United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency ana
Remedial Resoonse
EPA/P.CD/R07.36/006
Seoiemoer-S86
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Ellisville Site Area, MO
-------
.
~
TECHNICAl. REPORT DA T). I
iP!eau ~e!1(J hr:r./ClIof!! Of! me ~e"er!e :;e(ore co,""iUIf!~/
1. FIIEPORT NO. /2, ;J,"IEC:P'EI'oT'S ~CC;SSi':;N '<0
EPA/ROD/R07-86/006 I I
.. TITl.i ANO SUSTITl.i 15, FIIEI'OFH OATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION I ~"'nr"'mber?g 1986
Ellisville Site Area, MO r' PE~FOFlMINCi OFlG"'NIZATION COOE
(Second Remedial Action)
7, AuTHOR«SI 18. i>EFIII'OFlM.NCi QFllCi"'NIZATION FIIEI'OFH ,'<0
9. I'EFlI'ORMING ORG..a.NIZATION NAME 4NO' ..2IOOFIESS 110. PFlOCiFlAM !H.EMENT "'0.
111, CONTRACT/GRANT ,""0.
I
12. SPONSOA'NG AGENC)' NAME ANO AOOAESS 13. T),I'E OF FlEPORT ANO PER,OO CO\lEFilEO
0.5. Environmental Protection. Agency J;';"-,,1 ROD Reoort
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
Washington, D.C. 20460 .-, 800/00
15. SUl"l"\.EMeNTAAY NOTES
18. ASSTRACT
The Ellisville Site Area, located in West St. Louis County, Missouri, is composed of
three non-contiguous properties: the Rosalie property; the Callahan property; and the
Bliss property. The Rosalie and Callahan properties were the focus of the July 1985
first remedial action. This second remedial action focuses on the Bliss property and
four contiguous properties: the Dubman and Weingart property; the Primm property; the
Wade and Merchantile Trust Company property; and the Russell, Evelyn and Jerry Russell
Bliss property. Land use in the site vicinity consists of rural, recreational and
rapidly developing residential areas. Approximately 1,000 people currently live wi thin
a one-mile radius of the site. During the 1960s and 1970s, Russell Bliss owned and
operated the Bliss Waste Oil Company, a business engaged in the transportation and
disposal of waste oil products, industrial wastes and chemical wastes. The company's
headquarters and operating facilities were located at the site. ' In September 1980 the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the 0.5. EPA conducted an onsite
investigation~ Concluding reports indicated pits had been dug and used for industrial
waste disposal; drums of waste had been buried on site; and liquid wastes had been
applied on the ground. The types of waste were reported to include solvents, oils,
pesticides, and can coating materials. Dioxin is currently the only contaminant of
(See Attached Sheet)
17, J(EY WOROS ANO OOCUMeNT ANAI.VSIS
a. oeSC:RII""ORS b.IOENTIFIEI'IS/OPEN ENOEO TERMS C. COSATI FIeld/Group
Record of Decision
Ellisville Site Area, MO
(Second Remedial Action)
Contaminated Media: soils
Rey contaminants: dioxin, organics
18. OISTRlsuTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CL.ASS I Tills R,pon/ 21. /110. 01' PACiES
None 86
20. SECURITY CL.ASS IT/lis pOtWl 22. PRICE
None I
1'-
!JlA ,- 2220-1 (It... 4-711
IOIIICVIO,US 1101 TIO" 1 S 08S01..IITC
-------
\,\€.o sr...,.
~~ !'.$'
, It. .~
? .
\~4~
<"~ .,!
~.( ,""Olto"
SfP Z 9 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VII
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 6610i
Aporova 1 of Recommended.A It erna t ive
Ellisville Area Site
Bliss and Contiguous Properties'
David A. Wagoner 1f).It rl dl;-: /J&~/-v
Director, Waste ~ana~r!nt \)1Vr~ion {/
Morri s Kay J .
Regional Administrator
On July 8, 1986, you were delegated the authority' to.se1ect the
remedial action for the E11isvi11e Area site. I recommend that. you
approve the recommended alternatives and sign the attached Record of
Decision.
The Remedial Investigation conducted between December 1982 and
February 1983 identified the following hazardous waste problems:
buried drums, tanks a~d other debris; buried uncontainerized hazardous
wastes; contaminated soils and sediments; and 50i15 and dust contaminated
with 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The recommended alternative for the dioxin-contaminated
soil and material is interim onsite storage in a building-enclosed
container storage facility. Interim onsite storage is recommended as an
operable unit of remedial action. Final remedy for the dioxin contamination
has not yet been selected. The recommended alternative for both buried
drums and uncontainerized hazardous wastes is offsite disposal at a RCRA
permitted or interim status facility.
The remedial investigation and feasibility study reports and the
recomme.nded alternatives'were presented to the community during a public
comment period and at a public meeting on March 26, 1986. Comments received
during the public participation process demonstrated a general consensus.
on the recommended alternatives. Major concerns raised by the public
included the need to restrict access to the site, and to expedite cleanup
activities at the site.
Our development and selection of the recommended alternatives included
the assistance of and coordination with Regional Counsel, CDC, Environmental
Services Division, RCRA Branch, Public Affairs, Congressional and
Intergovernmental Liaison, Office of Ground Water Protection, and the
Air Branch. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has concurred
on the recommended alternatives.
Attachment
-------
Record of Decision
Remedial Alt~rnative' Selection
SITE
Ellisville Area Site:
Bliss and Contiguous Properties
St. Louis County, Missouri.
DOCUMENTS REVIE~ED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents describing
the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Bliss and
Contiguous Properties at the EllisvilTe Area site.
- Onsite Storaqe Focused Feasibility Study, Bliss and Contiquous
Properties, Ellisville. Missouri; February 1986.
- Remedial Feasibility Study, Ellisville Hazardous Waste Disposal
Site. Ellisvi11e, Missouri; September .28, 1983.
- Remedial Investiqation, Ellisville Hazardous Waste Discosal Site,
Ellisvi11e, Missouri; September 21, 1983. . .
. .
- 1gentification of Alternatives. El1isville Hazardous Waste
Disposal Site. Ellisville, Missouri; November 12, 1982.
-' Descriction of Current Situation, Ellisville Hazardous Waste
Disposal Site. Ellisville. Missouri; August 30, 1982.
- Summary of Remedjal Alternative Selection.
- Recommendation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
- Memorandum from ATSDR/CDC to EPA regarding health assessment.
- Staff sunrnar1es and recolTll'1endations.
- Responsiveness Summary.
DESCRIPTiON OF SELECTED REMEDY
. T~eselected remedy for the operable unit for the 2,3,7,8-TCOD
contamlnated soils and materials includes the following major components:
- Excavation and containerization in semi-bulk sacks of 2,3,7,8-TCDO
contaminated soils and material exceeding one part per ~illion (ppb).
-------
3
I have also determined that the action being taken is appropriate,
when balanced aaainst the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other
. sites. In addifion, the offsite tr~nsport, destruction, treatment, or
secure disoosition of buried wastes and contaminated soils are more
cost-effective than other remedial actions and are necessary to protect
public health, weifare or the environment. ..
The State or E?A will undertake an additional feasibility study to
evaluate final remedial action for the dioxin wastes. A Record of Decision
will be prepared for approval of the future remedial action.
9- 2- 7- Vb~~.
Date
.~rL<'~
M ri ay , '!
Regional Administrator
Region VII, EPA
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Ellisvil1e Area Site
81'iss and Contiguous Properties
--,
. J '
1/ /;
---
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
September 29. 1986
-------
SUMMARY UF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
. . . . . . . - , . .
CONTENTS
PAGE
Site Location and Descri~tion
1
2
5i te Hi story
Enforcement
3
7
Current Site Status
Alternatives Evaluation.
7
13
Community Relations
Consistency Witn Other Environmental Requirements
Recommended Alternative
14
15
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Schedule
21
22
Future Actions
22
Attacl1ments
-------
ATTACHMENT iF
1a
1b
--.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'13
. 14
15
16
17
LI~T OF ATTACHMENTS
TITLE
Location Map
v; c.; ni ty Map
Si te Map
Summary of Sample Results
from Early Investigations
Sampling Locations
Summary of Waste Problems
Offsite Sampling Map
Summary of Compounds Detected
Summary of Health Effects
and PriJperties
Suaunary of FS Technologies
FS Development of Alternatives
Summary of FS Alternatives
Evaluation
FS Program Options
Summary of FFS Alternatives
Evaluation
Summary of FFS Alternative
Costs
-Responsiveness Summary
MDNR Concurrence Letter
Total Project Costs
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDiAL ALTERNATiVE SELECTION
Ell i svi1l e Area Si te:
Bliss and Contiguous Properties
St. Louis County. Missouri
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.
The Bliss and Contiguous Properties site is located in west St. Louis
County, Missouri; in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 45 North.
Range 4 East. The site, adjacent to the western corporate boundary of the
City of Ellisvi1le. is approximately 20 miles west of downtown St. Louis.
(Attachment la & Ib). The site is comprised of the 11.56-acre Jerry Russell
Bliss property (herei1'\after referred to as "the Bliss property") located at
149 Strecker Road. and four contiguous properties: the Dubman and Weingart
property to the east; the~Primm property to the west. the Wade and Mercantile
Trust Company property to the northwest; and the Russel', Evelyn and
Jerry Russelt Bliss property to the south (Attachment 2).
Land use. in the site vicinity is a mixture of residential, rural and
recreatio~al. The area around the site is rapidly being developed as a
residential community. Residential areas lie just to the north, east and
south. with small rural properties to the west. A subdivision north of
the Mid-America Arena ov~r1ooks the site. Adjacent to the subdivision is
Quail Woods Park with a'bike path less than 100 feet from a known fill
area on the Oubman property. The population within a one-mile radius of
the site is approximately 1,000. Within a three-mile radius, the population
includes about 5,000 people.
Tne developed portion of the site lies in the central leg of a relatively
flat "Y" shaped val1ey with hillside slopes which vary from 25 to 50 percent.
The developed portion consists of four general areas: the Mid-America
Arena and parking area, the riding ring area, the northeast fill area, and
the northwest fill area. Structures onsite include two occupied residences,
house trailers, a large indoor horse arena and stables, barns. garages
and silos. The site is located in an upland area underlain by limestone
bedrock which exhibits high water permeability along solution-enlarged
joints. A tributary of Caulks Creek drains the property to the northwest.
Caulks Creek is a tributary of Bonhomme Creek. which enters the Missouri
River about one mile upstream of a City of St. Louis waterworks intake.
Generally, there is ground water recharge on and adjacent to the site.
The site is not in a designated floodplain. but flooding of the creek
draining th~ site is likely during periods of heavy rains due to rapid runoff.
. The Bliss property consists primarily of alluvial flat and colluvial
slopes. Earth grading has created relatively flat areas and altered drainage.
The surface is underlain by about three to ten feet of silty clay. Soils
on the Bliss property are reported to have moderate permeability. The depth
to bedrock is about 10 to 15 feet. Based on information for wells in the
Bliss property vicinity, the ground water table elevation is estimated to be
-------
3
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The remedial investigation was conducted by Black and Veatch under
contract to EPA between December 19B2 and February 1983. A site reconnaissance
was first conducted on the Bliss and contiguous properties on December 20 and
22, 19~2, to evaluate site- ai r quality and radioactivity, to observe and
photograph site conditions and drainage. and to identify sampling locations. An
organic vapor analyzer (OVA) was used to determine organic vapor concentrations
i/1 the ambient air at the site. No organic vapor levels above background
concentrations were det.ected. A Geiger-Muller counter was used to identify the
presence of near-surface radioactive materials on the site. No radiation levels
above background were observed.
Following the site '~.econnaissance. three geophysical surveys were conducted
using a terrain conductivity mete~, a magnetometer, and a metal detector. Seven-
teen suspect waste disposal locations were identified. The presence of buried
metallic objects was evaluated at thirteen of the seventeen locations.
A soil sampling program was performed which included power borings made by
a drill rig and hand auger borings. Borings were conducted outside and within
the perimeter of the suspect waste disposal locations. The locations of sample
areas and bori ngs are presented in Attachment 4. A total of 76 soi 1 samples were
obtained. In addition to soil samples, three. surface sediment samples were
obtained from creek channel "A." Three surface water samples were also
obtained from creek channel "A." Three ground water samples were obtained
from soil borings at three of the seventeen disposal locations.
5011 and dust samples were also obtained from inside the Mid-America Arena
located on the Bliss property. The arena had been used for horse shows, indoor
horse riding, and as a garage for the waste oil tank trucks of the Bliss Waste
Oi 1 Company.
Air quality monitoring was conducted during the sampling program to assess
the air quality in work areas and to obtain data to evaluate the effect of
remedial measures involving soil excavation on the ambient air quality. This
monitoring was conducted using an OVA and organic vapor monitor badges. At the
completion of the site investigation. several badges were selected for chemical
analysis. Badges were selected based on the organic vapor concentrations
observed during sampling using the OVA and the spatial distribution of the
sample collection points. The air sample concentrations for priority pollutant
compounds, non-priority pollutant compounds, and tentatively identified
compounds.were less than Occupational Safety and Health Administation
pennissibleexposure limits.
In summary, the RI identified the following general hazardous waste related
problems: 1) buried drums, tanks, and other debris' 2) buried uncontainerized
hazardous wastes. 3) contaminated soils and sediments; 'and 4) soils and dust
contaminated with 2.3.7.8-TCDO (Attachment 5).
Ten of the suspected waste disposal locations had positive metal detector
readings, indicating the presence of buried metals and the possibility of
-------
5
life protection. while the concentration of dibutyl phthalate exceeded the
EPA criterion for chronic toxicity ~o freshwater aquatic life. However.
these concentrations were less than the EPA maximum or acute toxicity criteria.
The RI concluded that the analytical data indicates that the Ellisville
site is not contaminating nearby drinking water wells and Caulks Creek. The
data does indicate that surface water transport of contamination has occurred,
but the migration has apparently been limited to onsite. Ground water transport
of contamination was not indicated by the data.
Exact quantities of waste material on the site are not known. Based
on infonnation obtained -from the RI. the FS established a working estimate of
15UO buried drums. 10.00Crcubic yards of waste. mixtures. and 16,000 cub;c
yards of TCOO-contam; nated soil. The FS estimate for the volume of di ox; n-
contaminated soils was based on areas and depths of the waste disposal
locations where dioxin was detected at concentrations greater than 1 ppb.
Because the FS volume .estimate did not consider the extent of contamination
outside of the immediate waste disposal areas or the potential for contamination
at locations not sampled (Bliss driveway, road to the arena and parking areas,
areas between disposal locations), EPA cafculated additional volume estimates
to take into consideration potentially contaminated areas. Based on these
calculations, EPA established an estimate of 20,000 ydJ qf dioxin-contaminated
. .soil.
The Bliss and Contiguous Properties site poses a serious threat to
public health. welfare ~n~ the environment due to the large number and
high concentrations of toxic chemicals disposed of on the site. and local
geological and topographical features which increase the potential for
migration offsite via surface and ground water.
The RI soil sampling conducted at the seventeen waste disposal locations
identified over 140 compounds which included 26 priority pollutant compounds.
5 non-priority pollutant compounds. and 113 tentatively identified organic
compounds (Attachment 7). A revi ew of the "Handbook of Toxi c and Hazardous
Chemicals and Carcinogens" second edition by Marshall Sittig, and "Chemical,
Physical, and Biological Properties of Compounds Present at Hazardous Waste
Sites." an EPA reference document, identified many of the contaminants to
be moderately to highly toxic. persistent. or mobile. Many of the contaminants
are carcinogens, mutagens, and/or teratogens. Attachment 8 briefly
summarize~. properties and potential health effects for contaminants
identified by ATSOR/COC to be "principal contaminants" based on their
high concentrations, toxicity, mobility, or persistence in the environment.
Geological and topographical features increase the potential for
migration offsite via surface and ground water. The Ellisville Area site
is underlain by a limestone bedrock unit ~nown as the Burlington-Keokuk
(B-K) Formation with a thickness of approximately 170 feet in the region.
Due to solutioning and jointing which have occurred in the formation. it is
-------
7
ENFORCEMENT
The potentially responsible parties for this site include the present
and past owners/operators and generators of the wastes disposed of at the
site. On December 22, 1981, notice "letters 'Here sent to the PR?s identified
as of that date offering them" an opportunity to develop and implement a
remedial action plan for the removal or containment of the hazardous substances
at the site. The PRPs declined to undertake the necessary response.
On November 14, 1984, an administrative order was issued. pursuant to
Section 106 of CERCLA. to subsequently identified generators of the dioxin
wastes disposed of at the site. These PRPs. who had previously filed Chapter 11
petitions in bankruptcy. initiated an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy
court challenging the order. On April 8~ 1985, in settlement of the adversary
proceeding. the government entered into a stipulation which provided. inter
alia, that no further civil or administrative action would be taken in connection
with the November 14 administrative order and that all enforcement dates
identified in the order would be suspended so that the beginning date for
calculation of enforcement dates will not be prior to September 16, 1985.
This stipulation has been extended and remains in force as of the date of this
Record of Decision.
The State of Misso\.!ri filed a complaint on June 20,1984, against
Russell Martin Bliss, Evelyn Bliss. Jerry Bliss, and Jerry-Russell Bliss, Inc.,
as defendants. The filed case is a civil action brought under Section l07(a)
of CERCLA, 42 USC ~9607(a), for reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred
by the state in .response to a release or threat of release of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants at the Bliss site, and for a
declaratory j-u4gment respecting the liability of defendants for costs to be
incurred i nthe future by the state at the site. The state also requested
that a conveyance in fraud of creditors be set aside and equitable liens be
imposed ana portion of the real property comprising the site.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
..- -- - - - .
At the conclusion of the RI. a feasibility study was initiated. The
objectives of the FS included the identification of remedial action objectives,
the identification of remedial action alternatives and the selection of the
alternative for implementation at the site. To facilitate consideration of
remedial actions, contamination at the site was classified into four groups:
1) wastes contained in buried drums and tanks' 2) waste mixtures (includes
uncontainerized hazardous wastes and contaminated soils and debris); 3) dioxin-
contaminated soil and 4) uncontaminated soil.
Remedial action objectives identified for wastes in drums were to contain
the wastes within the subsurface materials at their present locations or to
remove and dispose of the wastes in an acceptable mann~r. For waste mixtures,
objectives identified were to contain the po1}utants within the surface or
subsurface materials in their present locations, reduce the concentration of
pollutants in the surface and subsurface materials or remove and dispose of
the contaminated materials in an acceptable manner. Objectives for dioxin-
-------
'3
Buried Drums
'l} 60-1 No Action. The buried drums will ~ventually corrode to the
point that their contents are released and percolating wastes may transport
contamination to the ground water. Erosion and subsidence could expose
corroded drums, a direct concact concern as well as an air quality concern.
Surface water would transport contamination. possibly into ground water in
the segment of the creek that is a losing stream which drains the properties.
2} 80-2 In-situ Containment. A slurry wall of bentonite and soil would
be constructed around all the waste burial locations northeast and northwest
of MAA. Waste mixtures and contaminated soil would be excavated from other
locations on the property and placed on a graded surface within the slurry
wall. An impenneabTe c~, would be constructed over the slurry wall enclosure.
A surface water diversion system, creek relocation and channelization. and
underdrains would be incorporated. Disturbed areas would be graded and
reseeded. The containment area would be enclosed with a fence and monitoring
wells would be installed. The probable cost is $2.1 million. The slurry
wall. cap. and underdrainage system would divert surface and subsurface water
from the, contaminated solids. However. liquids leaking from buried containers
would not be controlled and could migrate into the ground water.
3) 80-3 Treatment. Drums would be excavated. sampled, and'stored.
Treatability and pilot studies would be performed on samples of waste to
determine the types of treatment different wastes are amenable to. The
stored wastes would be treated. and the treatment residuals disposed of
in an approved manner. The probable cost ranges from $980.000 to
$1,2UO,OUO. depending upon the methods and costs of treatment. However.
some or all of the wastes in buried drums may not be amenable to treatment.
4} 80-4 Onsite Disposal in a Secure Landfill. Landfill cells with
double synthetic liner and a leachate collection and detection system would
be constructed on the properties. The currently buried containerized wastes
would be excavated and disposed of in the landfill. This option has t~o
subalternatives. For the drum overpacking subalternative. excavated buried
drums would be placed inside recovery drums and transported to the landfill
cells. For the waste bulking subalternative, the wastes in excavated
containers would be consolidated into bulk volumes according to compatibility.
Bulk waste and crushed drums would be placed into landfill cells according
to compatibility. For both subalternatives. drums containing waste not
suitable for land disposal would be transported offsite to permitted facilicies
for disposal. After wastes are placed in the cells. an impermeable cap. a
surface water diversion system, a fence. and monitoring wells would be
installed. Disturbed areas would be graded and reseeded. The drum overpacking
subalternative would cost $930.000 and the waste-bulking subalternative would
cost $710.000. This alternative would have negative engineering and
enviro~mental aspects because of the geological and residential setting of
the s; t'e .
5)
60-5
Offsite Disposal at Permitted Disposal Facilities.
The buri ed
-------
. 4 . - .
. - . - .-
11
providing continued opportunities for direct contact. Erosion may transport
dioxin-contaminated soil into the creek draining the properties. If dioxin
is soluble in organic solvents present at the site. dioxin may eventually
migrate into the ground water used f0r'drinking water.
2) BOCS-2 In-situ Containment with Slurry ~all and Impervious Cap.
Dioxin-contaminated soil would be enclosed by the in-situ containment system
already described for drums and waste mixtures. The cost of this alternative
is included with the costs for alternative 80-2 and BWM-2.
3) BDCS-3 Onsite Treatment by Solidification with Soil Cement after
Removal of Drums and Waste Mixtures. Dioxin-contaminated soil. greater than
r ppb. would be excavated from several locations and developed into soil
cement and placed back into and around the excavated areas. The top 12 inches
of soil and gravel in the area north and northeast of the Mid-America Arena
would be developed into compacted soil-cement pavement covering the entire
area. The pavement formed with in-situ soil would be covered with an additional
6 inches of soil cement developed from uncontaminated soil. This additional
layer would isolate the dioxin-contaminated materials from the. surface and
eliminate' the potential for direct contact with dioxin. Drainage channels would
be provided. The cost would be about $1.000.000.
4) BOCS-4 Onsite Disposal in a Secure Landfill. The dioxin-contaminated
soil and gravel would be excavated and disposed of in a secure landfill on the
properties. This alternative has two subalternatives: below-grade monofill
and an above-grade monofil 1. The construction for the below-grade monofill
would be similar to that for alternative BWM-4. For the above-grade monofill.
an earth embankment monofill cell with a double synthetic liner system and' .
leachate collection and detection system would be' constructed. After placement
of dioxin-contaminated soil in the cell. a multi-layered impervious cover
would be installed~ Monitoring wells would be provided for both subalternatives.
The cost for below-grade monofill subalternative would be $1.9 million and
Sl.8 million for the above-grade monofill.
5) BOCS-5 This is similar to BWM-5 except that dioxin-contaminated soil
and gravel would be excavated and disposed of offsite. The probable cost is
$1.700.UOO. An offsite storage subalternativewas also developed. Dioxin-
contaminated sail ~ould be excavated, transported in bulk. and stored at the
offsite facility. The cost for the offsite storage subalternative would be '
about $1.000.000.
Based "on the detailed evaluation of each alternative. five program
options were selected on the basis of environmental and public acceptability
and lowest cost: Program A (BO-5. BWM-5. BOCS-5). Program B (BO-5. BWM-5.
BOCS-5-storage subalternative). Program C (BO-5. BWM-5. BDCS-3), Program
o (BO-5. BWM-3. BOCS-3). Program E (60-5. BWM-2). Attachment 12 presents
the five program o~tions with costs. The FS recommended that either
Program B or C be implemented because B was the most environmentally and
publicly acceptable program that could be implemented for the site and C
was the lowest probable cost program that could be implemented for the
site which was environmentally and publicly acceptable.
-------
13
are considered. One optton consists of one synthetic liner a~c one clay
liner plus layers of gravel, sand, topsoil, and erosion protection or. :ne top.
The second cover option is similar :except both liners are Sjflther.ic. The
estimated cost for the composite and double-synthetic cover ~onofjl1 alternatives
are $11.0 million and $9.3 million, r~spectively.
4) Enclosed-Container Storage Facility. The container storage facility
consists of 2.4 cubic yard (gross) semi-bulk sacks stacked four high in
either a metal building enclosure or a synthetic membrane enclosure. The
sack consists of an 8 mil polyethylene inner liner and an outer bag of woven
polyethylene. The containment base consists of a single impervious liner over
a concrete slab with a leachate collection system. The total design and
implementation cost for the steel building enclosed subalternative is estimated
to be $13.9 million and for the synthetic membrane enclosed facility is $13.3
million. -
.~.
All six alternatives/subalternatives were developed in detail with respect
to design. implementation and operation. Evaluation of the six alternatives/
subalternatives was performed according to applicable technical. cost,
environmental, and public health criteria. The advantages and disadvantages
with respect to each of the assessment criteria are summarized in Attachment
13. Costs for each alternative are summarized in Attachment 14. -
COMMUNITY RELATIONS -
.-----..-
Tne Bliss site is one of three waste disposal areas designated as
the Ellisville Area site. The other two areas, the Rosalie property and
Cal tahan property, were the chief focus of previous community relations
activities between 1981 and 1984. A series of press releases were issued
about the Ellisville Area site from 1981 through 1984. A briefing was
neld for local officials on cleanup proposals for the Rosalie and Callahan
portions on July 11, 1984, and a public hearing followed on August 9, 1984.
Although these meetings were not directly related to the Bliss site, they
did provide an opportunity for participants to learn about area hazardous
substance problems.
On November 22, 1985, EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
conducted a site tour and meeting for representatives of Congressman Young's
Office and the Mayor of Ellisville. On March 14, 1986, a briefing was held
to inform local officials and congressional representatives of future activities
at Che Bliss site. A press release was issued on March 17, 1986, announcing
the availability of the feasibility studies for review at the Daniel Boone
Branch of the St. Louis County Library in Ellisvi1le and soliciting written
comments on. the cleanup proposals. On March 26, 1986, at 7:30 p.m.. MDNR
met with the Homeowners. Association in Wood Meadow Subdivision to discuss
the site. A cnief concern of homeowners was the proximity of the site to a
bike trail in Quail Woods Park. Homeowners urged that this area be fenced
to limit access of children to the area.
A public meeting was held on March 31. 1986, at the Parkway West High
School in Ballwin. Missouri, for the purpose of allowing citizens and local
elected officials to comment on the proposed cleanup alternatives. Attendees
-------
15
The feas~bility study alternatives for removing haz]r:cus s~js:anc:s
offsite (60-5. 6WM-5. BDCS-5) involve the application of tne ~C~A requirement
that all hazardous wastes must be removed or decontaminated if closure of the
facility as a land disposal facility is to be avoided (capping anc'Qt~er
closure/post-closure measures). The RCRA interpretation of "all hazardous
'.-tastes" nas been that hazardous constituents must be cleaned to background
levels. CERCLA policy has established, however, that levels above background
may be left without triggering RCRA requirements for capping and other
closure and post-closure measures. For this site, a site-specific limited
risk assessment approach will be used to determine acceptable levels greater
than background. This approach will base the risk of exposure on a public
health assessment issued by ATSDR/CDC.
CERCLA "Procedures for Planning and Implementi'ng Off-Site Response Actions
(May 6,. 1985},'1 apply to'"the selection of an offsite waste management technology
and facility. The Offsite Policy states that response actions which use
treatment, reuse. or recycling of hazardous substances should be pursued over
land disposal to the greatest extent practicable. consistent with CERCLA
requirements for cost-effective remedial actions. The policy states that
treatment, reuse. or recycling alternatives should not be screened out on the
basis of 'cost alone unless that cost exceeds the cost of other alternatives
by an order of magnitude. and does not provide substantially greater public
health and environmental benefits. RCRA regulations will also influence the
technological opt.ions for offsite treatment and disposal of hazardous
substances. The regulations include a ban on the placement of bulk liquids
or hazardous waste containing free liquids in any landfill after May 8, 1985.
Th~ regulations also establish a sChedule for restricting the land disposal of
all hazardous wastes. The FS alternatives for offsite disposal will comply
with these restrictions and the offsite policy in identifying the offsite
waste management technology to be employed. . .
The offsite disposal alternatives will comply with the Offsite Policy
which requires the offsite facility to have an applicable RCRA permit or
interim status specific to the wastes and storage, treatment, or disposal
processes involved. A RCRA compliance investigation must have been performed
at the facility within the preceeding six months to assess whether there
are any significant violations or conditions affecting satisfactory
compliance. The policy prohibits the use of a RCRA facility if it has
significant RCRA violations or other environmental conditions that affect
the satisfactory operation of the facility.
When transporting wastes offsite to a RCRA facility, the shipment will
be pacKagea and manifested in accordance with the RCRA requirements. These
activities.will also comply with the DOT regulations for transportation of
hazardous materials.
Construction and U&M activities will comply with OSHA requirements.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
------..---
Section 300.58(i )(1) of the NCP specifies that the appropriate extent
of remedy shall be determined by the lead agency's selection of a cost-effective
-------
17
(no action) would not remedy existing conditions that pose significant
threats to public health and the environment. People who live or work on
or adjacent to the site could be exposed to dioxin contamination by direct
contact, fugitive dust emissions, and ~rosion of contaminated soils into
surface water. Alternatives BOCS-2 '(insitu containment). BOCS-3 (encapsulation
and capping with soil ceme.nt)' and BDCS-4 (onsite disposal in a secure
landfill) do not achieve an adequate degree of protection to pUblic health,
we 1 fare. and the envi ronment and wou 1 d probably be opposed by the commun i ty
as long-term remedies. The reliability of the above alternatives is
contigent upon the continued integrity of the containment or capping
systems. The location, topography and geologic setting of the site and
contaminated areas, however, would adversely affect the continued integrity
of the above onsite technologies. A majority of the contaminated areas
are situated in a valley wHh hillside slopes which vary from 25 to 50
percent. Heavy rai ns an'a-' rap id runoff flood the creeks whi ch flow through
the site and valley. In addition. the site is located in an area underlain
by limestone bedrock whicn exhibits high water permeability along solut1on-
enlarged joints. A portion of one creek is a 10sing stream at the downstream
end of the northwest fill area. This geological setting provides little
natural protection to ground water because a release of contamination to
surface water may result in transport of contamination offsite or to ground
water. Also, the site is located in a rapidly developing residential
area. These onsite alternatives would probably be opposed by the'community
due to the long-term presence of hazardous wastes at the site requiring
long-term monitoring, maintenance, site security, and institutional
controls such as deed restrictions. Regarding offsite treatment, storage
or disposal (BDCS-5), there are no commercial facilities in the country
which are permitted to receive dioxin wastes.
Of the six interim onsite storage alternatives evaluated in the FFS,
the building-enclosed container facility is recommended as the cost-effective
alternative most protective of public health. welfare, and the environment.
The advantages of containers over bulk handling and storage are that the
containers'minimize the potential for exposure during excavation and
subsequent rehandling of soil. Containers are filled and sealed at the
point of excavation and receive exterior decontamination at the edge of
the contaminated area. Containers facilitate transportation to the
storage facility. Exposure is minimized during placement in the storage
. facility. During storage, containers may be readily inspected and can be
easily replaced if unexpected damage should occur. Containerized storage
will require the least maintenance to ensure the system integrity, resulting
in the lowest O&M costs during the storage period. Containerized storage
will be most compatable with a final remedy by facilitating removal and
minimizing health and safety risks. This will provide significant future
cost savings over bulk handling and storage. The primary disadvantages
of a container system are the initial capital costs ana complex i~plementation.
A large quantity of containers will be required and containerization will
slow excavation. For container storage, semi-bulk sacks are the most
feasible container option due primarily to their low cost per cubic yard
relative to steel boxes, steel drums, fiber drums, and plastic drums.
-------
19
onsite alternatives developed in the FS for buried drums and waste mixtures
do not provide adequate protection of public health, welfare, and the
environment, are not technically feasible (performance, reliability,
constructability, safety), have significant adverse environmental effects,
would not meet applicable or relevant and appropriate federal public'
health and environmental requirements, and would probably be opposed by
the community. Alternatives 80-1 a~d BWM-1 (no action) would not remedy
existing conditions that pose significant threats to public health and
tne environment. Buried drums will eventually corrode and release contaminants.
Erosion of the soil cover would expose leaking drums, uncontainerized
hazardous wastes, and contaminated soils. This would increase the risk
of exposure through direct contact, airborne migration of volatiles or
contaminated dusts, erosion of wastes and contaminated soil to the surface
water. Contaminants in solution of suspension could be transported
through the ground water to water supply wells in the area. T~e location,
topography, and geologic setting of the site and contaminated areas would
adversely affect the con.tinued integrity of the onsite technologies (insitu
containment, onsite treatment, onsite disposal). Construction of the
interim onsite storage facility severely restricts the area available for
onsite remedies. The area necessary for implementation of 80-3 would
not be available. A majority of the contaminated areas are situated in a
valley with hillside slopes which vary from 25 to 50 percent. Heavy
rains and rapid runoff flood the creeks which flow through the site and
the valley. In addition, the site is located in an area underlain by
limestone bedrock whiCh,exhibits high water permeability along solution-enlarged
joints. A portion of one creek is a losing stream at the downstream end
of the northwest fill area. This geological setting provides little
natural protection to the ground water in the event of a release of
contamination. Selection of any onsite alternative would probabty be
opposed by the community due to the long-term presence of hazardous
wastes at the site requiring long-term monitoring, maintenance, security,
and institutional controls such as deed restrictions. Based on these.
factors, offsite disposat is necessary to protect public health. welfare
and the environment and, therefore, meet the requirements of CERCLA
Section 101(24).
The RI soil sampling conducted at the waste disposal locations
identified over 140 compounds which included 26 priority pollutant compounds,
~ non-priority pollutant compounds, and 113 tentatively identified organic
compounds. The RI analyticat data indicate contamination at a depth
ranging from 0 to 20 feet, with the 0-5 foot depth range as the most
contaminated. The highest concentration for each compound was identified
from the RI data (attachment 7). Nearly two-thirds of the maximum concentration
levels detected were in the 0-5 foot depth range. With the exception
of two waste disposal locations, the RI data indicated that the concentration
of any compound present at depths greater than 5 feet was less than 50 parts per
million (ppm); for any priority pollutant the concentration was less than
3U ppm and the concentration of any principal contaminant was less than
10 ppm.
The FS estimated that approximately 10,000 yd3 of non-dioxin hazardous
waste mixtures and 1,500 drums will be excavated. This estimate was calculated
on the basis of excavation to a depth of 10 feet at 8 disposal locations
(41-47,51) and to 6 feet at 2 locations (48,50). The actual depth of
contamination may differ significantly from these estimates. Contamination
which poses a threat to public health and the environment may be at depths
-------
21
Because the cast data referenced in the FS is several years old.
the cast estimates for the FS recommended alternatives, BO-5 and aWM-5
(off site disposal), were revised to reflect current remedial action
costs.
Presented in Attachment 17 are the revised approximate costs for
80-5 and BWM-5. The revised costs are based upon current feasibility
studies of sites similar in nature and on several remedial action costing
manuals developed by EPA, including the "Remedial Action Costing Procedures
Manua 1," and the "Handbook: Remedi a 1 Act i on of Waste Oi sposa 1 Sites."
Several assumptions based on similar projects were made in deriving the
cost estimates. A distance of 800 miles from the site to a commercial
waste management facility was assumed. Tnis distance would include three
facilities with the capability of solids handling and currently permitted
to i nci nerate PCBs. Thi S'"~.type of fac; 1 i ty may be requi red gi ven the
present and future land disposal restrictions and the types of wastes
present at the site. The longer haul distance should include several
commercial land disposal facilities from which a RCRA permitted or
interim status facility can be selected. Costs for transport, land disposal,
and inci~eration were also identified on the basis of similar current
projects.
OPERATI.Q.N_A.ND MAI~TENANGE (U&Mt
Tne recommended remedial action involves the offsite disposal of buried
containerized wastes and waste mixtures and will require no O&M'activities.
For the dioxin-contaminated wastes, projected O&M activities to ensure
continued effectiveness of the onsite interim storage facility include:
maintenance of the security system, maintenance of site runon/runoff control,
leachate sampling and analysis tf necessary, and ground water sampling and
analysis until the state determines it is no longer necessary. Costs for
O&M activities are included in Attachment 14.
The MDNR is the state agency responsible for O&M. The state's funding
mecnanism is the Missouri Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund. The recommended
level of EPA funding will be at ninety percent for a time period of one year
after the completion of construction. The state will assume full responsibility
for all future O&M, after a period of one year following construction, for the
expected life of the interim storage.
-------
A TT.D..CHMENT #
la
. lb
-_.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
. TITlE
Location Map
V ici n ity Map
Site Map
Summary of Sample Results
from Early Investigatjons
Sampling Locations
Summary of Waste Problems
Offsite Sampling Map
Summary of Compounds Detected
Summary of Health Effects
and Properties
Summary of FS Technologies
FS Development of Alternatives
Summary of FS Alternatives
Evaluation
FS Program Options
Summary of FFS Alternatives
Evaluation
Summary of FFS Alternative
Costs
Responsiveness Summary
MDNR Concurrence Letter
Total Project Costs
-------
- -
. -
'.
~
I~\ /
~
_\~
)~4
'-"67
Kansas
CIty
@
0 % ~
I '
~INMIW
Jetrefsan .
CIty
FIGURE 1-2
LOCA T10N MAP.
ONSITC STORAGE FOCUSEO F.S.
SUSS ANO CONTIGUOUS PROPE"TIES
-------
- .. - -.. - -
@
o
I
40D
aoo i:ZOO
~ IN fiEf
FtGURE 1-3
VICINITY MAP
ONSITE STORAGE FOCUSED F.S.
BUSS ANC CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES
-------
; I'
, ~,
At tachm!:.
, '
),
, ,
" "', """~'-~'"''c-'~''' TAnr.v. 9 : ", '-'~"-' " ,
nT.rs:! AIm COUTIGUOtIS rnOp~nTIES SAtlPU: AllAY.VSIS m~SUI.TS SUtiHAnV
."-.
- J d~~!:.! fi ed-Co!!!p'olln~!!
. , ' ' -
tfaxtmllm Concen- Sample of , ,tfaxtmum Concen- tfftXfmll1R Concen-
tration for" 'r.iquid in"" :-.- tration for I, tra lion' for 2 '
Orllm Sample,.' Suspected Pit .,',.'::: Soil Samples Water SlImples
:~6/'j/81-6ill81.) (6/I,j8Fr'" (8/-12'f1!:l1nd-9l-17LJlO)=--(9I-U/~O)
(pl'm) (1'1'10) ','" ' '...",' (ppm) (pph)
2,4-tHmethylpheno1 ,2.',3 un,' " 'Nn ", lilt
pentachlorophenol 0.585 ' 1.54' un Hn
phenol 0.9011" 0./,83 ,';,' Nn }II!
'fluorathene 0.925,' 0./,69 ,"" nn 2.-'
"
napthalene , 1/,.2.. 223" ;;lID' ,. un
biB (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ' 211' , 35 609 I.. -,':.-
hutyl bend phthalate 00' )/0 '17.8 1m
.' '
di-n-hutyL phthalate 1./, 1.33 1,.82 "1./1';"
tlf-n-octyl phthalate ' 00' un 11 Hit
~'tliethyl phthalate 19.2 22.3 25',' 2./11.'
N chrysene/henzo (a) anthracene Nn I" 1.97 ' . Nn 1lI~
f:' alllhracene/phenanthr~ne 1,.17, 1',.0,,', HR 7.S}:"
pyrene 0./,91" 2.35, ,,', 33.5 2.0"'"
2,3,7,8-TCOO :,00 " ,wn'", 0.15 IIIl
benzene , ',,63 ' . ,1m' :' ;,': " HR IIn
l,1,1-trichloroethane ,', )ffi ",' 9.0 ':', 'HR IIn
-,: ;-.{>. i. '.;'
chloroform , 13.4, '::j" ,,' »0 ' NR " un
l,2-trana-dichloroethylen" '0,055 ":,1, , HO ;:"<::~'/"." ",' NR 1m
ethylbenzene 1,830"':>(:;" 13'--:;,),',;;,' :"'>;:; NR 1m
methylene chlodde,' '\': 1,150 ',<'.":':, " .' 66'" ,", ':';-.: ,Hn }In
tetrachloroethylene;\ ,28.a=..,i"i:,,:" " Nl). ',-;";.',':":' ',' HR- ' lilt.
toluene' 387 ,OOO.,:'~:;~' ,'. ' 153 ':,' :;:,--:::,::':"',"--::." Nn" Nil
trichloroethylene ". 'Nn. ,.:.:, ,- -. /'7' "";:~,:~'::i.""::::',HR }In
aldrin ,.." Nn ' 'i!, ""..'" .. ND' . ,', :.',"" :::\.',- ~ ,'\ .. NR ' 0.092-1:
dieldrin " ~"Hn " q,. :...,' ' HO' ""~~ ,..i " : 0.0009 ' - l/It
endollu1fan-o \ pha ,-- 0' Nn' .', ~ ,; . ' '..-. Hn '",,:-,:::,-:,': "...':, 0.0012' . .' ,'" IIH
~nIlC-.lpha -". ," ~,:-;::~:Nn',-',~',~:::7"~~"::,,. --, ,Hn'=:-~~~oi:"~.~:,"...Hn'" 0:-0156--
~ nllc- & o nllll a (H ndllne) ".. ' . "~'.. ~ NO ,;, Z:i:-.-=::', ,,::-.' " UO '_.::;,,:::.,//:: -=,~,:,~:..;: ::,. HR,_: .. ~,-O. 1,6/,1.
~' IUIC-delta ,.....0._".- '... 0.195'::,." ,,'o,-'~"-,,-," HO ',' :,,':'~'/,:'-.';':"'NR~-,_. .' , IIIl
(1), ..I)Cf}-) 25', . -,' . , '-.,:',: "", "'::'., Nn',~ '~..- -". :..' , -'" HO ': ~,::'~-:-;.'. ,.~.,..: -:- ;',' ..:'}In ,,, ,,--..::-', '- 'iL 7581.'
N ....- . . ~ '. .' . "-.-.-..'..' '". -.4. \.' , .,--.,." -
rcn':'12ItR ".. -.. '0.9"':',.;'..,;,' '--: ..' HO""""',::"-,-"':,"',,''.''''46.7''' ... -=--;'0.6561:
6 '''' -' -:..., !..~ "',,:, ..- '<~~ 'I ., .,.. ';_7:.\' "f ,;.... .: ," . .'
rC8-12 o. , ' -...'-" 0.25 ,':":::.., ""_"..:"'::;.:--;'" . },m,_"'.; ",:'-.' ..,);..:",7:'!9:..:.:' }In
AU, 01'11£11 ORGAllTC PRTORITY POU.UTAUTS HOT RV.PORTEO.OR llOT m~T!CTJ!D ,""::~,,',:', ,:', - .:
HR -,tlot rerortcil in evalla"1e dflte. NO -'Hot detected. ','" ",.:'",":,':,,::i,;:':,,';:: '
'':''Concenlrntlou IIrcllter r.hl\" forA "'IIt.t:Y. n"..\ft,u ,.dr,""',1\ for. \,,"''',n ...~,,1t"';'nrntect.ion or freshwllter 8C1l1l1lf,c life urote'cllon,
I '
-
...", -",' , .
, .' ,
.' -~'.' _.-
-------
Locatioc.
ELL-41
-
ELL-42
ELL-43
E!.L-44
ELL-45
EI.I.-46
nI.-47
Ell-48
ELL-49
ELL-50
ELL - 5 1
ELL-52
ELL-53
EI.I.-61
EI.I.-62
EI.!.-64
. Creek "A" near
ELL-71' .
U'
c
[
I
I
L..:
p
. I
;' J
"'...
~'.'
I',
. -
: ~
L.
L~
l
L
L
Ellisville Site
Remedial Investigation
I -
,.1, t :2c::r:~2:1 ~ :
Buried drums
Buried uncontainerized hazardous wastes
Contaminated soil around the location.
Possibility of buried drums
Buried drums
Minor 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination
Buried uncontainerized hazardous wastes
Contaminated soil around the locatioc.
--.
Buried drums
Minor 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination
":', :' . :.:. ~
. "-",.". -,' . . .' . ";.
Minor 2.,3,7 ,S-TCDD c~~t~~~~~ti~n':' :..:':~":'.'~ :. .
Possibility of buried drums. ,:-:::'--.><\ ".':~' :.'. ':'"
Buried d~s' : .'..';: :y~::\,i,{}('..:.>~_::-:.:.;--:": .. . . <./'::, .':.>: .
Buried uncontainerized hazardous wastes
Buried drUms
".' ."
..
. . .
. .-
Major 2,3,7,S-TCDD contamination
. . .
. - . I .
. .
Burie~ uncontainerized hazardous wastes
. . -,
. . .
. . .
Buried uc.containerized hazardous wastes
Possibility of buried drums
. . '.'
Possibility of buried drums
. . - . .
. . ,",' ',. ", .
.-..-.. :.._-- "':', .:.;"""'~:~:~~7'0::".~""~',,;,',::
Possibility of buried. drums - .:": .
._. -.
. . .
-
- .
Major 2,3,7,S-TCDD contaminatioc.
Major 2,3,7,S-TCDD contamination
~jor 2,3,7,8-TCD~ contamination
Contaminated sediments
..
:.7:-'~~'
, .
24
09/21/83
-------
,-",::.:c:-::::e:1: 7
Summ'ary" of Hi ahe'st Cnncentrati ons Det:::cteri
A. SOIL:
ELL 41-53, ELL 61-64
PR rOR Ii'( POLLUTANT cor.1POUNOS .
;l,ci ri Comocunds
2,4,6-triehlorophenol
phenol,
Base/Neutral Compounds
--.
;sophorone
naphthalene
his(2~ethylhexyl)phthalate
, di-n-butyl phthalate
di -n-o'ctyl phthal ate.
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
. di ethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
Volatiles
eh 1 oroform
ethyl benzene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene, ' ,
" -"-'-'trichloroethylene .
1,1,1-trichlor.oethane
l,l-diehloroethane
methylene chloride
flourotriehloromethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachl~roethane
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,2-diehloroethane
Pesticides
pca -:1242
PC3 - 1254
PCB - 1248
PC~ - 1260
Dioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD
(Doh)
460*
1,200
. 88,000
400,000 '
240,000
10,000
2,600
680.
800
1,300
440
5,900
120,000
91,000
2,700,000
, 190,000
1,300
8..5
140
5.3
6.2
16,000
4.0
368
,1,800
3,400
1,090
120
I
,.
I '
I,
I
, ,
Sample Num/)er
ELL-44-SS-03
. ELL-49-SS-01
..
"
.
. ELL-41-Ht-l-01 . ~
ElL-41-HW-Ol " '..:"-
, ELL-SO-HW-Ol .. , ': :':: .' ,
: ' , .' _'E1.L-44-HW-Ol .:."....':.':." ..
. . " . ELL-49-SS-01 ..'~: ~'.'::':,' .....' ..:.
"ElL-50-SS-04 '.'
, E1.L-61-SS-02 . .'
ELL-61-SS-02
E1.L-64-SS-02
ELL-41-W"/-Ol
ElL-41~SS-Ol
ElL-41-HW-Ol
. ELL-44-HW-01 ... .
ELL-41-HW-01,' ". . ".
. ." ELL-64-SS-03 . >.. '.
, :. ELL-64-5S-03 : -,.'
.<..'ELL-49-SS-03 .-.'
'ELL-45-HW-Ol .
ELL-49-SS-01 '
ELL-SO-HW-01
ELL-64-5S-03
". .
'. .', ELL-42-SS-03
:..-'..: ELL-SO-SS-O 1
ELL-SO-SS-Ol
ELL-62-SS-01
a"''''
'- .
ELL-64-SS-02
-------
TENTATIVELY IOENTIFIED CnMPOU~OS
(l,l-dimethylethyl) henzer.e
(l,methylethyl) benzene
1,3-dimethylbenzene (m-xyle0e)
2-ethyl-l, 4-dimethylhenzene
1,3,S-trimethylbenzene
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene
propyl benzene
2-butanol
3-methyl-2-butanone
decane
dodeeane
, 2-butoxy ethanol
2-ethoxy ethanol
1-(2,4-dimethylphenyl) ethanone
3-ethyl-2-methyl-heptane '
S-ethyl-2-methyl-heptane
, 'hexane, "",'",
3-hexen-'2-one' ", '
',1,2,3-trimethyleyclohexane
1,1,3-trimethyleyclohexane
2,6-dimethyloctane '
nonane
S-butyl-nonane
4-penten-2-o1
'4-methyl-2-pentanol '
3-methylene-2-pentanone '
methyleyelapentane
4-methyl-3-penten-2-one
l-cyelopropyl-2-propanone
undeeane ::,'. '. ",e"., ,
1,4-diethylbenzene', '
1-methyl-2-(1-methylethyl) benzene
1,3-dioxolane' ,
eye1ohexano1 '
2-ethyl-1-hexanol
2,3,4-trimethylhexane
2,3-dihydro-1,1,3-trimethyl-
- 3-phenyl-1H-i ndene '
nonanamide '
2,2,4-trimethYl-l,3-pentanediol
2-propanol ' ' ,
3,S,24-trimethyl tetraeontane'
3,3,S-trimethylheptane
2-prapyl-l-heptanol
2,4-di~ethylhexane
3,3-dimethylhexane
.........
(oon)
Samole Numher
630 ELL-41-SS~04
210;000 ELL-41-HW-Ol
, 1,300,000 ELL-41-H~-01
900,000ELL-41-HW-Ol
630,000 ELL-41-HW-Ol .
430,000 ELL-44-HW-01 :
'220,OOOELL-41-HH-01 '
450 ELL-41-SS-02
3.9 ELL-41-SS-02 '
'." .
6,200 ,'ELL-41-SS,-03 :','
3,000 ELL-46-SS-04 "
630,000 ' Ell-41-h'W-Ol ' , ',' :,' , ' , ,.
38,000 :, 'ELL-4l-SS-02.'.",:;.'::.:',;:",: ,:~".'"""
540 "~:",:>:" ELL-41-SS-0l J::::j'¥;~;'."~:;:,:~',,::.:"'::;';\./,:::, :'..' "
2RO " ' "''-'" ELL-41-SS-0l :~":,<"",;::,:",,::,,. ':' " ..
j~i~~ ..' /:'::~m~~I~~~ ~i~10~~~Kf:;~I:~L,
34,000 .., ELL-41-HW-Ol ":::',:,' ,:, ~ :i::":'" ~:",,-~:',',:, '
2,400 ,ELL-50-SS-01, ,"'.. ',',':",:: ,:: .. ,:".
240, 000 ELL-41-~~-01 .' ',' ,": ': '; , , '
270 'ELL-41-SS-04 ~
8,200 ELL-41-SS-04
3,500 , ' '" ELL-44-SS-04 ' . " , ,',
3,200 "-:,:': ELL-44-SS-04 ", ".',>:,::,::..~... -:;-'... ','
2,800 .' ELL-41-HW-Ol"" ,.." ':, :", ,:":..,,
140,000 " , ,; ELL-41-HW-01 ,',"':-.-' ,,::'." .',,',':, '" '..
17 : : ,:, >, "'ELL-41-SS-02c:"..,::'~":~'~~"':';":'" ,--:';:> ','
'110,000 ':,~~';::~:":':'
, 8.0 '.,'" ", '".", ELL-42-SS-04 :-::'.~': ,J.' ~ ""', '" ','
510 '''':,'.:':''::', ELL-42-SS-02 ~:'<:,'~~"~'..'~,',>',~t c'>:',' ,,' ,
11 ':"""':'ELL~2 S5 04 ,,:.:,-.;,'.:::,~':"...: ;',;,'..:' .
300' '.:''': ELL-42:SS:02 ~~'~.:'~: :;': ~,,', ::::'~}, '
660 , " ELL-42-SS-0l ~,',' , -: ' .
7l0ELL-42-SS-02.,:"": ,:. '" ,.",
330 ',,', ~L-42'~Ss-oI '~Cf::<':,,:<'.';~'" ,':
890 ' ,ELL-53-SS-02 ...:: ,,-:.',""'.. ,,'
610' ',' ' .' ELL":42-HW-Ol :j>_:....~::.~,:, ','
43 - " ''','.,':: ELL-42-SS-04;:):"...;:'r~ ,~::. ,,' ,::', ""
880 ' ., ELL-42-SS-02 ::", ',.'r::> ':', '" "
610 ", ELl-43-SS-01 '.:";r", ':'::~ ',,':~"''','' . ':
1,200 ' ELL-43-SS-01., "':' - ,
400 ELL-43-SS-02"
2,700 ELL-44-SS-04' ,-
, I '
I
: , : I,
, ,
I
'- '
-------
. '.
3
TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED CQ:tPOUiIOS
(oph)
"
2, 4-di methyl hep tane 490
3,4~dimethylhept?ne 2,200
3,3,5-dimethylheptane 660
heXaG2Canoic acid 980
2,2,3,4-tetramethy:pentane 990
1-ethyl-3,5-dimet~yltenzene 1,000
eicosane 1,200
heptadecane 1,400
hexadecane .' 2,600
2,6,10,14-tetramethY'pentadef~ne 1,400
",',2,6-dimethylundecane' .' ~ .1,200 '
. 'o-decylhydroxylamine ' :. :: . 2,000',
2,6,1l-trimethyl dodecane ~ .' '1,200 '
. 2,6,10,14-tetramethylheptadecane .:. 2,900
::2,2,3,3,5,5,6-heptamethyl heptane :". 940'
. 4-ethyl hept'ane:' , .' ..' ", ',', 340
2-ethyl-4-methyl-1-pentanol 980
2-methylundecane . 2,100
5-methyl-l-hexene ' 180
1,3-isobenzofurandione 860
oct anoi cad d . 550 '
1,S-dihydro-l-methyl-2H
-pyrrol-2~one' .'.'
2,5,8,11,14-pentaoxapentadecane
cyclohexane .
(2-methoxyethoxy) ethene..
2-butyl-l-octanol ~.:.::~; '-:-.. ':... -..
..1, l' ~oxybi sethane '. '-,..,
,'3, 5-di methyl heptane
340
300
, 53,000
.. 78,000
'920 ,
3.'.,
510
. '. .
. ..
,
Sample Numher
i,
Ii
i
ELL-63-SS-02
ELL -48-H'''/ -01
'.' ELL-48-HW-Ol
ELL-48-SS-01
ELL-48-HW-Ol
ELL-49-SS-01
,ELL-49-SS-03 .
'ELL-49-SS-01'" . . ,
, ELL-61-SS-01
:. '.
.' "ELL-50':'SS-01' ',':',', :'," .' .'
'" ELL-SI-HW-O! ." '. . ' ":','" .
,. . . " "... . ,""..'.
, 'ELl-51-H\~-01' .,' .' . .
ELL-S1-HW-Ol
. ", .'.' ELL-51-"SS-03 .' .......:,.~.J:: ~~:,~.
.' :!ELL~S3-SS-02
.' .".,..',)..ELL-61-SS-04 .:,::.':.:. ,
":f!, :f:;c.'_{.~m=H=H=gi fl~.!{i.:'.J.,~~, ~:.~~:/::,......:
, , ., ,'." ELL-63-SS-02 ,." :.- .',,\," ,.." ." " ,
: . ~. ::"~':''\ -.~::. :',"",". '.. .~ . ,
..,. . -.' .
, .
I '
, .
. .'
. .
, '
.'
" ..
. . . . .
, .
"" -, .'. ...
0'
. '
. '" '., " "
''''. ",' ", ," .
',.
. ,
..
". '.
-, . .
. :', . '.""." .
....,':::.~~~~«,~:':>':""'-' "':. ",
. . -~-.:.:. ~ .. ',"'..,
.:.:. -'.
." . . '..,
" .
.-
..."..
8- ",
-------
8.
MID-,,:,:'E:2 ~CA ARENA:
PR I OR ITY
POLLUTANT COMPOUNDS
Acid CGr;;:c~;:ds
nd
8 a s e / ~I e IJ t ;"':: 1
Comoounds
nd
Volatiles
.methylene chloride
,tetrachloroethylene
" :;~~~,richloroethylene.
.' .: .' .. '.1 ":".",,: -.:' ... '.
"." ,." Pest i ci des
,.,".
" ,'.
,'...- .
'. ..
.." .'-,..
, '
~. ... ...'
.. .. ..
, '
. ,
PCB
1250
Dioxins
2,3,7,8-TCDD
(Dust Sample)
Ell
81-85
.-.
. ..
NON-PRIORITY
POLLUTANT COMPOUNDS
- "
. Ad d Comoounds
, ,
nd
, ,
Base/Neutral
Comoounds
nd
"
Volatiles
nd
"
"
TENTATIVELY
IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
5-(pentyloxy)-(E)-2-pentene
(Snil
. ,
" nust)
(poh)
140
55
15
"
1,900
4.8
,...... _.
5,000
. .
Sample Number
I, ,
I I
'I
, .
I
;'
" "
..
',' '... -:
.,..,
":',:' . .. .~:
" '
. .
"
~" : . " .'. ..;. .
. . ",
.: ',;: .~ .
. .
. .:.'. . .~. ".
..' ..
'... ... '0
." "'.'.'
",,"",
.'
.' ,
. ..'
. . . .-:;. ":'::-:'.::' ;".:~ .:' .
, . '"",' .' .'.. ':,::~,~,~'::r?:;}.'.':' , .. .-
.' '
"
..
. '. . '..,-
ELL-84-DU;'01
.". . ," '. ~.. '. .
.:--.>: ;,;'~:"~)~~~i1~f.?~};')"':. . ,
..
'.
'. ;" .', '~~"'~ ~...:~'
, ,
, .
, -
'-:(i"I'II~~li[~~~t;~f:~->;...' .
'.'. :.,., ...~'~',...~..':-
..
.' .. .'
. . "..,
, "
.;
". .
:..
.. .
, '..
, .
; '-,' . ",
.:. ,'-',.,', ".~'
".:. ". :::.
,:~.':-.; .::' . :"
: ...;.
" -, ';,.., : .
.. .' '....
. .
, '.".
','.,.
"...,
"'. _'....'
, ':.'.';:
- ",-
, -
. -.. .
. '..
. .- ,..' . . . -
.
. ":;';:~(:',/~~):;..;:"''':. '.,"""
.... .:~~' .,~,:.: "'::.;'~~.,.;:,':,:~.~:,::::...,....:, -.. ..;..
.'
, -ELL-81-SS-02
. --
0-
. .
..'
-------
-,
D"
ELL 71 - 73
SURFACE WATER:
PRIORITY
POLLUTANT COMPOUNDS
Acid Comoounds
nd
Base/Neutral
Compounds
nd
-,~.
,....", .' ..'
" ... .'. .,' .
'. ::""", "'".:'.. ", ','
. ","
Volatil es
, ....'...
.:. -',:. ".<::" ':
.'
'. ."'.'
,'1,1, 1-t ri ch 1 oro'~t'h'~ri~~i.:::'::: :,::,
c' : '~'~'~' t i '~ ~; ~~;;,: f:i ;:('~' ~(\:~<.;/;/?~\: ~:::;,~~: "\'.::'
, ,
nd
,"
Dioxins
"
nd
" ,
"
." .
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANT COMPOUNDS
.' '..,'
..: ""'. ..
Aci d Comcounds
~: ..:....' -..', "
~'~..-:~;:'.:.:.~; ':. .,..'".., '. .
-':'0'. "
.. ,
.; .";. .
"..: .;.
. ~. . .-'
. -.. ..
. '. ... ~ "'.~ e..
'. ':: .,"",
..".' -,:
: "'.-:
. ....
nd
, ,
, ,
Base/Neutral
Comoounds
nd
\.
.Volatiles
nd
, '
. .~,' . .:...
,"0
"
TENTATIVEL Y
IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
cyclohexane
1,1,2-trichloro-l,2,2-
tri fl ouroethane
"
..
-,
(ue/l)
, ,
" ,
".. .
.-....
3,000
12
. .: ~ .
, , ,
.~'. :.;;~~.~~:. ::;:. '. :-:-
<. Same 1 e Numhe r
, ,
-' ..' .
'.
",
, ,,:"~:~:\' :/':\~:~>~ ~:~\:.
.' . '0, ',4
','" "-.' -',
~ : '
, '
I
, '
, ,
, ,
"
.'
..
, ,
',".'
,,,
, ,
....'. '..Oo, ,
. . ,
, '
'. ,..,,:Oo... ! . '. '
<'},S;i;f~',#5.', . '.
. .
. ~ .
'.
. - ."'.
. ..;: ~
'- ..
, '.
...
'-,;' ,.'.
'; .
..
. ,
'.: ELL-71-$W-Ol
ELl-71-SW-Ol'"
".
" "',
.4, .
_.
" ,
'.'. ",. ,.' '..,' , ':,
, ~'. '; :.; ~':~~:'~f~~::\" ~~;"Oo.';.:,: .
','
, .
.'
.."',.
, '.'":':'"
......'.
~- . , .
, , ,
, .. a" '
" ,"
,,,,:.,':: ,-' '"
': "
..
',..
"
'. ,
,:""
. ~ ..'. -,'
-... ... .'."".'
-
, " ,
". ..
.-"
- ,
. "" ,',
, .. '. ~::~:,:.
, "
" '.'."
- ,
" '
. '-",
:,.:.:' ',~,
','
.,-7.
".,
-------
E.
SEDIMENT:'
ELL 71 -
73
PR I OR rTY
POLLUTANT COMPOUNDS
Acid Comoounds
nd
Base/Neutral
Compounds
'. ,",I'
; ': .~..
:, b'fS(2~ethYlh~'~;l')
, .'
" . '. .
~ ~',.'" .,' ..~. .
, ",:,~,:~~":'~<,:,">":)/~~':'~~'" ",
Volatiles "~~::",
phthalate
. . ..~.
, ,
.' ~.
'. .... '..
'.' ~ .. ',-':' ~. .
,::':,:'..,~~;':2U. :',('..
- . ~.::3..;j;;:).~~.~.:~..~:..',:'::'
.' ,- ", ';:.
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
methylene chloride'
toluene - ,
'..'
..
" .
.:-. .
Pesticides
, nd
..
, ,
,', . ',",.. '
., .~ : ..~ ~. '.. ".
"
, ,
,,'
, ,
'.' .
.,
.. .'
..
-..'
Dioxins
',..: .
"'. "0
"
nd
"
'..
'NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANT COMPOUNDS
,-
"
.
Ad d Comcounds
4-methylphenol
..., .",
(poh)
,"
19,000
,',
:.t. ': .'
. . ~..
3.4
31
'22
.,.
1,300
i I
I
'i
i I
I
-
"'."". .'
- .. ..'" '.'
, "
, 'Samp 1 e' Numher
, ;
,,' ".
..
. . "',,' .
, ~:..:.:.~;. ~<:;~';;::~~'f':',":~
'""
"
, .
" ,ELL'::71.::SL':'O(" ", ':/''''>" :,: -
, '';-'''ELL-71-Sl-01 :,::,<', '~'" , ',-:
'-'::'ELL':'71-Sl-01'~"'-'~' ~:,' " ,':"," ,,:,- ~l:'
, ,
" ....
" "
,"
, "
',- .
.. -.. '. .
, '- '\::,j:q'~;i~j~~:( /::~-' , .
'.
. ,'.
.,
, "
, '
.. ':~:;;~:.; i,
, '
. ...-
,..
"
. :.. . ,-
.~ .:':. ..'
..;'
. ,
. .
-,
.:.. ~
."
.. ""
.:.'." .
... .~. .. ."
':.-
, '
.'; ~ . '''0' "
. ,0" .. . .
,::::,<>::,' ~~',> ,:::' ,'::.'
.,';,:,,;, .;' ',- :':.....'~ -:-:::....-: '... .
'-. ..' ".' - . .:.... "
, , ,
.
-------
F .
DRINKING WATER WELLS:
91
ELL
PRIORITY
POLLUTANT Cm1POUNDS
Acid CCITIOOllnnS
nd
gas e I ~I e 'J t r a 1
Comoounds
nd
Vol atil es
nd
.-::\...
Pest i c1 des .~~: /:,'
'. . '. . ~
.' .
':.
," ,-.-
. . ~ :
. .
,'. -",
O'.. .. , .
", .
, .
.' .
, ,..", nd :::':.""::', "'. :;~
.' .~:' :"',':- ":.,' ,~\;,:,~ :::<...~. ~..
..' .Df ;;iin~';~;x~;t.'...\}~i:~~:;/:\':"{~.:
, .
nd
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANT. COMPOUNDS'
Acid Comoounds
, "
nd
, ,
"
8 as e INe'Jt ra 1
Comoounc!s
. .
..
..,.. ..e.
" .nd
.'
.." ",.'..
'.. .'
.. ,
. .
, ,
. .
..
". . .-
, -.:
Volatiles'
.-:
~.
, . ,
..
. .
nd
TENTATIVEL Y
,
IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
nd
METALS
.
Boron
I ran
Zinc
94
(ua/J)
..,
. .
'.
- .
, "
" .
. .
, .
129
245
565
Samole Numher
, I i
i ,
. .. '.'
.- "."
. .
.; ,
. ~ I
!
,. .
...' .' :' .
. ". "....'. ". ..
. . (.: . ,,,,,~,..::,,,~:,:....,;......~:..>~'~:..-';~'.~:.:.:-. .
':"""..~.., ".
,'''.
. "
'. ",
'. .'. '..
.," :
. "", "0.
. . .. .
. ,
.', . .. .
. '.~ . '..' ',". .to".. ," .'
',,::::- ~".~:".:.~:.~.~ .:".
, ,
"'. ~:',i:t;>~"
. -' ".
.: .~ ";.' '.
. .
. .
, '
, :.
.;e."..",...
,," .. ."
. ".....
".,. '"... .
'.
; .
, "~~' :,' "~:{:::\; \~},- .:' .."
.:. ."
, ,
';. ..Of': 0.0
'°°0
, .
-
, ,
.", '-','
..
, ."
",
.. ,
"": " ~ .
':--0,
-,
::';. '",:.,
, .
-. ", 0
.~:~' " --'
.., .'!' '.
'," o' .'.
.,..-'
. .
".
. " '0..
'.~..,r>,.,/.:;,~.;}:.{ ....
, ..:..,...~~~;J~1~.~if;~it~~M-';~..'...
. ~":: ELL-91-GW-Ol ?3:::~:~.:"'::' .:,,:"
ELL-91-GW-Ol .,,:,:'.
.'-
_.
" 0',
','
-------
Attachment 8
Su~ary' of Health Effects and Properties of
Compounds Identified as Principal Contaminants
2,3,7,8-TCOO - Highly lethal at low doses to aquatic organisms, birds,
and mammals, including man. It has been shown to be acnegenic, embryo lethal ,
teratogenic, mutagenic (in certain organisms), carcinogenic, and to affect
the immune responses in mammals. It is highly persistent in the environment
and can be bioaccumulated. Exposure routes include skin absorption, '
inhalation, and ingestion. ' , ,
, '
To luene '- May cause irritation of the eyes, respiratory" tract, and skin. ,: :'" , ,
It is a suspected carcinogen and mutagen. Acute exposure results in central
nervous system depression and liver disease. It has been shown to be '
embryotoxic in experimental animals. Sorption processes may be significant.
It is slightly persistent in the environment. It 'i5 a potential fire '
hazard. Exp9sure routes include inhalation and ingestion.
Xylenes - Has been shown to be fetotoxic in rats and mice. In humans, .
exposure to high concentrations adversely affects the central nervous system
and irritates the mucous membranes. In vapor form, it is a dangerous fire
hazard. Because of low water solubility and rapid biodegradation, it
appears that xylenes are unlikely to leach into ground water in high
concentrations. Exposure routes include inhalation and ~ngestion.
{
, ,
. .. -- . -
Trichloroethylene (~ - It is carcinogenic to mice 'after oral administration,
producing hepatocellular carcinomas. It was found to be mutagenic using --
several microbial assay systems. Chronic inhalation exposure to high
concentrations caused liver, kidney, and neural damage and dermatological
reactions in animals. It rapidly volatilizes, adsorbs to organic materials,
and also can be bioaccumulated to some degree. It leaches into the ground
water fairly readily. Acute exposure depresses the central nervous system.
Exposure routes include inhalation and ingestion.
-, .
,--
-------
TABLE 5
REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE BLISS AND CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES
Remedial Technologies
A. Surface Water Controls
1. Surface seals
2. Surface water diversion
and collection systems
3. Grading
4. Revegetation
B. Subsurface Controls..
1. Impermeable barriers,
such as slurry walls
2. Permeable treatment beds
3. Ground water pumping
4. Leachate control, such as
liners
Remarks
Appropriate for insitu containment
or onsite disposal-
Appropriate for insitu containment
or onsite disposal
Appropriate for all onsite actions
Appropriate for all oasite actions
Appropriate for insitu containment
Not appropriate: fissured and
solution channeled bedrock . .
aquifer with water table far •:'•'
below wastes ' • • :
Not appropriate: fissured and
solution channeled bedrock
aquifer with water table
below wastes
Appropriate for onsite disposal
C. Waste Treatment
1. Biological methods
2. Chemical methods
3. Physical methods
D. Insitu Treatment of Waste
Mixtures and Contaminated Soil
1. Solution mining
2. Detoxification
3. Microbiological degradation
Appropriate for treatable wastes
in drums and waste mixtures
Appropriate for treatment of
wastes in drums
Appropriate for treatment of
wastes in drums
Not appropriate: clay soil,
hydrogeological setting
Not appropriate: clay soil
Not appropriate: soil mass too
deep for insitu landfarming,
hydrogeological setting
31
Ellisville Site
Feasibility Study
09/28/83
-------
.~(:tachment 10
"DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
40 CFR 300.68(f) Cateoory
o Alternatives for treatment
or disposal at an off"'S'ite
facility'
Alternative Develooed
BO-5
.'
o Alternatives that attain
applicable or relevant
and appropriate Federal
public health and
environmental requirements.
o Alternatives that exceed
applicable or relevant
and appropriate Federal
public health and environmental
requirements
BO-4 :
. .
.' . ,'.
. . -
BWM-5: where contaminated
soils, although suitable for
land disposal, would be
. incinerated.
o Alternatives that do not
attain applicable or relevant
and appropriate Federal public
health and environmental
requ i rements. . .
o No action alternative
BO-2
BOCS-l
..-
-------
"
A Illi!!.!!.!~!: '
61)-1 No
Acllon
60-2 Inllitu
Conlaln~enl wllh
Slurry \lall an.1
I"'pervloua Cap
, 60-) TreatlDenL
, '.
.,'t.,: .,.'.. t. .
~ '. ;. I .
Preliminary
0l,iuiou of
I'rohal>le
COlil
----
o
$2,100 ,000
$980,000 to
$1,200,000
TAIII,£ 6
~.. :.:-
!, .~',', ..I'(~" .i'".,"", ;',':""'"
Attachment 11
~.
COttPAIHSON 0.' BLISS ANI) CONTIGUOUS PIlOrERTIF.S AJ.TERNATIVES FOR DURIEI) CONTAINERIZEIi YASTES
51anl Heaut
Advcrae Envjron-
!!!!:!!Ul Ett!:£!L
Yell - Prol>al>le
conlalDlllllt I on
of IIrollnd water
naed for walcr
liul'I,IYi "Ole:lI-
lLI) lor ol!rect
contacl; poteu-
llal for dcara-
da t j Oil 0 f a Ie
~ualily In lIe:ar-
I>y re:ildential
areall
Yell - Prohahle
future contallll-
nallon of
arollud waleI'
IIlIed for water
lIupply if
Ilqu'd wAlltea
'arc not CO/l-
'talned
Nono apparent
Adeqllllte
Control or
Hf~!:~!
Provldea /10
contro I to
"revent direct
contact or
lil'read of
hazardoull walltes
Effective
cOlltrol of 000-
If(IUld wllatea,
but IIqu'd
wlllitell 8IIIY
enter arou/ld
wllter becllullo
hottolD of con-
tllinment area
not controlled
Yea, I f proven
etfect've by
trelltabt lf ty
IItuoly
~!:!.!! ~!lH ~
None
Rethl>le for
lIon-llqlltol
, wllllte. not,
r..lfable for, '
liquid wa.Lea.
perpetual care
of clolled ahe"
Alay lIot he
provided
Rellobte if
effective
treatment la
provided
...- '------~--"'--"-~'
ImplelDentabtll~
Not requt red
Could be tmple-
lIIented. however
IImlttple owner-
ahip of hnd
',ta potenthl
oblltocle
~: .
"
Conld be
1 IIII' I elllentcd if
effecttve treat-,
Alcnt ,ia avail-
ahle
"
, ,
':, :
Operatton and
tla tntenance
Requirements
None
;,
Haint" n mont-
torinS wclls.
aample and
a/lalyze sround
water; control
croll ton 'IInd
maintain lIotl
and lIIelllbrane
capi relltrict
future u.e of
, aho
" Nono
Sidely a.1I1
IIq;lIlaLory
!~~J~!..!"~II!:~!~~
01 s' reca rds
1-10111.1 rel}lIlre
tiecurlty tellce
alld re:stricte.1
access to
conL..inment
site
Residue fro,"
detoxifie"
wa,tes wOllld
have lo be
rhce" In II
permitted
..isro..81 alte:
~~!!!~~~E~E.~~!~~~
I'rohahly very
nCl:;at.ivt: to
(~()ut ill\lt~d p."c::.."II..:
of IlIIt:Olll."(J 1 t ,:.1
I)..::.a .-tl()II:. \.'.1:. I ~: ,;
ii, .J ."c::.ill("llll.11
ale.il
I'ruhaldy "t:Cativc ,"
couL inuctl pcc:i,,~ncc
oC iuco'"plctcly co,,-
trolled h.."..r.lolI"
\Ja:il~ &0 lilc cnvi 1"011"
mCIIL, I'artic.ulu.-ly
wllh re:spect Lo
groulld \.later
"rohahly ro..llIve
Lo rC,"IIvu1 of
hllzar,loll:i \JDsl~
trorn a ."cul.le"tinl
Area
-------
~"I'V"~':"'~" "
"," .,"
~!~!~
BUtt-I NO'
Act.an
.~.
BUtt-2 101 Itu
ContA.nment w.th
Sluuy W..II alld
Impen.aul Cap
BIM-J Onlfte
B.olol.cal
Treatment
~-,:,,~-~-'
. . ~ < '.. !' .. .
Prel.m.nary
Opin.on af
Probable
~!!L-
o
$2,100,000
$1,100,000
;-' ~----
,:, ',I
-,
, '.. ,., ' "'j""'::' :;:
, "
""... '.
, ,
-""
. ,:..,.:-:.,~: ."" L,.. .i~.:~; ...~.,; ;.:
. COttPARISON OF nf.lSSAND CONTINGlJOIIS I'ROPI!RTIES ALTERNATIVES FOR WASTE ttlXTll/Il!S
SlsnlHcant
Adveue Envh'an-
~~!..L.!.! f e£.!:..L
Yea - Prabable
conta,"naUan
af sraund water-
uaed far wiler
lIul'ply; poten-
thl for direct
contact; potcn-
thl tor dcsu-
dulan of all'
!JualHy .n
residcntlal
arca..
None al'pa rent
I
,
!
Greateat poten-
thl far direct
cant act an.1 10'1'
rele...e af
cont.wlnateet
leachate an,1
rUllo f f
-- ~
-~ ..- .
Adequate
Cantral or
Etfect1veneu
Provf dc:a no
cantral to'
prevent direct
contact 0'1'
..preadlns af
hazardaus waatea
W.Il effcctfvely
prevent. direct
'cantact with
and ..lauUan
at hazlr"aUI
WII tea it all
liqu.d walt.el
arc remaved
Yea, ff praven
effective by
treatabll tty
I huly
. '
,"...
TAUI.I! 7
!!e I h~!.!.l
Nane
Relhble II
lonl aa
fntearHy af'
conta.nmcnt
ayatem fa
...illtained
Relhbt1Hy' fa
dependent on
treatahllity af
waate .
. .'-"'-'"
.-- ......' -
--:-:-=. - ~_..a88
Implementablll ty
Nat requfre"
Cauld be fmple-
mented; hawever-
multfple hnd
awnel'lhlp fa .
patenthl
obltade
Operatfan and
tlafntenancc
!!!9u.rement:>
None ~
Haintatn mani-
torfnl wella.
aample and
an8lyze araund
water-; cantrol
er-alfon alld
.afntain aofl
. ;... . and membrane
.. \~...
'.':<.;. ,,' capi r-eatrlct
, , ." . "'" " .. . future uae af
. . "', afte
. ::--.,~: ~: ',"
Cauld be Illple-
..ented tf t.reat.-
abilfty fa .
.praven, however-
land ia aeverely
reatrlcted .and
not well au.ted
for treatment
.. "..-. "., -.- ...
....,..,>. .
Honftor- all and
Itqu.d effluent..
frolll treltment
a real f mpaund
contamfnated
runoff and
'recycle to
treatment arell
.'---------.-
Safely IInd
I!cgnlalury
!!~!J~~'~~.!~II~~
))1 &rcgard~
Would req..1 rc
secur.ty fe..ce
and restrlclc.'
acces.. to' con-
tainment IIrea
Wastes ,",auld he
dCloxlfied und
treated &011
,",ould he re-
placed In It..
original loco-
tioll
!'~!~~!! ~,-~~:.:~ l' ~ ~.., ~
I'.'ohahly very
ncgdllvc Lo
(':OIlLiuucd prcs(~IICC
(I t "''''Oil 11'0 II <:<1
haz..nlo..~ "a~I,,~
in a .-c"j.lcillial
d l'.~a
l'roh"lIly negallv." ...
permdn""l "lO'-bl;"
of ha;lardolls Wd~lt: i'l
a resi,lcnti,,1 "I'''~
Prohahly ne8al Iv" .111<:
to l'0lellll,,1 fOl'
relcB~e of Cont.dnli-
"a[ed effh":IIlS
during treitlmcnL
i
,.
I
I
-------
., ~ ' ,
. "
,," '.'
~ t '.."'" ,,'
- .'
..
Alt!!~!!!
8DCS-l No
Anion
i,
80CS-2 J nil tu
Containmcnt with
Slurry "'.11 .nd
Impcrvioua Cap
~
Prclimlnary
0l,'nlon of
l'rol>al>le
Cosl
---
o
$2,100,000
TARU: 8
~,:,,'"" "\0','" ~
~: ",~ " ~. " ...
.
COtIPARISON OF RUSS ANn CONTIGUOUS PROPEl/TIES ALTfRNATIVES FOR DIOXIN CONTAtllNATEil 5011.
Si8nificant
Adverse Envlron-
8IC n La I E ff ~£!!.....
Al10wa (01'
direct contact
wilh dioxlll
contam'nated
lIoil .nd 8J"11vel
in s rcsldcntisl
a reil j contaOlj-
nllted lioj 1 Dlay
ioe lflu\lil'0rtcd
and del,oli' ted
along creek and
may entcr gcound
water used for
watcr 1i1l1'1,ly
None .pparent
i
Adequate
Control 01'
Effe£.~!~
I
Providea no
control to
prevent d'rect
contact wi lh,
01' apreadlng of,
dioxin contallll-
nated ao.1
\/.11 effectively
prevent d'rect
contact with,
and .ilution
of, d'oxin,
contaminated
ao11
,,' I
~~~~lli~Y
None
Re1table ..
long aa '
integrity o(
containment
ayatelll ia
...tnta'ned
!~~lelllentabilitI
Operation and
ttlintenance
~uiremelllli
Nond'
Not I'equtred
Could be' illlple- ' HdnUin Plon'-
.entedj howevel' tOl'tnl well a;
multiple,hnd ',' ....pie and,
, ownenhip .ay", :' analyze grollnd
'..:,. be an Dba Ucla , :'"ateq control
" , ","':"1. ,"" ':" ' " ero. ton and
,,:;"".~," ',: ',,'.. mdntatn 8011
: "!"',,' ..: ;' 'and membrane
'. ,'"" capi n8tdct
:"" future uae of
",..::,-:..." ," ait.
,""
,. .
..
',';)',.' '
Safety and
lIegll\alory
~~~~~!~~~~!:;!.
"'srega,;ds
\/0111 d re(JIlI re
securi~y fence
aud reatrlcted
accellll to con-
tainment al'ell
"\
Puh Ii c Acce~~~~~!:
Prohably very nega-
live to continuccl
presence of uncon-
lrolled ha211nl0lls
wasle in a rcsidcn-
lial a...,a
Prohably neglltfvr. I..
pennanenl SiDra!;"
of ha2anJolis wa,;le: i..
II rc~idc"lial bred
-------
TAIII.E fl
(Continued)
COMPARISON OF BLISS AHO CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES ALTERNATIVES FOR DTOXIH CONTAMINATKn SOU.
Al ternat Ive
nOCS-5 Off site
Disposal
DOCS -5 Offsite
Storage
Subalternative
Prel Imlnary
Opinion of Significant
Probable Adverse Envlron-
Cosl mental Effects
$1,700,000 Large volume
of heavy truck
traffic in
residential area
$1.000,000 Large volume of
plus future heavy truck
costs traffic in
residential
area
Adequate
Control or
Effectiveness
Yes . •
Incomplete,
detoxification
must be
addressed in
the future
Reliability
Reliable If a
permitted
disposal
facility is
aval Indie
Reliable if
offsite reposi-
tory is
available
•
Implement ability
Could be imple-
mented only if
permitted
offsite
facility is
available
Could be imple-
mented only if
offslte reposi-
tory Is
available
Operation and
Maintenance
Requirements
V
Responsibility
of the offsite
permitted
disposal
facility
Responsibility
of the offsite
repository
Safety ami
Regulatory
Ke
removal of ho2ar
-------
Remedial Action
Alternative
Proaram
A
BO-5
BWM-S .
BOC~5
B
BO-5
. . BWM-5
BOCS-5
C
BO~5
BWM-5
BOCS-3
o
BO-5
Bt,.r,.1-3
80CS-3
E
BO-5
BWM-2
Offsite disposal
Offsite disposal
Offsite disposal
Offsite disposal
Offsite disposal'.
Offsite storage
Offsite disposal
Offsite disposal
Treatment
Offsite disposal
Treatment
Treatment
Offsite disposal
Insitu containment
,/1,ttachment 12
Preliminary Ooinion of
. Aoproximate Probable Cost ($)
540,000
, 1,100,000
.: . ~._,1 ,700,000
. '. ",":;3,309,??? "
'. .
. .
. 540 000 .
'... :::. : ::", :., , .'.:"." -.:'
..~ :. ,;~~ ~'. .",1, 100,000:.:. ',-: . . '..
. .';":~<:.L :."1 ,000 ,000 C (l) .' ..:
.: 2,600,000 : .'
..
... 540,000
. 1, 100,000
. 1,000,000
2,600,000
540,000
1,100,000
. 1,000,000
2,600,000 .
..:: '.-
. ..
..:. - '-.
. .
.. .
. ,
540,000
2,100,000 (2)
2,600,000
(1) Not including future handling and treatment costs.
(2) Containment system for BWM-2 will also contain dioxin-contaminated
soil at no additional cost.
El1isYille Site
Feasibility Study
..S
..--
-------
Table 4-1
COMPARISON OF INTERIM STORAGE ALTERNATIVES
Attachment 13
Alternative
Advantages
Concrete Tank
I
H-
*.
o High structural Integrity and reliability
o Requires leas area than container facility
o High walla make distribution/placement of
wastes easy relative to other bulk storage
alternatives
Disadvantages
Hone
Technical
o No use for tank when empty; no salvage value
o Demolition/removal Is expensive
o Possible large quantities of leachate generated
during waste placement/removal necessitate
large treatment facility (relative to enclosed
wasteplle)
o Difficult operation of equipment In tank when
the fine-grained soils become wet due to
precipitation
o If -excavation temporarily halted, difficult to
Install and remove temporary cover
o Difficult to adjust size of tank In field to
suit actual volumes of wastes excavated
o Requires construction of ramps which will
occupy considerable area and.may hamper
staging of construction operations
Environmental and Public Health
Slightly higher risk of exposure to contaminants
Is associated .with bulk waste handling than with
containerized handling
Soaa potential for dispersion of wastes by wind
during placement due-to lack of cover
-------
Alternative
Enclosed Hasteplle
Table 4-1
(continued)
Advantages
o Lou quantities of leachate generated relative to
concrete tanks and monoflll alternatives
o No temporary cover required If excavation •
Interrupted ,
o Steel-framed building may be easily dismantled
and removed
Disadvantages
Technical
o Volume of waste stored pur unit area Is low,
especially In narrow structure
o Unlikely that building can lie decontaminated
to a level to render It suitable for other uses
after Interim bulk storage of TCDD wastes; low
salvage value
o Expansion to accommodate Increased volume of
wastes In field relatively difficult
Environmental and Public Health
o Once wastes are In enclosure, no potential for
wind or water dispersion '
o Excellent security
o Slightly higher risk of exposure associated
with bulk waste handling relative to contain-
erized handl Ing
-------
Table 4-1
(continued)
Alternative
Container Facility
with Dullding
Enclosure
Advantages
o Containerized storage minimizes contamination of
building enclosure; It may be more easily cleaned
to render It suitable for use as arena or for
other purposes after removal
o No contaalnated leachate collection gravel to
dispose of at end of Interim storage period
Disadvantages
Technical
o Container handling slows excavation
o Container storage makes less efficient use of
space than bulk storage
I
H-
^1
Container Facility
with Synthetic
Membrane Enclosure
Environmental and Publl£ Health
o Contalnerlzatlon at point of excavation reduces
exposure potential
o Excellent security
o Size of facility relatively easy to adjust to
accommodate varying volumes of waste
o No contaminated leachate collection gravel to
dispose of at end of Interim storage period
None
Technical
o Container handling slows excavation
o Container storage makes less efficient use
of space than bulk storage
Environmental and Public Health
o Contalnerlsatlon at point of excavation reduce3
exposure potential .' •• '
None
CVSF4/065
-------
.
,-: :::":,"','":"'2:-.: ~:
RES?ONSIV~~ESS SU~~Y
The Bliss property is one of three waste disposal ar~as
'~I;hich
ccmprise t::e
Ellisville site.
Early comcunity relations activities focused primarily on the
i~itial r~~edial measures at the other t~o properties, Rosalie and Callaha~,
although updates on the Blis$ ptoper~y status were also~provided.
Early public
. I
, '
ralatio~ activities consisted primarily or news releases issued in a period
bet~een 1981 a~d 1984, while initial remedial measures and a remedial
investigation of these disposal areas were ongoing.
., '.
. .
. .". .
In July. 1984. a brief,~?g for local public officials was held to discuss
. . .
. . . .
cleanup proposals of the feasibility study for the Callahan and RosaIie sites. ... A . .
.'. . :..:........::;:~.~:. ~~::'."..:: :;~:~..'~. ":~:~:";.~L",~"~:.:".~~'.~...;: ~~~.-: .
public meeting on these cleanup recommendations was held on August :.9,' ,1?8~.-:. ')-:~-.:::.:~:::. ::.'
. '", ..' .' ,;'":"":;':"~.'~~~,:::''',;~~'''''..'~;';-~:-...~';': :-...";~".:':~":c.:.~:" ~ " ::: .;~ '..--
Although these meetings were not intended to discuss. the Bl~ssproperty. -they"'did :-:/.-:,/-':,:'.
. . .." ':. .: /~.; :::~~.~~~:-:/~~~:-~;~~ ,~~:'~'-, <.:;:~~:?:;?~~~:'::~,~-,~::-~,:':'~~~'~"',':, -
provide the public an opportunity to obtain infomation on -all hazardoUs' waste."'.":~.':.:''''.'.'.
, ,'.: .'" '.' ..
. . " .' ,
. . .
. ::. :" "
. .. ", ~' "."';""':' -,
problems in the area.
,. '~''-.'
:-: ". .,'.1,'...
'" " ;.", ,
..
On Nove~ber 22, 1985, representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Missou=i Depart:ent of Natural Resources, and Congressman Young's office met with
"
the Mayor or Ellisville and conducted a tour of the Ellisville site.
. ..
In Feb~~ary. 1986, the Focused Feasibility Report for the Bliss and
Contiguous Properties Site was completed.
.. ." . "--,. .,' . 'c'...,', "
. . ~'. .".,7:'.... '. . . . -: ,'. '." - .. .
- .
Local public official~"'we~~' briefed by
'.. .
.' .
representatives of the ~~vironmental Protection Agency and the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources on cleanup alternatives considered by the study
at a meeting on March 14, 1986.
Copies of the remedial investigation and
; feasibility. study reports. prepared for the Ellisville site, were provided to the
Daniel Boone Branch Library. located in Ellisville. . The availability of these
doc~ents for public review was announced by a press release issued on
March 17. 1986.
1
-------
.
(j
During the public participation p=ocess use of the
ea=:::en
cove~ed =cn~fill,
c~ntainer storage in synthetic membrane enclosures, and contai~er storage in
building enclosure alternatives were supported by c~mmentors.
The mono f ill
alternative was supported due to its rel~tively lower capital c~st and its
aesthetic appearance.
Containerized storage of dioxin contaminated ~astes was
recc~ended by several comr.entors prioarily.to reduce blowing of contaminated
'I'
d~st during storage and at the t~e a final disposal method is selected.
The
synthetic membrane enclosure would have the lowest total implementation cost of
. . '" .
. . . '. . . .' . .
the containerized waste st~:age options; however, maintenance costs of the
building'enclosure option are significantly lower, p~oviding both alternatives
with similar total present worth costs over a ten year '~;:~~'d:":~,<\:-:":tf~:'~,',)~':~.:'~':',:~'.' "',' ~ " =,:'
. . ',' . '. . - ..,", '.. . ," ....
Containerized storage of dioxin contaminated mater;als ,~- ~ earthe~ ~>":- ': . ::',' ,: ,',
: . '. '. . - ..:-.-~~ .~~.~~[~~:.~~.~~~~t~~~.~:.-:::':.~",:'~:~:.,:~~~'~':;'-:,~~~'~.~..~.....:::~=,:. ..t~.~:
enclosure, an option not considered' by the focused feasibility "stUdY;:was:a1so >:. ....: ,
. ',' .... .' '. '. .." .:....,'. . . .. >.
suggested by a commentor for consideration.
This option would provide the public
health advantages of containerized storage while also offering a more
aesthetically acceptable appearance than the building or synthetic membrane
enclosu=e options.
As a result of review of the engineering feasibility study and consideration
, ,
.. ~.. .. '.
of comments received during the public participation process,the con~ainer'
, - ,
. ..
. '
storage in a building enclosure alternative has be~ reco~~ded for handling
dioxin contaminated materials.
This alternative has been selected primarily for
its potential to provide the greatest protection of the public health and its
lowest ope~~tion and maintenance requirements during the storage period.
Painting of the building(s) in an earth-tone color or use of of earth-tone siding
,.-..
is also recoccended to minimize any adverse effect on the aesthetical appearance
of the neighboring area.
3
-------
IJ
~
In summary, the containerized storage in a buildi~g
cr:closure
a.l:e~::ati1/e r.flias
,0 recomcended due to its poter.tial for providing the safest and cost deper.dable
procedure for storage of dioxin cont~~inated materials.
The building enclosure
~ill provide relatively easy access for container inspection and ~ill require the
least caintenanceto ensure the syst~~ointegrity.
Containerized storage ~ill
reduce the potential for blowing dust and p~ovide the greatest protection for:
I "
workers and nearby residents as such time final disposal 'can be co~pleted:
This
alter~ative is also adaptable should the actual quantities of dioxin contaminated
'. '-
.' :. . .
materials be less than or greater than anticipated amounts.' Us~ of earth-tone
colored buildings is reco~ded to minimize
concerns of the - advers~ impact ,~~se , , " ' '
..,..',.. ,.;:~~~~!~~'~fx~;fl~i~~J:i:,:~,;,:;~~;:;,.. .
'. ';,". ~"', . . -.
. "
structures pose to aesthetics of the area.
. ..,~ (~. ~- :.:. .
. ,
. .'
, '
'. -".'. ..~: /:~'~'.>.~
'0
".', . . .. _::. .':':', . --... "."
". .: '.::~:" ':~ '> . >",'
, ..~'
. -'
. .; ".-
, .'
..
-..--
5
-------
.
u
.' v' ,
5U.I~ARY :
ELISS HAL~RCCUS WAST~ 5IT~ FUELIC ~t~IING
P:2pa:2d by the ~iss~u:i
Dep~=t~~E!it
of Natu!'el
RescL!=:~s
FURFOSe: OF 5t.!~iJ{cRY
.' .
Tnis summary has been preparsd so participants in the ~arch 31, 1986,
public me~ting abcut ~~e e~~ss hazardous waste sit~ can have a basic
record. of the me~ting for future reference. ..' '.. .. .
. .'
Tnis summary also is being provided so participan~':'c~ 'b~ ';'~{.'~a-t\h~'i;: ';/'::' .
comments were l:riderstcod correctly.' Tne information t~at follows is based.. :":.' '-
on the transcript of the prcc~~dings prepared by a regis~r=d professional :~~::.'~,i:':-.':::'.;:'.
recorder .' Howe'/er, 1 f . any inac::uracies are noted ,"pleEse ",n:i te . ~"'Ie ~"i0:-,:"~"~h; -:<.'. -':'~'::'::~:'?'
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Office of Public Affairs,': P.O.'::~'::"::":--::>_i-~';':-::
Eox 176, Jefferscn City, MO 63102. Or call :;1~-7S1-:;44:;.:';'~:. . .' ':..' .' .'
. .
. .8...
A c:py of t~e meeting S~~aIY will-be filed with other information
I=.srta.ining to t~e sits at the Daniel Eocn~ Erano.;, of the St.. Leuis COL!nty
L.ib!2ZY, 300 Clarkscr. R:ad, Ellisville. .
,. .
, ,
. A TTSO.a.NCE:
. . . -
, -
. ; ,-.:';-,":. ..'." ...:," .
-: ' ',::: ,::",-'.:::L<;'-,~:<.:::;::::''-'~-'~'~';'',.;-" ~ . . ',:
--- Fifty~two'~erscr.s attsn~~d
sits held at 7 p.m., Mazch
Clay ten Read. .
. .
t"1e public me~ting on the Bliss hazardoUs waste ';~ ::-'. ,---. ,
31,1586, at Parx-xay West High Sd'ool,75._W....':~ ,.;' .'
" .' .
. '.
Reprssentatives we=~ prs~ent frem t~e Misscuri Department of Natural, '
Rsscur:ss, the city of Ellisvill~, t"'le Mis.scwri Departmer1t of Hsalth, the
U.s. ~,vizo~mental Frotsction Agency, and Stat~ Re~r~sentative St=~hen
Ea:~ten's of nee. . '.,
..---; :
. .
. .
INFaF~AiIONAL F~ES~~iAiIGN
-Stan Jar~snsan, c~isf of t~e ~,forc=ment/Sw~erf~d Section
Oe~a=~Toent of Natwral Rsscurces, o~ened the me;ting wi~, a
that c~ve=ed the following subjects:
of t,e Missouri
presantation
" .
-------
...
#
-3-
51.:= Ne;;;e
,,- -"""'~-t""-';-ri._- t"'-11;-~ -~~ C--~--~\ ~:-- "=~I:S,,'il1= C:::,:"=" w-s ...-;--~
Mil I...I...J::_~';'\.I I I..~ ...':::'_~_I'':i 1..,,,- .'~-:-:::..~'J 1..;::: ----'- '---- ...-1..- n<; ..:-,-.;::::...:,
TMis WeS rioted by stete officials, whe eg~=:d that the site cculd ce
-:::_---,..; ""'I bv --oi-"'I=- r;--o c:"""~ -c: ":"'e "=1 is- Si"" " exc-nl. for i""-ms in
~.-::::~';"=.- '-:- ~J 7:1, '-.,-~ Ic:n- _\W"-.I c- I...~, ---.:) -'--, ~ '::r-'- -. '...':.1 _I
t~e F~~~=:l ~s~~s~=~. . .
i ,
I
. .
P:cce:tv Values , "
Cc~mencs pe~~aining to the various storage options indicated c=ncern frem
some participatnts that the appearance of the storage facility could,
affect property values. (See the section on comments in this summary.)
In addition, partic:ipants'"-presEnted their views on whether posting signs, ;, ~.;, '
on tJ'1e proposEd fence near ~'1e bike path, would adversely affect property <, " :~ '
values. More support ytas expressed for not posting the .fence than ..for ':~,:'..:~",- ,",
. ::::~ 5: ~fe~tS 0 '0 . . . . ....'.. -;;";~4~~'~~i~l:l~i5;MJ{!.; '.' ....' .
A participant at the 'meeting asked about' the immediat!':'~dTong':t;rm'':';~::~::~~,~,:.',;.~,~'" ~:
healt.~ ,effects that could be caused by the substances at the site .': Gale,:' ,-..'. '
Carl~cn frc:m the Missouri Department of He~lt., explained' the possible " '"
effe~ts that mic:ht result f=~m rs~e~t=d exoosure to dioxin~ 'He made, , """
bccklets en this subje~t availabl~ to the.se attending tJ'1e meeting and
p:::'/ic=~ sc~e aad'.;Gale Carlson '",:" "
not:d dioxin at the sits is unlikely to c:ntamiJiate water supplies ; 'and':-: ",'
bat water .sa:i1pling in the .summer of 1985 had not found any dioxin in, ,", '".
private ',o/~t:: su~plies in ~'ie area. It also was pointed out t.~at ot.,er '"
substances at the prcpe~ty are very harmful and could cont~~inate ground'
wats: if cle~nup is not undertaken. :
Olexin Lsve.!.s
In rs~~cr..se to a ql..:e.stic:n, Steve Kovac of t:-:e U,S, Enviic:r.mE!ital -':,:"."
=--c' -~~~~n A~o~c'l no~"~ th-"" t~e hi~n' e~- dioxin C-r.cc~t--";cn -c' the S~-=
I ."",.j :_-~...,; ,:::_.i I ,,-_".oJ ~ t;\".1 -~ 1_'- - - -. __I :'c\.- c: ! .1..-
was 120 p~=ts ~e~ billion, whic~ is neithe~ the highest or lc~est when
c:mpa=sd ta c::::r.csntrations at other sites in the St. Louis area. '::'~':':':~,
..
Samolina Locaticns
T,UO q"oc:-;~ns "'e"'o -c:I""e,.; C"'''''cc......in'''' Wlooefol.e'" S-...~,..r....c," Rc"'d "''''d hillsides,
" '---'--...; "-'- C:_r"\ - ",~I __11- I':::: Ii _~I - '----."'-- c;8 11;..11 ----
r.e-- "~e ~liS- P--C:="'.Y h-d b=c~ C:-.1101=,..; S~_... ofr-l'ci"'Ys not=d thec:e '
I .:.~ '-.1 '-"--.;:) ~.., ,,--'- c:. __;1 _ClI. ---. 1...:0'-- -~ - i - _0
a!':as have not been sampled bec~use the:: has never besn arlY evidencs t.'"1at
mat;r:als 'He:; dL;l'l1~ed the!':, All past sa:-npling 'HeS basad on the re~orts
of d=ive~s or employees of the 'Haste haulirig firm as to wher: west:S had
been taken J or, on .c:mpany rec:::l:ds. -. ..
-------
LA
,
c:
-...-
C:~.!I'-H~NTS
Tne fallowing c:~~e:.ts were
t~e crde= t~at participants
prss::1ted
spcks.
at the
meeting.
They are listed in
A mcnafill is t~e best starace alt=r~ative.
A r=~:s5a:.tacive fram the city ef Ellisville spoke in faver ef a manerill
far storing dioxin-c:ntaminated materials. It was noted that a manofill
with a grass cover would blend in with the topography end would be '
advantageous for property owners in the area since it would be les3
c:nspicuous. Tne represenbetive from the city of Ellisville statsd strong
support for the mono fill over all other options, noting he felt that any' "'., "-'-""'~
other solution to the interim storaoe of dioxin would not be in the best :"c" '~.~.~',.,.,:~;
interest of the area.' s residents or-the city. , Ase~ond person voiced~',:.'" ,">;:::.:~,>,:
;:::;::~~~ ~:.~:~:e::~;t:~::: . o~t~'. . . .. . ".' . :":;,"~~Z'~~E:1f5~~t~'f;:~!i~i;~~~:i~~~'i
The rspresentative frcmth~ city of Ellisville 're~ommended that
near the bike pat' be fenced.
the area. '
.'
.... .:. ~. >'. .
... --.'.. '-'.- .. n,"
. "....,...: . ,"',:'......
Ext!:.s!ve or:und-water tsstino shculd be dene at the sits."
Cne ~e=sc~ spcka in faver of acciticnal ground-water tasting at t,e site.
',-
. ,
5cme:Mir.:: ~hculd be dcr.e a:cut tMis at t~e local level rat~er than wait
far ti:e feeeral ccve:nmEriC- T'ne cove=~mEnt c::Juld subsidize a lca..i a:-;d we '" -' .,-...-
c:uld cut dawn ti'.e inti cia.!. cavmerit for the cleEnuo. . ..,"'" -
-.. "... - ". ".. . .-_.' .-.-...-:-. .,... '''',..'''......"
One person mace tiis- recCIT'.r.ienda::ien. . .:; ..'~_:::' ,. :-I:..,'--:':::'~':,~:':~:":'_':~''';'
; ',..' .,"' . -". .. .
. .. . .
A c:ntaine: faciE tv wi tJ"'I a svr.thetic memb=ar.e ericlosurs is to,e best
storace alt:!native. It should be cove:sd with dirt and orass.
One pe=son notsd that he felt ~'ere were severe technical and
e:.vircnmentaldisadva..-;taces to a mcnofill that shculd eliminate it f~cm
c:nsiceration. He point~~ out t"'lat the volume of wasts stored per unit
area. is lcw; if excavaticn is halted tam~o=arily, it is difficult to
install and remove a t~T.porary c:Jveri possible lazge quantities of rUn-off
--~ 'w-.=- n=~-~I-.i~~ do~n tlh-~ucn' t~e m-~=-,-1 (C-l1=0 lQ-c~-~=) dU~'no
c;:..\".. TJ~'--':' ,.....-,,-...._0::.:'_.1':: . n .... - 'I 'C:~-~-=- .:._-- ....: .~c\.- -..:.-
the clea.nup pe:iod wculd necessitate a large treatuent f~ility; t,at it
is di ffic:Jlt to ol=erate e~uipment when fine-grained soil-is wet,; and t,at
there is the potantial for t~e slippage of materials in wet conditions.
~e also I",ot:d tMat a mono fill would have a big fenc~ around it, which
wculd not be particularly aesthetic.
. -', .. .
. .. -.'-'" - ,.
". ..... .
This I=e::scn favo!':d a ccntaine:: facility with a synt.,etic membrane
er.closure. He noted tMis cctien would allow wastes to be C:Jntaineriz2dj
it c:uld be adjusted to ac:=mmocate varying volumes of waste; and it
a'lc:'cs c::ntaminated run-Q ff Qr leachate. ' He also noted that it could be -
c:Jv~:=d with grass and dirt just as a mcnofill w~uld be, exc!pt that it
would ce a lot safe:: to stor; materials in it, :nd a lot easier and safer
to ;et rid of it when a me~hcd of disposal is available.
-------
.. .
--
, '
, , ' i" ,( ~ -, r. (/ (
,---- / / _!u_._.~--/) -----.--.,- .: .--- 'I) ,_.---,._-_._~~)p (~_J~ ! J_~~-, '
~,_~{i!5~~!~~Z/~~'a~~g4~-ji?:.;q,,:~< '," , :"~-'~"'i' ':ef:TIY,/l)~'~i~-=~'
-_.P~,-.!2~~=":'~~~~'~"""~:: ';~' ~ ::;'<:",,:,\-:,---'~-"'~ .-'.,-' , ~~~-.:~,.:~.~ fJI-
---,___').::z{-fe':"s.~_9../].J..1 (J..:W_b -~{~+::_--,-, ---- -.p.p:o 7 ~10"'6 .-----'-'
. . . I \ ~O
----.-,-., --'V-e---'I)r;-:;::::=:" -i'Juooo/, -'~-';---',::-;-"p --- -i. -"--'~'::---y,.,;,~'~-.I~~.:;::G~'.~~ ---, i. I
,---------~..._9 -,.._~..,oJ -~ ',:..l-~ J I tJ ~':j U-:-..::.... .v:r:-r~:... 1\9-.5 -.;.:.-'~-:....~:'2-~;:~vn e- ---- --- .1
-~- -G;~~;~+i-:~,.:'~~~t~.~-;f:i:f)::j~;',~~~_S~~:
, i . J "";- .::-- -:: '; '-. '.:..., . " .'~: ' , . '
._--,~ ~_~l~~_~(CJ~{:'~(~-~,~.t-~-~ ~ .-~-, 6-:~ ['~ ~~'~~--',
--- ~~;'-=~:)t<~~~~.-:::i!~r:f5t.-:/l/7;;'~~. -:-~
'. ''':'~'~::\S~e'':''' ~,.,~~-.:"'::,,.'~" ':;"'~'", ~'
. ~", ,'-- ~ -., - ,.--, - -~ ~ ., ~.: ~e-: ~'-. ~'77'~, ~ - , "',, ,,' ,
. :.:..~ -...:~. '. '-:-.~:' -.-'.."';--:-:;'.,.' :.'. .:...\.".'~-'''' ':'t ~"'.:...",,:: - _.....~~.: -:"'.,J" :. .. :.. . .' ~". . :.',.. .
i" .' z.. ~~' $ L . ~ ~' ~ '$ '/..-vd{ ~;;~''''iS. .,",,', ',- , 7 :"'" ,'.. ,- . .~ ':"
. "': .'''' c.+ .-;,~~i::Cd~~i::O~~;(.!~:~.i"-.
- .. - - - ~~~ - ~-/. -- ~-~~~~r;..+-"Sr~l... ~ .-.
-~~'_:<'-" ,(~V~~_. ",~0{~S~(f-T:-,~,.~~-S~~~;',,>",:'-" '-'
'". :>''''l'~''''' I "'~ _,e,'.'., ';.'.- "" .. -", ,
. .~.._... . __..A._- ~.. ." 000 -' o' :..---'
() " .' ' '-"',',' :' . -:"'. '. .;', '.' , "
..:: -- , 3. .~.-v~+ ,'~~ ~~ ~ G' ~';~~_:~,'...,:..,.:.";,H~'". -:'-
-'---_._~~:- -:::\":'~~~=~Z~~~i:l'A~~'~ ~ !~i r~' 6 I '
, ,- -i- . 'e~ ,'u~,~:~>~ ~~~,
.------ ~~--~Ck:_C:--77""-p'-{,..,"'-'_.C --;;1I!it -
.,...::-.- _.. --,::;_: -",~,-.', : f:H:. '-c3j-rf'~'~'-':':. --~':+-
-~- ' " ':. ~ --.'; ':':~~:. ~-_:~-L..~~-;~~~i:7:" "',' " -. .
--- ' -$~ ~ ~~.~.s~~~~" ' ,
-~--- " -A ~ ~_~~je_s,~~~~~~ ---'-
-~---._---~------~ ~~~~_c/!~. -?-::-~ ~ # i..-'---,----..
-- -- '-------'~ ~~~'-7--. .-- ..~.._-~~~'~,~,..~:.~~~'-~._- "-".'
- ?(7 - - --..-.-----
~-~----_~.:.~~_r~~, .; ~-~+~.'~,~~~>:'''" ' ..
I' , ',",' '. ' ' ...
-----------~~-~C'-&-._~ "-7~:~~;f~ 3::1-&~~~ -
- -' ~~-~._--- ,~-L..--r- k ~~.- ~~ '
. ~.r 7' ' . ,
I '--:-() .
-= _"::-'_-~--_.a-_~-:;Q~7-;""k~~:&s.?-f ~ ~-_.._-
_:- ... -. : :q-_."-7~-~2~-~ ~f::i':Jf.f:::-{~._...- -
. "-'_'h._____--.--.. ..:._- r::--r~-/-__.e_,._.. f_-_~.._,_;H~~~~-..,CJ?- ..~, -.'.....,...-.-.'
,-
-------
.------- --
-.-, -- - --..--
t, t..t... ~
"
;:J Cl~Jtc~ T~~ils D~i7e
Ellis7ille, ~O 6J011
Ap~il 9, 1986
~isscuri De;~=~=e~t cf Natu=al
,Waste ~~~az~=e~t :~o==a=
F.O. Eo~ '176 -
Jeffe~son City, MO 65102
:-~sct.:=~~s
. .
ro'
- .
..=1 is s CL~d. C.:!':.t 19-~cus P=c p:::-t i:5
Dio~in-Ccnta~lr.ate~ Soil
- Froposal for Storage of
.'
As e homeowner in Weod Meadow sutdlvislon,' located adjacent to
Eussell Eliss p~operty near Ell-1sville, MO., I suggest that the
Container Storage Synt~.t1c ~e~br~e Enclosure cethod be used to
store d10xin-contaminated so11. .I also suggest that this '.'.., ".,~ . ".. .
enclosure, when completed, be covered with dlrt .and grass.'to':.::::~; .'...
blend in with the e!lvirorunent. . I :feel that thls method ha.s the :.: '.'
best comblnat ion of ~a.i'ety whl1e the so11 ls' going to be -~;':.;/""~~~."'.':~.
conta.lned. e."ld' ever..t1.!ally re!:1oved, :fleJ:lbll1ty.~ ::ca,se ;the :?:;":;'.';~~~:;~'/.::.: :~. . ,;:':
e!lou."lt of dio:I:ln-ccnt~lna.ted so11 varles;:'.and ..the. niost. aesthetlc,'.,~'.'~':".:~ ..;".,:
for appe~a.."lce. . .'. '. ,.:~.,<.:;~~:;..~~t::';:~':/"':"':':~::.:~:~~:?~:~~;,::~~;:~..;:~':::':.'::"'"
SincerelY', :::"::.': ''''. -:
(J/r..JJIIJi1~~'
Chet Duc~ow~ki .
.'
. ...
"
. ~;~CS~ll'fj~ ~ li'lI
~ . . ~
.A.PR 11 l~aS
'. -,
.
. .'
'fv,.,.,.. i t ',-';~I~ AC:~MENT
. . . fRCG..\.\\ . .
. . . .. .-.&;~k~~~~;~~tf:.... ". > ....'.'~\--::". .F~. .
'. .
.". '. "'.
. .',.
.. .. .
'. . ...
. .
"., .0'
'-
.," ';
. .
'-,
---~.
..-..
. :
.. .,,',
-------
1 ,-a .,
JOliN ASI!CHOIT
Guvernur
" ., .~ ..." . ; ~ : . . , ' .
';~f¥St}
\, \~0 ;:y, -r~ i
VL?~~'d "..);~..
~.... ~,. ,-<:,.j.~:"::;
'\>-~~ ..I, .-
~ o( (:', i.-'"
- - ~ " ..
. -' :,':' " V.J- f',
'-- ",~ V
': !;' ./
:;:..~>i{}11 u( :':::l"i";:'l
FREDERICK A. URUNNER
Director
STA TE or ,\IISSOL:RI
DEPART~IENT OF N:\ruRA~ RI$OURCES
..:.:'~ ~ '..,.- ".'.
ornCE OFT}!E DIRECTOR'
p,o, [)ox 176 ,
, JdT~'r~()11 CilY, ~tissuuri 6;102
Tdc:phol1c 3 14. is 1-4422
. !)I..~.o::ion o{ EII\irnnl:1l"i.l.l! ()lIJlit)"
:::'",';<:n ,,( (;~(Jj,,:-~: :::<.1 !.1I1<.1 SU('\'Y
Di\~.,i()11 1)( ;\LH~';I~...':1H::1I ,X'("'.it.:::3
Uj\1;-:inn o( '''-rk.'i.. H\,'(iC'::tion.
~nu lli."'{Ur1C Prt:.~f"':J(jlJn
COSl,--
Mr. Morris Kay
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas
-~,
-.. .
September 19, 1986
66101
Dear Mr. Kay:
'.' -
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has completed its" ",
evaluation of the remedial action alternatives for the Bliss and Contiguous '.,"
Properties, Ellisville Area Site, c'ontained in the September 1983 Remedial ..;..- ,',:
Feasibility Study prepared by Black & Veatch'Engineer~Architects and the
February 1986 On-site Storage Focused Feasibility Study ' prepared by
CH2M-Hill. '
, It is our position that the best remedial alternative for non-2,3,7,8-TCDD
hazardous substances is excavation and off-site disposal of .buried drums and, "
waste mixtures at appropriate RCRA or interim status facilities meeting current '"-,,,
CERCLA off-site policy. Specifically, the alternatives are BD-5, (overpacking ; ~'- ,':,
subalternative) and Bw1'{-S. ,',,, '.',.~-:',~;',-,:':,:<~~~'~'" '
... "~';, '.: .'.- -.0 -.." "..- ,. .
, -.
The best remedial alternative for 2,3,7,8-TCDD contaminated soil is '. .. ,
containerized storage in a building enclosure. Containers minimize the health' :
and safety risks to workers, since they are filled at the point of excavation,
and also serve as the primary liner for the storage.facility. The steel
building is recommended over the synthetic membrane enclosure because it can be
easily expanded during construction, will be easier to inspect, and can be ,
easily decontaminated and converted to other uses after final disposition of
the 2,3j7,8-TCDD contaminated soil. It may be necessary to locate several
smaller storage buildings on uncontaminated areas of the Bliss property or on
adjoining properties, if greater storage capacity is needed. Since the storage
building (or buildings) will be located near residential areas, we feel visual
appearance is important and recommend that they be constructed of earth-tone
siding or be painted an earth-tone color.
-------
Total Project Costs
Engineering Implementation
Recommended Alternative Design Cost Cost
Offsite Disposal of Buried Drums $120,000 $1,500,000
(Overpacking Subalternative) ' •
Offsite Disposal of Waste Mixtures $450,000 $5,700,000
(Non-dioxin hazardous waste)
Building-Enclosed Container $925,000 $13,000,000
Storage Facility
(Dioxin-contaminated soils and
materials)
Total Approximate Engineering Design Costs: $ 1,500,000
Total Approximate Implementation Costs: $20,200,000
Notes: 1) Total engineering design costs do not include
any costs for predesign/design sampling.
2) .Implementation cost for Container Storage
Facility includes present worth costs for
O&M and facility demolition.
------- |