United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROCVR02-86/038:
Novembfif 1985
S EPA
Superfund
Enforcement Decision Document:
Hyde Park Landfill, NY
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA 1
Ifleau rtad Inunctions on tht rtvmt btfort completing/
EPA/ROD/R02-86/038
4. TITLE ANOSumTLE
ENFORCEMENT DECISION DOCUMENT
Hyde Park, NY
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AOO
U.S. Environmental Protecti<
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
RESS
sn Agency
5. REPORT DATE
Nnvomhor 26. ] 90S
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT1 NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO
13. TYPE OP REPORT AND PERIOD COvE«»e;
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
The Hyde Park landfill, approximately 15 acres in area, is located in the northwest
corner of the Town of Niagara, New York. It is immediately surrounded by several
industrial facilities and property owned by the Power Authority for the State of New
York (PASNY). Th Niagara River, an international waterbody, is located 2000 feet to -.h
northwest. Between 1954 and 1975, Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) disposed of
approximately 80,000 tons of chemical wastes at the landfill and 0.6 to 1.6 tons of
2, 3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) contaminated material. Between 1975 and
1979, OCC, pursuant to directives from the State, implemented a number of remedial
actions. These actions included capping the site, and installing a shallow tile drain
and a ground water monitoring program. Soil and ground water are contaminated with
VOCs, organics, toluene, phenol, PCBs and dioxin.
The selected remedy for this site includes: installation of a prototype purge well
system to extract non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) for destruction by incineration;
installation of an overburden tile drain system; implementation of engineering controls
for an industrial protection program designed to eliminate exposure to nearby workers;
installation of ground water wells as part of a residential community monitoring
program; installation of the first stage of a bedrock NAPL Plume Containment System ;
installation of two to three purge wells as an aqueous phase liquid (APL) Plume
(See attached sheet)
17.
a. OlSCNirroMS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b.lOENTIFlERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Enforcement Decision Document
Hyde Park, NY
Contaminated Media: soils, gw
Key contaminants: VOCs, organics, PCBs,
toluene, phenol
It. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS iTIiu Reporti
None
20. SECURITY CLASS iTIlit pagti
Mono
c. COSATi Field. Crou;
21. NO. o^ PAGES
79
22. PRICE
EPA firm 2220.1 (». 4-77) PREVIOUS coi TIOM it OSSOLCTC
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-86/038
Hyde Park, NY
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
Containment System; implemenation of a lower formation and deep formation
study; implementation of a Niagara Gorge Seep program; treatment of ground
water with activated carbon; implementation of a monitoring program. The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial alternative, is $17,000,000.
-------
Enforcement Decision Document
Remedial Alternative Selection
SITE; Hyde Park Landfill, Town of Niagara, New York
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED OR RELIED UPON
I am basing my decision on the Agreement and Stipulation for
the Hyde Park Landfill, on EPA staff and expert consultant
recommendations, information and analyses performed during the
negotiations, and their review and/or preparation of the following
documents describing the analysis of the remedial alternatives,
the factors in the National Contingency Plan, including cost and
effectiveness, and the standards in Paragraph 4 of the Hyde Park
Settlement Agreement. Among the documents that have been reviewed
and documents and advice considered are:
Hyde Park Aquifer Survey;
Occidental Chemical Corporation's (OCC) Requisite
Remedial Technology Study (RRT Study)(May 1984);
- EPA/State Response to OCC's RRT Study (September 5, 1984);
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection;
Affidavits and/or oral advice of Dr. Charles Faust,
Dr. Neil Shifrin, Dr. Brian Murphy, Dr. Joseph Rodricks,
Dr. Paul Jonmaire, and Livia Benavides. Some Affidavits
are final, others are still under preparation.
Hyde Park Landfill Evaluation of Excavation Option
(Benjamin Mason);
- Chemical Exposures from Fugitive Dust Emissions at
Hyde Park (Brian Murphy);
Risks from Chemical Releases Associated with Proposed
Excavation of the Hyde Park Landfill (Environ Corporation);
-------
-2-
- Responsiveness Summary?
Proposed Agreement and Stipulation Concerning
Requisite Remedial Technology for the Hyde Park
Landfill;
- Advice of Dr. Robert Lewis (ORD) and Rodney Turpin
(National Environmental Response Team), and
numerous other documents, including reports submitted
by the government of Canada and the Province of Ontario,
as well as advice received during the negotiations.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy consists of:
1) Source Control: Installation of a prototype purge
well system in the overburden inside the landfill
designed to extract non-aqueous phase liquids ("NAPL")
from the landfill for destruction by incineration. If
this system proves to be feasible, a final system will
be designed and implemented.
2) Installation of an overburden tile drain system
to contain and collect contaminated groundwater and
NAPL.
3) An industrial protection program which requires
implementation of engineering controls to eliminate
exposure to nearby workers.
-------
-3-
4j* A Residential Community Monitoring Program which
requires installation of groundwater wells in the
community to provide early warning and trigger further
action in the unlikely event that chemicals migrate
into nearby residential area.
5) A Bedrock NAPL Plume Containment System: A bedrock
purge well and recirculation well system which is
designed to prevent the further migration of contaminated
groundwater or NAPL laterally from inside the NAPL
plume in the Lockport Dolomite. The system will be
installed in stages, first, a prototype and then, when
sufficient data are available, a final system.
6) APL Plume Containment System: Installation of two
to three purge wells at the Niagara Gorge Face to
collect a significant portion (60 to 88%) of the
contaminated groundwater outside the NAPL plume. The
portions of the APL (Aqueous Phase Liquids)
plume not collected will be monitored and, if the
loading to the river (flux) exceeds flux action levels
(which are risk based and would result in less than
one-in-one million (< 1 x 10"6) lifetime cancer risk),
then OCC must perform additional remedial action to
reduce the flux to below the action flux level.
-------
-4-
7) Lower Formation and Deep Formation Study: Based on
j
data from new wells installed in Irondequoit and Reynales
formations, a t(5tal flux will be calculated (Lockport
plus lower formations) and, if the flux action levels
are exceeded, further remedies will be required to
reduce the loading to the river to below the flux
action level. If, based on the Lockport and intermediate
formations fluxes, certain flux levels are exceeded,
additional wells must be installed down to approximately
river level (350 feet) to determine if chemicals have
migrated to the deep formation. If they have, additional
wells will be installed and a flux estimated. The
total flux from the Lockport, Intermediate and Deep
Formations cannot exceed the flux action level or
additional remedial action is required.
8) Niagara Gorge Seep Program: Water seeps will be
diverted and soil either excavated or covered where
there is a potential for contamination.
9) Monitoring: Each program has a monitoring provision
and performance standards. If these criteria are not
met, further action must be taken.
10) The contaminated groundwater collected by the
remedial programs will be treated with activated carbon
as specified in the Stipulation and NAPL will be
incinerated.
-------
-5-
DECLARATIONS
Consistent w.ith the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation,"and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the National
Contingency Plan (40 C.F.R. Part 300), and the terms and conditions
of the Hyde Park Stipulation and Judgment Approving Settlement
Agreement, I have determined that this remedy at the Hyde Park
Landfill provides adequate protection of human health and the
environment; is requisite, within the meaning of Paragraph 4 of
the Judgment in the Settlement Agreement. The State of New York
is a co-plaintiff; has been a full participant in the negotiations
of this Stipulation; and agrees with the approved remedy. In
addition, the action will require OCC to operate and maintain
these remedies in the future to ensure the continued effectiveness
of the remedy as long as it is necessary to protect human health
and the environment. These monitoring and maintenance activities
are part of the approved action. A proposed Agreement and Stipula-
tion has been reached between EPA, the State and OCC based on the
selected remedy. I have also determined that EPA considered
cost-effectiveness in selecting remedial actions alternatives,
when compared to the other remedial options reviewed, including
excavation and landfilling and excavation and incineration.
That is, once an appropriate level of protection or other objective
standard was chosen, EPA evaluated which technology could reliably
accomplish that goal with the lowest cost.
Excavation is not a remedy of first choice now because .of the
severe health risk which would be involved in excavation and
-------
-6-
incineration of all the contents of the landfill and the
substantially increased costs which have no comparable benefits.
Excavation, however, is explicitly left open as an option in the
future if the containment system fails.
NOV 26S85
DATE (/'
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Attachments;
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
i. .-nmunity Relations Responsive Summary
Proposed Agreement and Stipulation
-------
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection
Hyde Park Landfill Town of Niagara, New York
I. Introduction
s
This Remedial Alternative Selection involves the selection
of additional remedial alternatives proposed as part of the
implementation of an existing Settlement Agreement with Occidental
Chemical Corporation ("OCC"). The Hyde Park Settlement Agreement
required OCC to implement certain specified remedies, but the bulk
of the remedies were to be determined after OCC obtained additional
field data, evaluated several remedial alternatives and the remedies
were reviewed and accepted by EPA and the State (this process
the equivalent of a Superfund or enforcement remedial investigation
and feasibility study "RI/FS", except that it was more extensive
than most RI/FSs performed by EPA. It is called in the Settlement
Agreement, an Aquifer Survey and Requisite Remedial Technology or
"RRT" Study).
As a result of OCC's implementation of the Aquifer Survey
and RRT Study and subsequent negotiations, the remedies specified
in the Agreement and Stipulation and summarized in this Summary have
been agreed to by EPA, State and OCC negotiators. This Agreement
and Stipulation modifies the Hyde Park Settlement Agreement to
require OCC to perform a comprehensive remedial program at the
site., primarily to address areas were there was no specified remedy
in the original Settlement Agreement. Other modifications have
been made to make the specified remedies in the original
Settlement Agreement compatible with the RRT remedies or because
new information is available. Further technical support for
this Stipulation is supplied in the affidavits, reports, and
other advice of EPA's technical experts.
II. Location and Description
The Hyde Park landfill is approximately 15 acres in area
and is located northwest of the City of Niagara Falls in the
northwest corner of the Town of Niagara (see Figure 1). It is
immediately surrounded by several industrial facilities and
property owned by the Power Authority for the State of New York
("PASNY"). There is a residential neighborhood to the northwest
and south of the landfill. The Niagara River, an international
waterbody, is located 2,000 feet to the northwest, down the
Niagara Gorge which descends approximately 350 feet below the
surface of the landfill (generally see the Affidavit of Dr.
Charles Faust).
OCC disposed of approximately 80,000 tons of chemical
wastes at the landfill, primarily chlorobenzenes (21%), benzoly
chloride (9%), C-56 wastes and derivatives (7%), and 2,4,5-
trichlorophenol still bottoms (4%) (Table 1), and an estimated
-------
-2-
0.6 to 1.6 tons of 2 ,3 ,7 ,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p_-dioxin ("TCDD")
(Affidavit of Dr. Neil Shifrin).
III. Chronology/Procedural History
1954 - 1975: OCC disposed of 80,000 tons of wastes.
1975: OCC Closed the landfill;
1975 - 79: OCC, pursuant to directives from the
State, implemented a number of remedial actions
(capping the site; installing a shallow tile drain
and a groundwater monitoring program in the top
fifteen of the bedrock);
December 1979: The Federal government filed a
lawsuit seeking complete cleanup of the site;
1981: The federal, state, local governments, and
OCC entered the Settlement Agreement;
1981: During the public comment period, there
were numerous adverse public comments and
a request for an evidentiary hearing (See
Responsiveness Summary);
September and October of 1981: The Court required
briefs to be filed and ordered a seven day evidentiary
hearing on the adequacy of the Settlement Agreement.
EPA, the State, OCC and representatives of local and
Canadian environmental groups presented witnesses
and these witnessess were cross-examined.
April 30, 1982: The Court approved the Settlement
Agreement, calling it the "best possible solution
to the problem given all the circumstances."
1983: OCC submitted the Aquifer Survey required
by the Settlement Agreement.
May 1984: OCC submitted its RRT Study.
September 5, 1984: EPA and the State responded
("EPA/State Response") to OCC's RRT Study. EPA/State
concluded that it was inadequate and proposed
modifications, additions and alternative remedies.
August 1984 - present: EPA, the State and OCC have
been negotiating the appropriate RRT remedies. EPA
assembled a multidisplicinary team of experts,
in hydrogeology, health, and fate of chemicals among
others areas, to advise EPA during the negotiations
-------
(costing over $1 million). Numerous Agency experts
from the Office of Research and Development, the
Emergengy Response Team, the Great Lakes National
Program Office, and other offices have been consulted
and involved. Substantial effort has been made to
* solicit public comment during the negotiations.
0 On October 2, 1985: Technical and legal issues
were resolved.
IV. Extent of Contamination
Geology and Hydrogeology
The geology of the area is characterized by an overburden
with relatively low permeability (approximately 0 to 30 feet
thick), overlain on top of bedrock. Bloody Run Creek is a drainage
channel that flows from the northwest corner of the landfill
directly north, eventually into storm sewers, and down the Niagara
Gorge Face into the Niagara River. The bedrock is composed of
various layers starting with the Lockport Dolomite (approximately
100 feet thick, Figure 2), followed by the Rochester Shale (60
feet), and several layers divided between the Intermediate (the
Irondequoit/Renayles) and Deeper Formations (everything below
the Irondequoit/Reynales and above the Queenston Shale) in the
Settlement Agreement (Faust Affidavit).
The groundwater in the overburden moves toward the
northwest toward the Gorge Face and strongly downward into the
bedrock (see Figure 3). The groundwater in the bedrock moves
downward and laterally, primarily in the northwest direction
towards the Gorge Face, which acts as a giant natural drain
pulling the bedrock groundwater toward the Gorge Face (Figure 4
for flow near the site). Some of the bedrock groundwater emerges
from the Gorge Face as seeps or springs (see Figure 5: A map
showing the locations of those seeps which have been sampled).
The water from the seeps flows overland through Devil's Hole
State Park into the Niagara River and the bedrock groundwater
that does not emerge as seeps flows into the Niagara River
underneath the ground surface at the gorge (id.)
The chemicals at the site migrate primarily in two phases: .
(1) chemicals dissolved in the groundwater (called aqueous phase
liquids or "APL") and (2) a primarily, heavier-than-water phase
that migrates down through and along the slope of the bedrock
under the influence of gravity (called non-aqueous phase liquids
or "NAPL")(id. and Shifrin Affidavit).
Figure 6 illustrates the extent of contamination in the
overburden as determined using criteria in the Settlement
Agreement (assuming the edge of the plume is halfway between
the last 'dirty1 and first 'clean' well). The area within the
-------
-4-
dashed lines in Figure 6 represents the general area where NAPL
has been found and the area between the dashed line and the
solid line where just APL is present.
Much of the contamination in the Bloody Run drainage basin
area (north of the landfill) is likely to have been a result of
the infiltration of surface runoff during the period when
chemicals were disposed of at the landfill, not groundwater flow
from the landfill.
The area where the overburden plume is closest to homes
or apartments is west of the landfill. The lateral movement of
the overburden APL plume is extremely slow because of the type
of soil in the area. Based on an in depth review of the data and
a house-by-house survey by DEC, it is the professional judgment of
the EPA and State experts that it is highly unlikely that the plume
has actually crossed Hyde Park Boulevard or that anyone is presently
being exposed or will likely be exposed in the immediate future
to the Hyde Park APL plumes in the overburden or the bedrock
(Faust Affidavit, Shifrin Affidavit, and the advice of Dr. Brian
Murphy, to be documented in an Affidavit and hereinafter referred
to as the "Murphy Affidavit").
Figures 7, 8, and 9 respectively show the extent of
contamination in the bedrock as determined using the criteria in
the Settlement Agreement, a contour map of the TOH in the
groundwater from upper Lockport Dolomite bedrock, and a contour
map of the TOH in the groundwater from the lowest level in the
Lockport Dolomite bedrock. In Figure 7, a well is considered
'dirty1 if any chemical or survey parameter was detected at any
depth at the location of the well. The area within the dashed
lines on Figure 8 is the area where NAPL was found (at some depth)
in the bedrock and the area between the dashed and solid lines
is where APL was found at some point in the bedrock. This data
shows that the APL plume is a different shape at various depths
in the bedrock (Faust Affidavit).
The extent of contamination is consistent with our
knowledge of the site and the hydrogeological data.
Chemical Composition
The leachate and APL plume are composed primarily of benzoic
acids, chlorobenzoic acids, chlorendic acid, and phenol (Table 2).
The known major components of NAPL are dichlorotoluene, chlorotoulene,
toluene, tetrachloroethylene, phenol, methly benzoate, benzoic acid
and benzochlorotrifluorides. At least 20 ppm of TCDD and substantial
amounts of PCBs have also been detected in NAPL (Table 3). However,
at present, 40-50% of the constituents of NAPL are high molecular
weight compounds which have not been identified by library matching
of mass spectra from gas chromatograph mass spectrometry analyses
("GC/MS")(Shifrin Affidavit).
-------
-5-
Part per million levels of TOH, phenol and other chemicals
have been detected in the bedrock groundwater seeping out of the
Gorge Face since August 1984 (Table 2). TCDD has been detected
in the bedrock groundwater within the NAPL plume at between 0.44
to 0.9 parts per trillion (ppt) and in the bedrock groundwater
seeping out of the Gorge Face at 0.18 ppt (id.).
V. Terms of the Settlement Agreement
The Settlement Agreement required OCC to perform certain
field studies to define the extent of the contamination in the
overburden and Lockport Dolomite, assess the remedial alternatives
available, and determine what, if any, additional data gathering
was necessary. If a technology is determined either by the parties
(EPA, the State and OCC) or the Court to be "requisite," i.e., it
is a Requisite Remedial Technology (see Paragraph 4 of the Judgment),
OCC must implement such technology.
In determining whether a technology is "requisite", one must
consider whether it is an "engineering or construction practice
used or accepted for use in landfill containment or other industrial
projects which are applicable to the materials and hydrogeologic
conditions found at the Landfill," the "nature of the endangerment
to human health and the environment," the "extent to which the
application of the Remedial Technology would reduce such endangerment
... or would otherwise benefit human health or the environment;
and the economic costs required to apply the Remedial Technology"
(Paragraph 4(a) and (b) of the Judgment). If there is a dispute,
Paragraph 4(c) of the Judgment requires OCC to apply the RRT
proposed by EPA and/or the State:
unless, upon the evidence, the Court
determines:
(i) that application of such technology is unnecessary
to satisfy the goal described in subparagraph (a) or
(ii) that, considering the factors described in
subparagraphs (a) or (b), it would be arbitrary and
capricious to require Hooker [OCC] to bear the
economic costs incurred in applying such technology.
(Paragraph 4(c) of the Judgment).
The Court Opinion approving the Settlement Agreement
characterized RRT process as an "enormously flexible" concept.
United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 530 F. Supp.
1067, 1077 (W.D.N.Y. 1982).
EPA used these factors, as well as the almost identical
factors required for private party cleanup by the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 C.F.R.
300.68(c), in evaluating OCC's and our own consultant's remedial
proposals.
-------
-6-
VI. Summary of Proposed Remedial Actions and Evaluation Alternatives
The remedial program is outlined in the proposed Stipulation
(and Appendixes). The following is a summary of the remedies and
their justfifications. The detailed rationale for selection of the
remedies are provided in the Affidavits and advice of EPA experts
and other supporting documents. Some decisions were made based
on the best professional" judgment of our experts which was
communicated orally during the negotiations.
The remedial program in the Stipulation should be viewed
as a whole. No one system, e.g. Source Control or the Bedrock
APL Plume RRT, is complete in itself. In the opinion of the
negotiating team and other experts involved in the negotiations,
these systems together adequately protect the public health and
the environment and satisfy the requirements of the National
Contigency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, and in the opinion of Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring-Waste ("OEM") and
Department of Justice ("DOJ") equal to or exceeds what could be
obtained through litigation.
SOURCE CONTROL (40 CFR 300.68(e)(2))
In its RRT Study, OCC did not propose to implement any
source control measures, although they considered and rejected
lateral drains, extraction wells, and excavation as remedial
alternatives. The EPA/State Response indicated that OCC had
provided insufficient documentation that such systems were
not "requisite", as defined in the Settlement Agreement,
Paragraph 4 of the Judgment (EPA/State Response, at p. 3-03).
EPA/State proposed that OCC consider and better evaluate
extraction wells, lateral drains, and excavation (although it
was noted that excavation was not a remedy of first choice) and
that OCC consider grouting the bedrock beneath the landfill alone
or in conjunction with another remedy (id. at p. 3-05 to 3-10).
EPA and the State considered excavation, purge wells, and
lateral drains during the negotiations. The proposed Stipulation
requires OCC to implement a prototype extraction well system to
determine whether extracting NAPL from the landfill is feasible
(Section 2.2 of the Stipulation see Figure 10 and Faust Affidavit).
The information gathered from the prototype system will be used
to design a final extraction system. In the opinion of EPA's
experts, a final system will be feasible (id.)
The NAPL extracted from these wells and all other remedies
in Stipulation is required to be destroyed through incineration
(Paragraph E(5) of Addendum I of the Settlement Agreement) and
the APL must be treated with activated carbon (Section 10.0 of the
Stipulation.)
-------
-7-
The other alternatives were evaluated during the negotiations
and were deemed not appropriate at this time. EPA prepared an
extensive evaluation of health risks, feasibility and costs of
total excavation of the historic landfill and other highly
contaminated areas (Reports of Dr. Benjamin Mason, Dr. Brian
Murphy, arid Environ Corp., 1985, hereinafter referred to as the
"Excavation'Report").
The results of the Excavation Report indicates that (a)
there would be extremely .high health risks from total excavation
(greater than 1 in 100 risk); (b) there is no reliable fully
tested, existing dust and vapor suppression technology that
could lower the risk from excavation of this magnitude to an
acceptable level; and (c) the costs of total excavation and
either reburial or incineration was extremely high, between
$125 million (for the low estimate for off-site landfilling)
and over $3 billion (for the high estimate for on-site incineration)
not including all costs.
This study also concluded that there was no landfill
which was legally permitted to accept the chemicals, soils, and
other debris, particularly because of the high levels of TCDD,
and there are no existing commercial incinerators capable of
incinerating or permitted to incinerate the contaminated soils
and other debris at the Hyde Park site (although recent EPA
research has demonstrated that TCDD contaminated soil can be
incinerated)(id.).
The Excavation Study also briefly examined a dust suppression
technology (use of a movable inflatable dome) for adaptation to
hazardous waste site remedial construction. Use of such a technology
under these circumstances would require considerable development
and testing before it could be approved for use given the extremely
hazardous atmosphere that would be created inside the dome during
total excavation of the site.
EPA has approved or recommended partial or total excavation
in other cases, e.g., the Westinghouse, Wilsonville, Petro Processors,
and the McColl cases. As part of EPA's consideration of excavation,
EPA staff investigated the facts of these cases and found that
these other sites involved either excavation of smaller volumes
of wastes, wastes contained in drums or capacitors; and none
presented anywhere near the health risk.
Wilsonville involved primarily the reburial of containerized
PCB waste. That site was located over abandoned mines which were
subject to subsistence. No similar geological feature exists at
Hyde Park and the wastes were primarily poured into the ground
not in containers. Petro Processors involves emptying open
lagoons containing nonaqueous phase liquids (mostly trichloroethylene)
and excavation of a relatively small areas.
-------
-8-
At the McColl site, the wastes are also less toxic than at
Hyde Park. Test excavations have been performed at McColl
and these tests indicated that there are potential hazards
from volatization of organic vapors during excavation. These
tests also., evaluated the feasibility of reducing the potential
hazard through^ the use of foaming agents. No excavation has
yet been perfo'rmed at this site because two state courts have
enjoined reburial at two. potential sites. Further evaluation
of the appropriate remedies at this site is continuing.
In the Westinghouse case, the defendant offered to
excavate and incinerate approximately 650,000 cubic yards of
chemicals, soil and municipal wastes. The primary chemical
in the Westinghouse case was PCBs which were contained in
old capacitors. This situation is completely different
from Hyde Park where liquids were disposed of in open pits
and have migrated through the overburden and bedrock. Also,
EPA experts in that case concluded that a remedial system to
contain and clean up the chemicals in the bedrock was
not feasible. Unlike the Hyde Park case, no formal risk
assessment of the effects of excavation was performed in this
case.
The Westinghouse consent decree gives Westinghouse 15
years from the date the incinerator permit is issued to
destroy the wastes and soil. However, local citizens groups
have vigorously opposed excavation and incineration in court
because of concerns about health and safety and the date of
implementation is uncertain.
The health risks from excavation of all of these
other sites was found by EPA not to be substantial, unlike
Hyde Park situation where excavation would present substantial
risks.
The negotiators and experts have concluded that at this
time excavation of this site was not acceptable based on
public health and environmental risks; feasibility; the enormous
costs; and the magnitude of the benefits.
In the judgment of OECM-W and DOJ the costs were so
high that such a remedy would not be ordered by a court
without a substantial showing of a benefit and, if the remedies
required by the proposed Stipulation are effective, no such
showing was likely.
It should be noted that all the remedies specified in
the Stipulation (except the extraction wells in Section 2.0)
would have to be implemented, even if excavation occurred
immediately, because NAPL has migrated into the overburden and
bedrock outside the historic landfill. Also, because of the
presence of NAPL offsite, particularly in the bedrock, these
systems will be operated for a very long time.
-------
-9-
Based on the advice of our experts and a report submitted
by OCC, grouting was not considered worth pursuing at this
time because some amount of NAPL would continue to enter the
bedrock (e.ven with the best grouting techniques); over time
that amount, would increase; it may not be feasible to effectively
grout the upper bedrock because of the presence of NAPL in
those cracks and fissures; and the cost were considered to
be very high compared to the benefits (at this time)(Faust
Affidavit; Conestoga-Rovers, Grouting Report; and other
information available to EPA).
The Stipulation, however, requires the reconsideration of
these alternatives, including excavation, in the future if;IT
the information from the prototype system indicates that no
extraction well system is feasible; 2) Hyde Park chemical are
found in the Rochester Shale and the Lockport RRT will not prevent
NAPL from migrating below the Rochester Shale; 3) Hyde Park
chemicals are found in the Intermediate or Deep Formations and
NAPL is migrating below the Rochester Shale; or (4) the RRT in
the Lockport Dolomite is not working (Section 2.3(A)(1, 2, 3,
and 4 of the Stipulation).
Excavation is only precluded from further consideration
if "OCC is required by the Court to implement an operational
grouting program proposed by EPA/State" and even in that case,
excavation can be require if there is
a substantial failure to meet the performance monitoring
criteria of any bedrock system and such substantial
failure cannot be addressed by modifying any existing
system or using jln situ technology.
(Section 2.3(B)(2) of the Stipulation).
This standard is consistent with the Court's opinion approving
the Hyde Park Settlement Agreement:
It is possible that Hooker tests and studies regarding
migration of chemicals will demonstrate that no
containment program will meet the performance standards.
It is possible that the governmental parties in their
capacities as supervisors of Hooker's proposal
for RRT will conclude that the containment programs
are inadequate. If such is the case, then ultimately
Hooker may be forced to excavate the materials as
part of a remedial program.
United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics. Corp. , 530 F.Supp.
at 1079.
-------
-10-
It should be noted that grouting may also be considered
for use in conjunction with other source control methods to
enhance recovery of NAPL, if necessary.
The original Settlement Agreement had a provision which
required maintenance of the remedial systems in the Settlement
for 35 years (the term of the Settlement Agreement), but
allowed OCC terminate the limited bedrock purge well system
specified in the Settlement Agreement earlier, if OCC demonstrated
to EPA and the State that specified conditions had occurred.
(Paragraph F of Addendum III). This provision also required
resumption of the system of other specified conditions occurred.
All the remedial systems in the settlement, however, could
be required to be extended upon a showing to the Court that it was
"necessary to effectuate the purposes and goals of this Judgment"
(Paragraph G of Addendum III), i.e., the remedies are necessary
to protect human health and the environment (see Joint Response
to Court's order of February 12, 1981 (March 17, 1985).
Each of the major remedial programs, including Source
Control, contains such a provision. In the case of the prototype
purge well system, starting five years after the final cap is
placed on the site (which is the last construction activity at
the site), OCC may try to convince either EPA and the State
or, if necessary, a Court that such system is no longer requisite,
as defined in Paragarph 4 of the Judgment (Section 2.3(D)).
OCC can only turn off a system, if both EPA and the State
agree or, if a Court orders it after an evidentiary hearing. The
negotiators accepted this provision because it is consistent with
the original Settlement Agreement and, in their opinion, places a
heavy burden on OCC. Although it was recognized by all the parties
to the negotiations that the containment system as a whole will
will have to be operated for a very, very long time, there may
be portions of the system, which can be turned off at some point.
The Stipulation also contains provisions that would allow
EPA and the State to either extend operation of an existing system
(Section 2.3(E)) or resume the operation of a system that has been
turned off through the procedure specified in the termination
provision (Section 2.3(F)).
OVERBURDEN RRT/RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY MONITORING PROGRAM
[Source Control - 40 CFR 300.68(e)(2) and Offsite Remedial
Action - 40 CFR 300.68(e)(3)]
One of the specified remedies in the original Settlement
Agreement was a new, deeper tile drain around the site (Figure 11).
OCC's RRT proposed a similar, but differently designed tile drain
to contain and collect APL and NAPL within the historic boundaries
of the landfill and to contain and collect the NAPL and APL plumes
-------
-11-
which have already moved offsite and would not be collected by the
Bedrock RRT.
The EPA/State Response accepted the concept of a new
deep tile drain with a different design, but proposed certain
modifications and required more information to ensure that the
tile drain pr_the Bedrock RRT would contain and collect the
overburden APL and NAPL or that the overburden APL or NAPL would
not endanger human health before the APL or NAPL entered the
bedrock (EPA/State Response, at pp. 4-02 to 03; 5-02 to 03).
The Overburden RRT, the Industrial Protection Program,
and the Residential Community Monitoring Plan ("CMP") satisfy
the EPA and State requirements.
(1) Overburden RRT
The Overburden RRT in the Stipulation consists of (a)
implementing an overburden plume survey (see Figure 12 and
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2) to refine our knowledge of the extent
of the APL and NAPL plumes in the overburden, (b) installing a
deeper tile drain system around the landfill (the overburden
collection system or "OBCS" - Figure 12 and Sections 3.2, 3.4);
(c) identifying and addressing any hot spots which constitute
a human health endangerment which is not addressed by the tile
drain system (Section 3.4); and (d) installing and operating a
monitoring system (Sections 3.5 - 3.7)(Faust Affidavit).
The purpose of the OBCS is to contain the lateral migration
of the overburden NAPL plume and, to the extent practicable,
contain the APL plume. Hyde Park chemicals must either be contained
and collected by one of three sets of systems: the OBCS; the
Bedrock RRT; or the remedies previously specified in the Settlement
Agreement. The specified remedies in the original Settlement
Agreement address the contamination in Bloody Run Creek (Paragraphs
G and H of Addendum I) and the chemicals migrating in sewers
near the landfill (Paragraph B(4) of Addendum I).
In effect, it will be designed to stop the outward migration
of chemicals from the landfill in the overburden APL plume. That
portion of the overburden plume not pulled back into the OBCS
will move down into the bedrock and be collected by one of the
remedial systems installed in the bedrock (id.).
Each remedial program has its own effectiveness monitoring.
The tile drain will be monitored by ensuring the groundwater is
flowing toward the drain or downward into the bedrock and by
checking wells to ensure that NAPL does not enter (Figure 12 and
Section 3.6). If the inward gradient is not achieved or NAPL is
detected, the plume will be redefined and the tile drain system
modified (^d_.). If after a modification, the tile drain system
still does not work, OCC must perform another RRT study to determine
-------
-13-
that the overburden and APL bedrock plumes would not present an
endangerment to human health or environment.
The CMP is designed to address EPA, State, and the
community's concern that there might be an endangerment either
before the remedies are installed or before they become fully
effective/
Based on existing data and other information, EPA and the
State are of the opinion that there is no present residential
exposure to the local residents from the Hyde Park chemical plumes
and such exposure is highly unlikely to occur in the immediate future
(Faust Affidavit, Shifrin Affidavit, and Murphy Affidavit).
However, as a matter of prudent public policy, EPA and the
State have included a Residential Community Monitoring to "supplement
these other programs by monitoring to provide 'early warning' of
APL plume migration toward- residential areas, taking all feasible
actions to prevent or remediate such migration to residential
areas and taking any additional action required to protect those
living in the Hyde Park-Bloody Run area" (Section 8.2).
As soon as possible after the Stipulation is initially
lodged with the Court, OCC is required to submit detailed plans, .
specifications and protocols (Section 1.1.1). The program consists
of installing 8 monitoring well pairs, one in the overburden and
on in the upper bedrock (Figure 13) and monitoring water elevations
and chemicals in groundwater, or, if necessary, the air in the
unsaturated overburden (Faust Affidavit).
If the Community Early Warning Parameters (Table 4, Section
9.8) are detected, indicating the potential for exposure, OCC is
required to prevent exposure or implement additional remedies to
remediate exposure, to the extent economically and technically
feasible (Faust Affidavit). OCC will also monitor more frequently
and perform complete GC/MS survey of the groundwater (analysis
for highly polychlorinated dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans
at 0.5 parts per trillion). The analysis will enable a better
assessment of the endangerment (Section 8.5.2).
EPA and the State may also seek additional remedies if
"EPA/State demonstrates (1) that the action is necessary to prevent
or remediate human health endangerment to residents or chemical
odors on residential properties and (2) that the action proposed to
address such endangerment or odors is requisite, as defined in
Paragraph 4 of the Judgment" (Section 8.6.3). This is the standard
in the Settlement Agreement and in the opinion of OECM and DOJ is
favorable to EPA/State.
The Community Early Warning Parameters were chosen as good
indicators of the movement of the APL plume into overburden.
In the opinion of our experts, they will provide early warning
of the movement of the APL plume (Shifrin Affidavit).
-------
-12-
what additional remedies might be effective and necessary
(Section 3.6.3). Since there are no limits on the technologies
to be evaluated during RRT, OCC must also reconsider excavation
at this time.
As inoted before, there are termination, extension, and
resumption provisions for this system also (see Section 3.7).
The resumption provision requires OCC to maintain all facilities
and equipment related to" the tile drain system for a period of
35 years, even if the system has been terminated following the
procedures in the Stipulation. This provision requires more
than what was in the original Settlement Agreement and was added
so that the deterioation of equipment could not be used as reason
that resumption was not requisite (too costly).
(2) Industrial Protection Program [Offsite Remedial Action -
40 CFR 300.68(e)(3)]
The EPA/State Response required OCC to address whether
or not the APL and NAPL plumes could threaten public health
(at pp. 4-03 and 5-03). During the negotiations, EPA and the State
identified two populations at potential risk, the workers in the
nearby industries and the local residents.
EPA, State and OCC personnel and consultants toured the
local industries and examined the blueprints for the industries
(Advice of Dr. Paul Jonmaire, to be documented in an affidavit
and hereinafter referred to as the "Jonmaire Affidavit"). As a
result, an Industrial Protection Program was developed (Section
3.5 and Section 3.8). The Industrial Protection Program lists a
number of specific actions were identified which would eliminate
the potential of exposure, e.g., provide a seal to sump lid in
Laboratory Building (f 106) at TAM Ceramics. In the opinion of
EPA's experts, these measures will prevent exposure to Hyde Park
chemicals (id. ).
Because the overburden is contaminated, OCC will request
that any property owner or public agency contact OCC before
initiating construction activity below ground within the APL or
NAPL plumes (Section 3.9). OCC will inform EPA and the State and
they will advise whoever is contemplating such construction of
the appropriate health and safety requirements. EPA and the State
will notify the local governments, and request that EPA and the
State be notified of any applications for construction in the
contaminated area and similar advise will be provided by OCC and
EPA/State. The legal rights and liabilities between OCC and such
landowners are not addressed nor affected by this Stipulation
(Section 1.6).
(3) Residential Community Monitoring Program
There was no Community Monitoring Program ("CMP") in OCC's
RRT or the EPA/State response. The parties agreed to develop a
specific separate program in order to address EPA/State's concern
-------
-14-
Since it is theoretically possible that some monitoring
on residential property might possibly be needed, EPA is
giving the State $250,000 for such monitoring. Additional
monitoring if necessary could be done by EPA. Furthermore,
if EPA or the State perform such monitoring, they may obtain
reimbursement from OCC for the usual reimbursable costs, i.e.,
normal administrative overhead costs are not reimbursable
(Section 8.5.1.2.)
OCC is not required to perform monitoring inside of homes
or monitoring which requires "construction on residential property
or otherwise significantly affects the use and enjoyment of such
property" unless such monitoring (1) is required to provide data
for the design of a remedial technology; (2) is necessary to
measure the effectiveness of a technology that is installed; or
(3) EPA/State have performed such monitoring for at least one year
and obtained reimbursement for such monitoring from the Court
(Sections 8.6.2 and 8.6.3). As indicated above, the proposed
Stipulation provides that EPA and the State will perform
any such monitoring.
In the opinion of the negotiation team and the experts,
this program will protect the public health and is extraordinarily
broad and comprehensive, yet flexible (id., Faust Affidavit, and
Murphy Affidavit). The fact that OCC wTTl not monitor inside
homes does not adversely affect protection of human health or
EPA since EPA's monitoring costs can be recovered from OCC, in
this situation, requiring monitoring by OCC inside homes might
be perceived as appropriate, and requiring OCC to perform such
monitoring might undermine confidence in the data and the
program.
EPA has prepared a background document on the CMP for use
by the public during the public comment period.
LOCKPORT BEDROCK RRT/GORGE FACE SEEPS
[Offsite Remedial Action [40 CFR 300.68(e)(3)]
OCC's RRT considered approximately 10 different remedial
alternatives or combinations of alternatives for remedying
contamination in the Lockport Dolomite, including purge wells
installed in the top 15 feet of bedrock, purge wells installed
throughout the Lockport Dolomite, and excavation (see Attachment
2: The list of alternative remedial technologies from the RRT
Study). OCC proposed a purge well hydraulic system to contain
both the APL and NAPL within the NAPL plume in the Lockport
(the area within the darker line on Figure 8), tests to determine
if a vertical grout curtain wall would reduce groundwater
inflow (and thereby reduce treatment costs), and a study to
determine if the Rochester Shale (the next geological formation)
would prevent vertical migration of chemicals. This remedy
-------
-15-
would be installed in phases.
OCC proposed no remedy for the APL plume outside the NAPL
plume (the area between the solid line and the dotted line on
Figure 8), because there would be an insignificant benefit from
such a remedy (the risk estimated by OCC without an APL remedy
was 1.9 x 10~8 and with a remedy was 0.94 x 10~8). OCC also proposed
no remedy for the Gorge Face seeps because no data on contamination at
the seeps was available'at the time the RRT Study was prepared.
After reviewing the alternatives, the EPA/State Response
accepted in principle hydraulic containment of the NAPL plume,
suggested modifications to OCC's design (including the addition
of recirculation wells); requested more details; questioned the
effectiveness of grouting; and requested more information on the
other alternatives (at p. 7-05 to 7-06). EPA and the State
also pointed out numerous deficiencies in OCC's risk assessment,
particularly the omission of TCDD (at pp. 9-01 to 9-18), and
concluded that OCC had not demonstrated that containment of the
entire APL plume was not "requisite" (id. at p. 6-03 to 6-05).
There are three interrelated systems in the Stipulation
designed to address the chemicals in the Lockport Dolomite as they
migrate laterally from the landfill towards and at the Gorge Face.t
(1) the NAPL Plume Containment System (Sections 4.2.1 and 4.3);
(2) the APL Plume Containment System (Sections 4.2.2 and 4.4);
and (3) the Gorge Face Seep Program (Section 7.0). These systems
are described below. Sections 5.0 and 6.0 address the potential
for vertical migration of chemicals, and are discussed in the
next section of this memorandum.
(1) NAPL Plume Containment System
The purpose of the NAPL Plume Containment System ("NAPL
System") is to contain, to the extent practicable, APL and NAPL
within the NAPL plume in the Lockport Dolomite and to maximize the
collection of NAPL (Section 4.1). The NAPL System, as a practical
matter, will contribute to the elimination of seepage of chemicals
at the Gorge Face (Section 4.1 and Faust Affidavit).
First, an additional eight wells will be installed to refine
the exact present lateral extent of the NAPL plume (Figure 14 and
Section 4.3.1.1 and Faust Affidavit). Because there is insufficient
hydrogeological data to design and implement a final system now,
OCC will install a prototype system and design the final system
in phases, as more data becomes available. This allows a remedy
to be installed immediately, yet provides that the final remedy
be based on adequate data (id.).
Initially, four purge wells, two recirculation wells and
three cluster monitoring wells will be installed (Figure 15 and
-------
-16-
Sections 4.3.2, 4.3.4 and 4.3.6.1). A number of field tests,
e.g. pump, injection, packer, and tracer tests, laboratory tests,
will be performed (Section 4.3.5) and other data collected
(Sections 4.3.6.2 and 4.4.1.2). More wells can be added as
warranted by the data. The design of the final NAPL System
will be based on this data (Section 4.3.7.2)(id.).
s ~
The final system will be monitored hydraulicly to ensure
that the flow of the bedrock groundwater is inward toward the
landfill, chemically to ensure that there is no statistically
significant increase in the major components of the chemicals
in the groundwater after the system is installed and stabilized,
and visually for the presence of NAPL (Section 4.3.7.3).
Sixteen piezometer well pairs will be installed around
the landfill (with at least one piezometer in each pair outside
the NAPL plume). The eight initial NAPL plume definition wells
(called performance monitoring wells) will be used to monitor
Total Organic Halogens (TOH) and the NAPL System effectiveness
monitoring chemicals (Figure 14 and Table 4)(Shifrin Affidavit).
These chemicals comprise the major chemicals in leachate and
bedrock groundwater and in the opinion of our experts will detect
any system failure (id.).
If NAPL is found in any performance monitoring well, a
statistically significant increase occurs in TOH or any two of
the specific monitoring chemicals, or the inward gradient is
not met, the NAPL System must be modified or, if necessary,
supplemented with additional purge wells (Sections 4.3.8.1 and
4.3.8.2). If there is a statistically significant increase in
only one specific chemical (an unlikely event if there is
leakage, Shifrin Affidavit), then OCC must perform an assessment
to determine the reason for the increase (Section 4.3.8.1). The
90% loading effectiveness criteria was specified in the Settlement
Agreement for the bedrock purge well system in the top 15 feet
of the Lockport (the Bedrock Barrier Collection System or "BBCS",
Paragraph J(l) of Addendum II). Since the NAPL Containment System
is not the BBCS, this criteria is not applicable to the NAPL
Containment System.
If these corrective actions do not work, OCC is obligated
to perform an RRT Study to determine what technology, if any, will
meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and re-evaluate
source control (including excavation) (Section 4.3.8.2).
As with all the remedial systems, there are termination,
extension, and resumption provisions. OCC cannot attempt to
terminate the NAPL system until after 17 years initial operation
of the prototype purge well system, however, after 7 years, any
party may propose termination criteria and if no agreement is
reached by EPA, State and OCC, any party may petition the Court
to set appropriate criteria, i.e., criteria consistent with the
objectives of the NAPL System and Paragraph 4 of the Judgment
-------
-17-
(Section 4.3.9.1). In addition to the extension and resumption
provisions, OCC must maintain all NAPL effectiveness monitoring
wells for 35 years after the effective date of the Settlement
Agreement. As discussed previously, all maintenance activities
may be extended beyond 35 years by order of the Court (Paragraph
G of Addendum III of the Judgment).
j
In the'opinion of the negotiating team and its experts,
the final NAPL System will prevent the continued lateral migration
of APL and NAPL within the NAPL plume and maximize the collection
of NAPL (id. and Faust Affidavit). The vertical migration of
NAPL and APL within the NAPL plume will be addressed by the
Intermediate and Deep Formation programs (Sections 5.0 and 6.0,
described below).
(2) APL Plume Containment System
The single most difficult issue in the negotiations was
obtaining additional remedial action for the APL plume located
outside the NAPL plume (Figure 8). Under the standard in the
Settlement Agreement, the major issue was whether an APL Plume
remedy was "requisite", i.e. , whether imposing the cost of an
APL remedy was arbitrary and capricious compared to the benefit
(i.e., the reduction in endangerment or risk).
As with virtually all risk assessments, there was
insufficient objective data to conclusively determine the risk
and therefore worst case assumptions had to be used (Advice of
Dr. Joseph Rodricks, to be documented in an affidavit and
hereinafter referred to as the "Rodricks Affidavit"). Rather
than requiring OCC to submit a revised written risk assessment
(which would be time-consuming and inefficient), OCC agreed for
the purposes of negotiations, that the various experts would
discuss the appropriate assumptions and once these assumptions
were agreed upon, the risk calculations would be performed by
EPA's health effects consultants (Dr. Rodrick's and his staff at
Environ), using EPA risk assessment procedures.
A wide variety of assumptions were evaluated. The total
potential cancer risk from the site was found to be dependent
only on TCDD exposure from eating fish. The TCDD level in
fish in turn is dependant on the concentration of TCDD in the APL
plume and the fish bioaccumulation factor for TCDD (how much TCDD
accumulates in fish tissue as a result of a given amount entering
the Niagara River)(Rodricks Affidavit and Affidavit of Livia
Benevides).
The worst case assumption used in this risk assessment are
as follows. The TCDD concentration in the APL plume over the
next 70 years was assumed to equal 20% of the average present
value, i.e., 0.04 ppt (based on New York Department of Health
measurements of TCDD at 0.2 ppt in one seep). There is uncertainty
in this number, however, that uncertainty will be considerably
lessened during the implementation of the proposed Stipulation.
-------
-18-
The flow of contaminated groundwater was assumed to be 54
gpm. Only a portion of the APL plume is now entering the
Niagara River. The flow of that portion is less than 54 gpm
and the concentration of the southwest portion of the plume is
approximately ten times less than the northwest. However, since
what is important is lifetime risks and without an APL remedy all
54 gpm would e-ventually reach the riverr it is an appropriate
worst case assumption.
The risk assessment also used EPA's worst case bioaccumulation
assumption for TCDD, Mirex, Hexachlorobenzene and PCBs (680,000 for
TCDD)(Benevides Affidavit) and the EPA cancer potency factors.
If the EPA Water Quality Criteria bioconcentration factor for
TCDD (5,000) is used, the lifetime risk from TCDD would be l/136tn
the worst case estimate.
Using these assumptions the upperbound lifetime (70 year)
cancer risk from the average level of all chemicals in the APL
plume (assuming no APL remedy but containment of the NAPL plume)
would be at approximately 0.2 x 10~° (Rodricks Affidavit).
A back calculation of chemical concentrations in the APL
plume that would result in a 1 x 10~*> lifetime risk from fish
consumption also indicates that only TCDD is likely to be in the .
APL plume at such concentrations (Rodricks Affidavit).
The concentrations in the Niagara River resulting from
Hyde Park discharges were compared to existing Niagara River
concentrations and water quality standards and criteria, including
the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Only TCDD, PCBs,
Mirex and Chloroform exceed water quality standards (the first
three because of levels in fish, not water)(see Tables 5,6,7, and
8 and the Shifrin Affidavit).
Based in this information, the feasibility and costs of
a remedy and other factors, the parties agreed upon the following:
(1) Installing two purge wells at the Gorge Face
(Figure 16 and Section 4.4.1.1). They will be pumped
to ensure the groundwater is flowing inward toward the
center of the remediated area and to eliminate seepage
to Gorge Face, but at a level not to exceed 15 gallons
per minute ("gpm")(Section 4.4.1.1). An additional well
may be installed if the flow in the area to be remediated
does not converge or if it is requested by EPA and the
State to further reduce or eliminate seepage (Section
4.4.1.1 and Faust Affidavit). In the opinion of EPA's
expert, this remedy will dry up the Gorge Face seeps in.
the areas impacted by the APL plume (jid. ). It is estimated
that this remedial action will collect approximately 60 to
88% of the chemicals in the APL plume, thereby reducing
-------
-19-
the total risk approximately one-in-ten million (10~7)
lifetime cancer risk at roost (jxJ. , Shifrin Affidavit, and
Rodricks Affidavit);
(2) A monitoring program will be initiated that triggers
additional remedial actions if specified Flux Action
Leveis-(loadings to the river) from the chemicals not
being remedied are exceeded (id. and Affidavit of Dr.
Faust). The two "purge wells at the Gorge Face and an
additional three monitoring wells located up river along
the Gorge Face will be monitored quarterly for APL Plume
Flux Parameters (Table 9 and Section 9.3) and APL PLume
Monitoring Parameters (Table 4 and Section 9.4)(see Section
4.4.4.1);
(3) The total flux to the Niagara River will be calculated
for each chemical (i«e_. / the flux from the Lockport Dolomite
as described above and, as explained below, also the flux
from the Intermediate and, if necessary, Deep Formations)
(^d_. ). If the APL Plume Flux Action Level is exceeded for
any four out of five monitoring periods, OCC must taken
additional remedial action, either increase pumpage or add
wells or both, to reduce the flux to the river to below
the Flux Action Level (^d_., Section 4.4.4.3);
(4) If the remedial actions discussed above do not reduce
the flux levels below the Flux Action Levels within two
years, OCC must undertake a RRT study and reassess Source
Control, including excavation (Section 4.4.5); and
(5) These Flux Action Levels will be re-evaluated initially
after broad GC/MS scans (Section 4.4.3.1) and every five
years (or sooner if demonstrated to be necessary by
EPA/State)(Shifrin Affidavit). The level may be changed
if there has been a significant change in data or information
or statutory or regulatory requirements (Section 10.0).
The APL Plume Flux Action Parameters and Flux Action
Levels were selected by EPA and the State based on our assessment
of what is in the APL plume, the relative toxicity and risk
presented by those chemcials, EPA's policy and guidance
concerning cleanup levels for hazardous waste site remedial
actions, i.e., 1 x 10~6 risk level is used as a goal and remedies
are considered which would result in risks of 1 x 10~4 to
1 x 10~7 risk)(juJ. and Rodricks Affidavit), and water quality
considerations.
In the case of TCDD, it was also determined that additional
information was necessary to determine a final Flux Action Level
(Benevides and Shifrin Affidavits), therefore, the Stipulation
sets an Interim Flux Action Level for TCDD and requires the
parties to implement field and laboratory studies to substantially
resolve the remaining uncertainties (Section 4.4.3.3)(id.).
-------
-20-
The APL Plume Flux Action parameters are the chemicals
that, in our professional judgment, present the highest risk or
now present water quality concerns. TCDD essentially drives the
Hyde Park risk assessment (Rodricks Affidavit) and is presently
in fish a£ levels in excess of State, FDA, and Canadian fish
health advisories (an average of approximately 30 ppt in western
Lake Ontario Benevides and Shifrin Affidavits).
PCBs and Perchloropentacyclodecane (CiQC\2' commonly
known as Mirex) levels in fish in the lower Niagara River and
Lake Ontario and the Niagara River exceed FDA action levels.
Chloroform levels in Lake Erie which feed into the Niagara River
exceed water quality standards, primarily because of the
discharge of chlorinated water from waste water treatment plants
and the formation of chloroform in drinking water treatment
plants. Even though the loading of chloroform from Hyde Park is
anticipated to be small, it is prudent to place a limit on this
discharge.
To ensure that all chemicals which might present a
significant risk are included on the APL Plume Flux Action
Parameter list, initially, OCC will take samples from the five
performance monitoring wells (Figure 14, inside the APL plume
but outside the NAPL plume) and perform a complete GC/MS survey, '
including analysis for higher polychlorinated dibenzodioxin and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans at 0.5 ppt (Section 4.4.3.1). The
purpose of the survey is to identify as many components of the
APL plume as possible (Section 4.4.3.1 and Shifrin Affidavit).
This information will allow the governments to verify immediately
that the proper APL Plume Flux Action Level chemicals have been
chosen and, if necessary, to reassess the list (Section 10.2 and
Shifrin Affidavit).
In order to assist in future reassessments, OCC must perform
two additional complete GC/MS surveys and EPA has committed to
perform three such surveys. A chemical can be added to the APL
Plume Flux Parameter list, if the conditions in Section 10.0 are
met.
The present Flux Action Levels were set primarily based
on a consideration of risks and water quality standards. EPA's
policy is to use 10~6 risk level as goal and consider remedies
in the range of 10~4 to 10~7 risk levels. All of the final
Hyde Park Flux Action Levels result in less than 10~6 cancer
risk level from consumption of fish (Rodricks Affidavit). No
other exposure route was as high as fish consumption (id.).
It is not possible to determine definitely the risk level
of the Interim TCDD Flux Action Level at this time. If the
bioconcentration factor in EPA's Water Quality Criteria document
or in the State proposed water quality standards are used, the
lifetime cancer risk from consumption of fish considerably is
-------
-21-
less than 10~6 (Table 5). However, analysis of bioconcentration
and bioaccumulation and site specific information, EPA has concluded
that the bioaccumulation factor for TCDD may be as high as 680,000
(Benevides Affidavit).
If this bioaccumulation factor is used in the
risk assessment, the TCDD risk would be approximately 1 x 10~5
(one-in-one hundred thousand)(Rodricks Affidavit). Even using
this worst case bioaccumulation factor, the TCDD Interim Flux
Action Level, TCDD would not result in the State, FDA or Canadian
health advisory levels being exceeded (Table SXShifrin Affidavit).
Because of this uncertainty, EPA, the State, and OCC agreed
to implement jointly a laboratory and field bioaccumulation
study to resolve or decrease, to the extent practicable, these
uncertainties (Section 4.4.3.3). Because of their interest in
and expertise in this area, the Canadians will be invited to
joint this study. After the study, the parties will examine all
the existing data and determine a final TCDD Flux Action Level
(Section 4.4.3.2). The negotiation team anticipates setting a
Final TCDD Flux Action Level at the 10~6 risk level.
Based on our best esimtate of the likely average 70 year-
concentration of Hyde Park chemicals entering the river (Shifrin
Affidavit) and our risk assessment calculations (Rodricks Affidav.it),
the total risk from the Hyde Park chemicals entering the Niagara
River after the remedies in the proposed Stipulation are implemented
would be less than 10~6 and the flux action levels are designed
to ensure that when more information is available the loading to
the river will still result in less than 10~6 lifetime cancer risk.
The Acceptable Daily Intake ("ADI") level for noncarcinogenic effects
of these chemicals is substantially lower than the Flux Action
Levels (Rodricks Affidavit) and the residual discharges will be
substantially below the ADI levels.
APL Plume Monitoring Parameters are monitored so that EPA
and the State can assess the impact of these chemicals on the
Niagara River and Lake Ontario and determine whether additional
Flux Action Levels need to be set during the periodic reassessments.
The chemicals on this list are those which are most likely to
present a water quality standard problem in the future although
risks from Hyde Park landfill alone will be very low.
One of the unique and precedent setting features of this
remedy is the flexibility and open-endedness of the Reassessment
provisions (Section 10.0). There are no limitations or constraints
on developing a Flux Action Level based on human health endangerment.
For the purposes of this Stipulation, endangerment to the environment
is more precisely defined as occurring if the loading of a chemical
to the river exceeds or significantly contributes to a numerical
standard being exceeded or otherwise violates or significantly
contributes to the violation of a federal or state statute, or a
-------
-22-
legally enforceable international treaty or agreement, or a
regulation. This definition specifically includes the situation
where the loading of Hyde Park chemicals causes or significantly
contributes to a significant impairment of the Niagara River or
Lake Ontario for any best usage as defined in State regulations
(Section ;0.3(b)).
Based on nearly a year of examining human health and
environment risks, in all cases examined, the 10~6 human health
risk level or acceptable daily intake levels for noncarcinogenics
were much lower than levels which might create environmental harm.
The definition also includes the requirement that EPA and
State take into account the extent of the contribution by Hyde
Park and whether remedial action has been undertaken to abate
the other sources (Section 10.3(c)). These are facts that
EPA and the State would take into account in any case.
There are termination and resumption provisions for the
APL Plume Containment System (Section 4.4.6). The system must
be operated for 10 years and 50% of the Flux Action Levels may
not be exceeded for any sampling period during the prior year
before OCC may proposed to terminate the system (Section 4.4.6.1).
After 15 years, OCC may proposes to the parties or the Court
that operation of the system is no longer "requisite" (Ml. ).
The Flux Action Level monitoring must continue for five
years after termination, but can be extended for longer if EPA/State
demonstrate that additional monitoring is necessary to effectuate
the purposes and goals of the Settlement Agreement. If this
monitoring indicates the flux to the river exceeds 50% of the
Flux Action Level for any parameter (and that is confirmed), the
operation of the system will be automatically resumed (Section
4.4.6.3).
Even after termination of the monitoring, the operation of
system may be resumed if EPA/State sampling indicates that the
flux exceeds 50% of the Flux Action Level and it is confirmed
unless OCC can demonstrate that resumption is not "requisite"
(Section 4.4.6.4). Furthermore, at any time, EPA/State may
demonstrate that resumption of the system is "requisite" (id.).
The purge wells must be maintained for at least the five
year monitoring period and the purge wells are maintained for
35 years (Section 4.4.5.6).
(3) Gorge Face Seep Program
Interim remedies (diversion of some seeps, fencing, and
monthly monitoring) have already been implemented by OCC.
One of the purposes of the APL Plume Containment Program is
to eliminate the seeps, however, the Stipulation requires
additional seep remedies.
-------
-23-
Based on several surveys of the Gorge Face (Affidavit
of Dr. Jonmaire), the parties have also agreed upon a set of
specific additional remedial actions to eliminate or minimize
human exposure to the identified seeps (Section 7.0 and
Appendix A). The remedial actions specified for the Bloody
Run drainage area along the Gorge Face in the original Settlement
Agreement have been somewhat modified to be consistent with
the Gorge Face Seep Program.
In general, the remedial program consists of the
following. As soon as possible, all flowing seeps within the
area anticipated to have the potential to be contaminated will
be diverted (whether chemicals have been found in the water or
not). Where practicable, the seep water will be diverted to a
collector pipe and conveyed to the river to minimize exposure
to fishermen (Jonmaire Affidavit).
As soon as possible (except for the Bloody Run drainage
area), the soil beneath the flowing seeps and wet areas will be
sampled for Soil Survey Parameters. (see Table 10). If Soil
Survey Parameters are found, there will be sampling for the
Soil/Sediment Action parameters (Table 10). If the Soil Survey
levels are exceeded, but not the Soil Sediment Action levels,
the area will be covered and up to 0.5 feet of soil will be
removed to facilitate contouring.
If Soil/Sediment Action Levels are exceeded, up to 1 foot
of soil will be excavated and the remaining soil covered. In the
Bloody Run drainage area and an adjacent region ten TCDD soil
samples will be taken regardless of whether soil survey parameters
are found. In all other locations, not finding the soil survey
parameters will create a rebuttable presumption that TCDD is not
present. If EPA/State sample and find TCDD, however, remedies
must be performed.
The Soil Survey Levels (Table 6) are the same levels as
specified in the original Settlement Agreement and were selected
as reasonably reliable detection limits for these chemicals.
The risk levels for these chemicals at these levels are extremely
low (less than 10"9 risk level for hexachlorobenzene and one millionth
the ADI for 2,4,5-trichlorophenol)(Rodricks Affidavit).
The Soil/Sediment Action Levels were set based on several
factors including a consideration of risks. The TCDD Soil/Sediment
Action Level is the 1 part per billion ("ppb") recommended by the
Centers for Disease Control as a level of concern. The PCB and
Hexachlorocyclohexane levels of 25 ppm and 106 ppm, respectively,
represent levels of approximately 1 x 10~*> or less cancer risk
level, using worst case exposure assumptions.
The 1 ppb TCDD level is likely to be more conservative
(i.e., more protective) in this case than the Missouri situation
because the health assessment in Missouri was based on exposure
-------
-24-
in backyards with children eating the soil and exposure levels at
the Gorge Face are not likely to be as high in a State Park.
INTERMEDIATE AND DEEP FORMATIONS SURVEYS
Ttte APL and NAPL Containment Programs address the lateral
migration of-chemicals from the landfill to the river, however,
there is a downward component to the groundwater flow from the
landfill (Faust Affidavit). The Intermediate and Deep Formation
Studies are intended to determine if chemicals have migrated
below the Lockport Dolomite and, if so, to require remedial
action to prevent fluxes from entering the river in excess of
Flux Action Levels (id.).
Initially, OCC will install six survey wells down into
the Irondequoit/Reynales Formation (Figure 17); take and analyze
water samples from the lower portion of the Rochester Shale and
the Irondequoit/ Reynales Formation for Lower Formation Survey
Parameters (Table 11 and Section 9.5); inspect for NAPL; and
perform permeability and other tests (Section 5.3; Section 9.5;
and Shifrin Affidavit).
If none of these chemicals are found the Irondequoit/Reynales,
the formation will continue to be monitored semi-annually for tw$
years and annally thereafter to ensure no leakage (Section 5.4)
and no Deep Formation Study will be undertaken (Section 6.1). The
failure to detect NAPL or chemicals in the groundwater indicates
that neither the APL nor NAPL plume have migrated to the Intermediate^
Formation yet and therefore no chemicals attributable to the Hyde
Park landfill are entering the river from these levels (id.).
If the Lower Formation Survey Parameters are found (either
during the initial survey or subsequent monitoring), OCC is
required to calculate the flux to the river from the Intermediate
Formation. If the sum of the Intermediate Formation flux and the
Lockport Dolomite flux exceeds the APL Plume Flux Action level for
any chemical, OCC is required to take additional remedial action
to reduce the total flux below the Flux Action Level, either by
(1) modifying the operation of the APL or NAPL Plume Containment
Systems; (2) if necessary, adding purge wells to the existing
APL or NAPL Plume Containment Systems; or (3) if necessary,
drilling and operating wells into the Intermediate or deep Formations
(Section 5.5 and 6.6).
If such modifications do not lower the flux sufficiently or
does not contain the NAPL, OCC must undertake a RRT Study. If
NAPL is not contained, OCC must reassess Source Control, including
excavation (Sections 5.6 and 6.7).
In addition to the above, when chemicals are detected in
the Intermediate Formation, OCC must install initially three
wells down into the Queenston shale or the Niagara River elevation,
-------
-25-
wherever is higher (approximately 350 feet below the surface),
if any one of the following conditions occur:
0 the flux from the Lockport Formation alone is
greater than 70% of the Flux Action Level; or
b "the sum of the flux from the Intermediate Formation
and the flux ^estimated from the Deep Formation exceeds
50% of the Flux Action Levels. The flux of the Deep
Formation is assumed to the same as for the Intermediate
formation times the ratio of thickness of the Deep
Formation to the Irondequoit/Reynales Formation; or
0 the sum of the estimated flux from the Lockport
Formation, the Intermediate Formations, and the Deep
Formations (using the assumptions above) exceeds 100%
(Section 6.1).
If the initial three wells are installed, the water will be
analyzed for the Lower Formation Survey Parameters; there will
be an inspection for NAPL; and permeability tests will be performed
(Sections 6.4.1, 6.4.2, and 6.4.3). If no chemicals are found,
the wells will continue to be monitored. In the professional
judgment of our experts, the APL or NAPL plume would be detected.
by measurement of the Lower Formation Survey Parameters before
the APL plume reached the river (Shifrin Affidavit).
If chemicals are found in any of the original three wells,
OCC will install an additional three wells; sample these wells;
and calculate a Deep Formation flux of chemicals to the
river. If, after installation of the Deep Formation wells, the
sum of fluxes from the Lockport Dolomite, the Intermediate
Formations and Deep Formation exceed the Flux Action Level,
OCC is required to reduce the flux to below the Flux Action
Level by modifying the operation, or, if necessary, adding
purge wells the existing APL and NAPL Plume Containment
Systems, or installing wells into intermediate or deep formations
(Section 6.6).
If these remedial actions do not lower the flux below the
Flux Action Level or if NAPL is found, OCC must perform a RRT Study
and if NAPL is not contained, they must reassess Source Control,
including excavation (Section 6.7).
In the opinion of EPA experts, this is very comprehensive
and expeditious program (Shifrin and Faust Affidavits). The additional
data will be obtained expeditiously and further action triggered
based on that data without any further delays. Further action
is triggered based on the total flux to the river exceeding
an APL Plume Flux Action Level and these levels represent relatively
small risks (Rodricks Affidavit).
-------
-26-
MONITORING AND TREATMENT OF COLLECTED LIQUIDS
Paragraph E of Addendum I of the Settlement Agreement
requires OCC to treat the aqueous phase liquids "collected
pursuant to Paragraphs C [which includes requirement to perform
the RRT Study] and D" in an activated carbon treatment system
and to the- treament levels described in Paragraph E(l) and (2)
of Addendum I of the Settlement Agreement ("the SA Treatment
Levels").
The liquids collected by the various remedial technologies
will be conveyed by pipeline to a central treatment system. The
details of the treatment system will be determined in plans and
specifications. Based on information provided by OCC, it is
anticipated that the treatment system will consist of a NAPL
separation unit, coagulation filter, a sacrifical, powdered carbon
bed, a SBR biological treatment unit and finally an activated
carbon treatment system (probably a standard Calgon unit with
modifications as required by the Settlement Agreement)(Shifrin
Affidavit). The filter and sacrifical carbon bed will probably
have 85 gpm capacity, the activated carbon unit will probably
have 170 gpm capacity and the biological treatment system will
probably have a 65 gpm capacity.
All the liquids from the prototype Source Control system,
new tile drain system, the NAPL system; and up to 15 gpm from
the APL Plume Containment System will be treated to the SA treatment
levels (Sections 11.1.1 and 11.2.1).
Although a literal application of Paragraph E of Addendum
I of the Settlement Agreement would require treatment of all
liquids to SA Treatment Levels, the costs and benefits of such
treatment must also be considered in determining whether a
remedy is "requisite." Based on a consideration of the level
of endangerment presented by the APL plumes and in order to
obtain the certainty of remedial action to reduce flux levels to
below Flux Action Levels, EPA and the State agreed to modify the
Settlement Agreement to require treatment down to Flux Action
Levels (rather than the SA Treatment Levels) for any APL Plume
Containment liquids in excess of 15 gpm and all liquids collected
from the Intermediate or Deep Formations (unless NAPL is found
in the Intermediate or Deep Formations in which case the treatment
level will be determined as part of the RRT Study).
This change is consistent with the fact that the RRT is
designed to prevent an "endangerment to human health or the
environment." Although there will be less treatment of those
chemicals which are not readily adsorbed on carbon, e.g., phenol
and benzene and these chemicals will still reach the river,
whatever is not removed through treatment must be included in
the flux calculation to the river and therefore may be limited
if it creates an endangerment. Thus, the change satisfies
the goals of the Settlement Agreement, protection against
-------
-27-
endangerment to human health and the environment.
After treatment, this water is reinjected into the bedrock
at a depth which would assure no migration to the Gorge Face as a
a seep, of discharged to the sanitary sewers if certain requirements
are met. Since this discharge would receive additional treatment
by the city wastewater treatment plant the use of this system will
be encouraged if it does not interfere with the proper operation
of the city waste water treatment plant (Section 11.1.2).
The spent media must be disposed of consistent with
existing and future statutes and regulations, including the 1984
RCRA Amendments (Section 11.6).
All the NAPL is required to be destroyed through incineration
(Paragraph E(5) of the Addendum I of the Settlement Agreement).
VII. Permit Provisions
Section 1.2 incorporates EPA1s onsite CERCLA policy and
the policy on compliance with other applicable federal standards
or criteria. This Section makes EPA's policy enforceable in
this case.
Section 11.7 makes the findings required by the 1984
RCRA Amendments and the Underground Injection Control ("UIC")
regulations, 40 C.F.R. 144.13(c), concerning the reinjection of
grpundwater required in the NAPL Plume Containment System and
injection for disposal after treatment. This finding has been
reviewed and approved by the Regional and Headquarters Offices
of Drinking Water which oversee this program.
VIII. Comparison With Other Applicable Federal
Standards or Criteria
Clearly, in 1954, when disposal began at this site, it
was not designed nor constructed to comply with todays' RCRA
regulatory requirements. The remedial measures specified in
the Stipulation specify a tile drain, a clay cap and synthetic
membrane liner, surveys to further determine the extent of
contamination, corrective action if action levels are exceeded,
effectiveness monitoring for each remedial measure monitoring for
35 years, or longer if necessary, and further remedial action if
NAPL is detected and a further remedy meets the requirements of
Paragraph 4 of the Judgment.
These remedial actions, monitoring, requirements for
further corrective action, and the financial guarantee requirements
in the Settlement Agreement have as their basis the same
performance goal as the RCRA requirements, i.e., the protection
of human health and the environment.
-------
-28-
The comprehensive remedial program must be viewed as a whole
and could be compared to a RCRA landfill already leaking.
The source control, overburden RRT, bedrock remedies, further
monitoring and -surveys which trigger additional remedial
action are similar to the performance goals of a RCRA landfill
which is closing and requires further action, i.e. a cap,
monitoring and, if necessary, corrective action. In this case
the cap, monitoring and the corrective action are required.
The on-site remedy involves the installation of the
clay and synthetic membrane cover (see Section 11.5). All
plans and specifications must be consistent with the substantive
requirements of Federal and state statutes and regulations
that otherwise would be applicable to such activities (Section
1.2(a).) In developing such plans and specifications, OCC
will consider applicable federal and state health and environmental
standards, criteria and guidelines even if they would otherwise
not be legally applicable (Section 1.2(d).) EPA will provide
OCC all RCRA guidance manuals and other appropriate documents
to assist them in this effort, including those relating to
clay and synthetic membrane covers for landfill closure.
The initial remedial actions to contain and recover
the NAPL plume (the prototype of the NAPL Containment System)
will be modified as warranted by the data obtained during the
initial prototype period and the action levels, numbers of wells,
chemicals monitored, etc. are reassessed periodically, once
every five years and more frequently if EPA/State demonstrate
that it is necessary (Section 10.O.)^/ Similarly additional
wells may be installed as part of the APL Plume Containment
System and action levels, etc. will be reassessed. Comprehensive
chemicals analyses will be performed on the groundwater to
confirm that all chemicals of concern have been identified
and the Flux Parameters may be added, subtracted or changed
(Section 4.4.3.1.)
These activities are similar in many ways to the corrrective
action requirements under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act ("RCRA") and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 ("HSWA".) Based on all the information currently
availalble and the analysis of EPA's experts, the flux action
levels used in the proposed Stipulation should ensure, upon
completion of the corrective remedial activities, that the
total additive risk is consistent with EPA policy (i.e., it
will be less than 10~6 lifetime cancer risk),. The procedures used
to determine the levels in Section 9.0 are consistent with the
*/Within the CERCLA program, a remedy is referred to as an interim
remedy if additional information and actions may be required,
even though no further action other than containment may be
necessary. Since chemicals, action levels, numbers of wells, etc.
may be revised, the remedies proposed in the Hyde Park Stipulation
are considered interim.
-------
-29-
RCRA Alternative Concentration Limit ("ACL") policy which recommends
the use of a 10~6 lifetime cancer risk level as the starting point
for setting*ground-water protection standards. Section 10.0
provides flexibility to ensure that new scientific information
and regulatory requirements can be used to ensure that the action
levels continue to adequately protect human health and the
environment. Like the RCRA ACL, this action level can be
modified at any time as long as EPA and/or the State demonstrate
it is necessary.
As indicated above, these proposed remedial actions do
not literally meet the specific technical requirements of
Part 264, Subpart F (which apply to RCRA regulated landfills).
The requirement for periodic broad scans to identify the majority
of compounds present has been substituted for analysis of
chemicals listed in Appendix VIII of Part 261 of the RCRA
regulations (some of which were never produced nor disposed of
by OCC). Those Appendix VIII chemicals, which are present
and analyzable by generally accepted methods, will be identified,
in addition to other chemicals.
In other cases, such as the point of monitoring (called
point of compliance in the RCRA regulations), the RCRA regulations
specify a location at the waste boundary to detect chemical
migration before it adversely impacts the surrounding environment.
However, the case of Hyde Park, unfortunately, the chemicals have
been migrating for over 30 years and NAPL is present in the overburden
and bedrock ground water at the waste boundary. At present, it
would not be meaningful to monitor at the site boundary. It is
anticipated that the NAPL Containment System will be operated for
a very, very long time. However, the proposed Stipulation provides
the flexibility that when the levels substantially decrease, that
additional monitoring points and action levels may be set closer
to the landfill (see Section 10.0 and Section 4.6.) The point of
compliance will be reassessed in the future.
The RCRA regulations require the setting of a groundwater
standard for every Appendix VIII chemical detected. OECM determined
that it at this time was not necessary to set an action level on
every chemicals to protect health and the environment, and that
it would be unwise from an enforcement viewpoint. This can be
reassessed in the future.
Finally, based on additional monitoring further remedial
action (similar to corrective action) may be taken in the future
(Part 264 requires corrective action to meet ground-water protection
standards, e.g., an ACL set at the 10~6 lifetime cancer risk level.)
-------
-30-
The combination of source control, various overburden
and bedrock remedies in the opinion of EPA experts and the EPA
negotiation team will control the risk from the site to below the
10~6 life'time cancer risk level. The prototype and other remedies
at the site" (or additional actions required by the reassessment
or other provisions in the proposed Stipulation) are necessary
to protect against endangerment from this site. The applicability
of other RCRA requirements will be determined pursuant to
Section 1.2 of the proposed Stipulation. Other technical
guidance, not legally applicable, will be considered/ as
appropriate.
It is the judgment of OECM-Waste and DOJ that no more
stringent remedy could be obtained through litigation.
IX. Compliance With the National Contingency Plan
The NCP applies to cleanups at fund-financed sites and
sites being cleanup by responsible parties (40 C.F.R. 300.68(c)).
The factors that must be considered in determining the extent
of and appropriateness of a remedial action:
1. In determining whether to implement initial
remedial measures before a final remedy is
determined, actual or potential direct contact,
highly contaminated soils largely at or near
surface, posing a serious threat to public health
or the environment, contaminated drinking water,
and other similar factors (40 C.F.R. 300.68(e)(1);
2. In determining whether source control, i.e.,
excavation, other types of removal, or "contain[ing]
the hazardous materials where they are located", is
appropriate, the extent to which substances pose a
danger to public health, welfare, or the environment,
including population, amount and form of the
substance, hazardous properties, hydrogeological
factors, rainfall, extent of migration, and prior
experience (40 C.F.R. 300.68(e)(2));
3. Offsite remedial actions are actions "to minimize
and mitigate the migration of hazardous substances
and the effects of such migration. These actions
may be taken when the lead agency determines that
source control remedial actions may not effectivelly
mitigate and minimize the threat and there is a
significant threat to the threat to public health,
-------
-31-
welfare, or the environment." EPA must consider
the contribution of the contamination to air,
water or land pollution, the extent of migration,
the factors listed above (40 C.F.R. 300.68(e)(3));
"4. The "cost of installing or implementing the remedial
-action must be considered, including operation and
maintanence costs. An alternative that far
exceeds (e'.g. , by an order of magnitude) the
costs of ot.her alternatives evaluated and that does
not provide substantially greater public health
or environmental benefit should usually be excluded."
(40 C.F.R. 300.68(h)(1));
5. The effects of an alternative. If an alternative
has significant adverse effects, it should be
excluded (40 C.F.R. 300.68(h)(2));
6. Alternatives must be feasible (40 C.F.R. 300.68(h)(3);
7. The appropriate extent of remedy shall be determined
by which remedial alternative is cost-effective
"(i.e. the lowest costs alternative that is
technologically feasible and provides adequate
protection of public health, welfare, or the
environment)." (40 C.F.R 300.68(j)).
All of these factors and others specified by the NCP were
considered and balanced, during the negotiations. The Stipulation
requires immediate action in some cases, e.g., the Residential
Community Monitoring Program or the Gorge Face Seep program.
In other cases, long term remedies were necessary.
As described above, source control is required by the
Stipulation, although the adverse health effects and excessive
costs precluded excavation at this site at this time. There are
extensive offsite remedies. EPA had extensive risk assessments
and hydrogeological evaluations performed during the negotiations.
The APL Plume Containment Program and monitoring for further
action was determined appropriate based on a consideration of
all of these factors, including the degree of risk from the
unremedied plume (less than 1 x 10~*>), cost, comparision of
the contribution from Hyde Park compared to other sources, and
other relevant factors.
Cost-effectiveness was only considered in its classic
application. Once an appropriate level of protection or other
objective standard was selected, EPA evaluated which technology
could reliably accomplish that goal with the lowest cost. Cost was
also considered in determining whether the remedy was requisite.
In sum, the remedial actions specified in the Stipulation
fully comply with or are in excess of what is required by the
National Contingency Plan.
-------
-32-
X. HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN MODIFICATIONS
The, original Health and Safety Plan in the Stipulation
was more stringent than any other consent decree or Superfund
health and safety plan. The modified health and safety plan
is more stringent than ajiy other consent decree or or Superfund
health and safety plan.
The original Settlement Agreement required three rings of
monitoring: (1) organic vapors and particulate monitoring
where the work was being performed, (2) particulate.monitoring
at the perimeter of the work area; and (3) particulate monitoring
in the commmunity. The original program required the use of
dichotomous samplers to obtain air particulate samples at the
perimeter and in the community. The purpose was to protect
the local residents from those chemicals which adhere to
soil and might migrate with airborne particulates into the
community. Organic vapor monitoring was performed only at
the work site because in the opinion of our experts the
concentration of chemicals in the community would be very low.
In general many minor changes were made in the Hyde
Park Health and Safety plan to include more specifics or
incorporate more health protective measures specified in
the S Area Settlement Agreement. There are three major
revisions in the Health and Safety Plan: (1) a change in
the type of semivolatile monitor; (2) a change in the
real time particulate monitoring; and (3) the addition of
volatile monitoring at the site perimeter.
Based on an in depth review by EPA's Office of Research and
Development in Triangle Park, N.C., it was determined that the
instrument specified in the Settlement Agreement for measuring
particulates would strip chemicals off the particulates and
therefore underreport the actual chemical concentration (Dr. R.
Lewis, EPA, Recommendations for Monitoring Selected Semivolatile
Organic Chemicals in Air (May 6, 1985) and Dr. R. Lewis, EPA,
Assessment of Air Monitoring Proposals (May 6, 1985).
After meetings between the various experts, a high
volume particulate sampler and PS-1 PUF sampler for semi-volatile
organics (an instrument which measures chemicals both on
particulates and in vapors) were determined to be appropriate
for use at the perimeter of the Site and in the community
(Sections and 12.10.4 and 12.10.5). OCC has agreed to this
despite the fact that the prior plan had no organic vapor
monitoring at the perimeter of the site or in the residential
neighborhoods.
The detection limit in the prior plan were also not
achievable with even the best instruments. The new action levels
in the health and safety plan are twice the reliable GC/MS
detection limits for the chemicals specified (Section 12.10.4)
The action levels in dust inside of homes is also essentially
-------
-33-
the detection limit for this type of sampling (Section 12.10.5(c)).
Since there is more data available now than in 1979 when
the consent decree was originally negotiated, some of the indicator
chemicals in the air monitoring program have also been changed.
3
It was-also determined that the original real time particulate
monitoring program was not practical. That program required several
real time monitors connected by computer. Complete site shutdown
occurred, if there was any statistically significant increase
above background for 15 minutes (whether or not the dust was
contaminated). After careful review, EPA and the State concluded
that the system was not capable of being monitoring in the
field using reliable field equipment.
This provision has been changed. The statistically
significant increase is now determined by a different type of
field configuration of instruments. Instead of complete shutdown,
corrective action is taken if dust levels are above background
for any 15 minute period (Section 12.10.3). Work is shut down
if the hourly average dust level exceeds background. It is
believed that as a practical matter that this new proposal is
virtually as health protective since it requires action to
reduce dust emission down to background levels. In the prior
scheme, shutdown would result in reduction of the dust level to
background. Again, the original plan had no organic vapor
monitoring at the Site perimeter.
The plan now also requires more detailed organic vapor
monitoring at the work site perimeter and at the perimeter of
the site (Section 12.10.1). If action levels are triggered at
the work site or at the site perimeter, action is taken to
reduce the levels.
Other modifications have been made to conform the Hyde
Park Health and Safety Plan to more up to date requirements
in the S Area Settlement Agreement, £.g_. even though existing
monitoring data demonstrates no significant levels of chemicals
during survey activities, see Affidavit of Dr. Joseph Spatola
in the Hyde Park case (March 24, 1983), the concept of Survey
Site monitoring has been incorporated into Hyde Park from
the S Area Health and Safety plan (see Sections 12.2(c) and
12.11).
There is also a new provision in the Stipulation (Section
12.12) that allows EPA and the State to re-evaluate any of the
chemicals to be monitored or action levels at least yearly and
more frequently, if EPA and the State can demonstrate that it is
necessary.
XI. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES .
There are several significant issues which are likely
to arise during the public comment period and thereafter.
-------
-34-
Some citizen groups and the government of Canada and
the Province of Ontario have requested that EPA and the State
require excavation and incineration of the landfill. EPA
seriously,considered excavation and incineration during the
negotiations and have documented those considerations in an
"Excavation Report."
As far as can be determined, the Excavation Report is the
most thorough evaluationof the feasibility, costs, health
effects and other factors relating to excavation performed by
EPA or anyonelse. The Excavation Report and the concept of
excavation was independently reviewed by EPA's Office of
Research and Development experts in this field and essentially
the same conclusions were reached. As described above, the EPA
negotiation team has concluded that it was not requisite at
this time.
EPA and the State have met with representatives of
the government of Canada and the Province of Ontario
and have carefully considered their technical comments and
reports. EPA has addressed those concerns and has considered
its obligations under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty and the
objectives of the 1978 Great Lake Lakes Water Quality Agreement '
In our opinion, this proposed Stipulations meets those concerns.
We will meet with the Canadians after lodging of the Stipulation
and solicit their further comments and assistance.
Neither the government of Canada nor Ontario suggested
excavation during the working level meetings held in 1984 and
early 1985. In fact, Grant Anderson, a Canadian consultant,
indicated his prior statements supporting excavation were based
on the assumption that excavation could be performed without
health risks, that costs were irrelevant, and that any level of
discharge was unacceptable. No support for these assumptions
have been provided.
However, during recent higher level meetings and in
Court filings in the S Area case Canadian officials have expressed
concern that excavation is the only permanent solution.
Over a year ago, EPA requested the Canadians to supply
any information that they possessed concerning the effects or
risks of the Hyde Park chemicals on human health or the environment.
They provided a compilation of already public data on levels of
TCDD in fish and the best estimate of Canadian experts on
bioconcentration factors (this level 10,000 was lower than our
experts opinion 680,000). We hope to receive additional information
during the public comment period. This information will be
evaluated.
Each remedial program has a monitoring effectiveness criteria.
As described above, excavation must be re-evaluated under many
conditions. The Reassessment provision also allows EPA and the
-------
-35-
State to take into account any future inforamtion on health or
environmental effects.
Local citizens will probably be most concerned about the
Community Monitoring Program and the Health and Safety Plan.
For example, one leader of a local citizens group sent a letter
calling for permanent relocation. As indicated above, EPA and
the State have extensively evaluated the likelihood of present
exposure and concluded that it is unlikely. None-the-less, the
proposed Stipulation provides for an extensive Community Monitoring
Program.
We extensively replied to comments during the negotations
and furthmore, we are preparing an extensive public comment
period program of meetings and briefings. We have prepared
detailed affidavits explaining what was decided and why. We
have also prepared a detailed Community Monitoring Program
Background Document which places all available information in
one place and hopefully provides some useful context for the
decisions that may be made during the program.
There will be many demands to speed up the remedial
action process. We have attempted to meet those demands by
requiring OCC to submit some plans and specifications, even
before the end of the public comment period and others before
the Court approves the Stipulation (Section 1.0). Even though
this places OCC at risk,, they have agreed to expedite these
programs.
r
This remedy includes source controls, remedial action
and monitoring. The effectiveness of this solution will be
reassessed and modified, as needed over time. In designing
the systems required by this settlement, OCC must consider
applicable federal and state health and environmental standards,
criteria and guidelines (including RCRA Part 264, Subpart F),
even if they would not be legally applicable. Based on all the
factors in the NCP, the Settlement Agreement, the 1978 Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the 1909 Treaty, including
the level of risk which would result if no APL remedy were
installed, the contributions from other sources along the
Niagara River, and the cost, EPA decided that the proposed
Stipulation provides the best solution given all the
circumstances.
-------
FIGURE 1
THE
WHIRLPOOL
RESERVOIR
PUMP-GENERATIN
PLANT
PUMPED-STORAGE
RESERVOIR
ROBERT MOSES V
NIAGARA *
POWER PLANT
CONDUITS
(COVEREOI
>. _
\MOHSE3MOe * J f
^ fALLS S * J
f MARIOS
J *""*"
Figure 1. Location of Hyde Park Landfill (after Johnston, 1964).
-------
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL
IPUMPED-STORAGE
RESERVOIR
I POWER
CANAL
ROBERT MOSES
NIAGARA
POWER PLANT
BURIED
CONDUITS
HYDE PARK
BOULEVARD
-------
-N-
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL SITE
LEGEND
A ON-SITt OVERIUROEN WILLS
M9F8-198?)
O Off SUE OVERBURDEN WELLS
(19ri-1*801
0 OFF-SITE OVERBURDEN WILLS
1198)1
OFF Silt BtOROCK WELLS
119 M 19801
OFF-SITE IEDROCK WELLS
II982-I981I
SPRINGS
BASE MAP MOOIFICO FROM
CONESTOGA-ROVERS a ASSOCIATES
600'
-ELEVATION IN FEET
(Q
C
Figure 8. Ground-water elevations in the overburden material (January 20, 1903).
-------
r\j
CD
-N-
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL SITE
LEGEND
A ON-SI1C OVEBIUROEN WELLS
11978-198?)
O Off-Jilt OVERBURDEN WELLS
11978-19801
Q Off-SITE OVERiUROlN WELLS
119831
orr-siu IEOROCK WELLS
(1978 19801
Off-SITE IEDROCK WELLS
II9BZ-1983I
4 SPRINGS
BASE MAP MODIflEO fROU
COHESIOGA-ROVERS 8 ASSOCIATES
600-
ELEVATION IN FEET
Figure 9. Ground-water elevations
Locknort Dolomite (January 20, 1903).
-------
NEW YORK STATE
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL
Figure 2.5
Approximate locations of ground water seep samples
collected by New York State Department of Health
-------
ro
oo
OVERBURDEN
APL PLUME
OVERBURDEN
NAPL PLUME
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL SITE
A OH-SITC OVCRSURDtN WtlLS
O OTF-SITE OVERBURDEN WEILS
taaoi
O OFF-SltE OVCRIUROIN WEILS
Off SHE IEDROCK VEILS
ntri
orr-siiE IEOROCK WELLS
II9B2 19*31
SPRINGS
B»5C HAP MODIFIED FROM
CONf SIOGA-ROVtRS AASSOCIAttS
n
i-"-
(Q
c
r;
(P
-------
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL SITE
A ON-SIU OVERIURDCN WtUS
H9rB-1tS?)
o orr-siic ovmauRoeN WELLS
H9re
o orr-snc OVERSUROIN WCLLS
(19831
OFF-JITt BEDROCK WEILS
119 tB- 19801
OFF-SITE IEOROCK WCLLS
11982 19811
SPRINGS
looo TON In mg/L
no NOT DETECTED AI 0 OSmg/l
BASE MAP MOOiritO fROH
CONESTOGA-ROVtRS 9 ASSOCIATES
C
f
0)
Figure 12. TOII values measured for overburden wells
-------
ro
[BEDROCK NAPL PLUME"}
IIEDROCK APL PLUME
-H-
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL SITE
LEGEND
A ON SHE OVERBURDEN WELLS
11978-1(8?)
O OFF-IITf OVERBURDEN WELLS
(1978-1980)
a OFF-SITE OVERBURDEN WELLS
11983)
OFF-SITE BEDROCK WELLS
11978 19801
OFF-SITE BEDROCK WELLS
(1982-19831
SPRINGS
BASE MAP MODIFIED FROM \
CONESIOCA-ROVERS B ASSOCIATES
Id
c.
CO
Figure 11. Lockport Dolomite plumes ns defined by thc'JIyde Park surveys in accordance with
the Settlement Agreement (Uecembcj^lOOR - May 1903).
-------
CO
ro
{BEDROCK NAPL PLUME |
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL SITE
A ON- SITC OVf RIURDEN WttlS
9 OFF-tlTl OVtRBURDEN WELLS
II97«- 19801
O OFF-SIU OVERIUROEN WEUS
II98JI
OFF-SUE BEDROCK WELLS
(IBT8 I960)
OFF-SITE IEOROCK WEILS
11982 198)1
-------
[BEDROCK NAPLPLUME|
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL SITE
A Ott Jilt OVERIURDEN WELIS
H0ri-1Bt2l
O OfF-SITl OVERBURDEN WELLS
(I9H 18801
a OFF-SUE ovtRBUROiN MILLS
OFF-SIIC tcoROCK WCLLS
1»SOI
OfF-SIH leOROCK WILLS
Il982-I9t3)
SPRINGS
0 ZOO 400 600
. I
BASE MAP MODIFIED FROM
CONCSTOCA-ROVERS 8 ASSOCIATES
IQ
C
f_
aJ
Figure 14. TOII values beyond the NAPL plume in the lowermost zone sa:nolcd in the Lockport Dolomite
-------
POWCK AUTHORITY STATC Of Me* YORK
POWER AUTHORITY
* \ sTAre or new rot*
T OWM Or L tWISTOH
« « " TO»M Of HI AS AHA-* *
HYDE PARK
LANDFILL SITE
PROTOTYPE EXTRACTION WELLS
PROPOSED OBSERVATION WELLS
EXISTING OBSERVATION WELL
TAU CCRAHIC9 IMC.
figure
PROTOTYPE EXTRACTION WELL SYSTEM
HYDE PARK REMEDIAL PROGRAM
-------
o
ru. PI Do
ILAFAYETTE -AVE.
J AREAL EXTENT OF OVERBURDEN APL PLUME
AREAL EXTENT OF OVERBURDEN NAPL. PLUME
EXIST. OVERBURDEN SURVEY WELL
OVERBURDEN APL
A OVERBURDEN NAPL
:?>
-------
f)
(U
J-,
3
00
-I
Ct<
J^
/
'X
/
00'
/?"
Jc
A COMMUNITY
MONITORING WELL NEST
IHB AREAL EXTENT OF
OVERBURDEN APL PLUME
AREAL EXTENT OF
BEDROCK APL PLUME
FIGURE
COMMUNITY MONITORING
HYDE PARK REMEDIAL PROGRAM
-------
X
//>
/*. ;r
/
C*R AVC.
J
IS
$« we. j
i ^i
i J
^5S!S:==*^^3^^
-"
-*
J*&
*
r 1
i-.-.-j
ROAD
n
i i
»
or 200*
00'
UTILIZE EXISTING
WELL INSTALLATIONS
-------
LOCATION
IO BE DEFINED BASED
ON DAt« COLLECFEO
tROMOIHER
R6CIKCULAIION WELL
OfOMOCK
NAPL HLUMt
Tl
>-
Figure 19. Hell locations planned for prototype phase of NAPL Plu;ne Containment Systcn.
-------
LEGEND
O PURGE WELL
A INJECTION WELL
PERFORMANCE MONITORING WELL
A FLUX MONITORING WELL
NAPL PLUME BOUNDARY PIEZOMETER
Q APL PLUME BOUNDARY PIEZOMETER
t PIEZOMETER CLUSTER
13
!--
(Q
c
r»
(D
Figure 27. Monitoring well locations for MAPI. Plume Containment Syr.tcn.
-------
oo'
E»*t »VE \\
INTERMEDIATE FORMATION
SURVEY AND MONITORING
WELL LOCATION
BEDROCK APL PLUME
(327.3 octet)
BEDROCK NAPL PLUME
(92.4 acres)
figure 9
INTERMEDIATE FORMATIONS SURVEY
HYDE PARK REMEDIAL PROGRAM
oo
rj
0)
-------
TABLE 1
Table 2. Sunmary of Wastes Disposed 1n the Hyde Park
Landfill Between 1953 and 1974
Type of Waste Category
Calcium Fluoride
Hercury Brine Sludge
C-56 Derivatives
Org Phos
Hypo Mud
Inorg Phos
Mlsc Acid Chlorides
Dechlorane
BTC's
Chlorotoluenes
MET Acid
Mlsc Chlorinatlons
BTF Derivatives
DDM
TCP
BTF's
Benzoyl Chloride
LDS/MCT
Metal Chlorides
C-56
BHC
Chlorobenzenes
Benzyl Chloride
Thlodan
Sulfides
Misc 10X of above
Total
L Liquid
S - Solid
Physical
State
S
S
L.S
L.S
S
L.S
L.S
S
L.S
L.S
L.S
L.S
L.S
L.S
L.S
L.S
L.S
L.S
S
S
S
L.S*
L.S
L.S
S
L.S
Total Est.(a'
Quantity-Tons
400
100
4,500
4,400
1,000
100
1,200
200
1,700
1.700
2.100
1,600
. , 2,900
' 4,500
3,300
'5,600
6.200
900
100
1,100
2.000
16,500
3,400
1.000
6.600
7.300
80.400
Estimated X Estimated
Liquid (b) NAPL-Tons
10
20
(d)
10
80
50
10
50
40
40
450
880
--
170
1,360
1.050
160
1,450
1.320
2.240
75
30
(d)
50
(d)
As reported to ITF - November 17, 1978
Source: J. Cull, OCC, 1984, personal comnuni cation
At 10.5 Ibs/gal. (1.25 Specific Gravity), this
amount 1s equal to 3.4 million gallons.
Water reactive organic chemicals
TAKEN FROM OCC'S BENEFITS REPORT
675
17,900
(c)
20.52
99.98
-------
TABLE X
Hyde Park Leachate Constituents as a Fraction of TOC* and TOH*
CHLORINATED ALIPHATICS
of TOC
ft of TOH
Chloromethane
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
1.1.2. 2-Tetrachloroethane
Trlchloroethylene
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Nethylene Chloride
1 . 1 , 2-Trlchloroethane
Trans-l-2-Dlchloroethylene
1 , 2-Dlchloroethane
Trichlorofluorome thane
Chloroethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1 , 2-Dichloropropane
1 , 1-Dlchloroethylene
1 , 1-Olchloroethane
Hexachlorohexanes (BHC)
alpha-Hexachlorohexane
beta-Hexachlorohexane
gamma -Hexachlorohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadlene (C-56)
Hexachlorobutadlene (C-46)
AROMATICS AND SUBSTITUTED
AROMATICS
Phenol
2.4, 5-Trlchlorophenol
Monochlorotoluene
Toluene
Benzene
2 , 4-Dlchlorophenol
Ethyl Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Monochlorobenzotrlfluorlde
2.4, 6-Trichlorophenol
Trichlorobenzene
2-Chlorophenol
o-Dlchlorobenzene
p-Dlchlorobenzene
Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2. 4-Trlchlorobenzene
2 . 4-Dlnitrotoluene
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene
2 . 6-Dlnltrotoluene
0.02%
0.01ft
0.01ft
6.01ft
0.01ft
<.01ft
<.01X
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
'» <.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
ft of TOC
10.60ft
0.05ft
0.05ft
0.05ft
0.04ft
0.02ft
0.02ft
0.02ft
0.01ft
<.01ft
0.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
0.46ft
0.75ft
0.45ft
0.35ft
0.19ft
0.12ft
O.llft
0.04ft
0.03ft
0.02ft
0.03ft
0.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
0.02ft
0.01ft
<.01ft
0.02ft
<.01ft
<.01ft
ft of TOH
0.00ft
0.57ft
0.16ft
0.00ft
0.00ft
0.13ft
0.00ft
0.06ft
0.10ft
0.05ft
0.08ft
0.01ft
<.01ft
<.01X
0.01ft
0.01ft
0.00ft
<.01ft
0.00ft
-------
TABLE %.
Hyde Park Leachate Constituents as a Fraction of TOC* and TOH*
ACIDS AND ESTERS
Total of Above Compounds
* of TOC
ft of TOH
Benzoic Acid* ~
o-Chlorobenzoic acid
p-Chlorobenzoic acid
m-Chlorobenzoic acid
Chlorendic acid
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
MISCELLANEOUS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
23.01ft
6.03ft
1.88ft
2.19ft
1.83ft
0.01ft
<.01ft
ft of TOC
0.00000979ft
0.00ft
19.10ft
5.95ft
6.95ft
27.81ft
0.00ft
0.00ft
X of TOH
0.0000724ft
45.87ft
63.61ft
Based on average concentrations in Table 6.
The average concentration of Total Organic Carbon - 6,848,000 ppb.
The average concentration of Total Organic,Halogens 911,000 ppb.
-------
TABLE 3
HYDE PARK NAPL COMPOSITION1
OCC Analysis of October 1984
Chemical
mg/kg (ppm)
mmole/kg
% of samp
(weight %
HALOGEXATED ALIPHATICS
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethylene
hexachloroethane
1,1,2.2-tetrachloroethane
chloroform
methylene chloride
carbon tetrachloride
pentachloroethane
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
Subtotal
27.700
21.000
1.600
1.200
995
900
880
630
450
NA
174
126
12
5.1
5.9
7.3
10.4
4.1
2.2
NA
2.'
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
AROMATICS
Xylenes **
Toluene **
Methyl phenyl ether
Ethyl Benzene **
Benzene
Subtotal =
54.800
30,760
12,850
5,900
4.400
870
537
290
140
54.6
41.8
11.1
CHLOROBENZENES
Tetrachlorobenzenes '
Trichlorobenzenes
Pentachlorobenzene *
Monochlorobenzene **
Hexachlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzenes
Subtotal
51,100
23.100
15,000
4,300
3.550
3.200
1,900
263
107
82.6
17
31.5
11
13
2.3
l.E
0.4
0.2
0.3
CHLOROTOLUENES
dichlorotoluenes
chlorotoluenes **
trichlorotoluenes
tetrachlorotoluenes *
hexachlorotoluenes *
pentachlorotoluenes *
heptachlorotoluenes *
Subtotal =
102,000
49,000
30,000
16,000
3,270
2,160
930
820
651
304
237
81.8
14.22
7.23
3.5
2.46
10.
3.C
i.e
o.c
0.2
See footnotes on third page of this table
-------
TABLE 3 (Con't)
HYDE PARK N'APL COMPOSITION
OCC Analysis of October 1984
Chemical
PHENOLS/CHLOROPHENOLS Subtotal =
trichlorophenols
phenol
dichlorophenols
tetrachlorophenols
2 ,4-dimethylphenol
BENZOHALIDES Subtotal =
dichlofobenzotrif luorides
chlorobenzotrif luorides **
benzochlorodi fluoride
benzotri fluoride
tetrachlorobenzotrif luorides *
tri chlorobenzotrif luorides
benzotrichloride
BENZOIC ACID DERIVATIVES Subtotal = *
methylbenzoate (niobe oil)
butylbenzoate *
benzoic acid
methyl n-chlorobenzoate *
m-chlorobenzoic acid
p-chlorobenzoic acid
phenylbenzoate *
o-chlorobenzoic acid
MISCELLANEOUS COMPOUNDS Subtotal =
hexachlorobutadiene (C-46)
chlorendlc acid
pentachlorocyclohexane
polychlorinated biphenyls (as 1248)
hexachlorocyclohexanes
hexachlorocyclopentadiene (C-56)
unidentified but quantified*
Total quantified by authentic standards
Total estimated by internal standard
Total unidentified but quantified
Total unidentified and not quantified
Total sample
mg/kg (ppm)
26.300
12,000
12,000
2,300
NA
NA
42,900
17,000
12,000
6,380
4,800
2,680
NA
NA
46,500
13,000
10.900
8,600
7.820
2.500
1.400
1,300
1.000
19,600
6,200
5.600
4,050
3.000
780
<100
92,500
303,000
130,000
92.500
475.000
1.000.000
mmole/kg
202
60.3
127
14.1
NA
NA
227
79
66
39.3
33
9.44
NA
NA
313
97
61.2
70
46.4
16
8.9
6.6
6.4
66.3
24
14
15.9
10
2.7
<100
2433
_..
__
% of samp
(Weight S
2.6
1.2
1.2
0.2
N
N
4.2
1.7
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
N
V
4.6
1.5
l.C
0.6
- 0.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
o.:
1.9
0.6
0.:
0.-
o.:
o.c
9.:
so.:
13.;
9.:
47 . ;
100.!
See footnotes on third page of this table
-------
TABLE 3 (Con' -.}
HYDE PARK N'APL COMPOSITION
OCC Analysis of October 1984
* Estimated from internal standard (all others were based on authentic standards)
** Average of several quantitation approaches using the same sample.
.»
Source: OCC Memo (from N. Simon to J. Czapla) December 7, 1984.
-------
Table 4
9.2 NAPL SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS PARAMETERS
J
The NAPL System Effectiveness Parameters are
as follows:
Parameter Detection Levels
ter
Total Organic Halogen (TOH) 500 ug/L
Benzoic Acid 100 ug/L
Phenol 250 ug/L n(j
Monochlorobenzoic Acids (sum of
o, p, m-isomers detected) 100 ug/L
Chlorendic Acid 250 ug/L
9.3 APL PLUME FLUX PARAMETERS
The APL Plume Flux Parameters and Flux Action
Levels are as follows:
Parameter Detection Level Flux Action Level
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo- 0.5 ng/L 0.5 g/year
p-dioxin
P-erchloropentacyclodecane 1.0 ug/L .005 Ibs/day
(C10ci12)
Solychlorobiphenyls as 1.0 ug/L .005 Ibs/day
Aroclor 1248*
Chloroform 10 ug/L 1.7 Ibs/day
* analyze for tri-, tetra-, and penta-chlorobiphenyls and report
clor 1248 unless the reassessment per Section 10.0 indicates
such reported concentration represents less than 90 percent
total quantity of polychlorobiphenyls.
1 nt
-------
TABLE 5
COMPARISON HYDE PARK ACTION LEVELS WITH WATER
AND FISH CONCENTRATIONS FROM STANDARDS CRITERIA AND ADVISORIES
FOR TCDD
Action
FISH
WATER
STANDARD, CRITERIA OR ADVISORY
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
(BAF = 5,000)
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
(BAF = 10,000)
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
(BAF = 68,000)
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
(BAF = 680,000)
EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
NY STATE FISH (DOH)
(BAF = 680,000)
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT (BAF » 680,000)
EPA, DRAFT DRINKING WATER
ADVISORY
ONTARIO
CANADA
FDA
(BAF = 680,000)
NY STATE FISH (DOH)
(BAF = 10,000)
DEC PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARD
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT (BAF = 10,000)
FDA
(BAF = 5,000)
Level
(g/yr)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.33
2.63
<2.63
3.89
5.26
5.26
6.58
CONG .
(ppb)
0.014
0.028
0.19
1.9
-=-
10
20
20
25
CONC.
(ppt)
0.0000028
0.0000028
0.0000028
0.0000028
0.0000028
0.000013
N.D.
0.00022
.
««»_
179
179
<179
895
10
0.001
N.D.
25
-------
TABLE 6
COMPARISON HYDE PARK ACTION LEVELS WITH WATER
AND FISH CONCENTRATIONS FROM STANDARDS CRITERIA AND ADVISORIES
FOR MIREX
STANDARD, CRITERIA OR ADVISORY
Action FISH
Level CONC.
(g/yr) (ppb)
WATER
CONC.
(ppt)
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
827.8 0.0046
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
(BAF = 18,200)
827.8 0.0837 0.0046
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
(BAF = 180,200)
827.8 0.837 0.0046
EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
DEC PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARD 179,000
N.A.
1.0
ONTARIO
CANADA
IJC
98,352 100
98,352 -100
98,352 100
-------
TABLE 7
COMPARISON HYDE PARK ACTION LEVELS WITH WATER
AND FISH CONCENTRATIONS FROM STANDARDS CRITERIA AND ADVISORIES
FOR PCBS
STANDARD, CRITERIA OR ADVISORY
Action FISH
WATER
Level CONC. CONC.
(g/yr) (ppb) (ppt)
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
827.8
0.0046
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
(BAF * 72,000)
827.8
0.331 0.0046
HYDE PARK ACTION LEVEL
(BAF « 720,000)
827.8
3.31 0.0046
EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
143,200
0.8
DEC PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARD 179,000
1.0
ONTARIO
24,861
100
CANADA
24,861
100
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT
24,861
100
1.0
FDA
(BAF = 720,000)
497,222 2,000
NY STATE
(BAF = 720,000)
497,222 2,000
-------
TABLE 9
9.4 APL PLUME MONITORING PARAMETERS
*
The APL Plume Monitoring Parameters and
Monitoring Levels are as follows:
Parameter
Phenol
Benzene
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
2-Chlorophenol
2 , 4-Dichlorophenol
2,4/5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Monitoring Level
50
10
10
10
10
10
10
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
9.5 LOWER FORMATION SURVEY PARAMETERS
The Lower Formation Survey Parameters and
Survey Levels are as follows:
Parameter
pH
Conductivity
Total Organic Carbon (TOG)
Total Organic Halogen (TOH)
Phenol
Monochlorobenzene
Monochlorotoluenes
Tr ichlo robenzenes
Tetrachlorobenzenes
Octachlorocyclopentene
Monochlorobenzotrifluorides
2,4,5-Tr ichlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Polychlorobiphenyls as Aroclor 1248*
Perchloropentacyclodecane (C^o C
Survey Level
Less than 4.5 or
greater than 9.5
units
10 times background
level (umhos/cm)
200 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
0.25 mg/L
10 ug/L
10 ug/L
\Q ug/L
10 ug/L
10 ug/L
10 ug/L
10 ug/L
10 ug/L
0.5ng/L
1 ug/L
1 ug/L
-------
TABLE 10
* 9.6 SOIL SURVEY PARAMETERS
The Soil Survey Parameters and Soil Survey
Levels are as follows:
Parameter Soil Survey Level
__
Monochlorobenzene 10 ug/kg
MonochlorotolueneJ 10 ug/kg
Hexachlorobenzene 100 ug/kg
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 100 ug/kg
9.7 GORGE FACE SOIL/SEDIMENT PARAMETERS
The Gorge Face Soil/Sediment Parameters and
Action Levels are as follows:
Parameter Action Levels
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxint 1 ug/kg
Polychlorobiphenyls as Aroclor 1248* 25 mg/kg
Hexachlorocyclohexanes 106 mg/kg
t EPA Method of Analysis for chlorinated dibenzo-p-dtoxins
and dibenzofurans (Appendix X to 40 CFR Part 261, Federal
Register, January 14, 1985).
9.8 COMMUNITY EARLY WARNING PARAMETERS
The Community Early Warning Parameters
and appropriate Detection Levels are as follows:
Detection Level Detection Level
Parameter Water Soil Air
TOH 500 ug/L NA
Chlorendic Acid v 250 ug/L NA
Benzoic Acid 100 ug/L NA
Monochlorobenzoic Acids
(sum of o,p,m-isomers detected) 100 ug/L NA
141
-------
TABLE 11
Detection Level Detection Level
Parameter - Water Soil Air <
Monochlorobenzene 10 ug/L see Section 8.4.2
Monochlorotoluenes 10 ug/L see Section 8.4.2
Monochlorobenzotrifluorides 10 ug/L see Section 8.4.2
Section 8.4.2 sets a 1 ppb goal as the detection limit.
9.9 COLLECTED LIQUIDS MONITORING PARAMETERS
^
The Collected Liquids Monitoring Parameters-
and Monitoring Levels are as follows:
Parameter * Monitorng Level
pH (0.1 Unit)
Chloride " 1,000 ug/L
Total Organic Carbon 200 mg/L
Total Organic Halogen 0.5 mg/L
Phenol 10 ug/L
Monochlorobenzene . 10 ug/L
Monochlorotoluenes 10 ug/L
Trichlorobenzenes 10 ug/L
Tetrachlorobenzenes 10 ug/L
Octachlorocyclopentene 10 ug/L
Monochlorobenzotrifluorides 10 ug/L
\ 2,4,5 Trichlorophenol 10 ug/L
Hexachlorocyclohexanes 10 ug/L
-------
ATTACHMENT I
TABLE 1
ALTERNATE REMEDIAL PROGRAMS
Chemical Source
Landfill
Remedial Program
- hydraulic containment
- physical containment
- relocation
- treatment
NAPL and APL in Overburden
hydraulic containment
physical containment
relocation
treatment
NAPL and APL in Bedrock within
NAPL plume
hydraulic containment
physical containment
relocation
treatment
recycled paper
-------
TABLE 2
ALTERNATE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Remedial Program
Remedial Technologies Considered,
Found Suitable and Evaluated
Remedial Technologies
Considered and Found Unsuitable
Landfill
a) Hydraulic containment
u
p
0)
u
(0
u
b) Physical containment
c) Relocation
d) Extraction & Treatment
existing barrier collection system
capping (clay, concrete, asphalt,
synthetic membrane)
NAPL and APL containment in bedrock
(see remedial technologies for NAPL
and APL in bedrock)
overburden barrier collection system
(tile)
capping (clay, concrete, asphalt,
synthetic membrane)
surface drainage control
(ditches, swales, grading, pipes,
culverts)
biological treatment of liquids
chemical treatment of liquids
physical treatment of liquids
(separation, incineration, activated
carbon, filtration)
fixation/stabilization of collected
liquids with landfllllng
extraction wells
enhanced recovery wells (reoirculation,
chemical injection and heat injection)
augment existing barrier collection
system
- grout base
- continuous barrier wall around land-
fill in overburden
(bentonite, clay, cement, asphalt,
designed backfill)
- pressure grouting in bedrock around
landfill
- fixation/stabilization in place
- excavation
- landfilling of excavated site
- biological treatment of liquids in situ
- chemical treatment of liquids in situ
-------
TABLE 2 (cont'd)
ALTERNATE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Remedial Program
Remedial Technologies Considered,
Found Suitable and Evaluated
Remedial Technologies
Considered and Found Unsuitable
NAPL & APL In Bedrock
a) Hydraulic containment
b) Physical containment
c) Relocation
d) Extraction £ Treatment
extraction wells
enhanced recovery wells (reelrculatIon
wells)
bedrock fracturing (hydrofracturlng
and drilling)
pressure grouting (grout curtain wall,
grouting through controlled fractures
and defined fracture grouting using
singularly or combination of bentonlte,
cement, fly ash, sodium silicates and
chemicals)
biological treatment of liquids
chemical treatment of liquids
physical treatment of liquids
(separation. Incineration, activated
carbon, filtration)
fixation/stabilization of collected
liquids with landfllling
enhanced recovery wells (chemical Injection
and heat injection)
proposed bedrock barrier collection
system
bedrock fracturing (blasting)
tile collection system
fixation/stabilization in place
continuous barrier wall (bentonite,
clay, cement, asphalt, designed
backfill)
excavation of all bedrock within
NAPL plume
landfilling of bedrock
biological treatment of liquids in situ
chemical treatment of liquids in situ
-------
TABLE 2 (cont'd)
ALTERNATE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Remedial Program
Remedial Technologies Considered,
Found Suitable and Evaluated
Remedial Technologies
Considered and Found Unsuitable
NAPL t APL in Overburden
a) Hydraulic containment
- surface & subsurface
b) Physical containment
1) Surface
2) Subsurface
°- c) Relocation
I 1) Surface
2) Subsurface
d) Extraction & Treatment
- surface & subsurface
overburden barrier collection system
(tile)
existing barrier collection system
capping
capping (clay, concrete, asphalt,
synthetic membrane) ,
surface drainage control (ditches,
swales, grading, pipes, culverts)
partial excavation to accommodate
capping
biological treatment of liquids
chemical treatment of liquids
physical treatment of liquids
(separation, incinerat^^ activated
carbon, filtration) ^^B
fixation/stabilization^^ collected
linn iris with landfillinq
extraction wells
enhanced recovery wells, (reclrculation,
chemical injection and heat injection)
augment existing barrier collection
system
- fixation/stabilization in place
surface capping (clay, concrete,
asphalt, synthetic membrane)
continuous barrier wall (bentonite,
clay, cement, asphalt, designed
backfill)
fixation/stabilization, in place
- complete excavation
- excavation
- landfilling of excavated site
- biological treatment of liquids in situ
- chemical treatment of liquids in situ
-------
TABLE 3
UNSUITABLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Discussion
* Further discussion of these alternatives are presented in the appropriate category
of Section 8.0 of this report.
Landfill
- extraction wells*
- enhanced recovery wells
augmented existing barrier
collection system
- grout base
continuous barrier wall
around landfill in
overburden
pressure grouting in bedrock
around landfill
fixation/stabiliation
in place
unsuitable hydraulic characteristics of landfill
redundant since it addresses only a portion of chemical source
unsuitable hydraulic characteristics of landfill
environmental risk due to unknown reactions
redundant since it addresses only a portion of chemical source
existing system not amenable to augmentation to address chemicals at depth
health and environmental risk of excavation into landfill
redundant since it addresses only a portion of chemical source
redundant since it addresses only a portion of chemical source
high cost
health and environmental risk due to extensive drilling through landfill
made redundant by required installation of Overburden Barrier Collection
System
- redundant since it addresses only a portion of chemical source
unsuitable hydraulic characteristics of landfill
technology not available
-------
TABLE 3 (cont'd)
UNSUITABLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Discussion
Landfill (cont'd)
- excavatlon/landfllllng*
biological treatment of
liquids in situ
chemical treatment of
liquids in situ
- redundant since It addresses only a portion of chemical source
- high cost
- health and environmental risk
- secure landfill availability
- technology not available
- technology not available
NAPL ft APL in Overburden
- extraction wells
- enhanced recovery wells
- augment existing barrier
collection system
continuous barrier wall
(surface & subsurface)
fixation/stabilization
in place (surface &
subsurface)
unsuitable hydraulic characteristics
unsuitable hydraulic characteristics
existing system not amenable to address chemicals at depth
made redundant by required installation of Overburden Barrier Collection
System
made redundant by required installation of Overburden Barrier Collection
System
unsuitable hydraulic characteristics of overburden
technology not available
made redundant by required installation of Overburden Barrier Collection
System
-------
21
Technology
TABLE 3 (cont'd)
UNSUITABLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Discussion
NftPL & APL in Overburden (cont'd)
- capping (subsurface)
- complete excavation
(surface)
- excavation/landftiling*
(subsurface)
biological treatment of
liquids in situ
chemical treatment of
liquids in situ
- existing clean surface soil provides suitable cap
- high cost i
- redundant since it addresses only a portion of chemical source
- made redundant by required Installation of Overburden Barrier Collection
System
- high cost
- made redundant by required installation of Overburden Barrier Collection
System .
- health and environmental risk
- secure landfill availability
- technology not available
- technology not available
a.
3
NAPL & APL in Bedrock
- enhanced recovery wells*
(chemical, heat)
- proposed Bedrock Barrier
Collection System*
unknown NAPL rheological characteristics
health and environmental risk due to unknown reactions
technology not available (chemical injection)
high cost (heat injection)
redundant since it addresses only a small portion of chemical source in
bedrock
-------
TABLE 3 (cont'd)
UNSUITABLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Discussion
NAPL t APL In Bedrock (cont'd)
- bedrock fracturing*
(blasting)
- tile collection system*
- fixation/stabilization
in place
- continuous barrier wall*
- excavation/landfllllng*
i
- biological treatment in situ
- chemical treatment in situ
- health and environmental risk due to chemical releases
- high cost
- other technologies of equal effect and lower cost available
- health and environmental risk due to construction requirements
(blasting, dewatering, work environment)
- technology not available
high cost
other technologies of equal effect and lower cost available
high cost
health and environmental risk
secure landfill availability
technology not available
technology not available
------- |