EPA/AMD/R02-95/246
September 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision Amendment:
Hooker (102nd Street)
Niagara Falls, NY
6/9/95
-------
RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT
102nd STREET LANDFILL
NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
102nd Street Landfill
Niagara Falls, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected modification to the
original remedial action for the 102nd Street .Landfill Site (the
"Site"), located in Niagara Falls, New York. The original remedial
action was selected in the Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on September
26, 1990.
The modification to the original remedy was chosen in accordance
with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) , as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) ,. and
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the factual and legal
basis for selecting the modification to the remedy for the Site.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected modification. A letter of
concurrence from the NYSDEC is attached to this document (Appendix
!)•
The information supporting this remedial action decision is
contained in the administrative record for the Site. The index for
the administrative record is attached to this document (Appendix
2).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response actions
selected in the September 26, 1990 ROD, as revised by this Record
of Decision Amendment, may present an imminent and substantial
threat to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATION TO THE SELECTED REMEDY
The modification to the selected remedy addresses the river
sediments within the shallow embayment of the Niagara River
adjacent to the Site.
-------
The major components of the modification to the selected remedy
include:
Dredging the Niagara River sediments to the "clean line" with
respect to Site-related contamination. These sediments, after
dewatering, will NOT be incinerated, but will be consolidated
on the landfill. Any NAPL found within theses sediments will
be extracted, and will be incinerated at an off-site facility.
All of the other components of the original remedy as selected in
the September 1990 ROD are NOT affected by this modification.
These components are:
Capping of the Site
A synthetic-lined cap, constructed in accordance with
federal and state standards, will be installed over the
landfill and perimeter soils.
Consolidation of Soils
All off-site soils above cleanup thresholds, will be
consolidated beneath the cap.
Erection of a Slurry Wall
A slurry wall, completely surrounding the Site's perime-
ter, will be constructed and keyed into the underlying
clay/till geologic formation. The precise location of
the slurry wall will be based upon data from geotechnical
borings which have determined the extent of the NAPL
plume(s). The NAPL plume(s) will be contained by the
slurry wall.
Recovery and Treatment of Ground Water
Ground water will be recovered using an interception
drain installed at the seasonal low-water table in the
fill materials. Recovered ground water will be treated.
Although the recovery of ground water does include a
treatment component, the primary function of ground-water
recovery in general, is to create and maintain an inward
gradient across the slurry wall.
Recovery and Treatment of NAPL
NAPL beneath the Site will be recovered using dedicated
extraction wells, and will be incinerated at an off-site
facility.
Storm Sewer
The existing storm sewer, which crosses the Site, will be
cut into pieces. The pieces will be filled with grout,
and left in place on the Site. These remnants of the
existing storm sewer will then be covered with fill and
eventually will be covered by the cap.
-------
(Note: The September 1990 ROD called for the slip-lining of
the on-site storm sewer. In 1993, the EPA decided to re-route
the storm sewer around the Site to the east rather than slip-
lining it in place. This decision was embodied in an Explana-
tion of Significant Differences (ESD) issued by the EPA in
1993.)
Monitoring
Post-remedial monitoring shall be performed to determine
the effectiveness of the remedial alternatives which have
been selected.
Restriction of Access
A 6-foot high chain-link fence will be installed around
the perimeter of the cap in order co restrict access to
the Site.
Institutional Controls
The EPA will recommend to local agencies that institutional
controls be undertaken to ensure tnat future land use at the
Site is restricted so as to preclude certain uses of the Site,
such as restricting certain types of access to the Landfill
and eliminating groundwater use for human consumption at the
Site.
EXPLANATION OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE
The September 1990 ROD called for dredging and incinerating any
highly contaminated embayment sediments if they were left outside
the final positioning of the slurry wall. Any sediments with lower
levels of contamination [that are still in excess of action levels]
which would remain outside the slurry wall, would be dredged and
placed beneath the cap. The preliminary remedial design had the
slurry wall positioned in a straight-line direction, outside the
two areas of highly contaminated sediments. Due to concerns raised
by the natural resource trustees about the area of the embayment
that would be filled in by constructing the slurry wall as
currently designed, the EPA decided to evaluate modifying the
design to move the slurry wall closer to the shoreline. The net
effect of this re-design would be to "save" approximately three (3)
acres of the embayment. As part of this evaluation, it was
determined that if the slurry wall was moved and the sediments had
to be incinerated, the costs had risen such that the original
remedy was no longer cost effective.
Therefore, as described in this Record of Decision Amendment, all
of the contaminated sediments in excess of action levels will be
dredged and placed beneath the cap, rather than incinerating the
highly contaminated sediments.
-------
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The original remedy, as revised by the selected modification, is
protective of human health and the environment, complies with
federal and state requirements that are legally applicable, or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial actions, and is cost-
effective. This modified remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practica-
ble for the Site. However, because treatment of the principal
threats of the Site was not found to be practicable, this remedy
does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element. Because the selected remedy will result in
hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based levels,
a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of
the remedial action to ensure that the selected remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Jeanne M. Fox
Regional AdjjKfnistrato
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DECISION SUMMARY 1
I. - Introduction 1
II.- Highlights of Community Participation 2
III.- Reasons for Issuing Record of Decision Amendment.... 3
IV. - Description of Alternatives . 5
V.- Evaluation of Alternatives 7
VI.- Selected Remedy 11
VII.- Statutory Determinations 11
APPENDICES:
1.- Concurrence Letter from the NYSDEC
2.- Index for the Administrative Record
3.- Responsiveness Summary
1. - Overview 1
2.- Background on Community Involvement
and Concerns 1
3.- Summary of Questions and Comments Received
During the Public Meeting and the Responses
of the EPA 2
4.- Summary of Written Comments Received During
the Public Comment Period and the Responses
. of the EPA 5
4.- 1990 Record of Decision.
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT
102nd Street Landfill Site
Niagara Falls/ New York
I.- INTRODUCTION
The 102nd Street Landfill Site (the "Site"), presently owned by
Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), and Olin Chemicals (Olin),
is a 22.1 acre landfill on the eastern edge of the City of Niagara
Falls (the "City") and borders the Niagara River (the "River").
OCC, formerly Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation, operated
its 15.6 acre portion of the Site as an industrial waste landfill
from approximately 1943 to 1970. Olin operated its 6.5 acre por-
tion of the Site as an industrial waste landfill from 1948 to 1970.
During these periods, OCC and Olin (the "Companies") deposited at
least 159,000 tons of waste, in both liquid and solid form, into
the landfill. This included approximately 4,600 tons of benzene,
chlorobenzene, chlorophenols and hexachlorocy-.lohexanes (HCCHs) .
On December 20, 1979, a complaint, pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA),
and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA), was filed against the
Companies in the U.S. District Court in Buffalo, New York, seeking
injunctive relief and civil penalties for an imminent and substan-
tial endangerment to the public health and welfare. The Site was
formally, listed as a National Priorities List (NPL) site on
September 8, 1983.
The EPA and the Companies prepared a Work Plan for the Site in
1984, and thereafter the Companies commenced the Remedial Investi-
gation (RI) , a study of the nature and extent of contamination.
The Feasibility Study (FS) Work Plan, as defined in a Stipulation
and Decree entered with the U.S. District Court in Buffalo on May
15, 1989, was prepared by the EPA and the NYSDEC and agreed to by
the Companies. The Work Plan provided the guidance under which the
Companies conducted the FS; the FS report describes the development
and evaluation of all of the remedial alternatives for the Site.
Throughout the RI/FS process, the EPA, in consultation with the
NYSDEC, reviewed all of the interim documentation and monitored the
collection and analysis of samples from the Site.
The Site is bounded to the south by a shallow embayment of the
River. A stone-faced bulkhead, constructed in the early 1970s to
minimize soil erosion to the River, runs along the length of the
shoreline at the Site. The embayment lies at the upstream end of
the Little Niagara River which flows around the north shore of
Cayuga Island before discharging into the River approximately 1.5
miles downstream from the Site. To the west of the Site is Griffon
Park, which was formerly used as a landfill for municipal waste by
the City. A number of recreational facilities formerly existed at
-------
the park, including a baseball diamond and a boat ramp. Only the
boat ramp remains functional. Griffon Park is bordered on the west
by the Little Niagara River. Across the Little Niagara River is
Cayuga Island, which is a residential community. The property to
the east of the Site (the "Belden Site") is zoned "residential"
with one current residence, but is otherwise an unimproved densely
brushed field. A drainage ditch runs through the Belden Site,
parallel to the eastern edge of the 102nd Street Site, and into the
River.
The 100th Street storm sewer presently crosses the Site and
discharges to the River. Ground water was observed and measured
infiltrating the storm sewer both during the RI and in earlier
investigations. The storm sewer carries runoff from the Love Canal
area and drains Buffalo Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the
Site.
In September 1990, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (the "ROD"
or the "September 1990 ROD") which selected, as a remedy, the
capping of the landfill, the construction of a circumferential
slurry wall to encapsulate the landfill (and any NAPL plume
migrating from the landfill), the installation of ground-water
controls to eliminate contaminant migration from the encapsulated.
landfill, the slip-lining of the on-site storm sewer, and the
dredging of contaminated sediments from the adjacent embayment in
the River. In 1993, the EPA decided to re-route the storm sewer
around the Site rather than slip-lining it in place. This decision
was embodied in an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)
issued by the EPA in 1993.
The ROD also called for dredging and incinerating any highly
contaminated embayment sediments if they were left outside of the
final positioning of the slurry wall. Sediments with lower levels
of contaminants which would remain outside the slurry wall, would
be dredged and placed beneath the cap.
As described in this Record of Decision Amendment (the
"Amendment") , the EPA will be dredging all of the contaminated
sediments out to a "clean line" where contaminants in the sediments
no longer exceed action levels developed to assure protection of
the aquatic environment and will be placing such sediments beneath
the cap, rather than incinerating the highly contaminated sedi-
ments .
JJ.- HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Post-Decision Proposed Plan (PDPP) for the Site was released to
the public in early December 1994. The PDPP, along with all other
site-related documents, are available to the public at both the
administrative record and the information repository locations. A
summary of the PDPP and a notice as to the availability of these
documents and the administrative record was published in The
Niagara Gazette on Friday, December 2, 1994.
-------
The public comment period began on December 2, 1994, and ended on
January 25, 1995. A public meeting was held on December 14, 1994
at the Red Jacket Inn located in Niagara Falls, New York. The
purpose of the public meeting was to discuss the proposed amendment
to the September 1990 ROD.
The responses to the comments received during the public comment
period as well as those expressed verbally at the public meeting,
are stated in the Responsiveness Summary, which is an attachment to
this Record of Decision Amendment.
This decision document, meaning the Record of Decision Amendment,
presents the selected remedial action for the disposition of the
contaminated sediments found in the embayment adjacent to the Site,
chosen in accordance with CERCLA as amended by SARA, and, to the
extent practicable, the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300. The 'decision as made
for the Site, is based upon the administrative record. An index
for the administrative record is included as an attachment to this
document. This Record of Decision Amendment will become a part of
the administrative record file.
The administrative record file, containing the information upon
which the modification to the original remedy is bas.ed, is
available at the following locations:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway - Records Center
New York, New York 10007-1866
212-637-3000 . .
Hours: Monday - Friday: 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
U.S. EPA Public Information Office
Carborundum Center - Suite 530
345 Third Street
Niagara Falls, New York 14303
716-285-8842
Hours: Monday - Friday: 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
III.- REASONS FOR ISSUING THE RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT
After the September 1990 ROD was signed, the EPA commenced negotia-
tions with the Companies for their undertaking of the remedial
design and remedial action phases of the project. When negotia-
tions failed, in September 1991, the EPA issued a Unilateral
Administrative Order for implementation of the remedy. The remedi-
al design began in 1991 and was at the 65% completion stage in
August 1993. With the 1993 design, the slurry wall was positioned
outside the two areas of highly contaminated sediments. The
decision to place the slurry wall outside these areas was based on
several factors: the technical practicalities of a straight-line
design; the fact that incineration which was the source of
considerable concern to the community would not be required with a
straight-line design; and an anticipated savings of the projected
-------
cost in incineration, which in 1990 dollars, was estimated to be
approximately $2 million. It should be noted that the straight-
line design of the slurry wall would have impacted 6 acres of the
embayment.
In August 1993, the natural resource trustees raised concerns about
the area of the embayment that would be filled in by constructing
the slurry wall as currently designed. These concerns of the
natural resource trustees were based upon the prospective loss of
irreplaceable habitat as found in the embayment. Based on these
concerns, the EPA decided to evaluate modifying the design to move
the slurry wall closer to the shoreline.
The Companies agreed to conduct a supplemental borings program in
order to determine if the NAPL plumes had extended past the
shoreline. It should be noted that the primary aim of the selected
remedy is to contain the NAPL plumes within the slurry wall and
thereby prevent further migration of the NAPL.
The results of the supplemental borings program indicated that the
NAPL did not extend beyond the shoreline. This meant then that the
slurry wall could be designed to run along the contours of the
shoreline. The net effect of this re-design would be to "save"
approximately three (3) acres of the embayment, while at the same
time requiring the excavation and incineration of the highly
contaminated sediments since they now would .be outside the slurry
wall.
Under the original remedy, the realignment of the slurry wall would
require incineration of sediments at an approximate fifteen fold
increase over the costs projected in 1990. The increase in cost is
due to the following factors:
1. The original cost estimate in 1990 to incinerate 6,440 tons of
highly contaminated sediments came to approximately $2 million.
This figure was based on a unit cost of $200 to $300 per ton. This
assumes an excavation depth of two (2) feet in order to arrive at
6,440 tons (4,600 cubic yards).
2. The anticipated cost of $2 million also was projected on the
basis of incremental operational costs for the solids incinerator
which OCC is obligated to build at its Buffalo Avenue Niagara Falls
facility pursuant to the requirements of the Partial Consent Decree
entered in U.S. District Court for the Love Canal Landfill, as well
as pursuant to similar requirements for the S-Area Landfill. It
was anticipated that this OCC solids incinerator would also have
been available for the treatment of any sediments from the 102nd
Street Site that would have required incineration pursuant to the
September 1990 ROD.
-------
3. At the present time, the schedule for construction of this
incinerator has been suspended, upon notice to the Court, by an
informal agreement of the parties to these Consent Decrees pending
efforts by OCC to secure approval of incineration of its wastes at
a facility in the State of Utah. The incineration facility in Utah
has been constructed but has not yet been fully tested and
permitted for commercial operation. Once it is permitted for
commercial operation, it must still receive special permits and
approvals for incineration of the remedial wastes such as dioxin-
contaminated sediments.
4. At the present time, if incineration of the highly contaminated
sediments were a requirement, it would be necessary to truck the
sediments to the only facility in the United States currently
permitted for the incineration of these types of waste. This
facility is located in the Midwest. The cost for incineration
alone at this facility would be $4,000 per ton. This does not
include transport costs or preparation expenses. At $4,000 per
ton, the incineration costs alone would approximate $26 million.
The total costs including preparation and transport are projected
to approximate $30 million.
Due to the change in costs, incineration of the highly contaminated
sediments is no longer considered to be cost-effective. Therefore,
the EPA decided that the September 1990 ROD must be amended to
eliminate the incineration contingency.
IV.- DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) requires that each selected remedy be
protective of human health and the environment, be cost-effective,
comply with other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery
alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the
statute includes a preference for treatment as a principal element
for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous
substances.
The costs presented below for each alternative include capital
costs and operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs over a ten-year
period.
ALTERNATIVE I.- EXISTING REMEDY AS SELECTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 1990
RECORD OF DECISION (AS MODIFIED BY THE 1993 ESP):
Capping/ Consolidation of Soils/ Erection of a Slurry Wall/
Recovery and Treatment of Ground Water/ Recovery and Treatment of
NAPL/ Embayment Sediments (Incineration Contingency)/ Re-Routing of
Storm Sewer/ Post-Remedial Monitoring/ Restriction of Access/
Institutional Controls
-------
This alternative, which is defined as the selected remedy in the
September 1990 ROD, consists of a containment system for the
landfill, and in the case of the embayment sediments, incineration
of the highly contaminated sediments if they remain outside the
final positioning of the slurry wall.
The component for the recovery and treatment of ground water
relates only to the plan to create an inward gradient across the
slurry wall. This will prevent the escape of any contaminants from
the landfill. The final positioning of the slurry wall was
determined by the approval by the EPA and the NYSDEC of the 65% re-
medial design.
In order to make an appropriate comparison, it must be assumed that
the incineration contingency has been triggered, and that the
additional incineration costs are included.
The following cost figures are from the September 1990 ROD, and
hence are stated in 1990 dollars.
Estimated Capital Cost: $22,870,000
Estimated O & M Costs: 7,210,000
Estimated Present-Worth Cost
(in 1990 dollars): 30,080,000
Estimated Present-Worth Cost
(in 1994 dollars): 39,429,000
Additional Cost Due to Incineration
(in 1994 dollars): 30,000,000
Estimated TOTAL Present-Worth Cost
(in 1994 dollars): 69,429,000
Times to Implement -
Remedial Design: 1 year
Remedial Action: 5 to 7 years
ALTERNATIVE II.- MODIFIED REMEDY AS SELECTED IN THIS RECORD OF
DECISION AMENDMENT
Capping/ Consolidation of Soils/ Erection of a Slurry Wall/
Recovery and Treatment of Ground Water/ Recovery and Treatment of
NAPL/ Embayment Sediments/ Re-Routing of Storm Sewer/ Post-Remedial
Monitoring/ Restriction of Access/ Institutional Controls
This alternative, which is defined as the selected remedy in the
Record of Decision Amendment, consists of all of the features found
in the remedy selected in the September 1990 ROD, except that the
incineration contingency has been eliminated, and the slurry wall
will be moved shoreward and run along the general contours of the
shoreline. The primary purpose of the September 1990 ROD (contain-
ing the NAPL plumes) will still be maintained.
-------
The increased costs of constructing the slurry wall along the
contours of the shoreline and the dredging of additional volumes of
sediments, will be offset by the cost savings due to the reduced
size of the cap.
Estimated Capital Cost: $22,870,000
Estimated O & M Costs: 7,210,000
Estimated Present-Worth Cost
(in 1990 dollars): 30,080,000
Estimated Present-Worth Cost
(in 1994 dollars): 39,429,000
Times to Implement-
Remedial Design: 1 year
Remedial Action: 3 years
V.- EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), a detailed analysis of each
alternative is required. The detailed analysis consists of an
assessment of the two alternatives against each of nine evaluation
criteria and a comparative analysis focusing upon the relative
performance of each alternative against those criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway
(based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are elimi-
nated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would
meet all of the applicable (legally enforceable), or relevant
and appropriate federal and state environmental statutes and
requirements (i.e., those that pertain to similar situations
encountered at a Superfund site so that their use is well
suited to the Site) or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major trade-offs between alterna-
tives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been
met. It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the
measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by
treatment of residuals and/or untreated wastes.
-------
4. .Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment
refers to the remedial technology's expected ability to reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants at the site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period needed to
achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health and
the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation periods until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability refers to the technical and administrative.
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of the
materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance
costs, and the present-worth cost.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Post-Decision Proposed Plan is
completed:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the
RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes,
and/or has identified any reservations with the preferred
alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the
RI/FS reports. Factors of community acceptance to be dis-
cussed include support, reservation, and opposition by the
community.
A comparative analysis of the alternatives based upon these
evaluation criteria follows. The comparative analysis focuses upon
the essential difference in the two alternatives: the incineration
of dredged sediments versus the reconsolidation of the dredged
sediments within the slurry wall and beneath the capped landfill.
1.- Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment:
Both remedies, (existing and modified) are considered to be
protective of human health and the environment. Both remedies will
require the same type of dredging operations. However, the
proposed Alternative II will require the dredging of a greater
volume of sediments. The relative volumes of the sediments to be
dredged, more in the case of the modified remedy, will have no
impact on the analysis within this criterion.
The consolidation of dredged sediments within the slurry wall and
beneath the landfill cap will effectively isolate the sediments
from the environment. It should be noted that thousands of tons of
waste material will remain within the landfill following closure
and final capping. These wastes will be physically contained by
-------
the slurry wall and cap; these wastes will be hydraulically
contained by the ground-water pumping and treating components of
the remedy. Monitoring is required to ensure that these physical
and hydraulic systems are effective in containing the wastes in the
landfill.
2.- Compliance with Applicable/ or Relevant and Appropriate Re-
quirements (ARARs):
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are
those federal or state environmental and public health regulations
that apply to remedial activities at a site.
In the September 1990 ROD, the EPA had determined that the original
remedy would comply with federal and state ARARs. During the
subsequent design phase in 1993 for the implementation of the
remedy, the federal and state natural resources trustees raised
concerns that the remedy, as then designed, would result in the
loss of approximately six acres of irreplaceable habitat in the
embayment area. The trustees requested that the design be
reassessed to determine if it would be feasible from an engineering
perspective to modify the design so that any such habitat losses
would be minimized. A reassessment was conducted as described in
more detail in Section III. above. The modification of the remedy
as selected in this Record of Decision. Amendment was the direct
result of this reassessment process. The modified remedy will
avoid the destruction of somewhat more than half of these six acres
of habitat. The modified remedy will more fully comply with the
ARARs identified in the 1990 ROD for minimizing the loss of habitat
as well as for implementing the remedy in a manner consistent with
state coastal plans as required by the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) . The evaluations required by the CZMA as well as by the
cultural resource reports required by the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) are currently being developed.
In all other respects, the analysis contained in the September 1990
ROD that the remedy complies with all federal and state ARARs
substantially remains unchanged for the modified remedy.
3.- Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence:
Incineration of highly contaminated sediments offers greater
permanence because the contaminants are actually destroyed.
However, if the sediments are placed on the landfill, completely
encapsulated within the slurry wall and the cap, and if long-term
monitoring controls are properly implemented, there should be an
equivalent degree of effectiveness with either alternative.
It should be noted that the estimated mass of contaminants within
these sediments would increase the total mass of contaminants
already in the landfill by less than 1%.
-------
4.- Reduction of Toxicity/ Mobility, or Volume:
Both alternatives will control or reduce the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of the contaminants through treatment (i.e., ground-
water treatment and NAPL incineration) and encapsulation of
landfill residuals. With the original ROD remedy, the toxicity and
the volume of the sediments would be reduced through incineration.
In the case of the modified remedy, there will be no reduction in
the toxicity or the volume of the contaminated sediments, but the
contaminated sediments will be immobilized through encapsulation.
5.- Short-Term Effectiveness:
Any alternative involving incineration will be least effective over
the short term due to the anticipated delays in procuring the
availability of an incinerator. In the case of the modified
remedy, once the incineration contingency is removed, the prospects
over the short term will improve significantly.
Any dredging work associated with the removal of sediments from the
River can have short-term impacts on the River due to the release
of contaminated sediments into the River. However, prior to the
initiation of any dredging work, a berm will be constructed beyond
the area of contamination so as to effectively retain any loosened
sediments, thereby preventing their transport into the River proper
from the embayment.
6.- Implementability:
In comparing the two remedies, there are significant problems in
terms of implementing the incineration contingency mainly because
of the lack of availability of a local incinerator and the fact
that there is only one incinerator nationwide which has both the
capability and all required permits, approvals, and authorizations
to handle dioxin-containing sediments.
Both the modified remedy and the original remedy may encounter some
technical problems with regard to sediment control, dewatering, and
berm installation. However these types of problems are manageable
with existing technology.
7.- Costs:
The present-worth cost for the existing remedy, in 1994 dollars,
with the incineration contingency operative, is $69,429,000.
The present-worth cost for the modified remedy, also in 1994
dollars, is $39,429,000.
8.- State Acceptance:
The State of New York (NYSDEC) has concurred on the selection of
the modified remedy.
10
-------
9.- Community Acceptance:
The community's reaction to the modified remedy as received during
the public comment period, as well as at the public meeting, is
contained in the Responsiveness Summary which is included as a part
of this decision document.
In general, the public appeared to be receptive to the EPA's
decision to modify the selected remedy.
VI.- SELECTED REMEDY
Based on consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed
analysis of the alternatives, and the comments received during the
public comment period, the EPA has determined that Alternative II
is the most appropriate remedy for the Site.
As described above, Alternative II, which is the remedy selected in
this Amendment, consists of all the features found in the remedy
selected in the September 1990 ROD, except that the incineration
contingency has been eliminated, and the slurry wall will be moved
shoreward and will run along the general contours of the shoreline.
The primary purpose of the September 1990 ROD (containing the NAPL
plumes) will still be maintained.
VII.- STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, the EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve
adequate protection of human health and the environment. In
addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences that the selected remedy must meet.
Section 121 of CERCLA specifies that when complete, the selected
remedial action for the Site must comply with ARARs established
under federal and state environmental laws unless a statutory
waiver is justified. The selected remedy, also, must be cost-
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for
remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as
their principal element. The following sections discuss how the
selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment;
Since .both the original remedy and the modified remedy will
necessitate the same type of dredging operations, the modified
remedy will have no impact within this statutory determination, and
thus is protective of human health and the environment.
11
-------
While the modified remedy will require the dredging of a greater
total volume of sediments since the slurry wall will be reposi-
tioned along the shoreline, this again should have no impact on the
overall protection of human health and the environment since the
contaminated sediments will, in both cases, be encapsulated within
the slurry wall and beneath the cap.
Compliance with Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate Require-
ments fARARs):
The original analysis with respect to ARARs, as contained in the
September 1990 ROD, held that the original remedy did comply with
all federal and state ARARs.
Since the modified remedy will change only the volumes and types of
sediments to be dredged, i.e., a greater total volume will be
dredged, which will consist of both contaminated and highly
contaminated sediments, there should be no substantive variation
from the original analysis which found a positive compliance with
all federal and state ARARs.
Cost-Effectiveness:
Cost-effectiveness is a critical coiuponent used in the balancing of
the evaluation criteria. Superior cost-effectiveness was therefore
a factor which eventually led to the selection of the modification
as opposed to the unmodified original remedy.
The present-worth cost for the original remedy, in 1994 dollars,
with the incineration contingency operative, is $69,429,000.
The present-worth cost for the selected modification, also in 1994
dollars, is $39,429,000.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies (or Resource Recovery Technologies) to the Maximum
Extent Practicable:
There is no change in this statutory determination when the
original remedy is compared to the selected modification.
The EPA and the NYSDEC believe that the original .remedy as well as
the selected modification, represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in
a cost-effective manner at the Site.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element;
There is no change in this statutory determination when the
original remedy is compared to the selected modification.
12
-------
In the case of the original remedy as well as the selected
modification, the preference for treatment as a principal element
is not satisfied since treatment of the principal threat (the
landfill residuals) was found to be distinctly impractical.
However, the material containing the highest concentrations of
contaminants, meaning the recovered NAPL, will still be treated
through off-site incineration.
13
-------
APPENDIX 1
Concurrence Letter from the NYSDEC
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-7010
MAY I 2 I995 Michael Za?au
Commissioner
Mr. William J. McCabe
Deputy Director
New York/Caribbean Programs
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
Re: 102nd Street Landfill (Site #932022, 932031)
Amended Record of Decision
Dear Mr. McCabe:
The State has reviewed the draft Amended Record of Decision (AROD). dated
May 1, 1995, for the remediation of sediments at the 102nd Street Landfill. The draft AROD
eliminates the requirement to incinerate sediments dredged from the "hot spot" areas, instead
allowing reconsolidation of the "hot spot" sediments within the landfill containment and under
the final cap. The State comments on a previous draft AROD were submitted by the State on
March 31, 1995 and have been adequately incorporated into the AROD.
The New York State Department of Health has also reviewed the draft AROD and
concurs with the recommended changes. As such, the State agrees with the AROD as
amended and recommends that it be executed as soon as possible.
The State recognizes and supports the EPA decision to retain the 200 ug/kg cleanup
level for mercury in the sediments of the embayment as set forth in the 1990 Record of
Decision. In light of this decision, the State requests EPA's commitment to make
rehabilitation of the embayment habitat a high priority for this project. The final remedial
design for this site must include a comprehensive mitigation plan to return habitat that will be
affected by the sediment dredging to its current condition, that is one which supports the fish
and wildlife currently within the habitat. The mitigation plan must have clearly defined
performance objectives and must include both an aggressive planting plan and a long term
requirement for replanting should performance objective not be met or maintained.
-------
Page 2
The mitigation plan must be accompanied by a pre-construction inventory to accurately
define the habitat vegetation species composition and the percentage of area! coverage and
plant density for each species in the embayment. The pre-construction inventory nmsj be
completed this year while the vegetation is showing and readily identified. Further, design
and implementation of the dredging of the sediments must not impact any more of the habitat
than is absolutely necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to review .the draft AROD. We are prepared to assist
in any way that we can with EPA's efforts to complete a comprehensive habitat rehabilitation
program.
Sincerely,
Michael J. O'Tdble, Jr.
Director
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
cc: G. Anders Carlson, NYSDOH
C. Petersen, USEPA
K. Lynch, USEPA '
P. Olivo," USEPA
N. Spiegel, NYSDOL
-------
APPENDIX 2
Index for the Administrative Record
-------
102 STREET LANDFILL
NIAGARA FALLS. NEW YORK
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Background - RCRA and Other Information
P. I - 57A A Computer Print Out of 102nd Street Landfill
Documents. May 18, 1990.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Sampling and Analysis Plans
P. 58 - 164 Report: Site Operations Plan (Task 4).
Draft. 102nd Street Landfill site, prepared
by Olin Chemicals Group- Occidental Chemical
Corporation. June 1984.
P. 165 - 177 Report: Addendum No. 1. Site Operations
Plan. 102nd Street Landfill Site, prepared by
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, May 28, 1985.
P. 178 - 203 Report: Addendum No. 2. Site Operations
Plan. 102nd Street Landfill Site, prepared by
Olin Chemical Group- Occidental Chemical
Corporation, June 13, 1985.
P. 204 -243 Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Murray E. Sharkey, Department of
Environmental Conservation from D. L.
Cummings, Olin Chemical Group, and J. A.
Cull, Occidental Chemical Corporation, re:
Assessment of Chemical Monitoring Program.
November 30, 1987. The Quality Assurance
Plans & Analytical Protocols for the
Assessment Chemical Monitoring program is
attached.
-------
Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 244 - 341 Report: 102nd Street Landfill. Hvdrogeologic
Evaluation, prepared by GTC Geologic Testing
Consultants LTD., June 1, 1984. References
are listed on P.
P. 343 - 374 Memorandum to R. L. Comboy, from E.A. Dietz,
Occidental Chemical Corporation, re: Results
from Determination of Organic Vapors Trapped
on Charcoal Tubes- 102nd Street Air
Monitoring of Worker Exposure. November 21,
1985. The results are attached.
P. 375 - 393 Report: Monitoring Well Inspection. 102nd
Street Landfill, Niagara Tails. New York.
prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
January 10, 1986.
P. 394 - 498 Report: Geologic and Well Construction Logs,
102nd Street Landfill Remedial Investigation
Niagara Falls. New York, prepared by
Geotrans, Inc., May 15, 1986.
P. 499 - 546 Report: OCC NAPL Analysis. Part I. 102nd
Street Landfill Site, prepared by Occidental
Chemical Corporation, September 12; 1986.
P. 547 - 677 Report: Monitoring Well/Borehole
Stratigraphic & Instrumentation Logs, 102nd
Street Landfill Remedial Investigation.
Niagara Falls. New York, prepared by
Occidental Chemical Corporation. Date is
unknown.
P. 678 - 920 Report: Information Report No. 2. 102nd
Street Landfill. Remedial Investigation.
Niagara Falls. New York, prepared by 01in
Chemicals Group and Occidental Chemical
Corporation, June 1987.
P. 921 - 947 Report: Quality Assurance Evaluation of Site
Specific Parameters Extended Survev-
Groundwater. First Iteration. 102nd Street
Landfill, prepared by unknown, September 8,
1987.
-------
P. 948 - 998
P. 999 - 1078
P. 1079 - 1094
P. 1095 - 1211
P. 1212 - 1248
Letter to Mr. Alan A. Fuchs, Department of
Environmental Conservation, and Mr. Paul J.
Olivo, U.S. EPA, from Mr. David L. Cummings,
Olin Corporation, and Mr. Jay A. Cull,
Occidental Chemical Corporation, re: Quality
Assurance Evaluation. September 29, 1987.
The Quality Assurance Evaluation,
Chlorobenzoic Acid Data on First and Third
Iteration Samples Extended Survey-Groundwater
and Bulkhead Investigation Report, September
1987, is attached.
Report: OCC NAPL Analyses, Part 3. 102nd
Street Landfill Site, prepared by Occidental
Chemical Corporation, October 16, 1987.
Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Alan A. Fuchs, Department of
Environmental Conservation, from Mr. David L.
Cummings, Olin Corporation, and Mr. J. A.
Cull, Occidental Chemical Corporation, re:
Quality Assurance Evaluation. October 26,
1987. The Quality Assurance Evaluation,
General Parameters for extended Survey of
Groundwater, Fifth Iteration Report, October
29, 1987 is attached.
Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Alan A. Fuchs, Department of
Environmental Conservation, from Mr. Alan F.
Weston, Occidental Chemical Corporation, re:
Quality Assurance Data Review. November 4,
1987. The Quality Assurance Data Review,
102nd Street Landfill Soil, and Sediment
Analysis, Rounds 4 and 5 is attached.
Letter To Mr. P. J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and Mr.
Murray E. Sharkey, Department of
Environmental Conservation, from Mr. D. L.
Cummings, Olin Chemical Corporation, and J.
A. Cull, Occidental Chemical Corporation, re:
Supplementary NAPL Investigation. December
11, 1987. The Supplemental NAPL
Investigation Report is attached.
-------
P. 1249 - 1300
Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, Department of
Environmental Conservation, from Mr. D. L.
Cummings, Olin Chemicals Group, and Mr. J. A.
Cull, Occidental Chemical Corporation, re:
Niagara River Borehole Drilling Program.
March 31, 1988. The Niagara River Borehole
Drilling Program Report, March 18, 1988, is
attached.
P. 1301 - I400c
P. 1401 - 1425
P. 1426 - 1433
P. 1434 - 1485
Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R, Christoffel, Department of
Environmental Conservation, from Mr. Alan F.
Weston, Oxychem, re: OCC NAPL Analyses, Part
4. April 14, 1988. A revised version of
Analytical Report 29 and the OCC NAPL
Analyses, Part 4 are attached.
Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas r. Christoffel, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Ms. L. M. Miller, Olin Corporation, and
Mr. Alan F. Weston, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, re: Quality Assurance
Evaluation. April 18, 1988. The Quality
Assurance Evaluation of Site Specific
Parameters, Extended Survey, Groundwater,
Sixth Iteration, November 1987 report is
attached.
Report: Quality Assurance Evaluation of
Chlorobenzoic Acid, Off-Site Wells.
Groundwater. February 1988-April 1988. 102nd
Street Site Investigation, prepared by Olin
Chemicals Group, April, 1988.
Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Mr. David L. Cummings, Olin Corporation,
and Mr. Jay A. Cull, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, re: Revision 1 of the Niagara
River Borehole Drilling Program. May 6,
1988. The Niagara River Borehole Drilling
Program, Revision 1, May 5, 1988, is
attached.
-------
P. 1486 - 1510 Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA and Mr.
Thomas R. Christoffel, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Ms. Lorraine M. Miller, Olin
Corporation, and Mr. Alan F. Weston,
Occidental Chemical Corporation, re: Quality
Assurance Evaluation. May 9, 1988. The
Quality Assurance Evaluation of General
Parameters for Extended Survey-Groundwater,
Sixth Iteration- November 1987 report is
attached.
P. 1511 - 1557 Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Mr. David L. Cununings, Olin Corporation,
and Mr. Jay A. Cull, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, re: Assessment Chemical
Monitoring Program. May 25, 1988. The
Response to EPA/State. April 21, 1988
Comments and the Quality Assurance Plans and
Analytical Protocols -for the Assessment
Chemical Monitoring Program report is '
attached.
P. 1558 - 1593 Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Mr. David L. Cummings, Olin Corporation,
and Mr. Jay A. Cull, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, Re: Revision of Supplementary
NAPL Investigation. June 3, 1988. The
Supplemental NAPL Investigation, Revision 1,
102nd Street Landfill, Remedial Investigation
report, June 3, 1988, is attached.
P. 1594 - 1622 Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, from Mr. Alan F.
Weston, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and
Ms. L. M. Miller, Olin Corporation, re:
Quality Assurance review of Soil, Sediment,
and Sewer bedding data. June 6, 1988. The
Quality Assurance data, May 18, 1988, is
attached.
-------
P. 1623 - 1633 Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, New-York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Ms. Lorraine M. Miller, Olin
Corporation, and Mr. Alan R. Weston,
Occidental Chemical Corporation, re: Quality
Assurance Evaluation. June 14, 1988. The
Quality Assurance Evaluation of
Chloraobenzoic Acid Extended Survey-
Groundwater, Sixth Iteration, November 1987
report is attached.
P. 1634 - 1646 Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Ms. Lorraine M. Miller, Olin
Corporation, re: Quality Assurance
Evaluation- General Parameters for Off-Site
Wells. June 24, 1988. The Quality Assurance
Evaluation of General Parameters for Off-
Site Wells- Groundwater, February 1988-April
1988 report is attached.
P. 1645 - 1664 Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Ms. Lorraine M. Miller, Olin
Corporation, re: Quality Assurance
Evaluation. June 24, 1988. The Quality
Assurance Evaluation of Site Specific
Parameters, Off-Site Wells, Groundwater,
February 1988, April 1988 report is attached.
P. 1665 - 1677 Report: 102nd Street Landfill Site Project.
Quality Assurance Report. NAPL Analysis Parts
3 and 4. prepared by Occidental Chemical
Corporation, William E. Lesoux, Quality
Assurance Officer, September 1, 1988.
-------
P. 1678 - 1716
P. 1717 - 1857
P. 1858 - 1869
Work Plans
P. 1870 - 1936
P. 1937 - 2145
P. 2146
Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Mr. David L. Cummings, Olin Corporation,
and Mr. Jay A. Cull, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, Re: Revision 2 of the
Supplemental NAPL Investigation report.
December 20, 1988. The Supplemental NAPL
Investigation Revision 2 report, December
1988, is attached.
Report: Final Report Assessment Chemical
Monitoring Program, prepared by Woodward-
Clyde Consultants, June 27-, 1989.
Report: Air Quality Impacts Modeling
Analysis. Excavation Under Alternative OU1,
5C, prepared by Sirrine Environmental
Consultants, July 1990.
Report: Work Plan for the Remedial
Investigation 102nd Street Landfill Site.
Niagara Falls, New York, prepared by unknown.
June 1984. References are cited at end of
report.
Report: Project for Performance of Remedial
Response Activities at Uncontrolled Hazardous
Substance Facilities- Zone 1. prepared by
NUS Corporation, Superfund Division. March
28, 1985.
Work Chart: 102nd Street Remedial
Investigation Schedule. Prepared by CRA, work
tasks graphed against time schedule,
Revision. November 26, 1985.
Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 2147 - 2250
P. 2251 - 2257
Report: 102nd Street Landfill Site. Remedial
Investigation. Environmental Health and
Safety Plan, prepared by Occidental Chemical
Corporation and Olin Corporation. March 1,
1985.
Report: Resident Engineering Services. 102nd
Street Spoils cell Construction. Niagara
Falls, New York, prepared by Woodward-Clyde
Corporation. Date Unknown.
-------
P. 2258 - 2710
Report: Remedial Investigation Final Report.
Volume 1- Text. 102nd Street Landfill Site.
Niagara Falls. .New York, prepared by
Conestoga-Rover & Associates, and Woodward-
Clyde Consultants. July 1990. A copy of
report is attached.
P. 2711 - 2874
Correspondence
P. 2875 - 2881
Report: Remedial Investigation Final Report,
Volume 2- Appendices & Plans. 102nd Street
Landfill Site. Niagara Falls. New York.
prepared by Conestoga- Rover & Associates,
and Woodward-Clyde Consultants. July 1990.
A copy of report is attached.
Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, U.S. EPA, and
Mr. Thomas R. Christoffel, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Mr. Alan F. Weston, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, re: Response to the EPA/State
November 21, 1988, on the Quality Assurance
Plans and Analytical Protocols for the
Assessment Chemical Monitoring Program.
.December 12, 1988. The response and the
report is attached.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Feasibility Study Work Plans
P. 2882 - 2932
Report: 102nd Street Feasibility Study Work
Plan. December. 6, 1988.
Feasibility Study Reports
P. 2933 - 3057
P. 3058 - 3214
Proposed Plans
Report: Feasibility Study Final Report.
102nd Street Landfill Site. Volume I, July
1990.
Report: Feasibility Study Final Report,
102nd Street. Volume II and Appendices. July
1990.
8
-------
p. 3215 - 3233
Superfund proposed plan. Includes
announcement of propsed plan, site
background, scope of response action, summary
of site risks and a summary of alternatives
for the 102nd Street Landfill Site, Niagra
Falls, New York. July, 1990. Three operable
unit plans are attached.
ENFORCEMENT
Endanaerment Assessment
P. 3234 - 3392
P. 3393 - 3568
P. 3569 - 3772
P. 3773 - 3932
Consent Decrees
P. 3933 - 3945
P. 3946 - 3960
Correspondence
P. 3961
Report: Baseline Human Health Risk and
Environmental Endangerment Assesment for the
102nd Street Landfill, prepared by Gradient
Corporation. May 25, 1990.
Report: Baseline Human Health Risk and
Environmental Endangerment Assesment for the
102nd Street Landfill. Appendices, prepared
by Gradient Corporation. May 25, 1990.
Report: Evaluation of Potential Contaminant
Releases and Human Health Risk Associated
with Excavation and Incineration of the 102nd
Street Landfill. July 11, 1990.
Report: Baseline Risk Assessment - Final
Report, prepared by Sirrine for OCC and 01in,
July 1990.
Stipulation. Signed By Court on June 26,
1984. A fact sheet and site location is
attached.
Stipulation and Decree. Date unknown.
Letter to Judge John T. Curtin, United States
District Court, from Mr. Bruce S. Gelber,
U.S. Department of Justice, re: Stipulation
and Decree, February 9, 1989, is attached.
Letter to Mr. Robert M. Cohen, GeoTrans Inc.,
Mr. David Bass, Gradient Corporation, and
Mrs. Mary Ann Storr, U.S. EPA Public
Information Office, from Mr. Paul Olivo, U.S.
EPA, re: Notice of Lodging and Proposed
Stipulation and Decree. February 17, 1989.
-------
NATURAL RESOURCES TRUSTEES
Findings of Facts
P. 3962 - 4009
Report: Biological Indicators of
Environmental Contaminants in the Niagara
River, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, May 1990.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Community Relations Plans
P. 4010 - 4033
Public Notices
P. 4034
P. 4035
P. 4036
Report: Community Relations Plan, 102nd
Street Site. Niagara Falls. Niagara County.
New York, prepared by NUS Corporation.
February 1985.
Invitation for public comment. Released by
the US EPA as appears in the Niagara Gazette.
July 25, 1990, p. 4B.
Invitation for public comment. Released by
the US EPA as appears in the Buffalo News,
July 25, 1990, p. D - 4.
Public Service Announcement released by John
Anderson, U.S. EPA, Public Information
Office, re: Availability of representatives
of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Date unknown.
Public Meeting Transcripts
P. 4037 - 4096
Transcript of a public meeting held at the.
Red Jacket Inn, Niagara Falls , New York, on
August 15, 1990.
Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 4097 - 4101
Correspondence
P. 4102
News Release from the US EPA, Region II,
Re: $30 Million clean up remedy, July
26, 1990.
Letter to 102nd Street Site Mailing List,
from U.S. EPA, re: Results of EPA dioxin
screening and field activities being taken at
the site. September 13, 1985.
'10
-------
P. 4103
P. 4104
P. 4105
P. 4106
P. 4107
P. 4108
P. 4109
P, 4110
P. 4111
P. 4112
P. 4113
P. 4114
Letter to 102nd Street Site Mailing List,
from Mr. Kevin Lynch, U.S. EPA, and Mr. Alan
Fuchs, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, re: Progress of
Remedial Investigation at site. December 9,
1985. A copy of letter is attached.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Mr. Matthew
J. Forcucci, U.S. EPA, re: Documents
available for public review. September 12,
1986.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. August 31, 1987.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. September 30, 1987.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. October 30, 1987.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. November 25, 1987.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. November 30, 1987.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. December 31, 1987.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. December 31, 1987.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. January 19, 1988.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Barbara
C. Taylor, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. February 29, 1988.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Barbara
C. Taylor, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. March 17, 1988.
11
-------
P. 4115
P. 4116
P. 4117
P. 4118
P. 4119
P. 4120
P. 4121
P. 4122
P. 4123
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Barbara
C. Taylor, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. April 15, 1988.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Barbara
C. Taylor, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. April 29, 1988.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. June 8, 1988.
Letter -to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. June 29, 1988.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. July 27, 1988.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. August 22, 1988.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann-Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. October 18, 1988.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. November 18, 1988.
Letter to Concerned Citizen, from Ms. Mary
Ann Storr, U.S. EPA, re: Documents available
for public review. March 16, 1989.
12
-------
102nd STREET LANDFILL SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
UPDATE*
RECORD OF DECISION
Record of Decision
P. 4124 - 41% Report Declaration Statement, Record of Decision.
102nd Street Landfill Site, (Operable units One,
Two, and Three).
* Administrative Record File Update Available 10/8/90.
-------
102nd STREET LANDFILL SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
UPDATE
RECORD OF DECISION
Correspondence
P. 4285- Letter to Mr. Paul J. Olivo, Project Manager, New
4289 York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, from Messrs.
David L. Cummings, Manager, Environmental
Remediation, Olin Corporation, and Alan F. Weston,
PhD, Manager, Analytical Services, Special
Environmental Programs, re: 102nd Street Landfill
Site, Niagara Falls, NY - Offshore Slurry Wall
Alignment, August 17, 1994. (Attached are: Figure
1: Plan of Slurry Wall Alignment, and Figure 2:
Typical Cross Section Through Slurry Wall
Alignment, August 15, .1994.)
Reports
P. 4290- Report: Addendum - Predesiqn Field Activity
4359 Report; Supplemental Offshore Boring Program,
102nd Street Landfill Site, Niagara Falls. New
York, prepared by Fluor Daniel, Inc. on behalf of
Occidental Chemical Corporation and Olin
Corporation, August 17, 1994.
-------
APPENDIX 3
Responsiveness Summary
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT
102nd Street Landfill Site
Niagara Falls, New York
1.- Overview
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") established a
public comment period which ran from December 2, 1994 through
January 25, 1995 so as to allow interested parties to comment upon
the EPA's Post-Decision Proposed Plan (PDPP) for the modification
of the remedy originally selected for the 102nd Street Landfill
(the "Site").
The EPA also held a public meeting on Wednesday, December 14, 1994,
at the Red Jacket Inn located at 7001 Buffalo Avenue in Niagara
Falls, New York. The purpose of the public meeting was to review
the PDPP, to present the EPA's preferred modification to the
original remedy as defined in the September 1990 Record of
Decision, and to solicit, record, and consider all comments
received from interested parties during the course of the actual
meeting.
This responsiveness summary describes the comments and concerns
raised by concerned citizens during the comment period with respect
to the proposed modification to the original remedy, as well as the.
EPA's responses to those comments and concerns. All comments
summarized in this document were .given full consideration in terms
of selection of the modification to the original remedy as stated
in the Record of Decision Amendment. The New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) also concurs with the
selected modification.
2.- Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
The Site initially became an issue of public concern in December
1970, when the Buffalo District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) notified Occidental Chemical Corporation and the Olin
Corporation (the "Companies") that no further construction or
landfilling could occur until a bulkhead was installed along the
shoreline. Although the bulkhead was completed in 1973, no further
landfilling at the Site occurred after construction of the
bulkhead. A series of investigations regarding sub-surface
conditions at the Site led to the filing of a complaint in December
1979, in the U.S. District Court in Buffalo, New York, by the
United States of America, on behalf of the Administrator of the
EPA, against the Companies seeking injunctive relief and civil
penalties for an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
public health and welfare. In November 1980, a complaint pursuant
to the New York State Conservation Law and the state's common law
1.
-------
of public nuisance, was filed by the State of New York (NYS)
seeking civil penalties. These lawsuits are still pending
contingent upon the final remediation of the Site.
During the public comment period in 1990 concerning the proposed
remedy for the Site, the citizens' comments and concerns focused on
issues of incineration of contaminants from the landfill and the
public's access to the shoreline following completion of the
remedy. More recently, beginning in 1993, federal and state natural
resource trustees requested the EPA to consider a realignment of
the slurry wall in the embayment in order to avoid the destruction
of wetland/embayment habitat resources.
The 1990 ROD called for the dredging and incinerating of any highly
contaminated embayment sediments if they were left outside of the
final positioning of the slurry wall. Any sediments with lower
levels of contaminants which remained outside the slurry wall,
would be dredged and placed beneath the cap. Therefore, the
proposed realignment of the slurry wall would not only necessitate
a modification to the existing remedial design, but would also
affect the incineration contingency as contained in the original
remedy.
3.- Summary of Questions and Comments Received During the Public
Meeting and the Responses of the EPA
At the public meeting which was held on December 14, 1994, the
major issues discussed and concerns expressed by the community
regarding the Site were as follows:
A.- Comment:
A resident stated his general concern about the final use
to which the land encompassing the Site might be put. He
asked: "Will there be a park, or is it just going to be
dead land?"
Response:
The remedial plan includes a flat area at the shoreline
of the embayment area that will provide access to the
Niagara River. Plans are now being considered for the
design and construction of a walkway around the Site.
The walkway will be situated such that a person can walk
from the boat launch area, along the water's edge, and
then back out to Buffalo Avenue along the eastern side of
the Site. The boat launch will continue to remain
operational in its present location, however there may be
some reduction, although minor, in the size of the
ballfield located on Griffon Park.
The cap covering the actual landfill will be mounded with
a certain number of peaks to it. The EPA plans to have
the area landscaped to shield the public's view of the
mound from Buffalo Avenue as well as from Cayuga Island.
2.
-------
The landscaping plan, in general, will provide for trees
to be planted around the circumference of the Site. In
the run along Buffalo Avenue, however, there may be some
space restrictions due to the proximity of the landfill
cap and the need for setback of trees from the road to
maintain highway safety. To the extent that trees cannot
be planted in the Buffalo Avenue area, the landscaping
plan will require lower-growing shrubs, which will also
shield the view of the landfill mounds.
B.- Comment:
The same resident asked if remediation of the Site would
also include the dredging of the Little Niagara River.
Response:
When the EPA investigated the extent of .contamination at
the Site, no site-related contamination was found in the
sediments of the Little Niagara River. Therefore the
prospective dredging of the Little Niagara River was
going to be treated as a matter separate from the
remediation of the 102nd Street Landfill. See Comment E
and Response thereto, below.
C.- Comment:
A reporter from the Buffalo News asked: "What is a
slurry wall?"
Response:
A cofferdam is constructed outside the perimeter of the
landfill and the slurry materials (soils and bentonite,
a cement-like substance) which are less permeable than
surrounding soils are backfilled behind the cofferdam.
The slurry is keyed into.the relatively impermeable clay
layer beneath the landfill. In this manner, the relative
impermeability of the slurry and clay layer, coupled with
the hydraulic containment achieved through ground-water
pumping, effectively achieves a total encapsulation of
the hazardous wastes within the landfill.
D.- Comment:
A resident stated, in part rhetorically/ that he did not
see any benefit to spending approximately $40 million
when the land could not be put to any beneficial post-
remediation use.
Response:
There would be a benefit from preventing hazardous
materials in the landfill from entering the Niagara
River: human health and the environment will be protect-
ed.
3.
-------
In accordance with CERCLA, the evaluative criteria also
derived from CERCLA were used to arrive at a balanced
decision that will assure the protection of human health
and the environment.
An unrestricted post-remediation use would have required
the excavation of the entire landfill and the inciner-
ation of its contents. While it would have been techni-
cally possible to incinerate the entire landfill,
approximately 160,000 tons of hazardous wastes contained
in additional tons of soil and debris, any such decision
would not have been cost effective. The cost of inciner-
ating the entire landfill would have been over $500
million. Furthermore, excavation would also present the
risk of exposing the community to the materials in the
landfill that were being excavated. The.selected remedy
represented the EPA's balancing of these evaluative
criteria.
E.- Comment:
The same resident inquired about the piles of (dirt-like)
materials being transferred to the Site. He wanted to
know what the materials were.
Response:
In order to give the cap the necessary support and
structure, approximately 200,000 cubic yards of clean
(non-hazardous) fill material which will be placed
beneath the cap. No hazardous wastes were or will be
transferred to the Site due to the EPA's insistence on a
strict routine of pre-testing and data-verification for
all fill materials destined for the Site. The use of
available (but clean) fill materials will be a signifi-
cant cost-saving factor, when compared to the cost of
procuring clean fill from a standard point-of-sale
source.
As discussed in Paragraph B, above, the dredging of
Little Niagara River sediments is not part of the
remediation of the landfill. The analyses of samples
that indicated that these sediments had not been contami-
nated by the 102nd Street landfill, also demonstrated
that these sediments could be utilizable as clean fill
for the construction of the landfill cap. All parties
(OCC, the City of Niagara Falls, EPA, and the NYSDEC)
were in agreement that it made good sense to explore the
issue of dredging the Little Niagara River sediments at
the same time as the dredging of sediments was being
conducted for the 102nd Street remediation. The presence
of the dredge in the immediate area, and the ability to
use the Little .Niagara River sediments as fill material
in the construction of the 102nd Street cap, represented
a cost-efficient opportunity for dredging the Little
4.
-------
Niagara River. OCC has recently reached an agreement
with the City by which OCC will voluntarily extend its
dredging operations for the 102nd Street landfill
remediation to include the dredging of the Little Niagara
River sediments. The EPA and the NYSDEC have approved
the use of these sediments for fill in the construction
of the landfill cap.
F.- Comment:
A citizen asked if the increased cost of incineration was
due at all to Occidental's (OCC's) plan to not pursue the
siting of an incinerator, meaning at OCC's nearby plant.
Response:
No final decision had been made on the source of in-
cineration for materials from the landfill. Because of
permitting issues, OCC is no longer pursuing the siting
of an incinerator on OCC's plant property. The current
efforts by OCC to find an alternative to the siting of an
incinerator on its plant property will take additional
time to effectuate. The only currently available source
(out-of-state) for incinerating the sediments would be
prohibitively expensive in comparison to the alternative
of siting an incinerator at OCC's plant. The original
cost estimates for incineration of contaminated sediments.
from the landfill were based upon the siting of an
incinerator on OCC's plant property.
4.- Summary of Written Comments Received During the Public Comment
Period and the Responses of the EPA
There was only one written comment, a letter from the Compa-
nies, which was submitted during the public comment period.
The letter is summarized below.
Letter dated January 25, 1995 from the Companies
Comment:
The Companies concurred with the EPA's recommendation to
place the dredged sediments under the cap within the
slurry wall. The Companies concurred since the incinera-
tion of the sediments in their opinion, would be extreme-
ly cost-ineffective when consideration is given to the
fact that the mass of contaminants in the sediments
represents a minute fraction of the contaminants at the
Site, and the cost to incinerate these sediments would be
extremely high. In addition, there is apparently only
one facility nationwide which may be able to incinerate
the sediments, but it has severe capacity limitations.
The Companies concluded that containment of the sediments
within the slurry wall and under the cap was the appro-
priate course of action.
5.
-------
ROD AMENDMENT FACT SHEET
SITE-
Name:
Location:
HRS Score:
NPL Rank:
EPA I.D. Number
102nd Street Landfill
Niagara County
Niagara Falls, New York
30.48
973
NYD980506810
ROD AMENDMENT-
Date signed:
Remedy:
Capital Cost:
O&M/Year:
P-W Cost:
LEAD-
PRPs:
Primary contact:
PRPs contacts:
WASTE-
Type:
Media:
Origins:
Est. Quantity:
June 9, 1995
Synthetic-lined cap (covering approx. 24
acres), consolidation of "off-site" soils
beneath cap, containment via a circumferential
slurry wall, dredging and consolidation
beneath the cap of the contaminated embayment
sediments, recovery and treatment of ground
water, incineration of any recovered NAPL,
post-remedial monitoring, fence, and
institutional controls.
$29,978,000. (1994 dollars)
$9,451,000. (1994 dollars)
$39,429,000. (1994 dollars)
Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
and Olin Corporation (Olin)
Paul J. Olivo .(212)-637-4280
OCC: Alan F. Weston (716)-286-3607
Olin: David L'. Cummings (615)-336-4549
industrial landfill. . Waste included
approximately 4,600 tons of benzene,
chlorobenzene, ch1 oropheno1s and
hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCCHs).
ground water, soils and river sediments
landfill dumping
159,000 tons of liquid and solid wastes.
------- |