United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R09-88/013
September 1988
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Operating Industies, CA
-------
30277-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R09-88/013
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title end Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
erating .Industries, CA
ird Remedial Action
5. R
7. Authorts)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or GrantCG) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
1C. Abstract (Limit: 200 word*)
The Operating Industries Inc. (Oil) site is a 190-acre landfill located in Monterey
Park, California, 10 miles east of Los Angeles. To the northwest and east of the site
the land use is primarily industrial; residential units are located to the southwest,
east and west of the site. There are approximately 53,000 residences within a 3-mile
radius of the site. Available data indicate that 2,150 people live within 1,000 feet of
e landfill. Disposal activities at the site began in October 1948 by the Monterey
rk Disposal Company (MPDC) who used the site as a municipal landfill on behalf of the
City of Monterey Park. In 1952-, the site and additional land, totalling 218 acres, were
purchased by Oil. The landfill was permitted to accept household refuse, organic
refuse, scrap metal, non-decomposable inert solids, and certain types of liquids. In
1964, the State of California purchased 28 acres of the land owned by Oil to construct
the Pomona Freeway, which divided the site into two sections. In 1975, Monterey Park
City limited solid waste disposal to a 130-acre section of the landfill and a year later
restricted disposal of liquids to a 32-acre section of the landfill. In April 1983, Oil
ceased accepting all liquid wastes; disposal of all solid wastes ended in October 1984.
EPA currently is performing operation and maintenance of the existing leachate
collection system, perimeter gas extraction system and interior gas extraction system.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision
Operating Industries, CA
Third Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: air
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE,
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
toluene)
E. COSATI Reid/Group
vailability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
376
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
A/ROD/R09-88/013
rating Industries, CA
ird Remedial Action
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
This remedial action addresses only the issue of landfill gas (LEG) migration control
and destruction. Final cover, leachate collection, ground water and soil contamination,
slope stability and final closure will be addressed in subsequent remedial action. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the air are methane and VOCs including
benzene, PCE, TCE and toluene.
The selected remedial action at the site includes: installation of perimeter LFG
extraction wells, pile-driven wells on the top deck of the landfill, shallow and deep
slope wells to control intermediate-to-deep subsurface migration at the perimeter, and
integrated perimeter and interior LFG headers; utilization of existing gas extraction
wells and gas monitoring probes; installation of multiple completion monitoring wells at
the property boundary, landfill gas destruction facilities, and an automated control
station for the gas control system; and installation of abovegrade condensate sumps to
collect condensate from gas headers, leachate pumps in gas wells to dewater saturated
zones, and abovegrade leachate sumps. The selected remedial action for the North Parcel
system includes: installation of 6 single completion extraction wells to the depth of
the refuse and installation of 1,500 feet of header lines. The estimated p'resent worth
for this remedial action is $73,000,000 with an annual O&M cost of $2,340,090.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
fURyji OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION STATEMENT i
DECISION SUMMARY
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 1
SITE DESCRIPTION 2
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 4
COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY 9
SITE CHARACTERISTICS 9
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 13
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 16
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 17
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 21
SELECTED REMEDY 24
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 31
ATTACHMENTS
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Operating Industries, Inc. (Oil)
Monterey Park, California
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for Operating Industries, Inc. Site, in Monterey Park,
California, developed in accordance with CERCLA, as amended
by SARA, and to the extent practicable, the National Contin-
gency Plan. This decision is based upon the administrative
record for this operable unit at this site. The attached
index identifies the items which comprise the administrative
record upon which the selection of the remedial action is
based.
The State of California concurs with the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This is the third operable unit for the Oil site. As an
operable unit this document addresses only the issue of
landfill gas (LFG) migration control. The Gas Control
Remedial Action will be integrated with the final site
remedy as the component for collecting and destroying
landfill gas which would otherwise be released from the
site. Final cover, leachate collection, groundwater, slope
stability, soil contamination, and final closure will be
fully addressed in the final Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study for the site, or in future
Operable Units.
The major components of the selected landfill gas control
remedy include:
o Installing 58 new perimeter LFG extraction wells, as
shown in Figure 5, with placement focused on minimizing
offsite LFG migration.
o Installing 48 pile driven wells on the top deck of the
landfill with placement focused on maximizing source
control of LFG.
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC.
GAS MIGRATION CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT
RECORD OF DECISION
-------
o Installing 50 shallow and 12 deep slope wells with
placement focused on reducing surface emissions, and
controlling intermediate to deep subsurface migration
at the perimeter.
o Installing new integrated perimeter and interior LFG
headers (abovegrade) .
o Utilizing functional existing gas extraction wells and
gas monitoring probes.
o Installing 58 multiple completion monitoring wells at
the property boundary.
o Installing landfill gas destruction facilities with a
capacity of approximately 9,000 cfm, and an automated
control station for the gas control system.
o Installing abovegrade condensate sumps to collect con-
densate from gas headers.
o Installing leachate pumps in gas wells to de-water
saturated zones, and installing abovegrade leachate
sumps.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, a waiver can be justified for whatever Federal
and/or State applicable or relevant and appropriate require-
ments which will not be met, and it is cost-effective. This
remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that
employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or volume
as a principal element and utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to
the maximum extent practicable.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining onsite above health-based levels, a review will be
conducted within five years after commencement of the final
remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environ-
ment .
Date Daniel W. McGovern
Regional Administrator
EPA, Region IX •<
/
ii
-------
SCOPE AMD BOLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
The Operable Unit Feasibility Study (OUFS) for Landfill Gas (LFG)
Migration Control at the Operating Industries, Inc. (Oil)
Landfill in Monterey Park, California, has been conducted to
evaluate potential remedial alternatives for mitigating the LFG
problems at the site. The U.S. EPA is addressing LFG problems as
an operable unit so that a gas migration control remedial action
can be initiated prior to implementation of the overall final
remedial action for the site. The Gas Control Remedial Action
will be integrated with the final site remedy as the component
for collecting and destroying landfill gas which would otherwise
be released from the site.
As an Operable Unit, this document addresses only the issue of
LFG migration control. It does not address other issues such as
leachate and condensate management, groundwater contamination,
final site closure, and final remedy. This is the third operable
unit for the Oil site. A Record of Decision (ROD) for Site Con-
trol and Monitoring was signed on July 31, 1987, and a ROD for
Leachate Management was signed on November 16, 1987. Final
cover, leachate collection, groundwater, slope stability, soil
contamination and final closure will be addressed in the final
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the site, or in fu-
ture Operable Units.
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Oil Landfill is located at 900 Potrero Grande Drive, Monterey
Park, 10 miles east of Los Angeles (Figure 1). The site is 190
acres in size with 145 acres (south parcel) lying south of the
Pomona Freeway (California Highway 60) and 45 acres (north par-
cel) to the north. Ground surface elevations adjacent to the
south parcel vary from approximately 500 feet above mean sea
level (msl) along the south boundary to approximately 380 feet
above msl along the Pomona Freeway. The top of the south parcel
varies from 620 to 640 feet above msl. The north parcel is rela-
tively level. The site is owned by Operating Industries, Inc.,
and related entities.
The adjacent, land ownership is as follows:
o The Southern California Edison Company (SCE) owns the land
abutting the north parcel, north of the Pomona Freeway. The
SCE substation complex is located south of Potrero Grande
Drive on the west side of Greenwood Avenue. A nursery
leases the remaining SCE property.
o The land east of the south parcel, bounded by the Pomona
Freeway, Montebello Boulevard, and Paramount Boulevard, is
owned by Chevron U.S.A., Inc., and is currently undeveloped.
It is currently used for oil recovery by Chevron.
o The Southern California Gas Company, a subsidiary of the
Pacific Lighting Gas Supply Company, operates an underground
gas storage facility in the area adjacent to the west bound-
ary of the landfill.
o A piece of property to the south is jointly owned by Con-
tinental Development of California, Inc., and California
Bankers Trust Company.
o The remaining land adjacent to the landfill is primarily
residential with single-family homes to the south and south-
west of the landfill boundary. The City of Montebello's
Iguala Park also borders the southern boundary of the
landfill.
-------
SITE VICINITY MAP
0 1000 2000
Scale In Feet
Base Map USGS 7.5 Mm.
El Monte Quadrangle 1966
Photo Revision 1981
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
OPERATING INDUSTRIES. INC. LANDFILL
OUFS-GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
-------
LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHY
The City of Monterey Park zoning ordinance designation for the
Oil Landfill is M, Manufacturing. In Monterey Park, land to the
northwest of the landfill is zoned C-4 (Arterial Service
Commercial), C-M (Heavy Comnercial-Nonmanufacturing). To the
south and west of the landfill, land use primarily consists of
residential units (single-family houses). Land to the east is
zoned R-A-O, Residential, Agricultural, Oil Production District.
A cemetery lies to the northeast along Potrero Grande Drive, and
the remainder of this area, between Neil Armstrong Street and
Paramount Boulevard, is zoned residential.
The City of Monterey Park has a population of 54,338 and the City
of Montebello has a population of 52,929 (1980 Census). Within a
three-mile radius of the site there are approximately 53,000
residences.
Regional Hydrogeology
Oil is located in the La Merced Hills, between two major
groundwater basins: the San Gabriel Basin to the north and east,
and the Los Angeles Central Basin to the south.
The San Gabriel Basin aquifer system to the north includes both
semiconsolidated and unconsolidated nonmarine sedimentary
deposits of Pleistocene and Holocene age. The pattern of
groundwater movement within this basin is generally from the
perimeter mountains toward the Whittier Narrows. Subsurface out-
flow and surface flow in the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Rivers
through the Whittier Narrows provide a major source of recharge
to the Los Angeles Central Basin, from the San Gabriel Basin to
the north.
:
Los Angeles Central Basin aquifers consist of consolidated to un-
consolidated marine and nonmarine rocks ranging from late
Pliocene to Holocene age. Regional flow is generally to the
west.
The depth and character of the water-bearing strata adjacent to
and beneath the Oil site are not well understood. Water level
measurements from existing wells suggest that perched, uncon-
fined, and confined zones may be present, but have not been ade-
quately identified or characterized. Additional wells will be
installed to define hydraulic gradients and to identify potential
contaminant migration pathways as part of EPA's ongoing RI/FS at
the site.
-------
SURFACE-WATER HYDROLOGY
The major surface streams that receive run-off from the Monte-
bello Hills are the Rio Hondo and Los Angeles Rivers.
Tributaries to these drainages in*the area of the Oil Landfill
contain only ephemeral flow generated by storm or urban run-off.
The majority of natural drainages have been extensively modified
and channelized or diverted to storm sewers.
SITS HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Disposal operations at the Oil Landfill site began in October
1948, when the Monterey Park Disposal Company (MFD) leased 14
acres from Henry H. Wheeler. An operations agreement between the
City of Monterey Park and MPD provided that MPD would operate a
municipal landfill on behalf of the City.
The landfill reverted to private ownership by the oil corporation
in early 1952 when zoning variances for operating the landfill
were not obtained by MPD. The site expanded to 218 acres as ad-
ditional Wheeler property was obtained in 1953 and 1958.
The landfill was classified as Class II-I by the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) in October 1954.
It was permitted to accept Group 2 wastes (ordinary household
refuse, decomposable organic refuse, and selected scrap metal),
Group 3 wastes (nondecomposable inert solids), and certain types
of liquids.
The State of California (CALTRANS) purchased 28 acres from Oil
for the construction of the Pomona Freeway (completed in 1964),
which separated the site into the 45-acre north parcel and the
145-acre south parcel. In August 1975, the Monterey Park City
Council adopted Resolution 78-76, which eliminated solid waste
disposal on the north parcel and on a 15-acre area in the
northwestern section of the south parcel. Thus, after 1975,
solid waste disposal was limited to a 130-acre section of the
south parcel.
The height of the landfill was first limited to 540 feet in 1957
based on the height of the surrounding hills. The City of Mon-
terey Park increased the height limit to 605 feet in June 1975,
and to 640 feet in August 1975.
In March 1976, the LARWQCB restricted disposal of liquids to a
32-acre area in the western portion of the south parcel. Oil was
allowed to mix liquids with solid refuse at a ratio of 10 gallons
-------
per cubic yard; the ratio was increased to 20 gallons per cubic
yard in September 1976. Leachate generated at the site was col-
lected and redisposed..
Oil ceased accepting hazardous liquid waste in January 1983 and
all liquid waste in April 1983. The California Department of
Health Services (DOHS) classified leachate generated at the site
as hazardous and prohibited redisposal, effective October 1984.
Oil stopped accepting all solid waste in October 1984.
Facilities have been constructed on the landfill to monitor and
provide limited control of the offsite migration of landfill gas
(LFG) and leachate from the landfill. A commercial gas recovery
facility, referred to as the interior gas extraction system, was
constructed by 6SF Energy, Inc., in the interior area of the
landfill. These systems are described in the following sections.
Landfill Gas Monitoring Probes
Sixteen LFG monitoring probes were installed by Oil onsite along
the west, south, and east borders of the south parcel of the
landfill in 1976. In December 1981, 15 probes were added and the
total 31 probes allowed LFG monitoring along the entire perimeter
of the south parcel. In addition, 15 LFG monitoring probes were
installed in the north parcel. Thirty-five perimeter probes were
installed in July and August 1981 along the west and southwest
boundaries to monitor the effectiveness of the air dike system.
Perimeter Gas Extraction System
The perimeter gas extraction system was installed by Oil in five
major phases oh the south parcel to partially control offsite
migration of LFG. Phase I (the air dike injection system), in-
stalled in 1981, consists of approximately 31 wells on the west
border. This air dike injection system introduces air under
pressure into the ground at the landfill perimeter to induce a
positive pressure gradient and air flow as a barrier to LFG
migration away from the landfill. Phases II/III/IV of the sys- -
tern, consisting of LFG extraction wells along the southern and
eastern borders, were installed in 1982, and 1983.
After the wells were installed, gas was collected using a port-
able blower and flare system. In 1983, a permanent blower and
flare station (now known as the auxiliary flare) was installed in
the southwest corner of the landfill, and the wells were con-
nected with a header system. By July 1983, both the auxiliary
flare and portable system were in operation. Phase V wells were
connected in May 1984.
-------
The ria well system on the southeast slopes was also added in
1984. This system collects landfill gas from an upper bench of
the landfill near the southern perimeter. The wells are rela-
tively shallow, and extract LFG from the above-ground portion of
the landfill. The rim wells are connected to the perimeter gas
extraction system and, therefore, operate independently of the
nearby interior gas extraction system. A new flare station (now
known as the main flare) in the northwest corner of the landfill
was added in 1984.
Leachate Collection System
The leachate collection system is described in the EPA Leachate
Management ROD of November 16, 1987, and is not described further
here. Liquids collected from the gas extraction system will be
managed under the Leachate Management Remedial Action, or subse-
quent Leachate Management provision of the final remedy for the
site.
Interior Gas Extraction System
GSF (then called NRG NuFuels, Inc.) signed a contract with Oil in
August 1974 to develop a LFG recovery system for commercial pur-
poses at the Oil Landfill site.
The GSF gas collection system and plant began recovering methane
for sale to Southern California Gas Company in October 1979.
After deciding that continued resource recovery operations at Oil
were no longer economically viable, GSF relinquished ownership of
all subsurface facilities to Oil per their contract and notified
the EPA that they intended to dismantle their aboveground
facilities by March 1, 1987.
In April 1987, GSF, the EPA, and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) completed negotiations for the pur-
chase of GSF surface facilities using Oil trust fund monies held
by the SCAQMD. Extraction and flaring of LFG continued from
February to May 1987 under temporary agreement between GSF, the
SCAQMD, and the EPA. At present, LFG extraction and flaring are
operated by the EPA.
EPA is currently performing operation and maintenance of the ex-
isting leachate collection system, the existing perimeter gas ex-
traction system, and the existing interior gas extraction
system. The system operation and maintenance includes daily
monitoring of LFG probes (onsite and offsite, including water
meter boxes), conducting scheduled maintenance of blower/flare
-------
stations and compressor equipment, and maintaining site security.
This is described in the EPA Site Control and Monitoring ROD of
July 31, 1987.
In addition, the EPA is conducting a remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the nature and extent of
contamination resulting from the site and to assess potential
remedial actions.
Enforcement
Various state and local agencies have recorded that Operating In-
dustries frequently violated waste disposal regulations during
the operating life of the landfill from 1952 to 1984. Site in-
spections identified some of these violations and agencies
notified Operating Industries to correct the noted problems.
Recent State and Local enforcement actions include:
1978 - Order for Abatement 2121 (South Coast Air Quality
Management District) - The Order includes site main-
tenance, grading, soil cover, and waste disposal. The
order has been modified six times. In 1983, installa-
tion of a gas emissions control system and a permanent
leachate control system were added. Oil has not com-
plied with the major requirements of the order.
1980 - (California Waste Management Board) - Listed site on
the California Open Dump Inventory due to RCRA subtitle
D violations.
1981 - Cease and Desist Order (L.A. County DOHS) - Issued to
Oil for operating the landfill without an approved plan
for control of landfill gas. :
1982 - (City of Montebello) - Filed suit for permanent closure
of the landfill to abate a continuing public nuisance.
1983 - Notice and Order (L.A. County DOHS) - Cited violations
of California Administrative Code.
Supplemental Notice and Order (L.A. County DOHS) -
Reiterates Order requirements, requires installation of
gas probes, wells, daily monitoring of gas systems,
reporting to L.A. County DOHS, CWMB, and SCAQMD.
1984 - Temporary Restraining Order 0500141 (CA DOHS) - Order
to secure financial resources from Oil for closure.
-------
30-Day Preliminary Injunction (CA DOHS) - Addressed ac-
tivities required for closure.
Remedial Action Order LAO01 (CA DOHS) - Required
leachate management, site characterization, landfill
gas control, and closure plans.
Notice of Violation to Oil (CA DOHS) - Notification of
noncompliance with Remedial Action Order.
Clean-up and Abatement Order 84-5 (Regional Water
Quality Control Board) - Reiterates requirements of CA
DOHS Order, required phase-out of leachate redisposal,
and construction/operation of a permanent leachate con-
trol system.
Clean-up and Abatement Order 84-119 (RWQCB) - Required
interception, pumping and legal disposal of leachate,
and prohibited discharge of leachate on and off-site.
EPA enforcement activities include:
1982 - Section 3008 Notice - Notice of EPA Interim Status Part
265 RCRA violations at Oil.
1983 - RCRA Complaint Issued.
Oil submitted draft closure documents in lieu of Part
B.
RCRA Consent Agreement Signed
1984 - 3007/104 letters issued to Oil and GSF.
Oil proposed for the National Priorities List
RCRA Section 3007/CERCLA Section 104 Notice
Letters/Information Requests issued to Operating In-
dustries, Inc, and individual owners. (8/23/84)
1986 - oil finalized on NPL
General Notice Letters/3007/104 Information Requests
sent to 27 Potentially Responsible Parties representing
50 percent of manifested wastes. (6/20/86)
Follow-up 3007/104 Letter sent to Oil owners.
8
-------
1987 - General Notice Letters/3007/104 Information Requests
sent to 56 additional PRPs representing an additional
20 percent of manifested wastes. (1/9/87)
Follow-up 3007/104 Letter sent to Oil owners.
Negotiations for PRP conduct of RI3/FS held, settlement
not reached.
General Notice Letters/3007/104 Information Requests
sent to 106 additional PRPs representing an additional
10 percent of manifested wastes. (11/4/87)
1988 - Joint Special Notice and Demand Letter issued to all
noticed PRPs, including Oil owners for past costs,
design and construction of the Leachate Management
Remedial Action, and Site Control and Monitoring Ac-
tivities and EPA/s associated oversight costs
(2/18/88). Negotiations in progress.
Special Notice Letter/3007/104 Information Request sent
to City of Monterey Park. (2/18/88)
COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY
A history of community relations activities at the Oil site, the
background on community involvement and concerns, and specific
comments on the Feasibility Study and EPA's responses are found
in the Responsiveness Summary which accompanies this ROD.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Figure 2 illustrates the mechanisms at work in generation, emis-
sion, and subsurface migration of gases at the Oil Landfill. The
four major mechanisms of gas migration at Oil are:
o Generation by anaerobic decomposition of the refuse
within the landfill combined with volatile organic com-
pounds released by hazardous substances disposed of at
the landfill
o Surface emissions by releases and diffusion to the at-
mosphere through the top and sides of the landfill as
well as from other areas where gas has migrated in the
subsurface to the surrounding neighborhood
-------
COMMERCIAL
LFG EXTRACTION
PERIMETER
LFQ EXTRACTION
ONSITE LFQ
MONITORING PROBE
SURFACE
EMISSIONS
PERIMETER
AIR INJECTION
(AIR DIKE)
/IN-HOUSE AIR
/MONITORING
AMBIENT AIR
MONITORING
LFG GENERATION
LEGEND
->• PATH OF LFQ MIGRATION
V/7/\ REFUSE
FIGURE 2
SCHEMATIC OF LFG MIGRATION
FROM Oil LANDFILL SITE
OPERATING INDUSTRIES. INC. LANDFILL
OUFS-GAS MIGRATION CONTROL
-------
Subsurface migration by releases and diffusion through
the bottom (below ground* surface) boundaries of the
landfill
Collection and partial control by existing perimeter
extraction, which removes gas along portions of the
landfill slopes and boundary; by perimeter air injec-
tion, which provides an air curtain for partial con-
tainment along portions of the landfill boundary; and
by existing interior extraction, which removes gas from
within the interior of the landfill
GAS GENERATION
The estimated 1988 methane generation rate from the landfill is
between 3.8 million and 5.2 million standard cubic feet per day
(mmscfd). Although the average methane generation is decreasing,
it may continue for 35 years or more (Figure 3).
During 1987 and early 1988 EPA installed 15 multiple completion
gas monitoring wells. Probes were installed at up to six dif-
ferent depths, extending down to 340 feet. These probes are now
being monitored by EPA for methane concentrations, gas pressure
and sampled for analysis of other constituents in the gas stream.
Contaminants which have been detected include benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, 1,1-dichlproethane, l,1-dichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene, trans-l,2-dichloroethylene, trichloro
ethylene, toluene, vinyl chloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
Probe 'monitoring data support the evaluation of subsurface LFG
migration. In the areas of high subsurface LFG migration iden-
tified in the west and east ends of the landfill, the new probes
also showed high levels of methane. With the exception of LFG
monitoring wells (GMW) No. 2 and No. 3, the probes on the east
and west ends of the landfill also showed high levels of methane
extending to the depth of the waste mass within a radius of 1,000
feet of the probe location. This information from the deep
monitoring probes indicated that subsurface LFG migration is oc-
curring at greater depths than previously known, and supports the
recommendation in the FS for installing deep LFG extraction wells
and monitoring probes at the perimeter in these areas.
The EPA probes located in the areas identified as having low LFG
migration in the FS generally showed lower concentrations than
the probes located on the east and west ends of the landfill.
•Several of these probes showed methane concentrations exceeding 5
percent, the lower explosive limit (LEL) .-
10
-------
1987
5.8 mmscfd
4.2 mmscfd
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
LEGEND
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL METHANE
GAS GENERATION RATE
MINIMUM POTENTIAL METHANE
GAS GENERATION RATE
YEAR
FIGURE 3
ESTIMATED MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM POTENTIAL
METHANE GENERATION RATES VS TIME
OPERATING INDUSTRIES. INC. LANDFILL.
OUFS-QAS MIGRATION CONTROL
-------
Additional source control and perimeter extraction wells proposed
for other areas may also reduce methane levels in this area.
However, the new data indicates that additional gas extraction
wells may be required in areas of low methane migration if
methane concentrations above 5 percent persist. The number and
placement of these wells will depend on future monitoring data.
In summary, new EPA monitoring probe data verifies the presence
of methane at concentrations greater than 5 percent in both the
shallow and deep probes in the previously identified high migra-
tion areas. The data .supports the distinction between high and
.low migration, but indicates that some additional gas extraction
wells may also be required in the low migration areas.
At the eastern boundary of the site, subsurface investigation
conducted by Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (GTC) indicated •
deposits of refuse within Chevron U.S.A. property. The ap-
proximate extent of refuse at the east end of the landfill is
shown in Figure 4. This composite figure was prepared based on
an existing topographic map of the landfill and the conclusions
drawn by GTC.
Gas migrating in the subsurface on the Chevron property to the
east of the site would be more effectively controlled with
perimeter wells installed at the boundary of the refuse (which
extends off the Oil property in this area) rather than wells in-
stalled at the legal property boundary. The zone of influence of
wells installed on the legal boundary would have to extend to the
perimeter of the waste mass in order to control gas migration.
Establishing such zones of influence within the waste mass could
lead to excessive oxygen intrusion, creating the potential for
underground fires. Smaller zones of influence within native soil
could be used to control gas migration if the wells were in-
stalled at the boundary of the refuse. The gas control alterna-
tives that involve increased gas extraction on the South Parcel
have the flexibility for modification of the conceptual design
for gas well and header placement, to better address gas control
in this area. This modification consists of locating the
perimeter wells and perimeter header line at the edge of the
refuse and potentially redistributing a portion of the slope
wells in this area. These modifications can be accomplished
during the design phase without altering the cost estimates for
the alternatives. Field work during the design phase will more
precisely define .the extent of refuse in this area.
11
-------
Landfill gas is also being generated within the 11 acres of waste
located on the North Parcel of the Oil site as confirmed by field
monitoring of EPA probes in 1987. A more detailed discussion of
the LFG investigation can be found in the Preliminary North Par-
cel Site Characterization Report, March 4, 1988.
Methane concentrations of 5 to 82 percent were found in the
probes placed within the waste mass and at the perimeter of
the waste mass. Generally, during monitoring, LFG was found to
be prevalent within the landfilled area, as well as at the
northwestern and southwestern boundaries of the North Parcel.
Lab analysis of LFG samples confirmed the presence of elevated
levels of methane. Carcinogenic and toxic organic compounds were
also found in the landfill gas.
Methane levels (and, for the most part, levels of carcinogenic
and toxic compounds) were found to be lower on the eastern por-
tion of the North Parcel outside of the fill area. EPA believes
that the majority of the compounds present in this area are due
to the migration of gas away from the landfill areas on the North
and South Parcels. EPA presently assumes that control of the gas
migration problems of the filled areas of the North and South
Parcels- should eliminate the existing gas problem on the eastern
portion of the North Parcel. Based upon EPA evaluation of the
volume of the waste mass and the age of the waste, the North Par-
cel is beyond the peak of methane generation and is producing ap-
proximately 9,000 to 14,000 cubic feet of methane gas per day.
Contaminant Release
LFG that is not collected by the gas collection systems and
destroyed by flaring is released by surface emissions or migrates
laterally through porous soil, and thus contributes to emissions
offsite around the landfill.
A portion of the LFG generated in the landfill is released or
emitted by venting mechanisms through the landfill cover. The
heat generated by the biochemical reactions in the landfill in-
creases the vapor pressure and the rate of volatilization of or-
ganic chemicals present in the waste. The molecular weight,
reactivity, and water solubility of each chemical also affect
volatilization. Once volatilized, the organic chemicals are
transported with the LFG by dominant mechanisms such as diffu-
sion, convection, and barometric pressure pumping.
These release mechanisms have been documented by data on emis-
sions from the landfill surface. The areas onsite with the
highest amount of emissions (measured as methane) appear to be
12
-------
the slopes. The slopes have a thinner cover and are prone to
surface erosion and instability causing fissures and cracks.
These areas, which will be further monitored during the upcoming •
RI/FS air sampling tasks, also abut many residences.
Subsurface LFG migration is another release mechanism at the Oil
landfill. Methane has been detected in water meter boxes and
offsite probe locations in the residential neighborhoods at con-
centrations above the lower explosive limit. Historically, the
area to the northwest of the landfill has not exhibited detec-
table levels of methane in the water meter boxes. The neigh-
borhood to the southwest has continued to exhibit elevated levels
of methane despite the existing LFG migration control systems at
the landfill.
Contaminant Transport Pathways
Contaminants contained in the LFG either migrate offsite in sub-
surface soils, or are emitted to the ambient air through the
landfill cover. Subsurface migration primarily occurs by diffu-
sion (due to concentration gradients) and convection (due to
pressure gradients) through refuse and soil. Chemical con-
taminants are released to ambient air through the landfill cover
onsite or via surface soils around the landfill offsite and are
transported by wind and prevailing air drainage patterns.
Contaminants may also move through the void spaces in under-
ground utility conduits. The water meter box data indicate that
this has occurred and is still occurring in the southwest sec-
tion.
Urban development adjacent to the Oil site in the mid-1970s
resulted in extensive grading and modifications of the original
topography. Grading required for access roads and residential
lots resulted in excavation of ridges and placement of fill in
low areas. Replaced fill, unless compacted effectively, may be
more permeable to LFG than undisturbed material.
»
Geologic formations, such as faults, may also act as pathways
for migration. Several faults have been identified in the area.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A preliminary risk assessment was performed to evaluate the
potential public health impacts. This assessment focused only on
the LFG issues; other issues will be incorporated into the risk
assessment for the site in the overall RI/FS. •
13
-------
As of December 1986, many of the water meter boxes that previ-
ously had high methane readings close to the landfill were vented
to prevent the build up of methane or other volatile con-
taminants. The data collected prior to venting indicated the
presence of methane in concentrations within the explosive range.
Methane concentrations continue to exceed the lower explosive
limit in some of these boxes, and additional venting is planned
as part of the Site Control and Monitoring Remedial Action.
These data are useful for demonstrating that subsurface migration
is occurring and still presents a risk if allowed to build up to
high concentrations in enclosed spaces. Venting of meter boxes
does not eliminate the potential for fire and explosion, since
homes, sheds and other enclosed spaces are adjacent to the site-.
The potential for fire and explosion can only be eliminated by
controlling landfill gas to below the the explosive limit (5%) of
methane.
Methane build-up in enclosed spaces has been demonstrated at the
Oil site and may pose an acute and imminent hazard due to the
risk of fire and explosion. Methane is a highly flammable gas at
concentrations between 5 percent (LEL) and 15 percent (UEL). The
water meter box and offsite probe data demonstrate that methane
gas has migrated off site, and methane has accumulated to con-
centrations up to 70 percent by volume in the meter boxes. If
air is added to the enclosed space and decreases the concentra-
tions to within the combustible range, a spark, lighted
cigarette, or match can cause an explosion.
The preliminary risk evaluation is based solely on the LFG
problem and the chronic effects of LFG components such as benzene
and vinyl chloride to humans over a long-term exposure at the
site. Methods assessed in the operable unit to remediate the
methane problem may also alleviate the other components (e.g.,
benzene and vinyl chloride).
The risks associated with exposure to volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) are estimated for the residential and occupational
scenarios with inhalation as the only exposure route considered.
The inhalation route is considered in the OUFS risk assessment
since it is the criterion to be used to determine feasible tech-
nologies for the gas problem. The ambient air data were assumed
to represent the air quality inside the houses. In-house data
indicated the potential presence of contaminants, but were not
used for residential exposure because the data were of ques-
tionable quality. . ''
14
-------
The population potentially exposed to these contaminants includes
2,150 people within 1,000 feet of the landfill as demonstrated by
available data.
.Contaminants detected in at least 10 percent of the ambient air
samples include benzene, carbon tetrachloride, perchloro-
ethylene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, 1,1,l-trichloro-
ethane, and toluene. Of these vinyl chloride is the only com-
pound for which there is an ambient air quality standard, which
is 10 ppb. The mean concentration between August 1983, and
August 1986, was 1.8 ppb, and the maximum concentration was 14
ppb. The standard was exceeded 16 days during this time period,
with the last exceedance occurring on August 23, 1985.
More defined information will be available for the final risk as-
sessment to be included in the overall RI/FS after, additional am-
bient and in-house air monitoring data is collected.
Exposure is estimated based on EPA's Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual (1986) and CH2M HILL Risk Assessment Guidance
document (1986).
The daily chemical intakes via inhalation of noncarcinogens for a
70-kg adult and for 30-kg and 10-kg children in a residential
setting were compared to acceptable intakes for chronic exposure
(AIC). None of the contaminants exceeded the AIC. The daily
chemical intake for the occupational scenario did not exceed the
acceptable chronic or subchronic intake levels.
The Hazard Index for multiple exposures was calculated at less
than one, therefore, no effect is expected to occur from exposure
to the toxic chemicals at the levels found around Oil.
The excess lifetime cancer risk was estimated at 1.6 x 10"4 for
the residential setting and 5.4 x 10~5 for the occupational
scenario. The cancer risk was dictated primarily by benzene and
vinyl chloride. . However, benzene was not detected in 85 percent
of the samples collected and vinyl chloride was not detected in
50 percent of the samples. The detection limit for benzene was 5
ppb in 1983 and 2 ppb in 1984. Thus, the cancer risk was calcu-
lated using limited data, and was affected by sensitivity in the
analytical technique. Additional data from upcoming ambient air
monitoring should allow a distinction between the background risk
posed by ambient air in the area, and additional risk posed by
contaminants from the Oil site. This risk assessment will be
presented in the overall RI/FS for the site.
15
-------
DOCUMENTATION OP SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Alternatives 9 and 10 (the gas control system for the south par-
cel and the gas destruction facility, and the gas control system
for the north parcel, respectively) were presented in the
proposed plan as the preferred alternative. No significant
changes have been made to these alternatives, although a
modification of the conceptual design for the gas destruction
facility may be required.
•
EPA originally proposed thermal destruction of the landfill gas
using "flare" gas incinerators. The ARAR governing emissions
from the thermal destruction of the landfill gas has been
clarified (See the Statutory Determinations Section of the ROD).
This ARAR limits emissions of CO to 550 pounds per day, and NOx
to 100 pounds per day, and the exemption from the emissions off-
set requirements for landfill gas facilities is not allowable.
Therefore, EPA may be required to either establish sufficient ad-
ditional controls on the proposed landfill gas flares to achieve
these requirements, or consider alternative gas incinerator
designs which would allow further emissions controls.
This change constitutes a minor modification of the proposed
remedy. Thermal destruction will still be utilized and this
modification will not significantly affect the cost of the
selected remedy. Additional control equipment for flare emis-
sions could increase the cost of the flare facility by $1 mil-
lion. Use of alternative incinerator designs may increase the
remedy costs by $1 to $2 million. Since the cost of the proposed
remedy was previously estimated at $73 million, with an accuracy
range of -30% to +50%, the cost of the remedy is not sig-
nificantly affected.
If the emissions requirement for landfill gas destruction cannot
practicably be achieved, EPA will invoke the waiver from these
requirements under SARA, on the grounds that compliance with
these requirements would cause more damage to human health and
environment (by preventing collection and destruction of landfill
gas at Oil) than waiving them.
Comments were received which suggested that additional interim
cover or partial final cover should be applied on the slopes of
the landfill as part of this Operable Unit to further improve
control of surface landfill gas emissions. The Feasibility Study
deferred cover options for landfill gas control due to data
limitations which impacted the technical feasibility of cover
evaluation, designr and construction at this time; However, the
Feasibility Study did note that integration with the cover would
be required for control of surface emissions from the site. As
16
-------
information becomes available from studies conducted by EPA
and/or other parties, or from Site Control and Monitoring ac-
tivities, EPA will consider the feasibility of integrating addi-
tional interim cover or partial final cover with the construction
of the selected gas control remedy, and this activity may be
added to this Operable Unit. If information becomes available to
allow development and evaluation of conceptual cover designs an
opportunity for public comment on proposed cover alternatives may
be offered, as appropriate.
Several of the alternatives in the Feasibility Study included
resource recovery components, however, these were found not to be
cost-effective, and therefore, were not included in the preferred
alternative. Although the selected remedy does not include
design and construction of a resource recovery component, it does
allow for EPA to decide to design and construct a resource
recovery component in the future if resource recovery becomes
cost-effective, and such a decision is consistent with EPA's
other decision making criteria.
DESCRIPTION OP ALTERNATIVES
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives for remediation include:
o Limiting methane concentration to less than 5 percent
at the site boundary
o Controlling surface emissions of LFG such that total
organic compound concentration is less than 50 ppm on
the average and methane concentration is less than 500
ppm at any point on the surface through integration of
the gas control remedy and the final cover for the
site. Although, prior to final cover placement an in-
terim goal will be to reduce surface emissions to a
significant degree, a waiver from full compliance with
this ARAR will .be required until the final remedy is
implemented.
o Minimizing the odor nuisance - this is directly as-
sociated with the reduction of surface emissions, and
consequently, although odor reduction will be achieved
prior to final cover placement, integration with the
final cover will be required to fully address this
problem
17
-------
o Attaining applicable or relevant and appropriate stan-
dards, requirements, criteria, or limitations under
other federal and state environmental laws according to
the terms of Section 121 of SARA (For an operable unit
compliance with ARARs (such as surface emissions con-
trol) may be waived if compliance is expected to be
achieved through implementation of the final remedy.)
o Expediting implementation - sequencing and phasing
remedial activities to rapidly mitigate identified gas-
problems
o ' Providing consistency with final remedies - considering
potential effects of future remedial activities in
developing alternatives to mitigate and minimize iden-
tified gas problems
o Integrating gas operations - optimizing migration con-
trol by integrating perimeter and interior gas extrac-
tion systems
o Using resource recovery technologies to the maximum ex-
tent practicable if cost-effective
SUMMARY OF GAS PS ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives which underwent detailed evaluation in the FS
ranged from maintaining the existing LFG systems, to extensive
additional well placements to extract LFG. LFG destruction sys-
tems ranged from simple flares to a LFG-fired steam boiler with
electrical power generation.
Two of the alternatives included a resource recovery element that
uses LFG combustion to generate steam and drive steam turbine
electrical generators. These could provide electricity for sale
to the local utility company.
Except for Alternatives 0 and 1 (no action and status quo,
respectively), the emphasis of the alternatives is on increased
collection and destruction or utilization of the LFG through
thermal destruction. Other gas cleaning or processing tech-
nologies were eliminated during the initial screening of alterna-
tives. Alternatives 1 through 9 are possible remedies for the
south parcel and alternative 10 is for the north;parcel.
18
-------
Alternative Q
No Action. Walk away, cease extraction system and air dike
operation.
Alternative 1
Status Quo. Operate existing systems as is.
o Air dike—31 wells
o Oil system (scope wells)---79 wells
o GSF system—64 wells
o GSF flare station—1 blower, 1 flare
o OZZ flare station*-3 blowers, 3 flares
Methane collected—2.0 million standard cubic feet per day
o Percent of methane generated—52 percent
o Percent increase—0 percent
Alternative 2
Improve Alternative 1 by replacing the header line abovegrade,
collecting condensate, and modifying, improving, and integrating
the flare facilities.
Alternative 3
Minimal Additional Gas Extraction. Expansion of Alternative 2.
o Replace air dike with extraction wells
o 29 new perimeter wells
o 25 new interior wells
o New perimeter probes to monitor performance
Methane collected—2.4 million standard cubic feet per day
o Percent of methane generated—63 percent
o Percent increase—22 percent
Alternative 4
Intermediate Additional Gas Extraction. Expansion of
Alternative 2.
o Replace air dike with extraction wells
o 41 new perimeter wells
o 63 new interior wells
o New perimeter probes to monitor performance
o 1 new blower, and 1 new flare
Methane collected—2.9 million standard cubic feet per day
19
-------
o Percent of methane generated—77 percent
o Percent increase—50 percent
Alternative 5
Maximum Additional Gas Extraction. Expansion of Alternative 2.
o Replace air dike with extraction wells
o 56 new perimeter wells
o 96 new interior wells
o New perimeter probes to monitor performance
o 2 new blowers, 2 new flares
Methane collected—3.4 million standard cubic feet per day
o Percent of methane generated—90 percent
o Percent increase—78 percent
«
Alternative 6
Alternative 5 with gas boiler and steam generator added.
o Met electric output—6.1 mw
o Net revenues—$2.4 million
o Duration of electric generation—10 years
Alternative 7
Replacement of existing systems with a completely new system.
o 59 new perimeter wells
o 180 new interior wells
. o New perimeter probes to monitor performance
o 6 new blowers, 6 new flares
Methane collected—3.4 million standard cubic feet per day
o Percent of total methane—90 percent
o Percent increase—78 percent
Alternative 8
Alternative 7 with gas boiler and steam generator. Uses the same
resource recovery system as Alternative 6.
Alternative 9
Modified Alternative 7. Uses existing gas extraction wells.
o 58 new perimeter wells '
o 110 new interior wells
20
-------
o 10S axis-ting wells
o New perimeter probes to monitor performance
o 6 new blowers, 6 new flares
Methane collected—3.4 million standard cubic feet per day
o Percent of total methane—90 percent
o Percent increase—78 percent
Alternative 10
North Parcel System.
o 6 new wells and header line
o Existing LFG monitoring probes
o Integrated with South Parcel alternative for LFG
destruction
Methane collected—.009 to .014 million standard cubic feet per
day
In the FS, remedial action alternatives are described in suffi-
cient detail to develop order-of-magnitude cost estimates (-30 to
+50 percent) and to allow comparison of alternatives. They are
based on the existing site data and understanding of site condi-
tions as well as estimates of future conditions. Information
presented concerning sizing of equipment, LFG flows, and ex-
tracted LFG quality is preliminary and is useful for evaluation
and comparison of alternatives. Values to be used for design
will be re-evaluated in the predesign or final design efforts.
In addition, data collected as part of continuing site remedial
investigation efforts will supplement understanding of current
site conditions and may help in optimizing an alternative.
Variations in design could include:
o Number and placement of components such as header
lines and extraction wells
o Extraction rates
o LFG quality (constituent concentration)»
It should also be noted that Alternatives 2 through 8 include
facilities for the collection of condensate and/or leachate which
result froa LFG migration control remedial actions. However,
facilities and costs associated with condensate and leachate
treatment and/or disposal are not included in*these alternatives.
Leachate and condensate will be managed under EPA's Leachate
Management Remedial Action.
21
-------
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OP ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Nos. 0 through 2 are not acceptable gas control
alternatives because the quantity of LFG collected would remain
the same or decrease. The potential threat from fire and explo-
sion, and contamination of the ambient air from surface emissions
would continue.
Alternative No. 3 would provide additional partial control of LFG
in some areas. However, control of subsurface migration to less
than 5 percent methane and surface emissions to the SCAQMD re-
quirements (when the final cover is implemented) are not expected
to be achieved. Therefore, the potential threat from fire and
explosion and the contamination of the ambient air from surface
emissions would continue. The remedial goals and objectives, in-
cluding overall protection of human health and the environment,
compliance with ARARs, and long and short-term effectiveness
would not be met.
Alternative No. 4 could possibly achieve control of subsurface
migration and surface emissions in compliance with ARARs.
However, this level of control is not considered to be likely.
If this alternative does not achieve the ARARs, then the poten-
tial threat of fire and explosion and contamination of ambient
air could continue, therefore this is not considered an effective
alternative.
Alternative Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 all have a high probability of
controlling subsurface migration and surface emissions (when in-
tegrated with the final cover) to achieve ARARs. This level of
control will eliminate the threat of fire and explosion and
should reduce the amount of contaminants released to the ambient
air to protective levels. These alternatives are, therefore,
protective of public health and environment. All of these alter-
natives (5 through 9) are considered roughly equivalent in their
effectiveness and implementability.
Alternative Nos. 6 and 8 include electrical generation resource
recovery from the LFG. An economic analysis found that the net
costs of implementation and operation and maintenance would be
increased rather than reduced by these alternatives because the
benefit to cost ratios for the resource recovery technologies are
less than one. Therefore, these two alternatives were not found
to be cost-effective.
Alternative 9 is more cost-effective than alternatives 5 and 7
because it uses existing wells and alternative we'll installation
techniques. 'The 30-year present worth cost for this alternative
22
-------
(using a 3 percent discount rate) is estimated at $72 million,
compared to $90 million for Alternative 5 and $96 million for Al-
ternative 7. This alternative is also more reliable than Alter-
native 5 due to the complete replacement of the gas extraction
and flaring facilities, and is therefore considered to offer bet-
ter short and long-term effectiveness.
Alternative 10 is a separate component that will control gas
migration in the subsurface and surface emissions from the North
Parcel. This alternative is readily implementable and can be in-
tegrated with Alternative 9 which will provide LFG extraction and
destruction facilities. The 30-year present worth cost of Alter-
native 10 is $1.1 million.
Tables 1 and 2 provide a brief comparison summary of the alterna-
tives. These tables present information on EPA's decision making
criteria of capital, operations and maintenance, and present
worth costs, effectiveness, and compliance with ARARs. Table 3
provides a more detailed comparison of the alternatives. This
table presents information on EPA's decision making criteria of
overall protection of human health and environment (both short- •
and long-term effectiveness and permanence), implementability,
and compliance with ARARs.
EPA's selected remedy is a combination of Alternatives 9 and 10.
It offers a degree of protection of public health and environment
that exceeds that of Alternatives 0 through 4, is equivalent to
the protection offered by Alternatives 5 through 8, and is
readily implementable.
The State of California, Department of Health Services, the .
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the City of Montebello, and
the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services all support
the selection of Alternatives 9 and 10 as the selected remedy.
The local community group, H.E.L.P., Homeowners to Eliminate
Landfill Problems, also support the selection of Alternatives 9
and 10.
*
The California Waste Management Board, and one local community
member preferred Alternative 7 over Alternative 9, because they
were opposed to the inclusion of functional existing gas extrac-
tion wells at Oil. EPA considers it to be more cost-effective to
include these functional wells rather than replacing them un-
necessarily. EPA's selected remedy provides money to replace
these wells when they are no longer functional, as part of yearly
operations and maintenance.
23
-------
Table 1
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON SUMMARY
Oil LFC HICRATION CONTROL
No.
0
1
2
3
Alternative
Description
No Action
Status Quo
Improved Status Quo
Minimal Gas Extraction with
4 Intermediate Gas Extraction
5
6
7
B
Maximum Gas Extraction with
Maximum Gas Extraction with
and Steam Power Generation
Replacement Gas
Replacement Gas
and Steam Power
Effectiveness
Innovative or
Resource Recovery
Technology
LFG
Flaring
with LFC Flaring
LFC
LFG
Extraction with
Extraction with
Generation
Flaring
Boiler
LFG Flaring
LFC Boiler
No
No
No
No
No .
No
Yes
No
Yes
Estimated Probability of
Additional LFC Meeting or
Collection (\)B Exceeding ARARs
0
0
+20
+45
+70
+70
+70
+70
No
No
No
Partially
Possibly
High
High
High
High
Probability
Probability
Probability
Probability
Cost Estimates
($ Millions)1
Capital
Investment
0
0
5.
15.
23.
32.
46.
45.
59.
8
5
3
1
6
3
8
Oftf
0
1.6
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
*•*.
3.0C
2.6
<|
2.6e
9 Modified Replacement Gas Extraction with LFC
Flaring
10 North Parcel System
No
No
+70
+70
High Probability 27 2.3
High Probability 0.4 0.038
alhese costs are order-of-oiagnltude level estimates (i.e., the cost estimates have an expected accuracy of -30 to +50 percent).
Percent Increase over projected (based on LFG generation model) LFC collected in 1990 uaing existing LFC facilities.
'Operation/Maintenance, net estimated annual costs, 30 years, rounded off.
Operation/Maintenance, net estimated annual costs, 0-10 years, rounded off.
Deration/Maintenance, net estimated annual costs, 11-30 years, rounded olf.
I.AT1Y/087
-------
Table 2
NET PRESENT WORTH OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
1
10
Present Worth Rates ($ millions)
*. *m
Project Life
30 years
45 years
60 years
30 years
45 years
60 years
30 years
45 years
60 years
30 years
45 years
60 years
30 years
45 years
60 years
30 years
45 years
60 years
30 years
45 years
60 years
30 years
45 years
60 years
30 years
45 years
60 years
30 years
45 years
60 years
33%
31.1
37.5
41.4
35.3
41.6
45.5
54.1
62.3
67.6
71.5
82.1
88.8
90.0
103.0
111.2
94.0
107.0
115.3
96.1
107.6
114.9
100.2
111.6
119.0
71.6
81.5
87.9
1.1
1.2
1.2
@5%
24.4
27.2
28.3
29.0
31.7
32.9
45.7
49.4
51.1
61.1
65.9
68.1
77.5
83.5
86.2
82.2
88.8
91.5
85.2
90.4
92.9
90.5
95.8
98.0
61.9
66.5
68.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
310%
15.0
15.1
14.9 .
20.0
20.2
20.2
34.0
34.3
34.3
46.5
46.9
46.9
60.0
60.6
60.6
67.7
68.4
68.4 .
69.8
70.3
70.3
77.5
78.1
78.1
48.4
48.8
48.9'
0.8
C.7
0.7
LAT3Y/086
-------
Table 3
EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Effectiveness Criteria
Alternative 0
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
None
Vlll not comply
Protectiveneas of Human Health and the
Environment'
o Estimated reduction In methane
normally released as surface
emissions and subsurface migration
o Surface emissions control - comply
with ARARa (less than SO ppm aver-
age; 500 ppm maximum at any point);
compliance requirement deferred to
the final remedy
o Subsurface migration control - comply Will not comply
with ARARs (less than 5 percent at
the boundary)
0 Source control - LFC collection at None
the source
o Resource recovery None
o Odor control None
Reliability
o Potential for poor performance NA
or failure of system components
(assuming design criteria repre-
sent actual field conditions)
o Operational flexibility to addreaa NA
variations between design criteria
and actual field conditions
None
Will not comply
Will not comply
No additional aource control
None
Inadequate
Poor reliability as
evidenced by current
operational problems
at alte
NA
None
Will not comply
Will not comply
No additional aource control
None
Inadequate
Improved reliability
Slight reduction (not
estlnatable) due to
system improvements
System Improvements are
expected to allow greater
flexibility In flare system
operation and header
maintenance
-------
Table
(Continue
Effectiveness Criteria
Protectiveneaa of Human Health and the
Environment
o Estimated reduction In methane
normally released as surface emissions
and subsurface migration
o Surface emissions control - comply
with ARARa (less than 50 ppm aver-
age; 500 ppm maximum at any point){
compliance requirement deferred
to the final remedy
o Subsurface migration control - comply
with ARARa (less than 5 percent at
the boundary)
o Source control - LFC collection at
the source
o Resource recovery
o Odor control
Reliability
o Potential for poor performance or
failure of system components
(assuming design criteria represent
actual field conditions)
o Operational flexibility to address
variations between design criteria
and actual flefd conditions
Alternative 3
Alternative It
Reduction estimated at
0.4 mmscfd (22 percent
reduction In methane release)
Additional extraction wells
on siopes{ monitoring data
required to determine compli-
ance; more likely to comply
than Alternatives 1 and 2
Additional extraction wells at
the landfill perimeter) moni-
toring data required to deter-
mine compliance; not likely
to comply
Additional interior wella will
collect more LFC from within
the refuse than Alternatives 1
and 2
None
Some reduction from addi-
tional wells on landfill slopea
Low; costs include periodic
replacement of equipment,
standby gas blower, and
flare capacity
Liquid/leachate pump provided
for each well If necessary;
use of oversized collection
headers to allow additional
well Installations, flexi-
bility limited by existing
systems layout (I.e., header
configuration and well design
and placement).
Reduction estimated at
0.9 mmscfd (SO percent
reduction in methane release)
Hore wella on slopes than
Alternative 3; more likely to
comply than Alternatives 2
and 3
Hore wella on perimeter than
Alternative 3; more likely to
comply than Alternatives 2
and 3
Hore Interior wella than
Alternative 3 will collect
more LFC
•Hone
Greater reduction In odora
than Alternative 3
Reliability of LFG collection
and flaring la aame as
Alternative 3
Same as Alternative 3
Alternative 5
Reduction estimated at
1.4 mmscfd (78 percent
reduction In methane release)
Maximum well coverage of "add on"
alternatives, more likely to
comply than Alternative 4. High
probability of compliance.
Maximum well coverage of "add on"
alternatives, more likely to
comply than Alternative 4. High
probability of compliance.
Maximum well coverage of "add on"
altematlvea; should provide
greater degree of source control
than Alternative 4.
None
Greater reduction In odors
than Alternatives 3 and 4
Reliability of LFG collection
and flaring is same as.
Alternative 3
Same as Alternative 3
-------
Table 3
(Continued)
Effectiveness Criteria
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
ProtectIveneM of Human Health and the
Environment
o Eatlmated reduction In methane
normally released as surface emissions
and subsurface Migration
o Surface ealsslona control - cosily
with ARARa (leaa than 50 ppai aver-
age; 500 ppm maximum at any point)}
compliance requirement deferred to
the final remedy
o Subsurface Migration control - comply
with ARARa (leaa than S percent at
the boundary)
Reduction eatlnated at
1.4 mmacfd (78 percent
reduction in Methane releaae)
Same aa Alternative 5
Same aa Alternative 5
o Source control - LFG collection at
the source
Sasie aa Alternative 5
o Resource recovery
o Odor control
Power generation with LFG
boiler/steam turbine gene-
rator; an estlMated 6000 kU
of power Bay be recovered
Sane level of odor control
aa Alternative 5
Reduction eatfamted at
1.4 mmscfd (78 percent
reduction In Methane releaae)
Createat potential for control
due to integration of complete
ayateM through design and
conatruction does not rely
on existing well locations
and header configuration.
iMproved reliability enhances
protectiveness.
Createat potential for control
due to integration of complete
ayateM through design and
conatruction doea not rely
on existing well locations
and header configuration.
IMproved reliability enhances
protectiveness.
Greatest potential for control
due to Integration of complete
system through design and
conatruction does not rely
on existing well locations
and header configuration.
Improved reliability enhances
protectlvenesa.
None
Createat potential for control
due to Integration of complete
system through design and
construction does not rely
on existing well loc.itiona
and lunder configuration.
Improved reliability enhances
protectIveness.
Alternative 8
Reduction estimated at
1.4 mmscfd (78 percent re-
duction in methane releaae)
Same aa Alternative 7
Same .aa Alternative 7
Same aa Alternative 7
Power generation with LFG
boller/Bteam turbine gene-
rator) an estimated 6000 kU
of power may be recovered
Same level of odor control
aa Alternative 7
IAT'tY/OfilT-1
-------
(Continued)
Effectiveness Criteria
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Reliability
o Potential for poor per romance or
failure of system components
(aasuaing deaign criteria represent
actual field conditions)
o Operational flexibility to address
variations between design criteria
and actual field conditions
Reliability of LFC collection
and flaring .is same as Alter-
native 3; power generation
equipment requires bigh Main-
tenance and ia less reliable
than other components
Sane as Alternative 3
Reliability of LFC collection
and flaring is greater than
for all other alternatives
because all facilities are
new
Greatest flexibility, instal-
lation of complete new system
ia not tied to existing flare
facilities, existing header
configuration, or well design
and location.
Alternative 8
Reliability of LFC collection
and flaring ia same aa Alter-
native 3; power generation
equipment requires high main-
tenance and la leaa reliable
than other componenta. Over-
all reliability better than
Alternative 6 but lesa than
Alternative 7.
Sane aa Alternative 3
NA « Not Applicable.
a Reduction of methane normally released as surface emissions and subsurface migration are based on LFC generation and loss estimates
projected for 1990. Normal methane losses In 1990 are defined aa those that would occur utilizing existing facilities (e.g., as In
Alternatives 1 and 2). Methane loas reductions presented are approximations baaed on assumptions and theoretical calculations.
They are useful for purposes of comparing alternatives but do not reflect actual values.
I.AVJY/OM/.-1,
-------
Effectiveness Criteria
Table 3
(Continued).
Alternative 9
Protecttveness of Human Health and the
Environment
o Estimated reduction in methane
normally released as surface
emiaaions and subsurface Migration
o Surface emissions control - comply
with ARARs (less than 50 ppm aver-
age) 500 ppsj maximum at any point)}
compliance requirement deferred to
the final remedy
o Subsurface migration control - comply
with ARARa (less than 5 percent at
the boundary)
o Source control - LFG collection at
the source
o Resource recovery
o Odor control
Reliability
o Potential for poor performance
or fallure...,pf system components
(assuming design criteria repre-
sent actual field conditions)
o Operational flexibility to address
variations between dealgn criteria
and actual field conditions
IAT1Y/
Reduction estimated at 1.4 mmacfd
(78 percent in methane release)
methane per day.
Greater than Alternative 5,
approximately equal to
Alternative 7 once existing
wells are replaced. High
probability of compliance.
Greater than Alternative 5,
approximately equal to
Alternative 7 once exiating
wells are replaced. High
probability of compliance
when Integrated with the
final cover.
Greater than Alternative 5,
approximately equal to
Alternative 7 once exiating
wells are replaced. High
probability of compliance
None
Greater than Alternative 5,
approximately equal to
Alternative 7 once existing
wells are replaced. High
probability of compliance
Reliability is high. All
.facilities other than existing
wells will be new. Relia-
bility will be the same as
Alternative 7 when new walls
are replaced.
With the exception of exiating
well locations, great flexi-
bility, Installation of new
ayatem no tied to existing
header configurations or
flare facilities. Easier
installation of pile driven
and single completion wells
improves flexibility
Alternative 10
Reduction of estimated release
of about 11,500 cubic feet of
methane per day
Likely to comply with the
requirements
Host likely to comply with the
requirements
Maximum well coverage
Hone
would cut down odor nuisance
with high probability of
compliance.
Reliability is high and would
increase with a new cap
Use of oversize headers allows
additional well Installation
-------
ImplementablUty Criteria
Technical Feasibility
o Use of proven technology
o Ease of instsllation and time, to
implement
o Short-term constructlon-relsted
environmental impacts
o Short-term construction-related
health risks
o Operational problems and
considerations
Availability of Technology
Operationa and Maintenance
Administrative Feasibility
o Administration of operating,
maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting activities
o Permitting considerations
IMPLEHENIABILITY EV
Alternative 0
ION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
M/A
N/A
M/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Gas extraction wella and gas
flaring are currently used.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Header line breakages; Inade-
quate condenaate collection}
corrosion of equipment; lack
of adequate safety and backup
systems.
N/A
Continuation of existing
long-ten operating, Main-
tenance, and monitoring of LFC
fac'llltlea and alte.
Continuation of existing
operations.
None.
Gas extraction wella and gaa
flaring are currently used.
Replacement and Improvement
of existing systems can be
implemented within 1 year of
project Initiation,
Noise, LFC emissions, odors,
and dust during excavation
to be controlled.
Potential contact with haz-
ardous waatea. Requires
appropriate health and aafety
procedures.
Problems should he reduced
by recommended Improvenenta.
Demonstrated technology in
LFC applications. Equipment
for gas extraction and flar-
ing system Improvements is
readily available.
Requires long-term operating,
maintenance, and monitoring of
LFC facilities and site.
Continuation of exlating
operationa.
None.
N/A - Not applicable
I.AT3Y/085-1
-------
Table 3
(Continued)
Implementability Criteria
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Technical Feasibility
o Dae of proven technology
•
o Ease of Installation and time to
implement
o Short-term construction-related
environmental lajpacta
o Short-term construction-related
health rlaka
Caa extraction wella and.gaa
flaring are currently uaed.
Straightforward; leaa than
2 yeara estimated for Imple-
mentation. Vtell construction
on alopea more difficult than
perimeter wells.
Noise, LFG emissions, odors,
and duat during drilling/
excavation to be controlled.
Potential contact with hax-
ardoua waate. Requires
appropriate health and safety
procedures.
Caa extraction wella and gaa
flaring are currently uaed.
Straightforward, but more wella
Installed| leaa than 2 yeara esti-
mated for implementation. Well
construction on alopea more
difficult than perimeter wella.
Noise, LFG emissions, odors, and
duat during drilling/excavation
to be controlled.
Createat potential for contact with
hazardous waate. Requires appropri-
ate health and aafety procedurea.
Caa extraction wella and gaa
flaring are currently uaed.
Straightforward, but more
wella installed! leaa than
2 yeara estimated for im-
plementation. Well con-
struction on alopea more
difficult than perimeter
wella. .
Noise, LFG emissions,
odora, and duat during
drilling/excavation to be
controlled.
Greatest potential for con-
tact with hazardous waate.
Requires appropriate health
and aafety procedurea.
o Operational problems and
considerations
Availability of Technology
Operations and Maintenance
Problems are minimized by im-
plementation of improvements
recooaaended in Alternative 2.
Demonstrated technology in
LFG applications. Equipment
and auppliea for gas extrac-
tion well Installation and
flare system expansion are
available.
Requires long-term operating,
maintenance, and monitoring
of LFG facilities and alte.
Requirea special personnel
safety procedurea due to
potential hazard associated
with LFG.
Problems are minimized by Implemen-
tation of improvements recommended
in Alternative 2.
Demonstrated technology in LFG
applications. Equipment and
supplies for gaa extraction well
inatallatlon and flare ayatem
expansion are available.
Sane aa Alternative 3, but larger
in acope due to larger ayatem.
Problens are minimized by
Implementation of improve-
ment a recommended in Alter-
native 2.
Demonstrated technology In
LFG applications. Equip-
ment and supplies for gaa
extraction well inatalla-
tlon and Hare ayatem ex-
pansion are available.
Same aa Altemativea 3 and
*, but larger in acope due
to larger ayatem.
Administrative Feasibility
Alternatives 5 and 6 should Include permlta required for expanded flare atation. Permits for
Alternative 3 are incomplete.
/085-?
-------
Tali
(Continued)
Implementabllity Criteria
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Administrative Feaatbtlity
o Administration of operating,
maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting activities
o Permitting consideration
expanded gaa flaring ayatem.
Technical Feaatbtltty
o Uae of proven technology
o Eaae of installation and tii
implement
to
o Short-term construction-related
environmental impacts
o Short-tern construction-related
health risks
o Operational problems and
considerations
Availability of Technology
Operations and Maintenance
Larger acope than Alter-
natives 1 and 2.
SCAQMD permits required for
Gaa extractloo wella and gaa
flaring are currently uaed at
aite. Boiler/steam turbine
aystema are widely employed.
Same difficulty aa Alterna-
tive 5| leaa than 2 yeara
estimated for Implementation.
Noise, LFG emissions, odors,
and duat during drilling/
excavation to be controlled.
Larger acope than Altema-
tlvea 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Same aa Alternative 3.
Gaa extraction wells and gaa flaring
are currently uaed at alte.
Straightforward) more difficult than
Alternatlvea 5 and 6 due to number
of wella inatalled) leaa than
2 yeara eatlmated for
Implementation.
Noise, LFG emissions, odora, and
duat during drilling/excavation
to be controlled.
Potential contact with hazard- Potential contact with hazardous
oua waate. Requires approprl- waate. Requires appropriate health
ate health and aafety proce- and aafety procedurea.
durea.
Problems are reduced by
Implementation of improve-
menta recommended in
Alternative 2.
Same aa Alternative 5.
Boiler/steam turbine ayatema
are readily available process
equipment.
Same as Alternative S, but
larger In scope.
Problems are minimized by replace-
ment of all existing facilities.
Same aa Alternative 5.
Same aa Alternative S, but larger
In acope.
Alternative 8
Larger acope than Alter-
tlvea 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Samea aa Alternative 3.
Caa extraction wells and
gaa flaring are currently
used at alte. Boiler/
steam turbine ayatema are
widely employed.
Straightforward) more dif-
ficult than Alternatives 5
and 6 due to number of
wells installed) less than
2 yeara eatlmated for
implementation.
Nolae, LFG emlaalons, odors,
and duat during drilling/
excavation to be controlled
Potential contact with haz-
ardous waste. Requires
spproprlste health and
aafety procedures.
Problems are minimized by
replacement of all exiatlng
facilities.
Same aa Alternative S.
Boiler/steam turbine sys-
tems are readily available
procesa equipment.
Same aa Alternative 5,
but larger In acope.
UT3Y/Ob5-3
-------
Table 3
(Continued)
Implementability Criteria
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
Administrative Feasibility
o Administration of operating,
maintenance, Monitoring, and
reporting activities
o Permitting considerations
Larger acope than Alter-
native 5.
Backup flaring systems auat
meet SCAQHD permitting
requirements. Boiler MO
emissions are minimized By
ammonia Injection process}
emissions can be verified
after Installation.
Same as Alternative 5.
Flaring aystens must meet SCAQHD
permitting requirements.
Same aa Alternative 6.
Backup flaring systems must
meet SCAQHD permitting
requirements. Boiler NO
emissions are minimised fiy
ammonia Injection process)
emissions can be verified
after Installation.
UT3Y/085-«»
-------
Impleaentabllity Criteria
Technical Feasibility
o Use of proven technology
o Ease of installation and time to
implement
o Short-term construction-related
environmental impacts
o Short-tern construction-related
health risks
o Operational problems and
considerations
Availability of Technology
Operations and Maintenance
Alternative 9
Administrative Feasibility
o Administration of operating,
maintenance, monitoring, and
reporting activities
o Permitting considerations
Gas extraction veils and gas
flaring are currently used
at site
Straightforward, leas difficult
than Alternative 7 due to fewer
new well Installations and
easier Installation methods;
less than 2 yean estimated for
implementation
Noise, LFC emissions, odors,
and dust during drilling/
excavation to be controlled.
Potential contact with haiard-
ous wsste. Requires appro-
priate health and safety
procedures. Pile driven wells
reduce potential for hazardous
waste contact.
Problems are minimized by
replacement of all existing
facilities, excluding func-
tional extraction wells.
Demonstrated technology in LFC
applications. Equipment and
supplies for gss extraction well
installation and flare system
construction are available.
Requires long-term operation and
maintenance, and monitoring of
LFG facilities and site.
Requires special personnel
safety procedures due to
potential hazards associated
with LFC.
Same as Alternatives 5 and 7
Same as Alternative 3
Alternative 10
Gas extraction wells and gas
flaring are currently used at
South Parcel
Easier Installation methoda} .
estimated less than i-year time
for Implementation
Noise, LFG emissions, odor* and
dust during drilling excavation
would be controlled.
Potential contact with hazardous
waste. Requires appropriate
health and safety procedures.
Problems will be minimized
with proper design of
extraction wells.
Demonstrated technology.
Equipment and materials
readily available.
Requires long-term operation
and maintenance Including
monitoring. Requlrea trained
personnel for safety proce-
dures due to potential hazards
assoclsted with LFG.
Same aa other alternatives
Sane as other alternatives
LAT3Y/08S-5
-------
SELECTED REMEDY - ALTERNATIVES 9 AND 10
ALTERNATIVE NO. 9—MODIFIED REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Although this alternative considers fewer new extraction wells
than Alternative No. 7, it is designed to provide approximately
the sane level of protection by using existing extraction wells.
This alternative includes the following major items:
o Installing 58 new perimeter LFG extraction wells, as ,shown
in Figure 5, with placement, focused on minimizing offsite
LFG migration.
o Installing 48 pile driven wells on the top deck of the
'landfill with placement focused on maximizing source control
of LFG.
o Installing 50 shallow and 12 deep slope wells with placement
focused on reducing surface emissions, and controlling in*
termediate to deep subsurface migration at the perimeter.
o Installing new integrated perimeter and interior LFG headers
(abovegrade).
o Including functional existing gas extraction wells and gas
monitoring probes.
o Installing 58 multiple completion monitoring wells at the
property boundary.
o Installing landfill gas destruction facilities with a
capacity of approximately 9,000 cfm, and an automated con-
trol station for the gas control system.
o Installing abovegrade condensate sumps to collect condensate
from gas headers.
o Installing leachate pumps in gas wells to de-water saturated
zones,.and installing abovegrade leachate sumps.
The LFG extraction wells proposed in this alternative will be
cross-tied such that all gas collected from the landfill can be
mixed and sent to a unified gas destruction facility.
24
-------
i-
£v>\ *9^f*
\
J .' •/. . ^ytfft r --•
I ::.
\
\
-7.-
--- riaunE 4
EXTENT OF LANDFILL REFUSE AT
EASTERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES
Oft HATMO MOUttMIM. MC.
OUTI-AOOfNOUM
-------
. ' I..
I -
FIGURE 8
-------
Wall Construction
Four different types of gas extraction veils have been con-
sidered and included in Alternative No. 9 for control of the
South Parcel LFG problems. The selection of different types of
veils for different locations vas based on landfill geometry;
refuse characteristics, subsurface geology, and the expected ef-
fectiveness in controlling LFG at specific locations identified
earlier in the OUFS report.
Initially, emphasis vill be placed on perimeter extraction
veils along the vest and east ends of the landfill, vhere the
most severe migration problems have been identified. Peri-
meter gas extraction veils at these locations vill be drilled to
depths equal the elevations of deepest refuse within 1,000 feet
from the site boundary. Additional perimeter extraction veils
vill be sequenced according to a phased approach discussed under
"Phasing of Alternatives." Perimeter extraction veils vill be
constructed as multiple completion veils vith three or more veil
casings and screens at three or more depth intervals.
Hells on the slopes, particularly on the benches, vill be drilled
to a depth of betveen 60 to 90 feet by a drilling and/or driving
method. These veils vill be constructed vith a single veil
casing vith perforations and gravel packing at the bottom half of
the veil. In addition, to assist in perimeter migration control,
about 12 deep single-casing veils are planned to be installed at
the first bench. These veils vould be installed along the vest
and east ends of the landfill. Along these boundaries, it is ex-
pected that approximately every third slope veil on the first
bench vill be a deep veil. The depth of such veils vould be ap-
proximately 175 feet. Specific design of these deep veils vould
depend on conditions encountered during drilling.
Additional gas extraction veils vill be placed on the top deck.
These veils vill be pile driven. The depth of these veils vill
be extended belov the elevation of 450 feet throughout the
landfill. At the vestern end of the landfill, depths may vary
due to the suspected liquid/leachate' problem.
Expected Longevity of Gas Extraction Wells
The expected longevity of each type of veil discussed above
depends on various landfill factors, quality of construction
methods, and long-term operation and maintenance..procedures.
25
-------
Walls constructed within the refuse will experience wear and tear
.from the landfill settlement, corrosion and plugging of veils
from landfill liquid/leachate, and from particulates/ sediment
deposits clogging up veil screens. Based on experience from the
existing landfill gas extraction systems in Southern California,
it is estimated that the veils vithin refuse vill have an average
life of 7.5 years. This estimate may be further revised based on
actual drilling and construction experience encountered at site-
specific locations.
Hells drilled vithin the native soil, specifically at the
landfill perimeter, are expected to last longer. Average life
expectancy of these veils is assumed to be 15 years. This ex-
pected longevity of the perimeter veils is based on information
made available to EPA by the L.A. County Sanitation District.
As existing veils utilized by the South Parcel Alternative No. 9
require replacement, the location and design of the replacement
vill be optimized to improve performance.
The capital cost of Alternative 9 is estimated at approximately
$27 million, and annual operations and maintenance is estimated
at $2.3 million as shown in Table 4 (estimates are -30% to +50%).
ALTERNATIVE NO. 10—NORTH PARCEL SYSTEM
EPA's remedial investigation at the North Parcel found LFG vithin
the landfilled portion of the site. This landfilled
area contains approximately half a million cubic yards of refuse,
and it is estimated that some gas vill be produced for more than
30 years due to the continued anaerobic degradation of the
refuse.
Based on the volume and depth of refuse, a conceptual layout of
six gas extraction veils to control gas migration/emission from
the North Parcel vas prepared. (Figure 6 represents the
schematic layout of the extraction system.) This extraction sys-
tem vill control existing and potential migration of gases from
the property boundary and mitigate surface emissions froa the
landfilled portion of the North Parcel. This component includes
the folloving major items:
o Installing 6 single completion extraction veils to the depth
of refuse (up to 50 feet).
o Installing 1,500 feet of header lines.
26
-------
Table 4
COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE NO. 9
MODIFIED REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE WITH' LFG FLARING
Short-Term
Capital Costs
. Cost Items ($1,OOP's)
LFG Gas Extraction System Improvements
New Perimeter $8,OOC
N,ew interior 7,300
LFG Destruction System
Type-Flare 900
Ancillary Items
Protective Equipment 686
Decontamination and Disposal 28
Startup 90
Health and Safety 1,134
Construction-Related Equipment 858
Bid Contingency (5%) 949
Scope Contingency (10%) 1,899
Permitting and Legal (5%) 1,092
Services During Construction (8%) 1,747
Engineering Design (9%) 2,221
TOTAL (Rounded) $26,9UO
Long-Term
O&M Costs
Cost Item ($1,OOP's)
New LFG System $2,280
TOTAL (Rounded) $2,300
Note:Order-of-magnitude level estimates (expected accuracy
range of -30 to +50 percent) at annual operation and main-
tenance costs.
-------
I "• " ''^Z^''' • '•'«-; V '"•'' • ' ...''':""•"
I \
FIQURE a
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR
NORTH PARCEL
LFQ EXTRACTION ftVSTEM
OPENMMQ INOU8TNK8. MC.
IANOFK.I
OUFS-AOOCNOUM
-------
LFG collected by this component will be fed to the flare system
included in Alternative 9. The expected quantity of gas to be
collected by the.extraction system under this alternative may
vary between 9,000 and 14,000 cubic feet of methane per day. The
capital cost of this alternative is estimated at $400,000, and
annual operations and maintenance is estimated at $38,000 as
shown in Table 5 (estimates are -30% to +50%).
EMISSION ESTIMATES
The landfill gas disposal technologies used by the gas control
alternatives all involve thermal destruction of the gas. In or-
der to estimate potential emissions from the gas destruction
technologies, a review of South Coast Air Quality Management Dis-
trict (SCAQMD) source test data was performed. This data was
from actual emissions tests performed by SCAQMD on similar tech-
nologies (i.e., flares, boilers, etc.) used at other landfills in
southern California. Estimates of emissions per million.Btus of
LFG destroyed by each technology were developed from this data
base.
In addition, potential emissions from flares and various resource
technologies were calculated using the maximum gas extraction
rate of approximately 136 million Btus per hour. Flare and in-
ternal combustion engine emissions were estimated using the maxi-
mum emission factor, since the mean emissions factor
developed from many nonhazardous waste landfills was not con-
sidered representative of the situation at Oil.
All of the LFG destruction technologies are estimated to exceed
SCAQMD's new source review requirements for carbon monoxide (550
pounds per day) and nitrogen oxides (100 pounds per day) at the
maximum gas extraction rates using the maximum emission factor.
Therefore, EPA may be required to either establish sufficient ad-
ditional controls on the proposed landfill gas flares to achieve
these requirements, or consider alternative gas incinerator
designs which would allow further emissions controls.
This change constitutes a minor modification of the proposed
remedy. Thermal destruction will still be utilized and this
modification will not significantly affect the cost of the
selected remedy. Additional control equipment for flare emis-
sions could increase the cost of the flare facility by $1 mil-
lion. Use of alternative incinerator designs may increase the
remedy costs by $1 to $2 million. Since the cost of the proposed
remedy was previously estimated at $73 million, with an accuracy
range of -30% to +50%, the cost of the remedy is\not sig-
nificantly affected.
27
-------
Table 5
COST SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE NO. 10
NORTH PARCEL SYSTEM
Short-Term
Capital Costs
_. Coat Items ($1,OOP's)
LFG Gas Extraction System Improvements
New Interior $ 200
Ancillary Items
Protective Equipment 30
Decontamination and Disposal 3
Startup 3
Health and Safety 2
Construction-Related Equipment 14
Bid Contingency (5%) 13
Scope Contingency (10%) 26
Permitting and Legal (5%) 15
Services During Construction (8%) 24
Engineering Design (9%) 30
TOTAL (Rounded) $400
*
Long-Term
O&M Costs
Cost Item ($lfOOOts)
New LFG System $38
TOTAL (Rounded) 38
Note:Order-of-magnitude level estimates (expected accuracy
range of -30 to +50 percent) at annual operation and main-
tenance costs.
LAT3Y/082
-------
If the emissions requirement for landfill gas destruction cannot
practicably be achieved, EPA will invoke the waiver from these
requirements under SABA, on the grounds that compliance with
these requirements would cause more damage to human health and
environment (by preventing collection and destruction of landfill
gas at Oil) than waiving them.
Initial EPA screening results indicate that exposure to the
highest concentrations of pollutants would be expected within ap-
proximately 550 yards (one-half kilometer) from the site. Based
on this initial screening, a location on the North Parcel farther
away from nearby residents is considered to be the most suitable
location for the LFG disposal equipment.
Additional modeling will be performed to account for the effects
of local topography and meteorology on emissions from the LFG
destruction equipment. Detailed modeling will be performed
during the design phase to optimize disposal equipment placement.
Source testing will be performed once a remedy is implemented in
order to collect actual data on emissions and destruction ef-
ficiencies.
PHASING OF ALTERNATIVES
It is anticipated that the selected gas control remedy for the
Oil site will require a phased implementation in order to op-
timize protectiveness, implementability, cost-effectiveness, and
consistency with the final remedy. A conceptual phased implemen-
tation approach is described below. Further consideration of the
implementation strategy will be required during design and.con-
struct ion of the remedy, and may require modification of this
conceptual approach.
PHASE 1A
o The purpose of Phase 1A is to implement perimeter migration
control in the areas of highest priority (along the west,
south and east boundaries of the South Parcel) to reduce the
potential for explosive levels of methane gas to accumulate
in nearby residential neighborhoods. This would be the ini-
tial phase of perimeter control in these areas, to be
complemented by additional well installations, if necessary
during Phase 2.
o The perimeter control system will be installed in areas ac-
cessible around the boundary of the site (this excludes most
of the boundary along the Pomona freeway where no access
28
-------
road exists). The perimeter system will be designed and in-
stalled to be compatible with the final cover for the South
Parcel.
The perimeter system includes multiple completion gas wells
(upper and lower screened intervals) and multi-depth gas
monitoring probe installations. Extraction wells will be
installed in the air dike area. Any potential benefits of
using the air dike system in conjunction with the extraction
wells will be explored.
The flare station site will be prepared and a foundation
constructed which will be adequate to handle the anticipated
equipment needs of the entire gas remedy. Flares and
hardware components to provide adequate capacity for the
initial phase will be installed.
Any existing systems included in the selected remedy would
also be included in the implementation of Phase 1A.
PHASE IB
The purpose of this phase will be to increase the effective-
ness of source control at the site. This increased source
control may improve perimeter migration control, par-
ticularly in the deeper areas of gas migration, and reduce
surface emissions.
Additional interior source control wells will be installed
on the top deck of the South Parcel. Installation will be
designed to be compatible with the final cover for the South
Parcel.
PHASE 2
The purpose of this phase will be to improve gas control in
the priority areas of the landfill perimeter. Cost-
effectiveness will be optimized by limiting the number of
wells installed during the initial phase, and following up
with installation of additional wells only where required to
achieve gas migration control during Phase 2.
Installation of probes and wells in Phases 1A and IB will
also be phased. Additional gas wells and gas probes will be
installed based on an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
initial gas wells. These additional wells will be installed
in areas where gas migration has not been controlled, and
29
-------
where it is considered to be prudent and consistent with the
final remedy to install these wells. Additional flares and
hardware will be installed as necessary.
PHASE 3
The purpose of this phase will be to increase control of
areas of high surface emissions prior to placement of the
final cover in order to reduce the potential for exposure to
the LFG in the ambient air.
A limited number of shallow slope wells will be installed in
areas of particularly high surface emissions. These wells
will be designed to be consistent with the final remedy for
the site. A limited number of wells will be installed
during this phase, since application of final cover should
increase the effectiveness of individual wells. Additional
flares and hardware will be installed at the flare station
as necessary.
PHASE 4
As the final cover (selected in a future ROD) is installed
at the site, it will be integrated with the existing control
systems. The perimeter wells will be installed along the
boundary with the Pomona Freeway. Additional perimeter
wells, slope wells (shallow and, if necessary, deep), and
top deck wells will be installed to achieve the CWMB re-
quirement of less than 5 percent methane at the perimeter,
and the SCAQMD 1150.1 surface emissions requirements of less
than 50 ppm total organic compounds averaged over the sur-
face and less than 500 ppm methane at any point on the sur-
face.
PHASE X
Expand the systems if necessary to control toxic and car-
cinogenic compounds in the gas to health based levels. The
purpose of this phase will be to provide additional LFG con-
trol in areas where levels of hazardous LFG constituents are
still being emitted at concentrations that could cause sig-
nificant impacts to the public health.
30
-------
PHASE Y
o Install Alternative 10 on the north parcel, once it is
determined that the north parcel waste mass will remain in
place. This phase will allow integration of the gas control
remedy for the north parcel with the south parcel control
system.
The selected remedies described in this section are conceptual.
Changes in the actual design and phasing approach may occur
during design and construction. In addition, although analysis
contained in the Feasibility Study and the Administrative Record
indicated that resource recovery options were not expected to be
cost-effective, EPA may decide to implement a resource recovery
component if, in the future, it is determined to be cost-
effective, and consistent with EPA's other decision making
criteria.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy will eliminate the risk of fire or explosion
due to landfill gas accumulating offsite by controlling methane
concentrations to less than*5 percent at the landfill boundary.
Surface emissions and subsurface landfill gas migration will be
reduced as will the potential for exposure to toxic and/or car-
cinogenic compounds contained in the landfill gas at Oil. The
landfill gas destruction facilities will be located and designed
to provide adequate protection of human health and the environ-
ment from emissions which could be expected to occur. Monitoring
of the selected remedy, once operational, will occur as part of
operations and maintenance, the overall RI/FS, and/or 5-year
remedy reviews, to ensure adequate protection of human health and
environment.
Short-term risks associated with the remedy include risks posed
by well installation, and operation and maintenance of the sys-
tem, with the potential for exposure of workers to explosive
levels of methane and high levels of toxic and/or carcinogenic
compounds in the landfill gas. Landfill gas emissions from
drilling activities should dissipate rapidly and are net expected
to cause unacceptable short-term risks offsite. Health and
safety activities will be conducted during construction, and
operations and maintenance activities to ensure adequate protec-
tion of human health and environment. Other short-rterm risks
during construction should be similar to those posed by most
31
-------
heavy construction projects. Construction activities will be
conducted in accordance with applicable health and safety re-
quirements.
Gas wells and probes will be designed to reduce the potential for
cross-contamination of groundwater during construction and opera-
tion. Collection of leachate from saturated zones encountered by
gas wells, and condensate collection from gas pipelines should
reduce potential releases of contaminated liquids from the site.
The potential for landfill gas to contaminate groundwater will
also be reduced by the increased gas collection afforded by the
selected remedy.
No unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media impacts will be
caused by implementation of the remedy.
Attainment of ARARs
The selected remedy will be designed to attain the following ap-
plicable regulations unless otherwise noted. ARARs were iden-
tified from Federal, as well as more stringent promulgated State
environmental and public health laws.
Federal regulations apply to the leachate and condensate that
will be collected from the gas control system. These liquids
will be treated to the POTW pretreatment requirements in com-
pliance with the Clean Water Act at an onsite treatment facility
constructed under EPA's Leachate Management Remedial Action.
Prior to the treatment plant construction these liquids will be
transported to an offsite treatment facility in compliance with
the Department of Transportation (DOT) Rules for the Transporta-
tion of Hazardous Materials, and in compliance with EPA's offsite
disposal policy.
The State of California has the following ARARs which are en-
forced by various agencies:
•
1. Hazardous Waste Control Law (Administered by CA DOHS
under Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30) - The hazardous
waste management requirements of this law are ap-
plicable and will be attained. The closure and post
closure requirements will not be attained by this
operable unit. A waiver is being invoked for this
operable unit since closure and post closure require-
ments will be addressed by subsequent remedial actions
at the site.
32
-------
2. Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of
1972 (Administered by the California Waste Management
Board and Los Angeles DOHS under Title 14, Division 7)
- Requirements for monitoring and reporting for
landfill gas migration, and migration control under
Title 14, Section 17705 - Gas Control are applicable.
A waiver is being invoiced for the Title 14 closure and
post closure requirements since they will be addressed
by subsequent remedial actions at the site.
3. California Air Pollution Control Regulations - Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Hazardous Substances
(Administered by California Air Resources Board under
Title 17, Section 70200.5) - Applicable standard for
ambient concentrations of vinyl chloride not to exceed
10 ppb over a 24-hour period.
4. South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and
Regulations (The California Air Resources Board
delegates state authority to SCAQMD to enforce air
quality in the local basin.)
Regulation IV - Prohibitory Rules
Rule 401 - Visible Emissions - Limits visible emissions
from any point source to Ringleman No. 1 or 20 percent
opacity for 3 minutes in any hour.
Rule 402 - Nuisance - This rule prohibits the discharge
of any material (including odorous compounds) that
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the
public, businesses, or property or endangers human
health, comfort, repose, or safety. The selected
remedy will require application of the final cover in
order to adequately control odors at the site. There-
fore a waiver is invoked for this ARAR since it will be
addressed in subsequent remedial actions.
Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust - This rule limits onsite ac-
tivities such that concentrations of fugitive dust at
the property line shall not be visible and the downwind
particulate concentrations shall not exceed 100
micrograms per cubic meter above upwind concentrations.
Rule 404 - Particulate Matter - This rule limits par-
ticulate emissions to a range of 0.010 to 0.196 grain
per standard cubic foot depending on the .volume of to-
tal stack gases.
33
-------
Rule 407 - Liquid and Gaseous Air Contaminants - This
rule limits carbon monoxide emissions to 2,000 ppm and
sulfur dioxide emissions to 500 ppm. The sulfur
dioxide limit does not apply if the fuel meets the
provisions of Rule 431.1.
Rule 409 - Combustion Contaminants - This rule limits
the emission of combustion contaminants to 0.10 grain
per standard cubic foot at 12 percent carbon dioxide.
Rule 431.1 - Sulfur Content" of Gaseous Fuels - This
rule limits burning of fuel gas that has greater than
800 ppm hydrogen sulfide unless stack gases are cleaned
to below the equivalent concentration.
Regulation XI - Source Specific Standards
Rule 1150.1 - Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active
Landfills - This rule requires installation of a
landfill gas control system and combustion, treatment
and sale, or other equivalent method of landfill gas
disposal. The rule requires perimeter landfill gas
monitoring probes to evaluate offsite migration. It
also limits concentrations of total organic compounds
to 50 ppm over a certain area of the landfill, and.
limits maximum concentration of organic compounds
(measured as methane) to 500 ppm at any point on the
surface of the landfill. A final cover will be re-
quired to comply with this Rule and, therefore, a
waiver is invoked for this operable unit because subse-
quent remedial actions will attain this ARAR.
Regulation XIII - New Source Review
Regulation 13 requires that whenever a permit is re-
quired for a new piece of equipment or modification to
an existing piece of equipment at a facility or a site,
that emissions be controlled using best available con-
trol technology (BACT) and that emissions be offset by
other emissions reductions at the same facility or
other nearby facilities. BACT is a series of emissions
limits, process, and equipment specific requirements
[see definition at 1301(e)]. The SIP is reviewed by
the State Air Resources Board and the EPA for com-
pliance under the Federal Clean Air Act. The net al-
lowable cumulative increase in emissions are detailed
in SCAQMD Rule 1303 and 1306.
34
-------
Under SCAQMD Rule 1304(b)(2), there is an exemption
from the offset requirements at 1303(b)(2)(C) for a
landfill gas control or processing facility. The ex-
emption waives the requirement to find enough criteria
emissions offsets if the owner or applicant for the
permit has: (1) provided all required offsets available
by modifying sources owned; or (2) demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the SCAQMD Executive Officer that the
owner or applicant neither owns, nor operates other
facilities within the district that could be modified
to provide such offsets.
The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is reviewed by the
State Air Resources Board and the EPA for compliance
•under the Federal Clean Air Act. However, EPA has not
approved the exemption from the offset requirement, nor
is such an exemption approvable as part of the SIP (40
CFR 51.165). Therefore, the offset requirement as con-
tained in the SIP applies.
Moreover, on August 31, 1988, a moratorium on construc-
tion or modification of major stationary sources of
carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds went
into effect (53 FR 1780; 40 CFR 52.24). A major source
is defined as one which emits or has the potential to
emit in excess of 100 tons per year of a specified pol-
lutant. Flares may be considered to have the potential
to emit in excess of 100 tons of CO per year.
Additional ARARs for Resource Recovery Equipment
1. SCAQMD Regulation IV - Prohibitory Rules
Rule 474 - Fuel-Burning Equipment Oxides of Nitrogen -
This rule limits the concentration of oxides of
nitrogen to a range of 125 to 300 ppm for gaseous fuels
depending on maximum gross heat input.
Rule 476 - This rule applies to boilers larger than 50
million BTU per hour. Oxides of nitrogen may not
exceed 125 ppm, combustion contaminants may not exceed
11 pounds per hour and 0.01 grains per standard cubic
foot.
35
-------
ftrture ARARs
Because of the failure of the South Coast Air Basin to
attain the ozone and carbon monoxide standard by the
statutory deadline, EPA has'been required by the courts
to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) which
vould expeditiously achieve those standards. Since EPA
has not yet proposed a FIP, no FIP requirements apply
to the Oil gas control remedial action at the present
time. However, EPA may promulgate a final FIP within
one year. The FIP will likely contain additional
stringent requirements for new and existing sources.
Some of these requirements may apply to the Oil gas
control remedial action. Also, such requirements may
constitute ARARs at the time of the 5-year review, and
may necessitate further controls.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy affords overall effectiveness proportional to
its cost such that the remedy represents a reasonable value for
the money. When the relationship between cost and overall effec-
tiveness of the selected remedy is viewed in light of the
relationship between cost and overall effectiveness afforded by
the other alternatives, the selected remedy appears to be cost-
effective. The selected remedy provides protection of public
health and environment that exceeds that of Alternatives 0
through 4, and is equivalent to the protection offered by Alter-
natives 5 through 8 (when integrated with Alternative 10). The
two resource recovery alternatives (6 and 8) were found not to be
cost-effective. The benefit to cost ratios for these two alter-
natives were less than one, indicating that the net costs of im-
plementation and operation and maintenance would be increased
rather than reduced by these alternatives. The 30 year present
worth costs of Alternatives 5 and 7 (combined with Alternative 10
to- provide similar degrees of protection) are estimated at $91
million and $97 million respectively compared to $73 million for
the selected remedy. The estimated present worth cost of the
selected remedy is equivalent to the estimated present worth cost
of Alternative 4 combined with Alternative 10, which provides
less control of subsurface gas migration and surface emissions
(with the potential for explosive levels of landfill gas to con-
tinue migrating offsite) than the selected remedy.
36
-------
Utilization of Permanent; Solutions and Alternative Treatment for
Resource Recovery) Technologies to the Max.|iyi]n Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
The landfill gas which is collected by the selected remedy will
be incinerated in flares. The flares or other gas incinerators
represent a permanent solution for landfill gas destruction be-
cause the methane is burned and over 99 percent of the hazardous
constituents in the gas stream are destroyed. Most of the
remaining emissions from the flares are susceptible to ultra-
violet degradation.
Several resource recovery options were evaluated in the
Feasibility Study, however, it was determined not to be prac-
ticable to implement resource recovery technologies at this time.
Resource recovery was determined not to- be practicable due to the
local utility company's (Southern California Edison) electrical
capacity surplus, and the low anticipated electrical buy-back
rates during the life of a resource recovery project. Other
resource recovery technologies which did not involve electrical
generation were- also evaluated in the FS but were found not to be
practicable due to high cost, technical feasibility, market con-
siderations, etc.
If, in the future, the situation changes and resource recovery
becomes a viable option at the site, the EPA will reconsider im-
plementing a resource recovery component.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element -
The selected remedy satisfies the preference for treatment to ad-
dress principal threats posed by the site (within the scope of
the operable unit). It is estimated that 90 percent of the
methane gas produced at the site (as well as the associated toxic
and carcinogenic compounds contained in the gas stream) will be
collected by the selected remedy. This represents a 78 percent
reduction in the volume of methane gas currently escaping from
the site. The gas will be incinerated using landfill gas flares
or other incinerators which have a destruction efficiency of over
99 percent for most of the hazardous compounds in the landfill
gas. In addition, leachate and condensate (hazardous liquids)
collected by the gas control system will be treated under EPA's
Leachate Management Remedial Action. Therefore, the selected
remedy will reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the
landfill gas, leachate, and condensate through the use of extrac-
tion, collection, and treatment.
37
-------
Additional information concerning EPA's remedy selection criteria
ia included in the Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alterna-
tive!! Section oFthis ROD; and in the OUFS, and the Administra-
tive Record.
38
-------
PERFORMANCE OF REMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
AT UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES (REM II)
LEACHATE MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC. LANDFILL SITE
MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA
December 30, 1987
U.S. EPA Contract No.: 68-01-6939
EPA Work Assignment No.: 21-9L58
REM II Document No.: 120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
Prepared by:
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
2302 Martin Street, Suite 275
Irvine, California 92715
-------
PERFORMANCE OF REMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
AT UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES (REM II)
U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6939
LEACHATE MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY
Operating Industries Inc. Landfill Site
Monterey Park, CA
December 30, 1987
EPA Work Assignment No. 21-9L58
REM II Document No. 120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
Prepared by:
Wesley Blood "' /
Project Manager /
/
Approved
' \ Q',l,
by; vQai/^ Y '*<>'_
IE
Wayne Pickus
Site Manager
Date
Approved by;
Michael C. Richards
Regional Manager
/ / / *// C
l>ate
Approved by;
J. Steven Paquette
Project Operations Manager
/Date'
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 SITE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND . 1-2
1.2 WASTE TYPES 1-6
1.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF LEACHATE PROBLEM 1-6
1.3.1 Leachate Seepage/Migration 1-6
1.3.2 Leachate Control 1-11
1.3.3 Leachate Volume 1-14
1.4 LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION . 1-17
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTIONS 1-21
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS IDENTIFICATION 2-1
2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES 2-1
2.2.1 On-Site Treatment 2-1
2.2.2 On-Site Disposal 2-4
2.2.3 Off-Site Treatment • 2-5
2.2.4 Off-Site Disposal 2-6
2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 2-6
2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs) 2-7
2.4.1 Federal ARARs 2-7
2.4.2 State ARARs . 2-8
2.4.3 Permits 2-10
2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 2-10
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
SECTION - PAGE
3.0 INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 3-1
3.1 CRITERIA FOR INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL
ACTION ALTERNATIVES 3-1
3.2 INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES 3-2
3.2.1 No Action/Endangecxnent Assessment 3-2
3.2.2 Off-Site Treatment 3-42
3.2.3 Off-Site Disposal 3-45
3.2.4 On-Site.Disposal 3-47
3.2.5 On-Site Treatment - 3-48
3.2.6 Summary of Alternative Screening 3-54
4.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SELECTED REMEDIAL
ACTION ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 OFF-SITE TREATMENT OF LEACHATE 4-2
4.1.1 Technical Discussion of Off-Site Treatment 4-2
4.1.2 Safety and Public Health Protection 4-5
4.1.3 Institutional Requirements 4-6
4.1.4 Environmental Impacts 4-7
4.1.5 Alternate Off-Site Treatement at
Oil Process Company 4-8
4.2 ON-SITE TREATMENT OF LEACHATE 4-8
4.2.1 Technical Discussion of On-Site Treatment 4-8
4.2.2 Safety and Public Health Protection 4-27
4.2.3 Institutional Requirements 4-32
4.2.4 Environmental Impacts 4-36
4.? EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES BASED ON COST 4-37
4.3.1 Capital Cost Estimates 4-38
4.3.2 Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost 4-41
4.3.3 Present Worth Analysis 4-42
5.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 5-1
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
'REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
APPENDIX B: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC.
APPENDIX C: Oil LANDFILL SITE LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
APPENDIX D: ON-SITE TREATMENT PLANT CONFIGURATION - ALTERNATIVE 5
APPENDIX E: Oil LEACHATE JAR TESTS
APPENDIX F: REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX G: SITING CONSIDERATION AND COST ANALYSIS OF THE ON-SITE
TREATMENT FACILITY -
APPENDIX H: MONTEREY PARK RESOLUTIONS 60-58
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Summary of Initial Screening of Alternatives ES-5
2 Leachate Treatment Alternative Summary ES-6
1-1 Waste Quantities 1-7
1-2 Generic Liquid Waste Types
Disposed at Oil (1976-1984) 1-8
2-1 Treatment Technologies 2-4
2-2 Effluent Discharge Limits 2-11
3-1 Representative Chemicals of Concern 3-11
3-2 Classification of PAHs According to Evidence for
Carcinogenicity 3-29
3-3 Potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements • 3-38
3-4 Summary of Initial Screening of Alternatives * 3-54
4-1 Air Stripping Design 4-21
4-2 Screening Risk Analysis 4-30
4-3 Estimated Capital Costs 4-40
4-4 Estimated Annual Costs 4-43
4-5 Present Worth Analysis 4-44
5-la,b Summary of Alternatives 5-4,5
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
ES-1 Location Map ' ES-2
1-1 Location Hap 1-3
1-2 Landfill Area Permitted for Liquid Waste Disposal 1-5
1-3 Areas of Leachate Seeps 1-10
1-4 Leachate Collection System 1-12
1-5 Record of Leachate Pumped 1-15
4-1 ChemTech Leachate Treatment Process 4-3
4-2 Alternative 2 Treatment Plant Process Train ' 4-10
4-3 Alternative 3 Treatment Plant Process Train 4-12
4-4 Alternative 5 Treatment Plant Process Train Preliminary 4-13
4-5 Alternative 6 Treatment Plant Process Train 4-14
• •
4-6 On-Site Treatment Plant Layout General Layout 4-16
C—l On-Site Treatment Facility Alternative Locations G-2
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-3
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EPA conducted the Leachate Management Feasibility Study (LMFS) to identify
and evaluate various alternatives for managing leachate collected at the
Operating Industries, Inc. (Oil) Superfund site, which can be implemented
prior to the completion of the overall Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS). The purpose of this document is to elicit comments from the
public, and state and local agencies, prior to EPA's decision on what
leachate management action to take. This decision will address leachate
management until the final remedial action for the site is implemented.
Improvements to the leachate collection system will be addressed separately
through continuing site control activities, and the on-going overall RI/FS
for the site. The overall RI/FS will take several years to complete and
implement. During this period, site conditions and problems will be better
defined and remedial action alternatives will be developed to address the
broad range of problems associated with the site.
Background
The Oil landfill is a 190-acre Superfund site located in Monterey Park,
California. The landfill was operated from 1948 to 1984, and was used for
disposal of municipal and industrial waste. The landfill contains hazard-
ous wastes and hazardous substances, and was listed on the National Priori-
ties List (NPL) as a CERCLA (Superfund) site in 1986 (see Figure ES-1).
A leachate collection system was installed by Operating Industries in the
early 1980s to control off-site and on-site surface seeps and has subse-
quently been expanded. The leachate is presently collected and stored in
tanks ("Baker" tanks) on-site until it is removed by vacuum trucks.and
transported off-site for treatment and sewering. The leachate is a
hazardous waste containing oil and grease, heavy metals, and volatile and
semi-volatile organic compounds.
ES-1
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
• 1- ••'. . .'•' . ,-j ' -' •' •- ' , ; 7*V. •"'•,«™.^«a-J . !- •
....-:'.i -•-../•:•/««•• • ••' V < -'.i/Uf***.. '—' x-«.»-.
,'• •:-'-: ;/V:- s!"#**- :-.- ^ -^..'*;f*rZjf "V^. ^rr-.-J
• • V;'. ••• >^ 'v**r' :.-. >%A 1-^3-r /•'- •*^W 'K •
^^i.-'r .f'-'jxf^if ' %r^A^ ^.5^.^-H
-:^--^.^5i;.; /^^t^^v^^S
""• ':**'-"--%-jftiiLS^^^-^:^V!i' A-;" ^^ft^i^i^iJ
' ' * • -'' ^Vi^^S?!-^' v>r<^-n 'V ~4.-~f&^*^^-> •' M
• ^;::;/^BMSsaraSe^^^r^^SS8!^^^
* •' 'r
v.i-;fri-T"'- • V **"*'' ••
SITE VICINITY MAP
OH Industries Landfill
LOCATION MAP
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
120-RI2-BT-FQJO-1
-------
Overview of the Feasibility Study
Identification of Response Actions and Technologies;
•
General types of remedial actions were identified from which alternatives
for managing the leachate could be developed. On-site treatment, off-site
treatment, on-site disposal, and off-site disposal were all considered
potential actions for management of leachate collected at the site. Tech-
nologies for each type of action were screened to determine which would be
effective for the specific conditions present at the Oil site. Those that
were considered technically feasible were developed into remedial technolo-
gies for further screening and evaluation. A "no action" alternative was
considered as a baseline against which other alternatives could be
compared.
Four types of on-site treatment technologies were considered. Incineration
and biological treatment were eliminated from further evaluation due to
technical considerations. Chemical and physical treatment technologies
were identified which would be effective for treating the Oil leachate.
Six treatment processes were developed from these technologies which
provided varying degrees of treatment and emissions control. These
processes were further screened and evaluated in the study.
Two on-site disposal technologies were identified; land application, and
evaporation in lined ponds. Land application (recycling of the leachate)
was eliminated from further consideration based on technical concerns.
Evaporation in lined ponds was further screened and evaluated in the study.
Both off-site treatment, and off-site disposal (without treatment) were
considered further. No action was also considered further to provide a
baseline for comparison of the other alternatives.
Initial Screening
The technologies were assembled as alternatives to be^screened and
evaluated. The alternatives included:
ES—3
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
o on-site treatment
- six on-site treatment processes;
o on-site disposal (without treatment)
- evaporation in lined ponds
o off-site treatment
- leachate trucked to off-site treatment facility;
o off-site disposal (without treatment)
- leachate trucked to off-site disposal facility;
o no action
- no operation of the leachate collection system,
no removal of leachate from the collection tanks.
These alternatives were screened based on the effectiveness of protection
of public health and environment, and on cost. Based on this initial
screening, five alternatives were eliminated. Two on-site treatment pro-
cesses, on-site disposal, and no action were eliminated due to public
health and environmental concerns. Off-site disposal was eliminated due to
public health and environmental concerns, as well as cost. A summary of
the results of the initial screening of alternatives is presented in Table 1,
Detailed Evaluation
Only off-site treatment, and on-site treatment were evaluated further.
Off-site treatment and the four on-site treatment processes were evaluated
in detail, based on technical feasibility, institutional and public health
requirements, and environmental impacts. A detailed cost analysis was also
conducted. The present worth costs of the alternatives were compared at
discount rates of 6% and 8% over operational periods of five years and
thirty years. A five-year period was chosen to assure consistency with the
final remedy, expected to be implemented in approximately five years. A
summary of the results of this detailed evaluation, using a discount rate
of 6% is presented in Table 2.
ES-4
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Results of Initial Screening
Reason for Elimination
No Action
Off-site treatment
Off-site disposal
On-site disposal
On-site treatment
Alt.2 - Gravity separation, coagulation
addition, DAF, filtration, air
stripping with off-gas treatment
sewer disposal
Alt.3 - Same as Alt.2 with GAC replacing
-air stripping/off-gas treatment
Alt.4 - Same as Alt.3 with air stripping
without off-gas treatment added
prior to GAC
Alt.5 - Same as Alt.4 with off-gas treat-
ment added
Alt.6 - Same as Alt.5 with UF/RO added and
reuse of effluent
Eliminated
Consider further
Eliminated
Eliminated
Alt.l - Gravity separation sewer disposal Eliminated
Consider further
Consider further
Eliminated
Consider further
Consider further
Potential adverse public health and
environmental effects
Potential adverse public health
effects, EPA policy, permanency,
cost
Potential adverse public health
effects, permanency
Potential adverse health and
environmental effects, permanency
Potential adverse health effects,
permanency
ES-S
120-W2-BT-FOJO-1
-------
I»IIE 2 - EIECUW1
IlilEMR IEACHAIE I«(,l1«hl M.UM&IIVE S'JWMt fOf: IUE Oil UKOFIll SUE - SUE I
WIERK-.IIVE
COS! (II.WJI
CAPIIli PttSEKI UORIN I il
5 W 5 Tl JO VR
COUCERUS
CONCEMIS
COUCERNS
RESPONSE
CONCERNS
CONCEMS
IOACIIOH
OFF-SUE IREAtr-UI
ON-SIIE IPiAIHENI
Unacctplabli uposuri to
liackati ligrating
oll-siti. Potintial ttiltk
risks dii to liacbatf iipasin.
Polintial lor nidisprtad
fnvironitnlal contaoiiatioo.
M i,IM 22,171 Potmtial for twain nposirt Potiotial lor tirlaci aid Rtliakility
dvi to spilla|i ol Itackite
during loading, unloading,
transport aid triatitat.
Eiposiri to air Missions.
coot an iat ion dui
to spillagt during tr import.
UnaccipUkli
tcctptablt
Doll not nit MARt.
Hitti ARARs il lacility
. oprrattd io conplianct.
No control o«ir
toiplianci.
21 Ckuical kit., OAF, 1,842 4,212 9,922
liltratitr., air stripping
Potential lor spills
during trtatotnt, butter,
spills rauld bt lully
containid at thi lacility.
Riiiinal cllicts during'
co.istruction.
Hay not rioovt orgaiict to Plant location,
ai acciptabli Iml. . mthttic iipact,
ooisi, odors,
sality.
Hay lot otit ARARs. Hay
not riciivt approval
lor discbargi.
II (helical a
-------
Preferred Alternative
On-site treatment is EPA's preferred alternative. This alternative, unlike
off-site trucking of untreated leachate, reduces potential health and
environmental impacts which could be caused by a truck accident, or a spill
at the point of loading or unloading. Operation of an on-site treatment
plant would be more reliable due to EPA control of all phases of the treat-
ment process from leachate storage on-site, to control of the treatment
process, and storage and testing of treated water prior to discharge. EPA
control of treatment plant design would enable construction of a treatment
plant with safety features to prevent and contain potential spills, and
control emissions from the plant to prevent odors and reduce noise.
In addition to the public health and environment, and reliability consider-
ations, on-site treatment is also the least costly alternative. EPA has no
control over off-site treatment costs, and if rates were to increase,
off-site treatment would become even more costly. In addition, if EPA
chose an off-site treatment plant which was to go out of business, or had a
significant violation of regulations, EPA would be forced to look for a
different-leachate management alternative.
EPA identified four potential sites for on-site treatment facilities, which
are presented in Appendix G. An additional site was also identified based
on discussions with representatives of Monterey Park and Mbntebello. This
site is also identified in Appendix G. Although specific cost estimates
were not prepared for this site, it is anticipated that plant costs would
be similar to those for other sites.
EPA released the draft Leachate Management Feasibility Study in March 1987
for public comment. The initial comment period was held from March 9 to
April 13, 1987. In order to make sure that adequate review time was
provided, EPA reopened and extended the public comment period through May
11, 1987. A responsiveness summary was prepared to accompany the Record of
Decision consisting of a review and summary of the comments received on the
Feasibility Study and including EPA's responses to these comments.
ES-7
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
EPA is conducting this study to identify response actions and develop and
evaluate alternatives for managing leachate collected at the Operating
Industries, Inc. (Oil) landfill site, which can be implemented prior to the
completion of the overall Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
By addressing leachate management separately from the overall RI/FS, this
study will enable the EPA to identify the best alternative for managing the
leachate until the RI/FS is completed. The leachate is a hazardous waste.
The overall RI/FS will take several years to complete and implement.
During this period, site conditions and problems will be better defined,
and remedial action alternatives will be developed to address the broad
range of problems associated with the site. The leachate management
alternative which is selected from this study must be consistent with the
remedial action which will be identified in the overall RI/FS; To assure
this consistency, alternatives selected from this study should not prevent
implementation of a future remedial action, and will have the potential to
be incorporated in a future remedial action.
This study will assess the feasibility of leachate management alternatives
using the criteria of adequacy of protection of public health, -welfare and
the environment; cost effectiveness; and consistency with the final site
remedy. Federal and state applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) will be identified and used in the formulation and
screening of alternatives.
Improvements to the leachate collection system are not addressed in this
study, but will be addressed separately through continuing site control
activities, and the overall RI/FS for the site. Site control improvements
to the collection system will be implemented prior to the conclusion of the
overall RI/FS.
1-1
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
The feasibility study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions
of the Super fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
(42 U.S.C.960.1, et seq.) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The
•U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) document Guidance on
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA has also been followed.
Data and information used in preparing the feasibility study were obtained
from the following sources:
o Initial Remedial Measures for the Operating Industries, Inc.
Site, RI/FS, November 11, 1985, Woodward-Clyde;
o Leachate bench-scale treatability studies performed by Camp
Dresser & McKee Inc., 1986 (Appendix E);
o Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill Site Closure Plan (draft),
October 1983, Lockman & Associates;
o' Analysis of the Oil leachate from 1983 to 1986 (Appendix C): and
o Interview and discussions with individuals knowledgeable about
the landfill's operations (listed in Appendix A).
l.l SITE LOCATION AND BACKGROUND
The Oil Landfill is a 190-acre facility located at 900 Potrero Grande
Drive, Monterey Park (Los Angeles County), California as shown in Figure
1-1. California Highway 60 (Pomona Freeway), built in 1974, divides the
site into a 45-acre north parcel and a 145-acre south parcel.
Prior to the use of the site as a landfill (1948).the area was being
quarried for sands and gravels. From 1948 to 1952 the site was used
primarily to dispose of municipal garbage. In 1952, the landfill site came
under the ownership of the Monterey Park Disposal Company which later
became Oil. From 1952 to 1984 the site was operated as a trash dump and
industrial waste landfill.
In 1975, the Monterey Park City Council limited disposal at the landfill to
the area south of the Pomona Freeway. In 1976, the Los Angeles Regional
1-2
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
LANDFILL
. » i '. -«f~
•• f-*^ ' ' ••. '-
1000 2000
SITE VICINITY MAP
Project No
120-RI2
Oil Industries Landfill
LOCATION MAP
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc
-------
Water Quality Control Board (FWQCB) limited the disposal of liquid wastes
to the western most portion of the south parcel, (see Figure 1-2), and
FWQCB required monitoring and reporting of all wastes, including liquids
disposed of at the site. Prior to 1976, there was little or no monitoring,
accounting or reporting required. The site contains wastes characterized
as hazardous by the California Department of Health Services (DOHS) and the
EPA.
In 1980, Oil applied to the DOHS for a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit with
the intent to comply with Section 3010 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). On December 18, 1981, DOHS granted Oil an Interim
Status Document (ISD). The interim status permitted Oil to continue
operating and receiving hazardous wastes. The ISD specified the require-
ments that Oil would have to comply with in order to gain a RCRA Part B
permit. Inspections conducted by the DOHS and the EPA during August and
December of 1982 found the Oil facility in violation of several ISD
provisions. Rather than making the capital expenditures to bring the
facility into full ISD compliance and to file an application for the RCRA
Part B permit, in January of 1983, Oil declared its plan to cease accepting
hazardous liquid wastes for disposal.
Prior to January of 1983, problems had been developing at the site.
Methane gas was migrating off site and leachate bleeds or seeps were
observed at several locations on the face of the landfill. Of great
concern to the public were leachate seeps migrating beyond the landfill
boundary into adjacent properties. Furthermore, residential neighborhoods
adjacent to the landfill had registered numerous odor complaints. Recog-
nizing the landfill as a potential threat to public health, welfare, and
the environment, the State of California placed the Oil landfill on their
list of Priority Hazardous Waste Sites in January of 1984. In October of
1984, the Oil landfill was proposed for the EPA National Priority List
(NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Oil site was officially
added to the NPL in May of 1986. Appendix B contains a detailed historical
background of the Oil facility.
1-4
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
-N-
Cttr of Monterey Par*
NORTH PARCEL
O8FQM
FacMy
^
V \
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
CRWQCB OnMr #76-133)
\
^
x)
./ ,-
SOUTH PARCEL
I
City of Monltfttffe
rier
Projecl No.
120-RI2
OH Industries Landfill
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
LANDFILL AREA
PERMITTED FOR
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL
Figure
1-2
-------
1.2 WASTE TYPES
Solid wastes, sludges, slurry and liquid wastes have been disposed of at
the Oil landfill site dating back to 1948. The south parcel was in contin-
uous use from 1958 to 1984, and operated under a variance (Resolution
60-58, October 7, 1958) issued by the City of Monterey Park. In the vari-
ance, the types of acceptable and non-acceptable wastes and methods of
disposal are defined (see Appendix H). The permitted types of waste
acceptable for disposal at the site did not change during the remainder of
land-filling operations. However, the KWQCB in 1976 (order #76-30)
increased the allowable ratio of liquid waste to uncompacted rubbish from
10 gallons per cubic yard to 20 gallons per cubic yard. There is no infor-
mation on the types of solid wastes disposed of in the landfill.
*
Table 1-1 shows annual waste quantities and average ratios reported monthly
by Oil to -the KWQCB. During the reporting period of 1976-84, over 285 .
million gallons of liquid wastes were disposed of at the site. Table 1-2
shows the generic type of liquid wastes comprising the 285 million gallons
and their approximate percentages.
•
In addition, many hazardous wastes may have been disposed of at Oil that
were improperly or not clearly described on the Oil monthly reports, or
were disposed of illegally without manifests.
1.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF LEACHATE PROBLEM
1.3.1 LEACHATE SEEPAGE/MIGRATION
Leachate is a liquid that forms within landfills as a result of the
following processes: (1) rainfall and drainage that percolates into the
landfill; (2) liquid wastes disposed of in landfill; and (3) biodegradation
of organic waste disposed of in the landfill. When the volume of leachate
exceeds the absorption capacity of the dry solids and soil, it will accumu-
late in the voids and pockets of the landfill. Leachate tends to percolate
downward within the landfill until relatively impervious layers are encoun-
tered. Hydraulic gradients can be produced which cause leachate to move
1-6
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE 1-1
WASTE QUANTITIES*
Date .
19761
19772
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
19832
19843
Solids
(tons)
429,956
533,230
524,415
476,483
419,587
289,925
Data not
264,127
133,821
Solids
(volume, cu yd)
2,863,506
3,554,852
3,401,575
3,018,467
2,797,640
1,933,466
available
1,760,453
892,140
Liquid
(volume, gal)
27,000,000
65,360,898
60,919,152
56,470,680
42,607,320
20,307,000
9,186,711
3,767,400
285,620,000
Gallons of
Liquid per cu yd
of solid waste
9.42
18.39
17.91
18.71
15.23
10.50
5.21
4.22
* for 6.5 months
for 11 months
for 6 months
*Data from Oil monthly reports to PWQCB
1-7
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
TABLE 1-2
GENERIC LIQUID WASTE TYPES
DISPOSED OF AT Oil FROM 1976-1984
(% figures are approximate values based on general
descriptions appearing on Oil monthly reports to the RWQCB)
Mud and water
Mud, water and oil
Drilling mud
Tank bottom
Latex wastes
Paint sluge
Coolant....
Carbon black and water.,
Remaining generic types.
60 %
12 %
4 %
6 %
2 %
2 %
1.5%
1 %
11.5%
Alkaline solution
Aluminum sludge and flocculent
Animal fat and water
Asbestos pulp and water
Asphalt and water
Brake fluid
Brine
Burnishing media
Burner (baghouse) dust
Carpet material and water
CAT CR catalyst
Caustic soda
Caustic solution
Cement and water
Ceramic glaze
Cleaning compound
Coconut
Corn syrup
Creosote
Dairy wastes
Diamogion silica
Dough and water
FCC fines and water
Fiber glass
Film gelatin
Filter clay
Fish and water
Food processing wastes
Glass dust and water
Glue and water
Grease waste and water
Ink and water
Lime and water
Lint and water
Liquor
Metal dust and water
Mineral water
Molasses and water
Nickel, copper and water
Oxides (Al, Pb, si, Zr)
Organic waste
Perlite
Petroleum industry sludge
Plastic dust
Polymer sludge
Rain water
Resin, PVC and water
Rouge and water
Rust sludge
Sand and water
Sawdust and water
Settling basin sludge
Slurry
Soap and water
Sodium silicate
Starch and water
Stretford solution
Sulfur fines in water
Tank sludge
Tar pit sludge
Tile glaze
Waste paper
Waste water
Wax (polishing compound) and water
Welding flux
1-8
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
horizontally and appear as surface bleeds or seeps on the face of the land-
fill. Leachate seeps usually occur where the landfill soil cover is the
thinnest, such as the toe of terraced slopes. If uncontrolled, the leach-
ate may migrate from the landfill site as surface runoff (as the result of
seeps) or percolate downward through underlying materials into saturated
zones and contaminate groundwater.
Leachate seeps have been observed at several locations on the landfill
dating back to 1982. The worst of the seepage has occurred in the
southwest perimeter of the south parcel. Figure 1-3 shows the landfill
areas where seepage has been observed. As can be seen in the figure, three
of the four seepage areas are near the perimeter of the area where liquid
wastes were disposed of during the 1976 to 1984 period. The arrows depict
«
the approximate locations where liquids have been noted in properties
beyond the landfill boundary. The seeps in the Zguala Park area have been
of sufficient quantity to flow across the sidewalk adjacent to a park area
and into the road. The liquid was thought to be leachate because it was
observed to have an "oily sheen" and it discolored the sidewalk. Seeps
were sampled and analyzed by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District in March 1983 and by the Department of Health Services in October
1983. Various organic and inorganic constituents were identified which
suggest that the liquid was leachate. These seeps, as they occur, will be
sampled and analyzed as a part of the EPA's ongoing RI/FS.
The leachate seepage and off-site migration into adjacent properties is a
major concern. The Oil landfill leachate, as specified by RCRA and
codified in the Federal Register (40 CFR 261.3), is a hazardous waste. As
such, it poses a serious threat to public health and welfare and to the
environment. Further discussion of the potential impacts are presented in
the No Action/Endangerment Assessment section.
1.3.2 LEACHATE CONTROL
Action has been undertaken at the landfill to control and prevent leachate
seeps from occurring. Construction of a leachate collection system by Oil
began in the early 1980s, in response to an order from the State of
California. As the seepage problems worsened, Oil was directed (AQMD
1-9
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
-N-
Cftr of Monterey Par*
NORTH PARCEL
LEGEND
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA QAS CO.
UQUD WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
(RWOCBOrdW
City of Montcbcffe
IQUALA PARK
Are
Vg
eas of Leachata Seeps
ratlon to Ollslta Properties
roject No
120-RI2
OH Industries Landfill
Camp
& McKee Inc.
AREAS OF
LEACHATE SEEPS
Flgure
1-3
-------
Abatement Order 42121-1, April 1983) to expand the existing collection
system, and, wherever a new seep was observed, it was to be brought tinder
control within a 48-hour period.
•
The present leachate control system at the 01r site is a combination of
french drains (trenches), collection wells, sumps, pumps, leachate lines,
underground collection tanks, and above-ground Baker storage tanks. The
existing leachate collection system can be divided into five different
geographical areas. Referring to Figure 1-4, Area I on the southeast side
of the site consists of trenches, perforated pipes and leachate disposal
wells drilled into dry refuse. Liquid waste disposal was not legally
permitted on this portion of the landfill. However, there have been
leachate seeps. Since the installation of the Area I collection system no
surface seepage has occurred in this area.
The Area II leachate collection system consists of the six Iguala wells.
The Iguala wells were installed to prevent leachate seeps in the Iguala
Park area southwest of the Oil boundary. The wells are 70 to 80 feet deep,
generally extending through approximately 10 to 15 feet of landfill rubbish
and into native earth material. The wells were equipped with electrically
powered submersible pumps. Leachate collected from the wells is pumped
into a collection manifold pipe connecting the six.wells to the underground
tanks in leachate collection Area III. There are five other wells in Area
II that are not connected to the collection system. In the past, leachate
has been pumped from these wells into vacuum trucks. There is no record of
pumping for the past several years. Two new collection wells have been
installed as part of EPA's Expedited Response Actions for the site. These
wells are part of the collection system installed to prevent seeps in the
Iguala Park area, and are located 50 feet on either side of well ttL-18.
Additionally, two gas extraction wells (3-7 and 3-9) have been outfitted
with pumps and will be used as leachate extraction wells. The wells are
northwest of Area II.
1-11
120-RI2-RT-PQJD-1
-------
I
-M-
Cftjr of Monterey'Perk
/
r
£
NORTH PARCEL
— «• F»*
pot*0"*!.--
, AREA I
j&OUTH PARCEL
\ ' '
*»•«• Ground
••k»r tletaa*
Project No.
120-RI2
Oil Industries Landfill
Camp Dres^r & McKee Inc.
LEACHATE Flgure
COLLECTION SYSTEM 1-4
-------
The leachate collection system in Area III, on the southwest corner of the
site, consists of a series of buried, perforated pipes and trenches dis-
charging into three buried steel tanks. The buried steel tanks consists of
one 3,500 gallon tank which has the upper part of both ends perforated, an
8,000 gallon tank and a 10,000 gallon tank. Each tank can be individually
pumped out. The tanks are resting in a gravel bed which can also be pumped
to remove local leachate collected within the gravel bed surrounding the
tanks. The 3,500 gallon tank, with perforations in the upper part of each
end, is for collecting leachate in the gravel bed surrounding the cluster
of tanks. All three tanks are from old vacuum trucks and do not meet
current regulations for buried tanks. EPA plans to replace these tanks as
part of a separate action.
*
Southwest and down-slope of the buried tanks, along the boundary of Oil, is
a french drain system which flows to a 36-inch diameter gravel sump.
Leachate is pumped from the sump to the buried tanks.
Leachate collected in the buried tanks in Area III is pumped to three
20,000 gallon, above-ground Baker storage tanks located in the vicinity of
the surge tower in Area IV. Leachate is removed from the storage tanks by
a vacuum truck and transported off-site for treatment and disposal. During
the period from April 1983 through October 1984, the leachate was trucked
to and disposed of by Oil in the active landfill working area in the
western portion designated for liquid waste disposal. Oil was ordered by
the State of California to cease this practice in September, 1984.
The main leachate collection system in Area IV on the west side of the site
is similar to the system in Area III, consisting of perforated pipe and
trenches which feed to a 36-inch diameter sump in the vicinity of the surge
tower. Leachate is pumped from the sump by two air lift pumps into the
surge tower. The surge tower serves as a standpipe providing adequate head
to gravity flow leachate into the buried tanks in Area III.
The leachate collection system in Area V is very similar to the system in
Area I, consisting of trenches, perforated pipe and leachate disposal wells
drilled into dry refuse. It is believed that leachate seeps occurred in
this area during the stock piling of dirt immediately up-slope. When the
dirt was removed, the leachate seeps disappeared.
1-13
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Repairs and improvements to the existing leachate collection system will be
made by EPA as part of the Site Control and Monitoring remedial action,
prior to the implementation of the leachate management remedy.
1.3.3 LEACHATE VOLUME
For the purposes of comparing management alternatives, an estimate was
developed of the volumes of leachate/liquid that will be collected and
require treatment and/or disposal. When the expanded leachate collection
system was put into operation in April of 1983, the collected leachate was
disposed back into the landfil-1. This procedure continued until October of
1984. During this period, no on-site hauling records were maintained.
General estimates were made by Oil as to the frequency which the storage
tanks were evacuated. From these estimates an average daily collection
rate of 30,000 gallons was approximated. Starting in October 1984, when
the collected leachate was hauled off-site, trucking manifests were
required. The leachate volumes presented in Figure 1-5 were developed from
actual trucking manifest data provided by Lockman and Associates and
Ecology & Environment. Figure 1-5 depicts a running four-week average of
the estimated daily collection rate, based upon the volumes of leachate
pumped from the storage tanks and trucked off-site.
A running four-week average was used in order to smooth out the variability
associated with the pumping of the storage tanks. An examination of the 20
months of recorded pumpage doesn't show a marked "wet season" increase in
the rate of leachate collection. As more data becomes available, it will
be analyzed for "wet season" impacts. By providing on-site leachate
storage, it is believed that wet season increases in leachate collection
can be adequately managed.
Leachate was collected by Oil at a rate of 25,000 to 30,000 gallons per day
during the period from April 1983 to October 1984, when the leachate was
being redisposed into the landfill. Collection rates showed an initial
steep decline after October 1984, which may reflect the cessation of
leachate redisposal. Deterioration of the collection^system may also be
1-14
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
111
o
•o
c
o
UJ
hi
*
O
z
z
z
D
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
°Ct
1985
°Ct
1986
1987
DATC
Project No.
120-RI2
Oil Industries Landfill
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
RECORD OF LEACHATE PUMPED
FROM STORAGE TANKS
FOR OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
Figure
1-5
-------
reflected in the decline. Since the initial decline following cessation of
leachate redisposal leachate collection rates have stabilized. Collection
rates vary throughout the year but average approximately 4 to 6 thousand
gallons per day.
Several factors contribute to the continued leachate production at the
site:
o Metabolic liquids produced by decomposition of the waste mass;
o Liquid infiltration through the surface of the site;
»
o Liquids squeezed out of pore spaces as the landfill settles;
o Approximately 300,000 gallons of manifested liquids were
deposited since 1977, and additional large volumes were deposited
historically.
EPA estimates that volumes of leachate and hazardous liquids collected at
Oil will increase to approximately 10,000 gallons per day during the
interim period before implementation of the final remedy for the site.
This volume increase will be due primarily to improvements to the existing
collection system and to improvements to collect condensate which is
currently being recirculated through the landfill.
•
Condensate is a hazardous liquid which is generated from the cooling of
moisture saturated gas during gas extraction. Currently, limited volumes
of condensate are collected at the GSF and Oil flare stations. Drip legs
in the gas systems currently re-inject condensate into the landfill. As
collection is expanded to trap the re-injected condensate, collected
volumes could increase to several thousand gallons per day.
Additional amounts of liquids will be collected as the collection system is
expanded to de-water inundated gas extraction wells and perimeter gas
monitoring probes. Equipment decontamination during the ongoing RI/FS and
construction activities will also generate minor additional volumes of
liquids which may require treatment.
1-16
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
A combination of these factors contribute to EPA's estimate of interim
leachate collection of 10,000 gallons per day. EPA believes this is the
best estimate for formulating remedial action treatment alternatives and
cost comparisons.
In the future, even greater volumes of hazardous liquids could be collected
due to the potential need to collect and treat the following:
o Additional shallow leachate as a source control measure to
prevent contamination of perched groundwater;
o Additional deep leachate as a source control measure to prevent
groundwater contamination;
o Additional condensate resulting from expansion of the gas
collection system;
o Additional leachate collection to enhance gas extraction.
Contamination has been detected in the groundwater in the site vicinity.
Extraction and treatment of groundwater may also be required in the future.
During the hydrogeological investigation, the water generated by well
development, purging, and pump testing may have to be treated prior to
discharge.
1.4 LEACHATE CHARACTERIZATION
The quality of leachate obtained from the Operating Industries, Inc.
landfill has been highly variable, based on review of over 70 sets of
sampling data from the past 42 months (January 1983 to July 1986). No
consistent sampling and analysis program extending beyond a few months had
been undertaken prior to EPA's sampling activity, and data reviewed
illustrate the lack of consistent results and difficulty in assessing the
characteristics of a representative sample of leachate. Although quality
assurance information .on some of the leachate data was not readily
1-17
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
available, inclusion of all results to summarize leachate quality was
believed to be appropriate to fully characterize the potential range of
contaminant levels which may be present in oil leachate and to therefore
evaluate the degree of flexibility which must be considered for treatment.
A summary of leachate analytical data is presented in Appendix C. Included
in this appendix is a description of sampling locations, sampling agencies
and data analysis methodology. Also summarized in tabular form are the
number of sample results reviewed for each parameter and the mean, median,
and range of pollutants identified in the Oil leachate. Results for one
leachate sample taken in July of 1986, for which ar high quality analysis
was performed by EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center
Laboratory (NEIC) and for which sampling analytical quality assurance could
be readily verified, are not included in the compiled data in Appendix C;
these results are included as a separate attachment to Appendix C (Addendum
C-l).
The Oil leachate can be described as a darkly colored liquid with a
moderate petroleum and/or musky odor. Past analysis results have been
highly variable and indicate that leachate may contain a wide array of
organic and inorganic pollutants including oil and grease, chemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, dissolved solids, volatile organics, semivolatile
organics, sulfides and a variety of heavy metals and other elements.
1-18
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
A summary of the range of several selected constituents found in oil
leachate is presented below (from Table C-l and Addendum C-l):
Parameter
Range of Values
(mg/L except pH)
Minimum Maximum
PH
Oil and grease
Chemical oxygen demand
Suspended solids
Dissolved solids
Ammonia
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Xylene isomers
.1. , 4-Dioxane
bi s ( 2-e thylhexyl ) phthalate
Phenol
. Sul fides
Chromium
Arsenic
Zinc
Sodium
Calcium
6.6
6
750
62
7,226
720
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.026
0.06
2,200
116
8.5
296,800
31,000
62,800
16,300
927
0.50
16.3
10.0
5.0
19.0
60.0
1.8
13.0
4.81
4.52
18.0
4,500
367
ND:Not Detected
As illustrated in the table above and in Appendix C, many of the EPA Target
Compounds (TC) have been identified in Oil leachate at various times during
the past few years. Heavy metals such as chromium, arsenic, zinc, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, mercury, and selenium which are TCs have been found
during elemental analysis of leachate and have ranged from below detection
limits to several milligrams per liter. Average and median values of heavy
metals in the leachate indicate that they are usually present in concentra-
tions of less than one milligram per liter. Most of the metallic elemental
character of leachate is represented by common mono and divalent species
such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium and iron. This conclusion
was further substantiated by the high quality NEIC analysis which
identified heavy metals ranging from detection limits to 340 micrograms per
liter and common metals ranging from 16 to 3400 milligrams per liter.
1-19
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Over one-third of the organic TCs as well as a variety of non-TCs have been
detected at least once in an Oil leachate sample. Organics which have been
frequently identified in leachate include volatile aromatic compounds such
as benzene, dichlorobenzene, ethyl benzene, toluene and xylene isomers,
volatile halocarbons such as 1,1-dichloroethane, methylene chloride and
vinyl chloride, and other volatile constituents such as acetone,
methylethyl ketone and dioxane isomers. Also frequently identified were
several semi volatile TCs including several phenol species, several
phthalate esters, naphthalene, phenanthrene and 2-methylnaphthalene. These
organics, along with many less frequently detected organic constituents
i
have been found to be present in leachate at levels ranging from detection
limits to several milligrams per liter. Average and median values for
organic TCs presented in Appendix C indicated that they are usually present
in concentrations of several hundred micrograms per liter or less. The
high quality NEIC analysis generally substantiated this conclusion although
high levels of 1,4-Dioxane (13 mg/1), 2-methyl- 2-butanol (1.4 mg/1),
2-methyl-2-propanol (2.0 mg/1) and bis(2 ethylhexyl) phthalate (1.1 mg/1)
were identified in this particular sample.
Several analyses for organic constituents in Oil leachate have indicated
the presence of a complex organic matrix which consists largely of
undifferentiated weathered hydrocarbon species which are not normally
identified using conventional gas chromatographic and gas chromatographic/
mass spectroscopic techniques. Occasionally, analyzing laboratories have
estimated the concentrations of organic acids and n-alkanes present in
leachate. One set of results for a leachate sample taken in June of 1984
reported estimated levels of butanoic, pentanoic and hexanoic acids at
levels of 1.6, 1.9 and 3.1 milligrams per liter, respectively. Other labs
have estimated the levels of various n-alkanes (from 9 to 31 carbons) on
several occasions and have reported total levels of several hundred
milligrams per liter. The high quality NEIC analysis quantified the
n-alkanes at a total level of 1.4 mg/1. It was also estimated, based on a
total ion count for the chromatograms, that the total concentration of
hydrocarbon material in this sample was 70 mg/1, most of which could not be
specifically identified. Analysis showed that 68 percent of the dissolved
organic carbon in the NEIC leachate sample could be attributed to organic
acids.
1-20
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
In addition to metal and organic pollutant level determination, the
concentrations of many other contaminants have been quantified in samples
of Oil leachate. The pH of leachate has generally been neutral or slightly
basic. Oil and grease, chemical oxygen demand, and suspended solids have
. •
been found in highly variable concentrations with median values of 473
mg/1, 4,690 mg/1 and 628 mg/1, respectively. Dissolved solids levels have
been more consistent at mean and median levels of approximately 11,500
mg/1. Ammonia levels in Oil leachate average approximately 820 mg/1 based
upon the two sets of results reviewed.
Based upon a review of the over seventy sets of available analytical data
characterizing Oil leachate, this waste was found to have a high strength
character. The results were highly variable with respect to levels of
«
specific organic and inorganic constituents, thus making the determination
of a "representative sample" of leachate difficult. However, general
categories of pollutants for which removal through treatment would be
necessary could be readily established. These are oil and grease, metals,
organics, and sulfides.
1.5 OBJECTIVES OF LEACHATE MANAGEMENT REMEDIAL ACTIONS
As discussed in previous sections, leachate seepage problems at the site
have required the installation and operation of a leachate collection
system. At the present time the collected leachate is being trucked
off-site for treatment with effluent sewering.
The following objectives and considerations will guide "the formulation of
the remedial action alternatives for management of collected leachate.
*
o Remedial action alternatives must be easily and rapidly
implemented and have the potential to be integrated into the
overall remedial action plan for the landfill site.
o Formulated alternatives will be flexible in order to manage both
short- and long-term variations in the leachate collection rate
and in the chemical characteristics of the leachate.
• -\
o Remedial treatment actions which permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity or mobility of the contaminants in
the Oil leachate are preferred over remedial actions not
involving such treatment.
1-21
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Long-term site remediation will be addressed in the on-going RI/FS study
being conducted by the EPA for the site. The RI/FS for the site is
expected to be completed in 1991.
1-22
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
2.1 GENERAL RESPONSE ACTION IDENTIFICATION
Based upon an analysis of the composition and volume of the leachate
collected at the Operating Industries, Inc. (Oil) landfill site, general
response actions were identified which could adequately meet the site
cleanup objectives identified in Section 1.6. These actions consisted of
on-site treatment, on-site disposal, off-site treatment and off-site
disposal. From these response actions specific remedial alternatives were
developed. A "no action" general response alternative was also evaluated
to provide a baseline with which other actions could be compared.
2.2 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Of the various treatment or disposal technologies for managing the
collected leachate, several were excluded based on landfill site character-
istics, leachate quality and technical considerations.
•
2.2.1 ON-SITE TREATMENT
An on-site treatment facility would only treat wastes from the Oil site.
No wastes from any other sites would ever be treated by a plant at the Oil
landfill. Technologies evaluated for an on-site leachate treatment
facility included incineration, biological, chemical and physical treatment
processes.
On-site incineration of Oil landfill leachate was considered but rejected
after evaluation. Incineration is a process which has been used for a
broad range of hazardous and toxic substances such as organic solvents,
sludges and oily wastes. Incineration technologies frequently used have
included rotary kiln, fluidized bed, multiple hearth and liquid injection.
2-1
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
The method most adaptable to incineration of leachate would be rotary kiln
with a secondary combustor. Although this incineration technology has been
proven effective in treating a variety of toxic and hazardous wastes,
extensive research into incineration of Oil leachate would have to be
conducted prior to process implementation. The highly variable quality of
leachate with respect to oil and grease and organic constituents is of
major concern. Development and maintenance of steady-state operating
conditions would be extremely difficult as leachate quality varied.
Injection rates and temperature adjustments would have to be thoroughly
studied in order to assure adequate contaminant destruction. As a fuel,
Oil leachate would have a low BTU value due to its rather low organic
content. This would necessitate the introduction- of large amounts of a
supplemental fuel source to initiate and sustain combustion which would
«
make operation of the system very costly. Control of emissions would also
be difficult due to variable leachate quality. Extensive testing would be
required including pilot testing and test burns to assure that adequate
contaminant destruction was achieved. Although incineration is a
demonstrated technology for destruction of various types of toxic and
hazardous wastes, the incineration of Oil leachate is not proven effective
and would require extensive research to properly develop and implement.
The amount of research required could significantly delay implementation
which would be contrary to the short-term goal of rapid implementation.
Therefore, incineration was eliminated from further consideration.
Biological treatment of Oil leachate at an on-site treatment facility was
evaluated, but was eliminated due to site waste characteristics. Aerobic
and anaerobic biochemical processes are widely utilized and well-documented
municipal waste treatment technologies. Many industrial wastewater treat-
ments also employ acclimated biomasses in the treatment process. However,
several factors hinder applying this technology to leachate from the Oil
landfill. As stated previously and illustrated in Appendix C, the concen-
tration of contaminants in the leachate from the Oil site is highly vari-
able with wide and unpredictable fluctuations in many of the leachate
constituents. Biological systems are not able to readily adapt to changes
2-2
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
in influent quality. Biological process control can be difficult in such
situations of varying influent quality, and could result in low quality
effluent. Data in Appendix C shows a very unfavorable average biological
oxygen demand (BOD) to chemical oxygen demand (COD) ratio of 1 to 35 for
biological treatment. These results indicate that most of the COD present
in the leachate is nonbiodegradable or that.Oil leachate is toxic to the
biomass. It is known that many of the specific organic constituents of
concern in the leachate, such as the chlorinated hydrocarbons and aromatic
solvents, are not easily biodegraded. These factors related to the Oil
leachate characteristics along with the potential disposal problem of the
excessive quantities of biological sludge which could be produced by
adequate biodegradation, led to the elimination of biological treatment
from further consideration as a viable treatment alternative.
«
Physical and chemical waste treatment methods are considered to be the most
appropriate categories of technologies to reliably treat collected leachate
at the Oil landfill site. A wide variety of unit processes exist in these
categories of technologies. Treatment 'technologies were initially screened
based on the specific characteristics of the Oil leachate. Pollutants
targeted for removal include heavy metals, volatile and semivolatile
organic EPA Targeted Compound List (TCL) pollutants as well as oil and
grease, and sulfides.
Many types of physical and chemical waste treatment technologies exist.
Only proven technologies were considered for further evaluation and
incorporation into the interim on-site leachate treatment remedial
alternatives in order to facilitate rapid implementation. Table 2-1 lists
categories of pollutants present in Oil leachate and the physical/chemical
treatment technologies which are commonly utilized for their reduction.
2-3
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE 2-1
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Pollutant Class Treatment Technology
Heavy Metals Coagulation, flocculation, precipitation,
filtration, ion exchange, reverse osmosis
Oil and Grease Gravity separation, dissolved air
flotation, coagulation, and sedimentation
Organics Air stripping, steam stripping, activated
carbon, chemical oxidation, ultraviolet
ozonation, reverse osmosis
Sulfides Air stripping, steam stripping, chemical
oxidation
Several of these technologies are currently being used by the off-site
treatment facility which treats Oil leachate and other liquid wastes with
similar classes of pollutants.
2.2.2 CM-SITE DISPOSAL
•
Specific technologies which were considered for the on-site disposal of
leachate collected at the Oil landfill included land application and
evaporation of leachate from lined surface impoundments. Other on-site
disposal technologies, such as waste landfilling, were eliminated from
further consideration as infeasible due to the large volume of leachate
currently being collected and to various site characteristics.
Land application was initially considered as a viable on-site disposal
technology but was later rejected due to site characteristics. Leachate
recirculation is a practice used at newer lined municipal landfills in an
attempt to stabilize leachates generated at the facilities. By
continuously recycling collected leachate back through the landfill, the
chemical quality of the waste is improved through biochemical, chemical and
physical actions occurring within the landfill.
2-4
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Recirculating leachate through the Oil landfill would result in a
redistribution of the waste without a significant reduction in the volume
at the site. Coupled with the additional leachate generated within the
landfill, and the constantly changing physical characteristics of the
landfill, the existing leachate collection system is not adequately sized
and located to prevent new seeps from occurring. Public exposure to
leachate would likely continue to occur.
Although in other situations, recirculation has been proven to be effective
in improving the chemical quality of leachate generated at landfills, this
is not a feasible technology for effectively managing leachate collected at
the Oil site. Recycling collected leachate would continually increase the
frequency of collection tank pumping, the existing collection system would
be overwhelmed and new leachate bleeds would occur.
Site conditions specific to the Oil landfill, including the lack of
impermeable liners and the proximate location of a resident population,
make leachate recirculation to accomplish site clean-up goals and
objectives unacceptable. On-site leachate recirculation technology was
therefore eliminated from further consideration.
A second potential on-site disposal technology is the construction of lined
surface impoundments on the Oil site to allow passive solar evaporation to
occur. This alternative was considered as a feasible method of managing
the collected leachate on-site and was included in the development of site
remedial action alternatives.
2.2.3 OFF-SITE TREATMENT
Treatment at an off-site facility, in RCRA compliance, is the method which
is presently being used to manage the leachate collected at the Oil site.
Since this is presently a viable alternative with the treated effluent
satisfying discharge requirements, it was also included in the development
of site remedial action alternatives.
2-5
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
2.2.4 OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
The disposal of leachate at a RCRA landfill was considered as a method of
managing leachate collected at the Oil landfill. The technologies used at
off-site disposal sites were not considered as screening criteria at this
point, but rather the compliance of disposal facilities with regulatory
requirements. Since landfill disposal facilities exist which are in
compliance with the regulatory requirements and could accept Oil leachate,
this technology was included for further evaluation.
2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES '
Potential remedial action alternatives to manage leachate collected at the
Oil landfill site were formulated from the technologies screened above in a
manner consistent with the requirements of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan (NCP).
The NCP (40 CFR 300.68[f]) specifies that at least one remedial alternative
shall be developed as part of the feasibility study in each of the follow-
ing categories, to the extent that it is both possible and appropriate:
Category Description
1 Alternatives for treatment or disposal at an off-site facility.
2 Alternatives that attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
federal and state public health and environmental requirements.
3 Alternatives that exceed applicable or: relevant and appropriate
federal and state public health and environmental requirements.
4 Alternatives that do not attain applicable or relevant and
appropriate federal and state public health and environmental
requirements but will reduce the likelihood of present or future
threat from the hazardous substances and that provide significant
protection to public health and welfare and the environment. This
must include an alternative that closely approaches the level of
protection provided by the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements.
5 No action alternative.
2-6
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
General response actions and associated technologies developed in Section
2.2 of this Feasibility Study (FS) include on-site treatment using selected
physical/chemical waste treatment processes, on-site disposal utilizing
surface impoundments to act as passive solar evaporators, off-site treat-
ment at an approved RCRA facility and off-site disposal at a licensed and
approved RCRA disposal facility.
2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS (ARARsl! : '.
In order to develop the five remedial alternatives specified in the NCP,
the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) must be
identified for the remedial alternatives to be screened and evaluated.
Section 121 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
addresses cleanup standards and specifies that on-site actions should
attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, require-
ments, criteria, or limitations. These include "any standard/ requirement,
criteria, or limitation under any federal environmental law" and "any pro-
mulgated standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation under a state en-
vironmental or facility siting law that is more stringent than any federal
standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation" if it has been approved,
authorized, or delegated by the Administrator and has been identified to
the EPA by the state "in a timely manner." Applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements, criteria, advisories and guidance at the local
level although not requiring evaluation under SARA were also considered in
the development and evaluation of proposed remedial alternatives.
2.4.1 FEDERAL ARARS
*
Several Federal laws would apply to on-site remedial actions taken at the
Oil site. EPA intends to comply with federal ARARs for any off-site or
on-site treatment or disposed alternative. Most of these laws are admin-
istered by State or local agencies. Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, entitled the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), would
apply to on-site or off-site treatment or disposal facilities.
2-7
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Regulations for new facilities involved in the treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous wastes (40 CFR 264), developed from RCRA, are
applicable to any new on-site treatment facility or surface impoundment.
The general pretreatment requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act would
apply to any alternative which involves the ultimate disposal of collected
Oil leachate, whether treated or untreated, to a publicly-owned treatment
works (POTW). Compliance with these standards is enforced by the Los
Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). Discharge to a navigable
waterway of treated or untreated leachate would be regulated under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authority.
Compliance with surface water discharge standards is enforced by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB).
The applicability of the Clean Air act to an on-site treatment or disposal
facility was determined to be applicable. A new source review provision of
the act would apply to any new source of emissions and would be enforced by
the SCAQMD.
2.4.2 STATE ARARS
Applicable or relevant and appropriate state requirements as well as local
requirements for an on-site or off-site leachate treatment or disposal
facilities were identified. It is the intent of the EPA to comply with .
state ARARs for any on-site or off-site treatment or disposal alternative.
These ARARs were based on input from the California Department of Health
Services (DOHS), California Waste Management Board (CWMB), Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts (LACSD), South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
(CRWQCB).
The California Department of Health Services implements the California RCRA
program which would apply to remedial alternatives involving the treatment,
storage or disposal of hazardous wastes. The California RCRA program is
very similar to the federal RCRA program. Regulations are codified under
Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. In addition to the federal
2-8
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
and state RCRA regulations, a state regulation has been proposed which
would prohibit the disposal of untreated liquid wastes in evaporation
ponds.
The California Waste Management Board regulates landfills in the state
under Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. Provisions of Title
14 which regulate the ponding of liquid could apply to on-site disposal
activities. Additionally, a general nuisance provision which prevents
excessive.noise or odors from a site could apply to an on-site remedial
measure.
The Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD), along with the local
city sewering agency, regulates discharges to its sanitary sewerage system,
«•
which serves the area surrounding the Oil site. The LACSD sets effluent
discharge standards which must be met for liquid wastes discharged to their
sewer system to assure compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act. In
order to obtain approval for connection to the off-site sanitary sewerage
system from the local sewering agency (Monterey Park or Montebello) and
LACSD, hydraulic capacity must be available and waste treatment capable of
consistently meeting discharge limitations must be provided. The LACSD
discharge limitations for any treatment facilities are presented in Table
2-2.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District regulates emissions to the
atmosphere. Several specific provisions have been identified which would
apply to on-site remedial actions at Oil. Rule 402, entitled the nuisance
provision, is a general prohibition against excessive emissions which could
cause adverse effects including odors. Regulation 13 is a new source
•
review provision which mandates that the net emissions from any new source
cannot exceed 75 pounds of organics per day. In addition, another
regulation currently being developed, and therefore not yet an ARAR, will
set specific emission limits on toxic compounds.
The California Regional water Quality Control Board regulates discharges to
waterways under the Clean Water Act and is charged with protecting
groundwater. The CRWQCB administers the California State NPDES program for
discharges to surface waters. NPDES requirements would apply to an on-site
2-9
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
treatment facility if the plant discharged to drainage channels leading to
surface waterways. If an on-site facility alternative included reusing
treated leachate as irrigation water, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act would apply. This limits total dissolved solids levels to less
than 750 mg/1 for water used for surface applications.
2.4.3 PERMITS
Section 121 of SARA states that "no federal, state, or local permit shall
be-required for the portion of any removal or remedial action conducted
entirely on-site." However, the EPA is required to meet the substantive
portion of the permitting requirements. Permits, therefore, would only be
required for off-site activities. An industrial waste discharge permit
and/or sewer connection permit from the appropriate city would be required
for off-site discharge.
2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Based on the results of the remedial technology screening and in accordanc
with the requirements of the NCP, a set of remedial action alternatives fo
management of leachate collected at the Oil landfill site was identified.
Several chemical and physical treatment processes were chosen using the
technologies identified in Table 2.1. These process trains were selected
to effectively and reliably remove pollutants of concern (oil and grease,
organics, sulfides, and metals) from the Oil leachate and provide a range
of effluent qualities.
2-10
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE 2-2
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE LIMITS
FOR
CENTRALIZED HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Limitation (mg/1)
Parameter11' (maximum for any time)
Arsenic (total) 3.0
Cadmium (total) 0.69
Chromium (total) 2.77
Copper (total) 3.38
Lead (total) . • . 0.69
Mercury .(total) 2.0
Nickel (total) 3.98
Silver (total) 0.43
Zinc (total) 2.61
Cyanide (total) 1.20
Sulfides (dissolved) 0.1
Total toxic organics'21 1.0
Oil and grease 10.0
Vinyl Chloride 0.015
Radioactivity'3'
11)
Limitations for other organic parameters and metals will be set as
needed.
12'Total toxic organics include a list of 111 compounds specified by LACSD.
Volatile organics are to be analyzed using EPA Methods 601 and 602.
Semi-volatile and non-volatile organics are to be analyzed using Method
625.
<3>In accordance with Title 17, California Administrative Code, Section
30287. Generally limited to 400 pCi/L above natural background.
2-11
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Below are the remedial action alternatives developed for initial screening
and the corresponding category of the NCP criteria identified on page 2-6:
Alternative NCP Category
•
Off-site treatment 1
Off-site disposal 1
No action 5
On-site disposal using double-lined surface impoundments 2
On-site treatment facility with sewering of effluent
Oil and grease separation...discharge 4
Oil and grease separation—> coagulant addition —>
dissolved air flotation—> filtration —>
air stripping...discharge • 4
Oil and grease separation —>coagulant addition—>
dissolved air flotation—> filtration—> activated
carbon...discharge 2
Oil and grease separation—> coagulant addition—>
dissolved air flotation—> filtration—>
air stripping without off-gas treatment—>
activated carbon...discharge 2
Oil and grease separation—> coagulant addition—>
dissolved air flotation—> filtration—>
air stripping with off-gas treatment—> activated
carbon...discharge 2
On-site treatment facility with reuse of effluent
Oil and grease separation—> coagulant addition—>
dissolved air flotation—> filtration—>
air stripping with off-gas treatment-—>
activated carbon—>ultrafiltration—> reverse
osmosis...reuse 3
The likelihood of a treatment alternative attaining, not attaining, or
exceeding the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements will be
discussed further during the screening process.
2-12
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
3.0 INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of the initial screening of remedial action alternatives is to
eliminate those alternatives which are ineffective or which are not cost-
effective. Screening was performed in accordance with methodology set
forth in the NCP (40 CFR 300.68(g]) and in the Guidance on Feasibility
Studies Under CERCIA (EPA, 1985a).
3.1 CRITERIA FOR INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Criteria for the initial screening of remedial action alternatives are
listed below:
1. Effectiveness of Public Health Protection
The effectiveness of each of the proposed alternatives in protecting
public health was evaluated. An alternative was considered to be
ineffective if it did not meet all of the following criteria:
o Provided adequate protection of public health and welfare and the
environment.
o Complied with established EPA policies for planning and implementing
off-site remedial actions. Those policies are adopted to ensure
protection of public health.
o Qualified as a preferred alternative under the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Under SARA, preferred
alternatives are those which permanently and signficantly reduce the
mobility, toxicity or volume of waste. Land disposal is classified
as the least preferred alternative under SARA. Pteferred alterna-
tives provide both short- and long-term benefits to public health.
Alternatives which did not meet these criteria were precluded from
further consideration.
3-1
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
2. Cost
The cost of implementation, including operation and maintenance, was
considered for each of the remedial action alternatives. Alternatives
that greatly exceeded the cost of other actions without providing
substantially greater protection to public health and the environment
were eliminated from further consideration.
3.2 INITIAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
A detailed description of the alternative screening is presented below.
3.2.1 ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT FOR NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The endangerment assessment process for CERCLA sites evaluates the collec-
tive demographic, geographic; physical, chemical, and biological factors at
a site to determine whether or not there is an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment as a result of
a threatened or actual release of hazardous substances or wastes. It is
important to note that "imminent" does not mean immediate harm, rather, an
impending risk of harm. Sufficient justification for a determination of an
imminent endangerment may exist if harm is threatened; no actual injury
need have occurred or be occurring. Similarly, "endangennent" means some-
thing less than actual harm (EPA 1985a).
This section of the Leachate Management Feasibility Study (FS) presents a
preliminary assessment of the potential risks to public health, welfare, or
the environment in the absence of remediation at the Oil landfill site.
Available data for use in quantitatively characterizing potential exposures
to chemicals present at the Oil site consist primarily of leachate analyses
and limited air monitoring results. These data present a preliminary
representation of chemical concentrations in these media and have not been
validated according to EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) procedures.
Furthermore, analytical data are not available for other, environmental
3-2
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
media of potential concern (e.g., soil, groundwater, surface water). Con-
sequently, this assessment is qualitative (Level I) in nature. A more
quantitative endangerment assessment (Level II or III) will be completed
during the overall RI/FS process of the Oil site as more data characteriz-
ing the site and the nature and extent of contamination are collected.
The remedial alternatives considered in this Feasibility Study for Leachate
Management at the Oil landfill consist primarily of interim source manage-
ment and control measures for collected leachate. That is, the goal of
remediation is to prevent exposure to contaminants and associated health
risks by preventing or minimizing releases of collected contaminants .until
permanent remedial measures can be designed and implemented. EPA has noted
in its Guidance on Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (April 1985) that an
in-depth quantitative analysis is not warranted under these circumstances,.
However, to the extent permitted by the available data, a qualitative ex-
posure analysis is required to evaluate the types, amounts, and concentra-
tions of chemicals at the site, their toxic effects, the proximity of tar-
get populations, the likelihood of chemical releases and migration from the
site, and the potential for exposure. As discussed in EPA's Endangerment
Assessment Handbook, a quantitative health risk assessment may not be
required for alternative selection or design when interim source management
and control alternatives are under consideration because of the necessity
to quickly evaluate suitable alternatives and implement the selected ac-
tion. For the Oil site, the current data limitations discussed above do
not permit quantitative estimates of risks or determination of performance
goals for individual chemicals for each of the alternatives considered.
Consequently, as recommended in EPA's Feasibility Study Guidance, the
reliability of remedies specified under each alternative for protecting
human health, welfare, and the environment are evaluated, to some extent,
in the context of engineering performance and reliability.
In this section of the Leachate Management FS report, chemicals of poten-
tial concern at the Oil landfill are identified. Pathways of environmental
exposure to chemicals present at the Oil site are discussed and the poten-
tial endangerment to human health, welfare, and the environment under the
3-3
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
no action alternative are qualitatively evaluated. This assessment is used
as a basis for evaluating the interim leachate management remedial alterna-
tives developed for the site in succeeding sections of this report. It
should be noted that the chemicals of concern and exposure pathways evalu-
ated in this preliminary assessment may be modified as more data are
developed for the final Oil landfill RI/FS.
Chemicals of Concern. A number of potentially hazardous chemicals have
been placed in the Oil landfill or have been generated as a result of in
situ biological or chemical processes. In this subsection, chemicals
identified in environmental media in the vicinity of the landfill are
characterized. In addition, a subset of representative chemicals of
concern is selected and the potential toxic effects of these chemicals are
discussed.
Chemical Characterization. Available data characterizing chemicals
associated with the Oil landfill consist primarily of analyses of leachate
generated by the landfill. Results of approximately 70 sets of leachate
analyses performed from 1983 to 1986 are summarized in Appendix C. The
data presented include the minimum, maximum, and mean concentrations of
chemicals detected in the landfill leachate. Leachate samples were
collected at a variety of locations both on and off the Oil landfill site.
Sampling locations include leachate sumps, underground transfer and dumping
lines, vacuum trucks, leachate seeps, and holding tanks at off-site treat-
ment facilities. Analyses were conducted at several laboratories and the
results for individual chemicals or parameters shown in Appendix C were not
necessarily reported for each leachate sample analyzed.
('
As shown in Table C-l in Appendix C, the range of reported values for
chemicals detected in landfill leachate is very wide, varying in some cases
by several orders of magnitude. No consistent trends in chemical concen-
trations either at particular sampling sites or site-wide are apparent over
the period of 3.5 years for which data are available. These observations
hold for data pooled from all sampling locations as well as for data from
individual sampling locations. Variability in these data may be due to a
number of factors including: (1) collection of samples from many different
3-4
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
sources at different tines of the year, (2) differences in leachate genera-
tion rates and composition associated with different source areas at the
site or with environmental factors, and (3) inconsistencies in sampling and
analytical procedures used.
Although current ambient air monitoring data are not available, based on
the limited data discussed below, surface and subsurface emissions of land-
fill gases are partially controlled at present by active gas extraction and
flaring. However, the data are limited which compare the occurrence of
landfill gases in the vicinity of the Oil site prior to and after operation
of these control systems. Analyses of ambient air sampled during 1983 and
1984 at locations just outside the boundary of the southern parcel of the
landfill indicated the presence of vinyl chloride, benzene, and toluene on
several occasions. The detection limits for these compounds were 2 ppb, 5
ppb, and 10 ppb, respectively. Vinyl chloride was detected frequently and
was reported at concentrations as high as 19 ppb. Benzene was detected
relatively infrequently, but was reported at concentrations as high as 36
ppb. Toluene was detected almost daily during the sampling period and was
reported at concentrations as high as 80 ppb. Summary statistics for the
Los Angeles area compiled by EPA reported ambient concentrations of 19.2
ug/ra3 and 44.3 ug/m3 for benzene and toluene, respectively, for the second
quarter of 1979. Because current air monitoring data in the vicinity of
the landfill are not available and cannot be compared to current background
air samples, it is not possible to determine with certainty the overall
contribution of landfill gases to the ambient levels measured. EPA will
conduct additional ambient air monitoring in 1988.
Analyses also were performed to characterize the composition of gas being
extracted from the site, and to characterize vapors collected above
leachate in collection tanks and on the landfill surface. Chemicals
detected in samples of gas extracted from the Oil landfill included vinyl
chloride (6-30 ppm), benzene (4-15 pprn), hydrogen sulfide (15 ppm), carbon
disulfide (10 ppm), 1,2-dichloroethane (0.51 ppm), trichloroethylene
(2.4-39 ppm), and tetrachloroethylene (1.7-40 ppm). Vapor samples collect-
ed above leachate on the surface of the landfill contained 0.5-13 ppm vinyl
chloride.
3-5
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Spontaneous subsurface fires also have been reported to have occurred
within the Oil landfill. Such fires may cause chemical reactions which
drive off volatile .materials into the surrounding air. Samples of air
above two fires indicated vinyl chloride concentrations of 0.64 and 8 ppm,
the benzene concentration above one of these fires was 55 ppb.
In addition to the analytical data summarized above, there have been
reports of unpleasant odors at the site and in surrounding residential
areas. The anaerobic decomposition of organic wastes often produces a
complex mixture of low molecular weight compounds, many of which contain
sulfhydryl groups and are quite odorous. For example, hydrogen sulfide and
carbon disulfide, gases with quite noxious odors, have been detected in
landfill gas at concentrations far greater than their odor thresholds
(0.0011-7.7 ppm for carbon disulfide, 0.00001-0.8 ppm for hydrogen
sulfide).
Substantial amounts of methane gas also are generated within the Oil land-
fill. Methane has been detected in enclosed spaces in offsite residential
areas at concentrations from 1 percent to greater than 50 percent.
As summarized above, only data characterizing landfill leachate and limited
data characterizing-volatile compounds present in landfill gases currently
are available. The landfill leachate characterization data are highly
variable. This variability may reflect actual differences in leachate com-
position at different sampling points, seasonal or other environmentally-
regulated differences in leachate generation rates and relative dilution of
the individual components, differences in the individual components analyz-
ed for in each sample and the limited number of analyses performed for some
chemicals, and differences in laboratory analytical and reporting proce-
dures (including detection limits). However, no clear trend associated
with these or other factors potentially affecting the results was identi-
fied and representative leachate samples for potentially important exposure
points or environmental migration pathways could not be identified. It may
be necessary to collect a larger number of consistently selected and
3-6
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
analyzed samples to clarify these uncertainties. As noted above, ambient
air monitoring data and other analyses of compounds present in landfill
gases are limited. In addition, the detection limits in air for vinyl
chloride and benzene, used in the previously conducted studies of the local
ambient air quality, are greater than concentrations that would be asso-
ciated with excess cancer risks of one in one million (10~6) for lifetime
ambient exposure, and thus are too high to permit a sufficiently sensitive
evaluation of health risks. For these reasons and because data character-
izing other environmental media of concern (e.g., groundwater, soil, sur-
face water) are not available, a quantitative exposure and risk assessment
cannot be completed. Nevertheless, a number of potential pathways of
exposure to chemicals present at the Oil landfill in the absence of
leachate management can be described and the potential effects on health,
welfare, and the environment can be assessed qualitatively.
Representative Chemicals of Concern. As part of a site-specific risk
assessment for which a large number of chemicals have been detected, a
subset of key chemicals of concern (indicator chemicals) is often selected.
This is intended to focus the assessment on chemicals that pose the great-
est potential public health risks at a site. Indicator chemicals ideally
should represent the most toxic, mobile, and persistent chemicals at the
site, as well as those present in the largest amounts. In the Superfund
Public Health Evaluation (PHE) Manual (EPA 1986a), EPA recommends a proce-
dure for selection of indicator chemicals. The procedure involves ranking
all chemicals found at a site according to indicator scores derived by
multiplying environmental chemical concentrations by medium-specific (soil,
water, air) toxicity constants. A subset of the chemicals is selected
after consideration of individual chemical rankings and other factors,
including: environmental persistence and mobility, frequency of detection,
comparison with laboratory or field blanks, and comparison with background
concentrations. Many components of this selection procedure require pro-
fessional judgment by the individual evaluating the available data.
Chemicals present at the Oil site have not been sufficiently characterized
to permit indicator.chemical selection based on rigorous considerations of
their occurrence in individual environmental media. Toxicity constants
3-7
120-RI2-RT-PQJD-1
-------
that would be applicable for use in ranking contaminants present in
leachate are not available. Indicators were selected according to several
criteria. As a surrogate for toxicity constants applicable for leachate we
have used the toxicity constants for water and have ranked the leachate
chemicals based on the product of these values and their mean concentra-
tions in landfill leachate. (A ranking based on a product of the soil
toxicity constant and leachate concentration gave similar results.)
Although the toxicity constants used are not designed for use with leachate
analyses, the results obtained provide an approximate indication of which
are likely to be the chemicals posing the greatest hazard. Other factors
considered were physiochemical properties, severity of effect, and environ-
mental persistence and mobility. Using these criteria a representative
subset of chemicals was selected to include both inorganic and organic
chemicals as well as*chemicals having carcinogenic effects and noncarcin-
•
ogenic systemic effects. The chemicals selected were not necessarily those
which were ranked highest based on the indicator scores calculated using
the toxicity constants. An attempt was made to select representative
inorganic and organic chemicals because, in addition to differences in
their toxic effects, the environmental fate and transport of representative
of these two classes tend to differ appreciably. Although potential car-
cinogens tend to pose greater health risks than noncarcinogens at hazardous
waste sites, a few representative noncarcinogenic chemicals also were
selected as indications. For 'example, although phenol had a relatively low
ranking, this noncarcinogenic chemical was selected because of its rela-
tively high mobility in the environment. Although hydrogen sulfide was not
reported in landfill leachate, this chemical has been detected in landfill
gas and may pose odor problems in the vicinity of the site. Consequently,
it was selected as a representative chemical of concern. Likewise, al-
though vinyl chloride and benzene were ranked relatively low based on con-
centration in leachate, these carcinogenic chemicals are of relatively high
volatility and have been detected in ambient air near the Oil site. There-
fore, these chemicals were selected as representative chemicals of concern
based on their potential to pose health risks via the inhalation route of
exposure. Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs) were
selected as an indicator chemical group for this assessment. Potential
health risks associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are
3-8
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
due primarily to the carcinogenic components present in mixtures of these
compounds. The only CPAH reported in the Oil leachate monitoring data was
benzo(a)anthracene. However, it is likely that other CPAHs are present in
leachate, but were not specifically analyzed for and quantified.
A total of 17 representative chemicals of concern were selected from the
more than 80 chemicals detected and are shown in Table 3-1 along with their
mean and maximum concentrations in landfill leachate. It should be noted
that data concerning the occurrence of site-related chemicals in environ-
mental media and the local and regional environmental characteristics that
maym influence the fate and transport of these chemicals are lacking. Con-
sequently, it currently is not yet possible to confidently quantify the
occurrence of these chemicals in environmental media or to select indicator
chemicals with confidence. The representative chemicals of concern shown,
in Table 3-1 were selected only to provide a general indication of the
potential endangerment to health, welfare, and the environment associated
with the Oil landfill site.
Some of the Oil leachate samples were characterized with regard to radia-
tion levels. Four grab samples of leachate from the Oil site analyzed for
radioactivity had mean alpha (gross) and mean beta (gross) activities of 35
pCi/liter and 389 pCi/liter, respectively. The value for gross alpha
activity exceeds the drinking water MCL of 15 pCi/liter. However, this
standard assumes consumption of 2 liters of drinking water per day and
would not be directly applicable to leachate. An MCL also exists specify-
ing that beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-made radionuclides
in drinking water shall not produce a dose to the total body or any organ
greater than 4 mrem/year. However, specific data,on the radionuclides
emitting beta radiation at the Oil site are not available. Because
analytical data concerning the alpha and beta emitters in Oil leachate are
limited, potential risks cannot be adequately characterized and will not be
considered further in this assessment. It should be noted, however, that
available data suggest radiation levels in Oil leachate samples may be
similar to local natural background radiation levels.
3-9
120-RI 2-RT-FQJI>-l
-------
It is expected that a more complete set of validated monitoring data will
be available for the overall RI/FS for the OH site and that a systematic
and rigorous indicator chemical selection process will be possible for the
final RI/FS. Accordingly, the list of chemicals considered in the final
RI/FS may be revised.
Toxicity of Representative Chemicals. This section contains brief qualita-
tive descriptions of the toxic effects of the representative chemicals of
concern selected for the Oil landfill site. In addition, these brief
toxicity profiles summarize the currently available standards and criteria
for these chemicals and health-based exposure guidelines. The health-based
criteria noted in the profiles consist of cancer potency factors for poten-
tial carcinogens and reference doses (RfDs) for chemicals exhibiting non-
carcinogenic effects.
EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group (GAG) has developed cancer potency
factors for estimating the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with various levels of lifetime exposures to potential human
carcinogens. In practice, cancer potency factors are derived from the
results of human epidemiology studies or chronic animal bioassays. The
data from animal studies typically are fitted to a linearized multistage
model and a dose-response curve is developed. This approach provides
rough, but plausible, estimates of the 95% upper confidence limits on life-
time risks. While the actual risks are unlikely to be higher than the
estimated risks, they could be considerably lower. The slopes of the
dose-response data derived from low-dose human epidemiological studies are
fitted to dose-time-response curves on an ad hoc basis. This approach is
typically used to provide a best estimate of lifetime excess cancer risks,
but may in fact overestimate or underestimate actual risk.
Health criteria for chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects are
generally developed using EPA Reference Doses (RfDs) developed by the RfD
Work Group, or RfDs obtained from Health Effects Assessments (HEAs),
Drinking Water Criteria Documents, or Drinking Water Health Advisories
3-10
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE 3-1
REPRESENTATIVE CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
Oil LEACHATE MANAGEMENT FS
REM II
Chemical
Concentration in Landfill Leachate
(mg/liter)
Mean Maximum
Acrylonitrile
Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Cadmium
1,2-Dichloroe thane
2 , 4-Dinitrotoluene
Hydrogen sulfide
Lead
Mercury
Phenol
Polychlorinated biphenyls*
CPA^
Selenium
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
-
-
0.37
4.82
0.067
0.035
0.162
-
-
0.50
0.02
0.397
0.360
0.068
0.32
0.19
0.114
0.120
720
4.52
18
0.300
0.405
0.29
0.070
-
2.9
0.302
1.80
0.772
0.130
1.97
0.320
0.50
* Value shown is the sum of the concentrations reported for PCB-1248 and
PCB-1260.
b Carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (CPAHs) are considered as
a group in this assessment. The value reported is for benzo(a)-
anthracene, the only CPAH currently quantified in Oil leachate.
3-11
120-RI 2-RT-FQJI>-l
-------
(HAS). The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order
of magnitude or greater) of a daily exposure to the human population (in-
cluding sensitive subpopulations) that is unlikely to pose an appreciable
risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The RfD is typically ex-
pressed in units of mg/kg/day (Barnes 1986). RfDs or minor variations of
these criteria have also been referred to as acceptable intakes for chronic
exposure (AICs) and acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) in various EPA publi-
cations.
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile is associated with a significant excess of respiratory cancer
in workers exposed by inhalation to this compound (O'Berg 1980) and is
classified in EPA's weight of evidence for carcinogenicity Group Bl, ,
Probable Human Carcinogen (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
from epidemioiogical studies). EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG)
calculated a cancer potency factor for exposure via inhalation of 0.24
(mgAg/day)'1 based on the O'Berg (1980) study. Acrylonitrile administered
in drinking water produced increased incidences of tumors at multiple sites
in three different strains of rats (EPA 1983). EPA's CAG used data from
all three of these drinking water studies to calculate a cancer potency of
0.54 (mg/kg/day)>~l for estimation of human risks associated with ingestion
of acrylonitrile.
In its ambient water quality criteria document for acrylonitrile, EPA
(1980a) calculated a cancer potency of 0.552 (mgAg/day)'1 based on one of
the three drinking water studies in rats noted above. The resulting
ambient water concentration calculated to keep the lifetime excess cancer
risk below 10"6 was 0.058 mg/liter. This value assumes ingestion of con-
taminated water and aquatic organisms from the contaminated water. Without
consumption of aquatic organisms from contaminated water, a lifetime cancer
risk of 10"6 would be associated with ingestion of water containing 0.063
mg/liter of acrylonitrile.
3-12
120-RI2-RT-PQJD-1
-------
Ammonia
Ammonia is a colorless gas with a penetrating, pungent, suffocating odor.
It is a severe irritant of the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. Ammonia
may be absorbed by inhalation, ingestion, and percutaneously, although it
is most likely to be an -inhalation hazard. The inhalation of anhydrous.
ammonia gas in industrial accidents has produced acute and chronic respira-
tory effects. Ingestion of ammonia/water solutions may produce esophagitis
and gastritis. The exact nature and intensity of toxic effects associated
with exposure to ammonia are reported to be unpredictable (Gosselin et al.
1984). The OSHA standard for occupational exposure to ammonia is 35 mg/m3
(50 ppm).
Arsenic
^———— • «
Arsenic is associated with an increased incidence of lung, liver, bladder,
and skin cancer in individuals exposed via drinking water (Tseng et al.
1968; Chen et al. 1986) and with an increased incidence of lung cancer in
occupationally exposed workers (Brown and Chu 1982). EPA's Carcinogen
Assessment Group (CAG) calculated a cancer potency factor for exposure via
ingestion of 15 (mg/kg/day)*1 based on the Tseng et al. (1968) study, and
calculated a cancer potency factor for inhalation exposure of 50 (mgAg/-
day)"1 based on several occupational studies. These potency factors can be
used to estimate risks associated with human exposure to arsenic. EPA has
classified arsenic in Group A — Human Carcinogen — based on the weight of
the evidence for carcinogenicity. EPA's Office of Drinking Water has
promulgated a drinking water maximum contaminant.level (MCL) of 50 mg/liter
for arsenic and has also presented this value as a proposed recommended
maximum contaminant level (RMCL), currently referred to as a maximum con- ,
taminant level goal (MCLG) (EPA 1985b).
The EPA Risk Assessment Forum is currently reevaluating the potency of
ingested arsenic, and preliminary results suggest that the cancer potency
factor for skin cancer will be lowered by approximately one order of magni-
3-13
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
tude. However, the internal tumors associated with ingestion exposure have
not been considered by EPA, and consideration of these tumors may ulti-
mately serve to raise the cancer potency factor.
Barium
Toxic effects of ingestion of barium include gastroenteritis, muscular
paralysis, hypertension, cardiotoxicity, including ventricular fibrilla-
tion, and damage to the central nervous system (Perry et al. 1983).
Inhalation of barium sulfate or barium carbonate dust causes baritosis, a
benign pneumoconiosis, in occupationally exposed workers. This effect is
reversible upon cessation of exposure. Using the EPA's criteria for
evaluating weight of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, barium is most
appropriately classified in Group 0, Not Classified. This category applies
to agents with inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity.
EPA has established a drinking water MCL of 1 mg/liter for barium. The EPA
Office of Drinking Water (EPA 1985b) proposed an MCLG of 1.5 mg/liter based
on a study by Perry et al. (1983) in which rats were exposed to barium in
drinking water. The proposed MCLG was derived by using the RfD of 0.021
mgAg/day calculated from this study and factoring in data on human expo-
sure. EPA's (1984a) acceptable intake for chronic oral exposure (AIC) to
barium also was based on the Perry et al. (1983) study and is' equivalent to
the RfO of 0.051 mgAg/day. For inhalation exposure, EPA calculated
acceptable chronic and subchronic intakes (AIC and AIS) of 1.4x10"*
mgAg/day and 1.4x10° mgAg/day, respectively, from a study by Tarasenko
et al. (1977) in which exposure of male rats to 0.8 rog/n3 barium resulted
in no observed toxic effects.
Benzene
A series of epidemiological studies, both cohort and case-control, showed
statistically significant associations between leukemia and occupational
exposure to benzene (Aksoy 1985, Wong 1982, Rinksy et al. 1987, Ott et al.
1978). Similar results have been obtained in a number of countries and in
different industries (IARC 1982). In addition, oral exposure of experi-
3-14
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
mental animals to benzene has been associated with increased incidences of
Zymbal gland and mammary gland carcinomas (NTP 1986). The toxic effects of
benzene in humans and other animals also include central nervous system
effects, hematological effects, and immune system depression (EPA 1985c).
Applying EPA's criteria for evaluating the overall weight of evidence of
carcinogenicity to humans, benzene has been classified in Group A,— Human
Carcinogen. This category indicates that there is sufficient evidence from
epidemiological studies to support a causal association between an agent
and cancer.
The EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) calculated a cancer potency
factor for benzene derived from human epidemiological studies (Ott et al.
1978, Rinsky et al. 1981) in which significantly increased incidences of
leukemia were observed for workers exposed to benzene, principally by
inhalation (EPA 1986b). EPA proposed a "single best judgment" estimate of
2.9x10"2 (mg/kg/day)'1. A cancer potency factor estimate for oral exposure
based upon human occupational exposure was derived by EPA (1980b, 1984a)~.
The inhalation-based oral estimate of 5.2xlO"2 (mg/kg/day)"1 was derived
using an absorption adjustment factor to estimate oral exposure from
inhalation data. The.concentration in water corresponding to a 10~6 excess
lifetime cancer risk is 0.66 mg/liter (EPA 1980b).
EPA (1985c) promulgated a final drinking water maximum contaminant level
goal (MCLG) of zero because benzene is a human carcinogen. A final
drinking water MCL of 5 mg/liter has been promulgated (EPA 1987a). MCLGs
consider only health effects whereas MCLs consider analytical issues,
treatability, occurrence, cost, and health effects. The EPA Office of
Drinking Water developed a ten-day health advisory (HA) of 235 mg/liter for
children (EPA 1987b). Health advisories for longer exposure periods were
not developed because of the potent carcinogenic response of benzene (EPA
1987b).
3-15
120-RI2-RT-FQJI>-1
-------
Cadmium
Cadmium has not been demonstrated to be a systemic carcinogen, but has been
shown to be a highly potent pulmonary carcinogen by inhalation (Takenaka et
al. 1983), and adverse renal effects are associated with ingestion.
The MCL established for cadmium by EPA in its national interim primary
drinking water standards and .the ambient water quality criterion for the
protection of human health are both 10 mg/liter (EPA 1980c). EPA esta-
blished the standard for cadmium on the basis of the "generally accepted"
estimate of 200 mg/g wet weight of cadmium in the renal cortex as the
critical concentration for renal toxicity. Friberg et al. (1974) estimated
that daily ingestion of 250-350 mg cadmium over 50 years would result in
such renal concentrations. Other more recent reviews suggest that 200
mg/day is an acceptable daily limit for cadmium intake.
The EPA Office of Drinking Water has promulgated a proposed RMCL (MCLG) of
0.005 mg/liter (EPA 1985b). The proposed MCLG is based on the estimate of
200 mg/g wet weight of cadmium in the renal cortex as the critical con-
centration for renal toxicity (Friberg et al. 1974) and a 25% contribution
to daily exposure from drinking water. An RfD of 5x10"4 mg/kg/day can be
derived from the EPA Office of Drinking Water (ODW) analysis (not including
the source contribution factor for drinking water).
EPA (1984b) recommended that 20 mg/liter be applied as the maximum addi-
tional increment from drinking water sources based on the drinking water
criterion level of 10 mg/liter cadmium proposed by EPA (1980c) and assuming
that an adult consumes 2 liters of water per day. The resulting AIC is
5.7x10"4 mg/kg/day (assuming that an individual weighs 70 kg).
Applying the criteria described in EPA's Guidelines for Assessment of
Carcinogenic Risk, cadmium has been classified by EPA on the basis of
inhalation data in Group Bl — Probable Human Carcinogen. This category
applies to agents for which there is limited evidence from human studies
and sufficient evidence from animal studies.
3-16
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Foe inhalation exposure, a cancer potency factor of 6.1 (mg/kg/day)"1 was
calculated by EPA (1985d) based on a study by Thun et al. (1985). This
value was derived from epidemiological data and is subject to a wide range
of uncertainty.
1,2-Dichloroethane
Human exposure by inhalation to 1,2-dichloroethane has been shown to cause
headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, irritation of mucous
membranes, and liver and kidney dysfunctions (EPA 1984c). Dermatitis may
be produced by skin contact.
1,2-Dichloroethane has produced a variety of tumors in rats and mice.
Applying EPA's criteria for evaluating overall weight of evidence of
carcinogenicity to humans, 1,2-dichloroethane is classified in Group B2 as
a probable carcinogen in humans. EPA (1985e) derived a cancer potency
factor for ingestion based on the incidence of hemangiosarcomas in
Osborne-Mendel male rats observed in a NCI (1978a) gavage study. Based on
the hemangiosarcoma response in male rats using a time-to-death adjustment
and an adjusted dose derived from the metabolism/kinetic evaluation, EPA
used the multistage model to estimate an upperbound carcinogenic potency
factor of 9.1xlO"2 (mgAg/day)~x for 1,2-dichloroethane.
EPA (1980d) also based the ambient water quality criterion for 1,2-
dichloroethane on the incidence of hemangiosarcomas observed in male rats
in the NCI (1978a) study noted above. However, because a somewhat
different approach was used, a carcinogenic potency factor of 3.697x10"2
(mg/kg/day r1 was derived. The resulting water concentration to keep the
lifetime excess cancer risk below 10"6 was 0.94 mg/liter. This value
assumes ingestion of contaminated water and aquatic organisms (e.g., fish)
from the contaminated water. Without consumption of contaminated aquatic
organisms, a lifetime cancer risk of 10~6 would be associated with inges-
tion of water containing 0.95 mg/liter of 1,2-dichloroethane.
3-17
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
EPA (1985e) used the negative inhalation data obtained in a study with rats
and mice by Maltoni et al. (1980) to calculate an inhalation upper-bound
estimate of carcinogen potency of 3.5xlO"2 (mgAg/day)"1. However, the
discrepant tumor responsiveness between oral and inhalation bioassays adds
a degree of uncertainty to the estimate of inhalation cancer potency.
The EPA Office of Drinking Water developed a longer-term health advisory
(HA) for 1,2-dichloroethane based upon the results of two chronic inhala-
tion studies (Heppel et al. 1946, Spencer et al. 1951) and one subchronic
inhalation study (Hofmann et al. 1971) in which various animal species were
exposed to 1,2-dichloroethane. The HAS derived for a 10-kg child consuming
1 liter of water per day and for a 70-kg adult consuming 2 liters of water
per day are 740 mg/liter and 2,600 mg/liter, respectively (EPA 1987c).
EPA (198.7a) recently promulgated a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5
mg/liter for 1,2-dichloroethane. The MCL was determined based upon con-
sideration of best available technology for removal of 1,2-dichloroethane
from drinking water and upon the lowest achievable detection level for .
1,2-dichloroethane by routine laboratory operating conditions within
specified limits of precision and accuracy.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
The most important acute toxic effect caused by exposure to 2,4-dinitro-
toluene is the induction of methemoglobinemia followed by cyanosis.
Symptoms reportedly caused by exposure to this compound include vertigo,
fatigue, nausea, dyspnea, drowsiness, tremor, paralysis, unconsciousness,
chest pain, and heart palpitation (EPA 1980e).
2,4-Dinitrotoluene is carcinogenic to rats after oral administration,
producing mammary tumors, hepatocellular carcinomas, and hepatocellular
neoplastic nodules in chronic bioassays (NCI 1978b, EPA 1980e). Applying
EPA's criteria for evaluating the overall weight of evidence of carcinogen-
icity to humans, 2,4-dinitrotoluene is classified in Group B2 as a probable
carcinogen in humans. EPA (1980e) derived a cancer potency factor for
ingestion of 0.31 (mg/kg/day)"1 based on the incidences of mammary and/or
3-18
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
liver tumors in rats observed in a NCI (1978b) study. EPA (1980e) based
the ambient water quality criterion for 2,4-dinitrotoluene on these
studies. The resulting ambient water concentration calculated to keep the
lifetime excess cancer risk below 10"6 was 0.11 mg/liter. This value would
be approximately the same for ingestion of contaminated water and aquatic
organisms or for consumption of contaminated water alone.
Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas with a characteristic rotten egg odor.
Inhalation exposure to concentrations of 70 to 280 mg/m3 may irritate the
eyes and lungs. At higher concentrations (-280. to 700 mg/m3), exposure may
result in headaches, dizziness, and nausea. One or two inspirations of
hydrogen sulfide at concentrations of 700 to 1,400 mg/m3 may result in
swift collapse, coma, and death from respiratory failure (Gosselin et al.
1984, NRC 1979, Merck 1983). Because hydrogen sulfide is rapidly detoxi-
fied in the body, any decrease in the intensity of exposure after in-
halation of such high concentrations may produce spontaneous, rapid revival
(Gosselin et al. 1984). The odor threshold for hydrogen sulfide is below
1.4 mg/ro3. However, odor is not a dependable way to detect hydrogen
sulfide since exposure to high concentrations (above 280 mg/m3) paralyzes
the sense of smell.
EPA (1986c) has calculated an oral RfD of 3x10"3 mgAg/day for hydrogen
sulfide based on the results of feeding studies in pigs. Although lacking
in some details, the study evaluated by EPA suggested that adult pigs
experienced digestive disorders when their diet was adjusted to include an
intake of 15 mgAg/day hydrogen sulfide. These effects were not seen at
intake levels of 3.1 mgAg/day.
Lead
The major toxic effects caused by exposure to lead are alterations in the
hematopoietic and nervous systems. Anemia caused by lead exposure has the
following pathogenesis. Heme synthesis is inhibited by the effects of lead
on a number of steps in the biosynthetic pathway. No threshold has been
3-19
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
identified for this effect on hente production. Decreased heme production
results in decreased hemoglobin production and anemia. Decreased heme
production can also have deleterious effects on other heme-containing
proteins, such as cytochrome P450, which detoxify certain chemicals in the
body. Impaired heme synthesis has been reported in adults at levels of
less than 30 mg/dl lead in the blood (EPA 1984d, 1984e).
TWO types of neurotoxic effects are associated with exposure to lead.
Levels of lead in the blood (PbB) of over 80 mg/dl in children and over 100
mg/dl in sensitive adults can cause severe, irreversible brain damage,
encephalopathy, and possibly death. Persons with these high levels may be
asymptomatic or show only slight signs of intoxication, but rapid deter-
ioration can occur. In children, permanent learning disabilities are seen
at these levels, even if there are no overt signs of lead poisoning (EPA
1984d, 1984e).
Other adverse effects are associated with exposure to low levels of lead.
Slow nerve conduction in peripheral nerves has been found in adults at _
30-40 mg/dl blood lead level (PbB); altered testicular function was
observed in men with PbB levels as low as 40-50 mg/dl; and renal dysfunc-
tion has been associated with PbB levels as low as 40 mg/dl (EPA 1984d,
1984e).
Oral ingestion of certain lead salts (lead acetate, lead phosphate, lead
subacetate) have been associated with increased renal tumor frequency in
rats (EPA 1985f), but no quantitative estimate of excess cancer risk has
.been performed by the Carcinogen Assessment Group of EPA. EPA (1985f) has
:
noted that the available data provide an insufficient basis on which to
regulate lead acetate, lead phosphate, and lead subacetate as human car-
cinogens. However, applying the criteria described .in EPA's Guidelines for
•
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment, these lead salts have been classified by EPA
in Group B2 — Probable Human Carcinogen.
The HCL for drinking water and the ambient water quality criterion are both
50 mg/liter for lead. A drinking water RMCL (MCLG) of 20 mg/liter has been
proposed by the EPA Office of Drinking Water (ODW). The proposed RMCL
3-20
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
(MCLG) is based upon the health effects of lead in infants and pregnant
women as a sensitive subpopulation (EPA 1985f). An RfO of 6x10"4 mgAg/day
can be derived based on the ODW analysis.
The Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead is 1.5
mg/m3. This standard is currently being evaluated for possible revision
(EPA 1985g).
Acceptable intakes for chronic or subchronic periods of exposure were not
calculated for either inhalation or oral ingestion in the Health Effects
Assessment Document (EPA 1984e) because the general population is already
accruing unavoidable background exposures through food, water, and dust.
Any significant increase above background exposure would represent a cause
for concern. .
Mercury
Mercury has long been recognized as one of the more toxic metals. The .
toxicity of mercury depends to some extent on its form; it can be part of
both inorganic and organic compounds. Mercury has been shown to have
adverse neurological effects in humans. Organic mercury compounds are
generally more neurotoxic than inorganic mercury. In addition, the
different forms of mercury can cause somewhat different neurotoxic effects
initially, although both will elicit the same effects at higher doses (EPA
1984f). Central nervous system lesions similar to those in humans,
proteinuria, and morphological kidney changes have been reported in animals
exposed to mercury (Roller 1979, EPA 1985h).
No data are available regarding the carcinogenic potential of mercury in
humans or animals. Applying the criteria for evaluation of the overall
weight of evidence of carcinogenicity to humans proposed by EPA, mercury is
most appropriately classified in Group D — Not Classified (EPA 1984f).
The MCL for mercury is 2 mg/liter. An BMCL (MCLG) of 3 mg/liter has been
proposed (EPA 1985b).
3-21
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
EPA (1986c) has derived an RfD for inorganic mercury of 0.002 mg/kg/day
based on an oral chronic study with rats (Fitzhugh et al. 1950). An RfD
for methyl mercury of 0.0003 mg/kg/day was developed by EPA based on
several studies reporting human poisonings. These RfDs are the currently.
accepted critical toxicity values for oral exposure to inorganic mercury
and methyl mercury. The EPA Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
(EPA 1984f) extrapolated an inhalation AIS of 0.51 mgAg/day from the
threshold limit value (TLV) for mercury vapor. An inhalation AIC of 0.051
mg/kg/day was derived by applying an additional safety factor of 10 to the
AIS.For organic mercury, the oral AIS and the oral AIC of 0.28 mg/kg/day
were based on data from an outbreak of mercury poisoning in Niigata, Japan
(Niettinen 1973). The inhalation AIS and AIC of 0.1 mg/kg/day were derived
from the TLV (EPA 1984f).
Phenol
Signs of acute phenol toxicity in humans and experimental animals are
central nervous system depression, collapse, coma, cardiac arrest, and
death. Acutely toxic doses can also cause extensive necrosis at the site
of exposure (eyes, skin, oropharynx) (EPA 1980f).
In a subchronic oral (gavage) study in rats (Dow Chemical Co. 1976), 0.1
g/kg phenol induced "slight liver changes and slight to moderate kidney
damage" in animals. However, lack of study details (numbers of animals,
incidence figures, specific lesions) in the 1980f EPA document make these
results unreliable for interpreting the toxic changes. Subchronic inhala-
tion studies conducted by Deichmann and Witherup (1944) in guinea pigs,
rabbits, and rats were inadequately designed (no control groups).
Therefore, caution should be used in interpreting the pulmonary,
myocardial, renal, and hepatic damage as compound induced. The results of
other subchronic inhalation studies are difficult to interpret based on the
information in secondary sources (EPA 1980f, 1984g).
3-22
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Applying EPA's criteria for overall weight of evidence of carcinogenicity,
phenol has been classified in Group D — Not Classified (EPA 1984g). This
category applies to agents for which there are no adequate data available
regarding carcinogenicity in humans or experimental animals.
•
An RfD of 0.1 mgAg/day for ingestion of phenol was based on the Dow
Chemical Co. (1976) subchronic rat study (EPA 1986c). The ambient water
quality criterion (AWQC) of 3.5 mg/liter/day for drinking water was
extrapolated from this study. The AWQC based on organoleptic properties
was established at 0.3 rog/liter (EPA 1980f).
An inhalation AIC of 1.4 ing/person/day was recommended by EPA (1984g) based
on the threshold limit value of 19 mg/m3 phenol established by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH 1983). •
PCBs
PCBs have a number of documented toxic effects on humans and other mammals.
In considering the health effects of PCS exposure observed in humans, it is
important to.note that PCBs are often contaminated with highly toxic
impurities, particularly polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). As the
effects due to PCDFs versus PCBs have not been separated in most human
studies and because the two cause similar effects, reported toxicities are
generally associated with commercial mixtures. The reader should recognize
that at least some of the reported effects may be due to the PCDF
impurities.
Dermatitis and chloracne (a disfiguring and long-term skin disease) have
been the most prominent and consistent findings in studies of occupational
exposure to PCBs. Reports of both chloracne and other PCB-related skin
effects have generally been associated with exposures to more highly
chlorinated PCB mixtures containing 42% chlorine or more (Chase et al.
1982, Emmett et al. 1983, Maroni et al. 1981a,b, Fischbein et al. 1979).
3-23
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Several studies examining liver function in exposed humans have reported
disturbances in blood levels of liver enzymes (Maroni et al. 1981b, chase
et al. 1982, Smith et al. 1982, Burnett et al. 1983). There is no evidence
that a "no-effect" level exists for these effects, since correlations were
found in individuals with low mean blood PCS levels.
Reproductive outcomes of women exposed to PCBs from high consumption of
PCB-contaminated fish from Lake Michigan were compared to births from women
who reported no such exposure (Fein et al. 1984a,b, Jacobson et al. 1983,
Jacobson et al. 1984). Reduced birth weights, slow weight gains, reduced
gestational ages, and behavioral deficits in infants were reported in a
methodologically sound study. The study did not, however, rigorously
establish that the causative factor was exposure to PCBs rather than other
contaminants present in Lake Michigan fish.
Based on the published literature, reproductive, hepatic, and innnunotoxic
effects appear to be the most sensitive noncarcinogenic endpoints of PCB
toxicity in nonrodent species, and the liver appears to be the most sensi-
tive target organ for toxicity in rodents.
PCBs are not highly toxic when given as a single oral dose to mammals
(Kimbrough et al. 1978), and would be classified as only slightly toxic
based on acute oral toxicities (Hodge and Sterner 1949). The more signi-
ficant toxic effects of PCBs are observed after repeated exposure over a
period of time (EPA 19851).
A number of studies have suggested that PCB mixtures are capable of in-
creasing the frequency of tumors in animals exposed to the mixtures for
long periods (Kimbrough et al. 1975, NCI 1978c, Schaeffer et al. 1984).
EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group (EPA 1985i) calculated a low-level cancer
potency factor for PCBs.based on a study of rats exposed to Aroclor 1260
(Kimbrough et al., 1975). The data on liver tumor incidence in the rat
study were used in the linearized multistage model to calculate 95% upper
confidence limits on risk. The cancer potency factor for lifetime exposure
to PCBs is 4.34 (mg/kg/day)"1. EPA (1984h) classified the weight of the
evidence for carcinogenicity as B2 — Probable Human Carcinogen based on -
3-24
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
sufficient evidence in animal bioassays and inadequate evidence from
studies in humans. Based on the Schaeffer et al. (1984) study, one would
expect less chlorinated PCS mixtures to be less potent, but potency factors
for mixtures other than Aroclor 1260 have not been calculated.
EPA (1980g) derived an Ambient Water Quality Criterion (AWQC) for the
protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic effects of PCBs
through ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms.
The recommended AWQC corresponding to a 10"* incremental increase of cancer
risk over a lifetime is 0.079 ng/liter. For ingestion of contaminated
water only, the PCB concentration that would correspond to a 10~6 excess
cancer risk is 8.1 ng/liter.
PAHs
Several of the PAHs have been shown to be potent carcinogens in animals,
producing tumors both at the site of application and systemically. Not all
PAHs have been shown to be carcinogenic, and some carcinogenic PAHs are'
clearly more potent than others. For regulatory purposes, EPA separates
the PAHs into two categories, the "carcinogenic" and "noncarcinogenic"
PAHs. This is a somewhat simplistic categorization, as many of the "non-
carcinogenic" PAHs have been shown to have some, albeit quite weak,
carcinogenic activity or to act as promoters or cocarcinogens while some of
the "carcinogenic" PAHs are considerably less potent than others.
The approach adopted by EPA (19841) as the basis for risk assessment is to
apply a cancer potency factor calculated from bioassays on benzo[a]pyrene
(B(a]P, one of the more potent carcinogens) to the subclass of carcinogenic
PAHs. EPA calculated a cancer potency factor of 11.5 (mg/kg/day T1 for
oral exposure to B[a]P (and the carcinogenic PAHs) based on a study by Neal
and Rigdon (1967). A cancer potency factor for inhalation of B[a]P of 6.1
(mg/kg/day)'1 was derived based on a study by Thyssen et al. (1981). IARC
(1983, 1984), in reviewing the carcinogenicity of the PAHs, indicated those
for which there was sufficient, limited, inadequate, or adequate negative
evidence of carcinogenicity (Table 3-2). The more potent carcinogens are
almost certainly included in the group for which sufficient evidence of
3-25
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
carcinogen!city is available, but all PAHs for which sufficient or limited
evidence of carcinogenicity is available will be considered as carcinogenic
PAHs for purposes of this assessment.
Selenium
Selenium is an essential element in animals and probably in humans (EPA
1980h, 1984J). However, exposure to amounts only slightly above the
required levels can produce acute and chronic toxic effects. Acute
toxicities of selenium compounds vary greatly, while the chronic effects of
most forms are similar. Acute effects include degeneration of liver,
kidneys, and heart; hemorrhages in the digestive tract; and brain damage.
Eye, nose and throat irritation may also occur with inhalation exposure.
Chronic toxicity in humans appears to occur only in living areas where
foods containing excessive concentrations of selenium are ingested. Signs
of chronic intoxication include depression, nervousness, dermatitis, gas-
trointestinal disturbances, dental caries and discoloration, lassitude, and
partial loss of hair and nails.
Applying the criteria proposed by the Carcinogen Assessment Group of EPA,
selenium is classified in Group D — Not Classified. However, there is no i
evidence that selenium is carcinogenic in humans (EPA 1984J).
Selenium is an essential element, and the National Academy of Sciences has
estimated an adequate and safe intake of selenium of 0.01 to 0.02 mg/day
for adults to prevent deficiency (EPA 1985J).
The MCL for selenium is 0.01 mg/liter. This level is based on signs of
selenium toxicity at an intake of 0.7 to 7 mg/day and an assumed selenium
intake of 200 mg/day (EPA 1985b). EPA (1985b) recently proposed an RMCL
(NCLG) of 0.045 mg/liter based on a provisional AADI of 0.106 mg/liter
derived from results of a chronic human study with data on human exposure
factored in. The Ambient Water Quality Criterion (AWQC) is 10 mg/liter
(EPA 1980h). Glover (1967) measured urinary selenium concentrations in
workers at a selenium rectifier plant over a 5-year period. He also
attempted to correlate airborne selenium levels with urinary selenium
3-26
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
levels and any adverse effects of selenium exposure in the workers. Based
on his study, Glover recommended maximum allowable air concentration of 0.1
mg/m3 for selenium exposure in the workplace.
EPA (1984j) used the study by Glover (1967) to calculate an inhalation AIC
of 0.001 mgAg/day. EPA (1984J) determined an AIC for ihgestion of 3x10"3
mgAg/day based on results of a chronic human study by Yang.et al.
(1983).
Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene is a central nervous system depressant from acute and
chronic exposure. High level exposure can result in death due to
respiratory and cardiac failure. Trichloroethylene was once used as a
general anesthetic, but its use was discontinued due to longer-term CNS
effects. The longer-term effects may have been due to impurities intro-
duced by soda lime used to remove carbon dioxide (EPA 19801).
The hepatotoxic potential of trichloroethylene has been evaluated in human
and animal studies. Animal studies have revealed transient increased liver
weights with relative liver weights decreasing postexposure (Kjellstrand et
al. 1983). Observations of liver or renal dysfunction in workers have been
infrequent, and factors other than trichloroethylene probably were more
causally related to the hepatorenal disturbances noted (EPA 1985k).
Industrial use of trichloroethylene is often associated with dermatological
problems, including reddening and skin burns on contact, and dermatitis
resulting from vapors. These effects are usually the result of contact
with concentrated solvent, however, and no effects have been reported after
exposure to trichloroethylene in dilute, aqueous solutions (EPA 1985k).
EPA's Risk Assessment Forum (EPA 1985c) classified trichloroethylene in
Group B2 — Probable Human Carcinogen (sufficient animal evidence of car-
cinogen! city and inadequate human evidence). The National Academy of
Sciences has classified it as an animal carcinogen (EPA 1985c). These
designations are based primarily in the results of animal bioassays in
3-27
120-RI2^RT-FQJD-1
-------
which exposure to trichloroethylene was associated with an increased
incidence of liver tumors in mice (NCI 1976, NTP 1982, NTP 1984). However,
it should be noted that EPA's Science Advisory Board concluded that a
definitive scientific opinion concerning the carcinogenicity of trichloro-
ethylene could not be made at that tine because the interpretation of male
mouse hepatocellular carcinomas is uncertain and the animal evidence is
limited (EPA 1985c).
Because of its classification as a carcinogen, neither AISs nor AICs for
trichloroethylene were calculated by EPA in its Health Effects Assessment
(HEA) for this compound (EPA 1984k). The Carcinogen Assessment Group
derived cancer potencies of 1.1x10'2 (mgAg/day)"1 for oral exposure and
4.6x10"3 (mgAg/day)"1 for inhalation exposure. These estimates are based
on the mouse liver tumor data in the NCI (1976) and NTP (1982) gavage
studies (EPA 1984k).
The drinking water MCL .for trichloroethylene is 5 mg/liter. The Office of
Drinking Water '(EPA 1987d) issued a draft lifetime health advisory of 260
mg/liter for the noncarcinogenic effects of trichloroethylene. A relative
source contribution factor was not included. The estimated excess cancer
risk associated with lifetime exposure to drinking water containing 260
mg/liter of trichloroethylene is 8.2x10"5.
Vinyl Chloride
Occupational exposure to vinyl chloride has been associated with an
increased incidence of hepatic angiosarcomas. Vinyl chloride exposure has
also been implicated in brain, lung, and hemolymphopoietic cancers in
humans. Animal studies in several species support the findings of epi-
demiological studies. Chronic inhalation and ingestion of vinyl chloride
has induced cancer in the liver (liver angiosarcomas and hepatocellular
carcinomas) and in other tissues in rats and mice (IARC 1979).
3-28
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
TABLE 3-2
CLASSIFICATION OF PAHs ACCORDING TO
EVIDENCE FOR CARCINOGEN!CITY
Chemicals for which there is sufficient evidence that they are carcinogenic
in animals:
Benzo(a)anthracene 7H-Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole
Benzo(b)fluoranthene Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene Dibenzo(a, h)pyrene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene Dibenzo(a,1)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)acridine Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,j)acridine 5-Methylchrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Chemicals for which there is limited evidence that they are carcinogenic in
animals:
Anthranthrene Dibenzo(a,c)anthracene .
Benzo(c)acridine Dibenzo(a,j)anthracene
Carbazole Dibenzo(a,e)fluoranthene
Chrysene 2-, 3-, 4-, and 6-Methylchrysene
Cyclopenta (c,d)pyrene 2- and 3-Methylfluoranthene
Chemicals for which the evidence is inadequate to assess
theircarcinogenicity:
Benzo(a)acridine Coronene
Benzo(g,h,i)fluoranthene 1,4-Dimethylphenanthrene
Benzo(a)fluorene • Fluorene
Benzo(b)fluorene 1-Methylchrysene
Benzo(c)fluorene 1-Methylphenanthrene
Berizo(g,h,i)perylene Perylene
Benzo(c)pnenanthrene Phenanthrene
Benzo(e)pyrene Triphenylene
Chemicals for which the available data provide no evidence that they are
carcinogenic: .
Acenaphthene Pyrene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Source: IARC 1983, 1984.
3-29
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
At high inhalation exposure levels, workers have experienced dizziness,
headaches, euphoria, and narcosis. In experimental animals, inhalation
exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride can induce narcosis and death.
Lower doses result in ataxia, narcosis,, congestion and edema of the lungs,
and hyperenia in the liver (EPA 19851).
Chronic inhalation exposure of workers to vinyl chloride is associated with
hepatotoxicity, central nervous system disturbances, pulmonary insuffi-
ciency, cardiovascular toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, and acre—
osteolysis (EPA 1985a). Chronic studies of experimental animals exposed to
vinyl chloride by inhalation or ingestion report effects involving the
liver, spleen, kidneys, hematopoietic system, and skeletal system (EPA
19841).
Applying EPA's criteria for evaluating the overall weight of evidence of
carcinogenicity to humans, vinyl chloride has been classified in Group A —
Human Carcinogen.
EPA (1984) reported cancer potency factors for exposure by inhalation and
ingestion to vinyl chloride. The cancer potency for inhalation is based on
an inhalation bioassay in rats (Maltoni and Lefemine 1975) in which liver
angiosarcomas were the predominant tumors observed. Using the linear
nonthreshold model, the data of Maltoni and Lefemine (1975), and inter-
species scaling factors, a human cancer potency of 2.5x10"2 (mg/kg/day)"1
was calculated. .
The cancer potency for oral exposure to vinyl chloride is based on a
long-term ingestion study in rats (Feron et al. 1981) in which increased
incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatic angiosarcomas were
observed. Using the data of Feron et al. (1981) and interspecies scaling
factors, a human cancer potency of 2.3 (mg/kg/day)~l was calculated. The
EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group (GAG) is presently reassessing the cancer
risk estimate based on the Feron et al. (1981) study by evaluating the more
recent data by Til et al. (1983) which is an extension of the earlier Feron
et al. (1981) work, but includes lower doses.
3-30
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
EPA (1985c) promulgated a drinking water RMCL (MCLG) of zero because vinyl
chloride is a human carcinogen. A drinking water MCL of 0.002 rag/liter has
also been promulgated (EPA 1987a). The State of California has established
an ambient air standard of 10 ppb for vinyl chloride.
Potential Exposure Pathways. An environmental exposure pathway usually
consists of the following elements: (1) a source and mechanism of chemical
release to the environment; (2) an environmental transport medium for the
released chemical (e.g., air, groundwater); (3) a point of potential human
or biota contact with the contaminated medium (referred to as an exposure
point); and (4) a route of exposure at the exposure point (e.g., ingestion,
inhalation, or dermal contact). In the discussion that follows, a number
of exposure pathways of potential concern for the Oil site are presented
for individual environmental media (leachate/soil, air, groundwater,
surface water). The pathways considered are those that are likely to be
important in the absence of leachate management activities at the Oil site.
This discussion is based on currently available information and it should
be noted that individual pathways may be added, excluded, or modified for
the final overall RI/FS for the Oil site as more information is made
available.
Leachate/Soil. Leachate from the Oil landfill can potentially act as both
a source of contamination and a medium of transport. Although surface soil
in the vicinity of the site is likely to have originally been free of
chemical contamination, contamination of surface soil has subsequently
occurred. Seepage of leachate has been observed from side slopes of the
fill area and migration to offsite areas has been reported. It can be
expected that, in the absence of leachate management activities, leachate
seeps will continue to appear and evaporate and also run off-site. Depend-
ing on the physiochemical characteristics of the soil and leachate compo-
nents, this may result in surface migration of contaminants or in selective
accumulation of some contaminants in surface soils.
Under the no-action alternative, pumping of leachate from the Iguala Wells
and the sumps in landfill Areas III and IV (Figure 1.4).\and pumping of
3-31
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
leachate from the underground collection tanks to the above-ground storage
tanks would be discontinued. Because the passive leachate collection
system would continue to operate, the existing wells, sumps, and tanks
located primarily in the southern portion of the landfill, would quickly
fill to capacity, and overflow. A large volume of. leachate would concen-
trate in this area of the landfill and would eventually flow off site.
Leachate not intercepted by the Iguala wells would appear as off-site sur-
face seepage on the slopes of Iguala Park and could run over the sidewalks
and roadways into the storm sewers.
In the absence of leachate management measures, contamination of surface
soil with chemicals from the Oil landfill could potentially occur both on
site and offsite. The landfill is elevated and exposed. The slopes of the
filled area are steep and, in some areas, extend beyond the boundaries of
the landfill property. Transport of contamination beyond the site boun- '
daries could potentially occur through a number of processes: (1) leachate
breakthrough on the landfill slopes with seepage to offsite areas, (2) phy-
sical movement of leachate or contaminated soil as a result of slope in-
stability or erosion, and shallow migration of leachate offsite causing*
surface seepage of points off the site, and (4) emanation of gases from
shallow leachate offsite via capillary movement and evaporation. Although
data currently available indicates that contaminants are not transported
offsite in surface runoff or precipitation, it should be noted that runoff
coming in contact with leachate would be a mechanism for carrying contami-
nants offsite. Contamination could potentially reach residential neigh-
borhoods in the City of Montebello, the Iguala Park area, the storm sewer
system, and a number of office complexes and developed areas in the
vicinity of the landfill.
Individuals working in the vicinity of the site (including sewer waters)
and local permanent residents (including adults and children), may poten-
tially be exposed to site-related contaminants. Exposure may occur offsite
or, if access to the site were not restricted, among trespassers venturing
onto the site. Potential routes of exposure to contaminants in leachate or
soil at onsite or offsite exposure points would involve direct contact with
these media and subsequent dermal absorption or incidental ingestion of the
3-32
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
chemical contaminants. Direct contact would be most likely to occur among
individuals regularly working outdoors (e.g., construction workers, sewer
workers, gardeners) or children. Ingestion of contaminated materials by
children may occur more frequently than would normally be expected due to
the sweet-smelling nature of some of the organic substances present in the
landfill leachate.
Air. Individuals living or working in the vicinity of the Oil landfill
also can potentially be exposed by inhalation to site-related contaminants.
In the absence of leachate management systems, release of the more volatile
components of landfill leachate (e.g., vinyl chloride, benzene, trichloro-
ethylene) to ambient air could contribute to airborne contaminant concen-
trations. During periods of weather inversions, airborne site-related
contaminants could be more persistent and ambient concentrations could
increase above levels likely to occur under less stable weather conditions.
In addition, other components present in leachate (e.g., cadmium, lead,
PAHs, PCBs) are more likely to adsorb to soil participates and may thus
become suspended as airborne particulate matter. Potential exposure to
landfill gases generated at the Oil site (e.g., methane, hydrogen sulfide,
vinyl chloride) is considered in detail in the Feasibility Study for Site
Control and Monitoring Alternatives. Because control of landfill gases is
not associated primarily with leachate management, landfill gases will not
'be considered further in this report.
Groundwater. The potential exists for chemicals present in the Oil land-
fill to contaminate local groundwater. Chemicals in the landfill can be
transported to groundwater in leachate or via dissolution by rainwater and
subsequent percolation through soil, and via migration in landfill gases to
groundwater. Groundwater is an important regional resource and is used for
drinking water, irrigation, and other domestic purposes in the vicinity of
the site. The greatest potential exposures via groundwater would be most
likely to occur either via direct ingestion, dermal contact during washing
and other domestic uses, and inhalation of volatile components in the
water.
3-33
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Surface Water. Current drainage patterns at the Oil site are such that
runoff to nearby surface water bodies is not considered a significant ex-
posure pathway. However, leachate can flow offsite, enter the local storm
sewer system, and subsequently migrate to surface water or groundwater.
Leachate does not meet the requirements for a NFOES permit.. Individuals
can potentially be exposed to contaminants originally present in leachate
and transported to surface water (or groundwater) by direct contact, in-
gest ion, or inhalation. The potential for exposure via this pathway is
likely to be highest for workers in the sewer system where the least amount
of dilution of leachate is expected to occur and where leachate-related
gases could build up to higher concentrations than in open spaces.
Other Exposure Pathways. Some site-related chemical contaminants may be
taken up by plants and translocated to edible plant parts. Individuals
subsequently ingesting such food products could thus be exposed. If *
chemicals capable of being taken up by plants reach local residential
gardens in soil, leachate, or irrigation water, exposure by this route
could be of potential concern. In addition to direct uptake by plants,
soil contaminants could potentially reach foliage or fruit via volatiliza-
tion from soil or leachate or due to direct deposition of airborne soil
particulates.
Potential adverse effects on pets or wildlife in the vicinity of the Oil
site are likely to be associated primarily with contaminated leachate,
soil, dust, surface water, or airborne contaminants. No domestic or farm
animals are believed to be present in the study area. However, free-
ranging pets which contact contaminated soil or leachate or consume con-
taminated prey may be at risk of exposure. Some animals (e.g., cats) may
be exposed by direct ingestion during grooming. Pets also may track con-
taminated soil to their owners' homes. Terrestrial mammals, birds, and
other wildlife also may be exposed to contaminants in surface soil or
leachate; aquatic life may be exposed to contaminants reaching surface
water.
Preliminary Risk Assessment. In this section, information on the potential
for exposure to site contaminants is evaluated along with available stan-
3-34
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
dards and criteria to evaluate possible risks to human health, welfare, or
the environment. A number of chemicals that may produce toxic effects in
exposed individuals have been detected at the Oil site. Two general types
of criteria are typically used to assess the potential health risks asso-
ciated with exposure to these chemicals: (1) applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs), and (2) health-based exposure guidelines.
In addition to consideration of health factors, ARARs may also reflect the
technological and economic feasibility of removing a chemical contaminant
from the environmental media of concern. Health-based guidelines reflect
consideration of only the health risks associated with environmental con-
taminants.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). Remedial
actions selected under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) must attain levels of cleanup of hazardous substances released
into the environment and of control of further releases which assure pro-
tection of human health and the environment. SARA specifies that any
selected remedial action must require a level of control which at least *
attains requirements that are legally applicable to the hazardous sub-
stances of concern or relevant and appropriate under the circumstances of
release or threatened release. Accordingly, EPA guidelines for preparing
risk assessments as part of the RI/FS process (EPA 1986a) recommend com-
parison of chemical concentrations found at or near a site with chemical-
specific ARARs. Under SARA, EPA at a minimum currently considers maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs)
developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, federal ambient water quality
criteria (AWQC), national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and state
standards to be potential ARARs for use in risk assessment at Super fund
sites. In addition, other relevant criteria or guidance may be useful in
assessing baseline risks or developing goals for remedial action.
Potential ARARs for contaminants of concern at the Oil site that would be
useful in assessing risks associated with ingestion of contaminated drink-
ing water are shown in Table 3-3. There currently are no data available
characterizing the extent of groundwater contamination, in the vicinity of
Oil landfill. Thus, comparison of the criteria and standards shown in
3-35
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Table 3-3 with concentrations in groundwater is not possible. All of the
leachate contaminant concentrations in Table 3-1 exceed the drinking water
criteria shown in Table 3-3, many by more than an order of magnitude, which
could suggest a potential for contamination of local groundwater beyond
concentrations protective of human health, welfare, and the environment.
However, leachate contaminants may undergo attenuation due to chemical,
physical, and biological processes prior to reaching groundwater.
There are no NAAQS and or chemical-specific air standards under the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP) directly applicable to the Oil
site. However, there .is a State of California ambient air standard of 10
ppb for vinyl chloride that has been exceeded in ambient air concentration
measurements in the vicinity of the landfill. In addition, as discussed
above, there are data which indicate that the concentration of landfill
gases at the perimeter of the Oil site exceeds 5% methane, a limit stipu-
lated by a California Haste Management Board landfill gas migration
requirement.
Qualitative Risk Characterization. If ARARs are not available for all
representative chemicals of concern and for all exposure scenarios con-
sidered, EPA guidance requires that a site-specific risk assessment be con-
ducted. As noted in previous sections of this report, analytical data des-
cribing the extent of contamination in environmental media in the vicinity
of the site are inadequate to allow a quantitative risk assessment. How-
ever, based on the information that is available, potential risks posed by
the Oil landfill site will be discussed qualitatively in the following
sections.
As noted above (Potential Exposure Pathways), individuals living or working
in the vicinity of the Oil site could be exposed by direct contact (with
subsequent dermal absorption or incidental ingestion) to .contaminants
present in soil or leachate if no action were taken to manage leachate
collected at the site. The likelihood of exposure would be expected to
increase with increased migration of contaminants present in soil and
leachate to adjacent residential and commercial areas. Although there are
3-36
120-RI2-RT-FQJI>-1
-------
no data on the concentrations of contaminants in surface soil in the
vicinity of the site, some leachate contaminant concentrations (as summar-
ized in Table 3-1) are relatively high. In addition, leachate seeps would
be expected to continuously appear, evaporate, and/or run off-site in the
vicinity of the landfill. A number of chemicals present in leachate (e.g.,
metals and PAHs) would be expected to adsorb onto soil particles and would
subsequently remain in the soil after evaporation, or could be transported
offsite by surface run-off of leachate. This process would result, over
time, in gradually increasing concentrations of these contaminants in soil.
Contact with landfill leachate or soil contaminated by leachate with sub-
sequent incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of contaminants could
potentially pose health risks, especially if exposure occurred regularly
for extended periods of time. Individuals likely to be at greatest risk
include: (1) persons regularly working outdoors (e.g., construction
workers, gardeners) in the vicinity of leachate seeps or contaminated soil,
(2) children playing outdoors in the vicinity of leachate seeps or contami-
nated soil, and (3) trespassers on the Oil landfill site.
Inhalation of chemicals volatilized from the Oil leachate (e.g., vinyl
chloride and benzene, two human carcinogens for which ambient air monitor-
ing data are available) could pose health risks to individuals if exposure
were prolonged at relatively high chemical concentrations. For example, it
can be estimated that ambient vinyl chloride and benzene concentrations of
approximately 1 ppb and 0.6 ppb would each result in possible excess life-
time cancer risks of 10"' (one in one million) by using the cancer potency
factor for this compound and by assuming one's lifetime exposure occurs for
only the 5 year period before final remediation of the Oil landfill is com-
pleted. These values, calculated for a 70 kg individual with a breathing
rate of 20 m3/day, are less than some of the ambient air values reported
for benzene and vinyl chloride in the vicinity of the Oil landfill prior to
upgrading the site control monitoring and leachate management procedures.
Thus, while acute toxic hazards-are unlikely to occur as a result of in-
halation exposures, long-term exposures could pose other adverse health
effects. It should be stressed that these calculations are presented for
illustrative purposes only and that ambient air monitoring data are inade-
quate for a more thorough analysis at this time.
3-37
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE 3-3
POTENTIAL APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
Oil LANDFILL SITE.
Safe Drinking Safe Drinking
Water Act Water Act
MCLS* MCLGS AWQC6
California .
Drinking Water
Action Levels
Ug/l)
Acrylonitrile
Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Cadmium
1 , 2-Dichloroe thane
2 , 4-Dini t rololuene
Hydrogen sulfide
Lead
Mercury
Phenol
PCBs
PAHS
Selenium
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
r_
—
50
1,000
5
10
5
—
—
50
2
—
—
—
10
5
2
M
—
(50)
(1,500)
0
(5)
0
—
—
(20)
(3)
—
(0)
—
(45)
0
0
0(0.063) —
_ _
0(0.025) — '
— ...
0(0.67) 0.7
10 —
0(0.94) 1
0(0.11) —
_ —
50 —
10 —
3,500 1*
0(0.0081)—
0(0.0031)—
10 —
0(2.8) 5-
0(2.0) 2
" Standards are primary MCLs, and are based on health-related
considerations, and technological and economic feasibility of control.
b Proposed MCLGs, which are subject to change prior to final promulgation,
are shown in parentheses.
c Values are adjusted for exposure through drinking water only. AWQCs for
potential carcinogens are set at zero; values in parentheses are
concentrations associated with 10" excess lifetime cancer risk.
d Drinking Water Action Levels Recommended by the Department of Health
Services, State of California, 1987.
* For chlorinated systems; taste and odor threshold.
3-38
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Inhalation of suspended soil particulates contaminated by landfill leachate
also could potentially contribute to risk. It should be noted, however,
that the extent of soil contamination and the degree of soil particulate
reentrainment into ambient air are not known. It therefore is unclear if
this route of exposure poses significant potential risks.
In the absence of leachate collection and treatment, contaminants from the
Oil landfill could potentially reach groundwater near the site. Ground-
water in the vicinity of the Oil site is believed to have significant use
as a potable supply and is considered to be an important local resource.
However, a full understanding'of the hydrogeology of the area, hydrogeo-
logic details regarding the aquifers in the area, and the susceptibility of
the aquifers to degradation by contaminants from the Oil landfill has not
yet been gained. Contamination of groundwater contaminated at levels cur-
rently observed in leachate for the representative chemicals of concern
would pose health risks to individuals using the water for domestic pur-
poses as a result of exposure by ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation.
However, some dilution of the concentrations seen in leachate would be •
likely to occur as a result of dispersion and attenuation. Data to provide
a quantitative estimate of potential health risks are not currently
available.
Surface runoff of Oil leachate to the local storm sewer system could poten-
tially collect in the system and eventually migrate to surface water or
groundwater. Depending on the degree of dilution or attenuation of site-
related contaminants, exposure to leachate, surface water, or groundwater
could pose health risks to individuals (e.g., local residents, sewer
workers) as a result of direct contact, ingestion, or inhalation. However,
data to provide a quantitative estimate of potential health risks are not
currently available.
Without proper leachate management measures, the Oil landfill could poten-
tially have a number of adverse effects on welfare in the vicinity of the
site. The occurrence of leachate seepage in the vicinity of the site would
present an unsightly appearance and could adversely affect property values
in the area. Contamination of groundwater also could adversely affect
3-39
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
property values and would require the use of treatment systems or obtaining
alternative water supplies for existing areas and for areas developed in
the future.
Unpleasant odors emanate from the landfill and available air monitoring
data support the likelihood that a number of organic chemicals may be
present in air at levels greater than their corresponding odor thresholds.
Increased buildup of leachate in the vicinity of the landfill and an in-
crease of surface seepage could result in increased surface and subsurface
emissions of volatile organic compounds. A number of these chemicals
(e.g., hydrogen sulfide) could produce objectionable odors in the neigh-
boring communities. Although concentrations of these types of compounds
may not reach levels that would be likely to threaten human health, they
may greatly reduce the desirable aesthetic characteristics of the sur-
rounding area.
Environment. The absence of leachate management measures at the Oil site
would have objectionable aesthetic effects on the area in the vicinity of
the landfill as noted in the section discussing risks to welfare. There
currently is not sufficient information describing contamination of surface
soil and leachate seeps to determine if the site would be likely to pose
significant hazards to the local flora and fauna. However, other potential
environmental impacts at the site are likely to be associated primarily
with exposure to contaminated leachate and surface soil. Pets, other
terrestrial animals, and birds may be exposed to contaminants present in
surface materials and leachate. Bioaccumulation of some of the chemicals
present in leachate (e.g., PCBs, PAHs, mercury), especially by soil in-
vertebrates such as insects and earthworms, may occur. Other animals
(e.g., higher predators.) ingesting these organisms may also be exposed,
thus leading- to some bioconcentration in the food chain. In addition,
contamination of groundwater and surface water in the vicinity of the site
would constitute degradation of potentially important environmental
resources.
3-40
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
In summary, the results of the preliminary endangerment assessment for the
no-action alternative of the leachate management FS suggest that environ-
mental media in the vicinity of the site could be degraded by Oil leachate.
Degradation could occur as a result of contaminant volatilization from
leachate, direct contact of soil adjacent to the site with leachate seeps,
percolation of leachate through soil to the underlying aquifer, and trans-
port of .leachate and leachate contaminated material to surface water via
the storm sewer system. Failure to effectively manage leachate generated
at the site could subsequently result in unacceptable adverse effects on
public health, welfare, and the environment. Implementation of the no-
action alternative could potentially result in relatively widespread envi-
ronmental contamination and future remedial actions could become very
costly or infeasible. Consequently, the no-action alternative was elimi-
nated from further consideration due to public health and environmental
concerns.
3.2.2 Off-Site Treatment
The off-site treatment alternative for the Oil site involves the continued
pumping of the Iguala wells, sumps and underground tanks to the above-
ground storage tanks. Collected leachate is then pumped from the
above-ground storage tanks by vacuum truck and is hauled to an off-site
waste treatment facility where it is treated and disposed of into a local
sanitary sewerage system. This is the leachate management alternative
which has been used at the Oil site since Nay 1985.
Off-site treatment of leachate at an acceptable facility is an effective
leachate management alternative. Uncontrolled leachate flow from the Oil
site, the subsequent potential exposure of receptors to this hazardous
substance, and the resulting adverse effects on public health, welfare, and
the environment that could occur (as discussed in Section 3.2.1,
"Endangerment Assessment for No-Action Alternative") would be prevented if
the off-site treatment option were continued. Additionally, off-site
leachate treatment provides a means of removing contaminants from a large
volume of liquid and concentrating them into a smaller, more easily managed
3-41
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
volume. A disadvantage of off-site treatment is that ultimate disposal of
the concentrated contaminant as sludge, and spent carbon, cannot be closely
monitored or as tightly controlled. Also, leachate spills could occur
during loading and unloading of vacuum trucks, and during transport to the
off-site facility. Hazards associated with isolated leachate spills could
include health risks associated with exposure by inhalation, ingestion, and
direct contact. However, implementation of appropriate emergency
procedures could effectively minimize these potential risks.
The overall degree of effectiveness of the off-site treatment alternative
depends largely upon the particular facility selected. Specific off-site
treatment facilities were initially selected for evaluation based on their
proximity to the Oil landfill site. Proximity was chosen as a screening
criterion based on the increased health and safety risks as well as the
additional cost associated with longer leachate transport distances. Also
considered was the RCRA compliance status of the facilities. EPA policy,
based on a May 6, 1985 memorandum entitled "Procedures for Planning and
Implementing Off-site Response Actions," is that no CERCLA hazardous
substances will be taken off-site to an RCRA facility if the EPA Region
determines that the facility has significant RCRA violations. Compliance
of each facility with local industrial discharge regulations was also
considered based on the premise that facilities which had significant
discharge violations posed a greater risk to public health and the
environment than those with no major'violations.
Based on these screening criteria and cost, two existing off-site treatment
facilities which would accept Oil leachate, the Triple J Pacification
Facility (ChemTech) located in Vernon, California, and the Oil Process
Company (OPC) located in Los Angeles, California, were identified for
further evaluation. Treatment at the ChemTech facility is the leachate
management alternative used since May of 1985. Between October 1984 and
January 1985, collected leachate was hauled off-site for deep injection
well disposal (Rio Bravo) in Bakersfield, California. From January 1985 to
May 1985 collected leachate was hauled to an off-site disposal facility
(Casmalia).
3-42
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Potential treatment of leachate at each of the two off-site facilities was
evaluated. Both facilities consist of similar physical/chemical treatment
process trains. Gravity separation of waste is followed by chemical coagu-
lant addition and dissolved air flotation or sedimentation. These units
will be, in the near future, followed by air stripping (ChemTech) or are
currently followed by steam stripping (OPC) of volatile organics and
activated carbon adsorption prior to discharge to a local sanitary sewerage
system. Sludge generated during the treatment processes is dewatered prior
to disposal at Kettleman Hills (ChemTech) or Casmalia (OPC). Both ChemTech
and OPC are currently capable of treating waste volumes in the range of 25
to 50 thousand gallons of waste per day of varying quality. Segregation of
waste types is practiced to maximize treatment efficiency. Although the
overall treatment systems are fairly complex when compared to municipal
waste treatment processes, automation and ease of operation has been
emphasized.
Both facilities currently possess and are currently in compliance with
their RCPA permits and are permitted by local .authorities to discharge -
treated effluent on a batch basis to local sanitary sewerage systems after
characterization. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District has regulated
the discharge from ChemTech since early 1985 and the city of Los Angeles
Bureau of Sanitation has regulated the discharge from the Oil Process
Company facility since'early 1986. Regulatory officials and plant
operators indicate only minor violations have occurred. OPC shut down to
make, treatment modifications for approximately two months shortly after
initial start-up on March 27, 1986, due to noncompliance with discharge
limits.
Off-site treatment of Oil leachate at either facility is currently an
available option. As stated previously, leachate from the Oil site is
currently hauled to the ChemTech facility for treatment and disposal. The
cost of leachate hauling, treatment and disposal as quoted by management
officials at each facility ranges from $0.34 per gallon at the ChemTech
plant to an estimate of $0.54 per gallon at the OPC plant.
3-43
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Based on an evaluation of off-site treatment of Oil leachate, it was
determined that this option would be an effective leachate management
alternative. This alternative adequately protects public health, welfare,
and the environment and acts in significantly reducing the overall volume
of hazardous substances at the site. Two existing off-site facilities,
ChemTech and OPC, were chosen for further evaluation in that they provide
protection to public health, welfare, and the environment, have reasonable
costs, and are in compliance with RCRA and local sanitary district
regulations and due to their proximity to the Oil site.
3.2.3 Off-Site Disposal
The off-site disposal alternative for the Oil site involves the continued
pumping of the Iguala Wells, sumps and underground tanks to the aboveground
•
storage tanks. Collected leachate is then pumped from the above- ground
storage tanks by vacuum truck and is hauled to an off-site RCRA disposal
facility.
Hauling and disposing of leachate collected at the Oil landfill site to an
approved RCRA landfill was considered to be a potentially acceptable
remedial measure. EPA policy, based on a May 6, 1985 memorandum entitled
"Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-site Response Actions,"
states that no CERCLA hazardous substances will be taken off-site to a RCRA
facility if the EPA Region determines that the facility has significant
RCRA violations.
Several RCRA regulated disposal facilities exist in the western United
States, including the Chemical Waste Management facility at Kettleman Hills
in Kettleman City, California, and the USPCI facility in Murray, Utah. The
Kettleman Hills facility cannot currently accept liquid hazardous wastes
from the Oil site, whereas the USPCI facility could accept Oil leachate.
Both facilities presently allow disposal of other liquid wastes into
doubled lined surface impoundments. The 1986 cost for disposal of leachate
at these facilities ranges from $0.65 to more than $1.00 per gallon.
3-44
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Several major disadvantages to the use of these alternative land disposal
facilities for Oil leachate disposal exists. One disadvantage is the
distance to the sites. The Kettleman Hills facility is the closest RCRA
disposal site, being over 200 miles away from the Oil landfill. The Utah
facility which is the closest RCRA site in full compliance and is located
approximately 700 miles away. The distance factor contributes to the cost
of disposal. Transportation costs for hauling to Kettleman Hills are
estimated at $0.15 to $0.20 per gallon, based upon a portal-to-portal
distance of 420 miles, and a 12-hour trip.
The collection and hauling of leachate to a RCRA disposal facility results
in improved protection of public health, welfare, and the environment in
the vicinity of the Oil site in comparison to the no-action alternative by
presenting uncontrolled surface and subsurface seepage of leachate from the
Oil landfill to adjacent environmental media and neighboring communities.
Under this alternative, leachate spills also could occur during loading and
unloading of vacuum trucks, and during transport to the off-site disposal
facility. However, it is likely that risks associated with infrequent
releases of this type could be minimized by implementing appropriate
emergency procedures. Nevertheless, off-site land disposal is not a
preferred method for management of CERCLA hazardous substances. The
recently passed Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
establishes a preference for remedies which permanently and significantly
reduce the mobility, toxicity or volume of wastes (permanency); SARA
considers land disposal the least preferred alternative. Additionally, a
recently adopted EPA policy for Superfund response actions involving the
off-site storage, treatment, or disposal of CERCLA hazardous substances
establishes a preference for response actions that use treatment, reuse or
recycling rather than land disposal. New EPA land disposal policy
prohibits land disposal of dioxins and solvents and other hazardous wastes
will be included under this policy in the future. Thus, off-site disposal
of free liquids may not be possible over the long-term.
The disposal of leachate collected from the Oil landfill site at an
off-site RCRA disposal facility was eliminated from further consideration
as a viable remedial alternative. The cost of this alternative exceeds the
3-45
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
costs of other alternatives evaluated without providing greater protection
of public health, welfare, and the environment. Additionally, this
alternative is the least preferred option due to its lack of permanency.
Because the mobility, toxicity, and volume of leachate would not
necessarily be reduced, implementation of this alternative could
potentially pose risks to public health, welfare, and the environment in .
the future in the vicinity of the disposal site.
3.2.4 On-Site Disposal
The on-site disposal alternative for the Oil site involves the continued
pumping of the Iguala wells, sumps, and underground tanks to the
above-ground storage tanks. Collected leachate is then pumped to on-site
surface impoundments.
Although the collection and disposal of leachate in on-site surface
impoundments may result in improved protection of public health, welfare,
and the environment when compared to the no action alternative because
uncontrolled leachate seepage would be prevented, on-site disposal will not
adequately protect public health and is not a preferred leachate management
alternative. Although evaporation from the impoundments would reduce the
volume of liquid leachate, many hazardous constituents would not be
captured for proper disposal. Volatile organic constituents present in the
leachate such as benzene, ethyl benzene,, toluene, dichlorobenzenes, vinyl
chloride, dichloroethane and methylene chloride would be expected to pass
into the atmosphere, degrade ambient air in the vicinity of the site, and
pose a potential health threat to nearby communities. Additionally, there
is a proposed California state regulation forbidding the disposal of
untreated hazardous wastes into evaporation'ponds. The on-site disposal of
untreated liquids from the Oil site would not be possible after
promulgation of this regulation.
The disposal of leachate collected from the Oil site in on-site surface
impoundments was eliminated from further consideration as a leachate
management alternative. This alternative was deemed ineffective due to
potential public health concerns, primarily as a result of exposure by
3-46
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
inhalation, and its least preferred status under SARA and EPA policies,
which reflect public health concerns. Because the mobility of leachate
would not necessarily be reduced, implementation of this alternative could
potentially pose risks to public health, welfare, and the environment in
the future in the vicinity of the Oil site.
3.2.5 On-Site Treatment
The on-site treatment alternative for the Oil site involves the continued
pumping of the Iguala wells, sumps, and underground tanks to the above-
ground storage tanks. Collected leachate would be treated in an on-site
waste treatment facility and disposed of into the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District sanitary sewerage system.
«
On-site treatment of leachate in a properly designed and operated treatment
facility is an effective leachate management alternative. Specific treat-
ment process trains can be configured to remove many contaminants and
thereby provide maximum protection of public health and the environment 'and
compliance with established policies. In addition, flexibility can be
designed into an on-site treatment facility so that treatment can be
modified, as needed, to adjust to changing leachate quality or quantity.
The overall effectiveness of the on-site treatment option depends on the
specific processes of the treatment alternative chosen. Several on-site
physical/chemical treatment alternatives were developed from the screened
technologies. These were reviewed to assess their feasibility for treating
Oil landfill leachate and to assess their effectiveness with respect to
protection of public health and the environment, and cost. As stated
earlier, only proven technologies were considered for formulation of
treatment process trains. These processes include gravity separation and
dissolved air flotation for oil and grease removal, air stripping and
activated carbon for organic pollutant removal, air stripping for sulfide
reduction and reverse-osmosis for reduction of total dissolved solids.
Special consideration was given to unit processes which could accomplish a
dual function in addressing the removal of critical pollutants from Oil
leachate. This would increase operational efficiency, decrease cost, and
3-47
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
allow greater flexibility of the treatment process to treat varying
qualities of leachate.
Different treatment alternatives were developed which attain and exceed
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, or provide similar
levels of protection. Alternatives developed include: (1) gravity
separation with sewering of effluent; (2) gravity separation followed by
coagulant addition, dissolved air flotation, filtration, and air stripping,
with vapor phase carbon adsorption, with sewering of effluent; (3) gravity
separation followed by coagulant addition, dissolved air flotation,
filtration and activated carbon, with effluent sewering; (4) gravity
separation followed by coagulant addition, dissolved air flotation,
filtration, air stripping without off-gas treatment and activated carbon,
with sewering of effluent; (5) gravity separation followed by coagulant
addition, dissolved air flotation, filtration, air stripping with vapor
phase carbon adsorption, and activated carbon with sewering of effluent;
and (6), same as (5) with addition of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis,
with sewering and/or reuse of effluent. Each alternative was subsequently
screened using the criteria presented at the beginning of this chapter. A
detailed description of each alternative which passed this screening
process is presented in Chapter 4.
»
On-Site Alternative 1
The first treatment alternative was developed as a minimal treatment
process, and included gravity separation or clarification, with discharge
of effluent to the LACSD sanitary sewerage system. The process was
proposed to remove oils and greases from the leachate with some solids
separation occurring as well. The unit chosen was a prepackaged,
corrugated plate coalescing separator with a minimum hydraulic retention
time of 40 minutes. Grease and oil would be skimmed to a storage tank and
sludge would be pumped to a holding tank for thickening and proper disposal
to a permitted landfill. Clarified leachate would be pumped or would flow
by gravity to the LACSD sewer system. Proximate sewer locations for five
alternative treatment plant locations are identified in Figure G-l.
This process would be simple, easily implemented, and inexpensive to con-
3-48
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
struct and operate. Although this alternative would improve the protection
of public health, welfare, and the environment, when compared to the no
action alternative (Section 3.2.1), adequate reduction of potential risks
may not be provided. On-site Alternative 1 would function in removing oil
and grease, organic constituents solubilized in the oily fraction, and
insoluble constituents but would not effectively remove soluble heavy
metals, sulfides, cyanides or water soluble organic constituents. The
toxic effects of a number of the leachate constituents that would not be
removed are discussed in Section 3.2.1, "Endangerment Assessment for
No-Action Alternative". These remaining constituents could constitute a
threat to public health, welfare, and the environment after they were
discharged to the sanitary sewerage system. Organic substances with a high
vapor pressure could volatilize and build up in sewer systems to create a
hazard for sewer maintenance personnel. Vapors could also be released
«
through manholes. Additionally, many contaminants, although significantly
diluted by domestic wastes after discharge to the sanitary sewer system,
could pass through the regional domestic wastewater treatment facility and
contaminate receiving waters.
On-site treatment Alternative 1 also does not appear to be a preferred
alternative for the management of leachate from the Oil site, based on
permanency; Since on-site Alternative 1 is not designed to remove organic
contaminants and soluble heavy metals, there is no significant and perma-
nent reduction in the toxicity, mobility, or volume of these pollutants
during the treatment process. Pollutants are discharged to the sanitary
sewerage system where they are diluted. Furthermore, if these materials
are not sufficiently diluted, they could then potentially pose risks to
health, welfare, or the environment in the future and at locations away
from the Oil site.
Although on-site treatment Alternative 1 results in improved management of
leachate from the Oil site, in comparison with the no action alternative,
this alternative does not appear to provide an adequate level of protection
of public health, welfare, and the environment. In addition, because this
alternative does not significantly and permanently reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of many pollutants, it is not a preferred alternative
3-49
120-RI2-RT-PQJD-1
-------
under SARA. Therefore, on-site treatment Alternative 1 was screened from
further consideration.
On-Site Alternative 2
The second on-site treatment alternative consisted of Alternative 1 with
the addition of a rapid mix unit, a solid/liquid separation system, rapid
sand filtration, air stripping, and off-gas treatment. A coagulant would
be added in the rapid mix unit and the coagulated materials would be skim-
med off or settled out in the solid/liquid dissolved air flotation separa-
tion system. Additional solids would be removed by rapid sand filtration.
Air stripping, incorporating a vapor phase carbon adsorption system would
be employed for sulfide and organic pollutant removal. Effluent from this
facility would be sewered to the LACSD system.
This system would provide better protection of public health, welfare*, and
the environment than Alternative 1. Emulsified oil and grease, solids and
heavy metals would be removed, utilizing the rapid mix coagulant addition,
dissolved air flotation and filtration. Sulfides and volatile organic
compounds would be removed from the liquid phase in the air stripping
column and captured by the vapor phase carbon adsorption column. The
effectiveness of this system in removing toxic constituents prior to dis-
charge would be dependent on raw leachate quality and the fraction of
strippable toxic organics. Semi-volatile constituents might not be
adequately removed by this system. This alternative provides a means of
concentrating and capturing volatile toxic constituents present in the
leachate thus allowing for a permanent and significant reduction in their
toxicity, mobility, and volume. Therefore, on-site treatment Alternative 2
appears to be a preferred alternative under SARA and could effectively
contribute to protecting public health. On-site Alternative 2 was
considered a viable option for further consideration.
On-Site Alternative 3
The third on-site treatment alternative consisted of Alternative 2 with the
air stripping and vapor phase carbon adsorption off-gas treatment unit
3-50
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
processes replaced by a liquid phase granular activated carbon adsorption
system for toxic organic constituent removal. Effluent from this system
would be discharged to LACSD sewers.
This treatment plant alternative is considered to be comparable to or
slightly better than Alternative 2 in providing adequate protection of
public health, welfare, and the environment. Sorbable organic constituents
would be removed from the liquid leachate in the carbon towers. This
configuration might not be as effective as Alternative 2 in removing low
molecular weight volatile organics, but would be more effective in the
removal of semi-volatile sorbable constituents.
Alternative 3 provides a means of concentrating and capturing toxic consti-
tuents present in the liquid leachate on a solid sorbant. The pollutants
are thus largely immobilized and the volume is reduced. This alternative
appears to be a preferred alternative under SARA and could effectively
contribute to protecting public health. On-site treatment Alternative 3
was considered an alternative which should be evaluated in detail.
On-Site Alternative 4
The fourth on-site treatment alternative was formulated by combining some
components of Alternatives 2 and 3. It consisted of the same gravity
separation, rapid mix coagulant addition, dissolved air flotation and
filtration process train followed by air stripping without off-gas
treatment and granular activated carbon adsorption with sewering of
effluent.
Alternative 4 would be the most reliable of the first four on-site
alternatives in producing the cleanest effluent. Highly volatile toxic
organics present in the Oil leachate would be removed in the air stripping
column with other sorbable toxic organics removal by activated carbon
adsorption. This alternative would provide good overall total toxic
organic and sulfide removal, as well as oil and grease and metal removal,
plus it would allow for more effective use of the activated carbon than
Alternative 3 and thus lower carbon replacement costs. \\
3-51
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
The disadvantage of on-site treatment Alternative 4, is its the failure to
treat off-gas from the air stripping tower. Toxic volatile organics
stripped from the liquid phase to the gas phase should be removed from the
gas phase in order to effectively reduce odors, protect public health, and
significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the wastes in
accordance with SARA. Transferring hazardous substances from the liquid to
gas phase is not a permanent method of reducing the toxicity or mobility of
these pollutants. Therefore, Alternative 4 has been eliminated from
further consideration on the basis of lack of permanency and potential
contribution to public health problems.
On-Site Alternative 5
On-site leachate treatment Alternative 5 consisted of the same unit
processes as presented in Alternative 4 with the addition of a vapor phase
carbon adsorption system. This system provided for improved protection of
public health over Alternative 4 by captur.ing toxic constituents present in
off-gases from the air stripping tower. Alternative 5 also provided a
better degree of permanence than Alternative 4 in that the mobility of the
stripped toxic pollutants was significantly and permanently reduced, due to
capture in the vapor phase carbon adsorption column. Therefore, on-site
treatment Alternative 5 was considered for further evaluation.
On-Site Alternative 6
The sixth on-site treatment alternative was identified specifically to
exceed applicable or relevant and appropriate standards. This remedial
alternative consists of the system presented in Alternative 5 with
additional treatment to remove total dissolved solids (IDS). This system
was designed to provide effluent of irrigation reuse quality, and thus
would exceed LACSO discharge standards.
IDS removal, necessary for reuse, will be accomplished using an ultrafil-
lation/reverse osmosis (UF/RO) desalination system. Ultrafiltration was
provided as pretreatment for the reverse osmosis unit!to reduce membrane
3-52
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
fouling. A detailed description of the UF/RO system is presented in
Section 4.2.1. High IDS brine resulting from the treatment process would
be disposed of to the sanitary sewerage system.
On-site treatment Alternative 6 is considered to be an innovative leachate
management alternative which provides protection of pubic health, welfare,
and the environment and which complies with SARA. Therefore, this alter-
native was deemed to warrant further analysis. Although costs would be
higher for this option than other on-site treatment alternatives evaluated,
a preliminary estimate of costs indicated that increased costs would not
greatly exceed costs for other on-site alternatives and this would not
necessitate rejection on a cost basis.
3.2.6 Summary of Alternative Screening
Initial screening of remedial action alternatives to manage OZZ leachate
was performed to eliminate alternatives which were not effective in
protecting public health, welfare, and the environment, did not follow
established EPA policies, and did not permanently and significantly reduce
the mobility, toxicity or volume of hazardous substances. Of the ten
proposed, five alternatives were eliminated based on these considerations.
None of the ten alternatives was deemed significantly more costly than
other viable alternatives.
Various off-site and on-site treatment and disposal alternatives were
reviewed. Off-site treatment and four of the six on-site treatment alter-
natives were found to be acceptable, based on the previously referenced
selection criteria. These were selected to undergo further analysis. Both
off- and on-site disposal alternatives were eliminated from consideration
after review. Table 3-4 presents a summary of the screening process
performed on the proposed remedial alternatives for the management of the
Oil landfill leachate.
3-53
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE 3-4
SUMMARY OF INITIAL SCREENING OP ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Results of Initial Screening
Reason for Elimination
No Action
Off-site treatment
Off-site disposal
On-site disposal
On-site treatment
Alt.l - Gravity separation sewer disposal Eliminated
Alt.2 - Gravity separation, coagulation
addition, DAF, filtration, air
stripping with off-gas treatment
sewer disposal
Alt.3 - Same as Alt.2 with GAC replacing
_.air stripping/off-gas treatment
Alt.4 - Same as Alt.3 with air stripping
without off-gas treatment added
prior to GAC
Eliminated
Consider further
Eliminated
Eliminated
Consider further
Consider further
Eliminated
Alt.5 - Same as Alt.4 with off-gas treat- Consider further
ment added
Alt.6 - Same as Alt.5 with UF/RO added and Consider further
reuse of effluent
Potential adverse public health and
environmental effects
Potential adverse public health
effects, EPA policy, permanency,
cost
Potential adverse public health
effects, permanency
Potential adverse health and
environmental effects, permanency
Potential adverse health effects,
permanency
•tn-t T a
-------
4.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
this section presents a detailed evaluation of the five alternatives that
remain after the initial screening described in Section 3.
The alternatives selected for further analyses include:
«
o Off-site treatment
- Off-site treatment at a permitted facility
o On-site treatment
Gravity separation—> DAF—> filtration—> air stripping
with off-gas treatment—> effluent disposal to LACSD.
(On-site Alternative 2)
Gravity separation—> DAF—> filtration—> activated
carbon—> effluent disposal to LACSD. (On-site Alternative
3)
Gravity separation—> DAF^-> filtration—> air stripping
with off-gas treatment—> activated carbon—> effluent
disposal to LACSD. (On-site Alternative 5)
Gravity separation—> DAF—> filtration —> air stripping
with off-gas treatment—> activated carbon—>
ultrafiltration—> reverse osmosis—> reuse of effluent for
irrigation or discharge to LACSD. (On-site Alternative 6)
The ability of the remedies specified under each alternative to protect
human health, welfare, and the environment are evaluated in the context of
engineering performance and reliability. The detailed analysis of each
alternative includes an evaluation based on non-cost factors followed by an
evaluation based on cost. Non-cost criteria examined for each alternative
include the following:
o Technical considerations. A refinement and description of the
alternative in detail, with emphasis on the use of established
technology, is provided. Criteria examined include the expected
performance, reliability and implementability of the alternative.
• \
o Safety and public health protection. A discussion and assessment
of the safety and public health concerns of the alternative is
provided.
4-1
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
o Institutional requirements. A discussion of the institutional
requirements which would apply to the alternative is presented.
o Environmental impacts. Possible adverse environmental impacts
which could result from implementing the alternative are
discussed.
A detailed cost analysis, including operation and maintenance cost and
distribution of costs over time is present in Secton 4.3.
4.1 OFF-SITE TREATMENT OF LEACHATE
4.1.1 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION OF OFF-SITE TREATMENT
Description
Off-site treatment is the method currently being used to manage the leach-
ate generated at the Oil landfill. Leachate is pumped on a daily basis
from the underground collection tanks to the above ground Baker storage
tanks. -The leachate is periodically pumped from the storage tanks and
hauled to an off-site treatment plant where it is batch-treated and the
effluent disposed of in the LACSD sewer system. There are two off-site
treatment facilities in Southern California that are permitted and capable
of treating the leachate:
o ChemTech; Vernon, California
o Oil Process Company; Los Angeles, California
The operation of the ChemTech plant, which is currently treating the
leachate from the Oil facility, is described below.
The ChemTech treatment process train (Figure 4-1) begins with the
plate separator where gravity separation of oil, water, and solids occurs.
The leachate then enters a chemical mixing tank where alum (48% aluminum
sulfate) is added under pH control (near neutrality). Oil and suspended
solids are subsequently removed in the presence of polymer as floe in the
dissolved air flotation (DAF) tank. Pinpoint floe not skimmed in the DAF
4-2
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Influent
Storage
Vacuum
Trucks
OH Water
Gravity
Stparator
D.A.F.
(Dissolved
Air
Flotation)
Sand
and
Cannlster
Fillers
»—
Air
Stripping
Carbon
Adsorption
»-
Efflusnt
UMlrflnn
noiQing
Tanks
'*-
Sewer
Project No.
120-RI2
Oil Industries Landfill
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
CHEMTECH LEACHATE
TREATMENT PROCESS
Figure
4-1
-------
tank is removed by sand and canister filters. Clarified, de-oiled leachate
subsequently passes into granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption towers
for removal of dissolved organics. The facility is currently adding an air
stripping tower to the process train prior to GAC adsorption in order to
reduce carbon usage. Sludge generated in the DAF tank and plate separator
is routed to a filter press for dewatering before disposal at a RCRA
landfill. Design flow fates are in the range of 50-70 gpm.
Performance
It is estimated that since April, 1985, more than 3 million gallons of Oil
leachate have been treated at the ChemTech plant. The effluent is batched
and tested prior to discharge to the LACSD sewer system. If the effluent
meets the LACSD discharge limitations (listed in Table 2-2) and the permit
conditions are met, the effluent is pumped to the sewer. If the conditions
are not met, further treatment is required. In a November, 1986, discus-
sion with staff at the LACSD, it was indicated that the ChemTech processes
have been effective'for the treatment of leachate. During early June 1985,
EPA consultants Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) conducted a treatability
test at the ChemTech Treatment facility. Samples were taken of the raw
leachate, the treated leachate effluent and at a point in the process
between the sand filtration and the carbon adsorption units. Altogether
five samples of raw leachate, five samples of effluent and four
"in-process" samples were tested. The oil and grease was the only
parameter that exceeded the LACSD discharge limitation. The oil and grease
content was measured by WCC at 30-50 mg/1. The LACSD discharge limit is 10
mg/1, however, the LACSD stated that the ChemTech effluent normally meets
the oil and grease discharge limit of 10 mg/1.
Reliability
All of the processes utilized in the various units comprising the plant are
commonly used in industry. Further, they have been used at other leachate
treatment facilities. Operation of the ChemTech treatment facility is not
complex, operates by partial automation, and has low maintenance require-
j '
ments. Off-site treatment at the ChemTech facility will remain viable as
4-4
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
long as the plant is approved to treat Oil leachate and can provide unin-
terrupted service. The ChemTech facility, as a private enterprise, can
cease operation at any time, especially if it becomes unprofitable. In
addition, if regulations are violated, this option could not be continued.
An alternative off-site treatment facility would have to be used. Off-site
treatment might then require excessive haul distances and associated
increases in cost and risk. Off-site treatment therefore, is of
questionable .reliability.
Implementability
The ChemTech facility is already treating Oil landfill leachate, therefore
it can be implemented immediately.
4.1.2 SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION
Operation of the ChemTech facility itself does not pose a major threat to
the health and safety of the community. Leachate is trucked seven miles
from the landfill to the treatment plant. Adverse public health, welfare,
and environmental impacts could occur in the case of an accident on the
trip to the treatment plant. Statistics are not available on the
probability of an accident occurring on the route the tanker trucks would
take. Due to the short haul distance to the ChemTech facility and the low
hauling frequency, there is a small probability of an accident involving
leachate spillage. Overall accident statistics from the U.S. Department of
Transportation (1982) indicate some 451 accidents occur per one hundred
million vehicle miles. It has been estimated that in tanker truck
accidents, 53 percent result in spillage of the contents (1981 California
Highway Patrol statistics). (This would place the probability of an
accident with a spill at greater than 1 percent per year.) Tanker spillage
along this route could result in exposure of the public to toxic chemicals
via direct contact with leachate as well as via contact with leachate
contaminated soils, surface water, and groundwater, and via inhalation of
volatile organic emissions. Short-term, one time exposures to leachate
following a transportation accident are not likely to .pose significant
health risks, especially if appropriate emergency response actions are
implemented.
4-5
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Leachate is loaded into tank trucks on the Oil site by means of a vacuum
pumping system. Under this type of loading system, neither leachate nor
odors are likely to escape. 'However, experience has shown that this
activity poses the greatest risk of a spill during transport of leachate.
The vacuum pumping station would be a special area of the Oil site designed
to contain any spill that would occur if a hose or valve failed. Any
spillage would be removed to prevent exposure and associated risks to the
nearby residential areas. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
Plan (SPCC) would be developed for the site. The SPCC could not address
any failures in the vacuum truck equipment which could cause leakage during
transport.
Public health risk resulting from a 5,000 gallon spill of leachate is
difficult to assess. It would depend on the nature and location of the
accident. The leachate is not highly volatile, and it is anticipated that
any major health effects of a spill would result mainly from direct
contact. In addition, it should be noted that in all situations where
contaminated materials are removed from a site and treated, stored, or
disposed at a RCRA-permitted facility, it is not necessary to include the
RCRA facility as a source of chemical release to the environment for
purposes of remedial alternative assessment. Potential releases during
transport of wastes from the site to the RCRA facility also need not be
considered (EPA 1986a). Consequently, only spills during transfer of
leachate at the Oil site need be considered explicitly for this assessment.
As noted above, development and implementation of an SPCC Plan for the site
would minimize potential risks to public health in the vicinity of the
site.
4.1.3 INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
ChemTech Systems Inc. is presently permitted to accept and treat leachate
from the Oil landfill at its treatment plant. ChemTech has an industrial
discharge permit to discharge to the LACSD sewer on a batch basis. The
batched treatment plant effluent must meet LACSD discharge requirements
prior to release into the sewer system. The plant operation currently
4-6
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
meets the requirements of the SCAQMD and federal and state requirements
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
4.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Off-site treatment would reduce the volume of leachate at the Oil site and
consequently reduce the risk of leachate contamination of the environment;
Possible adverse impacts are similar as those discussed in the public
health section. If a spill occurred as the result of an accident, some
environmental damage may occur, depending on the nature and location of the
accident, the proximity to sensitive environmental receptors, and the
environmental fate and transport of leachate contaminants in the vicinity
of the spill. A spill which could occur at the Oil site during truck
loading activities is expected to be contained within the site boundaries
by virture of the SPCC plan for the site and thus would be expected to
cause only minimal additional adverse environmental impacts. A major spill
of leachate on the highway along the route to ChemTech could potentially
cause environmental damage. Although the trucking route to ChemTech does
not pass any waterways, a major spill of 5,000 gallons of raw leachate on
the highway in specific areas could probably not be completely contained
before a portion of the spill entered the storm drainage system with
potential for contaminating surface waters. The trucking route passes over
major storm drains tributary to both the Los Angeles River and the Rio
Hondo Coastal Basin Spreading Grounds. The Pomona Freeway, west of Oil to
Atlantic Boulevard, passes over six channel tributaries to the Rio Hondo.
Additionally, west of Atlantic Boulevard, the Pomona and Long Beach
Freeways pass over many channels tributary to the Los Angeles River. These
channels are primarily underground with limited access and have no flow
control systems in their design. A SPCC plan which would be developed if
this alternative were selected, would include response actions to be
undertaken in order to minimize any environmental impacts which could occur
if a spill at the site or along the trucking route to the off-site
facility. As noted above, however, potential releases during transport of
leachate from the Oil site to the off-site RCRA treatment facility need not
be considered in this assessment of remedial alternatives.
4-7
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
4.1.5 ALTERNATE OFF-SITE TREATMENT AT OIL PROCESS COMPANY
Oil Process Company (OPC) operates an industrial liquid waste treatment
facility in Los Angeles. OPC operates as a RCRA approved facility under a
Part B permit issued by California DOHS. The facility is permitted for
industrial discharge by the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Sludge
generated at the treatment facility is hauled to Casmalia for disposal.
The process treatment of liquid wastes is similar to the CheraTech facility
and consists of coagulation, sedimentation, gravity separation, OAF, steam
stripping and activated carbon. OPC will accept leachate from the Oil
landfill site.
The evaluation of technical feasibility, safety, institutional compliance,
public health and environmental impacts is similar to the evaluation for
the ChemTech facility. The haul route would be about 3 miles longer and
would cross the Los Angeles River. The SPCC plan developed for the
alternative would address spill response actions to minimize environmental
impacts in case of an accident, however, prevention of direct contact with
the leachate and prevention of surface and groundwater contamination could
not be ensured.
Future off-site treatment of Oil leachate will be determined by competitive
bidding from approved waste treatment facilities.
4.2 ON-SITE TREATMENT OF LEACHATE
4.2.1 TECHNICAL DISCUSSION OF ON-SITE TREATMENT
The on-site treatment alternative for managing Oil landfill leachate
involves the construction and operation of a leachate treatment facility at
the landfill site. The following four alternative treatment plant
configurations were evaluated for treatment of the leachate:
4-8
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Process Train #1
Gravity separation —> coagulant addition —> dissolved air flotation
—> filtration —> air stripping with vapor phase carbon adsorption
... discharge (On-site Alternative 2)
Process Train #2
Gravity separation —> coagulant addition —> dissolved air flotation
—> filtration —> liquid phase granular activated carbon adsorption
... discharge (On-site Alternative 3)
Process Train 13
Gravity separation —> coagulant addition —> dissolved air flotation
—> filtration —> air stripping with vapor phase carbon adsorption
—> liquid phase granular activated carbon adsorption ... discharge
(On-site Alternative 5)
Process Train 84
Gravity separation —> coagulant addition —> dissolved air flotation
—> filtration —> air stripping with vapor phase carbon adsorption
—> liquid phase granular activated carbon adsorption —>
ultra-filtration —> reverse osmosis ... reuse and/or discharge
(On-site Alternative 6)
In addition to evaluating, in detail, the effectiveness and associated
costs of each of the above-referenced treatment alternatives, four possible
locations for siting the treatment facility at or adjacent to the landfill
were evaluated to determine the effect of plant location on cost, consist-
ency with the final remedy, and other public health and safety factors.
This analysis, which is included as Appendix G, illustrates that minor dif-
ferences in capital and present worth costs exist between the four siting
alternatives. A fifth siting alternative is also presented in Appendix A.
Description
The unit processes for removal of oil and grease and heavy metals are the
same for the four on-site treatment alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and
6). The processes for the removal of the organic compounds vary between
on-site treatment Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. A schematic of the Alternative
2 process train is shown in Figure 4-2. Without granular activated carbon -
(GAC) adsorption following air stripping, it is unlikely that the treated
4-9
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Oil and Greaee
Separator
Polymer
Existing Leacnate
Collection and Pumping
Raw Leachate Storage
Oil and Conditioning
Graaaa Tank
Pump
Refected Eflluant Return
*»• To Sewer Manhole
Effluent Storage Tanka
Pump
Project No.
120-RI2
OH Industries Landfill
Camp
McKee Inc.
ALTERNATIVE 2 TREATMENT1 Flgure
PLANT PROCESS TRAINS 4-2
-------
leachate would consistently meet the requirements for total toxic organic
removal needed for an off-site wastewater discharge permit (considered an
ARAR). Even so, this alternative reduces the threat from the hazardous
leachate and provides significantly increased protection of public health,
welfare, and the environment in comparison to the no-action alternative
(Section 3.2.1).
On-site treatment Alternative 3, as depicted schematically in Figure 4-3,
employs granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption following the initial
treatment process. Activitated carbon removes organic contaminants from
water by the process of adsorption. Activated carbon may not effectively
remove the smaller, polar organic constituents in the leachate, such as
methylene chloride and vinyl chloride, due to the existence of a complex
organic matrix in the waste and the resulting competitive adsorption
effects. Alternative 3 should provide organic removal as required to meet
the LACSD total toxic organic effluent discharge limitation of 1.0 mg/L.
This is essentially the same process train utilized at the ChemTech
treatment facility during the period April 1985 through December 1986.
On-site treatment Alternative 5, shown in Figure 4-4, includes both air
stripping and GAC adsorption. By utilizing both units, this alternative is
expected to achieve the LACSD discharge requirements for both vinyl
chloride and total toxic organics. Air stripping will lessen the organic
load on the GAC unit thereby reducing carbon consumption and the associated
costs. This sytem includes a vapor phase carbon adsorption column to
capture toxic constituents present in off-gases from the air stripping
tower.
On-site treatment Alternative 6, shown schematically in Figure 4-5, adds
ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis to the process train of on-site
treatment Alternative 5. This process would remove total dissolved solids
from one portion of the treated leachate and concentrate it in another
portion, creating two products: irrigation quality water for use on-site
and a brine waste high in TDS requiring disposal in the LACSD sewer system.
•*•"
The level of leachate treatment provided by this process train would exceed
ARARs for discharge to the POTW.
4-11
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Raw
.Leachate Pump*
Existing Leachate
Collection and Pumping
Atmosphere
or Flare Station
Oil and Grease
Separator
Raw leachate Storage
OH and Conditioning
Grease Tank
Gravity Sand Filters
with Auto Backwash
Refected EllliMnl Raturn
To Sewer Manhole
Effluent Storage Tanks
L
Pump
Activated
Carbon Filters
Pump
Pump
Project No.
120-RI2
Oil Industries Landfill
Camp Dresse^k McKee Inc.
ALTERNATIVE 3 TREATMENT
Figure
PLANT PROCESS TRAIN V4-3
-------
Oil and Great*
Separator
'ERlstlngleachate
Collecllan and Pumping
Raw Leachate Storage
1
1
1
1
r*~
»••;"• "•*;••• "..'.'; *'•'
*V/N^vX\^V/
|
-r c
ir|
L Tss ,
^m
Gravity Sand Filters
with Auto Backwash
Sludge to
Thickener
Refected Effluent Return
Vapor Phase
Carbon Adsorption
Alt Stripping
Tower
Air Blower
Pump
Effluent Storage Tanks
•>- To Sewer Manhole
1
Activated
Carbon FNtera
Pump
Pump
Project No.
120-RI2
OH Industries Landfill
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
ALTERNATIVE 5 TREATMENT
PLANT PROCESS TRAIN
PRELIMINARY
Figure
4-4
-------
Raw
.teachste Pumps
Enisling leachate
Collection and Pumping
(XI and Grease
Separator
Raw leachate Storage
6
Polymer
OH and Conditioning
Grease Tank
Pump
Atmosphere
Vapor Phase
Carbon Adsorption
Air Stripping
Tower
Sludge to
Thickener
Refected Effluent Return
I
1
Air Blower
Pump
0-
3
Brine
i
Reject
Stream
^
a». Tft ft
Ultraflltratlon/ *Dlapotal
Reverse Osmosis
Activated
Carbon Filters
Pump
To Sewer Effluent Storage Tanks
To Irrigation
and/or Sewer
Manhole
Pump
Project No
120-RI2
Oil Industries Landfill
Camp DresJ^ & McKee Inc.
ALTERNATIVE 6 TREATMENT Flgure
PLANT PROCESS TRAIbU 4-5
-------
The leachate treatment facilities discussed in subsequent sections were
sized to treat the liquids collected at a rate of approximately 10,000
gallons/day (justification for this value was presented in Section 1.3.3).
In order to minimize impacts of plant operation, 'it is planned to operate
the plant Monday through Friday, eight hours per day during the daylight
hours. If flow significantly increases, the plant would have the flexi-
bility of operating up to 24 hours per day. The planned forty hour week
operation necessitates process units capable of treating a flow rate of 30
gpm. The plant would be capable of efficiently treating leachate in a flow
range of 15 to 35 gpm. Thus, the plant will have the flexibility of hand-
ling variations in the rate of leachate collection from 5,100 gallons/ day
to 12,000 gallons/day over a seven day week.
For planning purposes, and to be consistent with the final site remedy,
flexibility will be incorporated into the plant layout and space require-
ments. The flexibility will accommodate plant expansion to a 60, to a 90,
and/or to a 120 gpm plant. A 120 gpm plant would be required in the event
that treatment is required for an average collection rate of 40,000
gallons/day and the forty hour per week schedule is followed. If the plan
requires emergency capacity, operation for greater than forty hours would
be feasible. An eighty hour, five day operating week at 120 gpm would
allow treatment of 115,200 gallons/day. Figure 4-6 shows a possible layout
for a 30 gpm plant. A discussion of space requirements for the treatment
facility and possible facility expansion is presented in Appendix G.
The operation of the plant will require both influent (leachate) and
effluent (treated water) storage. Influent storage of 100,000 gallons
(approximately 10 days of leachate collection) is configured into the
treatment facility. Effluent storage of 129,000 gallons (three tanks @
43,000 gallons each) is provided. Influent storage capacity will be
utilized in the event the plant is down for a short period of time, and to
provide a controlled uniform feed of leachate to the unit process.
Effluent storage capacity is needed to allow time for testing effluent
since each tank must be analyzed prior to discharge. Ample storage may
also be necessary during sewer line maintenance, etc. '.
4-15
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
H>OM HAW tMCMMt
TO IAMI••» MWIII
M.UOOC IWOKNCH
(CEMIMTIMEI
«»roii nuu
CAMOH f«.TtH
APPROK SCALE : t*» 10'
f\oject No
120-RI2
Oil Industries Landfill
Camp Dresfl| & McKee Inc.
30 gpm ON-SITE
TREATMENT PLANT LAYOUT
ALTERNATIVE 5
-------
As discussed previously, the quality characteristics of the OH leachate,
as analyzed to date, are highly variable. It is anticipated that this
variability will be experienced in the future leachate collected at the
site. As such, the on-site treatment processes must be able to treat a
leachate having a wide range in concentrations of oil and grease, heavy
metals, organics, and sulfides.
Description of the processes evaluated and their functions are given in the
following sections:
Removal of Oil and Grease and Heavy Metals
All of the four on-site treatment alternatives evaluated include a
consistent set of unit processes for the removal of oil and grease and
heavy metals. This system consists of a gravity corrugated plate separator
followed by alum addition in a rapid mix unit, dissolved air flotation and
filtration. This process is described below.
Corrugated Plate Separator
•
Separation is provided as a physical method to provide for phase separation
and removal of nonemulsified oils present in the Oil leachate. As shown in
Appendix C, the oil and grease concentration in the leachate has varied
widely, ranging from 6 mg/1 to 296,000 mg/1. Most of the samples taken
indicated that total oil and grease levels were in the range of several
hundred milligrams per liter. Although the degree of enulsification of the
total oil and grease in the leachate is unknown, the gravity separator is
provided as a method of easily removing the nonemulsified fraction. The
separator will be designed to provide a minimum retention time of approxi-
mately 40 minutes to allow ample time for adequate quiescent phase
separation. The separation process will achieve removal requirement, for
leachate having a nonemulsified oil and grease content not exceeding the
3,000 mg/1 level. In the unanticipated event of concentration of oil and
grease exceeding 3,000 mg/1, the leachate could be retreated, and, if
necessary, additional separation capacity could be added.
4-17
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
TWO side streams, the grease and oil skinned from the surface of the sepa-
rator and settled sludge solids, will be produced by this unit. Skimmed
grease and oil will be removed to a storage tank and settled material will
be pumped to a sludge holding tank for dewatering and disposal. If the
skimmed oil and grease is not hazardous, it will be picked up by a waste
oil company. If the skimmings are determined to be hazardous, they will be
disposed of at a RCRA landfill.
Rapid Mix unit
Due to the pumping of the leachate to the treatment plant and surfactants
present in the leachate, it is anticipated that a significant fraction of
the oil and grease will be in an emulsified form. This will necessitate
physical or chemical treatment before effective removal can be achieved.
Additionally, a chemical treatment to provide a removal mechanism for heavy
metals will be required. A rapid mix unit will be employed to chemically
treat the leachate prior to removal of emulsified oil and grease and heavy
metals.
Preliminary results of the jar testing on Oil leachate (Appendix E),
indicated that aluminum sulfate (alum), at a dose of 50 mg/1, was effective
in breaking the emulsion as well as providing beneficial coagulation of
heavy metals present in the leachate. Further bench-scale testing will be
required in order to identify types and proper doses of chemicals for the
most efficient performance.
Dissolved Air Flotation
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is employed for phase separation of the
coagulated material, as well as removal of flocculated oil and grease. The
DAP unit consists of an air dissolution tank, a flotation tank and related
appurtenances including an air compressor system and recirculation pump.
Air is dissolved into leachate in the dissolution tank. The flow then
passes into the flotation tank where the dissolved air is released in
bubble form. Floe particles are driven to the surface by the rising
bubbles. Two side streams are produced by DAF units including skimmings
4-18
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
and sludges which will be pumped to the sludge holding tank. Additionally,
off-gas would emanate from the DAF unit. Emissions from the unit would be
passed through a vapor phase carbon adsorption unit.
As shown in Appendix C, only one sample of 0X1 leachate was analyzed for
surfactants. This showed a concentration of 4.5 mg/1. At this level,
excessive foaming in the DAF unit would not develop. However, one sample
is not conclusive and further testing and evaluation will be required in
the predesign studies.
Gravity Sand Filters
Gravity sand filtration is provided to capture floe and other suspended
solids which are not removed by the DAF unit. This unit is utilized to
minimize solids build-up in downstream units and thus to maintain the effi-
cient operation of those units. The proposed filtration scheme consists of
passing clarified DAF effluent through a sand filter containing approxi-
mately two feet of 0.9 to 1.2 mm size sand. Application rate is projected
to be 3 gpnv/ft2 and two filters will be provided to allow for the required
backwashing operation. It is estimated that the filters would be back-
washed each day at the end of the daily operation, water would be pulled
from the effluent storage tanks. The contaminated backwash water will be
pumped to the leachate storage tanks.
The aforementioned set of unit processes are incorporated into all on-site
treatment alternatives. They would be designed to provide a reliable and
flexible system for removing oil and grease, heavy metals and solid
materials. The system would be operated to assure compliance with LACSD
pretreatment requirements for oil and grease and heavy metals and would
also provide a degree of pretreatment for the organic removal unit
processes. Further treatability studies need to be conducted during the
pre-design phase to assure the proper types and dosing of coagulants.
4-19
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Removal of Volatile Organics
Air stripping is used in on-site Alternatives 2, 5 and 6 to remove organic
compounds. In liquid waste treatment, air stripping is a unit process in
which liquid and air are brought into contact with each other to remove
volatile substances from the liquid. If the liquid contains volatile
compounds in excess of the equilibrium level, the contaminant will transfer
from the liquid phase to the gas phase until equilibrium is achieved. If
the air is continuously replaced with fresh non-contaminated air, and if
sufficient contact time is allowed, volatile organic compounds will be
removed from solution. Semi-volatile organic compounds are not as easily
removed by air stripping.
The effectiveness of the air stripping process in removing volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from water is governed by Henry's Law, which states that
the concentration of a gas which is dissolved in liquid is directly
proportional to the partial pressure of the vapor phase of that gas with
which the solution is in contact. As a result, compounds which have high
Henry's constants are generally removed more efficiently by the air
stripping process. Several volatile 'organic compounds currently found in
the Oil leachate, such as vinyl chloride, have high Henry's Law constants
and thus would be readily removed. However, the presence of a complex
matrix of toxic organic substances in the leachate including several
relatively less volatile pollutants, such as phenols and phthalate esters,
would not assure that an air stripping system alone would regularly meet
LACSD standards for total toxic organics. In order to effectively remove
the less volatile organic compounds, the stripping tower air to liquid
ratio must be increased significantly and the loading rate decreased, or
other unit processes, such as carbon adsorption, must be employed.
Stripping tower design data for a 30 gpm plant is presented in Table 4-1.
The most commonly used, efficient and economical air stripping system
consists of a packed tower with a blower at the bottom of the tower. This
system is a proven technology and can achieve high removal efficiencies of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The overall heights of the stripping
A
tower is estimated to be approximately 23 feet which would not be
4-20
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
significantly taller than proposed leachate storage tanks. The tower could
be partially set below grade or designed with a horizontal flow component
to reduce its height and its aesthetic impact.
Air emissions from a packed tower air stripping unit will contain low
levels of the contaminants which have been removed from the liquid. 'For
this reason, a system to remove compounds from the stripping tower exhaust
will be employed. A vapor phase carbon adsorption unit will be utilized to
eliminate orders and to achieve the desired off-gas treatment. The sizing
of the unit will be done as a part of the pre-design study*
TABLE 4-1
AIR STRIPPING DESIGN FOR 30 GPM PLANT
Volatile Organics
Number of Units 1
Air to Water Ratio 40:1
Water Flow (gpm) 30
Loading Rate gpm/ft2 10
Column Diameter (ft) 2
Packing Depth (ft) , 17
Air Flow (per unit) SCFM : 160
Electric Power (blowers) HP 1.0
Removal of Organics
Activated carbon removes organic contaminants from water by the process of
adsorption (the attraction and accumulation of one substance on the surface
of another). In general, high surface area and pore\structure of the car-
bon are the prime factors in adsorption of organics from liquids, whereas
4-21
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
the chemical nature of the carbon surface is of relatively minor signifi-
cance. Generally, activated carbon has been found to remove volatile
organic compounds from liquids with removal efficiencies ranging from 40 to
99 percent, depending upon the contaminant characteristics and physical
properties of the carbon. Activated carbon has been widely used in water
treatment systems for many years for the removal of taste and odors, as
well as specific soluble organic materials.
Several factors can influence the effectiveness of an activated carbon
adsorption system, including:
•»
a. The nature of the carbon itself;
b. The nature of the.material to be adsorbed, including its
molecular size and polarity;
c. The nature of the solution, including its pH, temperature, and
influent contaminant concentration; and
d. The contacting system and its mode of operation, including
contact time between liquid and carbon, influent flow
distribution and hydraulic loading rates.
Granular activated carbons are those that are larger than U.S. Sieve Series
No. 50. GAC systems generally consist of vessels in which the carbon is
placed, forming a "filter bed", which may operate by gravity or under
pressure. Once the carbon adsorptive capacity has been fully utilized, the
carbon is disposed of or regenerated. Pick-up of spent carbon and off-site
regeneration is a service frequently offered by suppliers of activated
carbon and would be used for this project. Columns can be operated in
series or parallel modes. Vessels are equipped with carbon removing and
loading mechanisms to allow for the removal of spent carbon and the
addition of new or regenerated carbon. Flow can be either upward or .
downward through the carbon bed.
The effectiveness of carbon adsorption will depend on the type and concen-
tration of the contaminants present in the leachate. Activated carbon may
not effectively remove the smaller, polar organic constituents in the
leachate, such as methylene chloride and vinyl chloride, due to the exist-
4-22
120-RI2-RT-PQJD-1
-------
ence of a complex organic matrix in the waste and the resulting competitive
adsorption effects. The make-up of the Oil leachate is such that GAC units
without air stripping columns upstream should provide organic removal
required to achieve the total toxic organic effluent discharge limitation
of 1.0 mg/1 imposed by LACSD. Less efficient use of the carbon would occur
if air stripping were not used prior to GAC adsorption thus carbon usage
would be greater. Estimates of carbon usage with and without air stripping
are presented in Section 4.3. In addition, effective removal of vinyl
chloride and methylene chloride will likely require air stripping in
conjunction with the GAC unit. This is due to the snail size and polar
nature of these organic leachate constituents.
The activated carbon columns were preliminarily sized based upon a loading
rate of 15 gpm/ft2 and contact time of 15 minutes. Further treatability
studies will be conducted during the design phase to assure proper sizing
and loading of the GAC filter units.
Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis
On-site treatment Alternative 6 consists of the Alternative 5 configuration
with addition of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis unit processes. This
addition would allow for the production of effluent of irrigation reuse
quality, and thus would exceed LACSD standards. The three other on-site
treatment alternatives would not reduce the total dissolved solids (IDS)
levels of the Oil leachate from the influent level of 11,000-12,000 mg/1 to
a level suitable for irrigation reuse.
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a proven technology for reducing total dissolved
solids (TDS) levels in liquid wastes. The process involves the application
of sufficient pressure to a concentrated solution to overcome osmotic pres-
sure and force the flow of liquid through a semi permeable membrane to the
more dilute phase. This process results in the production of a permeate
stream of relatively pure water and a reject stream of increased TDS
levels. The reject stream must be bled off and disposed of as waste brine.
The waste brine would be discharged to the LACSD sewer-age system, provided
it met the effluent discharge requirements. The RO permeate would be
acceptable for irrigation reuse at the landfill site.
4-23
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Common BO membranes utilized for IDS removal are constructed of polyamide
polymers or cellulose triacetate and are available in various configura-
tions. .Membrane life is expected to be three years under normal operating
conditions. Actual membrane choice, configuration, and other design
criteria would be determined for Alternative 5 during a pre-design study,
if this alternative were chosen.
Potential disadvantages to this system include the probable need for
extensive pretreatment of carbon-treated leachate prior to introduction
into the RO system. BO membranes are subject to chemical attack, plugging
and fouling. Leachate effluent from the activated carbon treatment would
probably require additional filtering in order to remove small particulates
and prevent plugging and minimize colloidal and biological fouling. Ultra-
filtration (UF) through 0.45 micron pore size filters is provided in this
alternative as a method of additional pretreatment.
Additional pretreatment prior to the reverse osmosis process may also be
required to prevent metal oxide fouling and scaling of membranes. Detailed
pretreatment requirements would be determined during the pre-design phase.
Pretreatment to reduce the metal oxide fouling or scaling of membranes
could consist of ion exchange softening or the addition of sequestering
agents, if necessary. Generally, pretreatment would be required if the
frequency of removing foulants by periodic membrane cleaning is unaccept-
able from an economic or operations standpoint or if the foulants cause
irreversible damage to the membrane. For the purposes of this FS, under
the proposed treatment plant operational mode of eight hours per day with
adequate manpower supplied, it is assumed that membrane fouling could be
controlled by a regular maintenance program conducted by treatment facility
operators. It is also assumed that minimal damage to the membranes other
than normal compaction would occur. Regular maintenance on the membranes
would involve cleaning with an acidic solution and could be performed as
required after the normal eight hour operational day.
Another potential limitation to using a RO system to desalinate treated
V
leachate is the limited permeate recovery rate which could be achieved.
4-24
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Permeate recovery from a reverse osmosis unit is dictated by the desired
product water quality (limited by solvent and solute flux) and the precipi-
tation of salts on the membrane which could occur if salt solubility limits
were exceeded. The liquid (solvent) flux is dependent upon, the character-
istics of the membrane as well as the system and osmotic pressure differen-
tial between feedwater and permeate. Salt (solute) flux is dependent upon
the salt concentration gradient across the membrane and a salt permeability
constant. Oil leachate contains IDS (salt) levels of approximately 11,500
mg/1 which translates to an osmotic pressure of approximately 120 psi.
Based on data for similar BO applications, it is likely that a maximum
permeate recovery rate of 40% could be achieved in a one stage BO system.
Thus if 10,000 gallons per day of leachate were treated by the BO system,
it is estimated that approximately 4,000 gallons of permeate would be
recovered and 6,000 gallons of brine would be produced.
Under on-site Alternative 6, permeate recovered from the BO system would be
used for site irrigation and brine would be disposed of in the LACSD
sanitary sewerage system. California Regional Water Quality Control Bond
Basin 4B surface water quality objectives mandate a 750 mg/1 maximum level
of IDS for reuse applications. The proposed BO system would have to
effectively reject approximately 93% of the feed TDS to meet this limit.
Typical BO systems when properly designed and operated can achieve this
degree of salt rejection, although further study during the pre-design
phase would be necessary to determine if the proposed system for Oil
leachate would regularly meet this limit.
Beject water from the BO system would be discharged to the LACSD sanitary
sewerage system and would be subject to industrial pretreatment require-
ments. It is expected that the waste brine would regularly meet LACSD
effluent discharge limitations. Feedwater to the BO system (GAC effluent)
would be subject to a concentration factor of less than two at the maximum
anticipated permeate recovery rate of 40%. Thus waste brine would contain
less than two times the concentration of BO-rejected constituents (salts)
including heavy metals that were present in the feedwater. Since heavy
*
metals have been identified in raw leachate usually at very low concentra-
tions with respect to LACSD discharge limitations and since treatment
4-25
120-BI2-BT-FQJD-1
-------
process units upstream of the RO unit are expected to remove a large
fraction of the heavy metals present in the raw leachate, it is expected
that the concentrated brine would not exceed LACSD standards for heavy
metals and could be discharged. Although IDS levels in the brine would be
concentrated to approximately 20,000 mg/1, conversations with LACSD
indicate that no specific IDS discharge limitations would exist.
If the reuse of treated leachate on-site.as irrigation water is pursued,
provisions will be required to strictly control land application to prevent
runoff and nuisances. During periods of inclement weather when irrigation
is not possible, alternative disposal mechanisms such as sewer discharge or
storage of effluent will be implemented. The RO system could be bypassed
during extended periods of wet weather. The reuse alternative will require
compliance with waste discharge requirements issued by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and approval of reclaimed water use by the California
Department of Health Services.
Performance
The on-site treatment plant's performance will be measured by its ability
to meet the effluent discharge limitations of the LACSD (ARARs). Unit
processes with known and proven treatment effectiveness are configured into
the treatment plant process train.
The processes selected for the treatment facility are similar to those used
by the ChemTech facility, which were tested and shown to be effective in
meeting LACSD standards (WCC, 1985). One identified problem with oil and
grease removal has apparently been rectified (LACSD, 1986).
During preparation of the predesign report, the following bench scale or
pilot plant studies should be performed to more accurately determine
individual equipment sizing:
o Accelerated Carbon Tests (ACT). Samples of leachate should be
taken before and after air stripping in order to determine carbon
usage for those alternatives that utilize or do not utilize an
air stripper. Emissions from air stripping;,should be analyzed to
determine contaminant levels. Bench scale carbon adsorption and
air stripping tests should be conducted to determine design data.
4-26
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
o Oil and Grease Removal. Samples of conditioned leachate should
be sent to DAF vendors for determination of hydraulic and solids
loading and for recommendations on sand filters versus multimedia
filters.
o Reverse Osmosis Bench Scale Testing. Samples of coagulated,
filtered and GAC treated leachate should be run through a
bench-scale RO unit to determine design criteria and permeate and
brine characteristics. Further, various pretreatment
requirements should be evaluated including ion exchange and
chemical treatment. These tests should be preceded by a plugging
factor determination.
The four on-site treatment alternatives evaluated are all effective in
reducing the mobility, toxicity and volume of hazardous constituents in the
leachate and could easily be adapted to deal with the variable leachate
characteristics.
Reliability
»
All of the processes configured in the various units comprising the
treatment facilities analyzed for the four alternatives are commonly used
in industry. Further, they have been used at other leachate treatment
facilities. The proposed on-site treatment facilities can be designed to
maximize automation and are expected to have low maintenance requirements.
Implereentabi1i ty
The unit process evaluated for the on-site treatment alternatives are
standard and/or pre-packaged units. It is estimated that they could be
ordered and installed within a 6 to 9 month period. An additional 6 to 12
months should be allowed for process testing, engineering and off-site
permit approvals (if required).
4.2.2 SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION
Although the operation of an on-site treatment facility is not expected to
pose a significant threat to the health and safety of the surrounding
community, several potential concerns must be addressed. Potential risks
4-27
120-RI2-RT-FQJI>-1
-------
and community concerns from the operation of an on-site facility include
leachate spills, release of malodorous and/or potentially harmful vapors,
excessive noise pollution and adverse aesthetic impact. The degree of risk
imposed by an on-site facility will depend largely upon the design of the
plant and in part on its siting. Any on-site treatment facility would be
designed to minimize any potential risk to the surrounding community.
Additionally, no contaminated liquids other than those produced due to Oil
landfill operation would be treated at the on-site plant.
State-of-the-art safety mechanisms and devices to minimize adverse impact
to the surrounding community would be incorporated into any of the four
on-site treatment plan designs. The entire process train as well as
influent and effluent storage tanks would be surrounded by a containment
berm designed to contain any potential liquid spill. If a large spill did
occur, it would rapidly be pumped back into an enclosed storage structure.
Any volatilization of leachate contaminants under these conditions would
not be likely to pose health risks due to inhalation exposure.
Additionally, a Spill Prevention, Control and Countemeasure Plan (SPCC)
would be developed for the plant during the pre-design phase. Alarms and
automatic shut-off valves which would halt flow to the plant would be
activated in a spill event.
Treatment process units such as DAF and air stripping which result in air
emissions would contain a vapor phase carbon adsorption column to scrub
off-gases of toxic chemicals and malodorous constituents. As discussed in
more detail in section 4.2.3, "Institutional Requirements," no specific
limits for discharge of volatile organic substances to ambient air exist
for these types of treatment process units. However, a screening risk
analysis for specific compounds which could potentially be discharged from
the site to ambient air would be necessary prior to the new source review
process required by the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District
(SCAQMD). Although pertinent data are extremely limited, a conservative,
preliminary assessment of the potential risks that could be associated with
release of volatile organic chemicals from treatment process units at the
Oil site was prepared. For this assessment, likely worst-case ambient air
concentrations due to emissions from a vapor phase carbon adsorption column
4-28
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
following an air stripper column were estimated by using EPA's PTPLU
screening model. PTPLU is a Gaussian plume dispersion model designed to
estimate maximum pollutant concentrations at ground level resulting from a
single emission source. PTPLU determines the distance to and magnitude of
maximum air concentrations from an emission source for various combinations
of meteorological variables which simulate expected and worst-case
disperson conditions. The one-hour pollutant concentrations estimated by
the model represent the average concentration at a receptor over a one-hour
period. Longer averaging times yield lower receptor concentrations due to
the variability in wind direction and resulting plume meander.
Air emissions from the combined air stripper carbon adsorption unit
represent the most significant emissions from the treatment facility.
Ambient air concentrations were estimated for all volatile organic
constituents of Oil leachate having health-based inhalation exposure
guidelines or cancer potency factors for inhalation exposure listed in
EPA's Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual (EPA 1986a). It should be
noted that not all chemicals' selected for this conservative screening
analysis were selected as indicator chemicals for the no-action alternative
endangerment assessment presented in section 3.2.1. Input parameters for
the model were based on vendor specifications for the vapor phase carbon
adsorption unit and include a 97% removal .efficiency, a stack height of
3.05 m, an exit temperature of 299.7°K, an exit velocity of 10.16 m/sec, a
stack diameter of 0.19 m, and a volumetric flow of 0.29 m3/sec. It was
assumed that the treatment unit operated 5 days per week, 8 hours per day,
and treated leachate at a rate of 30 gallons per minute. It was further
assumed that the leachate constituents considered were present in leachate
at the mean concentrations listed in Appendix C. The model used is
designed to give a series of conservative (worst case) results, and the
most conservative set of results obtained were selected for this analysis.
The maximum 1-hour ambient concentrations at ground level, estimated to
occur at approximately 21 m from the treatment unit, are shown in Table
4-2. As shown in Table 4-2, these values are several orders of magnitude
lower than the 8-hour time weighted average concentrations required for
4-29
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
TABLE 42
SCREENING RISK ANALYSIS
INHALATION EXPOSURE TO VOLATILE LEACHATE
CONSTITUENTS RELEASED TO AMBIENT AIR FROM ON SITE TREATMENT UNITS
OSHA-pVA
(nig/in |
ACGIHjTLV
Inig'in |
Cancer Potency*
Maniiiiiini •
Estimated
Ainhient ^
CiHHentryion
Average Chrigik
Daily Intake
Eicess Liletiine
Cancer Riik
Carcinogenic Effects
Bcn/ene
Chkuol'orm
1.2 Diilikwocthane
Mclhilcne chloriile
l.l.2'.2|Tetr;ichk>rol
ethane
Tctrachkvoeihylcne
Trichkwocihilcne
Vinvl chkuidc
40
225 (ceiling)
200
1.740
35
670
540
i
30
50
40
350 (175)
f
33$
270
10
•
H UIO»2<>|B2|
3.5OO>)2? |B2|
1 43%IO>|2?|B2|
2.0ilO>|l? |C|
1 7»IO>|J'» |B2|
4.6alO»3* |B2|
2.5\IO>|2'I|A|
I.UIO>|5'>
2.3\IO>|5<>
2.7OO>)5?
4 I\IO>»4?
2.7XIO>|5"
I.3\IO>|5?
3.2»IO>|5?
I.9il0»5'»
5.3»IO>»7?
I.ltl0>|6?
1 3tlO>|6?
1 0»IO>»5'*
1 3XIO>|6-»
6 3\IO>|7<>
1 5\IO>K>?
90xlO>|7?
Total Risk
2UO>|X?|A|
9»IO>|II?|B2|
5xlO>)K?|B2|
3UO»7'>|B2|
3XIO>»7'> |C|
UIO>|9?|82|
7\IO»9? |B2|
2ilO>|M? |A|
X«IO»7
Noncaicinoyentc Ellecis
Acetone
Chlorohvn/ene
l.llDichkMoethane
Toluene
I.I.I iTrichloroeihane
Xylene
2.400
350
400
750
1.900
43S
I.7KO
350
HIO
375
1.900
435
.
30
5 7\IO>|3'1 •
I.3N\IO>|3?
15
63
4000>|l?
2.0«IO>|4?
SO\IO>|6?
9.0\IO>)6?
1 |4?
60\IO»5?
1 7»IO>)4?
>
9S»IO>|6?
2.4\IO>17?
4 i\IO>(7?
9.I\IO»6?
2.K\IO»6<>
H I\IO»6?
Ha/ard liulc\
300 > 16?
4OO>|5?
3OO>|6?
6OO>|6?
4OO>|7?
2»IO>»5?
7«IO»S?
a?Hcalili)ha!>wl criteria lire lisietl in EPA'i Superluiul PuMic Heahli Evuhiaium Manual (EPA l9X6a). >
h?Ma\iiiuiiu csiinulcU umbicni cooceniraiiiHik »ni- ulttaineU l>y using EPA's PTPLU point source ili^pcnktn Gaussian screening
imxlcl >
c?For this analysis, the cumulative doses received on 5 of 7 tlaxs |)cr week ami M ot 24 htturs per Jay were e»|>ros«l as
average daily exposures prorated over a 70)yeur lifetime.
•RI2-
-------
protection of worker health by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). [Maximum 8-hour estimated ambient concentrations
can be approximated by multiplying the 1-hour concentrations shown in Table
4-2 by 0.7 (EPA 1977)]. The estimated maximum vinyl chloride concentration
is also less than the California Ambient Air Standard of 10 ppb (20 ug/mj)
for this compound. Potential health risks to individuals living in the
vicinity of the Oil site from the carbon adsorption unit emissions also
were estimated using health based criteria published by the EPA (1986a).
Local residents would generally be exposed to air contaminants from the
carbon adsorption unit at locations several hundred meters from the site
rather than the 21 m distance for which ambient air estimates were
calculated. Accordingly, ambient air concentrations would be much lower
than the values shown in Table 4-2.
Nevertheless, these values were used to provide a very conservative
screening analysis. Chronic daily intakes in mgAg/day were calculated for
each of the chemicals considered. Exposure to adjusted 8-hour maximum-
concentrations was conservatively assumed to occur over a 70-year lifetime
in a 70-kg individual. The cumulative doses received on 5 of 7 days per
week and during 8 of 24 hours per day were expressed as average daily
exposures prorated over a 70-year lifetime. That is, exposure was
calculated for a person living 21 m from the air stripper for their entire
70 year lifetime. As shown in Table 4-2, the total worst case excess
lifetime cancer risks associated with the potentially carcinogenic volatile
constituents of Oil leachate are approximately 8x10"7, that is, less than
one in one million. The chronic daily intakes of noncarcinogenic
constituents of Oil leachate are several orders of magnitude less than
their corresponding health-based criteria suggesting that exposure to these
compounds individually or concurrently would not be likely to pose health
risks. Note that the maximum air pollutant concentration used in the
exposure assessment occurred at a distance of 21 meters from the emission
source. However, the nearest residents are located approximately 600m from
the source. Under the same meteorological conditions, the pollutant
concentration at the nearest residence could actually be an order of
magnitude lower than the maximum concentration due only to increased
dilution of the plume with distance. Dispersion would further reduce
concentrations away from the plume. The results of this conservative
4-31
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
screening analysis indicate that air emissions from on-site treatment units
would not pose significant health risks in the adjacent communities.
Noise pollution which could result from the operation of pumps and blowers
used at the facility would be minimized by enclosing these units in sound-
muffling encasements. The noisiest components of the proposed facility
would be the blowers which supply air to the DM? unit (on-site treatment
Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 6) and the air stripping tower (Alternatives 2,
4, 5, 6). These blowers, when not enclosed in sound-reducing structures,
could produce a noise level of nearly 90 decibels at a distance of three
feet. Enclosing the blowers would significantly lower noise levels to less
than that of a passing car (60-70 db at three feet). The air stripping
noise levels should not exceed that from the DAF blowers. Noise levels in
residential neighborhoods would depend upon the distance from the proposed
facility. Additionally, architectural and landscape design would be
undertaken to minimize noise and aesthetic impacts from the plant.
Sewering of treatment plant effluent is not expected to pose any
significant health and safety risks to the community. The treatment
processes will substantially remove the toxic constituents. The discharge
of effluent from the facility would be tightly regulated by the LACSD and
the local sewering agency. Each batch of treated effluent would be tested
prior to discharge to assure that all pretreatment standards were met.
This practically eliminates the possibility of discharging effluent
containing high levels of toxic pollutants as the discharge from a tested
batch would be manually controlled. Discharges from an on-site treatment
plant would be of better quality than wastes already in the sewer system.
4.2.3 INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
On-site treatment alternatives evaluated require effluent disposal to the
LACSD sewerage system in all cases. The discharge of treated leachate from
the on-site treatment plant would be subject to regulation under the
general pretreatment provisions of the Clean Water Act and locally imple-
mented specific pretreatment regulations. The general pretreatment
4-32
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
requirements apply to the introduction of any nondomestic wastewater into
any PO1W and include prohibition on discharge which may interfere with,
pass through, contaminate sludge, or upset the facility or which is ignit-
able, corrosive or excessively high in temperature. General pretreatment
provisions also direct local POTWs to adopt and implement local discharge
limits for those cases where categorical pretreatment standards have not
been promulgated and where more stringent discharge controls than those
imposed by categorical standards, are required.
EPA issued a memorandum on April 15, 1986, regarding policy for the
discharge of wastewater from CERCLA sites into publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs). The general position taken by EPA is that full compliance
with all applicable requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and any other relevant or appropriate
environmental statutes will be necessary. The memorandum states that if
the remedial action alternative considers the discharge of wastewater from
a CERCLA site into a POTW, a thorough analysis of the POTW's ability to
accept this wastewater should be conducted. In addition, SARA requires
compliance with all other ARARs on the state ana1 federal level.
The LACSO is the agency charged with implementing and enforcing pretreat-
ment requirements for the sewerage system serving the area surrounding the
Oil landfill. Sewering of treated leachate from any of the alternative
on-site facilities should have no impact on the receiving Joint Water
Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California and the receiving
waters (Pacific Ocean). The JWPCP is currently treating over 360 million
gallons per day of average daily wastewater flow. The maximum expected
treated Oil leachate flows will constitute less than 0.0003 percent
(3/10,000) of total flow to the JWPCP. The JWPCP also maintains a
relatively good compliance record with respect to their NPDES permit and
pretreatment program requirements. LACSD was contacted to identify
specific requirements or limitations which would apply to an on-site
leachate treatment facility at the Oil site. Indications were that an
on-site treatment plant would be permitted and monitored for its off-site
discharge of heavy metals, sulfides, pH, oil and grease, cyanide and total
toxic organics. Specific limitations imposed were presented earlier in
4-33
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Table 2-2. The leachate treatment facility plans would be reviewed by
LACSD engineers and the local sewering agency prior to permit issuance to
assure that the proposed treatment system would adequately remove the
pollutants of concern and that adequate hydraulic capacity was available.
Analytical testing of the treatment plant effluent will be required prior
to release of effluent to the sewers, thereby necessitating construction of
effluent storage tanks. A chemical laboratory has been included in all of
the on-site alternatives. The lab will be used to conduct the required
effluent testing and process control.
The local sewering agency (Monterey Park or Montebello) in a joint effort
with the LACSD, reviews and approves or rejects all industrial wastewater
discharge permits (IWDP) prior to transmittals to LACSD. The city of
Monterey Park Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Code requires the
approval of City Council for any IWDP proposed to discharge landfill wastes
into the city sewer system. Approval was granted to Oil in August of 1984
by the City Council to sewer treated leachate to the city sewer system
using a treatment process similar to Alternative 3 to be located in the
vicinity of site A (see Appendix G) and discharging to the Potrero Grande
Sewer. A new approval will be required for use of Monterey Park sewers.
It is anticipated that approval would be granted if discharge compliance
could be assured and adequate sewer capacity is available.
The discharge points of at least two of the proposed connection locations
(Sites A and D) involve local branch sewers in the city of Montebello
located in residential areas. Approval for discharge would be required
from the city of Montebello and a formal agreement between the cities with
regard to discharge rates, points of connection, maintenance costs and
compensation for lost sewer capacity, would probably be required.
An IWDP fee of approximately $100 would be assessed by the local sewering
agency, if approval for discharge were granted. LACSD would charge a
one-time connection fee of approximately $40,000 with a user fee surcharge
based on levels of chemical oxygen demand and suspended solids and the peak
load factor. It is estimated that the surcharge fee would be in the range
of $5,000 to $10,000 annually.
4-34
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
Based upon review of Federal and local requirements for sewer disposal of
treated Oil leachate and of the characteristics of the POTW into which
wastes are proposed to be discharged, disposal to the LACSD sewerage system
of treated leachate using any of the four proposed pretreatment
alternatives appears to comply with EPA policy as long as discharge
requirements are met. The probable frequency of compliance with discharge
limitations for each of the four treatment plant alternatives are discussed
in the reliability section. On-site treatment alternatives would also be
subject to review by the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District
(SCAQMD). Based upon conversations with SCAQMD, it was determined that any
new potential pollution emission source would have to undergo a new source
review process by SCAQMD. This review would be conducted after a screening
risk analysis for the specific compounds which could potentially be dis-
charged from the site. No specific limits for volatile organic substances
exist, although a general organic discharge limit of 75 pounds per day does
exist. SCAQMD indicated that they have no specific "best available control
technology" for off-gas control from'air strippers, although the risk
analysis should include any control technologies proposed. Additionally, a
new toxics rule is currently being developed to limit the discharge of
toxics to air and may be promulgated within the next year.
Sludge generated by the proposed on-site treatment facility, if hazardous,
would be subject to various regulations. The EPA office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response issued a policy memorandum on October 2, 1985,
describing EPA's position regarding on and off-site response actions and
compliance with other environmental statutes. This policy states that
off-site storage, treatment and disposal facilities must be in compliance
with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of Federal
environmental and public health laws.
Presently, no facility is available in California for disposal of hazardous
sludges. However, it is expected that by the time an on-site treatment
plant would be constructed and operating, at least one site would be
available in California. Currently, hazardous sludge/produced through
4-35
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
treatment of CERCIA wastes must be hauled to Cherawaste in Arlington, Oregon
or USPCI in Murray, Utah.
4.2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
On-site treatment alternatives would reduce the volume of leachate present
at the Oil site and consequently reduce the risk of leachate contamination
of environmental media in the vicinity of the Oil site and the attendant
environmental risks. On-site treatment and sewering of effluent in
accordance with LACSD standards results in improved environmental condi-
tions at the site in comparison with the no-action alternative by capturing
and concentrating toxic pollutants for ultimate destruction rather than
allowing continual release of contaminants to the environment.
Only minimal adverse effects.on the environment would be expected due to
construction and operation of an on-site treatment facility. Construction
activities may cause some adverse effects to the area; however, these would
be short-lived and of minimal consequence. Site preparation activities
would be performed with an approved erosion and sediment control plan. The
treatment plant process units and buildings would be placed on slabs at
grade, eliminating the need for extensive excavation. Dust control
measures would be employed throughout the period of construction to prevent
the migration of dust into nearby communities. NO heavy construction
equipment would be required during the facility construction that would add
significant noise levels. During the daylight hours during which site work
would be performed, the ambient noise levels are high due to the heavy flow
of traffic on the Pomona Freeway. Site noise should not exceed the ambient
noise level in the area and therefore should not present any problems.
Odors will not be generated during site work primarily because areas where
garbage was disposed of would not be disturbed.
Operation of the treatment facility should not have any adverse effects on
the surrounding areas. The facility which only requires the operation of
small pumps and a blower is not by nature a noisy operation. Even so,
noise abatement features would be incorporated into the design of the
plant. Furthermore, the plant is sized so that it would be able to treat
4-36
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-l
-------
the collected leachate by operating eight hours a day, five days a week.
Therefore, the plant would operate during the period of highest ambient
noise levels and should not affect nearby neighborhoods. Odor control will
also be incorporated into the plant design. Units such as the DAF unit
that could emit undesirable odors will be closed and gases produced in the
process will be vented to either the air stripping vapor phase carbon
adsorption unit or to a flare station. Effluent testing prior to batch
discharge will assure compliance with LACSD standards. A regular emission
testing program will be incorporated into the operation of the facility to
assure that air quality is not adversely affected. As noted in section
4.2.2, "Safety and Public Health Protection," emissions are not likely to
pose significant health risks, and likewise would not be expected to
contribute significantly to deterioration of air quality in general.
Additionally, a SPCC plan would be developed to identify response actions
that could be undertaken to minimize adverse health and environmental
impacts if a spill were to occur. Environmental controls to minimize the
effect of spills, such as containment berms, and treatment of storm water
and plant wash water will be incorporated into plant design.
4.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES BASED ON COST
This section of the report presents the costs of the alternatives discussed
in Sections 4.1 Off-Site Treatment and 4.2 On-Site Treatment. These costs
were developed from the descriptions and layouts presented in Sections 4.1,
4.2 and in Appendices F and G. Costs were estimated to achieve an accuracy
level of -30 to +50 percent for each alternative, as specified in the
Remedial Action Costing Procedure Manual (US EPA, 1985). A present worth
analysis was performed for the purpose of costing alternatives over a five
year and a 30 year operational period. The two periods were selected to
identify the cost effective alternatives in both a short-term and long-term
response action at the Oil site. Present worths of the alternatives were
determined using interest rates of 6 and 8 percent (specified by EPA Region
IX). In conducting the analysis for the 30-year period it was assumed that
the process train components have a 15-year useful life and that replace-
ment is required in year 16. The present worth analyses for the 5-year
on-site alternatives is conservative (on the high side) because salvage
4-37
120-RI2-RT-FQJI>-1
-------
value of the facility after five years was not considered. Present worth
over a 5-year period was calculated to demonstrate cost-effectiveness
during the period before the final remedy is implemented. Present worth
over a 30-year period illustrates additional cost-effectiveness if long-
term treatment is required.
4.3.1 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
In the following sections, a cost analysis is presented for those remedial
action alternatives remaining after the initial screening. For the purpose
of future cost updating, these cost estimates are referenced to the ENR 20
city construction Cost Index Value of 4341.53 (October 16, 1986).
For the purpose of preparing the remedial action alternatives cost
estimates, the following assumptions were made:
o Off-site and on-site treatment alternatives
r The annual leachate collection rate, based on expected
leachate (liquid) collection and extraction, is 3,744,000 .
gallons or approximately 10,000 gallons/day.
o On-site treatment alternatives:
A 30 gpm plant with an operating range of 15 to 35 gpm will
be constructed.
The treatment plant process units will be mounted on
individual concrete pads and configured to allow for plant
expansion to 60 gpm, to 90 gpm, and/or 120 gpm.
- Size of the site to accommodate future expansion to a 120
gpm facility must be approximately 60,000 ft2.
A ten foot high block wall will be constructed around the
facility and the site will be landscaped. .
Influent (leachate) storage of 100,000 gallons will be
provided.
- Treatment plant effluent will be batched for testing prior
to discharging to the LACSD sewers. Three 43,000-gallon
tanks will be provided.
4-38
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
A laboratory trailer will be set up on site to perform the
required testing of treated leachate. A certified chemist
will run the lab.
- The point of sewering the effluent will be the manhole
closest to the location of the treatment plant.
The treatment plant and laboratory will be run on a contract
basis.
Appropriate noise and odor abatement features are
incorporated into the design of the treatment plant.
Sludge produced (approximately 1/2% by volume) will be
trucked to a Class I disposal facility.
Oil and grease removed in the separator will be picked up by
a waste oil company and will be re-refined.
o The cost for rental of the above ground leachate storage tanks is
part of the off-site treatment alternative cost. It is assumed
three vapor proof tanks will be maintained on-site.
o The costs for operating the leachate collection system are the
same for all the alternatives and are not included in the
estimates presented in this FS.
A summary of capital costs are shown in Table 4-3. The details and break-
down of the costs are contained in Appendix F. An evaluation and cost
analysis of siting at different "on-site" locations is presented in
Appendix G.
Cost estimates are based upon information and quotes as follows:
o Off-site treatment costs at ChemTech are based on their
December 2, 1986 bid to the EPA for treating the Oil leachate.
OPC also provided a bid amount for treating the Oil leachate.
o Leachate hauling costs are based upon the actual cost of trucking
from the Oil site to the ChemTech facility in Vernon, CA and were
estimated for hauling to the OPC site in Los Angeles, CA.
o On-site treatment plant and the various process unit costs were
obtained by direct quotes from vendors. Costs estimates include
the cost of normal field installation and hook-up.
o Costs for site work, access roads and pipelines are CDM in-house
estimates for performing general civil work..
4-39
120-RI2-RT-FQJI>-1
-------
TABLE 4-3
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS
ALTERNATIVE
OFFSITE
COST <$>
• ••^••^ ^ U^B ^» «• •• •• ••• ^V •
LOCATION (a)
M W«^ ^ <^^ ••^••••V ^H«Mt I
D
OFF-SITE TREATMENT
ON-SITE
2. Chemical Add., OAF,
Air Stripping
3. Chemical Add., OAF, GAC.
5. Chemical Add., DAF,
GAC, Air Stripping
6. Chemical Add., DAF,
Air Stripping, GAC, UF/RO
*30,000
*1,690,425
*lt861,530
*t,965,645
$1,728,705
$1,705,305 $1,876,410 $1,980,525 $1,743,585
$1,804,275 $1,975,380 $2,079,495 $1,842,555
$2,126,075 $2,297,180 $2,401,295 $2,164,355
a) It is estimated that the capital costs for a facility sited at. location E Mould fall in
the range of the costs for location A and location C.
i-40
-------
4.3.2 ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
The following assumptions were made for annual cost estimates for on-site
treatment:
o The on-site treatment facility will be operated on a one shift
per day basis (8 hours), five days per week.
o The on-site treatment facility, including laboratory operations,
would be sub-contracted. The staff would be comprised of:
Staff Wage Rate/Hour
Supervisor $ 18
Process Operator 15
Assistant Operator 13
Chemist 20
$66/hr x overhead (2. 8) - $184.80/hour x 40 - $7,392/week.
o Plant maintenance and equipment repair costs (electrical,
mechanical, etc.) are estimated at $1,000 per month.
o Alternative 1 is based upon the off-site treatment of 3,744,000
gallons per year at a transportation and treatment cost of
$0.34/gallon.
o Alternative 4 carbon usage is based upon an estimated COD removal
of 45% of an influent level of 4,900 mg/1 through gravity
separation, chemical addition, DAT and filtration with an
additional 20% COD removal through the air stripping tower. Also
assumed for this calculation, based on a single isotherm test run
in 1984, were a carbon loading of 0.26 mg COD/tag carbon and a
maximum adsorbable COD concentration of 75%
o Alternatives 2 and 3 annual costs reflect the removal of and
addition of carbon costs, respectively, to Alternative 4.
Alternative 5 adds the anticipated power, maintenance and
membrane costs for reverse osmosis/ultraf iltration to Alternative
4. Details of the annual cost estimates are included in Appendix
T.
Annual costs for the alternatives are summarized in Table 4.4. It is
emphasized that the costs are adequate for feasibility study purpose, i.e.
- 30% to +50%. The predesign study will better define parameters that will
provide the basis for a refined cost estimate.
4-41
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
4.3.3 PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
Present worth was calculated for 6 percent and 8 percent discount interest
rates for 5-year and 30-year operational periods. Equipment will not have
to be replaced during the 5-year operational period.
Present worth was determined by multiplying annual costs by the Present
Worth Factor (PWF).
PWF
(1 + i)n - 1
i-U + i)n
where PWF is the present worth factor
i is interest rate as a fraction
n is the number of years in the period
for n - 5
PWF • 4.212 @ i - 6%
'PWF • 3.993 § i - 8%
for n - 30
PWF • 13.765 @ i « 6%
PWF • 11.258 e i - 8%
The present worth analysis for siting a treatment plant at Location A is
summarized in Table 4.5. The present worth for alternative siting of the
base treatment facility, Alternative 4, is presented in Appendix G.
4-42
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL
ALTERNATIVE
OFFSITE
COST (*>
• ••«• ^ —• ^ «V •>•-•«•««• *v I
LOCATION (a)
K
(FF-SITE TREATMENT
1N-SITE
-!. Chemical Add., DAF,
Air Stripping
$1,609,110
*553,OOO
*558,000
$558, OOO
*56O,50O
*•
s.
'*.
Chemical
Chemical
GAC, Air
Add.,
DAF, GAC.
Add., DAF,
Stripping
Chemical Add.,
Air Stripping,
DAF,
GAC, UF/RQ
$775
*700
*738
•
,500
,500
, 000
$780
$705
$743
,500
,500
,OOO
$780
$705
$743
,50O
,500
,000
$783,
$708,
$745,
OOO
OOO
50O
4-43
120-RI2-HT-FOJD-1
-------
TABLE 4-5
PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
(Figures represent cost In present day dollars)
(Location B) (a)
DISCOUNT RATE
ALTERNATIVE (*/.)
OFF-SITE TREATMENT
ON-SITE
2.
•9
•*»•
s.
6.
Chemical Add., DAF,
Air Stripping
Chemical Add., DAF, GAC.
Chemical Add., DAF,
GAC, Air Stripping
Chemical Add., DAF,
Air Stripping, GAC, UF/RO
6
B
6
B
6
B
6
a
6
B
COST <*> (b)
CAPITAL CAPITAL
(3 YR.) (30 YR.) ANNUAL OtM
•30,000
* 30, 000
* 1,861 ,530
f 1,661,530
•1,876,410
*1, 876, 410
*1,975,3BO
•1,973,380
•2,297,180
•2,297,180
•30.OOO
*3O,OOO
•2,241,452
•2,143.286
•2,256,332
•2,138,166
•2, 333, 302
•2,257,136
•2,677,102
* 2, 578,936
*1, 609,110
*1, 609,110
*5SB,OOO
t 338, 000
•780,500
«7BO,300
*703,500
f 703,300"
*743,000
*743,000
PRESENT WORTH
S YEARS 30 YEARS
*6, 807, 371
*6, 453, 176
M, 211,826
*4, 089, 624
f 3, 163,876
•4,992,946
•4,946,946
•4,792,441
•3,426,696
t5, 263, 979
•22,179,399
•18,145,360
•9,922,322
-------
5.0 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
This section presents a summary of the detailed alternative evaluation that
was conducted in section 4. Evaluations were based upon the following
criteria:
o Protection of public health and welfare;
o Environmental impacts;
o Technical (performance, reliability and implementability);
o Institutional constraints (public concerns); and
o Cost-effectiveness
The results of this evaluation will be used by the EPA to identify a
preferred alternative that is protective of public health and the environ-
ment, that is cost effective, that utilizes permanent solutions, and that
will be consistent with the long-term remediation of the Oil landfill
problems. Consistency with the final remedy is not one of the specified
evaluation criteria; however, for a response action that is implemented
prior to the final remediation it becomes an important consideration. In
general, management of the leachate in a manner that reduces the volume of
leachate at the site is consistent with long-term remediation. All of the
alternatives that were developed accomplish volume reduction and none of
the alternatives would preclude other future remedial actions. Flexibility
is maintained in the on-site treatment alternative by:
o Sizing for the short-term leachate/liquid treatment requirements
but providing space for future expansion;
o Configuring treatment processes that can function over a broad
range of leachate quality characteristics; and
o Configuring a treatment facility that can readily be adapted to
treat groundwater, if required, as part of the long-term
remediation, or which can be removed if no further treatment is
necessary.
All five of the treatment alternatives evaluated in detail in Section 4 are
based on simple, proven technologies. Three of the alternatives can attain
the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) as
determined in Section 3 and would not be likely to pose significant risks
5-1
120-RI2-RT-FQJ&-1
-------
to public health, welfare, or the environment: Off-Site Treatment, and two
of the on-site treatment alternatives. Alternative 3 provides for chemical
addition to remove heavy metals, and activated carbon to remove toxic
organics; Alternative 5 provides for chemical addition to remove heavy
metals, air stripping for the removal of volatile organics, and activated
carbon for removal of other toxic organics. Alternative 3 and 5 can
achieve about the same levels of treatment however Alternative 3 would
'expend the activated carbon at a much high rate than Alternative 5.
Alternative 2 provides for chemical addition to reduce heavy metals, and
air stripping to remove volatile organics. Less volatile organics may not
be removed to a sufficient degree to meet ARARs. Alternative 6 adds .
ultra-filtration and reverse osmosis "to Alternative 5 in order to produce
water of suitable quality for discharge to a POTW or for reuse for
irrigation. Alternative 6 would exceed the ARARs for pre-treatment and
discharge to a POTW and would not be likely to pose significant risks to
public health, welfare, or the environment.
The No Action alternative was addressed in the screening section and was
eliminated due to public health, welfare, and environmental considerations.
In addition to the evaluation of treatment process alternatives, alterna-
tives were evaluated for siting the leachate treatment facility at
different on-site locations. The analysis, presented in Appendix G, shows
that the on-site treatment costs and present worth costs are not signifi-
cantly affected by site location. Sites B and E involve the transport of
leachate across the Pomona Freeway and site location D was determined to be
potentially inconsistent with the final remedy. Implementation of any of
the proposed on-site alternatives will have a minor, short-term effect on
the environment during construction. Dust control would be used during
site preparation to keep dust from migrating off-site. Present worth costs
at an interest rate of 6% for 5 years range from $4,754,781 at location A
to $5,051,061 at Location C.
120-RI2-RT^FQJD-1
-------
Present worth costs at an interest rate of 6% for 5 years (operation and
maintenance plus capital costs) for the five treatment alternatives
considered in detail, range from $4,211,826 (Alternative 2, Site B) to
$6,807,571 (Alternative 1).
•For the thirty-year period at 6% present worth costs range from $22,179,399
(Off-site treatment) to $9,922,322 (Alternative 2, Site B).
The present worth costs for an interest rate of 6% are summarized in Table
5-la (facility sited at Location B). Table 5-lb contains the present worth
cost for an interest rate of 8%.
5-3
120-RI2-RT-FQJD-1
-------
NO ACIiOH
OFF-SHE IREAIKN1
ON-SIIE 1RUIKRI
IAH.E S-la
INTERin lE&CHiTE tREiTHH! M.IERWIIVE SIWIfcR.1 FOft IKE Oil UMDFIIL SHE - SUE I
cost m .wo;
— ..........
lERNAtlVE CAPITAL PRESENT NORTH 1 it
s n 5 w 10 IR
HIM; HEALTH
CUCEftNS
EL-.'UWIc'UUl IECHBICK.
COkCERNS CUCEkNS
comuNirv
RESPONSE
CONCERNS
1NSIITUIIOIKL
CONCERNS
w
::,i7»
lUacciptitlt tipoiu/i to
Itacbat* titrating
oU-titt. Pottntial kullk
du to liickitt tipoiuff.
Pottntiil i on
1,87* S.U4 11.000
PotKitial lor ipillt
during trtatiHt. fcMtvtr,
»illt wiild k» lully
containtd at tkt lacilitv.
Nitioal iHttti during Lttt tUuitnt ptrloroatci
cwiitructioo. mtkout air ttnppii).
Plait iKaticw,
atfthttu impact,
•DIM. odor»,
tality.
Htltt MMIi.
SI Chmcal add., M?, 1,975 4,»47 13,0*7
dltration, air ttrrppini,
carbon adiorptioo
Pottntial (or ill Hi
during trtatttnt, kovtvtr,
iiilli mild kc ully
containid at th» (acility.
ellKtt durin|
conitructioo.
Nooi
Plait
atttkttic i»pact|
•DIM, odort,
ladty.
Htltt ARMt.
it Utucil add., OAF 2,29? 2,427 I?,fu4
liltration, air ttrippin|,
tifbon adtorptioi, U.F.,
fc.t.
Potential lor tpillt
during triatient, kMtvtr,
tpillt wuld ki (illy
cor.uintd at tnt (icility.
Ninioal tOtctt durinc
conitructiw.
Pouibl* itcbrait loultia,
proklttt. Io« pirMalt
rtcoviry rat*, irini
ditpotal.
Plaat locatiw,
aittkitic impact,
ntut, odwi,
taltty.
Eicitdi ARMt lor untr
ditpotal. Ray ka«i
diUuilty attaiitif
rtiti ttandardt.
—- * not
•akli
120
-RT-
-------
IfclEP.IN LEtCHATE IREAINENI WTEF:KAw
V
illj^mR
» FOR IHE Oil LAXOFILl SUE - SUE I
COST (11.0001
AUEMAJIVE CAPITAL PRESENT NORTH t 8!
5 TR 5 TR 30 W
NO ACTION
OFF-SITE TREATMENT 30 4,455 18,145
ON-SITE TREATMENT
21 Ckeoical add., DAF, 1,842 4,090 8,425
filtration, air strippinf
II Cheiical add., DAF, 1,874 4,993 10,945
filtration, carbon
adsorption
51 Ckeoical add., DAF, 1,975 4,792 10,200
filtration, air strippinf,
carbon adsorption
41 Cheoical add., DAF 2,297 5,244 10,944
filtration, air strippinf,
carbon adsorption, U.F..
R.O.
runic HEALTH
CONCERNS
Unacceptable eioosure to
leachate oifratinf
off-site. Potential health
risks due to leachate etposure.
Potential for huean eiposurt
due to spillage of leachate
durinf loadiof, unloading,
transport and treat«*nt.
Eipoture to air Missions.
Potential for spills
durinf treateent, hoover,
spills Muld be fully
contained at the facility.
Potential lor spills
durinf treatoent, konever,
spills wuld be fully
contained at the facility.
Potential for spills
durinf treatnent. hoMcver,
spills rauld ke fully
contained at the facility.
Potential for spills
durinf triatnent, honever,
spills Mild ke filly
contained at the facility.
tNVIRCWlEUIAL TECHNICAL
CWCEMS COXCEMI5
Potential for widespread
eivirontental contamination.
Potential for surface and Reliability
groundiater contaiination due
to spillage during transport.
Minna) effects durinf Hay not renove orfanics te
construction. an acceptable level.
Hinioal effects durinf Less efficient per for nance
construction. mthout air stripping.
Hiniial effects during , None
construction.
Hiniial effects during Possible Mibrane fouling
construction. probleis. Lo« peruate
recovery rate. Brine
disposal.
CONHUIIIT
RESPONSE
CONCERNS
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Plant location,
aesthetic iipact,
noise, odors,
safety.
Plant location,
aesthetic iipact t
noise, odors,
safety.
Plant location,
aesthetic iipact,
noise, odors,
safety.
Plant location,
aesthetic iipact,
noise, odors,
safety.
INSTITUTION*
CONCERNS
Dots not oett ARARs.
Rtets ARARs if facility
operated in compliance.
No control over
compliance.
Hay lot Met ARARs. Hay
not receive approval
for discharge.
Meets ARARs.
Heels ARARs.
Eiceeds ARARs for sever
disposal. Ray have
difficulty attaining
reuse standards.
— > net ippluablt
5-5
t20-W2-RT-PQJI>1
-------
REFERENCES
AKSOY, n. 1985. Malignancies due to occupational exposure to benzene.
Am. J. Ind. Med. 7:395-402
AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS (ACGIH). 1983.
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in
the Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for 1983-1984.
Cincinnati, Ohio (As cited in EPA 1984g)
BARNES, D. 1986. Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use in Health Ris
Assessments. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington,
D.C. Memorandum to RfD Work Group
BROWN, C.C., and CHU, K.C. 1982. Approaches to epidemiologic analysis of
prospective and retrospective studies: Example of lung cancer and ex-
posure to arsenic. In Prentice, R.L., and Whittemore, A.S., eds.
Environmental Epidemiology: Risk Assessment. SIAM, Philadelphia
CHASE, K.H., WONG, 0., THOMAS, D., BERNEY, B.W., and SIMON, R.K. 1982.
Clinical and metabolic abnormalities associated with occupational
exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls. J. Occup. Med. 24:109-114
CHEN, C., CHUANG, Y., YOU, s., LIN, T., and WU, H. 1986. A retrospective
study on malignant neoplasms of bladder, lung and liver in blackfoot
disease endemic area in Taiwan. Brit. J. Cancer 53:399-405
DEICHMANN, W.B., and WITHERUP, S. 1944. Phenol Studies. VI. The acute
and comparative- toxicity of phenol and o-, m-, and p-cresols for
experimental animals. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 80:233 (As cited in EPA
1980f)
DOW CHEMICAL CO. 1976. References and Literature Review Pertaining to
lexicological Properties of Phenol. Toxicol. Res. Lab. (unpublished
manuscript) (As cited in EPA 1980f)
EMMETT, E.A., AGNEW, J., BLEEKER, M.L., FERRARA, J.M., LEVIN, B.K.,
JEFFREYS, J., and MARONI, M. 1983. Health Effects of PCB Exposure of
GSA Switchgear Employees. NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation Program
Medical Report, Technical Assistance Request No. 80-7. The Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1973. Process Design Manual for
Carbon Adsorption, EPA-625/1-71-002A.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1977. Guidelines on Air Quality
Maintenance Planning and Analysis. Volume 10 (Revised): Procedures
for Evaluating Air Quality Impact of New Stationary Sources. Office of
Air and Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
EPA 450/4-77-001
%
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1979. Water Related Environmental
Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants; EPA 440/4-790928b.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PBOTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1980. Carbon Adsorption Isotherms
for Toxic Organics. EPA-600/8-80-023.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1980a. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Acrylonitrile. Office of water Regulations and Standards,
Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C. October 1980. EPA
440/5-80-017
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1980b. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Benzene. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 400/5-80-018. NTIS PB 81-117293.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1980c. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Cadmium. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 440/5-80-025 . .
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1980d. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Chlorinated Ethanes. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C. October
1980. EPA 440/5-80-029
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1980e. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Dinitrotoluenes. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C. October
1980. EPA 440/5-80-045 •
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1980f. Ambient Water Quality
Criteri for Phenol. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C. October 1980. EPA
440/5-80-066
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1980g. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C. EPA
440/5-80-068. NTIS PB 81-117798
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1980h. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Selenium. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C. October 1980. EPA
400/5-80-070
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 19801. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Trichloroethylene. Office of Water Planning and
Standards. Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-80-077
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1983. Health Assessment Document
for Acrylonitrile. Office of Environmental Assessment, Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triange Park, N.C. October
1983. EPA-600/8-82-007F
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1983. Treatment of Volatile
Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, EPA-600/8-83-019.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985a. The Endangerment Assessment
Handbook. Office of Solid Waste Programs Enforcement. June 1985
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985b. National primary drinking
water regulation; synthetic organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals and
microorganisms; proposed rule. Fed. Reg. 50:46936-47025 (November 13,
1985)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985c. National primary drinking
water regulations; volatile synthetic organic chemicals; final rule.
Fed. Reg. 50:46880-46901. (November 13, 1985)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985d. Updated Mutagenicity and
Carcinogenicity Assessment of Cadmium. Addendum to the Health
Assessment Document for Cadmium (May 1981; EPA/600/8-81/023). Office
of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. June 1985.
EPA 600/8-83-025F
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985e. Health Assessment Document
for 1,2-Dichloroethane. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, D.C. September 1985. EPA 600/8-84-006
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985f. Draft Health Advisory for
Lead. Office of Drinking Water. Washington, D.C. September 30.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985g. Draft air quality criteria
document for lead: Notice of a corrigendum to the second external.
review draft. Fed. Reg. 50:14289-14294 (April 11, 1985)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985h. Draft Health Advisory fo
Mercury. Office of Drinking Water. Washington-, D.C. September 30,
Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985i. Health Effects Criteria
Document on Polyctilorinated Biphenyls. Final Draft. Office of
Drinking Water, Washington
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985J. Drinking Water Criteria
. Document for Selenium (Final Draft):. Office of Drinking Water,
Washington, D.C. Contract No. 68-01-6750. NTIS Publication No.
PB86-118098
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985k. Health Assessment Document
for Trichloroethylene. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA/600/8-82/006F
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 19851. Drinking Water Criteria
Document on Vinyl Chloride. Office of Drinking Water. Washington,
D.C. January 1985. Final Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985. Guidance on Feasibility
Studies under CERCLA, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984a. Health Effects Assessment
fo Benzene. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Cincinnati,
Ohio. September 1984. EPA 540/1-86-037
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984b. Health Effects Assessment
for Cadmium. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati,
Ohio. September 1984. EPA 540/1-86-038
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984c. Health Effects Assessment
for 1,2-Dichloroethane. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, Ohio. September 1984. EPA 540/1-86-002
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984d. Air Quality Criteria for
Lead. External Review Draft. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 1984.
EPA-600/8-83-028B
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984e. Health Effects Assessment
for Lead. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Cincinnati,
Ohio. EPA 540/1-86-055
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984f. Health Effects Assessment
for Mercury. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 540/1-86-042
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984g. Health Effects Assessment
for Phenol. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati,
Ohio. September 1984. EPA 540/1-86-007
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984h. Health Effects Assessment
for Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, Cincinnati, Ohio. September 1984. EPA 540/1-86-004
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 19841. Health Effects Assessment
for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Environmental Criteria
and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio. September 1984. EPA
540/1-86-013
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984j. Health Effects Assessment
for Selenium. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinati,
Ohio. September 1984. EPA 540/1-86-058
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984k. Health Effects Assessment
for Trichloroethylene. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 540/1-86-046
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT I CM AGENCY (EPA). 19841. Health Effects Assessment
for Vinyl Chloride. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Cincinnati, Ohio. September 1984. EPA 540/1-86-036
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1984. Volatile Organic Chemicals
in Drinking Water; Cost of Removal. EFA/660/J-84/234.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985. Final Draft, Remedial Action
Costing Procedures Manual.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1985. Handbook, Remedial Action at
Waste Disposal Sites; EPA/625/6-85/006.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1986a. Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual. October 1986. EPA 540/1-86-060
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1986b. Evaluation of the Potential
Carcinogenicity of Benzene (71-43-2). Prepared by Carcinogen
Assessment Group for Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
OHEA-C-073-29
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1986c. Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) Chemical Files. November 1986
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1987a. National primary drinking
water regulations — synthetic organic chemicals; monitoring for
unregulated contaminants; final rule. Fed. Reg. 52:25690-25717 (July
8, 1987)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1987b. Health Advisory for
Benzene. Office of Drinking Water, Washington, D.C. March 31, 1987
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1987c. Health Advisory for
1,2-Dichloroethane. Office of Drinking Water, Washington, D.C. March
31, 1987
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 1987d. Health Advisory for
Trichloroethylene. Office of Drinking Water, Washington, D.C. March
1987
FEIN, G.G., JACOBSON, J.L., JACOBSON, S.W., SCHWARTZ, P.M., and DCWLER,
J.K. 1984a. Prenatal exposure to polychlorinated bipnenyls: Effects
on birth size and gestational age. J. Pediatr. 105:315-3.20
FEIN, G.G., JACOBSON, J.L., JACOBSON, S.W., and SCHWARTZ, P.M. 1984b.
. Intrauterine Exposure of Humans to PCBs: Newborn Effects. NTIS
BP84-188887. EPA 600/3-84-060
FERON, V.J,. HENDRIKSEN, C.F.M., SPEEK, A.J., TIL, H.P., and SPIT, B.J.
1981. Lifespan oral toxicity study of vinyl chloride in rats. Food
Cosinet. Toxicol. 19:317-333
FISCHBEIN, A., WOLFF, M.S., LILIS, R., THORNTON, J., and SELIKOFF, l.J.
1979. Clinical finding among PCB-exposed capacitor manufacturing
workers. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 320:703
FITZHUGH, O., NELSON, A., LAUG, E., and KUNZE, F. 1950. Chronic oral
toxicities of mercuric-phenyl and mercuric salts. Arch. Ind. Hyg.
Occup. Med. 2:433-441 :
-------
FRIBERG, L.T., PISCATOR, M., and NORDBERG, G. 1974. Cadmium in the
Environment, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Cleveland
GLOVER, J.R. 1967 Selenium in human urine: A tentative maximum allowable
concentration for industrial and rural populations. Ann. Occup. Hyg.
10:3-10
GOSSELIN, R.E., SMITH, R.P., and HODGE/ H.C. 1984. Clinical Toxicology of
Commercial Products: Acute Poisoning. 5th ed. Williams and Wilkins,
Co., Baltimore
HEFPEL, L.A., NEAL, P.A., PERRIN, T.L., ENDICQTT, K.M., and PORTERFIELO,
V.T 1946. Toxicology of 1,2-dichloroethane. V. Effects of daily
inhalations. J. Ind. Hyg. Toxicol. 28:113-120 (As cited in EPA 1985e).
HODGE, H.C., and STERNER, J.H. 1949. Tabulation of toxicity classes. Am.
Ind. Hyg. Assoc. Q. 10:93
HOFMANN, H.T., BIRNSTEIL, H., and JOBST, P. 1971. Zur inhalation toxicata
von 1,1- and 1,2-dichloroathan. Arch. Toxikol. 27:248-265 (As cited
in EPA 1985e)
INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER (IARC). 1979. IARC Monographs
of the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans.
Vol. 20: Some Halogenated Hydrocarbons. World Health Organization,
Lyon, France
INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER (IARC). 1982. IARC Monographs
on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans.
Volume 27: Some Aromatic Amines, Anthroquinones and Nitroso Compounds,
and Inorganic Fluorides Used in Drinking-Water and Dental Preparations.
World Health Organization, Lyon, France
INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER (IARC). -1983. IARC Monographs
of the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans.
Vol. 32: Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds; Part 1, Chemical, Environ-
mental, and Experimental Data. World Health Organization, Lyon, France
INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER (IARC). 1984. IARC Monographs
on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans.
Vol. 33: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Part 2, Carbon Blacks,
Mineral Oils (Lubricant Base Oils and Derived Products) and Some
Nitroarenes. World Health Organization, Lyon, France
JACOBSON, S.W., JACOBSON, J.L., SCHWARTZ, P.M., and FEIN,. G.G. 1983.
Intrauterine exposure of human newborns to PCBs: Measures of exposure.
In D'ltri, F.M.( and Kararin, M.A., eds. PCBs: Human and Environmental
Hazards. Butterworth Publishers, Boston, pp. 311-343
JACOBSON, J.L., FEIN, G.G., JACOBSON, S.W., SCHWARTZ, P.M., and DOWLER,
J.K. 1984. The transfer of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) across the human placenta and into
maternal milk. Am. J. Public Health 74:378-379
-------
KIMBROUGH, R., et al. 1978. Animal toxicity. Environ. Health Perspect.
24:173
KIMBROUGH, R.D., SQUIRE, R.A., LINDER, R.E., STRANDBERG, J.D., MONTALI,
R.J. and BURSE, V.W. 1975. Induction of liver tumors in Sherman
strain female rats by polychlorinated biphenyl Aroclor 1260. J. Natl.
Cancer Inst. 55:1453
KJELLSTRAND, P., HOLMQUIST, B., ALM, P., KANJE, M., ROMARE, S., JONSSON,
MANNSQN, L., and BJERKEMO. M. 1983. Trichloroethylene: further
studies of the effects on body and organ weights and plasma butytyl
cholinesterase activity in mice. Acta. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 53:375-384
(As cited in EPA 1985k)
ROLLER, L. 1979. Methylmercury toxicity, .model no. 158. In Jones, T.C.
Hackel, D.B., and Migaki, G., eds. Handbook: Animal Models of Human
Disease. Registry of Comparative Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Washington, D.C.
LOCKMAN & ASSOCIATES. 1983. Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill Site '
Closure Plan (Draft).
MALTONI, C., and LEFEMINE, G. 1975. Carcinogenicity bioassays vinyl
chloride. Current results. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 246:195-218
MALTONI, C., VALGIMIGLI, L., and SCARNATO, C. 1980. Long-term carcino-
genic bioassays on ethylene dichloride administered by inhalation by
rats and mice. In Ames, B.N., Infante, P., Reitz, R., eds. Ethylene
Dichloride: A Potential Health Risk? Banbury Report No. 5. Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York. pp. 3-33 (As
cited in EPA 198Be)
MARONI, M., COLOMBI, A., CANTONI, S., FERIOLI, E., and FOA, V. 1981.
Occuptional exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls in electrical
workers. I. Environmental and blood polychlorinated biphenyls
concentrations. Br. J. Ind. Med. 38:55-60
MARONI, M., COLUMBI, A., ARBOSTI, G., CANTONI, S., and FOA, V. 1981.
Occupational exposure tcf polychlorinated biphenyls in electrical
workers. II. Health effects. Br. J. Ind. Med. 38:55-60
MERCK INDEX. 1983. M. Windholz, ed. Merck and Co.,-Railway, New Jersey
MIETTINEN, J.K. 1973. Absorption and elimination of dietary mercury
(Hg ) and methylmercury in man. In Miller, M., and Clarkson, T., eds.
Mercury, Mercurials and Mercaptans. , Charles C. Thomas, Springfield,
Illinois
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (NCI). 1976. Carcinogenesis Bioassay of
Trichloroethylene. CAS No. 79-01-6. NCI-CG-TR-2.
-------
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (NCI). 1978a. Bioassay of 1,2-Dichloroethane
for Possible Carcinogen!city. NCI Carcinogenesis Technical Report
Series No. 55. Washington, D.C. DHEW (NIH) Publication No. 78-1361
(As cited in EPA 1985)
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (NCI). 1978b. Bioassay of 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
for Possible Carcinogenicity. Cas. No. 121-14-2. U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Carcinogenesis Testing Program,
Bethesda, Maryland. NCI-CG-TR-54. DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 78-838
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE (NCI). 1978c. Bioassay of Aroclor 1254 for
Possible Carcinogenicity. Cas. No. 27323-18-8. NCI Carcinogenesis*
Technical Report Series No. 38. DHEW (NIH) Publication No. 78-838
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC). 1979. Hydrogen Sulfide. Committee on
Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants. University
Park Press, Baltimore
NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM (NTP). 1982. Carcinogenesis Bioassay of
Trichloroethylene. CAS No. 79-01-6. NTP 81-84. NIH Publication No.'
82-1799. Draft (As cited in EPA 1985k)
NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM (NTP). 1984. Carcinogenesis Studies of
Trichloroethylene (Without Epichlorohydrin), CAS No. 79-01-6, in F344/N
rats and B6C3F1 mice (Gavage Studies). Draft. August 1983. NTP
81-84, NTP TR 243, . "
NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM (NTP). 1986. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis
Studies of Benzene (CAS No. 71-43-2) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice
(Gavage Studies). Technical Report Series No. 289. NIH Publication
No. 86-2545
NEAL, J., and RIGDON, R.H. 1967. Gastric tumors in mice fed benzo(a)- .
pyrene: A quantitative study. Tex. Rep. Biol. Med. 25:553-557
O'BERG, M. 1980. Epidemiologic study of workers exposed to acrylonitrile.
J. Occup. Med. 22:245-252
OTT, M.G., TOWNSEND, J.C., FISHBECK, W.A., and LANGNER, R.A. 1978.
Mortality among individuals occupationally exposed to benzene. Arch. .
Environ. Health 33:3-10
PERRY, H.M., KOPP, S.J., ERLANGER, M.W., and PERRY, E.F. 1983.
Cardiovascular effects of chronic barium ingestion. In Hemphill, D.D.,
ed. Trace Substances in Environmental Health - XVII. Proceedings of
the University of Missouri's 17th Annual Conference on Trace Substances
in Environmental Health. University of Missouri Press, Columbia,
Missouri (As cited in EPA 1984a)
RINSKY, R.A., YOUNG, R.J., and SMITH, A.B. 1981. Leukemia in benzene
workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 3:217-245
-------
RINSKY, R.A., SMITH, A.B., HORNUNG, R., FILLOON, T.G., YOUNG, R.J., OKUN,
A.H., and LONDRIGAN, P.J. 1987. Benzene and Leukemia: An
Epidemiologic Risk Assessment. N. Eng. J. Med. 316:1044-1050
SCHAEFFER, E., GREIM, H., and GOESSNER, W. 1984.- Pathology of chronic
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) feeding in rats. Toxicol. Appl.
Pharmacol. 75:278-288
SMITH, A.B., et al. 1982. Metabolic and health consequences of occupa-
tional exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls. Br. J. Ind. Med.
39:361-369
SPENCER, B.C., ROME, V.K., ADAMS, E.M., McCOLLISTER, D.D., and IRISH, D.D.
1951. Vapor toxicity of ethylene dichloride determined by experiments
on laboratory animals. Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med. 4:482 (As cited in EPA
1985a)
TAKENAKA, S., OLDIGES, H., KOENIG, H., HOCHRAINER, D., and OBERDOERSTER, G.
1983. Carcinogenicity of cadmium chloride aerosols in rats. JNCI
70:367-373
TARASENKO, M., PROMIN, 0., and SILAYEV, A. 1977. Barium compounds as
industrial poisons (an experimental study). J. Hyg. Epidemiol.
Microbiol. Immunol. 21:361
THUN, M.J., SCHNORR, T.M., SMITH, A.B., HALPERIN, W.E., and LEMEN, B.A. "
1985. Mortality among a cohort of U.S. Cadmium production workers. - An
update. JNCI 74:325-333
THYSSEN, J., ALTHOFF, J., KIMMERLE, G., and MOHR, U. 1981. Inhalation
studies with benzo(a)pyrene in Syrian golden hamsters. J. Natl. Cancer
Int. 66:575-577
TIL, H.P., IMMEL, H.R.> and FERON, V.J. 1983. Lifespan Oral
Carcinogenicity Study of Vinyl Chloride in Rats. Final Report. Civo
institutes TNO Report No. V 83 285/29109.
TRUESDIAL LABORATORY. 1986. Analysis of Oil Leachate.
TSENG, W.P., CHU, H.M., HOW, S.W., FONG, J.M., LIN, C.S., and YEH, S.L.
1968. Prevalence of skin cancer in an endemic area of chronic
arsenicism in Taiwan. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 40:453-463
WONG, O. 1982. An Industry-wide Mortality Study of Chemical Workers
Occupationally Exposed to Benzene. Prepared for the Chemical
Manufacturers Association by Environmental Health Associates, Oakland,
California
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS. 1985. Oil Landfill Site, Initial Remedial
Measures, RI/FS.
YANG, G., WANG, S., ZHOU, R., and SUN, S. 1983. Endemic selenium
intoxication of humans in China. Am. J. Clin. Nutrt. 37:872-881
-------
APPENDIX A
ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
-------
APPENDIX A
ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
(Outside of EPA Staff and REM II Project Team)
• ""
1. Lockman & Associates, Monterey Park, CA
- Mr. Terry Boston
- Mr. John Sepich
2. City of Monterey Park, CA
- Mr. Henry Terashita
3. California Department of Health Services (DOHS), Los Angeles, CA
- Mr. Harry Sneh
4. Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD), Whittier, CA
- Mr. Mark Miller
5. Ecology & Environment
- Mr. Geoff Knight
- Mr. Eric Ruston
- Ms. Patty Cook
6. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)., Los
Angeles, CA
- Mr. Ray Delacourt
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), El Monte, CA
- Mr. Steve Levy
- Mr. Fred Lettice
8. ChemTech Systems, Inc., Vernon, CA
- Mr. Ron Stock
9. Oil Process Company, Los Angeles, CA
- Mr. Al Thompson
10. Chemical Waste Management Inc., Coalinga, CA
- Mr. Fred Miller
- Mr. Mark Lenkowski
11. CH2M Hill, Irvine, CA
- Mr. Ed Rogan
12. City of Montebello
- Mr. Clark Siegmeyer
-------
APPENDIX B
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF OPERATING INDUSTRIES, INC.
-------
APPENDIX B
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF
OPERATING INDUSTRIES INC.
Dec., 1946 Monterey Park City Council granted a five-year contract to
Monterey Park Disposal Company (MPD) for* trash collection;
effective January 1, 1947. Contract stated that MPD could
dispose of garbage at selected sites in Monterey Park as
designated by City Council. Hilldale Tract on South
Garfield and areas of Old Garvey Ranch used as MPD
dumpsites were closed due to court action or inadequate
fill capacity.
Oct., 1948 Lease of Los Angeles County area in SE corner of Monterey
Park is negotiated by MPD from a Mr. Henry Wheeler,
effective December, 1948. Dump operations were begun on
this portion of the Wheeler property but the operation
also extended into County property, and MFD applied for
but was denied a County special use permit.
Feb., 1949 Monterey Park annexed Wheeler property being used for dump
operation that was located in the County. This annexation
was approved on January 17, 1949, by the City Council and
became official on February 16, 1949.
Mar., 1949 For a period from April 1, 1949, to November 30, 1949, the
entire Wheeler property was subleased to the City of
Monterey Park. Operation agreement provided that MPD
would operate a City municipal dump in which the City
would receive the first one thousand dollars of gross
monthly receipts and five percent of other earnings.
Jan., 1952 A new agreement provided for the operation of a'commercial
cut and cover dump to be run by MPD and cancelled the 1949
sublease. This gave the City free dumping privileges of
municipal trash and granted the City the right to impose
reasonable operation standards. MPD must acquire zone
variance and permit by July 1, 1952, for agreement to be
valid. This agreement was on a condition that Montebello
would annex a portion of the site, which they did not do.
Therefore, the landfill reverted to private ownership
(Oil).
Feb., 1952 City Council granted permit to operate dump.
Feb., 1953 wheeler Annexation #2 was approved.
Oct., 1955 Inspection of Oil site was made by David MacArthur, and it
was found that there were large areas of uncovered trash,
piles of oil cans, and a 300' by 100' pool of oil.
B-l
-------
June, 1956
June. 1957
Oct., 1957
Nov., 1957
Feb., 1958
Oct., 1958
Dec., 1958
Jan., 1959
Aug., 1974
Mar., 1975
Apr., 1975
June, 1975
Special Use Permit 25-26 was issued for possible annexa-
tion of 80 additional acres on Wheeler property (Wheeler
Annexation 13). Permit stated that fill would not be
dumped on Greenwood Avenue right-of-way.
Zone exception 2977-1 was granted by the L.A. County
Zoning Board.
Ban on use of residential incinerators was issued by
County.
Planning Commission adopts Resolution 60-57 which granted
dump operation variance upon Council vacating that portion
of Greenwood Avenue outlined in Resolution 25-26.
Council adopted new Municipal Code standards for
commercial dump operation.
Resolution 60-58 was adopted by Planning Commission,
granted a variance to- authorized dumping operations
including proposed annexed areas. Terminate Resolutions
25-56 and 60-57. Council also adopted Resolution 6206
which initiated proceedings for Wheeler Annexation #3.
60-58 also sets disposal limits (types-and amounts),
including a 10 gallon per cubic yard limit on liquid waste
over the entire landfill.
Montebello Planning Commission requested that Monterey
Park confirm the proposed Greenwood Avenue route, set a
490-foot limit (height) on landfill, and initially fill
the area next to the single-family housing development
in Montebello.
Monterey Park City Engineer confirmed Greenwood Avenue
route and 490 foot height limit, but stated that filling
the area next to the Montebello residential development
would be incompatible with dump operations.
Council adopted Wheeler Annexation 43 Agreement.
NRG NUFUEL entered into relationship with Oil to test and
evaluate the landfill for gas extraction operations.
Montebello deleted Greenwood Avenue from General Plan.
Monterey Park City Manager to schedule meeting with
Montebello to propose a landfill study to consider
possible uses of the site.
Use permit modified by Planning commission that allowed a
dump height of 605 feet, and allowed; only clean dirt
dumped on the North 45 acres and the eas.t 15 acres.
B-2
-------
Aug., 1975 Limit on dump height increased to 640' by the City
Council. This plan was subject to a slope stability
analysis, grading and landscaping plans, an on-demand
Greenwood right-of-way dedication, complete storm drainage
system, dumping volume figures given to City for future
disposal of unusable landfill during the Greenwood Avenue
construction, installation of a gas monitoring system, and
all of the Resolution 60-58 conditions.
Nov., 1975 Council approved landscape plan for fill.
Feb., 1976 Council set final landfill elevations, based on the slope
stability investigation by Converse, Davis and Dixon
Associates, at a maximum of 650 feet with an average
height of .629 feet.
Mar., 1976 CRWQCB adopted Order #76-30 which allowed 10 gallons of
liquid waste to be disposed of per cubic yard of refuse on
the western half of Oil's Class II disposal site.
May, 1976 City agreed to the purchase of irrigation water from
Montebello by Oil.
Sep., 1976 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board,
(CRWQCB), Order 176-133, limits liquid hazardous waste
disposal (20 g/yd on 32 of the 130 acre south parcel). .
1978 SCAQMD issued Order of Abatement #2121 specifying that the
landfill must comply with such items as minimum cover,
grading, liquid deposition, dust control, excavation, and
monitoring requirements.
Jan., 1978 Intense odor problems noted, resulting in enforcement
agencies inspecting the facility. ' They found violations
for solid waste hauling and disposal, slopes and cuts,
intermediate and final cover, gas and erosion control,
grading of fill surfaces, excessive odors and ponding of
liquids. Corrective actions were ordered.
May, 1978 DOHS received Application for Operating Permit from Oil
for Facilities Receiving Hazardous Waste.
Dec., 1978 State Solid Waste Management Board granted Oil a permit
for solid waste disposal.
Aug., 1979 Getty Gas Extraction System was installed.
Fall, 1980 Leachate collection system construction begins.
Oct., 1980 DOHS received another Application for Operating Permit for
Facilities Receiving Hazardous Waste.
California Solid Waste Management Boardsadopted resolution
which placed Oil on the Federal Open Dump List.
B-3
-------
Nov., 1980 U.S. EPA, Region IX, received RCRA Part A application from
Oil.
Jan., 1981 Los Angeles County DOHS issued a cease-and-desist order
under Permit I19AM001. Order was in response to Oil's
operation of a landfill without a control plan for
potentially hazardous gases and lack of a gas migration
control system.
June, 1981 Phase I Air Dike System installed.
Dec., 1981 DOHS issued Oil an Interim Status Document #CAT080012024,
which authorized continued land disposal operations
subject to the conditions of the document.
1982 Landfill leachate bleeds began in Iguala Park residential
areas.
Aug., 1982 State DOHS and EPA conduct separate RCRA Interim Status
compliance inspections. Found that facility is lacking an
adequate groundwater monitoring program and a formal waste
analysis plan.
Dec., 1982 DOHS inspected Oil and found apparent violations of ten
(10) Interim Status Documentation (ISD) provisions.
Jan., 1983 DOHS sent enforcement letter to Oil regarding the ten (10)
Interim Status Documents (ISD) violations.
Oil stopped Class I waste disposal.
EPA requested Oil's RCRA Part B application which was due
August 1, 1983.
Feb., 1983 Oil notifies EPA that no Part B was necessary since Oil
had ceased all hazardous wastes disposal.
Construction of Phases II/III/IV gas migration control
systems begin at Oil.
Mar., 1983 Mudslides occurred on the northern face of the south
parce^ near the Greenwood Ave. overpass due to heavy
rainfall.
Apr., 1983 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
issued Abatement Order #2121-1. The document centered on
leachate control surface emissions, gas migration, final
cover, and inspection monitoring.
State DOHS begins a health study of residents living near
landfill site. - \
Leachate recycling with incoming refuse began.
B-4
-------
Leachate control system (150 feet french drain) was set in
place at northeast landfill area.
Legislative hearing conducted by C.M. Calderon in Monterey
Park regarding the Oil landfill.
Oil claimed to stop all liquid was'te disposal.
SCAQMD discovered that Oil had accepted 24 loads of liquid
waste. .
Work began on a leachate control system near Iguala Park
and the southwest corner of the landfill.
Unannounced inspections were conducted by the DOHS to make
sure Oil was not accepting any more hazardous waste.
SCAQMD discovers vinyl chloride in air on-site and in
Iguala Park residential area.
Vinyl .chloride levels exceed state air quality minimum
standard of 10 ppb (SCAQMD).
May, 1983 DOHS conducted additional unannounced inspections
concerning continued acceptance of hazardous wastes at
Oil.
Pool of leachate (was not sampled or analyzed) discovered
in Iguala Park by SCAQMD. Oil was given 48 hours to
remedy situation.
• •
Construction began on six new pumping wells in the Iguala
Park area since the leachate bleeds did not cease using
the first leachate control well.
Leachate bleeds occurred in the west and north-west
sections of the landfill, and french-drain leachate
control systems were installed.
Leachate control work continued in the south-west corner
of the landfill.
June, 1983 Oil submitted a draft closure plan to State for review.
EPA 3008 complaint/order sent to Oil. Six Class I
violations were covered in order including:
- inadequate groundwater monitoring
- no closure plan
- no post-closure plan
- no closure cost estimate
- no post-closure cost estimate
- no financial assurances
B-5
-------
July, 1983 Iguala Park slope leachate bleeds disappeared. Two more
water-leachate pumping wells (IG-4,5) have begun
development.
Leachate air-lift pump in landfills southwest corner
malfunctioned and leachate overflow occurred.
Consent agreement was signed by Oil.
Oil agrees to pay $37,000 in fines to EPA.
Revised Oil closure/post-closure plan is resubmitted and
financial assurance mechanism submittal was due August 15,
1983.
Aug., 1983 Lockman and Associates collect raw leachate sample which
revealed 33 mg/1 of vinyl chloride upon analysis.
Sept., 1983 EPA rejected Oil financial assurance plan and established
a resubmittal date of October 15, 1983.
Oct., 1983 v^DOHS conducted follow-up inspection to September 27, 1983.
Found leachate problems in Iguala Park and southwest
corner of the landfill. Also observed that landfill
slopes around the leachate tanks exhibited significant
signs of failure and erosion.
SCAQMD conducted a Board Hearing regarding abatement order
requirements and odor-emission control schedules for Oil.
Oil was given until October 31, 1983, to submit Trust
Agreement.
EPA letter to Oil indicates that DOHS would be the agency
determining adequacy of submittals regarding RCRA closure.
Nov., 1983 Leachate appeared in Northwest corner near well L-19.
Oil submitted Trust Agreement to DOHS.
Dec., 1963 Leachate contamination is rediscovered in Greenwood Avenue
area and other bleeds were found in Grid E-9.
Grading operations began at the southwest .corner
"silverfill" area after trash deposition for this area was
completed.
Jan., 1984 State DOHS announces the dump is now ranked as the 16th
worst hazardous site out of a total of 97 in the state.
LA County Superior Court issued order for Oil to post a
two million dollar bond by September 1,.1984.
/
nay, 1984 3,520 gallons of vodka is disposed at the working face of
the landfill.
B-6
-------
Irrigation begins on slopes near Iguala Park.
June, 1984 DOHS inspections reveals leachate seeps at southwest
corner of Oil.
Several leachate bleeds off-site of southwest corner and
Iguala Park. .
July, 1984 Leachate contaminated dirt is removed from landfills vest
slope.
Accepted Class II solid waste from Athens Disposal and
Class III wastes from City of Monterey Park.
Areas on north slope of landfill are irrigated.
Aug., 1984 Irrigation takes place at various locations throughout the
landfill.
Monterey Park City Council public hearing on Oil
application for an industrial waste permit to sewer
pre-treated leachate. through the City of Monterey Park.
Application granted approval.
California DOHS releases a Determination of Eminent or
Substantial Endangerment Report which addresses leachate,
gas, and slope problems and their subsequent monitoring
and control. Oil receives remedial Action Order ttLAOOl
which deals with groundwater monitoring, gas migration,
closure, and post closure.
Sept., 1984 Extensive irrigation takes place throughout the landfill.
DOHS issues order to reduce recycling of leachate back
into working face from 20,000 gallons per day to 10,000
gallons per day. Underground fire discovered in southeast
corner of landfill. Fire was extinguished with 8,000
gallons of water.
Redisposal of leachate into landfill ceases.
Oct., 1984 Oil stops accepting refuse.
Oil begins shipping leachate off-site.
Oil placed on proposed National Priority List.
Nov., 1984 State and local agencies conduct methane gas survey in
homes bordering on landfill.
Sept., 1984 SCAQMD issues a preliminary injunction against Oil. The
injunction required the continued, operation and
maintenance of the leachate collection? system, continued
trucking of collected leachate to a permitted off-site
B-7
-------
treatment facility and to proceed with plans and
permitting for an on-site leachate pre-treatment facility.
Dec., 1985 Oil declares it is financially unable to meet terms of the
injunction.
Nay, 1986 EPA places Oil landfill on the National Priority list of
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites.
Sep., 1986 Monterey Park adds section 21.28.165 to their municipal
code relating to disposition of wastes in the M zone.
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
Oil SITE LEACHATE ANALYSIS (1983-1986)
-------
APPENDIX C
Oil LANDFILL LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
A summary of the Operating Industries, Inc. leachate characterization data
is presented in Table C-l. This data was reviewed and analyzed for the
preparation of the Feasibility Study Report. The 70 sets of analytical
results used to prepare the summary table represent a majority of the
available data. A high quality analysis performed on a July 1986 sample of
leachate by EPA's National Enforcement Investigations Center laboratory
(NEIC) which is not included in Table C-l is attached as Addendum C-l.
Leachate sample results used to prepare the table covered a period that
extended from January 1983 through July 1986. Analytical reports on
leachate quality were drawn.from several regulatory agencies including the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, California Department of Health Services, South
Coast Air Quality Management District and the Los Angeles County Sanitation
District. Also included in the data are analytical results obtained during
treatability studies performed at the Triple J Pacification facility
(ChemTech) and at Zimpro and results presented in reports oh the site
prepared by various consultants including Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.,
Woodward Clyde Consultants and Lockman and Associates.
Leachate samples were taken from a variety of locations both on and off the
Operating Industries, Inc., landfill site. Identified sampling locations
include the leachate sump, underground collection tanks, above ground
storage tanks, leachate transfer and dumping lines, vacuum trucks, bleeding
landfill slopes, and holding tanks at off-site treatment facilities. Site
stormwater analyses were not included in the summary. The NEIC leachate
sample was collected from a spigot off of the transfer line leading from
the underground tanks to the Baker tanks.
Several laboratories were used by the agencies and consultants to analyze
the leachate from the landfill site. Analyses requested varied in
C-l
-------
frequency. Some test results, such as those for oil and grease, were
reported for over fifty analyses. Other test results, such as ammonia were
analyzed only once. Although neither the quality of results reported by
each analyzing laboratory or the techniques used by those collecting the
leachate for analysis could be verified for all tests, the majority of
available data on leachate quality was included in the summary data
compilation. EPA data validation procedures have not been done for the
data.
Analytical data was reviewed to determine the total number of samples
analyzed for each parameter, the range of reported values, the average
level and the median value for each pollutant present in the leachate. The
number of samples analyzed for specific organic constituents includes only
those for which the level exceeded detection limits, whereas the number
analyzed for other parameters includes those reported as below the limit of
detection. As illustrated in Table C-l, the range of reported values for
some pollutants was extremely wide, varying in some cases by several orders
of magnitude. The mean and median values also differ significantly for
several pollutants.
•
Available data was also reviewed to determine if any trends in reported
pollutant levels with respect to time or change of seasons could be
identified. Based on the 70 sets of results reviewed, no consistent
pattern of changing leachate characteristics over the past three and
one-half years or from season to season could be readily identified. A
similar set of patternless results was observed even when data from the
same identified sampling location were compared.
It should be noted that not every organic constituent detected in the
leachate at any time is included in the attached table. All priority
pollutant organic species identified in at least one sample are included;
however, occasional monitoring data on volatile acids, normal biochemical
metabolites in a landfill, are not included. Also, the general class of.
long chain alkanes which were determined to be present in the leachate in
high concentrations (several hundred thousand micrograms per liter)
although infrequently quantified, are not included.
C-2
-------
TABLE C-l
Oil LANDFILL SITE LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
Parameter
Indicators
PH
COO (soluble)
COD (total)
BOD5 (soluble)
BOD5 (total)
TOC
DOC
OIL AND GREASE
TURBIDITY
TOTAL SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ASH (total)
ASH (suspended)
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
CONDUCTIVITY
COLOR
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
SURFACTANTS
MERCAPTANS
No. Of
Samples
39
1
42
1
2
3
1
53
1
1
48
1
1
31
2
1
16
1
2
Range of Values
(mg/1, except where noted)
Minimum Maximum
6.6
3,624
750
78
191
450
1,352
6
210(Htu,
10,770
62
9,430
14
7,226
14,560
7,478 '*-p-H
1.00
4.5
0.42
8.5 '••u'1
—
31,000
—
218
1,180
—
296,800*
—
—
62,800*
— ,
—
16,300
22,000(u"hos/c"
.A. Units)
1.02
• —
1.2
Mean
7.6
3,624
7,144
78
205
759
1,352
8.340
210
10,770
3,532
9,430
14
11,459
18,280
7,478
1.02
4.5
0.81
Median
7.6
3,624
4,690
78
—
646
1,352
473
210
10,770
628
9,430
14
11,650
—
7,478
1.02
4.5
—
-------
TABLE C-l
(continued)
Oil LANDFILL SITE LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
Parameter
Radioactivity
RADIOACTIVITY - Gross Alpha
RADIOACTIVITY - Gross Beta
Wastewater
SULFIDES
CYANIDES
PHENOLS
TKN
AMMONIA
NITRATE
NITRITE'^
PHOSPHATE
Hater Quality
CHLORIDE
FLUORIDE
CALCIUM
No. Of
Samples
4
4
44
9
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
3
3
Range of Values
(mg/1 except where noted)
Minimum Maximum
6.6+15
39
<0.01
0.002
1.15
763
720
0.7
<0.5
6.8
22.6
0.3
157
110.7 'pci/tl
700+94 "c4/tl
13
0.06
33.3
—
—
1,054
—
—
4,924
58
302
Mean
35
389
2.1
0.027
10.3
763
720
263.9
<0.5
6.8
3,416
19.8
213
Median
16
518
1.2
0.02
4.71
763
720
1.3
<0.5
6.8
4,013
1.1
179
-------
TABLE C-l-
(continued)
Oil LANDFILL SITE LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
Parameter
Water Quality (continued)
MAGNESIUM
HARDNESS
MANGANESE
IRON
POTASSIUM
SODIUM
SULFATE
ALKALINITY
BICARBONATE
CARBONATE
SILICA
Metals^
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
NO. Of
Samples
3
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
4
21
13
2
22
Range 'of Values
(mg/1 except where noted)
Minimum Maximum
116
1.228
0.82
9.74
470
2.200
<1.0
3,720
3,720
<1.0
21.0 .
0.62
< 0.002
0.026
<0.37
<0.001 '
< 0.0006
367
1,317
162
87.6
640
4,500
120
4,746
5,236
—
—
5.96
0.031
4.52
18
0.52
0.405
Mean
232
1,273
41.6
44.7
528
3,567
75.3
4,203
4.567 .
<1.0
21.0
3.29
0.015
0.37
4.82
0.26
0.035
Median
212
—
2.5
28.5
470
4,000
105
4,143
4,746
<1.0
21.0
< 0.002
0.12
0.81
—
< 0.001
-------
TABLE C-l
(continued)
Oil LANDFILL SITE LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
Parameter
Metals (continued)
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
VANADIUM
ZINC ^.
BISMUTH
MOLYBDENUM
No. Of
Samples
••
22
10
23
23
14
23
14
14
1
3
3
1
23
1
1
Range of Values
(mg/1 except where noted)
Minimum Maximum
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.01
< 0.0002
<0.01
<0.001
<0.001
. <0.01
0.0062.
<0.02
0.060
0.06
<0.02
<0.01
4.81
1.54
38
2.9
0.302
1.63
1.97
0.096
0.17
0.54
—
18.0
—
—
Mean
0.79
0.44
2.41
0.50
0.02
0.57
0.32
0.04
<0.01
0.06
0.19
0.06
3.10
<0.02
<0.01
Median
0.18
0.06
0.16
0.19
< 0.002
0.44
<0.001
<0.03
<0.01
0.006
<0.02
0.06
0.95
<0.02
<0.01
Organic
TOX
0.0014
0.0091
0.0053
-------
TABLE C-l
(continued)
Oil LANDFILL SITE LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
No. of
Parameter Samples
Priority Pollutant
Organics Detected
ACENAPHTHENE
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
1 , 2 , 4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1 , 2-DICHLORQETHANE
1,1* 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
CHLOROFORM
DICHLOROBENZENES (1,2) ( 1,3)(1,4)
2-CHLOROPHENOL
t-1 , 2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
2 , 4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2 , 4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
ETHYLBENZENE
1
1
10
1
3
4
4
14
1
3
3 .
14
1
2
2
11
1
13
Range of Values
(mg/1 except where noted)
Minimum Maximum
0.066
0.120
0.020
0.030
0.005
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.160
0.020
0.010
0.021
0.170
0.010
0.051
0.029
0.070 .
0.002
—
0.300
—
0.055
0.29
1.25
0.230
—
0.081
0.35
3.89
—
0.026
2.10
1.50
—
3.60
Mean
0.066
0.120
0.067
0.030
0.030
0.162
0.359
0.054
0.160
0.052
0.136
0.520
0.170
0.018
1.076
0.343
0.070
0.566
Median
0.066
0.120
0.037
0.030
0.031
0.075
0.150
0.032
0.160
0.054
0.047
0.140
0.170
—
—
0.142
0.070
0.114
-------
TABLE C-l
(continued)
Oil LANDFILL SITE LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
Parameter
Priority Pollutant
Organics Detected (continued)
FLUORANTHENE
NETHYLENE CHLORIDE
ISOPHORONE
NAPHTHALENE
4-NITROPHENOL
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
QIETHYLPHTHALATE
BENZO( a ) ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
NO. Of
Samples
1
8
1
12
1
1
3
12
12
3
6
2
2
2
1
3
11
3
1
Range of Values
(mg/1 except where noted)
Minimum Maximum
0.030
0.008
0.900
0.010
0.190
0.075
0.029
0.012
0.12
0.012
0.011
0.092
0.050
0.007
0.004
0.012
0.020
0.002 '
0.080
16.30
—
1.20
—
—
0.230
1.80
60.00
0.024
0.200
1.100
0.352
0.130
0.120
0.900
0.099
Mean
0.030
2.452
0.900
0.186
0.190
0.075
0.118
0.397
5.680
0.019
0.074
0.596
0.201
0.068
0.004
0.109
0.183
0.058
0.080
Median
>
0.030
0.330
0.900
0.059
0.190
0.075
0.095
0.150
0.460
0.020
0.012
—
—
—
0.004
0.088
0.110
0.074
0.080
-------
TABLE C-l
(continued)
Oil LANDFILL SITE LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
Parameter
NO. Of
Samples
Range of Values
(mg/1 except where noted)
Minimum Maximum
Mean
Median
Priority Pollutant
Organics Detected (continued) •
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
Other Organics Detected
ACETONE
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
2-PENTANONE
4-METOYL-2-PENTANONE
2-HEXANONE
CYCLOHEXANONE
2-METHYLPHENOL
2,4, 5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
DIMETHYL SULFIDE
XYLENE ISOMERS
DIOXANES
17
2
7
2
3
6
6
2
1
5
1
1
2
1
1
16
6
0.055
0.060 '
0.009
0.002
0.005
0.150
0.040
0.030
DETECTED
0.051
DETECTED
0.100
0.086
0.320
DETECTED
t
0.020
0.030
10.0
0.320
0.50
0.476
0.296
3.00
5.00
4.00
1.9
—
—
0.56
—
5.00
19.00
1.148
0.19
0.114
0.239
0.121
1.202
0.954
2.015
0.525
—
0.100
0.323
0.320
1.017
5.496
0.340
—
0.057
—
0.062
0.770
0.090
—
0.060
—
0.100
—
0.320
0.239
1.00
-------
TABLE c-i
(continued)
Oil LANDFILL SITE LEACHATE ANALYSES (1983-1986)
Parameter
Other Organics Detected
TETRAHYDBOFURAN
PREON
2-METHYL NAPHTHALENE
CAMPHOR
N,N-DI METHYL PORHAMIDE
C-l V 2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
No. Of
Samples
(continued)
7
1
6
1
1
3
Range of Values
(mg/1 except where noted)
Minimum Maximum
0.050
9.40
0.012
0.960
0.120
0.008
0.800
—
0.890
—
—
0.157
Mean
0.396
9.40
0.206
0.960
0.120
0.087
Median
0.530
9.40
0.013
0.960
0.120
0.096
•Samples were taken from the tank of a vacuum truck
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
•UIID4NG S3. tOX 25227. DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
OtNVIt. CQtOtAOO S022S
T0 Thomas Dahl, OATI- Septembet 16, 1966
Project Coordinator
s
1
MOM Dr. Joe Lovry, Chief
Inorganic Analytical S3
SUMO Analysis Results for the July, 1966 Operating Industries Site Samples,
Los Angeles, CA - 1GZC Project D24
In July 1966, Ecology and arvlronment Inc., collected samples for SPA
Region H from the leachate Tank, Ven 01-4 and VeU ¥-13 at the Operating
Industries site near, Los Angeles, California. The Leachate Tank was sam-
pled in triplicate and Ven 01-4 was sampled in duplicate. The VeU 01-4
duplicate samples vere "blind" duplicates and were labeled as from Veil 01-
7* These samples vere analyzed by HUG for the purposes of providing: 1)
enforcement support, 2) accurate analytical results for a vide scope of
parameters, 3) additional Information regarding the chemical makeup of the
samples, and 4) defensible analytical procedures and techniques.
This report presents the analytical results for a variety of analytes,
discusses analytical difficulties caused by the sample matrices and pro-
vides modifications to standard methods to eliminate or circumvent these
analytical difficulties. Some new information about the composition of the
contaminants present in the samples is provided. Considerable information
has been gathered about the composition of the organic constituents present
in the samples beyond that obtained by the normal organic methods.
However, analyses are still in progress in this area and the Information
will be reported as soon SB it is compiled.
Field measurements, including conductance and pE, made by the sampling
contractor at the time of sampling are not included In tills report. The
sampling contractor transferred samples to NEIC in accordance with standard
chain of custody procedure*.
Standard quality control •saflurts vere taken by HUC In the analysis
of the samples including but not Halted to: (1) the analysis of field and
laboratory blanks to allow distinction of possible contamination due to
sample M**™*g, (2) analysis of laboratory spiked samples and control sam-
ples to estimate accuracy, and (3) analysis of laboratory and field repli-
cates to ssrtiaate precision. Table 1 provides.a summary, by parameter, of
the analytical techniques used for the sample analyses.
-------
Table 2 lists the gas.chromatographable organic constituents detected
in. the samples snd Table 3 reports the limits of quantitation for compounds
defected by the gas chromatography oethods. Table 4 contains saople ana-
lysis results for alkalinity, free and total cyanide, bromide, chloride,
fluoride* ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, total phosphorus, sulfate
and dissolved sulfur. The results of the sample analyses for thirty-three
elements are contained in Table 5* Tables 6 through 12 report the results
of the quality control measures for the particular analyses methods.
following sections describe the analytical results obtained by
HEIC. Consideration was given to problems a laboratory might encounter
performing the analyses. The field blank analysis results do not appear in
the data tables but are discussed where appropriate in the following sec-
tions.
Oas ChrcBatographable Organic Constituents
Table 2 lists the organic compounds which can be reported with certa-
inty as being present in the samples from the volatile, semivolatile,
pesticide and PC3 analyses. This table only lists the compounds that were
detected. Table 3 contains the limits of quantitation for the commonly de-
termined volatile, semivolatile, pesticide and PCS organic compounds for
which the methods are applicable. Those compounds listed in Table 3 snd
not reported in Table 2 were examined but not detected in the samples.
large concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were found in the samples from the
leachate Tank and Veil 01-4 samples. It was not detected in the Veil V-13
sample. The results for 1,4-dioxane were obtained by purge and trap gas
chromatography- - mass spectroscopy (OC-flS). Although 1,4-dioxane has a
rather poor purge efficiency, the QC-HS results were in excellent agreement
with results obtained by direct injection gas chromatography with flame
ionization detection.
Vinyl chloride and 1,2-dicloroethene can be present in contaminated
waters as degradation products of trichlorethene. Vinyl chloride and 1,2-
diclorethene were detected in the samples from the Leachate Tank snd Veil
01-4; trichloroethene was not detected. The absence of trichloroethene was
confirmed by a manual search of the GC-MS data.
ICC fond 1200 u«/L methylene chloride in the Veil V-13 sample. The
1200 ug/L veJtie was obtained from the average analysis results of different
dilutions of sample In a single sample bottle. The replicate analysis re-
sults ranged from 1130 ug/L to 1300 ug/L. •
A number of other analyses verify the presence of the methylene chlo-
ride in the samples from Veil V-13* In early September which was well
after the recommended holding time for volatile organic analyses, other
-------
sample bottles for Veil V-13 were analyzed for aethylene chloride. The or-
glnnl and second volatile organics sample bottles and a purgable organic
carbon sample bottle were analyzed. The analysis results ranged from 860
ug/L to 1000 ug/L. The purgable organic carbon sample bottle and volatile
organic sample bottles were stored in different refrigerators in different
laboratories and were not handled in the same laboratory prior to the late
aethylene chloride analyses. Further, although aethylene chloride was de-
tected at a concentration of 23 ug/L in the field blank arid from 3*4 ug/L
to 4*5 ug/L in the laboratory blanks, such levels are insignificant in com-
parison to the 1200 ug/L found in the Veil V-13 sample. Additionally, al-
though total organic halide (TOX) results will not be reported because the
laboratory contracted by NT3C did not analyze the sample in accordance with
the standard method or with the appropriate control measures or within ap-
propriate holding times, the laboratory did report a TOX value of 400 ug/L
for the Veil V-13 sample. The TOX value is probably biased low substan-
tially due to the practices used by the laboratory.
Diehlorobenzenes were found in both the volatile and semivolatile ana-
lyses for the Leachate Tank samples. The volatile analyses results are
reported in Table 2 because the results are not subject to the semivolatile
extraction difficulties which are discussed below and furthermore, a better
detection limit was achieved for the volatile analyses.
The seal volatile chroaatograms for the samples contained peaks for
many compounds not listed in Table 3* Standards were available for some of
these compounds and thus positive identification and quantitation was pos-
sible for the alkanes reported for the Leachate Tank samples and the me-
thylbenzene compounds reported for the Leachate Tank and Veil 01-4 samples.
In addition, all semivolatile sample chromatograms contained large undif-
ferentiated humps indicating the presence of weathered hydrocarbons. Based
on the total ion count for the chromatograms, the hydrocarbon material was
estimated to be about 70 mg/L for the Leachate Tank samples, 2 mg/L for the
Veil 01-4 sample and 13 mg/L for the Veil V-13 sample. For comparison, the
sum of the quantitated semivolatile compounds for the Leachate sample was 3
mg/L. Thus the majority of the 'Organic material that chromatographs was
hydrocarbon material whose specific compound makeup was not established.
As mentioned above uethylene chloride was detected at 23 ug/L in the
field blank. Other contaminant levels detected in the field blank were 126
ug/L of 2-butanone, 21 ug/L of acetone, 6 ug/L of tetrahydrofuran, 2 ug/L
of etfayl acetate, 2 ug/L of- hexanone and 0.4 ug/L of toluene. Contaminant
levels found in the laboratory blanks were 10 ug/L to 16 ug/L of acetone, 8
ug/L to 9 ug/L of 2-butanone, 7 ug/L to 9 ug/L tetrahydrofuran, 3 ug/L to 5
ug/L of aethylene chloride and less than 2 ug/L each of dietnylphthalate,
di-n-butylphthalate and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
-------
She results of the standard control measures to estimate the precision
and accuracy of the analyses ar« rtportad in Cables 6 through 9. ( Cables 6
•ha 7 report the laboratory and field precision data, Table 8 reports the
•sgrix spike recoveries and Table 9 reports the surrogate spike data, for
concentrations veil above the limit of quantitation, these control •easure
data indicate the sample results for the volatile organics should be within
a few parts per billion or 10* of the actual concentration. Tor the semi-
volatile compounds the control measure results indicate the results should
generally be within 50£ of the actual concentration. She larger variabili-
ty observed for aeaivolatile analysis is Apical for the method.
Tor the volatile organics analysis, two factors limit the saaple size.
Teaming, especially for the Leachate Tank samples, liaits the amount of
•ample that can be analyzed. Tor the Leachate Tank samples, BUG analyzed
0.5 *L of aample diluted with 4*5 nl» of blank water snd for the other sam-
ples, 1.0 aL of sample was diluted with 4 ml* of blank water. These sample
volumes could possibly be doubled; however, if a larger sample volume is
used the analyst oust watch the purge and assure that the sample does not
foam into the trap. Another problem with the volatile analysis is the high
boiling point compounds present in the samples. Broad rolling peaks in the
baseline are observed in subsequent analyses if these compounds are not
cleaned off the column. Holding the gas chromatographic column at mBTlimn
temperature overnight cleaned off the compounds. Turther, better baselines
were obtained when the temperature program was extended so that the dichlo-
robenzene isomers eluted before the analysis vas terminated. HSIC obtained
much better precision snd accuracy with the volatile analysis of the di-
chlorobenzene then with the semivolatile analysis.
The standard semivolatile method (Hethod €25) has the analyst raise
the pR of the sample and extract with methylene chloride. The pH is then
lowered and the sample is extracted again with aethylene chloride. Tor
samples containing high concentrations of dissolved inorganic material,
raising the pE usually causes the formation of hydroxide precipitates.
Often better recoveries of the organic compounds can be obtained by the
reversing the normal pH adjustments.
Table 7 presents semivolatile compound results for the Leaehate Tank
•ample* using both types of extraction techniques. As indicated by the
differences, with the exceptions of the sore acid compounds (phenols snd
phthalates), sore of the organic compounds were extracted with the "acid
first* extraction technique then with the "base first11 extraction. These
•ample* were, however, M»™«"»T in that considerable precipitate or gel for-
amtion occurred when either acid or base was added, regardless of the pE
adjustment order. Examination of this acidic formed precipitate by X-ray
Tluoreacence Spectroscopy found calcium, chlorine and silicon as major de-
tectable elements and Infrared Spectroscopy analyses indicated that the
precipitate had little organic character. Both procedures, create emul-
-------
sions; however, the "base first" technique created an emulsion that was ea-
sier to handle and thus it IB recommended for this reason fgr future
analyses.
s
The base/neutral fraction of the "base first* procedure contained some
of the acid fraction compounds while no carry-over of the basic fraction
coopounds was observed in the acid/neutral fraction of the "acid first"
procedure. As ouch as 2 oL to 4 ml of methylene chloride was observed for
some samples to separate from the sample after the basic extraction when
the sample pR was lowered. This volume should be added to the base/neutral
fraction extract. All extract fractions were analyzed independently and
not combined and this is recommended for future analyses of samples from
these locations.
Ho pesticides or PCBs were detected in the samples and no unique ana-
lytical difficulties were encountered in the analysis of the samples for
these parameters.
General Inorganic Constituents
General inorganic analysis results are given in Table 4. The results
of the control measures for the parameter results reported in this table
are presented in Table 10. The control data indicate the analysis results
to be accurate within 10JS of the actual concentrations.
•
So unique analytical difficulties were encountered for the ion chrona-
tography analysis for the anions. The difference between the dissolved
sulfur and the sulfate levels indicates the presence of other sulfur con-
taining compounds. The presence of sulfite and thiosulfate would have been
detected by the standard ion chromatography analysis. The low sulfate con-
centrations in the leachate Tank samples .were confirmed by mobile phase ion
chromatography (TtPIC). Further this HPIC analysis would have detected the
presence of thiocyanate; however, thiocyanate was not detected in the sam-
ples. The sulfur compound(s) comprising the remainder of the dissolved
sulfur remains unidentified.
The chloride and bromide levels were confirmed by inductively coupled
ipectroscopy. Little difference was observed between the total
phosphorus-.and the phosphate levels indicating that other phosphorus con-
taining spades are not present at large concentrations.
The Leachate Tank and Veil 01-4 samples were found to contain large
concentrations of ammonia. The samples were not distilled prior to ana-
lysis by the ion selective probe method. Tor the Leachate Tank samples
large dilution of the samples was required to achieve accurate results. At
lower dilutions known additions were not quantitatively recovered. The
presence of surfactants in samples is noted by the probe earaifacturer to
-------
cause results to be biased low due to vetting of gas permeable membrane of
the probe. Headspace analysis for the leachate Tank samples compared veil
frith the direct analysis. She sensitivity of the headspace technique,
however, vas not adequate for the analysis of the groundvater samples.
Distillation should be required for future analyses, and if the probe is
used, quantitation should be performed using the known or standard addition
•stood.
Ths tendency of the samples to froth under acidic conditions could
cause srronous results for total cyanide.* Using standard practices for the
distillation of cyanide caused vigorous frothing of the samples. ?or one
of the sample* from Veil 01-4 the foam or micelles bumped over into the ab-
sorbing trap. Colorioetric analysis for this sample indicated the presence
of t,400 ug/L cyanide. The laboratory duplicate and triplicate values for
Veil 01-4, however, vere found to contain about ten tines less cyanide than
indicated by the first analysis. Thus components in the sample that bumped
over into the trap reacted vith the coloriaetric reagents resulting in an
srronous analysis result.
lov spike recoveries vere initially obtained using standard practic
for the distillation of cyanide. Usually low spike recoveries indicate
that sample components reacted vith the spiked cyanide. The formation of
cyanohydrins from the reaction of aldehydes vith cyanide is such a reac-
tion. To determine if the heating of the total cyanide distillation might
be accelerating the destruction of cyanide present in the ssaple, acidified
fractions of the samples vere purged and the evolved cyanide vas trapped.
The total cyanide apparatus and reagents vere used for this analysis;
however, no heat vas spplied. The results of these analyses are reported
in Table 4 as "Free Cyanide". If the free cyanide results vere greater
than the total cyanide values, it could be concluded that sample components
vere reacting vith cyanide. However, this vas not the case. Good spike
recoveries and reproducible results can be obtained for the total cyanide
analysis. Vhen distilling the samples, the sulfuric acid must be added
very slowly in the sbsence of heat to avoid the frothing and bumping over
into tiie trap. Vith the carrier gas flowing, one should wait about fifteen
•inutes before applying heat to the distillation system. The formation of
the micelles smitn to lessen after the samples have been acidified and
purged for a little while. Forging the sample prior to heating, say also
outgas the interferent. The distillations should still be watched careful-
ly to assure that the fosa doss not bump over.
Constituents
Table 5 presents the results of the analysis of the samples for
thirty-three elements. Dissolved and total elemental eonosntrations vere
determined for twenty-seven elements. Only dissolved concentrations vere
determined for boron, lithium, iodine, silicon and uranium. Sines no total
-------
mercury was detected, dissolved mercury was not determined. Tables 11 and
12 provide control measure data indicating that the sample results, for
•'concentrations substantially greater the Units of detection, are reliable
tp within 10^ of the actual concentrations.
Many of the elements were determined in accordance with Method 200.7
using Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Optical Emission Spectroecopy (ICAP-
OES). Difficulties in the analysis are created by the high dissolved sol-
ids and the surfactants present in the samples. Interference due to these
components was detected by unusually low and high spike recoveries and a
substantial Increase in the background emission. The CCBIBPII approach of
diluting the samples until the interference is not observed was unaccept-
able because the concentrations of many of the elements would have been di-
luted below or near the detection limit of the method. The interference
manifests changes relative to the calibration in the spatial emission pro-
files of the atoms or ions within the plasma for the samples. This in-
terference causes either a rotational error or a translational error
relative to the calibration curve.
For example, the curve established from standard additions to the Veil
01-4 samples for nickel had a slope 1.3 times greater than calibration
curve for nickel. For silver the standard addition slope was 1.6 times
greater than the silver calibration. The standard addition slope did not
always increase. For example the standard addition curve for iron had a
slope of 0.75 times the calibration curve slopes. Further the magnitude of
interference effect varied with the samples. Thus standard additions were
required for most.of elements for all of the samples. The majors including
calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium did not require standard additions
as the samples, excluding the Veil V-13 sample for potassium, had to be di-
luted to bring the major element concentrations within the linear range of
the analytical lines. Standard additions were performed for the majors but
they were not needed. For future analyses of the samples from these loca-
tions, the method of standard additions instead of the normal calibration
curve method should be used for the trace and minor elemental constituents
determined by ICAP-OES.
Similarly, standard additions were required for the Inductively Cou-
pled Argon Plasma Mass Spectroscopy analyses and were performed for the hy-
dride generation coupled to ICAP-OES analyses. For the hydride method,
antimony sod arsenic did not need the standard additions; however, the ana-
lysis of selenium did have some suppression of the signal for the Leachate
Tank samples.
•
Ve had hoped to study problems with, furnace atomic absorption •peo-
(AAS) analyses of the samples as suppression and Interference is
highly likely for these sample matrices. Unfortunately, our instrument was
act in service at an opportune time when an experienced chemist ornilfl have
-------
studied the possible difficulties. Often contract laboratories use deuter-
_ium arc background corrected AAS. However, it is believed thaf deuterium
*e>c background correction would not be able to correct the high aalt back-
ground that would be encountered for these Maples or be able to correct
for interference of iron on selenium. A contract laboratory analyzing
these samples by furnace AAS should be required to use Zeeaan Effect back-
ground correction and use a L'vov platform in the furnace, further, matrix
siodif iers should be required to be used and all analysis should be per-
formed using standard additions to quantitate. Hickel should be added as a
matrix modifier for arsenic and selenium, phosphoric acid for lead, phos-
phate for cadmium and platinum or palladium for thallium and perhaps even
cadmium.
The high organic content of the samples causes difficulties for the
mercury analyses. Using the normal 100 ml aliquot in the digestion, a
•pike recovery of only about 50£ was obtained for the Veil 01-4 sample. 3y
decreasing the sample aliquot to 10 ml, the spike recovery increased to
82£, and at 5 ml of sample the recovery increased to 94£. The capacity of
the digestion reagents was apparently exceeded by the organic load of the
samples at the higher sample volumes. The samples were analyzed using 10
ml* sample aliquots which for future analyses should be reduced to 5 mL
based on the spike recovery data. Tor some .contract laboratories, the
lover sample volume will compromise the detection limit and depending on
the path length of the analyzer the detection limit could easily be greater
then the drinking water limit of 2 ug/1.
The field blank for the dissolved constituents contained two signifi-
cant contaminants. Selenium was found at a concentration of 40 ug/L and
lead was found at 6 ug/L. No significant contamination was detected in the
field blank for the total constituents.
-------
fable I
Soaplt Preparation MI! Analytlt technique!
Operating Indyttrlet. lot Angelet, CA
NUC Project DZ«
••TMttflr
•reparation ftclm1q«t
Analytll Tteliolo**
IrMltf*
Ch1orl«t
Specific IrflMk CajMtUventt
Volatllet Porte and trap
•Irect Injection
Seal-volatile* Nethytane chlorldo extract Ion
Pett1cld«i/KI Nctfcyltnt chlorldc/heiane e«tract Ion
Conor a I tnorfanlc Conttltoentt
None
Filtration. Acidification
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
Wet •loettlon
Filtration
Filtration
Acidification, porfe* eaottlc trap
Nanoal dlttlltatlon
CMttltoentt
I. 11 and • Filtration), acidification
Hercory Mot dloettlon
Sb. At and St Wet dlQCttton
Pb and 11 Acid dloeitlo* for total
other Element* Acid dlfettlon for total
• ItraU
Nitrite
S«lf»r
rree
Total Cyanltft.
Cat Cnroaatotrapky • Matt Stectrotcoof
Gat Chrmatoqraptiy wltn Flaw I on I tat Ion Mttctlon
Cat Clirwutoqraphy - Matt Spectrotcopy
fiat CnroMatoyraphy with electron Capturt lettctlon
tltrlMtrf
Ion Selective fotentloMtr}
Ion Chroaatoqraphy
Inn Chriwatograpliy
Ion Selective Potentloowtry
Ion Chromatograpny
Ion Cnrowatograpny
Ion CkroMatoQraphy
Inductively Coupled MatM Ealtllo* Sotctrotcooy
Ion CnroMatofraphy
Inrfoctlvely Coupled flatM Ealttlon So«ctrotcopy
f>yrldlne larblUrlc Acid AvtoMttd Colorlwtry
F-yrldlnc larblt«rlc Acid A«te«ated Colorlo«try
Inductively Coop led PlauM Matt Soectrotcoft
Cold Vapor Atomic Abtorptlon Spec trot copy
Hydride-Inductively Coop led MatM E«lttlon SfMctrtlcopy
Indoctlvely Coupled Mataa Nats Spec trot copy
Inductively Co«pled Plataa Ealttlon Spectrotcopy
EPA/HE IC/tENVEII
-------
Tibia 2
VtUtllt tntf JtBl»o1tt11t Organic Constitutes analysis limit*
Operating Industrial, lot tngales. CA
MIC Jrojact 024
Station:
Compound
»•*•>• •* mm •••**»*•••
Volatile Compounds
Ntthyltnt cnlorldo
Vinyl Chloride
trant-1,2*01cn1orotthtnt
btnttnt
1,2-Olehlorobtnztne
1,4-OlehlereOeniene
Toluene
OP>Xy1tnt
0*. or p-Xyltnt
l,4*01o>ant
tttrthydrofuran
*n111nt
•licnol
2*M|thy1ph«ne1
4*Htttty1pMno1
••Undtet'n*
n-0oflte»nt
*-Tf1dte»nt
«*Tttridtc«nt
1,3 ,S-TrlMthy 1 bcnstnt
1.2.3*TrlMthy1btnxtnt
Uachato
viiwt. van.
NO •
20. b
40. b
M.
M.
40.
100.
IfO.
240.
11.000.
MO.
1.400.
2.000. -
SO. b
30. b .
1.100.
40. b
to.
40. 6
70. fe
no. »
500.
400.
330.
170.
210.
210.
110.
270.
M. »
SO. b
so. b.
110.
10X
20X
201
W
4X
Ntll 01-4
Vtlut. «g/l
TO
200.
20.
3. b
IB
•0
NO
NO
TO
22.000.
TO
K>
2SO.
N8
NO
•0
n
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
1. b
S. b
•. b
SX
2X
2X
21
IX
Mtll 01-7
Viltit. vg/l
NO
240.
20.
f . b
NO
NO
NO
NO
10. b
23.000.
NO
NO
MO.
NO
NO
NO
NO
TO
TO
TO
NO
NO
NO
NO
* NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
3. b
7. b
NO
SX
2X
2X
2X
IX
Mil M-13
Valut, vg/l
1.200.
NO
NO
1. b
NO
NO
NO
NO
TO
NO
TO
NO
TO
NO
TO
NO
TO
«
10
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
TO
NO
TO
NO
TO
NO
TO
NO
TO
11
21
2X
2X
IX
LOO Factors (c)
Volatilts
Add $«B1
Nttitral
last S«1 volatile*
Mstlddts
a) Co»m»d MS »tt dttttttd.
b) IstlHttd concontratlon. Compound MS dttocttd but ttt M«ctAtrat1o« MS btlov tht
1.1*11 Of QMntUatlon (100).
c) LOO factors art tht factors Mtdtd to correct tht UXJs glftn 1n Tablt 3 for analysis dilution.
m/NElC/OENVER
-------
TabIt 3
Specific Organic ConstUutnts Analysis L1«lts of Quantltation (a)
OporatlAg Industrlts. Los Angalos, CA .
NCIC froject 024 *'
Volatile CoapouAds
IroaoBethano
ChlorosetMAe
•roaodlcMoromthane
01 broaoc* 1 orowthane
«g/l
Chloroform
Carbon totrachloMdt
Carbon d1»«U1dt
CMoretth«nt
.l«01eh1orotth«nt
,1 ,1-Tr 1cMorotth»ni
,1 ,2-Tr1eh1 orotth«nt
•tnsint
l,3'D1cnlorobtnztni
1 .••Olehlerobtnztm
Telutnt
••Ijltnt
0-. or p'
Ethylbtnzint
2*lHt«ne1
Acttent
2-luUnoni
Ethyl tthtr
2-CM«rMtfi
TttraftydrtfvrM
l.4-010iMt
Styrtflt
acttttt
4.
10.
1
trancl ,2>01el1eretthtnt
TncMorotthtnt
Tttr«eh1erott*«tflt
««th»l«nt etilerldt
vinyl chionat
1 ,2-0 1 eM eroproptnt
t,2*91drono*3>cMorepropini
1
I
fO.
40.
40.
20.
20.
100.
40.
30.
20.
10.
10.
40.
M.
100.
100.
10.
10.
S«M*Vo1lt1lt Compounds tg/l
St»1-VoUt11t Compounds
tnzyl •Icohol
tnsyl ehlorldt
DUMerobtnztnt
Oiehlorobtnztnt
-OlcMorebtnztnt
,4,S-T«tr»eh1orobtnztnt
.3 ,4-Tttr«chlorob«nzant
Mntaehlerebtnztnt
Ntiaehlorebtnztnt
Mltrebtnztflt
2.4-Dimtreteliitnt
2«(*0ln1treto1utnt
N-N1tretod1phany1«i1na
b1s(2*CMoroathy1)othtr
b1s(2*CMoroisopropyl)athtr
4-CMorpphtfiyl-phtnyltther
Ne«acn1orobutad1tne
Na«acMerecy1cepintaditnt
Olatthylphthalatt
.1
1
1
d1-n-luty1phth«Utt
tf1»n»Octy1pDtha1ati
Butylbtnzylphthalatt
Aconaphthono
Antnraeane
Btnzp(a)anthracene
Benze(b)fluoranthene
Ienzo(k)f1uoranthene
1
..
l«Ase(a)pyr«nt
|Adt«o(l.2.3-cd)pyrtin
ttophproflt
•henanthreM
fyrene
i««zoU add
yg/l
22
2*Ch1prppfiine1
2,4«OUh1oropht«o1
2,4,$-Tr1ehloroph«no1
Panttehlorophtnol
4»Ch1prp*3»*athy1phtnp1
2H(tthy1phane1
•4-Mtthylphinpl
2,4-OlMthylphtnol
1
2-mtropHtnpl
4-«1tro'ph«np1
2.4-01n1trophtno1
Mttlddts and PCBt
ug/L
•Ipna-IHC
iMta-BHC
dtUa-IMC
Chlprdant
4, 4' -000
4. 4 '-ODE
4,4'-OOT
fndPtulfin 1
Endoulftn H
CndPtulfan tuUatt
Indrm
Indrln aldibydt
Cndrln kttpnt
Mtptachlor
Niptachlpr tpptldt
MthPiyeMpr
Teiaphtnt
KI-1221
KB-1232
KB-1242
KB-124B
»CB-12S4
KB*12CO
O.S
o.s
O.S
0.5
1.5
2.
1.
O.S.
.5
.5
.5
*
.S
.5
.5
*
.5
1
•) Multiply tut Tablp 2 LOO factors ttan tua TabU 1 talutt to obta1« tut IOQ valut for tach
-------
Ublt 4
Central IwrfMlc CMttlUMt AMlwtlt Rttvllt
IftdMtirtet. l«* Aftftlct, CA
NfIC Project DM
MfMtW
Alk.1l. It,
tt+9 CtMl*
T«tat CyMltft
CkUrltf*
FlMrt*
MltraU
•Itrttt
UUI »Mt»l»rM
fatffiU
S«U*U
•(•••lf«4 Setter
••••••••••••••••••a
SUM*:
••It*
•4/1
•I/I «
•I/L CN
•I/L
•I/I •
•I/L •
•I/L M
3/L*
•I/I SM»
•I/L V
•I/L S
•••••••••••••i
LtKMtC
tMfc
¥•!••
M.t
n.
40.
MOO*.
1.9?
M »
M
S 1
i •
tftll
•1-4
V«lM
Jf.
41.
121.
fl.
4.9)1.
I.M
44.
W.
n
M
n
lit.
IOJ.
1)1.
Vtll
•l-l
f«l«t
. 31.1
n.
M.
II.
4.911.
I.M
41.
M.
m
m
m
111.
IIS.
in.
toll
M-IJ
f«lM l«
19.1 1
4t. It
III. 11
tl.
t.lM.
1.44
I.I
»
M
•
IN.
13.
Itl.
1 Ut
I.M
'•
1.
1.
.1
.11
.M
.4
.1
.1
.3
.1
.3
.1
«| I tail 91 MUctlM.
b) SM^It CMCMtMtlM Ml Mt 4tttCtt4 «t tht HttH LM.
IM/KIC/MMIR
-------
table S
tlttolwH aiMj Total f leaeMal Conttltvenlt Aoalytlt Rvtv1tt
Operating Indmtrlet. lot Angelet. CA
NEIC Project 024
iMCNOtf
Well 01-4
Hell 01-7
Veil V-ll
Civ*
Ml
So
Aft
la
ft *
0
Col
Ca
Cr
Co)
Cv '
1
re
PB
11
Mg
Nn
NO
No
Nl
R
SC
So
SI
M
Na
Sr
11
11
0 °*
V
V
IN
*•*•• »•>•»• 0>V» 0>
Oluolvotf
Valve, af/l
400.
NO
10.
90S.
•o
IS.400.
«.
1*4.0*0.
9S.
SO.
S.
f.SSO.
I4.1M.
14.
S3 .9
Itf.fM.
I.IM.
NA
NO*
IM.
tll.MO.
NO
NO
If .MO.
NO
l.ltf.MO.
t.290.
NO
**•
' NO
14.
IB)
» 10.
tttol
VOlM, NftA
Iff.
NO
It.
1,OM.
NO
NA C
s.
ISf.fM.
110.
40.
1.
NA
ll.fM.
10.
NA
IM.fM.
t.MO.
NO
NO
Mf.
•91 .MO.
NO
NO
NA
NO
JAM NM
.^^w.^w.
t.390.
M
02.
NA
IfS.
NO
If!.
OlttolfH
Valve. vg/l
NO b
m
NO
4tl.
NO
f.llf.
NO
494.000.
NO
M.
Itt.
1.390.
t.uo.
S.
4.4
StS.fM.
t.9M.
NA
NO
410.
tll.MO.
"0
NO
I.MO.
NO
t.flf.MO.
I.3M.
NO
It.
M.I
104.
NO
no.
Total
Valve, vf/i
3.2M.
NO
3k.
S%1.
NO
NA
NO
SIO.MO.
NO
10.
131.
NA
22.300.
II.
NA
SS3.MO.
3.230.
NO
NO
4SO.
IM.OM.
NO
NO
NA
NO
l.ltf.MO.
1.S30.
NO
til.
NA
101.
NO
IS!.
Olttolveo-
Valve, vg/l
NO
Ml
NO
4S4.
NO
9.310.
NO
411. MO.
NO
to.
10*.
2.110.
440.
4.
3.0
soo.ooo.
2.1M.
NA
NO
4SO.
1M.MO.
NO
NO
I.OM.
NO
t.9M.MO.
o.llO.
NO
10.
tl.l
M.
NO
120.
Total
Valve, vf/l
3.IM.
NO
32.
SSI.
NO
NA
NO
SOt .MO.
NO
10.
114.
NA
11. MO.
II.
NA
S4S.MO.
3.090.
NO
NO
4M.
102.000.
NO
NO
NA
NO
l.flf.MO.
1.410.
.NO
Ml.
NA
IM.
NO
141.
Otttelve*
Valve, Ml
NO
NO
ss.
4IS.
NO
9.130.
NO
4tS.fM.
NO
to.
NO
t.3SO.
U.OM.
NO
4.9
tlf.MO.
11.000.
NA
NO
40.
1.420.
NO
NO
tf ,9M.
NO
l.ltf.MO.
3.040.
NO
to.
l.t
41.
NO
13.
Total
Valve, vf/l
NO.
NO
11.
I.OM.
NO
NA
NO
410.000.
NO
to.
M.
NA
29.400.
14.
NA
MS, 000.
13.900.
. NO
NO
40.
1.420.
NO
NO
NA
NO
I.1M.OM.
4.4SO.
NO
M.
NA
11.
NO
110.
IMlfl
•ft
IM.
0.
*.
10.
t.
10.
4.
to.
30.
10.
4.
S.
10.
1.
f.S
10.
3.
o.s
to.
to.
200.
2.
1.
IM.
10.
10.
30.
.1
•
.3
0)
a) l tall Of NUctle*.
•I f 1e»Mt ee*ce«traUe* Mt IMI tka« the Iff at 991 certainty.
c) Savple «ai not analytH far tklt elewnt.
IN/NCIC/OCNVIR
-------
table i
Valatllt IrfMlc CoMtlUent Analyst* free Hie* ttptrt
•per•ting Industries, lo» Angeles. CA
HE 1C Project DM
Detected
NrthfltM cblerlde
Vinyl cbltrldt
Vinyl cblerlde
trans*I,2-Olcblnrnetbene
trans-l,2-Olcbloroetbent
Oenient
lenient
StallM
•cfllcatc
fypt
Mtraft
I.4-0Icbtnrnbenttnt
ftlntnt
••lylent
fttrdiydroriirM
lot
y-n lab 1,210. «.
01-4 lab 202. 4.
Itacbatt Field It. M.
01-4 Lab 24. S.
Itacbett Field . 41. 1%.
01-4 Lab 2. 10.
Itachatt Field M. It.
Leachate Field 01. JJ.
leacbtte Field 42. II.
Leacbate Field 101. St.
Leacbate Field 142. It.
leacbate Field 241. t.
01-4 l«J», 240. 10.
Itacbatt Field 1,170. S.
leacbatt Field I.4JO. 0.
leacbatt Field SO.t M.
leacbatt Field 4lt. 1.
01-4 Lab 22.400. II.
leacbatt Field 12.100. 0.
•••••••••••••••»••••••••<••••••••••••••••«
ol Percent rtlatlwt standard dtvlatlo* for trltllcatt analyttt.
EM/MCIC/BERVCR
-------
(•Me I
SealveUtlte Orfmlc AMlyttt Retell*
fee the le«ch«te «l«g Different Extraction teclmlqvet
Operating Industrie*. Let Angelet, CA
NtIC Project 024
Acid first
»•!««. ng/L
••1C Mr»t
Valve, vg/L
Held - lm
•Iffcrcucc. «f/l
Avtrtft
fit U)
4-Metky1pfce*e1
2,4-OkMtkylpltCMl
kit! 2-1 thtIkeiy1Ipfttkilate
1,2-0 IchlerekMiem
l.4*OUkterobense«e
•-IMecone
1,2.1-trlMtkylkentene
1,3.»-l rtaethy Ikent ene
I ,2.4.S-letr»»etkylfcenie«e
Spiked Serrefjete
r- 44-1
9t.
351.
392.
1010.
11.
14.
II.
14.
42.
M.
10.
314.
107.
215.
20f.
151.
271.
If.
SO.
47.
111.
111.
127.
474.
1200.
33.
4f7.
350.
400.
41.
71.
ItO.
504.
4lt.
1100.
M.
29.
NO k
14.
10!
100.
112.
124.
201.
121.
114.
62.
42.
19.
04.
200.
S95.
920.
11.
174.
29f.
46f.
If.
•151.
•24.
•41!
S.
If.
14.
0.
II.
0.
*2f.
55.
91.
5.
It.
99.
14.
0.
0.
29.
-2fO.
•454.
-110.
0.
91.
S4.
22.
*.
52.
110.
410.
400.
1070.
54.
11.
t*.
NC
30.
01.
10.
120.
140.
170.
200.
140.
220.
•9.
4f.
41.
99.
171.
4*1.
701.
1*90.
33.
421.
323.
39!
71.
49.
It.
f.t
t.*
It.
U.
2*.
tl.
11.
0.3
101.
39.
54.
2.*
2f.
45.
20.
19!
29.
SO.
ts.
48.
t.
22.
17.
4.1
13.
•••••
•I Pcrct«t relative difference.
•I Mi evtected.
cl Not
CM/NCIC/OCNVCI
-------
fable I
Specific trfaolc CM«tll«tftt» HatrU Spike leceverv Report
Operation; Industries, let Angeles, CA
ME 1C Project 074
Ceapeead Spike*
•roMMthene
Chlereotttheee
•reaod Ich loreaettaM
•IbroowchloreaetheM
IroMfona
Chloroform
Carbon Utrechlertde
ChlereethoM
l-llchloroethane
2-Olchloroethane
1.1-frlchloroetkeM
I.t-Trlchloroethane
1 .t.t-TetrechlereetlMM
l-llchlereethene
trons-l .t-llchloroetlMM
Aniline
4-Chloro«nt1lne
2-1 It roan 1 line
IHHtreMtltne
4-lltreanlllne
leniyl alcohol
teniyl chloride
1 .t-llchlorobMieat
1.1-HchlorobontOM
1.4-llchlorobeniene
1 .t.4-lr Ichlorobeniene
r.2.4 ,S-I etrachlorobeniee*
1 .2.1.4-1 etrochtorobe«tene
Pen t ac h 1 or obeniene
Neiachloroteaiee*
lltrobenteno
2.4-0 loltreteleeo*
t.t-llnltrotoloone
l-Nltrosojdlphenylealne
N-Nltrese-dt-e-propylealM
blstt-Chloreethylletker
bis 1 2-Cblerelteprepy 1 1 ether
btslt-Cklereethoiylaethaeo
4-lroaophcnyl-phenylethor
4-Chtorophcnyl-phenylether
Neiachloroethane
Spiked Spike
leapt* Level. eeA
•1-4 I2S.
•1-4 I2S.
•1-4 I2S.
•1-
ti-
ll-
•1-
01-
01-
II-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
II-
•1-
•1-
•1-
II-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
II-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
ti-
ll-
II-
II-
•1-
•1-
II-
•1-
ItS;
its.
its.
its.
its.
its.
its.
its.
its.
its.
its.
its.
201.
201.
200.
200.
200.
200.
210.
200.
200.
200.
201.
200.
200.
200.
201.
200.
too.
too.
tot.
too.
too.
too.
too.
too.
too.
too.
•I- too.
Spike
Recovery
lit.
M.
100.
9*.
104.
101.
lor.
III.
101.
IOS.
ioy.
104.
lit.
too.
101.
•4.
II.
ss.
1.
1.
II.
I*.
tl.
St.
tl.
tt.
M.
tl.
ts.
tt.
111.
•4.
»2.
It.
11.
14.
14.
It. '
II.
tl.
M.
40.
Ceapo«nd Spiked
frlchloreethene
tetrachloroethene
Nvthylene cklorlde
Vinyl chloride
1 .1-0 Ichloropropane
•enfrne
Chliirobentene
toluene
•-lylcne
o*. or p-lylene
Ctkylbenicne
t-lntanone
t-He«anone
letrahydroforan
Neiach torocy Icepented lene
Olaethylphthalate
Olethylphthalate
dl-n-t«tylphthalatt
dl-n-Otlylphthalate
bls(t-Cthylheiyl|phtM1ett
iMtylbeniylphthalate
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
•entof a) anthracene
tento(b) 1 iMoranthene
lento! k 1 f leer anthene
•emotatpyrtne • ,
lentoff.k.DperfleM
Chrysene
I tbtmo( a. hi anthracene
llbenioforan
FlMoranthene
9 luorcne
Inilenol 1 .2.1-cd}pyrent
1 sophorone
Naphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
t-Methylnaphthalene
riienanthrcne
Pyrene, •
Spiked Spike
Seapl* Level. 9%t
•1-4 I2S.
•1-4 I2S.
•1-4 I2S.
•1-4 ItS.
•1-4 ItS.
•1- IIS.
II- ItS.
II- ItS.
•1- ItS.
•1- ItS.
•1- ItS.
•1-4 IIS.
•1-4 ItS.
•1-4 ItS.
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
01-
01-
II-
ti-
ll-
•1-
•1-
•1-
II-
II-
II-
•1-
•1-
•1-
II-
•1-
II-
•1-
•1-
01-
01-
•1-
2N.
200.
201.
201.
200.
we.
201.
201.
200.
200.
200.
2M.
201.
201.
201..
200.
too.
200.
200.
too.
200.
too.
200.
200.
200.
200.
II- 100.
Spike
1 leceverf
lit.
IIS.
M.
M!
'».
101.
lot.
101.
lot.
100.
. »».
M.
II.
4).
12.
14.
•2.
211.
III.
1)1.
M.
tl.
11.
•1.
114.
lit.
lit.
II.
II.
•0.
M.
f 11.
11!
•i.
14.
tl.
IS.
11.
IS.
IPA/«fiC/Btll«I»
-------
f*1t
Specific trfMtc CMitlUt«tt ««lrl« Spit* ••cwtry Itpcrt
Operating l«d««trlt«, l«t *ftf*lttt C*
MIC Project »24
•,
•i
S»IIC4
Sfllt
Ittrtl. Ml
Spilt
•tcttcry
Spltttf
Split
itftl. iffi
•tcMtrf
ttmtlc tcM
ttftttlC tCl4
OtMittc tcM
PktMl
PktMl
PktMl
CkltrtfktMl
4-tlcklirtpMMl
4-llckttrtpktMl
4-tlckltrwktMl
,S-
!*-
.*•
•i-y
•1-4
it!
if*
•i-y
•1-4
it*
it*
•i-y
•1-4
ii»
it*
•i-y
•1-4
itt
it*
•i-y
•1-4
it*
u*'
•i-y
•1-4
it!
•i-y
•1-4
iti
it*
•i-y
•i-i
•i-y
•i-y
m.
200.
1100.
tooo.
200.
200.
1000.
tooo.
too.
too.
loot.
toot.
too.
too.
1000.
toot.
200.
200.
1000.
200.
200.
1000.
toot*
too.
200.
1000.
2000.
200.
too.
t.
t.
M.
tl.
•0.
M.
so.
ss.
Si.
•i!
101!
in.
if.
M.
II.
M.
II.
I*.
14.
M.
IS.
•I.
•I.
•9.
•I*.
U.
IS.
II.
II.
II.
IS.
-HctkylpkiMl
NttkflpktMl
•Ckltrt-1-MtkylpktMl
•NttkylpktMl
•NttkylpktMl
-Nttkylpktiiol
. -OlMtkylpktMl
-OlattkytpktMt
-OUttrt-2-MtkylplMMl
-OI*Urt-2-MtkflpktMl
••ItripktMt
-NltrmktMt
-lltrtpktutl
-•ItrvpktMl
-HltrtpktMl
-HltrtpktMl
.4-»lHltrMktMt
if*
•i-y
•1-4
if*
if*
•i-y
•1-4
if*
•i-y
•1-4
if*
if*
•i-y
•1-4
M'-
HtpUcltr
it*
•i-y
•1-4
if*
if*
•i-y
•1-4
i»
if*
•i-y
•1*4
it*
it*
•i-y
•i-y
1000.
tooo.
200.
too.
low.
too.
too.
loot.
toot.
200.
200.
1000.
tooo.
too.
too.
loot.
toot.
too.
200.
loot.
toot.
too.
200.
1000.
tooo.
too.
200.
1000.
2000.
J:
II.
W.
y«.
it.
IN.
in.
M.
M.
101.
110.
SO.
M.
ml
US*.
110.
111.
M.
wl
III.
41.
SI.
SI.
S2.
109.
ISI.
IM.
142.
IM.
M.
CMflKft/KlfE*
-------
1*10 9
ftUttlt IM SwIwiUttlt IrfMlc CMitltuMtt AMlytlt S«rr«f«tt Sflit ItCMtry Itptrt
Ifttfuttrltt. l»» Angeltt. CA
MIC Pr.Jett 074
•,
M
SflkH
tSI.
«f
An«l|ttt
•tccf
n
Awtrtft
•tctttry, 1
1WI (•)
1trpkMyl-«l4
t*m«1-*l '
t§.
ts.
tit.
tit'.
4M.
It
II
It
II
It
tl. U IM.
tS. U IIS.
II. U II.
II. U U.
tl. U IIS.
tt. U M.
tt. U 14.
tl. U tt.
II. U SI.
II. U U.
tl. !• SI.
11. U lit.
IM.
111.
is!
III.
It.
M.
M.
41.
tt.
41.
II.
t.l
S.t
4.t
i!i
M.
IS.
11.
ti.
11.
tt.
M.
•I NrcMt rtUllwt
4t»UttM «f tht tpllt rtctvtrln.
IM/KICIKlVCt
-------
frtlt It
CtMrtt CMtttlvMt AMlyttt PrtcltlM tut Accuracy lt»«rt
IM«ttrlt«, l*» Angele*. CA
HE 1C Project 0>4
frlotUcU »•!• fit14 frl»llc«tt l«t«
Sflkt ttCtfftTf ••!•
Ctfttrtl *M»tt ••!•
•trMtttr
Mltlltlty
f . Cyttl«t
1. CyMltft
Ckl«r««t
Hllrttt
Ntlrttt
ffwipktU
Stlftto
Self*
••lit SttllM Mtrtot USt
•t*fi ti-4
HA. M 01-4
•OA. CN 01 -4
•IA. ii-ii
•I/I LI*
••A.
••A.
••'I
«ta
•lA,
•I/I
•O'l
UA
M-ll
N-ll
N-ll
• tl-l
N-ll
tl-l
11.
M.
lit.
It.
' t'.M
Ml.
Nt
NO
•
NO
11.1
III.
t.l
1
1
1
1
S
t.s
I.I
t.l
StttlM
Lttck.
Luck.
L*«ck.
U«tk!
U«ck.
letch'.
Ittck.
Itack.
Ittck.
Mtrttt
tt.4
It.
30.
*.joo'.
0.91
tfl.
NO
M
S.I
• t.l
I.t
SS.I
UStftl
1.4
2t
S 4
t 9
9 1
«.t
•.4
S.I
S.I
t.i
itc
01-4
N-ll
H-ll
LIA
01 -1
N-ll
N-ll
N-ll
01 -1
N-ll
•l-l
Split
Uvtl
IM.
100.
IS.
S.OM.
I.t
St.
I.t
t.s
I.I
s.t
tt.l
IM.
CMtrtt
t ICCUI It
•t.l
M.
III.
109.
M.I
M.
91.4
M.I
M.t
•I.S
M.I
M.t
CM-Itt
CM-m
CM-OOI
CM-MI
CM-tM
CM-tM
CM-MI
CM-MI
CM-Mt
1r«t
t.41
lit.
M.
' t.l
I.t
1.4
4.1
11.1
1.4
• Ktfcl
-I.t
-I.t
-t.l
-I.S
•t.t
-t.t
t.s
-t.l
1.1
tmmmmm
•I tortMt rtlrtlw*
k) MrcMl rtCMtff »f Ik* tolkt.
cl Nrcmt «t«UttM •! tkt fwurf
frw tkt tr««
CM/NCICIMimi
-------
ii
takla II
ital CenttltM«t Aaalytet rrecltlea laaart
Operattaf ladattrlat, Lat Aateles. CA
MIC rreject ON
•JotMtf Triplicate lato
1 1 Mattel AMiftlt
IM
At
Sk
At
•a
•a
1
M
Ca
Cr
Ca
CM
Fa
rk
Nf
N*
N
Me
Ml
K
Sc
St
SI
AI
Ha
Sr
Tl
Tl
•
1
1
la
S tat lea
tt-l)
•I-I
•I-I
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
tt-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
N-I)
•I-I
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
•I-I
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
•I-I
.-j. M-l)
•1-4
M-l)
.tt-l)
Vl)
Ate.. •f/l
............
Ml
M
41*.
HI
9.IM.
HI
42I.IM.
M
19.1
Ml
II,MO.
J.|
2II.MI.
II. Ml.
HI
41.)
f.4t».
m
m
21. MO.
N|
I.IM.Oee.
1,040.
M
II. 1
M.I
41.1
M
It.l
• m
I.M
•.II
I.I)
ll.t
1.41
I.I
•.41
1.41
f
l.ll
I.M
I.M
1 M
1 II
4 M
2 1
1 M
I.M
••••••••
Tatal Aaalyttt
Statla*
tt-l)
H-l)
tt-l)
tt-l)
M-l)
tt-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
•1-4
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
M-l)
Ate., eg/l
HI
HO
II.
MM.
HI
HI
4M.MO.
ll.l
24.1
iS.I
21.400.
14.
MS, 000.
11, WO.
M
M
41.1
1,470.
HO
NO
• M
I.IM.Oee.
4,aSO.
HI
M,»
M.I
HO
t RSI
S.I
I.M
I.M
II.*
U.I
).!!
l.ll
t.t
I.S)
•.1
t.M
2.12
2.11
O.I
i.M
2.M
M-l) !!•. ).•
Fleltf Triplicate lata
•IttalwN Aaalyttt
Statlaa
laack.
Laack!
leack.
leach.-
laack.
laack.
laacfc.
laack.
leacfc.
laack.
laack.
leacfc.
leach.
leach.
Laach.
laack.
laacfc.
leach.
laach.
laach.
leach.
laach.
laach.
Laach.
leach.
laach.
laach.
leach.
leach.
leach.
Awe.. H'l
M*.
HO
M.i
MS.
Ml
II.4M.
ft.2
II4.MO.
M.I
SI.)
4.1
14, MO.
14.
m.ooo.
I.IM.
HI
)M.
•II.MO.
M
Ml
II.MO.
HI
).IM,OM.
2.2M.
HI
14.2
Ml
ll.l
HI
ll.l
t IS!
1.17
ll.l
I.I
1.12
ll.l
I.S
I.I
I.M
21.
l.li
I.2S
I.2S
I.t2
1.41
2.M
I.I?
I.M
1.44
4.11
D.I
..!:!!..
Tetal AMlftlt
Statlaa
laack.
laack.
laack.
laack.
Laack.
laacfc.
Laack.
laack.
Laack.
laack.
laack.
laack.
laack.
laack.
Laack
Laack.
laack.
laack.
laack.
laack.
laacfc.
laack.
laack.
laack.
laack.
leach.
laack.
Laack.
•••••••••*
Awe.. eaVl
S4t.
M
11.4
I.IM.
HI
4.1
llt.MI.
III.
4*.
1.4
II.IM.
10.
)N,MO.
I.IM.
MB
HI
))••
Ml .MO.
HI
HI
HO
).MI.MO.
t. wo.
M
•2.)
IM.
M
III.
•••••••••••••
IISI fa)
tl.l
I.M
2.50
M.)
1.01
).M
12.)
4.0
\'.iJ
1.42
2.11
2.14
).W
2.)
14.1
1.21
-------
trtle It
MaBMtal CtMtttat*t
Accuracy *tt«cl
Mgtlct. C»
III 1C rrtjtct 024
StlfctJ S4t»1i
I (ternary
•ala
Caatral Stntla tttt
•Itttlftt Analyst* l«*tl Analyst!
Itat
Al
it
A«
M
•a
•
C4
Ca
Cr
Ca
C«
1
ra
r»
n
N
M*
N
Ma
HI
R
SC
Sa
SI
M
Ra
Sr
II
II
n
9
1
I*
Saaylt
•1-4
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-4
•1-
01-
01-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-4
•1-4
•1-4
•1-4
•1-4
•1-4
•1-4
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-
•1-4
•1-4
•1-4
•1^4*
•1-4
•1-4
•1-4
•1-4
Sfllo
Itval. afj/L t MC
.
4I.SM.
i.oot.
l.oot.
l.ooo.
CM-I I.OM.
CM-I I.Ott.
Ctntral
t If? 10
•i.
-•.
-4.
-S.
-1.
14.
1.
1.
-I*.
•4.
2.
-•.
•4.
0.
-4.
4.
-S.
•t.
-1.
1.
H.
•9.
-t.
IM-4
IM-1
IM-4
IM-4
IM-1
IM-4
IM-4
IM-4
IM-4
IM-4
CM-I
IM-4
IM-4
IM-4
CM-]
IM-1
t
IM-1
IM-4
-0.4 IM-4
-S.9 IM-4
Trwt
talat. *f/l
m.
tM.
tis.
19.
*26ll
241.
119.
m.
IM.
«.4M.
141.
4.
ni.
9.400.
M.
4I.SM.
IM;
•44.
. ./I!*
1 MV It)
M.f
•J.O
10.2
14.
4.
-S.
-1.
-1.
m
m
t
• ,
* «
-It.
4.
I.I
t.l
M
1.4
S.I
•I ftrc«il roccttrf tt Iho tyllt.
•I farctNt tfmUtlM »f tkt fMM tolM trm IM lr«t walvt.
CM/NCIC/OINVIR
-------
APPENDIX D
ON-SITE TREATMENT PLANT CONFIGURATION - ALTERNATIVE 4
-------
APPENDIX 0
ON-SITE TREATMENT PLANT CONFIGURATION - Alternative 5
The treatment plant configuration for Alternative 5 consists of raw
leachate collection and pumping system, raw leachate storage tanks, oil and
grease separator, conditioning tank, dissolved air flotation (DAT) system,
gravity sand filters, air stripping tower, activated carbon filters,
effluent storage tanks and effluent pumping equipment (reference to the ,
process schematic and general layout, Figure 4.1 and 4.2). In addition,
the plant is configured with an oil and grease storage tank, sludge
thickening centrifuge or belt-filter press equipment, sludge storage tank
and vapor phase carbon adsorption units for scrubbing of the exhaust air
from the air stripping tower. The treatment plant will also need
intermediate pumping equipment, chemical feed equipment and a
laboratory/operation building.
Preliminary sizing of each component is based on a nominal flow rate of 30
gpm. The operational range of the plant is 15 gpm to 35 gpm. The
dimensions given in the following sections are for the purpose of
determining the size of site required to construct a 30 gpm plant.
Provisions were made in the siting requirements for expansion up to a 120
gpm plant. The space required for a 120 gpm facility is approximately
60,000 ft2.
The discussions presented as follows are in the sequence that treatment
would occur within the plant.
•
o Leachate Storage Tanks
Two double-wall steel tanks or single wall types with field
installed containment. Total tank volume is 100,000 gallons +.
Approximate dimensions of each tank is 24' 0 x 15' in height.
D-l
-------
It is estimated that the tanks will have up to ten days of storage
capacity that can be utilized in the event the treatment plant has
to be shut down for a period of tine.
Oil and Grease Separator
Prepackaged unit either corrugated metal plate or vertical -tube
coalescing separator. Approximate dimensions -6'Lx3'Wx5'H
(675 gallons). Retention time is approximately 20 minutes. The
appropriate retention time and sizing of the units will be more
accurately determined in the pre-design study for the facility.
Two side streams are produced from this unit, grease and oil will
be skimmed off to a storage tank, and the settled grit and silt
will be pumped to a sludge holding tank. (This holding tank will
store the sludge from the OAF unit as well.) The unit can be
expected to reduce oil content to 10 mg/1 and to remove oil
globules down to 20 the micron size (cited from manufacturer's
literature for a VTC separator).
Conditioning Tank
This tank provides coagulation and chemical addition to the
degreased leachate flow. The retention time is relatively short,
up to 60 seconds. The tank will be provided with a mechanical
mixer and chemical feeding inlets. Alum will be used as a primary
coagulant and polymer as a coagulant aid. These chemicals will be
added in dosages proportional to the flow into the conditioning
tank. Preliminary results from the treatability study jar tests
(Appendix E) indicate that an alum dosage of 50 mg/1 is very
effective in coagulating the leachate which may contain some
quantities of oil and grease that escapes the oil and grease
separator unit. The tank capacity is approximately 55 gallons.
D-2
-------
DAT Unit
The DAF unit consists of an air dissolution tank, a floatation
tank and related appurtenances such as an air compressor system
and a recirculation pump. Air is dissolved into the chemically
treated and coagulated wastewater in the dissolution tank before
the flow passes through the flotation tank where under the
atmospheric pressure, dissolved air is released to form small air
bubbles which adhere to the floe particles causing them to rise to
the surface. Some settling will also occur in the flotation tank,
hence, the OAF unit produces two side streams, skimmings and
sludges which will- be pumped to the sludge holding tank.
The entire unit and accessories can be shop-fabricated on a skid
for simple field installation. Approximate dimensions for the
flotation tank.are 8' 9 x 10' H (3,750 gallons) and for the air
dissolution tank (or retention tank) 2'0 x 6' H (140 gallons1.
Because of the variability of the structure and surface properties
of the floe particles, laboratory and pilot testing will be
required to determine design criteria such as hydraulic and solids
loadings and appropriate detention times.
The size specified above would provide approximately 120 minutes
residence time in the flotation tank.
Gravity Sand Filters
The clarified effluent from the DAF unit is passed through a layer
of sand with 0.9 to 1.2 mm effective size. The sand layer is
generally two feet deep. Any solids present in the clarified
wastewater will be captured in the sand layer. The design filter-
ing rate is 3 gpm/sq. ft., resulting in a minimum surface area of
10 square feet (5 ft2/filter). Two filters will be provided.
Backwash pumps and control piping valving will be required. Back-
wash will be pumped to the leachate tanks for treatment. Approxi-
mate overall dimensions for each filter are 4'W x 4'L and 7'H.
D-3
-------
Air Stripping Tower
Air stripping system is provided to remove volatile organics from
the effluent of the gravity sand filters. Flow will be recircu-
lated through the tower which has a plastic packing media, for a
period of time to produce the needed degree of removal. The air
stripping process will reduce the O&M costs 'associated with the
activated carbon filters located downstream by reducing the
organic loading. The exhaust air from the air stripping tower
contains volatile organics such as benzene, ethylbenzen, toluene,
etc. In order to meet the air quality standards, a vapor phase
carbon adsorption unit will be used to scrub the exhaust air.
Vapor phase carbon adsorption is more efficient than the liquid
.phase adsorption in the GAC units. Air flow can be sized based on
13.4 scfm per 1 gpm of wastewater flow (cited from manufacturer's
literature-). This will result in a minimum air supply of 400
scfm. Packed tower and accessories can be prepackaged and skid
mounted for ease of field installation. Approximate overall
dimensions are 10'W x 12'L x 23'H.
Activated Carbon Filters
Non-volatile and escaping volatile organic matter from air
stripping effluent are removed by adsorption in the activated
carbon filters. The system is comprised of two carbon filter
vessels (72 cubic feet per vessel), a carbon transfer tank and
associated carbon transfer equipment. The filters may be operated
in parallel or in series.
Spent carbon from the filters is transported to the transfer tank
for temporary storage. After the filter vessel is filled with
fresh carbon delivered by a tank truck, the spent carbon is trans-
ported to the tank truck for regeneration or disposal by the acti-
vated carbon supplier. It is estimated that the carbon filters
will need replenishing every two to three months (cited from manu-
facturer's estimate). Overall dimensions are 15'L x 10'W x 12'H.
D-4
-------
Effluent Storage Tanks
Three storage tanks will be provided. Each tank has 43,000
gallons of capacity (3 days of treatment plant effluent).
Approximate dimensions of each tank are 21' dia. x 16.5' high.
One tank will be on-line receiving treated leachate. A second
tank will be emptying treated effluent to the sewer. The third
tank's content will be undergoing testing for adherence to the
effluent discharge limitations. The tanks will be interconnected
to the leachate storage tanks for the purpose of re-treating the
effluent if it does pass batch test for sewering.
Sludge Dewatering Equipment
A centrifuge will be used for dewatering the settled solids from
the oil and grease separator and the sludge from the DAT unit.
The quantity of sludge produced from the processes is estimated to
be less than 0.5% by volume (as estimated from suspended solids
content of the leachate) of the treated leachate. A centrifuge
10"-12" bowl diameter should be adequate for the dewatering
purposes. Overall dimensions are 4'Wx6'Lx6'H.
Dewatered sludge, if hazardous, will be disposed of at an RCHA
landfill. The sludge will require testing to determine its
chemical make up.
D-S
-------
APPENDIX E
Oil LEACHATE JAR TESTS
-------
APPENDIX E
Oil LEACHATE JAR TESTS
Jar tests were conducted on July 17 and 18 at CDM-Boston laboratory, on a
liquid leachate sample which was received on July 16, from the site of
Operating Industries Landfill at Monterey Park, California. The
description of the bench scale experiment, purpose, and result of each jar
test run is described in the following discussion:
Jar Test No. 1
Purpose:
Experiment:
Mixing:
Settling:
Observation:
Result:
This test investigated the effect of raising pH to 9.2
pH of raw leachate was increased to 9.2 by adding a lime
dosage of 120 mg/1
1 minute at 100 rpm
10 minutes at 20 rpm
20 minutes
More oil and grease emulsified, and the separation of oil
and grease by skimming became more difficult.
*
Raising the pH of leachate, by adding lime or caustic
dosages, should be avoided, since at pH of 9.2 more oil
emulsified, and decreased the efficiency of separating oil
and grease from raw leachate by skimming.
Jar Tests Nos. 2 and 3
Purpose:
Experiment:
Observation:
Result:
These two tests investigated effectiveness of using ferric
chloride as coagulant. In Jar Test No. 2, a ferric
chloride dosage of 20 mg/1 was added to leachate, which in
Jar Test No. 3, the ferric chloride dosage was 50 mg/1.
Mixing 1 minute at 100 rpm
10 minutes at 20 rpm
Settling 20 minutes
Small particles of floe started to form after 5 minutes of
slow mixing at 20 rpm. None of the floe particles settled
down, after allowing 20 minutes of settling period.
Dosages of ferric chloride between 20-50 mg/1 were not
effective in treating the raw leachate as primary
coagulant.
E-l
-------
Jar Tests Nos 4 and 5
Purpose:
Experiment:
Observation:
Result:
These two tests investigated effectiveness of using alum
solution as coagulant. In Jar Test No. 4,. an alum dosage
of 20 mg/1 was added to raw leachate, while in Jar Test No.
5, the alum dosage added was 50 mg/1.
Mixing 1 minute at 100 rpm
10 minutes at 20 rpm
Settling 20 minutes
During the first minute of slow mixing at 20 rpm, visible
floe particles started to form and grow in size. The size
of floe particle resulting from treating with higher alum
dosage (50 mg/1) was much larger in size than the floe
particles resulting from treating with lower alum dosage
(20 mg/1).
During the settling period of 20 minutes, the floe
particles, whether it was small in size in Jar Test No. 4,
or the larger size in Jar Test No. 5, were floating to the
top and leaving a clear but dark yellowish colored
solution.
After skimming the top of the Jar Test No. 5, the treated
leachate was filtered easily through a coarse qualitative
filter paper.
A sample from the filtered leachate treated with 50 mg/1 is
kept (in sample bottle no. 1) for analysis, if more
information about the treatment up to this stage is
required.
Test results indicated that an alum dosage of 50 mg/1, when
mixed, is very effective to coagulate the raw leachate.
The fact that the formed floe particles, whether small or
large in size, tends to float to the top and not settle
down in the bottom of the jar, indicates that an air
flotation unit and not a solid contact clarifier is
required in the process flow.
Observation obtained from Jar Test No. 5 was that the oil
and grease that escapes from the oil separator unit, in
addition to the emulsified oil in the leachate can be
effectively treated when mixed with 50 mg/1 alum dosage.
When such treated leachate is allowed to pass through a
well selected air flotation unit, the skimmings will be
separated, leaving an easily filterable treated leachate.
At this stage, the emulsified oil in addition to metals
should be separated. The filtered treated leachate should
be further treated for removing the volatile and
non-volatile organic matter.
E-2
-------
Jar Test No. 6
Purpose:
Experiment:
Observation:
Result:
This test investigated the effectiveness of treating one
liter of the filtered treated leachate (with 50 rog/1 alum
dosage) obtained from Jar Test No. 5, with five grams of
activated granular carbon.
1) Jar Test No. 6 contained one liter obtained from
filtering the treated leachate in Jar No. 5.
2) 5 grams of granular activated carbon added.
3) nixing for 10 minutes at 10 rpm
4) Settling 10 minutes
5) Solution decanted and kept in sample bottle No. 2 for
analysis.
Once the filtered treated leachate was in contact with the
granular activated carbon particles, the dark yellowish
color caused by organics started to fade, leaving a yellow
clear colored solution, which was decanted easily.
Carbon adsorption is required to remove the volatile and
non-volatile organic matter.
If the analytical results of the sample collected from.the
treatment of raw leachate with 50 mg/1-alum, filtered, and
then treated with 5 grams per liter activated carbon for a
contact period of 10 minutes, conforms with the discharge
limitations, this will conclude the purpose of the
treatability studies conducted to indicate type of
chemicals, concentration of dosages, and flow process
optimization.
E-3
-------
APPENDIX F
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
-------
APPENDIX F
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
Alternative 1
Off-site treatment and sewering (ChemTech treatment plant)
o Annual Cost
The annual cost is based upon the trucking and treatment of
3,744,000 gallons of leachate (equivalent to 30 gpm plant operating
40 hours per week). Unit costs of $.30/gallon for treatment,
$.03/gallon for trucking and $l,800/month for storage tank rental
were used to develop the annual cost as follows:
1. Treatment cost • $0.30 x 3,744,000 • $ 1,123,200
2. Trucking cost - $0.03 x 3,744,000 - 112,320
3. Storage tank rental - $1,800 x 12 - 21,600
Subtotal 1,257,120
4. Administrative costs § 3% - 37,710
5. Contingencies @ 25% - 314 ,-280
Total $ 1,609,110
o Capital Cost
The only capital cost associated with the off-site treatment is the
construction of a spill containment area around the storage tanks.
The spill containment would be sized to hold the contents of two
tanks (40,000 gallons). Estimated cost is:
1. Site preparation and access - $ 6,000
2. Concrete 40 cubic yards @ $300/cy - 12,000
Subtotal 18,200
3. Contractor's overhead and profit 9 15% - $ 2,700
4. Contingency § 25% - 4,550
5. Engineering, administration and legal § 25% - 4,550
Total $ 30,000
F-l
-------
Alternative 5
o Capital cost of a new leachate pre-treatment plant, consisting of
gravity separation, chemical addition, DAF, filtration, air stripping
with vapor phase carbon adsorption, liquid phase carbon adsorption •
located at one of the four sites discussed in Section 4.
The following components of the treatment plant will have the same cost
for all of the alternative site locations discussed in Appendix G:
Item Cost
Leachate pump station (5 hp) $ 15,000
Leachate double walled storage tanks
(2 £ 50 K gallons each) 90,500
Oil and grease separator (50 gpm capacity) 11,400
Conditioning tank with mixer (50 gallon) 3,000
Chemical feed system 5,100
Dissolved air flotation system (50 gpm capacity) 54,000
Gravity sand filters (2 at 57 gpm each) 45,000-
Air stripper (60 gpm capacity) 14,500
Carbon adsorption, vapor phase 45,500
Activated carbon filters (2 at 72 ft3 each) 69,000
Sludge thickening equipment (centrifuge) 61,500
Effluent double walled storage tanks
(3 @ 43,000 gallons each) 114,200
Effluent pumping station (5 hp) 15,000
Intermediate lift stations (3 @ 3 hp each) 36,000
F-2
-------
Item Cost
Instrumentation & electrical equipment (central control,
alarms, sensors, service connections, etc.) 50,000
Laboratory facility and equipment (including standby
generator) 140,000
Sewer connection fee 40,000
Miscellaneous equipment (chemical storage, sludge
tanks, etc.) 20,000
Treatment Plant Cost $829,700
Note: The cost quotes for the various process components include
normal field installation and hook-up.
Capital cost analysis for different locations of the treatment facility:
A. Location, south parcel:
Treatment facility $829,700
Influent force main, 4" @ 2,000' 40,000
Effluent force main, 4" @ 2,500' 50,000
Water main, 200' 2,000
Access road 200' x 24' wide 16,800
Site preparation 20,000
Architecture, landscaping, and block wall
(including noise abatement) 135,000
Subtotal $1,093,500
Contractor's Overhead & Profit @ 15% 164,025
Contingency 25% 273,375
Engineering, Administration and Legal @ 25% 273,375
Total $1,804,275
mmmmmmmmmm
F-3
-------
Item Cost
B. Location, parcel north of Pomona Freeway:
Treatment facility $ 829,700
Influent force main, 4" @ 4,000' (underneath freeway) 145,700
Effluent force main, 4" @ 2,000' 40,000
Water main 1000 10,000
Access road, 200' x 24' wide 16,800
Site preparation 20,000
Architecture, landscaping and block wall 135,000
Subtotal $1,197,200
Contractor's Overhead & Profit $ 15% 179,580
Contingency g 25% 299,300
Engineering, Administration and Legal 6 25% 299,300
Total $1,975,380
mmmmmmmmmm
Item Cost
C. Location, adjacent to eastern boundary
on Chevron Corporation land in Montebello:
Treatment facility $ 829,700
Land cost (60,000 ft2) 125,000
Influent force main, 3,500' 70,000
Effluent force main, =1,600' 32,000
Access road 400' x 24' wide 33,600
Water main, 1,000' • 10,000
Site preparation 25,000
Architecture, landscaping and block wall 135,000
Subtotal $1,260,300
Contractor's Overhead & Profit § 15% 189,045
Contingency e 25% 315,075
Engineering, Administration and Legal § 25% 315,075
Total $2,079,495
F-4
-------
Item Cost
D. Location, on top of the landfill:
Treatment facility $ 829,700
Influent force main 1,500' 30,000
Effluent gravity pipeline, 2,400 36,000
Access road 1,000' x 24' wide 84,000
Water main 1,200' 12,000
Site and foundation preparation 125,000
Subtotal $1,116,700
Item Cost
Contractor's Overhead & Profit @ 15% , 167,505
Contingency § 25% . " 279,175
Engineering, Administration and Legal @ 25% 279,175
Total
Operation and maintenance (annual) costs for Alternative 5 are shown
below, it is assumed that the only variable cost between the different
locations will be the power costs associated with pumping the influent
and/or effluent and the adjustments for differential settling
projected with location D. It is also assumed that the operation of
the plant and lab will be contracted.
F-5
-------
Item Costs
Loca. A Loca. B Loca. C Loca. D
1. Labor ' $384,400 $384,400 $384,400 $384,400
2080 MH x $184.80/hr
2. Maintenance 12,000 12,000 12,000 20,000
12 months x $1,000
3. Power 12,000 16,000 16,000 10,000
80 kw (2080 hours/year) ($0.06/kw)
4. Sludge disposal (80% S.S. removal) 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
(35 gal/day) (265 days/year)
($1.60/gallon)
5. Chemicals 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000
Alum (15 Ibs/day)
Polyelectrolytes
Activated Carbon (118,000 Ib x $1.00/lb)
Sodium Hexametaphosphate (1 drum/month)
6. Sewering surcharge (COD & SS) 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Subtotal $560,400 $564,400 $564,400 $566,400
7. Contingency @ 25% 140,100 141,100 141,100 141,600
Total . $700,500 $705,500 $705,500 $708,000
F-6
-------
Alternative 2
o Capital cost of a new on-site leachate treatment facility consisting of
the sane process train as Alternative 5 except for removal of the liquid
phase carbon adsorption columns.
Item Cost
Alternative 5 treatment plant (Location B) $1,975,380
Delete liquid phase GAC <113,850>
Total (including overhead, profit,
contingency, engineering & admin.) $1,861,530
o Operation and maintenance (annual) costs for Alternative 2:
Item Cost
Alternative 5 (Location B) $ 705,500
less carbon -replacement cost <147,500>
Total (including overhead, profit,
contingency, engineering & admin.) $ 558,000
Alternative 3
o Capital cost of a new on-site leachate treatment facility consisting of
the same process train as Alternative 5, except for the removal of the
air stripping tower.
• ,
Item Cost
Alternative 5 (location B) treatment $1,975,380
plant
Delete air stripping tower < 99,000>
Total (including overhead, profit,
contingency, engineering & admin.) $1,876,380
o Annual costs for Alternative 3:
Item Cost
Alternative 5 $ 705,500
Additional carbon usage (60,000 Ibs) 75,000
Total (including overhead, profit,
contingency, engineering & admin.) $ 780,500
F-7
-------
Alternative 6
o Capital cost of a new on-site treatment facility consisting of the same
process train as Alternative 5 with the addition of reverse osmosis/
ultrafiltration.
Item Cost
Alternative 5 treatment plant (Loc. B) $1,975,380
Ultrafiltration/reverse osmosis system 321,800
Total (including overhead, profit,
contingency, engineering & admin.) $2,297,180
o Annual costs for Alternative 5:
Item Cost
Alternative 5 $ 705,500
Power, maintenance, replacement
membranes required for UF/RO system 37,500
Total (including overhead,
contingency & admin.) $ 743,000*
* Credit for irrigation water savings not included.
F-8
-------
APPENDIX G
SITING CONSIDERATION AND COST ANALYSIS
OF THE ON-SITE TREATMENT FACILITY
-------
APPENDIX G
SITING CONSIDERATION AND COST ANALYSIS OF THE
ON-SITE TREATMENT FACILITY
In considering the construction of a new treatment plant at the Oil
landfill site, four possible locations were identified1. The approximate
locations and direction and distance to points of sewering are shown in
Figure G-l. Location A is on the south parcel on a level area south of the
existing GSF facility and flare station. Trash was never disposed of in
this area. Location B is on the parcel north of the Pomona Freeway and
adjacent to the area where waste was disposed of in the early days of the
landfill operation. Location C is on land owned by Chevron Corporation
abutting to the eastern boundary of the landfill site and in the city of
Montebello. Location D is on the top of the landfill. The locations shown
in Figure G-l are approximate, pending further site investigation. It is
estimated that a site area of approximately 60,000 ft2 would be required to
•
provide the space for a 30 gpm with room for expansion to a 120 gpm
facility. In estimating the size requirements the following were
considered:
•
o Space for unit processes and influent and effluent storage for a
120 gpm facility.
o Space for sludge handling
o Provision for a clean area for the laboratory and office and
unloading of chemicals.
o A decontamination area and area for washing down truck's leaving
the sludge handling area.
1 In meetings with representatives from Monterey Park and Montebello another
location, on Southern California Edison property, adjacent to the western
boundary of the north parcel was identified as a possible site. This is
shown on Figure G-l as location E.
G-l
-------
-M-
TO VAIL A VIA CAMPO
J24001
TO MONTEBELLO BLVD.
-i\
\
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
(RWOC8 OnMr #78-133)
•*
/
/
CMy of Meofcbcffe
\
LEGEND
Possible Site Suggested
Representatives
and Monterey Park
I— —- Direction of Sewering and
12400') . . . _, . . _ , .
Approximate Distance to Point
of S||per Ing
iggested by \ -. ' ^ ''.'
of Montebello \ » / ,
>rL V-^-*Oi..-/
FCIT
TO LEXINGTON ST.
Project No.
120-RI2
Oil Industries Landfill
Camp Dresser^McKee Inc.
ON-SITE
TREATMENT FACILITY
ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
Figure
G-1
-------
The treatment plant processes and unit sizes are the same for all locations
and are based upon pretreatment and air stripping with off-gas treatment
followed by activated carbon. The main differences affecting costs between
the different locations are the length of leachate and effluent piping
involved, the site acquisition, and site access and preparation work.
Site Location Considerations
Location A:
Close to the area of the landfill where liquid wastes were
disposed and to the leachate collection tanks.
Site is on undisturbed land, i.e., not a part of the garbage
disposal area. Furthermore, the site is relatively flat and
easily accessible from the Greenwood Avenue extension.
Site is within a few hundred feet of residences in the City of
Montebello. Residents are concerned with the proximity of this
site location. Major concerns are noise, odors, and safety. The
elevation of the site is approximately 50 feet lower than th'e
adjacent homes so the treatment facility would not be in a direct
line of sight. However, noise and odor abatement devices would
be required in order to minimize impacts on the adjacent
residents.
Location B:
This location is a flat site located several thousand feet from
residential neighborhoods. It is buffered from residential
areas by the Pomona Freeway to the south and the Southern
California Edison easement property to the north.
Facility will require approximately 1.4 acres out of the 45-acre
North Parcel. This would allow for potential future business
development by the City of Monterey Park on property remaining
after the final remedy is completed.
Leachate may be piped across or underneath the Pomona Freeway in
accordance with Caltrans regulations and requirements.
The site is located within the Oil Superfund site boundaries, and
would therefore require no acquisition of property, access, or
permit.
Location C:
Would require the acquisition of approximately 1.4 acres of land
from the Chevron Corporation (not including access road).
G-3
-------
o Site would be located 3500' to 4000' from the leachate collection
tanks. Leachate line to the plant site would be located close to
the yards of numerous residences in the City of Montebello.
o Site could be located such that the treatment facility would not
be visible from the neighboring residential areas.
o City of Montebello is developing plans to acquire this property
from Chevron and use it for an Auto Center and light commercial
activities.
Location D: -
o Site on top of the landfill would close to the leachate
collection tanks.
o Could gravity feed treatment plant effluent to the sewer system
thereby reducing pumping costs.
o Would require a special geotechnical study to determine a
suitable location for the unit processes and storage tanks.
o Special design considerations would be required to - accommodate
anticipated differential settling. The locations and magnitude
of settling is not predictable and could cause serious problem in
maintaining the integrity of the facility.
o Location may not be compatible with the final remedy for the
site. Siting would need to be coordinated with gas monitoring
and extraction well locations, as well as site grading and
capping plans.
o Overall, siting at Location D would probably delay the
implementation of the treatment facility and add costs to the
final remedial action process.
The comparison of costs and the present worth costs for discount rates of
6% and 8% for operational periods of five years and thirty years is
presented in Table G-l. Capital and annual costs computations are
contained in Appendix F. As shown in the table, there is little difference
from the standpoint of cost between the various site locations, e.g., 6.5%
difference between location C (highest) and Location A (lowest) for the
five-year period at 6% interest.
A cost analysis was not performed for siting a facility at location E. The
alternative is similar to that of location B but has an;additional cost of
land acquisition.
G-4
-------
1-KLiJLNI WlMilH ANMI YMI'.i KllI I HHi 11 :l n I Ml Ml LflClLJ I Y
• M IHiNitl IVL !.i
Hre>«-,i»nt Worth (Capital +
<«!6V. for t;i yr.
tSJJV. • or ti yr .
t«>6V. tur i«.> yr.
V. for .5.0 yr.
LI IDA I I UN
t 1 LM
fcst. i Virtual l.)&M
Est . Cap i t a 1 Cost
i or '. i yr .
«&"/. t or 3O yr .
««MJ"-: t or 3O yr .
U?.:M f-'rcsorit Worth
te6V. for 5 yr .
(£(87. tor 5 yr.
©6".'. for 3o yr.
(SO"/. 1 or 3o yr .
i\ U . C D
4/oo,t:b / , 1 3A> 4 2 , 36 1' , 25 1 42,124, 3 1 1
4 2 , VtiO , Si.»*i *2 , V / 1 , 566 42,9/1, 566 *2 , 982 , O96
4 V , 6*1 2 , 383 49 , / 1 1 , 2OU 4 9 , / 1 1 , 2OB t9 , / 45 , 6k'O
47 , H86 , 229 * / , 94 2 , 5 1 V 4" / , 942 , 5 1 9 * / , 97O , 664
*4,6Ut ,3/it'
1 1 ,O^:,
4 1 2 ,
tlo,
, li 1 0
4b,051,O6l
41,096,557
412,1/0,625
•410, 3O3,7/i.»
44,H24,651
44,669,599
*11,968,097
4=10,094,975
l:'rest?nt Worth Ranking
1 1. oc£it i on t\
2 - Location I.)
-!> - Location H
4 - Location C
120
RT- -1
-------
Site E was identified as another possible siting alternative based on
meetings with representatives of Montebello and Monterey Park. A cost
analysis was not performed for siting a facility at location E, however,
these costs are anticipated to be similar to those for the other sites.
Treated effluent from a plant at site E could be discharged to either
Montebello sewers (Vail and Via Campo) or Monterey Park sewers (Potrero
Grande).
G-6
------- |