United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-91/151
December 1990
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Allied Chemical & Ironton
-------
110272.101
. REPOR! DOCUMENTATION 1', REPORT NO.
I' 'PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-91/151
1 ~
a. A8dp18nt'. Acceulan No.
4. 'Jt18 and ~
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke, OH
Second Remedial Action - Final
7. Aulhor(.)
s. Report 08t8
12/28/90
II.
II. P8rf0nnlng OrganlD1lon Rapt. No.
e. ~18 0rg8InIzd0n NIIm8... Add-
10. Proj8c:t/TuklWortt Unit No.
11. c-ct(C) or Gr8nt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
1~ IIponaOItng Org8lU8llon NIIm8 ... ~
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Typa of RIIpCII1& PerIod Covered
Agency
800/000
14.
15. "'on'll1181fWy No...
11. Abatr.ct (Umlt: 200 WOfd8)
The 95-acre Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke site is comprised of a former coke plant
and an operating tar plant in Ironton, Lawrence County, Ohio. The site is located
within a coal mining region, and surrounding land use is predominantly industrial and
residential. The Ohio River, a source of drinking water for the city of Ironton, lies
approximately 500 feet to the west of the tar plant. Onsite lagoons lie within the
100-year floodplain of the Ohio River, with portions of the lagoons inundated
sufficiently to maintain wetlands vegetation. From approximately 1920 to the late
1960's, wastewater and solid wastes including coke and coal fines, tank car sludge,
boiler ash, and weak ammonia liquor were discharged into swampy areas east of the Coke
Plant, which are adjacent to Ice Creek, a tributary to the Ohio River, From the early
1970's until the coke plant closed in 1982, a series of four lagoons in the eastern
area of the plant were used to treat process wastewaters, stormwater run-Off, and
waste sludge; and a fifth lagoon was used to dispose of solid waste. Tar plant
operations began onsite in 1945. Types of wastes generated included anthracene
residues and salts, coal tar pitch scrap, and phthalic anhydride residues, which were
disposed of onsite in the Goldcamp Disposal Area, a former sand pit adjoining the tar
plant.
(See Att- ....... P"'rT<> \
17, ~t An8JyaI. L Dncttptora
Record of Decision - Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke, OH
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs. (benzene), other organics (PAHs, phenols), metals (arsenic),
other inorganics (cyanide)
b. 1dan08r8l0pen-End8d Tenna
.-
c. COSATI R81dtGrcqt
11. AnIIabIIty 8I8I8m8nt
1'. Security CI... (Thl. Report)
None
20. SecurIty CI... (Thl. P8ge)
Nnn",
21. No. 01 P.ge.
116
.
(888 ANSI-Z3I.18
22. PrIce
SHIMlrUctJon. on RtI"",..
(Formetty NTlS-35)
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-91/151
. ,Alli~.1 Chemical and Ironton Coke, OH
Second Remedial Action - Final
~stract (Continued)
Extensive studies and onsite investigations identified contamination in onsite soil in
the Coke Plant and tar plant areas, lagoon sediment, Ice Creek sediment downstream of the
site, and ground water beneath and surrounding the site. A 1988 Record of Decision (ROD)
addressed the Gold Camp Disposal Area and documented installation of a cap and slurry
wall, pumping and treatment of contaminated ground water, and provisions for supplemental
study and remediation of nonaqueous phase contaminants found on top of the bedrock. This
ROD addresses contamination at all areas not previously addressed, and provides a final
remedy at the site. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment,
and ground water are VOCs including benzene; other organics including PAHs and phenols;
metals including arsenic; and other inorganics including cyanide.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating and incinerating onsite
approximately 122,000 cubic yards of waste material from Lagoon 5, and 31,000 cubic yards
of waste coal, followed by onsite waste fuel recovery (re-use of the waste heat generated
during incineration), and disposing of the residual ash offsite: in-situ bioremediation
of approximately 475,000 cubic yards of waste material from Lagoons 1 through 4, the
residual soil of Lagoon 5, and the adjacent inner and outer dikes: excavating and onsite
bioremediation on a .prepared pad of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil from the
Coke and tar plant soil: pumping and treatment of ground water at a future onsite .
treatment facility, with onsite reinjection or offsite discharge: monitoring ground water
onsite and downgradient of Ice Creek, and developing a contingency plan in the event that
contaminant migration is encountered: pilot testing the effectiveness of in-situ
bioremediation and developing a contingency plan for an alternative remedial action for
Lagoons 1 through 4, if necessary; and implementing institutional controls including deed
estrictions, and site access restrictions such as fencing. The estimated capital cost
for this remedial action is $21,000,000, with an estimated total O&M cost of $28,500,000.
Total estimated cost is $49,500,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: The waste fuel recovery system shall be designed and
operated to achieve a 99.99% destruction of carcinogenic PAHs. Lagoon 5 materials will
be excavated until EPA visibly determines that natural stream sediment has been
encountered. Bioremediation of soil and lagoon sediment must reduce PAHs to attain a
cancer risk level of 104 to 10-6 and an HI
-------
~
Declaration ror Ule Record of Decision
Site Name and Location
Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke, Ironton,.Ohio
Stat_ment of Bas~s and PurDose
!"
Thi. decision document pre.ent. .the .elected remedial action
tor the Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke aite, in Ironton, Ohio,
which was cho.en in accordance wi tb t.he requirement. of the
comprehensive Environmental Response, Compenaation, and Liability
. Act of 1980 (CERCIA), as uended by the Superfund Amendments and
aeauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and i. not inconsistent with
the National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the factual and legal
baa is for .electing the remedy ror this .ite. . .
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency concurs with the
.elected remedy. The information supporting this remedial action
decision is contained in the administrative record tor this site.
A.ses8ment of the Site
- .
. .
Actual or threatened relea.es of hazardous .ubstances from
this .ite, if not addressed by implementing the response action
..lected in this Record of Decision (ROD), .ay preaent an imminent
and .ub.tantial threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Descrit:>tion of the Selected Reme~v
This operable unit i. the .econd and tinal of two operable
uni ts for the .i te. The tirst operable unit addre..ed the.
Goldcamp Dispo.al Area, a former .andpit which has been filled
with wa.tes. The.elected remedy tor the tirat operable unit
include. installation of a cap and 8lurry wall, pumping and
treatment of groundwater, and the .upplemental 8tudy of a layer of .
non-aqueous pha.e 8Ub.tance. (NAPS). .
Thi. tinal, .econd operable unit remedy addre..e. groundwater and
.oi1 contamination by reducing the ri.k. po.ed by the .ite,
through treatment and institutional control.. The major
component. of the .elected remedy tor the .econd oPerable unit
include the following:
o
incineration of approximately 122,000 cubic yards (cy)
of lagoon wa.te material., and on-.ite re-u.e of the
waste heat generated during incineration (Waste Fuel
Recovery),
in-.itu bioremediation of approximately 457,000 cy of
lagoon wa.te material,
o
o
-------
~
.
I
o
40,000 cy of contaminated 80il materials,
pumping and on-site treatment of groundwater,
o
monitoring of groundwater downgradient of Xce Creek and
preparation of a contingency plan,
~encing, security, and deed restrictions,
o
o
evaluation of the effectiveness of in-situ
bioremediation, with a contingency for development of an
alternative remedial action ~or Lagoons 1 through 4.
Declarat~on o~ StatutorY Determ~
-
!'he selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies ~ith Federal and State requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, or a waiver can be justified for any State applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements that will not be met, and
is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the
aaximum extent practiCable, and it sati.fies the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume as their principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous 8ubstances
remaining on .ite above health-based levels during the period of
the remedial action, a review will be conducted within five years
after the commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment. .
,&;,
~~
Dee
Protection Agency
~
-------
Decision S1DIIIDary ror 1:118 Record of Decision
I.
Si~e Name.
Loca~ion. and Descr~
The Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke site (the Site) is located
in Ironton (pop. 14,290), Lawrence County, Ohio, and covers
approximately 95 acres. The Site includes the following related
areas of contamination (aee rigure ES-l):
'",
1) An onera~ina Tar Plan~ ~e Tar Plant contains aeveral
areas in which the aoils are contaminated with orqanic
chemicala as a result of apillage, totalling approximately
2,000 CUbic yards.
2) A closed and nartiallv dismantled Coke Plant The Coke
Plant includes several areas in which the soil is
contaminated with organic chemicals as a result of spillage,
from the operation of the Coke Plant, and from its related
processing facilities, totalling approximately 38,000 cubic
yards.
3) Laaoons Five lagoons were uaed to receive process
wastewater and aeveral types of hazardous aolid wastes
originating from the Coke Plant. This haa resulted in the
following types of contamination:
a) The discharge of process waste water from the coking
operation resulted in contamination of the sediments in
the Lagoons with organic chemicala.
b) Solid wastes from treatment processes at the Coke
Plant were discharged to several of the lagoons.
Lagoon 5 (see figure 1-2) contains a hazardous waste
(Decanter Tank Tar Sludge, X087) which is highly
contaminated with organic chemicals. Lagoons land 3
contain a hazardous waste (Lime Xiln Sludge, X060)
which i. contaminated with organic and inorganic
chemical..
Lagoons 1 through 4 contain approximately 457,000 cubic
yards of contaminated materials. Lagoon 5 contains
approximately 122,000 cubic yard. of contaminated materials.
4) Contaminated ..dimen~. in Yce creek The .ediment. in Ice
Creek have been contaminated with organic chemicals due to
the di.charge of process waste water from the Coke Plant to
Ice Creek, prior to the construction of the lagoon. in the
early 1970s. The contaminated sediments total approximately
150,000 cubic yards.
5) Contaminated aroundwater underlyina ~he -tta The
-------
~
2
and inorganic chemicals as a result of leaching of
contaminants which are found in the site soils.
6) The GoldcamD D~sDosal Area A former sand pit adjoining
the tar plant has been filled with waste materials from the
tar plant and other sources, totalling approximately 300,000
cubic yards.
. . '.
T.be Site ia located in the southeastern aection of Ironton and is
surrounded by industry, business, personal residences, and
waterway.. Directly adjacent to the Site on the east and south
ia Ice creek, a tributary to the Ohio River. Past Ice Creek to
the south is the village of Coal Grove (pop. 2840). The primary
source of drinking water for Coal Grove residents comes from the
Coal Grove well field, approximately two thousand feet south of
the Coke Plant area. A junk yard lies along approximately 450
feet of the Site's southern boundary. The Ohio River lies.
approximately 500 feet to the west of the Tar Plant. (aee Figure
1-1). .
~e Site ia located within a coal mining region, and is
underlain by sand and gravel resources, which were formerly mined
in the Goldcamp Disposal Area. The lagoons are within the 100-
year flood plain. Portions of the lagoons are inundated
sufficiently often to maintain wetlands-type vegetation. The.
Ohio River is used as a source of drinking water by the City of
Ironton, and in many other locations upstream and downstream of
the Site.
~.
II.
Site Historv and Enforcement Activities
In 1920, Ironton Solvay Coke Co. constructed the coke plant and
initiated the coking process. In 1926, Ironton Solvay Coke Co.
united with aeveral other companies to form Allied Chemical
(Allied). Allied operated the plant until 1977 when it was sold
to McClouth Steel Corporation. McClouth Steel managed the
facility before declaring bankruptcy in 1982. For a short time
during the bankruptcy proceedings, the bankruptcy court managed
the aite. Shortly thereafter, the plant and ita facilities were
purchaaed by Ironton City fuela CICF), who in March 1984 80ld the
plant to Allied, with the exception of aurface materials. For
the next year, ICF was allowed to aalvage materiala from the
surface, and demolished much of the plant. At the end of the
year, tho.e material. not removed became the property of Allied
Chemical.
Prom approximately 1920 through the late 19608, wastewater and
aolid wastes generated in the coking process were discharged into
swampy areas east of the coke plant, adjacent to Ice Creek. These
waste streams included process wastewater, coke and coal fines,
decanter tank tar aludge, boiler ash, and weak ammonia liquor.
-------
3
benzene, cyanide, metals, naphthalene, phenolics, and pOlynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
In the early 1970s, a aeries of lagoons was constructed in the
eastern area of the plant for the purpose of treating these
wastewater streams. Process wastewater, atormwater runoff and
aome waste sludge were discharged to Lagoons 1, 2, 3, and 4,
while solid waste, including decanter tank tar aludge, was
deposited in Lagoon 5 (aee figure E5-1). In 1982 the lagoons and
the Coke' Plant operation were ahut down.
The lagoons were the aubject of a 1981 Part A application for
Interim statu. under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Thia application was filed late, and the facility never
received Interim Status. The facility continued to operate until
1~82 at which time operation of the lagoons was discontinued.
The lagoons were not closed per the requirements of RCRA.
The Tar Plant was constructed in 1945 and began operations as a
unit of Allied Chemical and Dye Company's Barrett Division. The
facility i. atill in operation, but now as a unit of Allied-
.Signal Inc., Engineered Materials Sector. Specific products of
the Tar Plant operation include phthalic anhydride, creosotes,
pitches, naphthalene, road tars, driveway aealer, roofing pitch
and anthracene. Most of the generated waste. (anthracene
residue. and aalts, coal tar pitch scrap and phthalic anhydride
residues), were disposed of in the Goldcamp Disposal Area.
The Allied Site vas placed on the National Priorities List in
1~83, making it eligible for study and clean up under the Federal
Superfund remedial program. A Remedial Investigation (RI). was
completed in July, 1986. A Feasibility Study for the GDA .
Operable Unit was completed in July, 1988. The Feasibility Study
for the Coke Plant and Lagoons Area va. completed in July, 1990.
The .tudy and cleanup that has been performed at the Site has
been conducted pursuant to aeveral legal agreements:
1)
In 1'84, an agreement was memorialized in the form of a
Conaent Order between the owner. of the Site (now
known a. Allied-Signal Corporation), Ohio EPA and U.S.
EPA, requiring the owner. to conduct a Remedial
Inve.tigation and Feasibility Study at the Site. These
activities are now completed.
.In 1'89, a unilateral Administrative Order was i.sued
by the u.s. EPA requiring Allied to conduct Remedial
De.ign and Remedial Action activities a..ociated with
the implementation of the Record of Decision for the
Goldcamp Disposal Area. These activiti.s are currently
in progre...
-------
"-
.,.
\\
4
. In 1987, the U.S. EPA and Allied signed a consent order
requiring Allied to dismantle and decontaminate
processing facilities associated with the Coke Plant.
Extensive demolition and cleanup of the Coke Plant has
been, and is being, performed pursuant to this
agreement. .
III. Hiahliahts of Co~unitv Part~~ation
3)
The Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan for the Allied
Chemical and 1ronton Coke site were released to the public for
comment on September 28, 1990. These documents, along with many
others listed in the Administrative Record Index, were made
available to the public at an information repository maintained
at Briggs Lawrence County Public Library in Ironton, Ohio. The
notice of availability for these two documents was published in
the 1ronton Tribune on September 28, 1990. A public comment
period on the documents was held from September 28, 1990 to
November 28, 1990. In addition, a public meeting was held on
October 23, 1990. Notice of this public meeting was placed in
the local Ironton newspaper on September 28, 1990 and on October
23, 1990. At this .eeting, representatives from U.s. EPA and
Ohio EPA answered questions about the site and the remedial
alternatives under consideration. During the meeting, a request
was made to extend the public comment period. As a result, the
u.S. EPA extended the comment period for 30 days, so that the new
ending date was November 28, 1990. Notice of this extension was
published in the local Ironton newspaper. On November 7 and 8,
1990, U.S. EPA conducted community interviews with local
officials and residents. On November 19; 1990, the U.S. EPA and
Ohio EPA appeared before the 1ronton City Council and members of
the public in order to answer further questions, and distributed
a fact sheet containing answers to many community questions. A
response to the comment. received during the public comment
period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part
of this ROD.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Allied site in Ironton, Ohio, chosen in accordance with
CERCLA, a. amended by SARA, and i. not inconsistent with the NCP.
The decision for this Site is based on the administrative
record.
IV.
Sco~e and Role of ODerable Unit or Res~onse Action Within
Site Strateav
As is the cas. with many Superfund sit.s, the problems at this
site are very complex. In order to deal with this complexity,
the Site has been divided into two operable units. This means
. that-the U.S. EPA bas decided to address the Goldcamp Disposal
Area separately from the rest of the site, as the first operable
-------
5
Decision were prepared for the Goldcamp Disposal Area. The
remedy for the Goldcamp Disposal Area is currently in the design
phase, and involves installation of a cap over the top of the
Area, construction of a slurry wall around the Area to limit the
flow of groundwater, the pumping and treatment of contaminated
groundwater, and the supplemental study and remediation of non-
aqueous phase contaminants found on top of the bedrock.
%b..1a Record of Decision is for the final remedy at the site. The
purpose of this Record of Decision is to address contamination at
all areas of the site not previously addressed in the Record of
Decision for the Goldcamp Disposal Area. These remaining areas:
the Tar Plant, the Coke Plant, the Lagoons, and Ice Creek, are
collectively referred to as the Coke Plant and Lagoons Area
(CPLA).
IV.
-
Summarv of Site Characteristics
The Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke site has been the subject of
a number of extensive studies and site investigations. The
purpose of these studies has been to characterize the nature and
extent 'of contamination a.sociated with the site, and the impact
of this contamination on human health and the environment. Each
of the.e reports is contained in the Admini.trative Record, and
is available for review at the information repository. Xey site
inve.tigations are described in detail in the following reports:
1) Initial Site Assessment and RemedtIJ Investiaatjon of
the Allied Chemical/lronton Coke Site. Iront~~ ohio.
Phase I ReDort, D'Appolonia, 1984,
Remedial Invest~on for Allied Chemical/lronton Coke
ii18, IT Corp., 1986,
CPLA Soil and Laaoon SamDlina and Analvs~s Proaram, IT
Corp., 1989, and
Investiaation of NeoDlasia Occurrences in Ice Creek
Fish P~Dulations. Ironton. Oh~, IT Corp., 1990.
2)
3)
4)
Exten.ive field investigations have been performed as ~art of
the.e studies (see figure. 1-3 and 1-4, attached), including:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
')
7)
the in.tallation and sampling of over 45 monitoring
wells,
collection and analysis of over 200 groundwater
.amples,
collection and analysis of over 200 .oi1 sample.,
collection and analysis of over ten surface water
sample.,
continuous sampling and analysis of air samples during
sampling and excavation,
excavation and sampling of over 20 test pits, and
-------
~
6
tissue.
!be results of these investigations are summarized below.
Coke Plant and Tar Plant So~
!be coke plant area (see figure 1-2) once contained the site
administration building, a coke battery with associated
processing facilities, storage tanks, and piping, and a network
of railroad line. used for tran8porting coal and coke.
!be coke plant has now been partially dismantled, so that all
that remains is the brick structure of the coke batteries
themselves. The majority of the piping and processing facilities
have been removed pursuant to a legal agreement between Allied
and the u.s. EPA. The area formerly containing the network of
rail lines is covered by a thin layer of coal, totalling
approximately 30,000 cubic yards. The administration building is
still in use.
The tar plant is still in operation.
!be Remedial Investigation and sub..quent sampling and analysis
have indicated that there are three zones within the coke plant
area and four zones within the tar plant area which are
contaminated and require cleanup. The.. areas are indicated in
figure ES-1 and Figure 1-4 (attached), and are estimated to total
38,000 cubic yards within the Coke Plant area and 2,000 cubic
yard. within the Tar Plant area. The analysis of these samples
taken from these areas indicated the presence of 8enzo(a)pyrene
at levels exceeding the soil and waste cleanup standards given in
Table 2 (attached). A summary of the analysis results for these
contaminated soil areas is viven in Tables 8.1 through 8.5
(attached).
More complete information on these contaminated soil areas may be
found in appendix 8 of the Feasibility Study and in section
4.2.1.2 of the Remedial Investigation.
Coke P1ant Laqoons
A series of five lagoons were constructed in the early 1970s in a
marshy area between the coke plant and Ice Creek (see Figure ES- .
1). Prior to the construction of the lagoons, wastewater from
the coke plant operations was discharged directly to this marshy
area. Once completed, these lagoons were used to receive the
liquid waste discharge from the coke plant, stormwater runoff
from the coke plant area, and several types of hazardous solid
wastes. The us. of these lagoons was discontinued in 1982, when
the coke plant was shut down.
-------
7
operations, including waste coal and coke, tar, lime sludge, and
decanter tank tar sludge, and dredged river sediment and soil
and general debris.
Portions of lagoons 2, 3 and 4 are currently inundated with
water. The remaining surface of the lagoons area has become
overgrown with vegetation. Ground 8urface elevations within
lagoons 1 through 4 are below the Ohio River 100-year flood
stage.
Laaoons 1 ~hrouah 4
Lagoons 1 through 4 are mainly composed of waste coal and coke,
but also include general debris including bricks, pieces of
metal, and ~ar. Lagoons 1 and 3 contain Lime Kiln Sludge (R060),
which is listed as a Hazardous Waste per RCRA based upon cyanide,
naphthalene, phenolic compounds and arsenic content (40 CFR
261.32).. Analysis of the materials within lagoons 1 through 4 is
summarized in Table C.4, (sampling locations shown in Figure
C.l), and Table 8.6 (sampling locations shown in figure 2).
These analyses indicate that the lagoon sediments are
contaminated with widely varying concentrations of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons, ammonia, cyanide, phenolic., and sulfate,
benzene and arsenic.
~
Laaoon S
Lagoon S was used for the disposal of Decanter Tank Tar Sludge
(KOS?), which is a listed Hazardous Waste per the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), based upon phenol and
naphthalene content (40 CFR 261.32). It i. also believed that
waste coal and coke materials were deposited in Lagoon s.
Analysis of the wast.. in Lagoon S indicated the presence of very
high concentrations of carcinogenic Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons. While the solubility and mobility of these PARs is
low, they are potent carcinogens. The analysis of Lagoon S waste
material. 1. .ummarized in ~le B.'.
Lagoon 5 i. approximately 40 feet deep, and i. estimated ~o
contain approximately 122,000 cubic yards of waste materials.
Approximately 5-15 feet of the Lagoon 5 waste material. are below
the water table.
Iea ereak
.
The .ediments-of Ice Creek downstream of ~e .ite are
contaminated due to the past discharge of wastewater from the
Coke Plant operations. Samples of s.diments from Ice creek were
collected as part of the Remedial Investigation by installing 19
boring- at 12 locations along Ice Creek (see figure D.l for
-------
,-
8
of the Remedial Investigation, and are summarized in Table D.2
(attached).
~is analysis indicated that phenolics, Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PABs)in the form of naphthalene, ammonia and
cyanide are present in the sediments. These contaminants are
attributable to the Allied/Ironton site.
~e Ice ~r.ek sediment samples were also analyzed for
permeability and leaching characteristics in order to determine
¥bether these sediments are a likely source of contamination to
the local groundwater. This physical testing showed that the
sediments are of varying permeability, including layers of.
uterial of extremely low permeability (on the order of 10-6 to
10-8 em/sec). These low-permeability sediments are thickest near
the mouth of the stream, become thinner upstream, and eventually
pinch out just upstream of the coke plant lagoons. The leach
testing indicated that trace concentrations (less than 10 parts
per billion) of PABs can leach from the sediments.
Groundwater levels measured at well. near Ice creek in the
vicinity of the Third Street Bridge show that the effects of
pumping at the Coal Grove well field are primarily limited to
the area south of Ice Creek. This indicates a substantial
hydraulic connection between the creek and the aquifer, and that
the creek supplies a portion of the flow of water to the Coal
Grove well field. Groundwater modeling performed as part of the
RI indicated that approximately 27' of the water drawn from wells
within the Coal Grove well field originate. from Ice creek.
The area of Ice creek sediment. which is contaminated with wastes
from the Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke site is considered a
valuable wetland, the destruction of which (for example, through
dredging) would be considered a negative environmental impact.
~e lagoons themselves are constructed in a former channel of Ice
ereek. The creek was rechanneled when the lagoons Were
constructed. The wetland. them.elve. Were created upon the
construction of . dam in the Ohio River, which resulted in the
. raising of the water level in the Ohio River by over 20 feet.
Thus what had previou.ly been a narrow stream channel became a
~ad, 8wampy area. .
!he PARs which are present in the Ice creek sediment. are
potentially hazardous to aquatic life. A common health effect in
fish associated with exposure to PAB. in stream sediments i. the
formation of liver neoplasia, a type of tumor. ~her.fore, rather
than relying upon mOdeling or calculation. to determine whether
the fish are being endangered, the V.S. EPA decided to have
sample. of fish taken from Ice Creek and the Ohio River, and to
have the liver. of these fish examined by a pathologist for the
presence of.neopla.tic lesion.. The results of this
-------
9
Neo~lasia Occurrences in Ice Creek Fish Po~ulations. Ironton.
~, IT Corp, April 1990. A total of 214 fish were collected,
and no neoplastic lesions were observed. Therefore, it was
concluded from this and additional observations that the
concentrations ot site-related contaminants present in the Ice
creek stream aediments do not have an adverse ettect on fish.
The water quality in Ice creek. vas tested during the Aauatic
. Ecoloaical Stud~t Allied Chemical'. Ironton. Ohio Coke Site,
Battelle, 1984. This analysis indicated that concentrations of
chloride and ammonia were greater downstream of the aite than
upstream, but were still well below u.s. EPA Water Quality
Criteria. The vater vas analyzed for PABs at this time and none
vere detected.
Croundwater
A variety ot contaminants have been detected in the groundwater
underneath and surrounding the site, particularly phenolics,
ammonia, cyanide, chloride, naphthalene and benzene. The pattern
of groundwater contamination i. indicative of a number of .mall,
localized aources on-site. The flow ot groundwater vas modeled
in great detail as part ot the Remedial Investigation. Figure 4-
12 shows the groundwater aurface contours and flow paths
resulting from the field data and computer aimulation. This
. indicates that groundwater from underneath the site will flow
toward Ice Creek and the Ohio river. The potential impacta of
contaminated groundwater on the local populationa are through the
Coal Grove Well Field, which ia the primary aource of drinking
water to approximately 2840 residents of the Village of Coal
Grove, through the Ironton Public Water Supply Intake in the Ohio
River, and through the Amcast production wella.
The Amcaat production vells vere addreaaed in the 1/88 Record of
. Deciaion for the Goldcamp Diapoaal Area. Bottled water for
drinking ia currently being provided by Allied to Amcast.
Site modeling and actual analyaia of Coal Grove vell vater
aupport the aaaea.ment that no drinking water atandards are being
exceeded in the Coal Grove wellfield aa a reault of this Site.
The resulta of computer aimulation of groundwater flow indicated
that leakage from Ice Creek may account for approximately 27
percent of the water pumped at the Coal Grove vell field, and
. that the primary pathway for leakage from the creek ia through
the channel aidea vhere lower-permeability aedimenta are believed
to be fairly thin or ab.ent. Very little of the flow to the Coal
Grove well field ia believed to originate from intiltration
through the contaminated Ice Creek aedimenta. The modeling
indicated that approximately 21 percent of the water pumped from
the Coal Grove vell field will originate from the Ohio River,
-------
10
naphthalene at relatively low concentrations. The modeling also
indicated that approximately 41 percent of the water extracted
from the Coal Grove well field is derived from the aquifer in the
area southeast of the well field, away from the Site.
Approximately three percent of the water drawn from the Coal
Grove well field may be derived from Site groundwater which flows
underneath Xce Creek, according to the modeling.
The hydraulic connection between the Ohio River and the aquifer
underlying the Site, and observed groundwater gradient toward the
river, necessarily result in the groundwater discharge of site-
derived contaminant. to the Ohio River. This discharge was not
detectable in the river, however, which contains contaminants
similar to those found in the Site groundwater both upstream and
downstream of the Site. Modeling of contaminant loading has also
indicated that, while there is probably a discharge of
contaminated groundwater from the site to the Ohio River, it.
would not be detectable in the City of Ironton drinking water
intake.
The AtmosDhere
Testing of the atmosphere was conducted under the circumstances
expected to pose the worst threat to the atmosphere. Four test
pits were dug into Lagoon 5, which is the most highly .
contaminated area on the site. Monitoring was conducted at the
at the pit perimeter for 20 minutes while the backhoe was being
used to disturb these Lagoon 5 materials. Air contaminants were
not detected at the perimeter of this test pit.
VI.
Summarv of Site Risks
An Endangerment Asses.ment was conducted in order to determine
the extent of the threat to public health under present
conditions, and to determine which aspects of the site merit
remediation (
Site. tronton. Ohio, Menzel-Shoaf, Inc. 1990).
Selection of Contam~nant. of CQncern
ene of the initial tasks in the performance of the endangerment
assessment was the selection of a limited list of Contaminants of
Concern, or those compound. which are representative of the
greatest environmental impacts at the Site. Analysis of
groundwater, sUrface water, soil, and lagoon .ediments indicated
the pre.ence of eighty-six chemicals on or near the Site.
Ammonia, cyanide, phenolics, sulfate, and naphthalene were
selected as representative example. of the non-carcinogenic
chemicals (chemicals which do not cau.e cancer). Benzene was
chosen as a representative example of a chemical which is known
to cause cancer in humans. Chloride was used as an indicator in
-------
11
groundwater modeling as a Contaminant of Concern.
Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chryaene, and
dibenzo(a,h)antbracene were selected as the polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) of greatest concern, based on toxicity,
carcinogenicity, and expected mobility in groundwater.
AssumDtions and Constants Used
The potency factors used for the calculation of risk from
carcinogenic compounds, and the slope factors u.ed in the
calculation of hazard indices for non-carcinogenic compounds, are
given in Work.heets 7-1C, 7-2C and 7-3C (attached). An example
of the assumptions and calculations used in determining exposures
i. given in Table 4-25b (attached).
Baseline Risk Assessment
A baseline risk assessment was. performed assuming that no action
was taken at the site. This evaluation was performed to
determine whether action should be taken at the site, and to
determine which contaminants and exposure pathway. need to be
addre..ed.
In a.suming that no action was taken, a "reasonable worst case"
scenario was developed. In this scenario, we a.sumed that the
site was converted to residential use, and on-aite residents,
including children, were exposed to contaminated soil and
contaminated groundwater. The results of this acenario showed
that unacceptably high ri.ks of cancer could occur if the site
was not cleaned up and was converted to residential use. The
excess cancer risk to hypothetical future onsite residents was
calculated to be 5.7 x 10-3 for children and 3.4 x 10-3 for
adults. This risk i. mainly due to concentrations of polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons in the a01l, and benzene and arsenic in the
groundwater.
note- An exce.. cancer risk of 5.7 x 10-3 i. approximately
6 incidences of cancer per 1000 people. The range of excess
. cancer ri.k which is considered acceptable at Superfund
aite. range. from one in ten thousand to one in a million (1
x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6), with a target risk of one in a million.
The adver.e effect. other than cancer (non-carcinogenic effects)
which would be cau.ed by contaminant. from the aite were also
calculated for the "reasonable worat ca.e" scenario. The result
of the.e calculation. i. called a "hazard index", which i. a
measure of the .everity of the non-carcinogenic health effects.
A total hazard index of greater than one indicates that a non-
carcinogenic public health hazard exi.t.. The 8ubchronic (short-
term) hazard indice. for hypothetical future onsite residents was
calculated to be 7.1 for children and 3.3 for adults. The
-------
c
12
on the site was calculated to be 4.0. ~hese chronic and
subchronic risks are almost entirely due to the presence of
cyanide in the site groundwater. The non-carcinogenic risks
posed by the site to hypothetical tuture on-site residents are of
concern over both the short term and the long term.
Evaluation of CUrrent Risks
.,.
In addition to the baseline risk" assessment, current risks were -
evaluated. These current risks are associated with exposure of
contamination originating trom the site to Coal Grove Residents
via the media ot air, groundwater, surtace water, soil, and fish
consumption. The litetime excess cancer risks to Coal Grove
residents due to current condition. was calculated to 1.0 x 10-5
tor children and 2.6 x 10-5 for adults. This calculated risk is
primarily due to the presence of arsenic in the Coal Grove
Drinking Water at less than 1 part per billion. This level of "
ar.enic is far below the current u.s. EPA drinking water limit of
50 parts per billion, however.
!be non-carcinogenic ri.ks posed via consumption of groundwater
by Coal Grove residents were also calculated. The total
subchronic (short term) hazard index for Coal Grove residents
consuming groundwater was calculated to be .163 for children and
.0709 for adults. The total chronic (long term) hazard index
tor Coal Grove residents consuming groundwater was calculated to
be .0596. Again, a total hazard index of greater than one would
indicate that a non-carcinogenic public health hazard exists.
These results indicate that non-carcinogenic contaminants do not
presently pose a significant hazard to users of the Coal Grove
vater supply. "
Conclusions of the Endanqerment Assessment
The results of the Endangerment A.sessment indicate that
remediation i. ne.ded at this .ite to address potential future
exposures. The Endangerment Aa.easment al.o indicate. that
current population. in Coal Grove are apparently not being
adver.ely impacted by the .ite at significant levels. Therefore,
rem.diation must addre.. potential exposure to hypothetical
future sit. resident., and the potential migration of site
chemical. to vroundwater.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, it not addre.sed by implementing the respon.e action
.elected in this Record of Decision, may present imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
-------
13
VII. Descri~tion of Alternatives
Alternatives for the remediation of the Coke Plant/Lagoons Area
'have been evaluated in a Feasibility study (FS), which is
available for review by the public at the Briggs Lawrence County
Public Library. The alternatives listed below were aelected for
detailed evaluation from a much longer list of alternatives. In
the early atages of the production of the Feasibility Study, many
alternatives were acreened out for various reasons, as described
in Chapter 2 of the Feasibility study. The numbering of the
alternatives which were retained for detailed analysis reflect
gaps left by those alternatives which were 8creened out. The
retained alternatives are 8ummarized ~elow:
Alternative 1)
No Action
In order to evaluate.the advantages and disadvantages
of the various alternatives for remediation at the
site, it is necessary for the Agencies to determine the
effects on human health and the environment which would
be expected to result from taking no action at the
aite. Therefore this Feasibility Study includes an
-evaluation of the No Action Alternative.
Alternative 8)
Estimated capital Cost: $12,271,000
Estimated Total O&H Cost: $148,849,000
Total Estimated Cost: $161,120,000
Estimated Time to Implement: 46 years
Laaoons- on-site Incineration/Off-site Waste Fuel Recovery
Under this alternative, all of the materials in the
lagoons would be excavated, and aegregated by their
value aa fuel. Those materials which have a sufficient
fuel value would be ahipped off-site to be burned for
waste fuel recovery. This .eans that the energy value
of the waste would be recovered in the form of steam.
Thoae .ateria1. which do not have fuel value .ufficient
to render waste fuel recovery economical would be
burned in an on-site incinerator, which would be
constructed especially for this purpoae. Incinerator
ash would be disposed of ~n a lined di.posal cell on-
.ite after testing to assure that di.posal requirements
are .et.
Coke and Tar Plant Soil Are.s- On-site Incineration/Off-site
Waste Fuel Recoverv
Contaminated .oils areas would be treated similarly to
the lagoon material., in that they would be .hipped
off-site for waste fuel recovery or incinerated
-------
-
14
Ice Creek Sediments- Limited Action
The groundwater potentially affected by the
contaminants in the Ice Creek sediments would be
monitored, and if contamination was found to be
emanating from the aediments at levels sufficient to
cause an exceedance of applicable standards,
accelerated monitoring and groundwater remediation
would be triggered.
Ground Water- Manaaement Control. .
Under this alternative, and all of the following
alternatives, all of the groundwater flowing away from
the site will be controlled by a aeries of pumping
wells positioned downgradient of the site. These wells
will aerve to collect the contaminated groundwater.
Contaminants present in this collected groundwater will
be removed in an on-site treatment plant which will be
built especially for this purpose, and discharged in
compliance with applicable limits to the Ohio River.
A], ternative l1A)
Estimated Capital Cost: $11,044,000
Estimated Total O&M Cost: $110,701,000
Total Estimated Cost: $121,745,000
Estimated Time to Implement: 34 years
Laaoons- Partial Bioremediation/On-si~e Incinera~ion
Under this alternative, all of the materials in the
lagoons would be excavated and segregated by their
amenities to bioremediation and to incineration. Those
lagoon materials which are less amenable to .
bioremediation will be burnt in an on-site incinerator.
The remaining lagoon material a would be returned to the
lagoons and biologically treated using a series of
wella which would inject. oxygen and nutrients into the
ground, thereby encouraging the growth of bacteria,
which would break down the organic contaminants.
Coke and Tar Plant So~l Areas- Partial Bioremed~on/On-site
Incinera~ion
Soi18 in the Coke and Tar Plant areaa would be
aegregated by their amenability to bioremediation and
to incineration, and would then be either incinerated
on-aite or biologically treated along with the lagoon
materiala.
Ice creek Sediments- Limited A~~
Same as Alternative 8.
"-
Ground Water- Management Control
-------
15
AI ternative 12A)
Estimated Capital Cost: $11,142,000
Estimated Total O&M Cost: $120,586,000
Total Estimated Cost: $131,728,000
Estimated Time to Implement: 34 years
Laaoons- Partial Bioremediation/On-aite
Same as Alternative 1lA.
~ncineration
Coke and Tar Plant Soil Areas- Partial Bioremediation/On-site
~ncineration
Same as Alternative llA.
~ce Creek Sediments- Bioremediation
Under this alternative, th. .ediments in Ice Creek
would be dredged, placed in the lagoon area, and
bioremediated along with the lagoon materials. (The
alternatives which consider remediation of Ice Creek
.ediments were in place prior to the completion of the
sampling of fish for neoplasia.)
Groundwater- Management Control
Same as Al ternati ve 8.
Alternative 12B)
Estimated capital cost: $7,057,000
Estimated Total O&M Cost: $70,521,000
Total Estimated cost: $77,578,000
Estimated Time to Implement: 44 year.
Laaoons- Partial Bioremed!AtJon/Off-site Waste Fuel Recoverv
All of the contaminated materials in the lagoons would
be excavated and .egregated by their ameniti.s to
bioremediation and to waste fuel recovery. Then the
material. amenable to bioremediation would be returned
to the lagoons and treated as in option llA, and the
remaining materials would be shipped off-site for waste
fuel recovery a. in option 8.
Coke and Tar Plant Soil Areas- Partial Bioremed~on/Off-s~
Waste Fuel Recove~
The contaminated .oi1. in the Coke and Tar Plant areas
would be segregated based upon their amenability to
bioremediation or to waste fuel recovery, and would be
treated accordingly, along with the materials from the
lagoon..
Ice Creek Sediments- Bioremediation
-------
«
16
Ground Water- Management Control
Same as Alt.ernat.ive 8.
Alternative 15B)
Est.imat.ed capit.al Cost: $7,405,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $78,272,000
Tot.al Estimat.ed cost: $85,677,000
Est.imat.ed Time to Implement.: 42 years
Laaoons- Partial Off-site Waste Fuel Recoverv.
Solidification/Stabi1~
. Under this alt.ernat.ive, all of the mat.eria1s in t.he
lagoons would be excavat.ed, and those mat.eria1s which
have a fuel value sufficient. to merit. incinerat.ion for
wast.e fuel recovery would be shipped off-sit.e and
. burnt. The remaining materials would be
solidified/st.abi1ized in such a manner that. the
contaminants of concern are immobilized, and placed
back into the lagoons area.
Coke and Tar Plant Soil Areas- Partial Off-site Waste Fuel
Recoverv. Solidification/Stabilization
Those cont.aminat.ed soil materials which have a fuel
value which makes them amenab1. to waste fuel recovery
would be burned off-site. The remaining materials
would be solidified in a manner such that. the
cont.aminants of concern are immobilized, along with the
lagoon mat.erials.
Ice creek Sediments- Solidification/Stabilization
Under this alternative, the Ice Creek sediment.s would
be 801idified in a manner such that the contaminant.s of
concern are immobilized, and placed in the lagoons,
along with the solidified/st.abilized lagoon mat.erials.
Ground Water-Management. Cont.ro1
Same as Al t.ernat.i ve 8.
Al't8rnaUve 18) .
Estimated Capital Cost.: $21,056,000
Estimat.ed Tot.a1 O&M Cost: $28,472,000
Total Estimated Cost: $49,528,000
Estimat.ed Time to Implement: 35 years
Laaoons- Partial Bioremedtltjon/On-site Waste Fuel Recoverv
An incinerator equipped for recovery of wast.e heat
would be const.ructed on-site under this alternative,
and the materials in lagoon 5 would be burned for waste
fuel recovery. The remaining materials would be left
in place, and bioremediated in-situ in a manner similar
-------
17
Coke and Tar Plan~ Soils- Pa~ial Bioremed~on/Mul~i-media
~
The con~amina~ed soils on the Tar plan~ would be
covered using a layered cap of asphal~ and plastic.
The Coke plant 80ils would be bioremediated by
8preading them on a specially-prepared portion of the
. 8ite and periodically aerating and adding nutrients to-
encourage bacterial growth.
7ce Creek Sedimen~s- Limited Action
Same as Alternative 8.
Ground Wa~er- Management control
Same as Alternative 8.
Alternative 19)
Estimated Capital Cost: $16,581,000
E.~ima~.d To~al O'M Cos~: $14,365,000
Total Estima~ed Cost: $30,946,000
Estimat.d Tim. to Implement: 34 years
Laaoons- CaD and SlurrY Wall
The lagoons would be covered with a layered cap
composed of clay, sand, plastic, and concre~e. A
8lurry wall would be installed around the lagoons to
limit migration of contaminated groundwater.
Coke and Tar Plant $oi18- No Act~
Same as Al~ernative 1.
Ice Creek Se~ment8- Ltmjted Act~
Same aa Alternative 8.
Ground Water- Manaaement Control
Same as Alternative 8.
Modifiers)
In addition to the alternativea listed above, the
Feasibility Study includea an evaluation of the coata of
off-site diapoaa1 of the aah, scrubber waatea and the coke
and tar plant material. propoaed to be treated by
bioremediation as solid wastea and aa hazardoua waates.
The Feasibility_Study also evaluates land treatment
bioremediation of the Tar Plant 80i18.
VIII.
SUmmarv of ComDarative Analvsi. of Alterna~ive.
The remedial alternatives developed during the Feasibility Study
were evaluated by the u.s. EPA using the following 9 criteria.
-------
(j
18
compared to determine which alternative provided the best balance
among these 9 criteria. These criteria are set £orth in the
National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.430.
1. OVerall Protec~ion of Human Heal~h and the Environmen~
addresses whether of not a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls or institutional
controls.
2. Com~liance wi~h ARARs addre.ses whether or not a remedy
will meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) of other environmental statutes and/or
provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
3. Lena-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the
ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time once cleanup goals have been
met.
. 4. Reduction of Toxicitv. Mob~~Y or Volume i. the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a remedy
may employ.
5. Short-term Effec~iveness involves the period of time
needed to achieve protection and any adverse impact on human
health and the environment that may be po.ed during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are
achieved. .
6. Im~lemen~ability is the technical and administra~ive
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of goods and
.ervices needed to implement the cho.en .olution.
7. ~ include. capital and operation and maintenance
costs.
8. state Acce~tance indicate. whether, ba.ed on it. review
of the RI/FS and Proposed Plan, the state of Ohio concurs,
oppo.e., or ha. no comment on the preferred alternative.
I. Communitv Acce~tance will be a..e..ed in the Record of
Deci.ion following a review of the public comment. received on
the FS report and the.Propo.ed Plan.
Each"aiternative was evaluated against the.e nine criteria. 'l'he
selected alternative was a slight modification of Alternative 18.
A discussion of how the alternatives compare to each other based
-------
19
criterion 1. OVerall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
--
All of the remedial alternatives considered for the Site,
except for the no action alternative, are protective of
human health and the environment. This protection is
achieved by eliminating, reducing or controlling risks
through various combinations of treatment, engineering
controls "and institutional controls. As the no action
alternative does not provide protection of human health and
the environment, it i. not eligible for .election and shall
not be discus.ed further in this document.
All alternatives would provide protection to users of
groundwater, because all alternatives include a groundwater
pump and treat system designed to capture any contaminated
groundwater leaving the .ite. Through destruction of the
wastes, all incineration, waste fuel recovery and
bioremediation options would 9reatly reduce the threats that
thes8 materials pose to buman bealtb and the environment.
SOlidification/stabilization would limit the potential for
exposure ot the wastes to humans and to the environment.
Capping would limit the potential for human contact with the
waste... .
criterion 2. ComDliance with ADDlicable or Relevant and
~DDrODriate Reauirements IARARs}
Section 121(d) of SARA requires that remedial actions meet
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) of other environmental laws. These laws may
include: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), the'Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and any state law which has more
stringent requirements than the corre.ponding Federal law.
-Legally applicable- requirements are those cleanup
standard., standard. of control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria or
limitations promulgated under Federal or State law that
specifically addre.s a hazardous substance, pOllutant,
contaminant, remedial action, l~cation, or other
circumstances at a CERCLA site. -Relevant and appropriate-
requirements are those requirements that, while not legally
applicable to the remedial action, addre.s problems or
situations sUfficiently similar to those encountered at the
site that their use is well suited to the remedial action.
Non-promulgated advisories or guidance documents issued by
tederal or state governments do not have the status of
ARAR., however, where no applicable or relevant and
-------
~
20
be sufficiently protective, non-promulgated advisories or
guidance documents may be considered in determining the
necessary level of clean up for protection of human health
and the environment.
ARARa pertinent to this site are listed in an attachment to
this Record of Decision. Several specific ARARs are
discussed below.
a) Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-57-03, Landfill
Desiqn and Operating Requirements. The selected .
alternative involves leaving hazardous waste (X060) in place
in a unit that does not specifically meet the requirements
of this rule, such as a liner to prevent migration of
materials out of the landfill and a leachate collection
system. However, the pumping and treatment of the ground
water will effectively contain the contaminants while
bioremediation occurs. Upon review and approval of the
final design of this ground water management system by the
Agencies, Ohio EPA will consider waiving OAC 3745-57-03 at
the Allied CPLA site.
b) OAC 3745-54-18, Location Standards for Hazardous Waste
Facilities. The selected alternative involves leaving
hazardous waste (K060) on-site in areas that do not meet
Ohio's siting requirements. Should the final design
demonstrate the ability to effectively contain and treat the
hazardous wastes, Ohio EPA will consider waiving OAC 3745-
54-18 at the Allied CPLA site. .
c) OAC 3745-27-07, Location Criteria for Solid Waste
Disposal Facility. The placement of bioremediated coke and
tar plant soils and/or lagoon wastes on-site would not meet
the requirements of this rule. Should the final desiqn
indicate that the.e treated materials will be below risk-
based levels for PARs, Ohio EPA will consider waiving OAC
3745-27-07 at the Allied CPLA site. .
d) OAC 3745-27-08, Construction Specifications for Sanitary
Landfills. The placement of bioremediated coke and tar
plant soils and/or lagoon wastes on-site in an unengineered
unit would not meet the desiqn criteria presented in this
rule. Should the final design pre.ent a unit that will
provide adequate cover overtreated materials (that have
been bioremediated to below risk-based levels), Ohio EPA
will consider waiving OAC 3745-27-08 at the Allied CPLA
site.
e) Waste Fuel Recovery alternatives, for which the recycling
of R087 waste is exempt from RCRA regulation, must account
-------
21
this exemption to remain in effect.
.Cri~erion 3. Lona-~erm Effec~iveness and Permanence
Incineration, waste fuel recovery and bioremediation all
achieve permanent reduction in the concentrations of the
organic contaminants of concern. The permanence of
801idification/stabilization technology for immobilization
of the contaminants of concern has not been fully .
demonstrated, and would have to be modeled in pilot studies
prior to implementation. The containment option,
Alternative 19, i. the least Permanent option due to the
fact that none of the vaste is actually destroyed.
Cri~erion 4. Reduc~ion of Tox~~v. MObtlJtv or Volume Throuah
Trea~men~
The bioremediation portions of the alternatives will be
expected to achieve a 8ubstantial reduction in the
concentrations, and therefore, the toxicities of the organic
contaminan~. of concern. A greater reduction in organic
contaminant concentrations would be expected to be
associated with incineration or waste fuel recovery. The
reduction achieved through bioremediation is expected to be
sufficient to meet human health-based cleanup goals,
however. The effectiveness of solidifica~ion/stabiliza~ion
has not been demonstrated for these materials, and would
have to be demonstrated in pilot .tudies prior to remedy
implementation. Alternative 19 does not involve treatment
of the waste. All alternative. except No Action involve
treatment of the groundwater, effectively reducing the
volume of contaminated groundwater. .
Cri~erion 5. Short-term Effec~iveness
The alternatives which have the greatest .hort-term
effectiveness are the lagoons portion of Alternative 19 and
"the Tar Plant Soils portion of Alternative 18, both of which
involve capping and, therefore, prevent human contact with
80il. over the short term. Every alternative except No
Action is effective in the short term for containing the
groundwater. The difference. in .hort-term effectivene..
between the various alternative. are viewed by the u.s. EPA
as minor, however. The u.S. EPA has this view because the
institutional control. (including fencing, .ite .ecurity,
and deed re.triction.) limiting acce.. to the ".ite property
will be maintained, limiting the potential for human contact
with the .oil. over the short term. A.the only .ignificant
.hort-term ri.k. identified in the Endangerment Assessment
were associated with potential consumption of contaminated
-------
22
address this risk.
Criterion 6.
:Imr>lementab.iJJ,U
Each of the alternatives considered is implementable. Those
which involve sOlidification/stabilization are considered
somewhat less preferable in terms of implementability
because of the uncertainty in the development of affective
solidification technology. The technologies involved in
incineration and waste fuel recovery have been established
and are in use at many other sites. Bioremediation of the
wastes fram this site bas been demonstrated in bench-scale
studies, and is expected to prove to be effective in the
field. Bioremediation in its various forms bas been
conducted or is in process at many other sites.
Criterion 7. Cost
The cost of Alternative 18, while quite substantial, is
considerably less than the other Alternatives which achieve
similar effectiveness in relation to the above criteria.
Criterion 8. State Acce~tance
~e Obio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) has been
closely involved with the development and review of all
aspects of the Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study,
Endangerment A.sessment, and all related documents for this
Site. The Ohio EPA has also been closely involved in the
remedy .election process. The Proposed Plan was issued as a
joint proposal of the 11.5. EPA and Ohio EPA.
A letter from the Director of the Ohio EPA indicating Ohio
EPA'. concurrence on this Record of Decision has been
received by the 11.5. EPA.
Criterion 9. communitv Accer>tance
~e comments received during ~e public comment period, the
discussion which occurred during the Proposed Plan public
meeting, the discussion which occurred at a subsequent
question and answer session held before the Ironton City
Council, and questions raised during community interviews
have been considered by 0.8. EPA.
. . -,". ~_. '.
Several members of the community, and some members of the
Ironton City Council, have expressed their preference to
begin the aite cleanup aa aoon aa possible. However, there
have been two requests to extend the public comment period.
The first request was made at the Proposed Plan public
meeting by a lawyer from outside the community. At this
-------
23
..
period was granted. At the end of this period, the Ironton
City Council, through its legal representative, requested a
further extension to the public comment period. The second
request was for an additional four months, and asked that
the ROD be delayed until the results of certain
biotreatability studies vere completed. However, as
discussed in the Responsiveness Summary, the bioremediation
results which would be developed during this four-month .
period would not be sufficient ~o make a final determination
as ~o the effectiveness of in-situ bioremediation. Four
months from now, we will not know siqnificantly more than we
know now. The u.S. EPA determined that public health and
the environment would be better served by finalizing the ROD
in i~s presen~ form so that implementation of the many
aspects of the ROD could commence, rather than waiting for
an addi~ional four months. Therefore, ~he u.s. EPA denied
the .second request for an extension of the public comment
period.
In summary, the U. s. EPA has determined that the selected
alternative provides the best balance with respect to the nine
criteria used ~o evaluate remedies. Based upon the information
available at this time, therefore, the U.S. EPA and the OEPA
believe that the selected alternative would protect human health
and the environment, would comply with ARARs as qualified above,
would be cost-effective, and would utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies ~o the maximum extent
practicable. The selected alternative will satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element by utilizing
bioremediation and waste fuel recovery.
IX.
Selected AlternattxA
The Selected Alternat~ve. detailed descrtRtiQn
The selected alternative is a slight modification of Alternative
18, with the addition of the land ~reatment bioremediation of Tar
Plant soils and off-site disposal of the ash and scrubber wastes
resulting from the waste fuel recovery.
This alternative provides for ~reatment of the source material
and of the groundwater, and moni~oring of the Ice Creek
sediments. The major components of this action are:
o
Excavation of the entire volume of Lagoon 5
(122,000 cubic yards (cy»,
On-site Waste Fuel Recovery of Lagoon 5 material
plus 31,000 cy of waste coal excavated from the
coal overburden area (ash will be disposed of off-
site at a facility permitted to accept solid
-------
o
~
24
o.
waste),
Excavation and subsequent bioremediation on a
prepared pad of approximately 40,000 cy of Coke
and ~ar Plant 80ils,
o
In 8itu.bioramediation of the remaining volume of
material (475,000 cy) contained in Lagoons 1 .
through 4, the residual 80ils of Lagoon 5, and the
adjacent inner and outer dikes,
Monitoring of the Ice creek area and development
of a contingency plan in the. event that
contaminant migration i8 encountered,
o
o
Monitoring of the site groundwater,
Groundwater collection and treatment,
o
a
Deed restrictions, and
Fencing.
This alternative is comprised of aeveral component technologies
and treatment methods, each designed for effective remediation of
the areas outlined above.
Waste Fuel Recoverv
Lagoon 5, which contains a high-BTU content listed waste (KOB7 -
Decanter ~ank ~ar Sludge), provides a source of material suited
for incineration in an industrial burner equipped for the
recovery of waste heat (Waste Fuel Recovery (WFR». ~he .
material excavated from the coal overburden area is composed of
coal and coke fin.. and will be mixed with the Lagoon 5 material
to improve the material handling characteristics. Additionally,
thia material will further reduce the aupplemental fuel
requirement needed to maintain adequate combustion. Should on-
8ite WFR of thia material over a reaaonable period of time be
unachi8vabl8, WFR at a commercial facility permitted to accept
auch waate material will be evaluated. If the on-aite re-u.e of
the ateam generated from the WFR unit becomes infeaaible, an
alternative must be developed, involving either a new method of
re-u.e of the ateam, or WFR at a commercial uni~ permitted to
accept auch waate material. ~he on-site Waate Fuel Recovery
system considered for the purpose of developing cost estimates
involve. the following atepa:
1)
2)
3)
feed preparation (primary crushing and classification),
rotary kiln incinerator,
-------
25
4)
emis.ion control equipment.
The .y.tem will be designed ~o process over 80 ~ons per day of
waste material. The .~eam generated in ~is process will be used
in ~e on-8i~e ~ar plant. The fuel.aving cost associated with
~is .~eam generation and re-use are included in ~e cost
es~imate for ~is remedy.
The Wa.~e Fuel Recovery .ystem .hall be designed and operated so
~at 99.99' destruction of carcinogenic pOlYnuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons is achieved. Emission con~rol equipment .hall be
designed and operated 80 ~at ambien~ air quality and point
.ource emi.sion .tandards li.ted in the Applicable, aelevant and
Appropriate S~andard8 (ARARa) are met.
The waste ma~erials will be excavated from Lagoon 5 and from the
coal overburden area at a rate proportional ~o ~e processing
capacity of ~e Waste Fuel Recovery Sys~em, in order ~o prevent
undue accumula~ion of material in the .egregation area. Any
material. which do accumulate in ~e waste .egregation area will
be handled in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part
264.
The ash resulting from ~he Was~e Fuel Recovery operation will, by
exemption (40 CFR 26l.3(c)(2)(ii)(B), and 40 CFR
26l.6(a) (3) (vii), generate ash ~hat i. ~ermed non-hazardous.
This classification will be verified through TCLP testing prior
~o disposing of the materials. If non-hazardous, the ash will be
disposed of a. a solid waste at a permi~~ed facility. If the ash
is found ~o be hazardous according to the TCLP testing, Allied
.hall .ubmi~ a plan for the management of these material ~o the
u.s. EPA.
The material. in Lagoon 5 are believed ~o be visually discernable
from the materials remaining in the other lagoons, and from the
underlying natural .tream .ediments, in ~a~ Lagoon 5 contains a
.ludge-type material and tarry .ubstances. Lagoon 5 materials
.hall be excava~ed until i~ i. visibly determined, ~o the
.a~isfac~ion of u.s. EPA, that naturally deposited .~ream
.edimen~. have been encountered. The five waste lagoons are
presen~ly .epara~ed by berms. Lagoon 5 i. further differentiated
from the other four lagoons in that it i. a mound rather than a
depre..ion. The e~ent of Lagoon 5 which will initially be
excavated i. .hown roughly in Figure 1-4 (at~ached). The
excavation .hall proceed laterally un~il ~e u.s. EPA i.
.ati.fied, ba.ed upon vi.ual observation, that the full volume of
, material. discernable as being .imilar ~o the bulk of the Lagoon
5 material. has been removed. The berms at the boundary of
Lagoon 5 are expected ~o be composed mainly of coal and coke
fines, and .oil ma~erials. '
-------
,:;
26
,-
upon the surface of Lagoons 2 and 4 are potentially suitable for
waste fuel recovery (Feasibility Study, Appendix B, Section 3).
However, the limited number of samples of these materials which
have been analyzed showed no detected levels of contaminants.
These materials will be resampled to determine the concentrations
of organic contaminants which are present. If these materials
contain total carcinogenic PARs at concentrations greater than
.97 mg/kg, these materials will be burnt in the waste fuel.
recovery unit, at an added cost of approximately $535,000. If
the concentrations of arsenic in these materials are greater than
.56 mg/kg,they will be managed in accordance with a plan
approved by the Agencies. If the concentrations of total
carcinogenic PARs and arsenic are le.s than the concentrations
li.ted above, they will be moved out of the lagoons prior to the
commencement of in-situ bioremediation, and will be handled in
accordance with a management plan approved by the Agencies.
The Waste Fuel Recovery unit is to be used only for the
destruction of waste from this Site. After the completion of
Waste Fuel Recovery operations, the unit will be dismantled and
removed from the Site.
In-situ Bioremediation
Lagoons 1 through 4, the soi18 remaining in Lagoon 5 after
removal of the waste materials, and the adjacent dikes were
selected for in-situ bioremediation. The organic contaminants
which are present in the lagoon waste materials are known to be
amenable to degradation by indigenous bacteria. These bacteria
can break down the contaminants for use as a source of energy and
nutrition. In order to stimulate biodegradation, it is necessary
to provide nutrients and oxygen to these bacteria. This can be
achieved, while leaving the wastes in place, by installing a
seri.. of injection and withdrawal well.. Water to which oxygen
and nutrient. has been added will be pumped into the injection
wells, which will penetrate the waste materials. The water,
oxygen and nutrients will flow through the waste materials,
stimulating the growth of the bacteria, and the breakdown of the
contaminants. The water will gradually be depleted of oxygen and
nutrients as it flows through the wastes, and withdrawal wells
will be positioned properly in order to remove the water after is
has become depleted. It i. estimated that approximately 80 to ,
100 injection and withdrawal well. will be required in order to
evenly distribute concentrations of oxygen and nutrient.
.ufficient to 8ustain biodegradation. Water which i. removed
from the withdrawal wells will be treated in the on-site
wastewater treatment plant described below.
A .pray distribution system will be installed in order to deliver
nutrient-enriched water to the waste materials above the water
-------
27
nutrients will be provided evenly to the waste materials within
the lagoons, at concentrations sufficient to stimulate
bioremediation, and will be operated only in non-freezing
conditions.
Treatabilitv stuav
After the .igning of this Record of Decision, a pilot .tudy will
be conducted on-site within the lagoons. This study will be
conducted tor one year; in-situ bioramediation will be re-
evaluated at the end of this one year test.
~i. pilot .tudy will be conducted as a 8mall-scale ver.ion of
the in-.itu bioremediation program, and will include injection
wells, withdrawal wells, and a surface spray .ystem. The waste
materials within the test plot will be sampled before
commencement of operation. A sufficient number of samples will
be taken .0 that a statistically significant decrease in the
concentration of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons will be
observable. The test plot will be .ampled monthly during it.
operation. At the end ot one year ot operation, the test plot
will be re-sampled, and again, a sufficient number of ' samples
will be taken so that a statistically significant decrease in
the concentration of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons can be
demonstrated. For the purposes of the treatability 8tudy, a
statistically significant decrease shall mean that the lower
bound of the 95' confidence interval for the difference between
.ample means shall be at least ten percent (10').
Tests for normality and homogeneity of variance will be performed
on the data. It the.e tests indicate that a Student's T-test
would be applicable, then a detailed Student's T-test as
described in Chapter 9 of Test Methods for the Evaluation of
Solid Waste. Phvsical/Chemical Methods, SW-S46, U.S. EPA, will be
used to demonstrate a statistically significant decrease as
detined above. It the criteria tor normality and homogeneity of
variance are not or cannot be met, then accepted non-parametric
alternatives to the Student's T-te.t will be used.
It a stati8tically significant decrease in the concentration of
polYnuclear aromatic hydrocarbon. is demonstrated in this test
plot, then in-situ bioremediation may be implemented. However,
if a stati.tically significant decrea.e in not observed at the
end of one year of operation of this test plot, the u.S. EPA and
Ohio EPA will re-examine the selection of in-situ bioremediation
for these lagoon material.. This re-examination may result in
the .election of a different cleanup technology for the.e lagoon
materials.
During the performance of the testing of in-situ bioremediation,
the u.s. EPA will proceed with implementation of the remaining
-------
28
Five-vear Reviews
The effectiveness of ~e remedial action shall be evaluated by
the U.S. EPA every five yeara after commencement' of the remedial
action as required by Section 121(c) of CERCLA. This evaluation
ahall include an analysis of the effectiveness of all aspects of
the remedy, and specifically of ~e bioremediation systems and
their ability to meet ~e cleanup standards. Additionally, the
in-situ bioremediation system will be evaluated in terms of the
rates of degradation of the contaminants of concern. If the
Agencies determine that continued operation of the
bioremediation system is advisable, baaed upon trends observed in
8amples of groundwater and treated soils taken during the five-
year period of operation, then the system will be operated for an
addition.l period of time to be determined by the Agencies.
Surface Bioremediation on a Pre~ared Pad
Waste constituents found in contaminated coke plant and tar plant
80ils are biodegradable and have been selected to undergo
treatment in an above-grade prepared pad bioremediation system.
The areas of contaminated soil materials to be excavated shall
be approximately the areas shown in Figure A. The areal extent
shown for each of these areas i8 only approximate. The full
extent of soil removal for each of these areas will be determined
based upon testing of the soils remaining in the excavated area
after 80il removal. The .oil removal shall start with the
removal of the .oils to the approximate extent shown in Figure A.
If nece..ary, samples may be taken prior to the soil removal to
more fully delineate the extent of contamination. If there is an
apparent visible boundary to the contaminated soil, the initial
excavation shall proceed to ~e visible boundary. After ~e
initial excavation, th. 80il. remaining at the bottom and aides
of the excavation. .ball be aampled to determine wh.~er ~. 80il
cleanup level. given in Table 2 have been met. If not, further
80ils shall be removed and treated until the Table 2 level. have
been' .et.
If, during excavation of the coke plant and tar plant 80ils, any
materials, .uch a. tar, which are not amenable to bioremediation
are encountered, the.e materiala will be burned in the Waste
Fuel Recovery unit.
A facility for bioremediation of coke plant and tar plant soil.
will be constructed on site. A typical cross-section of the
facility is shown in Figure 5-31. Aeration of the soils will be
accomplished by tilling the area on a weekly basis. At the same
time, a mixture of nutrients will be added and mixed into the
soil. The progre.s of bioremediation and nutrient level. will be
-------
29
provide the proper environment for the bacterial growth. All
appropriate methods for vapor and dust suppression will be
included in order to minimize potential risks to workers and the
public.
Clean-~n aoals annlicable to bioremediation
To adequately protect human health and the environment,
bioremediation must achieve a reduction of carcinogenic
pOlYnuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in treated .oils and wastes
that attains a final cumulative cancer risk level of 10-4 to 10-6
(one in 10,000 to one in 1,000,000), with a goal of 10-6, and a
non-carcinogenic hazard index of less than one. These risks are
based on a conservative hypothetical .cenario of on-site
residents, specifically children, ingesting .oil.. The levels of
polYnuclear aromatic hydrocarbons which are a.sociated with a
carcinogenic ri.k level of 10-6 are given in Table 2 (attached).
If concentrations of carcinogenic PABs and ar.enic at the end of
the bioremediation program are qreater than the 10-6 level given
in Table 2, but fall within the u.s. EPA ri.k range of 10-4 to
10-6, then Allied will be required to .ubmit a contingency plan
to the Agencies. This contingency plan .hall propose methods to
limit the potential for human contact with the .oil.. For
example, in the lagoons area, thi. may involve provi.ions for
adjustment of the elevation and contours of the lagoon. .uch that
the area will be inundated with water. from Ice Creek often
enough to create a permanent wetland ecosystem, to be part of the
existing Ice Creek wetland complex. In the Coke and Tar Plant
.oils areas, this is expected to include provision of clean cover
material, .0 that the treated 80ils are covered with five feet of
clean till.
In addition to achieving cleanup level. ba.ed upon .oil ingestion
by human., a. given in Table 2, Allied must demonatrate that the
concentration. of contaminants remaining on .ite after the
completion of bioremediation will not cauae an exceedance of the
groundwater cleanup levela given in Table 1. Soil/waste cleanup
levela which would be expected to be protective of the
groundwater, baaed upon partition coefficient calculationa, and
including no provision for dilution, are given in Table 3. The.e
numbera may be modified in the future ba.ed upon laboratory leach
testing of treated aoila/waste., and upon tieldl~.monstrations of
actual on-.ite dilution ratioa. In addition, laboratory leach
testa muat be performed on treated waste. in order to
demonatrate that the cleanup levela achieved through
bioremediation will not result in exceedance of the groundwater
-------
u
30
Xce Creek
Ice creek will receive limited action, which includes
installation of additional monitoring wells in between Xce Creek
and the Coal Grove wellfield, periodic analysis of groundwater
quality in areas which can potentially be affected by contaminant
migration from Ice creek, and development of a contingency plan
in the event that contamination is discovered in these targeted
off-site areas. The contingency plan will include provisions for
monitoring, evaluating and remediating any problems that are
detected, and potentially providing an alternate water supply to
any affected users.
Groundwater Manaoement Control Svstem
!he Groundwater Management Control Sy.tem will begin operation
prior to initiation of any other remedial activities. A series
of pumping wells will be installed downgradient of all areas of
on-site contamination. These wells will be designed and operated
ao that all of the potentially contaminated groundwater which
leaves the aite will be captured. The water will be treated at a
facility constructed on-site specifically for this purpose.
Groundwater pumped from the Goldcamp Disposal Area operable unit
aay also be treated at this facility. The system will
continually pump and treat site groundwater, with a portion being
reinjected in the bioremediation area and the remainder being
discharged to the Ohio River in accordance with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
Groundwater monitoring will be performed in the Coke Plant and
the Tar Plant for a minimum of 30 years. The locations of wells
will be determined during the de.ign phase of the project.
Monitoring shall be conducted at locations such that any
contaminants potentially leaving the site would be detected, and
80 that the progress of lite remediation may be monitored.
Monitoring will be continually performed during and subsequent
to remediation to assess the effectiveness of remedial
activities.
A method for the analysis of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PARs) in groundwater at extremely low concentrations (parts per
trillion) is needed at the aite given the high carcinogenic
potency of these compounds. This method is presently in
development for use at this site. Once this analysis method is
complete and approved, the groundwater will be re-sampled and
analyzed to determine the background concentrations of the.e
compound., and their concentrations in the downgradient
-------
31
Fencina
A fence will be maintained around the aite until completion of
the remedial action.
7nst~Qnal Controls
%n addition to the remedial action. described for this"
alternative, institutional control. in the form of deed.
restrictions will be implemented at the aite to minimize the
potential for improper u.e of the areas of concern. The deed
restrictions will be designed to prevent any future residential
or recreational use of the aite.
~
The cost. of the aelected remedy are approximately those of
Alternative 18:
Estimated Capital Cost: $21,000,000
Estimated Total O&K Cost: $28,500,000
Total Estimated Cost: $49,500,000
Time~rame ~or Ym~lementation
While the finishing touches of this aite cleanup may not be
complete until 35 years from now, the vast majority of the
site cleanup will take place in the first 7 to 10 years. A
groundwater pump and treat .ystem to protect the Ohio River
and the Coal Grove wellfield from aite contaminants will be
installed a. .oon as possible, and will be effective as soon
a. the pumps are turned on. A large volume of highly
contaminated waste. from Lagoon 5 will be incinerated via
Wa.te ruel Recovery. The majority of contaminant reduction
due to bior.mediation ia expected to occur in the first 10
to 12 yeara.
x.
StatutorY Determinations
The following ia a brief description of how the aelected remedy
meeta the atatutory requirement. of Section 121 of CERCIA.
Protection of Human Health and the 2nvironment.
The Endangerment A..essment which was developed for this .ite
indicates that the pathways through which human health and the
environment may be impacted are:
1)
ingestion of contaminated site .oi1. and wastes by
-------
32
2)
ingestion of contaminated groundwater.
Implementation of the selected remedy will reduce and control
potential risks to human health and the environment posed by
exposure to these two pathways through a variety of means.
The contaminated soils will be treated via bioremediation and
waste fuel recovery to reduce their toxicity and carcinogenicity.
contaminated groundwater will be collected and treated, and the
treatment of the contaminated .oils and waste materials will be
designed to eliminate the .ite as a .ource of contamination to
the groundwater. Groundwater cleanup levels are given in Table
1 (attached). The .oils and wastes will be treated .0 that risk
levels associated with ingestion of contaminated soils and wastes
vill fall within the cumulative risk range of 10-4 to 10-6.. for
carcinogenic compounds and 80 that the cumulative hazard indices
for non-carcinogens will be less than one.
Implementation of the selected remedy will not pose unacceptable
ahort-term risks or cross-media impacts.
Com~liance with ~~~licable or Relevant and A~~ro~riate
Reauirements (ARARs}
The .elected remedy is designed to .eet all applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of Federal and
State .tatutes in accordance with Section 121(d) (1) of CERCLA,
except where it will be necessary to obtain waivers from the
State. CERCLA Section 121(d) allows for .election of a remedy
that does not attain ARARs under limited circumstances. The
waivers of ARARs at the Allied site are justifiable because
.compliance with such requirements is technically impracticable
from an engineering perspective" and "the remedial action.
.elected will attain a standard of performance that is equivalent.
to that required under the otherwise applicable standard,
requirement, criteria, or limitation, through use of another
.ethod or approach". In addition, the .elected remedy will
proceed in accordance with certain Federal and State
environmental criteria, guidance or pOlicy to be considered
(TBCa) .
!'he rederal ARAR. include RCRA (40 cn Part 260-271), the Safe
Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Section 141.11 and .12), the Clean
Water Act (40 CFR Parts 122, 125 and 131), and the Clean Air Act
(40 cn Part. SO, 60 and 61). State ARARs include the Ohio
Revi.ed Code (ORC) Chapters 1521, 3704, 3734, 3767, 6101 and
6111. Rule. for implementation of these requirement. are
-------
33
The following specific ARARs will be met by the .elected remedy:
AU:
. Hational Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part SO)
. Hational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40
en Part 61) ,
. Hew Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60)
Groundwater
. Maximum contaminant Levels (MCLa) established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These are the maximum contaminant
concentrations allowed in regulated public water supplies. These
levels apply at the tap to public water systems having at least
15 service connections or regularly serving at least 25
individuals. Levels are based on a chemical's toxicity,
treatability, and analytical limits of detection.
. Non-Zero Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for specific
contaminants, such as ammonia, cyanide, phenolics, benzene, and
arsenic. See attached Table 1.
Surface Wa~er
. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Requirements. The treated groundwater discharged into the Ohio
River will .eet the technical requirements of Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), NPDES requirements.
Jill
. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CrR Part 268)
The selected remedy involve. in-situ treatment of contaminated
.oil and vroundwater extraction and treatment at the site. since
in-situ treatment will occur entirely within the area of
contamination, disposal will not occur as part of the .elected
remedy. Thus, RCRA closure requirements for clean closure and
landfill closure are relevant and appropriate.
Ohio Revised Code
. ORC Chapter 3734 provides atatutory authority for the
regulations of solid and hazardous waste activities in the state
of Ohio. A8 such, this chapter as a whole can be applied to any
remedial action as a state ARAR.
The Ohio EPA hazardous waste regulations developed on the basis
-------
34
3745-59 ot the Ohio Administrative Code. These requlations
closely track U.S. EPA hazardous waste requlations.
ORC Chapter 6111 establishes Ohio EPA'. authority to set water
quality .tandards (Section 6111.04) and requlate water pollution
.ources. The rules developed and implemented by Ohio EPA based
on Chapter 6111 ORC are contained in OAC Section 3745-1-03
through 3745-1-16. These ~ al.o pertain to Ice Creek.
ORC Chapter 3704 provides atatutory authority tor the requlations
ot air pollution control in the State ot Ohio. A8 .uch, this
chapter a. a whole can be applied to any remedial action as a
state DAR.
~e Ohio EPA air pollution control requlations developed on the.
basis ot Chapter 3704 ot the ORC can be tound in Sections 3745-15
to 3745-a6 ot the Ohio Administrative Code.
TO Be Considered Values
. Cancer Potency Factors
. Water Quality criteria
. Health Advisories
The Federal and State ARARs tor this site are attached. In
order to implement this remedy, it will be necessary to waive
.averal State requirement., as described in Section VIII above.
The remedy will meet or exceed the remaining ARARs.
Cos~-Effectivene8s.
An analysis of cost effectiveness of the selected .remedy
indicates that the remedy chosen is cost effective. While the
overall co.t ot the remedy is high, the volume ot material to be
treated 1. al.o large. Innovative technologies (bioremediation)
and optfaization ot re.ource recovery and it. a..ociated cost
.aving. (waste fuel recovery) have been utilized, and have helped
to increa.e the cost-ettectivene.s ot the remedy. The .elected
remedy .ati.tie. the appropriate ARAR8 and i. protective.
~~;l;::~~~~eo;e:~~~~n;e~~~~i~;i:sa~~ :~;e~:!;~: :~:~~ent
Practicable (MEP).
!be U.S. EPA believe. that the .elected remedy represents the
maximum extent to which permanent .olution. and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost-ettective manner tor the
-------
3S
that are protective of human health and the environment and
comply with ARARs, u.s. EPA has determined that the 8elected
remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of long-
term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity,
Dobility or volume achieved through considering the 8tatutory
preference for treatment as a principal element and considering
the State and community acceptance.
~e two waste treatment technologies utilized at the site,
bioremediation and waste fuel recovery, are. applied to
approximately 619,000 cubic yards of waste materials. Each of
these technologies achieve permanent destruction of the waste
constituents.
Preference for Treatment as a PrinciDal Element.
The principal threats at this site are dealt with through
treatment. All of the contaminated waste materials and 80ils to
be dealt with through this remedy will be treated, either by
bioremediation, or through waste fuel recovery. Therefore, the
atatutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
cleanup method i. met.
XI.
Section 311 of CERCLA, 42 V.S.C. Section 9660, provides that u.S.
EPA shall conduct "research, evaluation, testing, development,
and demonstration of alternative or innovative treatment
technologies which may be utilized in response actions to achieve
more permanent protection of human health and welfare and the
environment."
Bioremediation is an innovative technology which involves
utilizing the indigenous microflora in the degradation of
contaminants in soils and groundwater. A field test plot in
which in-situ bioremediation can be evaluated will be
constructed within the contaminated waste lagoons. This test
plot will be operated as a smaller (15 by 15 feet) version of the
in-situ bioremediation system described in Section IX above, and
will be run for one year. Based on the results of this one year
pilot atudy, bioremediation will be evaluated to determine
whether atatistically significant decrea.e. are being achieved
for the contaminants of concern, PABs. Bioremediation aa a
preferred remedy will be reevaluated at the conclu.ion of the one
-------
36
XII. Documentation of Sian1ficant Chanaes
The .elected alternative is identical to the Preterred
Alternative as described in the Proposed Plan. If in-situ
bioremediation is determined not to be a viable technology tor
this site as a result of the one-year treatability study, the
-------
37
Table 1
Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke
Superfund Site
Operable Unit 2
Coke Plant/Lagoons Area
Groundwater Cleanup Levels
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION >.
Ammonia 30 mg/l
. Nitrate 10 1Dg/l
Total Cyanide 0.2 1Dg/l
Phenolics 4.0 JD9/1
Benzene o.oo~ mg/l
Naphthalene 0.3 mg/l
Total Carcinogenic PARs 0.005 ug/l
Arsenic 0.05 m9/l
Note- Total Carcinogenic PARs in groundwater, for the purposes
of this Record of Decision, is defined as the sum of the
concentrations of Benzo(a)pyrene and Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene.
Thes. value. are based upon the site-specific risk as.essment,
-------
38
Table 2
Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke
Soil/Waste Cleanup Levels
PARAMETER
CONCENTRATION
Total Carcinogenic PABs
.97 mg/kg
Arsenic
.56 mg/kg
Note- Total Carcinogenic PABs in soil/waste i. defined, for the
purposes of this Record of Decision, as the total of the
concentrations of Benz(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene,
and Dibenz(a,b)anthracene.
These values are based upon the site-specific risk a..essment,
assuming ingestion of contaminated soils/wastes by hypothetical
future on-site residents, and represent the concentrations posi~g
a 10-6 level of cancer risk to these individuals. In addition,
to demonstrate compliance with a 10-6 risk level, the cumulative
risk level must be shown not to exceed a 10-6 level of cancer
-------
39
Table 3
Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke
Soil/Waste Cleanup Levels
For Protection of Groundwater
PARAHE'l'ER
Total carcinogenic PARs
CONCENTRATION
1.4 mg/kg of organic
carbon .
. Benzene
0.485 mg/kg of .
organic carbon
Napthalene
650 mg/kg of organic
car):)on
Note- These values are based upon partition coefficient
calculations, in which the concentration of a particular
contaminant in the qroundwater is projected based upon
la):)oratory octanol/water partition coefficients. Actual soil
cleanup levels must be correc~ed for the ac~ual concentration of
organic car):)on remaining in the soils/wastes after treatment.
Since no partition coefficients are currently available for
cyanide and arsenic, leach tests will ):)e performed on the treated
waste materials in order to determine the concentrations of
cyanide and arsenic which will be protective of the groundwater.
These leach tests may also be used to determine the actual field
partition coefficients on treated wastes for the above
contaminanta.
~e values in-this table assume no dilution takes place. These
num):)ers may be modified in the future ba.ed upon a field
demonstration of the actual amount of dilution which takes place
-------
4.
5.
I.
Responsiveness Summary for the Record of Decision
A.
OVerview
Public reaction to the Proposed Plan was mixed. There were a
number ot expressions of support tor the Preferred Alternative,
but there were also some expressions of concern, particularly
over the selection of in-situ bioremediation as a component of
the remedy. .
B.
Communitv Relations Act~ties
T.be following are the community relations activities conducted at
the Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke Superfund site (Allied site)
from the completion of the Feasibility Study to the end of the
public comment period.
1.
V.S~ EPA and Ohio EPA prepared a Proposed Plan in September
1990 for distribution to individuals on the mailing list.
The Administrative Record was placed in the local
information repository at the Briggs Lawrence County Public
Library.
V.S. EPA placed a public notice in the local Ironton
newspaper to announce the beginning of the public comment
period on September 28, 1990, as well as to announce the
public ..eting which va. held on October 23, 1990.
2.
3.
V.S. EPA placed a second public notice in the local Ironton
newspaper on September 23, 1990 to announce the public
.eeting to be held that evening.
v.s. EPA and Ohio EPA conducted a public meeting on October
23, 1990, to explain the details ot the Feasibility Study
and Proposed Plan, to answer questions from interested
.embers of the community, and to accept public comments from
the community. A court reporter was present to record the
..eting. V.S. EPA also prepared graphic illustrations and a
hand-out to help explain the details of the Proposed Plan.
A request for an extension to the public comment period was
made at the October 23, 1990 public .eeting. As a result of
this request and other community concern., the V. S. EPA
granted a 30-day extension to the Public comment period.
v.s. EPA conducted community interview. with local
officials, resident., and a local environmental interest
group to a..e55 current community concern regarding the
Allied site and evaluate past community relations activities
conducted in the community. The interviews were conducted
November 7 and 8, 1990. The information gathered during
-------
2
relations plan. In addition, u.s. EPA used the information
to update- the mailing list for the Allied site.
7.
u.s. EPA placed a public notice in the local Ironton
newspaper announcing the extension of the public comment
period to November 28, 1990.
U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA conducted a aecond presentation of
information regarding the Feasibility Study and Proposed
Plan to the Ironton community as part of the Ironton City
council .eeting on November 19, 1990. U.S. EPA prepared a
-Question' Answer- fact aheet to provide easy-to-understand
answers to questions raised by community members during the
community interviews (see '6).
8.
9.
U.S. EPA distributed copies of the -Question' Answer" fact
sheet to all individuals on the updated mailing list for the
Allied site.
C.
SummarY of Public Comments and Lead Aaencv Re.~onse
Comments 1 through 11 were made by a Cleveland, OH attorney on
~ahalf of the Ironton City Council.
1.
Comment
The Record of Decision should not be executed until the
results of Allied Signal's bioremediation -treatability
study" have been reviewed by Ohio EPA and u.S. EPA, and only
after each of those Agencies has determined that the Allied
Signal treatability study conclusivelY establishes that
bioremediation will effectively and efficiently remediate
the conditions now existing at the site.
Res~on.e
!'he U.S. EPA believes that Public Health and the Environment
will ~ best served by moving ahead with a Record of
Decision on this aite. A delay in the Record of Decision
would cause a delay in the implementation of all aspects of
the remedy, not just the bioremediation.
As described in the Record of Decision (see pp. 23-31), the
remedy includes a groundwater pump and treat aystem and a
large~scale Waste Fuel Recovery project. The groundwater
pump and treat system will effectively provide a barrier to
off-site migration of contaminated groundwater a. soon as
its operation commences. The Waste Fuel Recovery system
will provide efficient destruction of the wastes in Lagoon
5, which are the most bighly contaminated materials on the
aite. Public health and the environment will be better
-------
3
remedy while the biotreatability study described in the
Record of Decision is being conducted, than by waiting until
the biotreatability testing is complete.
2.
Comment
The Feasibility Study fails to give adequate consideration
to the fact that the bioremediation portion of the remedy
will take approximately thirty-five (35) years to be fully
effective. In contrast, other alternatives considered in
the Feasibility Study remedy the conditions found at the
site in a 8uch quicker manner. While these other
alternatives may be more expensive, they provide public
health benefits much .ore quickly.
Resconse
The Feasibility Study provides adequate consideration of the
time frame involved with in-situ bioremediation. This
consideration is discussed in the Feasibility study under
Section 6.0, Detailed Analvsis of Alternat~.
While the site cleanup may not be complete until 35 years
from now, the vast majority of the cleanup will take place
in the first 7 to 10 years. A groundwater pump and treat
system to protect the Ohio River and the Coal Grove
wellfield from site contaminants will be installed as soon
as possible, and will be effective as aoon as the pumps are
turned on. A large volume of highly contaminated waste will
be incinerated via the Waste Fuel Recovery unit.
Furthermore, the majority of contaminant reduction due to
bioremediation is expected to occur in the first 10 to 12
years.
To get the full picture, it i. helpful to refer back to the
Endangerment Assessment, which indicates that the hazards
po.ed by the aite are through ingestion of 80il and
contaminated groundwater by hypothetical future on-site
residents, and through potential off-site migration of
groundwater. People are only endangered by the aite in its
present condition it they trespass onto the aite and consume
contaminated soils on a regular basis, or if contaminated
groundwater migrates off-site and is consumed.
Theretore, the V.S. EPA has designed the Selected Remedy to
addre.s these two possible scenarios for short-term risk.
Once the groundwater pump and treat sy.tem is operating, and
given that aite security and tencing is already in place,
these short-term risks are addressed. Thi. mitigation of
short-term risk baa allowed U.S. EPA to select in-situ
bioramediatlon for Lagoons 1 through 4 which, while expected
-------
4
of natural degradation processes.
3.
Comment
The conditions existing in and adjacent to Ice creek have
not been fully .tudied.
Re.t»onse
The conditions exi.ting in and adjacent to Ice creek have,
in fact, been the .ubject of an extensive and exhaustive
.tudy as part of the aeaedial Investigation Feasibility
Study at this .ita. The water in the .tream has been
.ampled and analyzed from .ix locations upstream and
downstream of the .i te. Samples of the .tream .ediments
have been collected and analyzed at eleven locations ..
upstream and down.tream of the .ite. An .cological .tudy of
. .peci.s diversity wa. conducted. An .xtensive .ampling of
fi.b livers for tumors was conducted. The flow of
vroundwater into and out of Ice cr.ek wa. .cdeled a8 part of
the Remedial Inv..tigation.
The.. .tudi.. .ay be viewed in at lea.t the following
portion. of the Admini.trative Record:
-
Final Ret»ort on Aauatic Ecoloaical Studies at
Allied ~hemical'. tronton. Ohio Coke Site,
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 1984 (contained
a. an appendix to the Endangerment Aa.essment)
-
Invest~on of NeoDlasia Occurrences in Ice
Creek Fish PQpulations. tronton. Oh\Q, IT Corp.,
1990 (Appendix C of the Feasibility Study)
-
Technical Memorandum. Ice creek Investiaation, IT
corp. 1986 (Appendix D of Remedial Investigation)
-
Technical Memorandum. Analvsi. of Ground Water
Flow and Mass Transt»ort, IT Corp., 1986 (Appendix
P of aemedial Inve.tigation)
Remedial Invest~, IT Corp., 1186 (Sections
4.2, 4.3)
-
4.
Comment
The daci.ion to do nothing mora than monitor tha conditions
-------
5
Resnonse
The commenter did not give any explanation for this opinion.
The commenter has also mis-stated the nature of the
Preferred Alternative. As .tated in the ROD, the remeay
includes monitoring of groundwater flowing away from Ice.
Creek toward the Coal Grove Well field. The pUrpose of this
monitoring i. not just to watch for contamination. If
contamination is detected, action will be taken to prevent
this contamination from reaching any consumers of drinking
vater. . .
The contamination in Ice Creek could only impact human
health ana the environment in a limited number of ways.
These are: potential groundwater contamination migrating to
the Coal Grove Wellfield, potential effect on aquatic
organisms living in the Creek, exposure to .wimmers in Ice
Creek, and migration of contamination to the Ohio River.
Monitoring conducted as part of the Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study did not indicate that Ice Creek is
presently having any adverse impact on the Coal Grove well
field or the Ohio River. The impact on aquatic organisms
would be expected to manifest itself in the form of tumors
in fish livers. Several hundred fish were collected, and no
tumors were found. The Endangerment Assessment indicated
that the ri.k to .wimmer. i. not .ignificant. Furthermore,
the wetlands in Ice Creek are a valuable ecological
resource, and any action other than monitoring would
necessarily di.turb the biota.
Therefore, the 17. S. EPA determined that the proper thing to
do with the Ice Creek .ediment. is to leave them in place
and monitor them for potential future contamination. If
contamination is detected in the future, action will be
taken, .a detailed in the ROD.
5.
Comment
The Admini.trative Record doe. not demonstrate that
bioremediation has been effective at any .ite where the type
of in situ bioremediation planned for the Allied-Signal site
has been u..d.
Resnon..
Bioremediation i. an emerging technology which .hows
con.iderable promi.e. However, the information available
involving the progre.. of cleanups at .pecitic .ites is
limited in availability.
-------
6
~at bioremediation has been successful in ~e treatment of
a variety of waste materials, using a range of methods.
However, this information does not provide us with the
certainty that in-situ bioremediation will be effective at
~is 8ite. This is why the selected remedy includes a one-
year pilot 8tudy ~es~ of bioremediation within ~e
con~aminated waste lagoons, the 8uccess of which is a
prerequisi~e ~o i~8 implementation. .
6.
Comment
The Administrative Record fai18 ~o describe with reasonable
particulari~y the methodes) of bioremediation which will be
used a~ the si~e.
Res~onse
Detailed descriptions of the bioremediation system. proposed
for the 8ite are given in the Feasibility study, Section
5.0, . The level of
detail provided in the Feasibility Study i. SUfficient to
allow u.s. EPA to compare the various alternatives. A much
Bore detailed description of the bioremediation systems will
be developed during the Remedial De.ign phaae.
7.
Comment
The material. placed in the Administrative Record in late
October, 1990 concerning bioremediation at the Champion
International aite in Montana are irrelevant ~o the u.s.
EPA'. determination that bioremediation will be an effective
remedy a~ the Allied-Signal .i~e.
Res~onse
The author of this comment requ..~ed tha~ infor.ma~ion
.upportive of the bioremediation portion of the Proposed
. Plan be placed in the Adminiatrative Record. One of the
component. of the Propo.ed Plan i. .urface bioremediation of
approxima~ely 40,000 cubic yard. of contaminated .oil
material. from the Coke Plant and ~ar Plant area.. The
method of bioremedia~ion performed at the Champion
International .i~e i. very .imilar ~o that .elected for the
Coke Plan~ and Tar Plant .oi1.; and has .hown rapid..ucce..
in ~e.~in9. Thi. informa~ion i. therefore very relevant ~o
U.S. EPA'. Propo.ed Plan and .elected remedy, and directly
responsive ~o the commenter'a request made at the October
-------
.8.
p.
7
Comment
'!'he refusal of U.S. EPA to extend the public comment period
on the Feasibility Study until the City can examine the
results of Allied-Signal'a treatability study is arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable, contrary to the National
contingency Plan, and constitutes a denial of due process
law.
Resnonse
The denial of a second extension of the public comment
period for the Allied Site is within Agency discretion under
the National Contingency Plan (NCP). For remedial actions, .
a minimum 30 day public comment period on the proposed plan
is r.quired. The period will be extended 30 additional.days
upon a timely request. In order to be timely, the request
should be received within two weeks of the initiation of the
public co~ent period. The lead agency may extend the
comment period on its own initiative when it is appropriate
or necessary to do so or announce from the outset that it
will be longer than 30 days.
'rhe public comment period for the Allied Site began on .
September 28, 1990, and was scheduled to expire on October
28, 1990. The City was sent a Proposed Plan on September
28, 1990, the first day the plan was made available to the
public. The Proposed Plan stated when the comment period
was due to expire. It was not until October 23, at the
public meeting, when interest was shown in extending the
public comment period to allow additional information on
bioremediation to be put into the Administrative Record.
Although it was not a timely request, the Agency extended
the comment period an additional 30 days until November 28,
an appropriate and reasonable amount of time in keeping with
the purpos.. of the NCP. 'rhe reque.ted information was
added to the Administrative Record on November 1, which
allowed the public ample opportunity to review the
document.. 'rhe city waited until November 21 to request a
a.cond ext.naion by mail, which was not received until
November 23, 1es. than five day. before the expiration of
the .econd comment period. '!'he Agency feel. that there is
no aufficient reason to justify delaying implementation of .
the Propo.ed Plan. The Agency's deci.ion to deny the City's
request for a .econd extension of the comment period is in
full compliance with all applicable statutes, regulations,
-------
10.
8
9.
Commen~
statement. .ade to elected official. in Lawrence Coun~y,
Ohio that public meetings on the Feasibility Study were
going to be canceled when, in fact, the.e mee~ings ac~ually
took place on achedule, were contrary to the National
contingency Plan, and have deprived the citizens of
Lawrence County of due proceas of law.
Resnonse
The commenter rai.ed this concern in two .eparate letters,
but did not identify the identity of the elected officials
in either letter. .
The u.s. EPA i. aware that there va. a mi.under.tanding vith
the Mayor of Coal Grove regarding the date of the Public
Meeting. V.S. EPA community relations repre.entatives
arranged a .eries of.community interviews to be held in
early OCtober. One of the people with whom the U. s. EPA
made an appointment with vas the Mayor of Coal Grove.
Unfortunately, tJ. S. EPA vaa forced to cancel these community
interviews due to the fact that the Federal Budget had not
been approved. A misunderstanding occurred during the
cancellation of this appointment, the result of which was
that the Mayor of Coal Grove believed that the Public
Meeting had been cancelled, rather than ju.t the community
interviews. The Mayor of Coal Grove vas invited to the
Ironton City Council meeting, and has expre..ed tha~ he
definitely has no hard feelings over this misunder.tanding.
Commen~
Allied-Signal haa indicated that it ia preaently performing
a bioremediation treatability atudy. The resulta of this
atudy are expected aometime in January, 1991. There has
been no indication that either V.S. EPA or Ohio EPA ia
performing any atudy to determine whether bioremediation i.
an appropriate remedy for the Allied Chemical/Ironton Coke
aite, we believe it important, therefore, that Allied-
Signal complete ita treatability atudy prior to a Record of
Deciaion being .igned.
Re81)On.e
TheV.S. EPA and Ohio EPA vill conduct a te.t of
bioremediation over a one-year period following the signing
of the ROD. The.e test. will be conducted within the
contaminated waste lagoona at the aite. The only
-------
9
conducted in tanks. These studies will generate some
results over the next four months, but will not be
sufficient to make a final determination regarding whether
to implement in-situ bioremediation. Consequently, the
extension requested by Ironton'. attorney could not achieve
its purpose.
Therefore, the t7. s. EPA do.. not agree with 'the assertion.
that the January, 1991 results must be received and reviewed
prior to the signing of a ROD.
11.
Comment
We believe it to be imperative that the Record of Decision
be delayed 80 that the City, as representative of all of the
citizens of Ironton, might determine whether the Agencies
and Allied-Signal have made a proper choice of remedy.
Re$t)onse
The remedy is not chosen by -the Agencies and Allied-
Signal-. The remedy is selected by U.S. EPA, using the nine
criteria as described in the Record of Decision. State
Acceptance and Community Acceptance are two of these
criteria, but the acceptance or non-acceptance of Allied-
Signal is ngt considered in the choice of remedy.
The following concerns were raised in public comments: .
12.
Comment
It appears that the U.S. EPA has selected the least
expensive remedy over tried-and-true technologies.
Re$-oQnse
Alternative 18 vas not the least expensive alternative
considered, by a margin of approximately $15 million.
The U. s. EPA recognizes that there are technol09ie.
available which have been applied at a greater number of
8ites than bioremediation, and that there i8 80.e
uncertainty as to bioremediation's effectiveness. This is
why U.s. EPA has proposed to conduct a 1-year field test of
bioremediat1on before it can be applied in the large scale.
As described in the Record of Decision, if the field test ia
unsuccessful, an alternative remedy for lagoons 1 through 4
will bed.v.loped.
13.
Comment
The re.edy uses the aquifer as a treatment 8ump, where
-------
14.
15.
16.
10
rates to be captured by wells. The travel time to the wells
has not been determined to be 8ufficient to allow the
nutrients to effectively treat the constituents while in the
aquifer. The concern is increased waste production at the
water treatment facility.
Re$DOnSe
The-8pacific well .pacings and flow rates will be determined
during the Remedial Design pha.e. The waste water
~reatment facility will be de.igned to handle the amount of
waste vater generated. The 90al i. not to flush
contaminants into the aquifer, but to allow bacteria to
degrade the contaminants within the wastes themselves.
Comment
It i. unclear how biotreatment will ~reat the X062 and ROB7
contaminated 80ila, ~o the extent that the waste can be de-
liated.
Rel1)On8e
Tbe K062 (Li.. Kiln Sludge) and XOS7 (Decanter Tank Tar
Sludge) waates both contain polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PARs), which are known to be amenable to
bioremediation. It ia not anticipated that delisting of the
vaatea will b. necea.ary.
CcnlDQent
Contaminated materiala from the lagoons could be mobilized
during a flood event.
ResDona.
The potential impacta of flooding during remediation will
re-evaluated during the detailed design of the remedy. The
impacta of flooding were evaluated a. part of the RI (Volume
I). It waa concluded that the water movement during a flood
.hould not be at a velocity aufficient to aignificantly
damage the embankment or diaturb the waate. in the lagoons.
Commel\t
The actual extent of contaminated (Coke Plant) 80il ia
presently unknown, leading to an under-estimation in the FS.
Each .ample location tested during the RI found .oil
contaminated to an extent. .Clean. levels have not yet been
defined. Clean areas bave not been delineated by further
aampling. The design investigation will need to accomplish
-------
11
Re$nonse
The volumes used in the Feasibility Study are the best
estimates available at present. If the volume of
contaminated .oil is greater than what was estimated, the
additional volume will also be cleaned up.
.Clean" level. bave now been defined in Table 2. Testing.
will be performed after .oil removal, and possibly before
.oil removal, ~o accurately delineate the extent of soil
cOD'tamination.
17.
Comment
The prepared pad bioremediation process will drive off
volatile constituents, such as benzene, toluene, and xylene,
into the atmosphere with no apparent controls, and that
there are no apparent provisions for control of dust,
potentially contaminated with arsenic and cyanide.
Resnonse
The prepared pad bioremediat1on will be conducted in such a
manner that it will not violate air .tandards. At present,
it 1. not anticipated that achievement of these .tandards .
will be a problem. This i. because monitoring of the
ambient air was performed during the Remedial Investigation.
This monitoring included the testing of air at the perimeter
of a test pit dug into the most contaminated area on the
site, within Lagoon S. Volatile organic constituents were
not detected at the Perimeter of this excavation, even while
the backhoe was performing the digging. The materials which
are to be bioremediated on the prepared pad are contaminated
at considerably lower concentrations than the area of this
~e.t pit. Therefore, it is not expected that appreciable
concentrations of volatile organic constituent. will be
detected in the ambient air durin; bioremediation.
However, the de.ign of thi. component of the remedy will
include provisions for preventing the migration of organic
vapor. and du.t, if these are found to be a problem. This
may include provision for cover material., a tent to cover
the excavation, or the application of a .urface spray or
foam material to limit the escape of volatile organic
compound.~ .
Air standard. which must be met during the remedial action
are di.cu.sed in Section. VIII and X of the ROD, and listed
-------
18.
19.
20.
12
Comment
In regard to the in-situ bioremediation of Lagoons 1 through
4, one commenter stated that the Proposed Plan is deficient
as a closure plan with respect to several Ohio regulations,
and that post closure care should be well-defined.
R.st:>onse
Neither the Proposed Plan nor the Record of Decision is
intended to be a Closure Plan as that term is used both by
this commenter and in the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Of course, the cleanup .ust .eet the .
substantive requirements of the state's equivalent closure
requirements. More detailed information regarding the .
methods of cleanup will be developed during the Remedial
Design phase of this project. It i. not anticipated that
post-clo8ure care (as that term is used in RCRA) will be
require4 for the lagoons.
~e groundwater management control system will be operated,
however, until it is determined that to discontinue its
operation would not result in migration of contaminants.
from the site.
Comment
In regard to the bioremediation of Lagoons 1 through 4, one
commenter stated that, while RCRA surface impoundment
regulations provide for two options for closure of a surface
impoundment, the u.s. EPA bas chosen neither, but does not
request an ARAR waiver.
Rest:>on..
This 1s correct. What u. S. EPA has selected is akin to
treatment with a RCRA unit. We are anticipating,'bowever,
that the lagoons will meet the substantive requirements for
clean closure at the conclusion of the bioremediation
program, and that no waiver of the surface impoundment
closure regulations will be nee4e4.
comment
Ohio may need to waive four location and siting criteria in
order for the remedy to proceed, and that no contingencies
are provided in the plan in the event Ohio refu.ed such
-------
13
ReS'Donse
This is correct. Bowever, the Proposed Plan was released to
the public jointly by the U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA, and
included a discussion ot the potential necessity ot the
waiver of these requirements. These waiver requirements,
theretore, were identitied with the full concurrence of the
Ohio EPA.
21.
Comment
The remedy proposed is not a permanent remedy, as the
potential exists tor partially-treated hazardous and solid
waste to be left uncovered in open pits following completion
of the project.
Res'Donse
This is incorrect. The wastes laust be treated until they
fall within the U.S. EPA risk range of 10-4 to 10-6 as
described in the ROD Clean-u'D croals a'D'Dlicable to
bior.mediation. It wastes, at the conclusion of treatment,
fall withiV the u.S. EPA risk range but are at a qreater
than a 10- risk, then steps (e.g. installation of a cap or
establishment of wetlands) will be taken to prevent human
contact vith the waste laatarials. In other vords, partially
treated wastes vill DQt be left uncovered in open pits
following completion of the project.
22.
Comment.
The Xayor of Coal Grove expressed his concern for the.afety
ot the Coal Grove vellfield, asked that the Ohio EPA and the
Ohio Department of Health inspect the Coal Grove wells as
.oon a. possible,. and alked that Allied be compelled to meet
with the Xayor and City Council of Coal Grove to determine
what immediate st.eps must be taken by Allied to assure Coal
- Grove residents of clean drinking vater.
R8a-ooftS.
A .ajor driving force in the inclusion of this .ite on the
National Priorities List, and its proposal for cleanup has
been the Agencies' concern for the Coal Grove wellfield.
Your request for inspection has been passed on to the Ohio.
EPA and the Ohio Department of Public Health.
The desire to take immediate steps to protect the Coal Grove
vellfield has motivated the u.s. EPA to issue this Record of
Decision now, rather than waiting until tests of
-------
23.
24.
25.
14
attorney representing the Ironton City Council.
Thia ROD contains provisions for protection of the Coal
Grove vellfield. These include: the installation and
operation of a groundwater pump and treat system to prevent
the migration of contaminated groundwater off of the site,
and the installation of a monitoring system in between Ice
creek and the Coal Grove vellfield. Furthermore, the vaste
fuel recovery and bioremediation are designed to treat the -.
waates 80 that they are no longer a potential 80urce of
vroundvater contamination.
Comment
The Hecla Water Association wrote a comment, asking the U.s.
EPA to vet this project moving.
ReSDonse
Iaauance of thia ROD is U.s. EPA's way to get thia project
moving.
Comment
Who will be doing the hiring at the aite?
ReSDonse
If Allied performs the responae action, the cleanup work
will be performed by Allied's contractors, and the U.S. EPA
vill evaluate Allied'a choice of contractora and oversee the
work. If u.s. EPA performs the response action, the work
will be performed by U.s. EPA contractors in accordance with
applicable procurement regulations.
Comment
-- - -- --
At the Public Meeting, an attorney from Cleveland stated:
.where innovative technology 8uch as bioremediation has been
made a part of the selected alternative, the ROD should not
be signed until EPA haa ~etermined to an acceptable
scientific standard that the bioremediation will be
effective in remedying the conditions found on the site".
ReaDonae
-------
15
D.
Remainina Concerns
I.sues and concerns that the Agency was unable to address
during remedial planning activities include the following:
Certain members of the community, and particularly members
of the Ironton City Council, remain concerned about the
.election of in-situ bioremediation and about the process in
veneral. To address these concerns, if the community is
interested, the u.s. EPA will help to form a Technical
Information Committee (TIC), to facilitate community review
of design documents, and of the one-year biotreatability
.tudy.
Community members may a180 apply for a Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG).
-------
.'
"- .:..-
~-
.
,
....~... ..... --...--
TT1~
lit
. ""
,~, '.'.~
. ,....~...,:....
~. .
[,
"
f'"
; \
/V
I ~
'L
t
".,"
, '.
..
t
I
i'
i ..
.,
i ':..
:,'
i.
11
i
.'
. " . :'~ ~:: .~ :
081' '".
.:',. ".',
..'
, .
. ','
. :'.
"
,',,' " .
..it:~;.:,~/;::i;. T:~~~;~~f<
.
. ,
) .', ,
. ..
. .,
.:' 0"'; .:~ ~ ',"i.oJ
. . .. '..' ,
f' .:.; ..~.'" ;.
It
"f'
. '
. ..
----
"
.1 .
.-..
8c~--._.
... -----
. ---
..... -- -.....:=-
. =--==--
. I
-
.. ..
001-
f1CUR[ t-4
ADOnIONAl m.D 1M'S1ICA11ON
DATA CXIlLEC1lON POIt1S
....MID f1IIt
NJ.I[O-SfQfAl. INC.
MORRIS108I. HEW .ERSEY
m INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY'
CORPORAnoM
.....
I'
.
-------
"
,~
, ~....-:, ...,~. ~.__II'.t ,
',' 'rU\" ",.~', ,1~t,.;";II!'t~":"'~~.t~'!O~"::-'~~~~~."~~"'fH: ':"',1".,' ~,~ T" ',::'" ,:'
. . !to ~~ '~'. ". 1 ""'!~.,.. """"~,'.'...r"",-_:iJ"""-"':;'.,..-.,.~.':\i"'_'::..~~.Jt j',............-:. --fO' - 18',,,.
~'''''''''':-:'!i :'-.' .- . - . - ..........
'. .,..
'..~. '.0
"
-,
SCAlf
, -.&0 IIOd ftt,
.
ulr..,
'-10. ftLL..
. ...... If.''''
-ICIO v- .1'181 "'Faa
caw~'Frr1'..SL'
...... -"" PLOIr......
. l::~8ft........
.oun .AT!" SUItf"Att ~
ANO fLOW PATHS FOR COMPUTE"
SIMULATION NO. t
. .
Nt,.,. ...
ALLIED CORPOtIATle*
MORRISTOWN, NEW 4"S!'
.\'
.. ..(.
...
m
.-
"
"
"
-------
......... ..--
a"'"
~--~_4_"'.__-
..-.. -- ......,.. . ~
.............- .
--. ....--
..' ......--.... '.
"
.'~
;1/
,0.
f'
GCJt.DCAMP IJISPOSAL AR£A
. (SEPARAtE OPERABlE UNIT)
, ......-
~~
--
. ~ ~.. ..:
"I'
~' {
I
,
.~..-
II
.' !
.. .~. .: ~ !', .
. '
, '
"
...
~ ~_......_I..
~....... ~
~
~,---.
.--.. -.---
-
~ ------.---
--- ---...--..---
. I
-
, ,
- -
,
--
F1CURE £5-1
a-lA OPERABlE IHT
1Na.lD'G GEN(RAUlEO
GROUNDWA1tR flOW
PMPNO nit
AUJ[D-SlCNAl lie.
MORRISTOWN. NEW .ERS[Y
m INTERNATIONAL
TD:HNOLOGY
CORPORATION
. _.4.__-
- r
c I
t
I ,
-------
..
~
t
L.
..~ .~..
.. --." ..-lit
...............
-.'!
/1/
. ..;
. - . .
:'::r'rl~.;.
'. '. .. '&". ;. . ~:
. :~. :...' t. .
~"
:-",' ."". . I
. ~.
. .
,", .:',. t
: J:
. .
. ..j.;"
.. ..
"...J ..
..+ j.
I' I~ '~L.
. 0, ,. . ~..' :.' ":. : i
, .
:.;:': ""'i;.-.i
. . .
. . .;.} . ..
':.1' :
: . ~ .
~~~""=
..... ..d....~e;::r,.--
.::,~-:.:r-:-=-=~
-~:::':.r.-
t
-U
---.....
i
...u .
- -.
.... :'...:' -',. r
.. ': :: :'L:~I. ; >i " I
" 'I~.
I
f
. ~.;:
l~.h:...
. =="~~::trr-ttII
. .. --C88taL_-
.~- .i..';,. 'L_-
. .. -III-
. -...
. . ~ -ttII...,.,.
. 811U8__.
. -- - tee -.......
& ..... IT.'"
.
, , .
"
. .
.: -.t"
FIOURE 1-3
RE"EbIAl INVESTIGATION
. DATA COLLECTION POINTS
NO'afI(O nIR
... ALLIED CORPORATION
MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY
m IIn'DIfATIOIfAl.
TEClltIOLOGT
. . CORPORAJ1ON
. . 0i
. ;~:"~"'!' ~~"";.1
. .,
. ~ .
i'.....' ':\
. .
-------
- "__.__e
.. .
.. '.
....- ...'
. .
I
,
I
I
-1--
-
8CI,.
.
.
.- <.
.,,- .
'.' \
FIGURE D.I
PlAN A~D .
ICE CREE~OCAOORTION OF'
INGS
.,-
.c.
.7
/
1'11["11[0 ,lilt
ALLIED CORPOR
MORRISTOWN ATION
. NEW ~RSEY
!!...i.
.:~.=;:=::.'''''--
......~. ~~~
~~lr;:.~~~-"
. ..-~iT_i?1:l:'
.:.:" . ';.~'.
.'.~'-:O-
-------
,
,
I
TABLE D. 2 I
RESULTS OP CHEMICAL ANALYSES I
ICB CREEK SOIL SAMPLES
... PARAMETERS
tOTAL ..
SAMPLI ..,:nr':3-11 alLOtlbl CYANIDE PHENOLICS SULPATE BENZENE NAPHTHALENE
JDENTIPICAnON ../lta ../lta -g/ka ../ltg 804 III/kg mg/kg
I
NDU,) I
ICI-IC-. 41 27 0.58 370 ND 7.1 I
I
~. '.716.7(3) I
ICI-IH-. 210 31 ND 1000 ND 12 I
fC8-1J-YS 25123 40 1.3 ' . 590 ND/NO
',1.011.1 38 !
180 2.8 ", 1500 8.4/6.0 '
tCI-IJ-S 36 0.30 ND
ICl-ll-. 5.0 45155 ND ND 19 ND <1.0(4)
ICI-2C-S 250 6' 5.9 0.15 360 ND 2.1
ICI-2H-S 3,. 40 1.2 NO ND ND <1.0
ICI-2I-I 160 43140 . 0.63 ND 160 ND <1.0
ICI-2J-S 1301140 46143 ./ID ND/ND 180/180 ND ND
ICI-21-S '23 31 NO ND 40 ND ND
ICI-2L-S 70 32 NO ND 28 ND ND
ICI-2M-S 26 29 NO/NO 0.65 51 ND ND
-------
-.
'fABLE D.2
ICon~lnued)
PARAMEtERS
TOTAL
IAMPLI ..,:nr':,-II afLOII b8 CYANIDE ...,If!tIOLI C9 SULPATB 8!HZEN! NAPHTHALENE
IDBllTIPICAnCII ..'Ita ../lta .1" III/Ita 904 ../Ita III/Ita
IC8-3C-S 460 95 0.63 lID 180 ND <1.0
IC8-3H-S 400 88 .. 1.3 ND 400/380 NO <1.0
IC8-3I-8 110 110 3.1 ., . NO 760 NO <1.0
IC8-3J-S 670 130 0.61 ". 0.14 210 NO <1.0
IC8-31t-S 150 64 1.2 0.68 140/120 NO 2.1
IC8-3L-I 180/200 41 2.0 0.29 NO NO/NO NO/NO
IC8-4C-S 160 51 0.84 1.1 210 ND NO
ICB-4H-S 78 36/38 110 0.45/0.33 56 NO NO
IC8-41-S '.5/3.5 14 0.83 1.1/1.2 11 NO NO
IC8-5C-S. 13 26 1.4 2.0 55 NO <1.0
IC8-5H-S 9.8 20 1.0 2.0 240/260 NO NO
tC8-6C-S 220 54 13 2.4 110 NO 16
tC8-6H-S 120 31 .0.74/0.66 2.4 280 NO 6.1
ICB-61-S IS 51 4.8/3.2 0.15/0.13 550 NO <1.0
ICB-6J-S 10 18 NO 0.10 90 ND <1.0
-------
'l'ABLB D.2
(Continued)
PARAMETERS
10TAL
SAJlPL8 ../:wr..:3-- atIDRIOB CYANID! f.HENOLlCS SULPA1'8 BENZEN! NAPHTHALENE
IOanrlCAl1011 ../ka ../ka ' lla/ka IIIR/ka 104 IIIR/ka . ms/ks
IC8-7C-S 15 4' 1.2/1.2 1.2 290 NO 1.0
IC8-1H-S 38 3' 0.15 0.24 310 ND 1.3
... .
ICI-7I-S 79 3' NO 0,. 85 260/260 NO NO
.' .
,
IC8-IC-S 280/260 190/180 2.6/3.2 0.94 540 NO 5.0
IC8-8H-S 210 91 0.13 3.0 380 NOIND <1.0
JC8-81-1 120/130 '9/66 0.67 1.1 200 ND <1.0
IC8-ge-S 200 110/110 8.7 0.4' 480 No 2.0
ICI-9H-S 390 210 2.9/2.9 1.8 660 NO 12
IC8-91-S '7. 81/81 0.50 0.20 25 NO <1.0
IC8-9J-S 81 110/110 NO 0.99 25 No ND
ICB-I0C-S 160 23/24 NO 0.86 35 ND ND
ICI-I0H-S 130 28/31 tm/NO 0.17 5.0 ND ND/ND
ICB-I01-S 41 20 NO 0.11 10 NO . ND
, .
( '\
\ /
/
-------
TA8L£ D.2
(Continued)
PARAMETERS
TOTAL
SAMPLE ../~P':3'" CllLORIO! CYANIDE P"!MOLICS SULrATE "EHZENE NAPHTHALENE
IDIDITIPICAn08 ./ka . ./ka ..I Ita 0 IIg/ka 104 ./ka 1I&/ka
ICI-I1C-1 31 18 lID "" 0.69 20 NO ND
ICI-I1I1-I ,., 18/17 lID 1.1/0.93 85 NO NO/d.O
ICI-12C-1 130/130 310/300 3.6/3.2 1.5 360 NO 4.3
ICI-12C-"( 5) 0.22 14 .,. . 0.06 0.85 9.5 NO ND
'0 .
ICI-12I1-S 130 120/130 NO 0.62 100 NO NO
".
ICI-12I-S 110 150/140 NO 1.3 70 NO ND
(1)"/1ta . .i11Iar... per klloar.. or part. per .lll10n.
(2)10 Indicate. none detected.
(3)The Indicated ...,Ie Y8. ..a1,.ed In duplicate.
(4)The corre.pondl.. c08pOund va. detected at Ie.. than I .1111ara. per kl10ar88 or part per .llllon.
-------
I . t' J I
!'ADLE C. 4
RESUL!'S or CHEMtCAL ANALYSES
LAGOON SAMPLES
PARAMETERS
TOTAL
IAHPLI ../::nr':3-11 CHLORIOE CYANIOI PIfENOLI CS SULPATI 8ENZEN! NAPHTHALENE
101llTIPICAUCII ../Ita ../Ita 8a/1ta ./ka S04 III/ka III/kg
1.I-1C-VI 4.' 32 2.5/2.5(2) 80(3) 300 lID 3.1
1.8-111-VI '2 76 0.61 "', 10/ND 680 lID <1.0(4)
LI-2C-VI 44/43 420 91 1.5 210 lID 12
1.1-211-111 I' 33 6.8' 99 90119 0.51 8,300
~4/45 430 "- .. 15/14 1.5 310 0.031
1.8-21-11 30
., .
-'.
LI-3C-VI 160/110 92 2.4 23/35 660 0.011/0.061 80
1.1-4C-1II t.1 39 4.4 10 130 lID 17
LI-411-11S 44' 61 41 0.90 2500/2200 NO 54
1.1-41-111 69 55 0.59 1.2 140 NO ND
LI-4C-V( 5) 5.6 21 lID 0.32 1000 <0.010(6) 0.32
U-5C-VS - 6.0/6.0 11 1.8 0.54 680/490 ID 16
1.8-5H-1II 30 22 1.5/6.8 ID 90/120 ID 2.2
See footnote. at ... of tabl..
-------
!'ABLE C. 4
(Continued)
PMAN!TeRS
TOTAL
SAHPL8 ../q'n'r"':3-11 CHLORIDE CYANID! PHINOLICS SUl.PATK 8!NZ!NB NAPHTHALENE
IDDlTIPICAttOi .,1.. .1/" M,/ka ../k, 004 ./kl mg/k,
I.8-6C-VS 8.5 32/35 1.2 8D' 700 NO 11
1.8-6H-VS 39 76 1.9/2.5 3.3 150 0.038/0.020 720
1.8-61-8 120 70/75 3.8/4.2"', 0.29 57/45 <0.010 1.3
LB-1c-n .170/140 440 18 8D 1200 0.020 NO
1.8-111-n 66 250 0.61/NO 8D 37 NO NO
1.8-8C-VS 62 1200 86 ~. . lID 1600 0.10/0.12 240
,
1.8-811-VS 190 140 27 91 320 . 0.043/0.051 320
1.8-90-. 170/170 18 21/17 630/550 lID 71 11,000
1.8-911-1 3.0 17/ 14 4.' . 0.'3 90/87 0.15 16
1.8-1 DC-tli 12/15 39 20/21 1.5/1.8 1970 NO/NO 110 ,
1.8-108-1 21 28 2.2 0.20 49 NO <1.0
1.8-10I-tl(~) .' 0.14/0.16 65/56 0.11 0.026 610/580 NO 0.018
LB-IIC-tII 14 . 120 8.8 0.99 5200 19(7) 23
1.8-118-1 35 58 ID 1.6/1.5 140 NO <1.0
1.8-11C-tI(') 0.12 21 0.16 0.046 12/14 <0.010 0.062
;
-------
I I .
..... .
. I
. .
IJ.'A8LB C.4
.Continued)
PARAMITO!
TOTAL
lAMP'" ../qAft'r'l":J-I CRLORIOI CYAN I 01 PHENOLICS IULPATI 8ENZERB NAPHTHALENE
101ll11PICAft08 .a/lta ..I Ita .a/lta ../ka 8°4 ../ka ../lta
LI-12C-VS "/90 12 31 4.5/3.2 2200 lib <1.0
1.8-128-1 22 15/14 NO 0.27 270 lib lib
LI-I2C-V(S) . 6~3 10/8.' 0.48 '" 0.023 120/120 lib ND/0.028
'
(1)"/ka . .Il11ar... per kll0.r.. or part. per .Illlon.
U)The indicated ...,le va. ..al,.ed in dupllcal:_.' .
U).O indicate. none detect.d. ' . .
(4)The correspondi.. c08pOund va. detected at less than 1 ~il1ilra. per kiloar88 or part per .11110n.
(')Vater quallt, ...pl.. concentrations shoun are .lllllra.. per liter or part. per .llllon.
(6)The correspond'.. c08pOund val detected at Ie.. than 10 .icroara.s per titer or partl per bUHon. "
(1)18 Indicate. that there vas i.lufftcient sa.,le to perfor8 the anal,si. due to 1..,le breakale durin~ shipment. .
-------
..
.:
FI GUR£ C-I
PlAN AND LOCATION OF LAGOON
AND GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS
Pll(NII[D '011
ALlI£D CORPORATION
MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY
..!
m
-------
..
.
TABLE 8.1
SOIL AREA 1 ANAL YTleAL RESUlTS - S£PT[tlJER 1989
CPLA FS
AREA 1 tOTAL CYMIOE BENZENE PHENOLICS NAPHTHALENE BENZO(a)PVRENE A"'ONIA
(../kg) (ug/kg) (III/kg) (uglkg) (ug/kg) (mg/kg)
....
,
A81-1 1.3U. 6U 0.8 4,500 46,000 11/12
(0.O'~1.0' )
ABl-:J 1.20 6U 0.60 780U 780U 41
(2.5'-5.0' )
... ...
ABI-5 I.IU 5U 0.50 ~. 720U 720U 5.8
(7.5'-10.0' ) .
"
ABI-7 I.IU 5U 0.50 700U 700U 1.1U
(12.5' -15.0')
AB2-1 1.20 601 3.1 30 ,GOO 13 ,000 15/15
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB2-:J 1.2U ' 2 0.6U 790U 1,600 41
60
(2.5'-5.0' )
M2-5 1.1U 6U 0.60 740U 740U 5.1
(7.5'-10.0')
AB2-7 1.IU 5U 0.8 740U 740U 5.5
(12.5'-15.0')
AB3-1 I.IU 6U 9.8/9.8 19,000 100,000 45
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB3-3 1.2U 6U 1.2 770U 770U 1.2
(2.5'-5.0')
-------
I
,
..
.
TIUIl£ 8. t
(Contt flied)
AREA I tOTAL CYMIDE BENZENE PHENOLICS NAPHTHALENE BENlO(I)PVRENE NlCOH fA
(../Kg) bg/Kg) (II9/Kg) (pg/Kg) bglKg) (Illg/Kg)
AD3-S 1.IU 6U . 0.5U 720U 800 5.8
(7.5'-10.0')
A84-1 1.IU 6U 2.8 ', 4.200 30 ,000 16
(0.0'-1.0' )
A84-3 1.20/1.20 6U 0.6U 770U 770U 17
(2.5'-5.0')
- ~.
A84-5 1.IU 50 0.6 , ,73OU 730U 15
(7.5'-10.0') .
,
AS5-1 11 IU 1.8 4.0000 25.000 3.5
(0.0'-1.0')
A85-3 1.20 &II 0.6U 780U 780U 30
(2.5'-S.O')
A85-5 1.1U au 0.6U 740U 740U 16/16
(7.5'-10.0')
A81-1 1.1U 6U 1.6/1.7 32.000 150.000 6.3
(0.0'-1.0')
A86-3 1.20 6U 0.6U 760U .760U 5.9
(2.5'-5.0')
AS6-5 1.IU 6U 0.60 740U 740U 3.9
(7.5'-10.0')
U . CoMpound oranalyte VIS analyzed but not detected.
tAll 'nternal standards exhtb't low response. tndt~attng posstble Matrtx tnterferenceor cracked
purging tube. Subsequent reanalysis yielded same result of 6U.
2fnternal standard that benzene ts based on is wtthtn QC 11.its. (Howeyer, another tnternal
-------
TARtt B.2
SOIL AREA f MAlYrICAl RESUlTS -SEPmIIER 1989
CPLA FS
AREA 2 tOTAL CYMIDE BENZENE PHENOLICS NAPHTHALENE BENZO(a)PVREHE AtlfOMIA
(llg/kg) ("g/Kg) '(II9/Kg) b9lKg) (pg/Kg) (mg/Kg)
I.IU 18U 1.0 "', 3, 7000 15,000
.7-1 2.5
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB7-3 1.20 6U 0.60 770U 770U 4.8
(2.5'-5.0' )
..- ..
AB7-5 1.11t 5U 0.60 .. . 750U 750U 82
(7.5'-10.0') ..
"
AB8-1 1.211/1.20 29U 1.4 3,9000 60 ,000 2.1
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB8-3 1.20 6U 0.60 790U 2,000 2.4
(2.5'-5.0' )
AB8-5 I.IU 6U 1.0/0.5U 730U 730U 1.1
(7.5'-10.0')
AB9-1 I.IU 5U 0.50 490J 23,000 1.5/2.1
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB9-3 1.IU/I.IU 5U 0.60 760U 760d 1.11i
(2.5'-5.0' )
AB9-5 I.IU 5U 0.5U 720U 720U 1.8
(7.5'-10.0')
-------
~. ,.
TABLE R.f
(Conttllled)
AR£A 2 toTAL CYMIDE BENlENE PHENOLICS NAPHTHALENE BENlO(a)PYRENE AMMONIA
(llg/kg) (pg/Kg) (I111/Kg) (pg/Kg) (pg/kg) (I111/Kg)
MIO-l 1.1U 5U ' 0.7 1. 5000 10.000 1.7
(0.0'-1.0')
I.IU 5U 0.15U " 750U 1,300 1.9
MIO-3
(2.5'-5.0')
A810-5 1.IU 6U 3.8 710U 710U 1.1U
(7.5'-10.0')
MI1-1 1.IU 6U 0.6/0.7 .. 2.9OOJ 51,000 '1.7
(0.01-1.0') "
..
MI1-3 1.20 6U 0.5U 760U 760U 1.1U
(2.51-5.0')
A811-5 1.IU 5U 0.6U 710U 710U 1.6
(7.51-10.0')
M12-1 1.20 24U 2.1 3.9000 21.000 6.3
(0.0'-1.0' )
M12-3 1.20 IJ 0.15U 770U 770U 3.1
(2.5'-5.0')
ABI2-S 1.IU 5U 56 1.000 710U 88
(7.51-10.0')
AB12-7 1.1U 5U 560 7000 700U 4.0
(12.5' -15.0')
-------
TABU: B.!
(Conttrlled)
MEA 2 TOTAL CYMIDE BENZENE PHENOL I CS NAPHTHALENE BENlO(a)PYREHE AtIOflA
(llg/kg) (pg/Kg) (llg/Kg) b9lkg) bg/Kg) (mg/Kg)
M13-1 1.20 . 1.5 190J 13,000 4.4
6U/611
(0.0'-1.0')
"',
AB13-3 I.IU 6U 0.5U 760U 760U I.S
(2.5'-5.0')
AB13-5 1.1U 5U 0.6U 710U 710U 1.4
(7.5'-10.0')
- ."
A832-1 1.3U 6U 8.4 .. . 830U 1,900 8.8
(0.0'-1.0') "'
'.
AB32-3 1.2U 5U 0.6U 760U 760U 64.0
(2.5'-5.0')
A83Z-5 1.1U 8 0.6U 730U 730U 18
(7.5'-10.0')
U . CoI!pGund or ana1yte was ana1yzed but not detected.
J . CoIIpaund detected but be10w the contract requtred detectton 1tlltt, (the va1ue gtven is a"
estt..te). but above the tnstru.ent detect ton 1tlltt.
.
-------
,
TARtt 8.3
SOil AREA 3 MAlYTICAl" RESUlTS - SEPTDlJER 1989
CPtA FS "
AREA 3 toTAL CYMIDE BENZENE Pff[NOlICS NAPHTHALENE BEHZO(a)PYRENE AtIfONlA
(8IJ!kg) (alg/kg) (1I9/kg) (pg/ICg) hg/kg) (mg/Kg)
"', 3,7000
A814-1 I.IU/I.IU 5U 0.6 29 ,000 4.8
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB14-3 4.5 6U 1.3 1,5000 21,000 3.0
(2.5'-5.0') "
AB14-5 3.2 5U 0.5U/0.5O .. . 700U 700U LoU
(7.5'-10.0') .
....
A815-1 1.1U 5U 1.5 3.6000 18,000 3.6
(0.0'-1.0' )
A815-3 I.IU 6U O.fiII 1.5000 19,000 2.1
(2.5'-5.0')
A815-5 I.IU 5U 0.50 7 IOU 710U 1.3
(7.5'-10.0')
A816-1 1.IU 6U 0.60 750U 750U 3.2
(0.0'-1.0' )
A816-3 1.2U 6U 0.& 770U 770U 150
(2.5'-5.0')
A816-S 1.IU 5U 0.50 740U 740U 1.7
(7.S'-10.0')
-------
. .
. . .
"
I
TABLE 8.3
(ConttrUed)
AREA 3 TOTAL CYANIDE BENZENE PHENOLICS NAPHTHALENE BENIO(a)PYRENE A....ONIA
(../kg) (pg/kg) (llg/kg) bglkg) bg/kg) (mg/kg)
AB17-1 I.IU 5U ' 1.6 43.000 24.000 2.0
(0.0'-1.0')
I.IU 1.1 "
AB17-3 5U 730U 730U 1.4
(2.5'-5.0')
AB17-5 I.IU 5U 0.511 710U 710U L1U
(7.5'-10.0')
AB18-1 1.1U 6U 0.60 " . 7SOU 8.100 3.2/5.2
(0.0'-1.0') "
..
AB18-3 1.2U 6U 0.60 770U 770U 1.2U
(2.5'-5.0' )
AB18-5 I.IU 5U 0.511 720U 720U 1.1U
(7.5'-10.0')
A819-1 1.00 5U 1.0 17.00011 130.000 1.0U
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB19-3 1.IU 5U 0.511 710U 710U 1.1U
(2.5'-5.0')
AB19-5 1.IU 5U 0.7 720U 720U 1.1U
(7.5'-10.0')
-------
- I
i
' .-
TABLE 8.3
(Conttrued)
MEA 3 TOTAL CYANIDE BENlENE PH£NOLICS NAPHTHAUNE BENZO(a)PVRENE AIIfONIA
(lIg!kg) (pg/kg) (I189/Kg) (..g/kg) (pg/kg) (mg/kg)
AD20-1 I.IU 6U 0.7 7 SOU 7SOU 3.4
(0.0'-1.0')
"',
AD20-3 I.IU 6U 0.6U/0.6O 760U 760U 1.1U
(2.5'-5.0')
AD20-5 1.1U 5U 0.5 720U 720U 1.1U
(7.5'-10.0')
AD21-1 I.IU 5U 4.4 '.28.0000 330 ,000 1.1U
(0.0'-1.0') "
AD21-3 1.lu &U 1.9 14.000u 82,000 1.1U
(2.5'-5.0')
AD21-5 1.2O/1.2U 5U 0.& 770U 770U 1.2U
(7.5'-10.0')
-------
TABLE 8.4
SOIL AR£A 4 MALYTICAL RESUlTS - SEPTEtilER 1989
CPLA FS
,
AREA 4 TOTAL CYMIDE BENZENE PHENOLICS NAPffTHAlENE BENZO(a)PYRENE AtltONIA
(../kg) (pg/Kg) '(IIIg/Kg) (itg!Kg) (afg/Kg) (mg/kg)
"822-1 1.5 5U 1.1U "', 15,000 96,000 13
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB22-3 fiG 5J 1.1/0.7 4,500 7,900 50/43
(2.5'-5.0' )
AB22-5 23 2J 1.5 , .3,100 3,000 190
(7.5'-10.0') .
,
AB24-1 9.7 6U 0.6U 1,400 11,000 9.6
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB24-3 13/13 30U 7.6 58 ,000 67,000 6.0
(2.5'-5.0' )
AB24-5 3.1 7U 0.9 9,600 6,200 8.8
(7.51-10.0') .
,
AB25-1 1.2U 7U 0.6U 800U 800U 2.5
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB25-3 1.2U 7U 0.6U 760U 760U 2.4
(2.51-5.0')
AB25-5 1.1U 5U 0.7 720U 720U 1. lU/1. 10
(7.51-10.01)
-------
TMlf 8.4
(Conttr..ed)
MEA 4 toTAL CYMIDE BE.ZDlE PHENOLICS .APtf11IALENE BENZO(I)PYRENE AftfONIA
(8J/kg) (lig/Kg) (Illg/Kg) (lig/kg) (llg/Kg) (mg/Kg)
.
AR26-1 13 7U 0.8/0.6U 790U 200J 5.3
(0.0'-1.0' )
"',
AR26-3 1.2U 7U 0.6U 770U 770U 1.2U
(2.5'-5.0' )
A826-5 I.IU 5U 0.51 710U 710U 1.1U
(7.5'-10.0')
-. .',
AR27-1 140 7U O.filI , 3.1000 ZS.OOO 8.5
(0.0'-1.0' ) .
"
ADZ7-3 1.3 7U 0.6U eoou 800U 1.2U
(2.5'-5.0')
A827-5 I.IU 5U 0.511 710U 710U 1.1U
(7.5'-10.0')
AR28-1 40 22U 1.4 2.4OOJ 43.000 2.7
(0.0'-1.0' )
AD28-3 I.m 6U 0.6U 780U 4.900 1.2U
(2.5'-5.0' )
A828-5 1.IU 5U 0.611 700U 700U 1.1U
(7.5'-10.0')
A829-1 1.2U . 7U 1.2 780U 780U 3.4
(0.0'-1.0')
-------
. .
,o'
I
TMILE 8.4
(Conttrued)
MEA 4 tOTAL CYAN IDE BENZENE PHENOLICS NAPttTHALENE BENZO(a)PYRENE A"'ONIA
(../Kg) (pg/kg) (l19/kg) ("g/kg) (pg/Kg) (mg/kg)
AB29-3 . 1.20 6U 0.611 760U 760U 1.2U
(2.5'-5.0')
"',
AB29-5 1.1U 5U 0.50 710U 120J 1.IU
(7.5'-10.0')
Ml3O-1 6.5 25U 1.0 340J 6.000 2.8
(0.0'-1.0' )
AB30-3 1.20 6U 0.60 ... . BOOU BOOU 1.2U
(2.5'-5.0') '-
AB3O-5 1.IU 5U 0.50 150J 720U 1.1U
(7.5'-10.0')
ABU-I 1.20/1.20 26U/3OU. 0.6U/0.6U 3.000 27.000 2.1
(0.0'-1.0')
AB31-3 "1.20 6U 0.611 780U 7BOU 1.4/2.4
(2.5'-5.0')
AB31-5 1.IU 5U 0.50 700U 700U 1.0U
(7.5'-10.0')
U . CoIIpound or .ana1yte was ana1yzed but not detected.
J -Collpound detected but be10w the contract requtred detectton 1t_tt. (the va1ue gfven fs an
estt..te). but above the tnstru8ent detection 1i_it. . .
-------
~.--. '
TML£ 8.S
SOil AREA 5 MAlnlCAI: RESUlTS - SEPTDIIER 1989
CPLA fS
AREA 5 TOTAL CYMID£ BEIIZ£HE PHElIOllCS NAPHTHALENE BENlO( a) PVREN-E AM'fONIA
(l11/Kg) (pg/kg) (1Ig/Kg) ("g/Kg) (pg/Kg) (1IIg/kg)
"'
..
A833-2 1.2U 6U 1.3 15,0000 28 ,000 2.4
(2.S'-S.O')
A833-4 1.1U 5U 0.50 690U 690U 1.1
(7.5'-10.0')
A834-3 1.2U 6U 1.9 .. 9,20OJ 39 ,000 2.7
(2.5'-5.0') .
,
A834-S 1.00 6U 0.5U/0.5O 680U 680U 1.2
(7.5'-10.0')
A835-3 I.IU 6U 0.6U 740U 140J 12.4
(2.5'-5.0')
A835-5 1.1U 5U 0.9 690U 690U 4.6
(7.5'-10.0')
U . CoIIpound or ana1Jte .,.s ana1Jzed but not detected.
J . CoIIpound detected but be10w the contract requtred detect ton 1hltt, (the va1ue gtven is an
-------
.'
TABLE 8.1
IMOOII MALYTICAl R£S1ft.1S - SEPTDII£R 1989
CPIA FS
lAGOONS TOTAL CYAN IDE 8ENZDlE PH£HOLICS NAPHntALENE BENZO(a)PYRENE AfItOHlA 1:1 pH ARSENIC
(./lg) (",/kg) (lI9/kg) (pg/kg) (..g/Kg) (Illg/kg) (mg/Kg)
LBU-1 62* III 4.8 4.300 20.000 5/1 7.40 7.9/7.3
(0.01'-1.0') "
LB 13-3 22* &II 1.7 6900 7&aU 72 8.75 O.92J
(4.5'-9.5')
LBU-4 ItA IIA NA 53.000' 840U NA 9.50 NA
(9.5'-14.5')
. .
"
L814-1 55. 8U 3.9 7.700 .. 14.000 5 7.75 11.2
(0.0'-1.0')
LB14-4 U. 7U 0.6 1200 770U 150 8.85 3.4S
(8.5'-10.5')
LBI4-11 1.~U 17 0.611 1.000 850U 210 9.35/9.35 2.6
(26.0'-28.5')
LB14-12 3.7 28 0.611 1.400 830U 110 8.85 9.1" I
(28.5'-33.5')
l814-14 1.4 22 0.611 1.100 820U 53 8..15 6.8"/5.6"
(38.5'-43.5')
lB14-16 1.20 6U 0.6U 3003 800U 56 8.35/8.35 4.9"
(48.5' -50.0')
-------
c
. . ..
TMiLE 8.1
(Contimed)
lAGOONS TOTAL CYMIDE B£lIlENE PH£NOLICS NAPftTHALENE B[NlO(a)PYRENE AtIfONlA 1:1 pH ARSENIC
(lIg/ICg) (pg/ltg) (1I9/ltg) ("g/ltg) ("g/kg) (IIIJ/kg) (mg/kg)
LBIS-I 470 eo 5.1 ' 1.300 4.500 19 7.20 26.1*S
(0.0'-1.0')
l81S-3 1.8 ', 750U
3.3 &II 7500 46 8.05/8.05 3.3*
(4.5'-9.5')
l81S-4 M IA IIA 950 730U HA NA itA
(9.S'-14.S')
- .'.
.816-1 10* 7U 34 11,000,000 .. . 2,000,000 21 7.15 . 8.7
[0.0'-1.0') "
'-
.816-4 6.3* SJ/2J 2.4/2.4 4,800J 48 ,000 23 8.15 6.3
:8.0'-10.0')
.816-7 4.9*/13* 18U/17U 8.5 7. 700J 450,000 12 7.65/7.55 5.75/6.2
'18.0' -20.0')
816-10 21* 7J/7U 3.8 4.700 12,000 70 7.50 9.5
28.0' -33.0' )
816-13 13* 23U 3.5 8,200 6,400 200 7.45' 6.0
:18.0' -43.0')
Bl6-18 1.2U 2J 0.7 5,400 1,300 54 itA NA
58.0' -63.0' )
U6-20 1.3U 3J 1.7 23.000 8,100 37 itA HA
58.0' -73.0')
-------
. . I
I
I
TABLE 8.8 I
(Conttllled) .
I
lMOONS TOTAL CYMIDE BENZENr PHENOLICS NAPHTHALENE BENZO(a)PYRENE WON fA t: 1 pH ARSENIC I
(lig/kg) (pg/leg) (llg/leg) (pg/leg) (pg/ICg) (1II9/lCg) (mg/Kg) I
l817-! 3.3 20U 0.6 ' 1,400.1 15,000 3 NA NA I
(0.0'-1.0' )
"
LB17-3 3.2 25U 2.8 120,000 43,000 6 NA NA I
I
(8.5'-10.5') .
LB17-6 200 49 4.3 170,000 100,000 25 NA NA
(18.5' -23.5')
LBI7-8 35 640 57 280,000 .. '. 33,000 100 NA NA
(28.0'-33.5') "
,
lOI7-IO 2.5 9.1 2.9 10,000 11,000 71 NA NA
(38.5'-43.5')
l8l7-13 1.3U. 8U 0.&11 8600 860U 22 . NA NA
(48.5'-53.5')
LB17-14 1M NA ffA 8100 110.1 HA NA NA
(53.5'-58.5')
lB17-15 1.30 5U O.fiII 8400 840U 25 HA HA
(58.3'-63.5')
LB17-16 1M NA HA 8200 820U NA NA NA
(63.5'-68.5')
-------
TNILE 8.8
(Conthlled)
lAGOONS toTAL CYMIDE 8E"ZENE PHENOLICS NAPHTHALENE 8ENlO(a)PVREHE AM40H IA 1:1 pH ARSENIC
(llg/kg) (lIg/Kg) (1I9/Kg) (pg/Kg) (lig/kg) (lIIg/ICg) (mg/Kg)
.BI7-17 1.2U 7U 1.0 780 1,800 26 NA NA
68.5'-73.5')
"',
. . OUp1tcate ....1ysts ts not wtthtn contro1 U.tts.
. CoIIpound or lnal7te WlS analyzed but not detected.
. CoIIpound detected but be10w the contract requtred detectton-1f.tt (the va1ue gtven ts an esttllate). but greater than
the InstnJllent detect ton u.n. .. .- .
" . Not ana1yzed. '. .
. The reported ya1ue was deter.ined by the llethod of standard adatttons.
~TE: S8Ip1es lBI3-4. lBI5-4. lBI7-4. and lB17-6 were originally archtved, but later analyzed for naphthalene
-------
.
t
Table. 25b. SoIIngeItlan H8Z8fd for lagoon t. ChIld (a)
. I """"..If .M DIll...... ..........
..... c.4. 0114
D4.Y 81!!8 Ia&t 8II.JI ""...11(, M ci6-~fII MM SM ![1M !!!!!.II MJD
Anu-AI ... .. ", '.'1:'" U~-.
0IbIIt8 ".... - ., :UII:-0:1 I.GE-G5
Cy8fttd8 "1-4" I' m I. tl:-o:I ,. rE-os.. , t.W-. t.W-.' t..-It
~ ..... a. In ..SE-ol '.SE.. "GE'" '.GE"" UI:.M
...... .. ., 1.~-0:1 '.SE-M
_... . ....." .., In 1.11:-08 I.GE-GI f.t!-8t . I.E."
........~. IID-.tOIJI .. In S.GE-Of 1.8E-tM '.GE-It '.W-It. t..-It
"'II'*'-'.U... .... 28 lIS UI:-oI I.":" t.I@.ot . UI:-8S
118Me(..r." ........ 88 WI I.GE-o:I ue-os '.'1:." . 1.8E-tM
018,40.." .... 18 lIS '.11:48 .. "'1:-08 ...... , 1.71:-05
.... "'..tIo-4 ,...... I.. lIS I.n:-os '.GE" )~-eeI ,..... , '.'I:-OS
........ ,.... " WI '.:11:... I. tl:.08 t..-eeI. f.CIE.... ',,-It '.GE-OS
.
( .
TOr" I.E-ot .. t!-eeI
'.
tit .... ",,,,,U.70,,,,,, 'I .....,........ ......,....... s...U 8Ml).lI-2H",,*"" '.S-I.'" u.t,(O-. .. l8-.. (0-' ..
........., .... ""....18...t ....
tilt ........ ~_..~................ ........... ...................,....
., ...~-~.. ....................... ~.... -- - II "~COI~""".",,,, o-S tIlL Mc8w...It.............................. COIICIfIt\ItIo8..
.,.,..-~.... 1- .lr.b.d. 111............................II.....COIIC"1IIM. .
. Al~...eJ"l b.. l_A'It! n ."'_I~r-
I
~
,J
'i
..
.
U)
U1
-------
.
Table 4-25b. CanIInuecI
......
~ - I".
r
.....~ *J.
a....tD......m.uar
-. '"
...
)
.
cs. Ct ~ U c..c.*A4..""""",
It. "II USJh --filii......,
uar. UnII ee.~-"""Id8r"""'"
".Ft8ctIM~IJJI""'c..~... .......~ 'If AI
EF. ~.,,~ -.,...~.,..."
m. ~Ullo..."""'''''''
_............. M
"'.A..t.""'111118"""_"'1 J !J ....~............
.. ....... -...". 'till'.. t..~.,.. uar. ."'.....-m.I,..._. t-
....",- 'lIS""'''' MlfI."'''''''''''''''ta.d...I,1 4. ..
"
. --.........,.....~
'" ~'8CtIr"" ~,...,.
tit D8rh8d..... tft._*' ...................,... .........,.......
8D81t118d....-..:,... pi'! ~..... CIo'-" .,IJL"""
.., 8181n"""'''''''''''~.1 J ""~b-r '''''''''''''0IMIr." till.
".....................~" J UM a..,Tllllll.ntlO8IIr."t_.
... '1IIt1t.,..JU" "I II I""'__--,USEN.'-IO-..
I
i
...
I
...
.
to
t11
-------
r
~.
B.
~
i
III: -
!rift i
~
- ~....
.--
..--.-.---.-- :...- .:.._-- I
Vorksheet 7-3C. Calculation o' Risk from p~ ~tlal Carcinogens
ToI8I EtCpOIUN PaInt Future ~1CD8 an the Cok. Plant III. (Adult)
ChembrI
Benzene
Tot81 '
Cardl..... Route- ChemIcal-
e."... COt Potency Factor Ip8dflo Ip8dfIo
RouIe (rr9kltdIIyJ (mgIkltdllrJ--1 Rfa8c RIs8c
.
0nII, Water 7.2OE-03 (a) 0.021 2.09E-04 2.09E-04 I
Oral, Sol 1.09E-07 (b) 0.029 3. 18E-09 I
I
""'lallon 7.29E-08 (e) 0.021 2.11E-09 ,
0nII, Wet. 11.5
Oral, Sol 7.83E-05 tltJ 11.5 8.77E-04 8.78E-04
Inhafallan '.82£-09 (e) 8.1 5.28E-08
Orel. Wal. 11.5 7.27E-04
Oral, Sol 8.32£-05 (b) 11.5 7.271:-04
fnhaIatlon 1.02E-G8 (e) 8.1 8.21 E-G8
Oral, Water 11.5 8.78E-04
0r8I. Sol 7.83E.o5 (bJ "' 11.5 8.77E-04
Inh8IaIlon 8.82E-09' (e). 8.1 5.28E-G8
. ~
Oral, Wal. . 11.5"'- 1.58E-04
Ond, Sol 1.37E-GS (b) . 11.5 1 '58E-04
............. t.85E-09 (e) 8.1 1.00E-G8
Benz(8J8I11.......
Benzo(.,."......
Chrysene
DIJenz(..h)8l18'''''"
Ar8IIc
CrII. Wa.. 2.81E-04 (8)
Oral, Sol 3.49E-G8 (b)' "....
lnhillatlon 8.62E-09 (e)
2 (dJ
2 (dJ
50
5.82£-04 5.69E-04
8.98E-G8
4.31 E-07
TOTAL UPPER ~OUNO RISK 3.42£-03
(a) Taken from Wortr..... 5-7C.
(b) Taken from Tabl. 7-3.
(e) T8ken from WOfItsheet 5-7C. ,
(dJ Telephon. conqrsallon with J. V8n der I
-------
I
~
i
~';...
ria ~
'fksheet 7-3C. Calculation 01 Risk from Po
) Carcinogens
,~-~ PaInt AllIn '''lOIn. eM the c.. Pl8nl1IIe
Total
c.~"'V'I"1Ic AouIe- ChemIc8I-
~ COt (a) PoIeI"Y F8dar 8IJ8dIIc 8P8dIIc
ChenaI Route ~ - .. ..-t RIlle RJsI[
8...t.. 0nII. W... I.83E-G3 (8) 0.021 7.831:-05 7.83E-G5
0nII. 801 1.5OE-07 (b) 0.021 7.2SE-G9
ImIIaIlon '.11 E-08 (e) 0.029 1. m-09 '
.
8enz(a)8lIll... 0nII. Wat. tI.5 1.38E-G3
Oral. 801 t .2OE-ot (b) 11.5 ..., 1 .38E-G3
inhalation 7.23E-09 (e) 8.1 4.41E~
8enzG(a""'18 0nII. Water tI.5 f,81E-03
Oral. Sol 1.40E-ot (b) ".5 1.81E-G3
Inh8Iadon 8.54E-09 (e) ~. " 8.1 5.21 E-08
'. .
a.,.... 0nII. Water ".5 ; 2.01E-03
OnII, Sol t .8OE-cM (b) ".5 ' 2.07E-03
In:I8IaIlon 7.23E-G9 (e) '.1 4.4 t E-08
0Ibe,1Z(.,ItJII...~.. Oral. .... tI.5 3.68E-cM
Oral, Sol 1.2OE-05 (b) 11.5 3.88E-cM
inhalation t .38E-09 (e) 8.1 8.42E-G9
ArI8IIo 0nII. W... t .03E-cM (a) 2.0 (d) 2.08E-ot 2.22E-ot
Oral, Sol ,8.00£-G8 (b) 2.0 (d) t.80E-GS
. InIIaIatlon 7.23E-G9 let 50 3.8tE-G1
TOTAL UPPER BOUND RISK 5.13E-G3
(a) Ta'.. from WoII1.. 1-1C.
(b) Talc.. from Table 7-3. '
(a) Talc.. from Worbheet 5-7C.
(d) T818.,,,0... co............ """ J. Yan der kIoot. US EPA, 7-20-90.
" ,
'.
';"
~
-------
~
<
...
a.
>
i
I~
j
Worksheet 7-00. Calculation of ChronlcINoncarclnogen Hazard Index
,GIll ~.ur. PaInt AIIII. """ICH on 8he Colle""''''' eAduIIJ
Inhalation Ora'
COl(a) AIC COI(a) Ale
ChM~ """.tdawl '''-.tdlwt CDI:AfC 'nVlrctdad ""'Wd8yJ eo':AIC
Ammo.II8 3.48E-03 3.6OE-o' (b) '.. I.OOE.OO 3.40E.OI ee)
Chloride 1.23E-09 5. lse.oo
c,..1Ide 2.56E-09 NO Celt 8.58£-02 J.OOE-02 3.291:.00
Phenot 5.49E-'O 2.00E-02 2.74£-08 4. 73E-04 8.00£-01 7.88£-04
Sulfa.. '.0IE-07 4.86£.00
benzene .. 7OE-07 .,. 1 .69e-02
Napblha18n8 5.85E-GI NO Cd) '. ' 1.40£-02 4.OO£-ot 3.50£-02
llenz(a","'IIC8IJ" 2.01£-oe -
"'zo(a~.. 2.38£-08 '
-
CIIryseI.. 2.0'£-08 -
OIbenl(a...,....8C$i." 3.841:-09 -
Ar88nIc 2.01£-0& NO Cd) 8.591:-04 t.OOI:-G3 6.5ge-01
i
,
I
,
.
I
Sunt of ........... CDI:AIC AItIo8 .
2.741:-08
Sunt of 0rII COt.AIC RatIo8 .
3.981:.00
Sunt TGIII of AI A8flos.
3.981:.00
Ca) T.'....... Wed....... 5-8C. .
(b) UIIIIs of ...,.n3. B8sed on 0I~1c hesho8d lor anw,WN"'--not . re'eretlCe dose.
Cc) UIIIIs of""'" lined... 0fDII",,1c 8weshold for Itnmonla-not a reference dose.
Cd) NO -....... ..........
'"
.
...,
-------
Worksheet 7-IC. Calculation of Subchronlc Hazard Index
TOIII ~ PaInt FuIur8 f8""'~" the ea.. PI8nIIfte (A*JftJ
inhalation Or"
601 A'S SOt faJ AIS
~ --1td8wI ""''''d8vI SOt:A'S '''''wd8yJ ~-~ SOl:AIS
Am..-1I8 3.IOE-o' CbJ "', '.58E.oo 3.40£+0' (cJ
Ct8Io..., 2.37I:+Ot
c,......, NO fdJ 8.29E-o' 2.00E-02 3.t5E+Ot
Phet'-A I. 'OE-O' ".58£-02 8.00£-0' 7.64E-02
Sulfate '.72£.00
Benzene -. ~.. . 3.43£-02
NIIpI."",. NO (dJ ..., 3.43E-G2 4.00E-ol 8.58E-G2
&.u(a)8"--~~ -
...
~a"" -
a....... -
Dlbem(8JtJ8I1ht...,- -
AI8n8c NO fdJ t. 74 E-04 t.OOE-G3 t.74E-Ot
.... .. .............. SOI-.AIS .
o
..... 0rII SOt.AIS A8IDI.
3.28E+OI
Bum TOIII" AI RIIoa. .
3.28E+O'
r
~
It
>
j
-
~
faJ T.'.. front ........... 5-IC.
IbJ UnIts 01 ¥4 ....... ....~It. livest.... for "I~._.. not . reference dose.
feJ UnIts 01""" Based.. .....8OIbpI1c heshotd for 8""'IUwIta-not 8 re'erence dose.
fdJ NO me... not .........,d.
"
. I
.....
.
....
-------
I
,
Worksheet 7-IC. Calculation 0' Subchronlc Hazard Index
,..... ~ II""" PaInt ........ '11f1llS- .. .. ea.. ..... .... (Ct8IdJ
Inh8tIlttorl 0rIII
SOl AIS SOf(e) AIS
ChemIwf ~.. """~d8vI SDI:AIS '''''-dawI tmtA_dqJ SDI:AfS
Amttluoll8 3.6OE-o' Ib) "', . .44E+OI 3.401:+01 fe)
Chfor.. 5. "E+OI
C,.nfde NO (d) 1.38E+OO 2.001:-12 8.88E+OI
""'101 I. tOE-o. t .OOE-ol 8.00E-ol 1.67E-ol
Sultele 2. '3E+O'
Benl8n8 ~. .' . 7.5OE-02
N......... NO (d) ~ 7.SOE-02 4.00E-bt t .88E-Ot
Benz(8)8111f..... .
-
"
"~.)pJr8I. -
aw,.... -
DlJenz(8.h)llIh--.-.. -
Ar.nc NO (dJ 2.1 3E-03 t.OOE-G3 2. t3E+OO
Sum.. ~"'1Ion SOI:AIS R8IIos .
o
Sum.. Oral SDI:AIS All.....
7.t2E+Ot
i:'
~
;0'
R.
~
~
:a
. .
i~
Sum TOI8I" AI R8IIo8 .
7. t2E+Ot
(.) T.'.. from ........ 5-8C.
(b) UnIts .....,...,. B888d... ""~Ic thesho8d IGr 81111._"-not . reference dose.
fe) UnIts ........ Bned on GrOIbNJIefAIc threshold for emmoniu--noI 8 reference dose.
(dJ NO means not ."".I8d.
':"
-
00
. .
-------
, ... "~.-
au COO'-~ II(S(1IOID
... ... .... .... .....
J
I
t
.
i
i
~
.
,"
" .
"':';<11 ..... "' , .
.. ;':':~~;~"'..-r:":'4:'~'~.;'J",: ":'>: ,';;
". ":r;:. '~~~~P:~~~WII4I!r!;T:)::~~..::: ~'.., '. .-;-Y' ~~.~"C~:-.~ ~j.::~'~f.~",
~; :,,".;
~ ,", ,: .;o~ " .';;; .
.
,
:Conta8inated soil
. to be
I Excavated and
on a Prepared
I
" (areas to be excavated
indicated in black)
Areas
Bioremediated
Pad
-------
,,'
~
' r- .
/'"
...... ~
I ."'::":~::""~:.:;':::':"~~'::':'~=i*7;g:$=~~""-:'._-""""--
7 / /7/ /« ."l1li(""
r...... II..,.
r
ft
1
M.I~~,.,..
-- SUlFAa'
-- .......... .I
r Pll[PMf:D SU8CIIADr
,
~
N. '.s.
A' -
~
..
"
~
so: D(1'AIl 8
DETALA
II. T.s.
. JIJII'L.
---------------
IDICMIU
QMIt
~
fLM
N. T.5.
10 WU,...,
S1S1OI
~
.....
...IIID.
t. so: FIQJIIf: ,... ftJRlOCA1ICJN or
nPICAl S[CtlON ~.
F1CURE 5-31
CPlA
PlAN AND nPlCAl StenCH
lAND 1REANENT 9I0REUEDIA nON AREA
AlTERN AliVE 18
r!Ol8Pr
fill(
COtUC1ION SIM"
PItO'AMO FOIt
AUJED-gCNAlINC.
MORRISTOWN. NEW JERSO'
I .
DETAI... B
II. T.S.
~::..
'"--
m IN1'ERMATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORAT10N
I
. i
-------
u.s. EPA
ARARs and TBCs
~li.d-Siqnal Inc./Ironton Coke Superfund Site
Coke Plant/Laqoons Area
For all options involving incineration or vaste fuel recovery:
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CPR Part 50)
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40
CPR Part 61)
New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60)
Por options involvinq excavation and redisposition of hazardous
wastes :
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
40 CFR Part 268 (substantive portions)
por all options:
Chemical specific criteria:
- SDWA MCLs
- non-zero HCLGs
TBC Values
- Cancer potency factors (dependinq on results of R~sk
Assessment)
- Water Quality criteria
- Health Advisories
-------
'191 No. 1 OHID REYISED cnDE IORtl ARMS FOR ALLlED tPLA
OSI17190
ORC PERTllIEIT
ClTATIOI PtII8APMS TITLE I SUlJECT OF R£&UlATIOII DESCRIPTION OF R£6UlATION APPLICATIOM OF RE6UlATION MM T'
----------------- -----------------
1521.06 COMSTRUCTtOI P£RftITS FOR DARS, . DAft lAY 1£ tUNSTRUCTD FOR TIlt SUISTAlTIYE I£II\IIREIOTS OF THIS ACTION
IllES AU LEVEES NIPOSE OF STORIK6, COISERYII6 OR SECTION PERTAIN TO AlTERNATIVES
RETARD I 116 lATER, 1M FOR MY OTHER THAT ADDllESS ICE CREEr SEDIftOOS
NIPOSE, IIIR SHAU. MY D IrE OR OR THE DIKE amw THE WOONS
L£VEE IE COISTUTED FCI TIE AlII ICE CIm.
NIPGSE DI¥ERTlIIS OR RETAtlllG
FlOO. IlATER III11IDUT A KRIUT.
1521.0112 IIOJII TUR 111& , MINTEJlAHCE . IMS, D 1m AlGI L.£Vm lAND ALl. SUlSTAITIYE REQUIREIIOOS OF nlIS ACTID.
QPERATIOM lDAKS,DIKES,L£VEES1 APPURTEJlAlaS I SHAll 8£ SECTIDI PERTAIM TO ALTERNATIVES
fIOIl TOR£]I , ftA 1 MY A I lIED AND THAT ADDIESS Ia: CREEK 501IIooS
QPERAm SAFElY lit ACalRDAHCE 01 THE DIrE 8£TIlEEJI T1IE L~ONS
1m STA~ RUI.£S, mtftS All]) MIl ICE CREB.
CDMD ITIIIIS Of n£ POIIlT MID
OT1ER DIREJ£m ISStD
PURSUAKT TO THIS SEtTtDl OR
ETIOI 1521.06 OF THE E.
3134.02 IF) IlllAUTHORIlED STORA6E, MATIOT. ~I8ITS STORA6E, TREAT10T OR P£RTIINS TO AL1. A1.TEWTIYES. AC110N
OR DISPnSAL. If HAl WASTE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE RIttS THAT SUISTMTIYE PERIIIT
£ICEPT ~T1'E!tttT1n FACILITIES. IDlIREmTS 8£ ft£T.
3734.02 IMI 'UI&&IN60 IIHE'R£ HAl OR snLIU FtLLIII6, SlADIII, EICAYATlKS, PERTAIIIS TO All AlTERNATIYES. AtTION
IIASrI FACIUTY liAS LOCATED IUILJII6, DRIllIIf6 OR "111116 011
I.AJG) IIHERE IlAZARDCUS !lASTE OR
SOlID USTE FACILITY US OPWTU
IS PROHlilTED WITMaUT PRIOR
AUTHIII1ATIOII FIOII T1E DIRECTOR
.. OF THE 11110 EPA.
3134.02 . It! AIR aUSSI011S FROfI HAZARDOUS 10 HAlAllOUS IUTI FACILm SMALl. PERTAtlS TO All AlTERMATlYES. ACTION
KAStl FlC1lme BIT MY PARTlWTI RATTER,
8Y, FUIS, lAS, lIST, SIDE,
VtP8...GIIMI$.DSTMI1 nlAT
r.j&lfU£S 1111111 COIFDlTAIlE
WOYIDT IF LIFE DR PROPERTY OR
15 tIJURlDUS TO PUBLIC HEAlTH.
m4.0~ IDII6I leI HAlARDOUS WASTE FACILITY A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACIltTY PERTAINS TD ALL ALTFRNATIVES. ACTIDN
£NYIROKftENTAL IP}ACT INSTAlLATION AND CrtRAT:~~ F£~~i~
SHALL lOT IE APPROYED UNlESS IT
PROVES THAT THE. FACILITY
REPRESENTS T1IE IIINIIWII ADVERSE
ENV1ROIlftEl(TAL tIlPACT, COICSIDERIN&
THE STATE OF AYAILABLE
rICHIIOUI6Y, T1IE MATIE AID
ECOtIOftICS Of YARlOUS ALTERHATIYES
AIm am PUTlIlEMT
COJISIDERATlOIIS.
-------
..05/17/80
n:33
go.&.. u..
Plq. No. 'Z QHIO REVISED CODE IORCI ARARS FuR ALLItD CPLA
05/t71~
ORC P£RT11E1T
ClTATlOI PMI4iIAPMS TIM I SUI.1EtT Of RE6UlATlOII e£StlIPTtOlt Of RESULATlOli APFLItATIOM Of R!5UlATI0N MAR -n
------------------------------
3734.05 (D) I') (d) MtWOUS ~ASTt fACILITY " KAIAIDOUS !lASTE FACILITY PERTAINS TO ALL M.TERKATIVES. ACTION U
IItlltan1 RISK IMSTAL1JnOll MID DPEllATtOI ,sum
9MLL IIOT 1E APMIm \lllWS IT
~ TMAT n£ FACILtTY
REPII£SOTS T1£ IIl.lU liSt Of
AU. OF t1£ FII.LOIII61
Ii) COITMllUYlOl OF &ROUIID AID
_ACE !tATERS
HurtlES OR EIPtOSIOMS rROJI
TREATtIEJ(T, sTDRASE DR DlSPCSAl
II£'THOOS
(iiiIACtIDEMT DURIN'
TRANSPORT AT1 OM
(iyl1ftPACT 01 PUktC HEAlTii AHD
SAFETY
(y)All PQLlUTtOM
(yi)SQIL COKTAKtNATI01
,.
3767.13 PROKIBtTIOM OF NUISANCES PROHIBITS NOtlOUS EIMAlATIOMS OR PERTAINS TO A1.l A1.TtRMATtVtS. CHD\ It
S!lEU.5 AND T1£ QISTIUtT10M Of
.. IIATtRIlAYS.
6101.1~ CONSERVANCY DISTRICTS - BOARD BOARD Of DIRECTORS Of A R!6ULATIQMS PRO"~~6ATED PURSUANT ACTle
OF DIRECTORS CQlSERYAMCY DISTRtCT KAY ftAKI AND TO THIS STATUTE ftAy P~TAIM TO
E.'lfORtE RULES MD REW noMS AllY ALTUIlATlVE TIlAT MY AFnCT A
P£RTAII1R6 TO CMAKMELS, DITCHES, tnllSTRUCTtOIl IIn1HM A tOMSERVAMtT
... PIPES, SEVERS, Etc. DISTIHCT.
6111.04 ACTS OF PDWIUDII PROHllnED POW1TIOM Of IIATERS OF TKE STATE PERTAINS TO ALl ALTERNATIVES. Am
15 PlOKlIlTE1.
'111.042 CUfIPLtAIItE lilT\! UTtGKA1, ESTAlLlSM£S a&lUTtOlS REi\JIUII& PERTAINS TO ALl ALTtJ!MATlVES. ACT;
£m.IDt StUDWS C1IIIPUAIICE 11t11lAT1011AL £FFUIOO
STAIIIAR1S.
6111.043 U8V18 1ItSPOSAL PERIIIT ESTAILISHES RUlES 6UVERNIM6 THE PERTAINS TO ALTERNATIVES ACT
IIJEtTIOli tf USUS lITO IIElLS. IMtDRPORATIN& 8I0REKEDIATION.
.U1.~5 APPlDVAl Cf PlAIS FOR DISPOSAL 7~ 01SPO~ OF INDUSjKi~l .~SiE ?tF.i"i~S:C ~~~ .~.E~~~T;'iE:. QC~
OF IIASTt .1S PROHIBITED IIITKUUT FRIOR
aPPROYAL IY THE OIRECTOR OF THE
jllIO EPA.
'- '
-------
.05/111WU
....a.....
--... .
Page 110. 1 aMIO AtlftlKISTRATtYE CODE (OACI MARS fOR AU.1ED CPLA
051111'0
OAC POTIIUT
CtTAtlOl ~ TIM I SUB~EtT OF RE6UUTtOI D£5CttPTlDII Of R£6U\JTlOM APPltCATtON Of RESULATI0M ARAR T~
--- .. --------.. --
t501l21-11 ~ MD£5t61 IIY£STl6ATlOMS PllESEXTS PIOESl&1 REQUlREIlENTS PllESOTS SUlSTAIITtVE PREDESI6M AtTlOli
leARS,DI¥ES,LEYEESI FUR IMS I DtlES OIl LEVEES. RElUlREREITS FOR AlTERNATIYES
tlnUIES .sm QllST~T1011 TKAT ADORm tCE CREEr: SE'DlftEMTS
IlATBIAL MTA, SURVEYS AID OR TIE DIKE IETVEEH TME I.A&DC!NS
1ITROl00tC MID HTDItAiR. I C NeD tCE am.
IINESTlBATlOMS.
1501:21-13 02-0£ ADDITtONAL DESIGN REQUlREftEKTS PlESEXTS DESI6M REQUtREIlEKTS PRESEITS SUBSTANTIVE eESISN ACTION
FQt DMS SPECIFIC TO IMS. UIClUD£S SUCH IOIIR£IIEITS FOR ALTWATlVES
tltTERIA AS DESle. STORtI AII1I TMAT ADDRESS tCE atm 5OtIl[lTS
FtOOD. SPtLUAY DESI6M. FREDOARD Oft TME DIKE OEEII THE LA600NS
REQUtREftE1(tS, ETC. AIlII 1 CE CRE£K.
~l;U-13 10-1" ADDtTIOIIAL tlESISfi R£QU1REJ\EltTS PR£SMS DEStSN REUUlREJlMS pRESMS SUBSTANTIVE DE5ISK ACTION
FOR DittS AND lEVEES SPECIFIC TO Ol[£! AID LEVEES. REQUIUKElTS FOR AltERNATIVES
IMCUJDES CRITERIA SUO! AS DEStSli THAT ADDR£SS tCE CREtt SEDtllEm
STOM AIID JUIOD U1I F1EEJDWI OR TIlE DIKE ImEII THE LA600NS
DIR£JIEI(TS. AND ICE am..'
,. 1501:21-15 06 OPERATION, ftAINTEMAKCE AND PRESEIITS T1!E In N I IIUK I NFORftA no" PRESENTS SUBSTANTIVE t~ORllmQl( ACTIOII
IItSPECTlOM IlAKUAL REQUtRE! II A '\.All ADDRESSIIlS THE . REQUtRED 111 O\ft AND IHSPECTIOM
OPERAT1011, IlAlmJtAMCE AJ(]) PLAItS FOR ALTERJlATtYES mT
IIISPECTI01l11F IMS. lIas ANti ADDRESS tet CR£EI StDtllMS OR
LEVEES. THE Dttt BmEDt THE l.A6OOIS W
.. 11:£ CREEK.
t5Oh21-21 03~ IEFICtEMtY III OWl IF DAftS, MIS, IllES AIID L£VEES ftlJST BE PERUIIIS TO ALTERNATIVES TMAT AC1IOI
DIKLS AID \.£VW. OP£RATED SAFElY. REPAIRS OR 0T1(ER ADDRESS tCE CREEl SUIIIOOS OIl
REJIEB tAL 1OSUU5 5MIIU. IE 11(£ DUE BETEl TIlE LADDORS AI(J)
POf'MI . IUS, lias MID let CREEl.
1.MES as EESSARY TO SAF'£SUW
lIft, Uti( OR PIIIPOTY.
1501:21-5 t2-o\ DUn. REDutREIIEKTS F~ DAftS, SPECIFIES ftIlIIIUft tRFORRATIDN PRESEJTS SUBSTAMTIYE DESl6M AtTIC
~;r~: ~N~ LEYEES REQUIRED DL~IN6 ~rsl6M FO~ ~\C R£QUIRER!MTS fOR ANY AL TlRNAilYES
DN! TO itTtM\tIE ~~, $" THAT ADDRESS I:: ~~tE~ ::~I~ENTS
PREPOSED OM, ~Ir:I OR LE'J££. OR THE DIKE BE1~EEN THE l~60DNS
lJICUIDES 1£S1&N WOlfS, PLANS AND ICE CR£EI.
III SPEt1nCATlOllS.
3745-1-01 ANALYTICAL AI(J) COllECTION SPECIFIES ANALYTICAl fttTHODS AND PERTAINS TO All ALTER"ATI~ES ACT!
PROTOCOLS COLLECTION PROCEDURES fOP. SURfACE \MVDLYI"6 DISCHAReES Tv WATERS OF
~At£R DISCHAR5ES TKE STATE
"','.
-------
'.110.
2/21/90
:%
aH!D ADlftXIS11ATTVE CIJDE (QACI ARMS FOR AL.LIEI au
.--- .-....
OAC.
IrATI C!i
? c:R TI NEJfT
?ARASAAPH3
rIrl: i SU;JECr :; ?E;~LAT!ON
DEStR~?r!~~ OF R:;ULAiION
A~p~rCAT~a~ ur RESUlAi:CN
A~R i"
iH! 'FI~; FRE:DO~S' FCR
5I!RF'ACE WATe
A~!. S'1.i\FACE WA::RS OF ;r.: ST~it
S~L!. BE FP.EE FRO!!:
AI IIiJ~TIDIW. SUSPENDED 501.1D;.
51 FLO~Tt.6 DEBR!S, O!l1 StUll.
CI IfAiEUAU THAi i:REATE A
NUISA~.
~; TOX:C, KARftFLt DR L!i~L
SIesTAHCa. ,
:! NIm'JeITS THAT CREAr:: HU!SA£E
s.~
74S-1-0~
?~TAiN; 70 S~TH DISt~:~: is
5'JiiF~CE iI~ i'!.~S AS A R==;;~ i O~
REftEDIATION ~ND ANT SURrAC~
IIItTE!S AF.~m BT SIT:
COIm IT IC!G.
AP!t1.IES TO AU. ALTERriA:!V::
IHVOlYINS I:: c.~m
CH:~rCA~
74~ 1-05 ANTIQ=-S~D~T10S ?Q~:~ ?i!EVD!S DESRADATtOH OF SURFACE P:RTAINS tU ~ At~A!!Vc£ ~=no!l
WATER QUALITY BELatl ilESI5NA!a I~YOLYIN6 POIST SOUR!! ~:SCHARS:S
USE 011 EIISTIN6 WATER QUALm. m ICE C.D.E:K
nISTtllS IN5TREA!! USES SHAU. BE
MllfTAIMED AMI! PItOTEtTE1I. TilE
ftGSi SllUNSOO !:QHTRa!.S FOR WArn
T'ilEATIlEHi SHAU. BE REWIRED BY
To;E II lREriaP. T!J 5E EftPI.QYeI FUR
ALL NS¥ Aft!) mSTIN9 POINT
S!l!l.rtC~. PREID llfJ!OO WATER
QUALITY IN STArt RE50URtE IIATERS,
I/"riIiJi !HQ.1IDES wrn.ANliS, -ill. NOi
~ ~$RADEJI FOR AU. SUBSTA1iC6
DETER!InED TO s: TDIIC OR 10
IICitmR IIITH AllY D5rSHArnI USE
~s DmRIUHtD ev iiIE DtRmDR OF
iHE 0"1Q EPA.
-
'4S-+Cb !'lUNS laNE (AI P-rtESa'TS THE ~ITERIA Am CSTABUSIo:ES p~ COHIima.1\5 FCR :H~;;;A~
ESTA!t.ISKtNS Nalf-iH'ERML IHUNS DlSOfARS£S TO ICE CIIE:l'
zme FUR POIIrT SDm!tE D ISI:HARS£S
(81 PRE5ECT5 THE CRITERIA AJP.
ESTQLISHtIlS T1iEIUIAL !l1I11S zam
RJR POINT SIWRC£ DIStHARSES
~1.16 IIATEF LISE nESISXATION FDR SE ES'TABLISHES WATER USE CRITERIA PERTA!NS TD ALl. ALmHA:!vES ';::ID!I Lee
OHIO TRIBUTARIES FOR ICE CREBC P£R OAt 374~1~7. OOD!.YIHS Ie: i:RW
C~15-06 Al,A2 IIII.FUIi:TIDH ~ !fA illl OF ~!R ESTABLISHES SDeIUD RAtJn'EIWU:E PERTAINS TO AKY At TERHAi!'tE ,;:nOri
PIll. cmtTRat. mu!PIIOO AH!) SPEtIrI£S H]{ PGI.lJ1TIDM REmlIRlNS AiR POllUTiQJI COO1!Ol.
St!URa IIlST BE SHuT D01III DURlNE EQUIPftEMT
IlAINTaAE'E
'S-1S-~7 ~ AIR PC~7!ON NUr5A!li:ES ~:rnlE AIR P~:l.~:!CN IWISAJa AS ?~TIU~ iC ~~ ALmNmvES iH:~ ::~:C'i
PROHIUiEi r= 9!!SSIDIi OR 5tf..PE 11m! THE INV~V~ ElCAV~TIa.~, D~:;!Qk,
AIR ~ AKY SOURcecS) OF S!!II~, CAP INSiAillT!DH, !'IET"riA.\-;
ASHa, nusT, DIRT, 6RDE, ACInS, PRD~UtnoN, ::.EARtHS A.~
R15, 6AS:S, VAPURS, DDiJRS AMI! SlUIESffi I WA S :ilL~ 1"IIE'~ 1
CDftBINAiIO!tS !l~ '!'i!: AStJ\IE THF.T INi:neAiIOIi A~'D O!r-;;;: IiHE::
OOA!lsa nEA!.:;..;, SA:-:rv OR r!.:::" P.EI:!!VEFty
i'E.FAF.! a.1:' THE P'J3t.I: OR CAlISE
PERSONA!. IIJ"URY !l~ PRmRTY
DAMe. StItH IItI1SAII!Ei ARE
-------
'. NO. ] !!HID ADI'IINISTRATIVE CQUE (DAti ARARS FOR ALlIED C?LA
~/ 17/90
DIC PERTlIIEIT
tITATIDli PARA61WMS TITLE I SUlJECT Of RESUlATION DESCRIPTIOJI OF RE&ulATlON APPLiCATION OF RE6UlATION ARAR TYPE.
---------------------------
PROHII1TD.
:m5-1H2 I,C STAa 111M I[QIURruHTS ESTAIlISI£S AlUIIIAILE STAa PERTAIIS TD alTERNATIVES ACTION
t£16HT FOR AI R aIIlT AlII NAIIT IRCORPORA rr n IICIIIERA TI ON,
SOURCES MS£D 011 6DOD Er6IO INS IlASTOATER rwTROO AIID ON-StT£
I'ttACTlCE. !lASTE fUEL RECOVERY..
3745-17-02 A,I,C PARTJC&UTE WIENT AIR ESTAILlSHES SPECIFIC STANDARDS PERTAINS TO ALl AlTERfCATIYES CH£I'IICAl
1UAL1TY STUIIARDS FUll TOTAl. SU5P£ND£JI PAlTlCll.ATES. IIItURPORATlI&i EItAYATION,
DEROlITIDN, CAP .IMSTALLATIOH,
CLEARIN& AND &RUB8INS,
INCINERATION AND ON-SITE WASTE
FUEl. IlECUVERY
3745-17-05 PARTICUlATE NDN-DE5RADATION NON-D£6WATIOJI POlICY PRGIIBlTS P£RTAIKS TO AlL AlTERKATlVES CHElIICAl
POLICY SI6NIFICAKT AID AYOIDAiLE IHCOR9GRATIIIS £1CAVATIOM,
DETERiORATIOI OF AIR 8UA1.1TY. DEKDLITIGII, CAP IICSTAWTION,
CWRtllS AN!! _BINi,
INCINERATIDN AND OM-SITE MASTE
FUEl R£CUYERY.
37~5-17-o7 H YISIILE PARTICULATE EftISSION SPECIFIES TM£ AU.DIIABLE OPACITY PERTAINS TO ALl ALTERMATIY£S AtTION
CM'RU1. FOR PARTICUlATE £RISSIOMS; INCORPORATIN6 INCINERATION OR
OIl-SITE WASTE FU£L RECOvERY.
\
3745-17-01 Al,a2,I,D EIIISSIQN RESTRICTIONS FOR ALl ERISSIOIIS OF FU61TlYE DUST PERTAINS TO AU. ALTERNATIYES ACTION
FlJ61TIVE DUST SHALL 1£ CUllTROlW INCGRPORATIH6 BRADI.6 , LOAD INS
OPERATIONS, DENOLITIOI ,
COIST'RIICTION AID MY OTHER
PRACTICO IItIOI £IIIT FUBITIYE
lUST.
3745-i7-09 A,8,C IICIMERATDR PARTIC ~lSSION' ESTABlISHES PARTICUlATE £KI&&ION PERTAINS TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ACT! Oli
OBOlt WTlICTIOIS LIRITATIOMS AWD DESI6N-OPERATIOK fNCORPORATIM6 INCINERATION.
R£QUIREmTS TO PROOT T1IE
E~ISSIUN OF PAftTJCUlAT~S A~
08JEtTIDXAllE ODORS.
3745-17-10 '-,8,e ~ua. IllUtll5 PaRTIC 00$118 ~AlLlSRES PARTICULATE E~I5S!QN !'ERTArNS TO All ~L TrRNATIVES mION
ii£STRICTlONS L[RITATIOHS FOR FUEL BURNING INCDPORATIN& DN-SITE MAsrE FUEL
EQU IPIIENT . RECDY£RY.
-'5-18-02 ",B,C,[ SUlFUR DIOIIDE A"SltNT AiR ESTABLISHES PRIRARY AXD SECONDARY ~RTA1NS TO All Al TERIIATIVES ACT! ON CHEIIl C
~UALliY 5TANDARDS AA8lEHT AIR QUALITY ST~NDARDS fQR INLDftPDRATINE INCINERATION DR
SUlFUR DIOUDE. ull-Sl1! IIASTE FU£1. RECOYERY.
'.
-------
hQt lie. 4
7/90
OHIO ADfttllSTRATIvE CODE (OACI ARARS FOR ALLIE~ CPLA
OAt
CItATtO!f
P£RT1I11T
PURN TITLE I SECT IF RE&UlATIOII DEStRIPTtOI Of REDUUTtOtl
APPLICATION Of RE6ULATION
MAR TYPE IS)
------------------..-----------------
.~---
3745-16..05 I
, SII.F\II BtOUDE MltM
antiUNG IEWIREJIEKTS
THE D t IEtTUlt Of' THE O!! I 0 E!'A IIA T
REQUtRE AllY SGURt£ OF SIlFUR
110111£ E!ISSIOliS TO I NSTAU. ,
OPERATE AID MIITAII IIOIUTDRIIS
DEVICES, MIITIII REtORDS AQ
FIll R£PaRTS.
3745-11-06 I,F,'
SULFUR IIOUD[ EJllSSIDII URn ESTABlISllES &DERIL lIlUT
PROVISIONS PROVISIONS FOR SULFUP. DIOIIO£
3745-18-50
UMR£IICI CtIUHTY Ell I SS I ON
LIIIITS FOR SULFUR DtDIIDE
ESTABlISHES SPECIFIC 'SULFUR
DIOIIDE EJlISStOM lllllTS FOR
l.AVR£KC£ Ct)IJNTY.
SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREllEWTS PERTAIN
TO ALL ALTERNATIVES INtORPOIATIII6
llC I IIERA TI ON OR OII-S HE IIASTt
FUEl RECOVERY.
ACTl ON CHEll I CJ
PERTAINS TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
IICORPORAiI~ IMCINERATION OR
ON-SITE 1115TE FUEL REtDVERY.
ACTION CHEIIlCS
PERTAINS TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
IIICORfIGRA Tt 1(6 lilt I N£RA 110M OR
ON-SITE IIAST£ rUEl RECOVERY
ACTION CKEJt.lCI
174~21-o1 1,I,t MaIm III QUAltTY 5TACARDS ESTABlISHEf SPECIftC AftBIEMT IIR mTAIIIS TO AU. At. mtRATIVES' QlEIlICAL
FtII CARBON DIIDES QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CARBON Ih1:ORPORATIMS R~IATIDII OF
1IDtI0IIDE, 0101£ AID NDN-IlETHAHE tOlTAIUIIATED 6RQtJND !lATER, SOILS,
II'tDROtARBOICS. SEDIftENTS AND lA60DN .ASTES.
3745-21..05 CARBON OIIDES WON-DESRADATION PROHIBITS SISIIIrlCANT AND PERTAIIiS TO AU. ALTDKATIY£S ACT! ON
POLICY AVOIDABlE DETERIORATION Of AIR IIiCORPORATIXS REKEDIATION OF
QUAL, 1 TY. COKTAIIlNATED 6ROUIfD IlATER, SOILS,
S£D11l00 AlGI LA60OII!lAsm.
..
3745-21-07 I-J OR&AIIIC IlATERIAl EKISSIDII REQUIRES CONTROl OF EIIISSIDNS OF PERTAINS TO AU. Al TERlCATtVtS ACTION CHEIIIC
CONTROl. : STATIOIlARY SOURt£ ORSAMIC IlATERIAlS FROII STATIONARY IUPORATIh'6 RMDIATIOI OF
S13URtES. IIICUIDES A BAT CONTAlllKATED BRDUND !lATER, SOILS,
DII£JIEKT. 50111EIIT6 UlD L.A6QOI' WTiS.
374S-21~ I CARD _IIDE ERISSIOI HIRES AllY STATIQIIAIIY SOURCE OF PERTAINS TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ACT! ON
coma. : STITlIlllAR'f SOURCE CARIOI JIQXOltD£ TO IIIN11112£ tICORPORAT1N& RE!EDIATIOII OF
EJltSSIDNS BY ntE USE: OF lEST CQlTAAINATED E~OUND .ATER. SOILS,
AVAlUIL! CDlTItIL TEtHIDLO&IES SED1"ENT AND lASOON IIASTES.
Mm IPERATIND PRACT!C£S Iii
~ANCE WITH BE,1 ~~RRENi
i!OINOL06Y .
~745-~~-ot N1TR06EN DIOII~E A!lBIENT AIR £STA8LtSHES A "AIIIIL~ AIIBIENT AIR PERTAINS TO ~lL ALTERNATIVES tHE/! I CAL
QUALITY SiAHDARDS alJALITY STANDARD FDR IllTit06EIi INCOIiPOP,ATlNS RE.~IATlDN OF
DIOIIDE. CCNTAIIINATED SROUND IIATER, SOILS,
SEDIftEKT AND LASQDN WASTES.
.4~-23-04 NITR06£N DIOIIDE PROHIBITS THE S!5MiFI:ANT ~~D ~TAIKS TO ALL AL~ATIVES r010N
KDN-DE6RADATIDN P~~ICY "VOlDAILE DETERIORATION Of AIR INCORPORATINO ~t!\EDIATiON OF
-------
-'
-- ---
-'qt 110. 5
:171"0
OHIO AOftINISTRATIVE CODE (OACI ARARS FOR AllIED CPLA
CIAC
tITATICIII
PERTIIDT
PMASIWMS TIM' SUlJEtT Of' IlEiUUTlOli 8ESClIPTlOll OF' RE&UlATlOll
~4S-23-06
IITIOSEI GlIDES ElIISS 101
CIIITII1 : &TATlOIIARY SOURCE
J745-2HJ
EftISSIDI CONTROL ACTION
PROSRAftS
~4S-27-oS A,I,e
AUTKDRtZED,lIRITID .
PROHIBITED SOLID WASTE
~ISPOSAL
8UALITT IT TIlE REWS£ OF
IITRD6EX OIIDE EJUSSIONS.
IUlIRES THAT AU STATtOflARY
SOURCES OF IITIO&£N OIIDE
"111"11£ anSSIOIIS IV T1I£ USE OF
THE LATEST AVlIWLE COfITROl
TECHlUI£S AIID IfWTIII6
PRACTICES II ACCORDMCE IIITH BEST
CtItREIT T£CIOIOL06T. PIOHIIITS
KlTRII6EII OUDE EIUSSlOiS FROft
alllUSTIOI SOURCES.
RRUIRES PREPARATION FOR AIR
PtWITIOII AIlATS , WARIIlNiS AND
EJlER6DtIES .
ESTABLISHES AU.O~AJLE fIETMOGS Of
90UD IASTE DISPOSAL I SAMITAR~
lANDFIll, IICIIERATION,
COIIPOSTIKB. PROHIBITS IWIASEftENT
If OPEl BURHIN& AlII OPEN IIUJUIIN6.
APPLICATIDII OF RESULATION
MAR TYP£ (5
--------
--
COITAJlINATED &ROIRCD IIATER, SOILS,
S£DlIIEJIT AlII LA&OOII USTES.
P£JITAIIS TO AU. ALT£RIlATIVES
IICORPORATIIS REftEDIATIOM OF
CONTAlltlATD SAW MATER, SOILS,
SE.OUIOO AND LA600N MASTES.
ACTION
PERTAINS TO ALl ALTERltATIYES.
ACTION
PERTAIICS TO ANY SITE AT VMIO!
!nlID IlASTES WIll IE JIAJIAm.
1745-27-06 I,i: R£GU IR£]) TECHJUCAL llIFU FUI SP£tIF1£S THE IIlIUI\I1 TECHllCAl THIS PARAGRAPH PWEITS ACTIOII
. 5IMITARY LAIiDrIlLS IIIFDRIIATlIII R£DIJIRED OF A SOLtD SUBSTANTIVE RRUIREftOOS OF A
'
WASTE ,n. III11mED ARE A SOlID WTE PTI, WHICH PERTAIII TO
HfIR06EII1.DIiIC IIYUTISATlOI. ANY 1£11 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
R£PORT, WDlATE PRODUCTIQI AIID FACILITY tREATED ON-SITE ANn
.UBRATtDl IIFUItIIATlOI, SURFAC[ EIPAISIONS OF EIISTIMS SOlID
IAtO IISCIIAA&E IIIFMTIDII, IASTE LAllDfIW. PORTIOIS ALSO
IESIR C1CIUTIIIIS, PUll PEIT'III TO tllSTIG AR£AS OF
BRAlII1S, CDlTAJllliATIDI TllAT ARE CAPPED PER
alllSTIt£T1011 PLANS . SOliD IIASTE RULES. THIS RULE
OPERATIONAL PLANS. ESTABLISHES THE ftlNllIUft
IIifOMATtDN REQUIRED WIIINS M
~EftE~lAL ~ESIEM STA:~.
174S-27-f7 A,e lDtATIDI CRItERIA FOR SOLID SPECIFIES I.CCATlOIIS IN WHICH THIS RULE LIftlTS THE LOCATION
am IIPOS~ PE!IIUT SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS ARE NOT TO £5TAlLISKIIEIT OF IfEV SOlID MASTE
!E SITED. !NCll~ES FLOODPLAINS, lANDFIlLS AND EIPANSIONS OF
SAND OR 6RAYEL FITS, LlftfSTOME CR EIISTIN6 SOlID WASit LAX~ILL5 1M
SAADSTQME QUARRIES, AREAS ABOVE CERTAIN UNFAVORABLE LOCATIONS.
SOLE SOURCE ~RUIFtRS, WETLANDS, ALSO KAY LiftIT TH£ LEAVINS OF
ETC. MAStE tll-PlAC£ [II CERTAIN
UNFAVORABLE LOCATIONS.
'. .
-------
.J
P'9' tlo. 6 "
1)."1117190
OHIO ADftINrSTRATIVE CODE (OAC) A~ARS FOR ~lLIED CrLA
.,o4C
C!TATIOII
POTI lOT
PMAHWMS TITlE 1 IIIInCT OF 1£6UUTIDJI DESCRIPTION Of R£&ULATIOIC
APPLICATION OF REGUlATION
AKAR TYPE (51
.. 1._----------------------------------
3i4~-27-oa C,D,r CIIIISTRUCTlOl SPECS FOR SPECIFIES THE ll.ll1UR PiRTAUIS TO ArY 10 SOlID WASTE ACTION LOCATl~
SAlUTARY I.AJQ)FlLlS IDIIR£IIEITS FOR TilE S!lIL'CLAY DISPOSAl FACILITY Cll£AT'£D OIl-SITE
LAms, 6RAJlULAI DRAIIIAS£ LAYER. AND AlY EIPANSIONS TO E115TIII&
6£DSmt£TICS. WCMATE SOlID MASTE LMDfILLS. PORTIOMS
IIAIIA8EIIOO STsm. &AS .-nOlllNi ALSII PERTAIN TO ElISTJII6 AREAS OF
S'fSTEJI. ETC. AlSO ESTUlISHES aIITAllllATION WT lULL 1£ CAPPED
CDlSTRUCTlOII REaUIREIlEITS FOR 1.-PlAC[ PER SOlID T1£ IASTE
FACIlITt6 TO 1£ LOCAm IN RUl£S. RAY S£RY£ AS SITJII&
&EDUl6ICALU UllFAYORABLE AREAS. ClITERIA.
1745-27-09 C-f.!.L-o SANITARY lAIDFILL OPERATIOIW. RIFlES OfIERATIONAL PERTAINS TO NEIl SOlID IIASTE fetTiON
R[QU I REmITS REllUlREliUTS FO.fI SOLID IIASTE DISPOSAl FACILITIES TO IE ~TED
lAIlDFIllS. 11IClUD£S lEAOiATE AfIn OtI-5ITI un EUSTlIIIi LAXDFILLS
AIR DlISSIOI IWIA&EIlENT. FILlIN& THAT MILL EXPAIDED DURIKS
0;: lEV PHAS£, ACCESS ROADS, DAILY REREDIATION. PDRTIDMS ALSO
COYER, 8URICI6 MASTE, LAYER PERTAII TO EIlSTlNi Al£AS OF
THIaJI£SS, DISPOSAl. OF LIIIU!DS COIITMIRATION ntAT IILL IE CAflP~
AIm SURfAC£ lATER IWIASEJl£RT. IHUC£ PO SOlID VAm RUL£S.
n-l0 8.C,I' SANITARY LANDFILL - &ROUND &RDUND WATER "0IITORIK6 PROSRAft PERTAINS TO ANY N£V SDLID WASTE AmON
lATER "DNITCRIN6 NUST 8£ £STABLISHED FOR AlL FACILITY AND ANY EIPA«SlONS OF
SAiITARY LANDFILL FACILITIES . EIISTIN& SDlID IIASTE LANDFILLS
THE STSTE! IIUST CQIIS I ST Of A ON-SITt. PDRTlOWS alSO PERTAIN TO
SUFFICIEJ(T WER ~ mLS THAT EIISTIN& AREAS OF CONTAftlNATlON
AR£ lOCATED so THAT SMPL£S THAT ARE CAPPED lll-IlAC£ PEII TH£
, I lID I CA TE BOTH \/PM I EXT SOLID IASTE RULES.
(JAClIRDUlDI AQ DN&WIENT
!tATtI SMPI.ES . THE SYSTEJI MUST
1£ DESISIO PER THE RUIlIWII
DIIIEJDTS SP£CIFIED II THIS
IIIU . TllIAlfLJI& AD MAUS1S
PROCEIUIIES IlUST COffLY IITM nlls
RUL£
3745-27-11 I,; rnw. ClOSURE OF salUTARY SPECIFIES THE ftlNlftUft IMfORftATION SUBSTANTI~t REOUIREftENTS PERTAIN ~mON
~~~~!~~ ~~ilITitS H£C!;S~P.Y :~~ ~~!~ £P~ T~ .~ ,~v ~~w S;Lit .ASTr LAND~ILL:
G£TER"I1E A~UAtY ~F CLOSURE :Rt~Tt~ ~h-5i1E. ~NY EIPANSION5
ftETHODS rOR SOLi. WASTE lANDfIllS. c. EIISTIN6 SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
SPECIFIES ACCEPTABLE CAP DESI~i ON-SITE AHD ANY EIISTIN6 AREAS OF
SOIL 8ARRIER LAYER, &RANULAR CQSTAftINATI~ T~JT ARE CAPPED
DRAlNA&E LAYE.~ I SOIL AND IN-FLACE PER iHE SDLID WASTE
VESETATIVE LAYER. RULES.
~~~Zi-U A.F-t ,J AUTH TO 'DI6' WHERE MAZ OR PROHIBITS ANY FILLIN6, &RADIN6, SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREl\£NTS PERTAIN LOCAiiON ACTIO
~vltD VASTE FAt VAS OPERATED EICAVATINS. ~UILDIN6, DRilL INS TO ANY SIT; AT WHICH H~IARDOUS O~
OR IIININS ON LAND WHERE A ;uLID WASTE HAg BEtH ftANA6ED,
-------
.J
.p..,' 110. ~- OHIO ADIIINISTRATIYE CODE (OACI ARAfIS F~ AU.m CPlA
.
~117190
DAC P£RTt !OT
tIT AT! 011 PAR~APMS TITL£ I SUl4EtT OF R£6UlATION DESCRIPTIOI Of RE6UlATION APPLICATIOI OF R£6UlATION ARAR TYPE IE
... ---------------------------
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY OR SOlID EiTli£R IIrTOO I OIIAU Y OR
MASTE FACILITY MAS OFERATED IJTIDiIS£. m IIOT PE'RTA!N TO
WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHDRIZATIaM FP.Q~ tWAS !MAT HAVE HAIl OIlE-TIIIE
TME DIRECTOR. SPECIAl T£JUIS TO LWS OR SPIllS.
COIOIUCT SID! ACTIV1T1ES IlAY BE
OIPOSD IT TIlE IlllECT1lR TO
PIOTECT TIE PUBLIC AND TII£
EJIY lRORKDlT.
374S-27-14 A POST-tlOSUll[ CARE OF SAlUTARY SPErFIES TIlE REQUIRED SUBSTAlTIVE REWIREftENTS nlTAII ACTION
LAKDFILL FACILITIES POST-Q.OSURE CARE FOR SOliD WASTE TO ANY NEWlY CR£ATID SOlID IIASTE
FACILITIES. IIClUU£S Ct)NTlIIUIN6 LANDFILLS ON-SITE, Art £JPArSlaNS
DPERATIOI Of J.EACHATE A!(~ SURFACE Of E11STII6 SOLID IlAST! LANDFILLS
IIA TER IWIA6£Imn SYST£ftS, QIf-sm AND ANY EI1STIIIS AREAS OF
IlAllrT'EKMCE Of THE CAP SYSm A.I(D CUln'MII(ATtOll TKAT All[ CAPPEl! PER
SRnuIlD lATER IIOIIITORINi. M SOlID IIAST! RUlES.
3745-2'7-19 A-G OPERATION OF SOLID IIASTE SPECIf'IES 6£JIERAL OPERATIONAL SUlSTAlTlVE REQUIRElmlTS PERTAIII ACTIDfC
DISPOSAl FACILIilES REQUla.,.s FOP! SC1.1D IArn TO MY NEWLY CREATD SOlID IASTt
lAJID ILLS. lANDFILL OR ANY EXPANSION OF AI
EIISTINi SOLID MAl1i LAKDFILL
ON-SI1£.
:nc5- :11-05 A,C,t CRITERIA FOR DECISION BY THE PTt OR PtJKS IlUST DE!lOKSTRATE BAT PERTAtNS TO ALl alTERNATIVES ACTION
DIRECTOR Ad SHAll MOT IIfTERFm IIITH OR INVOlVII!S SURFACE WATER
P1I£YEKT T1IE ATTAImT OR DISCHAR6ES OR AIR EftISSIDNS.
, MIMTDAItE OF APPlICABLE MlIEKT
MATER auauTY STANDARDS OR
MlIEIT AIR QUALITY STAIOARJIS.
3745-32~ CRITERIA FOR DEISIOI I'f THE SPECIFIES _TAlTIVE tliTERlA PERTAlKS TD ALL AlTEJWTIVES FDA ACTtlIII
DIIIW. FtII EnOl 401 UTO QUALITY I C£ CREEK.
CRlTOI' FUR 1IR£J6116, FILUNS,
OISTRUCTINS OR Al TERI.6 IIATERS OF
TI£ STATi.
37~S-);,-::4 :ilT:P.JA ~O~ :SS~;i: H:jES ?R£SENTS 5UlsrAf!J,E :~~~!~~:~-: ~~~T~!~: -r ~Ll ~~rt:~or:~:: ::T!CN (ME"
p~t;: nr NPDES P£Rftr~ (tFFLJE~i :h~~~~~~~il~S S~R~~C: i~Tt~
LIlUTSI. ~ISCHAR6ES TO ICE ~R£E!~.
~45-33-o5 Air-A~.S SEM£RAL PER"IT CCN~I!!oNS . ESTABLISHES !tN£RAl "~E5 P£I!l; r~TAINS 10 ALL AlTEF.NAiIVES ~:TION
.. CDHDITlOKS. IHCORPoRATIN6 SURFACE VATER
DISCMAR6£S TO Ie[ CR££K.
3745-50-44 .;,I,!: FER~n INFO REQUIRED fOIl ALL ESTABlISHES THE SUBSTANTI~E SUBSTANTIVE REQUlRE"EHTS PERTAIN ~~7IaH
HAZ IIASTE FACILITiES HAZARDOUS WASTE PERIIIT TO ALL Al TERJIATIY£5 ~iiICH WILL
. RERUIREKEMTS ~EtESSARY FOR QHIO ~AVE TF.£AT"EIlT, STORAS! OR
EPA TO DETWINE FACI117Y ~ItOQSAL Of HAZARDOUS W~TE
-------
.'
....a. a OHIO ADft!NIST~ATIVE CODE IQACI ARARS FOR ALLIED C?LA
""'1190
GAt PERTIllm
ITAnOll 'MA6RAPKS TtTl£ I SEtT OF II£6UlATION DESCRIPTION Of R£&UUTlON APPLICATION OF REGULATtON ARAR TYPEISI
----------------------------
CDIIPL J AlICE. INClUD£S JIIFOAIIAHUN OCCtlRJII6 OJj-SIi£. nns, AlON6
SUtH as FACILITY DESCRIPTION, WJiH OTHER PtRASAPHS 0; iKIS
IIAST£ CliARAC1ERJSTtCS, UUJPII£J(T RUlE, ESTAilISH£S THE IIII1II1U11
DESCR IPTt OIlS, tOIfT I I16£J1CY PlAN.. IIIFORtIAnOll REaJIRED DUIUII6 THE
F'ACILITY UlCATtOIl, TtfOSRAPHIC I£IIEI JAl KS I 611 STAGE.
!lAP, ETC.
145-50-51 I,E,H-J IlAZAilDOUS VAST£ FACILITY ESTA81ISII£S &£HERAL P!"IUT SUlSTANTI'JE RERUIR9I£IfTS PtRTAIN ACT! ON
PERIIIT tDIID ITIOIIS COQITtOJlS APPlIED TO AU. TO All AlTERNATIVES.
MZARDOUS IIAST£ FACILITIES III
11110. llIClUDES COMD ITIOIIS SUCH AS
OPERATION AM1I IlAIIITtJIANCE, SJTE
ACCESS, IOUTORIII6 AND
MINTEJIAIC[, ETC.
34'-50-6% A,I,C,D TRIAl IURII FDR IICIIERATORS SPECIFrES REDUIREPIMS OF A 111'1. PERUIIS TO All At. TEbATIYES ACTI Oil
3URH. INtQRPORATIN6 IKCINERATJON.
ilC5-U-U ~ HAZARDOUS WASTE DmRIIIMATlOJ AlY PEJtSOt SEXWTINN WASTE. PERTAIIS TO ALL AlTWATIYES, CH£ft I CAt
!lUST DETElUtINE IF THAT IIAST£ IS A ASH RESUI. TtKS ~ WAST£ FUEl.
HAZARDOUS MASTE (EIThtR THROU6H RECOVERY OF K087 MASTE IS MDT A
lISTING OR CHARACTERISTICI. LISTED HAZARDOUS VASTE.
:745-54-13 A 6EH£RAl AIAlYSJS OF' HAZARDOUS PRIOR TO ANY TlEATIIOO I STORAGE PERTAINS TO alL AlTWATIY£S. CH£II I CAt. ACTIO.
WASTE OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES, ASH RESUlTING FRO" MASTE FUEL
A REPR£S£XTATIYE SAIIPLE OF THE REtOYERV OF KOB1 VASTE 15 NOT A
.. IASTE IUlST IE CMEft I CALL Y AND LISTED HAZARDOUS MASTE.
PHYSICALlY AllAmJI.
:745-54-14 A,I,C SEcuruTT FCIIt IIAlARDOUS IIASTE HAZAIDOUS IASTt FACILITIES RUST PDTAIIS TO AlL ALTERIIATIYES. ACTI 011
FtCILITlES I( smm S1111IIT UUUTlCDRIZO
lID .-IIS £1m AR£ IIl.tRUED
DR PlIlHIIITD.
.745-54-15 A,C IIISPECTIOI REDUIWIEKTS R]R IIAIMDOIJS IASTE FACILITIES IlUST P£ftTAINS TO ALL ~TER"AT1YES. ACTION
HAZARDOUS OSTE FACIUTIES BE IIISPEtTED REDUlARL Y TO DrnCT
~Al~UHCTIOSS, tETE~IORATIQN5,
OPERTAIONAl ERRDRS AND
D1SCKARSES. AllY MLFUNCTlOVS DR
uETERIORATIDNS DETECTED SHALL eE
ROOIED ElPED1TIOUSLY.
:745-54-18 A,I,C lDtATIOII STAMIlWS FOR LI"ITS THE SITlh1 OF HAZARDOUS t£RTAINS TO ANT AlTERNATIVE THAT "CCAi:~N
MAlARDOUS T/5/D FACILITIES WASTE FACILITIES IN AtEAS OF AQDRE55ES HAZA~DOUS IIASTE r~AT
~IS"IC ACTIYITY GR FLOODPlAINS. I/IU ElTMER REJIAIN OR SE PLAW
I/ITHIN THI FlDODPLAIN.
'. .
-------
-------
..---.....-
P1V1 110. 9 OHIO ADftINISTRATIYE CDDE laACI MARS FO~ t.LLIED CPLA
'7190
OAt 'ERWDT
~!TATtI. PMA6f:APMS TITlE ( _ECT or RE&U\.ATIOR DESCRIPTION OF RE6UlATl~~ APPLICATION OF RE&~tATION ARAR TYPE(SJ
-- -----------------------------------
3745-54-31 DESI&I , OP£RATlOli QF HAZMDOUS WASTE FACILITIES IIUST PERTAIIS TO AlL ALTERNATIVES. ACTION
HAZARDOUS FACILITIES IE ISlE, CDltSTRUCT£D,
IlAIITAUIEI AO OPERATED iO
IIIllRllE THE POSSIBILITY OF FIRE,
ElPlDSUIII OR t8PlAII£D II£1.EASE Of
IIAZARDOUS IlASTE II HAZARDOUS
COISTITlDT5 TO THE AIR, SOIL OR
_ACE lATER IIMICIt COtU
TlllEATEI 11M! IDLYM OR TIlE
EJlYIIlOftJfT.
:m5-S4-J2 ',.,t.O aIRED EQ\JIPfIM FOR AlL HAZARDOUS IASTE F~ILITIES ~TAIMS TO ALL 'IT£~MATIVES. AtTION
HAZARDOUS FACILITIES RUST 1£ EQUIPPED 11TH EIlERDT
EWIPIIEWT I SUtIJ AS All 'lAM
STSTEK, FIRE COOROl' EQUIPllEIIT
AID A TELEPHUKE OR RAn 10.
3745-54-33 TmIN& , IlAINTElCANC£ OF AU. MAZAROOUS IAS!E FACILlTlES PERTAINS TO ALl 'lTERMATIYES, ACTION
,,£8IIJPIOT; KAl IASTt FAt RUST TEST AIID MtllTAIII EIIER&EHCY
BlUIPIOT TO ASSIJR£ PROPER
tfEbTtOI.
.
:-54-34 AtCESS TO ODftftUNItATIONS OR IIIDEYER HAZARDOUS IIASTt IS BEING PERTAINS TO AU. ALTERNATlYES. ACTION
ALMII STsTDlj HAZ IIASTE fAC HANDW, ALL P£RStIIIKEl I IIVOL YED
SHALl. HAVE IIUOIAtt ACCESS TO AN
ImRIW. ALARII OR EJlW£ItCY
CIIIUIUIlCA no. DEVICE.
3745-'4-3S REQUIREJ AISLE SPAtE AT UEUTE AISlE SPACt SHALL BE PERTAINS TO All ALTERNATIVES. AtTI ON
" HAZARDOOS FAtlLI'T1£S MIITAUIE]! TO AI.lOM OKOBSTRUCTED
I8VEIUT (f PERSOIOIEl., FIlE
EQUIPtOT, SPILl. COIUIOL
EGUIPfIEXT Ad D£tQITMINATloil
marPlOT lITO MY MEA IF THE
FItIUn IftIATl18 II T1I om
IF AI EI&b.~.
3745-54-37 A AIbII8EIIOTSlAME£ft£IITS IIITH MRMmIEVTS OIl A6REEIfENTS WITH PERTAINS TO All ALTERNATIVES. ACT! ON
L!JtIL IUTIIORITIES UEAI. AUT1IIIIIITI ES, SUCH AS
POLJC[, FIRE DEPAITIOT AID
EKERSEMCT RESPOMSE T£A"S.
3745-54-52 A-f
~OHTlI&£JICY PLAN FII MZAJlDOUS
'~II fttlUH£S
HAZARDD 1IA5'TE FAtIL!Tlt5 PIUS'T
HAVE A QJIITZ«SEMtT "LAN T1fA T
ADORESS£S AllY UIIPUIJIED RELEASE
~F HAZWOUS ~ST£S . HAZAROOUS
CtlIISTIUOOS IIITO TI4£ AIR, SOIL DR
S'MAtt IIAm. nns RUL£
ESTABLISHES THE ftlNIRUR REgUlRED
IIlFOMATlOII OF SUCK A PLAIt
FtRTAIMS TQ A~~ ~~;E~~Ai(VES.
ACTION
, '
-------
-----
'If' 10. to
~/17I90
.- - - _.
OHIO ADftINISTRATIYE CQDE (OACI ARARS FOR ALLIED CPlA
lAC
enAnOll
POTJIDT
PUMUfIMS TtTl£ I IUlmT OF R£iUlATIOII IESCRIPTtOli Of R£6ULATION
~._-------- ------------------------------
CIIG'S II TI( ClWTIII6£MCY T1I£ CllmI&EJltY PtJIIlUST IE PEiTAIMS TG ALl AlT£RNATIV£S. ACTt OM
fIlM; HAl HSTE FACILITIES AII£JIIIEJ IF IT FA ILS III All
ERER&£JICT, TIE FACILITY CHAIf6£S
UI ITS DESI6I, COISnIOCTIIIII,
IlAllTE11A1a DI DPWTIIIIII, THE
UST OF 1106£AI.-, COCIRDIIlATOIS
CIWIE OR TIE LIST If ElD6aty
EWIPtIEKT.
EJIEIS£IICT CDORDIICAT~ AT ALL TIllES TIDE SlllH.U IE AT SUBSTANTIVE REDUIR£IIEITS POTAIN ACYl 011
HAZARDOUS USTE FACILITIES LIAST 011[ EJlPLOY£I EITHER 011 THE TO All ALTEAHAftYES.
PfWII SES OR III CALl TO COORD I MATE
AU. EJI£Jt&EKC1 REPSQISE IlEASURES.
EJlER6E1ItT PIOCEDUR£Sj SPECIFIES TME PROCEDURES TO IE SUBSTANTIVE REDUIRERUTS PERTAII ACTION
HAZARDOUS lAST[ FACILITIES FDU.OIEJ II n£ EVm OF AN TO AU. AlTElUlATlVES.
EJI£R&BtY.
tRQIJIID VATER PR06RMS FOtI.. PRESDTt T1IE.'~ lATER PERTAIICS TO ALl AtTERRATIVES. ACTION
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACtLITt£S I!ONtTORINS AID RESPOIlSE PR06RA11S
REiUlRED OF HAZARDOUS WTE
DISpgSAL FACILITIES.
3745-54-54 A
3745-54-55
3745-~4-56 A-I
3745-54-91 A
3745-5."2
&ROIJtID lATER PROTECTION
STAnARD; HAl WASTE FACILITIES
..
3745-54-93 A,I
HAZARDOUS COISTtT\BTS tIC
llOUIIIIIlATER; HAl IAStt FAt
/45-54". ',1
CONCENTRATION lllllTS FOR
5?OUMD ~ATER; HAl ~ASTE rAC
aJlPLIAia !lUST IE AnAtllED IIlTH
THE COICDITIIlfS SPECIFIED IN THE
PERIIIT TO OSURE THAT HAZARDOUS
COJISITUEm ($[£ 3745-54-431 DO
lOT Dem THE PIOIIIJI.SATED 1I1I1TS
(UE 3745-54-941.
IEDttIIES 11IAT P£1tItn sm:IFY
""- 13snnoTS TO IIfICII
TIE ... liTO PID1ETlOI
IT- If 3745-54-92 WU.
IlAZARDIIJS COHSTITWTS ME
COMSTlT1DTS IJElTIFlED II THE
APPEIDlI OF THIS Rt1.£ THAT HAVE
9EEI DETECTED II SRQUI(t) WATER I~
T~! UPPERRDST AaUIFER USDERLYIME
THE T1E UIIIT ISI AHD M£
READABlY EJPWED iO IE II OR
DERIVED FROII WASTE COITAlREJ £II
M UIUT
-------
o c
Pap Ia. 11
./17/.0
OHIO AllIIUIlSTRATIVE tnDE COACI ARARS FOR AllIED CPlA
OIC
. tnlnUl
PERTIBT
PMASfN'HS TITLE I _m CF RE61UTlON DESCRIPTIOM OF REGULATION
MAl: TYPE 15
APPLICATION OF RE~LATION
374H4-95 1,1
3745-54-'6 A,I,e
3745-54-91 HI
.,45-54-" A-J
3745-55-01 A;:
..
374$-55-11 A,l,e
.5-55-12 !
-------
-----
UlIlTS.
PlIKY OF CORPUAIICE FOR SROUIID ESTABlISHES POUlT OF COIIPILAIICE P£RTAINS Til ALl ALTERJlATlYES.
liTER; HAl MSTt FAt AT \UTtCAL SURfACE UlCATO AT
TI£ IIYDUIUCAU.' IIM&RAD IEIT
11IIlT OF' 111 IASTE IAIASEJIEJfT
AREA THAT mms .. tll1'O THE
II'P£RIIQST aaJlFElIIIIIERLYlI6 THE
gU11.
CllllPLlAIIt£ PERIOD FOR &IOUND . tOllPltAlC£ PERIIIU OURINIi IIU CK PERTAIIS TO AU ALTERKATlVES.
lATER; HAl IiASTE FAt THE &ROUND IlATER PROTECTt08l
STAalDWS APPI.1 lUll IE SPECmEJ)
III THE P£IUII1'.
&Ell nOUlCD WATER ftUNlTURINS m:sms 8MRAL 6ROUMD IIATER PERTAIIS TO All ALTERNATIVES.
II£8UIR£JIEIITS; HAl WASTE Fat IUIIIT1IRINS PROSfWI REaUIR£K£KTS.
IIICLUD£S IIUIIBER, lOCATION AND
. . DEPTH OF 1IUlS, WIG
UtlEJlElTS, SMP\.116 AND
MAUStS PROCEDURES, m.
&RO\JIID ram COIIPLlAHCE PRESMS REIlUIREIIOOS OF &ROUND PERTAlIS TO ALl ALTERKATIYES.
IIDHITDRIII& PRtl6j HAl dSTE FAe IIATER COftPLIAMtE ftOIIITORl1I6
PtO&IAII.
&ROUND IATD CORRECTIVE ACTlOII PRESEm TIlE RERUIIWIEJ(TS OF I PERTAINS TO AlL ALTERNATIVES.
PIIOSRAII; HAl IIASTE FAt IRUD IATO CllRR£tTIYE ACTIOll
PR06IWI THAT PlEVENTS HAZARDOUS
CDIISTI11DTS FIOft EJCEEJI& MIR
RESPETIVE CONlDTRATIIIIt LIIIITS
IT 111 CDlPLIMCE PaIIT If EITHER
IIEIIML . 11EIt1BT CF TU
IIAWJcaJS CDlSTlnDT5.
ACTION C!BIt
ACTION CMElUt
ACTION CKE!UI
AC TI QIj CHEIIU
ACTt 011 OI£III!
IDEIAL CUISUR£ PERFIItftAm DIRES THAT ALl HAZARDOUS IIASTE
STAIIDMD; HAl USTE FAC FACILITIES IE CI.OS£J II .
IIANIlER IItIIIIIZ£S M II£ED FOR
FURTH£R ftAIKT£SANCE, CONTROLS,
"INI"12£5, ELlftlNATES OR PREVENTS
PtIST-C1.DSUR£ E5tAP£ or HAZARDOUS
.. IIASTt, HAZAiUlOlIS CDlSTlTIOTS,
L£ACMATt, CbTMIMTED RUN-OFT OR
~IARDQUS IIASTE DECOtIPOSITIOll
PRODUCTS TO 6ROUKD OR SURfACE
IIA TER OR T14£ A TftCSPIIER£.
PERTAlItS TO AREAS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE COIlTAliINATlOII AND AREAS
THAT IIILL 8E um m TREATIIEMT,
;iQRA6E QR DiSFOSA~ OF HAZRRDOUS
MASTES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES.
ACTI OK
CONTENT 0; CL~SURE PLAN:
~AZARUOUS WASTE FACILITIES
S~ECIFIES TIlE ftl.l~ IIIFORIIATIGH r~TAIMS TO ALL ALTE;~ATIYE5.
iI£;UIR£l! lit A C1..OSURE P\.AII FOR
mlo~
-------
PI,i 0110. 12 c
'.'17190
OHIO ADtIINISTRATIVE cno£ (OAt I MARS F'OR AlLIED CPlA
DAC
CITATIOM
POTIlOO'
'MASlIPMS TITl£, mUtT OF R£6UlATION DEStRIPTIOII OF RE6UlATlON
3745-55- 14
II!SPOSIIl/D£CUI OF EWIPftEKT,
STUT1It£S . SOILS
3145-"-1'
S1J8KISStDN OF StIIYEY PlAT
FDLLDMIN& CLOSURE
"
tP~.ICAT!OM OF RE6ULATIOH
MAR T"£(S)
-------
------
PERTAIIIS TO AU. ALTONATtYES.
ACTtOlt
11110 £PA TO IETERlUIE THE
AIEIIUAC'f IF TIE PUN.
IDUlRE5 THAT AU. CD8ITAIIII1ATEII
BUIPIIEJIT, STlUCTUI£S All SOILS
I[ PlClPOU IISPCISED OF OR
DECOIITMII1ATEII. IIBDYAL OF
IlAZMDCIUS oms . CDIISTlTU£.rS
MY CDlSTITUTE IIEJOATION OF
HAZARDOUS HSTES.
FUL1.OWINS ClOStIE, A SURVEY PlAT
IND1CATllC& T1IE LOCATlOI AND
DIIlEXSIOIIS Of LNID .DISPOSAL UNITS
1111M RESP£tT TO P£IIWIEIm. Y
SUIMTED IEJICIIWIIS !lIST IE
SUIIIITTEII TO T1£ lOCAL 10001N&
AUTHORITY MD THE DIIET!IR OF TIlE
OHIO EPA. THE PUT IIJST CDXTAlli A
IllITE IIHICH STATES M OIlI8ATlOII
Tn REmICT'DmuRIMC£ II' TME
UIIlTS.
PERTAINS TO AlL At TEJlNATtY£S. IN
IIHICI HAZARDOUS IlASTE IS KANASED
IN LAIID-IAS£D WITS.
ACTION
3745-55-17 I POST -ClOSURE CARE AID USE Of SPECIFIES TME POST-cl.DSURE CAR! PERTAIIIS TO ALL AlTERNATIVES IN ACT! DN
PROPERTY DlREJlElTS, IHClUDIII6 VHICX HAZARDOUS IIASTt IS 1WIA6£n
IlAllTiJIMC[, IIDJIITORIN6 AID IN LAlD-IASED OMITS.
POST -cLJISUR£ USE OF P1tOPERTY.
'
..
:1745-55-18 I POST~ Pl" PIESEm TI£ IIFOIIMTIIIII P£RUllS TO AU. ALTERHTtYES 1M ACTlOli
IEESSARY FOR 11110 EPA TO IIHIOI HAZARDOUS VASTt IS IIANASED
D£TEIIIUIE TIE AlGl.lACY Of A II LAKD-BAS£D UllTS.
PIST-a.aIIE PUL
37~SS-" oJ lOT let TO IJCAL LAD AUnUIIln 1DU1RE1 TUT . IIECIIU IF 111 POTAIIS TO AU. AlTtbATlYES 1. ACT I OK
.' TYPE, lOCATlDl AID QUAlTtTY OF VHICH HAIARDOUS !lASTE 111 IIAMASED
..
. HAlWOUS IlASTES 8ISPOSD OF III ll1lA1D-IASrD UNITS.
..
EAaI IIIIT 1£ SUllnTTED TO TH£
LOtA1. LMD AUTHORITY ..0 M
91RECTOR OF TH£ 0"10 LOA. "'-SO
REQUIRES THAT A IICITATUIII TG 11£
ED TO tJ£ FACILITY PR9P9n 8£
MDE lDKlnll6 TlfAT TIlE LAllI) liAS
VSEn TO IIW&£ HAOO&JS IIASTES
AID THAT CERTAI. USE RESTRICTIONS
MY APPLY TO THE PROPERTY.
:mS-SS-71 CONDITION OF CGHTAINERS COOAII1ERS HOLDINS HAZARDOUS PERTAINS TD ANY AlTERNATIVE ~~T ACT:OII
WASTE !lUST Be MIMTAIN£J1 1. &QIIJ) VDOLI INCORPORATE STDRAGE OF
CUMD1T1011 (110 RUST OR STRUCTt'lli MA1ARDOUS WASTES iEYDND 90 DAYS
. DEFECTS). IN CONTAINERS PRIOR TQ TREAT~T
"
-------
PfIJf No. J3
QS/17I~
OHIO ADftIHISTRATIVE canE 'u~Cj ARARS FeR ALLIED CPLA
OAt
CJTATlOII
nRTlIOO
PARA6lM TlTU' SVlJEtT Of RE6'IIlATlDN DESCRIPTION Of REilJLATlON
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARAR Tm;
3745-55-71
IlMA6£!EHT OF CONTAIms
COIIT AI IIERS HD1J I 116 HA IARDOUS
IIASTE /lUST IE a.DSED (ElC£PT TO
ADD Oil IEJIOY£ 1lAST£ J AlII !lIST lOT
BE IIAIIIW II A IIAIIW T1IAT IlAY
RUPTURE THE CClTAIIIEJI OR CAUS£ IT
TO LEAK.
3745-55-74
COKTAlHER INSPECTIONS
REQUIRES AT LEAST WEEr.L Y
IISPEtTIOHS Of CONTAIKER STORA6£
AREAS. .
3745-55-75 .,!,C. D
eDIfYAIIIER STORAaE AREA
tnNTAIIIfIENT SYSm
REQUIRES THAT CONTAINER STORA5E
AREAS HAVE A CO~TAt~K£MT SYSTE"
ANU SPEtlFItS TH£ ftINIftUP.
K£QUIR£fI.£NTS ~ SUCH A SYSTEM.
3745-55-78
CONTAINER CLOSURE REQUIREftENTS SPECIFIES CLOSURE R£QUIREftEh1S
FOR CDIITAINERS W COWTAIIOWtT
SYSTtJI.
.
..
APPLICATION OF REEUL~TI~~
OR DISPOSAL.
PERTAINS TO MY ALT£RIlATIVE THAT
lOUlD JaPORATE STORA6£ OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES BEYOND 90 DATS
II CDIITAINERS PRI~ TO TREATJOT
UR DISPOSAl.
~TAIN5 TO AMY AlTERNATIVE THAT
IIOUlD INCORPORATE STORA6E OF
HAZARDOUS IIASTES &£YOID 90 DAYS
IN CONTAINERS PRIOR TO TREATftEHT
OR DISPOSAL.
PERTAIIIS TO ANT ALTERlATJVE THAT
VOUlD INCORPORATE STGRAS£ OF
HAZARDOUS MASTES BrYOND 90 DAYS
III COJITAINERS PRIOR TO OOTftEh'T
OR 81SPOSAl.
PERTAINS TO ANY ALTERNATIVE THAT
WDUUI ImlRPORATE STORASE OF
HAZARDOUS !lASTES BEYOND 90 DAYS
1M COITAIMERS PRIOR TO TREATII£HT
OR DISPOSAl.
ACTI 011
ACTION
ACTIOfI
ACTION
3745-55-92 ~-F DESI6JI' UCSTAWTION . lEV 1I£M1!E'S. SEOOARY COITAINfI£IIT PERTAINS TO ANY ALTEANATIYE TltAT ACrr 011
rAIII: hSTDIS OR CM'OItEJTS sysm FOR Tam A18 AS$E5S11EIfT WOUlD INCORPORATE STORA&[ OR
TO D£TERJIIIE U. IIlTEUITY. TREATftENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES III
TAm iEYOMD 90 DAYS.
T:'45-~'i3 5-:,1 COIITAINftEHT AND DETECTION Of REQUIRES SECOHDARY CONTAINKEMi PERTAINS TO AllY ALTERNATIVE !~~T ~TION
RELEASES FUR TANK SYSTE"S AND LEAK DETECTION 5Y5T£"5 FaR VOIlD INCORPORATE 5TDRA6E OR
TANKS. TREATIIM Of KAIARGOUS WASTES IN
iAMtS 1E10MD 90 DAYS.
'.
-------
'19' 110. IC
15/17/110
OHIO ADftlMl5TRATIYE CODE (QACI ARARS FOR AL~lED CPLA
10. ...(101
PERTtlEJlT
PtUIillAPHS iITL! I SU8JEtT OF R£6UUTION D£StRIPTlOJl Of RESULATION
------------------------------------------------------
ACYl 011
'3745-55-94 A,I,t -
:£mAL tIOATlI6 REDUIREIWITS SPEtIF'lES DRAl OPERATIII6
=- T. smEJIS REQUIREJlEJlTS FOIl TAHt: SYSTEftS.
3745-SHS H
!l5PECTIOIIS OF TAlI( sysms
DIRES tlSPECTIONS AT WST
OHCE EACH WI TIIS DAY.
374S-55-96 A,I,t,E
~SPOISE TO L£W OR SPILLS OF REQUIRES THAT UIIF1T TAtO:5 BE
TAlI[ SYSmtS R£JUJYED not! USE AND FURTilER
RnDSEs-tE 1'R9EKTD;-' . ---.,
3745-55-97 8,1
ClOSURE UD POST-a.DSURE CARE SPECIFIES a.OSURE AHU
FUR TANK Sysms POST-ct.QS1JR[ REDUIRDIENTS FOR
T AIIK SYSTEJIS.
...
APPLICATIOM Of R£&UlATIOI
P£RTAIICS TO AMY ALTERJIATIYE THAT
MIM.D IICORPORATE STORAGE OR
11EA TIEJIT Of' HA I ARDCUS WASTES III
T_S IEYUIID 90 DAYS.
PERrAlliS TO AU ALTERIlATlYE THAT
MOtU IItORPOAATE STORAGE OR '
TREATXEJlT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE; IN
TANKS 8£YQtID 90 DAYS.
PERTAIIS TO AlY ALTWATlYE rriAT
IIOULD IIICQRPORATE 5T~e~ DR
TMATIOT OF KAZARDQUS IIAms IN
TAlKS 8EYOND 90 DAYS.
PERTAINS TO ANY AlTERNATIYE THAT
IIOUlD INCORPORATE STORAGE OR
TREATRENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES IN
TAIIKS Dim 90 DAYS.
ARAR TYPE (51
ACTION
ACTION
ACYl 011
374H6-21 H !!£SDI , 12PEMTIIS PR£SEIITS D£SISII ANIlIJIEKTlNS "AY PERTAIN TO AI. TERHATlYES ACT! DN
rdDUEJDTS I S1IIFIa ClITWA FOR UF'ACE ADDWSIII& LA600MS.
ll1PaME1TS IIIPIlUUIOTS.
3745-56-26 a,l,e ~]flTOIt. , 1IIsprnIOil OF REQUIRES IIISPECTlOtl or LINERS SME AS AIOVE. ACT! ON
:!.¥Att I!tPOUNDfIE!fTS ~UAINS CawSTRUCTION. ~~~Q
~EQUlRES WEEKLY ~ AFiE~ ~iOR~
INSPECTIOKS.
37~5-56-~7 A-£ :8.£R6E1CCY REPAIRS 1& ;PECIFIES WHEN AND MOW SURFACE SAllE AS ABOVE. ~~TIOH
~3TI"&£KtY PLAIIS i SURFACE II1PDUKDllEJ(TS SHDW IE MJlOVED
!!'UD FROII SERVICE FOR REPAIRS.
3745-5b-2& AII,e :~SURE . POST-cLOSURE OF PROYIDES CLOSURE AHD POST-tlOSURE SAftE 's ABOYE. ACiIOIi
:~'?;AC£ 1IIP000000IIOOS ~guIREKEXTS FOR SURFACE
IftPOUltDftEXTS.
0 0
. .
-------
.
()
Pl91 110. 15 milo ADIIINISTRAHVE COD£ (DAti ARARS FOR ALLIED CPLA
OS/17M
OAt POT UOT
enAnOli HIAIiUPIIS Tl1U I ~£CT Of R£&ULATIOII DEStRIPTIOII OF R£6UlATIOtI APPLICATION OF R£8UlATION AlAR TYP
-- -------------------------
3745-56-31 A COISmtTIOI IIISPECnOiS OF AUOVS OHIO £PA OPPORTUNITY !O SAIl[ AS AIOY£. ACTION
SURFAa IIIPOUIDftEJITS IISPECT SUltFACE IIIPGUWD!O!S
BURIIS CDIISTRUCTlOII AU
I ISTAU.ATI 01.
3745-56-51 H DES 1&81 . IIPW TI 11& SPECIFIES T1IE DESIO MD PERTAIIS TO 0' AI. TERUTIVE THAT ACTION
RmlIR£IIEITS FOR W'TE PILES OPERATIIIIC IEDUIREJlElTS FOR MASTE IIOCU. IIIaW'ORA T[ THE STtftASE DR
PILES. IIClUD£S LINER $YSTER, TREAnIM OF HAZARDOUS WASTES III
WCHATE COllECTIOII AID IIEIIDWIL UST[ PIUS, ElCEPT FOR roa7
- - SYSTEII, VIND DISPERSAl. PR£VOOIOII WASTES STORED PRIOR TO AND AFTER
AHD 1tUI-oN1R1IH~ COITROL. MAST[ FUEL. mOVERY.
3745-56-54 A,I IIOInQRINS . INSPECTIOI Of WASTE PILES IlUST IE IIQNn~, PERTAINS TO ANY ALTERlAnVE TIIAT ACTION
MASTI PILES DURII& COISTRUCTlOIt OR IIOtU UICIWORAT'£ SiURASE OR
I lIST ALLA TI 011 AID OPERA TI 011. TIOTIOT Of HAZARDOUS IIASTES II
MASTI PIL£S.
1745-56-9 1,8,[ CtDSURE , POST-ClOSURE CARE SPECIFIES CUISUR£ AIID PERTAINS TO AIff ALTEWTlYE THAT ACTIDH
FOR lAm PILES POST-Q.OSUR£ CARE R£;UIREl!mS INCORPORATES STORA6£ 01 TREAT lOT
FOR WTE PIUS. OF .IIA1ARDOUS WTES III MAST'£
PILES.
374H6-fl A COfCST'RUCTIOII IKSPECTIOMS FUR ALLOa OHIO ElA TME OPPORTUJlITY PERU 115 TO AllY AI. TERIIA TI VE T14A T ACTION
IlASTI PILES TV IIISPEtT MAST[ PILEi DURIN& IOUUI INCORPORATE srolW£ OR
.. aETlUCTION. 001IlOO OF HAZARDOUS WT£S a
IIAST£ PILES.
37CH7-G1 H EJlYIIDIIIDTAL PEIFtIJIAIICE SP£ClFIEI LaTIOIt, 10181. POTAIIS TO MY AlTERlATlYE THAT I.OCA no. At
ITAIIIMIS ; UII _1111111 CDrSTUTIOI, GPEIIT18, CIOTES A WD-IASO HWRJOUS
MIITtIMC£ AID CU2!UIE urn: DIPOSAL \JIlT IT R£ROYIII8
IOJIItEJOTS FOR lMDFlLlS, WASTE HAZARDOUS WASTES AND 'LACINS OR
PIL£S, SURFACE IRPOUNDt{EJlTS AND REPlAC INS TMEJI I II TME I.JIID.
UNDERSRaUND IIIJttTlOl MEUS. POITlOIIS MY PERTAIII TO
ALTERNATIVES THAT LEAVE HAZARDOUS
WASTE !N-r~~:£.
3745-57-03 I-I
lANDFIll DESIGN W OPERATIN6
REQU I IWIEJITS
PtESElTS DESIGN AND OPERATI~
RERUIIWIEMTS FOR LANDFiLlS.
I IICUID£S LUtER, LEACMA T'£
COLlitTIOII AND R£IIOVAL,
RUM-llfC/RUN-OFF COKTROl. Eit.
PERTAINS TO ANY ALiERNATIYE THAT
CREATES A lAND-BASED HAZARDOUS
MASTE DISPOSAL \/fitT BY WlDVlNS
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND PLAtINS OR
R£PLAC I H6 THEIl I II TII£ LAND.
PORTIONS RAY PERYAIII TO
ACTION
".".
-------
()
PIV' 110. 16
"17190
DAC
CnATlOI
DIIIO AIlIIIIIISTlATIYE COD£ (OAt I ARARS FOR ALiIED CPlA
JlElTIIIEJIT
PMA6UPMS TlTLlI SUlJEtT Of R£&UlATlON IESClUPTIIlllIIf I£SUI.ATlOIf
:m5-57-t5 A,I
3745-57-10 1,1
..
3745-57-17 .
1745-!7-41 A,I
...-....,
AP9LICATIOII OF RE&UlATION
AltAR TYPE
-------"~---.-----
Dlnll. AID IIISPECTIDIS OF _IRES IISPEtTIIIIIJ lMDFIW
UllDF'ILLS DII& allSTRUCTlUI OR
11STAU.lTIOI MID OPERATIOR.
.' '. lAIDFIL1. ClDSUR£ ARD
POST -a.OSUR£ ~
WIFIES CLOSURE AHII
POST-a.OUE REWIRDmS FOR
MAIWaUS-IA!TE WDFtllS.
IIIClUHS FIlIAL COVER AND
IIA I NTEIAICtE.
LMDFIU. CDIISTIUCTIIII
1llPU111IS
AWlS OHIO EPA OPPORnllUTY TO
. IISPKT UllF1L1. IlaIMI
CDlSTmIOI.
WASTE ANAlYSIS FOR
lHt IIIERA TORS
REQUIRES IIAST[ ANALYSIS iE
PMRW FIiR TRIAl !URN AND FDR
IIORftAL QPERATION OF INCINERATOR.
",".
ALTERNATIVES THAT leAVE HAZMJOt/S
UST[ IN-PUCE.
PERTAINS TO MY AlTElUTIYE THAT
CREAm A lMD-1ASED HAZARDOUS '
UST[ DISPOSAl UlfIT ar R£!IOVIIIIi
HAZARDOUS IIAST£S AMII PUCIN6 OR
REPUCII& T1tEII II THE LMD.
fIOItTlOlS flAY PERTAIN TO
AL TERJIATIVES THAT LaVE HAZARDOUS
IIASTE IN-PLACE.
ACTION
POTIIIIS TO MY ALTDMATIVE THAT
CIt£A TtS A lbD-IASlD MAIWOUS
VAST[ DISPOSAl. UIIIT BY REJaNIII&
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND PlAtING OR
R£PI.ACIIIG TMER III THE LAtOI.
PORTIONS MY PERTAIII TO
ALTOJIATIVES THAT WIlE KAlOUS
IlASTE I.~.
ACTlOJl
PERTAINS TO AllY ALTOIIATIYE THAT
ClUttS . LMHAS& ~1Ii-
IIASTt IISPGSAI. till" It IEJIOYllli
HAZARDOUS IlASTES MD PlACING OR
REPLACING THEIl III THE LAND.
PORTIONS RAY PERTAII TO
AUWAilVES THAT LEAVE HAZARDOUS
...~STE :~.rLACt.
ACT 101
PERTAINS TO ALTERNATIVES
UICDRPORATINS INCIN£RATION.
~""IO" CHEIIIC
-------
h91 Ia. - 17
OS/J 7/90 "
OHIO AOftiNISTRATlVE ~DE (OACI ARARS FOR ALLIE~ CPLA
OAt
.. TAmil
P£ATlIEIT
HIAfiIIN TITl£ I -ECT If 1£6UUTIOH D£SCRIPTlOII OF RE6UlATImt
---
APPLICATION Cf RESUlATION
AR~ TYPE tS
- 3745-57-42 ',I,C
PlIICt,., "IC IlAZMflOUS
!3STIT1DTS; UICIIUA TORS
ESTAlLJSHES I£TtI)D IT MUCH POKtS PElTAJIS TO ALT£RlATlY£S
lUll IE SP£tIFIED. JIICORPIlRATlNS JICJIlERATlDH.
--------------------------------
CHEJlJ CAt. ArT I
~45-57-4J I,I,C POFIIJIMt[ STAImMDS FOR SPttJFJES PERFOIIIAJICE STMDARDS PERT AIlS TO Al T£RNA TJ YES CMEIUCAt. ACTI
1J£IIIEUTORS THAT au. IEtlOATORS lUST IIEE'T IICORI'ORATJI6 JICJIIWTIOII.
ClESTRlK:TtOl IEJIIYAL
m:JCIEIIC JES, IICl £IUSS I IllS,
PARTICULATE ElJSSIOllSI.
1745-57-44 C IICIIlERAT1II TRJAl IUbS - DlRES TRIAl 8\Jb TO DETtRflINE ffilTAIKS TO AlTERuTlYES A..'iJOK
AU£RIIA T1 YE DATA Ft IA1. II'£JIA 11& CJIID ITI ores. IIICORPORA TI NS tilt J lOA TJ 011.
-
~C5-57-45 H IIC I IIERA TIlt OPERA TIf16 SPEtlFIES &EmAL. OPtRATJN& . PERTAIIS TO Al TtRMATlYES ACTIOK
UlmBTS REQUIR£JIEITS FOR ALl JICORPORA TI 11& 1IICIIDATIOIi.
lilt J NERA TORS.
~45-57-47 A,I,t DlTIIRJII6 AID IISPECTtOll or REWJRES t1IE IIOIITORIM6 OF PElTAIIS TO ALmtuTIVES ACTI.
ll1CllIERA TORS CElT_Uf PtRNIEmtS Ott A IIDIRPORA TIllS 11t11CEbTUII.
CUlTII1DJS IASIS AND IISPEtTIOIS
OF EmlIPIIEMT.
~57-51 a.DSURE Of IIfCII£IATORS R£8UlRES THAT AU. HAZARDOUS WASTE PERTAtIS TO AlTERlCATlYES ACTI ON
AlII HAlAIIJOUS WASTE RESIDUES 8£ I IICORPORA TINS lilt II1£RA TI 0..
RENIYED FIOII TI£ llClERATOR
SIT£.
~4HH3 DILUTUIII PlllltIITED AS DILUTUII OF RESTRICTED WASTE, OR PERTAINS TO ALTElNAT1YES ACTIO!!
. SUlSTtTIJT£ FOR TREA TD UJR) R£51D11 T1IREOF, AS A SUlSTI1U1t ADDRESSllS RDOYAL IF WDOII
..
FUR AlEDUAT£ TR£A TftEIT 15 IfASTES FIll SUlSGlDT OOTIIOO
P1U111IJTED. OR R£PLACEKEIT. IDES lOT APPl'
TO ASH I£St1.nll FROIt _1118 OF
1011 ams II 8S1E F1EL
It£'CUVDT IJUT.
~45-SH7 IASTE _nIS MIl WAST£ lIST IE TESTtD TO DrnRIIINE PERTAINS TO ALTERNATIYES CHEll I CAl.
Uco-lIt9l. CURl IF IT 15 RESTRICTED FROfI LAND ADDRESS IllS RE1JWAl OF lA600N
DISPOSAl. ~ASTES FOR s~eSEQU£Ni TP.EAT~T
OR REPlACEftENT. DOES NOT APPLY
iO ASH RESULTING FRQft lURKING DF
K\)87 WASTES ill ilASTE r\,U
~DY£RY UtIlT.
3145-59-33
WASTE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS
FIRST THIRD IASffi tlDRI
.~gTtS LISTED IN THIS RLU W
PROHIBITED FiGft lAHD DISPOSal
UNLESS THE TREATllEHT STAXDARDS
ME KET.
~TAINS TO ALTERNATIVES
ADDRESS I 116 REftOYAL OF LAiOON
WASTES FDR SUBSEQUENT TREATKENi
011 REPLACEftEKT. DOES NOT APPl'
cm!cAL. ACTIO!
'.",
-------
--.. --
"" Ha'~ 'is
tS/171tO
OHJO ADIUlISTlATJY£ tnDE (OA~) ARARS FOR AllIED CP~A
GAC
tITATJOI
PllTIIIEIT
HItMWHS TITLE 18tCT OF RESlUTJDI DESCRJPTJDW OF II£WTJIIII
Af'Pll CA TJ 01 OF 1t£6IJU TlON
---
AlAR TYPE
TO ASH IUA.TJI& FROR UI JIf6 ~
(087 IASTE5 II lAST[ FUn
R£COVOY lilT.
3745-81-11 A.' Mna CUlTMUIEIT I.£VE1.S FaR Pll£S&TS IICL.S FmI IIORIMJCS. POTAIIIS TO AU. AlTtRlATJYES. CHEll J CAI.
I_IC CIJIJCAlS
3745-11-12 A.'.C flAil. CDlfTMIIOT LEVElS FUR PllDan"S lEU FOR OIIMJCS. PfRIAJIIS TO AU ALT£bATlYES. 001CAL.
IIRIiAIIt aoltALS
3745-81-13 a.1 MIlIUI CGlTMIIEKT L!YEl.s FOR Pl£5£JrTS JItLS FOR .TUII I D I TY. 'ERTAllS TO AU. ALTERlATJYES. CI01tAL.
TWIDIn
3745-1J-14: A IIAI J IIUII III CltG81 01.06 I tAL. PR£SmS JICI.S FOR IIIC1D11Dt.DSIcAt PERTAI lIS TO AU. AL TERIA TlYES. aoltAL
CDlTAIIIWT LM1.S allTAlIIIAHTS.
3745-11-21 8 IUCR08IDl06ICAl CDlrTMtIlANT PRESalfS SAllPLJI& AID MAUTJCAL PERUIIS TO AU. AlTDJIATIYES. CHEll I CAI.
!Alf\.IRI' -1TICAl REa IHlIREJl£lTf FOIIIICIIDIUI.D8ICAL
CONTAln.IITS.
,5-11-£2 A TUlIDIn ClllTAIIIKAJCT SAllPLINS PRmKTs $MPlIIiS MD ANAlYTICAl 'ERTAIMS TO ALl ALTERNATIVES. CH£II I CAl.
a AlALYTltAL UIIDI£NT IBUIREJIEXTS FOR TURBIDITY.
3745-81-23 8 IQlMIC ClllTMIIIMT PR£SmS 1IOm0lll11S ItGUIRaOTS PtRTAI.s TO AU. AlTEbATIYES. ODICAl
IDIT~III& IlUUIR£II([JrTS FOI IIOI&AII I C CIIIfT AlII WTS.
3745-11-24 .,-£ IIIWrt alrTMIIIMT IIDItTORlI. PIESElTlIIOIITDRJKS REDUlllBElTS POTAJIIS TO AU. AlTEJUlATJYEs. OUJCAL
IEIIII£IIDTS FGI CIUIIC aJlfTMIIIMTS.
1745-11-%7. ..I.C: AIAlYTICAL TEI:l8tMS PR£SuTS IEJIWL IIIAL YTICAL PERTAIIS TO AU. 8UEWTJYES. DCfJU CAl
tallIS ,. l1:l.I.
.'
3745+04 1.1 LlCATt8 I In.. IF III'. IlUDAm 11IIT IIUD IATElIEL1J mY.JICS TO AU. IRNm "TER lDCATIOI
IIUS ., W£W OHJTE THAT [IOO HAVE
AI UlCATtD U1I IlAIrrA JIIED so AS lEV! OR IfIU. IE IIGTAL.LD.
TO PI£VEJ(T a!IfT MIIlAlTS F!OII
EITEl J iii 1fEU..
'I L~CATED $~ ~: ~: Sf ~:::;::~:~
FDA CWIIIICS A!ID IlAIKTE)ANC£.
37C5-4-t5 Al,I-M ~TRUCTIOI OF lEV 81f WELLS SFECInE! IIJKIIIII!! tOIISTIlICTIIJI F;1iTAINS TO AU nOUf/D !lATER ACTION
QIUllDTs F\I. MEV s;aD II,UD WELLS ON-SITE THAT E!THER HAVE
mJ.S II U&Ws TO CASIMS tEEN OR ifIll IE INSTALLED.
IlATtRlAL, CASllf6 GEP'nt, POTABl£
IfATtR, AIOIUW SPACES, US[ OF
DfUYE SHOE, OPDIICSS TO AlLOIf
OTER UTtY I CClTAIIIIAIlT EHTRY.
'.
-------
- . - -- --- -'--.-
...
0- '. Iv
W.
,..' ,cr... A"" 810 AlIUIISTlATtVE COIlE COAtI MARS FilR AlLIED CPLA
l" ----J'V ."
'5/11190
OAC PDTIIIIT
CITATION ,..... TlU I 8W If IDUTlOf( IESCIIPTJlII OF IEWTJOff APPLICATIOI Of IEItUTtOll MAR TYP£
-------- ----
n.5-H6 ..a,a,E WI. blI£JmS 111 ... maI5B HelFJC QJII£IIEITS PaTAIIS TO au IIOIJID lAm ACT I 01
IlEUS F'II IElL CASIISS, lID AS II£U.S THAT [ITJU .ILL IE II NAVE
SUITW IATBIAL, 'IMET'£IS AID lED IISTALLO ON-IITE.
CIIIITIIII.
3745-H7 "., SllFACE 16111 Cf .. II IEW mAll1HS mInt -ACE PERTAIIS TO AU ... MATER ACnllN
IEII. IElUtIlERElTS, lID AS IIEW THAT EITID HAVE 1m DR '
IEI6HT AIOVE 1iROIIGI, lIEU. vms, lULL IE I~TAU.£i OI-SlTE.
lIEU. PIMPS, ETC...
374S+08 A,e START-W . OPWTIOI OF". IlElUIRE IISIIIF£CIOI OF IllIlEU.S POTAIIS TO AU IIUD WATEI ACTIDN
VEU.S MD USE If PGTW IATEI FUR IIE1.lS THAT EITJER HAVE IEEN DR
,.111116 NIPS. IILL IE IISTALLD "IrE.
37.5+09 a-c,Dl,E-t 1lA11TDAG. OPERATlOII OF II ESTAIlISHES SPEtIFIC IlAIITDMCE PEJlTAIIS TO AU. &RGIJaI IATEI . ACTION
ElJ..S . AIG IIODlFICATlOlll£DUlR£laTS rill Il£U.S TllAT EITMER HAVE IEEJI OR
CASIIC&, NIP AU IEW III IILL IE IISTAUD OIHITE.
1EIIEKA1..
~.5"-10 ',I,e AIA1mOICREIT OF TJ!T IIJL£S . II FOWl (lIS CUllPUTIDI IF US£, PDTAIIS 111 AU. IIIUD IATEI ACTIO/i-
VEU.S WEllS Ad TttT HOW SIfAU. IE IEU.S AND TEST IIDW TMAT EITJER
COftPlETELY FIL1.D nTM&IIOUT OR HAVE I£EJj DR MILL IE IISTA1.l.D
SIIIILAR MTElIAL III SHAU. 1£ Dll-SJ1i.
flAllTAIIIED 1. CIIIPlIMCt OF ALL
l£itUTIOIS.
..
. .
"...
------- |