United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R06-87/022
October 1986
3EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
\~ 0
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(P/~fJl~ '~fJd /lUlnlCtlo"s Oil Ih~ 'IVtrf, /Hi"" cO,""/~lilll)
1. ".~O"T NO. /2. 3. RECI~IENT'S ACCesSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R06-87/022
.. TITLE AND SUITITLI 5. "E~O"T DATI
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION O~t:Qber 6. 1986
Gurley Pit, AI< - EDD 8. ~E"FO"MING ORGANIZATION CODE
First Remedial Action
7. AUTHORISI 8. PERFO..MING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. pe..FORMING ORGANIZATION NAMe AND ADDFless 10. PROGRAM eL.eMENT NO.
1 I. CONTFIACT/G..ANT NO.
12. SPONSOFlI NG AGeNCY NAME AND ADDFless 13. Type OF REPORT AND PE"'OD COVEFleD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD ReDort
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. S~ONSO"'NG AGeNCY CODe
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
18. SU~PLeM.NTA"Y NOTES
18. A8ST...ACT
The Gurley Pit site, located within the flood plain of 15 Mile Bayou, a tributary of
the St. Francis river, is 1.2 miles north of Edmondson in Crittenden County, Arkansas.
The site, contained on three sides by soybean fields, s~pe8~gently toward the Bayou.
Originally the site was a single large pit created when a clay deposit was excavated for
use as construction material. Currently the single pit is divided into three cells by
earthen dikes. From 1970 to 1975 the Gurley Refining Company operated the pit under a .
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecoiogy (ADPCE) permit for the disposal of
sludge and filter material from the re-refining of used motor oil. In December 1975,
Gurley Refining returned its permit saying the waste disposal had stopped and the site
was secure. In May 1978, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service reported that overflows from
the pit had damaged fish and waterbirds in the Bayou. In April 1979, 15 Mile Bayou
flooded and inn undated the pit, causing as much as 500,000 gallons of oil to escape from
the pit into the surrounding fields and Bayou. Approximately 432,470 cubic feet of
sludge, soil, sediments and oil contained in the pit are contaminated with lead, barium,
zinc and PCBs.
The recommended remedial alternative includes: construction of an onsite pond water
treatment unit; treatment of pond water with discharge to 15 Mile Bayou; removal of
solid contaminants from pond water to be disposed of with the pit sludge: removal of oil
(See attached sheet)
17. KIY WO"08 AND OOCU"INT ANALYStS
~. O~I"O"I b.IOINT.tI'I"S/OPIN eNDED Te"MS c. COSATI field/Group
Record of Decision
Gurley Pit, AK - !DD
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: pit water, soil,
sediments
Key contaminants: PCBs, heavy metals,
VOCs
1'. OIST"IIUTION STATIMINT 11. SICU"tTY CLASS (TI." R,po,,) 21. NO. OF PAGIS
None 15
20. SICU"ITY CLASS (TI.;6 paPI 22. PFllce
e'A ,- 2220-1 (It... .-77)
-------
~,
~
EPA/ROD/R06-87/022
Gurley Pit, AK - EDD
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
from the pond water by an oil/water separator and drummed and incinerated in a PCB
approved incinerator; excavation and stabilization of pit sludge, sediments and soil.
(Stabilized materials will be held onsite in the pit's north cell); and onsite capping
of stabilized waste. The estimated capital cost for this remedial alternative is
$5,780,000 with annual O&M of $21,000.
..
-------
".
~
~
,.
\,,;
,-
.J
r;
-;
~
.
.'
L
.~ '-.J
J""\O sr.""
(=)
.., .~
., -0'''(..
l''''IT~!:, ~T.",TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"EGION VI
1201 EL."" STIitEET
OAL.L.AS, TEXAS 75270
ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUMENT
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTIO~
Gurley Pit Site
Edmondson, Arkansas
Documents Reviewed
1 am basing ~ decision on tne following documents desc~ibing the analysis
of the cost and effectiveness of remedial a1ternatiyes for the Gurley Pit
sHe:
- Remedial Investigation:
CHZM Hill
- Endangerment Assessment, Gurl~y Oi 1 Pit, Fin~~ R~iJo~t, Aprll 13, 19d6 by
C H 2M Hi 11
Gurlej Oi 1 Pit, F;nal Re~ort, Apri I 18, 1906 by
- Final F~asi~;lity Study, Gurle} Oil Pit, April 18, 1<1j6 'l)j C~2~1 Hill
- Respo'nsiveness Suml:1ary on Puolic Comme"ts
During the RI/FS 'Process
- Summary of Rer.1edialAlternative Selection
In additio" 1 nave discussed the issues involved in this case with my staff
and considered their r~commendations.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The basic selected remedy is in two parts: treatment and discharge of
contaminated water in the pit and stabilization of wast~ sludges and
sedim~nts witn dis~osal of tnem ana contaminated soils in an on-site
landfill. Major points of the remedy are:
1.
An on-site water treatment unit would be built. The unit would include
both physical and cn~mica1 treatment. The resulting water must meet
NPU~S discharge criteria.
2.
Water from t'le pit 'tl/ou'd :>~ tr~atej and dis:h.3qed to 15 "Ii Ie 3a}':>.;, a
nearby streal'1.
3.
Solid C0 .::~'-~~:5 r2moved fr:>rn the water would ~e ais~os2d af wit~
-------
~
..
~
2
4.
Oi 1 re~oved fro~ the water by the oil/water s~parator would be drummed
and incinerated in a PCB approved incinerator. .
Pit sludge, sediments and contaminated soil would be excavated and
stabilized. Stabilized material would be held on-site in the pit's
nortn cell.
5.
6. A RCRA compliant on-site landfill cell would be constructed with an
appro~riate groundwater monitoring system.
7.
Stabilized waste would be placed in the RCRA cell.
8.
Adequate prQvisions for permanent operation, maintenance and monitoring
would be made. This would include limiting site access and maintenance
of protection against flooding.
Declaration
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR
~art 300), I have determined that the selected remedy described in the
preceeding section is a cost-effective remedy tWat~provides adequate
protection of public health, welfare and the environment. The State of
Arkansas has been consulted on the remedy, but did not submit formal
comments. Informal, oral comments by staff of the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology indicated that the State feels that the
selected remedy is too extensive and has too great a financial cost.
q
I have also determined that the alternative selected is a cost-effective
alternative when compared to the other remedial options reviewed. Performance
of the select~A alternative is necessary to protect public health, welfare
and the environment.
/. . (,. I' Arb
Date
-------
~"Io!"'pV OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
':'....-iey Pit, Edmondson, Arkansas
Source Control
Site location a~d Description
The Gurley Pit site is located 1.2 miles north of Edmondson in Crittenden
County, Arkansas. It is on the northwest corner of the intersection of
County Roads 14 ~nd 175. The location is shown in the figure below.
(lU"L.!V
"T IITI
,
'Igur. 1
GURLEY ~'T lITE MAP
I COUNTY "040 U
I
'-\ /!
( I
\ I
\
'"
..
I
I
\
,
\
COUNT Y "0.0 '4
IhT!
HlaHWAY ",
. .8.
'" ~ .'...AY TO ~
/ '-. TO W£ST "h'~HII
/ . . '."8011 . "'L.II)
, ..
I ..
/
/
Q
C
o
(lU"LEY ~
... lOT' ( -. i ~
ITAT[ "'OMWn ",
.~
" .~
""~
~ f',.",
i ""'.'(f' .
. ...~O
I;; ~
.."
~
C
~
.
..
"
..
,
r-
I
a;,,;;o;;H-l
'\ "'~
"c
'''z ; I
---- 0 -
"'. ,.'TUN "IL.l :nou
\
"
The site is located within the floodplain of 15 Mile Bayou, a tributary
of the St. Francis River. The site is surrounded on three sides by
soybean field$. O~ the fourth, Icross County Road 175, Ire two residences.
There are I total of five residences within a half-mile radius of the
site. The town of Edmondson to the south of the site, has around 500
residents. Tr.e s~te consists of a single pit divided into three cells by
earthen dikes. The area is generally flat, sloping gently toward 15 Mile
Bayou.- Tnt'... ..... ..,ree major groundwater aquifers at the following depths:
90 to ~OO feet; 300 to 1125 feet; and 1400 to 1700 feet. The shallow
aquifer is used for irrigation. Area drinking water is supplied by a
private water company from a well in the deep aquifer. The well is
located about two miles south of the site.
-------
~--,.
2
Si te Hi story
Originally the site was a single large pit made when a clay deposit was
excavated for u~~ Q~ construction material. In July, 1970, the Gurley Refining
Company of West Mp~~nis. Arkansas, got a ten year lease from the property
Owner to use the plt for waste disposal. Gurley Refining got a permit to use
the pit for waste disposal from the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology (ADPC&E) in Se~tember 1970. From then until late 1975 Gurley
Refining used the pit to dispose of sludge and filter material from the re-
refining of used motor oil. In December 1975 Gurley Refining returned its
penmit to ADPC&E saying that the waste disposal had stopped and that the site
was secure.
In May 1978 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that overflows from
the pit had damaged fish and waterbirds in the bayou. EPA directed work to
treat and discharge the pit waters. In April 1979 15 Mile Bayou flooded and
innundated the pit. Perhaps as much as 500,000 gallons of oil escaped the
pit into the surrounding fields and down into 15 Mile Bayou. EPA cleaned up
the spill under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. In December 1982 the
site was ~laced on the National Priorities List (NPL). Negotiations to get
. PRP investigation and clean-up failed and in February 1984 an EP~ remedial
investigation was started. This culminated in the Remedial Investigation
Report, Endangerment Assesment, and Feasibility St~di-that were r~leased
Ap ril 18, 19~6.
Current Site Status
"!
The remedial Investigation Showed the pit to be 250 feet wide and 7~n feet
long. The pit is nine feet deep at the edge deepening to 15 feet in the
center. The pit is divided into three cells, north, center and south. (See
Figure 1) The north cell is full of sludge. The center and south cells are
full of water with a one to two foot layer of sludge/sediment on the botto~.
-
Total Waste
Sludge, soil and sediments
Water
Oil
432,000 cubic fe~t
4.1 million gallons
470 cubi c feet
..
Sampling and a"11ys1s of the pit contents show the followin~ major contaminants:
Avera~e level of Major Contaminants
-.'
'" .
'-4
Contaminant
lead
barium
zinc
PC lis
Sludge
(ppm)
14,000
936
l,53U
20
Water
_(ppm)
0.U5
0.04
0.41
ND
Oi 1
(ppm)
80
47
764
28
-------
-". .'
j
~
, .
J.
. .~
3
The sludgec ch~w ~ v~~iQ'y of low levels of other metals and broad contamination
with heavy hYdrocarbons typical of oil wastes. Sediment samples taken in the
drainage di~:~ ~~;~ ~uns from next to the pit down to 15 Mile Bayou Showed no
contaminat~_. ~2;' ~~rings taken a few feet beyond the pit edge also showed
no contaminat~on. The borinys were converted into monitoring wells and
sampled. 1111: "1:01::0 "c=,~ of two different depths, 20 and 50 feet. Analysis
of samples showed low levels of metals and some organics, but no PCBs, in
three of the shallow wells. Judging from the results of the remedial
investigation there has been little vertical movement of the contaminants and
only slow horizontal movement. This is due to the low permeability of the
soil in which the pit lies. Further investigation will be needed to find tne
horizontal extent of the contaminant movement.
The risk for overflows from the pit still exists. The surrounding clay holds
water in the pit and a period of heavy rains could lead to a pit overflow.
The drainage ditch next to the site 1eaas directly to 15 Mile Bayou so any
overflow would have ready access to surface waters. The pit is still fenced,
but remains open. The risk for direct contact with waste either in the pit
or in surrounding areas following an overflow remains. As for receptors,
there are five homes within a 0.5 mile radius of the pit. However, they do
not use the area groundwater as a drinking water supply. The groundwater is
used for irrigation and, should contamination spread to sufficient depth,
plant uptake could become a factor in irrigated areas. Area residents could
be exposed in either occupational (agriculture) .r ~creat1onal (hunting and
fishing) settings. In case of release to 15 Mile Bayou, the Bayou's aquatic
plants and animals would be a receptor.
Enforcement Analysis
There are two PRPs, Gurley Refining and the property owner, Mr. Caldwell.
Gurley Refining has sent in a letter stating that it has liquidated its assets
and is unable to do the work. The letter did not include any support for
this statement. Mr. Caldwell has also submitted a letter stating that he
does not have ~~e resources to pay for the work. Mr. Caldwell has already
won a suit in U.S. District Court holding Gurley Refining responsible for
costs due to p~t releases.
Alt~rnatives Evaluation
The alternltives seek to eliminate the three most probable routes for contaminant
exposure: r.leases due to pit overflow or flooding; movement of contaminants
into the groundwater; and air releases. The alternatives all have two main
parts, disposal of contaminated water and disposal of contaminated solidS.
Offsite disposal of the water was considered, but rejected. There are no
commercial treatment plants or POTWs nearby that are capable of handling the
volume of water involved. As sites further away were considered problems
with transportation and the sheer cost of moving so large a volume of water
rapidly eliminated these options. What remains is onsite treatment with
discharge of the clp.a~ water. This option is readily obtainable. Tne water
contamination consists of heavy metals. These can be removed with available
precipitation. chemical treatment and sedimentation technologies.
-------
,~
4
The following tabie snows the options for handling the sludge, soil and sedim(
(
TABLE 7
SUMMAR Y OF REMEDIAL AL TERNA TIVES
p. ~ '.~ ~DI"l ACTIONS AlTER""TIVE5
1 2A 28 3 ." 48
P'l;o Action .
hc~...~t~ ~/udge. ~oil, ind ~~dlm~nt 8 8 8 8 8
Off~jtP di~pO~il in landfill 8 8
On~it~ di~pO~il in lind!.11 8
Off~it~ inClner ition 8 8
8~ckfill ~.ci"'ited arei ",'itn clean ~oil 8 8 8 8 8
Remo...e ~urface ",.ater and tak~ to ofhite di~po~al fiCiluy . 8
Treat ~urface water on~ite and di~charge into Fifu~en Mile Bayou . . .
Fence ~ite and monitor ground",ater 8
btimlted co~t (in million~) ..0. S12.6 S1.5 S5.8 S28.2 S212
'....
..-
Alternative 1 is the no action alternative. Alternative 2 is offsite disposal
in a landfill. Alternative 3, onsite disposal in a RCRA landfill ce", meets
all releva~t and applicable standards. Alternative 4, offsite incineration,
exceeds those standards. Table 2 presents in full the manner in which the
alternatives were evaluated. Essentially, Alternative 3 meets all the necessary
standards. The no ~ction alternative was eliminated since the potential for
pit overflows or flooding was not ended. Any alternatives between Alternative
3 and no action, such IS capping or stabilizing the waste in place, were
eliminated as we already have evidence of migration out of the pits. Existing
clays are slowing but not stopping migration of the waste. Inquiries about
stabilizing revealed two problems. One was that the high organic content of .
the waste would make 1t vulnerable to degradation by moisture after stabilization
if in fact the stabilization process would be effective on the waste in the
first place. None of the processes evaluated by EPA to date appear able to
prevent this. This .liminated the stabilization and capping alternatives. If
additional migration measures such as sheet pilings or slurry walls were
taken to prevent groundwater intrusion into the stabilized waste the cost was
so close to that of the RCRA cell and the 5urity of the remedy 50 much lower
that we are left with Alternatives 3 and 4. Incineration, Alternative 4, has
the advantage of elimfn~tfon of the waste. Yet the threat from the waste if
placed onsite 1n I RCRA cell is very low. The combination of a properly
constructed and monitored RCRA cell combined with the already low permiability
clay onsite should easily be able to contain the stabilized waste. The large
increase in cost for incineration for a small gain in containment weighed
against incineration. In addition, the waste would have to be transported,
unstabilized to an incinerator. This would increase the danger of exposure
of the pUblic throug~ accidental spills. The combination of high cost and
increased risk to the public eliminated Alternative 4. .
-'
.~
-------
"
''.
At. T(~N:'':'!\'~
A5S'.~ ~ ej
A1Urn'~1ve
1
110 A:tion
An,~~1,j
A1ter"et;ve
2A
St8b11i" s1udge.
co"tl~;n.t'~ 5:,1
.nd sedIment. trl"S-
po"t stl,;1'ze~ -est'
to offs;~e ~:~~ :'s.
Dose1 fa:qH)', r,-;)V!
urflC' Wit''', t"a's-
~o.t to I ~C:~ tr,at.
..nt fe: ; 11 ty.
/
Asse~: 1 ,j
A hlrnlt i v.
28
"
.
St8bili" s1ud9t.
contl~'n8t'd so,1
and Sldi~'"t. t~anl.
po~t stl~ili%lj Wistt
to offsit. ~C~A dis-
posal fIC;!it)'. t~tlt
,,,,,hcI witt,. onSH,.
...
.
j-
ASU-:l,j
A1U""e: h"
3
Stl:~1;Z! slu~;e,
Co"ta~\~!t'~ so,1
11'1= s,:,~"t. d,s::se
in In ons,t, CO"-
struCt': ~:R:' II"d-
1ill, ons,u SUrflce
..,.~ t~..,~..~.
p~ c ~ OC~":"',:E
Poo-
Co":a"!ina"t ~i9"ation
to o~is'te wat,r.
Cou.s,s In: 9.;)u~~-
wit'" '.:e:~,: ove"
I lon;-t,r~ ~'''ic:.
.
Alte""ltiv, "'~v's
was:! e~: t"a~sgo..ts
it to I ~~"t con-
t.ol,,: s;tua~'on,
R'-:.3~ cf -ast!
W~~~~ !~,~~~!~! S:ur:!
of su.fa:! an: ;":~nd.
wat,- conta-'''a:'o",
Pu:liC he.l:" Ind
,"vl.:'-e.t wo~ld
b, ~rote: te:.
.
Same IS 2A 'IC'Ot
surf I:! wlt,r would
be t~'ltl~ onsitl
an~ diSt:hlrg.~.
.
Sta:i11aj ..ast,
.o~~: be ,.:...:,:
In: ~;SO:s!: '1'1 I"
onsit, RCR:. lln~(ill.
Should Id!a~lt,ly
control th' r,1'IS'
,..1 "."8P"''''IIC "'.t~.
TA3LS 2
TECHPlIC~ EVA~U:'-!:J~ II\toTRIX
(Pig, 1 of 2)
AtL.l AE! ~ ITY
o
Not Agpnclble
.
Ste~;l;%ltion t'ch..
niQ~!S for this wISt..
hlv, h'9h r,l,a:,lity -
In: have d~o~st.ated
In: o..:ven ~e"for-
m a":! .
.
Sam, IS 2A elc'Dt
ptrsonn,' .auld b.
r'QJirld to OPt~ltl
the onsitl trlltmlnt
ht:i1ity. Ofts1tt
tr'ltm,nt flcility
his p~ov,n ~,~ilbi1-
ft1 and perfo~anCI.
o
R'Qui~,S D,.io~ic
ope~I:'on I~d me'n-
t,~.nce. RCAA llnd..
fills. hlv, b"n p~ov.n
r,'ilbl, in the fi,ld.
SurflC' .It'~ tr'lt..
~t hiS proven to
...:
TEC~~;I :Al
I I'P~E!'!~ f;~ ~a: ~ ITY
..
rlsies: 11:!-n'tiv,
to imp 1 fI!I,r:t.
o
Cons t ~uct i 0'1 Cln
be" ICC:)-:' i sh.d
with mO~!.lt' effort.
Nea~b)' .'si~ences
Inc the sit"s lOCI"
t i 0" in t h, 10:)
11'- flo~~ pllin
wi" cluse CO""
strlinh. This
U" b, ove.::ern,
by d'teil,~ e~oj'ct
II 11"" i n~. Imp l8!1,n..
tit ion sn:~1c be
com~l'te~ .ithin
one 111r.
o
S~ IS 2A. Con-
st~u::tion Cln b.
..s;l, Iccom;lished
11though the fl::;l.
1ty WOw1d rtQuir.
prou:tio" frorr.
the 100 1.lr flood.
Alte"n,:iv, ~'Q~;"es
on, yea. o. 10nge~
to im~1e~e~:. Tne
RCRA lln:f,1l wou1d
~'au;r. I ~od.rat.
.ffort to construct.
SA~~TY
..
No conS:"uction
reQuI.ed.
.,a"by ~eS1de":,s
wi 11 tie Iffecte~
by CO"structlon
Ictivities. [yen
w'th c,re~ul pla~.
nin;. st-i"ge~t
slfe:)' oroce~~~es
will be ne:essa.y
for wo"r," Ind nel"-
by resident
prottc:tion.
Slm, IS ZA 'Iceet
sligh:ly l,ss dis~uo-
tion of neigh~o"hood
due to less t"ucr
trlffic becluse
su,.facf wlte. would
not b' transoo.:ed
offsitt.
Sa~' as ,2~ 'I:~::
t'~e .f:.'.': :~
;mo~e-e-: ,,~~,~
b, 10";e. ",:- in-
cr,as,: o::,-::a:
-------
ALTERN':'~IVE
AUe'!!~ 1.:1
Alt,rnl: he
U
[Ielvlt, s1udge. eon-
tl~1nlttd SOil Ind
S'diment. trlns~~rt
offsite to I RCRA
permitted 1ncin'~ltor.
lurflce wlte~ r'~~vll,
trlns~ort In~ t~e!t-
..nt It I RCR.:. fl:ilty.
Asse-~ 1.~
A 1 tenet 1 ve
CB
helvltt s1udo,.
contl~1nat'~ sC11
Ind S'dim,r.t. trlns-
port Off site to I
.CRA perm1tted incin-
,rltOr, O"Sit. surflce
.IUr trIUIII'~:,
,:j
~
In situ Itlbi1izltian
~f s1udg.; SUTflct
..ter tr..tment or
I"tIIIOv11; 1nlt81h:10ft
Of I .CRA CIP (not
'wllult,d fn d'tli1).
...
--
PE RF OR MAN CE
.
Incinerltion is I
proven metl'\~:1 ~,
destroy some 111:1r-
dous wlste constit-
uents. residues from
fnci".~ltion mly
reQuir, dis~osll
It I RCR~ flcility.
P,rf'~."ce il I
prov.n Ind commer-
cillly IVlillbl.
t.cM"ology. SurflC'
.Iter removll end
treltment It I RCRA
fl:11ity is I prOv,n
te:~~:logy.
.
SI~e IS 14. SUrfl:e
w.t!~ trel~e-t on.
site is I co~er-
cil11, Ivailabl.
Ind dt~o~strIUd
t"IInOlogy.
-
Stlbil1zItion wou1d
be blind. '.11 .ISt,
..t,rill may not
b, stabiliz'd. Wast.
..:.rf.' coulJ 1..ch
to grou"dwK,r.
6
TABLE 2
TECHtIICAL EVA;'UA710.. ~~iiIX
(Pig. Z of Z)
RELlAS:UTY
Inc 1 ner-u ion hc i1 1-
ti,s require eonstl"t
atter-t1Oft by IIig~ly-
trlined p.~sonn.l.
Reliability Is proven
and well .staoI1sl1.d.
Surface .Iter removal
and tr'lt~ent MIS
high reliability.
Sim. IS IA
"Quir.S ~iodic
.Iint.nlnc.. Qu.stion-
.ble r.1iability due
to lack of lin,r and
"'C"'ltl co11.:tion/
d't.ction system.
:fer to ApP.~~il 8 for discuSSio" on The EYlluation Matril Crit.ria
TE : ~i! :A:.
I!9LEME'\r A2::. ITY
Offsite flcilities
are IVlillble but
cost mlY b. l1igl'\.
Offsit. facilities
tllit Cln tr.at wlste
tlat'~lIl IIIly be
limited. ASI! r.Si-
due would r,Quire
d~soosll It I RCRA
"eility. Incin,rl-
tion of th, wlSt.
.lteril1 would tlk.
IIv.rll yUrs.
"~
S l1li. IS IA
Alter-nltiv. cou1d
be impltmented in
1 to Z yurs.
J-
SAr E TY
hClvatio" will
r'Qw1r. string.nt
Slf.t, P~oc.dur.s.
S 1/11, IS IA
-------
~
7
. -.
_.", ..
Community Re;a:~c~~
COlTITIUnity COII~E:rn Dt!yona residents in the irmediate pit area is very low.
Statements ~... - ~ i t residents and by the mayors of Edmondson and
surrounding cormunities expressed a desire for any action so long as it solved
the pit problem. Tnere was no specific Support or opposition to any alternative
except fro~ ~~o ooo~ ~~ their representatives.
,.
(:
Consistency with Other Environmental Laws
Major environmental laws impacted would be: RCRA standards for construction,
maintenance, closure and monitoring of hazardous waste sites; Clean Air Act
and National Ambient Air Quality Standards for emission of pollutants to the
air; Toxic Substan=es Control Act regulations for PCB disposal; NPDES,
Federal Water Quality Criteria and Executive Orders for Flood Plains and
WetlandS as they apply to discharges to surface streams; and finally, Department
of Transportation and RCRA requirements for the transport of hazardous
substances. The no action alternative violates all of these requirements.
The remaining four alternatives could meet all of them. The offsite disposal
and incineration alternatives both exceed the requirements for RCRA
disposal and closure. The reconmended alternative, treatment and discharge of
the pit water and onsite disposal of the sludge, sediments and soil in a RCRA
cell, meets all of the relevant and applicable standards.
\
,
.'
Recommended Alternative
.
Table 3, the Final Evaluation Matrix, compares each of the alternatives,
including number 3 the recommendea a1terna~ive, for re1iaOility, cost and
public healtn conc@rns. The no action alternative fails to protect the public'
health or the environment. The oftsite incineration alternative costs tour
times as much as the recommended alternative with only minor improvements in
protectiJn. Disposal in an offsite landfill would provide the same level of
reliability and protection of public healtn and the environment as the
recommended alternative, but would expose the public to greater riSk
during transport of the material to the offsite landfill and would be 1.7
million dollars more expensive. A mention will be made here of the alternative
of stabilizin~ th~ waste in place and using a RCRA cap. This alternative was
screened out before the final evaluation stage and is mentioned here only to
satisfy the requirement for an alternative that fails to meet relevant and
applicable standards. The stabilization processes evaluated to date will not
pass RCRA tests for stabilization since the organic content of the waste is
so high. Degredation of the stabilized waste with subsequent migration
offsite could Occur due to contact with area groundwater. This alternative
fails to protect the public and fails to meet relevant and applicable standards.
The only way it would not fail would be the introduction of a new stabilization
process that could demonstrate compliance with relevant and applicable standards.
A breakdown of the costs associated with the recommended alternative has been
provided in Table 4. The major components of the capital costs are 1 million
dollars for construction of the RC~A landfill cell, 5370,000 for stabilization
of the waste, 1 mii1ion for backfilling of the excavated area and construction
of flood protection, and S600,OOO for onsite treatment of contaminated water.
Annual operatic~ a~= ~aintenance is expected to cost S21,OOO. This includes
annual groundwater monitoring, maintenance of the monitoring wells, cell cap,
and the flood protection.
"
".
-------
.1~
v
8
Operation i1_r.,~ Maintenance
Pennanent. .,..: ;.:'." ;-,J maintenance would be requir~d with the recolTl11ended
alternative. As t~e alternative includes a RCRA landfill cell, the RCRA
requi remen I.;) 'u, QIIIIUQ'I groundwater man i tori ng waul d have to be met. Th i s
will require the annual sampling of one upgradient and three downgradient
monitoring wells with analysis for specified contaminants. In addition to
the sam~li~g and analysis, routine maintenance of the physical aspects of the
remedy would be necessary. The ca~, flood control structures, site fence,
and monitoring wells will have to be maintained. Any plan for implementation
of the selected remedy must include provisions for penmanent operation and
maintenance of the site. The responSible parties will be responsible for
both payment and performance of the operation and maintenance.
Futu re Act ions
A second operable unit covering groundwater migration will be needed. This
will involve an investigation to dp.termine the extent of horizontal migration
of the contamination.
As mentioned in the operation and maintenance section, long term monitoring,
operation and maintenance of the site will be required bj the recommend~d
a1t:rnative. ~
-
'\
f
"'i
tj
j\,
-------
TABLE 3
FINAL EVAlUATION MATRIX
Page
1 0' 2
"[..Pi '''_d_ '''' CI'.-'
-- -- -
\8011,- .... 'M-II" ..."., WII-
-"-II. ..--. .U....".. --......"'" WI" ([.."... ..". ""..,,". 18111"'- "Ie -.. -.. till' [011 1811
. . . . .
.. . .. .. . - - -
'.-a.. a,_,.. 1
.. ..". - ... ......... .."... ."-he . c........ ... ...,..... ,ff. ..... ...... ......".. ..... ......,. .. -
(e.....- ........ .. ......... -..... .-., ...... I"'. .". -. ...1"'" I..
t. ....... ...-... .. ...,.- ...,. .. ....1, .... I". ..... .-.
.... .., ... ...... _. ... .. ..- ..... 11- .........
..... '8f8C'" ..er ... .-.. 1.- ,......... ......
. hot.... -,... -.. ..... ,....., .". ,...
,..1..... I. _.
.......... ....
.. ......... f,.
.... ... .-.
-.. .........
. ' . . '".''' III.'" .
. . II - . .
'"'''''' ..--,...
......... ....... - ........... ..-. .......... ,.. .......... r-.t....... ...,...,...... r..,..... ..... ,....,-....... "" ,.-... ......". ....".
'"'''''' .... ... ...It ... If ..,..I. . ,., I." -.,.. .... .. ......'ft... ... .... ........ ..,.. .", ......., ...... -'" .. _N -. - .-, II ...,
It''''''. "....., .. I. . .... ... .,.. """"'" ... _01. ."... .. C_h...,. ..... ."......... ."'. ....... "'8O" ... - .......... ...,-, "'"
.......... ...,t. I. ....... ,tl....... .... -....,.. .. ..... ......... "..,- 1- .... ... ....... ...... ...,. -..". ".. _N .. ... '''''',,''''.
."'''' ... ,-,....a ....... .. ..,t. ..- -'_. ... ... ,...', f8C\o ,...,., "-'''' ",,,.... 10. ,- .." .. - -. ... ....... ::L':.",:':::'.
'.""'. w,... ... ..... ,...,..,. "'18 II. .. ,.. .. .... .,.,..... ,...t, .,n .. ....,.. ,.. ... ..... .. ..-.. 01 .
... .t... ... ...... .. ..... ... ....... "" ,.... .,,, ,...,..... .... .. - c....."..... ~::r-:::'::::: ,........ ,....... 'fl' It. ....,.
-. II . ... ...... .."w ......,...... .....t c......''',. ...,...., .. ....... '- .e". ..... .,. .. ''''-
- ,.....,. ,....C ....,. ... ,.,. I" .. .....- ... ...., ..,..... .. ....1... ....... .. ... ,'.. ...,.. .... ..
.......... _I. ., ....... ....... ..-,...- -" ... - ...... .....,. ..-...
.. ......... "-'''- ...,- ''''h..U.. ...
""" ...... .. . ........... .,n
.-..... ...... .. ....... ... ..
- ..... .... e ... ......
.... ..It.. e....,
...".. .," .....
.-.-.... .,....
-- ..........
. . . - . . . . ".'. II." .
......... ........... .
"....,.. .....,. C- .... II .. ,...,. t- II III "C'" .... .- II III. f..._. .-.,.. ,.... '-II. ... II . ",. ..._,... '-Ie.
".'''''. ..II .. ...... ..." .... ...... ..... ... . ...'w" ......... ....., ,....." e... .,.... _II .... ,n
In! "''''. ,. "" -, .. .,..... ...,.. .. .,...., ... ...,.. .. ._".... ."....... ...... .....-- -""'" .... ,I .
...." h.. ...,. .. .. ."....... "",,,., ''''''". ..... h.lltI, ..... ... I. .,.. ..",.. ... ,.... "'''''.
."...,1(...., ,...1 ..,... ..,......, '..:n. .,..". ......... ...If II '" ,." -_. ...1 ....,.. 'MI.
...., .. ".., ....... ::r.:;,.::.e;::.=.. Io- ,.. .. .... .... ..t., ...141 """" . ....,
-.. -,... ,..... .., .. "-'" ""'"'' -...
..,..... ,.. ,...,.. -,..
..... .".....
_te w...'" _.
..... .......
'--------
J
l
,
.-tft:- - -
,-
..~ t-l
f
--
-------
FINAL
UATION MATRIX
Page 2 of 2
ft[.'UL '''_If. IIMr ""-,
---
'-'.ff" ......... ,.n..r .If.."" --
...-... ft-""" In II.."" 11ft...""" ...If. 11.."."u..., .... ..".. .''''111'''' "1[ .. hi _'" "". [0\1 [I"
. I . - - I . . 16.'" II." "'
......,.. ..._U.. .
1....",. ......... c.. ...."".. ...,. ....,... ... ''''e _. ........,.. -"" 1- .. II ...... ,... h'...,.. .n. ... I..'.. -If...... ..,....u...... ..,.... .. .....
-.-..'" I." ... ...1' .. ,.(..,1.. .... ... -,.......... ... ,t" 8# '...., ........ I. ...,..... f'.,,,. """"'. ."'8 ."'1"'" .., .[.. .It. ....,.... ...t.
'''....'. .It,... I. ... "",,,. I. .. '(1. ,......... .... ,. ...,._,. ,.. _It .. ...... .... I" ...". ...1. I. ...,..... .Ita ...,.,,,.- - .,.., . ....,..
.. ..tll. ....,u.c.. ..".. .... ,..."11. te.. ...... r.",.', ... ._,,, -.. he.,.... .....11.1 ""'. .... ''''811 .C.. ......"... .. ","'" .. ...... '-"".
It' '(1' ''''''". ,....I' 8ft..,."" I. ... "... ...1.. ....,... ....... .. .-.... ...u ....". h... ,... .... -,t.... . ..,.... ,"".1... ..,..
...... ._f.. ...... ......., ... .,1.... ..-,,, ,......., ... ..,.. II ....,..... ......, .1 ......... .-cl ... "..... I... '1 """
......... II ......... ..... ,..... .. .. ......... .....,..... It ..... ..,.. .......... ....-.. ..11.
,..... .11-... ....... .. ,. ..... .... .. ...."'" -".. f... .........
II -.".... ,... .-c .... 'II - ....,.. ........ .. .-.....
... ..It. ,.... ...,_. .. c.........
fIll. 81'''-. ..U .......
.... "''''''.
" -.. ..w -...
I."'.'''.
. .. - .. I . . . lit." lit... .
...-... .,-,.... .
I.f...'. "::r-. c.. ,. ,_tl'" " . ...-.... f....- """. .. "'Un 'M_'" ..It ... ..... ...... ... ..... ... .c" ... .. "". .... "'. ........ ,..
...,..,...., ... ....... ee.'" I. "" ,...". c...'" 8f. ,.,...... ... .'" ......... ....., ,..... .... ..,... ..,.. ,.. ... _. .""... ,.. .., -If ....11 ,.
"''''.'. "........ ....., .... ...... ,'h."" ., .''''''- ell' .., .. .,,,,. ..-.,. I'" .., 81:.." ..... ,.. ..,.. .. .. .. -.... ...." .. ..,I.
."'''. I. . 8(" ..,. .... .u., c-...,. ,..1... ..,....... .."". ,...11.... .... ............ ''''.''. ,... .,.. .. ... ,....... .",".1. '"''
."", ,.,-.,...... ...11. ..".... ,... .''''''''1, It ....... ,... e.. ,.... ""8 ... ................ .-,....... I... I"".'"'' 10.. """..
,......., ..,.., ......,1. ''''''.'''. ...1' ... ..II ,,'''1'''''. ..It. '.1 .., .. I'" ,..... ,,,. It t- ...... .. ..- -...." ...11. .. e.. .,."..
""1"'. ... h'". ....". ,....... ""'.... ..,... ,--..1 ,.... ... ...,.... .. ...twe.. .". ... ...... ..,... ..e.. .-.., ... .-.. .
-, .. . 11M '."".. ... .r.. ..11.... ... ,........., "I ..... ~...,.. ..,. c....., .'''''''. .. .. -.-.. I.... "'''-'' .".. .-...
r",...... " . .... """''''.' ...., .. . ... '1(11. ,... ...,..,..... .... 1Mt. "",,,,_.
...... ... c..-.'. .". '.'"'''''' .. ,... ...........
c',", ...n.... .. ,.. .11. -..,.. ... .. .-...
".."'",. ""'" -.. ,... -., .... II ..... ........
..It. ...... ... II.'.
,........, .. . .(..
....It, '. . ,,-
,..-....
. - - .. I . . . ....- 111.- .
......,.. .._,.. .
'U..... It..... --'1--- ,-.... ""1(. '-..- '-..- ....- :..., """e -.. ..... 1- .. 11. "'1 ....-
..,... .... .... ...,. ..t... ........, .. k ........ ~" ...... ......---.
8.4'. ,........., ....... a'"~ It . c....... ,... .... .'Ih", -.. _. II It
'. . 8(,. ......... c ..U, ..,....., .. ... f... ..ur ... .., ''''lIe
.. ,.......... ...... ... ....... .t..... ... .1. ... .. .,. ..... .....-
,..... ...- ......... ,,,,,,,,,,. ...~. .. --.. ... """".
.... .U""" -...
.-,.,... "',,".
-
- -. . . . . - .
,- .... .......,.~.. """'10"" -.. .,..1... ,.. ''''e .. "...U.. ..If I_Hit 1- II . '"-... .... .... ... - ....... .. .....
.. .,...... ,..,... .. I"" .U ...,. .,"U"..'. e-..'- It ....-.,.. .. II.. ,., _II It - '..... II. -.. .. .......
..... ,........, - -.,...18' .., ., .a" ., II.." II, .... I .. . ,..... ..,.....,. -.,.. ... ... .'Ie'......
..-e..I. t.......... .. ""'''''''. ..... ,. t... I' II..... ... ,...... I' It"
.1 I '(1. el' I.., -..., h. ...1. ...... ........ ,,"""., -.. ... .....,..
...,...... ,. ......,. ,. ..-,... ........ ".,... '" .... M""
_I. .. ....,....
.(
~
\
~
I
... . ''-~1
-------
~
TABLE 4
- .
COST ESil~~T: S~~~y
AA.3 STA5:~IZE SLUDGE, CO~T~~I~ATE~ SOIL ANC SE'r~~s~
01SPCSr IN AN ONSliE CO~ST~UCTr~ RCAA LANOFILL
ONSITE SURFACE WATER TREATMtNT
CON STR:J:TI ON
COST COMI)O~:'IT COST
1. Site Prep.rltion
Construction 0' RCRA
Facility 1.000,000
2. EIClvltion, Stlbit1zltion
and Ptlc'm@nt into RCR~
'ac1t1ty 370.000 '
3. IIckfi11 Elclv.tion 1.000.000
.. ~1tor1ng Networt I Fence 90.000
5. Surlac, w.ter Trutllltflt 600.000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 3.060.000
Nobitizltion, 80nds.
Insu"I!'\Ct (51) 15C.~::!
He.lt~ Ind Sifety (71) Z10,OO~
8;~
Contin;en:i,s (151) .60,:100
Sco~,
Contingenc1,s (201) 61:.000
CO~STRUCTION TOTAL C,.9~,ooO
"ermi tt i n9 Iftd
Lega t (101) C50,OOO
ServictS Dur1n9
Construction ('" 310.000
TOTAl. IMPLE~HTATIOP\ COST 5.250.000
tn91neerin9 OiS19" 530.000
Cost (101)
TOTAl. CAPITAl. COSTS 5.780.000
AMu.1 01.. Colt.
..p1ac'8Ift' 'ost.
. TOTAl. !'IEStIlT _TNI
' .,
NfN~:';'
O&~ REI)~CEM!N! COST-
-ill! 30 60 90
10.000 1.000 ,ooOb 1.00::,000 1.000.000
o 15I0.ooc 110.000 1510.000
o IOO.OOOd 800,000 800.000
1.000 1O.000(e) 10.000 10.000
o 0
16.000
~. .. -
12'
I, 00: , 00
190. OO~
800 . 00:
10 .OO(
Z.OJO
3.000
21.000
2.100.000
1.120.000
2.100,000
2.100,000
6.130,000
2,100,000
6,130,000
1,130,000
'Totl' pres,nt warth costs I,.. defined IS the clpit.1 costs, present wart~ of t~, rep1'c~'"t costs, Ind O"'s.~t
worth of the .nnul1 O&~ 'Ip,ns,s It 10 perc,nt int,rtst .t 30. 60, 90 Ind 120 yt.rs, T~t uniform pr'Sent -art"
factors used ..r, 9..27, 9.967, 9.998, Ind t.ttt. The s1ng1, p'~ent present wort~ fl:tors us,~ -ere 0.OS73.
0.0033, 0.0002, Ind 0.00001.
--
bT~1S cost 1nc:tw~es c:o~S~"w~~ion of . ne- onsitt RCR~ rlCi1ity.
CThiS cost includes 0' 'I:ay.tio~ Ind pl.crmtnt 0' cont.min.t,d w.st, ~.tt"i.ls in I ne. O"Sit! RCRA 'a:i1;~y.
'This cost fnc1uded ff111ng, S~'o;ng, .nd s'edin9 It prey;ous sit,.
eThfS cost fnc1udtd 1nstlt11tion of . new ground-.t,,. monitoring system.
------- |