United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/RCDS05-86/03V
June1388
&EPA
Superfund
Enforcement Decision Document:
-------
..
.' ,- ';;'. .';:'.~ ~,::~<;,.; ,:;:;,:~:,:' L~~;;S ~';;:~:i.~~:;~;j;..i.:~\'::~~:~i~j(:gi~~~: :C;,~:}5iLL:'.c:{:;;:};~?;,;;;;;L~~:}'~,;:,;:~"/,,:,,,:,
.' .,. ","'". .,
. " .J<.
':.
'. '.. . .
...... :.,,: - ''\"..'':;'...~......'
>d
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pt~tUI md Inrt1VCtlOnS on 'hI ftvlnl INfon com"lttinlJ
" AeftOIllT NO. 12, 3. AECIPI ENT'S ACCESSION NO,
EPA/ROD/ROS-86/03l
4. TITLE AND SUITITLE 5. AEPOAT DATE
ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUMENT .T.....~ 4 1QAI::
Burlington Northern, MN 6. PEA FOAMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7. AuTHOflUSI 8. PEAFOAMING ORGANIZATION REPORT 1Ij0
II, PEAFOAMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDAESS 10. PROGAAM ELEMENT 1Ij0,
I 1, CONTRAt;T/tOAAN T NO.
,
12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13, TYPE OF FIIEPOFIIT AND PEFilIOD COI/EAEC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ",._-, nnn
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTFIIACT
The Burlington Northern (BN) site is located in both the City of Baxter and the City
of Brainerd, MN. The. Mississippi River flows about 3,000 feet east of the plant end
residential areas are located to the northeast and southeast, less than 1,000 feet from
the site. Since 1907, BN has owned and operated the railroad tie treatment plant on
this site. During the 1950s BN heqan mixing creosote, a preserver, with Number 5 fuel
oil in a 1:1 ratio. At some undetermined time, the mixture was changed to creosote and
coal tar. This mixture is presently being used in a 70:30 ratio. Wastewater generated
from the wood treating process was sent to two shallow, unlined surface impoundments for
disposal. The discharqe of wastewater to the disposal ponds aenerated a sludge that
contaminated both the underlyinq soils and qround water. Ground water contamination is
restricted to a relatively small area downgradient from the site. The primary
contaminants of concern include: PAHs, heterocycles, and phenols.
The selected alternative for this site consists of onsite treatment and cappino. "'n<:
major components of the alternative include: preparation of a lined staginq area for
temporary storage of the sludqe and contaminated so il ~ removal of all standing water in
the impoundment~ excavation and segregation of the sludges for subsequent free oil
recovery~ excavation of visibly contaminated soil from both imcoundments and subseauent
storage in the staging area~ backfilling of the excavated areas~ preparation of a base
(See Attached Sheet)
17. I.~;
t" '.'
,-,
t.:,
~. . .- ,
~...: "
r .
~,:/" :
[:,' ,
/. :-;
?,
k:,'-
~::. .",
j." :.
t.; -
I. -
r'o.,
f':',,: .
i~ . .-
. ..
. ,'~
.. ,
;, .~ <,
,.: :,:':
i '-.,',
li~~:.(:
f',}':';.
!' -, .:~ .
r-."', ,
t::, '
.'
t>':':<.~
-------
, ;' ,:'. ':i~:..,,:j;:.: '~: :,'::,:::~~'~'\:,'~}{~"~'~;r.;,~.~~:a~~~~~;if;;:~~i~::~~1~~t~'i:;~;I~'fL£;j:~Z{;f}i{t~{t~j~:!~;;'i;t:~~{;;(:..:.:,
.,..,' ..
- ,
t'..
," ., .w-,... '. - ~:"'. .nO, ~ ". :..'
. ."~' , . . :~. "'" :'-0::; :..'.~::~':.: :'.~.~~,;~>':~,: ,;..,"~::_::~;j.~~',:
L..:. ,".
; "..'.
- . .
..' . i ~.
t~-~;(
f.. ':.'
c
Vt.,
f,";:",
~gF:
ii'''::~::
~[
~;
Ii
~~
~~.~x
~;L
~~[
t~~;f;
V~::'
I~t
~;;I;
!.~.~. .'
It\:
~f~;':
I;.;: ;~,
~ . .,,'.
~*
f:,~t:
r:.~'~.
~(:;,
f~;?:1
~},:::
-----:'~~~,"'T7;'" ,::' > ,:' C;''C',', ""':"',", "". =-C":": ":" ':'~":"...."~'?T:"" .~(J7: !i"''';:~-';~J:i:?~Wn('7"::;,~:s!y:??':~~~!;Y;';'''';:''ili;'
EP~/ROD/ROS-86/03l
Burlington Northern, MN
16.
~BST~CT (continued)
for the treatment area: installation of a sump for collection of the storm water ano
leachate: installation of an irrigation system: land treatment of creosote focusing on
the hreakdown and transformation of or~anic constituents by aerobic microorQanisms in
the top layer of soil, and the immobilization of organic and inorganic constituents on
the soil. The. final goal of this treatment is not the complete de~radation of all waste
constituents, but is rather the transformation and immobilization of these constitutents
to render soil that is no longer toxic and does not le~ch harmful constituents. ~ final
RC~ a~roved cover will be installed following the treatment process. The estimated
-------
,,' ,
, .-
n - - ~.'n.
f,,;,",:- :'
..', ".~ :,.::,::~:j;;:::::.~,:L::,~.~;:~,t,}~~,,.:..;.~"..',~....,.:.'f,:~".,....,,~. ,,'
, .
;..', ,1-0':',
v , .'
, .
, " . ,-'.' ,.' ~ '"'.':-.,',/-
.'
BN Feasibility Study, ERT, August 1985.
'BN Additional RI report, ERT, November 1985.
t
r:X~)'
b\?,~
!~~
tj~[f~
:; ,~.~.,~
"" .'
f':'>,
L '
~
~ .
k , ;,
1,,"
I~' ".
I".""
!';'
,
ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUME~T
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site:
Burlington Northern (BN), Brainerd, Minnesota
Documents Reviewed
"
I have reviewed the following documents describing the analysis of cost
effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the BN site:
" Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the Burlington
Northern Brainerd MN Tie Plant", Environmental Research & Technology,
Inc. (ERT), January, 1984.
BN Remedial Investigation, ERT, May 1985.
'",' .
I ~ -
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection.
f
,.
~ ;' - "
I '.,
i, ,."',
i '
BN Consent Order, dated April 4, 19R5.
L .
t '
!' .
I "
\. ,
f..'
L
, '
f. '
f" "
L .", .
~.' . '
f:' .
i
Description of Selected A1ternatfve
o The selected alternative ;s on-site treatment, plus capping, which
includes the following major components:
Preparation of lined staging area for temporary storage of the
sludge and contaminated soil.'
- Preparation of a base for treatment area consisting of 4 feet of
clean backfill with on-site soils, a 100-mil high density poly-
ethylene (HOPE) liner, a leachate collection system, and 4 feet
of clean backfill consisting of on-site soils (fine sands).
I, \, .
r~:.:t,
I,,' c.
~':; ,":~ :
r::/
[::',
" '
t:}?
t.".-,-
~<:/
t,
r .
~:,;:~
i>'{
F
, :~ :'.:~ ;:~':'(7:':?::" "-~::~',:::~:' ":-::::' ~.0~~:?~3:;~;;:T):" :~,{E:":~:;< ~7~}0'1;.fi~D~t
-------
. ..
",,"
", '.",-
.'; .
. .
"--...(.: :~ ~...:.';'(' ..: "'..:: ..,~.,
..::'.. .;",:,.'
... . . ...:. :..~
. . .:',: :; '':-.:'{ ~-~ : ,.., .~. .:', ;.:.:~.:. :' .:>i:t. ;:::' ".
,". '., ';
"
,
i .
fO,:.:.
j.,"
t .
-2-
,.
- After the treatment process has been completed, a final RCRA approved
cover will be installed.
(.
t .'
!/:
..,'of
f:>;:
I;}.
V;I;
\ '~,.;
t", -',
l .
f'.:,:.;
~. <;:
L.t': .:':
r/::~
t~}
L;:~
f>i::
- Installation of a sump for collection of the storm water and leach-
ate.
- Installation of an irrigation system.
- The land treatment of creosote focuses on the breakdown and trans-
formation of organic constituents by aerobic microorganisms in t~e
top layer of soil, and the immobilization of organics and inorganics
constituents on the soil. The final goal of this treatment is not
the complete degradation of all waste constituents, but is rather
the transformation and immobilization of these constituents to render
soil that is no longer toxic and does not leach harmful constituents.
The estimated time to process the contaminated materials is 6 years.
Declarations
t
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, COMpensation, and
:'\. '
1-;",--,
l.: "
(:.:.~~~::,
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR'
Part 300) and the Consent Order of April 4, 1985, I have determined that
r:~~';
j,.:
}". ',.'
and agrees with the approved remedy.
In addition, the action will require
r.':
F>..'
t
[:.~:
t-::'::
\." '
1:::':,
(;;.:,~
1;~'..
~.. .' .
t].
\:'.
the on site treatment of creosote sludges and contaminated soils at the BN
site is a cost-effective remedy that provides adequate protection of public
health, welfare and environment.
The State of Minnesota has been consulted
future operation and maintenance activities to ensure the continued effec-
tiveness of the remedy.
These activities will be considered part of the
approved action.
Settlements have been reached between EPA, State of Minnesota,
and the responsible parties based on the selected remedy.
..
I have also determined that the action being taken is a cost-effective
alternative when compared to the other remedial options reviewed.
'.."'.;:'
. .'
., "
'.~??':.:
r'",:"-"'" ''''''~J . . .~,...,. .~. . -.
" '.' '. . .
."."' -.':' "\". '.'.1.-:-"''"." .-u."-~.~"~ '7.'~-.
h..
~r:~
ti:'~,
Ij}':
~~
W?..
-------
'" .
..:. ...1 '.~-
.,' , '", t~..,'
.. , "
'. <.
"
. ",'.
, .,.:,.:.'; .:, '.'. ,~,:...... .,' .:....> :. ..-- '.
, ,., . -
. .
-~. :.. ..'::.. ~. _:. - . C
.. >-..' ,.-'
. ... '..'. .
. .' ..."
. -
,-.... .
.h. '.' ~ ,~
'..
.. I "
~ . .: ,
:'. ,.
..
L.: :',<
. ,
t' ".
.,
-..J-
f~ ':,
~': : ~ .
In 'addition. the groundwater gradient control syster.1 which will rem:Jv~ the
groundwater contamination found in a small area downgradient from the site
~'.. .
is cost-effective.
~ J;:',
1-', -.'::
\.,:"
~-; ...'
~ 4t(;
:JU~ -, 192~
DATE
~)::.<.~:.
t:~:/" .
~;.:: '.' . '
!:, ':-.
~.;"~:_:.~"" ,
! '.
Attachments:
SUlTlTla ry of
BN Consent
t
Remedial Alternative Selection'
Order. dated April 4. 1985 :
:~::;:.:;~ ,:;,
~"'"
i
r u'
L,:.
~. ...~'.'
~,':' .
f: .
( .
l:.'-::',':.
~ . ',.
f. .
t..:-:
f:-":':
r'~ ;
f'
t.
f
t.
1...
,.
. .
~ .
,
~: '
-
I' ':, .
I."
L
('
!" "
j.' ,'.'
r. , .~ .,
l' .' .~,
[.
t " .
f"',
(. ",',
~:. '; ,
1;\ ...,
[ .:
, .
1'. .
i
~.: '. .: ,
I ,,-:
~'::s~.,: (,.~~:\:'~ ~~~ :.;,~) :~:~'-.~'.~: ..:,~~~/: ~',;:. ',. i: ':", ~~: '" ~ '.~ .~':~'f:-' .~~ ,,'7-~:: -'? '~~.~'~..:~~~~~~'~,~~~~~T:,~~~ :,;~'~~!,;':: ':~:' .~'~,'~,-~:~~:~'~~':~~=~~:}~fJ[~~;~~~~~:~ ?~~;:::~~':~ ~ :~:,
I,' .
r~, : .
(-
r :'..>
I'
I' --
t . ..
!'"
f' :
~. :.:'
t:' "
I.,"': .
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
BN HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
Brainerd, Minnesota
. ,~'~,:{U~;,': ~,'3:~,~~:~;~~@~~-"~:\'~:~t");~n;f~~'~~Y:{ :.t;:,;:Llf;~?Xa':{:~: ~~" (:,;:~:,~)i :,..: :,":~,'::, ".~~~i,':,/ ~,~i:.:'r;,::::':':"
\.-' .
f :;.,\':,
r-;::"::~
r;,;""':'"
~:~~':': :,:
; .'
~;..~ " ~.:" .'
~j~"
~ -~"",
r,1'!
i~..\..';'.,:.'.':.
~;~~/~
~!;~
r ;":::,;:,
iti~'<
~:..I..,I/':,
rIft
~'!1)
C: ',:::;,
r::,-:"
~ ~ . " '
~x>..:'
~ ~" . to'-;,
State
.; .
,-.
~ ..' '.
"
, .
. :".", :.' ~ ".;,'
.' ,-. . ~ . "'.' .'
.'-.' ". .~.~. .::-::\~:':
. ;.' :.. . . ::..-.~ ;.'..:: .
','. .,',
. . . ,
1.
Site Location and Description
The Burlington Northern (BN) site is located partially in the City
of Baxter and partially in the City of Brainerd, Minnesota.
Highway 371 is approximately 800-1000 feet north of the site and the
Mississippi River flows about 3000 feet east of the plant.
Residential
areas are located to the northeast and southeast of the site less than
1000 feet from the site.
A site location map is provided in Attachment
#1.
t
T~e types and configuration of ge~logical deposits underlying the site,
generally reflect the regional hydrogeologic conditions.
The site is
reported to be underlain with bedrock formation that is schist of middle
pre-Cambrian in age.
Depth to bedrock has been reported to range from
76 to 161 feet below the surface; this formation is generally a poor
!:.'
. "
r?:>'
k:":i;
r'~ -
[~~
I:p+
l':.~\.::'.
~I~,
~/\
~:: :
r~
~~_7~~.,~~~~~~~~y~'~':~:~'~~~~'~'~~~~~~~~'~~~~
source of water.
Glacial deposits overlie the bedrock, first being a
till which is a mixture of clay through gravel size particles.
This
till is a poor aquifer and generally serves as a confining bed for a
deposit of coarse to fine sand and gravel.
In the site area, the
coarse to fine sand and gravel is generally on the order of 100 feet
thick and serves as the primary regional aquifer.
The uppermost
,
deposits are discontinuous, well sorted, fine loose sands, generally
lie above the water table, and provide rapid su~face infiltration for
groundwater recharge.
The overall groundwater flow direction appears
-------
k;r,;,;
k; .~
[y,
~:;. -":.
h'"
~;):
~'t~:
!~~Jt
I
r-:""'"
~ .,"
iJ
f:'i;:.\
~1;i
~'"
,,'..:T;~"~i';;':~;~1\!0~?~;if.i:f1\:~'3f;0f1i'1"?h;'1:,,<:TI~i':~'W'JTh"jj';,~~,iJ
,"".",
,";"
..,~t~.:\~ :~~,~~~~~lj~~:"':' )'~'.':'r":'-":' '", ': ::--.~
",.;.
" .
. . "',. ~
'- .'. ~ ...~'.' ~ ~
-2-
II. Site History
The BN site was included on the proposed ~ational Priorities List
issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December,
1982.
BN has owned and operated the railroad tie treatment plant 0"
this site since 1907.
The plant uses creosote mixtures to preserve
railroad ties.
During the 1950's BN began mixing creosote with Number
5 fuel oil to reduce creosote consumption.
a 1:1 ratio though other ratios were used.
The mixture was primarily
The blending of creosote/
fuel oil was performed at the plant.
At some undeterMined time, the
This mixture is presently
t
being used at the treating plant in the ratio , of 70:30, creosote/coal'
tar, respectively.
mixture was changed to creosote and coal tar.
Wastewater generated from the wood treating process historically has
been sent to a shallow, unlined surface impoundment for disposal.
The
first such impoundment, which is approximately 60,000 square feet in
area, eventually filled with sludge and in the 1930's was buried under
clean fill.
A second impoundment built at that time was then used
until October, 1982, when a wastewater pretreatment plant was completed.
The discharge of wastewater to the disposal ponds generated a sludge
that contaminated both the soils and groundwater beneath the pond.
Groundwater monitoring results indicate the groundwater contamination
,
is restricted to a relatively small area downgradient from the site.
The primary constituents of concern are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) compounds, heterocycles, and phenols.
":'''''-'".'', ~"~"'"A :.~:~,.~--..
.' '. . :
. ,'-' ....~ . . -'.-
.. '..'
. '
! :~:-~:.
~}r':'.
"F:',- .
V,':,
;\\~ .":'
~:~:: "
I.;:','
f:~~;.~.
~;;~{;i
~!~
tli;:.;'
~s;
f~~
~}:
" " ~.' /
rj'rtif~'
[~~ ~~<
t(};
~t-?;
F~,:,:~
iY:,;~
-------
- ',.'t
-., ....
';... :- ::'~ ': :!.' "
,. .'
-
"~ .' :.; , . ...
. .,",. .,~:;.:': ,'~ '~,
,... ~. ~ - ' '. '., .~ I" ,"j .,' , " " " .
'. .
. '., '" .-~...I. -' .. ._.
, :' ;" ~~ "~. .:~~':'
..~~ ,.', ~ }~ ',~: ~ ~ ,~;'. ~: :. .;;;,"~;':", '
. .
" ,
, .
, ..
-3-
t~, '.
~ '.,', ": ..
III. Current Site Status
" "
" '~
(.'~:.,'"
i ,:" :',
"'.....'.:'
All wastewater and liquid creosote have been removed from the RCRA
in localized areas of the impoundmen~.
This sludge forms a relatively
t
t:;~~:~',;.:
!,' ;",.,
r;;;}:?~
!,~'7;;.i '.
,':~:;.iZ~ ~
i::; ~;~,:.' ~
~I
~~~i;,
~~:~~~~\<~
~~L~) ,L~~'
~~
[..i:C,".
[:t/;:
~;~:' :~~c :
1 agoon.
The wastewater was pumped to rail-tank cars and transported
to BN's Northtown, Minneosta wastewater treatment plant for pretreat-
ment and subsequent discharge to the MWCC sanitary sewer in 1982.
After the wastewater was removed, approximately 63,000 gallons of creo-
sote were pumped from the pond for reuse by the ~rainerd tie plant.
In 1983 and 1985 approximately 280,000 gallons and 94,000 gallons of
additional creosote was recovered from the pond for reuse or recjcling.
No pumpable creosote remain,s in the pond.
A heavy sludge layer ap-
proximately 6 inches to 1 foot thick remains at the bottom of the lagoon
impermeable layer which restricts the infiltration of accumulated run-
off.
In general, visibly contaminated soil is characterized
as being heavily stained, dark brown to black in color,
visibly oily, and usually having a pronounced creosote
odor.
!~;
!';,;',,'
r.,. :',-
F~",::'
~:.~;~~:
~., ",.
A.
Hazardous Compounds Present
o Table 2-1 (attachment '2) presents a list of the contaminants
present in the creosote wastes at the site.
o
As specified in Exhibit A, Part X, Task B.3 of the Consent
Order, only visibly contaminated soils and sludges will be
excavated from the site for on-site treatment or incineration.
o The visibly contaminated soils are generally characterized
by benzene extractable hydrocarbon concentrations ranging
from 5 to 3D percent and total PAH concentrations ranging
from 3 to 15 percent.
o
6,000 yd3 is the estimated volume of visibly contaminated
soil from the more recent (RCRA) impoundment.
o
1,000 yd3 is the ~~timated volume of sludge from the RCRA
impoundment.
-------
.;.' .:' ...:."~ :_."...~ ..,~.:. . .< .
-...~ r. ..: ,~. r
" ,
...:"..:' .:,..::-:'.'-':.~':.. ~":;;: '''.
-4-
.'" -
, ".
, '
o 2,500 yd3 is the estimated volume of visihly contaminated soil
from the old impoundment.
~.. .
",,,,
o
- Volume estimates can be converted to mass estimates assu~ing
a density of 100 1bs/ft3 for the soils and sludges. The
tOja1 volume of contaminated material is estimated at 9,500
yd and the total mass is estimated at 12,500 yd3.
For the RCRA impoundme~t visibly contaninated soil concentrations
range to 36,960 ppm total 2 rings; 22,210 ppm total 3 rings;
74,874 ppm total +4 rings; 134,044 ppm total PHA; 202,000 ppm
benzene extractab1es and 130 ppm total phenols.
, ,"
, . ,
(~>~.
f~" . . I
h ,-',.
~: -~ '.~
" '..
t~\>~
~:...-;,:
o For the old impoundment visibly contaminated soil concentrations
range to 15,830 ppm total 2 rings; 5,980 ppm total 3 rings; 12,578
ppm total 4+ rings; 34,388 ppm total PAH, 68,700 ppm benzene
extractab1es and 16 ppm total phenols.
o Groundwater contamination is monitored in terms of summary of PAH
and heterocycle concentrations as specified in Exhibit A, Part
VII, Task C of the Consent Order.
l':"~' :'
l ';",
t:::,.,:
\',,:\
~(.....,
rj\:\::
1;,.',-"
r:~;
I':,""
~;:& . .
"
On-site groundwater average concentrations range to 15,180 ng/1
or the sum of carcinogenic PAH and heterocycle consitituents and
221,130 ng/1 for the sum of noncarcinogenic PAH and heterocyclet
constituents. '
i- ,',I.
V' ~
"
- Off-site groundwater average concentrations range to 17 ng/1 for
the sum of carcinogenic PAH and heterocycle constituents and 212
ng/1 for the sum of non-carcinogenic PAH and heterocycle con-
stituents.
:..'
B.
Pathways of Exposure
I"
1 '.1'
r ,
t .'.
i,
t : _: ~
,.;ex
, "
~,. .
The principal pathway for exposure to contaminants at the site is hy per-
I""' ;
1<
~
[,'
":--
ES
[1;;;.,
tl.\~:
~~;~::
~;~:~:~
[:::
~~.'
~:';:~,
l;';,; ,
(;:',
~ ~' ,:
~')r
t":~::-:~
"'='~'."',"~" ',"""'C' "::<,'"':;';'!7~:;;;~";;;T'F;;",~v. '::7'''''''-''""''"'''''('''~~''0;7(J!cf'!''",'T'.'c',/''F''JF''''7f';'C!.'7':':'7,:,",J~,j
co1ation and groundwater flow.
Contaminants in the impoundment and con-
taminated soil may percolate to the groundwater flowing beneath the site.
The contaminated groundwater in turn could potentially affect wells located
downgradient from the site and water quality in the Mississippi River.
Sur-
face runoff from the site is infrequent due to the medium textured sandy
soil and poorly draMned topography of the site.
A fence around the area
prevents direct contact with the wastes in the impoundment.
Air emissions
from the impoundment are of limited concern. The creosote and fuel oil mix-
ture is composed of compounds with boiling points greater than 200°C; there-
-------
I;}.::::.:
I."..'."..'
..(r>.:;"
. ~.; ;~~':'.
l.. ,-'
, . .
.' '"'T
,,';1;:
r~\1
b;<.:
t~..~ .;:..
. ;-~":';'''' '"::"',""'Z.',,,'C" ".' "':'":C'f'c~~"''''''''''1''~''''''''''1\\,w:4'I,:~'C''~!,<-'';f')''!~~'",,''' :,Ji~
. '. . , t' .
. . . -.'
. . :,' (
. .' ;.~:... ,:".:,,':.';:.~;'.;j;:2~(~~ft:;~:i:k?~;.~;j;;L.~l.{;;;j .~\:'£fc:::%i:~li~~n;~~~)~~~:c.:;::.~:. "?:::~;;:;~""" .
. ,-,
. . ~ . -. ,."; '. ",
. 0." _. ..:
-5-
Figures 2-3 and 2-4 were prepared to assess the impact that the site has
on groundwater in the surifical aquifer (unconsolidated deposits above
bedroCK).
These figures depict the extent of the contaminant plume emanat-
ing from the existing lagoon via groundwater.
The parameters chosen to
'-
map the plume include List 1 of carcinogenic PAH and heterocycles a"d List
2 of non-carcinogenic PAH and heterocycles as defined in Attachment 1 of
Exhibit A of the Consent Order.
To define contaminated ground water, con-
centrations of 28 ng/1 and 300 ng/1 were used for the sum of constituents
in List 1 and List 2, respectively.
These parameters and concentration
limits were specified in the Consent Order for monitoring and are the
action limits for remedial measures.
The result of this mapping indicates the extent of the plume is nearly
r
identical for each of the mapped parameters.
Data used to define the
shape of the plume were taken from the quarterly monitoring results for
the period June 1984 to March 1985.
The plume is approximately 1,000 feet
long, extending from the full width of the existing lagoon downgradient to
a point beyond Well 4.
The downgradient terminus of the plume is defined
by a general decrease of the parameter concentrations which are below the
action limits at Well 14-8.
In summary, groundwater monitoring results indicate the groundwater con-
taMination is restricted to a relatively small area downgradient from the
site.
The plume may continue to migrate downgradient, although the rate
of contamination mfgration should be extremely slow due to dispersion and
retardation effects.
Contaminants have been available for migration ~?r
over 50 years since the plant first began to dispose of its wastewaters
in surface impoundments.
The observed plume has migrated much slower than
the calculated seepage ve~ocity of the aquifer due to the retardation effects.
':"t-""-""r'""~.'
, .~. \ .~:~.~~~~~...,..:.or ::--''''.-;:t,. <~~"::"\~'
..' :,\,,' '.., : ;>'......:
: .;,~;L:;~E.r;:
;.;'L'.~::{
~~i\
~~~
t~,
Ii
r'..""
r1~
[:;./
r'~
}.,
r ,::.
I
;
f ...' .
t.~. .'
I .
i::;'
~: .':
f' .
I :'\.~'
I. ,"
t
! ...'
f .
!:' :.
~., \ '
~. :
I,>:
r,.'.'
t.. .:,
, .
l
r .
~ ~
r- '
-------
, . ;~': .: '. ;',',
.~', ~.." . .. . ,'~.~~ _. \.
. . ., .'
. 4~' ,~ "- - - -.:...:~.' "~" .
",~..; '.. . . .....'
: .' ~. ..: :. ,,':'.' .~, .,: ; :'
'. ',; J' '-.4 ',::'.: :-:',<.' ~'~.:.'-'
..,. t I~~'~' .....: -::.. ~ ~:\.~
:....'...
. ~~. '.' :
; ~:. t
-6-
Two potable wells (Harold's Club and the Ready Mix plant) that are poten-
tially across gradient from the lagoons were also identified during the
1,';'.
t: :.:
1983 well inventory.
Wit~ the exception of the Ready Mix plant, all the
;:;"......
~.> :
private wells were sampled in 1983 and 1984.
The sampled wells showed no
i:'..,.
gradient control well system discharge is to the storm sewer except when
oil and grease concentrations exceed preset levels controlled by an
t
~... '.~:
l~'~:~'
~~~~;
F;S
i\:
~.~
~~~.L:'
~,:~::.,
j,'."
n-~;
[:7:
r~
t~1~:
p'H
evidence of contamination.
T~e owners of the Ready Mix plant refused BN's
request to collect a water sample.
C.
Risk to Receptors Via Pathways
o
The implementation of the gradient control well system requirert by the
Consent Order and outlined in a previous EDO signed in April of 1985,
minimizes the potential risks of drinking water contamination.
The
optical sensing device.
The diverted discharge is pretreated in a
117,000 gallon surge tank, operated by BN, prior to entering the sanitary
sewer.
o
Another possible means of exposure would be due to the contaminated
..,
,
t{;:.
wi:.
r:~:
~.':' .
~::.;:::
f:"!.~
~:}
I~
k~::
!{.::
Ii
[i:;;;:
[" ~.:
I~f~;
j!:.: l:{~
It~;;
[~Y;
1::(',:
~7'';'<-',?'1;'7;:i'-YY''V'~1i'1';,''~;?:';;?'.$'Ci'1'!F;\'''',,,'''?Jnj),,~,<.,,,t';\"Y?~'!W!£'~~
Based on the mean
groundwater discharge to the Mississippi River.
flow of the river, and the discharge rate to the river, the dilution
factor would be signifcant.
Because of this one could not quantify
an endangerment to the environment via this route.
o The cover over the temporary waste stockpile prevents direct contact
with the contaminated soil and sludge.
IV.
Federal Enforcement
On April 4, 1985, a three-party consent agreement was signed between BN,
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the EPA.
Basically, BN
, ~~~~~';.: '::'.~:;.~»':'~~ :~:'.:;:,. :~: ~~.\'~~:'\.~.~':'-:~ . .
-------
, . ~ . ... ,
'. ,
, .
, .. . ....
..', '
'. . "
'; ','
", .
. ,
..'"
. '. ...~,.. ...'
, :J,. "'~:f":'.:: .-' ,':' .~,
, , " .
", ".. . " .
'..' '
,.., ,., -'
, ':"
.'., ' .', ~ '.' . .', ,
.., '"
,
.
-7-
!'. ~: ~
t . ...
~.~:: .
r -
~... '
agreed to undertake the RI/FS and to carry out RD/RA activities.
Specifi-
h,', .
i~ '.,'
~ ",-
cally. the Consent Order identifies legal responsibilities for conducting
, '
additional remedial investigations.
In addition. t~e Consent Order details
F <
~ ~,-.~ .i..
specific actions/studies to be undertaken concerning site monitoring. pre-
paring a treatment study. preparing a feasibility study. submitting closure
r.'. :.
>::.. .
f' ':~
Document (EDD). signed by the Assistant Administrator of OSWER in April of 1985.
~ \,..'
l;:,,:',,:
L, "
, ",
(.,' <',
~ .
I.,,':;':';
k:r,'
!' :,'.
and post closure plans. and implementing groundwater corrective actions.
The groundwater actions were all detailed in a previous Enforcement Decision
v.
Alternatives Evaluation
".....'.
~'/", . "
~ . t
A.
Remedial Objectives and Criteria
t
,
',.' "
;. '",
!. ;';.
i,.'
c.,," .
i' .,
;:' .,
~.. . "~:
fI
t ~~," 'F '
The principle objective of source control remedial actions is to pre- ;
vent hazardous substances from migrating away from the contaminated
site.
According to 40 CFR 300.6A. (j)(3). "actions to remove. treat.
or contain the soil or waste to reduce or eliminate the potential for
I.'. ',-
~';.'" ,
hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants to contaminatp. other
'. '
, ,
" '
F :-
media and to reduce or eliminate the potential for such substances to
be inhaled. absorbed. or ingested" are considered appropriate.
\ ,,:-
~ """.::'
f" .,
,.'
r:,','
l'
I '
I. '
~, ..
o Groundwater
regional groundwater aquifer.
~.':,,\
f ~ ",,',
, .
F' ~,"
~ .:
~\ ~,.,
[",'
r" .
1. "
. ~,~ '.~: . .
r '.'~
r..:"
i. .
i.,
A groundwater gradient control system has been designed and
implemented to prevent further migration of contaminants
from the BN site and remove contaminated water from the
,
. The Maction levels" established in the Consent Order are
used as a definition of groundwater contamination for the
i ,
I ;.
. .,
:,' .
1'" .
.. ,
(
~"', .
t.:'
,': ;
!: :
'1, '
~". :.
~- '"
L.
-------
.,.
-." .
. .
....."
,. -'"
-" ',' . . ,,-
....,..... -'.h.
'. . '
. . .~.' . . . ~ '-
. !. ,.'.
."". .'
'.~:.:':.:; /:~~..~", :..
-8-
, .
i'.
r~ "~.
t-, .
I' .'
r." .
'. .
purpose of remedial action.
These limits are 28 n9/1 for
f'::",~
~.;~{
f':: '
~':"', '~.
t}~
! ,(',.
r':~::::
(f.'"
bi::'
U~~.
";, .
~. ~:.' ~
\'(::
the sum of carcinogenic PAHs and heterocycles: and 300
ng/1 for the sum of non-carcinogenic PAHs and heterocycles.
o Excavation
- The objective of excavation is to remove sludges and soils
which are grossly contaminated and contain free oils that
could migrate to groundwater.
i/ ~.-;':~
:.j:
t.
t :
B.
Alternatives Considered
In the report by Environmental Research and Technology, Inc. entitled
"Assessment of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (AIt+1) at the BurlingtJn
; ',;'...',
i-'.......
1,,' .
alternatives were evaluated: Excavation/off-site disposal; on-site
r,.~' ,..
t.'.;'
I;,'
r
Northern, Brainerd, Minnesota Tie Plant", the following remedial
" .
natives are shown in Attach~nt '5.
Attachment '6 provides a tabular
composting; surface sealing; monitoring; leachate control; gradient
control wells; and bioreclamation.
Cost estimates for these alter-
capital costs; 0 & M cost per year; Health Risks; Implementability;
,. .
f::.
, .'
f .:.
["..
\.
presentation of information pretaining to the alternatives, such as:
;- ::-.
was conducted 1n the feasibility study.
Based on the analysis
. ..'
~~/,:
ti...(" ~.
~~~!
v".~ ;
t:'/J:
~:;\~:
~t
~q;,"'
[h~.:
f:;\.
h'(';:~
rr:;'
i~' .':"
~:y~':£
~/i:';
r)
."
and Re 1 1abil 1 ty .
The initial screening of remedial alternatives was performed in the
AI~ report.
As a result, the detailed evaluation of alternatives
conducted pursuant to 9 300.68 (d), (e), (f) and (g), and the Consent
Order, the following remedial alternatives were developed as part of
-------
,',
. " ..:..IJ"
, , ,
. ,.' , . " ~ '.
~ '; '., . ..':' . .,'"
, .~ ~... :.~':.;:. .
, ,;i:i~'~:\,~~':~i.:,~-3;,~~;:1;~{Jf;.;~g;;~;~'~};:.~i:Sii;;-j,~;i;E0L::a~:;;:t:}i:::,'2ii:;:;,~~:t;-:" '''::'''' :-:;,::><~:L'~~~,:. .<~':' : ,~' : ", . ,
, ,
k,",':
, .~' .
, ..'.
I' '.:
-9-
~ , .
~. , .
"
(1)
on-site treatment of creosote contaminated soils and sludges; the
alternative that attains applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal public health and environmental requirements.
on-site incineration of creosote contaminated soils and sludges;
the alternative that exceeds applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal public health and environmental requirements.
~ :, ~
'-,.
!..; -
f ',:' .
t.:-. ,''',
~
(2 )
(3 )
on-site treatment of contaminated soils and off-site incineration
of crosote sludges; the alternative for treatment and disposal at
an off-site facility as appropriate.
I~, ~ ' . .
t,;::,
to',':"
("
t',;:::.:;
r:::\,
The evaluation of each of the three alternatives uses the same volume
estimate of contaminated soils and sludges as a basis for comparing
the alternatives (See attachment '7).
Volume Estimates
t
L<:
~...';
f. ,"
I, '
~. :; :!~
,
ihe boring data presented in Table 4-1 and the analytical data shown
in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 can be used to estimate the volume of contaninated
j,:,: \',,:,
, .
~ . . . ":.
materials to be excavated.
According to Table 4-1, the average depth
\ ',' ~;
i, '.
of sludge and visibly contaminated soil in the RCRA pond is 0.35 and
2.16 ft, respectively. For a pond area of 70,600 ft2 the volume
s ':."'.
r-:~"
r'
"
to be 1,580 tons of total PAHs.
The mass of contaminants contained in
,,'. .
t "
~" -;:. "
~\:;\.',
/.."',
~«,::
!\?,
k:',
~ "";
to'''' '
f)~'
~,>
1:-.0:. ~ .
f;.-'~'" :.
of soil and sludge to be removed is conservatively estimated to be about
6,000 yd3 and 1,000 yd3, respectively. Assuming a sludge and soil
density of 100 lb/feet3 and using the average total PAH concentrations
'shown on Table 4-2, the mass of contaminants to be removed is estimated
the contaminat~d SO;15 is approximately 540 tons of total PAHs.
\.',
L'-.:~"/.
k/~
f />:,.
E~',~~:: .~
"",: .:-~~ '-';~',':' ',::-: ',' ,?~:. '::;. :""::''''::~:':'''.:, ,,7'7'::'~' :-'~}~,~:~~7::: '::''':,;'''';~~'''?fr~':'':::,-::~~~~}7:f:~J':~~i0!Q~~~~~E:B':<'l:1-I:;:-:m~~?f.il;~T{{ig:[J;;Ki?;{'7'r.~~~r(~~7]:~;~Y;'i~::f.t,:~~;
-------
" '
...( ,
b.. ..
., '
, ,
" .'t.
'.-'- ..;..~.;' .
.,7\. :...,~. ... .,'.\' .
"
II\'
!',;',','
-10-
",
analytical results for the vis;'ly non-contaminated soil samples.
Assuming
i': .~
~; ::,.;
[>:'~,
~{::;~
~~:;~~:.
::~'. .
The amount of contaminants to be left in place can be estimated from the
the average concentrations shown in Table 4-3 are representative of 50i1
conditions down to ground water (approximately 11 to 12 feet), the amount
tons of total PAHs.
This estimate is a worst case estimate since the
v/,
.t'.:..
~I.~' ' -I'
~:'.;)~
I".""
~:~~'~'~~:.
[::>
~;l:~~;~
~;l~::
of contaminants to be left in place is estimated to be approximately 255
visibly non-contaminated soil samples were usually obtained directly below
the visibly contaminated soil layer where concentrations were highest.
1 '. ..
'"...' .
Nevertheless, the results indicate that by removing the sludge and visibly
contaminated soil, approximately 85 percent of the contaminants in the
r
; .-.:::
r:,/
~: :..
,';:\
I,
e
~.;t "
pond will be removed for treatment.
The contaminants left in place will
not have a large impact on the groundwater due to the reduced leachibility
of the soil, after final cover, and due to the long-term operation of the
.: .
r'- .
gradient control system.
~~.::,.
:. ..:
" '
When evaluating the total percentage of contaminants removed frQm the pond,
j:: ~
I, '
~~~:. .
I.. .
previous creosote recovery operations should also be included.
Approximately
!:.~~..'
r" ":
,
('. .
~~ . ':,
f;, ;.~~
~~:::::'
"..',':
r'~:
(,' "
~~:: ."
t':,~ :-
r~;::f;
I
t,o"
t' "
W:,~
f,r .\
Ii" '
450,000 gallons of creosote have already been removed from the pond for reuse
or recycling.
Assuming the PAH concentrations in the sludge are representa-
tive of liquid creosote, the amount of contaminants removed from the pond
during previous pumping operations is estimated to be 1,420 tons of total
PAHs.
When these removals are included with those projected for the sludge
and soil excavation approximately 92 percent of the contaminants originally
present in the waste-water disposal pond will have been removed for on-site
treatment, re-use, or recycle.
~ .~.,~::~
r:' .
:. '.
~.:..' .~::
t,..
r~i
k'~!(:
r:~:2::
-------
-11-
"If .:.:.:.~:\-.:::." ._:~;.:"', ~'-. ',- .,. ..,1"';.:'':;<'' ...1"
.,.".,',',::,~:,~".",'.":"~-:,'-~', ;".:, ',",,', ','.. '.', ',,',.,'.,.:,:.,: '." .. \.~. ~.-. -. . 1'" ,...-,
. . .' '~"'~:~':':"";::":;~:~c~:::;:.'>/_/:~i,/':;:{~
~. ",."
~; ~~~:~.
r6:i Y":"
f\~):,:
~J
wXN~
r~
~~
~tt
r{,{~~~~'
~E~t
r~;~"",
~Ci';
i-:!::'~'~',~'
~:~;t.:~~
E~'(?[
~
~\~Y
~;~-';
I~
r~yX,
~~\
:.:~.:_~::.
There-
'.:~:':::~::/:'::.';,~':::;~~~~;~~;~:;;.\:;,~:::i~:;~iJ;!J;~:t:M:~;~~;~h~~~:2;~~i~itj{~f;S;A~:;:"" .
The total quantity of creosote conta~inated material that must be removed
from the old wastewater disposal pond can be estimated from boring log data
summarized in Table 4-5.
According to the table, the average depth of
waste and soil to be removed is 2.3 feet.
The approximate area of the lagoon is estimated to be 28,000 feet2.
fore, the total quantity of creosote contaminated materials to be r~moved
is approximately 2,500 yard3. This estimate does not include removal of
contaminated materials which may be present under the loading dock.
The
loading dock area is excluded from excavation requirements as specified in
Exhibit A, Part X, Task 8.3 of the Consent Order.
t
In sUJmlary, the vol ume est imates are:
- 6,000 yard3 of visibly contaminated soil from the RCRA impoundment,
- 1,000 yard3 of sludge from the RCRA impoundment, and
- 2,500 yard3 of visibly contaminated soil from the old ,impoundment.
Volume estimates can be converted to mass estimates assuming a density of
100 lbs/ feet3 for the soils and sludges.
The total volume of contaminated
material is estimated at 9,500 yard3 and the total mass is estimated at
12,500 yard3.
Detailed Evaluation
A detailed evaluation of the three alternatives mentioned earlier was
,
For each alternative
conducted consistent with 40 C.F.R. ~ 300.68 (i).
the following factors, as appropriate, were consid~red:
(1)
Detailed cost estimation, including operation and maintenance costs,
and distribution of cost over time;
.. .;T";~.:.'. ,::".' ,-'~;.~' " '':',: ''"'',- ,-."
., -~. \- .- ..,. ,~.~..-
. . ..
':' " .. - ~.~. .....:-. -. -::' -<;~....; .;-: - '-' ..
. . . .
if~
-------
" "".
.~ '.,' I ". ,
,'.-,'
'"..'
. .
".
',. ., -,
- ' ' .', '. ::: :~. '....: '."- ... - .,
~ , . .
.:'-'.-. ...~:,-' . '
~, .
r...: :.~
t ~'. . ,
-12-
v~
~. .. -
( II )
Evaluation in terms of engineering implementation. reliablitity.
and constructahility;
t: ::
r';~.\"
~X'i:
F;7~:
I:.,.
K\~'~3:
~;;,j
t):....~.
t{2~;
~?l;:.:'
l<:.;'
""'\-
~;
\If,'i~1
ftr}
~,>~
r:"';:
£ 'f)
(t~
~p:~.
f.:/~'
t~f;;:
F;1;/
F;}i'/,i
t;~~'~;:
i~)~t
I
t.;,:,,~
f;~ ~,-
~~'
t:~~:.
~~~..:~,I:
[t
~)
',' , , ,." :7,' ',"C"7"Cc';',.'7:,'Q ',,:,,'!,' "'Cc;,'C':'7'?:i'W','c':C:C,7";':<7'; "':7 ".,",'i"',j"~";-~Ei,,,,rr~\.,,?,..~J!~
t
(III)
An assessment of the extent to which the alternative is expected
to effectively prevent, mitigate. or minimize threats to. and
provide adequate protection of public health and welfar~ 3nd th2
envi ronment;
(IV)
An analysis of whether recycle/reuse. waste minimizati:Jr'I, waste
biodegradation, or destruction or other advanced, innovative. or
alternative technologies is appropriate to reliably minimize present
or future threats to public health or welfare or the environment;
(V)
An analysis of any adverse environmental impacts, methods for
mitigating these impacts, and costs of mitigation.
All three of the alternatives summarized on Table 7-1 (attachment #7) are
considered reliable in terms of protecting human health and the environment.
The incineration option should provide greater than 99 percent destruction
of the constituents of concern.
The treatment option should provide for
90 percent destruction of the constituents of concern and immobilization
of the remaining refractory fraction.
The incineration and treatment
alternatives are equally reliable in terms of minimizing the release of
wastes to the environment.
Attachment #13 summarizes capital, operating, salvage value and total pre-
sent value costs for the three alternatives.
The table clearly shows that
on-site treatment is t~e most cost-effective alternative at a cost of
$S9/ton.
VI.
Community Relations/Re$ponsiveness Summary
A press release on February 20, 1985 announced the proposed agreement between
EPA, MPCA and BN.
It detailed the public comment period and the three
repositories where the consent order was available.
-------
'; '..'
:c',:: ~,:: ,",:.,;:;,,~;,L:Lj;i~~~;~~:;,~:'.~;;:::~';;~~i",~L~>~::;L~d,~;::~;:;:,.0:JL.},~,; ""'., '''.. ' ,: ,,'." " ') , ..,'''' ",,''''
... . .'''- . ,;i;:~~Li£:l\;;~.;&2jjf£\i;:iU;:;(I~
-13-
to the national wires, major MN media, the local Brainerd paper, Minnesota
environmental groups and trade magazines. Prior to release, a copy of th~
, press release was furnished and explained to BN.
t~ .
,", :::...,,!.., """"""" .
The same procedure was followed for the feasibility study with the addition
'.
of a HPCA fact sheet on the remedy included in the mailing.
No pub 1 i c com-
ments were received during either public comments periods by EPA or the
MPCA.
A responsiveness summary ,is not attached due to the fact that there are no
closure plans required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 40
~~j
j\..~Y.",:-
~Qlf)
rJt
f~>"
r"
t ~ ..~
~. -'
t.
f:::, ,
~~>o:
kL~:
~':"~'" '
b'/
L'::.:~::
t~~,~~,:~ ::
11;'
(:' '. "
ro:' "
f;'f .,'
, '
[$:,,':
~~?
f~~X:
~~:t:i
~:<'.: ~:
t"." .
~.~~:~.~~_,r.v~~~~~~-~Y~~~~~~~~~:~~
t
public comments on the various remedial actions suggested for the BN site
to report and therefore, no U.S. EPA responses.
VII.
Consistency with other Environmental Laws
The Consent Order requires submission and implementation of closure and post
CFR Part 265.
The remedial actions required by the Consent Order are con-
sistent with 40 CFR Part 264 technical standards including those for site
closure and groundwater corrective action.
For the treatment alternative
BN will also have to obtain a permit for treatment. MPCA will be the
agency issuing the permit.
An NPDES permit is required for discharge of
the gradient control system water.
February 11, 1985.
The NPDES permit was issued by MPCA
VIII. Recommended Alternative
-
Consistent with 40 C.F.R. ~ 300.68 (i), the following alternative has been
determined to be the cost-effective remedial alternative that effectively
mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides adequate protection of
public health and welfare '~nd the environment.
-------
" . ,.' .'
.. ~': . . ':," ,. ..'
,,',.,', :
" ,:~ ~
.'f" . _:.~ ..
, ''''::... ,.:.~,: ,..-..',
.<.: ..'. ~.." ".;'
. '
" ~
...; . " ,'-"
.,""':.,.> ;<'
! "
-14-
,.
, .
., .
':. ,".
and contaminated soils with final capping after treatment.
This remedy
r.
~ "
( :..:
\' .
i .
r~'
[':'
The recommended alternative is on-site treatment of creosote sludges
has been determined as attaining the applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal public health and environmental requirements.
The land treatment
inmobilization of organics and inorganics constituents on the soil.
Land
r.~'.~ .
~<,'
[:.~~, ::
~:. f) :,
}
k
k...
1'< '
[.,1':
t." :
of creosote focuses on the breakdown and transformation of organic cons-
tituents by aerobic microorganisms in the top layer of so;l. and the
treatment is a managed tp.chnology that involves the controlled application
of a waste on the soil surface and the incorporation of the waste into the
upper soil zone.
The design and operation of a land treatment facility is
,
,.
based on sound scientific and engineering principles as well as on exten-
t
sive practical field experience. A land treatment system is designed
and operated (a) to maximize waste degradation and immobilization so that
'.
waste constitutents become environmentally acceptable. (b) to minimize
release of dust and volatile compounds as well as percolation of water
, .
,
t,
soluble waste compounds. and (c) to control surface water runoff.
\
1
In April. 1985 BN submitted the document IITreatl'lent Demonstration Report on
1,,'
[,'::
.
,"
Creosote Contaminated Soil II.
The document was reviewed by Mr. John Matthews
of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada. Oklahoma.
In
r. "'"
i.'.'
,
\..:»
r '
t,',
t.\
L, .
r:'"
!""
t '
t' .
r' ..
I'. '
~:'.. .
t '
r
i'
~ .0-'
!~
r
I
f
t" .
I
! .
1. '
r" .
"
his review letter Mr. Matthews commented:
IIIn general. this is the most complete land demonstration result that I
have seen to date.... I feel that sufficient information has been presented
to demonstrate the feasibility of using the proposed management alternative
for remedial action at this locationll.
, ..,.,'
, '
1:
-------
. - .,
, ,
.,,'- -'" .
, -,
.,', ,.;, ',,,
"
," ','
'" " ~. .'.. £. ,- - '
"', .:~~":'''---=":;':>'.: :,,~,,:.::"'(:. ,~<'~'.~.:
". . " '...'
~ Co ,," .......~'~ ...',., ,'~...._.,"... ,..._~ '..,," ''':''1:.\:,~.'~,
'"
., '...
,'''. --....
,,,', ' .
.:! .: . ~ .":. ~ 4 . >-' , '0 ' - '
- ...:;',
",' ,-..-': '
-15-
h:',
r
f,
t "
, '
f
r,,'
;,
~ ' ~
IX.
Operation and Maintenance
, '
A detailed operations plan for the treatment area was submitted in April 1985
," "
, ';"
f" '
and was approved with modifi:ations July 24, 1985.
To summarize, after the
treatment area has been prepared, the contaminated soil will be spread and
mixed with native soil (already in place) to achieve an approximate benzene
;
. "
'. ...,
{"'.,,
;..
i "..:' ~
( "
f>','
extractable content of 5 percent.
Principal operation and maintenance
! ',: ,
:.;~, . . .
( ':,
L "
;' , ',~:
activities which will be conducted after the first waste application in-
!.: -.;
t~',<. ~:
V;;'::~'
I,~, ,,'::
clude:
o
Periodic monitoring of PAH, total phenols, benzene extractables,
and toxicity parameters.
:~ -,: ,
t
L:..-,,"
I,':~, .
r",,;, "
r'" :
F' ,
r?
r': '.
b :-.
!', .:'-;.
!~;,~<:
:~..' :,~':
~ -.. '
o
Application of lime and nutrients as necessary to meet design
criteria.
o
Periodic irrigation to maintain the treatment zone near field
capacity.
o
Bi-weekly cultivation with a tractor-mounted rototiller to a depth
of 6 inches.
i:'
f:.'".
o
Maintenance of the leachate collection and run-off sump.
)' "'"
i,.' '
L- "
~ ,:,."
~ ':: '
I.. :"
~:,,",,: ~
~, '. -.' .'
No wastes will be re-applied until the initial application has been signi-
ficantly detoxified as defined by the microtox test.
The microtox procedure
~:-:>:~
\ "."
~ '.'
~' ,:" : -
r,::~;
r ,':'
~ "
"
.. '
~ -,
1,' '
is used to evaluate the relative toxicity of the waste/soil mixture to a
microbial population.
The method involves exposing marine luminiscent
,
bacteria to a water-soluble extract of the waste/soil mixture and then measur-
.' .'
in9 the light output at a constant temperature.
It is anticipated that waste detoxifications will take approximately four
t ',"
, '
!":' .
degradation months.
Waste re-application will then continue at a rate of
, '
1 ,;
r '
t. 0"
J '
l '
[', ;
t '
I '
p,
- r, '
l,~" ,
~ .
,',
,
1:,",
1,'",
",'
r"
I' '.
-------
t:/::,
,
r~,
~~::~ .
!;:-:':
[f':~~:
f:":~:' .
t '. .
!~~:..'
r.,'- .
~..... -~.'
~;>.
~":".. .'
~~(;,
1<,-.:'-
r~~:.~~
1.:"''','00
".;~ ; \".:-, '.',~., ."r]' '.: ::" ,':- ~~'~-:~r;;:fJ~.;'~C:;;; :-;e~:~~;':""":;:<:.;~::~'i'}?:':;i?:::';:\~~~{/2\Ti' ::.:":&::,' :;;-:' :.;:c:: :;,~;F:.~~;;;:;:gJ::~;(?':D'~~;~:?):~;;;~~~Y?;};;~:~;
~ '.~ ... 7. .
,>." , ';. ."',"
,.' .;"
" .
~ ."..'
:'C .~,:. ~.~.
. .
" ..' .
. .: ...,:;. .: .' _Z.. , '.. ,"', .". . ~ ..~:. '. -... .'... ".
" .
. . ..,
J.J~-',:" . '. . ", ...
, .
," """""""'L.
..- .~
-16-
one inch of visibly contaminated soil per degradation month (approximately
10,000 ft3/application or 1.0 to 1.5 lbs of hydrocarbons/ft3 of treatment
zone).
The annual waste application rate will be less than 6 inches/year.
At this rate, the last waste application will be in the fourth year after
the system start-up.
Leachate from the treatment area sump will be reapplied to the treatment
area.
Leachate in excess of the sump capacity (50,000 gal) is discharged
by gravity flow through a 10-inch HDPE pipe to an existing lift station
where it is automatically pumped to the sanitary sewer.
The sump will
be operated to minimize the possibility of overflow and sewer discharge.
t
Operational activities will be maintained for a minimum of two years afte~
.
the last waste application and will be conducted beyond this period if the
performance standard for the facility will be to:
o
prevent migration of leachate through the base of the treatment
zone (the HDPE liner), and
o
achieve total PAH and total benzene extractable concentrations in
the treatment zone equal to or less than the same compounds present
in the soil which has been left in place, or
o
achieve detoxification of the treatment zone as defined by the micro-
tox test and the static acute fish bioassay test.
,
The first standard will be met by: a) installing a liner as the base material
which prevents the migration of liquids into the.underlying soils, and b)
maintaining a subsurface drainage system.
Successful attainment of the
second and third standards will be determined from soil analyses, and
microtox and fish bioassay test results.
~. ~r~,:~;:~\~~~:?:'r~~!; V(~?~~.~;~ J~i ,~~ ~';~.J:~~
',,' ,"
.: .
..'" ...'..
, .
,...:
,'. .
,.
:'",'
t:)
[. ,
r ,.'
C"
t. .'~-
(.
['e.
(:t:.
r "
. ,
, .
, '
r.: .
!< .
t~. ,'~ ~
>", ~
\',-
?:.~~ ~.
i::'-:.'
(::,
I," .
:'.' .
, .
1 .
~,_. :
I"';"
r.',-' :
1...-,'
~:' ,),
, .:.
;;4'.'-:
, '
I .
"
~,
I. '.'
i{:, "
t.' .
j ,':'-
1'-. .
'.'
-------
:,
')
~
'~
:,
,.1
]
~:~
.J
II,
,
".1
'j
j
,:,
,
.
t
o!
,
.,i
...
,:
I
,.
i
,':J
~....:r
,,'
;~'J
~'i
'-:1;
;~
~.j
'i~
.,~
.,~
,~
;,'1
~~
,-1.
~
e~
.~
'.,1i
:~
:~
,~t1
;~4
\a
,11
~:~~
tJJ
~~t
'!<
:'~;'; ...
.:,
-::1 -
:.-" .
. -~': ..
.
-:.:~
:':i
.""J
.~"
:t1
":~
.,~,!
';,
'..
;~~1
';','
.. ~J.
.~~
:,~~~
. ;. ~.~. ;:
. ,~ '
, ,"
.'
. ,'.'.
. ,.,
;,~,' . ."
"j',".,',-"
\ ;,
.
.. -
!.~. :'~.: or;
e?~ :~
f~"~}.:~
f:\~;~~
rf~?~(;'\':
~~~,'t~D
i;::":(-,:
~~r::
r<
":.-:
,".. ..""
?:::':>'~
~'.,~ ',~".:'::-
v~~:;~, " . ?~
~~: :"'~<':. ~,
!,.'
.,' ~::
:P.
,- -
r'.. .
~ "".
:.r ;
t-. t
t-~
J-
r.': ...
. .' "',
::,
)]
.,
:,\~
",
-------
'-
. . ",",
- ':..;1'...,
" '
'., ~". ~"~-' . .-
..,
"
, "
:~.' :"<~: .
. ..", .
" ,
'.:.,;,-.,,:
..
A TT P.r.H\4E~1T 2
,... .
" ,/ :,.,.
TABLE 2-1
LIST OF CONTAMINANTS PRESENT IN CREOSOTE WASTES
"
1:-.
I~' '.
fluoranthene
pyrene
benzo(h)fluoranthene
benzo(e)pyrene .
perylene
acridine
carbazole
2.3-benzofuran
benzo(b)thiophene
dibenzothiophene
indole
~ ':~,;
~ "",'
kj:'
nD
~,,',~
~...
v'
Ii::; ,
r."
~':: :
f:. ~> . ~
(" .
Non-Carcinogenic PAHs and Heterocycles
indene
2.3-dihydro;ndene
naphthalene
1-methylnaphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
biphenyl
acenaphthylene
acenapthene
f1 uorene
phenanthrene
anthacene
Carcinogenic PAHs and Heterocycles
benza(a)anthracene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(j)fluorlnthene
benzo(l)pyrene
chrysene
Other Contaminants
oil and grelse
phenols
salts
t
v''
l,
.' -
~ ":',
~,. .:
"
ideno(1.2.3-c.d)pyrene
benzo(g.h.i)perylene
dibenzo(a.h)lnthrlcene
qui noli ne
.
t:.,
i";'..
. ;'~ .-',
, ,
r ,;,'~
t. '.
r. '::'
~" ::."
! ~ .
f' .
, "
,
, .
L<,'
to,,':
I';':
~c;:";
r?-
v
r;:;"
r- -,
b~:,
~ ~ ,
I-.~ .
~.> .
f:-'-,
to' .
\ -'
I-
;~" ~.-'.
~ ' "
~ ".
I:' ,
l~',";;,
r":';,
i~ ~:(.: '.
-------
',oj
:.~
-j
:~:l.
"J1
,./J
:;~
l~
1,,:.':/
tJ.
,.~
,.;'1
~J
~ LEGEND
.~~ ,-' .""'08;"''''. ."8ft' 0' con,,,mln,,'ed
':~j , - I -oundwG'.' plume ~ 28 n,II
,~,~ ..
:~;!~ ,- -) "'"IU,.d Coneen',.''''
,,,..,. 6/84 - 4/85'
. "'" Sil. t
N
,
~ :::~ 2-3 Lis' , c"""..,rat- i:lI~ 6184- 4/85 ! ;.f~.,~;
,'j ,
~ ~,~,
~~m!J'{i';;t;iJq~J;~'~@~~~~i?Sj"~F!)~;f~0')7Z?~:~';~~7~;::~i1J'[:~)f,t~~~1"~rR~~;m'f'f?}~";'7::T,;!J'~i)
j
:1
-\
- ~
"
'.j
."
,-'
-j
.'
, I
'-.~
;:~
;.~
-,
,
.~1
...
~
cO.
:;1
.~..
~
BAXTER
elA,-
l~
t:->:.. .;.
i;.',.
~1!~-}.
~:t
~.'-:''':'. .
~{.;h::
~:,
,'..."':"
~.,~.:.>./
. ..:,....
. .
:'~
"
.'
-.
.., .
. .
v
- ~.
~: . ,
'".} ...",'
,. .
-------
. <
. .,M
:~:.\~
}J
, ::.?
! ",
,-- ...,
....,
LEGEND
."",08;"."" ''',n, 0' con'''''I1''',''
tr08llld..,,,,,.,,,.. .2 JOOn,l.
11M...... Conc8n'r,,'ion
towro". ./84 - 4/851
..11 Si'.
, '
,,",
, '.
.,.:~ '-,
~,J1
, '.
". '.]
-: -~
~ .
, .
. .
. ,
. '-\j
.::J
. ,
'",....<1
.
":;1
.' ~
(.t
"}i
. ',.-'..;
,;;1
,
.' 'j
.;;:~ ..
.,.
-.j
"'",1
"'i\~:~
::\j
.:..<:d
/')1
:/i
~{~~
~~~i~~!~~~I~~~~~~;;";-';~--
BAXTER
.ea..
'-J
.
,
--
t
N
s .....
~
.8
p .'
t-j .,:
~ :i'.>
~'
(~
~
d ",
SCALE
fllur. 2-4 list 2 concentrations (ncJlI) average 6/84 - 4/85
'" .-
".' ~
~
:".' .
-------
. .,
: :~;
-::j
8 "-!
"" ";
<
. ':'.J
,..~. 'j
:-1
. '.'\
. i
'. If,
~ ': ~~ .
. .~\
TOU '.2
COlT or IOURCI AIID OP~ IITI COIIIIIOL ALTIIJIATIYU
.j
t.~
~
~~
(~
'>;1
>',.'1
..'\
;:;Mj
~~.~:~
.h~~i
~;~:~:~.
::,':"1:
,.'~~. .
21
,""".01
i~!~1
if};]
'" .'1
}~:~i1
}R~,cc;.:"",c""~c,c-,"~-c,,,:,"s ;I;i;:z,':~~"7 .,-,~",~ ' 0;,e,:::"~-
',:..", - '.
.1
,".':
<aftaatl-
I.
......U..,.,.....,
... ..'.U.. '''''' .,.... . ....
.-1.' ~.". ""'.""
.-'.1 ..,-.". .,.....,
1-' ......., '''''' .,.... ""
A-I.' ..-.". ."""'"
.:'.1 ..,-.... .,.....a
...... .......
..., er... ..,..... a.... .. ...-
1-' ..., ..a.,... ''''''
...1 .... .,. '"''
.... ..., ..'."" .. ... ......
..
c. ....a_..,,,". "'.11,
c-a ...at....... .,.
C-' CIIM8I'.II....,
..
Le..,... Caa'we'
., c....., ,.....,. 'w. ....u.. a..--
.. eaa,...a ,...,... ..... .,. '"''
1-1 eaa,.... .-..,. .... ..'."" a...-
... .,. a..--
I. ......, e...we' ......
.-, ........,... ....,..., ......
1-' .a..'.r,.'. ,........ .,..
I-I "'.'.1".'. ,..."....a. .....
"'t ........,. ,. .,.. ......
t. I._..a_u..
.-, ~ .....,...,
.-. ~ h..--I ... ......,.. .,....
Cafll.' Call
..1
"'."""".'"
1.'11.181-1."'.'"
t.I8I-II.'"
11'.181-481 ....
II.'"
,".'"
U'.'"
III.'"
II.'"
II.'"
It....
M.'"
".'"
a......
... .'"
".'"
'''.-
1t1.18I-1I1.'"
GIll
..,.-.
11.111
11.II1-II.-
I.-
t....
".'"
II."
,.188-,.'"
..111-..,..
'.""1.-
.. .""".'"
II.'"
".'"
II.'"
.. .'"
".'"
..-
:.:.- .~I;'"'~".~:~~:?:Ti~~"~7"
. . ~:; :~"~>/..~~.-','
.... ~ ~
t .'~~.':
..'
11-
'1'-
........
...... .....
.1.
'-1 ,a'.811-I."'.'"
... 1.111.181-'.111.'"
'-1 '".811-1''.'''
... ",.""""'.'"
,II.'"
.. let....
.. "'.'"
.. ,".'" -
.. '".'''
"I II.'"
.. M.""".'"
.. M.""".'"
.. ".181-".'"
Ie- ,.. '18.811-'."'.'"
Ie- ,.. .".811-'".'"
II- ,.. I".""''''.'''
11-... 1M."""".'"
I-I. 1M."""'.'"
1-" "'."" '".'''
A .
'..
o-j
-j
-..
:J
;1:
I~
..,'"
:~''-,::' .
i:;,~ :.
',' ..:..~ :.'
1~";
t~J
h'~ ~.
['.i:<
i:"~' ,
~ .:. 'i.
t:r:\
~~.:~j ~
::":;'"
~\;~'
...H '.
~/~:.
.;.(.~: '
~, . .'
,
,~
V1
-------
ij~
" ,:i::E~'~;j~\:r;;i}I~~~;.~~:~'~~;;~~~~:~r;;~'?~~~tJr~~~:~:~~Jf)~~;.i?~~<:~];'f.:~~f:7!~~:~;~'::~'~;,:.~~';;:t:~;~ ~~~~;:;. .~:.; ~',
"::j
,"fj
...:-y
HEAU~ RllSKS
Attachment 6
" ,.~!
, :. ~
O&M Ingest10n of
, Capi tal Cost Direct Contact Contaminated
A 1 ternat ive Cost Per Year & Inhalation Groundwater Implementabi1ity Re 11 ability
No action $0 $0 (2) Short-term: low risk.
Short-term: low No contamination
risk detected in private
we 115.
(3)
long-term: Signi- long term: Significant.
ficant. Groundwater could be
Site could be mistakenly developed
, improperly for drinking water
developed. use.
, (I)
,
Monitoring/Site $12,000 $11,200 Short-term: Even Short-term: lower risk Yes High as long
Security less risk than long-term: Significant. as program
no action as less risk than no continued.
long as monitor- action as long as
i ng cont 1 nued. monitoring continued.
If monitoring If monitoring stopped
stopped then same risk.
same risk.
(I)
Surface Seal1ng $351,000 $10,000 Short-term: S1gn1- Short-term: Same as no Yes High, but
ficant. But can action. However, a there is
be controlled by complete seal potential for
proper safety long-term: Could be would reg. degradation
procedures for some improvement over removal at or rupture of
workers. no action but would railroad seal after
take 100'5 of years tracks. long period
long-term: Signi- and existing contami- of time. In
ficant. nation would continue addition near
Site could be im- to migrate. by rail
properly develop- t ravel may
. ed. However, affect sta-
risk is lower bil1 ty of
than no action ..,. '.- seal.
as long as cap
remains in place.
-T;-:"
'.
, ..
, '
, ,
;". "
r-~.'
!- . :''1
, ,
, '
, .
~;~,~
: '
i;,.
, ::
~.~:~> .
r. ~.:..,~ :.
!"; '.,' .
-------
. 1
.: j
:",'1
,> :
n: ~
"
,
- O&"M Ingestion of
Capital Cost 01 rect Conto...' Contaminated I
Alternative Cost Per Year & Inhalation Groundwater Implementabil1ty Re 1 iabil1 tv
( 1 )
8i orec:1 amat 1 on $186,000 $10,000 Short-term: Sign1- Short-term: Same as no Unproven Tech- Low PAH compounds
ficant. But can action. nology 3-10 year difficult to de-
be controlled by treatment grade. Hay creat.
using proper Long-term: Over long period. a groundwater
safety procedures. term could be improve- mound and spread,
ment over no action. contaminant plume,
Long-term: Ne911g1- In meantime contami-
able. Risk of nants in the ground-
treatment 1 s water would continue
successful. to migrate.
Gradient Control (low) Moderate Short-term: Low Short-term: Low risk Yes, but must High, as 1009 as
Wells Depends on Long-term: Same as Long-term: Risk is cont i nue 30-100 continue to oper-
N»DES per- no action. minimized as long as year or more. ate. Take coo-
m1tt1ng wells pumped. If t1nous O&H.
. pumping discontinued
, aquifer contamination
will procede: Will re-
move most e~1st1ng
groundwater contam1n-
at ion.
E~cavat1on/off- $14,000,000 $10,900 Short-term: Sign1-. Short-term: Low risk Difficult, near- High, but there i'
site disposal (same as f1cant but can be Long-term: Over long est hazardous a chance of re-
(excavation of surface controlled using term would be slow waste landfill lease at the land.
contam1anted 5011 sealing) proper safety pro- improvement but is 700 mil es fill .
to the ground- cedures. existing groundwater away. Di ffi-
water Long-term: No risk. contamination will culty in obtain-
Est: 2,400,000 ft continue to migrate. ing a disposal
permi t may re-
require trans-
port event
further.
Land Treatment not deter- High Short-term: 519n1- Short-term: Low risk. Treatment may Developing tech-
mined but (probably ficant but can be req. 4 years nology for creo-
much lower IIIOre than controlled by Long-term: Almost same will require sote. Wi 11 re-
than off- $100,0001 using proper as no action. A RCRA permi t. quire close moni-
site dis- year) safety procedures. toring, but recen
posal studies indicate
, Long-term: Insign1- it can work.
ficant unless
final cover is re- .-. ..-
moved, but even
then levels much
lower than if not
treated.
HEJU TH RISKS
Attacnment b
. '~fi
.,'~
"j
. .~
...:'
".
,'.... o.
,"
; ~~\
'. -.
, ;
, ,i
:('1
."\
, .
.. ~]
:'.1
"."
::>~~
. ,
". "
;: : :~
:,:":";J
!?:'.':
.",.,',
< ,~.
" .'
-:(.~
\;~~
: :<':~
. .;:~
';~ ;:,~~
t:'
"
,.,:.
.. ~- ..
': ~;1
: I>~~
i:;::]
,,'
)~J
~i
~~
:. .J
::::.1
'\~~~
:1P,Q
:t0j
. ,
. \ ,'.
\ '.
t.. '
~:. .~ ".:
~> ';
;:.:i~.:. '
~' :~
f;'~".~'.'~
~;..:, .~ .
~ : '.~\,~
,., ..
r :-',:'
'1. ..
:..\...:,":
F;,~;;:"'. .
t' .
;..'."
f'.,""
.: t,'
. -":
~. . .' . ~
f:~'~,::,
~\':~:'
;..';.,.
),.t.
!~ )..~.:
'.( .
r: .
-------
~S''::1~
~t~!~
::.:>1
:~:<~.'
,~~~~77:'~"T."-' ::.;,-. :'-~-'~~'~;:~~:;-~~;?~'~~::~;: 0:- '::;_::-~~,~.-C,~:T~:.~:' '-:.r:.~-:::' '~:-.-, -: "', "
.~-...'-::";-"~ ":".-' .
~, ,", ,~:. ' '..
-------
j
.j
j
:~
i
,J
.
~
['::<'
Hb",:o'H R n SKS
Attachment 6
~~~ '.I~~~
~. '.
;::-~. ..~
i'~
:~~
;'.1
-.f
~j
'.
~'.~
::~
>j
"";J
;;1
}
)\
OAM Ingestion of
Capital Cost Direct Contact Contaminated
Alternative Cost Per Year & Inhalation Groundwater Implementabil1tv Rel1ab111tv
Gradient Control Not deter- Est. Significant: Same . long term risk is low Yes, GCW 30-100 High, however,
Well and on-site mined $30,000 as land treatment, because GCS should years. Seal ra11 traffic
hndfil1i ng of except there is come close to remedy- may require re- may affect
sludge and h1gh- potentially ex- ing ground water, moval of ra11- containment
1 y contami nated posure to higher while landfill and road tracks. of material.
soil and surface contaminant level seal prevent future If contain-
sea 11 ng if site i5 impro- release. Requires RCRA ment degrades
, perly developed. permit. or is ruptured
the contamina-
tion problem
, wil1 be re-
peated.
Gradient Control Not deter- High Same as for land Same as for land Difficult to Very high,
Well and hnd mined treatment of only treatment of only threat this hnd treat-
treatment of all sludge and highly sludge and cont. quantity of ment may not
contaminated cont. so11. soil. 5011 on-site. be effective
soil and sludge on soi 15 with
GCW operate 30- too low an oil
100 years. and grease
content. land
treatment of
creosote is a
developing
techno logy.
No concern of
rupture of
degradation
of surface
sea 1 .
....;.
t:,c~
t,;~~.:
-:-~...''':.:.:
.. ''','
... "'.-
"""".:.'
(j
1',',
',;j
::~
,:~~
i;~
:::~
,,;
",;
.',
:'~
r-, ;
, '
. ~
,.~i
,.;:
Ji:-
:-:A
~ . :.
.J
Si
2:~
,"~
:#;'~
(~
,1:
~"~
.- .~
':"t!
:~1
,:~
':'i
''':.1
::,-::;
{J
d
~t:~
:- ~.
E1
. :~.
~:".1
~~~~
~'~~
'.,
'.:~
. i.}
.~ ,~-~
;'. "
~ '.. .
I,'" ."
f,"," .
!,: ,
I;.
'~
< \ .~
i.. '
.> ".!
:: ~~ .,: - r'
,- '.
,'" ."
- ..
,-.. '.-
~ .'" ,
..-, .
. .
, ' '
, ,',
"
. 'A
\:.~
-"i'
. ,
::~::;:<:k~::-::rf,~:~??\}~gh;~~j.:'~:.)~"~~7??,::~~i.-'7~~Pf1j!~:;:.7f~0~T;:~-"
':~"", ':-?7~~;f.7~:~~:~.~7i::Z7IT:::;:;>':;:,::" ". ~r::~""~'"-~:-~f[:~;~:,~,';",.~;:~~.~.:::~7.Y::;2~-~'~'TT~fT~;JJ;7;'Y.\c;~}T,:}:-,'::.-~;._'n ':",:
-------
c
. ~
.'
~';:'::.'.~ ",
.'
FOOTNOTES:
',~
" ...
I ~. j
I.
Assessment of l8Pacts and Mitigation Measures of the Burlington Northern Brainerd. MN Tie Plant. Environmental Research
and Technology. Inc.. Jan. 1984.
For direct contact and inh~lation It means potential
:-.:...,
. '
:,:.:
:~
" .~
',j
2.
Short terM means 1
of remedial Icttons.
S years.
for exposure due to t.,le~ntatlon
, .
..
.:.". .
:.:..:;~ -.
~:
'.'",
,
:'"1
,:.'!
:~
3.
long tena .an5
environment; so
degrade.
fr~ 5 to 100-5 of years. High ~lecular weight PAH are persistent and are not very mobtle tn the
tt wtll probabll take 100-s years for the PAH compounds to be purged fro. the aquifer or to naturally
~-,' !,
. J
.<1
/.j
','"
:;
'~:J
~:!j
'ij
A
't.~
~.;:1
>!!
::A
, .
~~
/:~:j
.;~:~
~
1~1
'fi~
/~
~;~~
(t.';.;.t
"~i~
f~~
;:~:.
;1~
:';i:~
:~~~,
~.@
~~
~<:tJ
~:~~
;ifA
~~1
~~i
>?f~
~~/':'I:;'Y%'i{?:;"i(;;57f~':;:'f?'!/o:!;':"F.!0';:G?T:;?T7~sr"'r;;777~T'~"':' .7~::;:,C;10r::;?"7:7.01ii9~;I'T~7}!D:z;;';~;;i:';:::7i.:r)'Ji.;f:~Wi:::::)" "..
,
~~}>,'
~W.'
,- .
Y' .:,:,
K.\~:',."i
~~'::}; "i-
f.\: 'i '.n
t~fj\
I;
t. ":~
~~;"'''r
W~!~\
r~{~~t
~I.:."'.: .
~~. .
..-
::'~:-~;
!-.:.-.\.
f.~'."/:\.
-------
" '
, .' J .. ~ .
, ,
',:,~>'L.~':",,;,;'~~;~;~~~1~}JJ,(;:t~.i9tg!t£:;~~~Bi~~]~l~~i~~t~~~lf~ti~~~ll;it>}2i;F;'~;~::,i:5;} ':,'~::.' ~:,,'.:::';:.,'~'. :'
',' ,
. ':..,
.A'T"":,.A,/"'!!''T"':'T"
8
/~; ~
,"
.."';. I ~. ..
, '
...."':.
! '".,.'
(";,','
~'"
f
TABLE 4-1
~ . .~.
r.I,.':
L-1
L-2
L-3
0.5
0.2
0.3
1.5
2.3
5.0
I',
V<:,',
~'
~ . \..
t.;~" ; .; .
1>
i:..:" :.
t~//
f.~~7 . -::'.:
~\~>:
r:;;,:'-.,'
~ '~: ;;. -: .
~:~<:::::
~;:;j',.
r~:,'
~:" '
(:~ ;:~:':
k/:
t:Y:;:;
[...,.,
~~::~~/~:
~:~.\~'
[2:
~~l:..j'~: "
f;~;:;~' :.
~:::' .
SUMMARY OF RCRA POND BORING DATA
Test Hole Number
Thickness of Sludge (ft)
Thickness of Visibly
Contaminated Soil (ft)
Test Pit 07/12/83
TP-2
0.0
2.2
Borings by SEe 07/13/83
Borings By SEC 02/14/85
Average
0.2 2.1 ~
0.0 2.5
0.1 1.9
1.0 1.0
0.1 4.9
0.3 1.0
0.0 0.5
0.5 1.0
0.35 ft 2.16 ft
B-2
8-4
B-S
C-3
C-6
0-1
0-3
D-S
,
FL\::
~;t
rC\
V"
F.,;:,:
r..'"
1~2
~j'j
~:.,"::".:
'''~ ~,~~.'.":";i:'''''':<'?~'''';'::'7'::,n..'c;;:;.'\,':',;:'',,''' ?,:':"~'.'7:,,?:;<:~;F,\""~,T,~."':."':"".::.::"':",,",J :7::':-:::?~':'t\~i'::.'fC'j,';;f~'~?,i~~%
-------
;:.'Fs;!.fjj{J!2,j;;i;}1£';~iigi10;~'!ii2:;:2'i:12';" -~.....'-.
. ';,:,". .
.'. - . .-"-- .'~:_~ ..... - ." ,;---" ~- ;.~ ..~:":._~~~.~,L>': .:. ~_,:lS~~;j~~S;:, ',':',.';\~~_:~_i~:;:::{ 1':~'::>:~',.;~~,;~~~ii~; :
(,,:.
i";
:~ .
~"..
;':-;
:!
tABLE 7-1
SUMMARY Of SOURCE CONIROl AltERNATIVES
Techn'ca' Concerns
~..
t
~.;.r
if~..'1
~,.r
~~
~~i/
~~
,.;::-~
i~;;:'
r:t~.r:.
~t.~'~
~~;~
~
~
~!~
~.;~,
I:
\,t."
I{'
/".
"
t
f;
t'
p'~'
~:::
)(-
~;.,
".-;
, "
'" "...
~: .
Cost ($1.000)
Preunt
Worth
,ubl'c Hea'th Cons'derat'ons
'roven techno'ogy .
'.';
A nernat he
Ceplt.I
OIM
;' ,';:\
Poss'ble dust/vo,.tlle org.nlc
..Iss'on, 'r08 trelt..nt area
dur'ng oper.tlons. A'r 8Onl-
t.ortng wi" be conducted and
correct.lve act.'ons taken I'
necenary.
." -',
." "
, . "., H
Ons'de treat..nt.
sa2
16
1)9
.';81
\
On-s"'. Inclner.tlon 2,061
648
2,101
(.',slon 0' NO , SO , .nd part-
cul.te, unavoiAab'e.durlng
on-s't. Incineration.
,.;
":.-.
. ..
" ';,
, . I
(.'s,lon 0' NO , SO , and
partlcullt.es dftrlng.of.-slte
Inc Ineratlon
Z,84!»
16
2,981
. ,-''1
Off-sn.. 'Indner.-
lion and On-s"'e
treat...nt
E.tenslve tr,nsgort.tlon o'
hazlrdous Wlsle are required,
S088 0' which will be lhrough
c~unlt.ies.
','
EnvlroP88ntai Concerns
None-l'ner, gradlenl cont.ro'
wel' sysl", and fin.I cover
wil' prevent. any aigr.lion
.r.. lhe slle.
None-W.ste ..terl.I' w'II
be rendered non-haz.rdouS.
8N ha' no conlrol over
operal'on 0' o"-s'te
'acillty and possibl.
fulure Ilabi'lties.
90 percent destruction 0' e.cavated
PNt coapounds,
fltI..led li.. lo procell the conl....
'n.ted .ater'a's " 6 years.
I.".-.nlat'on can bee'n I..-dlalely.
Coap'ete destruction 0' 'AM cont..in-
anls COlE >99,9999 percent) possible
(relatlve'y new lechno'ogy)
No long-tera dat. .re .vallabl.
'or the process, .speclal'y for
PAM-conla.lnaled sol's.
furlher laboralory and p'Iot. scale
lesting .re necessary to de.unslr.le
lhe .easlbllty of the process.
In addlt.lon, a 'art' pera't .ay
be required be'ore 'u'l-scale
'nclneralion can begin.
r ~
;,;,.
"
"
: ,~
fu'I-s,.Ie Inclner.llon 0' lhe wlsle
wi" not. be possible until I ~ to 1
yelrs after project. 'nnltlation.
j'.
,
'"
(st'..ted tl.. to process the con-
t..lnaled ..t..r'.I' Is l.~ years.
1',:
~-'~: '
I,',
~;'
i(
Ii'
~.i
Transpor.t.'.n o. h.,ardous .Iterills
lhrough popu'ated areas,
."
Off-,It. 'ac'Ilt'.' ..y require
p'lclng sludge 'n druas prior to
accepting ,hi,..nt..
» ;
~ --.-.
~ \:
:I ~.
~ ;'::
Z,
>-i "
(sll..ted tl.. to proces' the
conl..ln.ted ..lerlals " !» years.
. .
f
,-, '-
" :'"
,.
"
I:.
-------
" '
, "
..1-.---"- .;-..-,. ,"".'" - -. -".- ... .
" ...'
... .~
".-:
.:;
.'
. ',,'
.' ,
"
, .. ~ .'
.'. '
'.' ;
',. .
'(
~,
"
,',
)
, ,,',
"" .
. . ,"
~ ," ,.
- ) ': ~
, ..
-.< .
",
,-- :. _:.-, '," --- ...,' - ":, ,".}.',',', " .-' ~, ':,~~ C.',,:,,:,: ,.:,::""~~,',,',~,:,,.'-'.'::_'.~i.,:,.: .,:,:~~T,~:_"-~": ::'~"":""'~"~: --,',::',' :=~'".'-.~';~:':,'. -, ,','".'.','.'-" -"-"'~~' ~~'.::~.:_'.:_'>.:. :-.",'--;,,~~~,~,"-' ,', - ,..J ... . ..- " " . '. '. ~. ;, ..
. , .. . -_. - - - - - . . - ~ ,- - ' - - - - " "..- ~ ---~ ~ ~- ,",: ~':.2c;;:.t;,,<,,;:~.:~:,,~'~~_2-':',::,;,L,i2Z:~~i::L:.j;i.~~i:::~_.:_;:.::~~:~~~;;:,t~,.~~-,,:~t~~..;:~~~ji!;
\,
TAB~- 4-2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS fOR VISIBLY CONTAMINATED SOil (ACRA POND)
-------.-------.-.----------..--------------.----..---------_.-
-------.---.-----------------------------.
Conslltufnt
:p.rh IItr .11110111
[1-2
~-2 bu~II(Jt.
1.1-:.41 1.1-2.41
.,
~ .
,1.
,.
~ '
;r.
\,'
... -.-----...----------------------------------------------
. .
f.:;
f~'
j...,
~;.
"
tl'
- - _. - - -. _. - -
II~"'~II ~1~t"ln.t.d SCII
. .
." -----.-----------.----.--------- .--------------.-----------
9-~
U-~.~I
c-~ [-b C-b
1.5-1.~; IO.~-~.OI 12.~-~.01
0-1
Ill-I.OI
~-~
16.11-0.51
D-~ &-~
~~II Du~II[.!f
1.~-2.51 I.~-?~I
"..r.
StlIIJ.,d
DlVutlDn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.--------------.-------
".phl 1111 fII'
Atin.,"'lIrlrn,
Atfn'J:hth.n.
10hl 2 II'IIIJI
Flcor.n.
Ft'.II..tllr.lI.
ArtnUtlDf
loti I 3 rein"s
Jluou.th,lI,
f',rl.'
'.nzl.l.nt.rictn.
(IIrr".'
.tnzal'lflu~r.nthlnf
'.nzatttfluor.ntiltp.
(ien:alllpynnf
'fn:al,hll..ryl.nl
blbtnzl..III.nthr.(.n.
In'flall.l.J'pyrlnt
lohl ,. Rln!)'
Ioft-C.rClnoq.nIC ~AH
1.rclnoqftl( ~~H
fohl PAM
~flllf~t (.tr.ot.'lf'
!:It. 1 Ph.n~h
562(1
WI)
11900
25991)
2160
558u
IIJO
8810
6210
6B31)
IiJIO
'u!!)
451
299
291
m
B
lu5
16434
4B~5"
~I,I~~
512'14
95juO
. 1
I.
J4J(1
24(1)
12!I'
13121)
116'-'
4531.1
921
1217
5(91)
WI)
BI5
B~!ll
jb6
:!IB
2311
6)
61
12
1C,!J5I
~9R~5
Ii:U
i~'iBB
651...
2910
2l'IOI,
296~:1
n4C1
54BiI
121ti
B991)
6290
"1/(1
lu3!)
90B
379
244
:!fJ1
!l'1I
-:4
75
I b 2liI
5::'J2.
21bl
:iHYI
91100
/4
51:160
37'"
2060(1
36190
2120
l16iJl.I
12110
12100
62'1)
1(150
1051'
lul:ll.l
541
351.1
120
422
5B
11161
5~9~il
~4I ,
~¥4:i!
I u411,}01
15
U10
2ml
21)YOO
301)0(1
2IJO
5HO
BI:I5
Bm
6
6290
61BO
l12iJ
t(51)
650
301
21.
(4
{4
BI)
106(-0
5570
J111..IJ
41410
302/J
IvBiltl
1461.1
, 528.)
804u
mli
118(1
ml)
662
UB
435
8115
210
16
205C,6
1B50B
4831:1
Bm6
114000
IJII
16
46~O
4106
2212
5980
5510
l1li0
164...
8210
(4
611
<4
459
21:11
23911
184cJ8
12m
'jOBZ9
2021100
54
..2
1211J
6')'1'
2::600
9Hi,
551\1
365('"
51J8:'
3B2v
"Oil
mil
1716(1
II 9 fit,
Inllll
2(1911
4390
no
555
BiJ2
1I14n
il:l/J
25a
340~1
9m5
m6
11)"5]1
9'l1,('t)
110
1::401,
~590
11 11/1,
5~I,II:I(I
401(,
111110
"5111
11tJR(1
J2i!l'l/
11700
15110
BIIO
41
141
m
1'12
B1
141
28539
9/18b1
4b92
10149'1
119111)1)
1 ~II
/1494
3651
21:!9
'jlm
2491
~C;"2
14411
IIB19
10115;
~481
16111
2192
1m
4/11
5~/J
6'1
19!
120
21n"
63291
133/1
1('1131
112S00
65
]221
J91-1i
9:51
~ "
f'"
~:-
i.~
~..,
t;
L';,
~i
w
~'"
16545
51126
3114
54901.1
1300/J
11
Jf.961)
648
1560
4
3811.'
I 5111t,
21()1,
142~ 1
II}05
4151
91!/I
\:
~:.
! ;~.:
22211)
29900
24900
481:10
4951)
2951)
169(1
1550
]] If)
5:0
214
74914
m660
II:I:;B4
1141)"
6600110 .
~9
59lo6
r":
~,;
~.~
r
1144
bl26
m2
1595
2596
4B::
41"
!l':6
194
94
~ ;
~','
I."
.'
t','
I"
>,
16583
29]51
:'1191
» .
~
)-
, ;
:I
~
:l
I- >
316?1
leU2'
411
--------------.-------------------------~---------~-~-------------------~--------------------------------_.-...-------------------------.----
'.(
. An61.IDU~ d.t. pOInt I:cluded ;r61 the Ifin.
-------
':' .,'
"
.' ',,"..
," . -~." """_#
" '
# '-,
,:'
.. i
. : -.' ~
:",,#:
. ",
','. '. , : ,~
.' :\' "j
>.I';
,
",
"
,,: . ,)
. ".'1
. '
. .; ::
': .
...
, ~,- ,~..,)
.~.: / '~'''''~~
-~-", '::,d
;X,,>~
- ::. ~ -. ;
..:'-;' "
:':~~
, :, ',S
.. .'''''''
\ "~ '.:,;:i
. :,' '.. " ~
" 'j;Lal~:J:~:2:Si:~;L:;~,;~~'~:~;<.:,:' ';
','. ,. :',',. ,-'
":,(~:~':;{j/:L~;~~.~~~:~_:.:~,;'~.,::.-~:,<:~;~.\)<:'~::U~:..:~.~.~~L:iL;j:~.2~.ti~ii~:~21E{:;,'~
t~:6
E~~r;::
(,".'
j:/:.
;;~: .
r./;
(::<.
:.:' j
r;:
~'-;~:,
~?:/
r-..,"',
~'r',
t"'''',.',
j-.;,
(,on,U tUlnt
I,.rtl ptr 8.lllon'
(,-,
~-:: (I-~ ..'~ (-] [-6 (-II D:aphutl' D-I Ii-~
1~.4-4.it' t2.5-~.1!1 I~.IH.~I 12.~-~.U' 1~.0-I(I.IHIIO.O-151 1111.0-15' 12.~-~.1I1 16.:)-~.O'
"un
5\1n..,11
DIyuhon
--------------.------------------------------.----------------------.--------------------------------------------------------------
..,lttll.1 tll n 212\1 2 '.2 J531, .., (2 '.2 <2 185 nr.1I
\.
Ann.plttltrllnl II mil "\ 5 12110 (2 ',2 14 -:2 m 5111
\..
Aunlllthlnl 6('\1 1/'1111 \2 ':2 I/2:'u <2 ':2 6111/ 0:2 25~ 4076
10t.1 2 RIIIJI, 1138) 1403U 2 ~ 14040 " ,. 621 <6 36.9 ~"O
FI uor... tl5 1151.1 8 U 9910 (2 0 IDI <2 14~1 m8
Phen.nthren' m 3411.1 34 214 25?Q 9 16 294 2 8~2 1246
Antlar It III 33 58/1 <2 3 3~ <2 (2 <2 <2 124 209
lohl 3 Rln". 4&1.1 ~3" .. 280 12848 . 11 ]9~ 2 2421 4281
FI..tlttl' 3/12 41i1O <2 216 21110 . .. 2112 U 966 14111
"r'll 19~ 4491.1 20 218 288(/ 9 I~ 218 (2 Ion 15&.
"111.I,.thr"1II1 56 ~8 12 26 4.. <4 " 21 (4 142 216
(bry"ll oj .., <4 31 451.1 <4 (4 28 24 1110 m
.lllolltl'luor.ltltlnl 21 299 ,4 10 194 <4 <4 (f <4 '8 106
.'llot'llluo"ltlt,nl I' Ilf6 <4 8 1111 <4 (4 1 <4 45 68
"IIDI""rtnl 22 225 (4 11 142 (4 <4 16 ,4 ~4 18
lIenlol,III'"r,I,nl '4 119 <4 " <4 <4 <4 ,4 <4 ~6 58
1",.,I',h!,nthr.ctnl <4 <4 <4 <4 101 <4 <4 (4 (4 16 ]]
In"lotl,~,3'p,rlnl II) "4 <4 <4 ~4 <4 (4 (4 <4 22 32
IDt.1 4. ~In" .50 108411 32 ~31 1115 II/ 3t 612 3J 2536 3851
..-tIl'U noqllllC f'AN 188~ 2&162 63 126 3211.. 28 ., 1~6~ I~ IIU 12918
t"'I.D,.n'l[ ~AH 118 2ufl1 12 1/11 ml 0 I) 65 24 411 no
10t.1 tAN 21,,.u 10224 15 116 140113 28 ., IU., 38 ..632 13610
81nlllli (~tr.'t,.111 6HI) 811110 2~511O . 41120 31400 1220 4510 1120 ml4 21926
10\11 "',nol', 1\.1 25 8 II 25 4 10 1 n 1
I",
'r~"
i. ..
. <
;.;, "
~'::' '
~: :~~
;, .
~ ---:'
V"
~ ~:.:.,
b'~
t\::
;{';'
l'~t'"
i..~ .-
~,,;
p'::
k":'
r~-:.. :
~~~,- :
>
H
>-i
>
()
::c
~
~
ff-
~':'::'
~.:, .
~:"'Y
.::;'~
~~~
}~~~ :.:
~........
~J7~
r"~
p'
~ ",
. .
--------~--------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,-, '.-
o
-------
: ..,... ,; .:":',',"
.,
",\"
" " .," ",.~',~\";:,?i.~i i~'H ~ ~'T:"" dl' 'I" ,.~-'; ::,':',.:, ';.;..', .' : ..:, .'
~".::' ...,.
. I, 4" ,'-..
"..,'
TABLE 4-5
LOCATION OF WASTES AND VISIBLY CONTAMINATED SOILS IN THE
OLD WASTEWATER DISPOSAL POND
.. '
;. :'"
~. '::
;':.~,';.:
, '
t: ::'
~ ~, .
(',.'
;.':'/:
r::~ < -
LOClt i em
...
Oeoth (tt)
Description
t,:.
Es t ; l1li t.o
ThiCkness'
to be
Removed (ft)
",'-
~:.', ,',' .
..,:';
l;S
1- ~-', ..
I:~":
(~;
r:,
2.5
r'.,,:, '
:~;>.
V','~ .
F'" :. '
~.\ '
I!~t
r.~~~<,
,",
.fi~
~. ........
~:;\
v:
t:.~ ~ ,:'
t:\;.;.
f~~-;~:'
fY~:",
?~2~~~rF~T~~
TP-7
TP-IO
TP-U
TP-13
TP-1C
Boring F-]
Boring F-7
Boring G-5
4.0 - 5.3
5.3 - 6.5
6.5 - 10.0
2.0 - 2.2
2.2 - C.5
4.5 - 5.0
5.0 - 6.2
6.2 - 10.0
1.5 - C.C
4.4 - 4.6
4.6 - 5.0
5.0 - 7.5
7.5 - 10.0
0.9 - Z.O
2.0 - 3.0
3.0 - C.3
4.3 - 4.5
4.5 - 5.0
5:0 - 5.6
5.6 - 6.5
2.2 - 4.0
4.0 - 4.2
4.2 - 6.0
4.5 - 6.5
6.5 - 9.5
9.5 - 11.5
3.5 - C.5
4.5 - 6.5
6.5 - 9.5
9.5 - 11.0
o - 2.5
2.5 . '.0
8.0 - '.5
B.5 - 11.5
Wast. - black tlrry silt. oOor
Fine Sind. hllvily stlined (visibly cont..inlted)
Blue-grlY fine sind (visibly non-cont..inat.d)
Viste - bllck finl Sind
Fill - tan. fine Sind (visibly non-cont..inltld)
Wastt - black stiff tarry silt
Brown fint sand. stained (visibly conti8inattd)
Blue-gray fine Sind Ind silt (visibly non-conti8inatld)
Wastt - dirk brown to gray. dry slud9l. cindtrs. silt. sand
Fill - light brown fine sand (visibly non-cont..inatld)
Wlstl - (s... as 1.5 - 4.4)
Tan finl Sind (visibly non-cont..inatad)
Blue-gray silt (visibly non-cont..inttd)
Fill - hllvily stained
Wistl - black tarry silt
Brown fine sand. stainld (visibly cont..inted)
Gray cllY and silt (visibly non-cont..inatld)
Brown silt Ind fine sand. staintd (visibly non-contl.in.tld)
GrlY Ind bro~ cl.y Ind silt (visibly non-contl8inlted)
GrlY silt, littlt fine Sind (visibly non-contl8inattd)
Wastt - bllck tarry silt (Wlltt pinchls out to the south ICrOSS
list flCt of tll. pit)' "
Light b~n fin. sand. lightly staintd (visibly non-contl.inlteO)
Tan fine Sind (visibly non-contl8inatld)
Fill - dirk brown silty sand (visibly contl8inated)
GrlY silty sand with llytrs of silty cllY (visibly non-contaminated)
T.n fint sind. laytr of silty cllY fr08 10 to 10.5 ftlt
oily stringer It IPProxi8ltily 10 ftlt (visibly non-cont~inlted)
Fill - brown to bllCk silty sind (visibly contl8inlttd)
GrlY Ind black silty cllY with laytrs of silty Sind.
oily stringer It 4.5 to 6.0 ftlt (visibly non-contl8inlted)
Dirk gray to brown si lty Sind. oily ltn.. It 7.2 ftlt
(visibly non-contl8inlted)
....... to tan IUty Iind (visibly non-cont.l8inatld)
F111 - dirk brown si1ty Sind (visib1y contl8inattd)
Light bf'OWft to tan fine Sind (visib1y non-contl8inlttd)
GrlY si1ty clay (vilib1y noft8contl8inltld)
Tan fint Iind with ltnst' of silty cllY (visibly non-cont18inated)
AVERAGE
1.9
3.5
3.4
,.', .
, '
~.... ~:.:
t
~: "
t :'
l,';
1.8
r...".
t<'~
,r.' ,'.
2.0
'u~
t:.; .'.'
, '
r.: .
,
1 :.
; .:
1.0
I>:
, .
i,.
\ '
/-.:',..-
2.5
; '~,.:'. \
- 2.3
-
IE,ti8ltld tllickntu Hied Oft visual criteril specified in Attac...nt V, (aMbit A of the Consent Order.
()
-------
TABLE 4-6
. .
,. '. \ ..
~: ~::;';';~~;~;ol'~l;~t:.(i{j:,t~L~~~;';:2j~D~':D:,,:~:~:.:~:;;:~:';\~':'~
F«:
f~:;}
[;\~
.,.."
~~.~, ~ i
~!:,.,~"
~~
~t.t,t
~\i
-------------------------------------------------------------------____a_----------.----
.1'j
,..e..
..01.
18;:0
---------------------.------------------------------------------------------------------
10
:94G~
a
T,st ~:~ $,.:l.s
Tp.7
111.5.7.01
TC.!~
~ls~i1v ~n-C:~~I.l~.ttf
\5.~-5.:J
TP-t:; ,H:i
15.0.11.51 III.~.T.OI
r~-1
t~S~'.:V ::~:I~:..tl:
~4.j-~. j:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
:~J9f,1
:.
. - -. ~:\"'i~~:~' J~o('':~~~~~t~j??~''~:~~\'~,: .~.....
1~OOO
~8
11/);)
'. tOO
T~.1
'5. :;-11. Si
;''':111' E':~~ &:~.!lill
------------------------------------------_.--------------~----------------------------
~:.~..~.:I
:&~ .
.~~I: ~~!''':.'
\20
20
:o~..,,)O
:58
---------------_.__._-----_._--~._-------------------.----------..-.--------------------
-"';.;".7."'''-':' .,,,.- -' '.~- " --,.~-:-:~..-".- -....-:,
-------
" ',", iJ
13~.'" '.::~;.~.;,~:.:'-r:':'
\' ...'
!'::-=...:,
~~ :~,~.~ /
~.'" .
r~' .,~
! :2~;:t:'~:,:S:~ ':':"':":::""::
.. '..,' ;', " " ~. .~, ~:':~:: : ...;,:,.6'(t",:;:~~~~;~i;~~:;;~:S!~1\t>~'!,:g;\~%;t~J£;};:~~~::~~;:~4fJ~;i}~t;;l~~~~:l~!ii::l\~~~~~~~ji;~;;?~~; ~,~,,'.::: ':"'-::..:,::.:~ ,:;.;:;~:}.
AnA('HVE~T
TABLE 6-7
COST COMPARISON OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
(Costs x $1,000)
Alternative
On-site
Treatment of
Creosote
Contalllinated
Soils & Sludges
On-site
Incineration
01 Creosote
ContUlinated
50115 & Sludges
On-site Treatment
of Contaminated
Soil s
Off-site
Incineration of
Creosote Sludges
Time required to process
12,500 tons (years)
5
6
1.44
Capital
Cost
582
2,063
2,845
Annual
Operating Cost
36
648
36
Salvage Value
Present"Value Cost2
o
6801
o
t
739
2,303
2,98.1
S/ton
S9
184
238
lSalvage value of incinerator as sUllIed to be 33 percent of capital
cost.
2pVC = Capital
Salvage Cost.
Cost + Present Value Operating Cost - Present Value
,
. ~~.,?'.";;: .~.~:,.'1"r::rp::r;'?J',r~~{. \~"T:~:-"~'~"",:'.rr:7'r'."':!"": '~:~. -.' -.,...~:
r .':. ,',"
~'; :,.:,~: ',t:.
~;/~;!:
r' ".'"
rs\;:'[.
~&~
tl
!l~
~:t(
1r.~~,:.:/
!{}~::
Ii!
~:~~:::;
II'-";?
rj}~~~
~~t,
w.~;:~'-
I~
~i~;~1
t;.',,",:
f~~h
r~~~;;
~~~j;,.
------- |