United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-86/009
June 1986
PA
Superfund
Record of
A. L. Taylor, KY
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(PlefUe ,ead ItUlf'UClions on the revene befrNe completinl)
,. REPORT NO. 12. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-86/009
4. TITLE AND SU8TITLE II. REPORT DATE I
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION' SeDtember 4. 1986
A. L. Taylor, KY e. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7. AuTHOR«S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
It. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO,
1 1, CONTRACT/GRANT NO,
12. SPONSORIN'G AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD ReDOrt
401 M Street, S.W. 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Wash ing ton, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The A. L. Taylor site, also known as "Valley of the Drums ", is located in a smaloo:l
valley in northern Bullett County outside of Brooks, Kentucky. This site was first
~dentified as a waste disposal site by the Kentucky Department of National Resources and
Environmental Protection (KDNREP) in 1967. The owner, Mr. Taylor, excavated pits on
site and emptied the contents of the drums into them and recycled the drums. Soil from
nearby hillsiaes was eventually used to cover the pits. Thousands of drums were also
stored on the surface. Mr. Taylor never applied for the rquired State permits
throughout this history of site operations from 1967 to 1977. The KDNREP first
documented releases of hazardous substances in 1975. They pursued legal actions against
Mr. Taylor until his death in late 1977. In January 1979 the EPA responded to releases
of oil and hazardous substances at the site. In 1980 the KDNREP contacted si~
responsible parties who identified and removed approximately 30% of the waste remaining
on the 'surface of the site. In 1981 the EPA, upon inspection, discovered deteriorating
and leaking drums and discharges of pollutants into the nearby creek. EPA conducted a
removal action to upgrade the existing treatment system and remove the remaining 4,200
drums of surface waste offsite for recycling or disposure. There remains an unknown
amount of waste buried onsite. The hazardous substances detected at this site include
approximately 140 compounds of the following classes:
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSA TI Field/Group
. Record of Decision
A. L. Taylor, KY
Contaminated Media: sw, gw, sediments
Key contaminants: Heavy metals, inorganics,
PCBs, organics, VOCs, PAHs, Toluene, PCE,
vinyl chloride, xylene.,., '.
18. DISTRI8UTION STATEMENT. , 19. SECURITY CLASS (T/lil R~p()rIl 21. NO. OF PAGES
..
None 50
20. SECuRl,TY CLASS (17liJ PGgf/ 22. PRICE
None
E'-. ,- 2228-L(1... 4-77)
..."avlous .D"T10N.I.O.80~.T.
.'
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1.
REPORT NUMBER
Insert the LPA report number IS It appean on the coYer of the publi<:;lIlon.
LEAVE BLANK
2.
3.
REClltlENTS ACCESSION NUMBiR
Reserved for use by c;lI:h rcport re':lplCnt,
4.
TiTlE AND SUBTiTlE
Tille should indica Ie dearly itnd briefly Ihe subJc,'1 .:ovcr~~ uf Ihc r,'port. .Ind b\: JI'I'I~y...J I'rullllO,'nI1y, S,'I ,,,"IIII.', If ",,'d, III 'lI1all,'r
type or otherwise subordlnale .. to main II tie : Whcn a report is prcp;ucd In mon' th~n \'n,' ".\,lun1\:, rq,,'al Ih,' prullary IIII.', .1\1.1 "..,1:1111"
number and mdude sublltle (or the specific litle,
5.
REItORT DATE
Each report shall carry I date indicatinl at least month itnd ycar, Indi,'atc Ih,' ".I", U" ~11I.l1 \I \\;" ,,'k"','d (,'.,., JIIIC' "1 /).\11,', Jill" "1
IlpproNJ, diJl~ 01 P"~ptlrgtio", n~.J.
PER'ORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
Leave blank,
I.
7.
AUTHORISI
Give namebl In "0nvenllonal order (John R. [)o('. J. Rob..." Dot', "'I'.). LI'I aUlhur\ alfihatlun.f il .l1f""r, 1,.,111 II", I'..'rfurnllna: ,"a:~I11-
Ullon.
I,
P.R'ORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if per(ormlnl orpnazallon WIshes to ~sslfTI1h.s number,
t.
PER'ORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, City, state, and ZIP code, list no more Ihan two levels of an ura:aRl/aliunal hlrc.lldIY.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the proanm element number under IoIIhl.:h the report I0Il01' prcpared, Subordlll.llc number' 111.1)' h.: ,".1".1.'.1 IIIl'a"'l1lh,'"',,
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert conUlct or pant number under IoIIhich report loIIitS prcpared.
1-2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate Interam final, etc., and If apph.:able, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGkNCY CODE
Insert appropraate code,
15. SUPPlEMENTARY NOTES
Enter m(ormallon notmcluded elsewhere but use(ul. such as:
To be published in, Supersedes. Supplements, etc,
Prepared 1II,00pl:ratlOn loll It 11 , Ir;l,,,I.lIIOI1 "',I'r,''''I1.",1 a' \011"''''11',' ..,.
11. ABSTRACT
Include a brle( (200 WOI'ds 0' less) factual summary of Ihe mo,1 ,,!!Cnt/kant tntorm.llwn ,untalR",1 "' 1/'" '''I.orl. II 1/", '<"f"" I """.1111' ~
significant bibliography or litera lure survey. men lion II here,
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS. Select from the The\iurus of EnglReerlr.~ .Ind S':.l'I1I,'" rerlll' the prup'r au I h""Il'J ("1111' Ih~( ,Jenll'y thl' malor
concept of the research and are sufficiently ,!)Cclnc "nd pre':l",... 10 be u",...d ~, andc, cnllle> lur lal~I"~IR~.
(b) IDENTIrIERS AND OPEN.ENDED TERMS - Use Idenllfiers (or proJCl:I nam", cude ,,,.mc,, ,'~ulpmcnl d"',~nahH" ell L,;,,' "I'cn-
. ended terms Wllllen In descnplor form for those subjects for which no dl.'~flptur C~I,ts,
(CI COSA TlIILLD GROUP - Held itnd group uS1lnmen15 are to be taken Irom the 1'165 (051\11 Suh,nt (alq!ory I.l\t. S,n':l' Ihl.' m~-
Jority of documents are muilldisclplinary an nature. the Primary held/Group ~"Ignmentl" ""II be 'I":lll" dl\' Il'hnl, arl'a .., hUlllan
endeavor, or type of phys..;al object, The appllcallonjs! will be cros,.relerence\! IoIIlIh \Clund..ry 1.\'1.1/( .rllul' ~"'~nn1<"nh th,,1 ",,111111111'"
the primary posungu!,
11. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to Ihe pubh.: or IInll13110n for reasons other Ihitn SClurlty lor cKample "'I{elc",,' 1111111111\'11." ( 11\' aliV Jv,lIlaiHhl} III
the public. ",..h address .and pIlCC.
11. a. 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submll classified reporrs 10 Ihe NitllOnal TechRlcallnformallon \Crv1<"l.'.
21, NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the lOW number of pages, IncludUlglhu one and unnumbered page'. oul eulude dl,tnbulJon 11\1, II ~ny,
22. PRICE
Insert the pnce set by the Nauonal rechQlca11nformabon Service or the Government I'rantlnc Olrt!:e. .. known,
! PI. ,- 2220-1 (R.... .-77) 1......-)
.
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-86/009
A. L. Taylor, KY
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
heavy metals, ketones, phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs,
chlorinated alkanes and alkanes, aromatics, chlorinated aromatics, and
polynuclear aromatics (PAHs).
The selected remedial action for this site includes: removal of pond
water; securing pond sediments, sludge and materials from low-lying areas
beneath the cap~ installing a final cap cover for containment of the waste
materials; constructing a surface water drainage diversion to re-route
surface water; implementing a performance monitoring program to evaluate the
effectiveness or the clay cap to mitigate surface chemical migration. The
capital cost for the selected remedial alternative is estimated to be
$795,349. O&M costs for this selected remedy were not specified. The
Commonwealth of Kentucky will assume the O&M costs one year after the
completion of construction. .
,. .
..
.~~. ,
..
-------
REX:ORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Site: A. L. Taylor Site (Valley of the lXums), Bul1itt County, Kentucky
Documents Reviewed
I am basi~ my decision primarily on the followi~ docLments describi~
the analysis of cost and effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the
A. L. Taylor Site.
Conestoga-Rovers and Associates Limited, 1986 Preliminary Remedial
COnstruction Design, A.L. Taylor Site, Bullitt COunty, Kentucky.
Metcalf and E)jdy, Inc., 1984, Feasibility Stldy MdendUtl and Ehdargerrnent
Assessment of the A. L. Taylor Site, Brooks, Rentucky.
Geosciences Research Associates, Inc., 1984, Hydrologic Investigation of
the A. L. Taylor Site, Bullitt County, Rentucky.
C',eosciences Research Associates, Inc., 1983, Technical PrOIDsal for Soil
and Groundwater Testil'"Q and Penneabil i ty Detennination. at A. L. Taylor
Landfill Site, Bullitt County, ~ntucky.
NUS COrporation, 1983, Sampli~ Investigation Report, A. L. Taylor Site,
Brooks, ~ntucky.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1983, Review of I:Bta and Proposed Remedial Alter-
native for one A. L. Taylor Site, Brooks, Kentucky.
Geosciences Research Associates, Inc., 1983, A. L. Taylor Site Onsite
Containment Plan.
Tenech Environmental Engineers, Inc., 1983, Final Design Report for
Renedial Action of the A. L. Taylor Hazardous Waste DisIDSal Site.
Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1982, Feasibility Study of Remedial
Alternatives for the A. L. Taylor Site, Task Report to the EPA.
Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1982, Remedial Action Site Investigation,
A. L. Taylor Site, Brooks, Kentucky. Task Report to the EPA.
u.S. EPA, 1982, Historical Analysis A. L. Taylor Site, Brooks, Kentucky.
Environmental Monitorino System Laboratory Environmental Photographic
", Interpretation Center, Warrenton, Virginia.
,',' " .
',."'Ecol~y and Environment, Inc., 1982, A. L. Taylor Site Deep Test 8ori~,
c, ,letter ReJX)rt. ,"
Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1981, Geologic Investigation at A. L. Taylor ,,'
Site, Letter leport :to"Richard 'D. Stonebraker. "
.'
-------
!echnos, Inc., 1981, Subsurface Investigation of the A. L. Taylor Hazardous
Material Site, Bul1itt County, Kentucky, ~port to Ecology and Environmental
Inc. and U.S. EPA.
Tenech Environmental Engineers, Inc., 1983, Contract Documents for Remedial
Actions at the A. L. Taylor Hazardous Waste Disposal Site.
Tenech Environmental Engineers, Inc., 1983, Remedial Actions for the
A. L. Taylor Hazardcus Waste Dis{X)Sal Si te.
U.S. EPA, 1980, Valley of the Drums, Bullitt County, Kentucky, Oil and
Special Materials Control Division, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1979, Valley of the Dnrns, 91e~erdsville, Kentucky, Environmental
Jesponse !eaTI, lliison, New Jersey.
u.s. EPA, 1979, Soil Coring Stooy, A. L. Taylor Hazardous Waste Site,
Bullitt County, Kentucky, Region IV Surveillance ard Analysis Division, Athens,
Georgia.
u.S. EPA, 1979, Environmental Monitoring Activities Associated with
Hazardcus Waste Stor~e Sites; Louisville, Kentucky, Region IV SUrveillance
and Analysis Division, Athens, Georgia.
U.S.G.S., 1960, Availability of Groundwater in Bullitt, Jefferson and
Oldhall Counties, Kentucky.
Staff Summaries and Recommendations are atttached.
.
-------
~scription of Selected Remedy
The selected remedy inc1.l.des:
o Remove surface water fran the site.
o Secure pond sediments, sll.dge and materials fran low-lying areas beneath
the cap.
o Install final cap cover for containment of the waste materials.
o Construct a surface water drainage diversion which will route surface
water around the cap area and which can accammodate a 25 year/24 hour
stonn.
o Implanent a performance monitorir'Q program on Wilson Creek (the only
potential receptor.of chanical migration) to evaluate the effectiveness of
the clay cap insurir'Q mitigation-of surface chemical migration.
o Fbllowir'Q the completion of the ranedial construction the site will be
secured with the installation of a six foot high chain link fence with
appropriate gates.
o The site will be subject to a regular inspection and maintenance program
following completion of ranedial construction for a period of thirty (30)
years. "
o The active contaminant miqration pathway at the A. L. Taylor site is by
surface water runoff. The final cover is proposed as a method of containina
waste materials and preventing contact between surface water and waste.
o Based on the cost-effective criteria of Section 300.68 (j) of the National
Contingency Plan, evaluation of the remedial al ternatives and the
endar'Qerment assessment, EPA recommends that the onsite contaminment
alternative as proposed in the conceptual design submitted by the potentially
responsibl~ parties be implemented at this site.
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Oompensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA), and the National Contirgency Plan (40
CPR Part 300), I have determined that the on site containment alternative
is a cost effective remedy and provides adequate protection of public
heal th, wel fare and the env ironment. The Carroonweal th of Kentucky has
been consul ted and agrees wi th the approved ranedy.
In addition, the action will require future 0 & M activities to ensure
the continued effectiveness of the remedy. These activities will be
considered part of the approved actions and eligible for Trust FUnd
Ironies f~r.a per~od not" to. exceed 1 year.
."
-------
I have also detenTIined that the action being taken is appropriate when
balanced against the availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other
sites.
JUN 1 8 1986
'" LLZ~
D3te
Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
..
-------
Record of D:!cision
Remedial Alternative Selection
A. L. Taylor Site
Brooks, Kentucky
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The A. L. Taylor site, also known as "Valley of the Dnms", is an uncontrolled
industrial waste dunp located in a snall valley in northern Bullitt County
just south of the Jefferson Cbunty line off Kentucky State Highway 1020
outside the community of Brooks, Kentucky (see figure 1).
The topography of the north-central portion of Bullitt Cbunty is characterized
by steep slopes, particularly in that portion of the county bordering Jefferson
County. The A. L. Taylor site falls within this general characterization
having 20 to 30 percent slopes on the \toIestern and northern sides of the site
and 10 percent on the southern and eastern sides. The site is not within
any 100 year flood plain. r-t>st of the surface area of the site has been
qracted so that the land gradually slopes eastward toward Wilson Creek,
located adjacent to the site. There are five residences and a private
country club located within a few thousand feet of the site.
Groundwater at the site occurs in t~ aquifers: a shallow unconfined perched
aquifer and a deeper confined limestone aquifer. Groundwater monitoring
wells drilled on site in both water-bearing units show that both are
unusable as drinking water supplies due to poor quality and low yield.
Local populations around the site use cisterns and public water supplies.
Wilson Creek, located adjacent to the site, is a small stream subject to
seasonal low. flow conditions. '!he strean lies wi thin the Salt River
drainage basin and is classified for recreational use.
SITE HISroRY
The A.L. Taylor site was first identifed as a waste disposal site by the
Kentucky D:!partrnent of Natural Resources and Enviromental Protection
(KDNREP) in 1967. The actual disposal site covers 13 acres of the 23-
acre tract owned by Mr. Taylor. The surface features of the site have
been substantially disturbed. Mr. Taylor excavated pits on site and
enptied the contents of the drums into than and recycled the druns. Soil
fram nearby hillsides was eventually used to cover the pits after the
KDNREP stopped Mr. Taylor fran burning solvents. Thousands of druns were
also stored on the surface, especially during later years of operations.
During the.remedial investigation, four or five major c~lls.of buried
. wastes containing chanica! liquids, slooges and crushed druns were
identified.
..
-------
- '-"~----,
'!hrou;;1hout the history of site operations fran 1967 to 1977 Mr. Taylor never
applied for the required state permits. '!he KDNREP first docllT1ented releases
of hazardous substances fran the site in 1975. They pursued legal actions
against Mr. Taylor until his death in late 1977.
In January 1979, at the request of the KtNREP EPA responded to releases
of oil am hazardous substances at the A. L. Taylor site. Under the authority
of Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA Emergency lesponse Branch
On-Scene Coordinator prevented further releases of pollutants into nearby
Wilson Creek by constructing interceptor trenches and a temporary water
treatment systan, securing leakiJ"Q druns, arrl segr8;1ating ard organizing
druns on site.
In 1980 the KDNREP contacted six responsible parties who identified and
ranoved approximately 30 percent of the waste remaining on the surface of
the site. Following this removal an estimated 4,200 dnms remained.
In 1981 EPA again inspected the site ard discovered deteriorating arrl leaking
druns and discharges of pollutants into Wilson Creek occurring once again.
EPA, respording urder the energency provisions of CERCIA, up;Jrcrjed the existing
treatment systan and removed the remaining 4,200 dnms of surface wastes off
site for recycling or disposal. '!here remains, however, an unknown arount of
waste buried on site.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The paints and coatings industries of the Louisville area \oEre the primary
waste generators using the A. L. Taylor site. Same of the drums \oEre emptied
into open pits, cleaned and recycled. Other druns ~re buried on site, and
during the later years of operation many druns \oEre stored on the surface.
The open pits which ~re once used for burning solvents had been covered over
prior to EPA's involvement.
The initial drum inventory conducted in 1979 showed 17,051 drums on the
surface and of those, 11,628 ....ere a'T'pty. I:Uring the 1979 anergency response,
several disposal pits \oEre discovered. Over the next three years several
investigations \oEre conducted to define those disposal pits, including
exploratory test pits and the use of geophysics (see Figure 2). An estimated
volLme of material and nU'!1ber of dnm; in each disposal pit is given in
Figure 3.
Analytical data has been collected during several site actions including the
two imnediate ranovals ard the ranedial investigation. Hazardous substances
detected on site include the following classes of canpounds: heavy metals,
ketones, phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls (FeB), chlorinated alkanes and
alkenes, arc:matics, chlorinated aranatics, and polynuclear aranatics. In all,
-2-
.
-------
I -
I I
~J.ff8r'."
M.",.rl.1
N
KENTUCKY
. t
# .
I:
. .!
o -
-
~ S.uth .. .
.
. "i.
.
'.rk . .
~ .,
Hili. Co- ..
.. .
C .
e!~,.,
c..,,,t)' -----
---.
T,.II.r
,.,k
.
lut t."",.'d
K".b
.
..
1ft 'L
. c
~
. ~
- ..
! ..
: ~
. ,
. .
C C
- .
.
1,..1..
Chop. I
I,.ok.
Scho.' --c
".
. ' ~ I
luf.: 1".2000'
FIGURtl
.~
o
;.."
,
A. L'~"TAYlORSTiE':'"
LOCATION MAP
2000
co 00
..
-------
--,
?~
COUNTY
FOREST
~[,FF[,"SC2N COUNTY
- SUi.LITT COUNTY
--
~-
~ILER'
PARK
~
~~
"'"1~
<::~
("')Vj
~
"'(~
"'"1
....",
<::
~~
~
Bl/T7ON MOLD
KNOB
o' 1000'
~
4000'
I
~o...
~
HOAD
figure 1.1
SITE.. LOCATIO~
A. L. TAYLOR SITE
Bul/it! County, Kentucky
CRA
IfIS - a011i11S
.'
-------
~ . "
I
I
J
/
/
"
Q.UOl!/
WASTE
CEUS",
SURFACE
DUM',,,,C;
AREA
10
.
-
Ie. I' ".
"'
.,
..
FIGt;P.t 2
BURIED HASTE CELLS. 01=E~:
SUR~ACE DUMPING A~:~
~:~, t
-------
EAST
WEST
,
ERODED FROM SHALE.
SURFACE' MAT~RIA~S PERMEABILITY 6.,0' (",1..(.
SIUY CLAY 0 - 10 "U. "''';"
, //~/~/~ .~:;:~//~;
//N//~~:~:~:~~~. :~:~:~~~
' ////// ///// ,;' // // ,
. -";,;,,;,;,;,,. -." ":;:;,
. , "";";:,,;,,,,, I" ';""
////// /////'. £ 0. I ~.c. , ////
" ",,; """;,,. ~. \. ~"~... ,,' ",,"
. ~O """";",, S'- ,,,.. ";"",,;,,
" W t(.. """;",, ..C~ ~. 10 . ';""" ;n'"
WILSON CREEK WALLEY (10 ::! ..n,>'~ "":::",, ."O~ ~S '", "''';''::;';:;::;:;'':'
y",;" ,,,,,,~. ,.. ,1' , " ~/// ~/// ,,//
OUPOSED OF FINE SILTS r. CLAYS u Of;. ~ oV //:~[~~/... Y~O"~\~6\\.~~/;~:~H~:~:~!:~:~:~~:~~~:~3
. C ... ERING e.E. S'" /~~~..E... .. ....(r- . ~ /~// ~/N ///~ ///~
::. 'RO" wEATH z ~U~ \~ N~//~:~.'" ftOE." E."... /~~:~/;//~:~:~N~:;:~//;:;:~//;:;.
=::// . 10" .../... 0 ~. 4>1' .;" ';::::"" ".'.. . "";""";""":";,;,,,,,,;,,,,;.
''''':, ER"". I Ur y 6.... t\....... , ';"" ";",,,,;,,, ""'. ''';" "";,,,, ";"'''';''''''""" ';.,
:,,::,,;, p ,J U', : ;",,;: ;,,;::,;,,;,. , ,;,;:: ",,;:: """;,, "";",, ,,;"::; ::.:;
~;:;:;,,;:, . ';:;';;';:;'[[[
////':::,///:,// I ////~~:~~~/~~:~///~~:~///~~:~///~~:~,,//~:~////~:~////;:~////~~~////~:~/
"", "nn nn" , , nn"'nnn nnn nnn nnn "nn nnn n"n nnn nn ' n.
:':::: . "" <:, «"",,': n nn",,'" n" , .., . ,,;. ."";"",,;,,,,;:;'" ';""n ";"" ,,; "" ,,;. "',,;, "'W",,; ;:, n
': n.; ~E.. - ''':, """:,,,,,,, ''';:;''" , "'",,;,, ,,;,; ";:;:;""" ;,,;,,:;,, ,,;: ;""";,, ,,; :;";,;,;,, ,,;:; ,," W' .,::"
'"::.;",, '''''''"'E- . n """;:;",, "'"". I "",;:";" "";"",, ;";:";";,;,;,,,,,,; ":::, ;""";,, "";,, ";",, ;:::: ",,;,. ,",
,"': "n n;"" '~£ S". . '" ";""";",,, n "" .";,,. n ';"",,;. n n';" ,n';, " n .;"", .;""";,,. n';. n n::" ",.;, n n';. n. ; ",
::", ;t""'"'' ", ';;,,, . l £ ''''', ';"::,,;,, ", ';" .'. n';::::' ,,,;::.,; ::::. ,;:,,;. ,,,;,;. .;::f;, ';:;:;,,;:: ,;,. ",,;., ,,;;, ;""", ''';::.: ,,;. .. .;,
ffHHiffff:ffffffffffffffHfffdfffffffffffHfffHfffHf::;::;" ",;HffffffhffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffHHf:fff:;::HfHHffffHfffffffffHffffffffHfff:fffPfm
HEW':~::~~I~~~[ 6.00".m/m
ORIGINAL
fig ure 2. I
SCHEMATIC a=
-------
~
,00
o' .0' 100'
~
.
.)
('"
\
8$
-
\0
'"
o,a
LEGEND
.., """"'. ,.:;,
-- - SUSPECTED WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
no. .-TOPOGRAPHIC' CO"TOURS " '. . .
CRA' .
MAP MODIFIED FROM TENECH. .
SEPTEMBER 1983,:FINAL.DESiGtiJREPORT
figure 2.2
SITE" MAP' "
A. L. TAYLOR SITE
,,811"IIill County, Kentucky
.'," .
ITII - 10/11/1.
-------
~.
o' '0' 100'
LI--.J
.
.
I\~_-
1- - -;:::::-
I
0/
~II
~)J
1.'1
1./ /-\ -.
U (--/ \ ~
. It( \
\\\ '\~.
,\\ . '"
. /---, \\ ~ ". r '0-0
I . " '\
I I \ 1 " ,..) I
/ " 1\.,. -~ " f! ~
{ I 11 \ J (/') .. ..
---.I /'i \'\ \_/ / ff )
11/ // &5/
lll,-/--/-:~ I = I
/-,\~ ,I L-' \
.// , '\~ ,/ ~/
(, ' . '\, ,. /-' ~
\ \.\...". .
. ~ \ \~.~ (
'-/ ~ 17:,,,
\~~O. ~
'- ,:,\..,IJ
'\~
/'\~
o
.
~ )
)
,--
\
~.
f' -
'''~:,P(
.
LEGEND
,,-) SWS='ECTE: 'oII':'S"'E
- OISFlOSA;. Al:iEAS
~
GEOSCIENCES
TEST BORING
83 GEOSCIEN:ES
MJNITORI~G ¥lE;..~
.
ORILL HOLE
LOCATIONS
E (. E MONITQR'~S
WELL LOCATIO~S
EFIA TEST eO~I":;
(APPR~XIMA;E
LOCATIO~ )
o
~
NOTE REFERENCE TAKEN FROM FIGURE I -
MAP OF TAYLOR SITE SHOWING LOCATIONS
OF TEST BORINGS ANO MONITORING WELLS.
MAP -MOOIFIED FROM TENECH.
SEPTEMBER !953, FINAL DESIGN REPORT
figure 2.3
EXISTING TEST' BORING AND
MONITORING .WELL LOCATION~
A. L. TAYLOR SITE
Bu//ift County, Kentucky
CRA
111' - ZO/II/IS
.
-------
FIGt:RE 3
ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF BURIED WASTES
AT THE A. L. TAYLOR SITE
BROOKS, KENTUCKY
I
LOCATION VOLUME OF fI'A TE RIAL NUMBER OF DRU~S
(in C~bic feet) (uncr~Shed)
Minimum Maximum2 Minimum Maximum4,S
Trenc h 1 78,875 147,125 2155 8040
Trenc h 2 .0,815 66,625 1111 3641
Trene: h 3 13,750 25,500 316 1393
Trench. 3A,OOO 63,750 1038 34~4
Trene: h 5 21,812 36.312 596 Usa
- -
Tota1s 193,312 339,312 5282 18,542
NOTES:
1. Calculated'using major anomaly area times 5 feet thickness plus
significant anOmaly Irea times 2 feet thickness.
. - ~
2. Ca1c:uhted using major anomaly rea times 10 feet thickness plus
significant lnomaly .rea times 2 feet thickness.
3. C.lcuhted using density of one drLln per 36.f; cubic: feet Ind minim.J!"
vo 'kine .
c. C.lcul.ted using density of one drLln per 18.3 cubic: feet Ind maximu~
volume.
5. If drums .re crushed, the estimated number may increase from two to
five times the number of drums given.
6. The va1ues given are order of ~a~nitude estimates on1y. Area
1ocations are indicated in Figure 1-2. One 55-gallon drLln occupies
about 9.15 cubic feet. Estimates calculated assume Ullt the drU"'s
were randomly dumped, yielding densities ranging from 18.3 to 36.6
. cubic feet/dr&l'll. ?'.
..
-------
Tltrr IINf
.,
-.
J-~.
- ,
/
'"
/
\
/0
O IU"'ED
""" \U$TE A
. C£ LLS
\
.
G-t
o
t~
..t
~c;
~o
./"
,
,
\
,
\
\ LIC[~C
,
\ ~ T.,," ~ft 11.1' I'. ,,,...
, . 180' lor... 58"W1ft 11.1' "~A "1tt.
'''IVAT£ \ ~ ........ "-" 58....... 11.1 S I'" ,..
WELL \ 0 a........... 58...- 1 U[ IN1~,
'0 '. """''''1 """'ft I U[ '.101 '.
, 0 ..." ,'Sir......, 58"'"" ,,-,. o.'C'"
II.' 1182.'
(i) a.~, '-"'DOt L'-'-"" 'f
C"UI '831
(!) a.~n...!Io,' 58"'0'" 'C-" ,~
.
,
.
,
.. .."...- L........
...... ..1.", .... 'O~O.?""'"
SA\IPU'C LOCATIO'S A'D Sl:SP£CTtD ~.AS1'[ DISrOSAL
ARL\S ( SHADED AREAS) .
.'''c..'. tCC'.
-------
l
~
0' '0' lOG .
t- I , I
LEGEND
\
I
)
r-
-
---
SUSPECTED WASTE DISPOSA~ AREA
.
2.
*
'..,GEOSCIENCES WEL.L. LOCATION
PROPOSED MONITORING WE~L. LOCATION
-. ".
, '
PIEZOMETER LOCATION' ,
CRA
1715 - lOlli/IS
.'
,figure.3.,2 "
PROPO'SEC',' MONITORING'.' WELL 'LOCATIONS
A. L. TAYLOR SITE
Bullilt -County, Kentucky',
-------
STEEL VENTED PROTECTION COVERS
APPROXIMATE WATER
aa
o 00
o~o
000
"
4'
",','
, "
"
Al.1.lIVllIM /
COLLUVIUM
GROUT
. ,
. ' :'~
.; ',~;
IT' ,
.
- - --
13°
000
" 0
---_O_,g
R£S/[)lIUM
0.
o
~--
--O~ -
0- ~.. ,.
~ .....
~ - - .. ..:~'-
I
-----
W£ATI-I£R£f)
SHALE
--
--,.. -
- --
NEW PROVIf)£NC£
SHALE
SOURCE: GEOSCIENCES RESEARCH ASSOCIATES I INC,
CRA
11.. - 10/1118
\.
OUTER CASING (5)
GROUT
BENTONITE SEAL (6")
.-.-
~
STAINLESS STEEL
WELL SCREEN
( 3' MINIMUM)
o
o
o
'0 0
, 0°0
o 0
.'
..
, '
;'IJ' ~ f?~~
"
"
8ENTON ITE SEAL (2')
"
00
COO 0
Q: <:2-0- - - - - - - - - -
SAND PACK
STAINLESS STEEL.
WEL.L SCREEN (5' MINIMUM TO COVER THE
RESIDUUM AND WEATMERED
------------
SMALE ZONE)
figure 3.3
TYPICAL. MONITORING WELL. CLUSTER
A. L. TAYLOR SITE
SuI/iff CountYI Kentucky'
.
-------
approx~ately 140 compounds have been identified.
often and in highest concent~ations were:
!he chemical s found most
xylene.
methylene chloride
phthalates
toluene
alkyl benzene
dichloroethylene
methyl ethyl ketone
acetone
anthracene
fl uoranthene
vinyl chloride
aliphatic acids
PCBs \Ere detected in low concentrations and several metals inclLrlirq barium,
zinc, cc:pper, strontiun, magnesium and chranilm were detected in concentrations
exceedirq background levels.
'!he highest concentrations of organic contClt\inants detected on site, other
than fran drlln sanples, \Ere fran liquid sanples collected in the test pits.
'!he average concentration of the major organic canpounds detected are found
in the first colunn of Table 2. sCme of the sane canpounds were detected in
water sanples fran bori~s located downgradient of the test . pits and are
inchded in '!able 2. It is significant to note that sane water sanples fran
the borirqs \Ere collected Unmediately downgradient of the disposal cells,
yet the analyses showed relat ively low concentrations of contaninants when
canpared to the pit sanples.
Groundwater and surface water resources \Ere evaluated as potential routes
of exposure to hazardous substances released from the A. L. Taylor site.
Under existing and projected usage patterns neither of the sources appears to
be a likely route of exposure to populations located downstrean of surface
water routes or downgradient of groundwater movement fran the site.
Groundwater is not currently a source of drinking water in the vicinity of
the site. !he five homes located closest to the site are on cisterns,
other nearby residences and businesses are either on cisterns or are connected
to municipal water supplies. IbJr water quality and low yield account for the
low use of both shallow and deep aquifers near the site ~ An adjacent landowner
had a \Ell drilled but it was never used because of low yield. !his well was
sanpled during the reredial investigation and found to contain. concentrations
of iron and manganese that \Ere approx~ately 30 and 3 t~es National Drinking
Water Standards, respectively.
Similarly, a deep well installed in the l~estone aquifer during the remedial
investigations had a flow rate of four gallons per minute and contained
concentrations of chloride that exceeded National Drinking Water Standards by
a factor of five.
. .Another factor l~iting future human exposure risks is the 1 ~ited population
growth projected in t~e vicinity of the site. Tbpographic features of the
area surrounding the site make..it largely unsuitable for developnent.
..~ : '. . .,'. '. .
. .
-3-
..
-------
CRA
1111 - 10/11/85
PRECIPITATION j I I II I
" I. 1"111
I: II I "
JI~
St./R~AC£
Rt./NOFF
'4-
£VAPOTRANSPIRATIO
~ ~N
...
6'
..
TOPSO I L ,:",:, ~,'<:':,J:;~': ::-/'~' :<.:: ~::",:~::: :'J :/~2L:~~r.~~1, <.:-:
WNd.?//~;-~;#9~;
'fffd'% ' '0- :"- P£RCOLATION
CLAY. ' ~ :j'W.
E ~~~~///O..~~' :;: f'!I';"-"-'?':;~.Y-"';';--~ ,r.:/, 'r.! \:: .. ~_J~ <7 ~
,:i/:".,;' ;r ,;.'J ",...- '..,.. ,~:~ -:;. ~ ';-o;-,!;;. ~;J ..,~?;; ....~,r;, ";!;.< '
; %.' - ,:..:;;,/ . ---:/.', /. .,:;- ~;- {,-,. '?
.' ~'. '~. ... , ... ;- -- ~/...,. ~ I:.;:':;«.;,r, ":
-~-' .', /~,-"' ~'lJ ;.-c
,.. .,:; -,'.. ':' ';::':'""';.'%' -' ,,;
.\.- ~~..'" W A J",. .;./;-.~.r. ,-,~,'
. "?V""I.,~ S T E "~/'-~ .".'../'--
-i'!/:;,:y:!?-" . . "'.." ~"'r:'
:~;::;Y£~-*::-~ 'f;.'-Fi' :~4:/C;'
~;;e---...c":'~:'$. iff::- '?'~:;'::.
:-Of..;":..' ...~..,'~..,...' "",h, . 'h ~~ ;(1.1;;'
"'J":'.~7--X-'~-;',.- -",C', ~.,--e'."" '"
-'- ';:;:>" """.$%".,:., -:,-, ':/.:; ~'/~':::
~' ~~':!£.-::'~'~'r:J:/t:! - :-;"'; -...::./ L'l?'-
, - ..:.-....,-:-.. ~,,_.'- :;....r~/,:,.~
~"..,- <;.>-,;.,. ..--"" ........- -..::.,-. - .
-...<;?' ~ 'Y"';"""~"'" ~'_.- <'-' ", , ~ -:..:$: I ~-::i:
:;,:~~:f~:;:i/;:/.X~"fi-;;'~~~~2' ~~~'-':"~
." 'J.~ -:-:.%" ..~ ,;".'YJ';:''''''' .,' " " ,:.--;
~J~-- .;..o.l:"'J '.. './~ .,r". ;,.. " -~- .,.~- - . -.Z
-_.'" ' .. ",,"'..-: ,:,":..~ ... ."....~ -
....,,:.- ",,""-"~~' ,.r...r_;.1,1'~.- .,.",/
:, ",,~"~?1-"~;. , -.-'1"w:.-., "~-~'/
$'~!~~~' .~.:"~......,,.,;::- rl.~""'-~"
-. """,."'"' .' ''; ..;.~...., """'r' ,..r.-
''''r."~",,,'':''''J',''''''' ~....,,J~:J""
':"/_'.1o,~~:,j ~~-:.~,.r
J"';'" -::,..0,..r~ ;./;.,z:... ,:. .
_aJ. .f;:-"~'''_.'.
18"
"'2.~"
........
FINAL C ' figure 6,2
OVER SCHEMATIC
BUlli~' E~u~~~L9R SITE
", r\ entucky
..
-------
Geohydrologic stooies of the site show that migration of contaminants off
site is likely to be very slCM. '!he annual volume of grourrlwater movi~
throUJh the site is calculated to be low and assl.lnio;;J the fastest rate of
groundwater flow, 2.41 'feet/year, and no attenuation of contaminants in. the
site soils, any contaninant phrne might take 20 years to move 50 feet.
A deep well drilled on site revealed up to 85 feet of unweathered shale
isolati1'YJ the 1 imestone aquifer fran the contaninated overburden. Pressure
penneability tests performed on both shale units indicated little or no
fracturi1'YJ in the formations reduci1'YJ the likelihood of contaninants moving
into the deeper limestone aquifer.
Surface water, 1 ike groundwater, is not bel ieved to be a severe potential
exposure roote. '!he Sal t River drainage basin which drains into the O\io
River is not a source of drinking water in the vicinity of the Salt~io River
confluence. Louisville does get its drinki1'YJ water fran the O\io River but
at a location upstream of the ct\io-Salt River confluence. No other water
intakes are located alo1'YJ the Chio River for many miles downstrean but even
if there were, the dilution factor (a million fold) should be great enoUJh to
prevent any measurable effects.
Potential exposure through recreational use of surface waters also is low due
to the dilution factor. Fecreationa1 use of the strecms lecrling fran the
site, although not documented, is believed to be low until the Salt River
confluence is reached.
ENFORCEMENT
On April 1986, the United States filed a cost recovery action pursuant to
Section 107 of CERCrA, Section 311 of the Clear Water Pet, aro Section 7003
of the Fesource Conservat ion and Recovery Act for emergency and other response
costs incurred at the site since 1979. '!he lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the western District of Kentucky against the current
and past owners and operators of the site and four of the primary generators.
The pendi~ action was filed following the unsuccessful conclusion of
negotiations concerning future remedial activities at the site. Additional
cost recovery may be expected as future remedial activities are completed at
the site.
OOMMUNITY ~IATIOOS
Two public meetings were held to present the recommended remedial alternative.
The first meeting was held on August 11, 1982 to discuss the modified onsite
containment/excavate-and relocate alternative. Representatives of EPA, KDNREPC,
local authorities, local media and the cammunity were present. Discussions
were held outlini~ the development of the alternatives and the selection
process. Following the public meeting, 30~ay carment period was given.
All rep:>rtsand data were left on file at the aJllitt county courthouse. No
written ccmne~ts were received. ',,:
Another public meeting was scheduled for presentation of ,the . second remedial
alternative recanmeooation. . In . this .second meetiDJ, held' on June. 16, 1983,
. -.,'
-4-
-------
the onsite containment alternative was presented as the newly selected remedial
alternative. As in the first meetin;1, ccmnunity turnout was low and no
written carments were received duriOJ the 30-day ccmnent pericd followi~ the
public meetirtJ.
ALTERNATIVE EVAUIATIOO
Remedial alternatives evaluated at the A.t. Taylor Site are source control
measures. The migration of hazardous substances fran their original disIX'sal
area is min~al and the remedial alternatives considered are to control off-
site migration.
The objectives of the remedial action are broad eno~h to address all routes
of release rot focus on those areas with the greatest potential for havirQ
adverse effects on p.lblic health and the envirortnent. The remedy will also
take into account cost~ffective considerations. With these criteria, the
foll~irQ are the objectives for remedial action at the A.t. Taylor site:
1.
The air quality will be protected by the control of anissions of
particulate matter and toxic gases.
2.
'!he recreational users and biota of downstre3n surface waters will
be protected fran leachate aoo cont3ninated runoff.
3.
Grouoowater, al tho~h low yieldin;1 and unpotable, contributes to
surface water 1d will be protected by reducirQ aquifer recharge.
4.
Local populations will be protected fram direct contact with
contaminated soils.
'!he followirQ remedial alternatives were evaluated.
1.
No Action
The no action alternative is not acceptable because the wastes would
remain on site in an uncontrolled manner. '!he site would continue to
pose a p::>tential threat to Wilson Creek.
2.
Miniml.JT\ Action Alternative
This alternative consists of leavirQ all buried waste in place, regrading
and revegetatirQ the existirQ site surface, removin;1 wastes fran the open pit
aoo surface dl.l11ping area northeast of the site, establ ishing a groundwater
monitorirQ prcgrCl'n, operatirQ arrl maintainirQ the existing runoff collection
and treatment system and preparing and filing a record plat. This alternative
is developed as a base line ccrnparison for the other al ternatives arrl is not
intended to meet the requirements of a RCRA facility.
3.
Onsite Cbntainment Alternative
The basic idea behind the onsite containment alternative' is to isolate the
-5-
.
-------
buried hazardous waste without disturbirg the existirg waste cells. The RCRA
regulations governirYJa hazardcus waste landfill will be used as guide lines
where possible. '
The alternative includes a slurry wall keyed to bedrock, clay soil cover,
leachate/gas collection system, leachate treatment system, runoff/drainage
diverson, revegetation, security fence arrl sign, and record plat.
4.
Excavate-And-Relocate Offsite
This alternative includes excavatirg most of the onsite contamination, trans-
portirYJ ,it to an approved disposal facility arrl restorirYJ the site. This
alternative will be most effective in controllirg long-te~ pollution levels
at the site. The cost of this approach is strorgly deperrlent on distance to
the ultbnate disposal site.
UltUnate disposal facilities costs for contaminated soils are given for com-
parison in the Table 15
5.
Modified Onsite Cbntainment/Excavate-And-Relocate
!his alternative combines onsite containment and excavate-and-re1ocate to
provide a hybrid alternative. One approach considered was removirYJ only the
free liquid in the waste pits but was rejected for cost reasons. The approach
developed will remove the most toxic and highly polluted material on site.
Bothgrourrlwater arrl surface water diversion will be provided, to prevent
soil moisture, shallow groundwater, and surface water fran contactirg these
contaninated materials and acting as a transport medium Groundwater diversion
will be accanpl ished by a canbination of uP'Jradient slurry walls and french
drains. Surface water diversion will be provided by a drainage method similar
to the diversion ditch proposed in the onsite containment alternative. In
addition to diversion, a landfill cap will prevent vertical infiltration of
rainwater into the contaminated zone. The landfill cap consists of 2 feet of
tq:>soil and clay. The site will be surrounded with a 'chain link fence am a
locking gate for site security. fobnitorirg Wells will be installed between the
site and Wilson Creek. Cperation and maintenance requiranents at the site
will be kept to a minim\..ln. leachate collection requirements have been eliminated.
Annual maintenance of the site will consist of repair of erosion danage,
mowirg and revegetation. Annual monitorirg of the sanpl irg wells will be
required.
6.
Excavate-ana-Relocate Onsite
This alternative consisted of excavation of all contaminants onsite and
placirYJ them in a cell constructed onsite which would confo~ fully with RCRA
requirements. '
, ,A conceptual design of ,a landfill cell was developed for consideration as a
"remedial alternative..., '!he. scope 'of' this study included 'a geophysical rarote
sensing investigation of two areas within the' general site which were beirg
. considered for the construction of the land disposal cell.; 'Ihe quantities of
buried wastes found.durirg . the second. phase of this tnvestigation.indicated
much more waste remained ons i te than 'could" safely be; disposed' of, in this:, .
small laRifill..area. " . .
,'"
. "
-6-
.'
-------
7.
Modified Onsite Containment Alternative (Potential Responsible Party)
Geosciences Research Associates, Inc. (GRA) and Tenech Environmental Engineers,
Inc. (TEE) have developed a modified onsite contairrnent approach at the A. L.
Taylor 5i te for the PRPs. 'Diis approach is based on v.ork performed by F.colO'JY
and Envirorrnent, Inc. (E&E). This alternative consisted of an impermeable
cap and soil cover, drain~e diversion ditch, groundwater monitoring well
systEm, site clearirr,;;, regradirr,;; and reve:.Jetation, security fence and signs.
Where possible RCRA regulations governing a hazardous waste landfill
will be used as guidelines. The proposed cap will prevent surface runoff
contact with contClTrinated soil and the subsequent generation of cont3Tlinated
runoff. The installation of upgradient diversion ditches will elhninate
surface runon.
Upgradient monitorirr,;; Wells will be installed on the site to augment the
existing downgradient system. 'Die proposed modified containment alternative
would mitigate the threat to public health and the environment by elUninatirr,;;
the present routes of exposure.
Initial Alternatives
Recatrnended - 1982
On August 11, 1982 a Decision ManorandLJn was issued fran EPA Region IV
reoammending the modified onsite containment/excavate-and-relocate
alternative. A review meeting was held August 23, 1982 to discuss
the recaTrnendation. The meeting resulted in EPA HeadlJUarters requesting
additional information to justify removal of wastes offsite. As the result
of these further studies the Modified Onsite Containment/Excavate-and-Relocate
alternative could not be justified under the cost-effective requirements of
CERCLA. EPA Headquarters indicated that the onsite containment alternative
should be considered in more detail.
During negotiations for the final remedy, the Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) submitted a conceptual design for the onsite containment alternative.
This conceptual design differed fram the onsite containment alternative
presented in the feasibility study in that the leachate collection system
and slurry wall had been eliminated. EPA, lEgion IV requested additional
information before the conceptual design could be fully evaluated. A
hydrogeolcgic investigation was conducted by the PRPs consultants. This
. information was inclujed as an addendllT\ to the feasibil ity stooy prepared
under EPA contract by ~tcalf & Fddy, Inc. (M & E) in August, 1984.
'Die addendun also inchrled upjated cost estimates for the alternatives
developed by E & E and gave cost estimates for the onsite containment
alternative as proposed by the PRPs. Fbr carparison an estimate for the
cost of constructing a RCRA landfill onsite was given, and an endangerment
assesSlTent was added. These cost estimates are inchrled in Table 3-7.
Table 3 presents a campar~n of the most significant criteria affecting
the alternative selection process. The alternatives are compared using the
evaluation criteria presented in the feasibil ity study. Table 13 presents
each of the alternatives and the ~rtant facts relative to each
canparative evaluation criteria: reliability,. implementability, RCRA
-7-
.
-------
confonnance, safety and operation and maintenance.
Table 5 presents a Slrm'ary of the pro(X>sed Renedia1 Alternative costs
which includes capital cost for Lnplementation of the remedy and the
associated lODJ-tenn m::>nitoring costs. ,
In August 1985 the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) submitted the
conceptual design of the onsite containment alternative. EPA added the
following changes:
1.
to uoorade the pro(X>sed cap to conform with the guidelines of
the Resource Conservation and Rec0\7ery Act (RCRA).
to install additional upgradient monitoring wells
2.
3.
to establish a long tenn operation and maintenance prCXJram
that inclooed a groundwater and surface water IOOnitoriDJ program,
well maintenance, rehabilitation, Cc:Ner, and cap maintenance.
Final slope of cover will be between three and five. percent where
(X>Ssible.
The total cost with the additional EPA requirements added would be $713,250
for construction costs and $503,876 for 0 & M cost, with a total project cost
of 1,217,126.
4.
Reccmnended Alternative - 1986 (Alternative #7)
The selected remedy is consistent with the remedy first pro(X>sed in the EDD
(1985) and is the most cost effective remedy which adequately protects the
public health and welfare and the environment.
As a result of Negotiations with the Potentially Res(X>nsible Parties
Committee, technical changes and considerations were made to the previously
prO(X>sed remedy.
The selected 1:emedy inch.des:
Removal of (X>nded water frcrn the site.
Secure (X>rrl sediments, shrlge and materials fran 10lrl-lying areas beneath
the cap. .
Install final cap cover for containment of the waste materials.
. "Construct:.a surface water draina;1e diversion which will route surface
. ' water around. the cap area and which can acccmnodate a 25 year/24 hour
sto~. .
Implement a performance"'monitorirg" program on Wilson Creek, (the only
(X>tential receptor of chemical migration) to evaluate the effectiveness
of the clay cap to mitigate.. surface .chanical migration.'~'..' .
'"
-8-
..
-------
r-t)nitori~ of groundwater quality will be accanpl ished by eight (8) newly
installed nested wells placed along the Creek valley at four locations,
to monitor both the shallow am the deeper groundwaters. In addition, these
wells will provide an early ¥laming of any contaninant movanent toward
Wilson Creek via groUndwater, if groundwater is present.
Following the canpletion of the ranedial construction, the site will be
secured with the installation of a six foot high chain link fence with
appropriate gates.
The site will be subject to a regular inspection am maintenance program
following canpletion of ranedial construction for a period of thirty (30)
years.
The cover' will consist of a 30- inch layer of clay to attain a permeability
of I x 10 -7 cn/sec., followed by an 18-inch layer of material wi th a
petmeability between 10 -3 am 10 -5 cn/sec. A 6- inch layer of topsoil
will be placed as final cover am vegetated with cover plants having root
systans which will stabilize the top soil and loam against erosion but
which will not penetrate the clay material of the cap.
The active contaninant migration pathway at the A.L. Taylor site is by
surface water runoff. '!he final cover is proposed as a method of containing
waste materials am preventing contact between surface water and waste.
RCRA Closure Standards
After review of the information, the decision was made that groundwater flow
at the site is minbna1, recharge rates are very slow and there are no residential
(drinki~) wells within miles of the site. Naturally occurring high levels
of MJ & Ca in the groundwater also canbine to make the grouoowater marginally
useful as a drinki~ water source. The naturally occurring soils ful fill
the permeability requirements of RCRA closure standards.
ReM Cap
The specifications for the RCRA cap are essentially the same as in the
original ranecfy noted in the Feasibility Study. However, based on
infotmation suppl ied by the PRPs am review of the files, a flexible
membrane liner does not appear to be needed at the A. L. Taylor Site.
This decision was based on the very low permeability of the underlyi~
materials.
Groundwater Monitoring wells
Four (4) additional nested groundwater moni toring wells will be installed
(2 at each location). Locations and specifications are in the project work
plan.
The IEmedial design of the.. final cover should accanp1 ish the following
objectives:
-9-
.
-------
provide lo~-tez:m minimization of migration of 1 iquids throUJh the
final caver (to minimize leachate),
Function with minimum maintenance,
Praoote drainage an:! minimize erosion or abrasion of the caver,
Acoamodate settli~ and subsidence so that the cover's integrity is
maintained,
Have a pez:meability less than or equal to the pez:meability of any
oottat\ liner or natural subsoils present.
Listed below are prograntned construction cost estimates.
m:>aw!MED COOSTRt.crION cosr ESTIMATE
A. L. TAYIDR SITE REMEDIATION
proJECT START-UP AND CIDSE-rated in the
"revised' feasibil ity study... :'1he.followi~ are the criteria used to assess
the remedial options:
, '.
-10-
.'
-------
Reliability: This considers the extent to which a systen, device, or
technology will perfo~ a desired function correctly for a number of
repeated trials or for an extended period of time. Without test data to
neasure performance aJainst an establishej standard, reliability of
each alternative was based on scientific judgenent. The alternatives were
ranked as to their relative reliability without attempting to establish the
quantitative reliability of each alternative.
Irrplen-entability: This is the physical, finanical and legal J;;Ower to
carry out the alternative. Because of the varied nature of the J;;Ossible
renedial alternatives, they were evaluated based on their ease of
impla-nentation. Consideration was given to public opinion, regulatory
procedures, duration, scheduling, natural constraints (such as weather),
and technical feasibility. The alternative that could be implenented
rrost easily was given preference.
RCRA Confonnance: Each alternative design was canpared to new landfill
design standards pe~itted under the IEsource Conservation arrl ~covery
Act (RCRA). The alternative which provided envirorrnental protection
performance similar, to a RCRA pemitted landfill was given preference.
Environnental Concerns: These were identified for each alternative, and
the alternative with the least adverse environnental impact received
preference.
Safety Reguirements: These were developed to mitigate the risks of
constructlon of each al ternat i ve. W1ere necessary, r: sk assessments were
made on each operation. The safety requirements and relative preference
was given to the alternative having the lowest relative risk and least
safety requirements.
ration and Maintenance Efforts: Manpower and equipment requirements
were ldentl led or each alternatlve for a 30 year project period.
Ma intenance effort was based on parts replacement, corrosion control, and
safety requirements when applicable. Operation personnel, utility cost,
and major systa-n replacenent requirements for each al ternative were
developed. Preference was given to the alternative' with the least long
term catrni tm~nt of capi tal, manp:>wer, and equipment.
Table 14 presents a ccrrparison of the roost significant criteria affecting
the alternative selection process. The alternatives are canpared using
the evaluation criteria presented in the feasibility study. Table 13
presents each of the alternatives arrl the imJ;;Ortant facts relative to
each comparative evaluation criteria: reliability, implernentability,
RCRA conformance, safety, and operation and maintenance.
Table 1 presents a summary of the proposed Remedial Alternative costs
which inch~es capital costs for implenentation of the remedy and the
associated long-term roonitoring costs.
-11-
.
-------
Consistency With Other Environmental Laws
-Clean water Act is a state delegated program and the Commonwealth has
not stated any'objections to the selected al ternative. .
-There are no Unpacts to the air in the area therefore the remedy will
canply wi th the Clean Air Act. .
-rb pro~sed actions will require TSCA canpliance.
-Resource Conserative arrl Jecovery Act (RCRA) staff have been contacted
arrl state no objection to the pro~sed remedy.
Operation and Maintenance (0 & M)
o & M costs at this site will be the collection and analysis of g~undwater
arrl surface water samples, maintenance of the fence , cap, vegetated cover
arrl m::>nitorin;;J wells over a period of 30 years. The Carmonwealth will assl.JT\e .
these functions one year after canpletion of construction.
Fund ing
It is reccrrmended that this remedy be funded at 10% C
-------
~
\
.. I
,.UL8 .1.
" ,
SUMMA'" 01' PROPOS- a..IDIAL
ALTERJlA1'IV8 COSTS
alt.rnatl..
capltal.Co.t
0111 oo.t.
0111 Co.t. Cil.
'lUtal oo.t.(2,
.
a. IIlnl.-
action A1ternati..
... on.lt. Contaln..nt
a1t.rnatl..
"
']]2,200
'1.,,200
'151,000
'114,6"
.
'602,000
'2]',2'0
"04,000
'1,]06,000
... 88ca.,te-and
..locate Alternatl..
PaP ooneultant On.lt.
OOn~aln..nt Alternatl..
$],1'6,200
'2,']4,000
$8',]"
$212,200
Ie" Landfill alt.rnatl..
'5]1,"5
'1,12],100
$11.~67'
$Z,.,6S6
,]]2,200
,"0,]00
"64,015
'2,]1],400
'.
,.,]S',425
Ie" Off.lt. DI.po.al
alternatl.. '1
Ie" Off.lt. Dispo.al
Alt.riaatJ.. IZ
'4~]S,,425
-
-
'S,.",285
-
-
'5,4",215
.a.. a. t e
ntere.t
. Yhe.e cost. a.su.. that the co.t .scalat on factor
rate, 10'.
2. Yhe total cost Include. the 0111 co.t. with the co.t ..calatlon factor the .a.. a. the
.. Int.r..t rat..
.'
.
.
.
.
"
.
,
.
.
..
.
.
.
-------
,
At TERNA TlY~
Description
15
TABLE I
REMEDIAL At TERNA TlYES FOR THE A. L. TAYLOR SITE
12
ON-SITE CONY AINMENT
11
MINIMUM ACTION
(J) Leave all buried wastes in
place
(2) Regrade and reveget.te the
existing site surface
(I) Install total slurry wall around
waste lite
(2) Install clay cap and soil cover
(J) Install leachate/gas collection
system
(J) Remove wastes from the open
pit and surface dumping area
(,) Establish a groundwater
monitoring prosram
(,) Operate leachate treatment
system
. U) Install runoff/drainage
diversion ditches
,
U) Operate and maintain the
existing runoff collection and
treatment system. .
(6) Revegetate
(1) Install security fence and
signs
(6) Prepare and file a record plat
16
tt:DIFIED m-SITE a:Nl'ADK1fl' (PRPs) PUS E]>J\
RaJUI~ ~ ro R:RJ\ CAP , LINER
O:x1structim , Oloft (bat - 1, 217, 126
iJCCJ\VJ\T£ Nt) RUJXATE (IoI-SITE
. I]
EXCAYATE AND REMOYAL
(I) Remove all contaminated
materials from waste cells,
open pit, and surface dumping
area. Transport to RCRA
disposal facility
(2) Backfill all excavated areas
with truck-in fill
(J) Regrade and revegetate the
site
(It) Prepare and file a record plat
17
KDIFUD m-sl're aM'J\IN1m]' WRPs)
O:x1structim (bat - 795,349
14
MODIFIED REMOVAL
(I) Remove contaminated
materials from main disposal
trench, open pit, and surface
dumping area. Transport to
RCRA facility
(2) Backfill
(J) Install upgradlent slurry wall
and french dr ain
(If) Install clay cap and soil
cOlier
U) Install surface water diversion
ditches
(6) Itcvegetate
(7) Install security fence and sign
(I) Install remedial monitoring
wells
(9) Prepare and file a record pi.. t
construction
Range:
Midpoint:
Cost
$ 119.0(10- $211.~OO
$lb5,310
$428,000
$902,000
$(,(,'),000
opt.'ration and
Ita 1 nten.--.. LO!>t:
!{o\lIqe:
S years:
~38-~79,.000
1st YPdr: ~
7,000
I\ftpr ')
1\ f t e r I~. t
y(~:
yp~rs:
$t,58~.OOO
- $4,641,000
$3,I1S.000
1st YC8C: $20-$31,000
J\fter 1st year:
$1,140.000
.- ------------~----
I:,t yea,
1-~34,OOO
J\ f t e r l~, t
y,',)r : .
-------
ORCMIC CHatlCAL CONCEMTRATIOItS 118 GROU""A711. A. L. 7_'11,01 S17.
~8t pit LlquldCI, Te8t Soil Rorlnq8(l,
1979 . "8l
"v~r-.q~ Conclmon (StCJ. Devf8tlon' uq/I
TA8LE 2
,
.. P, .. qu ou n ~8 p . U9 .c oe n pr-
...peete«! of contain',", burled ..8t~8. A-., A-S, ..I, A-7, A-10.
... reported for a ql.en .ate, aero concentration ... a.su.ed.
2. ,u.s. EPA. ,'8le. 7e8t well. dr-tiled downqradlent of ...e pr-tnclpal burial
A.eraqe of 1-16, L-1., L-ll,L-I'. When not detected In a qlven test well,
uq/l ..s .ssu.ed..
1. NO - Detected but not quantified.
Acenapthene
Anthr.cene/phenanthrene
36,000
3.,000
81. C2-ethylhexyl' Phthalate
Ethyl 8enzene
580,6.'
7,70.
"ethyl Ethyl letone
"ethyl Isobutyl letone
7,'.0
','76
"apthalene
Toluene
2.0,020'
11 ,980
rrane 1.2-Dlehloroethylene
91n,1 Chloride
"
3],680
98'
~yl.M
2,212,360
180,.'8'
176,021'
.
11.2".562'
110; 106'
1,150
12,]7"
110,'21)
112,'85)
15]1,1.5'
110,1.]'
18 128'
-
1,6.2 C1,87"
]02 C5'8, '.~
'0 160'
1101]'
170,1.8'
It,21.'
1.,'12,..6'
.re. .
.e~o
-------
T~BL£ 2.1
SU~~~RY OF SITE P£R~E~E:LI~I£S
Weathered Shale
-5 -6
3.3 x 10 to 9.1 x 10
Vertical Permeabili~y
(em/see. )
-7 ...
-/
2.5 x 10 to 7.0 x 10
-7 -8
4.5 x 10 to 1.7 x 10
-7 -7
2.0 x 10 to 4.5 x 10
Formation
Horizontal Permeability
( em/see. )
Alluvi~~/colluvium
-6 -6
1.8 x 10 to 5.3 x 10
Re.iduum
-8
6.3 x 10
New Providence
(Unweathered Shale)
Notes:
( 1 )
( 2 )
Horizontal permeabilities determined from well response tests.
Vertical permeabilities determined from laboratory permeabili ty tes~s.1
Source:
Geosciences Research ~ssociates, 1984.
-------
TAILE
3 OPDATE or Z'E CONSTRUCTION COST ISTIMATt
POR THE MINIMUM ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Co.t. Thou..n~~.rl
1912 1984
Lower Opper Lower Cp~t:
.
Ite.
.it ana lurface ~8Plngl
18ca.atlon I 'aekfl11
~raft.port I ~1.po.a1
12.'
51.'
..0
11.'
".5
1.0
lite ..habilitation
~ftOr Irading, fertillaln9,
~ree., .eeding . 8Ulchlng)
.a.tewater'treat.ent reno.atlonl
operatloft/al.a....bly. ' 21.1
'I.'
10.5
lion 1 tor Ing ..11.
leeurlty I 'af.ty, 'lat
Sur.ey I Legal Pie.
10.5
3.0
0.1
2.0
0.1
.arnl"9 '19n.
!IOTA%,
10'.' ,
115.1
13.5
55.3
..3
20.2
85.1
5.4
.
28.' '73.4
11.2 11.2
2.1 3.2
0.1 0.1
115.2 19 B. ,
. 'v~.t.water tr.at..nt Iy.te. v . reftovate .0 t at t e
llgooft vater ~an be treated. Onee the lagoon vater 1. tre.t.~,
the .y.te. .111 be al.a....bl.a ana .h~ppea to the I~N~P.
"
.'
.
-------
~LE . OPDAT! or Z,! CO"ST~~CTIOR COS! ES!IMATE
fOR ft! ONSIT! COMTAINMEN'r ALTEJlNATIVE
COlt, ThoulanC! ~.rl
rm 1'8.
Ite. tower Opper kNer ~P?!r
Slurry "all '70 120 '75 128
Clay Cap 52 102 56 109
!'op.oll Co.er 10 100 14 107
Draina,. Ol.er.lon Chann.l . '7 . ,
JIonltoring Well.- (l-up:' down) . 13 , 14
Leachate Collection Iy.te. .3 '72 ., '77
...tewater treataent reno..tlon/
ope,ation/di.aa..ably 20'7 I' 2' '73
lite Croo.lng, Clearing,
Grubbing I Initial
".e,.tation . '7 . '7
'ecurlty renc., Cat., lig n. 28 ., 30 .g
Vtl1ltie. In.tal1atlon 1 1 1 1
..cord .l.t 3 . 3 4
.roject Manage..nt,
Monitoring, '..pllng .~
hralttlng .0 10 .3 6.
- - - -
sv.-IfOfAL 340 . 101 364 '40
Undefined Detail. I
Contingenci.. (20'> 11 .w. '73 128
- - -
~A%. .08 '721 .3'7 '768
-------
!fAlLI 5 lI'DATE or I'! CONST~OCTI0R COST ESTIMATE
POR DI. DCAVATE-AND-ULOCATZ Al,ftJlNATIVZ
~o.t,
1'82
1PrcStIianc ~
1184
\over Opper
Item
A,ency Manage~.nt
'ro'ect Mana,ement
5
15
.re-Dca.atlon
..mplin, an4 ..ralttln,
IIObl11.ltlon
2'
l'
IS
Zac..atlon
.
.
Pollution Control
.a~fl111n, I ~lol1
.1
10
ClOlure
2'
1
-
Vtl11tl..
'U»TOTAL
32'
33
lIndefln.4 Detal18 (10')
contln,encl.1 (10')
33
-
SUIIfO'AI,
t!lnlport I Dl1pola1
3.5
: 1,000
IfO'l' AI.
1,3.5
12
32
21
l'
204
151
1"
32
-1
'5'
.,
"
-
,.,
3,300
.,01'
LeNer
5
l'
31
18
11
'3
I'
31
1
-
352
35
35
-
422
1,0'70
1,.'2
t . wllt.vater tr.at..nt COltl
..'
.
Oppe:
13
34
31
l'
218
.162
112
-34
1
-
'704'
'70
'70
-
. 844
3,531
.;3'75
-------
. '
~AlL! , JUMHA~Y 0' CONST~DCTION COST ESTIMATE
'Olt 'U CONStJ1.TANT UM!DIAt ALTERNATIVE
Techno10;y
Cos:
.ite Cl.ar!n9
Rlnovation of Tflltalnt SYltlm
$7,'30
.
$39,200
$7,000
'rOCII11n; ta;oon Wlter
".0".1 of .lnov.tecS Tr.ataent 'Ylte.
",800
$3',875
Di.erlion Trench Inltall.tion
.it. Cra~in9
522,820
518,200
Monltorln; .ell 'Ylt..
Sit. Coyer and Cap
.313,150
128,300
-
, .
. # .
..v.;ltatlon
Sicurity 'inci an~ Si9nl
140,.600
15,000
..corlS 'lat
$531,875.
..
-------
UJ1.!
7
'OMMA~Y OF CONST~UCTION COST ISTIMA:t
rOA A WEW aCIA LANDFILL
~o9Y
Celt
.Ite Clear1",
a.noyatlon of Tr.at..nt 'ylt..
.
~
$7,930
83',200
'roe...lng Lagoon .at.r
"80yal of ,.no..t.d Tr.at..nt 'Ylt..
'7,000
8',800
..ea.ition and On-lit. 'torage of 'ite '011.
DI..r.lon ~reneh.ln.tallatloft
8420,000
839,'75
lotto. Liner and Leaehate Control
Monlto~ln, ..11 'f.t..
lit' co..r and Cap
8234,080
825~2GO
....g.tatlon
'.eurltf r.ne. and 111n.
'573,525
821,500
.eeoreS 'lat
840,000
85,000
'1,423,110
..
-------
'!----
-rULE
. '~ESZNT WO~TB CALCt1t.ATI0N (1) 0' nz LON~ TERM
MONI"O~I"G COSTS-MINIMUM ACTION ~TZ~NATIVE
1.
Saapling/analytlcal COltl:
'/A - lit y.ar - '18,000
'/A - c y.a:a - ,9,000/y.a: .
'IF - 1 y.at - '21,530
'/A - 25 y.ara - ,6,000/y.ar
'IF - 5 y.ara - $54,420
$16,364
'28,530
. '54,420
$25,936
$33,'90
2.
..plac...nt of Monitoring ..111
'IF - 15 J.ar. - '11,200
8.,358
J.
.
..11 Malnt.nanc. and ..habilltatlon
'/A ~ 50' - 5 - '4,000
.PIP - 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 rear. - '4,000
15,;48
t.
Co..r ana Cap Malnt.nanc.
'IA - 30 f.ar. - '3,000
.
'28,280
1114,'"
Y:--Aa. ~.. :
l-r\1nt.r..t.
.
-------
I ~
-rULE' reSENT WO~TR CAL~LATI0" (1) 0' !"BE LONG TEP.."\
MONl!OaIlG COSTS-ONSIT! CONTAINMENT ALTERNATIVZS
1.
Leachate ..nag..ent IYlte..
r/A - 30 y.arl - I',OOO/y.ar
I 84,834
2.
lampling/analytical COltl.
'/A - lit y.ar - 118,000
'/A - . yearl - I',OOO/y.ar . 128,530
r/A - 1 Jear - 128,530
PIA - 25 ,earl - ..,000/year . 154,420
./F.- 5 year. '54,420
16,364
25,936
33,'90
J.
..plac...nt of MOn~torlng ..11.
Ptr - 15 fearl - '18,200
...1.,11 Maintenance ana ..habilitation
4,358
'/A - 58t - 5- ,.,000
'PIP - 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 year. - ..,000
5,".48
5.
Co.er and Cap Malnt.nanc.
P/A - 30 J.ar. - 13,000
28,280.
I.
Cal Monitoring
'/A - 1 ,ear - 112,OOO/y.ar
,. Mllc.llaneoul (utl1Itlel, Iurface water control
..lntenance)
10,900
'/A ~ 30 Jearl - ,3,000/Jear
28,110
'239,290
~.
AllUM I
~ter'lt
. ~e operation and .alntenance COlt. for tbe leachate .anag,ment-
IYlte. include d.preclatlon cOltl for the leachate pump aft~
Itora,e tank, '1,200 per J.ar, and the offllte Ihipment an~
dl1,ola1 of 120 55 ,al1on dru.I of leachate per Jear at a COlt
of I'S per 4ru..
. .
-------
nl1.Z 10 ,eSENT "O~TH CALt:ULATI0" (1) 01 'fRE LONC TEP..~
MO"I!ORIWG COSTS-EXCAVATZ-AKD-ULOCATE A1.TE~ATVt
1.
.a.pling/analytlcal CO.tl:
'IA - 1.t year - '18,000
'IA - . year. - ",OOO/year . '28,530'
'IF - 1 y.ar - '28,530
'/A - 25 yearl - ",ODD/year. '54,.20
'IF - 5 y.arl - '54,.20
..place.ent of 8Onitorlng ..111
$16,364
25,'36
33,7'0
2.
'IP - 15 ye.rl - '11,200
.el1 MAintenance .~ .ehabilitation
.,351
J.
'/A - 50' - 5 - ,.,000
'IF - 5, 10, 15, 20. 25 year. - ,.,000
$,'48
, . , r3 , ,
, .
. ~ .
~.
Aaa~.. :
10\ int..r.at
-------
'fAiLE 11 PR%S!NT WORTH CALc:gLATION (1) or 'nI! LON~ TEk."!
MONITORING COSTS - 'aP CONSULTANT ALTERNATIVE
1.
'a.pl1ng/analytlcal COlt.:
PIA -
'/A -
'IF -
P/A -
'IF -
lit y.ar - 818,000
4 y.ar. - 8t,000/y.ar . 828,530
1 y.ar - 828,530
25 y.arl - ",OOO/y.ar . 854,420
5 y.ar. - 854,420
$16,364
125,936
$33,'790
2. ..placeRent of Monitoring ..11.
'IF - 15 yearl - '18,200
14,358
J. ..11 Malntenanc. and .ehabilltatlon
'IA - 50\ - 5 . '4,000
'I' . 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 f.ar. - ..,000
'5~'48
.~. .8
.. Cover and Cap Maint.nance
PiA ."30 f.ar. - '3,000
-
'28,.280
.114,'"
y:--"AIIU..:
nrintere.t
-------
'fULE. 12 PUSr.NT WO~'"' CALCt3LA1IO~ (1) OF 'rRE LON~
~~ MONlTO~ING COS1S - .C~ LANDFILL
1.
Leachate Management SYlte..
P/A - 30 y.ars - 81,000/y.ar
$84,834
2.
.ampling/analytical COltl:
P/A - 1st year - 82',000
P/A - . f.ars - 813,000/y.ar
P/F - 1 y.ar - 8.1,207
P/A - 25 y.ars - 'I,'OO/y.ar
P/F - 5 y.ars - "1,000
$48,431
$23,636
$37,460
. '.1,207
. '71,000
J. ..plac...nt of Monitoring ..111
PIP - 15 J.arl - '27,300 .
, .
. ~ .
.. "llMAint.nane. ana ..habilitation
P/A - 10' - 1 - ",000
P/F - 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 y.ars - ",000
$',$35
$1,'00
5.
co..r an~ Cap Kaint.nane.
I.
P/A - 30 y.ars - '3,000/y.ar
Gas Monitoring
S28,28g
,.
P/A - rlrlt y.ar - '12,000/y.ar
Mllc.l1an.oul (ut11itl.l, lurfac. vat.r control
..1nt.nane.>
$10,900
P/A - 30 J.arl - '3~000/y.ar
S28,280
$277,27'
. '
-r-Aa au.. I
m\1nt.r.at.
. ~. operation .n~ .aint.nanc. coati for the 1.achate .anaglmlnt
IYlt.. 1nclude ~epr.clatlon COltl for the 1.achate pump an~
Itorav. tank, '1,200, .n~ the offaite Ih1p..nt .n~ dilposal of
120 55 ,al1on dru.. of leaehat. plr y.ar at . coat of $65 per
dru8.
-------
TABLE 13
(UtPARISOO EVAWATIOO CRITERIA'
ALTERNATIVE
\ .
~
I1DI
KJOIFIED OOSITE
-------
TABLE 13
",
., ,
o::J.U>ARI~ EVAUJATIOO CRITERIA
ITDt
ALTmNATIVE
,
HCX>IFIEO OOS ITE 'CCNrAI~ENI'
EXCAVATE-AND-REux::ATE
EXCAVATE-AND-REUXATE OFFSITE
Reliability
waste ~ 4 of 4 release
pathways controlled treat.nent
plant eliminated minor 1009-
term commitment to monitoring
waste ~ved excavation of
all contaminants placing
them in a cell constructed
onsite which would conform
fully with RCRA ~ui~nts.
Results of a geophysical
investigation showed that
the size of a disposal cell
that could be constructed on
site in a suitable area had
. insufficient capacity
material buried at the site.
Dmplementability
Technically possible limited
technically skills ~ui~
landowner's consent likely
potential community support
TechnIcally not possible due
due to insufficient land
capacity to contain the
material
RCRA Conformance
Conforms except for no rottan
liner
Conforms except tor no rottan
liner
Safet y
tb risk of fire or explosion:
medium risk of toxic gas release
or spill
tC risk of fire or explosion:
medium risk of or spill toxic
gas release or spill
(e)
-------
~
I1D1
TABLE 13
tU1P~~ EVAWATIOO CRITERIA
ALTERNATIVE
PO>IFIED OOSITE aNrAINe1mfj
EXCAVATE-AND-REu:x:ATE
EKCAVATE-AND-RE~TE OOSITE
Operation' Maintenance
Significant maintenance for
5 }'ears: roonitoring for 30 }'eras
Significant maintenance for
5 }'ears: lIO)itoring for 30
}ears
E)1virc:ntl:!ntal Protection
Control of air emissions
Control of surface runoff
Control of groundwater
Control of direct contact
Control of air emissions
Control of surface runoff
Control of groundwater
Control of direct contact
(d)
-------
TABLE 13
... ~.", '"
(UotpARI~ E.VAUJATIOO CRITERIA
1'lDt
AL'I'ERNATlVE
,
KXJIFIED OOSITE CCNrAIr-MENT
EXCAVATE-AND-REux:ATE
teliability
EXCAVATE-AND-REu:x:ATE (JIJSITE
waste ~ 4 of 4 release
pathways controlled treat.Jrent
plant elLminated minor long-
term a:mnit.nent to roonitoring
waste ~ excavation of
all contaminants placing
them in a cell constructed
onsite which would confonm
fully with RCRA requi~nts.
Results of a geophysical
investigation showed that
the size of a disposal cell
that could be constructed on
site in a suitable area had
insufficient capacity ~
material buried at the site.
~lementability
'IOChnically possible lLmited
technically skills required
landowner's consent likely
potential community support
Technically not possible due
to insufficient land capacity
to contain the material
RCRA Conformance
Conforms except for no botton
liner
Conforms except for no botton
liner
Safety
No risk of fire or explosion;
ned i UTI risk of tox ic gas re lease
or spi 11
No risk of fire or
explosion; lMdiun risk of
toxic gas release or spill
(c)
-------
. ... -XABLE 13
(CO'lflNUED)
~PARI~ EVAWATlOO CRITERIA
ALTERNATIVE
~
ITD4
MINIM"""AcrI~
-------
TAa~ 1 J
lementability
~hnic~lly possible
Needs technical
expert ise at wrP
~s owner permission
f\:>tential carmW'lity
q>position
Zoo i ng of WI'P needed
~hnically possible
Limited technical
skills needed
Need owner permission
fUtential carmW'lity
support
Technically possible
Limited technical
skills required
Landowner's consent
Ii ke 1 y
Potential carmlD1ity
support
[bes not conform
ReM OJnfonnance
Con forms except for no
botton liner
Qonform by placement
of waste in ReM
facility
Safety
Minor risks of fire,
explosion, toxic gas
release or spill
r-b risk of fire,
explosion, toxic gas
release or spill
No risk of fire or
explosion: rrediLm
risk o( toxic gas
release or spill
(a)
-------
:'
TABLE 14
DECISIOO MATRIX OF fIO)T SIGNIFICANT
SELECTIOO CRITERIA
(1) (2) (3) (4)
MINIMUM OOSITE EXCAVATE PRP
ACrIOO a:NrAI~ AND OOSITE
EIDtOO'S OF CCJ1PARISOO . RELOCATE CXNI'AI~ (a)
La1g-1erm Release Qx\trol
Air Slight Yes Yes Yes
Surface Runoff Slight Yes Yes Yes
Groundwater No Yes Yes Yes
Direct Contact No Yes Yes Yes
Life C~le Cost least Middle f8bst less than
q>tion (2)
RCRA Conformance No iOtential1y iOtentially
Yes (b) Yes Yes ( c )
R!liability PcxJr Excellent Superior Excellent
q:,eration~' Maintenance
Cost fIobs t Middle least Middle
a. ()u;ite oontaiment m:xHfied by eliminatiat of slurry wall and leachate
collection
b. Assuni~ integrity of shale la~r.
c. Weathered shale may serve as a slow to medhm release nechanism for
limited quanti~ies of shallow ground-water.
,\
..
-------
TABLE IS
ULTIMATE DISf()SAL FACILITIES FOR CXNrAMINATED SOILS
HAUL DISTANCE DISPOSAL COST
LANDFILL (one-way mi 1es) (oollar/yd3)
B.H.S., Inc. 331 48.90
Wright City, Missoori
CEmS 136 80.00
Cincinnati, Ohio
ChElllical ~ste Managenent 515 50.00
Ene He, Alabama
U.S.Ecoloqr 450 178.00
Sheffield, Illinois
Adams Center Landfill 273 40..00
Ft. wayne, Indiana
Incinerator
LWD, Inc.
Paduka, Kentucky
240
250.00
.
------- |