvent phase, which would then rise to
the surface to be collected and removed. Many of the best
solvents are toxic, however, and nontoxic solvents could
leave toxic residues. Questions of efficiency, turbidity
associated with mixing of sediments, and accumulation of
solvent by organic sediments must be addressed before field
implementation of this process could take place (005) .
The Franklin Institute's proprietary process of using mineral
oil to extract PCBs from sediments is still in the developmen-
tal stage. Mineral oil is mixed with the PCB-contaminated
PD998.052 2-14
-------
sediments. The oil is retrieved when it floats to the water
surface. PCB removal efficiencies demonstrated in the labor-
atory with thorough mixing of a PCB-contaminated sediment do
not appear to be sufficient to reduce the levels of PCB con-
tamination below 50 ppm. Pilot scale testing to determine
efficiencies of the process in-place could delay the project.
Senior research engineer David Kyllonen, Franklin Institute,
provided projected costs for method development and in-place
extraction of PCBs from Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor.
The cost is estimated at $35 million (063). Solvent extrac-
tion has been eliminated from further evaluation.
PCB-CONTAMINATED SOLIDS REMOVAL
Freezing Before Removal
This process, used in the tunneling field, relies on the
presence of water-bearing permeable soils. Refrigeration
probes are placed in the sediments at close intervals and
cooled from a portable refrigeration unit. Ice crystals
grow until they coalesce, forming a wall of frozen sediment
that can be lifted out with little disturbance to the remain-
ing sediment. The process is extremely slow, however, be-
cause each probe can only freeze a zone about 1^ ft in dia-
meter. This process is not suitable for field implementa-
tion because of the size of the contaminated area. The pro-
cess is also not cost-effective because of the high energy
requirements to freeze large volumes. Therefore, freezing
before removal has been eliminated from further evaluation.
Mechanical Dredges
Mechanical dredges remove sediments and dump them onto an
adjacent barge. The sediments must be removed from the barge
and hauled to the disposal site or placed into a receiving
basin for dewatering of sediment slurry. It may be possible
to fix (chemically bind the free water; see FIXATION) dredged
sediments without dewatering. Some mechanical dredges create
a high degree of sediment suspension. Therefore, they require
installation of a form of sediment dispersal control and
removal of additional soluble PCBs from the ambient water
after completion of dredging. Another disadvantage of mechan-
ical dredges is that placement and depth of cut are somewhat
difficult to control, thereby impacting removal efficiencies.
Mechanical dredges would be impractical for removal of soils
and sediments in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area because
dewatering the area before excavation would be more cost-
effective than dewatering the dredged soils.
Clamshell. A clamshell dredge uses a bi-parting bucket that
is lowered to pick up sediments and raised by a hoisting
cable. The bucket then dumps its contents onto an adjacent
PD998.052 2-15
-------
barge or possibly into a hopper on the dredge barge. An esti-
mated 15 to 30 percent of the muck sediments may be spilled
back into the harbor during raising of a concentional clam-
shell bucket, and, in deeper water, losses up to 50 percent
may occur (001) . PCB removal efficiency is therefore reduced.
Problems with the clamshell dredge are that it excavates
only the sediments directly below the bucket, to a poorly
controllable depth. The exact location of the excavation is
also poorly controllable. The next excavation may not be
directly adjacent to the first, but may leave a ridge of
contaminated sediments between the two. An average produc-
tion rate is 150 cubic yards per hour (yd3/hr) (005) . An
advantage of the clamshell dredge is that it may be possible
to fix dredged sediments without dewatering.
A watertight clamshell would reduce losses in the upper water
column as the loaded clamshell moves through the water.
However, sediment suspension within 5 ft of the bottom is
greater with use of a watertight clamshell compared with an
open clamshell, although suspended sediments nearer the bot-
tom will settle out quickly (055).
The clamshell dredge was retained for further evaluation
during initial screening.
Dragline. A dragline dredge throws the bucket ahead of the
dredge barge, then draws the bucket through the sediment
back toward the barge. The bucket is then raised to the
surface and emptied onto an adjacent barge. An average pro-
duction rate is 125 yd3/hr (005). This type of dredge needs
a wide maneuvering space for operation. It also creates a
high degree of sediment suspension. Therefore, the dragline
dredge has been eliminated from further evaluation.
Dipper. A dipper uses an articulated arm to scoop sediment
into a bucket that is then raised out of the water and swung
around to a barge, over which the bottom of the bucket is
opened. An average production rate is 100 yd3/hr (005). The
digging action is more violent than that of other mechanical
dredges, causing more severe sediment dispersion. Therefore,
the dipper dredge has been eliminated from further evaluation.
Bucket Ladder. This method uses a continuous line of buckets
cycling over a frame that is lowered to the bottom at an
angle. Each bucket digs into the bottom and transports its
contents to the surface in a continual motion, bucket after
bucket. At the surface, the dredged material is transferred
to a conveyor or chute, which loads the sediments onto a
receiving barge. This type of dredge would have the most
adverse impacts on water quality by dispersing contaminants
over a wide range. Because the bucket ladder dredge is becom-
ing obsolete in the United States (005), it has been elimi-
nated from further evaluation.
PD998.052 2-16
-------
Sauerman. To use a Sauerman dredge, a crane is positioned
on one side of the harbor, supporting a vertical tower.
From the top of the tower, an overhead cable slopes downward
to a deadman on the opposite side of the harbor. The dredge
bucket is a horseshoe-shaped scraper that is suspended from
a pulley assembly that runs on the overhead cable. When the
bucket is released from the crane, it and the pulley assembly
move across the harbor by gravity. The crane operator can
drop the bucket in the harbor at any desired distance from
the crane. The bucket is attached to a tagline from the
crane and is pulled toward the crane. This piles the sedi-
ment on the bottom of the harbor, where a clamshell dredge
or other equipment can lift it out of the harbor. This type
of dredge severely disturbs the bottom sediments and creates
a high degree of sediment suspension. Therefore, the Sauer-
man dredge has been eliminated from further evaluation.
Hydraulic Dredges
Hydraulic dredges use a suction line, a centrifugal pump,
and a discharge line to remove sediments. The discharge
line normally rests on a series of pontoon floats and can be
extended to any desired length with the aid of booster pumps.
The dredge pump discharge provides for "built-in" transport
of the dredged materials over limited distances without the
need for booster pumps. Average pump production rates range
from 2,000 to 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm), with a solids
production rate of between 100 and 200 yd3/hr (005) . Hy-
draulic dredges require water to mix with sediments to form
a slurry that can be pumped. The sediment slurry (about 10
percent solids) would be piped to a receiving basin for de-
watering of sediment slurry. The slurry water must then be
removed from the sediments and treated. Hydraulic dredges
create a low to medium degree of sediment suspension, but
they still require installation of a form of sediment dis-
persal control.
Hydraulic dredges would be impractical for removal of soils
and sediments in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area because
dewatering the area before excavation would be more cost
effective than dewatering the dredged soils.
Hopper Dredge. This ship-shaped vessel is self-contained
and self-propelled. It uses an onboard suction pump to draw
sediments through a suction head and pipe into the vessel,
where it fills large hopper compartments. When full, the
vessel proceeds to a specially prepared location, connects
to a discharge, and pumps the water-laden sediment slurry to
an on-land disposal site. This dredge requires extensive
maneuvering space, which the harbor area does not have (005).
Therefore, the hopper dredge has been eliminated from further
evaluation.
PD998.052 2-17
-------
Cutterhead Pipeline Suction. This dredge uses tugs for gen-
eral positioning, then uses widespread anchors to winch for-
ward. The cutterhead rotates to loosen hard sediment and to
direct the sediments into the suction intake. The cutterhead
is equipped with a shroud that partially covers the cutter
mechanism to lessen sediment dispersion. Sediment dispersion
may be reduced by removing the cutterhead; however, this
would only allow removal of loose, unconsolidated materials.
Floating pontoons support the discharge line, which can vary
from 6 to 42 inches in diameter. This type of hydraulic
dredge cuts a trench in the bottom sediments. The use of
anchors and tugs for dredge movement can have an adverse
impact on water quality around the suction intake (001, 005).
The cutterhead dredge was retained for further evaluation
during initial screening.
Dustpan. This is a self-propelled dredge whose suction head
is shaped like a large dustpan. Water jets are mounted along
the leading edge of the intake to scarify hard sediments.
The suction head and line are mounted on a frame positioned
in a well section that is located in the forward part of the
dredge. Precise control over the depth of dredging is pro-
vided by winch cables. Under normal conditions, the dustpan
head is capable of cutting a swath of up to 36 ft wide with
a controlled depth. The dustpan dredge head is capable of
removing only loosely consolidated materials. The sediments
are pumped through a discharge line from 800 to 1,000 ft
long to a disposal site (001, 005). The existing dustpan
dredges are located on the lower Mississippi River and are
engaged in constant maintenance activity. The dustpan dredge
was eliminated from further evaluation because one would
probably not be available for use.
Mudcat. This dredge is not self-propelled, so movement is
gained by winching to an object onbank or to deadman anchors.
The dredge uses a horizontal screw auger mounted on the end
of a hydraulically operated boom. The auger is designed as
two halves that operate in opposite directions, feeding sedi-
ments to a central suction head. A shield can be hydrauli-
cally lowered over the augers to minimize turbidity and en-
trap sediments. The dredge has the capability to go to a
depth of 10 to 15 ft while cutting an 8-ft swath on the bot-
tom. The discharge line floats on the water surface and
transports the sediment to a disposal site (005). Because
almost all of the PCB-contaminated sediments are deeper than
the Mudcat dredge can penetrate, it has been eliminated from
further evaluation.
Sidecaster. This type of dredge operates in the same manner
as the hopper dredge, except that the dredged material is
cast overboard from either side of the vessel, by a boom
with a 180-degree swing radius. Sidecaster dredges are not
adaptable to contaminated sediments (005). Therefore, the
PD998.052 2-18
-------
sidecaster dredge has been eliminated from further evalua-
tion.
Pneumatic Dredges
Pneumatic dredges remove sediments and transport them in a
discharge pipeline to a receiving basin for dewatering of
sediment slurry. Often, less water is conveyed with the
sediments by using a pneumatic rather than a hydraulic dredge.
Ideally, 40 percent solids could be pumped. Therefore, it
may be possible to fix the dredged materials without dewa-
tering the slurry. They create a low degree of sediment
suspension but still require installation of a form of sedi-
ment dispersal control. The operation of the pneumatic dredge
may create some volatilization of PCBs into the atmosphere.
Pneumatic dredges would be impractical for removal of soils
and sediments in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area because
dewatering the area before excavation would be more cost-
effective than dewatering the dredged soils.
Airlift. The airlift dredge works by injecting compressed
air near the bottom of a partially submerged vertical-recovery
pipe positioned close to the bottom. This process causes a
high-velocity flow into the submerged base of the recovery
pipe, near the sediments, because of the density reduction
in the upper pipe section and the hydraulic head of the water
outside the pipe. The bottom sediments are transported through
the pipe to the surface, where the sediment slurry is dis-
charged into a recovery barge. Most of the sediments raised
from the bottom are drawn into the recovery pipe, minimizing
turbidity. The airlift dredge is not self-propelled and
excavates only the sediments directly below the recovery
pipe; however, these units function well in deep waters (005).
The airlift dredge is generally fabricated for a specific
purpose, and is not commonly available equipment; therefore,
it has been eliminated from further evaluation.
Pneuma. The Pneuma dredge operates on the same principle as
the airlift dredge. The system operates using static water
head and compressed air to collect and carry sediments into
the dredging head. Compressed air is used to empty the sedi-
ments from the dredging head into the discharge line. Several
dredging heads operating in offset sequence combine for con-
tinuous pumping (005). An average production rate for the
Pneuma is 400 to 500 yd3/hr. The Pneuma dredge was retained
for further evaluation during initial screening.
Namtech. The Namtech dredge operates on the same principle
as the airlift dredge. This dredge is currently being tested
under USEPA approval. Ideally, this dredge may pump at 40
percent solids, which would minimize dewatering and/or fixa-
tion requirements. More information should be available in
PD998.052 2-19
-------
early August 1983. The Namtech dredge has been eliminated
from further evaluation at this time because of insufficent
information.
Oozer. This Japanese unit combines the principles of vacuum
and water pressure with a variety of suction head designs
for various sediments. The USCOE views the Oozer as effective
in controlling turbidity, and they speak highly of its capabili-
ties. At this time, no Oozers are operational in the United
States (005) . An average production rate for the Oozer is
130 yd3/hr. The Oozer dredge was retained for further evalu-
ation during initial screening.
Excavation Equipment
The term "excavation" is used in this FS to mean removal of
contaminated soils using various types of tracked or wheeled
equipment. The degree to which water can be excluded from
the area of removal determines the type of excavation equip-
ment to be used. Common equipment used in excavation creates
dust and noise and requires decontamination.
Temporary support of excavations may be required for deep
excavations or for excavations near structures. Excavations
could permit volatilization of PCBs.
Excavation of the harbor sediments has been eliminated be-
cause it would require sealing off and dewatering the har-
bor. The potential for failure of the existing sheet piling
is too great to consider excavation for Slip No. 3 and the
Upper Harbor.
Scraper. A scraper is a combination excavating and hauling
unit. Scrapers may be towed or self-propelled. The scraper
cuts a relatively thin layer of soil (i.e., 3 to 6 inches)
that is collected within the scraper body. Materials can be
hauled any distance onsite, then deposited in thin lifts at
the disposal site. Scrapers generally operate on a relatively
dry soil surface. They are not suitable for deep, localized
excavation and, therefore, have been eliminated from further
evaluation.
Front End Loader. A front end loader is an excavating device
that operates on a relatively dry soil surface. Front end
loaders pick up a desired amount of material in a front-mounted
bucket, and dump it into trucks or at a selected disposal
area. Typical production rates for truck loading are 200 to
300 yd3/hr. Front end loaders were retained for further
evaluation for removal of fixed solids from curing cells
(storage areas for fixation processes) and for excavation
from the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
PD998.052 2-20
-------
Backhoe. A backhoe is a self-propelled device that normally
operates from a stationary position at the side of the exca-
vation. Backhoes excavate materials with a bucket, normally
at depths of up to 30 ft and distances of up to 25 ft. The
bucket dumps the materials into trucks. Typical production
rates for truck loading are 200 to 300 yd3/hr. Backhoes are
suitable for excavation of wet soils. Backhoes were retained
for further evaluation for removal of solids from the initial
solids dewatering basins (basins used to dewater dredged
solids) and from the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
Dragline Crane. A dragline crane operates from a stationary
position at the side of the excavation. Draglines excavate
materials with a bucket attached to a cable system, normally
at depths of up to 30 ft and distances of up to 100 ft. The
bucket can be cast some distance beyond the end of the crane
boom. It is then pulled toward the crane by a tagline, and
soil is loaded into the bucket through an open front. The
bucket dumps the materials onto stockpiles or into trucks.
An average production rate is 75 yd3/hr, and a dragline is
suitable for use on wet soils. Dragline cranes were retained
for further evaluation for removal of solids from the initial
solids dewatering basins.
SEDIMENT DISPERSAL CONTROL
Dredging operations create some degree of sediment suspension
as a result of operating the dredge head. Therefore, during
removal of contaminated sediments, turbidity and sediment
dispersal must be controlled to prevent the spread of contami-
nation and subsequent degradation of water quality (005, 001).
Single Silt Curtain
Silt curtains consist of filter fabric suspended from floats.
They are not watertight membranes. They are stretched in a
line, defining the location to be dredged. A single curtain
flexes or bends in response to waves, boat wakes, or other
water disturbances. This may allow water to splash over the
top or rip the curtain (001) . Single silt curtains have
been eliminated from further evaluation because they would
not provide adquate containment.
Double Silt Curtain
A double silt curtain is two flexible silt curtains in paral-
lel, with a buffer space between them to catch any spillover.
It is more effective than a single silt curtain. Turbidity
in the buffer space may be flocculated by use of a cationic
polymer (001). Double silt curtains were retained for fur-
ther evaluation during initial screening.
PD998.052 2-21
-------
Water-inflated Dam
A water-inflated dam is an ellipsoidal-shaped (egg-shaped)
dam constructed from reinforced urethane rubber. It is in-
stalled at a site by securing the ends to steel piles or
deadmen onshore, and weighting the bottom of the dam to rest
on the harbor bottom. This would require some disturbance
of the sediments under the dam to provide a tight seal.
This type of dam can withstand a difference in water eleva-
tion of several feet (001) . Water-inflated dams are specialized
items, normally custom-fabricated for a particular application.
They are generally not cost-effective. Therefore, a water-
inflated dam has been eliminated from further evaluation.
Sheet Piling
Steel sheet piling could also be used for sediment dispersal
control. Sheet piles alone are not watertight. To minimize
movement of water and sediment outside the piling, a lower
water level would be maintained inside the piling. This
would require pumping and treatment of harbor water. This
type of system would reduce migration of PCBs dissolved in
the water (by dredging activity) across the barrier because
water would tend to flow into the contained area through all
openings in the sheet pile barrier. Sheet piles were re-
tained for further evaluation during initial screening.
SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER CONTROL
Cofferdam
The penetration of PCBs is apparently too deep in some areas
to permit PCB removal without supporting the excavation to
protect existing facilities. The deep contaminated sedi-
ments would be excavated with dredging equipment, such as a
clamshell (001). Before the deep sediments could be exca-
vated, the surface water (e.g., harbor water) would have to
be controlled. A cofferdam could be built to control sur-
face water inflow. The water within the cofferdam limits
would be pumped through the water treatment system to main-
tain a lower water level inside the cofferdam. A localized
cofferdam in Slip No. 3 to remove the deep contaminated sand
and silt was retained for further evaluation during initial
screening.
Dewatering
Open-cut excavation would require some groundwater control.
Applicable dewatering techniques include using sheet piles
or slurry walls to control groundwater inflow, and well
points and pumping to remove groundwater. Well points and
pumping can be used alone when structural support of exca-
vations is not required. Soils and sediments would then be
PD998.052 2-22
-------
excavated with conventional excavation equipment. Dewatering
techniques for the North Ditch/Parking Lot area and the local-
ized area in Slip No. 3 were retained for further evaluation
during initial screening.
Injection of Grout
Grouts consist of liquids or suspensions that may be injected
into the ground and that subsequently harden. They fill
soil voids and bind soil particles together to form an imper-
meable mass. In essence, they can be used to form in-place
cofferdams around and under the site. It is not possible to
fully evaluate the grout's effectiveness for reducing ground-
water flow. This is because it is very difficult to deter-
mine where the injected material flows to since it will take
the path of least resistance. It is generally impossible to
be sure that no "windows" in the grouted zone remain ungrouted.
The method also would not be cost-effective. Injection of
grout has been eliminated from further evaluation because it
is neither technically viable nor cost-effective.
Sheet Piles
Steel sheet piles would be installed down to the glacial
till layer to control the movement of groundwater. However,
they would leak at the interlocks. For economy, they are
usually removed after excavating, if possible. Sheet piles
were retained for further evaluation for control of ground-
water inflow in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area. Sheet
piles with bracing can provide temporary support of struc-
tures during excavation and dewatering. Sheet piles with
bracing were retained for further evaluation for structural
support of the North Ditch and Crescent Ditch.
Slurry Walls
Slurry walls would be constructed by excavating a trench
down to the glacial till layer. During excavation, the trench
would be kept filled with a slurry mixture to prevent movement
of groundwater and trench collapse. After excavation, soil
would be placed in the trench and mixed with the slurry to
form a low-permeability zone. Slurry walls are relatively
impervious, with typical permeabilities of about 10 7 centi-
meters per second (cm/sec). Slurry walls were retained for
further evaluation for control of groundwater flow in the
North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
BYPASS
A bypass diverting surface water flow around the highly con-
taminated portions of the North Ditch would eliminate further
contamination of Lake Michigan by PCB-laden sediments eroded
from the North Ditch. The erosion results from essentially
noncontaminated sources of water (e.g., stormwater, cooling
PD998.052 2-23
-------
water) flowing through contaminated portions of the ditch.
The bypass would collect all surface water that now runs
into the North Ditch and direct it to Lake Michigan by the
shortest feasible route without contacting PCBs. This could
be accomplished with underground pipe or an impervious lined
open ditch. This would have to be done before the North
Ditch could be excavated.
Grading
The North Ditch/Parking Lot area would be regraded to direct
surface flow away from the North Ditch. This would reduce
but not eliminated the amount of surface water available to
erode contaminated sediments from the North Ditch. The con-
taminated sediments could thus still be transported to Lake
Michigan. Therefore, grading of the North Ditch/Parking Lot
area without a pipeline or ditch has been eliminated from
further evaluation.
Pipeline
A gravity pipeline bypass could be constructed to divert
surface water flow around the highly contaminated areas of
the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon. This bypass would col-
lect drainage from the 36-inch-diameter storm sewer (that
flows north at the west edge of CMC's property), the OMC
property roof drains, and regraded areas north and south of
the Crescent Ditch. This bypass would be a gravity pipeline
discharging to Lake Michigan. It would be constructed along
the sheet piling north of the east-west portion of the North
Ditch. The Parking Lot area would be regraded to divert
surface water flow to catch basins. A pipeline was retained
for further evaluation during initial screening.
Lined Open Ditch
The process described above, under Pipeline, could be imple-
mented using a lined open ditch in place of a pipeline along
the east-west portion of the North Ditch. A lined open ditch
was retained for further evaluation during initial screening.
Temporary Pumphouse
A temporary pumphouse could be installed to intercept flows
from the storm sewer on the west side of the OMC building to
prevent discharge through the Crescent Ditch. The storm-
water would be pumped to Lake Michigan. A temporary pump-
house would require a number of large pumps. A full-time
operator would probably be needed during construction. A
temporary pumphouse has been eliminated from further evalua-
tion because pumping is generally not cost-effective compared
with gravity flow.
PD998.052 2-24
-------
INITIAL SOLIDS DEWATERING
Dredging with a hydraulic or pneumatic dredge produces a
slurry of water and solids. To separate the slurry water
from the contaminated sediments, initial solids dewatering
would be required. Solids could be dewatered by gravity
and/or mechanical means.
No Dewatering
Contaminated sediment slurry would be disposed of in whatever
form it was extracted, usually containing between 10 and
25 percent solids by volume. The dredged sediments must be
nonflowable to be accepted at a licensed chemical waste land-
fill (40 CFR 761.75). Since the sediment slurry would be
flowable, the only practical option for sediments greater
than 500 ppm would be disposal by incineration. To minimize
the energy requirements to drive off excess water, incineration
would also require dewatering. Therefore, the No Dewatering
alternative has been eliminated from further evaluation.
Lagoon on OMC Property
Construction of a dewatering lagoon for dewatering solids
could be undertaken on a large fenced parcel owned by OMC
that lies due east of Slip No. 3 (001) . This area could
accommodate a diked area of up to 1,200 by 800 ft using
dikes above grade. A lagoon could also be constructed on
vacant land west of the railroad tracks and northwest of the
harbor (002). This property is 0.5 mile from the nearest
harbor access. A pipeline would be required to transport
dredge sediments across a public roadway, across several
railroad tracks, and through private property. The OMC prop-
erty is the preferred lagoon location.
Specific dimensions of the lagoon would be based on the type
of dredging option selected, a minimum overflow rate to allow
for 2 hours detention (004), and a minimum water height above
the sediment bed for volatilization control. The lagoon
would be constructed above ground because of the high ground-
water table and construction debris buried in the area. The
bottom and sides of the lagoon would be sealed to prevent
contamination of groundwater. Supernatant would be decanted
for treatment (005) . A lagoon on OMC property was retained
for further evaluation during initial screening.
Portable Sediment Processing System
A portable sediment processing system consists of elevated
settling bins with steep-sloped sides. Elevation of the
bins provides head for a bank of hydrocyclones, in which
PD998.052 2-25
-------
solids that are heavier than water are separated by centrif-
ugal force. Sediment slurry then flows into a Uni-Flow bag-
type filter. Pilot scale studies indicate that the system
operates successfully; large-scale operations have not been
undertaken (047). This system can be easily installed and
removed after use.
Two clarifier bins in a USEPA demonstration project (047)
each had a capacity of 36 yd3 with 144 square feet (ft2) of
surface area. The process capacity was 1,500 gpm of slurry.
Four bins could conceivably process slurry from an average
dredge (dredge pump range 2,000-3,000 gpm). The settled
solids could be loaded directly onto trucks by gravity flow.
The number of hydrocyclones and Uni-Flow filters must be
sized by the physical characteristics of the dredged sedi-
ments and the solids loading rate expected. Because of the
low expected specific gravity (1.3) of some of the dredged
sediments, hydrocyclones may not be effective in this
application, thus producing a greater solids loading to the
bag filters. This could cause excessive head loss at the
filter surface and require frequent backwashing. Additional
elevated bins for settling may reduce the problem. The
portable sediment processing system was retained for further
evaluation during initial screening.
North Ditch as Dewatering Basin
The North Ditch could conceivably act as a dewatering basin.
The east-west portion of the North Ditch is estimated to be
1,800 ft long, 20 ft wide, and about 3 ft deep. If the sol-
ids settled evenly throughout the length of the ditch and
the supernatant was collected over a weir at the end of the
ditch, it might hold the sediments produced by 1 day of dredg-
ing operations (assuming dredge capacity of 150 yd3/hr and
solids 1 ft deep). Using the Oval Lagoon and Crescent Ditch
would increase the capacity for solids removal. Initially
excavating the North Ditch to increase its size would also
provide additional capacity. The settled solids would be
periodically removed for disposal. The North Ditch was re-
tained for further evaluation during initial screening.
Barge Storage
Contaminated sediment slurry removed from the harbor could
be pumped to barges for dewatering. The supernatant would
be decanted with the use of submersible pumps, treated for
contamination, and disposed of. The sediment would be re-
moved from the barges after 2 months of dewatering (004),
fixed, and disposed of. Barges were retained for further
evaluation for initial solids dewatering in Slip No. 3 during
initial screening. Barges have been eliminated from further
evaluation for initial solids dewatering in the Upper Harbor
because of the large storage volume required.
PD998.052 2-26
-------
Thickening with Other Project Area Solids
Solids from other project areas that are relatively dry when
excavated may be mixed with dredge slurry to produce the
desired moisture content for fixation. This would minimize
the degree of dewatering required for the dredged slurry.
Possible sources of relatively dry excavated material are
the stockpile of sand near the OMC Parking Lot from previous
excavation and material above the water table that is easily
accessible on the project site. Addition of other project
area solids was retained for further evaluation during ini-
tial screening.
Slip No. 3 as Dewatering Basin
Slip No. 3 could be used as a dewatering basin. Sheet piling
with walers around the slip would need to be installed to
prevent collapse of the existing sheet piles. A cofferdam
with slurry wall would need to be installed across the mouth
of the slip to create a basin. Supernatant could be pumped
from the surface of the slip and treated before discharge
back to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. Solids could be
removed for fixation and/or disposal by a clamshell dredge.
Using Slip No. 3 as a dewatering basin would not be cost-
effective. Therefore, Slip No. 3 as a dewatering basin has
been eliminated from further evaluation.
Dehydro Drying Beds
Dehydro drying beds assist sedimentation with the use of a
permeable mat and a vacuum system to speed dewatering. A
flocculant is added to the contaminated sediment slurry.
The sediment slurry is then distributed over the permeable
mat, and water drains through the mat. A vacuum system is
activated when the volume of the sediment slurry has been
reduced by half. The vacuum holds until the sediment slurry
cracks, allowing air through the bed. Ninety percent of the
moisture is removed with this method. The supernatant is
collected in a central sump, and the sediment is then scraped
off and disposed of. Loading rates are high, since evapora-
tion is not required to achieve sludge drying (061). Dehydro
drying beds have been eliminated from further evaluation
because to match the capacity of the dredging equipment,
they would require as much space as the lagoons. In addition,
the cost of installation is greater, and the solids would
have to be removed daily.
Gravity Thickener
A gravity thickener resembles a conventional circular clari-
fier, except that it has a greater bottom slope. A predeter-
mined hydraulic loading rate is obtained before contaminated
PD998.052 2-27
-------
sediment slurry is added to the thickener. The sediment
slurry enters at the center of the thickener and the solids
settle into a blanket at the bottom. The sediment slurry is
agitated gently to dislodge trapped gas, prevent bridging of
the solids, and keep the sediment slurry moving toward the
center removal well. The supernatant passes over a weir at
the outer margin of the thickener (062). Typical harbor
sediments have a specific gravity greater than the design
specific gravity for the unit and, therefore, may cause
torque overload. In addition, the removal of solids from
the thickener using conventional pumping equipment would
result in operational difficulties. Because the use of a
gravity thickener would not be cost-effective due to high
capital cost, gravity thickeners have been eliminated from
further evaluation.
SECONDARY SOLIDS DEWATERING
The secondary solids from the water treatment plant would
consist mostly of chemical floe. The concentration of solids
taken from the sedimentation tanks would be approximately 2
to 3 percent. To dewater these solids, either a belt filter
press could be used, which would bring the solids concentra-
tion up to about 40 percent, or the solids could be returned
to the dewatering basins and treated with other solids.
Mechanical Dewatering/Belt Press
Mechanical dewatering with the use of belt pressure filters
has been employed in wastewater treatment plants in the United
States since 1971. This process requires a fairly homoge-
neous size of material in order to reduce damage to the belt
and equipment (062). Removal of large and small objects
would be required before the belt press could be used in
order to have a homogeneous mixture to process. Mechanical
dewatering was retained for further evaluation during initial
screening.
Air Dry and Treat with Other Solids
The secondary solids removed in the water treatment process
could be collected in the sedimentation basin. After all
water treatment is completed and the basin drained, the
solids could be air dried and treated with the other solids.
Treating with other area solids was retained for further
evaluation during initial screening.
FIXATION
Fixation is a chemical process that binds, hydrates, or
otherwise removes free water. Chemical fixation of sludges
and soils has proven effective for many classes of hazardous
PD998.052 2-28
-------
waste (089) . Fixing agents such as portland cement, poz-
zolan, flyash, lime, sodium silicate (005), and/or certain
polymers such as Locksorb (051) are mixed or injected into
the sludge or soil. The material becomes like concrete or a
loose aggregate.
Fixation could eliminate the need for extensive initial
solids dewatering if the water content is not excessive.
The advantage to fixing relatively dry excavated material is
ease of transporting to obtain a nonflowable consistency
within the "given" time frame. Train, barge, or truck could
be used to transport the solids. The disadvantage of this
alternative is the added cost of the fixing agent and of
transporting and disposing of the extra volume. Fixation
was retained for further evaluation during initial screening.
WATER TREATMENT
A limit of 1 ppb PCB concentration in water discharges has
been set by USEPA (005). Therefore, a water treatment system
is necessary to treat contaminated water that results from
the cleanup operation. The contaminated water would include:
Slurry water from dredging harbor sediments
Water used to flush slurry lines
Groundwater removed during area dewatering
Rainwater and leachate (if a lagoon is used)
Water used to clean equipment
No Water Treatment
Contaminated water would not be treated but disposed of either
with the solids or alone in an appropriate containment vessel.
A very large volume of water would have to be contained, which
would be less cost-effective than treating the water. There-
fore, the No Water Treatment alternative has been eliminated
from further evaluation.
Flocculation/Sedimentation
Flocculation/sedimentation involves the addition of a coagu-
lant material (i.e., alum or certain cationic polymers) to
coagulate and settle colloids out of solution (001, 005).
The water to be treated would contain PCB-contaminated solids
that need to be removed. Flocculation/sedimentation was
retained for further evaluation during initial screening.
Filtration
Contaminated water could be filtered to remove essentially
all suspended solids. Flocculation/sedimentation would be
required before filtration to reduce blinding of the filter
PD998.052 2-29
-------
surface. Filtration is based on the entrapment of contami-
nated solids too small for removal by sedimentation (001,
005). Filtration was retained for further evaluation during
initial screening.
Carbon Adsorption
Adsorption is the result of interactions between the sorbate
and the surface of the sorbent. Carbon particles have an
extensive surface area that attracts and holds hydrophobic
organic materials. Carbon is highly effective in removing
the soluble fraction of PCBs to below discharge limits (less
than 1.0 ppb) (004, 005, 037). Sedimentation and filtration
are necessary prerequisites to prevent blinding of the carbon
surface. Carbon adsorption was retained for further evalua-
tion during initial screening.
Klensorb
Klensorb is an alternative to activated carbon (056) and can
use the same hardware as carbon adsorption. It may be more
cost-effective in removing those organics that are difficult
for activated carbon (i.e., oil) (056). Since PCBs are oily,
oils may pass through the filtration process and blind the
carbon surface. However, at this time, laboratory tests
have shown that activated carbon can meet discharge require-
ments (004) on Waukegan Harbor slurry water, but no
laboratory tests have been conducted to confirm the
effectiveness of Klensorb. This alternative would require
laboratory scale testing to determine the effectiveness of
the technology, as well as its cost-effectiveness. Klensorb
will not be considered for further evaluation at this time
because activated carbon has been shown to be effective.
If, however, the activated carbon should fail because of the
oily nature of PCBs, Klensorb should be reconsidered.
Ultraviolet/Ozonolysis
See IN-PLACE DESTRUCTION, earlier in this section, for a
description of the UV/ozonolysis technique. This process
works well with liquid streams because large quantities of
PCBs can be removed. It requires a large surface area and a
thin water film to be effective (005, 057). Destruction
efficiencies are approximately 95 percent. UV/ozonolysis
has been eliminated from further evaluation because it may
not be effective in reducing PCBs below 1 ppb.
Catalytic Reduction
Catalytic reduction of PCBs using a copper-iron catalyst is
in the conceptual stage. Reduction of the chlorine func-
tional groups on PCBs would result in a hydrocarbon skeleton,
PD998.052 2-30
-------
which would be susceptible to biochemical oxidation. How-
ever, it is unclear whether reduction of PCBs really takes
place or whether the apparent product is a result of reten-
tion on the catalytic column (005). Catalytic reduction has
been eliminated from further evaluation because it is still
in the conceptual stages of development.
Wet Oxidation
This process oxidizes organic materials underwater by the
addition of pressurized oxygen and elevated temperatures.
Organic materials are converted predominantly to carbon diox-
ide, releasing energy in the form of high-pressure steam.
Steam can then be recovered for operation of the process
with about 80 percent efficiency (059). Wet oxidation has
been eliminated from further evaluation because of excessive
energy requirements, and because it would not be cost-effective
in this application.
High-Efficiency Boilers
High-efficiency boilers can be used to decontaminate liquids
having PCB concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm. This method
of thermal destruction is very efficient, reducing PCB
concentrations to 0.0 ppm (057). High-efficiency boilers
have been eliminated from further evaluation because they
have high energy requirements and are not cost-effective in
this application.
Chlorinolysis
This established technology converts chlorinated hydrocar-
bons to carbon tetrachloride. The technique involves the
addition of chlorine under high pressure and low tempera-
tures without the use of a catalyst. Other molecules may be
produced, depending on the purity of the starting liquid.
Chlorinolysis has not been specifically applied to PCB con-
taminants (057). Chlorinolysis has been eliminated from
further evaluation because unknown byproducts may be produced.
The Goodyear Process
This process involves the addition of sodium naphthalide to
the PCB-contaminated liquid. The reagent removes chlorines
from PCB molecules and forms sodium chloride (NaCl) and non-
halogenated polyphenyls rapidly at room temperature. The
Goodyear process appears to work well on Aroclors in the 50
to 500 ppm range. Large-scale development has not been devel-
oped for field implementation (057). The Goodyear process
has been eliminated from further evaluation because it is
not readily available and has not been field tested.
PD998.052 2-31
-------
The Sunohio Process
Sunohio has developed a process called PCBX, which breaks
PCBs in transformer oil down into their primary components
of biphenyl and chlorine. This process appears to be able
to handle a wide variety of PCs-contaminated fluids and a
wide range of concentration. Field equipment is available
(057). The Sunohio process has been eliminated from further
evaluation because use of the process has been limited to
treatment of transformer oils, not sediment-laden aqueous
streams containing PCBs.
Use of North Shore Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment
Facility
Contaminated waters could be taken to the North Shore Sanitary
District wastewater treatment plant, but treatment for PCB
removal is not currently available at the plant. Because
the North Shore facility is currently in use, it is unavailable
and therefore, has been eliminated from further evaluation.
ONSITE STORAGE/DISPOSAL
Disposal of dredged materials that contain PCBs is regulated
by 40 CFR 761.60(5). The three disposal options available
are: (1) in an incinerator that complies with 40 CFR 761.70,
(2) in a chemical waste landfill that complies with 40 CFR
761.75, or (3) upon application, using a disposal method
approved by the USEPA Regional Administrator.
Only two options are available for disposal of soils that
contain PCBs, as regulated by 40 CFR 761.60(4): (1) in an
incinerator that complies with 40 CFR 761.70, or (2) in a
chemical waste landfill that complies with 40 CFR 761.75.
CERCLA 101(24) (PL 96-510) defines remedial action to include,
but not be limited to, "such actions at the location of the
release as storage, confinement, perimeter protection using
dikes, trenches or ditches, clay cover...dredging or excava-
tion. . .collection of leachate and runoff...and any monitoring
reasonably required to assure that such actions protect the
public health and welfare and the environment."
If the PCBs could be removed from the dredged material before
disposal, the large quantity of sediments would not need the
USEPA Regional Administrator's approval for disposal.
Landfill
A permanent storage facility could be constructed under the
OMC Parking Lot area south of the North Ditch. The facility
would have to meet USEPA and IEPA requirements for an Annex II
PD998.052 2-32
-------
landfill unless a waiver is obtained from the Regional Adminis-
trator (40 CFR 761). The landfill would be large enough to
store 224,300 yd3 of contaminated materials with 25 percent
excess capacity. A slurry wall would be constructed around
the perimeter down to the glacial till layer. This would
allow for dewatering during construction.
The facility would be lined with 5 to 10 ft of compacted
clay. After filling, it would be capped with 3 ft of com-
pacted clay and resurfaced for use as a parking lot. A leach-
ate collection system, embedded in gravel and sandwiched in
the clay liner, would lead to manholes for pumpout. Ground-
water monitoring wells would be installed around the facility
to measure background water quality (001). Construction of
a secure landfill at the Parking Lot would involve a number
of technical and environmental problems. Since much of the
soil under the Parking Lot is contaminated, it would have to
be removed and stored during liner construction, then later
replaced in the fill. Large quantities of liner materials
would have to be imported. Because of the large quantity of
material to be disposed of, the completed landfill would
have to extend above existing grade. The landfill would
remain partially below the water table, and extremely close
to Lake Michigan. These conditions do not meet 40 CFR 761.75
requirements and would necessitate obtaining a waiver. Even
if waivers were obtained, this alternative would be less
cost-effective than containment/encapsulation. For these
reasons, a landfill (as described above) on CMC property has
been eliminated from further evaluation.
Containment/Encapsulation
Containment/encapsulation, to mitigate the environmental ef-
fects from uncontained PCBs, would involve sealing off the
contaminated area. Slip No. 3 and the Oval Lagoon area would
be filled in with other PCB-contaminated sediments or soils.
The contaminated sediments would be capped with 3 ft of com-
pacted clay, and covered with a synthetic liner (impermeable
membrane, concrete, or asphalt) to an elevation above
the 100-yr flood plain. A slurry wall would be constructed
around the containment area down to the glacial till layer.
Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed around the
containment area to measure background water quality (001).
This method would require the Regional Administrator's ap-
proval and would have to meet the requirements set forth in
40 CFR 761.60 and 40 CFR 761.75. Containment/encapsulation
was retained for further evaluation for Slip No. 3 and the
North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
PCS Extraction
Pollution Science International is developing a process of
PCB extraction (089, 090) under a USEPA-approved research
PD998.052 2-33
-------
and development project now in progress. This process entails
extracting PCBs from sediments, disposing of the sediments
locally, and sending the concentrated PCBs to a licensed
chemical waste landfill or incinerator. The main concern is
process economics. The equipment is reported to be a noncon-
ventional use of conventional and available equipment. The
process needs to be demonstrated under this nonconventional
application. Because of a lack of available information,
extraction has been eliminated from further consideration at
this time. When more information becomes available (expected
in mid-October or November), this alternative should be con-
sidered in conjunction with containment/encapsulation.
Chemical Destruction
Most processes for destruction of PCBs by chemical treatment
have been demonstrated with liquids only. A few conceptual
processes may be applicable for solids. The microwave plasma
method, developed by Lockheed, destroys PCBs by a 15-kilowatt
microwave plasma reaction, and yields products of carbon
dioxide, water, and potentially hazardous products of carbon
monoxide and organochlorines. The process may be able to
destroy PCB concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm effectively,
but further research is required (057). The gamma and elec-
tron beam radiation technique, described under IN-PLACE DE-
STRUCTION (earlier in this section) , may be effective for
destruction of PCBs in sediments and soils in conjunction
with containment/encapsulation (005). However, chemical
destruction has been eliminated from further evaluation
because it is still in the developmental stages.
Biological Breakdown
Biological breakdown in conjunction with containment/encapsu-
lation was considered. All biological disposal methods are
based on the ability of microorganisms to break down toxic
materials. There are many problems associated with biolog-
ical degradation, such as:
• Most systems need to remain aerobic.
• Biological degradation rates are temperature
dependent.
• Complete contact with the toxic material must be
made (usually very time-consuming).
• The biologically active material must be disposed
of.
More research is needed in this area to make it a viable
solution (057, 005, 001). Therefore, biological breakdown
has been eliminated from further evaluation.
PD998.052 2-34
-------
Incineration and Landfill Ash
A mobile field incinerator could be used onsite to destroy
contaminated sediments and soils. Residues may weigh between
50 and 85 percent by weight of the original material, and
could be used as fill elsewhere onsite. The incinerator
used for PCB destruction must meet the requirements of 40 CFR
761.70, which states that incineration of PCB-contaminated
sediment slurry must be brought about by maintaining a tempera-
ture of 1,200 degrees centigrade (°C) with a 2-second retention
time in the secondary combustion unit and 3 percent excess
oxygen in the stack gas, or by maintaining a temperature of
1,600°C with a 1.5-second retention time in the secondary
combustion unit and 2 percent excess oxygen in the stack
gas. Both must have a combustion efficiency of 99.9 percent
or greater. USEPA and IEPA monitoring requirements must
also be met. Onsite incineration was retained for further
evaluation during initial screening.
Water Disposal
Treated water with PCB concentrations less than 1 ppb would
be conveyed back to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer for
disposal. All waters would be sufficiently treated to reach
the required discharge level for PCB concentration. Water
disposal was retained for further evaluation during initial
screening.
OFFSITE STORAGE/DISPOSAL
Three disposal options are available for dredged materials
that contain PCBs (40 CFR 761.60) are: (1) in an incinerator
that complies with 40 CFR 761.70, (2) in a chemical waste
landfill that complies with 40 CFR 761.75, or (3) upon appli-
cation, using a disposal method approved by the Regional
Administrator.
For PCB-contaminated soil, only two options are available:
(1) in an incinerator that complies with 40 CFR 761.70, or
(2) in a chemical waste landfill that complies with
40 CFR 761.75 unless a waiver from these requirements is
obtained.
The definition of remedial action does not include offsite
storage/disposal "unless the President determines that such
actions (A) are more cost-effective than other remedial
actions, (B) will create new capacity to manage...hazardous
substances in addition to those located at the affected
facility, or (C) are necessary to protect public health or
welfare or the environment from a present or potential risk
which may be created by further exposure to the continued
presence of such substances or materials" (CERCLA
101 (24) (PL 96-510)) .
PD998.052 2-35
-------
Landfill
Contaminated solids could be taken to a licensed chemical
waste landfill site for long-term storage/disposal. Land-
filling does not destroy the contaminant but contains it
from further degrading the environment. Offsite landfill
sites that were retained for further evaluation during ini-
tial screening are listed below:
SCA Chemical Waste Services-—Model City, New York. This
facility is licensed to receive PCBs but is more than 500
miles from the OMC site. There is barge service to the site.
Clermont Environmental Reclamation—Williamsburg, Ohio.
This facility is licensed to receive PCBs but is more than
350 miles from the OMC site. This site has a USEPA waiver
from depth to groundwater requirements (40 CFR 761) (034).
Truck service is provided to the site. CECOS was recently
bought by Browning Ferris Industries but shall be referred
to in this report as CECOS.
Chemical Waste Management—Calumet City, Illinois. This
facility is not licensed to receive PCBs. It is in an in-
dustrial area with rail access 75 miles from the OMC site.
Appropriate state and Federal permits would have to be
secured.
Browning Ferris Industries—Lake County, Illinois. This
facility, 13 miles from the OMC site, is not licensed to
receive PCBs. It is in a rural setting, and 28 buildings
(mostly residences) are within a 0.5-mile radius of the
facility. This facility would require a USEPA waiver from
depth to groundwater requirements (40 CFR 761) (034) .
New Site No. 1—Lake County, Illinois. This potential land-
fill site, 7 miles from the OMC site, is in a rural setting
with commercial, industrial, and residential uses within a
2-mile radius (002) .
New Site No. 2—Lake County, Illinois. This potential land-
fill site, 10 miles from the OMC area, is in a rural/industrial
setting, with 38 structures located within a 0.5-mile radius.
Four housing developments, along with commercial, institutional,
and industrial uses, all lie within a 2-mile radius (002).
Airport Site—Lake County, Illinois. This potential land-
fill site, approximately 5 miles from the OMC site, is in an
industrial setting. The Port of Waukegan has suggested the
availability of property near the Waukegan airport as a pos-
sible landfill site.
Environmental Services, Incorporated—Boise, Idaho. This
facility is licensed to receive PCBs, but is about 1,500 miles
PD998.052 2-36
-------
from the OMC site. There is rail service to within 31 miles
of the site.
Incineration
See ONSITE STORAGE/DISPOSAL, earlier in this section, for a
description of this technique. Contaminated sediment slurry
would have to be transported to an approved incinerator.
Transporting, rehandling, and storage requirements for incin-
erating offsite render this option economically infeasible.
Offsite incineration has been eliminated from further consid-
eration.
TRANSPORTATION
There are three possible means of transporting PCB-contaminated
materials to offsite disposal: truck, barge, and train. These
transportation modes were all retained for further evaluation
during initial screening.
PD998.052 2-37
-------
Section 3
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES FOR INITIAL SCREENING
The unit processes retained for further screening were as-
sembled into alternative remedial action systems for initial
screening. Figures 3-1 through 3-5 present the alternatives
considered for each area. The following paragraphs describe
these flow diagrams.
SLIP NO. 3
Alternative 1: Dredge-Fix-Dispose
A sediment dispersal control device, consisting of a double
silt curtain or sheet piling, would be installed across the
mouth of Slip No. 3. Sediments in excess of 50 ppm PCBs
would be removed with a mechanical dredge and placed in
trucks for transport to an onsite batch plant. Sediments
could also be removed with a pneumatic dredge and the sedi-
ment slurry pumped through a pipeline to the batch plant.
A mechanical dredge would be used to dredge the area of deep
contaminated sand and silt near the OMC outfall. This deep
dredging would be performed inside a cofferdam. The water
level inside the cofferdam would be kept lower than outside
to cause water flow toward the contained area. The removed
water would be routed to an onsite water treatment plant for
suspended solids and PCS removal (to 1 ppb PCBs), then dis-
charged to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. Sediments
could be thickened by adding other project area solids to
minimize fixing agent addition. The sediment would then be
fixed at the batch plant by adding portland cement, Locksorb,
or another fixing agent to hydrate the excess water. The
mix would be transported to curing cells. The fixed solids
would be cured until they were nonflowable. This is expected
to take about 1 day. The fixed solids would then be removed
from the curing cells by front end loaders for transporta-
tion by truck, train, or barge to an approved disposal site.
Alternative 2: Dredge-Dewater-Fix-Dispose
For this alternative, a sediment dispersal control device as
described for Alternative 1 would be installed across the
mouth of Slip No. 3. Sediments in excess of 50 ppm PCBs
would be removed with a hydraulic dredge and the sediment
slurry pumped through a pipeline to the initial solids
dewatering basin. Dredging of the deep contaminated sand
and silt would be performed as described for Alternative 1.
Solids would be dewatered using one of the following types
of initial solids dewatering basins:
PD998.053 3-1
-------
• Solids dewatering in the east-west portion of the
North Ditch would require solids removal after one
8-hour day of dredging and 16 hours of settling.
Solids would then be removed by backhoe, loaded
into trucks, and transported to the batch plant.
• A clay-lined dewatering lagoon would be constructed
on OMC property for solids dewatering. Solids and
1 ft of the clay liner would be removed by dragline
2 months after dredging activities were completed,
loaded into trucks, and transported to the batch
plant.
• Solids dewatering would be effected in bins/cy-
clones/filters and solids removed after one 8-hour
day of dredging and 16 hours of settling. The
solids would be loaded into trucks and transported
to the batch plant.
• Dredged sediments would be placed in barges to
dewater the solids. Solids would be removed by a
backhoe or dragline about 2 months after dredging
activities were completed and loaded into trucks
for transport to the batch plant.
In all the above initial solids dewatering basins, the super-
natant would be continuously decanted and routed to an onsite
water treatment plant for suspended solids and PCB removal
(to 1 ppb PCBs), then discharged to the harbor or to a sani-
tary sewer.
The dewatered solids could be thickened with other project
area solids. They would be fixed as described for Alterna-
tive I to render solids to a nonflowable form, and trans-
ported by truck, train, or barge to an approved disposal
site.
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater-Dispose
A sediment dispersal control device as described for Alter-
native 1 would be installed across the mouth of Slip No. 3.
Sediments in excess of 50 ppm PCBs would be removed with a
hydraulic or pneumatic dredge, and the sediment slurry pumped
through a pipeline to the initial solids dewatering basin.
Dredging of the deep contaminated sand and silt would be
performed as described for Alternative 1. All solids would
be dewatered using one of the initial solids dewatering
basins described for Alternative 2. For this alternative,
however, they would be dewatered to the degree necessary to
reach a nonflowable condition. In general, this would
require more time and/or more equipment. The solids would
then be transported by truck to an approved disposal site.
The supernatant would be continuously decanted and routed to
PD998.053 3-2
-------
an onsite water treatment plant for suspended solids and PCB
removal (to 1 ppb PCBs), then discharged back to the harbor
or to a sanitary sewer.
Alternative 4: Dredge-Dewater-Incinerate-Dispose
A sediment dispersal control device as described for Alter-
native 1 would be installed across the mouth of Slip No. 3.
Sediments in excess of 50 ppm PCBs would be removed with a
hydraulic or pneumatic dredge, and the sediment slurry pumped
through a pipeline to an initial solids dewatering basin.
Dredging of the deep contaminated sand and silt would be
performed as described for Alternative I. All solids would
be dewatered, using one of the initial solids dewatering
basins described for Alternative 2, to a nonflowable condi-
tion. The supernatant would be continuously decanted and
routed to an onsite water treatment plant for suspended
solids and PCB removal (to 1 ppb PCBs), then discharged back
to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. The solids would then
be removed with a backhoe or dragline and placed in trucks
to be transported to an onsite incinerator. The solids would
be incinerated in an approved unit and the ash disposed of
onsite.
Alternative 5: No Action
The No Action alternative will leave PCB concentrations in
excess of 500 ppm in Slip No. 3 sediments and PCB concentra-
tions in excess of 10,000 ppm in the localized area near the
former OMC outfall. This alternative will not resolve the
problem of uncontained toxic waste as regulated under 40
CFR 761.
UPPER HARBOR
Alternative 1; Dredge-Fix-Dispose
This alternative is the same as Slip No. 3—Alternative 1,
except that dredging of deep contaminated sand and silt is
not required and the sediment dispersal control device would
be installed at the south end of the Upper Harbor.
Alternative 2: Dredge-Dewater-Fix-Dispose
This alternative is essentially the same as Slip No. 3 —
Alternative 2, except that dredging of deep contaminated
sand and silt is not required; the sediment dispersal control
device would be installed at the south end of the Upper
Harbor; and barge dewatering could not be used because of
the large storage volume required.
PD998.053 3-3
-------
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater-Dispose
This alternative is essentially the same as Slip No. 3—Alter-
native 3, except that dredging of deep contaminated sand and
silt is not required; the sediment dispersal control device
would be installed at the south end of the Upper Harbor; and
barge dewatering could not be used because of the large storage
volume required.
Alternative 4; Dredge-Dewater-Incinerate-Dispose
This alternative is essentially the same as Slip No. 3—Alter-
native 4, except that dredging of deep contaminated sand and
silt is not required; the sediment dispersal control device
could be installed at the south end of the Upper Harbor; and
barge dewatering could not be used because of the large storage
volume required.
Alternative 5; No Action
The No Action alternative will leave PCB concentrations between
50 and 500 ppm in the Upper Harbor. This alternative will
not resolve the problem of uncontained toxic waste as regulated
under 40 CFR 761.
SLIP NO. 3 AND UPPER HARBOR
Alternative 6; Contain-Dredge-Cap
A sediment dispersal control device, consisting of a double
silt curtain or sheet piling, would be installed and then a
permanent cofferdam would be constructed. The sediment disper-
sal control device and the cofferdam would be located at one
of the following areas:
• To allow for dredging of all Upper Harbor
sediments, the sediment dispersal control device
would be installed at the south end of the Upper
Harbor, and the cofferdam would be constructed
near the north end of the Upper Harbor.
• To allow for dredging of the most contaminated
Upper Harbor sediments, the sediment dispersal
control device would be installed at the middle of
the Upper Harbor, and the cofferdam would be con-
structed near the east end of Slip No. 3.
A slurry wall extending into the glacial till would be con-
structed inside the cofferdam and around the entire perimeter
of the containment area.
Dredged sediments from the Upper Harbor would be placed within
the contained area. Supernatant would be continuously decanted
PD998.053 3-4
-------
and routed to an onsite water treatment plant for suspended
solids and PCB removal (to 1 ppb PCBs), then discharged to
the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. After dredging is completed,
a layer of filter fabric, a 1-ft-thick layer of sand with a
drainage system, and a 3-ft-thick compacted clay cap would
cover the dredged muck. Five feet of fill over the clay
would serve as a surcharge to speed up densification of the
sediments. Water collected from the drainage system would
be treated as described above. Slip No. 3 would be left
permanently filled. Groundwater monitoring wells would be
installed around the site for detection of potential PCB
migration.
After completion of all dredging activities, the water treat-
ment plant would be removed and a new basin would be constructed
to replace Slip No. 3. After settlement of the muck in Slip
No. 3, the surcharge would be removed and the area paved.
NORTH DITCH AREA
Alternative 1: Excavate-Dispose
A bypass would be constructed to divert surface water flow
around the highly contaminated areas of the Crescent Ditch
and Oval Lagoon. The bypass would outfall directly into
Lake Michigan. Construction would then begin on a structural
slurry wall (or other structural support system) around the
Crescent Ditch and a nonstructural slurry wall around the
Oval Lagoon. The soils would be dewatered using well points
and pumps. Well water would be routed to an onsite water
treatment plant for suspended solids and PCB removal (to
1 ppb PCBs), then discharged to the harbor or to a sanitary
sewer.
Soils in excess of 50 ppm PCBs would be excavated by backhoe
and placed in lined trucks for transport to an approved dis-
posal site. The excavated areas would be backfilled.
Alternative 2: Excavate-Incinerate-Dispose
A bypass would be constructed as described for Alternative 1.
The excavation area would be dewatered within a slurry wall,
and the well water would be treated as described for Alter-
native 1. Soils in excess of 50 ppm PCBs would be excavated
by backhoe and placed in trucks to be transported to an onsite
incinerator. Excavated soils would be incinerated in an
approved unit, and resulting ash would be disposed of onsite.
Alternative 3; Excavate-Fix-Dispose
A bypass would be constructed as described for Alternative 1.
The excavation area would be dewatered within a slurry wall,
PD998.053 3-5
-------
and the well water would be treated as described for Alter-
native 1. Soils in excess of 50 ppm PCBs would be excavated
with a backhoe and placed in trucks to be transported to the
batch plant. The soil would then be fixed with portland
cement, Locksorb, or another fixing agent to hydrate the
excess water. The treated soil would then be transported to
the curing cells. The fixed solids would be cured until
they were nonflowable and then removed from the curing cells
by front end loaders for transport by truck, train, or barge
to an approved disposal site.
Alternative 4; Excavate-Contain-Cap
A bypass would be constructed to divert surface water flow
around the highly contaminated areas of the Crescent Ditch
and Oval Lagoon. The bypass would outfall directly into
Lake Michigan. The east-west portion of the North Ditch
would be excavated to one of the following extents:
• All of the PCB-contaminated soils in the North
Ditch would be excavated to allow for construction
of a bypass pipeline or a lined open ditch. This
would require support of the excavated area with
sheet piles.
• All of the PCB-contaminated soils in the North
Ditch required to install a bypass pipeline would
be excavated. This would not require support of
the excavated area with sheet piles.
A nonstructural slurry wall extending down into the under-
lying glacial till would be constructed around the Crescent
Ditch and Oval Lagoon to control movement of contaminated
materials. Excavated soils from the east-west portion of
the North Ditch and the Crescent Ditch area would be de-
watered and placed in the Oval Lagoon area. The well water
would be treated as described for Alternative 1. The site
would be capped with a 3-ft-thick compacted clay layer to
seal in the contaminated soils. The Crescent Ditch area
would then be paved and the Oval Lagoon area seeded. This
would raise the elevation of the Oval Lagoon area by 20 to
25 feet. Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed
around the site for detection of potential PCB migration.
Alternative 5; No Action
The No Action alternative will leave PCB concentrations in
excess of 10,000 ppm in the localized areas of the Crescent
Ditch and Oval Lagoon and PCB concentrations between 50 and
10,000 ppm in the soils and sediments of the rest of the
North Ditch area. This alternative will not resolve the
problem of uncontained toxic waste as regulated under 40
CFR 761.
PD998.053 3-6
-------
PARKING LOT
Alternative 1; Excavate-Dispose
A nonstructural slurry wall would be constructed around the
deep contamination in the Parking Lot area. The Parking Lot
area soil would be dewatered using well points and pumps. Well
water would be routed to an onsite water treatment plant for
suspended solids and PCB removal (to I ppb PCBs), then dis-
charged to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. Soil in excess
of 50 ppm PCBs would be excavated by backhoe or front end
loader and placed in lined trucks for transport to an approved
disposal site. The excavated areas would be backfilled.
Alternative 2: Excavate-Incinerate-Dispose
The excavated area would be dewatered and the well water
treated as described for Alternative 1. Soil in excess of
50 ppm would be excavated by backhoe or front end loader and
placed in trucks to be transported to an onsite incinerator.
Excavated soil would be incinerated in an approved unit, and
resulting ash would be disposed of onsite.
Alternative 3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose
The excavated area would be dewatered and the well water
treated as described for Alternative 1. Soils in excess of
50 ppm would be excavated with a backhoe or front end loader
and placed in trucks to be transported to a batch plant.
The soils would then be fixed with portland cement, Locksorb,
or another fixing agent to hydrate excess water. Treated
soil would then be transported to curing cells. The fixed
solids would be cured until they were nonflowable and then
removed from the curing cells by front end loaders for trans-
port by truck, train, or barge to an approved disposal site.
Alternative 4: Contain-Cap
A nonstructural slurry wall extending down into the under-
lying glacial till would be constructed around the Parking
Lot to control movement of contaminated materials. The site
would be capped with a 3-ft-thick compacted clay layer to
seal in the contaminated soils and then resurfaced for park-
ing. This would raise the elevation of the site by 3 to 4
ft. Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed around
the site for detection of potential PCB migration.
Alternative 5: No Action
The No Action alternative will leave PCB concentrations from
50 to over 5,000 ppm in the Parking Lot area. This alterna-
tive will not resolve the problem of uncontained toxic waste
as regulated under 40 CFR 761.
PD998.053 3-7
-------
s
8
m
g
2 >
m
3)
Z
58
m
o
q
m
71
s
0
N/\Jx s*'
N-l
*
N,/
S-
\ /
Jl
Nk_
*8
^
q
m
S
m
rn
0
-------
*
= *:.!5:JC
j, m 5 -Ht>^
|SSi*m
^ >
m
•3}
m
u>
OJ
70
I
H
m
o
q
m
x
1
rn
0
-------
i
I
-5 Z
-
0>
3)±
m
CO
B
-------
rn
0
q
rn
§
P
I
O
•< s
S >
^ 5
m
x
>
m
en
-------
F
15
5
*>
i
m
0
m
c
m
5
> f S — —,t
o _6C
£0
0°
Zf.
3
3)
m
m
m
X!
rn
w
-------
Section 4
INITIAL SCREENING
In the initial screening process, the alternatives described
in Section 3 were evaluated based on engineering feasibility,
estimated incremental costs, environmental effects, and in
accordance with the site-specific remedial response objec-
tives and criteria discussed in Section 1. The initial
screening process narrowed the alternatives to from two to
four for each area. The alternatives remaining after ini-
tial screening are discussed in more detail in Section 5.
ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY
The unit processes considered for the remedial action alter-
natives defined in Section 3 were further evaluated based on
engineering feasibility. The criteria used to evaluate the
unit processes and the justification for eliminating some
additional processes are presented below. The No Action
alternative is discussed later in this section under
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
Dredging
The engineering feasibility screening criteria used to fur-
ther evaluate the dredging unit processes consisted of the
following:
• Dredging and related activities in Slip No. 3,
except in the localized area that requires dredging
of deep contaminated sand and silt, should be accom-
plished within 2 months to reduce impacts on Larsen
Marine Services.
• Dredging and related activities in the localized
area of Slip No. 3 should be accomplished within
2 months. This time is in addition to the 2 months
required to dredge Slip No. 3, as noted above.
• Dredging and related activities in the Upper Harbor
should be accomplished within 3 months. This time
is in addition to the 4 months required to dredge
Slip No. 3 and the localized area.
• Dredging activities should minimize the roiling of
bottom sediments.
• Dredging activities should be accomplished during
nonfreezing weather unless provisions are made to
store all the dredge sediment slurry.
• Dredges selected should be readily available, con-
ventional construction equipment.
PD102.001 4-1
-------
• Dredging activities must conform to applicable
laws and regulations, which include (001):
Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217)
River and Harbor Act of 1899
Illinois Rivers, Lakes, and Streams Act
In preliminary screening, all types of mechanical dredges
except clamshell dredges were eliminated. Clamshell dredges
were eliminated for general dredging work because bucket
placement and depth of cut are difficult to control, thereby
impacting the sediment removal efficiencies. Also, due to
the fluid nature of the sediments, PCB-contaminated sediment
could flow into the recently dredged area, reducing the PCB
removal efficiency further. This could leave high concen-
trations of PCBs in pockets of sediment. Another disadvan-
tage is that conventional clamshells spill 15 to 30 percent
of the sediments while the clamshell bucket is being raised.
This spillage creates a high degree of sediment suspension
that increases the concentration of PCBs in solution.
A new watertight clamshell (055) may reduce the amount of
sediments spilled by 35 percent, but it still does not have
a controlled removal efficiency because of the difficulty in
controlling depth and location of cut. A clamshell dredge
may be used, however, in the relatively small localized area
of Slip No. 3 to remove the deep contaminated sediments (sand
and silt) below the muck. Dredging activities for the deep
sediments would require containment within a single sheet
pile cofferdam. The water would require treatment to remove
dissolved PCBs before the cofferdam is removed.
The Pneuma and Oozer pneumatic dredges were retained during
preliminary screening. They were eliminated during initial
screening because they are not readily available in the
United States, may be subject to import restrictions, and
have some mechanical limitations. The Pneuma dredge used at
the Cape Fear River had an estimated field production rate
of 36 yd3/hr, which is about 13 times less than the capabil-
ity reported by the manufacturer (005). At that time, Pneuma
North America was evaluating redesign. The Oozer dredge is
not currently available in the United States and may be sub-
ject to import restrictions. Also, it has a dredging depth
of only 20 ft, which is not sufficient to remove the con-
taminated muck layer (005).
A hydraulic dredge, cutterhead pipeline suction type, is
recommended to remove the PCB-contaminated muck from Slip
No. 3 and the Upper Harbor. This dredge reportedly mini-
mizes sediment dispersion. Careful consideration must be
given to selecting the proper dredge head to reduce sediment
PD102.001 4-2
-------
roiling and to obtain high solid-to-water ratios to minimize
dewatering requirements.
Based on the above criteria, Slip No. 3—Alternative 1 and
Upper Harbor—Alternative 1 have been eliminated from
further consideration.
Excavation
The engineering feasibility screening criteria used to fur-
ther evaluate excavation unit processes consisted of the
following:
• Excavation and related activities for the North
Ditch/Parking Lot area should be accomplished with-
in 8 months.
• Excavation equipment should be commonly available,
conventional construction equipment.
Based on these criteria, backhoes and front end loaders
appear to be feasible for excavation during bypass construc-
tion, and for excavation of the Crescent Ditch, Oval Lagoon,
and Parking Lot area. Front end loaders appear to be feasible
for removal of fixed solids from fixation curing cells.
Draglines and backhoes appear to be feasible for removal of
settled sediments from the initial solids dewatering basins.
Sediment Dispersal Control
The engineering feasibility screening criterion used to eval-
uate sediment dispersal control unit processes was that they
should minimize migration of dissolved PCBs across the bar-
rier. Based on this criterion, both the double silt curtain
and steel sheet piling appear to be feasible. A monitoring
program to detect movement of material out of the dredging
area will be enacted to warn of the need for additional con-
trol measures (shut down dredging, polymer addition, etc.).
Surface Water and Groundwater Control
The engineering feasibility screening criterion used to eval-
uate surface water and groundwater control unit processes
was that they should reduce inflow to the excavation area.
Based on this criterion, both sheet piles and structural
slurry walls appear to be feasible to provide structural
support and reduce inflow for the Crescent Ditch excavation
and bypass construction. Nonstructural slurry walls appear
to be feasible to reduce inflow at the Oval Lagoon and the
Parking Lot area excavations. Dewatering with well points
and pumps would be used for all areas. A single sheet-pile
cofferdam appears to be feasible to reduce inflow for the
Slip No. 3 localized area.
PD102.001 4-3
-------
Bypass
The engineering feasibility screening criterion used to evalu-
ate the bypass unit process was that it divert surface waters
around the highly contaminated areas. Based on this crite-
rion, both a pipeline and a lined open ditch appear to be
feasible.
Initial Solids Dewatering
The engineering feasibility screening criteria used to evalu-
ate initial solids dewatering unit processes consisted of
the following:
• At least 2 hours of settling time are required
before the water used to slurry the sediments can
be removed for treatment in the onsite water treat-
ment plant (004).
• Ideally, the settling time should provide suffi-
cient dewatering of harbor sediments to obtain a
moisture content that is at or below the liquid
limit (nonflowable) for solids to be disposed of
in a licensed chemical waste landfill.
• Six hours is the minimum settling time recommended
for solids to dewater. The longer the retention
time provided, the greater the solids concentration
expected for the dewatered material (004). From
previous experience with dewatering silts, 6 hours
may not be adequate to produce a nonflowable con-
sistency.
• The water treatment plant probably will not be
protected against freezing weather. If not pro-
tected, the dewatering basins cannot release slurry
water to the treatment plant during freezing con-
ditions (001). This would require that dredging
operations be conducted during nonfreezing weather.
• Under TSCA, PCB soils and sediments with concen-
trations greater than 50 ppm must be nonflowable
if they are to be disposed of in a chemical waste
landfill (40 CFR 761.75).
Based on these criteria, all the initial solids dewatering
unit processes appear to be feasible. At this time, it is
not possible to estimate how complete solids dewatering will
be; therefore, the impact of thickening with other project
area solids cannot yet be estimated. In addition, testing
(under Task 4) is currently being performed on muck samples
(results will be under separate cover) to determine the
amount of fixing agent required to obtain a nonflowable con-
sistency.
PD102.001 4-4
-------
If the North Ditch is used for initial solids dewatering,
the ditch should be modified to dewater dredged sediments
from at least 1 day of dredging activity. This would re-
quire increasing the depth of the existing east-west portion
of the North Ditch by about 4 ft and widening the ditch top
width by about 25 to 35 ft. It should also be designed so
that all groundwater flow moves toward the ditch to reduce
the possibility of groundwater contamination from dredged
sediments. Solids would be removed with a backhoe after
settling overnight. Dredging activities would be interrupted
intermittently for this operation.
If the sediments are dewatered in a lagoon constructed on
OMC property or another nearby site, the lagoon would be
designed to hold and dewater all the dredged sediments. The
lagoon would be sized to hold 24,000 yd3 and 118,000 yd3 for
Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor, respectively. Solids would
be removed from the lagoon with a dragline about 2 months
after dredging activities are completed. This would allow
for some densification of the solids (004) .
If bins/cyclones/filters are used for dewatering the dredged
sediments, enough bins must be supplied to dewater sediments
from 1 day of dredging activity. One hundred bins are
expected to be required. Two hydrocyclones would be
required. Because of the low specific gravity of the sedi-
ments, the hydrocyclones are expected to remove only a small
portion of the solids. Bag filters would be used to polish
the effluent prior to water treatment. The solids would be
removed from the bins by gravity; it would take about 3
man-hours to empty each bin. The solids that are removed
from the cyclones (mostly sand) would be loaded onto trucks
to be transported to the curing cells. Solids would be
removed from the bag filters by backwashing.
If barges are used to dewater the dredged sediments from
Slip No. 3 only, an adequate number of barges should be pro-
vided to contain the dredged sediments and slurry water while
the water is decanted. It is estimated that ten 2,000-yd3
capacity barges would be required. Solids could be removed
with a backhoe or clamshell about 2 months after dredging
activities are completed.
A lagoon on OMC property or another nearby site is the only
feasible initial solids dewatering unit process for the
dredged sediments from Slip No. 3—Alternative 3 and Upper
Harbor—Alternative 3 that might not require fixation. The
North Ditch dewatering scheme and the bins/cyclones/filters
were eliminated because the limited storage capacity of these
unit processes would require daily removal of solids, as
well as additional dewatering before the solids were dry
enough for disposal in a licensed chemical waste landfill.
PD102.001 4-5
-------
Barges were eliminated from Upper Harbor—Alternative 3 be-
cause harbor access would be restricted indefinitely. Addi-
tional testing is currently being performed on muck samples
(results will be under separate cover) to determine the maxi-
mum solids moisture content (weight of water divided by weight
of solids) that will allow disposal in a landfill, and the
required retention time in a lagoon before this moisture
content can be obtained. Based on experience with dredge
spoils, this period could be more than 1 year and may require
additional means of dewatering.
The USCOE has used vacuum underdrains and the Riverine Util-
ity Craft (RUC) systems to dewater dredged sediments (052,
053). Tests conducted by Mason & Hanger (004) indicate that
underdrain systems of sand or gravel or other media placed
in the bottom of a lagoon for dewatering the dredged sedi-
ments would be relatively useless because of clogging. There-
fore, the RUC system shows the most promise for dewatering
the solids and was used for the purpose of cost estimating.
The RUC system entails channeling the surface of the sedi-
ments to allow surface drainage of water. This water would
be decanted and routed to the onsite water treatment plant.
The top layer is then dried by evaporation. The dried soil
(typically, the top 1 to 2 ft) would be periodically removed
with a dragline. The disadvantage of this process is that
evaporation, an integral part of the process, provides an
escape route for PCBs to the environment via volatilization.
Secondary Solids Dewatering
Solids from the water treatment process will require treat-
ment before disposal. A belt press was found to be less
cost-effective than treating with the other area solids.
Therefore, belt presses were eliminated from further con-
sideration.
Fixation
Fixation refers to a chemical process used to bind or hydrate
free water in the sediments. The engineering feasibility
screening criteria used to evaluate the fixation unit process
consisted of the following:
• PCB-contaminated sediments fixed with portland
cement (or other fixation materials) should be
transportable within 1 day.
• The fixed solids should be dry enough to be non-
flowable for disposal at a licensed chemical waste
landfill.
Based on the engineering feasibility screening criteria,
fixation appears to be feasible. Fixation may be required
PD102.001 4-6
-------
if initial solids dewatering techniques cannot ensure that
the PCB-contaminated sediments will be nonflowable and not
lose water during transportation to the final disposal site.
Fixing agents other than portland cement are being evaluated
in Task 4.
Fixation requires complete dispersion of the fixing agent
into the sediment to be fixed. A conventional, portable,
concrete batch plant (or transit mixers for small volumes)
could be used to mix the fixing agent into the sediments.
Storage area would be provided onsite for curing the mix-
ture. The quantity of fixing agent used per cubic yard can
be adjusted to account for variability in the sediment
characteristics and moisture contents.
Water Treatment
Laboratory tests were conducted by Mason & Hanger (004) using
harbor water slurried with harbor sediments. The tests showed
that sand filtration (at 3 gallons per minute per square
feet) would remove suspended solids if coagulation/sedimen-
tation were used before filtration to settle fines that could
plug or pass through the filter. Coagulants found to be
effective in settling the fines were both alum and Nalco 8103,
with 2 hours of settling after coagulant addition.
Laboratory tests on carbon filtration were also conducted by
Mason & Hanger (004). Tests conducted on harbor and North
Ditch samples demonstrated that carbon filtration (15-minute
contact) could remove PCBs to below 1 ppb.
The water treatment system would be a "package plant" that
could be easily installed and removed. The same treatment
method could be used for all alternatives. These units are
commonly available.
Water in Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor may also need treat-
ment because dredging operations roil the sediments, which
could cause increased concentrations of PCBs in solution.
Treatment of the water behind the sediment dispersal control
device may consist of adding one or both of the following:
• Cationic polymer to coagulate and settle the fine
suspended sediments
• Activated carbon to remove soluble PCBs
Additional dredging would be required to remove the activated
carbon and settled solids behind the silt curtain.
Laboratory tests conducted by Mason & Hanger (004) demon-
strate that groundwater slurried with North Ditch sediments
removed from the North Ditch/Parking Lot area can be treated
PD102.001 4-7
-------
to remove PCBs down below 1 ppb. The water treatment plant for
Slip No. 3—Alternatives 2 and 3, Upper Harbor—Alternatives 2
and 3, and Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor—Alternative 6 would
be a 1,500-gpm system (assuming a hydraulic dredge operating
8 hours per day at a capacity of 3,000 gpm) consisting of
coagulation, sedimentation, pressure filtration, and carbon
adsorption. The treated water would be detained in a clear-
well to be monitored for PCB concentration before discharge
to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. A limit of 1 ppb PCB
would be maintained for discharged water. Slip No. 3—Alterna-
tive 3, Upper Harbor—Alternatives 1 and 3, and Slip No. 3
and Upper Harbor—Alternative 6 would also require a separate,
smaller, water treatment plant (200 gpm) for treatment of rain-
water and leachate water after the larger water treatment facil-
ity is dismantled. The water treatment plant for the North
Ditch—Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 and Parking Lot—Alternatives 1
and 3 would be a 200-gpm system (assuming dewatering of sands
with a permeability of 10 * cm/sec) consisting of coagulation,
sedimentation, pressure filtration, and carbon adsorption.
Containment/Encapsulation
The engineering feasibility screening criteria used to evalu-
ate containment/encapsulation consisted of the following:
• TSCA regulations (40 CFR 761.60) require that appli-
cations for disposal of dredged materials that contain
PCBs, other than by incineration as prescribed in
40 CFR 761.70 or in a chemical waste landfill that
complies with 40 CFR 761.75, must be made in writing
to the USEPA Regional Administrator. The disposal
method must be based on technical, environmental,
and economic considerations, indicating that disposal
in an incinerator or chemical waste landfill is
not reasonable and appropriate. The alternative
disposal method must provide adequate protection
to health and the environment (40 CFR 761.60(5)).
• CERCLA (101(24) (PL96-510) defines remedial action
to include, but not be limited to, "such actions
at the location of the release as storage, con-
finement, perimeter protection using dikes, trenches
or ditches, clay cover...dredging or excavation...col-
lection of leachate and runoff...and any monitoring
reasonably required to assure that such actions
protect the public health and welfare and the
environment."
Containment/encapsulation of PCB-contaminated material in-
place would eliminate the costs of removing and disposing of
the waste. This alternative was considered for Slip No. 3
with Upper Harbor sediments used as fill, for the North
Ditch area with the North Ditch soils used as fill, and for
PD102.001 4-8
-------
the Parking Lot area. Disposal of the PCB-contaminated soils
by containment/encapsulation would require a waiver from the
requirements of 40 CFR 761.75 (40 CFR 761.60(4)). Management
of the site after containment would be the responsibility of
the State, in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP.
Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor. Containment/encapsulation
of Slip No. 3 would require the construction of a cofferdam
and slurry wall to seal off this portion of the harbor. A
slurry wall 2 ft thick would be constructed through the sandy
sediments and 5 ft into the glacial till layer underlying
the harbor sediments. The slurry wall would be constructed
completely around the perimeter of the containment area.
The water level would then be lowered in the containment
area to ensure inward movement of groundwater. The water
removed would be treated in an onsite water treatment system.
The water would be discharged to the harbor or to a sanitary
sewer. PCB-contaminated sediments from the Upper Harbor
would then be transferred to the contained area. The con-
tained area would be completely filled. Docking facilities
now in Slip No. 3 would have to be relocated (021, 002).
Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed around the
site for detection of potential PCB migration.
North Ditch Area. Containment/encapsulation of the Crescent
Ditch and Oval Lagoon would require the construction of a
slurry wall 2 ft thick, extending through the sandy soils
5 ft into the underlying glacial till layer. The slurry
wall would be constructed completely around the Crescent
Ditch and Oval Lagoon areas. PCB-contaminated soils from
the east-west portion of the North Ditch, excavated during
construction of the bypass, would then be transferred, placed,
and compacted on the Oval Lagoon area. The top 3 ft of the
Crescent Ditch area would also be excavated and then trans-
ferred, placed, and compacted on the Oval Lagoon area. The
Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon areas would be covered with
3 ft of compacted clay, and then the Crescent Ditch area would
be resurfaced for parking and the Oval Lagoon area would be
seeded. Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed
around the site for detection of potential PCB migration.
Parking Lot Area. Containment/encapsulation within the Park-
ing Lot would involve construction of a slurry wall 2 ft
thick, extending through the sandy soils 5 ft into the un-
derlying glacial till layer. The area would be covered with
3 ft of compacted clay and then resurfaced for parking.
Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed around the
site for detection of potential PCB migration.
Incineration
The engineering feasibility screening criteria used to evaluate
the incineration unit process consisted of the following:
PD102.001 4-9
-------
• Incinerators must be licensed to incinerate PCB-
contaminated wastes before mid-1984.
• Ash with PCB concentrations of 0.0 ppm must be
disposed of onsite to be cost-competitive (021).
• Based on USEPA regulations, incinerators must main-
tain a temperature of 1200°C (2192°F), a 2-second
dwell time in the secondary combustion unit, and
3 percent excess oxygen in the stack gas; or main-
tain a temperature of 1600°C (2912°F), a 1.5-second
dwell time in secondary combustion, and 2 percent
excess oxygen in the stack gas (001).
• Based on USEPA regulations, incinerators must oper-
ate at a combustion efficiency of 99.9 percent or
greater (001).
• PCB disposal should be completed by late 1986.
Incineration has been eliminated from further consideration
based on the screening criteria for engineering feasibility.
No major advances in incinerator technology have occurred
since 1981, when USEPA reports (021 and 002) concluded that
incineration was not feasible. An incinerator capable of
PCB destruction under the conditions set forth by USEPA and
transportable to the site has not been licensed to date. It
does not appear that available technology would meet USEPA
requirements without time-consuming and costly testing and
permitting. Therefore, incineration is not considered a
feasible alternative.
In addition to the failure of incineration to meet engineer-
ing feasibility criteria, the costs to incinerate PCB-laden
sediments are expected to be on the order of 10 times greater
than disposal costs. According to James Boyland (Director
of Sales, SCA Chemical Wastes Services), charges to use the
SCA incinerator in Chicago, Illinois, would be from 25 to
50C per Ib of PCB-contaminated soil. The high cost of incin-
eration is primarily due to the low heat value of the soil,
requiring addition of supplementary fuel to raise the soil
temperature above 2000°F. It is assumed that if an approved
portable incinerator unit were available for incineration
onsite (none is available at this time), the cost would be
at least the same, if not more. The estimated cost for incin-
eration at 50C per Ib of contaminated soil approaches
$l,000/yd3. Consequently, incineration will not be consid-
ered further. Therefore, Slip No. 3—Alternative 4, Upper
Harbor—'Alternative 4, North Ditch—Alternative 2, and Park-
ing Lot—Alternative 2 have been eliminated from further
consideration.
PD102.001 4-10
-------
Water Disposal
The engineering feasibility criterion used to evaluate the
water disposal unit process was that the water discharged
have PCS concentrations less than 1 ppb. Based on this cri-
terion, both discharging to the harbor and discharging to a
sanitary sewer appear feasible.
Offsite Landfill
The engineering feasibility screening criteria used to eval-
uate the offsite landfill disposal options consisted of the
following:
• Disposal sites must be licensed to receive PCB-
contaminated wastes before mid-1984.
• Applicable laws and regulations governing disposal
sites include (001) :
Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217)
Toxic Substances Control Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(PL 94-580)
Applicable State rules and regulations
Final site selection and evaluation for a potential hazardous
waste disposal site were performed by Warzyn Engineering,
Inc. (034, 040). The final report (034) evaluates the poten-
tial for offsite disposal at the Browning Ferris Industries
(BFI) Lake County, Illinois, site and the Clermont Environ-
mental Reclamation (CECOS) Williamsburg, Ohio, site. CECOS
was recently purchased by BFI but shall still be referred to
in this report as CECOS. Based on the engineering feasibility
screening criteria, both the BFI and CECOS sites are fea-
sible. BFI, which is only 13 miles from the OMC site, is
not currently licensed to receive PCBs; however, the faci-
lity has the potential to be upgraded to meet hazardous
waste landfill requirements. CECOS is licensed and ready to
receive PCB-contaminated material. The CECOS site is 350
road miles from Waukegan Harbor.
Since the publication of the final site evaluation report
(034), several other possibilities have been considered.
Environmental Services, Incorporated (ESI), in Boise, Idaho,
is licensed and ready to receive PCB-contaminated solids.
The cost for disposal at ESI is comparable to the cost for
disposal at CECOS. Costs for transportation to Boise, how-
ever, are expected to exceed the transportation costs to
CECOS. The ESI site is about 4 times farther than CECOS.
The availability of rail transport (rail station 31 miles
PD102.001 4-11
-------
from disposal site) is not expected to lower the transporta-
tion cost because of the many railroads affected and the
difficulty in obtaining special freight tariffs, as discussed
under Transportation, below.
Another site not licensed but potentially available is prop-
erty owned by the Waukegan Port Authority near the Waukegan
Airport.
Transportation
There are three possible modes of transporting the PCB-
contaminated sediments to an offsite disposal site: trucks,
barges, and railroad cars. Variables that determine the
engineering feasibility of transportation modes include:
• Moisture content of the soil and/or type of fixa-
tion (e.g., block form, friable)
• Proximity of disposal site to railway access
• Proximity of disposal site to barge access
• Minimization (optimization) of waste handling or
rehandling
• Time required to obtain necessary agreements/per-
mits
If the PCB-contaminated sediments are fixed in friable (loose
aggregate) form, dump trucks could be used. Railcars might
still be used, but loading and unloading would be more com-
plicated. Provisions should be made to prevent loss of fixed
sediments during transportation.
If the PCB-contaminated sediments and soils are not fixed,
truck transportation would be the only feasible mode of trans-
port. The trucks would have to be lined to prevent water
loss during transport.
The BFI, CECOS, and ESI disposal sites include truck trans-
portation to their sites as part of the disposal services
for their landfill operations. Rail transportation would
require obtaining agreements with railroad owner(s) to trans-
port PCB-contaminated waste. Usually, on long hauls, more
than one railroad is affected. Trucking is usually more
cost-effective unless a special freight tariff can be ob-
tained from the railroads. Special freight tariffs are usu-
ally made available only to long-term users. If a hazardous
waste disposal site is not adjacent to railway access, then
the added cost of double handling could outweigh the possible
cost savings of using rail transport.
PD102.001 4-12
-------
Transportation by barge is feasible only if the final dis-
posal site is close to the Lake Michigan Waterway access.
Barges are technically feasible for transporting the toxic
wastes to a disposal site near the Great Lakes Waterways
(for example, SCA Chemical Wastes Services in Model City,
New York). The added cost of double handling could outweigh
the advantages.
Regardless of the type of transportation used, care must be
taken to reduce the chance of spillage. Based on the engi-
neering feasibility criteria, truck and barge are the only
feasible transportation modes.
ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COSTS
Comparative capital and O&M costs were evaluated for the
alternatives considered feasible based on the engineering
feasibility criteria. No incremental cost estimates are
presented for the No Action alternative. The assumptions
used to estimate incremental costs for the other alternatives
are presented below.
For the incremental cost estimates, it was assumed that
Level C health and safety protection equipment would be worn
by all persons.
For all the incremental cost estimates except containment/
encapsulation, it was assumed that PCB-contaminated
sediments and soils would be taken to a licensed chemical
waste landfill for disposal. An average disposal and
transportation cost of $50/yd3 was assumed.
Slip No. 3
An order-of-magnitude estimate of the sediment quantities to
be dredged in this area is as follows:
Slip No. 3 (muck) 7,200 yd3
Slip No. 3 (sand and silt) 3,700 yd3
Total 10,900 yd3
The rate of solids removal from Slip No. 3 was estimated to
be about 200 yd3 of solids per hour or 3,000 gpm at 20 per-
cent solids using a hydraulic dredge. Under ideal condi-
tions, it would take five 8-hour days to dredge Slip No. 3.
Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D. Sediments with greater
than 50 ppm PCBs would be removed with a hydraulic dredge,
dewatered in an initial solids dewatering basin, fixed with
cement or another fixing agent to hydrate excess water, and
disposed of in a licensed chemical waste landfill.
PD102.001 4-13
-------
The difference among Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D is the
type of initial solids dewatering basin used. In each
alternative, the supernatant would be continuously decanted
and routed to a 1,500-gpm water treatment plant to remove
suspended solids and dissolved PCBs down to 1 ppb before
discharge back to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer.
Under Alternative 2A, the sediments would be dewatered in
the east-west portion of the North Ditch and the solids would
be removed after one 8-hour day of dredging and 16 hours of
settling. A dredge production rate of 200 yd3 of solids per
hour has been used in these calculations. The required capac-
ity of the North Ditch is estimated to be about 7,700 yd3.
This alternative would require that the dredging activity be
discontinued every other day to allow for solids removal
from the North Ditch. The solids would be removed by a back-
hoe after settling overnight. The solids would then be loaded
into trucks, transported to the batch plant to be fixed,
stored for 1 day for hydration in a curing cell, and dis-
posed of in a licensed chemical waste landfill.
Under Alternative 2B, the sediments would be dewatered in a
lagoon constructed on OMC property and the solids removed
after completion of the dredging activities. The production
of the dredge is estimated to be 200 yd3 of solids per hour.
The required capacity of the lagoon is estimated to be about
24,000 yd3. The solids would be removed by a dragline
2 months after dredging activities are completed. The solids
would then be loaded into trucks, transported to the batch
plant to be fixed, stored for 1 day for hydration in a curing
cell, and disposed of in a licensed chemical waste landfill.
It was assumed that the upper clay liner and contaminated
portions of the gravel leachate system and the bottom clay
liner would be disposed of in a licensed chemical waste land-
fill with other contaminated solids.
Under Alternative 2C, the sediments would be dewatered in
bins/cyclones/filters and the solids removed after one 8-hour
day of dredging and 16 hours of settling. One hundred 36-yd3
elevated bins, 2 hydrocyclones, and 1,250 5-inch-diameter
bag filters would be required to dewater the slurry. This
equipment would require use of approximately 1 acre of OMC
property. The solids would be removed and fixed after set-
tling overnight. This alternative would require that the
dredging activity be discontinued every other day for solids
removal from the bins. The solids could be emptied from the
bins by gravity into trucks, transported to the batch plant
for fixing and to the curing cells for hydration, and then
transported to a licensed chemical waste landfill. Solids
removal would take about 3 man-hours to empty each bin.
Under Alternative 2D, the sediments would be dewatered in
barges. Approximately ten 2,000-yd3 capacity barges would
be required to dewater Slip No. 3 sediments. The solids
PD102.001 4-14
-------
would be removed by a backhoe or clamshell 2 months after
the dredging activities were completed. The solids would
then be loaded into trucks, transported to the batch plant
to be fixed, stored for I day in a curing cell, and disposed
of in a licensed chemical waste landfill.
The common denominator of Alternatives 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D is
the fixation process used to render the solids to a nonflow-
able consistency for disposal in a licensed chemical waste
landfill. Portland cement is locally available and is an
effective way to transform the dredged sediments to a non-
flowable state. Dewatering and fixation testing is in
progress to confirm the effectiveness of fixation using
cement and other agents. Cost estimates are based on using
Portland cement as the fixing agent.
Assuming 250 percent moisture content (weight of water
divided by weight of solids) in the sediments after 1 day of
initial solids dewatering (in-place moisture content of
140 percent was assumed (042)), the in-place volume of
solids is expected to be increased 50 percent by moisture
content and be increased an additional 50 percent by
addition of cement. Total disposal volumes used in the
incremental cost estimates were increased by 100 percent for
Alternatives 2A and 2C for fixed solids. The disposal
volume was estimated to be 21,800 yd3.
Assuming 140 percent moisture content in the sediments after
2 months of initial solids dewatering, the in-place volume
of solids is expected to be increased by 30 percent after
addition of cement. Disposal volumes used in the
incremental cost estimate were increased by 30 percent for
Alternatives 2B and 2D for fixed solids. The disposal
volume was estimated to be 14,170 yd3.
The cement is expected to hydrate the excess water after
1 day of curing. The 1-day storage capacity would be pro-
vided in three 125- by 75-ft, 10-ft-deep, earth-lined cells
with a soil-cement bottom and concrete divider walls between
cells. Dump trucks would collect the fixative/sediment mix-
ture from the batch plant and dump it into the curing cells.
It is estimated that 29 bags of cement would be required for
each cubic yard of dredged sediments settled for 1 day. It
is estimated that 16 bags of cement would be required for
each cubic yard of dredged sediments settled for 2 months.
This cement content is not expected to result in any signifi-
cant structural strength. The fixed solids would be removed
by front end loaders and loaded into trucks for transport to
a licensed chemical waste landfill.
Alternative 3. The sediments with greater than 50 ppm PCBs
in Slip No.3 would be removed with a hydraulic dredge, de-
watered in a lagoon until the sediments reached a nonflow-
able consistency (possibly 1 to 2 years), and then disposed
PD102.001 4-15
-------
of in a licensed chemical waste landfill. The disposal quan-
tity was assumed to be the same as the in-place volume.
A lagoon would be constructed on OMC property or another
nearby site for initial solids dewatering. This lagoon would
be the same size as the lagoon for Alternative 2B. During
dredging, the supernatant would be continuously decanted and
routed to a 1,500-gpm water treatment plant to remove sus-
pended solids and dissolved PCBs down to 1 ppb before dis-
charge to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. After dredging
activities are completed, the solids would need to be de-
watered for an extended time to reach the desired consis-
tency. The surface of the pond could be channeled to pro-
vide for drainage of surface water. For purposes of cost
estimating, the mechanical dewatering process was assumed to
be the RUC. Air drying of the surface and periodic removal
of the dry crust in multiple cycles would be performed to
induce dewatering below in-place moisture contents. Leachate
water and stormwater runoff would be treated in a 200-gpm
water treatment plant for the duration of dewatering after
the dredging is completed. The solids would be removed by a
dragline and loaded into trucks for disposal in a licensed
chemical waste landfill. It was assumed that the upper clay
liner and the contaminated portions of the gravel leachate
system and the bottom clay liner would be disposed of in a
licensed chemical waste landfill with the other contaminated
solids.
Summary. An Order-of-Magnitude incremental cost summary for
Slip No. 3 is presented below. The alternatives are ranked
in increasing order of incremental cost. The lowest cost
alternative is used as the base cost. The incremental cost
of each alternative above the base cost is listed below.
Incremental Cost
Slip No. 3 Alternatives above Base Cost
3 Dredge-dewater in lagoon-
dispose Base
2D Dredge-dewater in barges-fix-
dispose +$ 2,100,000
2B Dredge-dewater in lagoon-fix-
dispose +$ 3,180,000
2A Dredge-dewater in North Ditch-
fix-dispose +$ 4,780,000
2C Dredge-dewater in bins/cyclones/
filters-fix-dispose +$11,160,000
Upper Harbor
An order-of-magnitude estimate of the sediment quantities to
be dredged in this area is 35,700 yd3. The rate of solids
removal from the Upper Harbor was estimated to be about
PD102.001 4-16
-------
200 yd3 of solids per hour or 3,000 gpm at 20 percent solids
using a hydraulic dredge. Under ideal conditions, it would
take 24 8-hour days to dredge the Upper Harbor.
Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C. Sediments with greater than
50 ppm PCBs would be removed with a hydraulic dredge, de-
watered in an initial solids dewatering basin, fixed with
Portland cement or another fixing agent to hydrate excess
water, and disposed of in a licensed chemical waste land-
fill.
The fixation process for these alternatives is the same as
that described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2. The fixed
solids disposal volume at 250 percent moisture content for
Alternatives 2A and 2C is estimated to be 71,400 yd3. The
fixed solids disposal volume at 140 percent moisture content
for Alternative 2B is assumed to be 46,400 yd3.
The initial solids dewatering basins for these alternatives
are the same as those described for Slip No. 3—Alternatives 2A,
2B, 2C, and 2D, except that the lagoon capacity was
estimated to be 118,000 yd3, and barges would not be used
for dewatering.
Alternative 3. Sediments with greater than 50 ppm PCBs in
the Upper Harbor would be removed with a hydraulic dredge,
dewatered in a lagoon until the sediment reached a nonflow-
able consistency, and disposed of in a licensed chemical
waste landfill. This alternative is the same as that de-
scribed for Slip No. 3—Alternative 3, except that the
lagoon capacity was estimated to be 118,000 yd3.
Summary. The alternatives for the Upper Harbor are ranked
in the same manner as for Slip No. 3. The lowest cost alter-
native is used as the base cost. The incremental cost of
each alternative above the base cost appears below.
Incremental Cost
Upper Harbor Alternatives above Base Cost
3 Dredge-dewater in lagoon-
dispose Base
2B Dredge-dewater in lagoon-fix-
dispose +$11,030,000
2A Dredge-dewater in North Ditch-
fix-dispose +$11,150,000
2C Dredge-dewater in bins/cyclones/
filters-fix-dispose +$17,780,000
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor
Alternative 6A. Slip No. 3 and the northwest portion of the
Upper Harbor would be contained and encapsulated. A coffer-
PD102.001 4-17
-------
clam across the north end of the Upper Harbor, consisting of
an earth fill between two rows of sheet piling, would be
constructed. A slurry wall would be placed in the cofferdam
and completely around the perimeter of the contained area.
The water would be removed and treated in a 1,500-gpm water
treatment plant. About 33,500 yd3 of sediments dredged from
the Upper Harbor would be placed in the contained area. The
area would then be capped and paved. The surrounding area
would be monitored for PCB concentration levels.
Alternative 6B. Slip No. 3 would be contained and encapsu-
lated. A cofferdam across the east end of Slip No. 3, con-
sisting of an earthfill between two rows of sheet piling,
would be constructed. A slurry wall would be placed in the
cofferdam and completely around the perimeter of the con-
tained area. The water would be removed and treated in a
1,500-gpm water treatment plant. About 13,100 yd3 of sedi-
ments dredged from the east end of Slip No. 3 and the Upper
Harbor would be placed in the contained area. The area would
then be capped and paved. The surrounding area would be
monitored for PCB concentration levels.
Summary. An Order-of-Magnitude incremental cost summary for
Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor is presented below. The
alternatives are ranked in the same manner as for Slip
No. 3. The lowest cost alternative is used as the base
cost. The incremental cost of each alternative above the
base cost is listed below.
Slip No. 3 and Incremental Cost
Upper Harbor Alternatives above Base Cost
6B Contain-dredge part
of Upper Harbor-cap Base
6A Contain-dredge-cap +$3,200,000
North Ditch/Parking Lot Area
An order-of-magnitude estimate of the soil quantities to be
excavated under this alternative is as follows:
Crescent Ditch 28,900 yd3
Die storage area 2,300 yd3
Oval Lagoon 14,600 yd3
North Ditch (east-west) 25,000 yd3
Parking Lot Area 105,000 yd3
Total 175,800 yd3
The rate of solids removal from the North Ditch/Parking Lot
area was estimated to be about 150 yd3 of solids per hour
using a backhoe. Under ideal conditions, using one backhoe,
PD102.001 4-18
-------
it would take 59 8-hour days to excavate the North Ditch
area and 88 8-hour days to excavate the Parking Lot area.
Alternative 1. A bypass would be constructed and soils in
excess of 50 ppm PCBs would be excavated and disposed of in
a licensed chemical waste landfill. The area would then be
backfilled with soil. Because of the relatively high ground-
water table, the area would require dewatering before excava-
tion. Sheet piles or a structural slurry wall would be con-
structed to provide structural support for and reduce inflow
to the Crescent Ditch excavation. A nonstructural slurry
wall would be constructed to reduce inflow to the Oval La-
goon and the Parking Lot area. Dewatering with well points
and pumps would be used for all areas. The groundwater re-
moved would be treated in a 200-gpm water treatment plant
before discharge to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. This
alternative assumes that the contaminated soils could be
excavated in a nonflowable state and disposed of in a licensed
chemical waste landfill. This is a reasonable assumption,
since the North Ditch/Parking Lot area soil is mostly sand.
Alternative 3. A bypass would be constructed, and soils in
excess of 50 ppm PCBs would be excavated and then fixed before
disposal in a licensed chemical waste landfill. Then the
area would be backfilled with soil. The excavation,
dewatering, and water treatment would be the same as that
described for Alternative 1. This alternative would ensure
that the contaminated soils are of a nonflowable con-
sistency, if for some reason the soils could not be suffi-
ciently dewatered. The fixation methods would be the same
as those described in Slip No. 3—Alternative 2.
Assuming 40 percent moisture content in the soils after
excavation, the in-place volume of solids is expected to be
increased by 25 percent after addition of cement (13 bags
per yd3). Fixed solids disposal volumes used in the
incremental cost estimates were increased by 25 percent for
Alternative 3. The disposal volumes were estimated to be:
North Ditch area 88,500 yd3
Parking Lot area 131,200 yd3
Total 219,700 yd3
Alternative 4 (Parking Lot Area Only). This alternative
consists of encapsulating the area of contamination in-place
beneath the Parking Lot to minimize groundwater contamina-
tion. A slurry wall surrounding the area is assumed to be
about 2 ft thick, 35 ft deep, and 2,400 ft long. The Park-
ing Lot area would be returned to its original use after
encapsulating the contaminated area, regrading, and resur-
facing the area with asphalt cement paving. The surrounding
area would be monitored for PCB concentration levels.
PD102.001 4-19
-------
Alternative 4A (North Ditch Area Only). This alternative
consists of encapsulating the area of contamination in-place
beneath the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon and filling above
the area of the Oval Lagoon with all of the excavated PCB-
contaminated soils from the east-west portion of the North
Ditch and from the top 3 ft of the Crescent Ditch. A slurry
wall surrounding the area is assumed to be about 2 feet thick,
35 feet deep, and 1,900 feet long. The Crescent Ditch area
would be resurfaced with asphalt cement paving. The Oval
Lagoon area would be seeded. The surrounding area would be
monitored for PCB concentration levels.
Alternative 4B (North Ditch Area Only). This alternative is
the same as Alternative 4A, except only 5,600 yd3 of PCB-
contaminated soils from the east-west portion of the North
Ditch would be excavated.
Summary. An Order-of-Magnitude incremental cost summary for
the North Ditch/Parking Lot area follows. The alternatives
are ranked in increasing order of incremental cost. The
lowest cost alternative is used as the base cost. The
incremental cost of each alternative above the base cost
appears below.
Incremental Cost
North Ditch Alternatives above Base Cost
4B Excavate-contain part
of the North Ditch-cap Base
4A Excavate-contain-cap +$ 4,510,000
1 Excavate-dispose +$12,460,000
3 Excavate-fix-dispose -(-$22,610,000
Incremental Co-st
Parking Lot Alternatives above Base Cost
4 Contain-cap Base
1 Excavate-dispose + $ 9,680,000
3 Excavate-fix-dispose +$30,070,000
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The following paragraphs present quantitative estimates of
the amount of PCBs to be removed or contained by each alter-
native. The socioeconomic aspects and permit requirements
are assessed. The adequacy of source control to satisfy the
response objectives and to contribute substantially to pro-
tection of public health and the environment is also dis-
cussed.
Slip No. 3
Alternative 2: Dredge-Dewater-Fix-Dispose. This alterna-
tive -would remove by hydraulic dredge (clamshell for the
PD102.001 4-20
-------
localized area of deep contaminated sand and silt) all sedi-
ments from Slip No. 3 with PCB contamination in excess of
50 ppm. Dredging activities would use a sediment dispersal
control system (silt curtains or sheet piling) to minimize
uncontrolled release of PCBs into the surrounding area.
Because minimal volatilization is expected to occur at the
dredge site (roughly 0.3 to 0.4 pound per day per acre
(Ib/day/acre) from an exposed, agitated, and contaminated
water area (030)), only low concentrations of PCBs would be
released into the air (less than 2 micrograms per cubic
meter (ug/m3)M (007) .
Sediments would be dewatered onsite, using (1) the North
Ditch, (2) a lagoon to be constructed on OMC property,
(3) bins/cyclones/filters, or (4) barges. Supernatant would
be processed through a package water treatment plant. Solids
from the treatment plant would be returned to be treated
with the other solids. Treated water, with PCB levels below
1 ppb, would then be discharged into the harbor or to a sani-
tary sewer.
The greatest potential for volatilization during dewatering
would occur in the North Ditch, which would require daily
excavation of all the dredged solids. The excavation would
stir up the sediments, causing increased volatilization.
The lagoons or barges would be excavated only once, thus
reducing opportunities for volatilization. The elevated
bins would be decanted before the solids are removed and put
through the fixation process. The contaminated sediment
would not have contact with the open air for more than about
1 hour per bin-clearing operation. The highest reported
concentration in a Slip No. 3 sediment sample is about
500,000 ppm PCBs (001). The predicted PCB concentration in
the air from solids removal operations is predicted to be
less than 200 ug/m3 for sediments with concentrations of
100,000 ppm PCBs (007). Typical PCB concentrations range
from about 50 to 5,000 ppm PCBs. Predicted average concen-
trations in air would be less than 6.6 ug/m3. These values
were extrapolated from data for sand assuming a 3.6-mile-
per-hour (mph) wind and an air temperature of 68°F. The
volatilization rate from Waukegan Harbor muck should be less
than from sand (007) .
The remaining solids would be fixed in a nonflowable form to
allow transport offsite without spillage. Volatilization
control during transport may require use of covers. Fixed
materials would be disposed of in a licensed chemical waste
landfill, in compliance with State and Federal standards for
PCB waste disposal.
PD102.001 4-21
-------
Slip No. 3 would be cleaned of all sediments in excess of
50 ppm PCBs. If a 95 percent removal efficiency were achieved,
it would remove an estimated 290,000 Ib of PCBs in approxi-
mately 10,900 yd3 of sediments. This would remove about
93.5 percent of all the PCBs now found in Slip No. 3 and
Upper Harbor sediments.
The most significant uncontrolled dispersal of PCBs during
cleanup would result from volatilization, and is estimated
to be below 1,000 ug/m3, the OSHA standard (007).
Local land use would be temporarily impacted by the disposal,
treatment, and transport operations. Upon project comple-
tion, existing local land uses could resume. A temporary
impact on Larsen Marine Services would occur during the
actual dredging operations. Alternatives 2A and 2C, using
the North Ditch or bins/cyclones/filters, would have a greater
impact on Larsen Marine Services because dredging would be
interrupted every other day for solids removal.
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
from Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and Illi-
nois Commerce Commission (I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
PD102.001 4-22
-------
• Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) (Divi-
sion of Waterways) permit for work in public water-
ways
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater-Dispose. Like Alternative 2,
this alternative would use a dredging system with sediment
dispersal controls to remove all sediment with PCB contami-
nation in excess of 50 ppm. Because minimal volatilization
is expected to occur at the dredge site (roughly 0.3 to 0.4
Ib/day/acre from an exposed, agitated, and contaminated water
area (030) ) , only low concentrations of PCBs would be re-
leased into the air (less than 2 ug/m3) (007) .
Dredged sediments would be dewatered by use of a lagoon on
OMC property. Mason & Hanger's laboratory reports (004) and
experience with dredged sediments indicate that the dredged
sediments would be difficult to dewater. It was assumed
that the sediments would not obtain a moisture content lower
than they had in-place in the harbor without mechanical
dewatering. Vacuum underdrainage techniques to densify
fine-grained material have been successfully demonstrated by
USCOE (053). However, laboratory tests conducted by Mason &
Hanger indicate that underdrain systems of sand, gravel, or
other media would be relatively ineffective for dewatering
sediments from Waukegan Harbor (004).
The USCOE has used a RUC system to channel the sediments for
release and drainage of water in dredged sediments. This
exposes the sediments to air for evaporation and drying (052).
After the top layer is dry, it is removed by a dragline and
the RUC channeling process is repeated. Assuming the lagoon
is 10 ft deep, the process is expected to require up to six
repetitions. This would result in substantial volatiliza-
tion of PCBs to the atmosphere, since evaporation is a neces-
sary part of the dewatering process.
The highest reported concentration in a Slip No. 3 sediment
sample is about 500,000 ppm (001). The predicted PCB con-
centration in air above sediments with concentrations of
100,000 ppm PCBs would be less than 200 ug/m3. The volati-
lization rate is predicted to be less than 163,000 micro-
grams per square meter per hour (ug/m2/hr) or 63 pounds per
day (Ib/day). Typical PCB concentrations range from about
50 to 5,000 ppm PCBs. Predicted average concentrations in
the air would be less than 6.6 ug/m3. The average volatili-
zation rate from these sediments is expected to be less than
5,375 ug/m2/hr or 2 Ib/day PCBs. These values are extra-
polated from data for sand, assuming a 3.6-mph wind and an
air temperature of 68°F. The volatilization rate from
Waukegan Harbor muck should be less than from sand (007).
PD102.001 4-23
-------
Supernatant would be processed through a water treatment
plant. Solids from the treatment plant would be returned to
be treated with the other solids. Treated water, with PCB
levels below 1 ppb, would be discharged to the harbor or to
a sanitary sewer.
Once the necessary drying was achieved in each layer, the
sediment would be removed by a dragline and placed in trucks
with seals (tailgate linings, etc.) to minimize spillage
during transport. Volatilization would occur during drag-
line and truck loading operations. Sediment would finally
be disposed of in a licensed chemical waste landfill.
Slip No. 3 would be cleaned of all sediments with greater
than 50 ppm PCBs. If a 95 percent removal efficiency were
achieved, it would remove an estimated 290,000 Ib of PCBs
contained in approximately 10,900 yd3 of sediments. This
would remove about 93.5 percent of all the PCBs now found in
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor sediments.
PCB releases during cleanup would be at a maximum during the
evaporation phase of the dewatering operation and solids
removal process. The volatilization rate of the alternative
would be expected to average less than 2 Ib/day, and would
decrease as PCBs in the top sediments in each layer were
depleted (007).
Local land use would be temporarily impacted by the disposal,
treatment, and transport preparation operations. Upon proj-
ect completion, existing local land uses could resume. A
temporary impact on Larsen Marine Services would occur dur-
ing the actual dredging operations.
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
PD102.001 4-24
-------
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
« USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
Alternative 5: No Action. The No Action alternative would
leave PCB concentrations in excess of 10,000 ppm in the
localized area near the former OMC outfall and PCB concen-
trations in excess of 500 ppm in the rest of Slip No. 3 sedi-
ments. This represents an estimated 305,200 Ib of PCBs in
Slip No. 3 (001) . PCBs in these concentrations are regu-
lated by 40 CFR 761 under TSCA.
Without cleanup, Slip No. 3 will continue to contribute to
the estimated 22 Ib of PCBs (based on a steady state model)
released into Lake Michigan each year from Waukegan Harbor
water (035). The Waukegan area will continue to represent
the most significant contributor to Lake Michigan PCB con-
tamination, since it holds the largest known uncontained PCB
mass in the lake basin. The potential for volatilization of
PCBs will continue, contributing to the estimated 12 to 40 Ib
that are released from the harbor into the local airshed
each year (007, 030).
Channel dredging has been suspended because of PCB contami-
nation, and shipping access to the harbor will eventually be
eliminated. Harbor maintenance dredging of PCB-contaminated
soils is expensive because of disposal and handling require-
ments for sediments with PCB concentrations of 50 ppm or
greater. Huron Portland Cement and National Gypsum are now
and will continue to be directly impacted, since they depend
on the harbor to receive raw material shipments.
Upper Harbor
Alternative 2; Dredge-Dewater-Fix-Dispose. This alterna-
tive would remove by hydraulic dredge all sediments from the
Upper Harbor that have PCB concentrations in excess of 50 ppm.
Dredging activities would use a sediment dispersal control
system (silt curtains or sheet piling) to minimize uncon-
PD102.001 4-25
-------
trolled release of PCBs outside the dredging area. Because
minimal volatilization is expected to occur at the dredge
site (roughly 0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from an exposed, agi-
tated, and contaminanted water area (030)), only low concen-
trations of PCBs would be released into the air (less than
2 ug/m3) (007).
Sediments would be dewatered onsite, using (1) the North
Ditch, (2) a lagoon to be constructed on OMC property, or
(3) bins/cyclones/filters. Supernatant would be processed
through a package water treatment plant. Solids from the
treatment plant would be returned to be treated with the
other solids. Treated water, with PCB levels below 1 ppb,
would be discharged into the harbor or to a sanitary sewer.
The greatest potential for volatilization during dewatering
would occur in the North Ditch. Dredged sediment slurry
would require daily removal to allow for continued dredging,
and excavation activities would cause air exposure and con-
sequent volatilization. The lagoon would be excavated only
once, minimizing the handling requirements. The elevated
bins would experience minimal exposure to air, estimated at
about 1 hour total exposure per bin-clearing operation. The
highest reported concentration in Upper Harbor sediments is
about 500 ppm PCBs. The maximum predicted PCB concentration
in the air from solids removal operations is predicted to be
less than 6.6 ug/m3. Typical concentrations range from 50
to 500 ppm PCBs. Average PCB concentrations in the air are
expected to be less than 1.0 ug/m3 for sediments with
100 ppm PCBs (007) . These values were extrapolated from
data for sand, assuming 3.6-mph wind and an air temperature
of 68°F. The volatilization rate from Waukegan Harbor muck
should be less than from sand (007) .
Dewatered sediment would be fixed into a nonflowable form
for transport, minimizing uncontrolled release of PCBs by
spillage, leakage, or other means. Volatilization control
during transport may require the use of covers. The fixed
materials would be disposed of in a licensed chemical waste
landfill, in compliance with State and Federal standards for
PCB waste disposal.
The Upper Harbor would be cleaned of all sediments in excess
of 50 ppm PCBs. If a 95 percent removal efficiency were
achieved, it would remove an estimated 4,800 Ib of PCBs in
approximately 35,700 yd3 of sediment. This would remove
about 1.5 percent of all the PCBs found in Slip No. 3 and
Upper Harbor sediments.
The most significant uncontrolled dispersal of PCBs during
cleanup would result from volatilization, and is estimated
to be under 6.6 ug/m3, which is well below the OSHA standard
of 1,000 ug/m3 (007).
PD102.001 4-26
-------
Local land use would be temporarily impacted by the disposal,
treatment, and transport preparation operations. Upon proj-
ect completion, existing local land uses could resume. A
temporary impact on Larsen Marine Services would occur dur-
ing the actual dredging operations. Alternatives 2A and 2C,
using the North Ditch or bins/cyclones/filters, would have a
greater impact on Larsen Marine Services because dredging
would be interrupted every other day for solids removal.
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
« IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater-Dispose. This alternative
would remove by hydraulic dredge all sediment from the Upper
Harbor that has PCB concentrations in excess of 50 ppm.
Dredging activities would use a sediment dispersal control
system (silt curtains or sheet piling) to minimize uncon-
trolled release of PCBs in the area. Because minimal vola-
tilization is expected to occur at the dredge site (roughly
PD102.001 4-27
-------
0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from an exposed, agitated, and con-
taminated water area (030)), only low concentrations of PCBs
would be released into the air (less than 2 ug/m3) (007).
Sediments would be dewatered in a lagoon to be constructed
on OMC property. Dredged sediments would require mechanical
dewatering using the RUG process (as described for Slip
No. 3—Alternative 3) and evaporation to allow sufficient
water removal for final disposal. The lagoon would be exca-
vated by dragline after the top layer was sufficiently dry.
The RUC process would be repeated until all the sediments
were removed. Assuming the lagoon is 10 ft deep, the pro-
cess is expected to require up to six repetitions.
All dredged materials would be fully contained in the la-
goon. Supernatant would be processed through a package water
treatment plant. Solids from the water treatment plant would
be returned to be treated with the other solids. Treated
water, with PCB levels below 1 ppb, would be discharged to
the harbor or to a sanitary sewer.
These activities would cause significant air exposure and
consequent volatilization. The highest reported concentra-
tion in Upper Harbor sediments is about 500 ppm PCB. The
maximum predicted PCB concentration in air above these sedi-
ments would be less than 6.6 ug/m3, well below 1,000 ug/m3,
the OSHA standard. The volatilization rate is predicted to
be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr. Typical concentrations are
about 50 to 500 ppm PCBs. Predicted average PCB concentra-
tions in the air would be less than 1.0 ug/m3 for sediments
with 100 ppm PCBs. The average-volatilization rate is ex-
pected to be about 725 ug/m2/hr or 1.4 Ib/day of PCBs. These
values were extrapolated from data for sand, assuming a. wind
speed of 3.6-mph and an air temperature of 68°F. The vola-
tilization rate from Waukegan Harbor muck should be less
than from sand (007).
Dewatered sediments would be transported from the site by
trucks that would use a watertight liner (plastic sheeting,
etc.) to minimize spillage and leakage. The materials would
also be covered to minimize volatilization in transit. The
materials would be disposed of in a licensed chemical waste
landfill, in compliance with State and Federal standards for
PCB waste disposal.
The Upper Harbor would be cleaned of all sediments in excess
of 50 ppm PCBs, amounting to an estimated 4,800 Ib of PCBs
in approximately 35,700 yd3 of sediments. This would remove
about 1.5 percent of all the PCBs now found in Slip No. 3
and Upper Harbor sediments.
The most significant uncontrolled dispersal of PCBs during
cleanup would result from volatilization, and is estimated
PD102.001 4-28
-------
to be under 6.6 ug/m3, which is well below the OSHA standard
of 1,000 ug/m3 (007).
Local land use would be temporarily impacted by the disposal,
treatment, and transport operations. Upon project comple-
tion, existing local land uses could resume.
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
Alternative 5: No Action. The No Action alternative will
leave PCB concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm, representing
an estimated 5,000 Ib of PCBs, in the Upper Harbor. PCBs in
these concentrations are regulated by 40 CFR 761 under TSCA.
The Upper Harbor PCBs will continue to contribute to the
estimated 22 Ib of PCBs released into Lake Michigan each
year from Waukegan Harbor water (based on a steady state
PD102.001 4-29
-------
model) (035). The Waukegan area will continue to represent
the most significant contributor to Lake Michigan PCB con-
tamination, since it holds the largest known uncontained PCB
mass in the lake basin. The potential for volatilization of
PCBs will continue, contributing to the estimated 12 to 40 Ib
that are released from the harbor into the local airshed
each year (007, 030, 035).
Channel dredging, has been suspended because of PCB contami-
nation, and shipping access to the harbor will eventually be
eliminated. Harbor maintenance dredging of PCB-contaminated
soils is expensive because of disposal and handling require-
ments. Huron Portland Cement and National Gypsum are now
and will continue to be directly impacted, since they depend
on the harbor to receive raw material shipments.
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor
Alternative 6: Contain-Dredge-Cap. A cofferdam would be
constructed and a slurry cutoff wall would be placed around
the containment area to contain the PCBs. The slurry wall
would extend down into the natural glacial till to reduce
future dispersion of PCBs into other sediment or groundwater.
In Alternative 6A, approximately 33,500 yd3 of contaminated
sediment would be dredged from the Upper Harbor and disposed
of within the contained area. If a 95 percent removal effi-
ciency were achieved, 4,400 Ib of PCBs would be moved within
the containment area. This would contain about 310,000 Ib
of PCBs, or almost 100 percent of all the PCBs now found in
Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor. In Alternative 6B, approxi-
mately 13,100 yd3 of contaminated sediments would be dredged
from the east portion of Slip No. 3 and from the Upper Harbor
and disposed of within the contained area. If a 95 percent
removal efficiency were achieved, 3,600 Ib of PCBs would be
moved within the containment area. This would contain about
306,900 Ib of PCBs, or about 99 percent of all the PCBs now
found in Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor. PCB concentrations
in the air from the decanting water layer are expected to be
less than 1 ug/m3 (007, 030).
Dewatering effluent would be treated to 1 ppb in a package
water treatment plant before discharge. After the area was
filled, it would be capped with impermeable materials to
seal in the contaminated soils, and to reduce surface water
infiltration. Groundwater monitoring wells would be con-
structed to monitor potential PCB migration.
Containment of Slip No. 3 in this manner would require a
USEPA waiver from the requirements of 40 CFR 761 of TSCA,
since PCBs would remain in proximity to Lake Michigan and in
an area with a high groundwater table (058).
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
PD102.001 4-30
-------
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification in all USCOE per-
mits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
A North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
North Ditch Area
Alternative 1; Excavate-Dispose. Offsite drainage water
would be routed by either pipeline or a lined open ditch to
bypass the North Ditch and outfall directly into Lake Michi-
gan. By bypassing the North Ditch, this water would avoid
PCB contamination. The existing soil in the North Ditch
would be dewatered via a well and pumping system to allow
excavation. The water would be treated at an onsite package
water treatment plant. Solids from the treatment plant would
be disposed of with the other project solids. Treated water,
with PCB levels below 1 ppb, would be discharged into the
harbor or to a sanitary sewer.
Soils with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm would be
excavated by backhoe and transported to a licensed chemical
waste landfill for disposal in compliance with State and
Federal standards for PCB waste disposal. Volatilization
control during transport may require use of covers. The
excavated areas would be backfilled with clean materials
from an offsite borrow pit, causing topographic and other
minor local impacts to the borrow area.
The highest reported concentration in the North Ditch soils
is about 100,000 ppm (001). The predicted PCB concentration
PD102.001 4-31
-------
in air during excavation would be about 200 ug/m3. The
volatilization rate is predicted to be about 163,000 ug/m2/hr.
Typical concentrations range from 500 to 5,000 ppm PCBs.
Predicted average PCB concentrations in the air would be
less than 6.6 ug/m3. The average volatilization rate is
expected to be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr for soils with con-
centrations of 1,000 ppm PCBs. These values were extrapo-
lated from data for sand, assuming 3.6-mph wind and an air
temperature of 68 °F (007) . The volatilization rates from
the sandy soils of the North Ditch area are expected to be
closely approximated by these predictions.
If a 98 percent removal efficiency were achieved, it would
remove an estimated 485,600 Ib of PCBs in approximately
70,800 yd3 of soil. This would remove about 63 percent of
all the PCBs now found in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
The bypass system would avoid further contamination of off-
site drainage waters that currently run through the North
Ditch. It is estimated that this would eliminate between 7
and 20 Ib of PCBs discharged into Lake Michigan each year
(032, 035) .
The hydrologic system is not well enough understood at pres-
ent to determine the extent of past or future PCB contamina-
tion by groundwater movement. The removal of all soils with
PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm would minimize the
potential for future groundwater contamination.
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler1s permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and IICC)
PD102.001 4-32
-------
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
Alternative 3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose. Offsite drainage water
would be routed by either pipeline or lined open ditch to
bypass the North Ditch and outfall directly into Lake Michi-
gan. By bypassing the North Ditch, this water would avoid
PCB contamination. The existing soil in the North Ditch
would be dewatered via a well and pumping system to allow
excavation. The water would be treated at an onsite package
water treatment plant. Solids from the treatment plant would
be disposed of with the other project solids. Treated water,
with PCB levels below 1 ppb, would be discharged to the har-
bor or to a sanitary sewer.
Soils with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm would be
excavated by backhoe. If a 98 percent removal efficiency
were achieved, it would amount to an estimated 485,600 Ib of
PCBs in approximately 70,800 yd3 of soil. This would remove
about 63 percent of all the PCBs now found in the North
Ditch/Parking Lot area.
Excavated soil would be fixed in nonflowable form. The fixed
materials would then be disposed of in a licensed chemical
waste landfill, in compliance with State and Federal stan-
dards for PCB waste disposal. Control of volatilization
during transport may require the use of covers. Excavated
areas would be backfilled with clean materials from an off-
site borrow pit, causing topographic and other minor local
impacts to the borrow area.
The bypass system would avoid further contamination of off-
site drainage water that currently runs through the North
Ditch. It is estimated that this would eliminate between 7
and 20 Ib of PCBs discharged into Lake Michigan each year
(032, 035).
The hydrologic system is not well enough understood at pres-
ent to determine the extent of past or future PCB contamina-
tion by groundwater movement. The removal of all soils with
PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm would minimize the
potential for future groundwater contamination.
The highest reported concentration in the North Ditch soils
is about 100,000 ppm (001). The predicted PCB concentration
in air during excavation would be about 200 ug/m3. The vola-
tilization rate is predicted to be about 163,000 ug/m2/hr.
Typical concentrations range from 500 to 5,000 ppm PCBs.
Predicted average PCB concentrations in the air would be
PD102.001 4-33
-------
less than 6.6 ug/ra3. The average volatilization rate is
expected to be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr for soils with con-
centrations of 1,000 ppm PCBs. These values were extrapo-
lated from data for sand, assuming a 3.6-mph wind and an air
temperature of 68°F (007). The volatilization rates from
the sandy soils of the North Ditch area are expected to be
closely approximated by these predictions.
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
Alternative 4; Excavate-Contain-Cap. Alternative 4 would
use a nonstructural slurry wall around the perimeter of the
Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon area. The slurry wall would
extend down into the existing glacial till beneath the local
sand (about 35 ft deep). This would reduce future disper-
sion of PCBs into other soil or groundwater. The existing
soil in the North Ditch would be dewatered via a well and
pumping system to allow excavation. The water would be
treated at an onsite package water treatment plant. Solids
from the treatment plant would be disposed of with the other
project solids. Treated water, with PCB levels below 1 ppb,
would be discharged into the harbor or to a sanitary sewer.
PD102.001 4-34
-------
In Alternative 4A, approximately 25,000 yd3 of soils with
PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm would be excavated
from the east-west portion of the North Ditch. If a 98 per-
cent removal efficiency were achieved, 4,200 Ib of PCBs would
be excavated. This would contain 495,400 Ib of PCBs, or
almost 100 percent of all the PCBs now found in the North
Ditch/Parking Lot area. In Alternative 4B, approximately
5,600 yd3 of soils with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm
would be excavated from the east-west portion of the North
Ditch. If a 98 percent removal efficiency were achieved,
800 Ib of PCBs would be excavated. This would contain
492,000 Ibs of PCBs, or 99 percent of all the PCBs now found
in the North Ditch/ Parking Lot area. The Crescent Ditch
would be excavated to a depth of 3 ft. Excavated soils would
be placed in the Oval Lagoon area. The area would be capped
with impermeable materials to seal in the contaminated soils
and reduce surface water infiltration. The Crescent Ditch
area would be paved and the Oval Lagoon area would be seeded.
The highest reported concentration in the east-west portion
of the North Ditch is greater than 5,000 ppm PCB. The maxi-
mum predicted PCB concentration in air during excavation
would be less than 43 ug/m3. The volatilization rate is
predicted to be less than 35,000 ug/m2/hr. Typical concen-
trations range from 500 to 5,000 ppm PCBs. Predicted aver-
age PCB concentrations in the air would be about 6.6 ug/m3
for soils with concentrations of 1,000 ppm PCBs. The
average volatilization rate is expected to be about 5,375
ug/m2/hr. These values were extrapolated from data for
sand, assuming a wind speed of 3.6-mph and an air
temperature of 68°F (007). The volatilization rates from
the sandy soils of the North Ditch are expected to be
closely approximated by these predictions.
Containment would protect adjacent soils and would reduce
groundwater contamination and volatilization. Capping would
raise the elevation of the Oval Lagoon area. Groundwater
monitoring wells would be constructed to monitor the effec-
tiveness of the slurry wall.
Containment of the North Ditch area in this manner would
require a USEPA waiver from the requirements of 40 CFR 761
under TSCA, since PCBs would remain in proximity to Lake
Michigan and in an area with a high groundwater table (058) .
The bypass system would avoid further contamination of offsite
drainage waters that currently run through the North Ditch.
It is estimated that this would eliminate between 7 and 20 Ib
of PCBs discharged into Lake Michigan each year (032, 035).
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
PD102.001 4-35
-------
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permits
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• Local land use approval
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler"s permit
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and ILCC)
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
Alternative 5; No Action. The No Action alternative will
leave PCB concentrations in excess of 10,000 ppm in areas of
the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon and PCB concentrations
between 50 and 10,000 ppm in the soil and sediments of the
North Ditch area (001) . This represents an estimated
495,500 Ib of PCBs in the soil at the North Ditch. PCBs in
these concentrations are regulated by 40 CFR 761 under TCSA.
Offsite drainage entering the North Ditch will continue to
become contaminated, discharging PCBs into Lake Michigan.
Groundwater resources will also continue to be contaminated,
with the extent of groundwater contamination unknown. It is
estimated that 7 to 20 Ib of PCBs are discharged annually
into Lake Michigan from the North Ditch (032, 035).
Existing air contamination from North Ditch waters is esti-
mated at 15 Ib/yr (004). Air contamination from local soils
is not known, although the potential for exposure from acci-
dental disturbance remains high.
Parking Lot Area
Alternative 1; Excavate-Dispose. Alternative 1 would dewater
existing contaminated soils by a well and pumping system.
Water drawn from the site would be treated at the package
PD102.001 4-36
-------
water treatment plant. Solids from the treatment plant would
be disposed of with the other project solids. Treated water,
with PCB levels below 1 ppb, would be discharged into the
harbor or to a sanitary sewer.
Dewatered soil would be excavated by backhoe or front end
loader and transported to a licensed chemical waste landfill
for disposal in compliance with State and Federal standards
for PCB waste disposal. Volatilization control during trans-
port may require use of covers.
The highest reported concentration in Parking Lot area soils
is less than 10,000 ppm (001). The predicted PCB concentra-
tion in air during excavation would be less than 43 ug/m3,
well below 1,000 ug/m3, the OSHA standard. The volatiliza-
tion rate is predicted to be less than 35,000 ug/m2/hr.
Typical concentrations range from 50 to 5,000 ppm PCBs.
Predicted average PCB concentrations in the air would be
about 6.6 ug/m3 for soils with concentrations of 1,000 ppm
PCBs. The average volatilization rate is expected to be
about 5,375 ug/m2/hr. These values were extrapolated from
data for sand assuming a 3.6-mph wind and an air temperature
of 68°F (007) . The volatilization rates from the sandy soils
of the Parking Lot area are expected to be closely approxi-
mated by these predictions.
Excavated areas would be backfilled with clean borrow mate-
rials brought in from offsite. The borrow site would prob-
ably experience topographic and other minor local impacts.
Soil with PCB levels greater than 50 ppm would be removed.
If a 98 percent removal efficiency were achieved, it would
remove an estimated 272,100 Ib of PCBs in approximately
105,000 yd3 of soils. This would remove about 35 percent of
all the PCBs now found in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
PD102.001 4-37
-------
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
Alternative 3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose. Alternative 3 would
dewater existing contaminated soil by a well and pumping
system. Water drawn from the site would be treated at the
package water treatment plant. Solids from the treatment
plant would be disposed of with the other project solids.
Treated water, with PCB levels below 1 ppb, would be dis-
charged into the harbor or to a sanitary sewer.
Dewatered soils would be excavated by backhoe or front end
loader. Excavated areas would be backfilled with clean bor-
row materials brought in from offsite. The borrow site would
probably experience topographic and other minor local impacts.
The highest reported concentration in Parking Lot area soils
is less than 10,000 ppm (001). The predicted PCB concentra-
tion in air during excavation would be less than 43 ug/m3,
well below 1,000 ug/m3, the OSHA standard. The volatiliza-
tion rate is predicted to be less than 35,000 ug/m2/hr.
Typical concentrations range from 50 to 5,000 ppm PCBs.
Predicted average PCB concentrations in the air would be
about 6.6 ug/m3 for soils with concentrations of 1,000 ppm
PCBs. The average volatilization rate is expected to be
about 5,375 ug/m2/hr. These values were extrapolated from
data for sand, assuming a 3.6-mph wind and an air tempera-
ture of 68°F (007). The volatilization rates from the sandy
soils of the Parking Lot area are expected to be closely
approximated by these predictions.
Excavated soil would be fixed into a nonflowable form for
transport to a licensed chemical waste landfill. This would
minimize uncontrolled release of PCBs by spillage, leakage,
or other means. Control of volatilization during transport
may require the use of covers. Fixed materials would be
disposed of in a licensed chemical waste landfill, in com-
pliance with State and Federal standards for PCB waste dis-
posal. Fixation may not be necessary if the contaminated
soil (mostly sand) can be excavated in a nonflowable state.
PD102.001 4-38
-------
Soil with PCB levels greater than 50 ppm would be removed.
If a 98 percent removal efficiency were achieved, it would
amount to an estimated 272,100 Ib of PCBs in approximately
105,000 yd3 of soils. This would remove about 35 percent of
all the PCBs now found in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
Alternative 4t Contain-Cap. Alternative 4 would use a slurry
wall around the perzmeter of the soil with greater than 50 ppm
PCBs, containing an estimated 277,700 Ib of PCBs. The slurry
wall would extend down into the existing glacial till beneath
the local sand (about 35 ft deep). This would reduce future
dispersion of PCBs into other soil or groundwater. The site
would be capped with impermeable materials to seal in the
contaminated soils and to reduce surface water infiltration.
The area would be resurfaced for future parking.
Containment would protect adjacent soils and would reduce
groundwater contamination and volatilization. Capping would
raise the elevation of the Parking Lot area. Groundwater
PD102.001 4-39
-------
monitoring wells would be constructed to monitor the effec-
tiveness of the slurry wall.
Containment of the Parking Lot in this manner would require
a USEPA waiver from the requirements of 40 CFR 761 under
TSCA, since PCBs would remain in proximity to Lake Michigan
and in an area with a high groundwater table (058).
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• City of Waukegan construction permit
• Local land use approval
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
Alternative 5; No Action. The No Action alternative will
leave PCB concentrations from 50 to over 5,000 ppm in the
Parking Lot area. This represents an estimated 277,700 Ib
of PCBs. PCBs in these concentrations are regulated by
40 CFR 761 under TSCA.
The groundwater is within 3 feet of the surface of the Parking
Lot, resulting in contamination of this water. It is estimated
that the slowly moving water will begin releasing some 8 Ib
per day of PCBs into Lake Michigan in approximately 60 years
(048). This will result in further contamination of local
water and soil, which will continue for decades thereafter.
Although volatilization of contaminated soil in the Parking
Lot does not appear to be occurring now because it is paved,
the potential exists if the soil is disturbed. Grading,
trenching, drilling, digging, or other activities necessary
for utility installation, drainage, or other construction
projects could cause volatilization of PCBs.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES FOR DETAILED EVALUATION
Based on the initial screening of alternatives, the recom-
mended Remedial Action Alternatives for detailed evaluation
are presented in the flow diagrams of Figures 4-1 through
4-5. In accordance with CERCLA, the No Action alternative
has been eliminated from further consideration for all areas
because: (1) there has been a release of a hazardous sub-
stance from a facility (PL 96-510 Section 104(a) (1)); (2) lack
of remedial action at Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor would
impact the local industrial, commercial, and recreational
users of the harbor; (3) PCB accumulation in fish would im-
pact the local fishing industries; (4) a potential exists
for spread of PCB contamination either by natural or manmade
events from uncontrolled PCBs regulated by 40 CFR 761.
PD102.001 4-40
-------
The results of the initial screening process are summarized
as follows:
Slip No. 3
After refining the initial screening alternatives for engi-
neering feasibility, the following alternatives were eval-
uated for cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts:
Alternative 2A:
Alternative 2B:
Alternative 2C:
Dredge-Dewater in North Ditch-Fix-
Dispose
Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose
Dredge-Dewater in Bins/Cyclones/
Filters-Fix-Dispose
Alternative 2D: Dredge-Dewater in Barges-Fix-Dispose
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose
Based on the initial screening, the cost-effective alterna-
tives appear to be 2B, 2D, and 3. Dewatering the dredged
sediments in a lagoon without fixation resulted in the least
cost. From an environmental standpoint, dewatering in barges
and fixing the material for prompt disposal resulted in the
least short-term environmental impact. These three alterna-
tives were retained for detailed evaluation.
Upper Harbor
After refining the initial screening alternatives for engi-
neering feasibility, the following alternatives were evalu-
ated for cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts:
Alternative 2A:
Dredge-Dewater in North Ditch-Fix-
Dispose
Alternative 2B: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose
Alternative 2C: Dredge-Dewater in Bins/Cyclones/Fil-
ters-Fix-Dispose
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose
Based on the initial screening, the cost-effective alterna-
tives appear to be 2B and 3. Dewatering dredged sediments
in a lagoon without fixation resulted in the least cost.
From an environmental standpoint, dewatering in a lagoon and
fixing the material for prompt disposal resulted in the least
short-term environmental impact. These two alternatives
were retained for detailed evaluation.
PD102.001
4-41
-------
Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor
After refining the initial screening alternatives for engineer-
ing feasibility, the following alternatives were evaluated
for cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts:
Alternative 6A: Contain-Dredge-Cap
Alternative 6B: Contain-Dredge part of Upper Harbor-Cap
Based on the initial screening, the cost-effective alternatives
for Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor appear to be Alternatives 6A
and 6B.
North Ditch Area
After refining the initial screening alternatives for engi-
neering feasibility, the following alternatives were evalu-
ated for cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts:
Alternative 1: Excavate-Dispose
Alternative 3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose
Alternative 4A: Excavate-Contain-Cap
Alternative 4B: Excavate-Contain part of the North
Ditch-Cap
Based on the initial screening, the cost-effective alterna-
tives for the' North Ditch area appear to be Alternatives 4A
and 4B. Alternatives 1 and 3 were also included in the al-
ternatives retained for detailed evaluation because offsite
disposal of PCB-contaminated soils resulted in lower long-
term environmental impacts, although the short-term environ-
mental impacts would be higher than for Alternatives 4A and
4B.
Parking Lot Area
After refining the initial screening alternatives for engi-
neering feasibility, the following alternatives were evalu-
ated for cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts:
Alternative 1: Excavate-Dispose
Alternative 3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose
Alternative 4: Contain-Cap
PD102.001 4-42
-------
Based on initial screening, the cost-effective alternative
for the Parking Lot area appears to be Alternative 4. Alter-
natives 1 and 3 were also included in the alternatives re-
tained for detailed evaluation because offsite disposal of
PCB-contaminated soils resulted in lower long-term environ-
mental impacts, although the short-term environmental impacts
would be higher than for Alternative 4.
PD102.001 4-43
-------
HI
^U
o
VJj\^
n
M
i
K
H
>
^
1
|
1
1
,
E
V
^
1
li
s
>
/rn
J3
) <;
JW
- V~
1
^
-i
Hi
i
UJ
N
jJ
^
"
'
S
^
B
p
^
i-
•L
^
V W g
# r (L
5S
4 Q
UJ
§
>-i.
n
i— j
i
j
u.
i
LI)
^
>
§
UJ
1
1
D
^j^
^
^
5
^
-i
o:
ts
S
^,
h r
>Ji
5c
SS
^
i
1
B
t-
-tr
>
I
't
1
I
1
|
'T
1
Vi
S
*
\
\
-
j
7s
S
^
J
7 tvt
Oj-j
^^
?P
|
S
I
t
2
5
T
?
^
i
5
X
IT
M
0
i_
?
t
J 3s
2d
5f:
-
^ ^
ty <*-
Q K
V] 2
^ %
UJ U
A ^ ^
11 1 C . . tv
® H B
"J ! 5 8
i
i
i
<
^
*
u
s
-------
0.
S
§
UJ
S
I-
I
UJ
Q
1
UJ
O
UJ
w
I
UJ
06
I
UJ
V)
£
SQ
Q
LL
•i
UJ
5
%
F
-------
Q.
UJ
8
UJ
8
I
I
a.
3
ui
8
UJ
2
s
s
uj
K.
ts>
ui
-J5
1-Q.l
u. QcnoS
V
o
a
-------
in
i
Ji
s*
DELJATEk
\
v/
§
on
s
III
s
£
s
1
?
^~
11 (
S^
rt-
V) <)
-J ^
P i
i:
j
s
^
1
^
V
>P
fc
b
p
Jr
0
^
3
Q
1
?
w ^
3C| is
§
A
lj
'
Uj
Ijj
1
UJ
VD
Q
9
{H
^
N
TERUAT
^j
|
c
7
1
5
i
3
^
iy
3
0
X
5
j£
/
I
i
?
7
1
8i
Co
A
B
M
/"s"
^
^
w
1
2^
^
l\
-J (J \J 7< ^
^ -J ^^^Hl M
¥^ — n\\^^4\
M Si^S §§
8
;l
**.
1
\
\
i
1
^
^
»
J0
\
3
i?
V
1
1
1.
1 1
-v
K
K L
S T
$
U E
(r *^
UJ
y S <
^1111
"S*"1
gs
HI
<
lATION ALTERN
STE SITE
3g*§
>2si
«? i§^
<3uJcLs!<
U.QDOS u
^? L
Q t
S S
(/I ^
s t
[\J *J
1 S
^ S o Q
V ^ oj
UJ S M ^
vO 5 ^Q
uj s? ^
-~J
1
1
-------
^
a
UJ
o
S
Q
V)
§
K
^
<(
UJ
a.
S
~x
I
iv
^
i
uj
Q
8
OJ
§
S
-------
Section 5
DETAILED EVALUATION—ENGINEERING AND COST ASPECTS
The purpose of the evaluation presented in this section was
to develop detailed information to evaluate the alternatives
retained from initial screening. Detailed evaluation was
accomplished by more fully developing the engineering aspects
of each alternative, identifying in more detail the potential
environmental impacts of each alternative, and developing
Order-of-Magnitude cost estimates (as defined in Section 1)
for each alternative. This section discusses the detailed
engineering evaluation and costs of the alternatives retained
in Section 4. The environmental aspects of these alterna-
tives are discussed in Section 6.
SLIP NO. 3
Alternative 2B; Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose
A sediment dispersal control device, consisting of a double
silt curtain or sheet piling, would be installed across the
mouth of Slip No. 3 (Figure 5-1) . Sediments with greater
than 50 ppm PCBs would be removed with a hydraulic dredge
and the sediment slurry pumped through a pipeline to the
initial solids dewatering lagoon. Because the hydraulic
dredge cannot penetrate the area of deep contaminated sand
and silt near the OMC outfall, a mechanical dredge would be
used to remove this material.
This deep dredging would be performed inside a single sheet
pile cofferdam. The solids would be loaded onto trucks and
transported to the initial solids dewatering lagoon. The
water level inside the cofferdam xvould be kept lower than
outside to cause water flow toward the contained area. The
removed water would be routed to a water treatment plant for
suspended solids and PCB removal (to 1 ppb PCBs), then dis-
charged to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer.
Solids would be dewatered in a clay-lined dewatering lagoon
constructed on OMC property. Volatilization would be con-
trolled by covering the filled lagoon surface with organic
sludge. The supernatant would be continuously decanted and
routed to a 1,500-gpm water treatment plant to remove sus-
pended solids and dissolved PCBs down to 1 ppb before being
discharged. After dredging activities are completed, rain-
water and leachate water would be treated by the 1,500-gpm
water treatment plant for the duration of the dewatering
process.
Solids would be removed from the lagoon by dragline about
2 months after dredging activities are completed, loaded
into trucks, and transported to the batch plant.
PD452.001 5-1
-------
The solids would be fixed at the batch plant by adding port-
land cement, Locksorb, or another fixing agent to hydrate
the excess water. The mix would then be transported to cur-
ing cells. The fixed solids would cure until they were non-
flowable. This is expected to take about 1 day. The fixed
solids would be removed from the curing cells by front end
loaders for transportation by truck to an approved disposal
site.
Lagoon. A 24,000-yd3 lagoon would be required to dewater
sediments from Slip No. 3. The assumed shape and location
of the proposed lagoon are shown on Figure 5-1. The capac-
ity of the lagoon is based on 2 ft of freeboard and 8 ft of
storage. The lagoon would have a clay liner system consist-
ing of the following:
• A 6-inch-thick, compacted soil-cement layer would
be constructed to prevent removal of the clay liner
during solids removal.
• A 1-ft-thick, compacted clay liner with a permeabil-
ity less than 10 ° centimeters per second (cm/sec)
would be constructed to prevent percolation of
PCB-contaminated water. It would take about 4
years for the PCB-contaminated water to penetrate
the 1-ft-thick clay liner.
• A 1-ft-thick sand or gravel layer with pipe under-
drains would be constructed to collect any PCB-
contaminated water that may penetrate the clay
liner.
• A 1-ft-thick, compacted clay liner with a permea-
bility less than 10~8 cm/sec would be constructed
for additional protection against percolation of
PCB-contaminated water.
Curing Cells. Three 1,400-yd3 curing cells would be required
to cure the fixed solids from the batch plant. The assumed
shape and location of the proposed curing cells are shown on
Figure 5-1. The capacity of the curing cells is based on
1 ft of freeboard and 4 ft of storage. The earth-lined cells
would have the same clay liner system as described for the
lagoons in Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. In addition, the
curing cells would have 2-ft-thick, 5-ft-high concrete walls
to divide the earth-lined area into three compartments.
Temporary Storage Requirements. Dredged solids would require
temporary storage in a lagoon for dewatering. For Slip
No. 3—Alternative 2B, dewatering is expected to take
2 months after dredging activities are completed. When the
solids are removed from temporary storage, they would be
fixed and would require an additional day of temporary
PD452.001 5-2
-------
storage for curing. After curing, they would be disposed of
in a licensed chemical waste landfill.
Water Treatment. Slurry water from dredging activities would
need to be treated before being discharged.
Laboratory tests conducted by Mason & Hanger (004) demon-
strated that the slurry water from dredging activities could
be treated by available conventional and advanced water treat-
ment processes to meet the discharge requirement of 1 ppb
PCBs.
Water treatment would consist of:
• Coagulation/sedimentation to coagulate and settle
fine sediments that were not removed in the initial
solids dewatering lagoon (using alum and/or cati-
onic polymer)
• Sand filtration to remove suspended solids
• Carbon filtration to remove soluble PCBs
• A clearwell to monitor PCB levels before the water
is discharged
The water treatment system would be a "package plant," of
factory-constructed modules, that could be easily installed
and removed. The package plant would have the capacity to
treat 1,500 gpm. The lagoon would act as an equalization
basin to hold up to 3,000 gpm for a 2-hour detention time.
The water treatment plant would operate continuously. If
the water level in the lagoon drops to the sediment/water
interface, the treated water would be recycled. This water
treatment plant would be used during the dredging of Slip
No. 3 and the localized area. In addition, rainwater and
leachate water would need treatment on an intermittent basis
for about 3 months during dewatering.
PCB concentrations in the water in Slip No. 3, confined by
sediment dispersal control consisting of either a double
silt curtain or sheet piling, are not expected to exceed
1 ppb (035). Therefore, the in-place waters may not require
treatment. If higher-than-allowable concentrations of PCBs
in solution are found after dredging, however, treatment of
the water confined by the sediment dispersal control device
may consist of adding one or both of the following treatment
materials directly to Slip No. 3:
• Cationic polymer or alum to coagulate and settle
fine suspended sediments
• Activated carbon to remove soluble PCBs
PD452.001 5-3
-------
A dredge would then remove the settled activated carbon and
solids confined by the sediment dispersal control device.
Major treatment equipment and utilities that would be re-
quired for the 1,500-gpm water treatment system for Slip
No. 3—Alternative 2B include:
• Intake pumps, valves, and process piping
• Polymer (or alum) feed systems
• Concrete sedimentation basin
• Pressure filter pumps
• Pressure sand filters
• Carbon adsorption filters
• Turbidity meters
• Modular steel tank clearwell
• Clearwell pumps
• Liquid level controls, pump controls, and control
panel
• Leachate sump pumps
• Electrical service to all equipment
• Electrical lighting system
• Onsite water quality laboratory
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. In Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B, the pro-
posed action would remove the PCBs from the project site and
dispose of them in a licensed chemical waste landfill. There-
fore, there would be no onsite long-term operation, main-
tenance, or monitoring requirements after completing the
proposed remedy.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. In Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B, about 14,200 yd3
of fixed PCB-contaminated solids, about 5,800 yd3 of contami-
nated liner material, and 2,300 yd3 of contaminated volatili-
zation control material would require disposal. In addition,
about 39,000 yd3 of uncontaminated lagoon embankment material
would require disposal. At this writing, CECOS in Williams-
burg, Ohio, is the closest chemical waste landfill licensed
to receive PCBs. Under CECOS management, available space
PD452.001 5-4
-------
was confirmed for disposal of these wastes. Transportation
would be provided by CECOS.
BFI, located 13 miles from the OMC site, is a licensed hazar-
dous waste disposal facility that could be licensed to receive
PCBs. Such licensing could be accomplished by means of a
one-time TSCA permit for this project. BFI has confirmed
that space is available for disposal of these wastes. BFI
would also provide transportation to its landfill. Construc-
tion documents prepared during final design should allow
competitive bidding between the operators of suitable
facilities.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B include:
• Pile driver
• Hydraulic and clamshell dredge
• Bulldozer
• Compactor
• Scarifier/mixer
• Dump trucks
• Front end loader
• Backhoe
• Dragline
• Batch plant
• Water treatment plant (see Water Treatment earlier
in this section)
• Electrical service for batch plant
• Electrical lighting
• Water service for contractor's temporary facilities
Special Engineering Considerations. For Slip No. 3—Alter-
native 2B the following special engineering considerations
are presented.
Engineering considerations concerning the dredging of Slip
No. 3 include:
PD452.001 5-5
-------
• Type of dredge head and rate and pattern of dredg-
ing to minimize roiling of sediments
• Type of sediment dispersal control to minimize possi-
bility of contaminating the emergency drinking water
supply intake located at the mouth of the harbor
• Stability of sheet piles surrounding Slip No. 3
• Type of cofferdam for dredging of deep contami-
nated sand and silt near former OMC outfall, and
means to prevent failure of existing sheet piling
during cofferdam installation and removal
Engineering considerations concerning the initial solids
dewatering lagoon include:
• Construction techniques necessary to obtain satis-
factory permeabilities in the clay liner
• Durability of the soil-cement
• Determining how much of the lagoon liner material
must be disposed of in a licensed PCB disposal
facility
Engineering considerations concerning the sediment dewater-
ing process include:
• Determining the moisture content of sediments to
be removed after dewatering
• Controlling volatilization
Engineering considerations concerning fixation include:
• Moisture content of solids to be fixed
• Amount of fixing agent required
• Volume of fixing agent
• Volume of solids to be removed
• Possible interferences of contaminants with the
fixing agent
• Time required for curing
• Cost-effectiveness of fixing with portland cement,
Locksorb, and/or other fixing agent
Engineering considerations concerning the water treatment
process include:
PD452.001 5-6
-------
• Determining the cost-effectiveness of replacing
activated carbon with Klensorb for soluble PCB
removal if the activated carbon should become
blinded by the oily nature of PCBs
• Water quality requirements for discharging to the
harbor or to a sanitary sewer
Engineering considerations concerning disposal of the PCB-
contaminated sediments include:
• Ensuring that the sediments have a nonflowable
consistency
• Ensuring that moisture or solids do not escape
during transport and disposal of the fixed sedi-
ments
• Controlling volatilization
Reliability. Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B would remove PCB-
contaminated sediment with concentrations greater than
50 ppm from Slip No. 3. The alternative includes dredging,
dewatering, water treatment, sediment solidification, and
disposal in a licensed chemical waste landfill. This alter-
native would be effective in abating further PCB contamina-
tion of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. Slip No. 3—
Alternative 2B is considered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for Slip No. 3—
Alternative 2B is presented in Table 5-1. A present-worth
analysis was used.
The cost estimates shown were prepared for guidance in pro-
ject evaluation and implementation from the information avail-
able at the time of the estimate. The costs were based on
second quarter 1983 dollars. The final costs of the project
will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive
market conditions, final project scope, implementation sche-
dule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final
project costs may vary from the estimates presented herein.
A description of the major elements included in the Table 5-1
line items for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B follows:
• Mobilization includes the contractor costs to start
up the job, transfer work crews and equipment to
the site, and provide temporary facilities, as
well as insurance and bonds. Mobilization costs
were estimated at 10 percent of the total costs
for all the line items except health and safety
requirements and engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration.
PD452.001 5-7
-------
Table 5-1
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
SLIP NO. 3
ALTERNATIVE 2B
DREDGE-DEWATER IN LAGOON-FIX-DISPOSE
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Sediment dispersal control
Dredging
Localized cofferdam and dewater-
ing
Dredging of deep sand and silt
Initial solids dewatering —
lagoon
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Solids removal
Fixation
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 600,000
330,000
290,000
60,000
60,000
390,000
20,000
1,570,000
1,260,000
60,000
1,580,000
710,000
1,180,000
8,110,000
2,430,000
$10,540,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
$ 60,000
0
10,000
60,000
0
0
0
20,000
150,000
50,000
$200,000
Present
Worth
$ 600,000
330,000
290,000
60,000
60,000
450,000
20,000
1,580,000
1,320,000
60,000
1,580,000
710,000
1,200,000
8,260,000
2,480,000
$10,740,000
PD998.063.1
5-8
-------
Health and safety requirements includes the contrac-
tor costs for workers' personal protection and
surveillance equipment and materials. They also
would include special equipment and facilities for
decontamination. Health and safety costs were
estimated at 5 percent of the total costs for the
same line items used to determine mobilization
costs plus the mobilization costs.
General site preparation includes the costs to
remove and replace existing piles and floating
docks in Slip No. 3; remove existing intake and
outlet pipes near the OMC outfall to Slip No. 3;
furnish and install temporary floating docks; con-
struct a new large boat hoisting facility; install
chain link fence around the lagoon, fixation cells,
batch plant, and water treatment plant; and con-
struct a roadway to the lagoon and fixation cells.
Sediment dispersal control includes the costs to
furnish, install, and remove the double silt cur-
tain.
Dredging includes the costs to dredge the sedi-
ments and pipe them to the initial solids dewater-
ing basin.
Localized cofferdam and dewatering includes the
costs to install and remove a single sheet pile
cofferdam at the localized area; partially dewater
the cofferdam; and to remove and replace the sheet
pile bulkhead.
Dredging of deep sand and silt includes the costs
to dredge the contaminated sand and silt within
the cofferdam.
Initial solids dewatering—lagoon includes the
costs to install and remove lagoon embankment and
liner material; the costs to provide, remove, fix,
and dispose of volatilization control material;
the costs for grading the site after lagoon removal;
the costs for site preparation and annual lease of
the lagoon site; and the costs for installing and
monitoring the air quality sampling stations and
the groundwater monitoring wells.
Water treatment plant and water disposal includes
the costs to install and remove a 1,500-gpm water
treatment plant and the costs for rental of the
water treatment plant.
PD452.001 5-9
-------
• Solids removal includes the costs to remove the
sediments from the initial solids dewatering basin
and transport the solids to the batch plant.
• Fixation includes the costs to install and remove
curing cell embankment, liner material, and con-
crete divider walls; mix the solids with cement;
haul fixed solids to the curing cells; and remove
fixed solids from the curing cells.
• Transportation and disposal includes the costs to
haul the fixed contaminated sediments to a licensed
chemical waste landfill.
• Engineering, legal, and administration includes
the costs to design the remedial action alterna-
tives, administer the construction, acquire ease-
ments, supervise consultant and contractor work,
and conduct similar activities. Engineering,
legal, and administration costs were estimated at
17 percent of the total costs for all the above
line items.
• Contingency was estimated at 30 percent of the
total costs for all of the above line items.
Alternative 2D; Dredge-Dewater in Barges-Fix-Dispose
For this alternative, a sediment dispersal control device as
described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B would be installed
across the mouth of Slip No. 3 (Figure 5-1). Sediments with
greater than 50 ppm PCBs would be removed by hydraulic dredge
and the sediment slurry pumped through a pipeline to the
initial solids dewatering barges. Dredging of the deep con-
taminated sand and silt would be performed as described for
Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
Solids would be dewatered in ten barges located within the
Upper Harbor. Volatilization would be controlled by covering
the sediments in the filled barges with organic sludge. The
supernatant would be continuously decanted and routed to a
1,500-gpm water treatment plant as described for Slip No. 3—
Alternative 2B. After dredging activities are completed,
rainwater and leachate water would be treated by the 1,500-gpm
water treatment plant for the duration of the dewatering
process.
Solids would be removed by backhoe or dragline about 2 months
after dredging activities are completed, loaded into trucks
and transported to the batch plant. The solids would be
fixed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B to render
solids to a nonflowable form, and transported by truck to an
approved disposal site.
PD452.001 5-10
-------
Barges. Ten barges, each with a storage capacity of 2,000 yd3,
would be required to dewater sediments from Slip No. 3. The
barges would be located within the Upper Harbor. The assumed
shape and location of the barges are shown on Figure 5-1.
Barges would be steel-deck cargo barges with flat bottoms.
Each barge would be equipped with submersible pumps to decant
the supernatant slurry water.
Curing Cells. The curing cells for this alternative would
be the same as required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. The
assumed shape and location are shown on Figure 5-1.
Temporary Storage Requirements. Temporary storage require-
ments for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2D would be the same as
for Alternative 2B, except that barges would be used in place
of a lagoon. The barges would be moored in the Upper Harbor
until they were emptied and decontaminated.
Water Treatment. Slurry water from dredging activities would
be treated in the same manner as for Slip No. 3—Alterna-
tive 2B.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. These requirements would be the same as
those for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. These items would be the same as those for Slip
No. 3—Alternative 2B, except that there would be no disposal
of contaminated liner material or uncontaminated lagoon embank-
ment material. However, disposal of material from the decon-
tamination of the barges would be required.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2D include:
• Pile driver
• Hydraulic and clamshell dredges
• Barges
• Backhoe
• Dragline
• Batch plant
• Dump trucks
• Front end loader
• Water treatment plant (see Water Treatment, earlier
in this section)
PD452.001 5-11
-------
• Electrical service for batch plant
• Electrical lighting
• Water service for contractor's temporary facilities
Special Engineering Considerations. For Slip No. 3—Alterna-
tive 2D the following special engineering considerations are
presented.
Engineering considerations .concerning the dredging of Slip
No. 3 include:
• Type of dredge head and rate and pattern of dredg-
ing to minimize roiling of sediments
• Type of sediment dispersal control to minimize possi-
bility of contaminating the emergency drinking water
supply intake located at the mouth of the harbor
• Stability of sheet piles surrounding Slip No. 3
• Type of cofferdam for dredging of deep contaminated
sand and silt near former OMC outfall, and means
to prevent failure of existing sheet piling during
cofferdam installation and removal
Engineering considerations concerning the initial solids
dewatering barges include:
• Method to remove sediments from barges
• Potential loss of contaminated sediments from the
barges
• Mooring space for barges in the harbor
• Decontamination of barges
Engineering considerations concerning the sediment dewater-
ing process include:
• Determining the moisture content of sediments to
be removed after dewatering
• Controlling volatilization
Engineering considerations concerning fixation include:
• Moisture content of solids to be fixed
• Amount of fixing agent required
• Volume of fixing agent
PD452.001 5-12
-------
• Volume of solids to be removed
• Possible interferences of contaminants with the
fixing agent
• Time required for curing
• Cost-effectiveness of fixing with portland cement,
Locksorb, and/or other fixing agent
Engineering considerations concerning the water treatment
process include:
• Determining the cost-effectiveness of replacing
activated carbon with Klensorb for soluble PCB
removal if the activated carbon should become
blinded by the oily nature of PCBs
• Water quality requirements for discharging to the
harbor or to a sanitary sewer
Engineering considerations concerning disposal of the PCB
contaminated sediments include:
• Ensuring that the sediments have a nonflowable
consistency
• Ensuring that moisture or solids do not escape
during transport and disposal of the fixed sedi-
ments
• Controlling volatilization
Reliability. Slip No. 3—Alternative 2D would remove PCB-
contaminated sediments with concentrations greater than
50 ppm from Slip No. 3. The alternative includes dredging,
dewatering, water treatment, sediment solidification, and
disposal in a licensed chemical waste landfill. This alter-
native would be effective in abating further PCB contamina-
tion of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. Slip No. 3—Al-
ternative 2D is considered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for Slip No. 3--
Alternative 2D is presented in Table 5-2. This cost estimate
was developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The major elements included in the Table 5-2 line items for
Slip No. 3—Alternative 2D are the same as described for
Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B, except as noted below:
• General site preparation does not include the costs
to install a chain link fence around the lagoon.
PD452.001 5-13
-------
Table 5-2
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
SLIP NO. 3
ALTERNATIVE 2D
DREDGE-DEWATER IN BARGES-FIX-DISPOSE
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Sediment dispersal control
Dredging
Localized cofferdam and dewater-
ing
Dredging of deep sand and silt
Initial solids dewatering —
barges
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Solids removal
Fixation
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 540,000
300,000
280,000
60,000
60,000
390,000
20,000
960,000
1,260,000
60,000
1,580,000
710,000
1,060,000
7,280,000
2,180,000
$ 9,460,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
$ 60,000
0
10,000
10,000
0
0
0
10,000
90,000
30,000
$120,000
Present
Worth
$ 540,000
300,000
280,000
60,000
60,000
450,000
20,000
970,000
1,270,000
60,000
1,580,000
710,000
1,070,000
7,370,000
2,210,000
$ 9,580,000
PD998.063.2
5-14
-------
• Initial solids dewatering—barges includes the costs
to rent and decontaminate barges; the costs to
provide, remove, fix, and dispose of volatilization
control material; and the costs for installing and
monitoring the air quality sampling stations.
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose
For this alternative, a sediment dispersal control device as
described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B would be installed
across the mouth of Slip No. 3 (Figure 5-1). Sediments in
excess of 50 ppm PCBs would be removed by hydraulic dredge
and the sediment slurry pumped through a pipeline to the
initial solids dewatering lagoon. Dredging of the deep con-
taminated sand and silt would be performed as described for
Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
Solids would be dewatered in a clay-lined dewatering lagoon
constructed on OMC property. The supernatant would be con-
tinuously decanted and routed to a 1,500-gpm water treatment
plant as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. After
dredging activities are completed, a 200-gpm water treatment
plant would treat rainwater and leachate water for the dura-
tion of the dewatering process.
After the dredging activities are completed, a RUG (or other
channeling device) would be used for channeling the sediments
to allow surface drainage. The top layer of solids would be
dried by evaporation. The dried solids (typically the top 1
to 2 ft) would be periodically removed with a dragline. The
solids would be loaded into lined trucks and transported to
an approved disposal site. This process would be repeated
about six times over a 2-year period to remove the solids.
Lagoon. The lagoon for this alternative would be the same
as that required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. The assumed
shape and location of the lagoon are shown on Figure 5-1.
Temporary Storage Requirements. Dredged solids would require
temporary storage in the lagoon for dewatering. The solids
would be stored until they could be removed in a nonflowable
state. This is expected to take about 2 years.
Water Treatment. Slurry water from dredging activities would
need to be treated before being discharged. This would be
accomplished with the same treatment system as described for
Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B, except that rainwater and
leachate water would be treated using a 200-gpm treatment
plant for about 2 years.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. These requirements would be the same as
those for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
PD452.001 5-15
-------
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. These items would be the same as for Slip
No. 3—Alternative 2B, except that about 10,900 yd3 of PCB-
contaminated solids and about 5,800 yd3 of contaminated liner
material would require disposal. In addition, about
39,000 yd3 of uncontaminated lagoon embankment material would
require disposal.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
that would be required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 3 include:
• Pile driver
• Hydraulic and clamshell dredges
• Bulldozer
• Compactor
• Scarifier/mixer
• Dragline
• RUG (052)
• Backhoe
• Front end loader
• Dump trucks
• Water treatment plant (see Water Treatment, earlier
in this section)
• Electrical lighting
• Water service for contractor's temporary facilities
Special Engineering Considerations. For Slip No. 3—Alterna-
tive 3 the following special engineering considerations are
presented.
Engineering considerations concerning the dredging of Slip
No. 3 include:
• Type of dredge head and rate and pattern of dredg-
ing to minimize roiling of sediments
• Type of sediment dispersal control to minimize
possibility of contaminating the emergency drinking
water supply intake located at the mouth of the
harbor
PD452.001 5-16
-------
• Stability of sheet piles surrounding Slip No. 3
• Type of cofferdam for dredging of deep contaminated
sand and silt near former OMC outfall, and means
to prevent failure of existing sheet piling during
cofferdam installation and removal
Engineering considerations concerning the initial solids
dewatering lagoon include:
• Construction techniques necessary to obtain satis-
factory permeabilities in the clay liner
• Durability of the soil-cement
• Determining how much of the lagoon liner material
must be disposed of in a licensed PCS disposal
facility
Engineering considerations concerning the sediment dewater-
ing process include:
• Determining the moisture content of sediments to
be removed after dewatering
• Potential for PCB volatilization during drying
Engineering considerations concerning the water treatment
process include:
• Determining the cost-effectiveness of replacing
activated carbon with Klensorb for soluble PCB re-
moval if the activated carbon should become blinded
by the oily nature of PCBs
• Water quality requirements for discharging to the
harbor or to a sanitary sewer
Engineering considerations concerning disposal of the PCB-
contaminated sediments include:
• Ensuring that the sediments have a nonflowable
consistency
• Ensuring that moisture or solids do not escape
during transport and disposal of the sediments
• Controlling volatilization
Reliability. Slip No. 3—Alternative 3 would remove PCB-
contaminated sediment with concentrations greater than 50 ppm
from Slip No. 3. The alternative includes dredging, dewater-
ing, water treatment, and disposal in a licensed chemical
PD452.001 5-17
-------
waste landfill. Laboratory tests (004) indicated that the
dredged sediments are difficult to dewater. The time required
for dewatering is uncertain; it is estimated at 2 years with
mechanical dewatering. After dewatering is completed and
the solids are removed and disposed of in a licensed chemical
waste landfill, this alternative would be considered effec-
tive in abating further PCB contamination of the Waukegan
area and Lake Michigan. Slip No. 3—'Alternative 3 is consid-
ered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for Slip No. 3—
Alternative 3 is presented in Table 5-3. This cost estimate
was developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The major elements included in Table 5-3 line items for Slip
No. 3—Alternative 3 are the same as described for Slip No. 3—
Alternative 2B, except as noted below:
• General site preparation does not include the costs
to install chain link fence around the fixation
cells and batch plant.
• Initial solids dewatering—lagoon does not include
the costs to provide, remove, fix, and dispose of
volatilization control material.
• Water treatment plant and water disposal includes
the costs to install and remove both a 1,500-gpm
and a 200-gpm water treatment plant and the costs
for rental of the water treatment plants.
• Solids removal includes the costs to remove the
sediments from the initial solids dewatering basin
and load into trucks.
• Fixation costs would not be required.
UPPER HARBOR
Alternative 2B: Dredqe-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose
This alternative is the same as Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B,
except that dredging of deep contaminated sand and silt would
not be required, and the sediment dispersal control device
would be installed at the south end of the Upper Harbor (Fig-
ure 5-2) .
Lagoon. A 118,000-yd3 lagoon would be required to dewater sedi-
ments from the Upper Harbor. The assumed shape and location
of the proposed lagoon are shown on Figure 5-2. The capacity
of the lagoon was based on 2 ft of freeboard and 8 ft of
storage. The lagoon would have a clay liner system identical
to that proposed for the Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B lagoon.
PD452.001 5-18
-------
Table 5-3
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
SLIP NO. 3
ALTERNATIVE 3
DREDGE-DEWATER IN LAGOON-DISPOSE
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Sediment dispersal control
Dredging
Localized cofferdam and dewater-
ing
Dredging of deep sand and silt
Initial solids dewatering —
lagoon
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Solids removal
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 420,000
230,000
290,000
60,000
60,000
390,000
20,000
1,290,000
1,510,000
30,000
540,000
820,000
5,660,000
1,700,000
$ 7,360,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
$ 60,000
0
40,000
80,000
0
0
30,000
210,000
60,000
$270,000
Present
Worth
$ 420,000
230,000
290,000
60,000
60,000
450,000
20,000
1,330,000
1,590,000
30,000
540,000
850,000
5,870,000
1,760,000
$ 7,630,000
PD998.063.3
5-19
-------
Curing Cells. The curing cells for this alternative would
be the same as those required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The assumed shape and location are shown on Figure 5-2.
Temporary Storage Requirements. Temporary storage requirements
would be the same as those required for Slip No. 3—Alterna-
tive 2B.
Water Treatment. Slurry water from dredging activities would
be treated in the same manner as for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B,
except that rainwater and leachate water would be treated
using a 200-gpm package water treatment plant on an intermit-
tent basis for about 6 months during dewatering.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. These requirements would be the same as
those for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transportation
Plans. These items would be the same as those for Slip No. 3—
Alternative 2B, except that about 46,400 yd3 of fixed PCB-con-
taminated solids, about 25,400 yd3 of contaminated liner material,
and 10,400 yd3 of contaminated volatilization control material
would require disposal. In addition, about 99,300 yd3 of uncon-
taminated lagoon embankment material would require disposal.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for Upper Harbor—Alternative 2B would be the same
as those required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B, except that
a pile driver and clamshell dredge would not be required.
Special Engineering Considerations. For Upper Harbor—Alter-
native 2B the following special engineering considerations
are presented.
Engineering considerations concerning the dredging of the
Upper Harbor include:
• Type of dredge head and rate and pattern of dredg-
ing to minimize roiling of sediments
• Type of sediment dispersal control, to minimize possi-
bility of contaminating the emergency drinking water
supply intake located at the mouth of the harbor
• Stability of sheet piles surrounding the Upper
Harbor
• Contaminated riprap at the bottom of the sheet
piles
All other engineering considerations for this alternative
would be the same as those for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
PD452.001 5-20
-------
Reliability. Upper Harbor—Alternative 2B would remove PCB-
contaminated sediments with concentrations greater than
50 ppm from the Upper Harbor. The alternative includes dredg-
ing, dewatering, water treatment, sediment solidification,
and disposal in a licensed chemical waste landfill. This
alternative would be effective in abating further PCB contami-
nation of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. Upper Harbor--
Alternative 2B is considered reliable.
Costs The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for Upper Harbor--
Alternative 2B is presented in Table 5-4. This cost estimate
was developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The major elements included in Table 5-4 line items for Upper
Harbor—Alternative 2B are the same as described for Slip
No. 3—Alternative 2B, except as noted below:
• General site preparation includes the costs to
install a chain link fence around the lagoon, fixa-
tion cells, batch plant, and water treatment plant
and the costs to construct a roadway to the lagoon
and curing cells.
• A localized cofferdam and dewatering would not be
required.
• Dredging of deep contaminated sand and silt would
not be required.
• Water treatment plant and water disposal includes
the costs to install and remove both a 1,500-gpm
and a 200-gpm water treatment plant and the costs
for rental of the water treatment plants.
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose
This alternative is the same as Slip No. 3—Alternative 3,
except that dredging of deep contaminated sand and silt would
not be required and the sediment dispersal control device
would be installed at the south end of the Upper Harbor (Fig-
ure 5-2) .
Lagoon. The lagoon required for this alternative would be
the same as that required for Upper Harbor—Alternative 2B.
The assumed shape and location of the lagoon are shown on
Figure 5-2. The lagoon would have a clay liner system iden-
tical to that proposed for the Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B
lagoon.
Temporary Storage Requirements. Dredged solids would require
temporary storage in the lagoon for dewatering. The solids
would be stored until they can be removed in a nonflowable
state. This is expected to take about 2 years.
PD452.001 5-21
-------
Table 5-4
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
UPPER HARBOR
ALTERNATIVE 2B
DREDGE-DEWATER IN LAGOON-FIX-DISPOSE
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Sediment dispersal control
Dredging
Initial solids dewatering-
lagoon
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Solids removal
Fixation
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 1,400,000
770,000
80,000
80,000
220,000
5,250,000
1,530,000
240,000
4,250,000
2,320,000
2,740,000
18,880,000
5,660,000
$24,540,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
$ 10,000
180,000
0
0
0
30,000
220,000
70,000
$290,000
Present
Worth
$ 1,400,000
770,000
80,000
80,000
220,000
5,260,000
1,710,000
240,000
4,250,000
2,320,000
2,770,000
19,100,000
5,730,000
$24,830,000
PD998.063.4
5-22
-------
Water Treatment. Water treatment requirements for this alter-
native would be the same as for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B,
except that rainwater and leachate water would be treated
using a 200-gpm package water treatment plant for about
2 years.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. These requirements would be the same as
those for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. These items would be the same as for Slip No. 3—
Alternative 3, except that about 35,700 yd3 of PCB-contaminated
solids and about 25,400 yd3 of contaminated liner material
would require disposal. In addition, about 99,300 yd3 of uncon-
taminated lagoon embankment material would require disposal.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for Upper Harbor—Alternative 3 would be the same
as those required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 3.
Special Engineering Considerations. For Upper Harbor—Alter-
native 3 the following special engineering considerations
are presented.
Engineering considerations concerning the dredging of the
Upper Harbor include:
• Type of dredge head and rate and pattern of dredg-
ing to minimize roiling of sediments
• Type of sediment dispersal control to minimize possi-
bility of contaminating the emergency drinking water
supply intake located at the mouth of the harbor
• Stability of sheet piles surrounding the Upper
Harbor
• Contaminated riprap at the bottom of the sheet
piles
All other engineering considerations for this alternative
would be the same as those for Slip No. 3—Alternative 3.
Reliability. Upper Harbor—Alternative 3 would remove PCB-
contaminated sediments with concentrations greater than
50 ppm from the Upper Harbor. The alternative includes dredg-
ing, dewatering, water treatment, and disposal in a licensed
chemical waste landfill. Laboratory tests (004) indicated
that the dredged sediments are difficult to dewater. The
time required for dewatering is uncertain. After dewatering
is completed and the solids are removed and disposed of in a
licensed chemical waste landfill, this alternative would be
PD452.001 5-23
-------
effective in abating further PCB contamination of the Wauke-
gan area and Lake Michigan. Upper Harbor—Alternative 3 is
considered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for Upper Harbor—
Alternative 3 is presented in Table 5-5. This cost estimate
was developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The major elements included in Table 5-5 line items for Upper
Harbor—Alternative 3 are the same as described for Slip
No. 3—Alternative 2B, except as noted below:
• General site preparation includes the costs to
install a chain link fence around the lagoon and
water treatment plant and the costs to construct a
roadway to the lagoon.
• A localized cofferdam and dewatering would not be
required.
• Dredging of deep contaminated sand and silt would
not be required.
• Initial solids dewatering—lagoon does not include
the costs to provide, remove, fix, and dispose of
volatilization material.
• Water treatment plant and water disposal includes
the costs to install and remove both a 1,500-gpm
and a 200-gpm water treatment plant and the costs
for rental of the water treatment plants.
• Solids removal includes the costs to remove sediments
from the initial solids dewatering basin and load
into trucks.
• Fixation would not be required.
SLIP NO. 3 AND UPPER HARBOR
Alternative 6A: Contain-Dredge-Cap
A sediment dispersal control device, consisting of a double
silt curtain or sheet piling, would be installed at the south
end of the Upper Harbor (Figure 5-3). Then a cofferdam would
be constructed near the north end of the Upper Harbor to
close off Slip No. 3. A slurry wall extending into the gla-
cial till would be constructed inside the cofferdam and around
the entire perimeter of the containment area.
Dredged sediments with greater than 50 ppm PCBs from the
Upper Harbor would be placed within the contained area.
Alternative 6A would control almost 100 percent of all the
PD452.001 5-24
-------
Table 5-5
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
UPPER HARBOR
ALTERNATIVE 3
DREDGE-DEWATER IN LAGOON-DISPOSE
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Sediment dispersal control
Dredging
Initial solids dewatering-
lagoon
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Solids removal
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 770,000
420,000
80,000
80,000
220,000
3,830,000
1,590,000
110,000
1,780,000
1,510,000
10,390,000
3,120,000
$13,510,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
$ 40,000
80,000
0
0
20,000
140,000
40,000
$180,000
Present
Worth
$ 770,000
420,000
80,000
80,000
220,000
3,870,000
1,670,000
110,000
1,780,000
1,530,000
10,530,000
3,160,000
$13,690,000
PD998.063.5
5-25
-------
PCBs now found in Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor sediment. Super-
natant would be continuously decanted and routed to an onsite
water treatment plant for suspended solids and PCS removal
(to I ppb PCBs), then discharged to the harbor or to a sanitary
sewer. After completion of dredging, a layer of filter fabric,
a 1-ft-thick layer of sand with a drainage system, and a
3-ft-thick compacted clay cap would cover the dredged muck.
Five feet of fill over the clay would serve as a surcharge.
Water collected from the drainage system would be treated as
described above. Slip No. 3 would be left permanently filled.
Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed around the
site for detection of potential PCB migration.
After completion of all dredging activities, the water treat-
ment plant would be removed and a new basin would be constructed
to replace Slip No. 3. After settlement of the muck in Slip
No. 3 is complete, the excess surcharge material would be
removed and the area paved.
Containment/Encapsulation. A slurry wall would be constructed
to completely encircle Slip No. 3 and the northwest portion
of the Upper Harbor. The proposed containment area is shown
on Figure 5-3. The existing glacial till beneath the site
would be relied upon to act as a bottom seal. An impervious
cap consisting of 3 ft of compacted clay covered by asphaltic
concrete paving would be used to cover the top of the filled-
in containment area.
Temporary Storage Requirements. No temporary storage would
be required. This alternative does, however, require long-
term, onsite storage.
Water Treatment. Harbor water from the containment area and
slurry water from dredging activities in the Upper Harbor
would need to be treated before discharge. Treatment would
be the same as that described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B,
except that rainwater and leachate water would be treated
using a 200-gpm package water treatment plant for about I year
during dewatering and densification.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. In Alternative 6A, PCBs are contained on-
site. Groundwater monitoring wells would be required to
determine whether PCBs were migrating from the containment
area. Should contaminant movement be detected, an internal
drainage system could be installed to maintain internal water
levels lower than external water levels so that any leakage
is into the containment area. The area would be capped.
The cap would need to be properly maintained so that it would
continue to be an impermeable barrier to surface water.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. For Alternative 6A, no PCB-contaminated solids
would require offsite disposal. USEPA waivers in accordance
PD452.001 5-26
-------
with 40 CFR 761 under TSCA would be required to leave the
PCBs onsite. About 46,600 yd3 of sediments containing about
310,000 Ib of PCBs would be contained in-place in the contain-
ment area.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for Alternative 6A include:
• Pile driver
• Hydraulic dredge
• Slurry trench excavator
• Slurry mixing equipment
• Bulldozer
• Compactor
• Front end loader
• Dump trucks
• Paving equipment
• Water treatment plant (see Water Treatment, earlier
in this section)
• Electrical lighting
• Water services for contractor's temporary facili-
ties
Special Engineering Considerations. For Alternative 6A, the
following special engineering considerations are presented.
Engineering considerations concerning constructing the cof-
ferdam and slurry wall include:
• Location, type, and dimensions of cofferdam sheet
piles
• Type and method of placement of cofferdam fill
• Depth and construction techniques for the slurry
wall to ensure its integrity
• The effects of PCBs on slurry walls
Engineering considerations concerning the dredging of the
Upper Harbor include:
PD452.001 5-27
-------
• Type of dredge head and rate and pattern of dredg-
ing to minimize roiling of sediments
• Type of sediment dispersal control to minimize possi-
bility of contaminating the emergency drinking water
supply intake located at the mouth of the harbor
• Stability of sheet piles surrounding the Upper Harbor
• Contaminated riprap at the bottom of the sheet piles
Engineering considerations concerning the clay cap include:
• Selection of cap material and determination of
correct placement methods
• Duration of surcharge
• Design of asphaltic concrete pavement for prolonged
service as a membrane
Engineering considerations concerning the water treatment
process include:
• Determining the cost-effectiveness of replacing
activated carbon with Klensorb for soluble PCB re-
moval if the activated carbon should become blinded
by the oily nature of PCBs
• Water quality requirements for discharging to the
harbor or to a sanitary sewer
• Need for treatment of water removed from the drain-
age layer beneath the clay cap
Reliability. Alternative 6A would not dispose of PCB-contami-
nated solids offsite but would contain and cap Slip No. 3
and the northwest portion of the Upper Harbor. There is no
data on long-term reliability of this alternative. Groundwater
fluctuations may cause drying or cracking of the slurry walls
or the clay cap. Freezing and thawing action may also cause
deterioration of the slurry walls and cap. The underlying
glacial till may have cracks, fissures, or pockets of more
permeable material through which PCBs could migrate. The
containment area would be monitored to permit ongoing evalua-
tion of the effectiveness and integrity of the slurry walls
and clay cap. The reliability of the containment can be
enhanced with development of additional design details:
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by terminat-
ing the slurry wall below the frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
PD452.001 5-28
-------
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an inter-
nal drainage system could be installed to maintain
internal water levels lower than external levels
so that any leakage would be into the containment
area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCB con-
tamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. Alterna-
tive 6A is considered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for Alterna-
tive 6A is presented in Table 5-6. This cost estimate was
developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The mobilization; health and safety requirements; engineering,
legal, and administration; and contingency costs included in
Table 5-6 for Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor—Alternative 6A
are the same as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. A
description of the major elements included in the remaining
Table 5-6 line items follows:
• General site preparation includes the costs to
remove and replace existing piles and floating
docks in Slip No. 3, remove existing intake and
outlet pipes near OMC's Slip No. 3 outfall, furnish
and install temporary floating docks, construct a
new large boat hoisting facility, and install chain
link fence around the water treatment plant.
• Sediment dispersal control includes the costs to
furnish, install, and remove the double silt cur-
tain.
• Cofferdam includes the costs for the fill at the
base of the sheet piling and the costs for the
sheet piling.
• Slurry wall includes the costs to install a
soil-bentonite slurry wall.
• Dredging Upper Harbor includes the costs to dredge
the sediments and pipe them to the containment
area.
• Water treatment plant and water disposal includes
the costs to install and remove both a 1,500-gpm
and a 200-gpm water treatment plant and the costs
for rental of the water treatment plants.
• Clay cap and surcharge includes the costs to pro-
vide and install the filter fabric, drainage sys-
tem, clay cap, and surcharge.
PD452.001 5-29
-------
Table 5-6
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
SLIP NO. 3 AND UPPER HARBOR
ALTERNATIVE 6A
CONTAIN-DREDGE-CAP
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Sediment dispersal control
Cofferdam
Slurry wall
Dredging Upper Harbor sediments
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Clay cap and surcharge
Construct new harbor area
Monitoring (wells)
Surcharge removal and paving
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 510,000
280,000
310,000
40,000
710,000
550,000
220,000
1,560,000
340,000
1,210,000
30,000
130,000
1,000,000
6,890,000
2,070,000
$ 8,960,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$ 20,000
0
0
200,000
0
40,000
260,000
80,000
$340,000
Present
Worth
$ 510,000
280,000
310,000
40,000
710,000
550,000
220,000
1,580,000
340,000
1,210,000
230,000
130,000
1,040,000
7,150,000
2,150,000
$ 9,300,000
PD998.063.6
5-30
-------
• Construct new harbor includes the costs to remove
existing sheet piling, install new steel sheet
piling, excavate material and haul offsite, and
the costs for the land.
• Monitoring (wells) includes the costs for install-
ing and monitoring the groundwater monitoring wells.
• Surcharge removal and paving includes the cost to
remove and haul off the surcharge remaining above
grade after settlement of the containment area and
the cost to pave the containment area.
Alternative 6B; Contain-Dredge Part of Upper Harbor-Cap
A sediment dispersal control device, consisting of a double
silt curtain or sheet piling, would be installed across the
middle of the Upper Harbor (Figure 5-4). Then a cofferdam
would be constructed near the east end of Slip No. 3 to close
it off. A slurry wall extending into the glacial till would
be constructed inside the cofferdam and around the entire
perimeter of the containment area.
Dredged sediments with greater than 50 ppm PCBs from the
eastern portion of Slip No. 3 and part of the Upper Harbor
would be placed within the contained area. This alternative
would not address approximately 25,500 yd3 of sediments con-
taining 3,100 Ib of PCBs with concentrations between 50 and
150 ppm in the Upper Harbor. Alternative 6B, however, would
control 99 percent of all the PCBs now found in Slip No. 3
and Upper Harbor sediments. Supernatant would be continuously
decanted and routed to an onsite water treatment plant for
suspended solids and PCB removal (to 1 ppb PCBs), then dis-
charged to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. After comple-
tion of dredging, a layer of filter fabric, a 1-ft-thick
layer of sand with a drainage system, and a 3-ft-thick com-
pacted clay cap would cover the dredged muck. Five feet of
fill over the clay would serve as a surcharge. Water col-
lected from the drainage system would be treated as described
above. Slip No. 3 would be left permanently filled. Ground-
water monitoring wells would be installed around the site
for detection of potential PCB migration.
After completion of all dredging activities, the water treat-
ment plant would be removed and a new basin would be con-
structed to replace Slip No. 3. After settlement of the
muck in Slip No. 3 is complete, the excess surcharge materi-
al would be removed and the area paved.
Containment/Encapsulation. A slurry wall would be construc-
ted to completely encircle the containment area. The proposed
containment area is shown on Figure 5-4. The existing glacial
till beneath the site would be relied upon to act as a bottom
PD452.001 5-31
-------
seal. An impervious cap consisting of 3 ft of compacted
clay covered by asphaltic concrete paving would be used to
cover the top of the filled-in containment area.
Temporary Storage Requirements. No temporary storage would
be required. This alternative does, however, require long-
term, onsite storage.
Water Treatment. Harbor water from the containment area and
slurry water from dredging activities in the Upper Harbor
would need to be treated before discharge. Treatment would
be the same as that described for Slip No. 3—Alternative -
2B, except that rainwater and leachate water would be treated
using a 200-gpm package water treatment plant for about 1 year
during dewatering and densification.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. In Alternative 6B, PCBs are contained on-
site. Groundwater monitoring wells would be required to
determine whether PCBs were migrating from the containment
area. Should contaminant movement be detected, an internal
drainage system could be installed to maintain internal water
levels lower than external water levels so that any leakage
is into the containment area. The area would be capped.
The cap would need to be properly maintained so that it would
continue to be an impermeable barrier to surface water.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. For Alternative 6B, no PCB-contaminated solids
would require offsite disposal. USEPA waivers in accordance
with 40 CFR 761 under TSCA would be required to leave the
PCBs onsite. About 21,100 yd3 of sediments containing about
306,900 Ib of PCBs would be contained in-place in the
containment area.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for Alternative 6B would be the same as those
required for Alternative 6A.
Special Engineering Considerations. Special engineering
considerations for Alternative 6B would be the same as those
required for Alternative 6A.
Reliability. Alternative 6B would not dispose of PCB-contami-
nated solids offsite but would contain and cap the western
portion of Slip No. 3. There is no data on long-term reliabil-
ity of this alternative. Groundwater fluctuations may cause
drying or cracking of the slurry walls or the clay cap. Freez-
ing and thawing action may also cause deterioration of the slurry
walls and cap. The underlying glacial till may have cracks,
fissures, or pockets of more permeable material through which
PCBs could migrate. The containment area would be monitored
to permit ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness and integrity
PD452.001 5-32
-------
of the slurry walls and clay cap. The reliability of the
containment can be enhanced with development of additional
design details:
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by termi-
nating the slurry wall below the frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an inter-
nal drainage system could be installed to maintain
internal water levels lower than external levels
so that any leakage would be into the containment
area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCB con-
tamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. Alterna-
tive 6B is considered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for Alterna-
tive 6B is presented in Table 5-7. This cost estimate was
developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The mobilization; health and safety requirements; engine-
ering, legal, and administration; and contingency costs in-
cluded in Table 5-7 for Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor—Alter-
native 6B are the same as described for Slip No. 3—Alter-
native 2B. A description of the major elements included in
the remaining Table 5-7 line items follows:
• General site preparation includes the costs to
remove and replace existing piles and floating
docks in Slip No. 3, remove existing intake and
outlet pipes near CMC's Slip No. 3 outfall, fur-
nish and install temporary floating docks, con-
struct a new large boat hoisting facility, and
install chain link fence around the water treat-
ment plant.
• Sediment dispersal control includes the costs to
furnish, install, and remove the double silt cur-
tain.
• Cofferdam includes the costs for the fill at the
base of the sheet piling and the costs for the
sheet piling.
• Slurry wall includes the costs to install a
soil-bentonite slurry wall.
PD452.001 5-33
-------
Table 5-7
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
SLIP NO. 3 AND UPPER HARBOR
ALTERNATIVE 6B
CONTAIN-DREDGE PART OF UPPER HARBOR-CAP
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Sediment dispersal control
Cofferdam
Slurry wall
Dredging Upper Harbor sediments
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Clay cap and surcharge
Construct new harbor area
Monitoring (wells)
Surcharge removal and paving
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 330,000
180,000
290,000
40,000
160,000
290,000
90,000
1,560,000
130,000
650,000
20,000
50,000
640,000
4,430,000
1,330,000
$ 5,760,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$ 20,000
0
0
200,000
0
40,000
260,000
80,000
$340,000
Present
Worth
$ 330,000
180,000
290,000
40,000
160,000
290,000
90,000
1,580,000
130,000
650,000
220,000
50,000
680,000
4,690,000
1,410,000
$ 6,100,000
PD998.096.1
5-34
-------
• Dredging Upper Harbor includes the costs to dredge
the sediments and pipe them to the containment
area.
• Water treatment plant and water disposal includes
the costs to install and remove both a 1,500-gpm
and a 200-gpm water treatment plant and the costs
for rental of the water treatment plants.
• Clay cap and surcharge includes the costs to pro-
vide and install the filter fabric, drainage sys-
tem, clay cap, and surcharge.
• Construct new harbor includes the costs to remove
existing sheet piling, install new steel sheet
piling, excavate material and haul offsite, and
the costs for the land.
• Monitoring (wells) includes the costs for install-
ing and monitoring the groundwater monitoring
wells.
• Surcharge removal and paving includes the costs to
remove and haul off the surcharge remaining above
grade after settlement of the containment area and
to pave the containment area.
Subalternative I; Select Excavation
This subalternative would be used only in conjunction with
Alternatives 6A or 6B. "Hot spots" would be removed by clam-
shell dredging, fixed, and disposed of offsite. "Hot spots"
consist of 5,700 yd3 of deep contaminated sand and silt near
the former OMC outfall and silt in the western portion of
Slip No. 3 with PCS concentrations in excess of 10,000 ppm.
Dredging of the deep contaminated sand and silt would be
performed inside a single sheet pile cofferdam. Subalter-
native I would remove and dispose of offsite 92 percent of
all the PCBs now found in Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor
area (286,500 Ib of PCBs). The solids would be transported
to the batch plant and fixed by adding portland cement,
Locksorb, or another fixing agent to hydrate the excess
water. The mix would then be transported to curing cells.
The fixed solids would be cured until they were nonflowable.
This is expected to take about 1 day. The fixed solids
would be removed from the curing cells by front end loaders
for transportation by truck to an approved disposal site.
Curing Cells. The curing cells for this alternative would
be the same as required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. The
assumed shape and location are shown on Figures 5-3 and 5-4.
PD452.001 5-35
-------
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. These items would be the same as those for Slip
No. 3—Alternative 2B, except about 7,100 yd3 of fixed PCB-
contaminated solids would require disposal. For Alternative 6A
in conjunction with Subalternative I, about 40,900 yd3 of
sediments containing 23,500 Ib of PCBs would be contained
in-place in the containment area. For Alternative 6B in
conjunction with Subalternative I, about 15,400 yd3 of sedi-
ment containing 20,400 Ib of PCBs would be contained in-place
in the containment area.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for Subalternative I include:
• Pile driver
• Clamshell dredge
• Backhoe
• Batch plant
• Dump trucks
• Front end loader
• Electrical service for batch plant
• Electrical lighting
• Water service for contractor's temporary facilities
Special Engineering Considerations. For Subalternative I,
the following special engineering considerations are pre-
sented.
Engineering considerations concerning dredging of Slip No. 3
include:
• Type of cofferdam for dredging of deep contami-
nated sand and silt near former OMC outfall, and
means to prevent failure of existing sheet piling
during cofferdam installation and removal
Engineering considerations concerning fixation include:
• Moisture content of solids to be fixed
• Amount of fixing agent required
• Volume of fixing agent
• Volume of solids to be removed
PD452.001 5-36
-------
• Possible interferences of contaminants with the
fixing agent
• Time required for curing
• Cost effectiveness of fixing with portland cement,
Locksorb, and/or other fixing agent
Engineering considerations concerning disposal of the PCB-
contaminated sediments include:
• Ensuring that the sediments have a nonflowable
consistency
• Ensuring that moisture or solids do not escape
during transport and disposal of the fixed sedi-
ments
• Controlling volatilization
Reliability. Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor—Subalternative I
would remove and dispose of PCB-contaminated sediments with
concentrations greater than 10,000 ppm from Slip No. 3.
Subalternative I includes dredging, sediment solidification,
and disposal in a licensed chemical waste landfill. This
Subalternative would be effective in abating further PCB
contamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. Sub-
alternative I is considered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for Slip No. 3
and Upper Harbor—Subalternative I is presented in Table 5-8.
This cost estimate was developed as described for Slip No. 3—
Alternative 2B.
The mobilization; health and safety requirements; engineering,
legal, and administration; and contingency costs included in
Table 5-8 for Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor—Subalternative I
are the same as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. A
description of the major elements included in the remaining
Table 5-8 line items follows:
• Localized cofferdam and dewatering includes the
costs to install and remove a single sheet pile
cofferdam at the localized area; partially dewater
the cofferdam; and remove and replace the sheet
pile bulkhead.
• Dredging of deep sand and silt includes the costs
to dredge the contaminated sand and silt within
the cofferdam and the "hot spots" outside the cof-
ferdam.
PD452.001 5-37
-------
Table 5-8
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
SLIP NO. 3 AND UPPER HARBOR
SUBALTERNATIVE I
SELECT EXCAVATION
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
Localized cofferdam and
dewatering
Dredging of deep sand and silt
Solids removal
Fixation
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and
administration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 170,000
100,000
390,000
30,000
20,000
940,000
360,000
340,000
2,350,000
710,000
$ 3,060,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
$ 60,000
0
0
0
0
10,000
70,000
20,000
$ 90,000
Present
Worth
$ 170,000
100,000
450,000
30,000
20,000
940,000
360,000
350,000
2,420,000
730,000
$ 3,150,000
PD998.063.14
5-38
-------
• Solids removal includes the costs to transport the
solids to the batch plant.
• Fixation includes the costs to install and remove
curing cell embankment, liner material, and con-
crete divider walls; mix the solids with cement;
haul fixed solids to the curing cells; and remove
fixed solids from the curing cells.
• Transportation and disposal includes the costs to
haul the contaminated material to an approved
chemical waste landfill.
NORTH DITCH/PARKING LOT AREA
Alternative 1: Excavate-Dispose
A bypass would be constructed to divert surface water flow
around the highly contaminated areas of the Crescent Ditch
and Oval Lagoon (Figure 5-5). The bypass would outfall di-
rectly into Lake Michigan. Construction would then begin on
a structural slurry wall (or other structural support sys-
tem) around the Crescent Ditch and a nonstructural slurry
wall around the Oval Lagoon. A nonstructural slurry wall
would be constructed around the deep contamination in the
Parking Lot area. The soils would be dewatered using well
points and pumps. Well water would be routed to an onsite
water treatment plant for suspended solids and PCB removal
(to 1 ppb PCBs) , then discharged to the lake or to a
sanitary sewer.
Soils with greater than 50 ppm PCBs would be excavated by
backhoe or front end loader and placed in lined trucks for
transport to an approved disposal site. The excavated areas
would be backfilled.
North Ditch Bypass. A gravity pipeline bypass would be con-
structed to divert surface water flow around the highly con-
taminated areas, the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon. The
location of the proposed bypass is shown on,Figure 5-5. This
bypass would collect drainage from the 36-inch-diameter storm
drain (that flows north at the west edge of CMC's property),
from OMC plant roof drains, and from regraded areas north
and south of the Crescent Ditch. The bypass would discharge
to Lake Michigan. It would be constructed south of the sheet
piling just north of the east-west portion of the North Ditch.
The Parking Lot area would be regraded to divert surface
water flow to catch basins.
An area approximately 15 ft deep by 25 ft wide of PCB-contami-
nated soil from the North Ditch would be excavated and disposed
of in a licensed chemical waste landfill. Before excavation,
the existing sheet piling (along the north side of the North
PD452.001 5-39
-------
Ditch) would be fitted with extensions and driven an estimated
5 to 8 ft, penetrating into the confining clay layer. Addi-
tional sheet piling would be driven on the south side of the
North Ditch. The area would then be dewatered. After exca-
vation, the area would be backfilled and the gravity pipeline
installed.
Temporary Storage Requirements. North Ditch/Parking Lot
Area—Alternative 1 would not require any temporary storage
of solids before disposal.
Water Treatment. Groundwater removed from the areas to be
excavated may need to be treated before it can be discharged
back into the environment. The water treatment process
would be the same used in Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. The
groundwater would be pumped directly to a 200-gpm package
water treatment plant for treatment and discharge to Lake
Michigan or to a sanitary sewer. The treatment plant would
be used for about 7 months.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. In North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alter-
native 1, the proposed action removes the PCBs from the
project site and disposes of them in a licensed chemical
waste landfill. Therefore, there are no onsite operation,
maintenance, or monitoring requirements after completing the
proposed remedy.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. These items would be the same as for Slip No. 3—
Alternative 2B, except that approximately 175,800 yd3 of
PCB-contaminated solids would require disposal. In addition,
a permit to operate construction equipment under the existing
powerline would be required.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 1
include:
• Pile driver
• Backhoe
• Front end loader
• Dump trucks
• Construction dewatering equipment
• Slurry trench excavator
• Slurry mixing equipment
PD452.001 5-40
-------
• Water treatment plant (see Water Treatment,
earlier in this section)
• Electrical lighting
• Water service for contractor's temporary facilities
Special Engineering Considerations. For North Ditch/
Parking Lot Area—Alternative 1 the following special engi-
neering considerations are presented.
Engineering considerations concerning construction dewatering
(groundwater) include:
• Rate and duration of well point pumping before
satisfactory moisture content in soils is obtained
Engineering considerations concerning excavation include:
• Type of structural walls for excavation
• Possible contamination behind sheet piles adjacent
to the North Ditch
• Controlling volatilization
Engineering considerations concerning the water treatment
process include:
• Determining the cost-effectiveness of replacing
activated carbon with Klensorb for soluble PCB re-
moval if the activated carbon should become blinded
by the oily nature of PCBs
• Water quality requirements for discharging to the
lake or to a sanitary sewer
Engineering considerations concerning disposal of the PCB-
contaminated soils include:
• Ensuring that the soils have a nonflowable consis-
tency
• Ensuring that moisture or solids do not escape
during transport and disposal of the soils
• Controlling volatilization
Reliability. North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative I
would remove PCB-contaminated solids with concentrations
greater than 50 ppm from the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
The alternative includes groundwater dewatering and treat-
ment, and soil excavation and disposal in a licensed chemical
PD452.001 5-41
-------
waste landfill. This alternative is effective in abating
further PCB contamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michi-
gan. North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 1 is con-
sidered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimates for North
Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 1 are presented in
Tables 5-9 and 5-10, for the North Ditch area and Parking
Lot area, respectively. These estimates were developed as
described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The mobilization; health and safety requirements; engineering,
legal, and administration; and contingency costs included in
Table 5-9 for North Ditch—Alternative 1 are the same as
described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. A description of
the major elements included in the remaining Table 5-9 line
items follows:
• General site preparation includes the costs to
remove and relocate the chain link fence and rail-
road tracks, remove and replace pavement, reroute
the 10-inch-diameter sanitary sewer, relocate the
propane tanks, underpin the elevated water tank,
and install new manholes for rerouting the sewer.
• .Bypass North Ditch includes the costs to install
the pipeline around the Crescent Ditch and Oval
Lagoon areas and through the east-west portion of
the North Ditch.
• Dewatering includes the costs to install and remove
well points, pipes, and pumps for dewatering the
material; install slurry walls; and dispose of
contaminated material from the slurry wall excava-
tion.
• Water treatment plant and water disposal includes
the costs to install and remove a 200-gpm water
treatment plant and the costs for rental of the
water treatment plant.
• Excavation and backfilling includes the costs to
excavate contaminated material and place the
material in trucks and the costs to backfill exca-
vated areas with imported materials.
• Transportation and disposal includes the costs to
haul the contaminated material to a licensed chemi-
cal waste landfill.
The mobilization; health and safety requirements; engineering,
legal, and administration; and contingency costs included in
Table 5-10 for Parking Lot—Alternative 1 are the same as
PD452.001 5-42
-------
Table 5-9
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
NORTH DITCH
ALTERNATIVE 1
EXCAVATE-DISPOSE
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Bypass North Ditch
Dewatering
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Excavation and backfilling
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 940,000
520,000
100,000
4,720,000
1,660,000
170,000
510,000
2,290,000
1,860,000
12,770,000
3,830,000
$16,600,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
$ 20,000
20,000
0
0
10,000
50,000
20,000
$70,000
Present
Worth
$ 940,000
520,000
100,000
4,720,000
1,680,000
190,000
510,000
2,290,000
1,870,000
12,820,000
3,850,000
$16,670,000
PD998.063.7
5-43
-------
Table 5-10
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
PARKING LOT
ALTERNATIVE 1
EXCAVATE-DISPOSE
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Dewatering
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Excavation and backfilling
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 710,000
390,000
330,000
380,000
10,000
1,170,000
5,250,000
1,400,000
9,640,000
2,890,000
$12,530,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
$ 10,000
10,000
0
0
10,000
30,000
10,000
$40,000
Present
Worth
$ 710,000
390,000
330,000
390,000
20,000
1,170,000
5,250,000
1,410,000
9,670,000
2,900,000
$12,570,000
PD998.063.9
5-44
-------
described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. A description of
the major elements included in the remaining Table 5-10 line
items follows:
• General site preparation includes the costs to
remove and replace pavement, reroute a 12-inch-
diameter high-pressure gas line, and relocate a
light pole.
• Dewatering includes the costs to install and remove
well points, pipes, and pumps required for dewater-
ing of the material; install slurry walls; and
dispose of the contaminated material from the
slurry wall excavation.
• Water treatment and water disposal includes the
costs for rental of the water treatment plant.
• Excavation and backfilling includes the costs to
excavate the contaminated material and place it in
trucks and the costs to backfill the excavated
areas with imported materials.
• Transportation and disposal includes the costs to
haul the contaminated material to a licensed
chemical waste landfill.
Alternative 3; Excavate-Fix-Dispose
A bypass would be constructed as described for North
Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 1 (Figure 5-5). The
excavation area would be dewatered within a slurry wall, and
the well water would be treated as described for North
Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative I. Soils with greater
than 50 ppm PCBs would be excavated with a backhoe or front
end loader and placed in trucks to be transported to the
batch plant. The soil would then be fixed with portland
cement, Locksorb, or another fixing agent to hydrate the
excess water. The fixed soil would then be transported to
the curing cells. The fixed solids would be cured until
they were nonflowable. The fixed solids would be removed
from the curing cells by front end loaders for transport by
truck to an approved disposal site.
North Ditch Bypass. The bypass would be the same as that
required for North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 1.
The location of the proposed bypass is shown on Figure 5-5.
Curing Cells. The curing cells for this alternative would
be the same as those required for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The assumed shape and location are shown on Figure 5-5.
PD452.001 5-45
-------
Temporary Storage Requirements. In North Ditch/Parking Lot
Area—Alternative 3, excavated solids that are too wet to be
transported to a licensed chemical waste landfill would
require fixation before disposal. Fixation is expected to
require 1 day of temporary storage for curing.
Water Treatment. Water treatment requirements would be the
same as those for North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alterna-
tive I.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. These requirements are the same as those
for North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 1.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. These items would be the same as those for
North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 1, except that
approximately 219,800 yd3 of fixed PCB-contaminated solids
would require disposal.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 3
would be the same as those required for North Ditch/Parking
Lot Area—Alternative 1, except that a batch plant and electri-
cal services for the batch plant would also be required.
Special Engineering Considerations. For North Ditch/Parking
Lot Area—Alternative 3, special engineering considerations
would be the same as those for North Ditch/Parking Lot Area--
Alternative 1, with the following additional engineering
considerations concerning fixation:
• Moisture content of solids to be fixed
• Amount of fixing agent required
• Volume of fixing agent
• Volume of solids to be removed
• Possible interference of contaminants with the
fixing agent
• Time required for curing
• Cost-effectiveness of fixing with portland cement,
Locksorb, and/or other fixing agent
Reliability. North Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 3
would remove PCB-contaminated soil with concentrations
greater than 50 ppm from the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
The alternative includes groundwater dewatering and treat-
ment, soil excavation, fixation of excess water in the soil,
PD452.001 5-46
-------
and solids disposal in a licensed chemical waste landfill.
This alternative would be effective in abating further PCB
contamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. North
Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 3 is considered
reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimates for North
Ditch/Parking Lot Area—Alternative 3 are presented in
Tables 5-11 and 5-12 for the North Ditch area and Parking
Lot area, respectively. These cost estimates were developed
as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The major elements included in the Table 5-11 line items for
North Ditch—Alternative 3 are the same as described for
North Ditch—Alternative 1, except as noted below:
• Fixation includes the costs to mix the solids with
cement, haul fixed solids to the curing cells, and
remove the fixed solids from the curing cells.
The description of the major elements included in the
Table 5-12 line items for Parking Lot—Alternative 3 would
be the same as described for Parking Lot—Alternative 1,
except as follows:
• Fixation includes the costs to mix the solids with
cement, haul fixed solids to the curing cells, and
remove fixed solids from the curing cells.
Alternative 4; Contain-Cap (Parking Lot Area Only)
A slurry wall extending down into the underlying glacial
till would be constructed around the Parking Lot to control
movement of contaminated materials (Figure 5-6). This alter-
native would control about 36 percent of all the PCBs now
found in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area. The site would
be capped with a 3-ft compacted clay layer to seal in the
contaminated soils and reduce infiltration of surface water.
The area would be resurfaced for parking. This would raise
the elevation of the site by 3 to 4 ft. Groundwater monitor-
ing wells would be installed around the site for detection
of potential PCB migration.
Containment/Encapsulation. A slurry wall would be constructed
to completely encircle the contaminated area. The proposed
containment area is shown on Figure 5-6. The existing glacial
till beneath the site would be relied upon to act as a bottom
seal. An impervious cap of 3 ft of compacted clay covered
by asphaltic concrete would be used to cover the top of the
containment area.
PD452.001 5-47
-------
Table 5-11
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
NORTH DITCH
ALTERNATIVE 3
EXCAVATE-FIX-DISPOSE
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Bypass North Ditch
Dewatering
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Excavation and backfilling
Fixation
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 1,520,000
840,000
100,000
4,720,000
1,660,000
170,000
560,000
5,180,000
2,860,000
2,990,000
20,600,000
6,180,000
$26,780,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
$ 10,000
10,000
0
0
0
10,000
30,000
10,000
$40,000
Present
Worth
$ 1,520,000
840,000
100,000
.4,720,000
1,670,000
180,000
560,000
5,180,000
2,860,000
3,000,000
20,630,000
6,190,000
$26,820,000
PD998.063.8
5-48
-------
Table 5-12
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
PARKING LOT
ALTERNATIVE 3
EXCAVATE-FIX-DISPOSE
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Dewatering
Water treatment plant and water
disposal
Excavation and backfilling
Fixation
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 2,040,000
1,120,000
330,000
380,000
10,000
1,280,000
11,890,000
6,560,000
4,020,000
27,630,000
8,290,000
$35,920,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
$ 10,000
10,000
0
0
0
10,000
30,000
10,000
$40,000
Present
Worth
$ 2,040,000
1,120,000
330,000
390,000
20,000
1,280,000
11,890,000
6,560,000
4,030,000
27,660,000
8,300,000
$35,960,000
PD998.063.10
5-49
-------
Temporary Storage Requirements. Parking Lot—Alternative 4
does not require temporary storage. It does, however, require
long-term, onsite storage.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. In Parking Lot—Alternative 4, PCBs would
be contained onsite. Groundwater monitoring wells would be
required to determine whether PCBs were migrating from the
contaminant area. Should contaminant movement be deteqted,
an internal drainage system could be installed to maintain
internal water levels lower than external water levels so
that any leakage is into the containment area. The area
would be capped and returned to its original use as a parking
lot, which would need to be properly maintained in order to
continue to be an impermeable barrier to surface water.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. For Parking Lot—Alternative 4, no PCB-con-
taminated solids would require offsite disposal. USEPA
waivers in accordance with 40 CFR 761 under TSCA would be
required to leave the PCBs onsite. About 105,000 yd3 of
soil containing about 277,700 Ib of PCBs would be contained
in-place on the site at the eastern end of the Parking Lot
area.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for Parking Lot Area—Alternative 4 include:
• Backhoe
• Front end loader
• Dump trucks
• Slurry trench excavator
• Slurry mixing equipment
• Bulldozer
• Compactor
• Paving equipment
• Electrical lighting
• Water service for contractor's temporary facilities
Special Engineering Considerations. For Parking Lot—Alterna-
tive 4, special engineering considerations concerning contain-
ment and capping of the Parking Lot area include:
PD452.001 5-50
-------
• Depth and construction techniques for the slurry
wall to ensure its integrity
• The effects of PCBs on slurry walls
• Selection of cap materials and determination of
correct placement methods
• Design of asphaltic concrete pavement for prolonged
service as a membrane
Reliability. Parking Lot—Alternative 4 would not dispose
of PCB-contaminated soil offsite but would contain and cap
the Parking Lot area. There is no data on long-term reliabil-
ity of this alternative. The shoreline of Lake Michigan is
changing and may encroach upon the containment area. Ground-
water fluctuations may cause drying and cracking of the slurry
walls or the clay cap. Freezing and thawing action may also
cause deterioration of the slurry walls and cap. The underly-
ing glacial till may have cracks, fissures, or pockets of
more permeable material through which PCBs could migrate.
The containment area must be monitored to permit ongoing
evaluation of the effectiveness and integrity of the slurry
walls and clay cap. The reliability of the containment can
be enhanced with development of additional design details:
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by terminating
the slurry and cap wall below the frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an internal
drainage system could be installed to maintain inter-
nal water levels lower than external levels so that
any leakage would be into the containment area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCB con-
tamination in the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. Parking
Lot—Alternative 4 is considered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for Parking
Lot—Alternative 4 is presented in Table 5-13. This cost
estimate was developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alterna-
tive 2B.
The mobilization; health and safety requirements; engineering,
legal, and administration; and contingency costs included in
Table 5-13 for Parking Lot—Alternative 4 are the same as
PD452.001 5-51
-------
Table 5-13
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
PARKING LOT
ALTERNATIVE 4
CONTAIN-CAP
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Slurry wall
Cap and regrade
Resurface parking lot
Monitoring (wells)
Engineering, legal, and adminis-
tration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 160,000
90,000
110,000
750,000
500,000
230,000
30,000
320,000
2,190,000
660,000
$ 2,850,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
$240,000
40,000
280,000
80,000
$360,000
Present
Worth
$ 160,000
90,000
110,000
750,000
500,000
230,000
270,000
360,000
2,470,000
740,000
$ 3,210,000
PD998.063.il
5-52
-------
described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. A description of
the major elements included in the remaining Table 5-13 line
items follows:
• General site preparation includes the costs to
remove and replace pavement, reroute a 12-inch-
diameter high-pressure gas line, and relocate a
light pole.
• Slurry wall includes the costs to install a soil-
bentonite slurry wall.
• Cap and regrade includes the costs to provide and
install the filter fabric, drainage system, and
clay cap.
• Resurface parking lot includes the costs to pave
the containment area.
• Monitoring (wells) includes the costs for install-
ing and monitoring groundwater monitoring wells.
Alternative 4A: Excavate-Contain-Cap (North Ditch Area Only)
A bypass would be constructed to divert surface water flow
around the highly contaminated areas of the Crescent Ditch
and Oval Lagoon (Figure 5-7). The bypass would fall directly
into Lake Michigan. The North Ditch soils would be dewatered
using well points and pumps. Well water would be routed to
an onsite water treatment plant for suspended solids and PCB
removal (to 1 ppb PCBs), then discharged to the lake or to a
sanitary sewer.
A slurry wall extending down into the underlying glacial
till would then be constructed around the Crescent Ditch and
Oval Lagoon to control movement of contaminated materials.
The excavated PCB-contaminated soils from the North Ditch
and about 3 ft of PCB-contaminated soil from the Crescent
Ditch area would be placed and compacted in the Oval Lagoon
area. Alternative 4A would control about 64 percent of all
the PCBs now found in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area. The
site would be capped with a 3-ft compacted clay layer to
seal in the contaminated soils and reduce infiltration of
surface water. The area would be resurfaced for parking.
This would raise the elevation of the Oval Lagoon area by 20
to 25 ft. Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed
around the site for detection of potential PCB migration.
North Ditch Bypass. A gravity pipeline bypass would be con-
structed to divert surface water flow around the highly con-
taminated areas, the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon. The
location of the proposed bypass is shown on Figure 5-7. This
bypass would collect drainage from the 36-inch-diameter storm
PD452.001 5-53
-------
drain (that flows north at the west edge of CMC's property),
from CMC plant roof drains, and from regraded areas north
and south of the Crescent Ditch. The bypass would discharge
to Lake Michigan. It would be constructed south of the sheet
piling just north of the east-west portion of the North Ditch.
The Parking Lot area would be regraded to divert surface
water flow to catch basins.
An area of PCB-contaminated soil approximately 15 ft deep by
25 ft wide from the North Ditch would be excavated and dis-
posed of in the Oval Lagoon area. Before excavation, the
existing sheet piling (along the north side of the North
Ditch) would be fitted with extensions and driven an esti-
mated 5 to 8 ft, penetrating into the confining clay layer.
Additional sheet piling would be driven on the south side of
the North Ditch. The area would then be dewatered. After
excavation, the area would be backfilled and the gravity
pipeline installed.
Containment/Encapsulation. A slurry wall would be constructed
to completely encircle the contaminated area. The proposed
containment area is shown on Figure 5-7. The existing glacial
till beneath the site would be relied upon to act as a bottom
seal. An impervious cap of 3 ft of compacted clay covered
by asphaltic concrete would be used to cover the top of the
containment area.
Temporary Storage Requirements. North Ditch—Alternative 4A
does not require temporary storage. It does, however, require
long-term, onsite storage.
Water Treatment. Groundwater removed from the areas to be
excavated may need to be treated before it can be discharged
back into the environment. The water treatment process would
be the same used in Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. The ground-
water would be pumped directly to a 200-gpm package water
treatment plant for treatment, and discharged to Lake Michigan
or to a sanitary sewer. The treatment plant would be used
for about 2 months.
Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. In North Ditch—Alternative 4A, PCBs
would be contained onsite. Groundwater monitoring wells
would be required to determine whether PCBs were migrating
from the containment area. Should contaminant movement be
detected, an internal drainage system could be installed to
maintain internal water levels lower than external water
levels so that any leakage is into the containment area.
The area would be capped. The cap would need to be properly
maintained in order to continue to be an impermeable barrier
to surface water.
PD452.001 5-54
-------
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements/ and Transporta-
tion Plans. For North Ditch—Alternative 4A, no PCB-con-
taminated solids would require offsite disposal. USEPA waivers
in accordance with 40 CFR 761 under TSCA would be required to
leave the PCBs onsite. About 70,800 yd3 of soil containing
about 495,500 Ib of PCBs would be contained in-place on the
site.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for North Ditch—Alternative 4A include:
• Pile driver
• Backhoe
• Front end loader
• Dump trucks
• Construction dewatering equipment
• Slurry trench excavator
• Slurry mixing equipment
• Bulldozer
• Compactor
• Paving equipment
• Electrical lighting
• Water service for contractor's temporary facilities
Special Engineering Considerations. For North Ditch—Alter-
native 4A, the following special engineering considerations
are presented.
Engineering considerations concerning construction dewatering
(groundwater) include:
• Rate and duration of well point pumping before
satisfactory moisture content in soils is obtained
Engineering considerations concerning excavation include:
• Possible contamination behind sheet piles adjacent
to the North Ditch
Engineering considerations concerning the water treatment
process include:
PD452.001 5-55
-------
• Determining the cost-effectiveness of replacing
activated carbon with Klensorb for soluble PCS re-
moval if the activated carbon should become blinded
by the oily nature of PCBs
• Water quality requirements for discharging to the
lake or to a sanitary sewer
Engineering considerations concerning containment and capping
of the North Ditch area include:
• Depth and construction techniques for the slurry
wall to ensure its integrity
• The effects of PCBs on slurry walls
• Selection of cap materials and determination of
correct placement methods
• Design of asphaltic concrete pavement for prolonged
service as a membrane
Reliability. North Ditch—Alternative 4A would not dispose
of PCB-contaminated soil offsite but would contain and cap
the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon area. There is no data
on long-term reliability of this alternative. The shoreline
of Lake Michigan is changing and may encroach upon the con-
tainment area. Groundwater fluctuations may cause drying
and cracking of the slurry walls or the clay cap. Freezing
and thawing action may also cause deterioration of the slurry
walls and cap. The underlying glacial till may have cracks,
fissures, or pockets of more permeable material through which
PCBs could migrate. The containment area must be monitored
to permit ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness and inte-
grity of the slurry walls and clay cap. The reliability of
the containment can be enhanced with development of addi-
tional design details:
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by ter-
minating the slurry and cap wall below the
frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an inter-
nal drainage system could be installed to maintain
internal water levels lower than external levels
so that any leakage would be into the containment
area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCB
PD452.001 5-56
-------
contamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. North
Ditch—Alternative 4A is considered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for North Ditch—
Alternative 4A is presented in Table 5-14. This cost estimate
was developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The mobilization; health and safety requirements; engineering,
legal, and administration; and contingency costs included in
Table 5-14 for North Ditch—Alternative 4A are the same as
described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. A description of
the major elements included in the remaining Table 5-14 line
items follows:
• General site preparation includes the costs to
remove and relocate the chain link fence and rail-
road tracks, remove and replace pavement, reroute
the 10-inch-diameter sanitary sewer, relocate pro-
pane tanks, underpin the elevated water tank, and
install new manholes for rerouting the sewer.
• Bypass includes the costs to install the pipeline
around the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon areas
and through the east-west portion of the North
Ditch.
•
• Slurry wall includes the costs to install a
soil-bentonite slurry wall.
• Cap and grade includes the costs to provide and
install the filter fabric, drainage system, and
clay cap; to excavate material from the Crescent
Ditch area; and to place excavated material in the
Oval Lagoon area.
• Resurface includes the costs to pave the contain-
ment area.
• Monitoring (wells) includes the costs for install-
ing and monitoring the groundwater monitoring wells.
Alternative 4B; Excavate-Contain Part of E-W Portion of the
North Ditch-Cap (North Ditch Area Only)
A bypass would be constructed to divert surface water flow
around the highly contaminated areas of the Crescent Ditch
and Oval Lagoon (Figure 5-7). The bypass would fall direct-
ly into Lake Michigan. The North Ditch soils would be dewa-
tered using well points and pumps. Well water would be routed
to an onsite water treatment plant for suspended solids and
PCB removal (to 1 ppb PCBs), then discharged to the lake or
to a sanitary sewer.
PD452.001 5-57
-------
Table 5-14
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
NORTH DITCH
ALTERNATIVE 4A
EXCAVATE-CONTAIN-CAP
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Bypass
Slurry Wall
Cap and Grade
Resurface
Monitoring (wells)
Engineering, legal, and
administration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 480,000
260,000
110,000
3,510,000
610,000
410,000
100,000
20,000
930,000
$ 6,430,000
1,930,000
$ 8,360,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$240,000
40,000
280,000
80,000
$360,000
Present
Worth
$ 480,000
260,000
110,000
3,510,000
610,000
410,000
100,000
260,000
970,000
6,710,000
2,010,000
$ 8,720,000
PD998.063.12
5-58
-------
A slurry wall extending down into the underlying glacial till
would then be constructed around the Crescent Ditch and Oval
Lagoon to control movement of contaminated materials. The
excavated PCB-contaminated soils from the North Ditch and
about 3 ft of PCB-contaminated soil from the Crescent Ditch
area would be placed and compacted in the Oval Lagoon area.
This alternative would not address approximately 19,500 yd3
of soil containing 3,400 Ib of PCBs with concentrations between
50 and 5,000 ppm in the east-west portion of the North Ditch.
Alternative 4B, however, would control about 64 percent of'
all the PCBs now found in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
The site would be capped with a 3-ft compacted clay layer to
seal in the contaminated soils and reduce infiltration of
surface water. The area would be resurfaced for parking.
This would raise the elevation of the Oval Lagoon area by
about 10 ft. Groundwater monitoring wells would be installed
around the site for detection of potential PCB migration.
North Ditch Bypass. A gravity pipeline bypass would be con-
structed to divert surface water flow around the highly con-
taminated areas, the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon. The
location of the proposed bypass is shown on Figure 5-7.
This bypass would collect drainage from the 36-inch-diameter
storm drain (that flows north at the west edge of OMC' s
property), from OMC plant roof drains, and from regraded
areas north and south of the Crescent Ditch. The bypass
would discharge to Lake Michigan. It would be constructed
south of the sheet piling just north of the east-west por-
tion of the North Ditch. The Parking Lot area would be re-
graded to divert surface water flow to catch basins.
An area of PCB-contaminated soil approximately 10 ft deep by
7 ft wide would be excavated from the North Ditch and disposed
of in the Oval Lagoon area. The area would be dewatered.
After excavation, the area would be backfilled and the gravity
pipeline installed.
Containment/Encapsulation. A slurry wall would be constructed
to completely encircle the contaminated area. The proposed con-
tainment area is shown on Figure 5-7. The existing glacial till
beneath the site would be relied upon to act as a bottom seal.
An impervious cap of 3 ft of compacted clay covered by asphaltic
concrete would be used to cover the top of the containment area
and the east-west portion of the North Ditch (bypass area).
Temporary Storage Requirements. North Ditch—Alternative 4B
does not require temporary storage. It does, however, require
long-term, onsite storage.
Water Treatment. Groundwater removed from the areas to be
excavated may need to be treated before it can be discharged
back into the environment. The water treatment process would
be the same used in Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. The groundwater
PD452.001 5-59
-------
would be pumped directly to a 200-gpm package water treatment
plant for treatment, and discharged to Lake Michigan or to a
sanitary sewer. The treatment plant would be used for about
2 months.
Operation/ Maintenance, and Monitoring Requirements of the
Completed Remedy. In North Ditch—'Alternative 4B, PCBs
would be contained onsite. Groundwater monitoring wells
would be required to determine whether PCBs were migrating
from the containment area. Should contaminant movement be
detected, an internal drainage system could be installed to
maintain internal water levels lower than external water
levels so that any leakage is into the containment area.
The area would be capped. The cap would need to be properly
maintained in order to continue to be an impermeable barrier
to surface water.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. For North Ditch—Alternative 4B, no PCB-con-
taminated solids would require offsite disposal. USEPA
waivers in accordance with 40 CFR 761 under TSCA would be
required to leave the PCBs onsite. About 51,400 yd3 of soil
containing about 492,100 Ib of PCBs would be contained
in-place on the site.
Major Equipment. Major construction equipment and utilities
required for North Ditch—Alternative 4B include:
• Pile driver
• ' Backhoe
• Front end loader
• Dump trucks
• Construction dewatering equipment
• Slurry trench excavator
• Slurry mixing equipment
• Bulldozer
• Compactor
• Paving equipment
• Electrical lighting
• Water service for contractor's temporary facilities
PD452.001 5-60
-------
Special Engineering Considerations. For North Ditch—
Alternative 4B, the following special engineering considera-
tions are presented.
Engineering considerations concerning construction dewa-
tering (groundwater) include:
• Rate and duration of well point pumping before
satisfactory moisture content in soils is obtained
Engineering considerations concerning excavation include:
• Possible contamination behind sheet piles adjacent
to the North Ditch
Engineering considerations concerning the water treatment
process include:
• Determining the cost-effectiveness of replacing
activated carbon with Klensorb for soluble PCB re-
moval if the activated carbon should become blinded
by the oily nature of PCBs
• Water quality requirements for discharging to the
lake or to a sanitary sewer
Engineering considerations concerning containment and cap-
ping of the North Ditch area include:
• Depth and construction techniques for the slurry
wall to ensure its integrity
• The effects of PCBs on slurry walls
• Selection of cap materials and determination of
correct placement methods
• Design of asphaltic concrete pavement for pro-
longed service as a membrane
Reliability. North Ditch—Alternative 4B would not dispose
of PCB-contaminated soil offsite but would contain and cap
the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon area. There is no data
on long-term reliability of this alternative. The shoreline
of Lake Michigan is changing and may encroach upon the con-
tainment area. Groundwater fluctuations may cause drying
and cracking of the slurry walls or the clay cap. Freezing
and thawing action may also cause deterioration of the slurry
walls and cap. The underlying glacial till may have cracks,
fissures, or pockets of more permeable material through which
PCBs could migrate. The containment area must be monitored
to permit ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness and inte-
grity of the slurry walls and clay cap. The reliability of
PD452.001 5-61
-------
the containment can be enhanced with development of addi-
tional design details:
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by terminat-
ing the slurry and cap wall below the frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an inter-
nal drainage system could be installed to maintain
internal water levels lower than external levels
so that any leakage would be into the containment
area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCB con-
tamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. North
Ditch—Alternative 4B is considered reliable.
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for North Ditch—
Alternative 4B is presented in Table 5-15. This cost estimate
was developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B.
The mobilization; health and safety requirements; engine-
ering, legal, and administration; and contingency costs in-
cluded in Table 5-15 for North Ditch—Alternative 4B are the
same as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. A de-
scription of the major elements included in the remaining
Table 5-15 line items follows:
• General site preparation includes the costs to
remove and relocate the chain link fence and rail-
road tracks, remove and replace pavement, reroute
the 10-inch-diameter sanitary sewer, relocate pro-
pane tanks, underpin the elevated water tank, and
install new manholes for rerouting the sewer.
• Bypass includes the costs to install the pipeline
around the Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon areas
and through the east-west portion of the North
Ditch.
• Slurry wall includes the costs to install a
soil-bentonite slurry wall.
• Cap and grade includes the costs to provide and
install the filter fabric, drainage system, and
clay cap; to excavate material from the Crescent
Ditch area; and to place excavated material in the
Oval Lagoon area.
PD452.001 5-62
-------
Table 5-15
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
NORTH DITCH
ALTERNATIVE 4B
EXCAVATE-CONTAIN-CAP
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
General site preparation
Bypass
S'lurry Wall
Cap and Grade
Resurface
Monitoring (wells)
Engineering, legal, and
administration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Capital
Costs
$ 220,000
120,000
110,000
1,050,000
610,000
300,000
100,000
20,000
430,000
$ 2,960,000
890,000
$ 3,850,000
Present
Worth of
O&M Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$240,000
40,000
280,000
80,000
$360,000
Present
Worth
$ 220,000
120,000
110,000
1,050,000
610,000
300,000
100,000
260,000
470,000
3,240,000
970,000
$ 4,210,000
PD998.098.1
5-63
-------
• Resurface includes the costs to pave the contain-
ment area.
• Monitoring (wells) includes the costs for install-
ing and monitoring the groundwater monitoring
wells.
Subalternative I; Select Excavation
This subalternative would be used only in conjunction with
Alternatives 4A or 4B. "Hot spots" would be removed from
the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area and disposed of offsite.
"Hot spots" consist of 5,500 yd3 of soils with PCB concentra-
tions in excess of 10,000 ppm. Subalternative I would remove
and dispose of offsite 57 percent of all the PCBs now found
in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area (440,500 Ib of PCBs).
These soils would be excavated and then loaded into trucks
for transportation to an approved disposal site.
Offsite Disposal Needs, Permit Requirements, and Transporta-
tion Plans. These items would be the same as for Slip No. 3—
Alternative 2B, except that about 5,500 yd3 of PCB-contaminated
solids would require disposal. For Alternative 4A in conjunc-
tion with Subalternative I, about 65,300 yd3 of soil
containing 55,000 Ib of PCBs would be contained in-place in
the containment area. For Alternative 4B, about 45,900 yd3
of sediment containing 51,600 Ib of PCBs would be contained
in-place in the containment area. A permit to operate con-
struction equipment under the existing power line would be
required.
Special Engineering Considerations. The following special
engineering considerations are presented.
Engineering considerations concerning disposal of the PCB-
contaminated soils include:
• Ensuring that the soils have a nonflowable consis-
tency
• Ensuring that moisture or solids do not escape
during transport and disposal of the soils
• Controlling volatilization
Reliability. North Ditch—Subalternative I would remove and
dispose of PCB-contaminated soils with concentrations greater
than 10,000 ppm from the Crescent/Ditch Oval Lagoon area.
Subalternative I includes excavation and then disposal in a
licensed chemical waste landfill. This subalternative would
be effective in abating further PCB contamination of the
Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. Subalternative I is con-
sidered reliable.
PD452.001 5-64
-------
Costs. The Order-of-Magnitude cost estimate for North Ditch—
Subalternative I is presented in Table 5-16. This cost esti-
mate was developed as described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B,
The mobilization; health and safety requirements; engineering,
legal, and administration; and contingency costs included in
Table 5-16 for North Ditch—Subalternative I are the same as
described for Slip No. 3—Alternative 2B. The description
of the major elements included in the remaining Table 5-16
line items follows:
• Excavation includes the costs to excavate the "hot
spots" in Crescent Ditch and Oval Lagoon.
• Transportation and disposal includes the costs to
haul the contaminated material to an approved haz-
ardous waste landfill.
PD452.001 5-65
-------
Table 5-16
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
NORTH DITCH
SUBALTERNATIVE I
SELECT EXCAVATION
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Description
Mobilization
Health and safety requirements
Excavation
Transportation and disposal
Engineering, legal, and
administration
Subtotal
Contingency
Total
Present
Capital Worth of
Costs O&M Costs
$ 40,000
20,000
150,000
280,000
80,000
570,000
170,000
$ 740,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Present
Worth
$ 40,000
20,000
150,000
280,000
80,000
570,000
170,000
$ 740,000
PD998.063.13
5-66
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
IP
I
IP
?za
Jo?'
SSi °"
~n >n C 5
ill II f
i
i
^O DO
ss S§
f
tn
en
MICHIGAN
APFBoxir-lArE &L
ui in in in U>
g S ^§ d
El^S-
gwmaf
«|*H£2
S — o^
™I?m
^l2S
"*SS
315
3) i—
So
i2
5S
>
••/~!
52
*1
p
-------
-------
were recorded during the summer and maximum concentrations
occurred in the winter. BOD and COD measurements are made
to determine the potential effect of oxygen-demanding mate-
rial on the aquatic environment. Although BOD5 often varies
seasonally, this trend is not reflected in the limited data
available for the Waukegan area. The results of samples
taken at five stations along the western shore of Lake
Michigan during the months of April through October in 1978
and 1979 did not indicate a seasonal trend in COD. Monthly
BOD5 and COD values recorded over a 1-year period did not
indicate a seasonal pattern at three inshore stations near
Waukegan.
Recreational and industrial activities are major sources of
oil and grease in surface waters. Levels of these substances
often are higher in harbor areas due to commercial or recrea-
tional navigation and the relatively restricted flow patterns.
Sampling for oil and grease was done at several stations
near the US Steel plant south of Waukegan. The levels mea-
sured generally were less than 1.0 mg/1 in March and July
for the inshore stations. Offshore, the level at one station
reached a high of 9.0 mg/1. Two offshore stations located
between Waukegan and the US Steel plant had concentrations
of 9.0 mg/1 and 2.5 mg/1, respectively.
The extensive recreational and commercial boating activities
in Waukegan Harbor are likely to result in periodic increases
in turbidity and other related pollutants wherever depths
average less than about 10 feet. Other pollutant sources to
Lake Michigan include permitted discharges for local industry
and for the Waukegan sewage treatment plant. Heavy industrial
use of the lands surrounding Waukegan Harbor more than likely
results in seasonal high surface runoff-borne loads of heavy
metals and dust. The cumulative result of the surrounding
industrial setting, recreational boating activity, commercial
shipping, and lack of flow-through water movement is a highly
turbid harbor. The fact that periodic maintenance dredging
has been conducted in the harbor indicates considerable
sediment deposition from numerous sources.
TERRESTRIAL BIOTA
The Waukegan Harbor area lies within the Lake Michigan Dunes
Section of the Northeastern Morainal Division of Illinois.
This is the most recently glaciated area of the state, and
many rare species of plants are present in Illinois Beach
State Park, approximately 1.5 miles north of Waukegan harbor.
The natural communities present in the harbor area include
those characteristic of and limited to the shore of Lake
Michigan (beach and foredune communities) and those charac-
teristic of disturbed areas (successional communities and
developed land).
PD525.022 6-5
-------
Vegetation
The area to the east of the project site is a public beach,
the major part of which is unvegetated, lake-deposited sand.
The predominant plants in the beach area are sea rocket,
winged pigweed, and cocklebur. Sand-binding plants such as
marram grass, common bugseed, and Canada wild rye help to
stabilize the dunes and provide substrates on which various
insects and spiders live. The more protected foredune areas
behind the strand contain species of plants such as beach
wormwood, little bluestem grass, silverweed, bearberry, and
trailing juniper. Cottonwoods, dogwoods, willows, and other
shrubs and trees are present at the western edge of the beach.
Successional communities have developed in the disturbed
area between the cottonwood-willow band and Seashore Road.
Large chunks of concrete and rocks have been piled at this
location. Rushes, blue vervain, wild bergamot, and other
weedy species are present in most spots around and to the
west of these slabs.
Honey locust trees have become established (possibly
planted) in the area immediately north of the concession
stand at the north end of the beach parking lot. Rushes
also are present in wet spots in this area. Squirrel-tail
grass and other weeds are common in disturbed sites around
the picnic shelter and the parking lot.
Silver maples, oaks, and conifers have been planted adjacent
to the North Beach Park parking lot. The southwestern part
of the beach has a grass cover and contains weeping willows,
cottonwoods, and Scotch pines. Beach Park, located at the
west edge of the inlet, also has a grass understory and con-
tains cottonwoods and crabapples.
The areas on the western edge of the project site in the
vicinity of the railroad track contain weedy communities
typical of disturbed ground. There are thickets of willows,
cottonwoods, and wild grape in the moister sites west of the
tracks. Prairie cord grass, butterfly weed, black-eyed
susans, and other species typical of prairie communities are
present in this area.
A marsh community is located to the north of the project
site, adjacent to the cooling ponds on the property owned by
Commonwealth Edison. Some of the species of wildlife that
are present in the Waukegan Harbor area undoubtedly feed or
rest in this area also.
The center of the OMC vacant property contains spoil piles
covered with shrubby and weedy successional vegetation
similar to that described previously. Various species of
coniferous and deciduous trees have been planted on the
property for landscaping purposes.
PD525.022 6-6
-------
Animals
Spiders, tiger beetles, antlions, grasshoppers, termites,
digger wasps, and various species of beetles and flies are
the typical residents of the beach and foredune areas. Few
species of vertebrate animals other than gulls and shorebirds
utilize these areas.
Amphibians and Reptiles
Amphibians and reptiles are not likely to be present in the
two parks, but may be present in the disturbed areas in the
vicinity of the site. Fowler's toad may be associated with
the beach community, but no individuals of this species have
been observed in Illinois Beach State Park, and it is unlikely
that they are present in the harbor area. The American toad
and the eastern hognose snake probably are present in the
moist areas to the west and north of North Beach.
Mammals
Because mammals are more mobile than amphibians and reptiles,
a few species may be present in the project area at some
time during the year. However, the relative scarcity of
vegetation and the amount of human activity in the vicinity
would tend to cause them to avoid the area except during the
early morning and evening. It is likely that prairie deer
mice, eastern cottontails, and other small mammals are pres-
ent in the Waukegan Harbor area, primarily along the northern
end of North Beach. Skunks, raccoons, and other predators
may visit the area periodically. Muskrats currently use
lodges in the marsh on the Commonwealth Edison property, but
these animals are not likely to enter the beach areas in the
vicinity of the harbor.
Birds
The shore of Lake Michigan serves as a natural migration
route and resting area for birds. Many species pass through
the Waukegan Harbor area during spring and autumn migration
periods and stop to rest on the beach at North Beach Park,
on the breakwaters, or in the calm water area between the
breakwaters. Other species, such as the black tern, come to
the harbor for the summer after breeding in inland areas.
Some species such as gulls also over-winter in the harbor
area. At least 152 species of birds have been observed in
the vicinity of Waukegan Harbor. Twenty-seven of these are
fish-eating species, 10 of which reside in the harbor area
during the summer or the winter.
PD525.022 6-7
-------
A breeding colony of common terns, which are classified as
endangered in Illinois, is present on the Commonwealth Edison
property immediately north of the harbor area. Approximately
40 adult black terns and 2 juveniles (a species also classi-
fied as endangered in Illinois) were observed during a field
visit by WAPORA personnel on July 19, 1981. The adult terns
were roosting on the north breakwater at the entrance to the
harbor and presumably were feeding on fish from the harbor
area.
The gulls in the harbor area generally use North Beach as a
day roost. They roost on the beach overnight and during the
early morning, and then move out to the lake after people
begin to arrive at the beach.
Because of the number of migrating species and the ease of
observation of the birds from the pier that extends for a
considerable distance into Lake Michigan, the harbor is a
favorite observation area for local birdwatchers, especially
during the spring and autumn migration periods. Many species
of shorebirds have been observed along the shoreline to the
north of the harbor, up to Illinois Beach State Park. North
Beach may be too disturbed to attract most of these species.
Of the three habitat types (marshes, shores, and open water)
accessible to birds in the Waukegan Harbor area, the open
water habitat of the harbor and Lake Michigan is by far the
most extensive. The species that utilize this habitat type,
such as ducks, mergansers, and gulls, have the largest popu-
lations .
Threatened or Endangered Species—Federal Classification
The bald eagle, classified as endangered by the U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, has been observed in the Waukegan
Harbor area during migration periods. No other species of
terrestrial biota currently listed as endangered or threat-
ened is known to be present in the area at any time during
the year.
Threatened or Endangered Species—State Classification
Fifteen species of birds and at least five species of plants
classified as endangered in Illinois are known or likely to
be present in the project area. Two species of birds and
one species of plant classified as threatened in Illinois
also have been observed in the Waukegan Harbor area.
Although the range of the spotted turtle may include some
parts of Illinois Beach State Park, and yellow-headed black-
birds have been observed in the marsh to the east of the
Commonwealth Edison cooling ponds, neither species has been
observed in the Waukegan Harbor area. Both species are
classified as endangered in Illinois. Nineteen species of
PD525.022 6-8
-------
birds have been included on the Blue List of the National
Audubon Society for 1981. This is an early warning list of
species that are determined to be declining, threatened, or
vulnerable on the basis of nominations from knowledgeable
observers in all regions of the United States.
AQUATIC BIOTA
Many researchers have studied the chemical and biological
components of the aquatic habitats of harbors located along
the shores of Lake Michigan. Most have reported that the
harbors often were severely degraded. Harbors and other
partially enclosed areas are very susceptible to environ-
mental degradation because of inputs from adjacent popula-
tion centers and industrial processes. This effect is
further compounded by the limited water exchange (dilution)
with the open lake.
Fish
Data from 1971 studies by Industrial Bio-test Laboratories,
Inc., indicate that, in general, alewife, lake trout, rainbow
smelt, bloater, coho salmon, brown trout, lake whitefish,
and yellow perch were the most abundant species within the
Waukegan-Zion area. (Detailed temporal and spatial varia-
tions for each of these species are discussed in the WAPORA
document (048) .)
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrates are defined as those visible
organisms that inhabit and are a part of the bottom zone of
a water body. Benthic macroinvertebrates are considered to
be important secondary producers or consumers when assessing
potential impacts because the organisms are relatively im-
mobile; thus, the community composition, abundance, and dis-
tribution of these organisms are a reflection of aquatic
conditions in the recent past. These characteristics of the
benthic community are determined by the oxygen content of
the waters, sediment composition, the degree and type of
pollutants (organic, inorganic), scouring by wave action,
and other factors.
In the food web, benthic macroinvertebrates are secondary
consumers of detritus, plankton, and other invertebrates, as
well as a significant source of food for fish. It is through
this food source that PCBs generally are considered to move
into fish.
The composition of the macroinvertebrate community near
Waukegan, as determined in a 1974 study by Limnetics, Inc.,
was dominated by aquatic worms, freshwater shrimp, flies,
and midges. Snails, clams, sow bugs, and water mites also
were present, but in lesser numbers. Most of the organisms
PD525.022 6-9
-------
present are considered by researchers to be either faculta-
tive (found in moderately polluted waters and having a wide
range of tolerance of organic pollution) or tolerant (cap-
able of thriving under grossly polluted conditions).
Limnetics, Inc., also calculated diversity and equitability.
Diversity is a measure of the species richness and the dis-
tribution among species; the greater the diversity, the
better the condition of the aquatic population. Equitabil-
ity is a measure of the component of diversity affected by
the distribution of individuals among species. Equal num-
bers of all species present results in an equitability value
of 1.0; values greater than 0.8 are indicative of unpolluted
conditions. Limnetics, Inc., reported that for the shallow
locations sampled, diversity ranged from 0.000 (only one
species found) to 2.3875 and that equitability ranged from
0.000 to 0.9284. It should be noted that the use of these
indices is hindered by naturally low diversity in Lake
Michigan and is further hindered in this case by severe
stress from wave action in shallow, unstable areas.
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton occupy a unique position in the ecosystem of
Lake Michigan. They represent the transition stage from the
physical and chemical aspects to the higher-order biological
communities. Thus the phytoplankton community can act as an
early warning indicator of changes in the chemical nature of
the aquatic ecosystem.
Several intensive studies designed to detect seasonal changes
in species composition and abundance were conducted in south-
ern Lake Michigan in the 1960s and 1970s. Industrial Bio-
test Laboratories, Inc., sampled phytoplankton communities
at several locations near Waukegan and Zion in 1972, The
following results were obtained:
• Diatoms were the most predominant group, consti-
tuting 60 percent of the biovolume.
• Blue-green algae constituted 26 percent of the
biovolume.
• Green algae had the highest species diversity and
constituted 31 percent of the species present.
The inshore location nearest to Waukegan produced the highest
densities of green algae and of all phytoplankton; this was
the result of extremely high concentrations of the diatoms
Tabellaria floccosa and Fragilaria crotonensis.
PD525.022 6-10
-------
Zooplankton
Zooplankton represent an important link in the nutrient
cycling and energy flow through an aquatic environment.
Zooplankton graze on phytoplankton and serve as a source of
food for many invertebrates and fish. The following summary
is based on data from 1971 and 1974 studies by Industrial
Bio-test Laboratories, Inc., and Limnetics, Inc., respect-
ively.
A single seasonal maximum was noted; populations were rela-
tively low from January through May, peaked in August, and
then declined. Copepods comprised more than 80 percent of
the total zooplankton during the winter and spring. Rotifers
accounted for 50 percent of the total during the early summer,
Cladocera were the predominant (50 percent) organisms during
August. The numerically predominant species included Bosmina
longirostris, Cyclops bicuspidatus thomasi, Daphnia retro-
curva, Diaptomus ashlandi, and Diaptomus minutus.
Threatened and Endangered Species
No species of fish classified as endangered or threatened by
the U.S. Department of the Interior are known to inhabit the
Waukegan area. No species classified as endangered by the
State of Illinois have been collected in the Waukegan area.
Three species of fish classified as threatened in Illinois
(cisco, longnose sucker, and lake whitefish) were collected
in limited numbers in the area in 1971. Of these, only the
lake whitefish was reported, in 1978 and 1979 studies, to
have occurred in the Waukegan-Zion area in recent years.
These studies reported that only limited numbers of lake
whitefish were present.
LAND USE
The existing land use in the City of Waukegan in the vicinity
of the project area is largely industrial, with a number of
commercial, open space and recreational, and other public
land uses. All of the land uses east of the Eastern, Joliet,
and Elgin Railroad line are water-related or water-dependent
activities that must be located close to Lake Michigan.
These activities include industrial uses that require water-
borne transportation; commercial uses that serve boating,
fishing, or other recreational activities; and municipal
uses, such as the public beach, the wastewater treatment
plant, and the water filtration plant, that derive their
functionality from the lake.
Nearly the entire harbor is surrounded with industrial or
heavy commercial uses, including OMC, Goldbond Building
Products, Huron Cements, and the Waukegan Port District.
The only remaining open space around the harbor is owned by
OMC. Other land uses within the project area include Larsen
PD525.022 6-11
-------
Marine Services, Falcon Marine, the City of Waukegan Water
Filtration Plant, the North Shore Sanitary District (NSSD)
Wastewater Treatment Plant, and public beach and beach house
facilities along the full extent of the publicly owned Lake
Michigan shoreline.
There are ten public boat launching ramps at the south end
of the harbor. A boat hoist also is available at Larsen
Marine adjacent to Slip No. 3. Because Waukegan Harbor is
the only protected public harbor on the northern Illinois
shoreline (public access to Great Lakes Harbor to the south
is restricted to boat owners renting moorage space from the
U.S. Navy) and a large number of boat launching ramps are
available, Waukegan Harbor supports a large amount of rec-
reational boating activity and attracts boaters from through-
out Lake County, Illinois, and from Kenosha County, Wisconsin.
In 1980, the City of Waukegan developed three major land use
objectives to be considered in the establishment of a land
use plan:
• To improve public health and welfare through
reductions in air, noise, and water pollution
• To conserve the natural resources of the area
• To protect existing scenic areas and to create new
scenic areas
The City's plans to encourage recreational and open space
land use along the Lake Michigan lakefront, including the
Waukegan Harbor area, are consistent with these objectives.
POPULATION
The City of Waukegan is the most populated municipality in
Lake County. The official 1980 Census figure is 67,653.
From 1970 to 1980, population growth in Waukegan (3.2 per-
cent) was markedly slower than in Lake County as a whole
(15.1 percent). Population projections for the City of
Waukegan for the year 2000 range from 87,269 to 111,301.
Currently, all of the residential development in Waukegan is
located outside of the harbor area. This development trend
is expected to continue because no land in the harbor area
is zoned residential, and little land in the area is suitable
for residential development.
FJttPLOYMENT
The Waukegan Harbor area is the major industrial center in
the City of Waukegan and is an important component of the
industrial district located along the shore of Lake Michigan
between North Chicago and Waukegan. Currently, the 15
publicly and privately owned establishments located in the
PD525.022 6-12
-------
harbor area employ 12 percent of the persons employed in
Waukegan. The total number of jobs in the harbor area is
approximately 3,500.
Unemployment in the City of Waukegan was high during 1980.
The unemployment rate of 9.8 percent was higher than the
Lake County rate of 6.9 percent, the Illinois rate of
8.3 percent, and the national rate of 7.1 percent. This
rate may reflect the concentration of Waukegan employment in
manufacturing industries that have experienced slow growth
during recent years.
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
A cursory survey of the employers in the harbor area indicates
that much of the economic activity either is water-dependent
or water-related. The Outboard Marine Corporation, Larsen
Marine, Falcon Marine, Waukegan Port District, Waukegan Yacht
Club, and Waukegan Water Filtration Plant depend upon the
harbor and Lake Michigan for their operations. Huron Cements
and Goldbond Building Products also depend upon a working
harbor for their operations.
Industrial activity in the Waukegan Harbor area is expected
to remain stable with little expansion. The value of land
in the harbor area for recreation and open space uses will
increase. Planned industrial growth will be directed to the
west of the harbor area. Employment is expected to remain
concentrated in manufacturing industries. Increases in the
retail, transportation and utilities, and miscellaneous
services sectors also are expected.
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Port Facilities
The Waukegan Harbor is a 14-acre interior basin with a 200-
ft-wide, 19-ft-deep channel. The harbor facilities are main-
tained and operated by the Waukegan Port District and are
used for both recreational and industrial purposes. The
harbor is open from April 15 to November 15. The harbor
facilities provide the Waukegan area with access to world
markets. The majority of the harbor traffic, however, con-
sists of pleasure boats. There are more than 200 20-ft to
40-ft pleasure boats moored in the harbor. An expansion of
the harbor is underway and will add 750 public mooring slips.
Highway Facilities
The road network near Waukegan is comprised of publicly and
privately owned roads. Interstate Highway 94 is located
approximately 6 miles west of Waukegan Harbor, and the near-
est interchange is at Grand Avenue (Route 132) . The City of
Waukegan has established a truck route system with eight
PD525.022 6-13
-------
designated truck routes. The truck routes are heavily
traveled, but substantial additional capacity is available.
Railroad Facilities
The Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (C&NW)
and the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railroad Company (EJ&E)
operate freight lines in the western portion of the harbor
area. In general, operations on both sets of tracks are
light and therefore do not interfere with automobile 'traffic
patterns.
RECREATION AND TOURISM
Many types of recreation facilities and opportunities are
available at Waukegan Harbor. The Illinois Department of
Conservation, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, has esti-
mated that Waukegan Harbor and offshore areas experience the
heaviest fishing pressure of any area along the Illinois
coastline of Lake Michigan. In addition to fishing, a sub-
stantial number of people use the Waukegan Harbor for sail-
ing, picnicking, or sightseeing. The beach to the north and
east of the harbor is used for swimming, sunbathing, volley-
ball, and public events. Recreational facilities in the
harbor area in addition to the boat mooring and public
launching areas include the Waukegan Yacht Club, the
Warren G. Sivert Park, and the south breakwater.
The City sponsors five festivals each year at the public
beach. In 1981, between 70,000 and 80,000 people were expec-
ted to attend these festivals. Because there are only 250
public parking spaces available at the beach, the City has
an informal arrangement with OMC to use the vacant area
across from the beach for parking for the festivals. Appro-
ximately 2,500 cars can be accommodated in this area.
SEWER AND UTILITY LINES
Storm and Sanitary Sewers
The North Shore Sanitary District (NSSD) and the City of
Waukegan provide storm and sanitary sewers in the project
area. The system in the vicinity of the North Ditch con-
sists of a 54-inch-diameter gravity sanitary sewer, a 48-
inch-diameter gravity combined sewer, and a 54-inch-diameter
force main. These sewers are located parallel to each other
in an east-west direction just north of the south property
line of the NSSD Waukegan treatment plant, which parallels
the North Ditch. A sanitary sewer traverses the vacant lot
owned by OMC in the vicinity of the proposed lagoon con-
struction site. Another sewer runs north from the water
filtration facilities near the harbor mouth along the beach
to the NSSD treatment plant. This sewer was installed in
1978 to carry filter-backwash solids away for treatment and
disposal.
PD525.022 6-14
-------
Water Lines
No water mains exist in the immediate vicinity of the North
Ditch. There is a 24-inch water main in the right-of-way of
Seahorse Drive. Individual service lines extend from this
main.
Natural Gas Lines
The North Shore Gas Company provides natural gas to the proj-
ect area. The system consists of a 12-inch-diameter gas
main located along the private road that extends from the
northwest corner of the OMC property east and south to
Seahorse Drive. The main continues along the north-south
section of Seahorse Drive to the Waukegan Water Filtration
Plant. Two vault regulators are located south of the east-
west section of Seahorse Drive on the vacant OMC property.
Electrical Lines
Commonwealth Edison provides electrical service to the proj-
ect area. Underground and overhead facilities are located
in the vicinity of the North Ditch. Underground facilities
are located in the harbor itself and on the vacant parcel of
land owned by OMC.
Telephone Lines
The Illinois Bell Telephone Company provides telephone ser-
vice to the project area. Most of the telephone cables are
located in street rights-of-way. Service cables extend to
individual properties.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No landmarks on the National Register of Historic Places are
located in the harbor area, and no historical or archaeologi-
cal sites are known to exist there.
According to the Waukegan Historical Society, five sites of
local significance are located in the harbor area: a mem-
orial shelter at Leisure Park, a memorial boardwalk, a band-
shell that was constructed through the efforts of the Wauke-
gan Exchange Club, a historical marker that commemorates
five explorers who were present in the Waukegan area during
the 1670s and a beach pavilion presented to the people of
Waukegan in July 1940. The bricks used in the front pillars
of the pavilion came from the old Waukegan lighthouse, which
was razed in 1938.
PD525.022 6-15
-------
PART 2: IMPACTS OF NO ACTION
SLIP NO. 3
The No Action alternative will leave PCB concentrations in
excess of 10,000 ppm in the localized area of Slip No. 3
near the former OMC outfall and concentrations in excess of
500 ppm in the rest of Slip No. 3 sediments. This represents
an estimated 305,200 Ib of PCBs (008, 016). PCBs in these
concentrations are regulated by 40 CFR 761 under TSCA. Ap-
proximately 98.4 percent of all the PCBs now found in Slip
No. 3 and the Upper Harbor are located in Slip No. 3.
Without cleanup, Slip No. 3 will continue to contribute to
the estimated 22 Ib of PCBs released into Lake Michigan each
year from Waukegan Harbor water (based on a steady state
model) (035). The Waukegan area will continue to represent
the most significant contributor to Lake Michigan PCB con-
tamination, since it holds the largest known uncontained PCB
mass in the lake basin. The potential for volatilization of
PCBs will continue, contributing to the estimated 12 to 40 Ib
of PCBs that are released from the harbor into the local
airshed each year (007, 030).
UPPER HARBOR
The No Action alternative will leave PCB concentrations between
50 and 500 ppm in the Upper Harbor sediments. This represents
an estimated 5,000 Ib of PCBs (008, 016). PCBs in these
concentrations are regulated by 40 CFR 761 under TSCA. Approxi-
mately 1.6 percent of all the PCBs now found in Slip No. 3
and the Upper Harbor are located in the Upper Harbor.
Measured concentrations of total PCBs in the water column
range from 0.6 ppb in the Upper Harbor to less than 0.01 ppb
in the Lake region directly offshore from the harbor (035).
Without cleanup, the Upper Harbor PCBs will continue to
contribute to the estimated 22 Ib of PCBs released into Lake
Michigan each year from Waukegan Harbor water. The poten-
tial for volatilization of PCBs would continue, contributing
to the estimated 12 to 40 Ib of PCBs that are released from
the harbor to the local airshed each year (007, 030).
NORTH DITCH
The No Action alternative will leave an estimated 495,500 Ib
of PCBs in the North Ditch area soils. Concentrations in
excess of 10,000 ppm are in a localized area of the Crescent
Ditch and Oval Lagoon, and concentrations between 50 and
10,000 ppm are in the rest of the North Ditch soils (001,
057). PCBs in these concentrations are regulated by 40 CFR
761 under TSCA.
PD525.022 6-16
-------
Average water column PCB concentrations in the North Ditch
were reported to be about 7 ppb with peak values during rain-
fall events of 80 to 160 ppb (035).
Without action, offsite drainage entering the North Ditch
will continue to become contaminated, discharging PCBs into
Lake Michigan. Groundwater resources will continue to be
contaminated. It is estimated that 7 to 20 Ib of PCBs are
discharged annually into Lake Michigan from the North Ditch
(032, 035).
Volatilization estimates for newly exposed contaminated sands
with levels of 1,000 ppm PCBs are 5,375 ug/m2/hr. The vola-
tilization rate will decrease with time as the PCBs near the
surface are volatilized (007). Existing air contamination
from North Ditch waters is estimated at 15 Ib/yr (004).
PARKING LOT
The No Action alternative would leave an estimated 277,700 Ib
of PCBs in the soils under the Parking Lot in concentrations
from 50 to over 5,000 ppm (001). PCBs in these concentrations
are regulated by 40 CFR 761 under TSCA.
The groundwater is within 3 ft of the surface of the Parking
Lot area, resulting in contamination of this water. It is
estimated that the slowly moving water will begin releasing
some 8 Ib per day of PCBs into Lake Michigan in approxi-
mately 60 years (048) . This will result in further con-
tamination of local water and soil, which will continue for
decades thereafter.
Although volatilization of contaminated soil in the Parking
Lot area does not appear to be occurring now because it is
paved, the potential exists if the soil is disturbed.
Grading, trenching, drilling, digging, or other activities
necessary for utility installation, drainage, or other
construction projects could cause volatilization of PCBs.
IMPACTS ON FISH
The USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for protection of
freshwater aquatic life from PCB chronic toxicity is 0.014 ppb
(088). The lowest reported toxic concentration for freshwater
aquatic life for PCB acute toxicity is 2.0 ppb (085). Total
reported PCB concentrations in surface water at the OMC site
range from about 7 ppb or more in the North Ditch and 0.6 ppb
in Waukegan Harbor to less than 0.01 ppb in Lake Michigan
directly offshore from Waukegan Harbor. About 60 percent of
the total harbor PCBs in the water column is in the dissolved
form. The water column PCB concentrations vary over a range
of about 1.5 to 2.0 orders of magnitude (035).
PD525.022 6-17
-------
Fish accumulate PCBs in their tissues by uptake from the
water in which they live and by ingestion of aquatic organ-
isms, insects, and plants that have taken up PCBs from their
environment. It has been demonstrated that fish bioaccumu-
late PCBs to factors of 100,000 or more times the ambient
water concentrations of PCBs. Available data indicate that
PCBs are not excreted or degraded but are stored in skin and
adipose (fatty) tissue. In USEPA studies on Lake Michigan
fish, results ranged from concentrations of 2.7 ppm to
187 ppm PCB in fatty tissue for all species. PCB concen-
trations in excess of 5 ppm were present in all trout and
salmon more than 12 inches long. Positive correlations be-
tween size of the fish, percent fat, and age and the con-
centration of PCBs dissolved in the water column have also
been found. Therefore, larger fish with a higher percent
fat content, such as salmon and trout, accumulate high con-
centrations of PCBs. Bottom feeders, such as carp, also
accumulate very high PCB concentrations from contact with
PCB-contaminated bottom sediments (002, 021).
Bioaccumulation has been shown to occur at positions higher
in the food chain. Carnivorous predators, such as large-
mouth bass, have markedly higher PCB concentrations than
species lower on the food chain (002, 021).
Research has also shown that PCBs interfere with growth and
reproduction of several species of fish. PCBs in the water
column have been shown to inhibit phytoplankton photosyn-
thesis, which will limit the growth of fish that require
phytoplankton as a food source. High PCB concentration in
bottom sediments may interfere with the development of eggs
that are deposited on the bottom during spawning. Fish fry
mortality has a direct correlation to PCB levels in the water
column, thereby artificially reducing fish populations.
PCBs may ultimately act to diminish natural populations of
fish species (002, 021, 049).
IMPACTS ON ANIMALS
The No Action alternative would result in a continued in-
crease in the concentrations of PCBs in the fish-eating
birds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and other species of
terrestrial animals that live and feed in the vicinity of
Waukegan Harbor and in nearby parts of Lake Michigan. The
PCB masses would remain in the area for many years, and the
PCB loading to the lake would increase during the period
required for the complete dispersal of PCBs from the
contaminated areas into the lake. The concentrations of
PCBs would increase in the individual animals that routinely
or periodically ingest highly contaminated food items. The
individuals that reside in the area during a significant
part of the year, such as gulls, terns, and diving ducks,
would be most affected. Migratory species that rest and
PD525.022 6-18
-------
feed in the area for a short period of time during the spring
and the autumn would be less likely to accumulate large bur-
dens of PCBs, although the body burden of an individual bird
would increase after each annual visit. Because these birds
also might ingest PCB-contaminated food items in other parts
of their ranges, the total body burden of an individual bird
of a relatively long-lived species could be sustained or
increased to a level that would affect its reproductive poten-
tial, the viability of its young, or its own health (048).
PCBs are known to accumulate in fatty tissues, and migratory
birds develop additional fat deposits in their bodies as an
energy reserve prior to migration. When fatty deposits
containing PCBs are metabolized, the PCBs are released into
the bloodstream and can have various toxic effects on the
individual organisms or their offspring. Rapid releases
into the bloodstream could result from acute, short-term
stresses such as flight from a predator or severe weather
conditions or from continuous, longer-term stresses such as
those associated with migration and reproduction, when large
amounts of energy are required (048).
The long-term effects of a relatively stable chemical
stressor such as PCBs, especially in a situation where the
dispersal of the contaminant is more than offset by a con-
tinual fresh input, is not yet known. Species vary in their
tolerance to chronic "contamination stress," and many would
be more susceptible to toxic effects from manmade compounds
when stress from these sources is combined with stresses
from other natural or manmade sources such as migration or
synergistic effects from simultaneous accumulation of DDT.
The major long-term effects of contaminant-induced changes
in behavior or reproduction would become evident at the popu-
lation or community level. Little knowledge currently exists
on the ability of species, populations, or communities to
resist and recover from such stresses. Because PCBs are
manmade compounds, few organisms have evolved that have the
capacity to break them down into harmless constituents such
as carbon dioxide and water-soluble compounds (048) .
Skin disorders such as facial edemas, hair loss, and acne
have been observed in monkeys given oral doses of PCBs.
PCBs applied directly to the skin of rabbits produced hyper-
keratosis, erethyma, blisters, and desquamation. PCB expo-
sure in primates resulted in prolonged menstrual cycles and
increased bleeding, indicating endocrine effects (087) .
Other symptoms reported in various species include: gastric
hyperplasia, thymic atrophy, decreases in red blood cells
and lymphocytes, splenic atrophy, an increase in the serum
level of triglycerides, chloresterol and phospholipids (087),
swelling of livers and jaundice, enzyme system disturbances,
growth inhibition, decrease in immunosuppression, and de-
creased in reproduction (086, 087).
PD525.022 6-19
-------
IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
The magnitude of PCB effects on human health are not yet
known. However, a severe accident involving PCB contamina-
tion of rice oil occurred in Kyushu, Japan, in 1968, impli-
cating PCBs as a health hazard. The Japanese called the
accident Yusho (oil disease). The oil contained PCB concen-
trations between 2,000 and 3,000 ppm, now known to be in
combination with chlorinated dibenzofurans and quaterphenyls
(049, 065). Health effects were documented in more than
2,000 persons. Consumption of the contaminated oil resulted
in skin lesions, blindness, hearing loss, jaundice, and
abdominal pain. Uterine ulcers, stillbirths, and miscar-
riages also occurred. Infants born to mothers exposed to
the contaminated rice oil exhibited skin, gum, and finger-
nail discoloration, indicating that at least some of the
contaminants had crossed the placental membranes. Other
symptoms of toxicity noted in humans include: swelling of
joints, waxy secretion from eyelid glands, general lethargy,
joint pain, weakness and vomiting, abnormal menstrual cycles,
and weight loss (085, 086, 087, 002, 021, 049).
Occupational exposure to PCB mixtures has caused chloracne
and liver injuries in workers exposed to low levels. PCB
effects on worker health from occupational exposure have
also been documented (049, 002, 021).
Documented occurrences of high levels of PCB contamination
in humans have almost all resulted from consumption of con-
taminated foods, accidentally or through accumulation in
fatty tissues through the food chain. Inhalation of and
skin contact with PCBs are not considered a significant
source of contamination for the general public, but they are
of concern in occupational exposure. The OSHA standard
(29 CFR 1910) for an 8-hour work shift exposure to PCBs in
air is 1.0 mg/1 for PCBs with 54 percent chlorine (Aroc-
lor 1254) and 0.5 mg/1 for PCBs with 42 percent chlorine
(Aroclor 1242). Samples taken by the Environmental Research
Group, Inc. (ERG) on September 3, 1980, for USEPA detected
Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1248 in Waukegan Harbor sediments.
Aroclor 1254 was below detection limits (079).
USEPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for carcinogenicity
protection of human health from ingestion of water and orga-
nisms is 0.00079 ppb at the 10~5 risk level. Concentrations
that have a risk level of 10 5 are estimated to result in an
increase of one cancer death per 100,000 people who experi-
ence exposure over a lifetime. Total PCB concentrations
vary from 0.6 ppb in Waukegan Harbor to less than 0.01 ppb
in Lake Michigan directly offshore from Waukegan Harbor (035)
There is an emergency water supply intake for Waukegan near
the mouth of the harbor.
PD525.022 6-20
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Lake County Health Department, in conjunction with the
State of Illinois, has posted warnings of high PCB concentra-
tions in fish taken from Waukegan Harbor. Commercial fishing
is restricted. Economic losses to Waukegan area may occur
because of the lowered recreational fishing demand and restric-
tions on commercial fishing, and associated expenditures
such as lowered charter boat demand, lower pleasure boat
usage, and lower overall recreational and/or tourist poten-
tial for the area. The PCB problem also might impact the
desirability of the lake, harbor, and project area as a place
to do business (002) .
Harbor maintenance dredging of PCB-contaminated soils is
expensive because of the disposal and handling requirements
for dredged sediments with concentrations greater than
50 ppm. Huron Portland Cement and National Gypsum are now
and will continue to be directly impacted, since they depend
on the harbor to receive raw material shipments.
A summary of the socioeconomic effects from PCB contamination
of surface-water bodies, sediments, and soils in the Waukegan
community might include:
• Loss of fish for human consumption
• Reduction or loss of commercial fishing
• Decline in property values
• Depressed area growth
• Reduction in recreational activity, such as boat-
ing and sport fishing
• Reduction in commercial harbor access due to lack
of harbor dredging
• Expenditures for laboratory analysis of area water,
soil, and biota samples
• Occupational exposure
• Expenditures for medical services
• Expenditures for legal services
PART 3; IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
SLIP NO. 3
Alternative 2B; Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose
Response Objectives
This alternative would remove all sediments from Slip No. 3
with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm. If a 95 percent
PD525.022 6-21
-------
removal efficiency were achieved, it would remove an esti-
mated 290,000 Ib of PCBs contained in approximately 10,900 yd3
of sediments. This would remove about 93.5 percent of all
the PCBs now found in the Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor area
(003) .
Mathematical modeling conducted by HydroQual, Inc. (035),
indicates that dredging of the harbor sediments to a level
of 50 ppm PCB would reduce peak water column concentrations
by approximately one order of magnitude (to less than 0.1 ppb)
and fish body burdens to less than 5 ppm. Since this alter-
native would remove approximately 93.5 percent of all the
PCBs now found in Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor, results
are expected to be similar to reductions predicted by the
model. Removal would also significantly diminish the exist-
ing estimated volatilization rate of 12 to 40 Ib/yr of PCBs
released from the harbor into the local airshed by approxi-
mately an order of magnitude (007).
All former land and water uses would be able to resume after
cleanup activities are completed. No restrictions to future
uses would be expected.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Dredging and related activities for Slip No. 3 would require
about 2 months. An additional 2 months would be required
for dredging and related activities in the localized area
requiring dredging of deep contaminated sand and silt. If
the water treatment plant were not protected against freezing
weather, the dewatering lagoon would not be able to release
slurry water to the plant during freezing conditions. Dredg-
ing would then have to occur during nonfreezing weather.
Solids removal to the batch plant would begin about 2 months
after dredging activities are completed. Removal and fixation
of the dewatered sediments would require 2 to 3 months. Off-
site transportation to the disposal site would be concurrent
with the fixation process. Total project duration is esti-
mated to be 10 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Dredging. Roiling of bottom sediments during dredging results
in sediment suspension and dispersion. The use of a hydraulic
dredge and the proper dredge head would minimize roiling and
sediment dispersion. A sediment dispersal control system
(double silt curtain or steel sheet piling) would also be
employed to minimize migration of suspended PCBs out of the
dredging area. To assist in controlling sediment dispersion,
water would be continually pumped from inside the slip during
construction to maintain net inflow at the slip mouth. This
would tend to keep sediments from crossing the control barrier.
The water could be treated by addition of polymer and/or
activated carbon before the sediment barrier is removed.
PD525.022 6-22
-------
A program would be established to monitor the effectiveness
of the containment measures and to warn of the need for
polymer addition or shutdown of dredging. A seiche warning
arrangement with the National Weather Service would also be
put in place so operations could be suspended if a seiche
were imminent. The containment devices would be most likely
to fail during a seiche due to the forces created by a sudden
difference in water level between the two sides of the sheet
piling or double silt curtain.
A clamshell dredge may be required in the localized area of
Slip No. 3 to remove the deep contaminated sediments (sand
and silt) below the muck at the former OMC outfall. Spillage
of 15 to 30 percent of the sediments in a clamshell bucket
occurs while it is being raised. This spillage would create
a high degree of sediment suspension that would increase the
concentration of PCBs in solution. A sheet pile cofferdam
would be employed to support the excavation sides and contain
these dredging activities. The water would be treated by
the addition of powdered activated carbon to remove dissolved
PCBs before the cofferdam sediment barrier was removed. The
water level inside the cofferdam would be lowered to create
net inflow as an additional control measure.
The City of Waukegan maintains an emergency water intake in
Waukegan Harbor. This water intake, while an integral part
of the Waukegan Harbor system, is rarely used. Project
activities would be expected to be completed while the intake
was not in use. If, however, the intake was needed during
project activities, a monitoring program, including sampling
of raw and finished water, would be established during the
project to ensure the safety of the supply. A contingency
plan would also be established to stop project operations if
any contamination entered the system.
Larsen Marine Services v/ould be adversely affected by any
dredging that inhibited or cut off access to its docks.
These impacts would be short-term and could be minimized by
scheduling dredging during periods that would cause the least
impact on Larsen Marine Services.
Minimal volatilization would be expected to occur during
dredging activities. Losses would be expected to be roughly
0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from the exposed, agitated, and con-
taminated water area (030) . Concentrations of less than
2 ug/m3 would be expected to be present in the air as a
result of dredging activities (007) . By comparison, the
OSHA standard for maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is
1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. However, the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recom-
mends that workers not be exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in
the air during an 8-hour period (007) . (See Health and
Safety Requirements, later in this section.)
PD525.022 6-23
-------
The proposed dredging would affect terrestrial biota. Popula-
tions of gulls and terns that currently reside and feed in
the vicinity of the harbor would be disturbed by increased
noise and activity levels and may move to another area along
the shoreline of Lake Michigan during the times of the day
when disturbances would occur. However, because none of
these species breeds in the immediate vicinity of the harbor,
no long-term displacement of populations is anticipated (048) .
Some species of birds or other animals could come into contact
with the contaminated sediments and water in the harbor and
dewataring lagoon, particularly during non-working hours
(gulls) and autumn migration periods (waterfowl and shore-
birds) (048).
Changes in the harbor water column PCB concentrations and
reduced PCB accumulations in fish would be the two principal
long-term beneficial impacts of dredging.
Possible short-term adverse impacts of dredging would include
the following:
• The area inside the sediment dispersal control
device used to detain roiled sediments would become
turbid during dredging and would very likely become
anoxic in the pre-dawn hours following a day of
dredging in organic "muck" sediments. Indications
are that "disturbances" of polluted bottom sedi-
ments, especially if they have great quantities of
reduced compounds dissolved in the intersticial
waters, can elevate the expression of sediment
oxygen demand by as much as one order of magnitude.
Diurnal rhythms of respiration/photosynthesis in
freshwater algae are such that the lowest oxygen
levels occur in pre-dawn hours. Consequently,
almost all respiring organisms inside the silt
curtains would be driven out or may die during
early morning hours after dredging (048) .
• If dredging occurs during the fall and spring,
there is a good chance that spawning fish may be
present in the harbor during the dredging activi-
ties. Chinook making fall runs may be able to
swim around or leap over the silt curtains into a
highly PCB-laden body of water (048).
Dewatering. Construction of a dewatering lagoon and treat-
ment facilities on OMC property or another nearby site would
remove this land from other uses for the duration of the
project.
The lagoon would be constructed with impermeable clay liners
and a leachate collection system. The groundwater beneath
PD525.022 6-24
-------
the lagoon would be monitored by test wells to detect leakage
from the lagoon.
Some volatilization of PCBs would occur during dewatering.
Volatilization would be minimized during initial placement
of the dredged sediments by the decanting water layer. This
would reduce the estimated volatilization rate from 2 Ib
PCBs per day (for exposed sediments with a typical concen-
tration of 1,000 ppm) to less than 1.0 Ib PCBs per day from
the less contaminated (100 ppb) decanting water layer (007,
030). Other measures that could be employed include:
(1) placing the less contaminated sediments on top of the
more contaminated sediments during dredging; (2) placing a
layer of an organic material (e.g., digested activated
sludge, manure) on top of the dewatering sediments upon
completion of dredging; or (3) placing a synthetic liner on
top of the water in the lagoon during and following dredg-
ing. These measures would be expected to keep PCB concen-
trations in the air above the lagoon at about 2 ug/m3 (007).
Water Treatment. All PCB-contaminated water (supernatant
from initial solids dewatering, leachate, rainwater, and
monitoring well water collected from the lagoon) would be
processed through a package water treatment plant. The water
would be treated to PCB levels of below 1 ppb (the USEPA
standard). Treatment plant effluent would be monitored (by
grab sampling and 24-hour sampling) to ensure that discharges
were below 1 ppb. An onsite laboratory would be available
to conduct the water quality analyses. Effluent would be
discharged to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. Water dis-
charged to the sanitary sewer system would be processed again
through the Waukegan municipal wastewater treatment plant
and discharged into the Des Plaines River.
Solids Removal, Fixation, and Disposal. Volatilization
would be expected to occur during solids removal from the
lagoon and truck loading for transport to the batch plant.
The highest reported concentration in a Slip No. 3 sediment
sample is about 500,000 ppm (008). The maximum predicted
PCB concentration in the air from solids removal operations
is predicted to be less than 200 ug/m3 for sediments with
concentrations of 100,000 ppm PCBs (007). These values were
extrapolated from data for sand assuming a 3.6-mph wind and
an air temperature of 68°F. The volatilization rate from
Waukegan Harbor muck should be less than from sand (007).
Dewatered sediment would be fixed into a nonflowable form
for offsite transport by truck. A sufficient amount of
fixing agent would be used to prevent water loss, and covers
may be required to prevent volatilization during transport.
Rules and regulations controlling the transport of hazardous
materials promulgated by the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT), USEPA, IDOT, Illinois Institute of
PD525.022 6-25
-------
Natural Resources (IINR), and other applicable regulatory
agencies would be complied with. These include cleanup,
safety, and spill prevention and response measures.
Offsite disposal of fixed dredged sediments, volatilization
material, and liner material would require approximately
1,880 truck trips to the disposal site using a 10-yd3 capa-
city truck. The established full truck routes within the
City of Waukegan have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
estimated truck traffic, but some roadway congestion and
roadway damage could occur (048). Some species of terres-
trial animals could come into contact with contaminated
materials if any loss occurs during transport, and the con-
tamination could be passed into other terrestrial food
chains (048) .
Disposal of the materials would be in a licensed chemical
waste landfill, and would be in compliance with State and
Federal standards for PCB waste disposal. PCB materials
with concentrations greater than 50 ppm must be nonflowable
if they are to be disposed of in a licensed chemical waste
landfill (40 CFR 761) . Solids dewatering and/or fixation
must be complete enough to result in a nonflowable consis-
tency after transport for final disposal.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, dredg-
ing, and transportation activities. Although high noise
levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Recreation. The noise and traffic congestion associated
with construction activities could have short-term nega-
tive impacts on the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
The City of Waukegan uses the site proposed for the
dewatering lagoon as a parking area for its public fes-
tivals. This alternative would preclude this use for
the project duration. The city would have to arrange
other transportation means (such as a shuttle system
between the downtown area and the beach) because no
alternative parking facilities are available.
PD525.022 6-26
-------
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup ac-
tivities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup ac-
tivity and associated work function would require the defini-
tion and enforcement of specific safety precautions and
levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc., has
prepared a conceptual safety plan (see Appendix). The plan
calls for protection measures for workers who may be exposed
to PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would
be performed, and all workers would require appropriate
levels of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring
results, respiratory and dermal protection may be required
downwind of site cleanup activities and the holding lagoon.
In addition to personal protection, the conceptual safety
plan specifies site entry procedures, decontamination pro-
cedures, work limitations, and material disposal require-
ments. A detailed health and safety plan would be prepared
during final design of the selected response measures.
Reliability
Dredging. Both hydraulic and clamshell dredges have been
widely used in the past for dredging. No new technologies
are proposed to complete the dredging. Dredging technology
is well developed, and the reliability of the equipment to
remove sediments from the slip and transport them to the
lagoons is high. If a stoppage of the hydraulic dredge
occurs during dredging, it is expected to result in some
temporary additional suspension of sediment in the water
column because of interruption in hydraulic flow. Leakage
or rupture of the hydraulic dredge discharge pipeline could
disperse PCB-laden water and sediment over previously
uncontaminated areas along the pipeline. The impact of such
spills could be minimized by prompt cleanup of the spilled
material and of any soil or other material that was contami-
nated by the spill. A contingency plan would be established
for prompt cleanup. Leakage could either be eliminated by
pipe joint tightening or be controlled by joint caulking,
mats, collection containers, or similar means. The collected
solids could be disposed of with the PCB-contaminated solids,
and collected water could be taken to the water treatment
plant.
Dewatering Lagoon and Curing Cells. The technology for con-
struction of lined lagoons is well developed and feasible.
There are no unusual construction details for the lagoon
PD525.022 6-27
-------
construction. Construction could be accomplished using
conventionally available materials and equipment. The risk
of failure would be low. If the upper clay liner failed,
contaminated leachate could be collected by the underdrain
system. If the lower clay liner also failed, contaminated
soil would have to be excavated and disposed of with the
other contaminated solids.
If an exterior lagoon dike failed, PCB-contaminated water
and sediment could flow over a large area, requiring sub-
stantial cleanup operations and causing greatly increased
volatilization. The technology for dike design is well
understood, however, so the probability of dike failure
would be extremely low.
If an exterior curing cell dike failed while a cell was
filled with incompletely cured fixed solids, PCB-contaminated
water and sediment could flow over a small area, requiring
cleanup operations and causing slightly increased volatiliza-
tion. The technology for dike design is well understood,
however, so the probability of dike failure would be extremely
low.
If detention in the lagoon failed to lower the moisture
content to the extent originally anticipated, either more
time could be allowed or more fixing agent could be used.
If more time were allowed, the total mass of PCBs volatilized
would increase. If more fixing agent were used, the total
solids volume to disposed of would increase.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use exist-
ing technology and equipment shown to be effective in PCB
removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell for
detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB con-
centrations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if
adequate removal were not achieved, the water could be re-
cycled through the plant until discharge standards (less
than 1 ppb PCBs) were met.
Fixation. Fixation would use existing equipment in an appli-
cation similar to previous applications, but not yet estab-
lished for these high-moisture-content sediments. Labora-
tory testing is now being conducted to verify that fixation
can be accomplished with existing available materials and
equipment. It is anticipated that fixation will prove to be
a technically feasible and reliable means of controlling
water loss. If fixation failed to prevent water loss, then
solids would have to be dewatered mechanically as proposed
for Alternative 3, or a waiver from that requirement of
40 CFR 761 would have to be obtained from the USEPA Regional
Administrator.
PD525.022 6-28
-------
Transportation. Transportation would be accomplished using
dump trucks. Failure could occur by loss of material from
the truck through leakage, spilling over the top, dusting,
volatilization, or spills resulting from vehicle accidents.
The impact of leakage, dusting, and volatilization would be
to disperse small amounts of PCBs all along the haul routes.
These types of uncontrolled release could be minimized by
the use of tailgate seals and covers.
The impact of spills would be to deposit a quantity of PCB-
contaminated solids at one or more isolated points. The
risk of spills over the top of the truck could be minimized
by use of a cover. The risk of vehicle accidents is rela-
tively small, but it could be compensated for by having a
response plan and team ready during hauling.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and IICC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
PD525.022 6-29
-------
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
Alternative 2D; Dredge-Dewater in Barges-Fix-Dispose
Response Objectives
This alternative would remove all sediments from Slip No. 3
with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm. If a 95 percent
removal efficiency were achieved, it would remove an estimated
290,000 Ib of PCBs contained in approximately 10,900 yd3 of
sediments. This would remove about 93.5 percent of all the
PCBs now found in the Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor area
(003) .
Mathematical modeling conducted by HydroQual, Inc. (035),
indicates that dredging of the harbor sediments to a level
of 50 ppm PCB would reduce peak water column concentrations
by approximately one order of magnitude (to less than 0.1 ppb)
and fish body burdens to less than 5 ppm. Since this alterna-
tive would remove approximately 93.5 percent of all the PCBs
now found in Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor, results are
expected to be similar to reductions predicted by the model.
Removal would also significantly diminish the existing esti-
mated volatilization rate of 12 to 40 Ib/yr of PCBs that are
released from Slip No. 3 into the local airshed by approxi-
mately an order of magnitude (007) .
All former land and water uses would be able to resume after
cleanup activities are completed. No restrictions to future
uses would be expected.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Dredging and related activities for Slip No. 3 would require
about 2 months. An additional 2 months would be required
for dredging and related activities in the localized area
requiring dredging of deep contaminated sand and silt. If
the water treatment plant were not protected against freezing
weather, the dewatering barges would not be able to release
slurry water to the plant during freezing conditions. Dredg-
ing would then have to occur during nonfreezing weather.
Use of barges for dewatering may also be problematic during
freezing periods, because of ice buildup and difficulty with
sediment removal.
Solids removal to the batch plant would begin about 2 months
after dredging activities are completed. Removal and fixa-
tion of the dewatered sediments would require 2 to 3 months.
PD525.022 6-30
-------
Offsite transportation to the disposal site would be concur-
rent with the fixation process. Total project duration is
estimated to be 9 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Dredging. Roiling of bottom sediments during dredging re-
sults in sediment suspension and dispersion. The use of a
hydraulic dredge and the proper dredge head would minimize
roiling and sediment dispersion. A sediment dispersal con-
trol system (double silt curtain or steel sheet piling) would
also be employed to minimize migration of suspended PCBs
out of the dredging area. To assist in controlling sediment
dispersion, water would be continually pumped from inside
the slip during construction to maintain net inflow at the
slip mouth. This would tend to keep sediments from crossing
the control barrier. The water could be treated by addition
of polymer and/or activated carbon before the sediment barrier
is removed.
A program would be established to monitor the effectiveness
of the containment measures and to warn of the need for poly-
mer addition or shutdown of dredging. A seiche warning
arrangement with the National Weather Service would also be
put in place so operations could be suspended if a seiche
were imminent. The containment devices would be the most
likely to fail during a seiche due to the forces created by
a sudden difference in water level between the two sides of
the sheet piling or double silt curtain.
A clamshell dredge may be required in the localized area of
Slip No. 3 to remove the deep contaminated sediments (sand
and silt) below the muck at the former OMC outfall. Spillage
of 15 to 30 percent of the sediments in a clamshell bucket
occurs while it is being raised. This spillage would create
a high degree of sediment suspension that would increase the
concentration of PCBs in solution. A sheet pile cofferdam
would be employed to support the excavation sides and contain
these dredging activities. The water would be treated by
the addition of powdered activated carbon to remove dissolved
PCBs before the cofferdam is removed. The water level inside
the cofferdam would be lowered to create net inflow as an
additional control measure.
The City of Waukegan maintains an emergency water intake in
Waukegan Harbor. This water intake, while an integral part
of the Waukegan Harbor system, is rarely used. Project
activities would be expected to be completed while the
intake was not in use. If, however, the intake was needed
during project activities, a monitoring program, including
sampling of raw and finished water, would be established
during the project to ensure the safety of the supply. A
PD525.022 6-31
-------
contingency plan would also be established to stop project
operations if any contamination entered the system.
Larsen Marine Services would be adversely affected by any
dredging that inhibited or cut off access to its docks.
These impacts would be short-term and could be minimized by
scheduling dredging during periods that would cause the
least impact on Larsen Marine Services.
Minimal volatilization would be expected to occur during
dredging activities. Losses would be expected to be roughly
0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from the exposed, agitated, and con-
taminated water area (030) . Concentrations of less than
2 ug/m3 would be expected to be present in the air as a re-
sult of dredging activities (007). By comparison, the OSHA
standard for maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is
1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. However, NIOSH recom-
mends that workers not be exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in
the air during an 8-hour period (007) . (See Health and
Safety Requirements, later in this section.)
The proposed dredging would affect terrestrial biota. Popu-
lations of gulls and terns that currently reside and feed in
the vicinity of the harbor would be disturbed by increased
noise and activity levels and may move to another area along
the shoreline of Lake Michigan during the times of the day
when disturbances would occur. However, because none of
these species breeds in the immediate vicinity of the harbor,
no long-term displacement of populations is anticipated (048),
Some species of birds could come into contact with the con-
taminated sediments and water in the harbor and dewatering
barges, particularly during non-working hours (gulls) and
autumn migration periods (waterfowl and shorebirds) (048).
Changes in the harbor water column PCB concentrations and
reduced PCB accumulations in fish would be the two principal
long-term beneficial impacts of dredging.
Possible short-term adverse impacts of dredging would include
the following:
• The area inside the sediment dispersal control
device used to detain roiled sediments would become
turbid during dredging and would very likely become
anoxic in the pre-dawn hours following a day of
dredging in organic "muck" sediments. Indications
are that "disturbances" of polluted bottom sedi-
ments, especially if they have great quantities of
reduced compounds dissolved in the intersticial
waters, can elevate the expression of sediment
oxygen demand by as much as one order of magnitude.
Diurnal rhythms of respiration/photosynthesis in
PD525.022 6-32
-------
freshwater algae are such that the lowest oxygen
levels occur in pre-dawn hours. Consequently,
almost all respiring organisms inside the silt
curtains would be driven out or may die during
early morning hours after dredging (048).
• If dredging occurs during the fall and spring,
there is a good chance that spawning fish may be
present in the harbor during the dredging activi-
ties. Chinook making fall runs may be able to
swim around or leap over the silt curtains into a
highly PCB-laden body of water (048) .
Dewatering. Under this alternative, barges would be used to
dewater dredged sediments. The barges could be moored in
the Upper Harbor during the dewatering process, then towed
to shore for solids removal. No special lining would be
necessary, since any water leakage would flow into the barges,
and become mixed with the supernatant. Decant water would
be pumped to the water treatment plant.
Some volatilization of PCBs would occur during dewatering.
Volatilization would be minimized during initial placement
of the dredged sediments by the decanting water layer. This
would reduce the estimated volatilization rate from 2 Ib
PCBs per day (for exposed sediments with an average concen-
tration of 1,000 ppm) to less than 1.0 Ib PCBs per day from
the less contaminated (100 ppm) decanting layer (007) . Other
measures that could be employed include: (1) placing the
less contaminated sediments on top of the more contaminated
sediments during dredging; (2) placing a layer of an organic
material (e.g., digested activated sludge, manure) on top of
the dewatering sediments upon completion of dredging; or
(3) placing a synthetic liner on top of the water in the
barges during and following dredging. These measures would
be expected to keep PCB concentrations in the air above the
barges at about 2 ug/m3 (007).
Water Treatment. All PCB-contaminated water (supernatant
from initial solids dewatering, leachate, rainwater, and
monitoring well water collected from the lagoon) would be
processed through a package water treatment plant. All water
would be treated to PCB levels of below 1 ppb (the USEPA
standard). Treatment plant effluent would be monitored (by
grab sampling and 24-hour sampling) to ensure that discharges
were below 1 ppb. An onsite laboratory would be available
to conduct the water quality analyses. Effluent would be
discharged to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. Water dis-
charged to the sanitary sewer system would be processed again
through the Waukegan municipal wastewater treatment plant
and discharged into the Des Plaines River.
PD525.022 6-33
-------
Solids Removal, Fixation, and Disposal. Volatilization would
be expected to occur during solids removal from the barges
and truck loading for transport to the batch plant. The
highest reported concentration in a Slip No. 3 sediment sample
is about 500,000 ppm (008). The maximum predicted PCB con-
centration in the air from solids removal operations is pre-
dicted to be less than 200 ug/m3 for sediments with concentra-
tions of 100,000 ppm PCBs (007). These values were extra-
polated from data for sand assuming a 3.6-mph wind and an
air temperature of 68°F. The volatilization rate from Waukegan
Harbor muck should be less than from sand (007) .
Dewatered sediment would be fixed into a nonflowable form
for offsite transport by truck. A sufficient amount of fixing
agent would be used to prevent water loss, and covers may be
required to prevent volatilization during transport. Rules
and regulations controlling the transport of hazardous mater-
ials promulgated by the USDOT, USEPA, IDOT, IINR, and other
applicable regulatory agencies would be complied with. These
include cleanup, safety, and spill prevention and response
measures.
Offsite disposal of fixed dredged sediments and volatilization
material would require approximately 1,650 truck trips to
the disposal site using a 10-yd3 capacity truck. The estab-
lished full truck routes within the City of Waukegan have
sufficient capacity to accommodate the estimated truck traffic,
but some roadway congestion and roadway damage could occur
(048). Some species of terrestrial animals could come into
contact with contaminated materials if any loss occurs during
transport, and the contamination could be passed into other
terrestrial food chains (048).
Disposal of the fixed materials would be in a licensed chemi-
cal waste landfill, and would be in compliance with State
and Federal standards for PCB waste disposal. PCB materials
with concentrations greater than 50 ppm must be nonflowable
if they are to be disposed of in a licensed chemical waste
landfill (40 CFR 761) . Solids dewatering and/or fixation
must be complete enough to result in a nonflowable consis-
tency after transport for final disposal.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, dredg-
ing, and transportation activities. Although high noise
levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
PD525.022 6-34
-------
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Recreation. The noise and traffic congestion associated
with construction activities could have short-term nega-
tive impacts on the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup acti-
vities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup acti-
vity and associated work function would require the definition
and enforcement of specific safety precautions and levels of
protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc., has prepared a
conceptual safety plan (See Appendix). The plan calls for
protection measures for workers who may be exposed to PCB-
contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would be
performed, and all workers would require appropriate levels
of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring results,
respiratory and dermal protection may be required downwind
of site cleanup activities and the dewatering barges. In
addition to personal protection, the conceptual safety plan
specifies site entry procedures, decontamination procedures,
work limitations, and material disposal requirements. A
detailed health and safety plan would be prepared during
final design of the selected response measures.
Reliability
Dredging. Both hydraulic and clamshell dredges have been
widely used in the past for dredging. No new technologies
are proposed to complete the dredging. Dredging technology
is well developed, and the reliability of the equipment to
remove sediments from the slip and transport them to the
lagoons is high. If a stoppage of the hydraulic dredge
occurs during dredging, it is expected to result in some
temporary additional suspension of sediment in the water
column because of interruption in hydraulic flow. Leakage
or rupture of the hydraulic dredge discharge pipeline could
PD525.022 6-35
-------
disperse PCB-laden water and sediment over previously un-
contaminated areas along the pipeline. The impact of such
spills could be minimized by prompt cleanup of the spilled
material and of any soil or other material that was contami-
nated by the spill. A contingency plan would be established
for prompt cleanup. Leakage could either be eliminated by
pipe joint tightening or be controlled by joint caulking,
mats, collection containers, or similar means. The collec-
ted solids could be disposed of with the PCB-contaminated
solids, and collected water could be taken to the water
treatment plant.
Dewatering Barges. The technology for construction of barges
and handling slurry materials is well developed and feasible.
Conventionally available flat-deck barges could be used for
dewatering. If a barge sank, PCB-contaminated water and
sediment would flow back into the harbor. However, such an
event is unlikely. If it occurred, additional dredging would
be required to re-excavate the spilled sediment. Some loss
of PCBs by way of the spilled supernatant would occur. It
is estimated that this loss would be less than 0.1 Ib of
PCBs if one barge sank.
If detention in the barges failed to lower the moisture con-
tent to the extent originally anticipated, either more time
could be allowed or more fixing agent could be used. If
more time were allowed, the total mass of PCBs volatilized
would increase. If more fixing agent were used, the total
solids volume to be disposed of would increase.
Curing Cells. The technology for construction of the curing
cells is well developed and feasible. There are no unusual
construction details for the curing cell construction. Con-
struction could be accomplished using conventionally avail-
able materials and equipment. The risk of failure would be
low. If the upper clay liner failed, contaminated leachate
could be collected by the underdrain system. If the lower
clay liner also failed, contaminated soil would have to be
excavated and disposed of with the other contaminated solids.
If an exterior curing cell dike failed while a cell was
filled with incompletely cure fixed solids, PCB-contaminated
water and sediment could flow over a small area, requiring
cleanup operations and causing slightly increased volatili-
zation. The technology for dike design is well understood,
however, so the probability of dike failure would be ex-
tremely low.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use exist-
ing technology and equipment shown to be effective in PCB
PD525.022 6-36
-------
removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell for
detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB con-
centrations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if
adequate removal were not achieved, the water could be re-
cycled through the plant until discharge standards (less
than 1 ppb PCBs) were met.
Fixation. Fixation would use existing equipment in an appli-
cation similar to previous applications, but not yet estab-
lished for these high-moisture-content sediments. Laboratory
testing is now being conducted to verify that fixation can
be accomplished with existing available materials and equip-
ment. It is anticipated that fixation will prove to be a
technically feasible and reliable means of controlling water
loss. If fixation failed to prevent water loss, then solids
would have to be dewatered mechanically as proposed for Alter-
native 3, or a waiver from that requirement of 40 CFR 761
would have to be obtained from the Regional Administrator.
Transportation. Transportation would be accomplished using
dump trucks. Failure could occur by loss of material from
the truck through leakage, spilling over the top, dusting,
volatilization, or spills resulting from vehicle accidents.
The impact of leakage, dusting, and volatilization would be
to disperse small amounts of PCBs all along the haul routes.
These types of uncontrolled release could be minimized by
the use of tailgate seals and covers.
The impact of spills would be to deposit a quantity of PCB-
contaminated solids at one or more isolated points. The
risk of spills over the top of the truck could be minimized
by use of a cover. The risk of vehicle accidents is rela-
tively small, but it could be compensated for by having a
response plan and team ready during hauling.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
PD525.022 6-37
-------
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB approved site
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose
Response Objectives
This alternative would remove all sediments from Slip No. 3
with concentrations of PCBs greater than 50 ppm. If a 95 per-
cent removal efficiency were achieved, it would remove an
estimated 290,000 Ib of PCBs contained in approximately
10,900 yd3 of sediments. This would remove about 93.5 per-
cent of all the PCBs now found in the Slip No. 3 and Upper
Harbor area (003).
Mathematical modeling conducted by HydroQual, Inc. (035),
indicates that dredging of the harbor sediments to a level
of 50 ppm PCB would reduce peak water column concentrations
by approximately one order of magnitude (to less than 0.1 ppb)
and fish body burdens to less than 5 ppm. Since this alter-
native would remove approximately 93.5 percent of all the
PCBs now found in Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor, results
are expected to be similar to reductions predicted by the
model. Removal would also significantly diminish the exist-
ing estimated volatilization rate of 12 to 40 Ib/yr of PCBs
released from the harbor into the local airshed by approxi-
mately an order of magnitude (007).
PD525.022 6-38
-------
All former land and water uses would be able to resume after
cleanup activities are completed. No restrictions to future
uses would be expected.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Dredging and related activities for Slip No. 3 would require
about 2 months. An additional 2 months would be required
for dredging and related activities in the localized area
requiring dredging of deep contaminated sand and silt. If
the water treatment plant were not protected against freezing
weather, the dewatering lagoon would not be able to release
slurry water to the plant during freezing conditions. Dredg-
ing would then have to occur during nonfreezing weather.
Because dredged solids would not be fixed, they would have
to be dewatered in the lagoon for an extended time to reach
an adequate nonflowable consistency for disposal. Even with
the employment of additional mechanical dewatering,
retention time is expected to be from 1 to 2 years.
Offsite transportation to the disposal site would begin ap-
proximately 3 to 4 months after completion of dredging.
Transportation would continue intermittently until project
completion. Total project duration is estimated to be
3 years.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Dredging. Roiling of bottom sediments during dredging results
in sediment suspension and dispersion. The use of a hydraulic
dredge and the proper dredge head would minimize roiling and
sediment dispersion. A sediment dispersal control system
(double silt curtain or steel sheet piling) would also be
employed to minimize migration of suspended PCBs out of the
dredging area. To assist in controlling sediment dispersion,
water would be continually pumped from inside the Upper Harbor
during construction to maintain net inflow at the Upper Harbor
mouth. This would tend to keep sediments from crossing the
control barrier. The water could be treated by addition of
polymer and/or activated carbon before the sediment barrier
is removed.
A program would be established to monitor the effectiveness
of the containment measures and to warn of the need for poly-
mer addition or shutdown of dredging. A seiche warning
arrangement with the National Weather Service would also be
put in place so operations could be suspended if a seiche
were imminent. The containment devices would be most likely
to fail during a seiche due to the forces created by a sudden
difference in water level between the two sides of the sheet
piling or double silt curtain.
PD525.022 6-39
-------
A clamshell dredge may be required in the localized area of
Slip No. 3 to remove the deep contaminated sediments (sand
and silt) below the muck at the former OMC outfall. Spillage
of 15 to 30 percent of the sediments in a clamshell bucket
occurs while it is being raised. This spillage would create
a high degree of sediment suspension that would increase the
concentration of PCBs in solution. A sheet pile cofferdam
would be employed to support the excavation sides and con-
tain these dredging activities. The water would be treated
by the addition of powdered activated carbon to remove dis-
solved PCBs before the cofferdam sediment barrier was removed.
The water level inside the cofferdam would be lowered to
create net inflow as an additional control measure.
The City of Waukegan maintains an emergency water intake in
Waukegan Harbor. This water intake, while an integral part
of the Waukegan Harbor system, is rarely used. Project
activities would be expected to be completed while the
intake was not in use. If, however, the intake was needed
during project activities, a monitoring program, including
sampling of raw and finished water, would be established
during the project to ensure the safety.of the supply. A
contingency plan would also be established to stop project
operations if any contamination entered the system.
Larsen Marine Services would be adversely affected by any
dredging that inhibited or cut off access to its docks.
These impacts would be short-term and could be minimized by
scheduling dredging during periods that would cause the least
impact on Larsen Marine Services.
Minimal volatilization would be expected to occur during
dredging activities. Losses would be expected to be roughly
0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from the exposed, agitated, and con-
taminated water area (030) . Concentrations of less than
2 ug/m3 would be expected to be present in the air as a
result of dredging activites (007). By comparison, the OSHA
standard for maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is
1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. However, NIOSH recom-
mends that workers not be exposed to more than I ug/m3 in
the air during an 8-hour period (007) . (See Health and
Safety Requirements, later in this section.)
The proposed dredging would affect terrestrial biota. Popula-
tions of gulls and terns that currently reside and feed in
the vicinity of the harbor would be disturbed by increased
noise and activity levels and may move to another area along
the shoreline of Lake Michigan during the times of the day
when disturbances would occur. However, because none of
these species breeds in the immediate vicinity of the harbor,
no long-term displacement of populations is anticipated (048).
PD525.022 6-40
-------
Some species of birds or other animals could come into contact
with the contaminated sediments and water in the harbor and
dewatering lagoon, particularly during non-working hours
(gulls) and autumn migration periods (waterfowl and shore-
birds) (048).
Changes in the harbor water column PCB concentrations and
reduced PCB accumulations in fish would be the two principal
long-term beneficial impacts of dredging.
Possible short-term adverse impacts of dredging would include
the following:
• The area inside the sediment dispersal control
device used to detain roiled sediments would become
turbid during dredging and would very likely become
anoxic in the pre-dawn hours following a day of
dredging in organic "muck" sediments. Indications
are that "disturbances" of polluted bottom sedi-
ments, especially if they have great quantities of
reduced compounds dissolved in the intersticial
waters, can elevate the expression of sediment
oxygen demand by as much as one order of magnitude.
Diurnal rhythms of respiration/photosynthesis in
freshwater algae are such that the lowest oxygen
levels occur in pre-dawn hours. Consequently,
almost all respiring organisms inside the silt
curtains would be driven out or may die during
early morning hours after dredging (048) .
• If dredging occurs during the fall and spring,
there is a good chance that spawning fish may be
present in the harbor during the dredging activi-
ties. Chinook making fall runs may be able to
swim around or leap over the silt curtains into a
highly PCB-laden body of water (048).
Dewatering. Construction of a dewatering lagoon and treat-
ment facilities on OMC property or another nearby site would
remove this land from other uses for the duration of the
project.
The lagoon would be constructed with impermeable clay liners
and a leachate collection system. The groundwater beneath
the lagoon would be monitored by test wells to detect leakage
from the lagoon.
Under this alternative, volatilization would be significantly
increased during retention of the dredged materials in the
lagoon because mechanical dewatering would be employed. The
RUC system (or other channelization techniques) would be
used to channel the sediments for drainage of water to expose
them to air for evaporation and drying. After the top layer
PD525.022 6-41
-------
was dry, it would be removed and the process would be re-
peated. This would result in substantially more volatiliza-
tion of PCBs to the atmosphere than for Alternatives 2B and
2D, since evaporation is a necessary part of the dewatering
process. The highest reported concentration in a Slip No. 3
sediment sample is about 500,000 ppm (008, 016). The pre-
dicted PCS concentration in the air from volatilization above
these sediments would be less than 200 ug/m3 for sediments
with concentrations of 100,000 ppm PCBs. The volatilization
rate is predicted to be less than 163,000 ug/m2/hr or 63 lb/
day. Typical PCB concentrations range from about 500 to
5,000 ppm PCB. Predicted average concentrations in the air
from volatilization would be less than 6.6 ug/m3, assuming a
typical PCB concentration of 1,000 ppm. The average volatili-
zation rate from these sediments is expected to be less than
5,375 ug/m2/hr or 2 Ib/day PCB. These values are extrapo-
lated from data for sand, assuming a 3.6-mph wind and an air
temperature of 68°F. The volatilization rate from Waukegan
Harbor muck should be less than from sand (007) .
Because this alternative would require more time for solids
dewatering, it would restrict land uses on the OMC property
or another nearby site used for the lagoon for a longer
period than Alternative 2B. It would, however, involve less
total property use, since it would not require land for the
fixation process.
Water Treatment. All PCB-contaminated water (supernatant
from initial solids dewatering, leachate, rainwater, and
monitoring well water collected from the lagoon) would be
processed through a package water treatment plant. All water
would be treated to PCB levels of below 1 ppb (the USEPA
standard). Treatment plant effluent would be monitored (by
grab sampling and 24-hour sampling) to ensure that discharges
were below 1 ppb. An onsite laboratory would be available
to conduct water quality analyses. Effluent would be dis-
charged to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. Water dis-
charged to the sanitary sewer system would be processed again
through the Waukegan municipal wastewater treatment plant
and discharged into the Des Plaines River.
Solids Removal and Disposal. Volatilization would be ex-
pected to occur during solids removal from the lagoon and
truck loading for offsite transport. The highest reported
concentration in a Slip No. 3 sediment sample is about
500,000 ppm (008, 016). The predicted PCB concentration in
the air from volatilization above these sediments would be
less than 200 ug/m3 for sediments with concentrations of
100,000 ppm PCBs. The volatilization rate is predicted to
be less than 163,000 ug/m2/hr or 63 lb/ day. Typical PCB
concentrations range from about 500 to 5,000 ppm PCB. Pre-
dicted average concentrations in the air from volatilization
PD525.022 6-42
-------
would be less than 6.6 ug/m3, assuming a typical PCS concen-
tration of 1,000 ppm. The average volatilization rate from
these sediments is expected to be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr
or 2 Ib/day PCB. These values are extrapolated from data
for sand, assuming a 3.5-mph wind and an air temperature of
68°F. The volatilization rate from Waukegan Harbor muck
should be less than from sand (007). Since the sediments
would be dry, PCB-laden dust particles may be dispersed in
the air by excavation activities. This may cause ambient
air concentrations to exceed 1,000 ug/m3.
Additional precautions would be required during offsite trans-
portation of the non-fixed materials. Trucks would have to
employ a liner (such as heavy-duty plastic sheeting) to pre-
vent leakage or spillage. Cover or closure of the trucks
would be required to prevent spillage and volatilization
during transport. Rules and regulations controlling the
transport of toxic materials promulgated by the USDOT, USEPA,
IDOT, IINR, and other applicable regulatory agencies would
be complied with. These include cleanup, safety, and spill
prevention and response measures.
Offsite disposal of fixed dredged sediments and liner
material would require approximately 16,700 truck trips
to the disposal site using a 10-yd3 capacity truck. The
established full truck routes within the City of Waukegan
have sufficient capacity to accommodate the estimated truck
traffic, but some roadway congestion and roadway damage
could occur (048). Some species of terrestrial animals
could come into contact with contaminated materials if any
loss occurs during transport, and the contamination could be
passed into other terrestrial food chains (048).
Disposal of the materials would be in a licensed chemical
waste landfill, and would be in compliance with State and
Federal standards for PCB waste disposal. PCB materials
with concentrations greater than 50 ppm must be nonflowable
if they are to be disposed of in a chemical waste landfill
(40 CFR 761). Solids dewatering must be complete enough to
result in a nonflowable consistency after transport to the
final disposal site. If a nonflowable consistency cannot be
obtained, fixation will be required.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, dredg-
ing, and transportation activities. Although high noise
levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
PD525.022 6-43
-------
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Recreation. The noise and traffic congestion associated
with construction activities could have short-term nega-
tive impacts on the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
The City of Waukegan uses the site proposed for the
dewatering lagoon as a parking area for its public fes-
tivals. This alternative would preclude this use for
the project duration. The city would have to arrange
other transportation means (such as a shuttle system
between the downtown area and the beach) because no
alternative parking facilities are available.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup ac-
tivities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup ac-
tivity and associated work function would require the defi-
nition and enforcement of specific safety precautions and
levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc., has
prepared a conceptual safety plan (see Appendix). The plan
calls for protection measures for workers who may be exposed
to PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would
be performed, and all workers would require appropriate levels
of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring results,
respiratory and dermal protection may be required downwind
of site cleanup activities and the holding lagoon. In addi-
tion to personal protection, the conceptual safety plan
specifies site entry procedures, decontamination procedures,
work limitations, and material disposal requirements. A
detailed health and safety plan would be prepared during
final design of the selected response measures.
Reliability
Dredging. Both hydraulic and clamshell dredges have been
widely used in the past for dredging. No new technologies
are proposed to complete the dredging. Dredging technology
is well developed, and the reliability of the equipment to
remove sediments from the slip and transport them to the
lagoons is high. If a stoppage of the hydraulic dredge occurs
during dredging, it is expected to result in some temporary
PD525.022 6-44
-------
additional suspension of sediment in the water column because
of interruption in hydraulic flow. Leakage or rupture of
the hydraulic dredge discharge pipeline could disperse PCB-
laden water and sediment over previously uncontaminated areas
along the pipeline. The impact of such spills could be mini-
mized by prompt cleanup of the spilled material and of any
soil or other material that was contaminated by the spill.
A contingency plan would be established for prompt cleanup.
Leakage could either be eliminated by pipe joint tightening
or be controlled by joint caulking, mats, collection con-
tainers, or similar means. The collected solids could be
disposed of with the PCB-contaminated solids, and collected
water could be taken to the water treatment plant.
Dewatering Lagoon. The technology for construction of lined
lagoons is well developed and feasible. There are no unusual
construction details for the lagoon construction. Construc-
tion could be accomplished using conventionally available
materials and equipment. The risk of failure would be low.
of the upper clay liner failed, contaminated leachate could
be collected by the underdrain system. If the lower clay
liner also failed, contaminated soil would have to be exca-
vated and disposed of with the other contaminated solids.
If an exterior lagoon failed, PCB-contaminated water and
sediment could flow over a very large area, requiring sub-
stantial cleanup operations and causing greatly increased
volatilization. The technology for dike design is well
understood, however, so the probability of dike failure
would be extremely low.
If detention in the lagoon failed to lower the moisture con-
tent to the extent originally anticipated, more time would
have to be allowed. If more time were allowed, the total
mass of PCBs volatilized would increase.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use
existing technology and equipment shown to be effective in
PCB removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell
for detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB
concentrations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if
adequate removal were not achieved, the water could be re-
cycled through the plant until discharge standards (less
than 1 ppb PCBs) were met.
Transportation. Transportation would be accomplished using
dump trucks. Failure could occur by loss of material from
the truck through leakage, spilling over the top, dusting,
volatilization, or spills resulting from vehicle accidents.
The impact of leakage, dusting, and volatilization would be
to disperse small amounts of PCBs all along the haul routes.
PD525.022 6-45
-------
These types of uncontrolled release could be minimized by
the use of tailgate seals and covers.
The impact of spills would be to deposit a quantity of PCB-
contaminated solids at one or more isolated points. The
risk of spills over the top of the truck could be minimized
by use of a cover. The risk of vehicle accidents is rela-
tively small, but it could be compensated for by having a
response plan and team ready during hauling.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to the sanitary sewer
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB approved site
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
PD525.022 6-46
-------
UPPER HARBOR
Alternative 2B: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose
Response Objective
This alternative would remove all sediments from the Upper
Harbor with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm. If a
95 percent removal efficiency were achieved, it would remove
an estimated 4,800 Ib of PCBs contained in approximately
35,700 yd3 of sediments. This would remove about 1.5 percent
of all the PCBs now found in the Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor
area (003).
Assuming that exposed sediment PCB concentrations are reduced
below 50 ppm in the harbor, peak water column concentrations
of PCBs are expected to be reduced to 0.1 ppb and fish body
burdens are expected to decline to less than 5 ppm (035) .
(If the Upper Harbor were remedied without remedying Slip
No. 3, this would not be true.) Removal would also diminish
the existing estimated volatilization rate of 12 to 40 Ib/yr
of PCBs that are released from the harbor into the local
airshed by approximately an order of magnitude (007).
All former land and water uses would be able to resume after
cleanup-activities are completed. No restrictions to future
uses would be expected.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Dredging and related activities of the Upper Harbor would
require about 3 months. (This would be in addition to the
4 months required for the dredging and related activities of
Slip No. 3.) If the water treatment plant were not protected
against freezing weather, the dewatering lagoon would not be
able to release slurry water to the plant during freezing
conditions. Dredging would then have to occur during non-
freezing weather.
Solids removal to the batch plant would begin about 2 months
after dredging activities are completed. Removal and fixa-
tion of the dewatered sediments would require 2 to 3 months.
Offsite transportation to the disposal site would be concur-
rent with the fixation process. Total project duration is
estimated to be 13 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Dredging. Roiling of bottom sediments during dredging results
in sediment suspension and dispersion. The use of a hydraulic
dredge and the proper dredge head would minimize roiling and
sediment dispersion. A sediment dispersal control system
(double silt curtain or steel sheet piling) would also be
PD525.022 6-47
-------
employed to minimize migration of suspended PCBs out of the
dredging area. To assist in controlling sediment dispersion,
water would be continually pumped from inside the Upper Harbor
during construction to maintain net inflow at the Upper Harbor
mouth. This would tend to keep sediments from crossing the
control barrier. The water could be treated by addition of
polymer and/or activated carbon before the sediment barrier
is removed.
A program would be established to monitor the effectiveness
of the containment measures and to warn of the need for poly-
mer addition or shutdown of dredging. A seiche warning ar-
rangement with the National Weather Service would also be
put in place so operations could be suspended if a seiche
were imminent. The containment devices would be the most
likely to fail during a seiche due to the forces created by
a sudden difference in water level between the two sides of
the sheet piling or double silt curtain.
The City of Waukegan maintains an emergency water intake in
Waukegan Harbor. This water intake, while an integral part
of the Waukegan Harbor system, is rarely used. Project
activities would be expected to be completed while the
intake was not in use. If, however, the intake was needed
during project activities, a monitoring program, including
sampling of raw and finished water, would be established
during the project to ensure the safety of the supply. A
contingency plan would also be established to stop project
operations if any contamination entered the system.
Larsen Marine Services would be adversely affected by any
dredging that inhibited or cut off access to its docks.
These impacts would be short-term and could be minimized by
scheduling dredging during periods that would cause the
least impact on Larsen Marine Services.
Minimal volatilization would be expected to occur during
dredging activities. Losses would be expected to be roughly
0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from the exposed, agitated, and con-
taminated water area (030) . Concentrations of less than
2 ug/m3 would be expected to be present in the air as a re-
sult of dredging activities (007). By comparison, the OSHA
standard for maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is
1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. However, NIOSH recom-
mends that workers not be exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in
the air during an 8-hour period (007). (See Health and
Safety Requirements, later in this section.)
The proposed dredging would affect terrestrial biota. Popula-
tions of gulls and terns that currently reside and feed in
the vicinity of the harbor would be disturbed by increased
noise and activity levels and may move to another area along
the shoreline of Lake Michigan during the times of the day
PD525.022 6-48
-------
when disturbances would occur. However, because none of
these species breeds in the immediate vicinity of the harbor,
no long-term displacement of populations is anticipated (048) .
Some species of birds or other animals could come into contact
with the contaminated sediments and water in the harbor and
dewatering lagoon, particularly during non-working hours
(gulls) and autumn migration periods (waterfowl and shore-
birds) (048^ .
Changes in the harbor water column PCB concentrations and
reduced PCB accumulations in fish would be the two principal
long-term beneficial impacts of dredging.
Possible short-term adverse impacts of dredging would include
the following:
• The area inside the sediment dispersal control
device used to detain roiled sediments would become
turbid during dredging and would very likely become
anoxic in the pre-dawn hours following a day of
dredging in organic "muck" sediments. Indications
are that "disturbances" of polluted bottom sedi-
ments, especially if they have great quantities of
reduced compounds dissolved in the intersticial
waters, can-elevate the expression of sediment
oxygen demand by as much as one order of magnitude.
Diurnal rhythms of respiration/photosynthesis in
freshwater algae are such that the lowest oxygen
levels occur in pre-dawn hours. Consequently,
almost all respiring organisms inside the silt
curtains would be driven out or may die during
early morning hours after dredging (048).
• If dredging occurs during the fall and spring,
there is a good chance that spawning fish may be
present in the harbor during the dredging activi-
ties. Chinook making fall runs may be able to
swim around or leap over the silt curtains into a
highly PCB-laden body of water (048).
Dewatering. Construction of a dewatering lagoon and treat-
ment facilities on OMC property or another nearby site would
remove this land from other uses for the duration of the
project.
The lagoon would be constructed with impermeable clay liners
and a leachate collection system. The groundwater beneath
the lagoon would be monitored by test wells to detect leakage
from the lagoon.
Some volatilization of PCBs would occur during dewatering.
Volatilization would be minimized during initial placement
PD525.022 6-49
-------
of the dredged sediments by the decanting water layer. This
might reduce the estimated volatilization rate from 1.4 Ib
PCBs per day (for exposed sediments with a typical concentra-
tion of 100 ppm) to less than 1 Ib PCBs per day from less
contaminated decanting water layer (007, 030). Other measures
that could be employed include: (1) placing the less con-
taminated sediments on top of the more contaminated sediments
during dredging; (2) placing a layer of an organic material
(e.g., digested activated sludge, manure) on top of the de-
watering sediments upon completion of dredging; or (3) plac-
ing a synthetic liner on top of the water in the lagoon dur-
ing and following dredging. These measures would be expected
to keep PCB concentrations in the air above the lagoon at
about 2 ug/m3 (007).
Water Treatment. All PCB-contaminated water (supernatant
from initial solids dewatering, leachate, rainwater, and
monitoring well water collected from the lagoon) would be
processed through a package water treatment plant. All water
would be treated to PCB levels of below 1 ppb (the USEPA
standard). Treatment plant effluent would be monitored (by
grab sampling and 24-hour sampling) to ensure that discharges
were below 1 ppb. An onsite laboratory would be available
to conduct the water quality analyses. Effluent would be
discharged to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. Water dis-
charged to the sanitary sewer system would be processed again
through the Waukegan municipal wastewater treatment plant
and discharged into the Des Plaines River.
Solids Removal, Fixation, and Disposal. Volatilization
would be expected to occur during solids removal from the
lagoon and truck loading for transport to the batch plant.
The highest reported concentration in Upper Harbor sediments
is about 500 ppm PCBs. The maximum predicted PCB concentra-
tion in the air from solids removal operations is predicted
to be less than 6.6 ug/m3. Typical PCB concentrations range
from about 50 to 500 ppm PCBs. Average PCB concentrations
in the air are expected to be less than 1.0 ug/m3 for sedi-
ments with concentrations of 100 ppm PCBs (007) . These
values were extrapolated from data for sand, assuming 3.6-mph
wind and an air temperature of 68°F. The volatilization
rate from Waukegan Harbor muck should be less than from sand
(007).
Dewatered sediment would be fixed into a nonflowable form
for offsite transport by truck. A sufficient amount of fixing
agent would be used to prevent water loss, and covers may be
required to prevent volatilization during transport. Rules
and regulations controlling the transport of hazardous mate-
rials promulgated by the USDOT, USEPA, IDOT, IINK, and other
applicable regulatory agencies would be complied with. These
include cleanup, safety, and spill prevention and response
measures.
PD525.022 6-50
-------
Offsite disposal of fixed dredged sediments, volatilization
material, and liner material would require approximately
8,220 truck trips to the disposal site using a 10-yd3 capa-
city truck. The established full truck routes within the
City of Waukegan have sufficient capacity to accommodate
the estimated truck traffic, but some roadway congestion and
roadway damage could occur (048). Some species of terres-
trial animals could come into contact with contaminated
materials if any loss occurs during transport, and the con-
tamination could be passed into other terrestrial food chains
(048) .
Disposal of the materials would be in a licensed chemical
waste landfill, and would be in compliance with State and
Federal standards for PCB waste disposal. PCB materials
with concentrations greater than 50 ppm must be nonflowable
if they are to be disposed of in a chemical waste landfill
(40 CFR 761). Solids dewatering and/or fixation must be
complete enough to result in a nonflowable consistency after
transport for final disposal.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, dredg-
ing, and transportation activities. Although high noise
levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Recreation. The noise and traffic congestion associated
with construction activities could have short-term nega-
tive impacts on the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
The City of Waukegan uses the site proposed for the
dewatering lagoon as a parking area for its public fes-
tivals. This alternative would preclude this use for
the project duration. The city would have to arrange
other transportation means (such as a shuttle system
between the downtown area and the beach) because no
alternative parking facilities are available.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
PD525.022 6-51
-------
^^rould enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup ac-
tivities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup ac-
tivity and associated work function would require the defini-
tion and enforcement of specific safety precautions and
levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc., has
prepared a conceptual safety plan (see Appendix). The plan
calls for protection measures for workers who may be exposed
to PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would
be performed, and all workers would require appropriate levels
of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring results,
respiratory and dermal protection may be required downwind
of site cleanup activities and the dewatering lagoons. In
addition to personal protection, the conceptual safety plan
specifies site entry procedures, decontamination procedures,
work limitations, and material disposal requirements. A
detailed health and safety plan would be prepared during
final design of the selected response measures.
Reliability
Dredging. Hydraulic dredges have been widely used in the
past for dredging. No new technologies are proposed to com-
plete the dredging. Dredging technology is well developed,
and the reliability of the equipment to remove sediments
from the Upper Harbor and transport them to the lagoons is
high. If a stoppage of the hydraulic dredge occurs during
dredging, it is expected to result in some temporary addi-
tional suspension of sediment in the water column because of
interruption in hydraulic flow. Leakage or rupture of the
hydraulic dredge discharge pipeline could disperse PCB-laden
water and sediment over previously uncontaminated areas along
the pipeline. The impact of such spills could be minimized
by prompt cleanup of the spilled material and of any soil or
other material that was contaminated by the spill. A contin-
gency plan would be established for prompt cleanup. Leakage
could either be eliminated by pipe joint tightening or be
controlled by joint caulking, mats, collection containers,
or similar means. The collected solids could be disposed of
with the PCB-contaminated solids, and collected water could
be taken to the water treatment plant.
Dewatering Lagoon and Curing Cells. The technology for con-
struction of lined lagoons is well developed and feasible.
There are no unusual construction details for the lagoon
construction. Construction could be accomplished using con-
ventionally available materials and equipment. The risk of
failure would be low. If the upper clay liner failed, con-
taminated leachate could be collected by the underdrain system.
PD525.022 6-52
-------
If the lower clay liner also failed, contaminated soil would
have to be excavated and disposed of with the other contami-
nated solids.
If an exterior lagoon dike failed, PCB-contaminated water
and sediment could flow over a large area, requiring sub-
stantial cleanup operations and causing greatly increased
volatilization. The technology for dike design is well
understood, however, so the probability of dike failure
would be extremely low.
If an exterior curing cell dike failed while a cell was
filled with incompletely cured fixed solids, PCB-contaminated
water and sediment could flow over a small area, requiring
cleanup operations and causing slightly increased volatili-
zation. The technology for dike design is well understood,
however, so the probability of dike failure would be ex-
tremely low.
If detention in the lagoon failed to lower the moisture con-
tent to the extent originally anticipated, either more time
could be allowed or more fixing agent could be used. If
more time were allowed, the total mass of PCBs volatilized
would increase. If more fixing agent were used, the total
solids volume to disposed of would increase.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use exist-
ing technology and equipment shown to be effective in PCB
removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell for
detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB con-
centrations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if ade-
quate removal were not achieved, the water could be recycled
through the plant until discharge standards (less than 1 ppb
PCBs) were met.
Fixation. Fixation would use existing equipment in an appli-
cation similar to previous applications, but not yet estab-
lished for these high-moisture-content sediments. Laboratory
testing is now being conducted to verify that fixation can
be accomplished with existing available materials and equip-
ment. It is anticipated that fixation will prove to be a
technically feasible and reliable means of controlling water
loss. If fixation failed to prevent water loss, then solids
would have to be dewatered mechanically as proposed for Alter-
native 3, or a waiver from that requirement of 40 CFR 761
would have to be obtained from the USEPA Regional Adminis-
trator.
Transportation. Transportation would be accomplished using
dump trucks. Failure could occur by loss of material from
the truck through leakage, spilling over the top, dusting,
volatilization, or spills resulting from vehicle accidents.
PD525.022 6-53
-------
The impact of leakage, dusting, and volatilization would be
to disperse small amounts of PCBs all along the haul routes.
These types of uncontrolled release could be minimized by
the use of tailgate seals and covers.
The impact of spills would be to deposit a quantity of PCB-
contaminated solids at one or more isolated points. The
risk of spills over the top of the truck could be minimized
by use of a cover. The risk of vehicle accidents is rela-
tively small, but it could be compensated for by having a
response plan and team ready during hauling.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCS commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB approved site
PD525.022 6-54
-------
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
Alternative 3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose
Response Objectives
This alternative would remove all sediments from the Upper
Harbor with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm. Jf a
95 percent removal efficiency were achieved, it would remove
an estimated 4,800 Ib of PCBs contained in approximately
35,700 yd3 of sediments. This would remove about 1.5 per-
cent of all the PCBs now found in the Slip No. 3 and Upper
Harbor area (003) .
Assuming that exposed sediment PCB concentrations are re-
duced below 50 ppm in the harbor, peak water column concen-
trations of PCBs are expected to be reduced to 0.1 ppb and
fish body burdens are expected to decline to less than 5 ppm
(035). (If the Upper Harbor were remedied without remedying
Slip No. 3, this would not be true.) Removal would also
diminish the existing estimated volatilization rate of 12 to
40 Ib/yr of PCBs that are released from the harbor into the
local airshed by approximately an order of magnitude (007).
All former land and water uses would be able to resume after
cleanup activities are completed. No restrictions to future
uses would be expected.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Dredging and related activities for the Upper Harbor would
require about 3 months. (This is in addition to the 4 months
required for the dredging and related activities of Slip
No. 3.) If the water treatment plant were not protected
against freezing weather, the dewatering lagoon could not
release slurry water to the plant during freezing conditions.
Dredging would then have to occur during nonfreezing weather.
Because dredged solids would not be fixed, they would have
to be dewatered in the lagoon for an extended time to reach
an adequate nonflowable consistency for disposal. Even with
the employment of additional mechanical dewatering (RUC),
retention time is expected to be from 1 to 2 years.
Offsite transportation to the disposal site would begin ap-
proximately 3 to 4 months after completion of dredging.
Transportation would continue intermittently until project
completion. Total project duration is estimated to be
3 years.
PD525.022 6-55
-------
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Dredging. Roiling of bottom sediments during dredging results
in sediment suspension and dispersion. The use of a hydraulic
dredge and the proper dredge head would minimize roiling and
sediment dispersion. A sediment dispersal control system
(double silt curtain or steel sheet piling) would also be
employed to minimize migration of suspended PCBs out of the
dredging area. To assist in controlling sediment dispersion,
water would be continually pumped from inside the Upper Harbor
during construction to maintain net inflow at the Upper Harbor
mouth. This would tend to keep sediments from crossing the
control barrier. The water could be treated by addition of
polymer and/or activated carbon before the sediment barrier
is removed.
A program would be established to monitor the effectiveness
of the containment measures and to warn of the need for poly-
mer addition or shutdown of dredging. A seiche warning
arrangement with the National Weather Service would also be
put in place so operations could be suspended if a seiche
were imminent. The containment devices would be the most
likely to fail during a seiche due to the forces created by
a sudden difference in water level between the two sides of
the sheet piling or double silt curtain.
The City of Waukegan maintains an emergency water intake in
Waukegan Harbor. This water intake, while an integral part
of the Waukegan Harbor system, is rarely used. Project
activities would be expected to be completed while the
intake was not in use. If, however, the intake was needed
during project activities, a monitoring program, including
sampling of raw and finished water, would be established
during the project to ensure the safety of the supply. A
contingency plan would also be established to stop project
operations if any contamination entered the system.
Larsen Marine Services would be adversely affected by any
dredging that inhibited or cut off access to its docks.
These impacts would be short-term and could be minimized by
scheduling dredging during periods that would cause the
least impact on Larsen Marine Services.
Minimal volatilization would be expected to occur during
dredging activities. Losses would be expected to be roughly
0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from the exposed, agitated, and con-
taminated water area (030) . Concentrations of less than
2 ug/m3 would be expected to be present in the air as a
result of dredging activities (007) . By comparison, the
OSHA standard for maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is
1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. However, NIOSH recom-
mends that workers not be exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in
the air during an 8-hour period (007) . (See Health and
Safety Requirements, later in this section.)
PD525.022 6-56
-------
The proposed dredging would affect terrestrial biota. Popula-
tions of gulls and terns that currently reside and feed in
the vicinity of the harbor would be disturbed by increased
noise and activity levels and may move to another area along
the shoreline of Lake Michigan during the times of the day
when disturbances would occur. However, because none of
these species breeds in the immediate vicinity of the harbor,
no long-term displacement of populations is anticipated (048) .
Some species of birds or other animals could come into contact
with the contaminated sediments and water in the harbor and
dewatering lagoon, particularly during non-working hours
(gulls) and autumn migration periods (waterfowl and shore-
birds) (048) .
Changes in the harbor water column PCB concentrations and
reduced PCB accumulations in fish would be the two principal
long-term beneficial impacts of dredging.
Possible short-term adverse impacts of dredging would include
the following:
• The area inside the sediment dispersal control
device used to detain roiled sediments would become
turbid during dredging and would very likely become
anoxic in the pre-dawn hours following a day of
dredging in organic "muck" sediments. Indications
are that "disturbances" of polluted bottom sedi-
ments, especially if they have great quantities of
reduced compounds dissolved in the intersticial
waters, can elevate the expression of sediment
oxygen demand by as much as one order of magnitude.
Diurnal rhythms of respiration/photosynthesis in
freshwater algae are such that the lowest oxygen
levels occur in pre-dawn hours. Consequently,
almost all respiring organisms inside the silt
curtains would be driven out or may die during
early morning hours after dredging (048).
• If dredging occurs during the fall and spring,
there is a good chance that spawning fish may be
present in the harbor during the dredging activi-
ties. Chinook making fall runs may be able to
swim around or leap over the silt curtains into a
highly PCB-laden body of water (048).
Dewatering. Construction of a dewatering lagoon and treat-
ment facilities on OMC property or another nearby site would
remove this land from other uses for the duration of the
project.
The lagoon would be constructed with impermeable clay liners
and a leachate collection system. The groundwater beneath
PD525.022 6-57
-------
the lagoon would be monitored by test wells to detect leakage
from the lagoon.
Under this alternative, volatilization would be significantly
increased during retention of the dredged materials in the
lagoon because mechanical dewatering would be employed. The
RUG system (or other channelization techniques) would be
used to channel the sediments for drainage of water to expose
them to air for evaporation and drying. After the top layer
was dried, it would be removed and the process repeated.
This would result in substantially more volatilization of
PCBs to the atmosphere than for Alternative 2B, since evapora-
tion is a necessary part of the dewatering process. The
highest reported concentration in Upper Harbor sediments is
about 500 ppm PCS. The maximum predicted PCB concentration
in air above these sediments would be less than 6.6 ug/m3,
well below 1,000 ug/m3, the OSHA standard. The volatiliza-
tion rate is predicted to be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr.
Typical concentrations are about 50 to 500 ppm. Predicted
average PCB concentrations in the air would be less than
1.0 ug/m3. The average volatilization rate is expected to
be about 725 ug/m2/hr or 1.4 Ib/day of PCBs. These values
were extrapolated from data for sand, assuming a wind speed
of 3.6-mph and an air temperature of 68°F. The volatiliza-
tion rate from Waukegan Harbor muck should be less than from
sand (007).
Because this alternative would require more time for solids
dewatering, it would restrict land uses on the OMC property
or other nearby site used for the lagoon for a longer period
than Alternative 2B. It would, however, involve less total
property use, since it would not require land for the fixa-
tion process.
Water Treatment. All PCB-contaminated water (supernatant
from initial solids dewatering, leachate, rainwater, and
monitoring well water collected from the lagoon) would be
processed through a package water treatment plant. All water
would be treated to PCB levels of below 1 ppb (the USEPA
standard). Treatment plant effluent would be monitored (by
grab sampling and 24-hour sampling) to ensure that discharges
were below 1 ppb. An onsite laboratory would be available
to conduct water quality analyses. Effluent would be
discharged to the harbor or to a sanitary sewer. Water
discharged to the sanitary sewer system would be processed
again through the Waukegan municipal wastewater treatment
plant and discharged into the Des Plaines River.
Solids Removal and Disposal. Volatilization would be expec-
ted to occur during solids removal from the lagoon and truck
loading for offsite transport. The highest reported concen-
tration in Upper Harbor sediments is about 500 ppm PCB. The
PD525.022 6-58
-------
maximum predicted PCB concentration in air above these sedi-
ments would be less than 6.6 ug/m3, well below 1,000 ug/m3,
the OSHA standard. The volatilization rate is predicted to
be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr. Typical concentrations are
about 50 to 500 ppm. Predicted average PCB concentrations
in the air would be less than 1.0 ug/m3 for sediments with
concentrations of 100 ppm PCBs. The average volatilization
rate is expected to be about 725 ug/m2/hr or 1.4 Ib/day of
PCBs. These values were extrapolated from data for sand,
assuming a wind speed of 3.6-mph and an air temperature of
68°F. The volatilization rate from Waukegan Harbor muck
should be less than from sand (007). Increased concentra-
tions of PCBs may result in the air from PCB-contaminated
dust produced by excavation activities, since these solids
will be dry and dusty.
Additional precautions would be required during offsite
transportation of the non-fixed materials. Trucks would
have to employ a liner (such as heavy-duty plastic sheeting)
to prevent leakage or spillage. Cover or closure of the
trucks would be required to prevent spillage and volatili-
zation during transport. Rules and regulations controlling
the transport of toxic materials promulgated by the USDOT,
USEPA, IDOT, IINR, and other applicable regulatory agencies
would be complied with. These include cleanup, safety, and
spill prevention and response measures.
Offsite disposal of fixed dredged sediments and liner material
would require approximately 6,110 truck trips to the dis-
posal site using a 10-yd3 capacity truck. The established
full truck routes within the City of Waukegan have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the estimated truck traffic, but
some roadway congestion and roadway damage could occur (048).
Some species of terrestrial animals could come into contact
with contaminated materials if any loss occurs during trans-
port, and the contamination could be passed into other ter-
restrial food chains (048).
Disposal of the materials would be in a licensed chemical
waste landfill, and would be in compliance with State and
Federal standards for PCB waste disposal. PCB materials
with concentrations greater than 50 ppm must be nonflowable
if they are to be disposed of in a chemical waste landfill
(40 CFR 761). Solids dewatering must be complete enough to
result in a nonflowable consistency after transport to the
final disposal site. If a nonflowable consistency cannot be
obtained, fixation will be required.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, dredg-
ing, and transportation activities. Although high noise
PD525.022 6-59
-------
levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Recreation. The noise and traffic congestion associated
with construction activities could have short-term nega-
tive impacts on the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
The City of Waukegan uses the site proposed for the
dewatering lagoon as a parking area for its public fes-
tivals. This alternative would preclude this use for
the project duration. The city would have to arrange
other transportation means (such as a shuttle system
between the downtown area and the beach) because no
alternative parking facilities are available.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup ac-
tivities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup ac-
tivity and associated work function would require the defini-
tion and enforcement of specific safety precautions and
levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc., has
prepared a conceptual safety plan (see Appendix). The plan
calls for protection measures for workers who may be exposed
to PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would
be performed, and all workers would require appropriate levels
of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring results,
respiratory and dermal protection may be required downwind
of site cleanup activities and the holding lagoon. In addi-
tion to personal protection, the conceptual safety plan speci-
fies site entry procedures, decontamination procedures, work
limitations, and material disposal requirements. A detailed
health and safety plan would be prepared during final design
of the selected response measures.
Reliability
Dredging. Hydraulic dredges have been widely used in the
past for dredging. No new technologies are proposed to
PD525.022 6-60
-------
complete the dredging. Dredging technology is well developed,
and the reliability of the equipment to remove sediments
from the Upper Harbor and transport them to the lagoons is
high. If a stoppage of the hydraulic dredge occurs during
dredging, it is expected to result in some temporary addi-
tional suspension of sediment in the water column because of
interruption in hydraulic flow. Leakage or rupture of the
hydraulic dredge discharge pipeline could disperse PCB-laden
water and sediment over previously uncontaminated areas along
the pipeline. The impact of such spills could be minimized
by prompt cleanup of the spilled material and of any soil or
other material that was contaminated by the spill. A con-
tingency plan would be established for prompt cleanup. Leak-
age could either be eliminated by pipe joint tightening or
be controlled by joint caulking, mats, collection containers,
or similar means. The collected solids could be disposed of
with the PCB-contaminated solids, and collected water could
be taken to the water treatment plant.
Dewatering Lagoon. The technology for construction of lined
lagoons is well developed and feasible. There are no unusual
construction details for the lagoon construction. Construc-
tion could be accomplished using conventionally available
materials and equipment. The risk of failure would be low.
If the upper clay liner failed, contaminated leachate could
be collected by the underdrain system. If the lower clay
liner also failed, contaminated soil would have to be excava-
ted and disposed of with the other contaminated solids.
If an exterior lagoon failed, PCB-contaminated water and
sediment could flow over a very large area, requiring sub-
stantial cleanup operations and causing greatly increased
volatilization. The technology for dike design is v/ell
understood, however, so the probability of dike failure
would be extremely low.
If detention in the lagoon failed to lower the moisture con-
tent to the extent originally anticipated, more time would
have to be allowed. If more time were allowed, the total
mass of PCBs volatilized would increase.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use exist-
ing technology and equipment shown to be effective in PCB
removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell for
detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB con-
centrations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if
adequate removal were not achieved, the water could be re-
cycled through the plant until discharge standards (less
than 1 ppb PCBs) were met.
Transportation. Transportation would be accomplished using
dump trucks. Failure could occur by loss of material from
PD525.022 6-61
-------
the truck through leakage, spilling over the top, dusting,
volatilization, or spills resulting from vehicle accidents.
The impact of leakage, dusting, and volatilization would be
to disperse small amounts of PCBs all along the haul routes.
These types of uncontrolled release could be minimized by
the use of tailgate seals and covers.
The impact of spills would be to deposit a quantity of PCB-
contaminated solids at one or more isolated points. The
risk of spills over the top of the truck could be minimized
by use of a cover. The risk of vehicle accidents is rela-
tively small, but it could be compensated for by having a
response plan and team ready during hauling.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterway) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
PD525.022 6-62
-------
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
SLIP NO. 3 AND UPPER HARBOR
Alternative 6A; Contain-Dredge-Cap
Response Objectives
Under this alternative, a cofferdam would be constructed near
the north end of the Upper Harbor to close off Slip No. 3
and the northwest portion of the Upper Harbor. A slurry cut-
off wall would be constructed inside the cofferdam and around
the perimeter of the enclosed area to contain PCBs in-place.
The cutoff wall would extend into the glacial till to minimize
uncontrolled dispersion of PCBs into the groundwater.
A sediment dispersal control device, consisting of a double silt
curtain or sheet piling, would be installed at the south end
of the Upper Harbor. Sediments with PCB concentrations greater
than 50 ppm would then be dredged from the rest of the Upper
Harbor and placed within the containment area. This alternative
would control almost 100 percent of all the PCBs now found in
Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor area. If a 95 percent removal
efficiency were achieved, this would transfer an estimated
4,400 Ib of PCBs contained in approximately 33,500 yd3 of
sediments from the Upper Harbor to the containment area.
Dredged sediments would be dewatered, with the supernatant
processed through a package water treatment plant to PCB
levels below 1 ppb. The contained area would be capped with
impermeable materials to seal in the contaminated materials.
Based on Mason & Hanger's equation for calculation of disper-
sion of PCBs (001), migration_through a 2-ft slurry wall with
an overall permeability of 10~7 cm/sec would be expected to
take 2 years, dispersing about 0.001 Ib/yr PCBs. If the slurry
wall were cracked by the fluctuating water table, freezing, or
other natural phenomena, PCBs could escape at a higher rate.
Groundwater monitoring wells would be constructed to provide
continuous checks on the efficiency of the slurry wall. The
State would be required to provide maintenance under PL 96-510.
Using Mason & Hanger's equation (001), migration through a
1-ft-thick layer of glacial till with an overall permeability
of 10"7 cm/sec would be expected to take 1 year, dispersing
about 0.008 Ib/yr PCBs. If sandy zones were encountered in
the glacial till, PCBs could escape at a higher rate. Ground-
water monitoring wells would be constructed to provide contin-
uous checks on the efficiency of the glacial till. The State
would be required to provide maintenance under PL 96-510.
The site would be capped with impermeable materials to seal
in the contaminated soils. Capping would reduce percolation
PD525.022 6-63
-------
into the contaminated area. Future construction projects
that would cause disturbance to the surface and underlying
soils (trenching, drilling, digging, etc.) would not be al-
lowed, to minimize deterioration of the impermeable barriers.
Containment and capping would reduce the environmental hazards
now posed by PCB contamination in the harbor. All contami-
nated sediments in Slip No. 3 and the enclosed portion of
the Upper Harbor would be contained in-place, and 95 percent
removal efficiency of PCBs would be achieved in the rest of
the Upper Harbor. The reliability of the slurry wall and
capping technologies and the glacial till is discussed in
the Reliability section below.
Containment of Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor in this manner
would require a USEPA waiver from the requirements of 40 CFR 761
of TSCA, since PCBs would remain in proximity to Lake Michigan
and in an area with a high groundwater table (058).
This alternative would have greater land use impacts than Slip
No. 3 and the Upper Harbor alternatives. Slip No. 3 and a
portion of the Upper Harbor would no longer exist and would
be converted into a parking lot. Future uses of the new area
(and possibly use of some adjacent areas) would be restricted
because soil-disturbing construction activities could not be
allowed. A new basin would be constructed on vacant OMC
property to the east of Slip No. 3. Larsen Marine Services
would have to be relocated adjacent to the new basin.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Cofferdam and slurry wall construction at the north end of the
Upper Harbor would require about 3 months. An additional
month would be required for dredging in the Upper Harbor.
If the water treatment plant were not protected against freez-
ing weather, the containment area would not be able to re-
lease slurry water to the plant during freezing conditions.
Dredging would then have to occur during nonfreezing weather.
Surcharging would extend 6 to 12 months after dredging activities
are completed. Removal of the surcharge and capping of the de-
watered sediments would require about 1 month. Construction of
the new boat basin would require about 4 months, concurrent with
surcharging. Total project duration is estimated to be 11 to
17 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Dredging. Roiling of bottom sediments during dredging results
in sediment suspension and dispersion. The use of a hydraulic
dredge and the proper dredge head would minimize roiling and
sediment dispersion. A sediment dispersal control system
(double silt curtain or steel sheet piling) would also be
PD525.022 6-64
-------
employed to minimize migration of suspended PCBs out of the
dredging area. To assist in controlling sediment dispersion,
water would be continually pumped from inside the contained
area during construction to maintain net inflow at the south
end of the Upper Harbor. This would tend to keep sediments
from crossing the control barrier. The water could be treated
by addition of polymer and/or activated carbon before the
sediment barrier is removed.
A program would be established to monitor the effectiveness
of the containment measures and to warn of the need for polymer
addition or shutdown of dredging. A seiche warning arrange-
ment with the National Weather Service would also be put in
place so operations could be suspended if a seiche were im-
minent. The containment devices would be the most likely to
fail during a seiche due to the forces created by a sudden
difference in water level between the two sides of the sheet
piling or double silt curtain.
The City of Waukegan maintains an emergency water intake in
Waukegan Harbor. This water intake, while an integral part
of the Waukegan Harbor system, is rarely used. Project
activities would be expected to be completed while the in-
take was not in use. If, however, the intake was needed
during project activities, a monitoring program, including
sampling of raw and finished water, would be established
during the project to ensure the safety of the supply. A
contingency plan would also be established to stop project
operations if any contamination entered the system.
Larsen Marine Services would be seriously affected by this
alternative. Cofferdam construction would permanently cut
off access to its dock. To prevent further spread of PCBs,
the new boat basin should not be opened until the Upper
Harbor dredging is complete. It is estimated that there
would be a 4-month period during which neither Slip No. 3
nor the new boat basin would be available for Larsen Marine
Services' operations. Temporary facilities would have to be
provided, most probably on the east side of the Upper Harbor
south of the proposed boat basin. In addition, a number of
Larsen Marine Services docks and service facilities would
have to be relocated. The overall short-term impact on Larsen
Marine Services would be greater for this alternative than
for Alternatives 2B, 2D, and 3. This could be partially
offset by the long-term advantages that may accrue to Larsen
Marine Services, since the new boat basin geometry could be
designed to improve water accessibility.
Minimal volatilization would be expected to occur during
dredging activities. Losses would be expected to be roughly
0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from the exposed, agitated, and con-
taminated water area (030) . Concentrations of less than
2 ug/m3 would be expected to be present in the air as a
result of dredging activities (007). By comparison, the
PD525.022 6-65
-------
OSHA standard for maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is
1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. However, NIOSH recom-
mends that workers not be exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in
the air during an 8-hour period (007) . (See Health and
Safety Requirements, later in this section.)
The proposed dredging would affect terrestrial biota. Popula-
tions of gulls and terns that currently reside and feed in
the vicinity of the harbor would be disturbed by increased
noise and activity levels and may move to another area along
the shoreline of Lake Michigan during the times of the day
when disturbances would occur. However, because none of
these species breeds in the immediate vicinity of the harbor,
no long-term displacement of populations is anticipated (048) .
Some species of birds or other animals could come into contact
with the contaminated sediments and water in the harbor and
dewatering lagoon, particularly during non-working hours
(gulls) and autumn migration periods (waterfowl and shore-
birds) (048) .
Changes in the harbor water column PCB concentrations and
reduced PCB accumulations in fish would be the two principal
long-term beneficial impacts of dredging.
Possible short-term adverse impacts of dredging would include
the following:
• The area inside the sediment dispersal control
device used to detain roiled sediments would become
turbid during dredging and would very likely become
anoxic in the pre-dawn hours following a day of
dredging in organic "muck" sediments. Indications
are that "disturbances" of polluted bottom sedi-
ments, especially if they have great quantities of
reduced compounds dissolved in the intersticial
waters, can elevate the expression of sediment
oxygen demand by as much as one order of magnitude.
Diurnal rhythms of respiration/photosynthesis in
freshwater algae are such that the lowest oxygen
levels occur in pre-dawn hours. Consequently,
almost all respiring organisms inside the silt
curtains would be driven out or may die during
early morning hours after dredging (048) .
• If dredging occurs during the fall and spring,
there is a good chance that spawning fish may be
present in the harbor during the dredging activi-
ties. Chinook making fall runs may be able to
swim around or leap over the silt curtains into a
highly PCB-laden body of water (048) .
Dewatering. Some volatilization of PCBs would occur during
dewatering of the dredged sediments. PCB volatilization
PD525.022 6-66
-------
would be minimized during initial placement of the dredged
sediments by the decanting water layer. The estimated
volatilization rate from exposed Upper Harbor sediments with
a typical concentration of 100 ppm PCBs would be less than
1 Ib of PCBs per day. Volatilization from the less contami-
nated decanting water layer would also be less than
1.0 Ib/day (007, 030).
After completion of dredging, water removal and treatment
would continue until settlement of the top of the dredged
sediments slowed to a negligible rate. The contained area
would then be covered by filter fabric, a granular drainage
blanket with drain pipes, and a compacted clay cap and sur-
charge. This would eliminate the volatilization potential
from the containment area. Water removed from the drainage
system would have to be treated to remove PCBs until sur-
charge removal. The drainage pipes would then be permanently
plugged.
Water Treatment. All PCB-contaminated waters from the de-
watering process would be processed through a package water
treatment plant. All water would be treated to PCB levels
of below 1 ppb (the USEPA standard). Treatment plant efflu-
ent would be monitored (by grab sampling and 24-hour samp-
ling) to ensure that discharges were below 1 ppb. An onsite
laboratory would be available to conduct the water quality
analyses. Effluent would be discharged into Lake Michigan
or to a sanitary sewer. Water discharged into the sanitary
sewer system would be processed again through the Waukegan
municipal wastewater treatment plant and discharged into the
Des Plaines River.
Borrow Materials. Cofferdam, drain, cap, and surcharge con-
struction would require filling with clean material. This
would require soils removal from an offsite borrow pit,
causing topographic and other minor local impacts to the
borrow area.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, dredg-
ing, and transportation activities. Although high noise
levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
PD525.022 6-67
-------
Recreation. The noise and traffic congestion associated
with construction activities could have short-term nega-
tive impacts on the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup ac-
tivities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup ac-
tivity and associated work function would require the defini-
tion and enforcement of specific safety precautions and
levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc., has
prepared a conceptual safety plan (Appendix). The plan calls
for protection measures for workers who may be exposed to
PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would be
performed, and all workers would require appropriate levels
of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring results,
respiratory and dermal protection may be required downwind
of site cleanup activities. In addition to personal protec-
tion, the conceptual safety plan specifies site entry pro-
cedures, decontamination procedures, work limitations, and
material disposal requirements. A detailed health and safety
plan would be prepared during final design of the selected
response measures.
Reliability
Slurry Walls. Slurry walls are a relatively new construction
technique, in general use for about 20 years. The technology
of construction is well developed, but long-term performance
data on the use of slurry walls as a seepage cutoff are not
available. While it is generally expected that slurry walls
would be relatively impervious, it is possible that "windows"
of more permeable material could develop during slurry wall
construction. Trench backfill is done below the surface of
the slurry, so that visual inspection of the backfill as it
reaches its final position is not possible. In addition,
the upper part of the completed slurry wall could be cracked
by freezing, groundwater fluctuations, or other natural
phenomena. The literature on the effect of PCBs on slurry
wall permeability is limited. It is anticipated that there
would be no significant effects, since clay is generally
accepted as a liner for licensed PCB disposal sites.
However, the types of slurry wall available should be
reviewed during design. If the slurry wall failed to
achieve the overall average permeability desired, movement
of PCB-contaminated groundwater could occur more rapidly
PD525.022 6-68
-------
than anticipated. On the other hand, slurry walls have been
used for groundwater control on many projects and have a
good performance record. The containment area would be
monitored to permit ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness
and integrity of the slurry walls and clay cap. The
reliability of the containment could be enhanced with
development of additional design details:
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by terminating
the slurry wall below the frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an inter-
nal drainage system could be installed to maintain
internal water levels lower than external levels
so that any leakage would be into the containment
area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCB con-
tamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. The type
of slurry wall material should also be evaluated during
design. Overall, the reliability of slurry walls to reduce
the movement of PCB-contaminated groundwater is considered
good.
Glacial Till. The glacial till covering the bedrock in the
Waukegan area is unsorted, glacier-deposited sediment, con-
sisting of silt, clay, and lenses of sand, in which pebbles,
cobbles, and boulders are embedded. The thickness of the
glacial till typically ranges from 50 to more than 100 ft.
Because of the relatively low permeability of the glacial
till, dissolved substances would be unlikely to migrate more
than 20 to 30 ft, unless they reached a sandy zone of higher
permeability. These zones could permit deeper migration of
dissolved substances (058). Diffusion (the natural force
acting to minimize concentration differences) may also dis-
perse dissolved PCBs in the glacial till pore water.
Because of the limited information available at the time
they prepared their report, Mason & Hanger did not recommend
any alternatives that depended on the underlying glacial
till to contain the more concentrated PCB materials (001).
Mason & Hanger recommended additional studies be performed
to determine the reliability of the glacial till.
PCBs are heavier than water. The PCBs could gravitate down
through the glacial till as evidenced by the PCB penetration
into the glacial till immediately adjacent to former OMC
PD525.022 6-69
-------
discharge points in Slip No. 3 (001) . PCB concentration
decreases rapidly with depth into the glacial till, dropping
off to a few ppm after 5 ft of depth in Slip No. 3 (008) .
Dredging. Hydraulic dredges have been widely used in the
past for dredging. No new technologies are proposed to com-
plete the dredging. Dredging technology is well developed,
and the reliability of the equipment to remove sediments
from the Upper Harbor and transport them to the containment
area is high. If a stoppage of the hydraulic dredge occurs
during dredging, it is expected to result in some temporary
additional suspension of sediment in the water column due to
interruption in hydraulic flow. Leakage or rupture of the
hydraulic dredge discharge pipeline could disperse PCB-laden
water and sediment over previously uncontaminated areas along
he pipeline. The impact of such spills could be minimized
by prompt cleanup of the spilled material and of any soil or
other material that was contaminated by the spill. A con-
tingency plan would be established for prompt cleanup. Leak-
age could either be eliminated by pipe joint tightening or
be controlled by joint caulking, mats, collection containers,
or similar means. The collected solids could be disposed of
in the containment area, and collected water could be taken
to the water treatment plant.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use exist-
ing technology and equipment shown to be effective in PCB
removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell for
detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB con-
centrations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if
adequate removal were not achieved, the water could be re-
cycled through the plant until discharge standards (less
than 1 ppb PCBs) were met.
Capping. The use of compacted clay as liners and caps for
chemical waste landfills is a well-developed technology. The
use of asphaltic concrete as a runoff-accelerating membrane
is also well developed. The clay cap could develop cracks
due to moisture content variations, settlement, freezing, or
other natural phenomena. The asphaltic concrete cap would
be used to help reduce the possibility of soil moisture
changes, thus reducing the possibility of developing cracks
in the clay cap. It is anticipated that the asphaltic con-
crete membrane would require periodic maintenance to seal
cracks that will inevitably develop as the pavement ages.
The impact of cracking of the cap system would be to allow
additional surface water to infiltrate the ground, and pos-
sibly to permit minor amounts of volatilized PCBs to leave
the containment area. If infiltration increased, it could
provide hydraulic head inside the contained area that would
increase the flow of PCB-contaminated groundwater from
inside the contained area to the surrounding or underlying
PD525.022 6-70
-------
soil. This would result in further PCB contamination of
adjacent and underlying soil. The amount of any such uncon-
trolled release would be expected to be very small. Over-
all, the reliability of the cap would be considered good.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PC3-approved site
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
Alternative 6B; Contain-Dredge Part of Upper Harbor-Cap
Response Objectives
Under this alternative, a cofferdam would be constructed to
separate Slip No. 3 from the Upper Harbor. A slurry cutoff
wall would be constructed inside the cofferdam and around
the perimeter of the slip to contain PCBs in-place. The
cutoff wall would extend into the glacial till to minimize
uncontrolled dispersion of PCBs into the groundwater.
PD525.022 6-71
-------
A sediment dispersal control device, consisting of a double
silt curtain or sheet piling, would be installed near the
middle of the Upper Harbor. Approximately 13,100 yd3 of
sediments with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm would
then be dredged from the north part of the Upper Harbor and
placed within the containment area. If a 95 percent removal
efficiency were achieved, this would transfer an estimated
3,600 Ib of PCBs to the containment area. This alternative
would control 99 percent of all the PCBs now found in Slip
No. 3 and the Upper Harbor area. Because of the limited
containment area, a smaller volume of sediments would be
dredged from the Upper Harbor than under the other alterna-
tives. This alternative would not remove approximately 25,500
yd3 of sediments containing 3,100 Ib of PCBs with concentra-
tions between 50 and 150 ppm in the Upper Harbor. However,
these PCBs represent less than 1 percent of the PCBs now
found in Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor area.
Dredged sediments would be dewatered, with the supernatant
processed through a package water treatment plant to PCB
levels below 1 ppb. The contained area would be capped with
impermeable materials to seal in the contaminated materials.
Using Mason & Hanger's equation for dispersion of PCBs (001),
migration through a 2-ft slurry wall with an overall perme-
ability of 10 7 cm/sec would be expected to take 2 years,
dispersing about 0.0006 Ib/yr PCBs. If the slurry wall were
cracked by the fluctuating water table, freezing, or other
natural phenomena, PCBs could escape at a higher rate. Ground-
water monitoring wells would be constructed to provide con-
tinuous checks on the efficiency of the slurry wall. The
State would be required to provide maintenance under PL 96-510.
Using Mason & Hanger's equation (001), migration through a
1-ft-thick layer of glacial till with an overall permeability
of 10 7 cm/sec would be expected to take 1 year, dispersing
about 0.003 Ib/yr PCBs. If sandy zones were encountered in
the glacial till, PCBs could escape at a higher rate. Ground-
water monitoring wells would be constructed to provide contin-
uous checks on the efficiency of the glacial till. The State
would be required to provide maintenance under PL 96-510.
The site would be capped with impermeable materials to seal
in the contaminated soils. Capping would reduce percolation
into the contaminated area. Future construction projects
that would cause disturbance to the surface and underlying
soils (trenching, drilling, digging, etc.) would not be al-
lowed, to minimize deterioration of the impermeable barriers.
Containment and capping would reduce the environmental haz-
ards now posed by PCB contamination in the harbor. All con-
taminated sediments in the western portion of Slip No. 3
would be contained in-place, and 95 percent removal efficiency
PD525.022 6-72
-------
of PCBs would be achieved in the eastern portion of Slip
No. 3 and the northern portion of the Upper Harbor. The
reliability of the slurry wall and capping technologies and
the glacial till is discussed in the Reliability section
below.
Containment of Slip No. 3 in this manner would require a
USEPA waiver from the requirements of 40 CFR 761 of TSCA,
since PCBs would remain in proximity to Lake Michigan and in
an area with a high groundwater table (058) .
This alternative would have greater land use impacts than
Slip No. 3—Alternatives 2B, 2D, and 3. Slip No. 3 would no
longer exist and would be converted into a parking lot.
Future uses of the new area over the slip (and possibly use
of some adjacent areas) would be restricted because soil-
disturbing construction activities could not be allowed. A
new basin would be constructed on vacant OMC property to the
east of Slip No. 3. Larsen Marine Services would have to be
relocated adjacent to the new basin.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Cofferdam and slurry wall construction at the mouth of Slip
No. 3 would require about 2 months. An additional month
would be required for dredging in the Upper Harbor. If the
water treatment plant were not protected against freezing
weather, the containment area would not be able to release
slurry water to the plant during freezing conditions. Dredg-
ing would then have to occur during nonfreezing weather.
Surcharging would extend 6 to 12 months after dredging acti-
vities are completed. Removal of the surcharge and capping
of the dewatered sediments would require about 1 month. Con-
struction of the new boat basin would require about 4 months,
concurrent with surcharging. Total project duration is esti-
mated to be 10 to 16 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Dredging. Roiling of bottom sediments during dredging results
in sediment suspension and dispersion. The use of a hydraulic
dredge and the proper dredge head would minimize roiling and
sediment dispersion. A sediment dispersal control system
(double silt curtain or steel sheet piling) would also be
employed to minimize migration of suspended PCBs out of the
dredging area. To assist in controlling sediment dispersion,
water would be continually pumped from inside the contained
area during construction to maintain net inflow at the slip
mouth. This would tend to keep sediments from crossing the
control barrier. The water could be treated by addition of
polymer and/or activated carbon before the sediment barrier
is removed.
PD525.022 6-73
-------
A program would be established to monitor the effectiveness
of the containment measures and to warn of the need for poly-
mer addition or shutdown of dredging. A seiche warning
arrangement with the National Weather Service would also be
put in place so operations could be suspended if a seiche
were imminent. The containment devices would be the most
likely to fail during a seiche due to the forces created by
a sudden difference in water level between the two sides of
the sheet piling or double silt curtain.
The City of Waukegan maintains an emergency water intake in
Waukegan Harbor. This water intake, while an integral part
of the Waukegan Harbor system, is rarely used. Project
activities would be expected to be completed while the
intake was not in use. If, however, the intake was needed
during project activities, a monitoring program, including
sampling of raw and finished water, would be established
during the project to ensure the safety of the supply. A
contingency plan would also be established to stop project
operations if any contamination entered the system.
Larsen Marine Services would be seriously affected by this
alternative. Cofferdam construction would permanently cut
off access to its dock. To prevent further spread of PCBs,
the new boat basin should not be opened until the Upper
Harbor dredging is complete. It is estimated that there
would be a 4-month period during which neither Slip No. 3
nor the new boat basin would be available for Larsen
Marine Services' operations. Temporary facilities would
have to be provided, most probably on the east side of the
Upper Harbor south of the proposed boat basin. In addition,
a number of Larsen Marine Services docks and service facili-
ties would have to be relocated. The overall short-term
impact on Larsen Marine Services would be greater for this
alternative than for Alternatives 2B, 2D, and 3. This could
be partially offset by the long-term advantages that may
accrue to Larsen Marine Services, since the new boat basin
geometry could be designed to improve water accessibility.
Minimal volatilization would be expected to occur during
dredging activities. Losses would be expected to be roughly
0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from the exposed, agitated, and con-
taminated water area (030) . Concentrations of less than
2 ug/m3 would be expected to be present in the air as a
result of dredging activities (007) . By comparison, the
OSHA standard for maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is
1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. However, NIOSH recom-
mends that workers not be exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in
the air during an 8-hour period (007) . (See Health and
Safety Requirements, later in this section.)
The proposed dredging would affect terrestrial biota. Popula-
tions of gulls and terns that currently reside and feed in
PD525.022 6-74
-------
the vicinity of the harbor would be disturbed by increased
noise and activity levels and may move to another area along
the shoreline of Lake Michigan during the times of the day
when disturbances would occur. However, because none of
these species breeds in the immediate vicinity of the harbor,
no long-term displacement of populations is anticipated (048) .
Some species of birds or other animals could come into contact
with the contaminated sediments and water in the harbor and
dewatering lagoon, particularly during non-working hours
(gulls) and autumn migration periods (waterfowl and shore-
birds) (048) .
Changes in the harbor water column PCB concentrations and
reduced PCB accumulations in fish would be the two principal
long-term beneficial impacts of dredging.
Possible short-term adverse impacts of dredging would include
the following:
• The area inside the sediment dispersal control
device used to detain roiled sediments would become
turbid during dredging and would very likely become
anoxic in the pre-dawn hours following a day of
dredging in organic "muck" sediments. Indications
are that "disturbances" of polluted bottom sedi-
ments, especially if they have great quantities of
reduced compounds dissolved in the intersticial
waters, can elevate the expression of sediment
oxygen demand by as much as one order of magnitude.
Diurnal rhythms of respiration/photosynthesis in
freshwater algae are such that the lowest oxygen
levels occur in pre-dawn hours. Consequently,
almost all respiring organisms inside the silt
curtains would be driven out or may die during
early morning hours after dredging (048).
• If dredging occurs during the fall and spring,
there is a good chance that spawning fish may be
present in the harbor during the dredging activi-
ties. Chinook making fall runs may be able to
swim around or leap over the silt curtains into a
highly PCB-laden body of water (048).
Dewatering. Some volatilization of PCBs would occur during
dewatering of the dredged sediments. PCB volatilization
would be minimized during initial placement of the dredged
sediments by the decanting water layer. The estimated
volatilization rate from exposed Upper Harbor sediments with
a typical concentration of 500 ppm PCBs would be less than
1 Ib of PCBs per day. The volatilization rate from the less
contaminated decanting water layer would also be less than
1 Ib/day (007, 030).
PD525.022 6-75
-------
After completion of dredging, water removal and treatment
would continue until settlement of the top of the dredged
sediments slowed to a negligible rate. The contained area
would then be covered by filter fabric, a granular drainage
blanket with drain pipes, and a compacted clay cap and sur-
charged. This would eliminate the volatilization potential
from the containment area. Water removed from the drainage
system would have to be treated to remove PCBs until sur-
charge removal. The drainage pipes would then be permanently
plugged.
Water Treatment. All PCB-contaminated waters from the de-
watering process would be processed through a package water
treatment plant. All water would be treated to PCB levels
of below 1 ppb (the USEPA standard). Treatment plant efflu-
ent would be monitored (by grab sampling and 24-hour samp-
ling) to ensure that discharges were below 1 ppb. An onsite
laboratory would be available to conduct the water quality
analyses. Effluent would be discharged into Lake Michigan
or to a sanitary sewer. Water discharged into the sanitary
sewer system would be processed again through the Waukegan
municipal wastewater treatment plant and discharged into the
Des Plaines River.
Borrow Materials. Cofferdam, drain, cap, and surcharge con-
struction would require filling with clean material. This
would require soils removal from an offsite borrow pit,
causing topographic and other minor local impacts to the
borrow area.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, dredg-
ing, and transportation activities. Although high noise
levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Recreation. The noise and traffic congestion associated
with construction activities could have short-term nega-
tive impacts on the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
PD525.022 6-76
-------
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup ac-
tivities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup ac-
tivity and associated work function would require the defini-
tion and enforcement of specific safety precautions and
levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc., has
prepared a conceptual safety plan (see Appendix). The plan
calls for protection measures for workers who may be exposed
to PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would
be performed, and all workers would require appropriate levels
of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring results,
respiratory and dermal protection may be required downwind
of site cleanup activities. In addition to personal protec-
tion, the conceptual safety plan specifies site entry pro-
cedures, decontamination procedures, work limitations, and
material disposal requirements. A detailed health and safety
plan would be prepared during final design of the selected
response measures.
Reliability
Slurry Walls. Slurry walls are a relatively new construction
technique, in general use for about 20 years. The technology
of construction is well developed, but long-term performance
data on the use of slurry walls as a seepage cutoff are not
available. While it is generally expected that slurry walls
would be relatively impervious, it is possible that "windows"'
of more permeable material could develop during slurry wall
construction. Trench backfill is done below the surface of
the slurry, so that visual inspection of the backfill as it
reaches its final position is not possible. In addition,
the upper part of the completed slurry wall could be cracked
by freezing, groundwater fluctuations, or other natural pheno-
mena. The literature on the effect of PCBs on slurry wall
permeability is limited. It is anticipated that there would
be no significant effects, since clay is generally accepted
as a liner for licensed PCB disposal sites. However, the
types of slurry wall available should be reviewed during
design. If the slurry wall failed to achieve the overall
average permeability desired, movement of PCB-contaminated
groundwater could occur more rapidly than anticipated. On
the other hand, slurry walls have been used for groundwater
control on many projects and have a good performance record.
The containment area would be monitored to permit ongoing
evaluation of the effectiveness and integrity of the slurry
walls and clay cap. The reliability of the containment
could be enhanced with development of additional design
details:
PD525.022 6-77
-------
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by terminat-
ing the slurry wall below the frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an inter-
nal drainage system could be installed to maintain
internal water levels lower than external levels
so that any leakage would be into the containment
area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCB con-
tamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. The type
of slurry wall material should also be evaluated during
design. Overall, the reliability of slurry walls to reduce
the movement of PCB-contaminated groundwater is considered
good.
Glacial Till. The glacial till covering the bedrock in the
Waukegan area is unsorted, glacier-deposited sediment, con-
sisting of silt, clay, and lenses of sand, in which pebbles,
cobbles, and boulders are embedded. The thickness of the
glacial till typically ranges from 50 to more than 100 ft.
Because of the relatively low permeability of the glacial
till, dissolved substances would be unlikely to migrate more
than 20 to 30 ft, unless they reached a sandy zone of higher
permeability. These zones could permit deeper migration of
dissolved substances (058). Diffusion (the natural force
acting to minimize concentration differences) may also dis-
perse dissolved PCBs in the glacial till pore water.
Because of the limited information available at the time
they prepared their report, Mason & Hanger did not recommend
any alternatives that depended on the underlying glacial
till to contain the more concentrated PCB materials (001).
Mason & Hanger recommended additional studies be performed
to determine the reliability of the glacial till.
PCBs are heavier than water. The PCBs could gravitate down
through the glacial till as evidenced by the PCB penetration
into the glacial till immediately adjacent to former CMC
discharge points in Slip No. 3 (001). PCB concentration
decreases rapidly with depth into the glacial till, dropping
off to a few ppm after 5 ft of depth in Slip No. 3 (008).
Dredging. Hydraulic dredges have been widely used in the
past for dredging. No new technologies are proposed to com-
plete the dredging. Dredging technology is well developed,
and the reliability of the equipment to remove sediments
PD525.022 6-78
-------
from the Upper Harbor and transport them to the containment
area is high. If a stoppage of the hydraulic dredge occurs
during dredging, it is expected to result in some temporary
additional suspension of sediment in the water column due to
interruption in hydraulic flow. Leakage or rupture of the
hydraulic dredge discharge pipeline could disperse PCB-laden
water and sediment over previously uncontaminated areas along
he pipeline. The impact of such spills could be minimized
by prompt cleanup of the spilled material and of any soil or
other material that was contaminated by the spill. A con-
tingency plan would be established for prompt cleanup. Leak-
age could either be eliminated by pipe joint tightening or
be controlled by joint caulking, mats, collection containers,
or similar means. The collected solids could be disposed of
in the containment area, and collected water could be taken
to the water treatment plant.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use exist-
ing technology and equipment shown to be effective in PCB
removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell for
detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB con-
centrations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if
adequate removal were not achieved, the water could be re-
cycled through the plant until discharge standards (less
than 1 ppb PCBs) were met.
Capping. The use of compacted clay as liners and caps for
chemical waste landfills is a well-developed technology. The
use of asphaltic concrete as a runoff-accelerating membrane
is also well developed. The clay cap could develop cracks
due to moisture content variations, settlement, freezing, or
other natural phenomena. The asphaltic concrete cap would
be used to help reduce the possibility of soil moisture
changes, thus reducing the possibility of developing cracks
in the clay cap. It is anticipated that the asphaltic con-
crete membrane would require periodic maintenance to seal
cracks that will inevitably develop as the pavement ages.
The impact of cracking of the cap system would be to allow
additional surface water to infiltrate the ground, and pos-
sibly to permit minor amounts of volatilized PCBs to leave
the containment area. If infiltration increased, it could
provide hydraulic head inside the contained area that would
increase the flow of PCB-contaminated groundxvater from inside
the contained area to the surrounding or underlying soil.
This would result in further PCB contamination of adjacent
and underlying soil. The amount of any such uncontrolled
release would be expected to be very small. Overall, the
reliability of the cap would be considered good.
PD525.022 6-79
-------
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• USCOE Section 10 (dredging) permit
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• Waukegan Port Authority dredging permit
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• IDOT (Division of Waterways) permit for work in
public waterways
• • City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
Subalternative I; Select Excavation
Response Objectives
This alternative would be used only in conjunction with
Alternative 6A or 6B. The deep contaminated sediments in
the localized area of Slip No. 3 (near the former OMC
outfall) would be removed by clamshell dredging, fixed, and
disposed of offsite. No dewatering of these dredged
sediments would occur. Containment, dredging of Upper
Harbor sediments, and capping would then occur as described
under Alternative 6A or 6B.
Because sediments with the greatest PCB concentrations would
be removed (about 286,500 Ib of PCBs in 2,000 yd3 of sedi-
ments and 3,700 yd3 of deep contaminated sand and silt),
PD525.022 6-80
-------
this variation would reduce the potential impacts of pos-
sible PCB migration or escape through the slurry wall and
the glacial till (see discussion under Alternatives 6A and
6B). Subalternative I would remove and dispose of offsite
approximately 92.4 percent of all the PCBs now found in Slip
No. 3 and the Upper Harbor area.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
The dredging of deep contaminated sediments in Slip No. 3
would add about 2 months to the cleanup activities of Alter-
native 6A or 6B. Total project duration is therefore esti-
mated to be 13 to 19 months for 6A and Subalternative I and
12 to 18 months for 6B and Subalternative I.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Clamshell Dredging. Spillage of 15 to 30 percent of the
sediments in a clamshell bucket occurs while it is being
raised. This spillage creates a high degree of sediment
suspension that increases the concentration of PCBs in solu-
tion. A sheet pile cofferdam would be employed to support
the excavation sides and contain these dredging activities.
The water would be treated by the addition of powdered acti-
vated carbon to remove dissolved PCBs before the cofferdam
sediment barrier was removed. The water level inside the
cofferdam would be lowered to create net inflow as an addi-
tional control measure. After excavation of the localized
area was complete, the cofferdam would be removed and the
remaining portion of the western 200 ft of Slip No. 3 would
be dredged with a clamshell.
Minimal volatilization would be expected to occur during
these dredging activities. Losses would be expected to be
roughly 0.3 to 0.4 Ib/day/acre from the exposed, agitated,
and contaminated water area (030). Concentrations of less
than 1 ug/m3 are expected to be present in the air as a
result of dredging activities (007). By comparison, the
OSHA standard for maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is
1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. However, NIOSH recom-
mends that workers not be exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in
the air during an 8-hour period (007).
Solids Removal, Fixation, and Disposal. Volatilization is
expected to occur during truck loading of dredged sediments
for transport to the batch plant. The highest reported con-
centration in Slip No. 3 sediments is about 100,000 ppm PCB.
The maximum predicted PCB concentration in the air from
solids removal operations is predicted to be less than
200 ug/m3 (007). These values were extrapolated from data
for sand assuming a 3.6-mph wind and an air temperature of
68°F. The volatilization rate from Waukegan Harbor muck
should be less than from sand (007).
PD525.022 6-81
-------
Dewatered sediment would be fixed into a nonflowable form
for offsite transport by truck. A sufficient amount of fix-
ing agent would be used to prevent water loss, and covers
may be required to prevent volatilization during transport.
Rules and regulations controlling the transport of toxic
materials promulgated by the USDOT, USEPA, IDOT, IINR, and
other applicable regulatory agencies would be complied with.
These include cleanup, safety, and spill prevention and
response measures.
Offsite disposal of fixed dredged sediments would require
approximately 710 truck trips to the disposal site using a
10-yd3 capacity truck. The established full truck routes
within the City of Waukegan have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the estimated truck traffic, but some roadway
congestion and roadway damage could occur (048). Some
species of terrestrial animals could come into contact with
contaminated materials if any loss occurs during transport,
and the contamination could be passed into other terrestrial
food chains (048) .
Disposal of the materials would be in a licensed chemical
waste landfill, and would be in compliance with State and
Federal standards for PCB waste disposal.
Reliability
Clamshell Dredging. Clamshell dredges have been widely used
in the past for dredging. No new technologies are proposed
to complete the dredging. Dredging technology is well devel-
oped, and the reliability of the equipment to remove sediments
from the slip and transport them to the batch plant would be
high.
Glacial Till. The glacial till covering the bedrock in the
Waukegan area is unsorted, glacier-deposited sediment, con-
sisting of silt, clay, and lenses of sand, in which pebbles,
cobbles, and boulders are embedded. The thickness of the
glacial till typically ranges from 50 to more than 100 ft
(058) .
Because of the relatively low permeability of the glacial
till, dissolved substances would be unlikely to migrate more
than 20 to 30 ft, unless they reached a sandy zone of higher
permeability. These zones could permit deeper migration of
dissolved substances (058). Diffusion (the natural force
acting to minimize concentration differences) may also
disperse dissolved PCBs in the glacial till pore water.
Because of the limited information available at the time
they prepared their report, Mason & Hanger did not recommend
any alternatives that depended on the underlying glacial
till to contain the more concentrated PCB materials (001).
PD525.022 6-82
-------
Mason & Hanger recommended additional studies be performed
to determine the reliability of the glacial till.
PCBs are heavier than water. The PCBs could gravitate down
through the glacial till as evidenced by the PCB penetration
into the glacial till immediately adjacent to former OMC
discharge points in Slip No. 3 (001, 008, 016). The PCB
concentration decreases rapidly with depth into the glacial
till, dropping off to a few ppm after 5 ft of depth in Slip
No. 3 (008). Removing the very high concentrations of PCBs
near the OMC outfall in Slip No. 3 would remove the area
where the PCBs have been known to migrate into the glacial
till.
Curing Cells. The technology for construction of lined cur-
ing cells is well developed and feasible. There are no un-
usual construction details for the curing cell construction.
Construction could be accomplished using conventionally avail-
able materials and equipment. The risk of failure would be
low. If the upper clay liner failed, contaminated leachate
could be collected by the underdrain system. If the lower
clay liner also failed, contaminated soil would have to be
excavated and disposed of with the other contaminated solids.
If an exterior curing cell dike failed while a cell was
filled with incompletely cured fixed solids, PCB-contaminated
water and sediment could flow over a small area, requiring
cleanup operations and causing slightly increased volatiliza-
tion. The technology for dike design is well understood,
however, so the probability of dike failure would be ex-
tremely low.
Fixation. Fixation would use existing equipment in an appli-
cation similar to previous applications, but not yet estab-
lished for these high-moisture-content sediments. Laboratory
testing is now being conducted to verify that fixation can
be accomplished with existing available materials and equip-
ment. It is anticipated that fixation will prove to be a
technically feasible and reliable means of controlling water
loss. If fixation failed to prevent water loss, then solids
would have to be dewatered mechanically, as proposed for
Alternative 3, or a waiver from that requirement of 40 CFR 761
would have to be obtained from the USEPA Regional Adminis-
trator.
Transportation. Transportation would be accomplished using
dump trucks. Failure could occur by loss of material from
the truck through leakage, spilling over the top, dusting,
volatilization, or spills resulting from vehicle accidents.
The impact of leakage, dusting, and volatilization would be
to disperse small amounts of PCBs all along the haul routes.
PD525.022 6-83
-------
These types of uncontrolled release could be minimized by
the use of tailgate seals and covers.
The impact of spills would be to deposit a quantity of PCB-
contaminated solids at one or more isolated points. The
risk of spills over the top of the truck could be minimized
by use of a cover. The risk of vehicle accidents is rela-
tively small, but it could be compensated for by having a
response plan and team ready during hauling.
Permit Requirements
The following permits would be required in addition to those
listed under Alternatives 6A and 6B.
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and IICC)
NORTH DITCH/PARKING LOT AREA
Alternative 1: Excavate-Dispose
Response Objectives
This alternative would remove all soils with concentrations
of PCBs greater than 50 ppm from the North Ditch/Parking Lot
area. If a 98 percent removal efficiency were achieved, it
would remove an estimated 757,700 Ib of PCBs in approximately
175,800 yd3 of soil (003). This alternative would signifi-
cantly reduce the discharge of PCBs into Lake Michigan, the
potential for future groundwater contamination, and the vola-
tilization of PCBs into the airshed.
All former land and water uses would be able to resume after
cleanup activities are completed. No restrictions to future
uses would be expected.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Construction of the structural and nonstructural slurry walls
at the Crescent Ditch, Oval Lagoon, and the Parking Lot area
is expected to take a total of 2 to 3 months. Installation
of the groundwater pumping system and initial groundwater
lowering is expected to take 1 to 2 months. Excavation,
transportation, and backfilling is expected to take a total
of about 5 months. If the water treatment plant was not
protected against freezing weather, dewatering effluent could
not be released to the plant during freezing conditions.
Construction below the water table would then have to take
PD525.022 6-84
-------
place during nonfreezing weather. The overall duration for
this alternative is estimated to be 9 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Excavation. Soils with PCB concentrations in excess of
50 ppm would be excavated by backhoe or front end loader and
loaded onto trucks for offsite disposal. Excavation of con-
taminated soils would also be required for construction of
the North Ditch bypass and installation of the well points
to control surface water and groundwater.
Volatilization that would occur during these activities could
be minimized by employing the following mitigation measures:
• Keeping the area exposed by excavation as small as
possible.
• Performing the work in as short a time as possible,
by using more or larger equipment.
• Covering the exposed material not at the working
face with organic materials (such as digested acti-
vated sludge, manure, paper mill sludge) or with
synthetic liners.
• Performing the work in the winter, since the rate
of volatilization during cold weather is less than
during warm weather.
The highest reported concentration in the North Ditch soils
is about 100,000 ppm (001). The predicted PCB concentration
in air during excavation would be about 200 ug/m3. The vola-
tilization rate is predicted to be about 163,000 ug/m2/hr.
Typical concentrations range from 50 to 5,000 ppm. Pre-
dicted average PCB concentrations in the air would be less
than 6.6 ug/m3. The average volatilization rate is expected
to be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr for soils with concentrations
of 1,000 ppm PCBs. The highest reported concentration in
Parking Lot area soils is less than 10,000 ppm (001). The
predicted PCB concentration in air during excavation would
be less than 43 ug/m3, well below 1,000 ug/m3, the OSHA
standard. The volatilization rate is predicted to be less
than 35,000 ug/m2/hr. Typical concentrations range from 50
to 5,000. Predicted average PCB concentrations in the air
would be about 6.6 ug/m3. The average volatilization rate
is expected to be about 5,375 ug/m2/hr. These values were
extrapolated from data for sand assuming a 3.6-mph wind and
an air temperature of 68°F (007). The volatilization rates
from the sandy soils of the North Ditch/Parking Lot area are
expected to be approximated by these predictions. By com-
parison, the OSHA standard for maximum worker exposure to
Aroclor 1242 is 1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. How-
PD525.022 6-85
-------
ever, NIOSH recommends that workers not be exposed to more
than 1 ug/m3 in the air during an 8-hour period (007) . (See
Health and Safety Requirements, later in this section.)
Animals could be disturbed or affected by construction
activities that would alter or remove their habitats and
affect their normal daily and seasonal activities. However,
such changes would be expected to affect relatively few
species and individuals and would be far .outweighed by the
benefits to be gained from removal of the contaminated
material. Shorebirds, gulls, and possibly other species
could be attracted to the excavated areas (048).
Water Treatment. The groundwater removed by pumping from
the well points would be fully contained and processed
through a package water treatment plant. Secondary solids
discharged from the water treatment plant would be treated
with other area solids. All water would be treated to PCB
levels of below 1 ppb (the USEPA standard). Treatment plant
effluent would be monitored (by grab sampling and 24-hour
sampling) to ensure that discharges were below 1 ppb. An
onsite laboratory would be available to conduct the water
quality analyses. Effluent would be discharged into Lake
Michigan or a sanitary sewer. Water discharged to the
sanitary sewer system would be processed again through the
Waukegan municipal wastewater treatment plant and discharged
into the Des Plaines River.
Backfill of Excavated Areas. The backfill of excavated
areas would require soils removal from an offsite borrow
pit, causing topographic and other minor local impacts to
the borrow area.
Solids Removal and Disposal. Excavated soil would be trans-
ported by truck to an offsite disposal site. The trucks
would have to be lined to prevent leakage. Cover or closure
of the trucks would prevent spillage and volatilization dur-
ing transport. Rules and regulations controlling the trans-
port of toxic materials promulgated by the USDOT, USEPA,
IDOT, IINR, and other applicable regulatory agencies would
be complied with. These include cleanup, safety, and spill
prevention and response measures.
Offsite disposal of excavated soil would require approximately
17,580 truck trips to the disposal site using a 10-yd3 capacity
truck. The established full truck routes within the City of
Waukegan have sufficient capacity to accommodate the estimated
truck traffic, but some roadway congestion and roadway damage
could occur (048). Some species of terrestrial animals could
come into contact with contaminated materials if any loss
occurs during transport, and the contamination could be passed
into other terrestrial food chains (048) .
PD525.022 6-86
-------
Disposal of the excavated soil would be in a licensed chemi-
cal waste landfill, and would be in compliance with State
and Federal standards for PCB waste disposal. PCB materials
with concentrations greater than 50 ppm must be nonflowable
if they are to be disposed of in a chemical waste landfill
(40 CFR 761). This alternative assumes that the contaminated
soils can be excavated in a nonflowable state, since they
are mostly sand.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction,
excavation, and transportation activities. Although
high noise levels could periodically occur in localized
areas, they would be of relatively short duration.
Noise impacts could temporarily diminish people's en-
joyment of the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Recreation. The noise and traffic congestion associated
with construction activities could have short-term nega-
tive impacts on the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and
retaining cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup
activities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup
activity and associated work function would require the
definition and enforcement of specific safety precautions
and levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc.,
has prepared a conceptual safety plan (see Appendix). The
plan calls for protection measures for workers who may be
exposed to PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring
would be performed, and all workers would require appropriate
levels of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring
results, respiratory and dermal protection may be required
downwind of site cleanup activities. In addition to per-
sonal protection, the conceptual safety plan specifies site
entry procedures, decontamination procedures, work limita-
tions, and material disposal requirements. A detailed health
PD525.022 6-87
-------
and safety plan would be prepared during final design of the
selected response measures.
Reliability
Excavation. Excavation would be accomplished using backhoes
and front end loaders. Conventionally available devices
based on well-developed technology are feasible for the pro-
posed use. Failure could occur by loss of material during
excavation as a result of power loss, accident, or spilling.
Where material falls back into the working excavation, there
would be essentially no impacts. The impact of spills would
be to deposit a quantity of PCB-contaminated solids at one
or more points on the site. The impact of such spills could
be minimized by prompt cleanup of the spilled material and
of any soil or other material that was contaminated by the
spill.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use
existing technology and equipment shown to be effective in
PCB removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell
for detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB
concentrations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if
adequate removal were not achieved, the water could be
recycled through the plant until discharge standards (less
than 1 ppb PCBs) were met.
Transportation. Transportation would be accomplished using
dump trucks. Failure could occur by loss of material from
the truck through leakage, spilling over the top, dusting,
volatilization, or spills resulting from vehicle accidents.
The impact of leakage, dusting, and volatilization would be
to disperse small amounts of PCBs all along the haul routes.
These types of uncontrolled release could be minimized by
the use of tailgate seals and covers.
The impact of spills would be to deposit a quantity of PCB-
contaminated solids at one or more isolated points. The
risk of spills over the top of the truck could be minimized
by use of a cover. The risk of vehicle accidents is rela-
tively small, but it could be compensated for by having a
response plan and team ready during hauling.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
PD525.022 6-88
-------
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and IICC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
Alternative 3; Excavate-Fix-Dispose
Response Objectives
This alternative would remove all soils with PCB concentra-
tions greater than 50 ppm from the North Ditch/Parking Lot
area. If a 98 percent removal efficiency were achieved, it
would remove an estimated 757,700 Ib of PCBs in approxi-
mately 175,800 yd3 of soil (003). This alternative will
significantly reduce the discharge of PCBs into Lake Michi-
gan, the potential for future groundwater contamination, and
the volatilization of PCBs into the airshed.
All former land and water uses would be able to resume after
cleanup activities are completed. No restrictions to future
uses would be expected.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Construction of the structural and nonstructural slurry
walls at the Crescent Ditch, Oval Lagoon, and Parking Lot
area is expected to take a total of 2 to 3 months. Installa-
tion of the groundwater pumping system and initial ground-
water lowering is expected to take 1 to 2 months. Excavation
PD525.022 6-89
-------
is expected to take about 5 months. Fixing, transportation,
and backfilling could occur concurrently with excavation.
If the water treatment plant was not protected against freez-
ing weather, dewatering effluent could not be released to
the plant during freezing conditions. Construction below
the water table would then have to take place during nonfreez-
ing weather. The overal duration for this alternative is
estimated to be 9 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Excavation. Soils with PCB concentrations in excess of
50 ppm would be excavated by backhoe or front end loader and
loaded onto trucks for offsite disposal. Excavation of con-
taminated soils would also be required for construction of
the North Ditch bypass and installation of the well points
to control surface water and groundwater.
Volatilization that would occur during these activities
could be minimized by employing the following mitigation
measures:
• Keeping the area exposed by excavation as small as
possible.
• Performing the work in as short a time as
possible, by using more or larger equipment.
• Covering the exposed material not at the working
face with organic materials (such as digested
activated sludge, manure, paper mill sludge) or
with synthetic liners.
• Performing the work in the winter, since the rate
of volatilization during cold weather is less than
during warm weather.
The highest reported concentration in the North Ditch soils
is about 100,000 ppm (001). The predicted PCB concentration
in air during excavation would be about 200 ug/m3. The vola-
tilization rate is predicted to be about 163,000 ug/m2/hr.
Typical concentrations range from 500 to 5,000 ppm. Pre-
dicted average PCB concentrations in the air would be less
than 6.6 ug/m3. The average volatilization rate is expected
to be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr for soils with concentrations
of 1,000 ppm PCBs. The highest reported concentration in
Parking Lot area soils is less than 10,000 ppm (001). The
predicted PCB concentration in air during excavation would
be less than 43 ug/m3, well below 1,000 ug/m3, the OSHA
standard. The volatilization rate is predicted to be less
than 35,000 ug/m2/hr. Typical concentrations range from 50
to 5,000. Predicted average PCB concentrations in the air
would be about 6.6 ug/m3. The average volatilization rate
PD525.022 6-90
-------
is expected to be about 5,375 ug/m2/hr. These values were
extrapolated from data for sand assuming a 3.6-mph wind and
an air temperature of 68°F (007). The volatilization rates
from the sandy soils of the North Ditch/Parking Lot area are
expected to be approximated by these predictions. By
compairson, the OSHA standard for maximum worker exposure to
Aroclor 1242 is 1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. How-
ever, NIOSH recommends that workers not be exposed to more
than 1 ug/m3 in the air during an 8-hour period (007). (See
Health and Safety Requirements, later in this section.)
Animals could be disturbed or affected by construction
activities that would alter or remove their habitats and
affect their normal daily and seasonal activities. However,
such changes would be expected to affect relatively few
species and individuals and would be far outweighed by the
benefits to be gained from removal of the contaminated
material. Shorebirds, gulls, and possibly other species
could be attracted to the excavated areas (048).
Water Treatment. The groundwater removed by pumping from
the well points would be fully contained and processed
through a package water treatment plant. Secondary solids
discharged from the water treatment plant would be treated
with other area solids. All water would be treated to PCB
levels of below 1 ppb (the USEPA standard). Treatment plant
effluent would be monitored (by grab sampling and 24-hour
sampling) to ensure that discharges were below 1 ppb. An
onsite laboratory would be available to conduct the water
quality analyses. Effluent would be discharged into Lake
Michigan or a sanitary sewer. Water discharged to the
sanitary sewer system would be processed again through the
Waukegan municipal wastewater treatment plant and discharged
into the Des Plaines River.
Backfill of Excavated Areas. The backfill of excavated
areas would require soils removal from an offsite borrow
pit, causing topographic and other minor local impacts to
the borrow area.
Solids Removal, Fixation, and Disposal. Excavated soil
would be fixed into a nonflowable form for offsite transport
by truck. A sufficient amount of fixing agent would be used
to prevent water loss during transport. Rules and
regulations controlling the transport of toxic materials
promulgated by the USDOT, USEPA, IDOT, IINK, and other
applicable regulatory agencies would be complied with.
These include cleanup, safety, and spill prevention and
response measures.
Offsite disposal of excavated soil would require approxi-
mately 21,980 truck trips to the disposal site using a 10-yd3
capacity truck. The established full truck routes within
PD525.022 6-91
-------
the City of Waukegan have sufficient capacity to accommodate
the estimated truck traffic, but some roadway congestion and
roadway damage could occur (048). Some species of terres-
trial animals could come into contact with contaminated
materials if any loss occurs during transport, and the con-
tamination could be passed into other terrestrial food chains
(048).
Disposal of the fixed materials would be in a licensed
chemical waste landfill, and would be in compliance with
State and Federal standards for PCB waste disposal. PCS
materials with concentrations greater than 50 ppm must be
nonflowable if they are to be disposed of in a chemical
waste landfill (40 CFR 761). This alternative assumes that
the contaminated soils can be excavated in a nonflowable
state, since they are mostly sand.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction,
excavation, and transportation activities. Although
high noise levels could periodically occur in localized
areas, they would be of relatively short duration.
Noise impacts could temporarily diminish people's en-
joyment of the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Recreation. The noise and traffic congestion associated
with construction activities could have short-term nega-
tive impacts on the public beach adjacent to the project
area.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup
activities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup
activity and associated work function would require the
definition and enforcement of specific safety precautions
and levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc.,
has prepared a conceptual safety plan (Appendix). The plan
calls for protection measures for workers who may be exposed
PD525.022 6-92
-------
to PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would
be performed, and all workers would require appropriate
levels of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring
results, respiratory and dermal protection may be required
downwind of site cleanup activities. In addition to per-
sonal protection, the conceptual safety plan specifies site
entry procedures, decontamination procedures, work limita-
tions, and material disposal requirements. A detailed health
and safety plan would be prepared during final design of the
selected response measures.
Reliability
Excavation. Excavation would be accomplished using backhoes
and front end loaders. Conventionally available devices
based on well-developed technology are feasible for the pro-
posed use. Failure could occur by loss of material during
excavation as a result of power loss, accident, or spilling.
Where material falls back into the working excavation, there
would be essentially no impacts. The impact of spills would
be to deposit a quantity of PCB-contaminated solids at one
or more points on the site. The impact of such spills could
be minimized by prompt cleanup of the spilled material and
of any soil or other material contaminated by the spill.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system v/ould use
existing technology and equipment shown to be effective in
PCB removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell
for detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB
concentrations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if
adequate removal were not achieved, the water could be re-
cycled through the plant until discharge standards (less
than I ppb PCBs) were met.
Fixation. Fixation would use existing equipment in an appli-
cation similar to previous applications, but not yet estab-
lished for these high-moisture-content soils. Laboratory
testing is now being conducted to verify that fixation can
be accomplished with existing available materials and equip-
ment. It is anticipated that fixation will prove to be a
technically feasible and reliable means of controlling water
loss. If fixation failed to prevent water loss, then solids
would have to be dewatered mechanically, as proposed for
Slip No. 3—Alternative 3, or a waiver from that requirement
of 40 CFR 761 would have to be obtained from the USEPA Re-
gional Administrator.
Curing Cells. The technology for construction of lined cur-
ing cells is well developed and feasible. There are no un-
usual construction details for the curing cell construction.
Construction could be accomplished using conventionally avail-
able materials and equipment. The risk of failure v/ould be
low. If the upper clay liner failed, contaminated leachate
PD525.022 6-93
-------
could be collected by the underdrain system. If the lower
clay liner also failed, contaminated soil would have to be
excavated and disposed of with the other contaminated solids.
If a dike failed while a cell was filled with incompletely
cured fixed solids, PCB-contaminated material could flow
over a small area, requiring cleanup operations and causing
slightly increased volatilization. The technology for dike
design is well understood, however, so the probability of
dike failure would be extremely low.
Transportation. Transportation would be accomplished using
dump trucks. Failure could occur by loss of material from
the truck through leakage, spilling over the top, dusting,
volatilization, or spills resulting from vehicle accidents.
The impact of leakage, dusting, and volatilization would be
to disperse small amounts of PCBs all along the haul routes.
These types of uncontrolled release could be minimized by
the use of tailgate seals and covers.
The impact of spills would be to deposit a quantity of PCB-
contaminated solids at one or more isolated points. The
risk of spills over the top of the truck could be minimized
by use of a cover. The risk of vehicle accidents is rela-
tively small, but it could be compensated for by having a
response plan and team ready during hauling.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
PD525.022 6-94
-------
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
Alternative 4: Contain-Cap (Parking Lot Area Only)
Response Objectives
This alternative would use a slurry wall around the perimeter
of the soil with PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm.
The containment wall would extend down to the existing gla-
cial till beneath the local sands (35 ft deep). This would
minimize uncontrolled dispersion of PCBs through the soil or
the groundwater. Based on Mason & Hanger's equation for
dispersion of PCBs (001) , if a wall with an overall per-
meability of 10 7 cm/sec were used, migration through a 2-ft
slurry wall would be expected to take 2 years, dispersing
about 0.002 lb/ year PCBs. If the slurry wall were cracked
by the fluctuating water table, freezing, or other natural
phenomena, PCBs would escape at a higher rate. Groundwater
monitoring wells would be constructed to provide continuous
checks on the efficiency of the slurry walls. The State
would be required to provide maintenance under PL 96-510.
Using Mason & Hanger's equation (001), migration through a
1-ft-thick layer of glacial till with an overall permeability
of 10 7 cm/sec would be expected to take 1 year, dispersing
about 0.02 Ib/yr PCBs. If sandy zones were encountered in
the glacial till, PCBs could escape at a higher rate.
Groundwater monitoring wells would be constructed to provide
continuous checks on the efficiency of the glacial till.
The State would be required to provide maintenance under
PL 96-510.
The site would be capped with impermeable materials to seal
in the contaminated soils, and would be resurfaced for
future parking. Capping would reduce percolation into the
contaminated area. Future construction projects that would
cause disturbance to the surface and underlying soils (trench-
ing, drilling, digging, etc.) would not be allowed, to mini-
mize deterioration of the impermeable barriers.
This alternative would reduce the environmental hazards now
posed by PCB contamination. The reliability of the slurry
wall, the underlying glacial till, and capping is discussed
PD525.022 6-95
-------
in the reliability section below. Because of its proximity
to Lake Michigan, the Parking Lot area could experience erosion
as a result of storm events. However, a one-time event is
not likely to impact the area, and mitigative measures could
be taken to prevent cumulative impacts from multiple events.
Containment of the Parking Lot in this manner would require
a USEPA waiver from the requirements of 40 CFR 761 of TSCA,
since PCBs would remain in proximity to Lake Michigan and in
an area with a high groundwater table (058).
This alternative would have greater land use impacts than
Alternatives 1 and 3. Future new uses of the Parking Lot
area and possibly of some adjacent areas would be restricted
because soil-disturbing construction activities could not be
allowed.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Construction of the slurry wall is expected to take about
1 month, with construction of the clay cap and paving taking
about 2 months. The overall duration for this alternative
is estimated to be 4 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Excavation. Excavation would be required for construction
of the slurry wall and installation of the monitoring wells.
Volatilization from excavation of soils with average contami-
nant levels of 10,000 ppm is estimated to result in air con-
centrations of 43 ug/m3 (007) . By comparison, the OSHA stan-
dard for maximum worker exposure to Aroclcr 1242 is
1,000 ug/m3 in the air at any time. However, NIOSH recom-
mends that workers not be exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in
the air during an 8-hour period (007) . (See Health and
Safety Requirements, later in this section).
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup
activities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup
activity and associated work function would require the
definition and enforcement of specific safety precautions
and levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc.,
has prepared a conceptual safety plan (Appendix). The plan
calls for protection measures for workers who may be exposed
to PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would
be performed, and all workers would require appropriate
levels of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring
results, respiratory and dermal protection may be required
downwind of site cleanup activities. In addition to per-
sonal protection, the conceptual safety plan specifies site
PD525.022 6-96
-------
entry procedures, decontamination procedures, work limita-
tions, and material disposal requirements. A detailed health
and safety plan would be prepared during final design of the
selected response measures.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, exca-
vation, and transportation activities. Although high
noise levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Reliability
Slurry Walls. Slurry walls are a relatively new construction
technique, in general use for about 20 years. The technology
of construction is well developed, but long-term performance
data on the use of slurry walls as a seepage cutoff are not
available. While it is generally expected that slurry walls
would be relatively impervious, it is possible that "windows"
of more permeable material could develop during slurry wall
construction. Trench backfill is done below the surface of
the slurry, so that visual inspection of the backfill as it
reaches its final position is not possible. In addition,
the upper part of the completed slurry wall could be cracked
by freezing, groundwater fluctuations, or other natural pheno-
mena. The literature on the effect of PCBs on slurry wall
permeability is limited. It is anticipated that there would
be no significant effects, since clay is generally accepted
as a liner for licensed PCB disposal sites. However, the
types of slurry wall available should be reviewed during
design. If the slurry wall failed to achieve the overall
average permeability desired, movement of PCB-contaminated
groundwater could occur more rapidly than anticipated. On
the other hand, slurry walls have been used for groundwater
control on many projects and have a good performance record.
The containment area would be monitored to permit ongoing
evaluation of the effectiveness and integrity of the slurry
PD525.022 6-97
-------
walls and clay cap. The reliability of the containment could
be enhanced with development of additional design details:
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by terminating
the slurry and cap wall below the frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an
internal drainage system could be installed to
maintain internal water levels lower than external
levels so that any leakage would be into the
containment area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCB con-
tamination in the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. The type
of slurry wall material should also be evaluated during
design. Overall, the reliability of slurry walls to reduce
the movement of PCB-contaminated groundwater is considered
good.
Glacial Till. The glacial till covering the bedrock in the
Waukegan area is unsorted, glacier-deposited sediment, con-
sisting of silt, clay, and lenses of sand, in which pebbles,
cobbles, and boulders are embedded. The thickness of the
glacial till typically ranges from 50 to more than 100 ft.
Because of the relatively low permeability of the glacial
till, dissolved substances would be unlikely to migrate more
than 20 to 30 ft, unless they reached a sandy zone of higher
permeability. These zones could permit deeper migration of
dissolved substances (058). Diffusion (the natural force
acting to minimize concentration differences) may also
disperse the PCB oil in the glacial till pore water.
Because of the limited information available at the time
they prepared their report, Mason & Hanger did not recommend
any alternatives that depended on the underlying glacial
till to contain the more concentrated PCB materials (001).
Mason & Hanger recommended additional studies be performed
to determine the reliability of the glacial till.
PCBs are heavier than water. The PCBs could gravitate down
through the glacial till as evidenced by the PCB penetration
into the glacial till immediately adjacent to former CMC
discharge points in the Crescent Ditch (001). Penetration
of PCBs has occurred at that location with a concentration
of 240 ppm found at a depth of about 5 ft into the glacial
till (001).
PD525.022 6-98
-------
Capping. The use of compacted clay as liners and caps for
chemical waste landfills is a well-developed technology.
The use of asphaltic concrete as a runoff-accelerating mem-
brane is also well developed. The clay cap could develop
cracks due to moisture content variations, settlement, freez-
ing, or other natural phenomena. The asphaltic concrete cap
would be used to help reduce the possibility of soil moisture
changes, thus reducing the possibility of developing cracks
in the clay cap. It is anticipated that the asphaltic con-
crete membrane would require periodic maintenance to seal
cracks that will inevitably develop as the pavement ages.
The impact of cracking of the cap system would be to allow
additional surface water to infiltrate the ground, and pos-
sibly to permit minor amounts of volatilized PCBs to leave
the containment area. If infiltration increased, it could
provide hydraulic head inside the contained area that would
increase the flow of PCB-contaminated groundwater from inside
the contained area to the surrounding or underlying soil.
This would result in further PCB contamination of adjacent
and underlying soil. The amount of any such uncontrolled
release would be expected to be very small. Overall, the
reliability of the cap would be considered good.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed of in a
currently non-PCB-approved site
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable government regulations.
Alternative 4A: Excavate-Contain-Cap (North Ditch Area Only)
Response Objectives
Under this alternative, a drainage bypass of the North Ditch
would be constructed, and soils with PCB contamination in
excess of 50 ppm would be excavated from the North Ditch.
The Crescent Ditch area would also be excavated to a depth
of 3 ft. The soils would be dewatered using well points and
pumps. A slurry wall would be constructed around the peri-
meter of the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area. This containment
wall would extend down to the existing glacial till beneath
the local sands (35 ft) . Excavated soils from the North
PD525.022 6-99
-------
Ditch and Crescent Ditch areas would be placed on top of the
Oval Lagoon area. The Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon containment
area would then be capped with 3 ft of impermeable materials
to seal in the contaminated soils.
The slurry wall would minimize uncontrolled dispersion of
PCBs from the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area through the
soil or groundwater. Based on Mason & Hanger's equation, if
a wall with an overall permeability of 10 'cm/sec were used,
migration through a 2-ft slurry wall is expected to take 2
years, dispersing about 0.001 Ib/yr PCBs. If the slurry
wall were cracked by the fluctuating water table, freezing,
or other natural phenomena, PCBs would escape at a much
higher rate. Groundwater monitoring wells would be
constructed to provide continuous checks on the efficiency
of the slurry. The State would be required to provide
maintenance under PL 96-510.
Using Mason & Hanger's equation (001), migration through a
1-ft-thick layer of glacial till with an overall permeability
of 10 7 cm/sec would be expected to take 1 year, dispersing
about 0.001 Ib/yr PCBs. If sandy zones were encountered in
the glacial till, PCBs could escape at a higher rate. Ground-
water monitoring wells would be constructed to provide contin-
uous checks on the efficiency of the glacial till. The State
would be required to provide maintenance under PL 96-510.
Capping of the containment area would prevent percolation
into the contaminated area. Future construction projects
that would cause disturbance to the surface and underlying
soils (trenching, drilling, digging, etc.) would not be
allowed, to minimize deterioration of the impermeable bar-
riers .
This alternative would reduce the environmental hazards now
posed by the PCB contamination in the North Ditch area.
Approximately 98 percent of North Ditch soils with PCB con-
tamination in excess of 50 ppm would be removed, and all
contaminated soils in the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area
would be contained in-place. The reliability of the slurry
wall and capping technologies and the glacial till is dis-
cussed in the Reliability Section below.
Containment of the North Ditch in this manner would require
a USEPA waiver from the requirements of 40 CFR 761 of TSCA
since PCBs would remain in proximity to Lake Michigan and in
an area with a high groundwater table (058) .
This alternative would have greater land use impacts than
Alternatives 1 and 3. The Crescent Ditch area would remain
at the existing ground elevation, and would be converted to
a parking lot. Future new uses would be restricted because
soil-disturbing construction activities could not be allowed.
PD525.022 6-100
-------
Landfilling of the Oval Lagoon area with contaminated soil
and capping materials would elevate it about 20 to 25 feet
above the existing ground level. No future uses of this
area would be possible.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Construction of the drainage bypass and the slurry wall is
expected to take about 1 to 2 months. Excavation activities
are expected to take a total of 1 to 2 months, and construc-
tion of the clay cap and paving another 2 months. If the
water treatment plant were not protected against freezing
weather, dewatering effluent could not be released to the
plant during freezing conditions. Excavation below the
water table would then have to take place during nonfreezing
weather. The overall duration for this alternative is
estimated to be 4 to 6 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Excavation. Contaminated soils would be excavated from the
North Ditch and Crescent Ditch areas by backhoe or front end
loader and transported to the Oval Lagoon containment area.
Excavation of contaminated soils would also be required for
construction of the North Ditch bypass and installation of
the well points to control surface and groundwater.
An average volatilization rate that can be expected from
exposed sand during excavation activities is 5,375 ug/m2/hr,
assuming average PCB concentrations in the exposed sand to
be 1,000 ppm. Volatilization that would occur during these
activities could be minimized by employing the following
mitigation measures:
• Keeping the area exposed by excavation as small as
possible.
• Performing the work in as short a time as possible,
by using more or larger equipment.
• Covering the exposed material not at the working
face with organic materials (such as digested
activated sludge, manure, paper mill sludge) or
with synthetic liners.
• Performing the work in the winter, since the rate
of volatilization during cold weather is less than
during warm weather.
The highest reported concentration in the North Ditch soils
is about 100,000 ppm (001). The predicted PCB concentration
in air during excavation would be about 200 ug/m3. The vola-
tilization rate is predicted to be about 163,000 ug/m2/hr.
PD525.022 6-101
-------
Typical concentrations range from 500 to 5,000 ppm. Pre-
dicted average PCB concentrations in the air would be less
than 6.6 ug/m3. The average volatilization rate is expected
to be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr for soils with concentrations
of 1,000 ppm PCBs. These values were extrapolated from data
for sand, assuming a 3.6-mph wind and an air temperature of
68°F (007). The volatilization rates from the sandy soils
of the North Ditch area are expected to be closely approximated
by these predictions. By comparison, the OSHA standard for
maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is 1,000 ug/m3 in
the air at any time. NIOSH recommends that workers not be
exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in the air during an 8-hour
period (007) . (See Health and Safety Requirements, later in
this section.)
Animals could be disturbed or affected by construction
activities that would alter or remove their habitats and
affect their normal daily and seasonal activities. However,
such changes would be expected to affect relatively few
species and individuals and would be far outweighed by the
benefits to be gained from removal of the contaminated
material. Shorebirds, gulls, and possibly other species
could be attracted to the excavated areas (048).
Water Treatment. The groundwater removed by pumping from
the well points would be fully contained and processed
through a package water treatment plant. Secondary solids
discharged from the water treatment plant would be treated
with other area solids. All water would be treated to PCB
levels of below 1 ppb (the USEPA standard). Treatment plant
effluent would be monitored (by grab sampling and 24-hour
sampling) to ensure that discharges were below 1 ppb. An
onsite laboratory would be available to conduct the water
quality analyses. Effluent would be discharged into Lake
Michigan or a sanitary sewer. Water discharged to the
sanitary sewer system would be processed again through the
Waukegan municipal wastewater treatment plant and discharged
into the Des Plaines River.
Backfill of Excavated Areas. The backfill of excavated
areas would require soils removal from an offsite borrow
pit, causing topographic and other minor local impacts to
the borrow area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup
activities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup
activity and associated work function would require the
definition and enforcement of specific safety precautions
and levels of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc.,
has prepared a conceptual safety plan (Appendix). The plan
calls for protection measures for workers who may be exposed
PD525.022 6-102
-------
to PCB-contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would
be performed, and all workers would require appropriate
levels of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring
results, respiratory and dermal protection may be required
downwind of site cleanup activities. In addition to personal
protection, the conceptual safety plan specifies site entry
procedures, decontamination procedures, work limitations,
and material disposal requirements. A detailed health and
safety plan would be prepared during final design of the
selected response measures.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, exca-
vation, and transportation activities. Although high
noise levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Reliability
Excavation. Excavation would be accomplished using backhoes
and front end loaders. Conventionally available devices
based on well-developed technology are feasible for the pro-
posed use. Failure could occur by loss of material during
excavation as a result of power loss, accident, or spilling.
Where material falls back into the working excavation, there
would be essentially no impacts. The impact of spills would
be to deposit a quantity of PCB-contaminated solids at one
or more points on the site. The impact of such spills could
be minimized by prompt cleanup of the spilled material and
of any soil or other material that was contaminated by the
spill.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use exist-
ing technology and equipment shown to be effective in PCB
removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell for
detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB concen-
trations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if adequate
removal were not achieved, the water could be recycled
PD525.022 6-103
-------
through the plant until discharge standards (less than 1 ppb
PCBs) were met.
Slurry Walls. Slurry walls are a relatively new construction
technique, in general use for about 20 years. The technology
of construction is well developed, but long-term performance
data on the use of slurry walls as a seepage cutoff are not
available. While it is generally expected that slurry walls
would be relatively impervious, it is possible that "windows"
of more permeable material could develop during slurry wall
construction. Trench backfill is done below the surface of
the slurry, so that visual inspection of the backfill as it
reaches its final position is not possible. In addition,
the upper part of the completed slurry wall could be cracked
by freezing, groundwater fluctuations, or other natural phe-
nomena. The literature on the effect of PCBs on slurry wall
permeability is limited. It is anticipated that there would
be no significant effects, since clay is generally accepted
as a liner for licensed PCB disposal sites. However, the
types of slurry wall available should be reviewed during
design. If the slurry wall failed to achieve the overall
average permeability desired, movement of PCB-contaminated
groundwater could occur more rapidly than anticipated. On
the other hand, slurry walls have been used for groundwater
control on many projects and have a good performance record.
The containment area would be monitored to permit ongoing
evaluation of the effectiveness and integrity of the slurry
walls and clay cap. The reliability of the containment could
be enhanced with development of additional design details:
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by terminating
the slurry and cap wall below the frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an
internal drainage system could be installed to
maintain internal water levels lower than external
levels so that any leakage would be into the
containment area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCB con-
tamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. The type
of slurry wall material should also be evaluated during
design. Overall, the reliability of slurry walls to reduce
the movement of PCB-contaminated groundwater is considered
good.
Glacial Till. The glacial till covering the bedrock in the
Waukegan area is unsorted, glacier-deposited sediment, con-
sisting of silt, clay, and lenses of sand, in which pebbles,
PD525.022 6-104
-------
cobbles, and boulders are embedded. The thickness of the
glacial till typically ranges from 50 to more than 100 ft.
Because of the relatively low permeability of the glacial
till, dissolved substances would be unlikely to migrate more
than 20 to 30 ft, unless they reached a sandy zone of higher
permeability. These zones could permit deeper migration of
dissolved substances (058). Diffusion (the natural force
acting to minimize concentration differences) may also dis-
perse the PCB oil in the glacial till pore water.
Because of the limited information available at the time
they prepared their report, Mason & Hanger did not recommend
any alternatives that depended on the underlying glacial
till to contain the more concentrated PCB materials (001).
Mason & Hanger recommended additional studies be performed
to determine the reliability of the glacial till.
PCBs are heavier than water. The PCBs could gravitate down
through the glacial till as evidenced by the PCB penetration
into the glacial till immediately adjacent to former OMC
discharge points in the Crescent Ditch (001). Penetration
of PCBs has occurred at that location with a concentration
of 240 ppm found at a depth of about 5 ft into the glacial
till (001) .
Capping. The use of compacted clay as liners and caps for
chemical waste landfills is a well-developed technology.
The use of asphaltic concrete as a runoff-accelerating mem-
brane is also well developed. The clay cap could develop
cracks due to moisture content variations, settlement,
freezing, or other natural phenomena. The asphaltic con-
crete cap would be used to help reduce the possibility of
soil moisture changes, thus reducing the possibility of
developing cracks in the clay cap. It is anticipated that
the asphaltic concrete membrane would require periodic main-
tenance to seal cracks that will inevitably develop as the
pavement ages.
The impact of cracking of the cap system would be to allow
additional surface water to infiltrate the ground, and pos-
sibly to permit minor amounts of volatilized PCBs to leave
the containment area. If infiltration increased, it could
provide hydraulic head inside the contained area that would
increase the flow of PCB-contaminated groundwater from in-
side the contained area to the surrounding or underlying
soil. This would result in further PCB contamination of
adjacent and underlying soil. The amount of any such un-
controlled release would be expected to be very small. Over-
all, the reliability of the cap would be considered good.
PD525.022 6-105
-------
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
Alternative 4B: Excavate-Contain Part of E-W Portion of the
North Ditch-Cap (North Ditch Area Only)
Response Objectives
Under this alternative, the east-west portion of the North
Ditch would be excavated only to the extent necessary to
install a pipeline bypass within the ditch area. This would
require excavation to a depth of 10 ft and a width of 7 ft,
removing approximately 5,500 yd3 of soil. In comparison,
excavation under the other North Ditch alternatives would be
to a depth of 15 ft and a width of 25 ft, removing approxi-
mately 25,000 yd3 of soil. Construction of a structural
support system (sheet piling) would not be necessary under
this alternative because of the limited excavation involved.
PD525.022 6-106
-------
The soil, however, would be dewatered using well points and
pumps before excavation. After the bypass is installed, the
excavated area would be backfilled and capped with impermeable
materials.
The Crescent Ditch area would be excavated to a depth of 3
ft. All excavated soils would be dewatered using well points
and pumps. A slurry wall would be constructed around the
perimeter of the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area. This
containment wall would extend down to the existing glacial
till beneath the local sands (35 ft). Excavated soils from
the North Ditch and Crescent Ditch areas would be placed on
top of the Oval Lagoon area. The Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon
containment area would then be capped with 3 ft of imper-
meable materials to seal in the contaminated soils.
The slurry wall would minimize uncontrolled dispersion of
PCBs from the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area through the
soil or groundwater. Using Mason & Hanger's equation for
dispersion of PCBs (001) , if a wall with an overall per-
meability of 10 7cm/sec were used, migration through a 2-ft
slurry wall is expected to take 2 years, dispersing about
0.001 Ib/yr PCBs. If the slurry wall were cracked by the
fluctuating water table, freezing, or other natural pheno-
mena, PCBs would escape at a much higher rate. Groundwater
monitoring wells would be constructed to provide continuous
checks on the efficiency of the slurry. The State would be
required to provide maintenance under PL 96-510.
Using Mason & Hanger's equation (001), migration through a
1-ft-thick layer of glacial till with an overall permeability
of 10 7 cm/sec would be expected to take 1 year, dispersing
about 0.001 Ib/yr PCBs. If sandy zones were encountered in
the glacial till, PCBs could escape at a higher rate.
Groundwater monitoring wells would be constructed to provide
continuous checks on the efficiency of the glacial till.
The State would be required to provide maintenance under
PL 96-510.
Capping of the North Ditch and the containment area would
prevent percolation into the contaminated area. Future con-
struction projects that would cause disturbance to the sur-
face and underlying soils (trenching, drilling, digging,
etc.) would not be allowed, to minimize deterioration of the
impermeable barriers.
This alternative would reduce the environmental hazards now
posed by the PCB contamination in the North Ditch area.
Contaminated soils in the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area
would be contained in-place; the reliability of the slurry
wall and capping technologies and the glacial till is dis-
cussed in the Reliability section, below. Approximately
19,400 yd3 of soil containing about 3,400 Ib of PCBs would
PD525.022 6-107
-------
not be removed from the North Ditch. The hydrologic system
is currently not well enough understood to determine the
extent of past or future PCB contamination by groundwater
movement from the North Ditch. However, the potential for
future groundwater contamination would be higher under this
alternative than under the other North Ditch alternatives
because of the remaining contaminated soils. While capping
would prevent direct percolation into the contaminated area,
some dispersion of PCBs through the groundwater could occur
because no containment wall would be present (080). However,
the PCBs represent less than 1 percent of all the PCBs now
found in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
This alternative would not remove approximately 19,400 yd3
of soil containing approximately 3,400 Ib of PCBs in the
North Ditch area.
This alternative would have greater land use impacts than
Alternatives 1 and 3. The Crescent Ditch area would remain
at the existing ground elevation, and would be converted to
a parking lot. Future new uses would be restricted because
soil-disturbing construction activities could not be allowed.
Landfilling of the Oval Lagoon area with contaminated soil
and capping materials would elevate it about 10 feet above
the existing ground level. No future uses of this area would
be possible.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
Construction of the drainage bypass is expected to take about
1 to 2 months. Excavation activities are expected to take a
total of 1 to 2 months, and construction of the clay cap and
paving another 2 months. If the water treatment plant were
not protected against freezing weather, dewatering effluent
could not be released to the plant during freezing conditions.
Excavation below the water table would then have to take
place during nonfreezing weather. The overall duration for
this alternative is estimated to be 4 to 6 months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Excavation. Contaminated soils would be excavated from the
North Ditch and Crescent Ditch areas by backhoe or front end
loader and transported to the Oval Lagoon containment area.
Excavation of contaminated soils would also be required for
construction of the North Ditch bypass and installation of
the well points to control surface and groundwater.
An average volatilization rate that can be expected from
exposed sand during excavation activities is 5,375 ug/m2/hr,
assuming average PCB concentrations in the exposed sand to
be 1,000 ppm. Volatilization that would occur during these
PD525.022 6-108
-------
activities could be minimized by employing the following
mitigation measures:
• Keeping the area exposed by excavation as small as
possible.
• Performing the work in as short a time as possible,
by using more or larger equipment.
• Covering the exposed material not at the working
face with organic materials (such as digested acti-
vated sludge, manure, paper mill sludge) or with
synthetic liners.
• Performing the work in the winter, since the rate
of volatilization during cold weather is less than
during warm weather.
The highest reported concentration in the North Ditch soils
is about 100,000 ppm (001). The predicted PCB concentration
in air during excavation would be about 200 ug/m3. The vola-
tilization rate is predicted to be about 163,000 ug/m2/hr.
Typical concentrations range from 500 to 5,000 ppm. Pre-
dicted average PCB concentrations in the air would be less
than 6.6 ug/m3. The average volatilization rate is expected
to be less than 5,375 ug/m2/hr for soils with concentrations
of 1,000 ppm PCBs. These values were extrapolated from data
for sand, assuming a 3.6-mph wind and an air temperature of
68°F (007). The volatilization rates from the sandy soils
of the North Ditch area are expected to be closely approxi-
mated by these predictions. By comparison, the OSHA standard
for maximum worker exposure to Aroclor 1242 is 1,000 ug/m3
in the air at any time. NIOSH recommends that workers not
be exposed to more than 1 ug/m3 in the air during an 8-hour
period (007). (See Health and Safety Requirements, later in
this section.)
Animals could be disturbed or affected by construction
activities that would alter or remove their habitats and
affect their normal daily and seasonal activities. However,
such changes would be expected to affect relatively few
species and individuals and would be far outweighed by the
benefits to be gained from removal of the contaminated
material. Shorebirds, gulls, and possibly other species
coulc be attracted to the excavated areas (048) .
Water Treatment. The groundwater removed by pumping from
the well points would be fully contained and processed
through a package water treatment plant. Secondary solids
discharged from the water treatment plant would be treated
with other area solids. All water would be treated to PCB
levels of below 1 ppb (the USEPA standard). Treatment plant
effluent would be monitored (by grab sampling and 24-hour
PD525.022 6-109
-------
sampling) to ensure that discharges were below 1 ppb. An
onsite laboratory would be available to conduct the water
quality analyses. Effluent would be discharged into Lake
Michigan or a sanitary sewer. Water discharged to the
sanitary sewer system would be processed again through the
Waukegan municipal wastewater treatment plant and discharged
into the Des Plaines River.
Backfill of Excavated Areas. The backfill of excavated areas
would require soils removal from an offsite borrow pit, causing
topographic and other minor local impacts to the borrow area.
Additional Environmental Impacts. Implementation of this
alternative would also have the following impacts (048):
Noise. Noise would be produced by construction, exca-
vation, and transportation activities. Although high
noise levels could periodically occur in localized areas,
they would be of relatively short duration. Noise im-
pacts could temporarily diminish people's enjoyment of
the public beach adjacent to the project area.
Employment. Construction jobs created by the project
would temporarily reduce unemployment in the area.
Employment levels would return to previous levels at
the conclusion of the project.
Cultural Resources. Cultural resources in the Waukegan
Harbor area would not be adversely affected. It is
possible that the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments
would enhance the desirability of acquiring and retaining
cultural resources in the harbor area.
Health and Safety Requirements. The PCB-contaminated soil,
sediment, muck, dust, and water associated with cleanup acti-
vities present potentially significant health hazards to
workers involved in the cleanup. Each specific cleanup acti-
vity and associated work function would require the defini-
tion and enforcement of specific safety precautions and levels
of protection. Ecology and Environment, Inc., has prepared
a conceptual safety plan (Appendix). The plan calls for
protection measures for workers who may be exposed to PCB-
contaminated materials. Ambient air monitoring would be
performed, and all workers would require appropriate levels
of protection. Depending on ambient air monitoring results,
respiratory and dermal protection may be required downwind
of site cleanup activities. In addition to personal protec-
tion, the conceptual safety plan specifies site entry pro-
cedures, decontamination procedures, work limitations, and
material disposal requirements. A detailed health and safety
plan would be prepared during final design of the selected
response measures.
PD525.022 6-110
-------
Reliability
Excavation. Excavation would be accomplished using backhoes
and front end loaders. Conventionally available devices
based on well-developed technology are feasible for the pro-
posed use. Failure could occur by loss of material during
excavation as a result of power loss, accident, or spilling.
Where material falls back into the working excavation, there
would be essentially no impacts. The impact of spills would
be to deposit a quantity of PCB-contaminated solids at one
or more points on the site. The impact of such spills could
be minimized by prompt cleanup of the spilled material and
of any soil or other material that was contaminated by the
spill.
Water Treatment. The water treatment system would use exist-
ing technology and equipment shown to be effective in PCS
removal. The treatment plant would include a clearwell for
detention of treated effluent prior to discharge. PCB concen-
trations in the clearwell would be monitored, and if adequate
removal were not achieved, the water could be recycled through
the plant until discharge standards (less than 1 ppb PCBs)
were met.
Slurry Walls. Slurry walls are a relatively new construction
technique, in general use for about 20 years. The technology
of construction is well developed, but long-term performance
data on the use of slurry walls as a seepage cutoff are not
available. While it is generally expected that slurry walls
would be relatively impervious, it is possible that "windows"
of more permeable material could develop during slurry wall
construction. Trench backfill is done below the surface of
the slurry, so that visual inspection of the backfill as it
reaches its final position is not possible. In addition,
the upper part of the completed slurry wall could be cracked
by freezing, groundwater fluctuations, or other natural phe-
nomena. The literature on the effect of PCBs on slurry wall
permeability is limited. It is anticipated that there would
be no significant effects, since clay is generally accepted
as a liner for licensed PCB disposal sites. However, the
types of slurry wall available should be reviewed during
design. If the slurry wall failed to achieve the overall
average permeability desired, movement of PCB-contaminated
groundwater could occur more rapidly than anticipated. On
the other hand, slurry walls have been used for groundwater
control on many projects and have a good performance record.
The containment area would be monitored to permit ongoing
evaluation of the effectiveness and integrity of the slurry
walls and clay cap. The reliability of the containment
could be enhanced with development of additional design
details:
PD525.022 6-111
-------
• Freeze-thaw problems could be reduced by terminating
the slurry and cap wall below the frostline.
• Use of a flexible membrane for the cap could be
considered for more freedom in site grading.
• Should contaminant movement be detected, an inter-
nal drainage system could be installed to maintain
internal water levels lower than external levels
so that any leakage would be into the containment
area.
Consideration of these types of details during design would
make this alternative effective in abating further PCS con-
tamination of the Waukegan area and Lake Michigan. The type
of slurry wall material should also be evaluated during
design. Overall, the reliability of slurry walls to reduce
the movement of PCB-contaminated groundwater is considered
good.
Glacial Till. The glacial till covering the bedrock in the
Waukegan area is unsorted, glacier-deposited sediment, con-
sisting of silt, clay, and lenses of sand, in which pebbles,
cobbles, and boulders are embedded. The thickness of the
glacial till typically ranges from 50 to more than 100 ft.
Because of the relatively low permeability of the glacial
till, dissolved substances would be unlikely to migrate more
than 20 to 30 ft, unless they reached a sandy zone of higher
permeability. These zones could permit deeper migration of
dissolved substances (058). Diffusion (the natural force
acting to minimize concentration differences) may also dis-
perse the PCB oil in the glacial till pore water.
Because of the limited information available at the time
they prepared their report, Mason & Hanger did not recommend
any alternatives that depended on the underlying glacial
till to contain the more concentrated PCB materials (001) .
Mason & Hanger recommended additional studies be performed
to determine the reliability of the glacial till.
PCBs are heavier than water. The PCBs could gravitate down
through the glacial till as evidenced by the PCB penetration
into the glacial till immediately adjacent to former OMC
discharge points in the Crescent Ditch (001). Penetration
of PCBs has occurred at that location with a concentration
of 240 ppm found at a depth of about 5 ft into the glacial
till (001).
Capping. The use of compacted clay as liners and caps for
chemical waste landfills is a well-developed technology.
PD525.022 6-112
-------
The use of asphaltic concrete as a runoff-accelerating mem-
brane is also well developed. The clay cap could develop
cracks due to moisture content variations, settlement, freez-
ing, or other natural phenomena. The asphaltic concrete cap
would be used to help reduce the possibility of soil moisture
changes, thus reducing the possibility of developing cracks
in the clay cap. It is anticipated that the asphaltic con-
crete membrane would require periodic maintenance to seal
cracks that will inevitably develop as the pavement ages.
The impact of cracking of the cap system would be to allow
additional surface water to infiltrate the ground, and pos-
sibly to permit minor amounts of volatilized PCBs to leave
the containment area. If infiltration increased, it could
provide hydraulic head inside the contained area that would
increase the flow of PCB-contaminated groundwater from in-
side the contained area to the surrounding or underlying
soil. This would result in further PCB contamination of
adjacent and underlying soil. The amount of any such un-
controlled release would be expected to be very small. Over-
all, the reliability of the cap would be considered good.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE per-
mits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source water
discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• City of Waukegan construction permits
• Local land use approval
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
PD525.022 6-113
-------
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
Subalternative I; Select Excavation
Response Objectives
This subalternative would be used only in conjunction with
Alternative 4A and 4B. The most highly contaminated areas
in the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area would be excavated
and disposed of offsite. Excavation, containment, onsite
disposal, and capping for the rest of the North Ditch area
would occur as described under Alternative 4A or 4B.
Because soils with the greatest PCB concentrations would be
removed (about 440,500 Ib of PCBs in 5,500 yd3 of soils),
this variation would reduce the impacts of possible PCB
migration or escape through the slurry wall and the glacial
till. The reliability of the slurry wall and capping tech-
nologies and the glacial till is discussed in the Reliability
Sections of Alternatives 4A and 4B. Subalternative I would
remove and dispose of offsite approximately 57 percent of
all the PCBs now found in the North Ditch/Parking Lot area.
With this subalternative, the Oval Lagoon area would be
landfilled and capped to about 10 to 15 ft above the
existing ground level.
Duration of Cleanup Activities
The excavation and offsite disposal of the highly contami-
nated "hot spots" would add about 1 month to the cleanup
activities of Alternative 4A or 4B. Total project duration
with this variation is therefore estimated to be 5 to 7
months.
Impacts and Mitigation of Cleanup Activities
Excavation. The highly contaminated soils have PCB concen-
trations greater than 100,000 ppm (001). Volatilization
during excavation and loading of these soils is estimated to
be in the range of 163,000 ug/m2/hr. Concentration in the
air above the most contaminated soils is estimated to be
about 200 ug/m3.
PD525.022 6-114
-------
Solids Removal and Disposal. Excavated soil would be trans-
ported by truck to an offsite disposal site. The trucks
would have to be lined to prevent leakage. Cover or closure
of the trucks would prevent spillage and volatilization dur-
ing transport. Rules and regulations controlling the trans-
port of toxic materials promulgated by the USDOT, USEPA,
IDOT, IINR, and other applicable regulatory agencies would
be complied with. These include cleanup, safety, and spill
prevention and response measures.
Offsite disposal of excavated soil would require approximately
550 truck trips to the disposal site using a 10-yd3 capacity
truck. The established full truck routes within the City of
Waukegan have sufficient capacity to accommodate the estimated
truck traffic, but some roadway congestion and roadway damage
could occur (048). Some species of terrestrial animals could
come into contact with contaminated materials if any loss
occurs during transport, and the contamination could be passed
into other terrestrial food chains (048) .
Disposal of the excavated soil would be in a licensed chemi-
cal waste landfill, and would be in compliance with State
and Federal standards for PCB waste disposal. PCB materials
with concentrations greater than 50 ppm must be nonflowable
if they are to be disposed of in a chemical waste landfill
(40 CFR 761). This alternative assumes that the contaminated
soils can be excavated in a nonflowable state, since they
are mostly sand.
Reliability
Glacial Till. The glacial till covering the bedrock in the
Waukegan area is unsorted, glacier-deposited sediment, con-
sisting of silt, clay, and lenses of sand, in which pebbles,
cobbles, and boulders are embedded. The thickness of the
glacial till typically ranges from 50 to more than 100 ft.
Because of the relatively low permeability of the glacial
till, dissolved substances would be unlikely to migrate more
than 20 to 30 ft, unless they reached a sandy zone of higher
permeability. These zones could permit deeper migration of
dissolved substances (058) . Diffusion (the natural force
acting to minimize concentration differences) may also
disperse dissolved PCBs in the glacial till pore water.
Because of the limited information available at the time
they prepared their report, Mason & Hanger did not recommend
any alternatives that depended on the underlying glacial
till to contain the more concentrated PCB materials (001).
Mason & Hanger recommended additional studies be performed
to determine the reliability of the glacial till.
PD525.022 6-115
-------
PCBs are heavier than water. The PCBs could gravitate down
through the glacial till as evidenced by the PCB penetration
into the glacial till immediately adjacent to former OMC
discharge points in the Crescent Ditch (001). Penetration
of PCBs has occurred at that location with a concentration
of 240 ppm PCB found at a depth of 4 ft 9 in into the
glacial till (001) .
Removing the very high concentrations of PCBs near the OMC
outfalls would remove the area where the PCBs have been
known to migrate into the glacial till.
Transportation. Transportation would be accomplished using
dump trucks. Failure could occur by loss of material from
the truck through leakage, spilling over the top, dusting,
volatilization, or spills resulting from vehicle accidents.
The impact of leakage, dusting, and volatilization would be
to dispense small amounts of PCBs all along the haul routes.
These types of uncontrolled release could be minimized by
the use of tailgate seals and covers.
The impact of spills would be to deposit a quantity of PCB-
contaminated solids at one or more isolated points. The
risk of spills over the top of the truck could be minimized
by use of a cover. The risk of vehicle accidents is rela-
tively small, but it could be compensated for by having a
response plan and team ready during hauling.
Permit Requirements
Permit requirements are anticipated to include:
• Well water removal permit (State)
• IEPA permit for construction of wastewater treat-
ment facilities
• USCOE Section 404 (disposal in waterways) permit
• IEPA water quality certification on all USCOE
permits
• NPDES permit (State/Federal) for point-source
water discharge from the water treatment plant
• North Shore Sanitary District approval if water
discharge goes to a sanitary sewer
• IEPA (Division of Land and Noise) special waste
hauler's permit
• City of Waukegan construction permits
PD525.022 6-116
-------
• Local land use approval
• Certification of Authority to haul PCB commodities
(ICC and I1CC)
• USEPA toxic substances disposal approval
• IEPA approval if material is disposed in a cur-
rently non-PCB-approved site
See Mason & Hanger's report (003) for further discussion of
applicable governmental regulations.
PD525.022 6-117
-------
Section 7
ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
The preliminary, initial, and detailed development and evalua-
tion of alternatives were presented in the previous sections
of this report. The development and evaluation process was
used to determine the remedial action alternative for each
area that was cost-effective (i.e., "the lowest cost alterna-
tive that is technologically feasible and reliable and which
effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to and provides
adequate protection of public health, welfare, or the en-
vironment"—Section 300.68(j) of the NCP).
The alternatives that were retained from the screening, pro-
cesses of Tasks 1 through 3 to the detailed evaluation of
Task 5 were considered technologically feasible and reliable
and would effectively mitigate and minimize damage to, and
provide adequate protection of, public health, welfare, and
the environment. The economic evaluation (Section 5) defined
the alternatives with the least cost. A summary of the de-
tailed cost estimates and the pounds of PCBs controlled is
presented in Tables 7-1 and 7-2. The cumulative project
costs versus the cumulative pounds of PCBs controlled are
shown on Figure 7-1.
The relative advantages and disadvantages of each alternative
are presented in Tables 7-3 through 7-6. Alternatives for
each area were ranked together (e.g., Slip No. 3 Alternatives,
etc.). The relative ranking of (0) was used as the base
value. If one alternative was more favorable than another,
it was assigned a relative ranking of (+). Less favorable
alternatives were assigned the relative ranking of (-).
Section 104(c)[4] of CERCLA requires that the need for pro-
tection of the public health and welfare and the environment
at the OMC site be balanced against the amount of money avail-
able in the fund to respond to other sites, which also present
a threat to public health and welfare and the environment.
Accordingly, the lead agency must consider the need to respond
to other releases in determining the appropriate extent of
remedy for fund-financed response at the OMC site.
Based on this feasibility study, the five cleanup actions
listed below comprise USEPA's recommended cleanup plan for
the OMC site.
• Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor; Subalternative I. This
subalternative would be used only in conjunction with
Alternative 6B, PCB-contaminated sediment, sand,
and silt would be dredged from the localized area
near the former OMC outfall. This material contains
the greatest PCB concentrations in the harbor and
represents 92 percent of all the PCBs now found in
Slip No. 3 and the Upper Harbor. This alternative
PD998.059 7-1
-------
CO
cd
H
0
XI
s-l
cd
aa
^
01
a
a
o
CO
•
0
a
•H
•-i
CO
^
Ol T3
a* c
3
•U O
CO Q-i
O
Ol
CO iH
*O i^
C 0
3 S-i
0 4J
CM a
o
CJ
o
ON
•
CM
p^.
1— 1
A
£
o
o
00
*
CO
•rl
Q
1
c
0
o
60
cd
jj
pj
•H
i-l
01
4J
cd
3
0<
a
1
cu
60
r^
CU
M
o
CO
1
1
ft
1
0
o
•
o
CO
o
o
o
M
o
1— 1
CO
o
o
o
•»
o
o
CO
M
a\
CW
CO
CJ
1
Ol
60
-a
01
>M
Q
1
c
•H
cd
4J
e
0
3
I
1
1
o
ON
•
CTS
T— 4
o
o
o>
A
^
o
CO
o
o
o
M
o
o
1— <
A
vO
^1
Ol
a
Cu
MM
o
4-1
M
cd
CM
01
60
T3
01
t-l CU
O cd
1 O
C 1
•H M
cd o
•u X>
c ^
o cd
CJ 33
M
1
1
1
o
CM
•
o
o
o
0
o
1 — 1
CO
o
o
o
*l
o
LO
*^
A
CSJ
1— 1
1
•H
cd
4J
(3
o
o
1
o
•H
4J
cd
^
cd
cj a
X cd
W CJ
1
•W Ol
CJ 60
1) "0
^ 01
01 M
en p
I-l
3
1
1
1
o
•
o
CO
o
o
o\
A
^o
o
CO
o
o
o
M
0
LO
CM
A
01
Ol
60
TJ
Ol
}^
Q
1
(3
•H CU
cd cd
4-1 O
C 1
O M
CJ 0
1 XI
c n
o cd
•H 33
4J
cd !-i
> 0)
cd cu
u cu
w
M— I
•U 0
o
01 4J
tH t-l
a cd
CO &,
M
s
CO
CU Z
i-H
XI O.
cd -H
O iH
•H CO
i—I
O.X!
CU 4J
cd -H
^
4J
O T3
C 01
T3
II 3
nH
<< U
CM
o
CM
LO
a
PM
7-2
-------
CM
I
I—
H P3
cfl
cu
j-i
^
4-1
O
i_J
oo
c
•^
cfl
PH
43
a
4-1
•H
a
^
4-1
r-i
O
z
CU
01 ""Q
c
4-1 3
cn o
O PH
CJ
13
01
to 1-1
T3 r-l
C 0
3 M
0 4-1
PH C
Q
CJ
0
CM
•
SO
o
o
r— t
*
CM
r**
CM
CO
4J
cn
o
CJ
•a
4-1 J-l £3
co a) 3
0 PH 0
CJ PH
-o
CU
CO r-l
*O r-H
C 0
O 4-1
PH (3
0
CJ
O
o
0
A
0
r^
un
•«
CM
i-^
O
o
SO
M
in
aa
,
U r-l
1 C
0) O
4-1
Cfl Cfl
> CU
Cfl r-l
0 <
W
^
"
3
1
Ed
M-l
O
4-1
J-l
cfl
PH
C
•H
Cfl
4-t
C
o
CJ
1
CU
4-1
cfl
>
cfl
o
w
1
C
0
•H
4J
CO
ca
CJ
X
Cd
4-1
CJ
CU
r— 1
01
t/)
1— 1
^
1— 1
c
o
cfl
CU
M
•^
43
CJ
4-1
•H
Q
43
4-1
r-l
O
Z
^^
Q.
cfl
CJ
1
e
•H
cfl
4-1
(3
O
U
M-l
O
! 13
CU O
4-1 -H
Cfl 4J
> J-J
Cfl O
O PH
X
Cd 3
1 1
C Cd
O
4-1 O
cfl
> 4-1
Cfl r-l
CJ Cfl
X PH
Cd
C
4J -H
a CB
CU 4-1
r-l ti
cu o
03 CJ
M
pa
X- s
r**l
I—I
e
O.O
cfl
CJ cfl
1 0)
43 M
o
-------
Table 7-3
RANKING PROCEDURE
SLIP NO. 3
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Ranking Numbers
Alternatives
Criteria
Capital cost
Life cycle cost
Long-term environmental impact
Short-term environmental impact
Implementation time
Constructibility
Reliability
Health risks
Safety requirements
Land reuse
Complexity of operation
2B 2D 3 6A
0
0
+ + + -
0
+ + - 0
- - 0
+ + + -
0000
0
+ + + 0
0
6B
+
+
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
6AI
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
-
6BI
0
0
-
-
0
0
-
0
-
0
-
Note: - is least favorable; + is most favorable.
2B: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose
2D: Dredge-Dewater in Barges-Fix-Dispose
3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose
6A: Contain-Dredge-Cap
6B: Contain-Dredge Part of Upper Harbor-Cap
6AI: Select Excavation-Contain-Dredge-Cap
6BI: Select Excavation-Contain-Dredge Part of Upper Harbor-Cap
PD998.060.
7-4
-------
Table 7-4
RANKING PROCEDURE
UPPER HARBOR
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Ranking Numbers
Alternatives
Criteria
Capital cost
Life cycle cost
Long-term environmental impact
Short-term environmental impact
Implementation time
Constructibility
Reliability
Health risks
Safety requirements
Land reuse
Complexity of operation
2B 3
-
-
+ 0
0 +
+
+
-
0 0
0 0
+
0
6A
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
6B
+
-
-
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
6AI
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
__
6BI
0
0
-
-
0
0
-
0
-
0
_
Note: - is least favorable; + is most favorable.
2B: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Fix-Dispose
3: Dredge-Dewater in Lagoon-Dispose
6A: Contain-Dredge-Cap
6B: Contain-Dredge Part of Upper Harbor-Cap
6AI: Select Excavation-Contain-Dredge-Cap
6BI: Select Excavation-Contain-Dredge Part of Upper Harbor-Cap
PD998.061.
7-5
-------
Table 7-5
RANKING PROCEDURE
NORTH DITCH
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Ranking Numbers
Criteria
Capital cost
Life cycle cost
Long-term environmental impact
Short-term environmental impact
Implementation time
Construetibility
Reliability
Health risks
Safety requirements
Land reuse
Complexity of operation
Alternatives
4A
_4B 4AI
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
4BI
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
0
0
Note: - is least favorable; + is most favorable.
1: Excavate-Dispose
3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose
4A: Excavate-Contain-Cap
4B: Excavate-Contain Part of E-W Portion of the North Ditch-Cap
4AI: Select Excavation-Excavate-Contain-Cap
4BI: Select Excavation-Excavate-Contain Part of E-W Portion of the
North Ditch-Cap
PD998.062.
7-6
-------
Table 7-6
RANKING PROCEDURE
PARKING LOT
OMC HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS
13-5M28.0
Ranking Numbers
Alternatives
Criteria 1
Capital cost +
Life cycle cost +
Long-term environmental impact + + 0
Short-term environmental impact +
Implementation time + + -
Constructibility 00+
Reliability + + 0
Health risks 000
Safety requirements - - 0
Land reuse + + 0
Complexity of operation - - 0
Note: - is least favorable; + is most favorable.
1: Excavate-Dispose
3: Excavate-Fix-Dispose
4: Contain-Cap
PD998.062. 7-7
-------
would remove, fix, and dispose of an estimated
5,700 yd3 of PCB-contaminated material containing
about 286,500 Ib of PCBs. The material would be
disposed of offsite in a licensed chemical waste
landfill. The estimated Order-of-Magnitude cost
is $3,150,000.
• Slip No. 3 and Upper Harbor: Alternative 6B. A
cofferdam with a slurry wall would be constructed
around the perimeter of Slip No. 3, part of the
Upper Harbor sediments would be dredged into the
contained area, and then the containment area would
be capped. The estimated Order-of-Magnitude cost
is $6,100,000.
The emerging technology, such as the Pollution
Sciences extraction or bacterial destruction tech-
nique, should be reevaluated before placement of
the cap to determine their cost effectiveness.
• North Ditch Area: Subalternative I. This subalter-
native would be used only in conjunction with Alter-
native 4B. PCB-contaminated soil would be excavated
from the localized areas in the Crescent Ditch and
Oval Lagoon. This material contains the greatest
PCB concentrations in the North Ditch area and
represents 57 percent of all the PCBs now found in
the North Ditch/Parking Lot area. This alternative
would remove and dispose of an estimated 5,500 yd3
of PCB-contaminated soil containing about 440,500
Ib of PCBs. The soil would be disposed of offsite
in a licensed chemical waste landfill. The estimated
Order-of-Magnitude cost is $740,000.
• North Ditch Area; Alternative 4B. PCB-contaminated
soil would be contained and capped in the Crescent
Ditch/Oval Lagoon area. A pipeline to bypass the
east-west portion of the North Ditch would also be
constructed (with partial excavation of PCB-contami-
nated soil to install the pipe). The PCB-contami-
nated soil from the bypass excavation would be
placed in the Crescent Ditch/Oval Lagoon area before
capping the area. The estimated Order-of-Magnitude
cost is $4,210,000.
• Parking Lot Area; Alternative 4. PCB-contaminated
soil would be contained and capped in the Parking
Lot area. The estimated Order-of-Magnitude cost
is $3,210,000.
The total estimated Order-of-Magnitude cost to implement the
above alternatives is $17,410,000.
PD998.059 7-8
-------
Public comments will be received during the 30-day public
comment period. The USEPA Record of Decision issued at the
end of the public comment period will determine specifically
the alternatives to be implemented, with modifications, if
any, resulting from public comment.
A conceptual design will be prepared for the remedial action
alternative(s) selected by USEPA.
The following individuals participated in the preparation of
this feasibility study:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Jack Braun
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA/Remedial Response
Section 2 5HR-13th Floor
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 886-6214
CH2M HILL
Mr. Stewart L. Davis
Project Manager
CH2M HILL
2020 S.W. Fourth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97201
(503) 224-9190
PD998.059 7-9
-------
u. o o o$ a
sisoo
3AiivnniAino
§
n
to
-------
Section 8
• • BIBLIOGRAPHY
001 An Engineering Study for the Removal and Disposition of
PCB Contamination in the Waukegan Harbor and North Ditch
at Waukegan, Illinois, Final Report. Prepared for USEPA
Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Lexington, Kentucky: Mason
& Hanger—Silas Mason Co., Inc. January 1981.
The purpose of the report was to perform an engineering
study to recommend a solution for removing, fixing, or
otherwise treating the PCB-contaminated soils and sedi-
ments located in and near Waukegan Harbor, Illinois.
The study recommends removal, storage, and treatment
alternatives and gives estimates of associated costs.
This report reviews previous studies (before January
1981) conducted to define the PCB problem of Waukegan
Harbor. It also provides a summary of existing field
and laboratory data and applicable governmental
regulations.
002 Draft—Environmental Impact Statement on the Waukegan
PCB Abatement Project. Prepared for USEPA Region V,
Office of Superfund, Chicago, Illinois. Chicago, Illi-
nois: WAPORA, Inc. December 11, 1981.
The document defines the PCB problem at Waukegan Harbor,
reviews alternative courses of action to remove the
PCBs, and gives an environmental analysis of the im-
pacts of each action.
The conclusion arrived at is that any adverse environ-
mental impacts resulting from an abatement action in
the harbor are outweighed by the public health bene-
fits. Not a public document.
003 An Engineering Study for the Removal and Disposition of
PCB Contamination in the Waukegan Harbor, and North
Ditch at Waukeqan, Illinois. Prepared for USEPA Re-
gion V, Chicago, Illinois. Lexington, Kentucky: Mason
& Hanger—Silas Mason Co., Inc. January 1981.
The purpose of the report was to perform an engineering
study to recommend a solution for removing, fixing, or
otherwise treating the PCB-contaminated soils and sedi-
ments located in and near Waukegan Harbor. The study
recommends removal, storage, and treatment alternatives
and gives estimates of associated costs.
This report gives a review of previous studies (before
January 1981) conducted to define the PCB problem of
Waukegan Harbor. The report also provides a summary of
existing field and laboratory data and applicable govern-
mental regulations.
PD998.057 8-1
-------
004 An Engineering Study for the Removal and Disposition of
PCS Contamination in Waukegan Harbor and North Ditch at
Waukegan, Illinois. Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chi-
cago, Illinois. Lexington, Kentucky: Mason & Hanger—
Silas Mason Co., Inc. January 1981.
The appendices consisted of summaries of samples col-
lected in Waukegan Harbor to define contamination limits,
a discussion on environmental considerations resulting
from failure to remove PCS, and a report on the dredge
spoil treatment parameters developed from bench scale
laboratory treatment tests.
005 Dawson, G.W., and J.L. Goodier. Evaluation of Alter-
natives for Removal/Destruction of PCS Contaminated
Sediments in Waukeqan Harbor. Prepared for USEPA, Cin-
cinnati, Ohio. Richland, Washington: Battelle, Pacific
Northwest Laboratories.
The purpose of this report was to evaluate alternatives
for the removal and/or destruction of PCB-contaminated
sediments in Waukegan Harbor and the North Ditch. The
report contains a site description, a preliminary as-
sessment and evaluation of alternatives, and evaluation
recommendations. The alternatives addressed were in-
place destruction, in-place fixation or immobilization,
and removal and disposal of contaminants.
006 Karnauskas, Robert J. Subsurface Investigation, North
Ditch Area Outboard Marine Corporation, Waukegan, Illi-
nois . Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
Madison, Wisconsin: Warzyn Engineering, Inc. July 29,
1980.
The purpose of this report was to present the results
of the subsurface exploration performed in the North
Ditch area. The report consisted of a discussion of
the drilling, sampling, and testing procedures. Thirty-
nine soil borings were drilled to the till layer at
depths of 25 to 35 feet. Soil boring logs, the boring
logs for the monitoring wells, and corings were in-
cluded in the report.
007 Volatilization of PCBs During Planned Waukegan Harbor
Cleanup Operations, Literature Review. Prepared for
USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Lexington, Kentucky:
Mason & Hanger—Silas Mason Co., Inc. May 1981.
The purpose of the report was to define the PCB vola-
tilization problem as it applies to the proposed dredg-
ing, dewatering, and final excavation of the PCB con-
taminated sediments and soils at Waukegan, Illinois.
The report contains a literature review of PCBs, esti-
mates of PCB volatilization during Waukegan Harbor
PD998.057 8-2
-------
cleanup, and recommendations for appropriate control
measures.
008 An Engineering Study for the Removal and Disposition of
PCS Contamination in the Waukegan Harbor and North Ditch
at Waukegan Harbor, Addendum to Final Report. Prepared
for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Lexington, Ken-
tucky: Mason & Hanger—Silas Mason Co., Inc. May 1981.
This addendum presents the results of the soil analysis
work performed on the core borings collected from the
North Ditch in June 1980 and from Waukegan Harbor in
November 1980 and March 1981. Drawings showing the
location of the subsurface borings and the boring logs
are also included.
009 Hydrogeologic Investigation, Outboard Marine Corporation,
Waukegan, Illinois. Prepared for USEPA Region V and
JRB and Associates. Madison, Wisconsin: Warzyn Engi-
neering, Inc. September 20, 1979.
This document contains the results of the hydrogeologic
investigation performed at the Waukegan Harbor site of
PCB contamination. The investigation included 15 soil
borings, collection and field classification of soil
samples, groundwater monitoring wells, boildown per-
meability tests, water level measurements, and survey-
ing. A site topography map, a water table map, and
geologic cross sections are presented.
010 OMC Technical and Witnessing Case Support Hydrological
Study of Ground Water, Final Report. Prepared for USEPA,
Office of Water Enforcement, Washington, D.C. McLean,
Virginia: JRB Associates, Inc. February 10, 1981.
The purposes of this report were to document the source
of groundwater contamination and to determine whether
PCBs have been released into Lake Michigan. The report
describes drilling, sampling, and testing procedures
and presents an interpretation of the groundwater hydro-
logy. Cross sections showing the groundwater flow
direction are also included.
Oil Sediment and Shore Sample Collection, Waukegan Harbor
Slip #3. Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois,
and Mason & Hanger—Silas Mason Co., Inc. Madison,
Wisconsin: Warzyn Engineering, Inc. May 26, 1981.
This report describes soil sampling and testing per-
formed during March 16 through March 25, 1982, at the
Waukegan Harbor Slip No. 3. The purpose of the sampling
program was to obtain soil samples at specified depths
for PCBs and to test particular engineering properties
of the organic clayey silt (muck).
PD998.057 8-3
-------
012 Specifications for Dredging and Water Treatment for
Removal of PCB Contamination. Lexington, Kentucky:
Mason & Hanger—Silas Mason Co., Inc. August 31, 1981.
Specifications contained in this document relate to
dredging and water treatment for removal of PCBs from
Waukegan Harbor. Sections contained herein are:
• Site Work (describes general, character of soil
materials to be encountered)
• Temporary Facility Controls (utilities such as
water, telephone, sewage, and enclosures)
• Maintenance and Operation (associated with the
removal of PCB-contaminated material, storage of
contaminated material in a lagoon, and treatment
of slurry water and rainwater)
• Equipment (package water treatment system)
013 Plan for Removal and Disposal of PCB Contaminated Soils
and Sediments at Waukegan, Illinois. Prepared for USEPA
Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Lexington, Kentucky:
Mason & Hanger—Silas Mason Co., Inc. September 1980.
»
This document presents background information, an exca-
vation plan for the North Ditch, and a dredging plan
for Waukegan Harbor, a treatment plan for settling and
dewatering of dredged sediments, and a disposal plan.
The document contains typical cross sections and costs
for the work.
014 Final Estimate for Dredging and Water Treatment for
Removal of PCB Contamination in Waukegan Harbor, Wauke-
qan, Illinois. Lexington, Kentucky: Mason & Hanger—
Silas Mason Co., Inc. September 4, 1981.
This report gives a detailed breakdown of costs. The
Most Probable Construction Cost is also given for dredg-
ing and water treatment to remove PCBs from Waukegan
Harbor as described in drawings dated September 1,
1981, and specifications dated August 31, 1981.
015 North Ditch Bypass, Outboard Marine Corporation Dis-
posal of Excess Excavated Material and Pumpage from
Trench Dewatering. Chicago, Illinois: USEPA Region V.
January 7, 1980.
This paper describes requirements for the disposal of
excess excavated materials resulting from construction
of the North Ditch bypass and the amount of pumpage
required for dewatering for the construction of the
North Ditch bypass.
PD998.057 8-4
-------
016 An Engineering Study for the Removal and Disposition of
PCB Contamination in the Waukegan Harbor and North
Ditch at Waukegan, Harbor—Second Addendum to Final
Report. Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago,
Illinois. Lexington, Kentucky: Mason & Hanger—Silas
Mason Co., Inc. March 1982.
This second addendum incorporates the results of the
analysis work performed on the additional core borings
collected from Waukegan Harbor in September 1980. The
samples were collected to further define the PCB con-
tamination. The report presents revised quantities of
contaminated muck, sand, and clay.
017 Work Plan for Engineering Design of the Bypass of the
North Ditch at Outboard Marine Corporation, Waukegan,
Illinois. Prepared for USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. West
Chester, Pennsylvania: Roy F. Weston, Inc., Environmen-
tal Consultants/Designers. August 28, 1981.
This document presents a work plan and project costs
for the "Design of the North Ditch Bypass Outboard
Marine Corporation, Waukegan, Illinois."
018 Final Estimate for Lagoon and Treatment Facility for
Removal of PCB Contamination in Waukegan Harbor, Wauke-
gan, Illinois. Lexington, Kentucky: Mason & Hanger—
Silas Mason Co., Inc. July 1, 1981.
This report gives a detailed breakdown of costs and an
estimate of most probable construction cost for the
proposed lagoon and associated water treatment facili-
ties as described in drawings dated June 12, 1981, and
specifications dated June 15, 1981.
019 Draft Work Plan Feasibility Study Motco Site, LaMarque,
and Texas. Prepared for USEPA Region IV. Montgomery, Ala-
020 bama: CH2M HILL. February 11, 1983.
Example Work Plan (2 copies). Not a public document.
021 The PCB Contamination Problem in Waukegan, Illinois.
Chicago, Illinois: USEPA Region V. January 21, 1981.
This report describes the extent of current (up to 1981)
knowledge of PCB contamination at the Waukegan Harbor
site. It discusses the various engineering options
which have been examined for cleaning up or mitigating
the contamination and identifies a set of "preferred"
options. The report summarizes the possible funding
sources and concludes that it will be the constraints
of the funding mechanisms that shape the final execu-
tion of the project.
PD998.057 8-5
-------
022 Capper, Chris. Authorization to Proceed with Remedial
Planning and Implementation at the OMC Hazardous Waste
Site on Waukegan, Illinois. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
The purpose of the memorandum was to request authorization
to undertake remedial planning and implementation actions
at the OMC facility. The memorandum consisted of a
background description and the following recommendations:
• The existing complaint be amended to ask for an
injunctive relief pursuant to Section 106 and
reimbursement under Section 107 for USEPA monies.
• The USEPA begin settlement negotiations.
• The USEPA provide authorization to proceed with
the proposed remedial action.
°23 Maps; (1) Top of Muck Layer; (2) Bottom of Muck Layer;
(3) Thickness of Muck Sediments; (4) Core Boring Loca-
tions 1976-1980. Lexington, Kentucky: Mason & Hanger—
Silas Mason Co., Inc.
Maps of harbor.
024 Miscellaneous Maps from USEPA Files.
Contents of Folder
• Figure 7, Extent of PCB Contamination in Waukegan
Harbor by Concentration
• Plot Plan
• Conceptual Design of Lagoon Cross Sections
• Sounding, November 1980
• Xerox of U.S. Geological Survey Map of Waukegan (5
copies)
• State of Illinois, Department of Registration,
Geological Survey Division, Urbana, Illinois, Map
of Waukegan
• Lagoon Plan and Section
• Cofferdam Plan and Elevation
• Silt Curtain Plan and Elevations
• Location Map
• Miscellaneous Map of Waukegan
PD998.057 8-6
-------
025 Bedard, Judith A. Additional Support Information, Wauke-
gan Harbor Litigation. Prepared for USEPA Region V,
Chicago, Illinois. White Plains, New York: Malcolm
Pirnie. July 7, 1982.
This document presents a brief history of the Upper
Hudson River PCB problem and project description, key
design criteria, and cost/benefit analysis for the fol-
lowing PCB-related projects:
• The Fort Edward Terminal Channel Excavation and
Remnant Pool Deposit Mitigation completed by the
NYSDEC in 1978
• The Hudson River PCB Reclamation Project
In addition, dredging production rates are presented
for the alternative dredging schemes developed as part
of the Hudson River PCB Reclamation Project.
026 Harris, Rosalind Mason. Waukegan Harbor PCB Fish Levels,
Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois. White
Plains, New York: Malcolm Pirnie. July 9, 1982.
This document summarizes existing data and information
on the extent of fish PCB contamination in Waukegan
Harbor and Lake Michigan. The results of in-situ live
carp bioconcentration and depuration studies were under-
taken in Waukegan Harbor, and laboratory studies are
also discussed. Finally, estimates of the value of the
commercial and recreational fishery in the Waukegan
area are discussed in relation to present PCB levels of
commercially and recreationally important species.
027 Roberts, S.A. Waukegan Harbor Slip No. 3—PCB Loading
Rates. Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
White Plains, New York: Malcolm Pirnie. July 21, 1982.
This document presents potential PCB loading rates of
groundwater discharging through Slip No. 3 for two scen-
arios :
• Slip No. 3 filled with clean sand
• Slip No. 3 filled with dredge material from ad-
joining areas of the harbor
The loading rates determined were 0.0005 pound per day
for clean sand and 0.00003 pound per day for dredged
material.
028 Mulligan, J.B. Waukegan Harbor PCB Problem. Prepared
for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois. White Plains,
New York: Malcolm Pirnie. August 4, 1982.
PD998.057 8-7
-------
This document presents preliminary cost estimates for a
number of alternative methods of reducing the potential
for environmental danger from PCB contamination in the
Waukegan Harbor area. Alternatives for the harbor and
for the North Ditch and Parking Lot area are described,
and associated costs have been developed.
029 Brownell, R.P. Waukegan Harbor. Prepared for USEPA
Region V, Chicago, Illinois. White Plains, New York:
Malcolm Pirnie. August 5, 1982.
This document lists the alternatives evaluated and recom-
mends elimination of further evaluation on the No
Action alternative and on the Incineration alternative.
030 Volatilization. Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago,
Illinois. White Plains, New York: Malcolm Pirnie.
August 5, 1982.
This document calculates volatilization of PCBs in terms
of solubility in the water column based on literature
and on Waukegan area data reported by M. T. Kontaxis.
It also presents two methods for estimating PCB loss.
031 Shahabian, H.L. Waukegan Harbor Siltation. Prepared
for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois. White Plains,
New York: Malcolm Pirnie. August 5, 1982.
This document presents a review of available reports
and data related to sedimentation/siltation of Waukegan
Harbor. It estimates the amount of solids that could
reach Slip No. 3 and discusses the fluctuation of lake
water levels.
032 Mann, M.I., and S.A. Roberts. Waukegan North Ditch.
Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois. White
Plains, New York: Malcolm Pirnie. August 6, 1982.
This document presents a discussion of the following:
• Do previous estimates for surface water discharge
from the North Ditch to the lake consider only
sediment transport or do they include a soluble
component as well?
• Do soluble PCBs absorb and then settle?
• What is the estimated effect of filling the North
Ditch?
033 Waukegan EPA Folder. USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
This folder contains a duplicate copy of document
No. 05-5M28.0/040—Preliminary Screening Assessment
PD998.057 8-8
-------
Site Selection and Evaluation for a Hazardous Waste
Disposal Site—C 9400, a draft list of appendices to
the EIS, a draft of the Summary to the EIS, additional
information for Sections 1.2.4, 3.1.9, and 4.1.8 of
Appendix C, and graphs on inhibition of phytoplankton
versus water column PCS concentrations.
034 Final Site Selection and Evaluation for a Hazardous
Waste Disposal Site—C 9400. Prepared for Mason and
Hanger—Silas Mason Company, Inc., and USEPA Region V,
Chicago, Illinois. Madison, Wisconsin: Warzyn Engi-
neering, Inc. December 23, 1980.
The purpose of the work was to perform final evaluations
of potential alternatives for PCB-contaminated dredge
material disposal. The sites considered included:
Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) landfill near Zion,
Illinois, the Clermont Environmental Reclamation
(CECOS) landfill site near Williamsburg, Ohio, and the
Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC) property. The sites
were evaluated with respect to their environmental,
socioeconomic, engineering, and transportation charac-
teristics and the costs associated with the development
and use of each site for PCB-contaminated dredge material.
035 Thomann, R.V., and M.T. Kontaxis. Mathematical Model-
ing Estimate of Environmental Exposure Due to PCB-Con-
taminated Harbor Sediments of Waukegan Harbor and North
Ditch. Prepared for USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. Mahwah,
New Jersey: HydroQual, Inc. February 1981.
This report presents the results of a study on estimating
environmental exposure due to PCB-contaminated sediments
of the Waukegan Harbor area to provide EPA with technical
support for the litigation between USEPA and OMC.
A mathematical model of the harbor was prepared and
indicated that, at the time of the report (1981), about
10 kg/yr of PCS was reaching Lake Michigan from the
harbor.
036 Thomann, R.V., and M.T. Kontaxis. Mathematical Model-
ing Estimate of Environmental Exposure Due to PCB-Con-
taminated Harbor Sediments of Waukegan Harbor and North
Ditch. Prepared for USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. Mahwah,
New Jersey: HydroQual, Inc. February 1981,
This report presents the results of a study on estimat-
ing environmental exposure due to PCB-contaminated sedi-
ments of the Waukegan Harbor area to provide EPA with
technical support for the litigation between USEPA and
OMC.
PD998.057 8-9
-------
A mathematical model of the harbor was prepared and
indicated that, in 1981, about 10 kg/yr of PCB was
reaching Lake Michigan from the harbor.
037 Feasibility Report, Dredging of PCB-Contaminated River
Bed Materials, Upper Hudson River, New York, Volume 2--
Engineering Studies. Prepared for New York State De-
partment of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New
York. White Plains, New York: Malcolm Pirnie. 1978.
This document evaluates the feasibility and cost of dredg-
ing PCB-contaminated bed materials from the Upper Hudson
River, between the Federal Dam at Troy and Lock 7 at
Fort Edward. This document consisted of an introduction;
descriptions of existing conditions, dredging technology,
disposal sites, return flow treatment, alternative systems
for total PCB removal, and alternatives for partial PCB
removal; and the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the study.
038 Outboard Marine Corporation, Waukegan Harbor Boring,
Waukegan, Illinois—C 9791. Prepared for Mason & Han-
ger—Silas Mason Company, Inc., and USEPA Region V,
Chicago, Illinois. Madison, Wisconsin: Warzyn Engi-
neering, Inc. August 5, 1980.
This document presents the results for soil samples col-
lected on July 1 and 2, 1980, at Waukegan Harbor. The
purpose of the work was to collect bottom sediments,
underlying cohesive soils, and harbor water for chemi-
cal analysis and determination of engineering properties.
The report consisted of an introduction; descriptions
of chain of custody, sample collection, field procedures,
sediment and soil properties, six soil boring logs, and
laboratory test results.
039 Sand Sample Collection, Waukegan Harbor Slip No. 3,
Waukegan, Illinois—C 9560. Prepared for Mason & Han-
ger—Silas Mason Company, Inc., and USEPA Region V,
Chicago, Illinois. Madison, Wisconsin: Warzyn Engi-
neering, Inc. January 6, 1981.
This document presents the results for sediment samples
collected between November 19 and 22, 1980, at Waukegan
Harbor Slip No. 3. The purpose of the work was to
obtain soil samples for PCB analysis and to test parti-
cular engineering properties of the sediment. The re-
port consisted of an introduction, descriptions of
chain of custody, sample collection, field and sample
preparation procedures, laboratory test results, and
six soil boring logs.
040 Preliminary Screening Assessment, Site Selection, and
Evaluation for a Hazardous Waste Disposal Site—C 9400.
PD998.057 8-10
-------
Prepared for Mason & Hanger—Silas Mason Company, Inc.,
and USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Madison, Wiscon-
sin: Warzyn Engineering, Inc. October 29, 1980.
The purpose of the work is to screen specific sites for
potential PBC-contaminated dredge material disposal,
based on selected physical/environmental and socio-
economic criteria. This report presents the results of
preliminary screening of hazardous waste disposal sites.
041 An Estimate of Sediment Movement in North Ditch, Wauke-
gan, Illinois. Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago,
Illinois. Champaign, Illinois: United States Depart-
ment of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1980.
Stage-discharge and sediment-discharge to stream-dis-
charge relations have been developed for North Ditch,
Waukegan, Illinois. Indirect methods were used to ob-
tain a stream-discharge rating curve, and discharge and
stage measurements were used to adjust that relation.
Transport curves for discharge of both measured sedi-
ment and bed material were developed from measured sedi-
ment concentrations and by calculation from three in-
direct methods. The stream-discharge and sediment-dis-
charge relations were used with stage record to estimate
daily sediment load in the ditch for the study period
March 13 to September 30, 1979.
042 Sediment and Shore Sample Collection, Waukegan Harbor
Slip No. 3, Waukegan, Illinois—C 9729. Prepared for
Mason & Hanger--Silas Mason Company, Inc., and USEPA
Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Madison, Wisconsin:
Warzyn Engineering, Inc. May 26, 1981.
This document presents the results for soil samples
collected between March 16 and 25, 1981, at the Waukegan
Harbor Slip No. 3. The purpose of the work was to ob-
tain soil samples at specified depths for polychlori-
nated biphenyl (PCB) analysis and to test particular
engineering properties of the organic clayey silt (muds).
The report consisted of an introduction, descriptions
of chain of custody, sample collection, field proce-
dures, laboratory test results, and six boring logs.
043 Zar, Howard, Great Lakes Enforcement Coordinator. A
Draft Status Report on the Presence of Polychlorinated
Biphenyl Compounds (PCBs) in the Fishes of Lake Michi-
gan; With Special Reference to the Waukegan Harbor
Area. Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
1981.
The purpose of this document is to document PCB impacts
on selected fish and human populations of the Lake Michi-
gan basin. It consisted of an introduction; discussions
PD998.057 8-11
-------
on background information, trend analysis approach, and
sources of variability in the data; interpretation of
trend analysis; discussion of trends, and public health
concerns and fish flesh consumption guidelines; and the
conclusions of the report.
044 Screening of Alternatives to Abate PCB Contamination in
Waukegan Harbor and Environmental Assessment of Lagoon
Construction. Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago,
Illinois.
This document consists of an introduction, a description
and screening of alternatives, and environmental conse-
quences of alternatives.
045 Maps of North Shore Gas Company Lines—4512-153A and
4512-221A. Prepared for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illi-
nois. North Shore Gas Company. 1974.
Maps of North Shore Gas Company lines.
046 Kontaxis, Michael T. Report. Prepared for WAPORA,
Inc., Chicago, Illinois, and USEPA Region V, Chicago,
Illinois. Mahwah, New Jersey: HydroQual, Inc. Octo-
ber 21, 1981.
•
This document presented available PCB data for the water
column and bed sediments in Waukegan Harbor, North Ditch,
and the near shore area of Lake Michigan. It also dis-
cussed the following alternatives: No Action, diver-
sion of water, harbor dredging, operation of the
dewatering lagoon, and excavation of contaminated soils
from North Ditch.
047 Nawrocki, Michael A. Demonstration of the Separation
and Disposal of Concentrated Sediments. Washington,
D.C.: USEPA, Office of Research and Development. June
1974.
A pilot scale field study was conducted on a system
designed to remove and process sediments from pond bot-
toms. Sediment removal was accomplished with a Mud Cat
dredge, which minimizes turbidity while dredging. The
500-gpm sediment processing system consisted of elevated
clarifier bins (type used for concrete batch plants)
arranged in series, a bank of hydrocyclones, a cartridge
filter unit, and Uni-Flow bag type fabric filters. The
most efficient components of the sediment removal system
were the elevated bins and Uni-Flow filters. The hydro-
cyclones were good at removing sand size particles.
PD998.057 8-12
-------
048 Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Waukegan PCB
Abatement Project with Comments and Corrections. Pre-
pared for USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Chicago,
Illinois: WAPORA, Inc. December 11, 1981.
This is one of 2 copies of the DEIS. This copy in-
cludes the handwritten revisions to the draft of the
DEIS. The DEIS discusses the environmental impacts of
the PCB contamination and the impacts that cleanup
efforts might have. See document ID No. 05-5M28.0/002.
049 Miscellaneous articles on PCBs from a literature search.
USEPA Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
Miscellaneous articles on PCBs from a literature search.
050 Draft Environmental Assessment for Alternatives to Abate
PCB Contamination in Waukeqan Harbor. Chicago, Illinois:
USEPA Region V. Not yet published (draft).
Environmental assessment of initial PCB cleanup action
in Waukegan Harbor. A finding of no significant impact
(FNSI) for remedying existing PCB contamination of the
bottom sediments of Waukegan Harbor, Illinois, was the
result of this study. Not a public document.
051 OMC—North Ditch Bypass. Weston. 1982.
This report presents five alternative plans for provid-
ing runoff and drainage collection and diversion away
from the contaminated areas of North Ditch. Associated
incremental costs are projected for each alternative.
052 Guidelines for Dewatering/Densifying Confined Dredge
Material. Washington, B.C.: Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers. December 1978.
This document provides information about design, con-
struction, operation, and management of containment
areas for dredged material to be dewatered and densi-
fied. The manual helps the design engineer in deter-
mining what is technically feasible, operationally
practical and cost-effective for dewatering.
053 Hammer, D.P. Evaluation of Underdrainage Techniques
for the Densification of Fine-Grained Dredged Material.
Vicksburg, Mississippi: Office, Chief of Engineers,
U.S. Army. March 1981.
The results of a large-scale field experiment to evaluate
dewatering/densifying of fine-grained dredged material
with under-drainage techniques is presented. The under-
drainage systems evaluated were: gravity, partial vacuum,
seepage consolidation, and seepage consolidation with a
PD998.057 8-13
-------
partial vacuum. Of the techniques evaluated, the par-
tial vacuum in the under-drainage layer was the most
effective.
054 Sax, Newton Irving. Dangerous Properties of Industrial
Materials, Fifth Edition. New York, New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co. 1979.
This book provides a single source for quick, up-to-date,
concise, hazardous-analysis information for nearly 15,000
common industrial materials.
055 Richmond, Gene L. "Sediment Resuspension During Clam-
shell Dredging." Dredged Material Research. D-83-1:
2-5. January 1983,
This field study compared the sediment resuspension
characteristics of a standard open clamshell and a spe-
cially designed watertight clamshell dredge. The data
indicate that operating a watertight clamshell in the
upper water column is advantageous over an open clam-
shell in that loss is less as the loaded watertight
clamshell moves through the water. However, turbidity
in the lower 5 ft of the water column is higher with
operation of a watertight clamshell due to penetration,
digging, and withdrawal.
056 Radecca, Inc., Information on Locksorb and Klensorb
Materials. Austin, Texas: Radecca, Inc. July 1982.
Manufacturer's information on a fixation agent,
Locksorb, and a water treatment agent, Klensorb.
057 Sworzyn, E.M., and D.G. Ackerman. Interim Guidelines
for the Disposal/Destruction of PCBs and PCB items by
Non-thermal Methods. Research Triangle Park, N.C.:
USEPA. July 1982.
This interim report describes and evaluates various
chemical, physical and biological PCB removal and/or
destruction techniques. Many techniques are not
commercially available but show potential for greater
than 90 percent PCB destruction with minimal environ-
mental impacts and low-to-moderate economic costs.
058 Larsen, Jean I. Geology for Planning on Lake County,
Illinois. Prepared for State of Illinois. Urbana,
Illinois: Illinois State Geological Survey. 1973.
This report summarizes geological studies conducted for
Lake County Illinois. The following topics were ad-
dressed: basic geology, groundwater geology, mineral
resources, and engineering geology.
PD998.057 8-14
-------
059 Wet Oxidation Waste Disposal. Hinsdale, Illinois:
Midwest Recovery Company.
Manufacturer's brochure on wet air oxidation.
(060) (Number not used.)
061 Dehydro Sludge Dewatering System. Richmond, Virginia:
Infilco Degremont, Inc. 1981.
Manufacturer's brochure on a vacuum sludge dewatering
bed.
062 Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Dis-
posal. Prepared for USEPA, Technology Transfer. Gaines-
ville, Florida: Black, Crow, and Eidness. 1974.
This document summarizes state-of-the-art sludge pro-
cessing technology.
063 Technical and Cost Proposal for Development and Testing
of PCB-Silt Decontamination Process. Prepared for USEPA,
Chicago, Illinois. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
Franklin Research Center. April 12, 1983.
The data contained in this proposal are proprietary to
the Franklin Institute. The methods discussed concern
extraction of PCBs from harbor sediments using a sol-
vent. This technique has not been developed outside of
laboratory conditions.
064 The Zone II REM/FIT Management Plan. Prepared for
USEPA. Corvallis, Oregon: CH2M HILL and Ecology
Environmental, Inc. April 1983.
This document describes the organization and procedures
CH2M HILL and Ecology and Environment, Inc., have estab-
lished to implement the REM/FIT contract with EPA to
provide site investigation, remedial planning, program
management and support services for remedial response
activities.
065 Miller, Stanton. "The PCB Imbroglio." Environmental
Science Technology. 17-1:11A-14A. 1983.
This article reviews the controversy over the impacts
on human health caused by PCBs. It concludes that more
work needs to be done to understand the implications
for human and environmental exposures to PCBs.
066 Deposition of Julia B. Graf. The United States of America,
Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and Monsanto
Company, Defendants. Called by Outboard Marine Corpora-
tion in Chicago, Illinois. February 16, 1981.
PD998.057 8-15
-------
067 Deposition of R. Emmet Kelly (Monsanto Plant Physician).
United States of America, Plantiff, vs. Outboard Marine
Corporation and Monsanto Company, Defendants. Taken on
behalf of Plaintiff at Saint Louis, Missouri. March 26-27,
1981.
068 Deposition of Alfred F. Hanson. The United States of
America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and
Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by the Plaintiff .
at Chicago, Illinois. June 11 and 12, 1981.
069 Deposition of Robert K. Ringer. The United States of
America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and
Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by Monsanto Company,
at Chicago, Illinois. July 22, 1981 and July 23, 1981.
070 Deposition of Harold E.B. Humphrey. The United States
of America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation
and Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by Monsanto
Company at Chicago, Illinois, and Lansing, Michigan.
August 12-13, 1981, and October 2, 1981.
071 Deposition of Robert V. Thomann. The United States of
America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and
Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by Outboard Marine
Corporation, at Chicago, Illinois. September 17 and
18, 1981; November 12 and 13, 1981; and October 26, 1982.
072 Deposition of Wayland R. Swain. The United States of
America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and
Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by the Defendants
at Chicago, Illinois. October 28-29, 1981.
073 Deposition of Thomas H. Milby. The United States of
America, Plantiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and
Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by the Plaintiff,
at San Francisco, California. May 27 to 28, 1982, and
August 4, 1982.
074 Deposition of Richard P. Brownell. The United States
of America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation
and Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by Outboard
Marine Corporation, at Chicago, Illinois. August 10
and 11, 1982; August 31 and September 1, 1982; and
September 13 and 14, 1982.
075 Deposition of Dr. David Stalling. The United States of
America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and
Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by Monsanto Company,
at Chicago, Illinois. September 9, 1982.
076 Deposition of John Norden. The United States of America,
Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and Monsanto
PD998.057 8-16
-------
Company, Defendants. Called by Outboard Marine Corpora-
tion, at Chicago, Illinois. June 10, 1982.
077 Deposition of Dr. William R. Gaffey. The United States
of America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation
and Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by the Plain-
tiff at Chicago, Illinois. June 3, 1982.
078 Deposition of John C. Henningson. The United States of
America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and
Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by Outboard Marine
Corporation at Chicago, Illinois. August 12, 1982.
079 Deposition of Russell W. Cook, Jr. , United States of
America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and
Monsanto Company, Defendants. Called by Outboard Marine
Corporation, at Chicago, Illinois. June 8-9, 1982.
080 Deposition of Dr. Douglas Cherkauer. The United States
of America, Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation
and Monsanto, Defendants. Called by Monsanto Company,
at Chicago, Illinois. June 17, 1982, and November 18,
1982.
081 Notice of Filing - Defendant Monsanto Company's Second
Set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiff United States
of America and response. Includes amendments 1, 2, and
3 and Responses. The United States of America, Plaintiff,
vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and Monsanto Company,
Defendants. June 8, 1982.
082 Notice of Filing - Defendant Monsanto Company's Amended
Requests for Admission to Plaintiff, United States of
America. The United States of America, Plaintiff, vs.
Outboard Marine Corporation and Monsanto Company, Defen-
dants. April 26, 1982.
083 Notice of Filing - Defendant Monsanto Company's Third
Set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiff, United States
of America. The United States of America, Plaintiff,
vs. Outboard iMarine Corporation and Monsanto Company,
Defendants. June 17, 1982.
084 Notice of Filing - Defendant Monsanto Company's Fourth
Set of Requests for Admission to Plaintiff, United States
of America and Response. The United States of America,
Plaintiff, vs. Outboard Marine Corporation and Monsanto
Company, Defendants. January 6, 1983.
085 Draft Remedial Action Master Plan Lemon Lane Landfill.
Milxvaukee, Wisconsin: CH2M HILL. June 6, 1983.
This document is a Remedial Action Plan for the Lemon
Lane Landfill site. The major concern at the site is
PD998.057 8-17
-------
disposal of PCB oils in capacitors. Not a public docu-
ment.
086 Nemerow, N.L. Industrial Water Pollution. Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company. 1978.
Book on industrial water pollution.
087 James, R.; M. Cranmer; and R. Harbison. Technical
Review of the Health Effects of PCBs. Ecology and
Environment, Inc., 1981.
Review of health effects of PCBs.
088 USEPA Water Quality Criteria Documents. Summary of
Federal Register, Volume 45, No. 231, November 28, 1980
PD998.057 8-18
-------
Appendix
CONCEPTUAL SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The conceptual site health and safety plan is intended to
outline, in general terms, the various requirements to allow
remedial site activities at the OMC site in Waukegan, Illi-
nois. Remedial site activities may include cleanup activi-
ties such as hydraulic and/or mechanical dredging, excavation
and dewatering of soil, trenching, and waste hauling via
trucks and/or barges.
The waste characteristics include liquid, solid, and sludge
materials of a toxic nature. PCBs from hydraulic fluids
used in an aluminum die-casting facility are the source of
the wastes that have contaminated Waukegan Harbor and the
North Ditch/Parking Lot areas.
HAZARD EVALUATION
The cleanup activities may include hydraulic, pneumatic,
and/or mechanical dredging of harbor sediments including
those in Slip No. 3; dewatering and subsequent excavation of
soils of the North Ditch; and excavation of contaminated
soils from the Parking Lot area. The last two items will
require the collection and diversion of stormwater runoff.
Dewatering may involve the construction of a dewatering
lagoon.
The health hazards associated with the above cleanup activi-
ties are both chemical and physical in nature and include:
respiratory and dermal hazards, noise, and hazards associated
with the construction, excavation, and trenching.
Volatilization of PCBs and increased dust levels containing
PCBs during dredging and excavation operations will temporar-
ily increase PCB concentrations in the air. These levels
may exceed the OSHA standards and NIOSH recommendations of
1.0 mg/m3 and 1.0 ug/m3, respectively. Both volatilized
PCBs and PCB-laden dust, as well as high PCB concentrations
in the excavated materials (soil, sludge, and water) will
require dermal protection. Noise and other physical hazards
will be produced by construction activities. Both State and
Federal OSHA safety and health standards that apply to the
construction industry (such as 29 CFR 1926/1910) must be
enforced.
As stated above, the OSHA permissible exposure limit is 1.0
mg/m3. The NIOSH recommended level is 1.0 ug/m3 for a 10-
hour time-weighted average, due to PCB designation as a
PD998.003.1 A-l
-------
suspected carcinogen. The immediately dangerous to life or
health concentration is 5 mg/m3.
PCBs are colorless to dark brown liquids that possess a mild
hydrocarbon odor. However, this compound will most likely
be bound to the soil and sediment components of Waukegan
Harbor and surrounding CMC facility areas and environment.
The major routes of entry into the body are inhalation, in-
gestion, and skin or eye contact. The target organs are the
skin, eyes, liver, and kidneys. Major symptoms of PCB expo-
sure include eye irritation, dermatitis (notably chloracne),
hepatic degeneration, fatigue, dark urine, and jaundice.
General first aid procedures include:
• If PCBs get into the eyes, immediately wash the
eyes for at least 15 minutes with copious amounts
of water, occasionally lifting the lower and upper
lids. Medical attention should be sought immedi-
ately. Contact lenses are not to be worn by per-
sonnel during any onsite activities.
• Any contact with the skin will require the prompt
washing of the contaminated areas with soap or
mild detergent and water. If liquids or soils
potentially contaminated with PCBs penetrate
through clothing, the clothing should be immedi-
ately removed and the skin should be washed as
described above. Any signs of skin irritation
warrant'prompt medical attention.
• If a worker breaths in significant amounts of PCB-
contaminated air, the exposed individual should be
moved to an uncontaminated area at once. Medical
attention should be sought promptly. If breathing
has stopped, artificial respiration should be per-
formed.
• If ingested, seek medical attention immediately,
induce vomiting with syrup of Ipecac or physical
means. Do not make an unconscious person vomit.
Those personnel who will come into direct contact with PCB-
contaminated soils, sludges, and liquids are at the greatest
risk and must be protected and monitored accordingly. Those
personnel who will work close to defined PCB-contaminated
areas, (i.e., heavy equipment operators) will also be at
high risk and must be properly protected and monitored.
The greatest potential health hazards within the project
area are as follows:
PD998.003.2 A-2
-------
• The massive amount of contaminated sediment dredged
from Slip No. 3 and associated dusts
• The contaminated sediments, sands, and clays near
the abandoned OMC outfalls
• The contaminated soils of the Crescent Ditch and
Oval Lagoon located on the western end of the
North Ditch
• The contaminated soil areas designated as "hot
spots" located in the parking lot
• The contaminated water and dredged soils in and
around the dewatering basins, if used, and general
construction and dredging activities onsite
The variously contaminated soils, sediments, mucks, dusts,
and water adjacent to and associated with the aforementioned
areas and activities present potentially significant health
hazards to the personnel involved in this cleanup. Therefore,
all personnel who will come into direct contact with these
contaminated materials must be provided with the maximum
allowable protection including self-contained breathing ap-
paratus (SCBA) and sufficient dermal protection. Personnel
monitoring and subsequent analysis will be required in order
to document a lowering of this protection level. Dependent
upon ambient air monitoring results, specific respiratory
and dermal protection may be required downwind of any site
cleanup activities and holding basins.
Each specific cleanup activity and associated work function
will require the definition and enforcement of specific
safety precautions and levels of protection. This conceptual
safety plan will require updating as the final abatement
alternatives are better defined. Once work has begun onsite,
daily safety meetings are to be held so as to specifically
define individual work responsibilities in relation to recog-
nized hazard potentials. Therefore, various modifications
to the site safety plan may be required.
SITE SAFETY WORK PLAN
The site perimeter shall be established and the zones of
contamination identified. Prior to cleanup activities, con-
tamination will be limited to sediments, water, and soil.
During construction, new areas may be identified, including
the worksite air.
PD998.003.3 A-3
-------
Personal Protection
Level of protection may include Level B and C protection
equipment. Those in direct contact with the contaminant
shall wear Butyl splash protection aprons; along with neo-
prene/viton gloves over surgeon gloves; disposable PVC-
coated, or better, coveralls over chemically resistant cover-
alls; and disposable booties over steel toe/shank neoprene
boots.
Those workers in areas of PCB levels in the air of 1.0 mg/m3*
or greater shall wear supplied air respirators with full
facepiece helmet or hood, or SCBA's with full facepiece,
operating in the positive pressure mode. Those in areas
less than 1.0 mg/m3, shall wear full face air-purifying respi-
rators with high efficiency organic vapor/dust canisters or
cartridges (respiratory equipment must be NIOSH approved).
Surveillance equipment and other safety equipment will in-
clude air sampling pumps with florisil collection tubes,
total dust particulate counter or Hi-volume sampler, wind
speed and direction device, air escape mask, first aid
kit(s), portable emergency eye/face wash, showers and change
room.
Decontamination Procedures
Disposables shall be removed at the hotline. All nondispos-
ables shall be washed in the following series: 1) detergent
and water solution; 2) clean water rinse. Nondisposable
work clothing shall be changed daily and checked for con-
tamination. Any contaminated clothing underneath dispos-
ables shall be properly discarded. Wash tubs and/or basins,
brushes, decon solution, pressurized sprayers, plastic sheet-
ing for equipment drop, plastic bags, drums, labels, and
those items necessary to comply with Federal Industry and
Construction Regulations shall be provided.
Site Entry Procedures
Site should be entered from an upwind hotline in the level
of protection required for the associated task. Strict con-
tamination avoidance techniques will be practiced by all
personnel onsite.
*Note: NIOSH currently recommends an "action level" of
1 microgram/cubic meter in ambient air for requiring the
use of supplied air/SCBA. The above-referenced "action
levels" refer to current OSHA standards for exposure to
chlorodiphenyl (42% chlorine).
PD998.003.4 A-4
-------
Work Limitations (Time of Day, Etc.)
In daylight hours, heat stress must be carefully watched,
and appropriate alteration of work activities should be
incorporated, i.e., work shifts, time-of-day shifts.
Investigation-Derived Material Disposal
All disposable clothing and materials that are potentially
contaminated must be properly bagged and labelled and dis-
posed of properly. All contaminated sediments, soils, and
liquids that leave the site must meet all Federal D.O.T. and
State of Illinois Regulations. All onsite equipment such as
heavy excavation and dredging equipment must be properly
decontaminated prior to leaving the designated hot zones.
SUMMARY
This is a conceptual site safety plan, and does not include
the detailed information that would be incorporated in a
final site safety plan for the OMC site. Additional informa-
tion should be developed when final remedial alternatives
are better defined. Additional information to be developed
includes:
• Local resources for emergency situations
• Emergency routes (hospital, etc.)
• Delineated responsibilities
• Provisions for contingencies
• Site layout and zones of contamination
• Detailed level of protection per specific site
activity
• Detailed access and egress points
• Detailed air monitoring activities
PD998.003.5 A-5
------- |