SUPERFUND WASTE DISPOSAL EVALUATION
June 29, 1984
Office of Solid Waste
Waste Management and Economics Division
V1.•••*--?c t icn Agency
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
* Page
LIST OF TABLES ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
INTRODUCTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY 2
Review of Superfund Actions 2
Determination of Wastes and
Treatment Alternatives 5
Assessment of Landfill Quality 8
Telephone Surveys 8
Characteristics of Surrounding Areas ....... 8
Design Suitability 9
Facility Evaluations . 10
Landfills with Synthetic Liners 10
Assumptions and Limitations 11
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 13
Comparison of Treatment Alternatives 13
Incineration 13
Solidification ..... 16
Other Treatment Technologies 18
Summary of Treatment Alternatives 19
Cost and Risk Assessment 20
Comparison of Disposal Costs ........... 20
Disposal Costs Including Transportation 25
Risks Associated with Transportation 28
Adequacy of Disposal 28
Geologic Settings and Facility
Design 28
Leachate Discharge Rates 31
Comments on Risk 33
RECOMMENDATIONS 35
APPENDIX A
Appendix Table of Contents i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Table Page
1 Summary of Superfund Site Data 3
2 Breakdown of Waste Types Suspected on
154 Sites which were "Proposed" Removal
Action Sites for 1983 4
3 Comparison of Landfill Cost Estimates vs.
Rotary Kiln Incineration Cost Estimates for
Hypothetical Superfund Wastes .... 21
4 Cost Estimates of Cementitious
Solidification/Fixation for Hypothetical
Superfund Wastes 22
5 Comparison of Technology Costs Without
Transportation Costs Included 24
6 Transportation Costs 26
7 Comparison of Technology Costs with
Transportation Costs Included 27
8 Release Rates Associated with Transport
to Landfill Sites 29
9 Release Rates Associated with Transport-
to Incineration Sites ..... 29
10 Unit Design/Operation Compared with
Hydrogeologic Setting 30
11 Waste Type Compared with Hydreologic
Setting 32
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
*
OSW has been asked to determine if alternative treatment
technologies are available to handle Superfund wastes that are
currently being landfilled, and if so, at what cost. We have also
been asked to determine the potential environmental effects of
the RCRA facilities where the Superfund wastes were disposed, and
to compare these effects with the potential effects from available,
synthetically-lined RCRA landfills.
A small study was undertaken of 6 Superfund removal actions
and 5 remedial actions. Information was gathered, primarily from
Superfund site files, on the quantity and type of wastes, the
cost of transportation and disposal, and the characteristics of
the RCRA landfills used for final disposal of the Superfund
wastes. Unfortunately, the lack of readily accessable, confirmed
waste and economic data required that numerous assumptions be
made limiting the accuracy and significance of the results.
Treatment technologies that could have been used with the land-
filled Superfund wastes were next identified. Calls were placed
to commercial facilities to see if they could handle the wastes
and at what cost. The risk and cost of transportation was also
estimated. The RCRA disposal sites that received the waste were
investigated, including the characteristics of the surrounding
areas and the facility design, where that information was available,
No commercial landfill facilities with synthetic liners were
readily identified; therefore, that evaluation was not performed.
iii
-------
Rotary kiln incineration and cementitious solidification/
fixation are technically viable options for handling the-wastes
that were landfilled. While commercial capacity for rotary kiln
incineration is limited, capacity is probably adequate to handle
each action individually. However, if all of the waste were to
be disposed of at the same time, capacity to handle that total
volume would likely not be currently available. Capacity for
solidification technologies is available assuming that adequate
landfill space exists. Other treatment technologies, such as
steam stripping and biodegradation, potentially could be used to
manage these wastes. However, because of their limited application
or because they are still in a research and development phase,
they were not studied in depth.
Risk was difficult to determine for the treatment alternatives
considered. However, some general observations can be made. The
V
long-term environmental risk for incineration is less than land-
filling. The short-term risk, however, is highly dependent upon
the incinerator's destruction efficiency. Short-term environmental
risk of solidification is less than landfilling. The long-term
*
risk is not really known because of the potential for leaching
of the toxic constituents.
The risk posed by transporting the wastes to an incinerator
was estimated to be greater than the risk of transporting the
wastes to the selected final landfill sites. This is because
the distances were greater to the incinerators chosen for the
study.
IV
-------
The average cost to use incineration for the Superfund
wastes was. estimated at approximately 8 times higher than that
paid by Superfund for landfilling (including transportation).
The average cost for solidifying the waste prior to landfilling
was estimated at 3 times higher than that paid by Superfund
for landfilling. Incineration is approximately 3 times more
costly on the average than solidification.
Evaluation of the 8 RCRA landfills used as final disposal
facilities for the Superfund wastes, while hampered by the lack
of data, seems to indicate that there is no immediate hazard
through ground water quality to the public health and environment
from disposal of these wastes. Several of these sites, however,
have had histories of major design or operational problems, some
repressenting and immediate hazard (e.g., improper storage of
ignitable liquids in leaking drums). One facility has a substan-
tial potential risk for long-term adverse impact on ground water
quality. As many as three additional facilities may also have
the potential for long-term adverse effects on ground water
quality, although the impact would probably be more localized
•
and smaller in scale. The remaining sites have lower potential
risk to ground and surface water quality although the risk
associated with these sites is not zero.
In summary, while treatment alternatives are available to
handle much of the Superfund wastes currently going to landfill,
the costs would be significantly higher, although the long-term
risk may be somewhat less. It should be noted that over 60% of
-------
the wastes removed from the Superfund sites studied were treated
in some way. Landfilling, therefore, was not the ultimate disposal
technique used for much of the Superfund waste.
The results of this study should not be used to draw defini-
tive conclusions about current Superfund actions and cleanup
policy. Uncertainty over the long-term adequacy of RCRA disposal
facilities should not detract from the need to provide immediate,
cost effective cleanup action where the public health and safety
is involved. A more detailed, comprehensive and precise study
should be undertaken before major Agency policy changes are
made.
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
•
Questions have been raised about the Agency's current
practice of removing wastes from Superfund sites and transporting
them to RCRA interim (or final) status landfills. It is argued
that, because land disposal may not be a permanent solution
for many wastes, it is possible that the Superfund wastes could
eventually be released into the environment again and have to be
moved a second time. The argument concludes that either Superfund
wastes should be pretreated before final land disposal, or that
alternative treatment technologies should be used much more
frequently as the intermediate or final waste disposal method of
choice.
The Assistant Administrator of OSWER asked OSW to undertake
a quick study of several Superfund site cleanup actions to
determine if alternative treatment technologies could have been
used to handle wastes placed in landfills. More specifically, the
actions analyzed were five remedial actions and ten removal
actions where all or part of the wastes were transported off-site
to a landfill. Questions to be answered were: ^
(1) Does technology exist to treat those wastes, and if
so, at what cost?
(2) Could alternative technologies have been used instead
of the landfill at the time that the action was taken,
and if so, at what cost (including transportation costs}?
(3) How effective was the land disposal site to which the
waste was sent?
(4) If the landfill were to leak, what would be the environ-
mental effect and cost?
(5) What would be the environmental effect if the landfill
had been equipped with a synthetic liner?
-------
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
Review of Superfund Actions
Many Superfund removal actions were considered for this
study. Actions were nominated for study only if at least part
of the waste handled went to a landfill. An effort was made to
select actions where waste quantity and characteristic data and
disposal cost data were available. There was also an attempt to
obtain a mix of wastes, disposal facilities, and locations.
Because of the lack of data and the time available to fill
in data gaps, this study could only evaluate six removal actions,
OERR provided data on five additional remedial actions, which
were included.
The Appendix gives a summary of the Superfund actions taken
at each site selected and also lists the fate of all wastes
removed from the site. Table 1 summarizes the data used for
each site for the purposes of this study. Unfortunately, the
eleven actions finally chosen may not be representative of the
full range of Superfund activities; consequently, the results of
*
this analysis may not be applicable to every Superfund action.
However, the actions selected involve a wide variety of
wastes (e.g., paints, cyanides, oils, PCBs, solvents, toxic
metals, and pesticides) which represent a large portion by
volume of the wastes typically found in Superfund sites. This
can be seen by comparing the total waste types suspected in
Superfund sites in 1983, which is contained in Table 2. Most
-------
CO
!N
oo
o
o
CM
CM
00
Q EH
85
o m
ik •»
M CM
CM
00
Q
S
CT>
00
in r-
• cn- on/1- «• w-
CM r-{
«H
«)•«>•
•H 0)
J£
tin
VO
O CM
ro
o o
§8
CM i
ff\
w-
81*
3S
\ o
o o
00 I-H
v>
T3
rH
S
8
CM
§o
o
o o
00 O
•o
8 trkld
$200
§8
O V£>
* fe
m i-*
CO
• G H
t* Q
•O OS-D
2^
WS
wv
IS
•o
r-
CO
•5
I
ft
"S
rH
CO
TJ
CM
O
03
i
8
S
•o
S
CO
rH
I
CO
iff
CM
m
^
m
CM
CM
r-
;
4
CO !
« 1
bJ <
CO
3 «
: -I-l
1) O
> -H
H *J
CO —
ol2
C (0
|ii
CQ
VO
0 sr(
O —
CO
•R
o
^1
CM
10 ^.
"^ •
0 3
w co
.w
in
w
en in
l-» 4J
•H C
r"n k*4 i—r
CO ft CD
J8
i
2
a
S
to
CD
g
-ft
44
21
fil
CO O
'S'S
!
o> u
43 D *
co £
5i
Iti
6£
>H
z
3 *
j^ ^*^
^^ ^j
S "u
S
m
^
CM
4)
-------
Table 2
BREAKDOWN OF WASTE TYPES SUSPECTED ON 154 SITES *
WHICH WERE "PROPOSED" REMOVAL ACTION SITES FOR 1903
48% solvents
25% metals
23% corrosives
20% polychlorinated biphenyls
18% cyanides/reactives
15% pesticides
10% oils
9% phenolics
6% paints/resins
6% polynuclear aromatics/phthalates
4% chlorinated dioxins/dibenzofurans
2% radioactive
1% asbestos
(e.g.. For 48% of 154 "proposed" removal sites in 1983, there was
a preliminary indication that solvents or materials contaminated
with solvents were present on site. This table indicates the
major waste types anticipated to be present on these sites. More
than one waste type was usually present; therefore the sum of the
percents will exceed 100%.}
*Estimated from "Superfund Removal Request Summary for FY'83".
-------
major disposal facilities are also included in the study, although
noticeably absent are large facilities in California and*Alabama.
Many of the landfills are in Region 5 states, but several other
areas are represented as well. These sites may not be represent-
ative of all landfills. A larger study should make an attempt
to select more facilities with a large variety of disposal
characteristics to gain a more representative sample so as not
to distort the view of whether the landfills were acceptable or
not.
After the Superfund actions were selected, all of the
available information was reviewed from the Superfund files.
Calls were made, as time permitted, to Headquarters and Regional
Office staff knowledgeable of the particular actions to clarify
or get additional information. Unfortunately, little of this
information has been verified. In any subsequent study, more
time should be spent talking with these people, particularly
on-scene coordinators, to improve the quality of the data base.
Determination of Wastes and Treatment Alternatives
A description of the wastes studied by action is given in
Table 1. In many instances, the lack of specific data on the
characteristics of the wastes required that assumptions be made
about the wastes that were ultimately landfilled. Based on the
information available, a typical waste was selected in order to
facilitate future calculations on treatability, costs, and risk.
In some cases, waste characteristics were selected to make the
waste more treatable. The Appendix lists hypothetical waste
-------
characteristics for each waste. These "hypothetical" waste
characteristics may be in error by an order of magnitude or more
and therefore may not represent the actual waste handled. In
addition, the economic data for transportation and disposal were
often obtained from sketchy information and total cost figures
reported from the disposal site during cleanup. For the purposes
of this study, however, both the economic data and the waste
characterization data used can be considered "reasonable".
Assumptions were made next on which treatment technologies
could be applied to the wastes. The Appendix lists the treatment
methods applicable to each waste by Superfund site. While it is
reasonable to assume that these technologies could treat the hypo-
thetical wastes, small differences in the assumed waste characteris-
tics could considerably change future conclusions. For instance,
if the assumed BTU content was significantly different, the waste
might not be acceptable for incineration, or at least supplemental
fuel would have to be used which would increase the costs. Also,
a specific lime/cement mix solidification process was assumed
applicable for each waste. (It should be noted that not all wastes
can be treated in this manner.) In reality, tests would*be needed
to select the right mix of chemicals to insure minimum leaching.
Actual knowledge of the leachability of each waste with the assumed
lime/cement mix would greatly affect the ultimate environmental
risk and cost of this process.
Only qualitative assumptions were made of the potential
effect of residue emissions from the treatment alternative options.
-------
For instance, no attempt was made to quantify or estimate the
effect of volatile organic or heavy metal air emissions from
incinerators.
Once the alternative treatment technologies were identified,
phone calls were placed to commercial facilities to see if they
could take the wastes, and if so, at what costs. The treatment
alternatives were compared and evaluated. Costs of the different
treatment options, including transportation, were compared to the
costs spent to landfill each waste. The results of this analysis
are given in the Results and Conclusions section.
It should be noted that in most instances, land disposal
was the ultimate fate of only part of the wastes being removed
from each Superfund site (see the Appendix). Consequently, not
all of the wastes handled at the Superfund site were made part
of this study. Full treatment or pretreatment technologies,
such as incineration, neutralization, solidification, and carbon
adsorption, were often used at the Superfund sites or at the
disposal facilities. Of the Superfund actions studied, perhaps
as much as 60% of the wastes were incinerated, treated, or recycled,
Of the approximately 40% of the wastes that were landfilled,
about 7% were neutralized and/or solidified prior to landfilling.
It seemed that in most cases, the most difficult to manage waste
ended up in the landfill.
-------
Assessment of Landf i11 Quali ty
We assessed the quality of a number of RCRA commercial
disposal facilities that received wastes from selected Superfund
removal and remedial action sites. The steps taken to evaluate
landfill effectiveness are discussed below.
Telephone Surveys
Eight commercial RCRA Interim Status landfill facilities
received these Superfund wastes. EPA Regional Office and State
Agency staff knowledgeable of the design, operation, and perform-
ance of these land disposal facilities were contacted by telephone.
The results of these telephone surveys are presented in the form
of completed questionnaires included in the Appendix. The infor-
mation collected on these landfills provides a useful perspective
on waste management practices. The questionnaire information
was collected over a five-day period by three.individuals. The
information was used in qualitatively evaluating the overall
performance of each facility, in combination with the information
described in the following paragraphs (b) and (c).
•
Characteristics of Surrounding Aireas
We attempted to collect additional information not displayed
in the questionnaires. In order to assess the potential severity
and immediacy of off-site risk, it is necessary to understand
land use patterns and regional ground water and surface water
-------
usages. Only limited information on these features was available
through the telephone surveys. Additional off-site data.was not
available because:
0 The USDA Soil Conservation Service Medium Intensity
county soils maps (which display aerial photographs
that collectively cover the county) are temporarily
removed from the EPA library shelves.
0 Aerial photographs collected and published by the EPA-
ORD/Environmental Monitoring System Laboratory (Las Vegas}
were available for only one of the facilities (i.e.,
Envirosafe Services in Grandview, ID)
0 None of the RCRA facilities is part of the HQ-OSW Permit
Assistance Team workload. Therefore, detailed permit
applications submitted under 40 CFR Part 264 are not
available at HQ.
0 There was insufficient time to obtain USGS topographic
maps and locate the disposal sites on them.
Design Suitability
The adequacy of the land disposal facilities to manage the
hazardous wastes was also assessed. This assessment was very
qualitative, due to the very limited data base on waste character-
istics, facility design, and facility operation plans. The
assessment focused on the following elements:
0 were ignitable or reactive wastes disposed without proper
pretreatment 4
0 were wastes disposed that are incompatible with clay
or synthetic liners
0 were wastes disposed that are exceptionally mobile
(e.g., phenols) or toxic (e.g., dioxins)
0 were PCB wastes disposed only at facilities permitted
by EPA to accept PCB wastes.
Chemical characteristics of the Superfund site wastes were
compared with information on waste and chemical properties avail-
able in the 40 CFR Part 261 Waste Listing Background Documents,
-------
the OSW Technical Resource Document "Lining of Waste Impoundments
and Landfills", manufacturers' literature on liner: chemrcal
compound compatibility, and LDB Permit Writers' Training Program
materials on clay liner: waste compatibility issues (prepared by
K.W. Brown, Assoc.).
Facility Evaluations
The survey data collected on the individual facilities,
available data on the characteristics of the land uses around
the facilities, and the qualitative assessment of waste management
adequacy were all combined to form a qualitative evaluation of
the risks associated with waste disposal at the RCRA disposal
facilities. A quantitative risk assessment was originally to
be performed using the Liner-Location Model, but was not attempted
due to the extremely limited data base.
This evaluation is qualitative, and based on limited data
and the assumptions and limitations described in a later section
of this report.
Landfills with Synthetic Liners
*
We were also asked to identify the RCRA landfill with a
synthetic liner nearest to the Superfund project site. The RIA
data base was examined for this purpose. Unfortunately, the five
facilities identified by this process are all on-site facilities.
There was insufficient time to identify commercial facilities
with synthetic liners.
10
-------
Assumptions and Limitations
The .following assumptions and limitations apply to, the
evaluation of landfill quality.
1. The Regional Office and State Agency contacts reported
permeability values for the various geological units
at the facilities. These values are assumed to be
correct. However, there are several reasons to be
skeptical of the accuracy of the low values (10~7
cm/sec or less) reported for clay liners and clay
soils. These are:
0 The values are probably determined through laboratory
analysis. Lab permeability values for fine-grained
materials are generally one to as many as three orders
of magnitude lower than values determined by in-place
field tests.
0 the clay liner could be fractured since its original
installation. The reported permeability value might
only be a design objective, and not indicative of
as-built quality.
0 Quality assurance/quality control methods for
construction of the liners were not available.
2. The surrounding land uses and areal distribution and
uses of aquifers are generally unknown, as explained
*
earlier under Characteristics of Surrounding Areas.
3. The telephone surveys established that all of the facilities
had Contingency Plans, Waste Analysis Plans, Inspection
Plans, financial assurance, and security provisions, as
required by the RCRA Interim Status Standards (40 CFR
Part 265). However, there was insufficient time to
evaluate the quality and adequacy of these plans and
11
-------
procedures. The Waste Analysis Plan is particularly
important? it should serve as the basis for the-.opera tor' s
management decisions on waste acceptance and handling/
pretreatment requirements.
The telephone surveys indicated that a number of facilities
have either inadequate ground water monitoring systems,
or that adequate systems have only recently been installed
(after enforcement action to correct past practices).
Consequently, the true impact of these facilities on
local ground water quality may not be known. This
situation appears endemic among RCRA Interim Status
disposal facilities, based on a recent OSW investigation.
The information presented in the waste management
suitability part of each facility evaluation concerning
synthetic liner and clay liner compatibility is based
on compatibility testing of pure chemicals. The testing
was done for only single chemical compound: liner
combinations. A complete assessment of whether a wide
range of constituents and their concentrations will be
*
effectively managed in a clay- or synthetic-lined facility
can only be determined through prolonged compatibility
testing.
12
-------
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
•
Comparison of Treatment Alternatives
The Appendix lists, by site, the three most likely treatment
methods for each hypothetical waste based on our judgement. A
summary of each alternative (i.e., incineration, solidification,
steam stripping, and others) is give below. This discussion
includes the following:
0 qualitative risks (short- and long-term) of treatment.
0 factors affecting cost.
0 limitations of treatment due to cost factors and other
major factors affecting applicability and desirability
of the method for a given waste.
The capacity of treatment facilities to process additional Superfund
wastes also is considered briefly.
Incineration
Incineration in a rotary kiln was a technically viable
option for eleven of the twelve hypothetical Superfund wastes.
It was the first technical choice of alternatives for eight
wastes; second choice for two wastes; and third choice for one
*
waste. The one waste for which incineration was not an option
had no organics. It contained primarily metals, soils, and
metal salts. Selection of the order of alternative choices was
based upon the waste characteristics and the constituent concen-
trations .
Incineration involves destruction of the toxic organic
constituents at a federally regulated level of 99.99% efficiency
and thus provides a significant reduction in long-term environmental
13
-------
\
risk. In the short-term, risk due to incineration must be evaluated
per constituent with consideration of constituent toxicijty,
incinerator operating parameters, stack emission concentrations,
and potential for population exposure. Residues from incineration
could also present a long-term risk; however, the concentration of
hazardous organic constituents will be significantly reduced (by
up to four orders of magnitude) when compared to the original
wastes.
Costs of incineration, as well as risk, are greatly affected
by the physical and chemical characteristics of each individual
waste. Actual costs, rather than the estimated costs, would be
highly dependent upon the heterogeneous physical character of
each waste as well as concentrations of the toxic constituents.
Additional factors increasing the costs would be:
0 low BTU content of the waste
0 supplemental fuel consumption
0 heat release of the waste
0 material handling difficulties
0 feed mechanism complications
*
0 high ash content/residue removal
0 corrosive gas formation potential
Conversations with owners/operators of rotary kiln incinerators
and with EPA-ORD incineration experts indicate that actual costs
for these wastes are also dependent upon:
0 volume discounts
0 governmental rates
0 storage/handling requirements
14
-------
0 worker safety considerations
0 competitive bidding *
0 regional cost differentials
0 capacity competition from industrial wastes
0 other market considerations
Capacity of commercial rotary kiln incinerators appears to
be somewhat limited. This report did not analyze total capacity
for these eleven incinerable wastes because the wastes were
"generated" over a period of six years. Indirect comments on
capacity were made by the owner/operators of the rotary kiln
incinerators, which indicated that there would probably be
insufficient existing capacity to handle these Superfund wastes
if they were "generated" all at once. Several of these commercial
firms indicated that they are currently developing or anticipate
developing mobile rotary kiln incinerators which would specifically
address the problem of treatment of Superfund wastes (similar to
those addressed in this study). The firms' primary concerns
appear to be the problems with siting restrictions and obtaining
permits.
*
One treatment option, not fully considered in this report,
is that of incineration of these wastes in existing, private
non-commercial facilities. The EPA National Survey of Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities indicates that there may be a
significant number of these facilities which could technically
incinerate a portion of these wastes. This concept could be the
subject of additional investigation.
15
-------
Solidification
Cementitious solidification/fixation was a technically viable
option for eleven of the twelve hypothetical Superfund wastes.
It was the first technical choice of alternatives for four wastes.
It was not an option for the waste which consisted of sand contam-
inated with phenolic tars. The combination of high organic
content and tarry physical form prevented application of this
technology. Selection of the order of alternative choices was
again based upon the waste characteristics and the constituent
concentrations.
Cementitious solidification/fixation chemically binds
inorganics (metals) and physically entraps organics within a
cement-like matrix of reagents. Unlike incineration, this tech-
nology does not destroy organics and there exists an ultimate
potential for release of all of the toxic organic constituents.
The release rate will be effected by the following:
0 ratio of reagents used
0 type of cementitious reagents used
0 use of adsorbants
*
* initial mixing efficiency
0 concentration of organic constituents
0 valence state of metal constituents
0 initial setting/curing procedures and time
0 permeability of mixture to leaching solutions
0 inorganic nature of original waste
0 disposal site geology
0 aging
16
-------
The "solidified" waste is the residue of this treatment
process. Resultant constituent concentrations will be dependant
upon quantities of reagents, volatilization losses during mixing,
and final volume.
Costs of the solidification technology is highly dependent
upon the concentrations of the toxic constituents of concern, as
well as the overall organic character of the waste. Oils and
greases will severely inhibit the setting time and greatly increase
reagent usage. Other factors effecting the cost are:
0 reagent availability and costs
0 heterogeniety of waste
0 pretreatment requirements for changing the valence
state of the metals
0 ease of reagent addition/mixing
0 resultant volume increase
0 need for adsorbents
0 need for Portland cement
0 need for silicates or polymers to enhance setting/
curing properties
0 on-site vs. off-site treatment
*
Reduction in leachability of toxic constituents will
generally reduce the cost per ton of waste to be landfilled;
however, this is usually offset by the larger increase in volume
of material which is landfilled. The total cost to landfill the
waste is therefore greater than landfilling the waste directly.
Applicability of this "technology" is directly related to
the overall capacity of landfills and the leachability of toxic
constituents.
17
-------
Other Treatment Technologies
Stream stripping was identified as a technically feasible
pretreatment option for seven of the twelve hypothetical Superfund
wastes. In all seven cases, stream stripping was the third option
choice. A complete analysis of steam stripping residues, effi-
ciencies, emissions, costs, and risk was not performed for this
report. A few general comments on the application and feasibility
of stream stripping for these wastes are as follows:
0 physical form of the waste must be such that steam can
pass through it (or steam under moderate pressure)
0 volatile organics can be stripped and collected
0 condensed organics will contain a considerable amount of
water
0 spent steam (water) will contain considerable amounts of
volatile and semivolatile toxic organics
0 residual solids will contain a considerable amount
of water
»
0 efficiency of organic extraction is directly related
to the water solubility of the organics
0 oils and greases will often cause emulsion problems
0 a relatively high potential for fugitive emissions
of volatile organics exists
*
Biodegradation was identified as the third choice of
technically feasible options for two of the twelve hypothetical
Superfund wastes and as a research status option for seven of
the wastes. A complete analysis of biodegradation treatment
considerations was not performed for this report. A few general
comments on the application and feasibility of biodegradation
for these wastes are as follows:
0 physical form of the waste must be such that
proper mixing and aeration (if necessary) can occur
18
-------
0 volatile organics may be released through vaporization
during aeration (if required)
••
0 the organisms may have difficulty acclimating to the
waste
0 there may be an insufficient nutrient content for
the growth of organisms
0 the mixture of toxic constituents may be too complex
and possibly toxic to the organisms
0 there will be a build up of biomass in the residuals
0 some toxic constituents may become mobilized through
biotransformation.
Analysis of these hypothetical Superfund wastes indicates
that other treatment options may also be available. However, these
technologies either have limited application or are still in the
research phase. The following provides an estimate of the number
of the Superfund wastes studied that could be processed by these
various treatment options:
0 high temperature fluid1wall reactor - 5 wastes
0 sodium naphthylide dechlorination - 2 wastes
0 multiple hearth incineration (existing) - 1 waste
0 fluidized bed incineration (existing) - 1 waste
0 acid leaching/subsequent treatment - 1 waste *
0 alkaline leaching/subsequent treatment - 1 waste
0 direct chemical oxidization - 1 waste
0 molten salt/glass/iron techniques - multiple wastes
0 solvent extraction - multiple wastes
Summary of Treatment Alternatives
Currently there are only two readily commerically available
treatment alternatives for all twelve hypothetical wastes.
19
-------
Incineration destroys the toxic organic constituents, while
cementitious solidification/fixation merely entraps them* On a
long-term basis, incineration would provide the greater protection
from environmental release. On a short-term basis, incineration
of these wastes would have to be evaluated on a chemical constituent
and site basis to properly assess environmental release potential.
Cost and Risk Assessment
Comparison of Disposal Costs
In order to compare the actual Superfund cost of landfilling
each waste with the estimated cost of incineration and treatment
of that waste, the current costs for (1) landfilling, (2) incineration
by rotary kiln and (3) treatment by solidification were estimated.
Table 3 gives the estimated current costs to landfill and to
incinerate each hypothetical wastes. The increase in landfill
costs over original costs (from Table 1) was determined based on
conversations with landfill operators, and depended on waste type
and inflation. The adjusted current landfill cost estimates are
given in Column 8. The weighted average cost (total cost of
landfilling divided by total tons of waste) for land disposal of
the Superfund wastes studied is $57/ton. This corresponds closely
to the average disposal price obtained in the EPA National Survey
of TSD Facilities (1981). Incineration costs for each waste
were also obtained by conversations with incinerator operators.
The estimated incineration costs are given in Column 10 of Table 3.
The weighted cost to incinerate averages $507/ton.
20
-------
H M
~l
fe 2
ti3 JH
Q D
O *
d $
M H
o 2
s £•*
J W
O f*
1
o
w
14
Q) Jj
U CT l-i
in co>
03 rH Vj *>
O »-* -U CM
§<0
« «
"O T lJ (0
m CO flj
4J ON C
1C f™H **"4
E U
•a a c
jJ C M
(ft 3 ^Si
£x3 ^^ C ^^
rH rH •
5 O 4J *""
rH O -U
in 0
•y
OS 4J
ON 6 o
>^
^s.
rH -^
CO
_ ^ | t 1 )
CO CO 0 CO
4J — 4J O
0) oo O
4J ON -4J C
.5 0 d ^ o^.
4J C «-( «>
€Q w *D
3 12 -^
-~ o <#>
03 H o
^ '*H rH
2CT-<-i
•^ 14J C
Q, O C "^ }D -U
rH^^
<»— ^ — J D 4-*
<*O 4>J Ui ^TJ
>- O W T3
CO -H
•o
•
Tn
— > rH C
CM 10 0
(C
(3
^ OJ CJ)
rH £ JJ
•— ' 4J CO
ooooooooooo
ooooooooinoo
^•incNoooinoor-oo
CM r*~ ON r*" vo ro vo vo ro co ro
ro in ^* ro r*- o in ^p ro o> ro
rH rH CN in co o
CN ro
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 1
ooooooooooo
^•OCN«TOOOOinOO
^•inmcNvDrHvovocNOco
ON ^* ON co in CM ro r** co ^* ON
,HrocNroovoincNomrH
ro rH ro in CO
^j ^^j
r^ r™1
OOOOOOOOOOO
CMOVOCNOOOOOOO
iy\ f^t f^ PO 00 CX) CO 00 CM) GJ '"'"}'
invcoNOocM^vor-cMvo
CNi«'rO'«i^
r* (C
CM C
ON
CM rH
O ON
*»,
oT
•«*
5 §
rH
S c
m o
o oo
ro
ro
^*
ON *0
CM C
rH
c 2
5 S
in
1 **c
(8 fl
i i
*
jj
r-
m
v>
-iH
6
N.
oJ
i
i
£
jj
•8
10
*
4J
cn
i
3
m i— i
4J rH
M -H
i ? "O
rH O <— *
-rH
o c yj
co O O
U-l -U
JJ
d) fl) O
&i u* 0
c c c
CO CO 0)
S !"§
1 1 1
CO JD 0
21
-------
Table 4 gives the estimated current cost of solidifying each
hypothetical wastes. The quantity of each reagent required to
solidify each waste is based on the type and quantity of waste.
The reagent cost information was obtained from conversations with
landfill operators. To calculate total solidification cost, it
was assumed that labor and equipment costs equaled reagent costs.
The decrease in cost caused by the decrease in waste toxicity
resulting from this treatment is assumed to be offset by the increase
in the waste volume. The increased landfill cost (estimated 1984
landfill cost [from Table 3] times increased volume) is given in
Column 9. The total cost of solidification (labor, equipment,
reagents, and landfilling) is given in Column 1. The weighted
cost to solidify and landfill averages about $199/ton.
Table 5 gives a comparison of landfill costs (from Table 3)
with costs to incinerate (from Table 3) and to solidify (from
Table 4). The "factors" for each waste illustrate the order of
magnitude difference in costs. The data shows that the average
estimated cost of incineration is approximately 11 times greater
than that paid for landfilling. Most of the incineration costs
*
for each waste are between 2 and 13 times greater than landfill
costs. If an extremely high value (43.5 times) is excluded
as a statistical outlier, the incinerator costs average 8 times
greater than landfill costs. Corresponding comparisons for
solidification are approximately 4 times and 3 times (excluding
the high value of 14 times) landfilling costs on the average. The
data also shows that incineration is 3 times more costly on the
average than solidification.
22
-------
H
M
Ch
o en
5&Q
«fi
o z
rH g
O B!
»BB
0) 3
s s
M
u
Cb X
o s
g
§ §
•H U
(0
MX dP
O •«•• —> in
VM U_| C4 CN
al^l
s
CO
4J
iS^
•H -H
C — C
a o o
' *O 4J >r^ 4J
C CO rH CO
•0 O Q «J
'H O W S
ei
CD rH S d?
w-
SC P JJ
o —' to
(0
X
•— 05
Q
§1
.rH
fO <0 •'"^ O
o tn in jj
•H JJ — \
o
•*
— o
,.
— 0) C O 4J
m *J d) ••-» 5
— to 01 *>
i
g w£
0)
rH 4J 4J —.
— co js to «
CN v a> s 2
—' O -H f
m jj
*"S^
U «=
—. 4J
-H JC .. -
i-H ID ^
CN i— I
CNCNCNrHrHr-lrHrHrH'HrHiH
rH fl
<. CC
•^^ ^^
CM
1C
*
m
oo
n! jJ
rH C
^» 4)
CO + CT
3 O II
C C JJ
|
C CT
O Q)
.- a jj
crc
Kinmf fS *3
v> Id a1
cs;
^
CO ITS
* (U
w (13 n3
0 II
44
B
(A
% U
0) DC (!) O
rH rH 0 JJ
£1 rH -r* « C
(0 O -U (D O
•H O
-H C -ii U lJ
Q» O >»-l (U CD
Oi -H n. P.
« -n-o c c
H CO (0
m m
-------
Table 5
COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION COSTS INCLUDED
hypothetical estimated
waste landfill
ft cost ($)
1A 3,240
IB 3,450
2 6,888
3 13,608
5 152,320
6 16,560
7 87,040
8 54,600
9 15,341
10 8,400
11 181,980
estimated
incineration
cost ($) factor3
25,920
46,000
39,360
40,320
1,740,800
82,800
204,800
436,800
667,000
72,000
2,426,400
8.0
13.3
5.7
3.0
11.4
5.0
2.4
8.0
43.5
8.6
13.3
estimated
solidification
cost ($) factorb
4,520
7,649
9,528
48,082
548,352
48,576
313,344
117,390
214,107
20,460
370,026
1.4
2.2
1.4
3.5
3.6
2.9
3.6
2.5
14.0
2.4
2.0
totals:
$ 543,427
$ 5,782,200 na
$ 1,702,034 na
Landfill vs. Incineration
mean factor: 11.1
range: 2.4 - 43.5
Landfill vs Solidification + Landfill
mean factor: 3.6
range: 1.4 - 14.0
Excluding one extremely high value:
(for waste #9)
Excluding on extremely high value:
(for waste #9)
mean factor: 7.9
range: 2.4 - 13.3
mean factor: 2.6
range: 1.4 - 3.6
na - not applicable
a order of magnitude difference between cost of incineration and landfilling
b order of magnitude difference between cost of solidification (including
landfilling) and landfilling
NOTE: Waste 14 is excluded from calculations because incineration was not applicable
to this waste.
24
-------
Disposal Costs Including Transportation
Transportation costs should be considered in evaluating the
cost of disposal alternatives. Table 6 lists the costs to transport
each waste to (1) the landfill actually used for the Superfund
action, and (2) one of the closest incinerators that currently can
accept each hypothetical waste. The actual destination of each
waste if it had actually been incinerated (or solidified) is not
known, however. The landfill transportation costs are based on
the original costs obtained from the Superfund files {from Table 1),
accounting for inflation. In general, these costs do not consider
the increase in waste volume that would have resulted if wastes
had been solidified on-site. The greater transportation costs for
solidified waste would be difficult to determine because the
availability of on-site solidification facilities at the time of
the cleanup action is not known. If solidification takes place at
the final disposal facility, transportation costs would not increase.
Transportation costs to incineration facilities are based on the
RCRA Risk Cost Analysis Model.
Table 7 gives comparisons of landfill costs with costs to
*
incinerate and to solidify, including transportation costs.
Incinerator costs in this case average approximately 9 times
landfill costs, and if the extreme value is excluded, 7 times
landfill costs. On the average, solidification is 3 times or 2
times {excluding the outlier) landfill costs. These values are
very close to those in Table 5 for disposal costs excluding
transportation. Average incineration costs are 3 times average
solidification costs when including transportation, which is
approximately the same as when transportation is not included.
25
-------
Table 6
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
Site
Transportation
to landfill ($)
Transportat ion
to Incineration ($)
1A Old Mill 1,040
18 Old Mill 2,547
2 Danville 1,025
3 Norman Poer 1,836
4 Pesses 152,280
5 Western Processing 216,000
6 Arrcon 1,728
7 Picillo 26,297
8 Pesticide Pile 31,320
9 Sikes 12,420
10 Qiem Dyne 2,340
11 Pollution Abatement 36,570
5,900
2,900
1,500
3,200
na
1,700,000
113,000
45,000
20,100
25,200
11,300
498,200
26
-------
Table 7
COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS WITH TRANSPORTATION COSTS INCLUDED
hypothetical
waste
*
1A
IB
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
total
estimated
landfill
cost (5)
4,280
5,977
7,913
15,444
368,320
18,288
113,248
85,920
27,761
10,740
218,550
total
estimated
incineration
cost ($) factora
31,820
48,900
40,860
43,520
3,440,880
195,800
249,800
456,900
672,200
83,300
2,924,600
7.4
8.2
5.2
2.8
9.3
10.7
2.2
5.3
24.2
7.8
13.4
total
estimated
solidification
cost (S) factorb
5,560
10,176
10,553
49,918
764,352
50,304
339,552
148,710
226,527
22,800
406,596
1.3
1.7
1.3
3.2
2.1
2.8
3.0
1.7
8.2
1.9
1.9
totals:
$ 876,441
$ 8,188,500 na
$ 2,035,048 na
Landfill vs. Incineration
mean factor: 8.8
range: 2.2 - 24.2
Landfill vs solidification + Landfill
mean factor: 2.6
range: 1.3 - 8.2
Excluding one extremely high value:
(for waste #9)
Excluding on extremely high value:
(for waste #9)
mean factor: 7.2
range: 2.2 - 13.4
mean factor: 2.1 *
range: 1.3 - 3.2
na - not applicable
a order of magnitude difference between cost of incineration and landfilling
b order of magnitude difference between cost of solicification (including
landfilling) and landfilling
NOTE: Waste #4 is excluded fron calculations because incineration was not applicable
to this waste.
27
-------
RisksAssociated with Transportation
In addition to the large increase in cost that woul<3 have been
incurred by incinerating the Superfund wastes that were landfilled,
a greater risk is associated with transporting the waste to the
incinerators versus landfills. This risk is defined in terms of
the amount of waste that potentially could be released due to
vehicular accidents and equipment or operator failure. Tables 8 •
and 9 give average releases of waste for an average trip. The
calculations take into account the quantity and distance shipped,
and potential releases during loading and unloading. The potential
release for transport to incinerators is over 3 times (14.5 vs 4.0
metric tons) that for transport to landfills. This is because the
incinerators are further from the Superfund sites than the land-
fills used for actual disposal. However, as has been previously
noted, the actual incinerator that would have been used may not
be the one used for this analysis. The release estimates for
incineration may therefore be different. If transportation
distances decreased, then quantities released would decrease
correspondingly. In addition, the eleven sites chosen may be
*
far from representative of typical Superfund actions in terms of
transportation distances. Thus, the validity of these calculated
estimates of transportation risk is unclear.
Adequacy of Disposal
Geologic Settings andFacility Design
The geologic characteristics and unit design/operation
information for the eight RCRA landfills (final disposal facilities)
are generalized and displayed in Table 10. Three types of hydro-
28
-------
Table 8
RELEASE RATES ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSPORT
TO LANDFILL SITES
Site
Old Mill (A)
Old Mill (B)
Danville Plating
Norman Poers
Western Proces.
Arrcom
Picillo
Pesticide Pile
Sikes
Chem Dyne
Pollution Abatement
Disposal Site
Cecos-Cer
Fondessey
Cecos-Cer
Fondessey
Chem Securities
Envirosafe Services
Cecos
Evergreen
Chem Waste MGMT
Cecos-Cer
SCA Chemtrol
Distance to
Site(Miles)
250
110
225
215
205
450
510
395
85
40
150
Amounts
In Metric Tons
0.00936
0.05096
0.01913
0.02876
1.49739
0.20160
0.46200
0.32046
0.25333
0.04408
1.10280
TOTAL 4.06932
Table 9
RELEASE RATES ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSPORT
TO INCINERATION SITES
Site
Old Mill (A)
Old Mill (B)
Danville Plating
Norman Poers
Western Proces.
Arrcom
Picillo
Pesticide Pile
Sikes
Chem Dyne
Pollution Abatement
Incinerator Sitjt
Rollins, TX
Robert Ross
SCA Services
SCA Services
SCA Services
SCA Services
Rollins, NJ
Robert Ross
ENESCO
Robert Ross
SCA Services
Distance to
Sites(Miles)
1300
75
150
210
2100
1725
330
175
425
250
695
Amts. In Metric Tons
.03393
,04410
.01530
.02837
.49050
.63000
.33600
.19110
.61985
.09280
TOTAL
3.10622
14.58817
-------
Table 10
Unit Design/Operation Compared With
Hydrogeologic Setting
Hydrogeologic Setting
Unit
Design
and
Opera-
tion
B
cecos-cer
(new units)
cecos-cer
(Superfund
waste unit)
cecos-cer
(pre-RCRA
units)
Chem Waste
(Port Arthur)
?Chem Securit.
?Envirosafe
Fondessey
(new unit)
SCA/ChemTrol
?cecos-ny
?Chem Securit.
Fondessey
(older cells
w/ Sprfd. w)
Evergreen
?Envirosafe
Hydrogeologic Setting explanation:
A - significant flow, yield aquifer; significant ground
and/or surface water exposure potential
B - moderate flow, yield aquifer; moderate ground and/or
surface water exposure potential
C - low flow, yield aquitard; low ground and/or surface
water exposure potential *
Unit Design and Operation explanation:
1 - synthetic- (plus clay-) lined; leachate collection
and removal and run-off management; very good
operation (apparently in broad compliance with 264 Stds.)
2 - clay-lined; some sort of leachate collection and removal;
good operation
3 - unlined; no leachate collection and removal; poor operation
Note: ? indicates uncertainty about the category in which the
facility belongs.
30
-------
geologic settings are described in the Table, as are three sets
of design/operation characteristics. While such generalizations
are extremely qualitative and based on unconfirmed information,
the display provides an "order-of-magnitude" description for
potential landfill performance and off-site impact. Facilities
plotted in the upper right-hand box should have a far better
performance potential than those plotted in the lower left-hand
corner.
Supplementing Table 10 is Table 11. This Table displays
the same hydrogeologic settings against waste type. Table 11
contains three groupings for waste type. All facilities, however,
plot in the most dangerous waste grouping (i.e., solvents aggressive
to liners, micropollutants, cyanides, and high solubility waste).
Leachate Discharge Rates
In order to quantify the potential volumetric discharge
of leachate from the units, we attempted to use the Hydrologic
Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model. This model
estimates the fluid infiltration rates through liners during
unit operation and after closure, and infiltration rates*
through covers after closure. An effective use of this model
was not possible, due to both the short period of time available
for the study, and the limited data available for liner, leachate
collection system, and cover design. If additional time were
available, we could present an "order-of-magnitude" estimation
of release rates. However, this would require making a number
of assumptions for important design values (e.g., leachate
31
-------
Table 11
.Waste Type Compared With Hydrogeologic Setting
Hydrogeologic Setting
B
Waste
Type
cecos-cer
Chem Waste
(Port Arthur)
?Chem Securit.
?Envirosafe
Fondessey
?Chem Securit.
PEnvirosafe
SCA/ChemTrol
Evergreen
?cecos-ny
Hydrogeologic Settings explanation:
A - significant flow, yield aquifer; significant ground
and/or surface water exposure potential
B - moderate flow, yield aquifer; moderate ground and/or
surface water exposure potential
C - low flow, yield aquitard; low ground and/or surface
water exposure potential *
Waste Type explanation:
1 - solvents aggressive to liners; micropollutants;
cyanides; high solubility waste
2 - moderate concentrations of solvents; moderate
solubility waste.
3 - simple metal hydroxides; low solubilities
Note: ? indicates uncertainty about the category in which the
facility belongs.
32
-------
collection pipe spacings and slopes, cover unit thicknesses).
Unless the telephone survey provides conflicting information,
values based on RCRA design guidance could be assumed wherever
possible.
Comments on Risk
Due to the limited data available for this evaluation,
it is not possible to state that any of the units that received .
Superfund waste at the eight RCRA landfills pose an immediate
hazard to public health and the environment through ground
water contamination. Several sites, however, are known to have
{or have had) major design or operation problems (leaking
drums storing ignitable liquids, inadequate monitoring networks,
dikes that are too low, unlined cells without leachate collection)
However, assuming the survey information to be correct, the
following comments on longer term risk can be offered:
0 Facilities located in hydrogeologic setting A pose
a substantial potential risk for exposure of the public
and environment to released hazardous constituents.
Engineered barriers (liners, covers) alone cannot
adequately minimize this risk in the long-term. The
adverse impact would occur through ground water
contamination.
*
0 Facilities located in hydrogeologic setting B may also
pose a substantial risk, although the impact would
probably be more localized and smaller in scale.
Engineered barriers would help reduce but would not
eliminate this risk; their degradation in the long term
would be less critical compared with facilities in
setting A.
0 Facilities located in hydrogeologic setting C present
the lowest potential risk to future aquifer water quality.
With proper design of the cells and final cover, risk to
surface water quality should also be low. However,
disruption of the final cover could result in an
unacceptable increase in infiltration, leading to the
bathtub effect.
33
-------
These comments should not be read to mean that the risk
posed by setting C facilities (or any others) is necessarily
acceptable. Specific facility design, operation, and location
information, including surrounding present and projected future
land use patterns are needed in performing a rigorous facility-
specific risk assessment.
34
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
w
The conclusions from this study are based on the interpretation
of rough and mostly unconfirmed data. To a certain extent they
represent a confirmation of commonly known approximations on costs
and waste treatment methodologies. The results are, therefore,
intended to provide a broad perspective on what could have happened.
They should not be used to set policy. Rather they should be
used as the basis for further, more precise work that could
support policy changes. This study should be for internal use
only.
Considering the on-site circumstances, none of the Superfund
actions were accomplished in an unscientific or unprofessional
manner. The Agency should not let concern for long-term adequacy
of RCRA disposal facilities detract from the need to provide
immediate, cost-effective cleanup action where the public health
and safety is threatened. However, because some particularly
toxic wastes (e.g., metals, solvents, and phenolics) could pose
a long-term environmental problem with some land disposal methods,
the Agency should be moving toward program operating procedures
that will minimize these effects. For instance, all RCRA disposal
sites (both existing and future) that receive Superfund wastes
should undergo audits based on Section 265 and 264 standards and
other major environmental criteria (e.g., hydrogeologic locations).
Section 264 permitting should be accelerated so as to provide
safer disposal sites sooner. (Perhaps Superfund could help fund
this activity.) Available treatment alternatives should be
35
-------
thoroughly examined (time permitting) before Superfund wastes are
disposed of in the land. Consideration should be given ,to segre-
gating those wastes that are extremely toxic and storing them
until treatment technologies or capacity is available. Not
mixing contaminated materials with uncontaminated materials (as
is done to make transportation easier) would make future treatment
less difficult and less costly.
Efforts must be made in future studies to eliminate many of
the assumptions made in this study. More complete data on waste
characteristics and quantities, and disposal site characteristics
need to be gathered. Better site recordkeeping (including
accurate detailed cost data) and actual waste analyses are needed
to track material being landfilled. Because of the highly variable,
but frequently heterogeneous nature of the wastes involved, it
is difficult to determine capacity and costs of treatment without
this information. Future studies must consider more sites and
wastes so that the results are more representative. The conclusions
of this study can only be made on a waste group and technology
group basis? the resulting averages cannot be applied to specific
wastes or specific sites. Furthermore, since any Superfund
movement toward reducing the use of (or banning certain wastes
from) RCRA land disposal facilities will almost certainly affect
the available capacity of alternative treatment facilities, this
possibility should be included as part of ongoing and future OSW
technology capacity studies.
36
-------
APPENDIX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
m
Page
Arrcom Corporation, Rathdrum, IN A-56
Summary A-5 6
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-57
Waste 16 Characterization and Treatment A-58
Alternatives
Landfill Information-Envirosafe A-59
Picillo Property, Coventry, RI A-65
Summary A-65
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-66
Waste #7 Characterization and Treatment A-67
Alternatives
Landfill Information-CECOS, A-68
Niagara Falls, NY
Pesticide Pile, Leetown, WV A-74
Summary A-74
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-75
Waste #8 Characterization and Treatment A-76
Alternatives
Landfill Information-Evergreen A-77
Sikes Disposal Pit, Crosby, TX A-82
Summary . A-82
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-83
Waste #9 Characterization and Treatment A-84
Alternatives
Landfill Information-Chem. Waste. Mgmt. A-85
*
Chem Dyne, Hamilton, OH A-91
Summary A-91
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-92
Waste #10 Characterization and Treatment A-93
Alternatives
Landfill Information-CECOS, A-94
Williamsburg, OH
Pollution Abatement, Oswego, NY A-101
Summary A-101
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-102
Waste #11 Characterization and Treatment A-103
Alternatives
Landfill Information-SCA/Chemtrol A-104
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
Page
Old Mill Site, Rock Creek, OH A-l
Summary A-l
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-2
Waste #1A Characterization and A-3
Alternatives
Landfill Information-CECOS-CER, A-4
Williamsburg, OH
Waste |1B Characterization and A-ll
Alternatives
Landfill Information-Fondessy A-12
Danville Plating, Danville, IL A-17
Summary A-17
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-18
Waste #2 Characterization and Treatment A-19
Alternatives
Landfill Information-CECOS-CER, A-20
Williamsburg, OH
Norman Poer Farm, Hancock, IN A-27
Summary A-27
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-28
Waste #3 Characterization and Treatment A-29
Alternatives
Landfill Information-Fondessy A-30
Pesses Chemical, Fort Worth, TX A-35
Summary ^ A-35
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-36
Waste 14 Characterization and Treatment A-37
Alternatives
Landfill Information-Chem Waste Mgmt. A-38
Western Processing, Kent, WA A-44
Summary A-44
Summary Description of Waste Disposal A-45
Waste #5 Characterization and Treatment A-47
Alternatives
Landfill Information-Chem Securities A-48
-------
Old Mill Site, Rock Creek, Ohio
Summary
The sites involved, the Old Mill Site and the Knaus Site, are
adjacent to each other and close to homes. This site was being
used as a waste storage and reclaimation facility until 1979,
although the facility's primary use was to manufacture small beads
from urea formaldehyde. These beads were used in potting soil.
The sites contained approximately 1200 deteriorating drums of
solids, solvents, paint waste, and other waste. The Old Mill Site
contained all but about 50 drums. Analysis of leachate, sediment,
and soil samples disclosed that there were PCBs, phenol, alcohols,
mercury, arsenic, and chromium present. Through September 1982,
some 530 drums had been removed from the site through agreements
»
with identified generators. In October 1982, EPA commenced removal
actions. PCB liquids were pumped into a tanker and transported to
an incinerator. Organic and inorganic liquids were sent to treatment
facilities. Sludges, solids, empty drums, and contaminated soil
*
were transported to landfills. Table A-l provides a more detailed
summary of where the various wastes from these sites were disposed.
A-l
-------
(C
EH
•
* a
tn
S
ij cn
^»
au
w
Q
(N CN
00 00
rH~ 0"
rH rH
Q H Q H
O O O ro
o ^ ^* ^
o rn eft CA
rn*CN CN
£/}•
in jj
(fj >r4
J> JU*
c
13
4J -H
c o
i T3
o r-
Q 30 "*
o
c
M
cn
0)
g
•iH
4-1
(0
Disposal
cility/Loc
S
g
• rH
f X
S
•rH
•• 4J
m
• H
& g
0) -
^ B1
U X — 3 —
o "-* P5 Ja -1
>, rH 53 UJ rH
cn » - {/>
in
o
c
(0
rjl
b
•H
E
rH
CO
in
E
3
IM
•c
vc
0
TJ-
1— 1
£
fe
-P iJ
Q) 4J
sl
er
(N
00
CN
I
CN
CD
O 00
in r~-
cn
c
in
m
in
o
CO
E1
o
a H
GO o
rH O
•o
cr
&
o
CTv
&
>
ro
cn
O
o
r-
D1
O
o
o
in
g
§ ~
Q) J2 ±>
- i
C C B
S> O
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
UA)
sludge
PCB/oil
2,585 gal
47 steel drums/55 gal. ea,
PCB's, waste oil, chlorinated solvents,
polynuclear arcmatics, adsorbants (vermiculite)
Hypothetical Characteristics:
PH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chronium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
oils and greases
PCB's (as Arochlor 1260)
phenols
1,1,1 - trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
naphthalene
anthracene
fluorene
Treatment Option A: Incineration/ Rotary Kiln
Limitations: supplemental fuel required due to BTU content;
metals and volatile chlorinated organics may be emitted;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destruction
7
1.5
40
6,000
5.0
<0.5
<0.5
10
>200
<5
50
5
100
500
<5
50
500
2,noo
200
100
1,000
2,000
5,000
1,000
500
500
g/ml
%
BTU/t
%
%
%
%
°F
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Treatment Cption B:
Limitations:
Treatment Option C:
Limitations:
Additional Potential Options:
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
oil and volatile chlorinated organics content may
inhibit setting time; toxic organics may leach;
significant volume increase expected
Steam Stripping of Volatiles and Semivolatiles
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient operation;
semivolatile PNA's and PCB's may be emitted;
oil content may interfere by causing emulsions
multiple hearth incinerator
high temperature fluid wall reactor (research status)
sodium naphthylide dechlorination (research status)
molten salt reactor/thermal degradation (research status)
blodegradation (research status)
A-3
-------
CECOS_-_CER, Williamsburg, Ohio
A. General_Facility Information
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Site Name: CECOS-CER
»
Sit* Location (rity & State): Williamsburg , Ohio
EPA IDt: OHD087433744
Type of facility (LF, SI, WP, LT):
site latitude/lonqitude:
Landfill, SI leachate
/
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Jim Brosstnan
2. Phone ft: 8-886-6186
3. State or Regional Contact: Region 5
4. Person seeking information: Paul Cassidy
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/11/84
6. Other Additional Contact:
7. Phone #:
8. State or Regional Contact:
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received X evaluated 2nd NOD
2. -Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes No
Has thefacility been permitted:
under Part 264s Yes
under State Rules: Yes X
No
but will be
No
D. Ground Water Information
is the site monitoring ground water quality according
265 rules Yes X No
to
Yes
No
0 Any contamination detected?
(list details) Lead, heavy metals exceeded drinking
water standards
0-Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes No X State has Phase I
(list details)
E. Inspection Information
1
2,
3
When was the unit last inspected?
By whom?
state insp. there every day
phone I
General Re su11s/FTndingT "of Inspection
Operations at site good
A-4
-------
F. General Unit (Facility) Information
1. Age of unit „ Facility
2. How large is the unit (Surface area); BOO' x 800' 4Q'deep
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available; _unknown
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes X No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X No
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes X No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes X No ^^
8. Does the facility have security procedures? Yes X No
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes No X
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes NO X
G. Hydrogeologic Characteristic Inforrnat ion
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities:
First 30'-50' sand and gravel zone.
Natural clay 60'-80' thick till deposit
10-7,10-8cm/sec
b. depth to ground water: 2-5 feet
c. flow directions/rates:
d. aquifer types: sand
e. nearest stream (feet): edge of site
*
f. other details:
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
5' recompacted clay
newest cells- 60-80ml HDPE
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design) yes. riser and lateral
pipes within sand bed...
A-S
-------
c. a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design) yes.
d. a run-on prevention system
By surrounding pitch but no discrete berms
e. a run-off collection system
collected in low end and pumped out
f. if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
g. are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes X No
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
a few unlined landfills
I. Closure Information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
»
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used. synthetic .liner with recompacated
clay.
A-6
-------
CECOS-CER, Williamsburg, Ohio
•
Geologic characteristics and potential plumedimensions
The telephone survey indicates that the landfill is located
in a 30-50 feet thick sand and gravel deposit, with a depth to
ground water of two to five feet. LBD interprets this to mean
that the site is located in a potentially regionally-important
aquifer of significant yield. The landfill is excavated to a
depth of 40 feet within this sand and gravel deposit.
A stream is reported to be present at the boundary of the
facility. Unless this is a major river, it is unlikely that
ground water flow from the landfill discharges entirely to the stream. »
Assuming a permeability value of 1 x 10~1 cm/sec for this
sand and gravel deposit (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, p.29), an
average gradient of 2%, and porosity of 0.35, flow velocity is
estimated as approximately 16 feet per day, or 5840 feet per
year.
The nearby stream may limit plume migration if it is a
major discharge zone. If not, based on the available data, a
plume could develop to substantial magnitude. The sand and
gravel deposit would provide very little attenuation capacity.
Facility design and operation
Only the newest cells have synthetic liners. The cell
that received Superfund waste was probably clay-lined.
There are unlined, pre-RCRA units at the facility. The
synthetic liner (HPDE) used on the new cells is of high quality.
A-7
-------
*» xeacnate collection and removal system is present in at
least the new cells, and may also be present in the clsy-lined
cells. The unlined cells probably do not have one. Leachate
treatment methods are unknown.
Run-off from active portions appears to be collected within
the cell. There is no information on whether it is managed as
hazardous waste (i.e., treated or not).
Reactive/incompatible wastes appears to be segregated in
different units.
The planned final cover appear to be generally consistent
with RCRA guidance.
Contaminated ground water has been"detected under the Ohio
interim status monitoring program. However, no assessment
of the extent of contamination is being conducted. The reasons
are unknown. Given the daily presence of a State inspector, it
is possible that the contamination is claimed to be originating
in pre-RCRA units.
Waste Management Suitability
This facility accepted wastes from three different
*
Superfund sites* The characteristics and concentrations of the
hypothetical waste constituents have been evaluated and general
statements about the feasibility of land disposal for these
hypothetical wastes can been made.
Hypothetical Waste: (1A) (Old Mill Site)
- synthetic liner campatibility testing has indicated that
some of these constituents, in their pure form, have severe
effects on synthetic liners.
A-8
-------
some of these constituents! also in their pure form,
have adverse effects on clay liners.
the solubility of some of these constituents make them
readily able to migrate from inadequate land disposal
facilities. The solubilities in water of these constituents
are as follows:
tetrachloroethylene - 45,000 mg/1
phenol - 67,000 ppm
naphthalene - 30,000 - 40,000 ug/1
information submitted by API indicates that lead and
chromium will leach from the waste in significant
concentrations even when these metals are subjected to
mild environmental conditions. In an acidic environment
even more of the hazardous constituents would be released
for environmental migration.
A-9
-------
(Blank)
A-10
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
(IB)
soils
solvent
80 yd3
bulk
PCB's, waste oil( chlorinated solvents
Hypothetical Characteristics:
1.7 g/ml
60 %
1,000 BTU/#
1.0 %
pH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chronium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
oils and greases
PCB's (as Arochlor 1260)
phenols
nethylene chloride
1,1,1 - trichloroe thane
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
xylene
ethylbenzene
Treatment Option A: Incineration/ Rotary Kiln
Limitations: significant supplemental fuel required due to low BTU content;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destruction
20
180
10
5
5
50
100
10
10
200
1,000
5
20
50
50
100
200
20
50
10
%
OF
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Treatment Option B:
Limitations:
Treatment Option C:
Limitations:
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
oil may inhibit setting time; toxic organics may leach;
significant volume increase expected
Steam Stripping of Volatiles and Semivolatiles
physical form may preclude effective application;
oil content may interfere by causing emulsions
Additional Potential Options:
high temperature fluid wall reactor (research status)
biodegradation (research status)
A-ll
-------
Fondessy Enterprises, Oregon, Ohio
A. General Facility Information
1. Site Name: Fondessey
2. Site Location (City & State): Oregon , Ohio
3. EPA ID#: OHD045243706
4. Type of facility (LF, SI, WP, LT): Landfill- LT (refinery wst)
S. Site latitude/longitude: / ~
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Jim Brossman
2. Phone f: 8-886-6186
3. State or Regional Contact: Region 5
4. Person seeking information: Paul Cassidy
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/13/84
6. Other Additional Contact:
7. Phone t:
8. State or Regional Contact:
C. Application Infqrmation
i
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received X evaluated _2nd__NOD
2. Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes No x
3. Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No X
under State Rules: Yes No X
D. Ground Water Information
1. Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes JC No
mechanically good
0 Any contamination detected? Yes No X
(list details)
0 Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes No _X
(list details)
E. Inspection Information
1. When was the unit last inspected? Sept 83
2. By whom? Kate Wilson & Chambers phone t 419-352-8461
3. General Results/Findings of Inspection
well run operation
odors could be a problem at times.
A-12
-------
F. General Unit (Facility) Information
1. Age of unit Facility 1/1954
2. -How large is the unit (Surface area): 6,800,000 cu.yd
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: unknown
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes X No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X No
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes X No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes X No
8. Does tHe~faciTTty have security procedures? Yes X No
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes NO x
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes NO x
G. Hydrogeoloqic Characteristic Information
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities: 8-15* fine grained lake sediments
10-7, 10-8 80-90' clay, glacial till
•
b. depth to ground water:- glacial material saturated
2-3' below surface.
c. flow directions/rates:
flow direction changes quarterly with rates of
l/2'/yr.
d. aquifer types:
bedrock aquifer in fractured dolomite. Monitor-
ing wells located at a depth of 90'.
e. nearest stream (feet):
drainage ditch 100'
*
f. other details:
No residential wells within at lease 1000
feet
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
newest cell - recompacted clay plus 60 ml HOPE
older cell - native material
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design)
yes, in newest cell
sand and piping drainage system.
A-13
-------
c, a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design)
No.
d. a run-on prevention system
By surrounding area pitch but no discrete berms
e. a run-off collection system
Collected in low area and pumped out to treatment
facility
f. if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
g. are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes _^ No ^^
wastes are limited- no ignitable and reactive
wastes
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
2-3 trenches since RCRA, everything else prior,
I« Closure Information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? .Yes JC_ No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used.
A synthetic 20ml liner overlain by a 12." drainage layer,
then a geotech. liner overlain by 24" of soil with a
6" topsoil layer.
A-14
-------
Fondessey; Toledo, Ohio
Geologic Characteristics and Potential Plume Dimensiong
The landfill appears to be located in fine-grained, low
permeability, saturated sediments. Flow rates are reported to
be 0.5 feet per year. The shallowest aquifer is fractured
dolomitic bedrock at a depth of 90 feet. A drainage ditch is
located about 100 feet from the facility; this probably discharges
minor amounts of local run-off and shallow ground water (not
aquifer water).
The fine-grained sediments (lake sediments and clay till)
are unlikely to be aquifers. However, the low permeability of
the soils poses a potential bathtub effect, indicating the
need for active control of run-on, run-off, and inspection for
leachate seeps. It is unknown whether the site is operated as a
trench or area fill.
Potential plume dimensions should be small, unless the
sediments are more heterogeneous than reported. The potential
for surface seeps/discharges requires more information on design
and operating practices.
*
Facility Design and Operation
The liner of the newest cell is a composite of a synthetic
membrane and recompacted clay. Older cells are not lined;
native sediments are exposed (suggesting a trench operation).
The newest cell also has a leachate collection and removal
system; older cells do not. The method of leachate treatment
is unknown.
Run-off from active portions appears to be collected and treated,
A-15
-------
No ignitable or reactive wastes are received.
It is likely that the Superfund wastes were disposed in one
of the older cells.
Ground water monitoring under the interim Status rules
appears to be mechanically good, with no reported contamination.
State inspectors report a well-run operation. The cause of
occasional odors is unknown.
The planned final cover lacks a clay barrier soil, but
appears to be reasonable otherwise. Both a clay soil layer and
synthetic membrane are needed to minimize the potential bath tub
effect.
Waste Management Suitability
This facility accepted waste from 2 Superfund sites. The
suitability of land disposal for the hypothetical wastes is
presented below.
Hypothetical Waste; (IB) (Old Mill Site) *
- some of these constituents have severe to adverse effects
on both synthetic and clay liners.
- high solubility in water of some of these constituents
make them able to migrate into the environment.
The solubilities in water for some of these constituents
are:
tetrachloroethylene 45,000 mg/1
methylene chloride 20,000 mg/1
- 10 mg/kg Arsenic - Arsenic is extremely toxic in humans
and animals. Death in humans has occured following ingestion
of very small amounts (5 mg/kg) of this chemical.
A-16
-------
Danville Plating, Danville, Illinois
Summary
This site, located in a metropolitan area across the street
from a school, is an abandoned plating facility. The site
contained acids and cyanide-contaminated caustics in drums and
open vats inside and around a deteriorating building. Contaminants
included cyanide and heavy metals. The contaminated property and
building was easily accessable to trespassers, and there was a
potential for fire, explosion, and release of cyanide gas. EPA
performed removal actions between November 1982 and January
1983. The vats were pumped, the sludge and some liquids neutralized
and solidified, and the vats and building decontaminated. Debris,
solidified material, and contaminated soil was drummed and
transported to a landfill for disposal. Most of the composited
acid and base liquid material and the waste cyanide solutions
(from decontamination activities) were transported to treatment
facilities. Various raw materials and a drum of zinc cyanide
were given to two plating companies. Table A~2 provides a more
detailed summary of disposal of wastes from this site.
A-17
-------
Q.O)
10 4->
a a
CD
P
M 0}
• 8
&°
Q
U> W- {/)•
in
^H ^>n
(0 Ti >
- *j -rH m
CO 0) U (U
1) E HJ ,C *• Q)
CD Qi
r-l 4J 3
(0 WO
| So
*O TO 'O
•<-• >1 0) «« rH -r^
C > -U C <0 C
<0 (0 Cn r-H JJ (0
c1^ § S S &
in
•^
Q
C/} JJ
gtC •*-*
|^g _^j
*rt C
4-J (0
O. 5
*^ O1
&
•g s
rH 3
tn -o cr
\ 0) . -r(
W -H — . i— 1
9 -rH JJ rH
"O -H M D>
•H 1
CN O C rH
O w O ro
rH —* 0\
i-l
%
a
&
P
P
3
s
-r-t
«}
to Q
CD IH
& >
or 4J
•H -rH
O rH
•iH
O
8
•H
X. CT
i ^
z 8
-r4
** 4J
. X3
U3 -^H T3 SH CP (0
Q rH C -H > Q)
O rH (Q > M M
UU -iH rH C (0 JJ
CJ 2 — * U X •—•
•iH
4J «.
(Q J
a! M
(D 0)
rH rH
rH rH
•r4 *rH
B S
CN
00
rH
H
eS
0
CN
co-
rn
• • rH
SH to
a> jj
«o cT i
^? ^
*J C >
en (Q (0
<5 >i cu
S O £
• H
•rH
>v
rH
^
O
o
o
X
O _
i-l «. 4J
(0 T3 C
CD C S
335
a> IQ
S Q S
6 u ii
CN
\
r-H
H
^!
^
CD
• rH
C
5,
8
• rH
N
•o
•H
rH
\
•c
^^
f
^J
(C
rH
Q.
E
£ M
te
o o *—•
O U 3
665
CN
00
\
CN
rH
^
CD
o
£
iJ CO
S-H
lu
-•H (U
S4 4J
5 i
en
1
.u
c
Q
i
r~
m
•
O
U
•r-l
JJ
rH '—
tfi rH O)
•rH -rH 35
E > 3
5 c
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Haste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
10
1,000
1.4
60
<500
1.0
20
<1
50
80,000
2,000
2,000
10,000
100
20,000
<1
5,000
<1
10,000
10,000
Treatment Option A:
Limitations:
(2)
sludge
cyanides
5,610 gal
102 steel drums/55 gal. ea.
cyanides (total and free), Cd, Cr, Cu, Pe, Ni, Zn
lime, sodiun hypochlorite, adsorbents (vermiculite)
Hypothetical Characteristics:
pH
rog/kg alkalinity
g/ml density
% ash content
BTU/# BTU content
% sodiun hypochlorite
% water content
rag/kg Arsenic
mgAg Barium
mg/kg Calcium
mg/kg Cadmium
mg/kg Chromium
mgAg Copper
mg/kg Lead
mgAg Iron
mgAg Mercury
mg/kg Nickel
mg/kg Selenium
mg/kg Zinc
mg/kg total cyanide
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
soluble metal salt content may be too high;
hexavalent chromium may need reduction to trivalent state;
residual hypochlorite may have to be reduced;
volume increase expected
Treatment Option B: Alkaline Chlorination/Leaching
Limitations: cyanides are probably ccmplexed and difficult to oxidize;
cyanide may have to be leached in order to be oxidized;
lengthy leaching period may be required;
residual hypochlorite may have to be reduced;*
cementitious solidification/fixation may be required;
volume increase expected
Treatment Option C: Incineration/ Rotary Kiln
Limitations: significant supplemental fuel required due to low BTU content;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destruction
cadmium and nickel may be emitted;
Additional Potential Options: chemical oxidation (research status)
A-19
-------
CECOS-CER, Williamsburg,0hio
A. General Facility Information
1. Site Name: CECOS-CER
2. Site Location (City & State): Williamsbur^ , Ohio
3. EPA ID*: OHD087433744
4. Tyye of facility (LF, SI> WP, LT); Landfill, SI leachate
5. Sita latitude/longitude: /
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Jim Brossman
2. Phone #: 8-886-6186
3. State or Regional Contact: Region 5
4. Person seeking information: Paul Cassidy
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/11/84
6. Other Additional Contact:
7. Phone #:
8. State or Regional Contact:
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received X evaluated 2nd NOD
2. -Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes No
3. Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No but will be
under State Rules: Yes X No
»
D. Ground Water Information
1. Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes _X No
Q Any contamination detected? Yes X No
(list details) Lead, heavy metals exceeded drinking
water standards
*
0 Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes No x State has Phase I
(list details)
Inspection Information
1. When was the unit last inspected? state insp. there every day
2. By whom? phone I
3. General Results/Findings of Inspection
Operations at site good
A-20
-------
F. General Unit (Facility) Information
1. Age of unit Facility
2. How large is the unit (Surface area); 800' X 800' 40Tdeep
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: unknown
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes X No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X No
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes X No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes X No ^^
8. Does the facility have security procedures? Yes X No
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes No X
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No X
G. Hydrogeologic Characteristic Information
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities:
First 30'-50' sand and gravel zone.
Natural clay 60'-80' thick till deposit
10-7,10-8cm/sec
b. depth to ground water: 2-5 feet
c. flow directions/rates:
d. aquifer types: sand
e. nearest stream (feet): edge of site
f. other details:
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
5' recompacted clay
newest cells- 60-80ml HOPE
b. a leachate collection system {please describe
materials and design) yes. riser and lateral
pipes within sand bed...
A-21
-------
c. a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design) yes.
d. a run-on prevention system
By surrounding pitch but no discrete berms
e. a run-off collection system
collected in low end and pumped out
f. if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
g. are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes X No
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
a few unlined landfills
I. Closure Information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used. synthetic liner with recompacated
clay.
A-22
-------
CECOS-CER, Williamsburg, Ohio
Geologic characteristics and potential plume dimensions
The telephone survey indicates that the landfill is located
in a 30-50 feet thick sand and gravel deposit, with a depth to
ground water of two to five feet. LED interprets this to mean
that the site is located in a potentially regionally-important
aquifer of significant yield. The landfill is excavated to a
depth of 40 feet within this sand and gravel deposit.
A stream is reported to be present at the boundary of the
facility. Unless this is a major river, it is unlikely that
ground water flow from the landfill discharges entirely to the stream.
Assuming a permeability value of 1 x 10~1 cm/sec for this
sand and gravel deposit {Freeze and Cherry, 1979, p.29), an
average gradient of 2%, and porosity of 0.35, flow velocity is
estimated as approximately 16 feet per day, or 5840 feet per
year.
The nearby stream may limit plume migration if it is a
major discharge zone. If not, based on the available data, a
plume could develop to substantial magnitude. The sand and
gravel deposit would provide very little attenuation capacity.
Facility design and operation
Only the newest cells have synthetic liners. The cell
that received Superfund waste was probably clay-lined.
There are unlined, pre-RCRA units at the facility. The
synthetic liner (HPDE) used on the new cells is of high quality.
A-25
-------
tt Aectcnate collection and removal system is present in at
least the new cells, and may also be present in the clay-lined
cells. The unlined cells probably do not have one. Leachate
treatment methods are unknown.
Run-off from active portions appears to be collected within
the cell. There is no information on whether it is managed as
hazardous waste (i.e., treated or not).
Reactive/incompatible wastes appears to be segregated in
different units.
The planned final cover appear to be generally consistent
with RCRA guidance.
Contaminated ground water has been detected under the Ohio
interim status monitoring program. However, no assessment
of the extent of contamination is being conducted. The reasons
are unknown. Given the daily presence of a State inspector, it
is possible that the contamination is claimed to be originating
in pre-RCRA units.
Waste Management Suitability
This facility accepted wastes from three different
•
Superfund sites. The characteristics and concentrations of the
hypothetical waste constituents have been evaluated and general
statements about the feasibility of land disposal for these
hypothetical wastes can been made.
A-24
-------
Hypothetical Waste: (2) (Danville Plating)
- Could the total cyanide waste concentration (10,000
•
mg/kg) make the waste in these containers reactive? If so,
was the waste rendered non-reactive before it was landfilled?
- A synthetic lined facility would be preferable.for this
range of constituents as opposed to a clay lined facility.
A-25
-------
(.Blank)
A-26
-------
Norman Poer Farm, Hancock, Indiana
Summary
The site is located approximately 20 miles east of
Indianapolis, Indiana. In 1973 the owner of the site purchased
drums of paint wastes to make low grade bridge paint, but
abandoned the waste on the site. The paint wastes in 263
deteriorating drums contained solvents, primarily toluene and
xylene. Metals were detected in an abandoned well on-site, and
the soil was contaminated from drum leakage. In August 1983,
EPA removed the drums and contaminated soil. The liquid wastes
were used to blend fuels. The sludges were solidified and
landfilled, together with the soils. TableA-5 provides more
information concerning the disposal of the wastes from this
site.
A-27
-------
0)
8-3
33
ID
(0
-J VI
• $
do
in
D
00
Q H
O O
0 0
in r~
CM i—l
rH
yy w>
W
ssl
nj tn o
fjj
w c
55
W rH
28
UU
in
•^
Q
0
4J
£
K-l
w 4J
§H
DiS]
Facilit
•H
SM|
0>
4J
C
Cd I —
>1 rH
FbreJess
Toledo,
(landfi
0)
i i
6
\'PI
Qi v
6
• rH
•• 4J
0) «0
4J 0
CO K
Q) 1— 1
*
C O
{0 O
B c
ro
«£>
EH
Q
C^»
(\*
f\.
3
c
1— 1
8
•o
•H
cr
• rH
i— 1
N\
r*»
R'
Systech
O
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Types
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
7
1.4
20
10,000
Treatment Option A:
Limitations:
Treatment Option B:
Limitations:
Treatment Option C:
Limitations:
(3)
soils
resins/solvents
8,625 gallons
158 drums emptied and bulked
resins, paints, metals, phenols, formaldehyde
benzene, toluene, xylene, ethyl benzene
adsorbents, soil, drum parts
Hypothetical Characteristics:
g/ml
BTU/#
10
160
10
100
100
200
100
500
50
50
<5
100
100
1,000
2,000
500
%
op
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
PH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
oils and greases
formaldehyde
PCB's (as Arochlor 1260)
phenols
benzene
toluene
xylene
ethyl benzene
Incineration/ Rotary Kiln
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient operation;
metals and volatile organics may be emitted
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation ^
volatile chlorinated organics may inhibit setting time;
toxic organics may leachate;
significant volume increase expected
Steam Stripping of Volatiles and Semivolatiles
flash point may be too low for safe application of heat;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient operation
Additional Potential Options: biodegradation (research status)
A-29
-------
Fondessy Enterprises, Oregon.Ohio
A. General Facility Information
1. Site Name: Fondessey
2. Site Location (City & State): Oregon , Ohio
3. EPA ID#: OHD045243706 '
4. Type of facility (LF, SI, WP, LT): Landfill- LT (refinery wst)
5. Site latitude/longitude: /J
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Jim Brossman
2. Phone ft 8-886-6186
3. State or Regional Contact: Region 5
4. Person seeking information: Paul Cassidy
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/13/84
6. Other Additional Contact:
7. Phone #:
8. State or Regional Contact:
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received jC^ evaluated 2nd NOD
2. Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes No X
3. Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No _X
under State Rules: Yes No X
D. Ground Water Information
1. Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes X No
mechanically good
0 Any contamination detected? Yes No X
(list details)
0 Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes No X
(list details)
Inspection Information
1. When was the unit last inspected? Sept 83
2. By whom? Kate Wilson & Chambers phone t 419-352-8461
3. General Results/Findings of Inspection
well run operation
odors could be a problem at times.
A-30
-------
F. General Unit (Facility) Information
1. Age of unit Facility 1/1954
2. How large is the unit (Surface area): 6,800,000 cu.yd
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: unknown
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes X No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X No
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes X No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes x No ^^
8. Does the faciTTty have security procedures? Yes X^ No
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes No X
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No X
G. Hydrogeologic Characteristic Information
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities: 8-15' fine grained lake sediments
10-7, 10-8 80-90' clay, glacial till
b. depth to ground water: glacial material saturated
2-3' below surface.
c. flow directions/rates:
flow direction changes quarterly with rates of
l/2'/yr.
*
d. aquifer types:
bedrock aquifer in fractured dolomite. Monitor-
ing wells located at a depth of 90'.
e. nearest stream (feet):
drainage ditch 100'
f. other details: *
No residential wells within at lease 1000
feet
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
newest cell - recompacted clay plus 60 ml HOPE
older cell - native material
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design)
yes, in newest cell
sand and piping drainage system.
A-31
-------
c, a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design)
No.
d. a run-on prevention system
By surrounding area pitch but no discrete berms
a run-off collection system
Collected in low area and pumped out to treatment
facility
if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes _ No ^^
Wastes are limited- no ignitable and reactive
wastes
describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
2-3 trenches since RCRA, everything else prior.
I. Closure Information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used.
A synthetic 20ml liner overlain by a 12" drainage layer,
then a geotech. liner overlain by 24" of soil with a
6" topsoil layer.
A-32
-------
Fondessey; Oregon, Ohio
Geologic Characteristics and Potential Plume Dimensions
The landfill appears to be located in fine-grained, low
permeability, saturated sediments. Flow rates are reported to
be 0.5 feet per year. The shallowest aquifer is fractured
dolomitic bedrock at a depth of 90 feet. A drainage ditch is
located about 100 feet from the facility; this probably discharges
minor amounts of local run-off and shallow ground water (not
aquifer water).
The fine-grained sediments (lake sediments and clay till)
are unlikely to be aquifers. However, the low permeability of
the soils poses a potential bathtub effect, indicating the
need for active control of run-on, run-off, and inspection for
leachate seeps. It is unknown whether the site is operated as a
trench or area fill.
Potential plume dimensions should be small, unless the
sediments are more heterogeneous than reported. The potential
for surface seeps/discharges requires more information on design
and operating practices.
Facility Design and Operation
The liner of the newest cell is a composite of a synthetic
membrane and recompacted clay. Older cells are not lined;
native sediments are exposed (suggesting a trench operation).
The newest cell also has a leachate collection and removal
system; older cells do not. The method of leachate treatment
is unk-nown.
Run-off from active portions appears to be collected and treated,
A-33
-------
No ignitable or reactive wastes are received.
It is likely that the Superfund wastes were disposed in one
of the older cells.
Ground water monitoring under the interim Status rules
appears to be mechanically good, with no reported contamination.
State inspectors report a well-run operation. The cause of
occasional odors is unknown.
The planned final cover lacks a clay barrier soil, but
appears to be reasonable otherwise. Both a clay soil layer and
synthetic membrane are needed to minimize the potential bath tub
effect.
Waste Management Suitability
This facility accepted waste from 2 Superfund sites. The
suitability of land disposal for the hypothetical wastes is
presented below.
Hypothetical Waste: (3) (Norman Poers Site)
- some of the constituents (benzene, toluene, xylene and
ethyl benzene), in their pure forms, have adverse effects on
both synthetic and clay liners.
- Some constituents (listed above) are relatively^soluble.
Toluene is persistent in abiotic environments (most aquifers).
Formaldahyde is quite soluble, and if disposed of in areas with
inorganic or permeable soils, it could become highly mobile.
- Arsenic concentration (lOmg/kg) is high. See note above
for hypothetical waste (IB).
A-34
-------
Pesses Chemical, Fort Worth, Texas
Summary
The site consists of an abandoned warehouse, fenced-in
storage yard, and a grassy field, 900 feet long. The site is
located in a metropolitan area within a mile of 2 hospitals and 5
schools. Cadmium from used batteries was reclaimed on the site
until January 1981. The byproducts of the reclamation process
(nickel, copper, and cadi urn compounds, mostly powders) were left
outside in approximately 1500 100-pound and 55-gallon drums,
along with a large quantity of trash and debris. A grass fire
occured at the site in March 1983, and a fireman was taken to
the hospital after inhaling noxious fumes. This incident prompted
EPA to investigate the site. Investigators found that the drums were
deteriorating and the soil was contaminated with metals.
In April 1983 EPA removed approximately 2000 drums, 6-12
inches of contaminated soil, and debris. All waste was bulked,
and a total of 106 truckloads of waste was shipped to a landfill.
Table A-4 provides more detailed information on how the wastes
from this site were disposed.
A-35
-------
m
oo
to
CO
8-
0
o
o
CN
M
3
g
CO
J-l
S
jj
en 4-1
S'S
en
m
•P
CXI
a\
m
•»
ro
4J
I
i
0) Li
oJ 3 —
W £ rH
££-
•2*
i tj §
6£^
•g
fl
5
-S
m
I
JJ
CO
0)
A-36
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
(4)
soils
metals
3,392 yd3
bulk
nickel nitrate, spent catalyst, cadmium oxide, batteries
nickel powder, slag piles, Cdr Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn
drum parts, debris, battery casings
Hypothetical Characteristics:
PH
density
ash content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chranium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Treatment Option A: Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
Limitations: anionic content may inhibit setting characteristics;
metals may not be effectively stabilized;
oxidation state of metals may restrict process;
volume increase expected for solidified product
Additional Potential Options: acid leaching to reclaim metal value (research status)
5
1.9
80
0.5
<0.2
0.5
10
<5
<5
20,000
1,000
5,000
500
10
20,000
<5
5,000
g/mi
%
%
%
%
%
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
A-37
-------
Chemical Waste Management, Port Arthur, Texas
A. General Facility Information
Site Name: Chemical Waste Management
Site Location (City & State): Port Arthur
EPA IDI: TXDOOQ761262
Texas
Type of facility (LF, SI, WP, LT): Landfill, 2SI leachate cells
5. Site latitude/longitude: /
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Allen Messenger
2. Phone f: 512 475-2041
3. State or Regional Contact: Texas Dept. Water Resources
4. Person seeking information: Arthur Day
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/12/84
6. Other Additional Contact: Joe Gingerich
7. Phone |: 512-475-2041
8. State or Regional Contact: state
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal, Permit been:
called X received X evaluated ongoing
2. Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes No X
Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes
under State Rules:
No
Yes
NO
Ground Water Information
Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes _X No _X
Again - different answer depending on who you talk to.
Monitoring has been difficult from the beginning. Currently
enforcement action for inadequate g.w. monitoring
0 Any contamination detected? Yes No X
(list details) There are questions whether wells are
screened at proper depth intervals
0 Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes No X
(list details)
E. Inspection Information
When was the unit last inspected? just recently
1.
2.
3.
By whom? Tim Chaney
phone # 409-883-2973
General Results/Findings of Inspection
See discussion
A-38
-------
General Unit (Facility) Information
1. Age of unit Facility .
2. How large is the unit (Surface area): 500* X 100*
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: yes
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes ^i No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X No
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes X No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes X No _^
8. Does the facility have security procedures? Yes X No
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes No X
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No X
G. Hydrogeologic Characteristic Information
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities: reworked clays 10-9,10-10 cm/sec
natural clays- 10-7,10-8 cm/sec
sands- 10-4,10-5 cm/sec
b. depth to ground water: near zero
c. flow directions/rates: regionally SE
inward gradient during excavation
d. aquifer types: sand
e. nearest stream (feet): 1/2 mile
f. other details: in coastal surge zone, therefore
could be impacted by hurricane flooding.
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
3 ft. recompacted sides - 4 ft. recompacted bottom.
sand layers are near the surface
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design)
one 4" pipe down the center of the trench.
A-39
-------
a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design)
no
a run-on prevention system
Berras
a run-off collection system
channels to S.I.
if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes No
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
Closure Information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used.
Clay cover - 3 feet of 10~7 that will be the proposed
base for a new landfill. Constructed above the existing cells,
Discussion:
Problems with subsidence of levees now being worked on.
Levers must be heightened to protect from hurricane flooding
from 12' - 17'. Facility drawing a lot of leachate from
cells. Leachate collection system has been damaged.
Engineering certification for trench design proven to be
outside of specs. State closed operation for a period of
time; required to put in berm.
Complaint that free liquids were being placed in facility.
Photos documented that app. 1 ft. of liquids were in trench.
Lifts were not being compacted properly; or when necessary.
Company claims that the site is impossible to monitor the
ground water. Part B approach - cone of depression.
Enforcement Actions and trying to file suit on old violations.
A-40
-------
Chemical Waste Management; Port Arthur, Texas
Geologiccharacteristics and potential plume dimensions
The facility is located in the Gulf Coastal Plain
physiographic province, which is characterized by gently
seaward dipping layers of sands, clays and silts deposited
in shallow marine environments.
The landfill is reported to be dug partly into natural '
clays of low permeability and partly into sands of moderate
permeability. Reworked clay liners were presumably installed
where sands are exposed in the trenches. Depth to ground water
is near zero feet. The regional ground water gradient is
reported to be extremely low. Flow locally discharges to the
trenches during excavation/operation (so-called intragradient
design), although the regional flow direction to the southeast
should resume after cell closure.
The Texas DWR staff suggested that the flow gradient
associated with the cells may be steeper than indicated by
the operator. Consequently, the monitoring wells located in
the sand formation (which underlies the clay unit) may be
*
screened at depths that are too shallow to detect a discharge
from the site.
The site is in a coastal surge zone, and is.threatened by
hurricane flooding.
Flow rates are not reported. Assuming that the gradient
in the sand is indeed low (say 0.5%), that the porosity is
0.35, and that the permeability of the sand is as reported,
the flow velocity is estimated as 0.123 cm/d, or 1.5 feet
per year, or less.
A-41
-------
The site is geographically remote from development, although
•
the property is adjacent to a National Wildlife Refuge.
Facility design and operation
Reworked clay from on-site is used as a liner.
One 4" I.D. leachate collection pipe is located down the
centerline of each trench. There apparently is not sand
collection bed associated with this pipe. If consistent with
RCRA design guidance. The Texas DWR reports that the collection
system has been damaged.
Run-off is diverted to surface impoundments; treatment methods
are unknown.
A 3 feet thick clay soil is proposed for a final cover.
However, the operator plans to construct new landfill cells
above this cover (without a synthetic liner).
Levees have been built to protect the site from hurricane
flooding. Their height must be raised from 12 feet to 17 feet,
however.
Waste Management Suitability
The facility received waste from two Superfund sites. The
*
suitability of land disposal for these hypothetical characteristics
are presented below.
Hypothetical waste: (4) (Pesses Chemical)
- The constituents are all metals; the prefered
approach would be a synthetic lined facility.
A-42
-------
(Blank)
A-43
-------
Western Processing, Kent, Washington
Summary
This site, 13 acres in size, was used for chemical recycling
and reclaiming operations since the late 1950s. It contained
4000-5000 drums, approximately 40 bulk tanks, several piles of
unconfined chemical/industrial waste, approximately 10 surface
impoundments (some unlined), and other various devices or structures
(e.g., rail cars) containing numerous chemical substances, and 5
transformers. Sampling on and off the site identified various
halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, acids, caustics, waste
containing cyanide, heavy metals, ignitables, oils, PCBs and
other toxic constituents. These containers were in various
stages of deterioration. A stream flows through the site,
eventually entering the Duwamish River which flows into Puget
Sound. Releases into the stream may result in contact with
persons using the stream about one mile from the site. Puget
Sound is a heavily used recreational area.
Removal actions took place between April and July 1983.
EPA pumped liquids from tanks, removed sludges from surface
*
ponds, removed unstable drums, drums containing PCBs, and relocated
a fertilizer pit. A large quantity of the solvents and other
hazardous wastes were treated. Sludges and solids, including
PCBs (50-500ppm), were landfilled. The fate of some wastes is
unclear from the available data. However, a great deal of effort
was expended to locate facilities to treat and reuse the large
quantities of hazardous materials. Table A-5 gives a more
detailed summary of where the various wastes from this site were
disposed.
A-44
-------
m
i
<
03
U)
•l-l
Q
O
4-)
(0
i
•
tt 0!
tQ 4J
a a
*
J3m
.En 4>)
50
au
CO
••—I
o
1
ro
CO
10 "
41 *
a H
O 0
O 0
O O
00 O
CO Q
«• w
Q) D.
to O
paint/
solvents
ft
C^
£
0) \
4J >
tO .j-J
(0 «rH
ȣ ^J
c
3
0
•s
rH
V)
ro
•D
^
In
^^
CO
^
m
r-
l
ro co
00 00
in *
EH H
Q Q
r^« (^*
(\« (XB
P" 0"
•• *r^
E T3
&Q. ^J
O HJ
Qi C "O Ju
o m aj Q>
o s\ e c
in i— 3 -rH
CD 1 CO O
£ o tc in c
o m u 10 -H
•u
• rH
CO &
•O --H
•H rH
rH \
O ^H
\ en
*u in
^1 rH
0
0 ••
m
CO
VO
H
Q
(V*
o*
t^«
1.
fi1
s
So
y^
•D
• rH
D1
•rH
rH
rH
(0
CJi
in
m
^
m
i
ro
00
m
H
0
f\.
(\»
f1'
0)
CO (0
corrosiv
heavy me
•o
•H
•H1
rH
rH
&
00
>£>
<*
^
H
*
Q
r-
H
%
Q
EH
*k
O
H
Q
cr §<
•rH -H 3
rH ,H &
3
nj Cn C*>
o
o
o
\D
m
00
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
*
in
V£
I—I
CN
4J
O
4-)
I
2
a
2
o
to
r-» O
(0 0
en t-3
•fH -M
Q PH
en
S
en
•^
-------
00
vo
CO
00
CD
ro
00
ro
in
^
in
•
10
c
<0
>J (0
L^ 3 1
'^v ffl
du
to
Q
E-I
Q
0">
&
3
5) Q,
I
rH
8
Q T3
—
o
c
m
^
^*
t-H
J2 IM
(0 O
H tO
a
&
6
jj
iH O
(C O
• H
O
£
H3
•r^
||_
"o "1j
CJ -H C
McClary
Washouga
(treatme
p
g
•H
^ C?
CZ Pi
13 "^s.
z S
•* "±j
s s
to
to
(U O
0 rH
O oi
1-1
cu -
p 39
0) ». 4J
4J 4J C
W C O
H
Q
^.
[\»
QJ
4J
8
i Q
•a w
•H fO
3 Cf^
D1 \
•i-i CO
\ CU
pH T3 — '
(0 C ^3
rH
O ?iO
O U O
O ro
in ro ^^
• •
CJ QS Qi
W - £? 8 ^ ?
» T3 -H -iH
O C iH 4J «"H
U (0 O iH JO O
OU rH i>| (B g ^,
4J U S 0 O
rH ,J 4J C O
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
7
1.5
40
4,000
3.0
1.0
1.0
20
180
<5
100
1,000
50
1,000
500
500
2,000
1,000
<5
500
500
1,000
1,000
500
500
1,000
1,000
500
1,000
g/ml
%
BTU/#
%
%
%
%
op
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mgAg
mgAg
mgAg
mgAg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Treatment Option A:
Limitations:
Treatment Option B:
Limitations:
(5)
sludge
solvents/paint
1,722 yd3
bulk
drum parts, paints, metals, solvents
Hypothetical Characteristics:
pH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Titanium
Zinc
oils and greases
PCB's (as Arochlor 1260)
benzene
toluene
xylene
methyl ethyl ketone
mineral spirits
acetone
chloroform
methylene chloride
trichloroethylene
methyl methacrylate
Incineration/ Rotary Kiln
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destructionj
supplemental fuel may be required due to BTU content;
volatile organics and metals may be emitted
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
oils and volatile organics may severely inhibit setting time;
toxic organics and metals may leach?
significant volume increases expected
Additional Potential Options: biodegradation (research status)
A-47
-------
Chem Securities, Arlington, Oregon
A. General Facility Information
1. Site Name: Chem securities
2. Site Location (City & State): Arlington , Oregon
3. EPA IDt: ORD089452353 ^_
4. Type of facility (LF. Si, WP. LT)8 Landfill, evap. ponds.
5. Site latitude/longitude: /__
B. Contact infortnation
1. Person talked to concerning site: Ed Chiong
2. Phone *: (503) 229-5326
3, State or Regional Contact: State of Oregon, Dept. of Sw
4. Person seeking information: Ann Whitney
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/14/84
6. Other Additional Contact: Alan Goodman unable to reach
7. Phone #: 423-3250
8. State or Regional Contact: Region 10
C. Application Information ~
1. Has the Part R-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received No evaluated No
Has the permit application been part of the HO PAT work?
Yes No JC
Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No _X
under State Rules: Yes _X No
interim status
D. Ground Water Information
1. Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes _X No
0 Any contamination detected? Yes No
(list details)
* Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes X No assess, ongoing, monitoring system
(list details) will be expanded to include more
monitoring wells down gradient.
Inspection Information
1. when was the unit last inspected? May 1984
2. By whom? Ed Chiong phone * above
3. General Results/Findings of Inspection
(next page)
A-4 8
-------
Facility in compliance. All loads and site continuously
monitored by state for nature of materials. CN restricted
F. General Unit (Facility) information
1. Age of unit Facility 1976
2. How large is the unit (Surface area): 600'X 750'X 45'deep
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: yes (req.lQ) ~
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes X No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X NcT~__
6. Does the facility have a inspection Plan? Yes X No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance"?""
Yes X No
8. Does the facility have security procedures? Yes X No
9. is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes No X
10. is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No X
Regionally, an active tectonic area
Hydrogeologic Characteristic Information
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities: silty ashflows interbedded
with well cemented conglomerates, tuff, and basalts.
porosity 40-70% , permeabilities of 10-4, 10-6 cm/sec.
b. depth to ground water: upper aquifer 200' deep
bedrock aquifer 500-600'
c. flow directions/rates:
unknown as of yet.
d. aquifer types: "perched table" 10-30'.
bedrock aquifer *
e. nearest stream (feet): none
f. other details: very dry area
sparsely populated
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
A-49
-------
Future units will be doubled lined- PVC liners.
Current and past units are clay lined with'drainage
unit above (perforated pipe).
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design)
unknown
c. a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design)
d. a run-on prevention system
Yes. Natural pitch and berms
e. a run-off collection system
Yes.
f, if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
g. are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes X No
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at-site
lots of liquid waste pre-RCRA.
I. Closure Information
*
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used.
multi layer - compacted clay and synthetic liner.
Discussion: According to Fred Wolf, the geohydrology of the
area provides a good location for such a facility.
The Part B is incomplete and there will be further
field work, to investigate secondary permeabilites in
the basalt.
A-50
-------
I
Chem Securities; Arlington, Oregon
Geologic characteristics and potential plume dimensions
The facility is located in a semi-arid climatic zone,
and is underlain by silty volcanic ashflows and interbedded
basalts and related volcanic materials. The location of the
uppermost aquifer is not clearly defined; it may begin at a
depth of 200 feet or at 10 feet. The owner is conducting
investigations into the secondary permeability of the rocks
(secondary permeability describes the influence of fractures on
water transmission potential).
Until such investigations are complete, the flow velocity
should not be estimated. There may be lenses of 10~4 cm/sec materials
within the Ash. Estimates based on current data could be too
low. However, a Region X permit writer thinks that the hydrogeology
of the site is good for a disposal facility.
If the secondary permeability of the rocks proves to be
significant, and if ground water is at the more shallow depth
cited, the potential plume dimension could be substantial and
of a very complex pattern. The aquifer apparently discharges
to springs. The nearest ground water use is 2000 feet away (irrigation)
The area is reported to be sparsely populated.
Facility design and operation
Current and closed landfill cells are reported to be clay-
lined, with a leachate collection system of unknown design above
the liner. Future units will be double-lined with PVC liners.
Run-off is collected, but the manner of treatment is
unknown. Reactive/ignitable wastes are segregated. The facility
A-51
-------
received substantial amounts of liquid wastes prior to the
effective date of RCRA regulations.
The Closure Plan calls for a multi-layer cover that is
apparently similiar to RCRA guidance design. The monitoring
system must be expanded to include more down-gradient wells.
This may indicate that contamination may be undetected, or
that only minor refinements are necessary.
Waste Management Suitability
This facility received from one Superfund Site.
Hypothetical Waste: (5) (Western Processing)
- a large number of the constituents, in their pure form,
have severe effects on synthetic liners. Some constituents
(methyl ethyl ketone, and acetone) have no effect to severe
effects on a synthetic.
- Some constituents have adverse effects on clay liners also.
- Some constituents are very soluble in water, and could
cause leaching problems.
Solubilty in water:
methy ethyl ketone: 100,000 mg/1
chloroform: 8,200 ppm *
methylene chloride: 20,000 mg/1
trichloroethylene: 1,000 mg/1
- Chloroform and methylene chloride are persistent in
ground water.
- Chloroform absorbs to organic soil constituents and to
clay but in areas of high permeability or soils low in organic
content, mobility could be a problem.
A-52
-------
(Blank)
A-S3 thru A-55
-------
Arrcom Corporation, Rathdrum, Indiana
Summary
Arrcom Corporation, a 1.2 acre site located in a rural
residential area, formerly recycled waste oil containing solvents.
The facility was abandoned in January 1982. A variety of hazardous
wastes, including PCBs, were present in storage tanks, tank trucks
and 55-gallon drums. Many of the tanks and drums were leaking and
soil contamination had occurred. There was also the possibility of
groundwater contamination.
During cleanup operations in September 1983, one tank
containing PCB-contaminated material was pumped empty and rinsed
with kerosene. Twenty-three other bulk storage tanks and 3 tank
trucks were emptied into vacuum trucks and tank trucks. Contaminated
soil was removed. The PCB-contaminated wastes were shipped to
an incinerator, the soil was landfilled, and waste oil and solvents
were transported to a treatment facility for possible recycling.
Table A-6 provides a more detailed summary of where the various
wastes from this site were disposed.
A-56
-------
8-S
as
ro
ro
CO
n
oo
£>
£
Wl
•i-4
Q
O
g
••-I
4J
cn
ns
u w
a<
m
2*
0) aV
fQ «rH
S tJ
c
*oV
o o
o o
O V£l
^ «k
in rH
\
H
D
CO
4J
10
LTt
CO
4->
I
rH
8
•o
•r-l
en
o
o
r--
CO
§
jj
o
(0
4J
I
&
a
o
"B
10
£
O
8
flj 0) rH
cn -i-i •«-(
n > u-i
B'g'g
> id (C
tJ
j-> "O
- (0 C
0 ^ ,
Vt -H ii
*^ U U
c
- flj
(0
4J
(13
22
0)
JJ
•H
en
(D
M •>
p
S|
6 tj
O £
}t*l t ^
cn
0)
A-57
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
7
1.2
20
8,000
2.0
0.5
0.2
10
160
<1
<1
5
10
50
10
50
1,000
40
200
2,000
2,000
2,000
1,000
500
500
g/ml
%
BTU/#
%
%
%
%
Op
rag/kg
mg/kg
rag/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Treatment Option A:
Limitations:
Treatment Option B:
Limitations:
(6)
soils
PCB
137 yd3
bulk
PCB, oil, kerosene, chloroform, paint thinne'r, acetone
chloroform, benzene, toluene, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone
Hypothetical Characteristics:
PH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
oils and greases
PCB's (as Arochlor 1260)
phenols
chloroform
benzene
toluene
xylene
acetone
methyl ethyl ketone
Incineration/ Rotary Kiln
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destruction;
supplemental fuel may be required due to BTU content;
volatile organics may be emitted
*
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
oils and volatile organics may inhibit setting time;
toxic organics may leach;
significant volume increases expected
Treatment Option C: Steam Stripping of Volatiles and Semivolatiles
Limitations: flash point may be too low for safe application of heat;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient operation;
oil content may cause emulsion problems
Additional Potential Options:
biodegradation {research status)
high temperature fluid wall reactor (research status)
A-58
-------
Envirosafe, GrandVTewy Idaho
A. General Facility Information
1. Site Name: Envirosafe Services
2. Site Location (City & State); Grandview, Idaho
3. EPA IDI: IDD0731I4654 and IDD000773952
4. Type of facility (LF, SI, WP, LT): Landfill and silos
5. Site latitude/longitude: /
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Mr. Pat Stoll
2. Phone t: FTS: 8-554-4722
3. State or Regional Contact: State of Idaho
4. Person seeking information: Paul Cassidy
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/13/84
6. Other Additional Contact: Mr. Steve Provant
7. Phone #: 208-334-4118
8. State or Regional Contact: State of Idaho
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called Yes received Yes evaluated Currently being
2. Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes X No
3. Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No
under State Rules: Yes No X
D. Ground Water Information
1. Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes X No
0 Any contamination detected? Yes No X
(list details)
First sampling in 1/84. No trends so far. Six
wells around site perimeter. „
0 Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed!
Yes No X
(list details)
E. Inspection Information
1. When was the unit last inspected? May 8-11 1984
2. By whom? Steve Provant phone f above
3. General Results/Findings of Inspection
Site got out of control; taking wastes they could
not process. Accumulated 10,000 drums; now down to
7000. Low flash pt. ign. wastes in leaking drums.
Significant violations- container management, waste
analysis plan, & contingency plan. Company naa to
remove illegally disposed liquids.
A-59
-------
F. General Unit (Facility) Information
1. Age of unit: landfilling 4 years Facility; 1972
2. 'How large is the unit (Surface area): varlabne_
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: Yes
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes X No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X No
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes x No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes X No
8. Does the facility have security procedures? Yes x No
9, Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes No x~
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No~~x~
G. Hydrogeologic Characteristic Information
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities:
unknown
Gravel and sand layers - permeabilities app. 10-5cm/se
Below these layers there is several hundred ft. of
Blue clay.
b. depth to ground water:
originally thought to be 2800-3000 feet.
Now 150-230 feet.,
c. flow directions/rates:
ENE/3 ft. per year
d. aquifer types:
e. nearest stream (feet):
Castle Creek 1-2 miles west
•
f. other details:
Land use - agricultural land and ranchland.
nearest ranch = 5000 feet.
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
Natural earth liner; newest trench to be synthetic
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design)
No
A-60
-------
c. a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design)
In the lowest end of trench. There aure vertical
pipes that a sponge could be placed into and
lowered to check for leachate. Pipes are at
the bottom of the first layer of drums.
d. a run-on prevention system
Yes but prevention system not to good; Run-on
channel is disrupted therefore it is blocked.
This has produced some erosion
This is however a region of low rainfall.
e. a run-off collection system
Last Aug. storm caused run-off problems. No
design features inside the landfill to control
run-off.
f. if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes X No
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
There are 3 Pre-RCRA missile silos and the
majority of the first 11 trenches are also
pre-RCRA.
Closure Information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used.
Unknown but is being reviewed by Region «X,
Discussion; Poor management and poor housekeeping.
Low flash point ignitables in leaking containers.
Location not as good as once thought.
Labor problems at the facility.
A-61
-------
Envirosafe Services; Grandview, Idaho
Geologic characteristics and potential plume dimension's
The'facility is located in thick fluvial and lacustrine
sediments in a semi-arid climatic zone. Sand and gravel layers
form the upper zone, and are reported to have a permeability of
10~5 cm/sec. However, this value appears to be far too low for
typical sands and gravel (10~2 cm/sec would seem more reasonable).
Below these coarse-grained sediments is a clay layer of several
hundred feet thickness. The lateral continuity of this clay
is not yet documented, however. Depth to ground water is thought
to be 150 to 230 feet, and flow rate and direction are reported
to be ENE at 3 feet per year. Castle Creek is located about one
mile to the west.
Surrounding land use is agricultural and range land, and
the nearest dwelling appears to be 5000 feet away. Aerial
photos taken by ORD-EMSL were examined, and confirm this land
use pattern.
The thickness of the sand and gravel layers was not readily
available, nor was information on whether ground water is clearly
present in these layers or only within the clay. The Interim
status monitoring wells were first sampled in January, 1984. No
trends are apparent at this time.
Facility design and operation
Exisiting cells are unlined. The next trench constructed
will be lined with a synthetic liner. There are no leachate
collection and removal systems in exisiting cells. Future plans for
leachate collection are unknown.
A-62
-------
A storm last August caused run-off problems. There are
no design features to control run-off.
«P
The operator accumulated 10,000 drums of waste recently
that could not be handled. This stockpile has been reduced to
7000. Low flash point ignitable wastes are present in leaking
drums. The operator landfilled liquid wastes in containers.
Enforcement actions have cited this and significant violations
of container management rules, the waste analysis plan, and the
contingency plan.
The design of the planned final cover is unknown.
Waste management suitability
This facility received waste from one Superfund site. The
hypothetical waste has been evaluated for land disposal potential.
Hypothetical Waste: (6) (Arrcom)
- compatibility data indicates that some of these constituents
have severe effects on synthetic liners.
- methyl ethyl ketone and acetone have no effect to severe
effects on synthetics.
- some of these constituents have adverse effects on clay liners.
- the solubility in water of some constituents could result
*
in leaching and ground water problems. The solubility in water
for certain constituents is as follows:
methyl ethyl ketone - 100,000 mg/1
phenol - 67,000 ppm
chloroform - 8,200 ppm
- chloroform does absorb to organic soil constituents and
to clay but in areas of high permeability or in soils with low
organic content mobility is a problem.
A-63
-------
chloroform does absorb to organic soil constituents and
to clay, but in areas of high permeability or in soils with low
organic content mobility, is a problem.
The individual flash points of some constituents may
be a problem: methyl ethyl ketone - 22°F
acetone - 3 F
Ignitable wastes may, therefore, have been landfilled.
A-64
-------
Picillo Property, Coventry, Rhode island
Summary •
Due to fires and explosions in 1977, the State halted the dumping
and burial of hazardous materials at Picillo, a former pig farm
located in a rural area. A total of 20,000 to 30,000 leaking
drums were buried in 4 trenches, 150-200 feet long. The hazardous
material present included toluene, benzene, PCBs, carbon
tetrachloride, and others.
In 1980 and 1981, the drums were excavated from two trenches.
PCB liquids were consolidated and sent with the empty PCB drums
to an incinerator. Some solvents were also incinerated. A
large quantity of solvents, acids, and caustics was shipped to
treatment facilities. Waste oil and some solvents were sent to
temporary storage pending a determination of their recyling
potential. Over 100 drums of laboratory wastes were discovered.
Laboratory containers whose contents could be identified were
landfilled. Laboratory packs that could not be identified were
safely detonated on-site. Approximately 1500 drums of various
wastes were also landfilled after solidification with stone dust
*
on-site. Apparently, characterizing all of the drums for treatment
purposes was too expensive. GCA's mobile field laboratory classified
the drums into 5 groups to facilitate transportation and disposal.
Table A-7 provides a more detailed summary of where the various
wastes from this site were disposed.
A-65
-------
in
0)
)••«
%
&
&
W
a a>
w jj
M W
at
cn
4->
cn
CO 4-1
iu
"(0 Q
cn -4
•H
o
CN
CN
*S
>H
Cfl
CM
00
m
H
Q
0)
cn
0)
IQ
TJ -H u I
CO S Cfl (0
••H Q CD O rH
'OO'DiON ->-rH3
—' u 3 g -rH tn -u cn
SCO 0) 1 -H -rH 3-D
a -H x o ^ a. UH 0 ro O (0
rH CM rH fSJ rH
O CO ^ c
CO MH T3 • rH -rH
§rH C E rH O
rH (0 DJ fl) C
•rH rH C. £ -H
US— U H —
O
1— 1
1
rH
1
EH
Q
(\.
(\«
to
JJ
C
^
i— 1
8
T!
'1
-H
P^
\
•— i
8*
tn
o
00^
I
c
62
CO CC
r-H
CO
\
H
Q
f^.
fl.
m
U
i
9
£j
X5
4J
Qj
ps
QJ
rH
nerator)
o
(Ti
i
i— 1 rH
5 %
H H
Q Q
r». r-.
rVi f\.
fk. fl.
W
JJ
c
cu tn
> -a
fH -
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
7
1.4
20
10,000
2.0
0.5
Treatment Option A:
Limitations:
Treatment Option B:
Limitations:
(7)
sludge
solvents
44,000 gallons
800 drums
drum parts, flammable solvents, soil, adsorbants
Hypothetical Characteristics:
g/ml
BTU/t
10
140
<1
<5
200
10
500
10
500
500
<5
100
5,000
5,000
100
5,000
2,000
500
500
5,000
500
500
2,000
100
%
OF
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
rogAg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
PH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
oils and greases
PCB's (as Arochlor 1260)
phenols
ethanol
nethanol
isopropanol
toluene
xylene
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyl ketone
acetone
chloroform
methylene chloride
1,1,1 - trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
»
Incineration/ Rotary Kiln
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destruction;
volatile organ ics may be emitted
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
oils and volatile organics may inhibit setting time?
toxic organics may leach;
significant volume increases expected
Treatment Option C: Steam Stripping of Volatiles and Semivolatiles
Limitations: flash point may be too low for safe application of heat;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient operation;
oil content may cause emulsion problems
Additional Potential Options: none identified at this time
A-67
-------
CECOS; Niagara Falls, New York
A. Genera1 Faci1ity Ireformation
*
1. Site Name: Cecos
2. Site Location (City & State): Niagara Falls , New York
3. EPA IDi:
4. Type of facility (LF, SI, WP, LT): Landfill
5. Site latitude/longitude: /__
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Rod Alridge
2. Phone f: 518-457-3273
3. State or Regional Contact: State of NY.
4. Person seeking information: Paul Cassidy
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/26/84
6. Other Additional Contact: Frank Garbar
7. Phone f: 716-847-4585
8. State or Regional Contact: Rg. 2
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received X evaluated X currently
2. Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes No X
3. Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No X
under State Rules: Yes No X
D. Ground Water Information
1. is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes X No
* Any contamination detected? Yes No X
(list details)
Reported problems with pH - Lime waste causing
changes in pH.
0 Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes No x
(list details)
Inspection Information
1. When was the unit last inspected? Sept. 83 RCRA
2. By whom? Cathy Massamino phone I 2T2-264-1317
3. General Results/Findings of Inspection
good operation
on-site monitor at the facility every day.
State Representative there 1 or 2 days/wk.
A-68
-------
General Unit Ifacility) Information
1. Age of unit 2.5 yrs.Facility 40 - 50 years .
2. How large is the unit (Surface area): 8 acres
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: yes before cons.
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes x No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes x No _
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes x No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes X No
8. Does the facility have security procedures? Yes __x_ No
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes No X
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No -X
G. Hydrogeologic Characteristic Information
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities:
1-8 feet of misc. fill
0-6 feet of marsh silt
6-11 feet of clay 10~8 cm/sec.
3-6 feet of glacial till 10~7 cm/sec.
b. depth to ground water:
Bottom of recompacted clay at or 1 foot
above ground water
c. flow directions/rates:
SE rate (unknown)
d. aquifer types:
Lockport Dolomite Bedrock
e. nearest stream (feet):
f. other details:
Industrial area - no residential well
well in area.
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
10 feet of recompacted clay - 10~? cm/sec.
80 mil HOPE synthetic liner —
1 foot protective clay layer above synthetic
A-69
-------
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design) -
slotted pipes covered with gravel plus gravel fingers
system goes to standpipe.
c. a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design)
No
d. a run-on prevention system
Yes - Perimeter ditching system
e. a run-off collection system
Yes leachate collection system acts as the
collection system
f. if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes X No
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
three landfills
Closure information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
*
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used.
3 feet of recompacted clay 1CT7 cm/sec.
30 mil HDPE
1.5 feet of drainage material
1.5 feet of vegetative material
A-70
-------
CECOS; Niagara Falls, New York
Geologic characteristics and potential plume dimensions
The facility is located above a sequence of glacial and
post-glacial sediments, which overlie the Lockport Dolomite.
The current disposal unit is constructed above 1 to 8 feet of
industrial fill (a lime waste). This material overlies zero
to 6 feet of marsh silts, 6 to 11 feet of lacustrine clays,
and 3 to 6 feet of glacial till. The clay and till are reported
to have a low permeability. Underlying the till is the fractured
dolomitic bedrock, which is probably the regional aquifer.
The water table is located within the industrial fill.
The surrounding area is reported to be industrial, with
no residential wells in the immediate area.
The operator is reported to be in compliance with the Interim
Status ground water monitoring program, and no contamination is
reported. However, the underlying industrial fill is causing
changes in pH.
The site conditions appear to be similar to the SCA/ChemTrol
geology, with the exception of the presence of the industrial fill
and marsh sediments. The permeability of these materials should be
greater than the underlying clays and till, and may offer an
avenue for localized leachate migration not present at the SCA
site. However, the areal distribution and continuity of these
materials is not known.
Facility design and operation
The existing landfill unit has a base of 10 feet of re-
compacted clay with a reported permeability of 10~7cm/sec.
A-71
-------
An 80 mil HDPE synthetic liner is present above this base. The
liner is, in turn, overlain by a 1-foot thick clay unit" which
serves to protect the synthetic membrane.
The leachate collection and removal system is a series of
slotted pipes encased in gravel, with tributary gravel finger
trenches. There is no leak detection system. The leachate
collection system in not fully in agreement with RCRA design
guidance, because the collection bed does not extend over the
entire liner. There is no information on the presence of filter
material to prevent clogging.
Run-on is diverted by a perimeter drainage system. Run-off
is collected in the leachate collection system. It is unknown
how active portion run-off is collected once the leachate
collection system is covered by the first lift of waste.
Ignitable/incompatible wastes are segregated in different
units. Different waste types are also placed in individual
subcells.
The final cover design plan appears to be in broad agreement
with the RCRA design guidance. The cover will consist of 3
feet of recompacted clay, a 30 mil HDPE membrane, a 1.5*foot
thick drainage layer, and a 1.5 foot thick vegetated layer.
Waste management suitability
This facility accepted waste from the Picillo site. The
hypothetical waste has been evaluated for its land disposal
potential.
Hypothetical Waste: (8) (Picillo)
- Many of the hypothetical constituents, in their pure
A-72
-------
form, have been shown to have severe effects on synthetic
«
liners and adverse effects on clay liners.
The solubility in water of some of these constituents are:
phenol - 67,000 mg/1
methyl ethyl ketone - 100,000 mg/1
methylene chloride - 20,000 mg/1
chloroform - 8,200 mg/1
The flash point of this waste mixture (140°F) is the
cut-off for the characteristic of ignitability. Was the
waste tested for ignitability, and did the operator
pretreat it, if it was ignitable?
Individual constituents have low flash points:
methanol - 54°F
toluene - 39°F
acetone - 3°F
If these compounds were present in the hypothetical
concentrations, could the waste have failed the ignitability
standard?
A-73
-------
Pesticide Pile, Leetown, West Virginia
Summary *
This pile was located in an open farm field and consisted
of 50-100 yd^ of debris and sludge containing pesticides (e.g.,
BHC, DDD, DDE, DDT, and Lindane). The debris originated at a
fire in a nearby chemical plant. The site is adjacent to a road,
close to residences, and has no secure fencing. Also, contaminated
runoff leaves the area during rainy periods.
On April 14, 1983, 12 tandem truck loads of contaminated
material were excavated and transported to a landfill for disposal.
TableA-8 provides a more detailed summary of where the wastes
from this site were disposed.
A-74
-------
a o>
03 4->
a a
m
oo
S-i 03
S jj
. $
n. rj
03
•*H
o
0 04
O
58
-
0)
a)
u a
(D Cfl 0
03
S
o
•r-t
i
•^
a
a>
jj
S £
& "
00 |S
l M-l fl> \
< O -U >
tfl 4J
(HO * -U
.Q -i-i C
U3
r-H
• r-l
8
X.
ro
0
CM
ij
8
a
•
03
§•*•"
i— 1
s
O
(0
Jj
§
£
£
4-^
o
c
>
§
-2
C/3
u O u-j
ff'g'S
ro
•u
0)
m
8
T3
J
JS
s
.. JJ
(U
J-)
-rH
cn
*
•t-i
U
•H
13
(U
4J
4J
in
&
A-75
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Type:
(8)
soils
pesticides
Quantity: 240 yd3
Storage: bulk
Known Constituents: Lindane, DDT, fire debris
Hypothetical Characteristics:
PH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Arsenic
Bar inn
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
oils and greases
PCB's (as Arochlor 1260)
phenols
alpha - BHC
gamma - BHC (Lindane)
p,p' - DDT
p,p' - ODD
p,p' - DDE
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
toxic organics may leach?
volume increase expected
7
1.8
40
2,000
1.0
3.0
4.0
10
>200
10
40
30
10
20
10
20
100
50
2
20
100
50
20
20
20
g/ml
%
BTU/t
%
%
%
%
oF
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mgAg
Treatment Option A:
Limitations:
Treatment Option B:
Limitations:
Incineration/Rotary Kiln
sulfur and phosphorus emissions may be high;*
supplemental fuel required due to BTU content;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destruction
Treatment Option C: Biodegradation/Solidification of Residues
Limitations: pesticides may be toxic to the organisms;
nutrient levels may be severely lacking;
organics in leachate may be unacceptable;
volume increase expected for solidified product
Additional Potential Options: high temperature fluid wall reactor (research status)
A-76
-------
Evergreen, Northwood, Ohio
A. General Faci1ity Information
1. Site Name: Evergreen
2. Site Location (City & State): Northwood , Ohio
3. EPA ID#: OHDQ68111327 ^__
4. Type of facility (LF, SI, WP, LT): Landfill
5. Site latitude/longitude: „__ /
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Jim Brossman
2. Phone f: 8-886-6186
3. State or Regional Contact: Region 5
4. Person seeking information: Paul Cassidy
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/13/84
6. Other Additional Contact:
7. Phone I:
8. State or Regional Contact:
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received X evaluated X- 2nd NOD
2. Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes No _X
3. Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No X
under State Rules: Yes No X
Ground Water Information
1. Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes _X No
Old system based on residental wells - little info on con-
struction details. New system - two quarters of monitoring
data meeting requirements - monitoring bedrock. USGS also
doing study in the area.
0 Any contamination detected? Yes No _ X
(list details) not so far but data incomplete
0 Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes X No
facility will shortly have a 265 program that is
adequate and an assessment will be done. Will
confirm g.w. gradient.
Inspection Information
1. When was the unit last inspected? within the last 3 months
2. By whom? Kate Wilson & Ben Chambers phone I 4^19-352-8461
3. General Results/Findings of Inspection
SEE DISCUSSION
A-77
-------
F. General Unit (Facility) Information
1. Age of unit 4/83 Facility unknown
2. How large is the unit (Surface area): 400'X rOQO'
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: unknown
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes X No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X No
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes X No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes X No
8. Does the facility have security procedures? Yes _x No
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes No X
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No X
G. Hydrogeologic CharacteristicInformation
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities:
10"' - 10~8 same soil characteristics as
Foundessey
b. depth to ground water:
70 feet to Bedrock aquifer
c. flow directions/rates:
flow in all directions due to heavy users.
d. aquifer types:
wells at depth of dolomite aquifer monitoring = 70'
e. nearest stream (feet):
f. other details:
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
no. lined with natural clay (10-7, 10-8)
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
A-78
-------
materials and design)
yes. on top of natural liner
piping system - never reviewed by State.
a leak detection system (please desc»ibe materials
and design)
No.
d, a run-on prevention system
Not effective. Run-on from surrounding solid
waste fills.
e. a run-off collection system
Run off collected in low end of cell and pumped
out to treatment facility.
f. if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
g. are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes No
State limits the types of wastes accepted. No
ignitables, reactables, or incompatible wastes.
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
Co-disposal.
I. Closure Information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used.
Proposed 5' clay cap.
Discussion:
Facility looked in order. Disposal of waste types is
limited by State. One small area of hazardous waste filling
may be over an old solid waste area, therefore problem
of settlement could result. Problem with accepting
Superfund waste - Region classifies waste as DOOO -
therefore the Region and facility believes that the
waste can be disposed. State wants to be sure that the
facility can dispose of the waste - must be one of
the limited types of wastes that can be accepted.
A-79
-------
Evergreen; Northwood, Ohio
Geologic characteristics and potential plume dimensions
This facility is reported to be within 5 miles of the
Fondessey landfill, and has the same basic geologic characteristics,
However, heavy use of the bedrock aquifer (located at 70 feet
below the site) causes flow in all directions.
The discussion of potential plume dimensions presented
for the Fondessey landfill should be applicable to the Evergreen
facility, assuming that the geologic characteristics are similar.
The operator was using nearby residential wells of unknown
design (i.e., depth of screening) as interim status monitoring
wells. Enforcement actions were taken, and it is reported that
a suitable set of wells will soon be installed, and that the flow
direction will be confirmed.
Facility design and operation
Native soils are exposed in the cells. No synthetic or
remolded clay liner is used. A leachate collection and removal
system is reported to be present within the cell, but the State
Agency has never observed it.
The run-on prevention system is ineffective. Run-*off is
collected within the cell and treated (details unknown). The
State of Ohio prohibits the receipt of ignitable/reactive and
incompatible wastes. However, the State is concerned that the
waste code used in shipping Superfund wastes (DOOO) doesn't
provide for adequate waste identification and screening in
accordance with the state acceptance criteria.
A-80
-------
Pre-RCRA units operated as hazardous waste-municipal waste
codisposal facilities. A five feet thick clay cap is planned in
the Closure Plan. This is only partially consistent with RCRA
design guidance. Without a synthetic membrane component, the bathtub
effect is a potential problem, just as at the Fondessey landfill.
Waste management suitability
- Arsenic concentration of lOmg/kg is high. Arsenic is
extremely toxic - death has occured in humans following ingestion
of small amounts (5kg.mg).
- Metal constituents would be best disposed of in a synthetic
lined facility.
- the behavior of various pesticide constituents
and their suitability for disposal in a synthetic-lined
facility can not be answered without actual compatibility
testing. No information exists for us to make an assumption.
A-81
-------
Sikes Disposal Pit, Crosby, Texas
Summary
The site is an abandoned hazardous waste disposal facility
lacated about 21 mile northeast of Houston. During site operation
from 1960-7, liquid waste was dumped into one 2-acre pit and
several smaller pits. Drums were also dumped at various locations
on the site. This action involved a 50' x 20' x 8' pit filled
with phenolic tar and other hazardous wastes mixed and covered
with sand. In May 1983, flooding of a nearby river and rising of
the water table caused the tar to migrate out of the pit,
endangering the health of a family dwelling nearby. In June 1983,
EPA removed approximately 440 yd^ of contaminated soil from the
pit. A total of 22 twenty-yard truckloads of waste were transported
to a landfill for disposal. (See Table A-9.)
A-82
-------
<*>
00
o
I
UJ
tn
« *
Q H
O O
O O
CM in
m t-(
(T3
w
Q
0)
£
JJ
a
in
-
S
f)
o to
(fl
4J
a
en
ij
4J 3 —
03 £ i-t
JO 4J i-l
* bl -^
< U-J
-o
E -U C
BJ LI «j
"S
(0
aT
(0
i-H
•^
Q
5
.. 4J
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
(9)
soils (sand)
phenols (tars)
440 yd3
bulk
phenol, naphthalene,
benzene, toluene, xylene
Hypothetical Characteristics:
4
1.8
60
6,000
0.2
0.5
g/ml
BTU/#
PH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
PCBs
phenol
benzene
toluene
xylene
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
naphthalene
Treatment Option A: Incineration/ Rotary Kiln
Limitations: supplemental fuel may be required due to BTU content;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destruction
10
150
<1
<1
5
20
10
5
100
<5
30,000
1,000
500
1,000
500
500
200
%
op
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/mg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Treatment Option B:
Limitations:
Fluid Bed Incinerator
tarry nature could make mixing very difficult;
ash content is very high and could foul the bed;
sand content may cause interferences;
supplemental fuel may be required due to BTU content;
water content may be too high
Treatment Option C: Biodegradation/Solidification of Residues
Limitations: solvent content may be toxic to organisms;
tarry nature would make mixing very difficult;
setting time could be severly inhibited;
organics in leachate may be unacceptable;
volume increase expected
Additional Potential Options: none identified at this time
A-84
-------
Chemical Waste Management, Port Arthur, Texas
A. General Facility Information
1. Site Name: Chemical Waste Management
2. Site Location (City & State); Port Arthur , Texas
3. EPA IDI: TXD000761262 ~
4. Type of facility (LF, SI, WP, LT): Landfill, 2SI leachate cells
5. Site latitude/longitude: '_ __^ /
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Allen Messenger
2. Phone ft 512 475-2041
3. State or Regional Contact: Texas Dept. Water Resources
4. Person seeking information: Arthur Day
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/12/84
6. Other Additional Contact: Joe Gingerich
7. Phone #: 512-475-2041
8. State or Regional Contact: state
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received X evaluated ongoing
2. Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes No X
3. Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No X
under State Rules: Yes No
Ground Water Information
1. Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes __X No _X
Again - different answer depending on who you talk to.
Monitoring has been difficult from the beginning. Currently
enforcement action for inadequate g.w. monitoring
0 Any contamination detected? Yes No X
(list details) There are questions whether wells are
screened at proper depth intervals
0 Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes _^__ No x
(list details)
E. Inspection Information
1. When was the unit last inspected? just recently
2. By whom? Tim Chaney phone f 409-883-2973
3. General Results/Findings of Inspection
See discussion
A-85
-------
General Unit (Facility) Information
1. Age of unit Facility
2. How large is the unit (Surface area): 500* X .100
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: yes
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes X No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X No
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes X No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes X No ^^
8. Does the facility have security procedures? Yes X No
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes No X
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No X
G. Hydrogeologic Characteristic' Information
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities: reworked clays 10-9,10-10 cm/sec
natural clays- 10-7,10-8 cm/sec
sands- 10-4,10-5 cm/sec
b. depth to ground water: near zero
c. flow directions/rates: regionally SE
inward gradient during excavation
d. aquifer types: sand
e. nearest stream (feet): 1/2 mile
f. other details: in coastal surge zone* therefore
could be impacted by hurricane flooding.
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
3 ft. recompacted sides - 4 ft. recompacted bottom.
sand layers are near the surface
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design)
one 4" pipe down the center of the trench.
A-86
-------
a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design)
no
a run-on prevention system
Berms
a run-off collection system
channels to S.I.
if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes No
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
I. Closure Information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover/ if
cover will be used.
Clay cover - 3 feet of 10~7 that will be the proposed
base for a new landfill. Constructed above the existing cells.
Discussion:
Problems with subsidence of levees now being worked on.
Levers must be heightened to protect from hurricane flooding
from 12' - 17'. Facility drawing a lot of leachatje from
cells. Leachate collection system has been damaged.
Engineering certification for trench design proven to be
outside of specs. State closed operation for a period of
time; required to put in berm.
Complaint that free liquids were being placed in facility.
Photos documented that app. 1 ft. of liquids were in trench.
Lifts were not being compacted properly; or when necessary.
Company claims that the site is impossible to monitor the
ground water. Part B approach - cone of depression.
Enforcement Actions and trying to file suit on old violations.
A-87
-------
Chemical Waste Management; Port Arthur, Texas
Geologic characteristics and jpotential plume dimensions
The facility is located in the Gulf Coastal Plain
physiographic province, which is characterized by gently
seaward dipping layers of sands, clays and silts deposited
in shallow marine environments.
The landfill is reported to be dug partly into natural •
clays of low permeability and partly into sands of moderate
permeability. Reworked clay liners were presumably installed
where sands are exposed in the trenches. Depth to ground water
is near zero feet. The regional ground water gradient is
reported to be extremely low. Flow locally discharges to the
trenches during excavation/operation (so-called intragradient
design), although the regional flow direction to the southeast
should resume after cell closure.
The Texas DWR staff suggested that the flow gradient
associated with the cells may be steeper than indicated by
the operator. Consequently, the monitoring wells located in
the sand formation (which underlies the clay unit) may be
screened at depths that are too shallow to detect a*discharge
from the site.
The site is in a coastal surge zone, and is. threatened by
hurricane flooding.
Flow rates are not reported. Assuming that the gradient
in the sand is indeed low (say 0.5%), that the porosity is
0.35, and that the permeability of the sand is as reported,
the flow velocity is estimated as 0.123 cm/d, or 1.5 feet
per year, or less.
A-83
-------
The site is geographically remote from development, although
m
the property is adjacent to a National Wildlife Refuge.
Facility design and operation
Reworked clay from on-site is used as a liner.
One 4" I.D. leachate collection pipe is located down the
centerline of each trench. There apparently is not sand
collection bed associated with this pipe. If consistent with
RCRA design guidance. The Texas DWR reports that the collection
system has been damaged.
Run-off is diverted to surface impoundments; treatment methods
are unknown.
A 3 feet thick clay soil is proposed for a final cover.
However, the operator plans to construct new landfill cells
above this cover (without a synthetic liner).
Levees have been built to protect the site from hurricane
flooding. Their height must be raised from 12 feet to 17 feet,
however.
Waste Management Suitability
The facility received waste from two Superfund sites. The
*
suitability of land disposal for these hypothetical characteristics
are presented below.
Hypothetical Waste: (9) (Sikes Disposal Pit)
- Some of these constituents, in their pure form, have been
demonstrated to have severe to adverse effects on synthetic and
A-89
-------
clay liners.
«
The solubility in water of some of these constituents
could cause leaching and pollution of the ground water.
naphthalene 30,000 - 40,000 ug/1
trichloroethylene 1,000 mg/1
tetrachloroethylene 45,000 mg/1
Phenol 67,000 ppm
Phenol has an oral LD$Q in rats of 414 mg/kg. The
concentration in this hypothetical waste is 30,000 mg/kg.
The flash point of this hypothetical waste (150°F) may
be of some concern. Characteristic of ignitability
is < 140°F.
A-90
-------
Chem Dyne, Hamilton, Ohio
Summary
From 1974-1980, Chem Dyne operated a brokerage for chemical
wastes, and used this site as a trans-shipment and storage facility.
Also, high-BTU liquid waste were blended on-site. Hazardous
wastes were contained in two blow grade loading docks and bulk
storage tanks. The docks contained bottom layers of chemical
sludges and contaminated soils and debris under several feet of
equally contaminated water and runoff. No freeboard remained in
the docks to contain melting snow and rain without overflow of
the waste into the Great Miami River. One leaking storage tank
contained approximately 10,000 gallons of waste oil and sludge
contaminated with chlorinated organics and pesticides.
In March and April 1982, EPA pumped waste from the leaking
tank and hauled to an incinerator for disposal. Spilled materials
were sorbed, and this mixture and the contaminated soil were
excavated. The wastewater from the docks was pumped and transported
to a carbon adsorption facility for treatment and disposal.
Sludges from the docks were solidified on-site with a mixture of
ground clay and high calcium oxide lime. The spill cleajiup
material, contaminated soil, and solidified sludge were trucked
to a landfill for disposal. See Table A-lOfor a more detailed
description of how various wastes from this site were disposed.
A-91
-------
CM
CM
o
<-l
1
<
0)
.-H
n
fi
8-S
33
•
en
i
>H tn
H 4J
\ «
• Q
Qi U
«
Q
CN CO OD
00 X. \
X, ft *f
fl
*Q* Q H Q H
H
o r» f^ r* o
o o oj C" oo m
VD O rH fv. VO CO
»o
(^ » W> tft y>
W>
> > \
tn W w -u 10
(0 l-t
0 SO
Q.
&m g; jj "> -ji
^= ^s £>i
S| s^; >s^
& *O & w 0 ffi m
5) «
.^
Q
(U
4J _
ffs C*
UJ P»
* I
u | A) "St
*w ML* ^s
0 tilP
6 I'U
-H C
4j ro
O. 3
03
&
= ^ ^ >
rH -rH ^^» (0 *"H
01 VU (1) Qt 13
\.-H jj a>
ro X3 -«H r- "O .. T3
"Si: ".& ^&
m w 0 m -H •• -H
a\ *~- m r-t in rH
i-i
O
0)
a
&
m >
§ CO
Hfi C
5
•H
JJ
It}
m Q
8.1
« jj
•<-l •!-(
a IH
-r-l
O
&
5 ! | _
CT ^ ^
QI v< *-> Q) gc o
C —> 3 •"-> C C 4->
eca^H K.OC -H «3
QlSrH Hujaj y-Jj
UtQ-rH U E t CCQ)
Te"-1 TiuiJ MOC
tfl (B 'O tfl -
i— i
n
i availal
8
"8
w
5
S
.. 4J
0) Q
d H
(/I J
g
Q) ..
-
0)
(1)
A-92
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Haste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
Treatment Option A:
Limitations:
10
1.5
50
6,000
3.0
0.2
0.2
20
200
50
10
100,000
50
50
50
500
20
200
50
2,000
2,000
2,000
1,000
2,000
500
10
5
5
5
g/ml
%
BTU/#
%
%
%
%
OF
mg/kg
mg/kg
rag/kg
rag/kg
rog/kg
rog/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
(10)
sludge
PCS's/pesticides/solvents
95 yd3
bulk
PCB's, oils, benzene, toluene, xylene, metals, phenol
Chlordane, adsorbents, chlorinated solvents, clay, lime
Hypothetical Characteristics:
pH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
oils and greases
PCB's (as Arochlor 1260)
phenols
Chlordane
methylene chloride
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
benzene
toluene
xylene
alpha - Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
Dieldrin
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
volatile chlorinated organics may inhibit setting time;
significant volume increase expected;
toxic organics may leachate
Treatment Option B: Incineration/Rotary Kiln
Limitations: supplemental fuel required due to BTU content;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destruction
Treatment Option C:
Limitations:
Additional Potential Options:
Steam Stripping of Volatiles and Semivolatiles
chlorinated solvents may be emitted;
low concentration of pesticides may not be extracted;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient operation
biodegradation (research status)
high temperature fluid wall reactor (research status)
sodium naphthylide dechlorination (research status)
A-93
-------
CECOS-CER, Williamsburg, Ohio
A. General Facility Information
1. Site Name: CECOS-CER
2. Site Location (City & State): Williamsburg , Ohio
3. EPA ID*: OHD087433744 ....,,
4. Type of • -"MUy JLP. SI. WP, LT): Landfill, SI leachate
-J.r~ „ - -
5. Site latitude/longitude: /
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Jim Brossman
2. Phone *: 8-886-6186
3. State or Regional Contact: Region 5
4. Person seeking information: Paul Cassidy
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/11/84
6. Other Additional Contact:
7. Phone #:
8. State or Regional Contact:
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received X evaluated 2nd NOD
2. 'Has the permit application been part of the HQ PAT work?
Yes No
3. Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No but will be
under State Rules: Yes X No
*
D. Ground Water Information
1. Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes _X No
0 Any contamination detected? Yes X No
(list details) Lead, heavy metals exceeded drinking
water standards
°-Is a 265 ground water assessment being done* (or completed)
Yes ______ No X state has Phase I
(list details)
E. Inspection Information
1. When was the unit last inspected? state insp. there every day
2. By whom? ___^ phone *
3. General Results/Findings of Inspection
Operations at site good
A-94
-------
P. General Unit (Facility) Information
1. Age of unit Facility
2. How large is the unit (Surface area): 800' x 800' 40'deep
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available; unknown
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes X No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes X No
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes X No
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance?
Yes X No _^_
8. Does tnT~faciITty have security procedures? Yes X No
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes NO X
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No X
G. Hydrogeologic CharacteristicInformation
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities:
First 30'-50' sand and gravel zone.
Natural clay 60'-80' thick till deposit
10-7,10-8cm/sec
b. depth to ground water: 2-5 feet
c. flow directions/rates:
d. aquifer types: sand
e. nearest stream (feet): edge of site
*
f. other details:
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
a. a liner (please describe type and design)
51 recompacted clay
newest cells- 60-80ml HOPE
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design) yes. riser and lateral
pipes within sand bed...
A-95
-------
c. a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design) yes.
d. a run-on prevention system
By surrounding pitch but no discrete terms
e. a run-off collection system
collected in low end and pumped out
f. if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
g. are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes X No
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
a few unlined landfills
I, Closure Information
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used. synthetic liner with recompacated
clay.
A-96
-------
CECOS-CER, Williamsburg, Ohio
Geologic characteristics and potential plume dimension's
The telephone survey indicates that the landfill is located
in a 30-50 feet thick sand and gravel deposit, with a depth to
ground water of two to five feet. LBD interprets this to mean
that the site is located in a potentially regionally-important
aquifer of significant yield. The landfill is excavated to a
depth of 40 feet within this sand and gravel deposit.
A stream is reported to be present at the boundary of the
facility. Unless this is a major river, it is unlikely that
ground water flow from the landfill discharges entirely to the stream. ,
Assuming a permeability value of 1 x 10~1 cm/sec for this
sand and gravel deposit (Freeze and Cherry, 1979, p.29), an
average gradient of 2%, and porosity of 0.35, flow velocity is
estimated as approximately 16 feet per day, or 5840 feet per
year.
The nearby stream may limit plume migration if it is a
major discharge zone. If not, based on the available data, a
plume could develop to substantial magnitude. The sand and
gravel deposit would provide very little attenuation capacity.
Facility design and operation
Only the newest cells have synthetic liners. The cell
that received Superfund waste was probably clay-lined.
There are unlined, pre-RCRA units at the facility. The
synthetic liner (HPDE) used on the new cells is of high quality.
A-97
-------
« j.eacnate collection and removal system is present in at
least the new cells, and may also be present in the clay-lined
cells. The unlined cells probably do not have one. Leachate
treatment methods are unknown.
Run-off from active portions appears to be collected within
the cell. There is no information on whether it is managed as
hazardous waste (i.e., treated or not).
Reactive/incompatible wastes appears to be segregated in
different units.
The planned final cover appear to be generally consistent
with RCRA guidance.
Contaminated ground water has been detected under the Ohio
interim status monitoring program. However, no assessment
of the extent of contamination is being conducted. The reasons
are unknown. Given the daily presence of a State inspector, it
b
is possible that the contamination is claimed to be originating
in pre-RCRA units.
Waste Management Suitability
This facility accepted wastes from three different
Superfund sites. The characteristics and concentrations of the
_ *
hypothetical waste constituents have been evaluated and general
statements about the feasibility of land disposal for these
hypothetical wastes can been made.
Hypothetical Waste: (1A) (Old Mill Site)
- synthetic liner campatibility testing has indicated that
some of these constituents, in their pure form, have severe
effects on synthetic liners.
A-98
-------
- some of these constituents, also in their pure form,
have adverse effects on clay liners.
- the solubility of some of these constituents make them
readily able to migrate from inadequate land disposal
facilities. The solubilities in water of these constituents
are as follows:
tetrachloroethylene - 45,000 mg/1
phenol - 67,000 ppm
naphthalene - 30,000 - 40,000 ug/1
- information submitted by API indicates that lead and
chromium will leach from the waste in significant
concentrations even when these metals are subjected to
mild environmental conditions. In an acidic environment
even more of the hazardous constituents would be released
for environmental migration.
Hypothetical Waste: (10) (Chem Dyne)
- Again, some of these constituent, in their pure form,
have been demonstrated to have severe effects on synthetic
liners as well as clay liners.
- the solubilities of some of these components make then
readily able to migrate into the ground water.*
A-99
-------
me solibility of some constituents in water are:
tetrachloroethylene 45,000 mg/1
trichloroethylene 1,000 mg/1
methylene chloride 20,000 mg/1
CECOS accepted PCB's from Superfund facilities. However,
this facility has been approved by EPA for PCB disposal.
A-100
-------
Pollution Abatement Services, Oswego, New York
Summary
The site is an abandoned waste handling facility located
about one mile south of Lake Ontario operated by Pollution
Abatement Services (PAS) between 1970 and 1977. Approximately
1.5 million gallons of oil and mixed chlorinated organic wastes
{including PCBs) had been collected in two lagoons. After reports
of oil spills and runoff from the property in 1976, the U.S.
Coast Guard and later EPA constructed two additional lagoons to
keep leakage and runoff from reaching a nearby creek and Lake Ontario,
In 1977, imminent overflow from even these catch basins
required immediate actions to stop additional deposition of oils
and chemical wastes and to empty all of the lagoons. The material
was pumped or dug from the lagoons and trucked to disposal
facilities. The liquid, sludge, and solid wastes from the two
PAS lagoons were either incinerated, landfilled, or placed by
the land disposal facility into a pond to separate the solids
from the liquids. Most of the liquid from the Coast Guard and
EPA lagoons were passed through an EPA portable activated carbon
adsorption column and discharged to the nearby creek. Tcible A-11
provides detailed information on waste disposal.
A-101
-------
*
8-S
as
•
c
i-J {/}
E*^ ^
\ g
01
•rH
a
r-
C^
f-»
Q H
O O
0 0
O 0
O cl
LA
\
I-H tn
i-t *J 3
§. ^ ^
•fH 4J
^^* rti
CO ^
QJ f~H
1
2 8.
tn e
S
*J 0) X,
O *J >
in 4-1
S(0 -rH
r<
g
i— i
u
tn
&
g
4J
f™^ I j
10 Q
0 \
tn u
•sJ -H
j
>H 5
2 i-i
0 "^
VJ >,__^
i u-^
JH ' i l
r> r-
^ ^
CN CJ
r— » .— 1
H
Q D
oo o
VO O
"~i °
r— ( {fl
i-H i-H
in
c;
\'c
ffl tfl (0
£ a. tji
CJ U ki
x
\ "ro
'TO ^
CT O
o
o c
§5 o*2
"2. ^ 2.
oo cr oo o1
ro -^ % .H
Q C
ti "C n
c • o "£ o
M JJ JJ Q -H
!M w y 4J
* O w Qj
tn cL Q) G) *j
C (D C 4J O
^H -o
o>c
tn
H -^ C I (D
i-t O VJ --I C
— Oi OD — O
£S
4J O
*H Q
C/l J
A-102
-------
Hypothetical Waste:
Waste Form:
Waste Type:
Quantity:
Storage:
Known Constituents:
(11)
sludge
solvents
1,500 yd3
bulk
PCS, oils, phenols, Od, Pb,
methylene chloride, toluene
Hypothetical Characteristics:
PH
density
ash content
BTU content
chlorine content
sulfur content
phosphorus content
water content
flash point
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
oils and greases
PCB's (as Arochlor 1260)
phenols
benzene
toluene
xylene
methyl ethyl ketone
acetone
chloroform
methylene chloride
Treatment Option A: Incineration/ Rotary Kiln
Limitations: supplemental fuel required due to BTU content;
heterogeneous physical form may inhibit efficient destruction;
metals and volatile organics may be emitted
5
1.6
60
4,000
1.0
5.0
1.0
20
>200
10
100
2,000
500
2,000
500
1,000
1,000
100
100
500
1,000
200
500
50
500
1,000
g/ml
%
BTU/#
%
%
%
%
op
mg/kg
mg/kg
mo/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mgAg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Treatment Option B:
Limitations:
Treatment Option C:
Limitations:
*
Cementitious Solidification/Fixation
oil may inhibit setting time; toxic organics may leach;
significant volume increase expected
Steam Stripping of Volatiles and Semivolatiles
physical form may preclude effective application;
oil content may interfere by causing emulsions
Additional Potential Options: biodegradation (research status)
A-103
-------
SCA/Chemtrol, Model City, New York
A. General Facility Information
1. Sit* Nan*! SCA/Chemtrol
2. Sit* Location CCitv & State); Model City . New York
3. EPA ID*: NYD049836679
4. Type of facility (LF, SI, WP, LT): Landfill,aqueous treat.
5. Site latitude/longitude: /
B. Contact Information
1. Person talked to concerning site: Harvey King
2. Phone #: (518) 474-2121
3. State or Regional Contact: State of NY, Bur. of Haz. Wst. Tech
4. Person seeking information: Ann Whitney
5. Date of phone conversation: 6/14/84
6. Other Additional Contact: Jonathan Josephs
7. Phone *: 8-264-0546
8. State or Regional Contact: Region 2
C. Application Information
1. Has the Part B-264 Land Disposal Permit been:
called X received X evaluated ongoing
2. Has the permit application been part of the HO PAT work?
Yes No X
3. Has the facility been permitted:
under Part 264: Yes No _X
under State Rules: Yes X No
D. Ground Water Information
1. Is the site monitoring ground water quality according to
265 rules Yes JC No
0 Any contamination detected? Yes No X
(list details)
0 Is a 265 ground water assessment being done (or completed)
Yes X No evaluation of monitoring system is
(list details) being done and recommendations by
State will be given
E. Inspection Information
part B appl. 10/83
1. When was the unit last inspected? compliance 5/83
2. By whom? unknown phone # -
3. General Results'/Findings of Inspection
State inspector on site every day monitoring operations
A-104
-------
P. General Unit (Facility) Information
<•
1. Age of unit 1981 Facility since 1950s
2. How large is the unit (Surface area); 5 acre units/25 acres total
3. Are aerial photos (EMSL/ORD) available: yes
4. Does the facility have a Contingency Plan? Yes x^ No
5. Does the facility have a Waste Analysis Plan? Yes x NO
6. Does the facility have a Inspection Plan? Yes x NO
7. Does the facility have evidence of financial assurance"?"
Yes X No _
8. Does the facilTty have security procedures? Yes x NO
9. Is the facility in a 100 yr. flood plain? Yes NO x~
10. Is the facility in an active seismic area? Yes No~X~
G. Hydrogeologic Characteristic information
1. What are the hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility
in terms of:
a. soil permeabilities:
10-30' glacial till (dense,.silty clay with pockets
of sand/gravel, permeabilities of 10-6, 10-7, then
grades into lacrustine lake deposits between
30-70' depth. Fractured limestone below 75*
b. depth to ground water:
Between 20-30' the tills are saturated. In the
fractured limestone unit ground water at approx.
75' below ground.
c. flow directions/rates:
Northerly flows at a rate less than I1/year.
d. aquifer types:
*
e. nearest stream (feet): none
f. other details:
H. Design Information
1. Does the unit receiving the Superfund waste have:
A-105
-------
a. a liner
In Aug. newest unit will have upper liner 80ml HOPE
and lower 36 ml HypoIon over 10* clay. Current
unit has 60 ml HOPE over 10' recompacted clay.
b. a leachate collection system (please describe
materials and design)
Drainage layer of sand and gravel with perforated
pipe for leachate collection
c. a leak detection system (please describe materials
and design) None.
d. a run-on prevention system Yes.
Berms and natural pitch.
e. a run-off collection system Yes. —
f. if the unit is a S.I. please describe dikes
and freeboard control
There are 9 surface impoundments. Cited for not
having 2' feet freeboard.
g. are reactive/incompatible waste segregated in
different units? Yes X No
h. describe any Pre-RCRA units at site
6 landfills have been closed prior to RCRA.
I. Closure information *
1. Does facility have a Closure Plan? Yes X No
2. Please describe general design of the final cover, if
cover will be used.
31 compacted clay with a 20ml PVC synthetic liner overlain
with 2' natural soil and seeded.
Discussion:
Jonathan Josephs indicates site location and design of facility
are good but daily operatons are sloppy at times. Rural, sparsely
populated are with ground water very saline and does not
A-106
-------
SCA/ChemTrol; Model City, New York
Geologic characteristics and potential plume dimensions
The facility is located in a 10 to 30 feet thick glacial
till of low permeability. {10~6 - 10~7 cm/sec). Pockets of
sand and gravel are reported. Lake sediments are present
between 30 and 70 feet; permeabilities were not reported, but
are probably similar to the till. Fractured limestone is
present at 75 feet, and represents the principle aquifer.
The tills are saturated beginning at a depth of 20 feet,
although a shallower depth seems more likely given the climatic
zone. The ground water flow is reported to be slow (<_ 1/yr),
although this seems too low if it represents flow in fractured
rock. It seems to be more applicable to the till/lake sediment
deposit.
The area is rural and sparsely populated.
Unless the sand and gravel lenses are continuous off-site,
it appears that the till/lake sediment deposit should minimize
potential plume dimensions. The continuity of these lenses
should be examined, and monitoring wells installed within them
if necessary. This action may be in progress.
Facility design and operation
The current unit (which may have received the Superfund
waste) is lined with a 60 mil high density polyethelene liner
over a 10-feet thick recompacted clay liner. A new cell will
apparently be constructed with an upper 80 mil HDPE liner, and a
lower 36 mil Hypolon and 10 feet thick clay composite liner.
A-107
-------
Presumably, a leak detection system will be installed between
the liners.
A leachate collection and removal system is present in the
current cell, and appears to be consistent with RCRA design
guidance.
Run-on and run-off are managed, although the details are
not available.
Nine surface impoundments are present. The operator has
been cited for failure to maintain a minimum two-feet freeboard.
Reactive/ignitable wastes are segregated. The planned final
cover appears to be consistent with RCRA design guidance.
Waste Management Suitability
- Constituents have been shown to have severe effects on
synthetic liners and adverse effects on clay liners.
- solubility in water of some constituents is very large
and could result in leaching and ground water problems.
Solubility in water for some constituents are:
methyl ethyl ketone - 100,000 mg/1
phenol - 67,000 ppm
methlene chloride - 20,000 mg/1
*
chloroform - 8,200 ppm
- Arsenic concentration is high (10 mg/kg). Small amount
(5 mg/kg) ingested causes death to humans.
A-108
------- |