United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R07-92/060
September 1992
c/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision;
Pester Refinery, KS
-------
.
NOTICE
The appendices listed In the Index that are not foul'ld In this document have .... removed at .. request of .
the isadng agency. They contain mat8ft8I which s.~ but adds no""'" ~ inlafmation to
the content of the document. All supptememal materi81 is, howewIr. cat""'" m the administrative record
for this site.
~
{:..i1'Y;'\ r,.:"::;}}~: ,;\:~:\:'t' ; . .' , .
~ ~') brl., r~ :::,~ .~.<-~ t
.,~r . ".' I:. . ~.... <1':".. '" ~ "
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. 1 ~ 3. Reclplent'a Acc:ealon No,
PAGE EPA/ROD/R07-92/060
4. TItle and Subt1118 S. Report Da"
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/30/92
Pester Refinery, KS
Ii.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(a) 8. I'8"ormlng Organization RepL No,
8, I'8"ormlng Orgalnlzatlon Name and Add.... 10. ProjectlT..k/Work Unh No,
11. Cont18c1(C) or a.ant(O) No.
(C)
(0)
1~ Sponaorlng Organization Name and Add.... 13. Type 01 Report. I'8rlod Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
1 S. Supplernentery Not..
PB93-964305
11i. Abatrad (Umh: 200 worda)
The 10-acre Pester Refinery site is a former petroleum refining facility located in El
Dorado, Butler County, Kansas. Land use in the area is predominantly industrial and
agricultural. The City of El Dorado draws its water supply from the El Dorado
reservoir, 2 miles east of the site. Petroleum refining operations in the area began
in 1917, and from 1958 to 1977, Fina Oil Company operated a petroleum refinery at this
site. Process wastes, such as slop-oil emulsion solids, API separator sludge, and heat
exchanger bundle cleaning sludge were sent through a pipe to a burn pond. Gaseous
waste products were ignited at the end of the pipe, and whatever did not burn was
discharged to the pond. The site historically contained the burn pond, a stormwater
pond, and a settling pond, all of which became interconnected over the years. In 1977,
Pester purchased the property and operated the facility until 1985. Although other
portions of the property were sold, Pester still retains ownership of land surrounding
the burn pond area. In 1986, the state RCRA division initiated site investigations,
which confirmed that contamination had occurred. In 1992, Fina constructed an
interceptor trench and pumping system near the pond to evacuate contaminated water and
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyala L De8c:rlplora
Record of Decision - Pester Refinery, KS
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sludge
Key Contaminants: VOCs (ethyl benzene, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs,
phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Icfentlflel8lOpen-Ended Tenna
Co COSA 11 FleldlGroup
18. Availability 8I8t_t 18. Security Cia.. (Thla Report) 21. No. 01 Pagea
None 60
i 2D. Security CI... (Thla Page) 22.Pr1c8
None
ctione n
(See AtlSl.zlt.18)
See IneW
o Rave-
(Formerly NTlS-35)
Department 01 Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R07-92/060
Pester Refinery, KS
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
materials. This ROD provides a final remedy for the principal source of contamination at
the site, the burn pit sludge. A subsequent ROD addresses ground water contamination.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and sludge are VOCs, including
ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including PAHs and phenols; and
metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
. The selected remedy for this site includes dewatering the pond and transporting the
associated sludge offsite to a RCRA facility for re-refining into a usable petroleum
product and/or disposal; treating the soil using in-situ soil flushing; discharging the
wash water to an oil/water separator to remove free oils and sediment, followed by
nutrient addition with aeration to enhance biological action; and discharging the water
to a treatment facility or back to the pond for continued treatment until testing
demonstrates that clean-up levels have been aChieved; monitoring air; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions and site access restrictions such as
fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $2,374,800, which
includes a present value O&M cost of $464,700 over 3 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific soil and sludge clean-up goals are based on health-based levels, and
include benzo(a)anthracene 13 mg/kg and chrysene 13 mg/kg. Other contaminants of concern
will be treated to meet EPA acceptable risk levels, if necessary.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
PESTER BURN POND FIRST OPERABLE UNIT
EL DORADO, KANSAS
DECLARATION
statement of Basi~ and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for the Pester Burn Pond site, EI Dorado, Butler County, Kansas.
The selected remedy was chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the National oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution contingency Plan (NCP). This decision
document is based on the information contained in the
administrative record for this Site. The State of Kansas concurs
with the selected remedy.
Assessment of the site
Actual and threatened releases of hazardous substances at
this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedv
The principal source of contamination at this site is the
sludge contained in the burn pond. The remedy for this site
addresses both the burn pond sludge and the soil beneath the
pond. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have leached from
the burn pond sludge.
The selected remedy includes the removal of sludge from the
site to a RCRA- (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act)
permitted TSD (treatment, storage and disposal) facility and
remediation of soil via soil flushing and bioremediation in situ.
Since the ground water contamination has not been fully
evaluated, it will be considered in a separate operable unit.
-------
The selected remedy includes the following major components:
The sludge will be removed and dewatered and then
shipped for processing into petroleum product at an
offsite.refinery;
The sludge will be dewatered by heating, pumping, and
flashing;
The soils will be treated in situ by flushing with
water;
Aeration will be provided with the water to augment the
bioremediation of the organics in the pond water and
the soils; and
Water from the flushing will be collected in the
existing interceptor trench, treated and reintroduced
into the pond cavity for continued flushing and
bioremediation.
statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, cQmplies with Federal and state requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. The remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technology to the
maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
The remedy selected in this decision document is based on
reaching health-based concentrations that have been determined to
be protective in conjunction with institutional controls.
Because these controls will not allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure at the site, a review will be performed
five years after initiation of the selected remedial action, in
accordance with Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section
9621(c), to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
/J1-// I ;; w:r
P/Regio'al Administr~tor
Region VII
9;30/9?--
Date
-------
SECTION
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
GLOSSARY
FIGURES
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
TABLES
Table 1:
Table 2:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND EXTENT
OF CONTAMINATION
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
SELECTED REMEDY: DESCRIPTION AND PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS FOR EACH COMPONENT OF THE REMEDY
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Site Location Map
Pester Burn Pond Operable Unit and Environs
Geologic Cross Section
Sampling Locations
Chemical Constituents of Concern
Chronic and Lifetime Hazards for Constituents of
Concern
PAGE
1
2
3
3
4
5
13
18
26
27
29
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PAGE 2
Table 3:
Exposure Estimates:
Ingestion of Pond Sludge
Ingestion of Pond Soil
Table 4:
Exposure Estimates:
Table 5:
Exposure Estimates: Dermal Contact with SVOCs and
Inorganic Constituents in Pond Soil
Table 6:
Exposure Estimates: Dermal Contact with SVOCs and
Inorganic Constituents in Pond Sludge
Table 7: Hazard/Risk Estimates:. Ingestion of Pond Sludge
Table 8: Hazard/Risk Estimates: Ingestion of Pond Soil
Table 9: Hazard/Risk Estimates: Dermal Contact with SVOCs and
Inorganic Constituents in Pond Sludge
Table 10: Hazard/Risk Estimates: Dermal Contact with SVOCs and
Inorganic Constituents in Pond Soil
Table 11: Summary of Total Hazards/Risks for Adults
Table 12: Summary of Total Hazards/Risks for Children
Table 13: Summary of Total Hazards/Risks for 12 to 13 Year Old
Male Child
Table 14: Comparison of Target Soil Levels to Protect Human
Health
Table 15: Summary of Estimated Cost for Remedial Action
Alternatives
Appendix A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
PESTER BURN POND FIRST OPERABLE UNIT
DECISION SUMMARY
I.
SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Pester Burn Pond (the "Site") is located on a 10-acre
tract located in El Dorado, Kansas, approximately 30 miles.
northeast of Wichita, Kansas (see Figure 1). The site is located
in the southwest quarter of Section 26, Township 25 South, Range
5 East, Butler County, Kansas.
Industrial and agricultural lands surround the site (see
Figure 2). The wastewater treatment and aeration ponds owned by
Coastal Derby Refinery are located south of the site. West of
the site is the active refinery complex and a Santa Fe Railroad
spur that services the refinery. The West Branch Walnut River
flows along the north and east boundaries of the site.
Agricultural land lies east of the site across the river.
The site lies within the Osage Plains section (Flint Hills
Upland subsection) of the Central Lowland Physiographic province.
In general, the topography is characterized by flat-topped,
steep-sided hills capped by chert-bearing limestone.
The Site is located to the north and west of the City of EI
Dorado, in Butler County, Kansas. The City is within three miles
of the site and centrally located in Butler County. According to
census data, Butler County had an estimated population (1988) of
50,200 people. In 1980, the. City of EI Dorado was estimated to
have a population of 10,510 with an additional 2,456 people in
the surrounding EI Dorado township. In 1990, the census
population of the City of EI Dorado was 11,504.
The nearest body of surface water is the West Branch Walnut
River, located immediately north and east of the site. It joins
the Walnut River about two miles to the south of the site. The
West Branch Walnut River is used for recreational purposes and
for fishing. Ground water beneath the Site flows to the east in
the direction of the West Branch Walnut River.
The City of EI Dorado draws its water supply from the EI
Dorado reservoir. The reservoir is formed by a single dam
stretching across the Walnut River and Bemis Creek. The
reservoir is approximately two miles east of the Site and
approximately two miles upstream of the confluence of West Branch
1
-------
Walnut River and the Walnut River. The town of El Dorado also
owns six reserve wells located approximately 29 miles south in
Cowley County.
There are a number of active water supply wells located
within a three-mile radius of the site. The El Dorado Honor Camp
(estimated 102 inmates and 10 staff) is served by a public water
supply well located in the bedrock aquifer (Figure 3). An
additional well screened in the bedrock aquifer serves a seven-
person staff employed by the Kansas Turnpike Authority. There
are also a number of private domestic bedrock wells within the
three-mile radius. The Coastal Derby Refining Company has a
public water supply well for employees at the facility.
Approximately 163 residents utilize ground water (primarily from
the bedrock aquifers) within a three-mile radius of the site.
There are three endangered species, the bald eagle and two
species of snake, located near the site. Bald eagles are known
to winter in El Dorado state Park, one mile from the site. . The
two species of snake, Heterodon platyrhinos and H. hasicus, have
verified locations from counties on three sides of Butler County
(Harvey, cowley and Greenwood counties).
II.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
The refinery occupying the area immediately west of the site
was constructed in 1917 soon after the discovery of oil at El
Dorado in 1915. The refinery and surrounding area were purchased
by Fina Oil Co. ("Fina") in 1958. The burn pond was built by
Fina around the time of the purchase. Fina disposed of petroleum
waste products generated by normal refinery operations by running
a pipe from the refinery to the burn pond. The pond was used to
store various refinery by-products such as slop oil emulsion
solids, API separator sludge, and heat exchanger bundle cleaning
sludges. When the waste products were of a very gaseous nature,
Fina would ignite the waste product as it came out of the pipe.
Whatever did not burn was discharged out of the pipe into the
pond.
. The site historically contained a burn pond, a stormwater
pond and a smaller settling pond (see Figure 4). The dike
separating the burn pond and the larger stormwater pond was
breached, resulting in an liLli-shaped pond. Eventually the dike
between the stormwater pond and the settling pond also was
breached, creating common water between all three ponds. This
site, the Pester Burn Pond Superfund site, contains all three
ponds, which are now interconnected, and this remedy addresses
cleanup at the three ponds. Except for the historical
2
-------
references, all'references to the "pond" or the "burn pond" in
this document refer to all three interconnected ponds at the
Pester Burn Pond Superfund site.
On January 1, 1977, Pester purchased the refinery from Fina
and continued refinery operations. Pester filed for bankruptcy
on February 25, 1985. Subsequent to Pester's bankruptcy, Coastal
Derby Refining Company (Derby) purchased the refinery with the
exception of the tract of land containing these three ponds.
This tract is still owned by Pester. On February 28, 1986,
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Administrative
Order #86-E-16 was issued pursuant to state hazardous waste
authorities (i.e., the state Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) program), requiring Pester to conduct a site
investigation of this surface impoundment, perform site
monitoring and submit a Burn Pond closure plan.
The Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on
January 31, 1989, by the EPA pursuant to its authority under
CERCLA as amended by SARA. Following initial investigations, a
Consent Order was signed between Pester, Fina and KDHE (April 19,
1990) to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RIfFS) of the site.
During May 1992, Fina constructed an interceptor trench on
the north and east sides of the burn pond between the pond and
the West Branch Walnut River. Electrical hookup of pumps to
evacuate the trench has not been completed as of the date of this
decision document.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
A draft Community Relations Plan was prepared for the Pester
Burn Pond site in June of 1990 by the responsible parties and was
implemented by the KDHE. A public meeting was held after
community interviews during October of 1990, prior to the start
of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study. The
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study Reports were
released to the public during 1991 and 1992. The documents were
placed in the Administrative Record at EPA Region VII in Kansas
City, Kansas, at KDHE's central office in Topeka, Kansas, and at
the Bradford Memorial Library in El Dorado, Kansas. On August
27, 1992, a public meeting was held in El Dorado, Kansas, to
present the Proposed Plan for the Pester Burn Pond First operable
Unit. Notice for the Public meeting was published in the El
Dorado Times and in the Wichita Eagle.
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
The remedy selected in this ROD addresses the removal and
re-refining of the sludge in the burn pond and treatment of
3
-------
contaminated soils in situ by a process of flushing and
bioremediation of fluids. The objectives of the remedial action
are to remove the sludges, listed wastes KOSO and KOS1, from the
site to prevent incidental contact and ingestion, and to
remediate the soils to an acceptable level for incidental
ingestion. Another objective of this action is to remove the
sludge and soil contamination as a source of ground water
contamination. Remediation of ground water contamination at the
site will be more fully addressed by a subsequent operable unit.
v.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
A.
Site Characteristics
The Site is comprised of three (3) interconnected ponds,
each containing water overlying a sludge layer which is underlain
by a contaminated soil zone. The western portion of the site
lies directly on the Fort Riley Limestone, sloping to the east so
that the eastern portion of the Site lies on the floodplain of
the West Branch Walnut River. Surface water recharges the ponds,
especially the former stormwater pond, and the excess water from
the ponds is pumped to a nearby wastewater treatment pond. The
pond water and ground water have infiltrated through the alluvial
materials into or under the river, and a layer of oily
contaminated soils extends from under the ponds to the west bank
of the river. Ground water moves from west to east in the Fort
Riley Limestone underlying the site, some of which also provides
recharge to the river. An interceptor trench has been completed
to'the east and north of the ponds to prevent further movement of
the contamination into the river. The interceptor trench built
by Fina in 1992 is designed to contain seepage which is then
pumped back into the pond. The pond has an area of approximately
six (6) acres.
B.
Nature and Extent of contamination
The primary source of site contamination was the disposal of
API separator sludge and heat exchanger bundle sludges into the
burn pond, which is an unlined pond. The dikes of two adjoining
ponds to the burn pond were breached through the years and the
ponds became interconnected, allowing the sludge to cover the
bottom of all three ponds. The sludge contaminated the soils
below the ponds, and the ground water below the ponds also became
contaminated. The ground water is contained in the alluvium and
in the Fort Riley Limestone underlying the alluvium.
The amount of contaminated material was calculated to be
about 20,000 cubic yards of sludge in the pond and 70,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soil. The sludge and contaminated soil are
the primary sources of contamination of ground water. Although
the ground water contamination will be addressed in a separate
operable unit at the site, removal of the sludge and treatment of
4
-------
the soils will be effective in removal of the source of ground
water contamination.
The Remedial Investigation and previous investigations at
the Site included soil borings, installation of monitoring wells,
excavation of test pits, sludge sampling, soil sampling, and
ground water and surface water sampling. The chemical
constituents of concern (see Table 1) include relatively low
levels of metals, PAHs and semi-volatile and volatile organic
compounds. Both the sludge and soil were found to contain levels
of the carcinogenic PAH's benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene which
exceeded the risk departure point of 10-6 for ingestion exposure.
The site is bordered by industrial property (oil refinery)
on the south and west, and bordered by agricultural land across
the river to the north and east. The property has been on and
adjacent to an active oil refinery for more than eighty years.
It is probably fairly unlikely that the future land use on the
property would be residential, but the Site is located in a
region of rapid growth. Butler County is the sixth fastest
growing county in the state; the population of Butler County,
Kansas, grew 12.9 percent between 1980 and 1990 according to u.s.
Census figures. Figure 2 shows the location of the refinery with
respect to the adjacent river. Based on the present industrial
setting of the site, incidental soil ingestion by trespassers was
a primary risk scenario utilized to analyze risk. A residential
scenario was also evaluated.
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A.
Overview of the Baseline Risk Assessment
The baseline risk assessment is an evaluation of the
potential threat to human health and the environment in the
absence of any response action. A baseline risk assessment is
done in part to determine whether remedial action is necessary at
a site. Risk assessment was conducted for this site to determine
the potential effects of the contamination on human health and
the environment that may be posed by contaminants released to the
air, migrating in ground water or surface water, leaching through
the soil, remaining in the soil, or bioaccumulating in the food
chain.
B.
Sources of Contamination
The primary source of contaminants is the estimated 20,000
cubic yards of burn pond sludge which contains volatile and semi-
volatile organics as well as several metals. The first 12 to 24
inches of soil beneath the ponds is stained as a result of
contamination, as well as up to 5 feet of soil in the bottom of
5
-------
the aquifer between the eastern boundary of the burn pond and the
river. The amount of contaminated soil is estimated at 70,000
cubic yards.
current land use in the vicinity of the site is industrial
and agricultural. As discussed above, future land use is also
likely to be industrial and agricultural, although the area is
situated within a region of growth. A residential risk scenario
was assessed as generally required by EPA guidance; this was
later supplemented by further calculations based on an assumption
that land use would remain industrial.
Ground water at the site is not a current source of drinking
water. Risks which involve ground water as a means of possible
exposure were not fully analyzed for this operable unit and will
be considered as a separate operable unit.
Two risk scenarios were analyzed by the potentially
responsible parties in the RI and the FS: a residential scenario
(considered in the RI) in which persons come into contact with
contaminated onsite soils and sludge frequently based on
hypothetical residential use; and a limited-use scenario, added
later in the FS, which made certain specific assumptions, namely,
that a hypothetical trespasser, a 12- to 13-year old child,
visits the Site once a week during frost-free months of the year
over a two-year period. Risk under the latter assessment was
also somewhat attenuated by assuming the presence of
institutional controls (rather than the required no-action
baseline). These risk analyses, as well as other concerns,
including less quantifiable ones discussed more fully below,
supported the need for this remedial action.
C.
contaminants of Concern
The risk assessment compiled a list of contaminants of
concern from the results of the sampling activities at the site.
These indicator contaminants of concern were based on
concentrations at the site, toxicity, physical/chemical
properties that affect transport/movement in air, soil and
sludge, and prevalence/persistence in these media. These
contaminants of concern were used in the risk assessment to
evaluate potential health risks at the site.
Ten constituents of concern were identified in the pond
sludge at the site (xylenes, 2-methylnaphthalene,
benzo(a) anthracene, chrysene, phenanthrene, pyrene, arsenic,
barium, chromium, and lead). Barium was the only "inorganic
compound" identified in the pond soil. In all, eleven compounds
were evaluated in the risk assessment as constituents of concern
for the burn pond soils (ethylbenzene, toluene, xylenes, 2-.
6
-------
methylnaphthalene, benzo-(a) anthracene, chrysene, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, phenol, pyrene, and barium).
D.
Toxicitv Assessment
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for
indicating the potential for adverse effects from exposure to
chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. Rfds, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg/day (parts per million/day), are
estimates of daily exposure levels for humans that are likely to
have an appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Estimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount
of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be
compared to the Rfd.
The basic toxicity information used to calculate health risk
is given in Table 2. The harmful effects of the contaminants of
concern for the site are based on the toxicological profiles of
the individual contaminants as are briefly discussed in the
following paragraphs.
1.
Orqanic contaminants
Benzene is classified as a carcinogen (a substance which
increases the incidence of cancer). Ethylbenzene, toluene and
xylenes are classified as noncarcinogens. Ethylbenzene is
acutely toxic to the lung and central nervous system. Subchronic
and chronic exposures to laboratory animals of this compound
cause liver and kidney damage. A primary target for toluene
toxicity is the central nervous system. Xylene, orally
administered to animals, can result in central nervous system
toxicity and has also been shown to cause ultra-structural liver
changes. 2,4-dimethylphenol is toxic and can cause neurological
and hematological changes. pyrene is known to cause potentially
toxic renal effects. The PAHs, chrysene and benzo (a)
anthracene, are confirmed animal carcinogens and are therefore
potential human carcinogens. Naphthalene has been shown to cause
ocular and internal lesions when ingested. Acenaphthene is known
for hepatotoxicity.
2.
Inorqanic contaminants (Metals)
Arsenic is a carcinogen and its ingestion has been shown to
increase the incidence of skin cancers. Noncarcinogenic effects
include keratosis and hyper-pigmentation. Barium can cause
increased blood pressure when ingested. Lead can cause damage to
the central nervous system when ingested. The toxicity of
chromium depends on its chemical form. Hexavalent chromium is
more toxic than the trivalent form, and when exposure is via the
7
-------
inhalation route, is considered a human carcinogen. However,
there is no evidence at the current time that hexavalent chromium
is carcinogenic when ingested.
E.
Excosure Assessment
The exposure assessment identified potential pathways and
routes for contaminants of concern to reach the receptors and the
estimated contaminant concentration at the points of exposure.
Several pathways by which humans could be exposed to. the
chemicals of concern at the Site were evaluated based on
reasonable assumptions about current and future land uses. The
following pathways were evaluated: ingestion of chemicals in
soil/sludge and dermal absorption of chemicals from soil/sludge.
Inhalation of dusts or organic vapors from the pond soil or
sludge at the site were not considered. This was based upon an
assumption made in the risk assessment that individuals would not
be exposed to harmful levels of vapors at the Site because of the
openness of the Site. For each evaluated exposure pathway,
exposure assumptions were made for average and reasonable maximum
exposure scenarios.
Exposure via ground water, although discussed in the risk
assessment, will only be covered in this Record of Decision as it
relates to the burn pond area as a continuing source of
contamination. A separate Pester Ground Water Operable unit
RIfFS will investigate and evaluate the potential threat to human
health and the environment posed by ground water contamination.
The surface water pathway includes potential runoff from
contaminated areas into drainage pathways and into the West
Branch Walnut River, and to the seep and trench areas. The river
side of the burn pond contains many seeps. A trench along a
portion of the property outside the fence and about one-third of
the distance to the river collects some of the seepage. Visible
evidence indicates that the open trench north of the pond has
overflowed its banks in the past. Access to the trench is
unrestricted.
The contaminant intake equations and intake parameters were
derived from standard literature equations and data from EPA
guidance documents. Chronic daily intakes (CDIs) were estimated
for contaminants of concern in the risk assessment. The
reference dose values (RfDa) for a substance represent a level of
intake which is unlikely to result in adverse noncarcinogenic
health effects to individuals exposed for a chronic period of
time. The slope factor represents the upper 95 percent
confidence limit value on the probability of response per unit
intake of a contaminant over a lifetime (70 years). (See Tables
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for values used in the exposure assessment.)
8
-------
(1)
contaminant Transport
The burn pond is underlain with silty clays which will
adsorb the less water soluble Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (MARs), as well as
the trivalent chromium. The compounds with high vapor pressures
and low solubility located in the surface of the ponds and the
surface soils are likely to undergo volatilization. Under proper
conditions, PAHs may biodegrade in the soils. Biodegradation,
however, is dependent on soil nutrient content, pH, oxygen
availability, and microbial population.
Even with the presence of these retarding factors, transport
of contaminants contained in the burn pond sludge through the
vadose zone to the ground water table has occurred according to
the findings of the RI/FS. Ground water in the alluvial aquifer
flows radially to the north, east, and south from the burn ponds
and discharges into the West Branch Walnut River. The ground
water flow velocity through the alluvial aquifer is estimated to
be 0.2 meter/year to 60 meters/year depending on whether water is
moving within the silty clay or through local clayey gravels.
The rate of contaminant migration will be highest in the gravel-
rich zones within the alluvial sediments.
The surface expression of contaminants is indicated by a
seep northeast of the pond and in an open trench north of the
pond. Some contaminants appear to migrate to the top of the
bedrock surface and then travel via gravity to a low area. The
bedrock slopes to the east and has a surface exposure northeast
of the site. The seep northeast of the pond is located on the
bedrock surface. Migration is believed to be due to the
hydraulic head supplied by the water levels in the pond. An open
trench located northeast of the pond was excavated within eight
inches of the bedrock surface. The subsurface interceptor trench
installed in May 1992, and located north and east of the ponds,
was excavated to the bedrock surface north and east of the pond.
organic chemical contamination has been detected in the
alluvial sediments indicating that contamination has migrated via
surface runoff, aquifer/stream interconnection, trench overflow
events, or river flooding of the trench, into the West Branch
Walnut River. Similar conditions in the future (such as flood
conditions in the West Branch Walnut River) would pose the
possibility of additional releases from the site.
F.
Risk Characterization
The risk characterization quantifies present and/or
potential future risk to human health that may result from
exposure to the contaminants of concern found at the site.
site-specific risk values are estimated by incorporating
information from the toxicity and exposure assessments.
The
9
-------
Two quantitative evaluations are made: the incremental risk
to the individual resulting from exposure to a carcinogen; or,
for noncarcinogens, a numerical index or ratio of the exposure
dose level to an acceptable reference dose.
The risk assessment quantified the potential carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic risks to human health posed by contaminants
of concern in several exposure media. The carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic risks were determined (see Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10
for values used in the exposure assessment) for the site.
carcinogenic risk is presented as the incremental
probability of an individual contracting some form of cancer over
a lifetime as the result of exposure to the carcinogen. A risk
of 1 X 10-6 would mean that one person in a million is in
potential danger of developing cancer from the site contaminants.
The carcinogenic risks were calculated for the evaluated pathways
at the site.
Potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks for
ingestion of, and dermal contact with, surface soil and sludge
for a hypothetical residential use scenario are summarized in
Tables 11 and 12.
The carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to the pond
sludge and soil for the residential land use scenarios are at
risk levels of 1.0 X 10-3 and 9.7 X 10-5, respectively, for the
ingestion exposure pathway for children and 7.0 X 10-4 and 7.7 X
10-5, respectively, for the ingestion exposure pathway for
adults.
For the specific limited access scenario which was used, the
noncarcinogenic hazard index was les~ than one and the
carcinogenic risks associated with incidental ingestion exposure
to the pond sludge and soil are at risk levels of 2.0 X 10-5 and
2.7 X 10-6, respectively (see Tables 13 and 14). This limited
access scenario also took into account the effects that
institutional controls, such as maintaining fencing, and deed
restrictions limiting future land and water use, would have on
the potential risk and hazards presented by the pond site.
For noncarcinogenic risk, a hazard index (HI) was calculated
for each pathway evaluated. An HI of less than 1.0 (unity)
indicates that the risks associated with that pathway are low.
An HI above 1.0 indicates that some risk of noncarcinogenic
effects exist and these risks increase proportional to the HI
value. The HI values calculated have been less than one
indicating no significant noncarcinogenic risk.
The effects of risks, toxicity, and exposure were integrated
into quantitative and qualitative expressions indicating possible
10
-------
exposure to the constituents of concern in pond soil and pond
sludge at the site. Carcinogenic risks exceeded the EPA
"acceptable risk range" of 1.0 x 10-4 to 1.0 X 10-6 for ingestion
of pond sludge by children in the residential exposure scenario.
The carcinogenic risk levels associated with the incidental
ingestion exposure (limited access exposure scenario) to the pond
sludge and soil exceed the departure point of 1 X 10-6 for
multiple exposure pathways. Non-carcinogenic risks did not
exceed the EPA criteria.
The extent of human contact with the West Branch Walnut
River in downstream areas is unknown. However, there is no
evidence that untreated surface water is being used for human
consumption on a daily basis. Furthermore, potential
contamination in the West Branch Walnut River has not been fully
characterized. An increase in the contaminant levels because of
overflow from the burn pond area or trench, continued seepage
from the surface impoundments, a failure of the impoundment
diking, or flooding of the river may cause this environmental
pathway to increase in importance.
G.
Ecological Risks
The environmental receptors in the vicinity of the site
include common wildlife such as rabbits, snakes, migrating
waterfowl, and aquatic life, including fish. Wildlife might be
affected by exposure to contaminated sediments in the West Branch
Walnut River, pond sludge or contaminated soils, and surface
water including the West Branch Walnut River.
An Ecological Assessment (EA) was conducted as a part of the
RIfFS for the purposes of determining possible effects from
contamination to the site ecological system. The EA states that
there is a possibility that wildlife accessing the burn pond area
could be affected, but that the severity of the effect is
difficult to quantify without further information. Effects would
be dependent upon wildlife accessing and using the area, and
ingesting or having dermal contact with the contaminated
material, or upon concentrations of these oily hazardous wastes
posing a hazard to river resources either directly or via
bioaccumulation.
Three endangered species, the bald eagle and two species of
snake, are mentioned in the EA as located near the site. Bald
eagles are known to winter in EI Dorado State Park, one mile from
the site. The two species of snake, Heterodon platyrbinos and H.
basicus, have verified locations from counties on three sides of
Butler County (Harvey, Cowley and Greenwood counties).
The principal waste threat onsite is the sludge contained in
the burn pond. There is a greater potential for fish and other
wildlife to be exposed to contamination if the burn ponds were to
11
-------
overflow in the future. The overflow might occur due to
extremely heavy precipitation or failure of the diking structure.
The overflow would result in direct contamination of the West
Branch Walnut River with the potential for fish kills and the
poisoning of the foodchain.
H.
Summary
For a residential use scenario, exposure to soil and sludge
at the Site would result in a maximum excess cancer risk of 1.0 X
10-3. Noncarcinogenic health effects are not expected from
exposure at the present detected levels of either onsite soil or
sludge.
Tables 11 and 12 provide a summary of the hazards/risks for
pond sludge and soil exposures associated with future residential
scenarios. These calculations show that noncarcinogenic hazards
for exposure to the pond sludge and soil fall within an
acceptable range «1.0). The carcinogenic risks associated with
exposure to the pond sludge and soil for the residential land-use
scenarios are at risk levels of 1.0 X 10-3/7.0 X 10-4 and 9.7 X
10-5/7.7 X 10-5, for child/adult ingestion and dermal contact,
respectively. The specific limited access scenario used in
Appendix F of the Feasibility Study (a youthful trespasser
exposed to the site during warm months once a week over a two-
year period) yielded risk levels of 2.0 X 10-5 and 2.7 X 10-6
respectively for pond sludge and soil. These carcinogenic risks
exceed EPA's point of departure for carcinogenic risk, 1.0 X
10-6, at sites with multiple exposure pathways and chemicals.
In addition, other factors beyond the quantified
carcinogenic risk and the ecological risks which are discussed
above contributed to the need. to take action at the site.
Uncertainty is posed by risk calculations, generally, of perhaps
an order of magnitude or more. In addition, there is a threat of
a more substantial release from the site, for example via a
sudden incident such as a breach in the containment or via river
flooding. This is an impoundment which is no longer in use,
which contains oily hazardous waste, and which is situated in a
floodplain adjacent to the river. Source reduction to remove the
primary source of ground water contamination (as well as to
alleviate the above-mentioned threat of sudden release) was also
an important objective of this operable unit remedy.
Based on all of the foregoing factors being considered, EPA
makes a finding that actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
12
-------
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A Feasibility Study was conducted to identify and evaluate
alternatives for remediation of ground water, contaminated soils
and sludge in the vicinity of the pond. However, the Feasibility
Study failed to effectively characterize the nature and extent of
ground water contamination in the alluvial and bedrock aquifers,
so the alternatives evaluated for this Operable Unit address only
source control by addressing soil and sludge, and do not directly
address ground water contamination.
These remediation technologies were initially screened in the
Feasibility Study based on effectiveness, implementability and
cost. The alternatives meeting these criteria were then
evaluated and compared to nine criteria required by the National
contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP requires that a no-action
alternative be evaluated as a point of comparison for other
alternatives.
The ten alternatives/sub-alternatives and their present
worth costs are described below. The alternatives describe final
remedial actions for source control, soil remediation and sludge
remediation.
13
-------
Alternative 1:
No Action
$ 0.00
This alternative would require no actions of any kind at the
site. There would be no remediation of soils or sludges, no
monitoring and no operation of the interceptor trench. The
current fencing around the site would be left in place. Because
this alternative will result in contaminants being left onsite
above health-based levels, CERCLA Section 121(c) requires that a
site review be conducted every five (5) years.
The present worth cost of this alternative for 30 years
would be $0.00. This alternative could be implemented
immediately.
Alternative 1A:
Limited Action
$238,300
This alternative would not require remedial actions to
address soil or sludge contamination. Deed restrictions would be
used to prevent access to or excavation of the contamination
areas. The interceptor trench would be pumped and maintained to
prevent additional migration of contaminants into the West Branch
Walnut River. Because this alternative will result in
contaminants remaining onsite above health-based levels, CERCLA
Section 121(c) requires that a site review be conducted every
five (5) years.
The present worth costs for a 30-year period is $238,300.
This alternative could be implemented immediately.
Alternative 2A1:
Removal and reuse of sludge for asphalt mix
followed by capping of remaining soil.
$2,572,900
This alternative would require that the sludge be removed
from the ponds, dewatered, and transported offsite to be
solidified into an asphalt product. The contaminated soils would
be capped with a RCRA cap, which would include a vegetative
cover. Routine maintenance of the cap would be required. The
interceptor trench would be used to collect water and
contaminants transported by infiltrated surface water. The water
collected would be discharged to a wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP). Residuals from treatment would be dealt with in
accordance with RCRA, if applicable. Because this alternative
will result in contaminants being left onsite above health-based
levels, CERCLA Section 121(c) requires that a site review be
14
-------
conducted every five (5) years. The wastewater treatment plant
would have to be operable over the 30-year life of the project
or until wastewaster, which would need to be sampled quarterly,
is clean, i.e., no longer needs to be treated to meet Clean Water
Act discharge standards. The present worth cost for a 30-year
period is $2,572,900.
Alternative 2A2:
Removal and reuse of sludge for asphalt mix
with in situ flushing/bioremediation of
remaining soils
$2,160,000
This alternative would require the removal of the sludge'
from the ponds, dewatering the sludge, and transporting the
sludge offsite to be solidified into an asphalt product. The
contaminated soils would be treated in situ by inundating the
pond cavities with water after the sludge has been removed, thus
flushing the contaminants into the interceptor trench. The oily
seepage and water would be collected from the interceptor trench,
chemically treated to remove organic contaminants, aerated,
biologically treated, and discharged back into the ponds to be
recycled into the interceptor trench. Aeration would be provided
to the pond water to augment biodegradation of the organics in
the water. The soils, pond water and interceptor trench water
would be tested to monitor performance of the
flushing/bioremediation process. Residuals from treatment would
be dealt with in accordance with RCRA, as applicable.
It is thought that sludge removal and asphalt production
could be accomplished within approximately one (1) year. The
flushing/bioremediation process (or soils is thought to be
possible within an estimated three (3) years after sludge removal
is accomplished. The process, however will continue until the
performance standards have been achieved, and, in particular,
until the health-based soil cleanup standard of 13 mg/kg of PAHs
is met.
The present worth cost of this alternative (30 years) is
$2,160,000. The time to complete this action is estimated to be
four (4) years, after treatability studies, required as part of
the remedial design for the flushing/bioremediation of the soil
contamination, are completed.
Alternative 2Bl:
Removal and reuse of sludge at a refinery
followed by capping of remaining soils.
$2,787,720
This alternative would remove and dewater the sludge as in
alternative 2A1 and 2A2, but the sludge would then be shipped to
a refinery for re-refining into useable petroleum products. The
sludge would.go to a RCRA-permitted petroleum refinery. The
15
-------
appropriate activities must be included in the selected
facility's RCRA TSD. (treatment, storage, and disposal facility)
permit and tha facility must be in compliance with the permit and
in compliance with EPA's "offsite policy" governing offsite
shipments and CERCLA section 121(d) (3). The sludge would be
utilized with other refinery feedstocks of a similar nature. The
soil remediation would require capping in the same manner as
described in Alternative 2A1 and the interceptor trench would be
operated as described in 2A1, with the interceptor trench water
being treated in a WWTP.
The sludge removal, transportation and re-refining process
should be completed in approximately one (1) year.
Implementation of a RCRA cap would then follow sludge removal.
capping should be completed within approximately one (1) year of
sludge removal. Quarterly monitoring of the water pumped from
the interceptor trench will be needed to determine the need to
continue treatment of water from the interceptor trench in the
WWTP.
The present worth cost of this alternative (30 years) is
$2,787,720. Because this alternative results in contaminants
remaining onsite above health-based levels, CERCLA Section 121(c)
requires that a site review be conducted every five (5) years.
Alternative 2B2:
Removal and reuse of sludge at a refinery
followed by in situ flushing/bioremediation
of remaining soils.
$2,374,800
This alternative would require removal and reuse of the
sludge as a refinery feedstock as described in Alternative 2B1.
Following removal of the sludge, the remaining soils would be
treated with the in situ flushing/bioremediation process as
described in Alternative 2A2. Removal of the sludge and
recycling into petroleum product will take approximately one (1)
year. FOllowing the sludge removal process, the in situ
flushing/bioremediation of the contaminated soil is estimated to
take three (3) years, although regular monitoring of the fluids
collected in the interceptor trench and sampling of the soils
will determine when the flushing/bioremediation would be
discontinued. The flushing and bioremediation would need to
continue until the risk-based soil cleanup level of 13 mg/kg for
PAHs is achieved. Monitoring of soil and water would be
conducted quarterly, or more often if needed.
The present worth cost of this alternative (30 years) is
$2,374,800.
16
-------
Alternative 3: capping of sludge followed by collection and
treatment of leachate.
$2,646,200
This alternative requires dewatering of the sludge and
capping the sludge with a RCRA cap, collection of leachate with
the interceptor trench to be treated in a WWTP. The sludge would
be dewatered, for example by being heated to approximately 200oF,
pumped, and flashed to drive off the estimated 30 percent volume
of water. Air pollution control equipment (a hood and fume
incinerator) would be used to control volatile emissions during
the dewatering process. The dewatering would take place within
the pond boundaries. After dewatering, the sludge would be
covered with a RCRA cap. The interceptor trench would be sampled
quarterly and treated in the WWTP until the water is clean and
meets Clean Water Act discharge standards without treatment.
CERCLA section 121(c) requires a site review every five (5)
years. .
The present worth cost of this alternative (30 years) is
$2,646,200. The time to implement this alternative is estimated
to be 30 years.
Alternative 4:
stabilization/Solidification of sludge onsite
followed by capping and leachate collection and
treatment.
$3,353,600
This alternative requires mixing of the sludge in place with
a pozzolanic material, and a scaled-down cap, as allowed by RCRA
requirements. The interceptor trench would be pumped and
discharged to the WWTP for treatment. Leachate would be
monitored; water samples from the interceptor trench will be
collected and analyzed quarterly. Use of the WWTP would continue
until the discharge water meets the performance standards
discussed above.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $3,353,600.
The time to implement this option may be up to 30 years, although
the stabilization/solidification process for treatment of the
sludge may be accomplished within an estimated one (1) year,
pending further treatability studies during the remedial design
process.
17
-------
Alternative SA:
Removal and thermal treatment of sludge
.followed by capping of remaining soils.
$5,815,000
This alternative will require removal of the sludge and
transportation to an offsite cement kiln to be used as a
hazardous-waste fuel. The sludges have a BTU value of between
8,000 and 9,000. Following removal of the sludge, the soil
underlying the sludge would be capped with a low-permeability
clay barrier, covered with topsoil and seeded to prevent erosion.
The interceptor trench would be used to collect oily seepage and
water infiltrating through the soil zone and the fluids would be
pumped to a WWTP for treatment. Treatment would continue until
the collected water, which would need to be sampled on a
quarterly basis, meets Clean Water Act discharge requirements.
since the contaminated soils would be left onsite, CERCLA section
121(c) requires that a site review be conducted every five (5)
years.
The present worth cost of this alternative (30 years) is
$5,815,000.
Alternative SB:
Removal and
followed by
of soils.
$5,402,100
thermal treatment of sludge
in situ flushing/bioremediation
This alternative requires removal of the sludge and
transportation to an offsite cement kiln to be used as a
hazardous-waste fuel, as in alternative 5A. The soil
flushing/bioremediation process to be used is the same as
explained in Alternative 2A2 and 2B2.
The present worth cost of this alternative (30 years) is
$5,402,100.
VIII.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The ten remedial action alternatives described above were
evaluated using nine evaluation criteria established in the
National contingency Plan (NCP). The resulting strengths and
weaknesses of the alternatives were then compared to identify the
alternative providing the best balance among the nine criteria.
When conducting the analysis of the remedial alternatives,
the nine criteria are organized into three categories as follows:
18
-------
Threshold criteria
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements.
Primary Balancina Criteria
Reduction of toxicity, mobility
Implementability
Short-term effectiveness
Long-term effectiveness
Cost
or volume through treatment
Modifvina criteria
Community acceptance
EPA/State acceptance
An alternative must meet the threshold criteria, i.e.,
following two requirements, to be considered as a final remedy
for the site.
A.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
A primary requirement of CERCLA is that the selected
remedial action be protective of hUman health and the
environment. A remedy is protective if it eliminates, reduces,
or controls current and potential risks posed through each
exposure pathway to acceptable levels through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
Alternative 1, the no action alternative, does not include
treatment or controls, provides no reduction in risk, and is. not
protective. Alternative 1 will no longer be discussed with
regard to soils or sludge remediation.
Alternative LA, the limited action alternative, would not
treat, contain or remove the primary contaminant, the sludge.
Deed restrictions would be placed on the property limiting future
use of the site. The interceptor trench would be used to lessen
the impact of contaminants leaving the site. This alternative
does provide some reduction in risk, but since the sludge is not
removed or treated, or contained, this alternative will no longer
be considered.
All. of the remaining alternatives will involve the use of
the existing interceptor trench to collect water and oily seepage
leaving the vicinity of the ponds and some treatment of the
collected fluids, thereby reducing the potential risk, especially
to the surface water in the West Branch Walnut River.
19
-------
Alternative 2Al would be protective in that the sludge would
be removed from the. site to be used as asphalt mix and the soil
would be capped to prevent erosion. The interceptor trench would
be used to collect and treat water carrying contamination from
the soils in a WWTP, causing reduction and control of
contaminants.
Alternative 2A2 would be protective in that the sludge would
be removed from the site for asphalt mix. The
flushing/bioremediation process would serve to reduce and
possibly eliminate the unacceptable risk from soil contamination.
Alternative 2Bl includes removal of sludge from the Site and
reuse of the sludge for refinery feedstock and would be
protective due to the elimination of the potential exposure
pathway from the sludge. Capping of the soils and collection and
treatment of the infiltrated water by the interceptor trench
would be protective in that exposure to the contaminated soil
would be minimized and contaminants in water would be subject to
treatment, and to discharge in a controlled manner.
Alternative 2B2, is protective in that removal of sludge
from the Site for reuse as refinery feedstock would eliminate the
sludge pathway of contamination at the site. The
flushing/bioremediation of the soils would sUbstantially reduce
the contamination and likely control contamination from the soil
pathway. .
Alternative 3, capping of the dewatered sludge and
collection and treatment of fluids seeping from the pond area,
would be protective, in that it would reduce exposure from the
sludge and soil and from contaminants which would otherwise seep
out into surface water or ground water. Capping would prevent
exposure to and ingestion of contaminated soil and sludge, and
collection and treatment of the contaminated water would reduce
exposure to the contaminants. .
Alternative 4, stabilization/solidification of sludge
onsite, followed by capping and leachate collection and
treatment, would reduce the potential for offsite migration of
contamination from soils and would eliminate the risk from the
sludge which would have an extremely low mobility factor. This
alternative would also be protective.
Alternatives SA and SB, removal and thermal treatment of
sludge, and capping of remaining soils (SA) or in situ flushing
and bioremediation of soils (SB) are protective in that the
sludge will be removed from the site and burned as fuel, and
exposure from leachate entering the environment will be
controlled. In Alternative SB, flushing and bioremediation
reduce the levels of contamination in the soil, while in
Alternative SA, capping reduces exposure to the contamination.
20
-------
B.
Compliance 'with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that remedial actions at
CERCLA sites at least attain legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal and State standards, requirements, criteria,
and limitations which are collectively referred to as "ARARs",
unless such ARARs are waived under CERCLA section 121(d) (4) .
Applicable requirements are those substantive environmental
protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under Federal or State law that specifically address hazardous
substances found at the site, the remedial action to be .
implemented at the site, the location of the site, or other
circumstances present at the site. Relevant and appropriate
requirements are those substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal
or State law which, while not applicable to the hazardous
materials found at the site, the remedial action itself, the site
location or other circumstances at the site, nevertheless address
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered
at the site that their use is well-suited to the site. ARARs may
relate to the substances addressed by the remedial action
(chemical-specific), to the location of the site (location-
specific), or the manner in which the remedial action is
implemented (action-specific).
Alternatives 2AI and 2A2 involve producing a salable
product, asphalt, from K049, KOSO and KOSI, RCRA-listed wastes.
These alternatives would require either delisting of these wastes
in accordance with 40 CFR section. 260.22 or handling of the
resultant asphalt product in accordance with Part 266, Subpart C
and Part 268. The sludge has some chromium and lead content,
which may present an incremental health risk if the sludge and
asphalt raw materials are distinguishable from one another. The
leachability of the sludge-asphalt product will be compared to
the leachability of asphalt product by the methods referenced in
Part 266, Subpart C to insure that no incremental health risk is
encountered.
Alternatives 2AI and 2A2, as well as Alternatives 2BI and
2B2, and SA and SB call for offsite destruction in compliance
with RCRA. Strictly speaking, ARARs do not apply to these
offsite activities. Offsite, the proper environmental laws and
regulations, such as RCRA, simply apply directly; they are not
subject to the ARARs analysis covered here. For example,
Alternatives 2AI through 2B2 are subject to all of the RCRA
regulations that apply to recycling of hazardous waste.
capping alternatives for the soil (2AI, 2B1, and SA) would
alleviate risk by inhibiting the soil ingestion pathway, meeting
21
-------
the ARARs of 40 CFR 264.111, 40 CFR 264.228 and 40 CFR 264.310
(RCRA closure regulations).
soil flushing (2A2 and 2B2) would need to achieve
levels which provide a satisfactory level of risk or risk
reduction. There are no ARARs which control the level of PAHs in
the soil directly. The risk-based level for this remedial action
is a soil cleanup level of 13 mg/kg for carcinogenic PAHs. This
level is based on continued industrial use and limited access
(institutional controls) to insure that this level of soil
cleanup remains protective.
While the PAH concentration for soil cleanup is not directly
controlled by a chemical-specific ARAR, RCRA closure for the pond
provides an action-specific ARAR because the pond has
historically been treated as a RCRA "regulated unit". For clean
closure, 40 CFR 264.111 and 40 CFR 264.228 apply, while for
"landfill" (non-clean) closure, 40 CFR 264.111 and 40 CFR 264.228
and 40 CFR 264.310 apply. The selected soil cleanup level of 13
mg/kg is intended to provide a reasonable, health-based level for
closure that, if it is met, will also comply with the applicable
requirement of RCRA closure, utilizing the "health-based"
standards for clean closure that are allowed optionally (in lieu
of background levels) under EPA policy. (A policy allowing risk-
based clean closure appeared in the Federal Register March 19,
1987.)
Alternative 3, capping of the sludge followed by collection
and treatment of leachate would comply with ARARs if the sludge
is left in place. If the sludge is not left in place, the RCRA
land disposal restrictions {LDRs} would have to be complied with,
or waived. .
For each of the alternatives listed in this decision
document, capping of the site would need to be done in accordance
with the RCRA regulations cited above. The RCRA regulations are
applicable to this site because the Pester burn pond was a RCRA-
regulated impoundment.
Alternative 4, stabilization/solidification of sludge onsite
followed by capping and leachate collection and treatment, would
comply with LDRs, provided that the treatment
stabilization/solidification is carried out in situ, without
"placement" of the wastes, or provided the treatment standard is
met for K049, KOSO and KOS1 wastes.
Alternatives SA and SB comply with onsite ARARs for soil.
The sludge would be removed and burned at an offsite cement kiln
for fuel and be thermally destroyed; as discussed above, this
discussion of ARARs does not cover such offsite activity. The
soil would be capped under SA, limiting the ingestion pathway and
would be treated QY flushing/bioremediation with the fluids being
22
-------
collected by the interceptor trench and treated under alternative
SB. As described above in the discussion of ARARs for
alternatives 2A2 and 2B2, the soil flushing would continue until
the soil sampling indicates that the treatment standards have
been met.
The standards of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act
must be complied with for each of the alternatives described
above. It appears at present that these standards could be met
by each of the alternatives. Additional technical information
and field data will be gathered during treatability studies to be
conducted in the remedial design phase.
The second category of criteria is primary balancing
criteria. The following five criteria are used to evaluate the
alternatives to determine the option that provides the most
balance for the final remedy for the site.
C.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobilitv. or Volume bv Treatment
This evaluation criterion addresses the degree to which a
technology or remedial alternative reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume of hazardous substances by treatment.
Alternatives 2Al, 2A2, 2Bl, 2B2, SA and SB will reduce
toxicity, mobility and volume onsite by removing the sludge from
the site (and treating it to reduce toxicity as well as
mobility). Treatment of the collected fluids under those
alternatives will reduce the toxicity and mobility of the treated
contaminants.
Alternative 3 will not reduce toxicity, volume, or mobility
through treatment, except with treatment by the WWTP of collected
fluids from the interceptor trench. Mobility would be reduced by
the cap, without treatment.
Alternative 4, the stabilization/solidification of the
sludge option, would virtually eliminate the toxicity and
mobility of contamination from the sludge, but would double the
volume of waste onsite. Leachate collection by the interceptor
trench and treatment of the leachate will reduce the mobility of
the soil contamination.
D.
ImDlementabilitv
Implementability refers to the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, from design through construction,
operation, and maintenance. It also includes coordination of
Federal, state and local governments to clean up the site.
All alternatives under consideration are considered
implementable. Alternatives 2Al, 2A2, 2Bl, 2B2, SA and 5B are
23
-------
sludge removal and reuse technologies, and while some may require
RCRA delisting or application of RCRA exemptions, they involve
standard methods of removal and shipment of hazardous wastes.
The collection and treatment of oily seepage and ground water for
soil remediation will either utilize a WWTP or
flushing/bioremediation effort. The flushing/ bioremediation
options will require pil'ot treatability studies during the design
phase to insure effectiveness of the technology. Delays could
result from treatability study investigations and any subsequent
work required because of conclusions derived from the studies.
Alternative 3 involves capping of the sludge, which is
easily implementable. Collected fluids would be treated in a
WWTP, which is an accepted standard technology.
Delays could result for all alternatives which rely upon the
availability of a nearby WWTP if problems arise relative to the
use and/or availability of a WWTP and another treatment method
must be sought.
Alternative 4, in which the sludge would be
stabilized/solidified in the ponds and capped, utilizes a common
technology.
E.
Short-term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection of human health and the environment and any
adverse impacts that may be posed during the construction and
operation period until remediation goals are achieved.
Alternatives 2Al, 2A2, 2Bl, 2B2, SA and SB will remove the
sludge from the site, exposing workers onsite to some exposure to
hazardous materials during removal operations. Alternatives 3
and 4 could cause exposure to onsite workers during sludge
dewatering and sludge handling. Use of any of the alternatives
causing removal or disturbance of the sludge will require
following the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standards for the handling of hazardous materials. Air
monitoring would be necessary with implementation of controls to
protect the community from potential site releases via the air
route. Those controls would have to be observed for the duration
of the remediation. For the removal alternatives listed above,
the transport of sludge materials would require protection of
workers and the public as required by OSHA requirements,
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act Regulations, RCRA
requirements and Clean Air Act requirements. Over the short term
the soils remediation would pose a relatively low risk to workers
or the community. The remediation period could be as short as
three (3) years with the soil flushing/bioremediation, if fully
successful, to as long as 30 years for the capping alternatives.
24
-------
F.
Lonq-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and
the environment over time. Evaluation by this criterion includes
the consideration of residual risk and the adequacy and
reliability of controls.
All alternatives being considered (with the exception of
alternatives 1 and lA) will be effective in preventing direct
contact with both ,sludges and soils. Alternatives 2Al, 2A2, 2Bl,
2B2, SA and 5B eliminate the sludge from the site and thereby
provide the most effective and permanent long-term solution for
lowering risk from the sludge at- the site.
Alternative 3 will be effective over the long term but will
require long-term cap maintenance and long-term collection and
treatment of fluids collected in the interceptor trench.
Alternative 4 will provide a permanent treatment solution for the
sludge contamination because the stabilized/solidified sludge
will no longer be a source of contamination. For Alternatives
2Al, 2Bl, 3 and 4, the untreated soil would require long-term
collection of fluids by the interceptor trench and treatment of
fluids by a WWTP.
G.
Cost
This criterion examines the estimated costs for each
remedial alternative. Table 15 shows capital, 0 & M and present
worth costs.
The third category of criteria is mOdifying criteria. The
following two criteria are considered when evaluating the
alternatives and are used to help determine the final remedy for
the site.
H.
EPA - state Acceptance
The state of Kansas supports the remedy selected for the
cleanup of contaminated sludge and soil.
1.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the selected remedy was evaluated
during the public comment period. A public meeting on the
Proposed Plan was held on August 27, 1992, in EI Dorado, Kansas.
The Responsiveness Summary (Appendix A) includes comments
received during the public comment period and responses to those
comments.
25
-------
IX.
SELECTED REMEDY.: DESCRIPTION AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
EACH COMPONENT OF THE REMEDY
Based on the evaluations prepared for each of the proposed
alternatives, EPA has made a determination that the appropriate
remedy for the Pester Burn Pond site First Operable Unit is
Alternative 2B2. The selected remedy consists of the following
components: (1) removal of sludge contained in the pond,
dewatering of sludge, shipment to a RCRA-permitted TSD facility
for re-refining into petroleum product; (2) in situ soil
flushing/bioremediation; and (3) collection /treatment of oily
seepage and water from the interceptor trench.
A.
Removal of sludae
The sludge is located in three (3) interconnected ponds,
under as much as 10 feet of water. The ponds will have to be
dewatered prior to sludge removal. The water will be pumped to a
WWTP which discharges to the West Branch Walnut River under an
NPDES Permit. After the sludge is removed, it will be dewatered
and transported via railcar as a hazardous waste to a RCRA-
permitted TSD facility, permitted to carry out these activities.
The sludge will be mixed with refinery feedstock and re-refined
into useable petroleum product. The portion of the sludge that
is not incorporated into product will be removed at the end of
the process at the API separator and be handled as RCRA waste, as
will any other RCRA wastes generated. Removal of sludge from the
site will eliminate the sludge from ingestion/contact risk at the
site.
B.
In situ flushina/bioremediation of soils
Following removal of the pond sludge, the ponds will be
filled with water. Any soil contaminants mobilized by the
aqueous solution will flow to the interceptor trench for
collection and reintroduction to the pond. The treatment process
will include initially pumping the wastewater to a separator to
remove free oils and sediment, followed by chemical conditioning
and treatment in an aeration tank, enhancing biological action.
After this treatment cycle, the water would be discharged back
into the pond cavities. Aeration will be provided in the ponds
via perforated pipes placed on the bottoms of the ponds. The
aeration will augment biodegradation of organics in the pond
water. Treatment residuals will be handled in compliance with
RCRA if they are hazardous wastes.
This recycling of fluids into the ponds will continue until
t~e soil sampling indicates that the risk-based cleanup level of
13 mg/kg of carcinogenic PAHs has been achieved; the trench fluid
will also be analyzed. Analysis of soil samples will determine
whether the carcinogenic PAHs, benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene,
26
-------
have been reduced to levels below 13.0 mg/kg. Under the
industrial/limited access exposure scenario, which was used to
calculate the cleanup level used for the soils, 13.0 mg/kg is the
level calculated for the carcinogenic PAHs found in the soil
which would limit the ingestion of soils to a 1.0E-06 risk level.
Institutional control measures will be taken in order to limit
access, including additional fencing if needed, and deed
restrictions.
x.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to
select remedial actions that are protective of human health and
the environment. Section 121 of CERCLA also requires that the
selected remedial action comply with ARAR's, be cost effective,
and utilize permanent treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. The following sections discuss how the
selected remedy meets these statutory requirements (Section 121
of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. S9621).
A.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The baseline risk assessment identified the ingestion of
soils and sludges as the primary and principal risk at the site.
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by
removing the sludge from the Site and converting it into
petroleum product. There will no longer be a risk from the
sludge at the Site after it is removed. The soils will remain
onsite, to be treated by flushing/bioremediation to reduce
contamination to an acceptable risk level. The risk level to be
achieved, 10-6, is based on the carcinogenic PAHs
benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene. The acceptable risk level will
be achieved when soil levels of the carcinogenic PAHs are reduced
to 13 mg/kg.
Implementation of Alternative 2B2 may cause air releases at
the site. The sludge dewatering may require heating of the
sludge to 200.F, thus generating volatile emissions. If volatile
emissions are present, this process will require air pollution
control equipment such as a hood and fume incinerator to protect
onsite workers and area residents. Air pollution will have to be
monitored during all phases of the sludge removal to protect area
residents and onsite personnel.
Limited risks are anticipated from the remediation of the
soil~ through the flushing/bioremediation process. These would
include possible exposure for onsite workers, and the risk of an
inadvertent uncontrolled discharge to surface water.
27
-------
B.
Attainment of Aoolicable or Relevant and Aoorooriate
Reauirements of Environmental Laws
All ARARs will be met by the selected remedy.
There are no chemical specific ARARs that apply directly to
cleanup of sludge and soil. Source reduction will assist in
meeting ground water ARARs which are to be examined as part of a
second operable unit at the site.
Remedial activities ihcluding removal, transport, storage,
treatment, rerefining and reuse of the sludge and discharges to
air and water must comply with: (1) OSHA standards governing
worker safety during hazardous waste operations, (including 29
CFR 1910); (2) Solid Waste Regulations (40 CFR 240-281); (3)
RCRA or Hazardous Waste Regulations (40 CFR 260-272); (4) U.S.
Department of Transportation Regulations (including 49 CFR Parts
170 through 179); (5) The Kansas Solid Waste Management Act; and
(6) The Kansas Hazardous Waste Management Act; (7) The Clean
Water Act and its regulations will control any discharges to
surface water, while the Safe Drinking Water Act may apply to
discharges to ground water; and (8) Additionally, if onsite
monitoring during the excavation or dewatering of the sludge
shows air emissions at the site, the Clean Air Act regulations
including 40 CFR Parts 50 and 61 will control.
The sludge is a listed hazardous waste because of having
been generated as API separator sludges and heat exchanger bundle
cleaning sludges, KOSO and K051 respectively, and the pond has
historically been treated as a RCRA regulated hazardous waste
impoundment.
C.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy meets the requirements of CERCLA and is
cost-effective in providing overall protection of human health
and the environment and compliance with ARARs. Additionally the
remedy is both short-term and long-term effective and reduces
toxicity, mobility and volume of wastes through treatment.
Estimated present worth cost for the selected remedy is
$2,374,800.
D.
utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technoloaies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment
technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for the
Pester Burn Pond site. Of those alternatives that are protective
of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EPA
has determined that this selected remedy provides the best
28
-------
balance in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence,
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through
treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
Also, EPA considered the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element, and considered input from the community. The
state of Kansas agrees with these determinations.
The selected remedy utilizes technologies that can be
effectively implemented. These processes provide the best
solutions in addressing the contaminants at the site. The
selected remedy permanently removes the contaminated sludge for
reuse, thus providing for long-term effectiveness and permanence.
The in-situ flushing/bioremediation process will provide
treatment for the contaminated soil. Therefore, this remedy
provides treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable
at the site.
The selected remedy provides maximum reduction of toxicity,
mobility, and volume by providing for the removal of all sludge
from the Site for recycling. The in-situ flushing/bioremediation
will provide reduction in soil toxicity, mobility, and volume at
a reasonable cost.
The short-term risks associated with the selected remedy are
minimal and will be attended to with the proper controls at the
site. The short-term risks apply to excavation and transport of
waste. These short-term risks will be minimized through
compliance with ARARs.
For these reasons, the selected alternative provides the
best balance of trade-offs with respect to these criteria.
E.
Preference for Treatment as a princiual Element
The selected remedy involves removal of contaminated sludge
offsite for recycling at a RCRA-permitted petroleum refinery and.
treatment of contaminated soil with flushing/bioremediation.
Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
XI.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Pester Burn Pond Operable Unit was
released for public comment on August 20, 1992, and identified
Alternative 2B2 as the preferred alternative. No significant
changes were made in selecting the preferred alternative as
described in the Proposed Plan.
29
-------
ATTACHMENT I
. Glossary of Terms
Applicable Relevant and Appropriate Requirements -
Clean up standards, standards of control or other
environmental protection requirements which are
required to be met under CERCLA and the NCP.
AR File - Administrative Record File - includes all pertinent
documents and site information which forms the basis
and rationale for selection of a remedial alternative.
ARARS -
CERCLA -
EPA -
FS -
KAL -
KDHE -
MCL -
M & E -
NPDES -
NCP -
NPL -
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980. The federal "Superfund" law.
United States Environmental Protection Agency - The
support government agency for the Pester Burn Pond
site.
Feasibility Study. The study used to evaluate various
alternatives to clean up contamination.
Kansas Action Level is a concentration that could
produce chronic health effects after long term
consumption of water. If a contaminant is detected at
or above the KAL in a pUblic water supply,' the well
must not be used for drinking water purposes.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment.
government agency for the site.
The lead
Maximum Contaminant Level - The maximum amount of
contaminant allowed in ground water by USEPA.
Metcalf & Eddy
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system - a
permit that sets standards for the discharge of
potentially contaminated water.
National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
contingency Plan. The procedures used to address the
response powers and responsibilities created by the
federal Superfund law.
National Priorities List. A list of most contaminated
sites as determined by the NCP.
1
-------
PRP -
RCRA -
RI -
ROD -
SARA -
VOC -
Potentially Responsible Party - The party identified by
the u.S. EPA which is potentially responsible for
contamination.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation - The report which identifies
site conditions, extent of contamination, and site
risks.
Record of Decision - The official document by u.S. 'EPA
which selects the remedy to clean up a Superfund site.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
The federal law which amended and extended
authorization of the original Superfund law (CERCLA).
Volatile organic compou~d
2
-------
FIGURE 1
Pester Burn Pond Operable Unit Location Map
,
! e. DORADO, KANSAS
USGS 7.5 QUAD
1961 reviled 1879
I
SOURCE:
Remedial Investigation
Pester Burn Pond Site
El Dorado, Kansas
May 29, 1991 (Rev. July
Report
8, 1991)
Q\)~\-\\'(
~~~~\G\~
-------
FIGURE 2
Pester Burn Pond Operable Unit and Environs, El Dorado, Kansas
7
o
o
o
o
00
PESTER BURN POND SITE
00
00
c:::::::J 0 0
o
o
o
COAWL DERBY RE I
000
o
go
o
~
SOURCE:
Remedial Investigation
Pester Burn Pond Site
£1 Dorado, Kansas
May 29, 1991 (Rev. July
Report
8, 1991)
-------
WEST
A
"_/71
u..
....
....
.""
,,,.
nit
FIGURE 3
Geologic Cross Section,
Pe~ter Durn Pond Operable Unit,
£1 Dorado,
Kansas
~ ~ M....Ct',"
:~::~~:. :.~cs. 'H(NOLS. 8tNZO(.) NffiiRAC~(
PT1IOUlTSD
-------
FIGURE 4
Sampling Locations, Pester Burn Pond Operable Unit, El Dorado, Kansas
~
H
W30D
-+-- W7S
"1'""
W30
-;- W34S
,.pPROXlw,'t LOCAllOH
OF" PROPOSED
IHTtRc:t:PTOR mo.Oi
--
--.
:::J
LEGEND
:J
+
EXISTING MONITORING. WELL
...,..,
~
...,..,
VISIBLE SEEPAGE TO RIVER
.
TEST PIT
o
MANHOLE
SOURCE:
Contract Documents Bid and Specification for
Installation of Interceptor Trench (Feb. 1992)
-------
TABLE 1
CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
Metals
Arsertic 1.3 NCC 0.9 NCC NS NCC 1.3 NCC N/A 0.26 0.003 0.36 0.006 N/A
Barium 26 2 19 2 NS 2 31 0.7 N/A 0.77 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Chromium 121 NCC 117 NCC NS NCC 107 NCC NCC NCC N/A N/A N/A N/A
Lead 157 NCC 114 NCC NS NCC 92 NCC N/A 0.057 <0.1 12.6 <0.1 N/A
NCC = Not a Constituent of Concern
N/A ~ Not Analyzed
NS = Not Sampled
SOURCE: Feasibility Study Report for Pester BurD Pond Site in E1 Dorado, Kansas (Draft) March 13, 1992.
-------
TABLE 2
TOXtCl1Y FACTORS FOR QUANmACAllON OF CHRONIC AND LIFETIME HAZARDS FOR CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
AT THE PESTER BURN POND SITE
CHRONIC SUBCHRONIC
. REFERENCE DOSE (RID) REFERENCE DOSE CANCER SLOPE FACTOR
(MGIKGIDAY) (MGIKGIDAY) (MG/KGIDA Y)-1
CHEMICAL ORAL I INHALATION ORAL I INHALATION ORAL I INHALATION
ARSENIC 1E-03 (b) NO 1 E-03 (b) NO 2E+OO (c) 5E+01(b)
BARIUM 1E-02 (a) 1E-04 (b) 1E-02 (a) 1 E-03 (b) NO NO
CHROMIUM (VI) 5E-03 (a) 5. 7E-07(e) . 5E-03 (a) 5.7E-06(e NO 4.1 E+01 (b)
LEAD NO NO NO NO NO NO
BENZENE NO NO NO NO 2.9E-02 (a) 2.9E-02 (b)
ETHYL8ENZENE 1 E-01 (a) NO 1E+OO (b) NO NO NO
TOLUENE 2E-01 (a) 5.7E-01{e) 2E-O (b) 5.7E-01(e NO NO
XYLENES . 2E+OO (a) 8.6E-02{e) 4E+OO (b) 8.61;-02(e) NO NO
PHENOL 6E-01 (a) NO 6E-01 (a) NO NO NO
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 2E-02 (b) NO 2E-01 (b) NO NO NO
NAPIfTHALENE 4E-03 (b) NO 4E-02 (b) NO NO NO
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 4E-03 (I) NO 4E-02 (I) NO NO NO
BENZ{A)ANTHRACENE NO NO NO NO 1. 1 SE+01 (d) 6.1 E+OO (d)
CHRYSENE NO NO NO NO 1.15E+01 (d) 6.1 E+OO (d)
PHENANTHRENE NO NO NO NO NO NO
PYRENE 3E-02 (b) NO 3E-01 (b) NO NO NO
(a) From IRIS, accessed on January 11,1991.
(b) From Fourth Quarter FY 1990 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
{c} Value provided by U.S. EPA Region V (7/20/1990) for use In a previous
risk assessment.
Cd} From Health Effects Assessmenl on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
(e) Derived from Fourth Quarter FY 1990 HEAST.
(I) Assumed to be similar to naphlhalene.
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study Report for Pester Burn Pond Sjte jn
El Dorado, K~nsas (Revised), June 17L.1992
-------
TABLE 3
EXPOSURE ESTIMATES (MGn
-------
TABLE 4
EXPOSURE ESTIMATES (MGIKGIDAY) FOR POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AT TItE PESTER BURN POND SITE: INGESTION
OF POND SOIL
ADULT EXPOSURE CHILD EXPOSURE
95% C.!.
CONC NONCARCINOOEN I NONCARCINOGEN T NONCARCINOGEN I
CHEMICAL (MGIKG) CHRONIC SUBCHRONIC CARCINOGEN SUBCHRONIC CARCINOGEN
BARIUM 3.45 1.9E-06 1.9E-06 ' 8.3E-07 1.7E-Q5 1.2E-06
ETHYlBENZENE 1.12 6.3E-07 6.3E-07 2.7E-07 5.5E-06 3.9E-07
TOLUENE 1.76 9.9E-07 9.9E-07 4.2E-07 8.6E-06 6.2E-07
XYLENES 5.24 2.9E-06 2.9E-06 1.3E-06 2.6E-Q5 1.8E-06
NAPHTHALENE 12.47 7.0E-06 7.0E-06 3.0E-06 6.1 E-05 4.4E-06
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE 14.52 8.1 E-06 8.1 E-06 3.5E-06 7.1 E-OS 5.1 E-06
CHRYSENE 20.58 1.2E-05 1.2E-05 4.9E-06 1.0E-04 7.2E-06
PHENANTHRENE 13.66 7.6E-06 7.6E-06 3.3E-06 6.7E-OS 4.BE-06
2-METliYlNAPHTHAlENE 17.71 9.9E-06 9.9E-06 4.3E-06 8.7E-OS 6.2E-06
PYRENE 19.40 1.1E-05 1.1E-05 4.7E-06 9.5E-05 6.8E-06
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study Report for Pester Burn Pond Site in
El Dorado, Kansas (Revised), June 17, 1992
-------
TABLE 5
EXPOSURE ESTIMATES (MGn
-------
TABLE 6
EXPOSURE ESTIMATES (MGJKGIOAY) FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AT THE PESTER BURN POND SITE: DERMAL
CONTACTWTrn SVOCs AND INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN POND SLUDGE
ADULT EXPOSURE CHILD EXPOSURE
95% C".
CONC NON CARCINOGEN I NONCARCINOGEN I NONCARCINOGEN I
CHEMICAL . (MGMG) CHRONIC SU8CHRONIC CARCINOGEN SU8CHRONIC CARCINOGEN
ARSENIC 1.52 1.2E-06 1.2E-06 5.3E-07 3.6E-06 2.6E-07
BARIUM 35.20 2.9E-05 2.9E-05 1.2E-05 8.3E-05 5.9E-06
CHROMIUM 126.78 1.0E-04 1.0E-04 4.5E-05 3.0E-04 2.1 E-05
LEAD 174.91 1.4E-04 l.4E-04 6.2E-05 4. t E-Q4 2.9E-05
8ENZ(A)ANTHRACENE 81.04 6.7E-04 6.7E-04 2.9E-04 1.9E-03 1.4E-04
CHRYSENE 172.95 1.4E-03 1.4E-03 6.1 E-04 4.1 E-03 2.9E-04
PHENANTHRENE 244.02 2.0E-03 2.0E-03 8.6E-Q4 5.8E-03 4.1 E-04
2-METHYLNAPHTHAlENE 77.21 6.3E-04 6.3E-04 2.7E-04 1.8E-03 1.3E-04
PYRENE 181.46 1.5E-03 1.SE-03 6.4E-04 4.3E-03 3.0E-04
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study Report for Pester Burn Pond Site in
El Dorado, Kansas (Revised), June 17, 1992
-------
TABLE 7
HAZARDIRISK ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIAL RESlDENllALLAND USE AT THE PESTER BURN POND ~fTE; INGESTION OF POND SlUDGE
ADULT NONCANCER HAZARD CHILD CANCER RISK
CHRONIC SUBCHRONIC NONCANCER CANCER CANCER
HAZARD HAZARD SUBCHRONIC SLOPE ADULT SLOPE CHILD
CHEMICAL RID QUOTIENT RID QUOTIENT RID HAZARD FACTOR RISK FACTOR RISK
AttSENIC 1.0E-03 8.5E-04 1.0E-03 8.5E-04 1.0E-03 7.4E-03 2.0E+OO 7.3E-07 2.0E+OO 1.1E-06
BARIUM 7.0E-02 2.8E-04 7.0E-02 2.8E-04 7.0E-02 2.5E-03 ---- ---- ---- ----
CHROMIUM 5.0E-03 1.4E-02 5.0E-03 1.4E-02 5.0E-03 1.2E-01 ---- ---- ---- ----
LEAD ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
XYLENES 2.0E+OO 1.4E-06 4.0E+OO 6.9E-07 4.0E+OO 6.0E-06 ---- ---- ---- ----
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.2E+01 2.2E-04 1.2E+01 3.3E-Q4
CHRYSENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.2E+01 4.8E-04 1.2E+01 7.0E-Q4
PHENANTHRENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
2-METHYLNAPHTHAlENE 4.0E-03 1.1E-02 4.0E-02 1.1E-03 4.0E-02 9.5E-03 ---- ---- ---- ----
PYRENE 3.0E-02 3.4E-03 3.0E-01 3.4E-04 3.0E-01 3.0E-03 ---- ---- ---- ----
TOTAL 3.0E-02 1.7E-02 1.5E-01 7.0E-Q4 . 1.0E-03
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study Report for Pester Burn Pond Site in
ElDorado, Kansas (Revised), June 17, 1992
-------
TABLE 8
HAZARDIRISK ESTIMATES FOR POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AT TI-fE PESTER BURN POND SITE: INGESTION OF POND SOiL
ADULT NONCANCER HAZARD CHILD CANCER RISK
CHRONIC SUBCHRONIC NONCANCER CANCER CANCER
HAZARD HAZARD SUBCHRONIC SLOPE ADULT SLOPE CHILD
CHEMICAL RID QUOTIENT RID QUOTIENT RID HAZARD FACTOR RISK FACTOR RISK
BARIUM 7.qE-02 2.7E-OS 7.0E-02 2.7E-OS . 7.0E-02 2.4E-04 ---- ---- ---- ----
ETHYLBENZENE 1.0E-01 6.3E-06 1.0E+OO 6.3E-07 1.0E+OO 5.SE-06 ---- ---- ---- ----
TOLUENE 2.0E-01 5.0E-06 2.0E+OO 5.0E-07 2.0E+OO 4.3E-06 ---- ---- ----
XYLENES 2.0E+OO 1.SE-06 4.0E+OO 7.3E-07 4.0E+OO 6.5E-06 ---- ---- ---- ----
NAPHTHALENE 4.0E-03 1.8E-03 4.0E-02 1.8E-04 4.0E-02 1.5E-03 ---- ---- ---- ----
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.2E+01 4.0E-OS 1.2E+01 3.3E-OS
CHRYSENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.2E+01 5.6E-OS 1.2E+01 4.4E-05
PHENANTHRENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
2-METHYLNAPHTI-fALENE 4.0E-03 2.5E-03 4.0E-02 2.5E-04 4.0E-02 2.2E-03 ---- ---- ---- ----
PYRENE 3.0E-02 3.7E-04 3.0E-01 3.7E-05 3.0E-01 3.2E-04 ---- ---- ---- ----
TOTAL 4.6E-03 4.9E-04 4.3E-Q3 9.7E-05 7.7E-05
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study Report for Pester Burn Pond Site in
El Dorado, Kansas (Revised), June 17, 1992
"
-------
.
. TABLE 9 .
HAZARDIRISK EsnMATES FOR POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AT THE PESTER BURN POND Sm:: DERMAL CONTACT WITH SVOCS AND INORGANIC
CONSTITUENTS IN POND SLUDGE
ADULT NONCANCER HAZARD CHILD CANCER RISK
CHRONIC SUBCHRONIC NONCANCER CANCER CANCER
HAZARD HAZARD SUBCHRONIC SlOPE ADULT SLOPE CHILD
CHEMICAL RID QUOTIENT RID QUOTIENT RID HAZARD FACTOR RISK FACTOR RISK
ARSENIC 9.5E-Q4 1.3E-03 9.SE-Q4 1.3E-03 9.SE-Q4 3.SE-03 2.1 E.OO 1.1 E-06 2.1 E.OO S.4E-07
BARIUM 3.5E-03 8.3E-03 3.SE-03 8.3E-03 3.SE-03 2.4E-02 ---- ---- ---- ----
CHROMIUM 2.5E-03 4.2E-02 2.5E-03 4.2E-02 2.SE-03 1.2E-01 ---- ---- ---- ----
LEAD ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
B£;NZ(A)ANTHRACENE. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
CHRYSENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
PHENANTHRENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 4.0E-02 1.6E-02 4.0E-02 1.6E-02 4.0E-02 4.6E-02 ---- ---- ---- ----
PYRENE 3.0E-02 5.0E-02 3.0E-01 5.0E-03 3.0E-01 1.4E-02 ---- ---- ---- ----
TOTAL 1.2E-01 7.2E-02 2.1 E-01 1.1E-06 5.4E-07
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study Report for Pester Burn Pond Site in
El Dorado, Kansas (Revised), June 17, 1992
'.
-------
TABLE 10
HAZARDIRISK E5nMATES FOR POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ATll-iE PESTER BURN POND SITE: DERMAL COOTACTWfrn SVOCS AND
INORGANIC CONSTmUEfiTS IN POND SOIL
ADULT NONCANCER HAZARD CHILD. CANCER RISK
CHRONIC . SUBCHRONIC NONCANCER CANCER CANCER
HAZARD HAZARD SUBCHRONIC SLOPE ADULT SLOPE CHILD
CHEMICAL RIO QUOTIENT RID QUOTIENT RID HAZARD FACTOR RISK FACTOR RISK
BARIUM 3.SE-03 6.6E..OO 3.SE-03 6.6E..OO 3.SE-03 1.0E+OO ---- ---- ---- ----
NAPHll-iAlENE 3.4E-03 3.6E-01 3.4E-03 3.6E-01 3.4E-03 6.0E-02 ---- ---- ---- ----
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
CHRYSENE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
PHENANTHRENE --.- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
2-METHYlNAPHll-iAlENE 3.4E-03 5.4E-01 3.4E-02 5.4E-02 3.4E-02 8.3E-03 ---- ---- ---- ----
PYRENE 2.5E-01 7.5E-03 2.5E-02 7.5E-02 2.5E-02 1.2E-02 ---- ---- ---- ----
.
TOTAL 7.5E..OO 7.1 E..OO 1.1E..OO
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study Report for Pester Burn Pond Site in
El Dorado, Kansas (Revised), June 17, 1992
"
-------
TABLE' ,.
SUMMARY OF TOTAL HAZARDSIRISKS FOR ADULTS ASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
LAND USE EXPOSURES TO POND SOIL MID POND SLUDGE AT THE PESTER BURN POND SITE
. ADULT NONCARCINOGENIC
HAZARDS ADULT
EXPOSURE CARCINOGENIC
MEDIA PATHWAY CHRONIC SUBCHRONIC RISK
POND SLUDGE INGESTION 3.00E-02 1.70E-02 7.00E-04
POND SLUDGE DERMAL 1.20E-01 7.20E-02 1.10E-06
CONTACT
. ...:...... ...;...:;
TOTAL 1<.:(::;:.;.;'; ;.;.. 1.SOE-01 8.90E-02 7.01E-04
... ......::;.:/:' .:;:
POND SOIL INGESTION 4.60E-03 4.90E-04 9.70E-OS
POND SOIL DERMAL 7.S0E-02 4.20E-02 --
CONTACT
.. .....
..
TOTAL 7.96E-02 4.25E-02 9.70E-OS
. :.".',,:."': .. .;..:::):.'
. ....
TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF TOTAL HAZARDSIRISKS FOR CHILDREN
ASSOCIATED wntf FUTURE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE EXPOSURES TO
POND SOIL AND POND SLUDGE AT THE PESTER BURN POND SITE
CHILD
NONCARCINOGENIC CHILD
EXPOSURE SUBCHRONIC CARCINOGENIC
MEDIA PATHWAY HAZARD RISK
POND SLUDGE INGESTION 1.50E-01 1.00E-03
POND SLUDGE DERMAL 2.10E-01 5.40E-07
CONTACT
TOTAL - 3.6OE-01 1.00E-03
POND SOIL INGEStiON 04.30E-03 7.70E-05
POND SOIL DERMAL 1.20E-01 --
CONTACT
",..,-."."".":-,:",,",,",.';:.,:.,,
TOTAL .:~~~~t~'~:~~!.!:~!~':~[~:i~~!;::~';::Jt~.: 1.24E-01 7.70E-Q5
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study
Report for Pester
Burn Pond Site in
El Dorado, Kansas
(Revised), June 17,
1992
~.
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF TOTAL HAZARDS/RISKS FOR A 12 TO 13 YEAR OLD
MALE CHILD IN ASSOCIATION WITH LIMITED ACCESS EXPOSURES
TO POND SOIL AND POND SLUDGE AT THE PESTER BURN POND SITE
EXPOSURE SUBCHRONIC CARCINOGENIC
MEDIA PATHWAY HAZARDS RISK
POND SLUDGE INGESTION 7.10E-03 2.00E--Q5
POND SLUDGE DERMAL 4.30E-02 4.40E-08
CO NT ACT
TOTAL 5.01 E-02 2.00E-05
POND SOIL INGESTION 2.00E-04 2.70E-06
POND SOIL DERMAL 4.50E-02 -
CONTACT
TOTAL 4.52E-02 2.70E-06
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study Report for Pester Burn Pond Site in
£1 Dorado, Kansas (Revised), June 17, 1992
-------
TABLE 14.
COMPARISON OF TARGET SOIL LEVELS TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH
FOR RESIDENTIAL AND LIMITED ACCESS LAND USE SCENARIOS
SOil
. TARGET SLOPE EXPOSURE LEVELS
. TOTAL PAHs EXPOSURE RISK (MG/KG/DA Y)-1 (MG/KG/DAY) (MG/KG)
RESIDENTIAL FUTURE USE
INGESTION BY ADULT 0.000001 11.5 8. 70E-08
INGESTION BY CHilD 0.000001 11.5 8.70E-08
LIMITED ACCESS
INGESTION BY 12 TO 13 0.000001 11.5 8.70E-08
YEAR OLD MALE
SOURCE:
Feasibility Study Report for Pester Burn Pond Site in
El Dorado, Kansas (Revised), June 17, 1992
-------
TABLE 15
Summary of Estimated Costs for Remedial
Action Alternatives Under Consideration
Alternative
Present Value
Capital Cost 0 & M Costs Total Cost
SO $238,300 $2,38,300
$1,958,000 $614,900 $2,572.900
1 A -. Limited Action
2A 1 - Removal and Reuse of Sludge for Asphalt
Mix Followed by Capping of Remaining
Soils
2A2 - Removal and Reuse of Sludge for Asphalt
Mix Followed by (nSitu Flushing!
Bioremediation of Remai.ning Soils
. $1,695,300
$464,700
$2,160,000
281 - Removal and Reuse of Sludge at a
Refinery Followed by Capping of
Remaining Soils
$2,172,820
$614,900
$2,787,720
282 - Removal and Reuse of Sludge at a
Refinery Followed by In Situ
Flushing!Bioremediation of Remaining
Soils .
$1,910,100
$464,700
$2,374,800
3-
Capping of the Sludge Followed by
Collection and Treatment of Leachate
$2,031,300
-$614,900
$2,646,200
4-
. .
Stabilization/Solidification of
Sludge On-Site Followed by Capping and
Leachate CollectionlTreatment
$2,738,700
. ~614,900 . $3,353,600
5A-
Removal and Thermal Treatment of
Sludge Followed by Capping of
Remaining Soils.
$5,200,100
$614,900
$5,~15,000
58 -
Removal and Thermal Treatment of
Sludge Followed by In Situ Flushing!
Bioremediation of Remaining Soils
$4,937,400
.$464,700
$5,402,100
SOURCE:
Remedial Investigation Report; Pester Burn Pond Site
El Dorado, Kansas; February, 1992
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
ON THE
PROPOSED PLAN
FOR THE
PESTER BURN POND SITE
EL DORADO, KANSAS
-------
Response to Public Comments
on the
Proposed Plan
for the
Pester Burn Pond site
El Dorado, Kansas
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The united states Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held
a public comment period from August 20 through september 21,
1992, on the EPA Proposed Plan for the Pester Burn Pond Superfund
Site in El Dorado, Kansas. The purpose of the public comment
period was to provide interested parties with an opportunity to
comment on the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan was made
available on August 20, 1992, at the Bradford Memorial Library in
El Dorado, Kansas. Notification of the public comment period was
published in the El Dorado Times.
A public meeting was held on August 27, 1992, at the
Bradford Memorial Library in El Dorado, Kansas. At this meeting
representatives from EPA and the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) described the alternatives evaluated,
presented the preferred alternative and the remedial alternatives
under consideration.
section 113 (k) (2) (B) (iv) of the comprehensive Environmental
Response, compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires that
EPA respond to significant comments on the Proposed Plan. This
Response Summary provides a review and summary of significant
comments on the Proposed Plan. In addition to summarizing
significant concerns and questions, the Response Summary presents
EPA's responses to those concerns.
2.0
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND EPA RESPONSES
2.1 COMMENTS FROM JIM MAHON, FINA OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPANY.
(Copies of the identical comments were also received from Peggy
Pester Lammers of the Pester Refining Company and from Coastal
Mart, Inc.).
Comment #1
(section 3.2, page 9, paragraph 4) The subsurface
interceptor trench installed in May 1992 and located north and
east of the ponds was. excavated to the bedrock surface north and
east of the ponds. The open trench located north of the ponds is
1
-------
excavated into the bedrock surface to provide drainage and allow
for increased withdrawals from the extraction pump.
EPA Response
This clarification information has been reflected in the
Record of Decision.
Comment #2
(Section 3.3, page 9) The Proposed Plan indicated that RCRA
closure standards are "applicable". FINA contends that RCRA
standards are not "applicable" because the site is not a RCRA
site. Some of the RCRA standards may be "relevant and
appropriate". The "relevant and appropriate" standards will be
complied with to allow for fulfilling the substantive parts of
RCRA without requiring completion of the paper work to obtain all
the permits as allowed under CERCLA.
EPA Response
RCRA closure standards are applicable, rather than relevant
and appropriate, because the Pester Burn Pond is an impoundment
which has been regulated under RCRA. Although RCRA is therefore
applicable to onsite activities, rather than relevant and
. appropriate, Section 121 (e) of CERCLA provides that "No Federal,
State, or local permit shall be required for the portion of any
removal or remedial action carried out entirely onsite, where.
such remedial action is selected and carried out in compliance"
with section 121 of CERCLA. A RCRA permit is not required for
onsite activities at the Pester Burn Pond site, but substantive
compliance with the requirements of RCRA is required.
Comment #3
(Section 3.3, page 10 par 3) The plan indicates that another
RIfFS will be conducted for the ground water, Fina recognizes
that the proposed plan excludes the ground water operable unit.
However, the authors are reminded that the active interceptor
trench was intended, at a minimum, to be an integral part of the
evaluation of the ground water operable unit. Prior to
proceeding with the RIfFS for the ground water operable unit,
Fina requests that KDHE and EPA consider evaluation of data being
collected from the interceptor trench. Per our conference call
of June 15, 1992, KDHE, EPA and Fina agreed to evaluate the
performance of the interceptor trench to determine its
effectiveness. If these data indicate that the trench is
hydraulically capturing both the alluvial and upper bedrock unit,
then the additional RIfFS would not be necessary. If, on the'
; .
2
-------
other hand, the trench was not effectively eliminating migration
from the upper bedrock unit, then an abbreviated/focused RI/FS
would be conducted.
EPA Response
The interceptor trench was not proposed or approved by KDHE
or EPA before it was constructed, and so it would be difficult
for these agencies to speak to its basis or confirm that "the
active interceptor trench was intended, at a minimum to be an
integral part of the evaluation of the ground water operable
unit." A second RI/FS is currently planned for the purpose of
evaluating ground water contamination and what further remedial
activity, if any, beyond source control, will be needed to
alleviate it. Such a study would normally take account of both
existing structures and any pre-existing validated data available
to EPA. The second RI/FS is necessary because the first operable
unit did not adequately evaluate the ground water route. As is
statutorily required, the no-action alternative will be evaluated
at that time for ground water. This second, ground water RI/FS
will be conducted on an appropriate scale to gather the data that
are needed.
Comment #4
(Section 4.3, page 15) The proposed plan indicates that the
sludge will be sent to a TSDF oil refinery. There is no reason
why the refinery needs to be a TSDF. The site remediation goal
of overall protectiveness of human health and environment is met
as long as Fina ensures that any wastes from the refining of the
sludge are handled as hazardous waste with the other API
Separator sludge produced at the refinery. In order to do this,
the facility only needs to be registered as a hazardous waste
"generator". It is assumed that the further requirement of
treatment, storage, and disposal are not required.
EPA Response
If hazardous wastes (as defined under RCRA) are to be sent
offsite for treatment, storage, or disposal, they will need to be
sent to a facility legally authorized to conduct such treatment,
storage, or disposal. If hazardous wastes are treated, stored,
or disposed of offsite, EPA does not have discretion whether or
not regulations should be considered applicable, as they might
onsite if the regulations were determined to be "relevant and
appropriate", or, "to be considered" under CERCLA. Offsite, the
requirements of other (non-CERCLA) environmental laws are
applicable, not merely relevant and appropriate, and, in
addition, the section 121 (e) permit exemption does not apply.
3
-------
For offsite treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste,
the facility must be a RCRA-permitted TSD facility with a permit
to carry out the activity in question. A RCRA generator would
not have the legal authority to carry out regulated treatment,
storage, or disposal.
comment #5
(Section 5.2.2, page 19 par 3) Delisting is a time consuming
option, therefore EPA suggests "transport of sludge as hazardous
waste and to close the impoundment in accordance with RCRA".
Fina contends that because the hazardous waste will be pre-
processed onsite for use as a feedstock for the refining process,
the processed sludge should be considered a feedstock or
intermediate feed stream at that point. (Note: no further pre-
processing will be done at the refinery.) The processed sludge
is essentially identical to the refinery feedstock (vacuum tank
bottoms) or other intermediate feed stream entering the
processing unit.
Thus, Fina believes processed sludge should not be
considered a hazardous waste when it leaves the site; and
manifesting should not be required. As a raw material feedstock,
the material goes directly into the Propane Deasphalting unit
(PDU). The refinery should not have to handle this material any
differently from other feedstocks.
The second part of the proposed plan statement is that the
impoundments should be closed in accordance with RCRA. The RCRA
impoundment closure requirement is unwarranted. This is a CERCLA
site and CERCLA guidance applies. Fina will do nothing that
triggers RCRA regulations of the Pester Burn Pond Site closure.
As stated in section 3.3 of the Proposed Plan, the cleanup
of both the sludge and soil will be risk based using the limited
access scenario to attain risk levels below the 1 X 10-6 cancer
risk. The RCRA closure regulations would require post closure
care until soil concentrations are below background (40 CFR
264.280 included in reference from 40 CFR 264.111). This
standard conflicts with the risk based levels determined by the
risk assessment. The final cover specifications (40 CFR 264.310)
would indicate that the interceptor trench must be operated until
no leachate is detected. The risk-based standards for ground
water cleanup will be above background and set at a level that is
protective of human health. In summary, the cleanup levels for
this site are already established as risk based using the limited
access scenario. Incorporation of RCRA would require cleanup
levels that may not be attainable.
4
~.
~
-------
EPA Response
There are two separate issues to respond to here.
(1) Applicability of RCRA to offsite sludge shipments. The
EPA's Superfund program has no authority to waive the
requirements of environmental laws and regulations for regulated
substances or activities offsite. Onsite applicable
requirements, such as those of RCRA at this site, can be waived
for the reasons listed in CERCLA Section 121 (d)(4) (the "ARAR
waivers"), if such a waiver is invoked. Howeyer, none of the
ARAR waivers has been invoked for this site at present.
Delisting of hazardous waste under RCRA is conducted via a
petition for rulemaking. Delisting would be required for any
otherwise-hazardous waste leaving the Site to be exempt from
RCRA. otherwise, RCRA regulations are applicable to offsite
hazardous waste shipments and treatment or disposal.
criteria for delisting are given in 40 CFR 260.22; such
criteria do not include the criteria mentioned in the comment.
The applicant would have to show that the waste at this
particular facility "does not meet any of the criteria under
which the waste was listed as a hazardous...waste;" and that if
there are other factors, including additional constituents other
than those for which the waste was listed, which could cause the
waste to be a hazardous waste, that "such factors do not warrant
retaining the waste as a hazardous waste." Delisting is a
rulemaking process conducted by EPA Headquarters with OMB
approval and can take some time to complete.
Finally, even after the contemplated onsite processing or
treatment, the sludge may still be hazardous waste even though it
is to be recycled; the RCRA regulations regulate certain
materials which are to be recycled.
(2) Applicability ofRCRA to onsite closure. Since RCRA is
applicable to this impoundment, based upon its past history as a
RCRA-regulated impoundment, RCRA regulations, including RCRA
closure requirements, are applicable. CERCLA guidance and the
National Contingency Plan require that applicable requirements
must be followed.
Since this was a RCRA-regulated surface impoundment, it will
need to be closed in accordance with RCRA closure requirements.
section 264.111, 264.228, and 264.310 contain the closure
requirements that apply to closure of a RCRA impoundment. The
first two sections apply to "clean closure"; all three sections
apply if the impoundment must be closed containing hazardous
waste at levels above those which constitute "clean closure" (in
this instance, the health-based cleanup level for PARs). The
requirements of 40 CFR 264.280 do not apply directly, though they
5
-------
are listed in 264.111; 40 CFR 264.280 concerns land treatment
units.
6
------- |