IMttd States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-B8/055
October 1987
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Love Canal, NY
-------
5077?-10'
REPORT DOCUMENTATION j »• «EP°RT
PAGE i
EPA/ROD/R02-88/055
4. Title and Subtitle
ISUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Love Canal, NY
Second Remedial Action
7. Author(s)
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Dat
eport Date
10/26/87
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) " —
The Love Canal site is located in the southeast corner of the city of Niagara Falls
and is approximately one-quarter mile north of the Niagara River. The canal was one of
two initial excavations designed to provide inexpensive hydroelectric power for
industrial development around the turn of the 20th century. Hooker Chemicals and
Plastics Corporation (Hooker), now Occidental Chemical Corporation, disposed of over
21,000 tons of chemical wastes, including dioxin tainted trichlorophenols, into Love
Canal between 1942 and 1953. In the mid to late 1970s, continued periods of high
precipitation contributed to water 'accumulation in the disposal area causing
chemically-contaminated leachate to be carried to the surface and into contact with
residential basement foundations. Also, dioxin and other contaminants migrated from
Love Canal to the sewers which have outfalls to nearby creeks. The remedial program at
Love Canal has been extensive and has occurred in two phases. Phase one consisted of
measures aimed at site containment. Phase two is directed at remediating contaminated
drainage tracts. Approximately 30,400 yd3 - 40,900 yd3 of creek and sewer sediments
are contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, commonly referred to as
dioxin.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision
Love Canal, NY
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: sediments, debris
c. COSATI Field/Group
8. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
i 20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
75
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
Sec Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
;A/ROD/R02-88/055
ve Canal, NY
cond Remedial Action
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes: construction of an onsite
dewatering/containment facility (DCF) to include a separate construction/demolition
debris facility (CDF); onsite containment of sewer and creek sediments in the DCF prior
to thermal destruction in a transportable thermal destruction unit; onsite storage in
the DCF of leachate treatment residuals and other material generated as a result of
remediation; onsite storage of uncontaminated debris in the CDF; onsite disposal of
non-hazardous thermal treatment residuals to avoid disturbance of the existing cap; and
scaling down of the DCF to only include the construction/demolition debris material.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action ranges from $26,400,000 to
$31,400,000.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Love Canal, City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New York
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document represents the selected remedial
action for the final destruction/disposal of Love Canal
dioxin-contaminated sewer and creek sediments, developed in accord-
ance with the Comorehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC §9601, et sea., as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollu-
tion Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based on the administrative record for the
Love Canal site. The attached index identifies the items
that comprise the administrative record, upon which the
selection of a remedial action is based. A copy of the
administrative record is located at the New York Department of
Environmental conservation (NYDEC) Love Canal Public Information
Office (9820 Colvin Boulevard, Niaaara Falls, NY) and at the Re-
gional office (26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York).
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
This Record of Decision for the Love Canal site calls for the
following actions that address the destruction/disposal of
dioxin-contaminated sewer and creek sediments. The following
actions represent only a portion of the remediation that is
on-going or prooosed for the Love canal site.
0 The sewer and creek sediments will be thermally treated at the
Love Canal site. The wastes will be treated with a transportable
thermal destruction unit (TTDU), so that mobilization and
demobilization can be readily accomplished. Six nines (99,9999%)
destruction and removal efficiency will be the performance
stand_arc[.
0 The TTDU will treat all creek and sewer sediments placed
in the dewatering/containment facility (DCF) (to be
constructed), as'well as residuals stored on-site from the
-------
-2-
operation of the on-site leachate treatment facility,
and other associated material aenerated as a result of
remediation (e.q., haul roads.)
Materials not reauirinq thermal treatment (e.g., uncon-
taminated debris from excavated Ring II homes) will be placed
in a separate construction/demolition debris facility (CDDF),
which will be a compartment within the DC**.
After determination that the residuals from the thermal
destruction process are non-hazardous, they will be
disposed on site in selective areas, so as not to impinqe
on the integrity of the existinq cap over Love Canal.
Upon completion of thermal treatment, the dewatering/
containment facility (DCF) will be scaled down to accommodate
the construction/demolition debris onlv.
DECLARATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, attains Federal and State requirements that are
applicable, or relevant and aporooriate, and is cost-effective.
This remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies
that employ treatment which permanently and sianificantly
reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of '-.azardous substances
as their principal element. Finally, this remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
to the maximum extent practicable.
The State of New York has been consulted and agrees with the
approved remedy.
Date I/winston Porter,
Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response _
-------
Love Canal Site
Niagara Falls, New York
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Love Canal site is located in the southeast corner of the
City of Niagara Falls and is approximately one-quarter mile
north of the Niagara River. It was one of two initial excavations
in what was to be a canal to provide inexpensive hydroelectric
power for industrial development around the turn of the 20th
century. The abandoned excavation, partially filled with
water, was used largely for recreational purposes. The Canal
was approximately 9,750 feet long and ranged in depth from
10-25 feet. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (now Occidental'
Chemical Corporation) disposed of over 21,000 tons of various
chemicals, including dioxin tainted trichlorophenols into
Love Canal between 1942 and 1953.
Families residing in the Emergency Declaration Area (EDA)
and Rings I & II, a residential area completely surrounding
Canal (see Figure 1), were eligible to voluntarily relocate
or sell their residence to State or Federal government agencies.
According to Love Canal Area Revitilization Agency (LCARA),
approximately 750 of the 850 homeowners sold their property
and relocated. In addition, approximately 270 of the 300
families residing in the LaSalle senior citizen, and Griffen Manor
Apartments decided to relocate. All but tw^ homes within
the areas designated as Pings I & II (homes on streets
immediately bordering the Canal) have been Demolished, as
has the school built adjacent to the Canal. Most of the
debris from the demolition was buried in place on-site. In
addition, other homes within the EDA have been or are scheduled
to be demolished due to deteriorating conditions.
Black Creek and Bergholtz Creek pass through the northern
portion of the EDA and flow into Cayuga Creek which in turn
flows to the Niagara River. Backyards of occupied homes abut
these creeks. Signs have been posted advising against fishing
in these creeks; however fishing may still occur in the creeks.
Niagara River water, after treatment, is use-"1 for drinking
water. A small area of the EDA north of Love Canal proper and
adjacent to Bergholtz Creek is within the 101") year floodplain
Ground water in the area is not used as a source of
drinking water. The around water is being addressed through
a long term monitoring/perimeter study program and is not
included in this remedial action ooerable unit.
SITE HISTORY
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (Hooker) disposed of over
21,000 tons of chemical wastes in the Canal between 1942 and
1953. The Love Canal property was deeded by Hooker in April
1953 to the City of Niagara Falls Board of Education. During
-------
DECLARATION
RIVER
LOVf CANAL
DECLARATION AREA MAP
-------
-2-
the mid-1950's home construction accelerated in the area. In
1954, a public elementary school was built adjacent to the
middle portion of the Canal. By 1972, area lots were almost
completely developed including lots with backyards directly
abutting the landfill.
In the mid-late 1970's, continued periods of high precipitation
contributed to the rising water table elevations. Water
accumulated in the landfill and carried chemically-contaminated
leachate to the surface and into contact with basement foundations.
As documented in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
report entitled Love Canal Sewers and Creeks Remedial Alternatives
and Risk Assessment March, 19P5, dioxin and other contaminants
migrated from Love Canal to sewers in the EDA which have outfalls
to nearby Black and Bergholtz Creeks. In response to complaints
from residents of homes abutting the Canal, the New York State De-
partment of Environmental Conservation (DEC), with the assistance
of the EPA, conducted studies on ground water pollution, and basement
air and sump water contamination in late 1977.
Additional monitoring studies were conducted by DEC, EPA and
the New York State Department of Health (DOH) early in 1978.
The results of these studies indicated contamination in some
Ring I homes. This led the DOH Commissioner to declare a
state of emergency at Love Canal on August 2, 1978. President
Carter declared an Environmental Emergency at Love Canal on
August 7, 1978, enabling the Federal government to provide
financial assistance to the State for the initiation of
remedial measures, and for relocation of residents.
On May 22, 1980, President Carter declared a second Federal
Emergency which made funds available to additional residents
to enable them to voluntarily relocate from the area. Residents
were moved from the area under an authorization by Congress
that appropriated $15 million. This action was carried out
under a Memorandum of Understanding between the State of New
York and the Federal Emergency Management Aoency through the
newly-formed Love Canal Area Revitaiization '.gency.
HISTORY OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES
The remedial program at Love Canal has been extensive and has
occurred in two distinct phases. The first phase consisted
of measures aimed at site containment. The second phase was
directed at remediating contaminated drainage tracts.
In October 1978, site containment measures were instituted by
DEC that included the construction of a tile drain and leachate
collection system; placement of clay cover (cap) over the
Canal; the erection of an on-site leachate treatment facility;
-------
-3-
and the installation of a fence around the Love Canal (proper).
On July 12, 1982, a cooperative agreement was entered into
between the DEC and EPA. Under this agreement several addi-
tional remedial tasks were undertaken. In the fall of 1982
sewers leaving the Canal were severed to deter future contaminant
flow via these pathways. In 1984, the installation of an
expanded cap (from 16 to 40 acres), including a synthetic
liner and clay cover, was completed. Subsequently, a long term
monitoring/perimeter study program was implemented. This
program is evaluating the effectiveness of the leachate
collection system and also is assessing the extent of contaminant
migration in the soil and ground water and the depth of fill
in Love Canal proper.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
Studies evaluating alternatives for remediating contaminated
drainage tracts (i.e., sewers, creeks, and 102nd Street
Outfall delta area) were completed in 1983 and 1985. The
March, 1985 CH2MHill report, and the Malcolm Pirnie Inc.
report, Environmental Information Document (EID) "Site
Investigations and Remedial Action Alternatives, Love Canal"
of October 1983 provided the basis for approval of the first
Record of Decision (ROD) for the site, which was signed May
6, 1985. For purposes of the administrative record, the May
6, 1985 ROD is incorporated into this ROD.
The first ROD called for: the removal of dioxin-contaminated
sediments from specific stretches of Black and Bergholtz creeks and
storm and sanitary sewers, and interim storaoe of the sediments
in a containment facility; the construction of a temporary berm at
the 102nd Street outfall delta area (to be coordinated with remedi-
ation of the 102nd Street Landfill Superfund with site)? and the
installation of a permanent administration building on-site
(completed in 1986).
The ROD determined that the sediments should be placed in an
interim containment facility !_/ for several reasons, including:
a viable option for destruction/disposal of the sediments did
not exist at that time; the creek material would require
dewatering, sizing, shredding etc., prior to implementation
of any treatment alternative; and the rate of sediment removal
would be much greater than the rate at which the wastes would
be treated and therefore, a temporary dewatering and staging
facility was needed (e.g., the creek excavation would be
completed in approximately 18 - 24 weeks, whereas thermal
destruction of the sediment would require at least one year to
complete).
!_/ As discussed infra, the interim containment facility is now
termed a dewatering/containment facility (DCF).
-------
-4-
The design of the creek remedy (i.e., sediment excavation and
construction of the dewatering/containment facility) is currently
at the 95% completion stage. The original design called for
the construction of a containment facility approximately 900
feet long, 300 feet wide and 25 feet above grade (at crest).
As such, the facility would be approximately 12 feet above
the crest of Love Canal proper (which is approximately 13
feet above grade), but below the roof of the on-site Leachate
Treatment Facility. The containment facility would be con-
structed in the southwest corner of the Love Canal proper.
Due to the required size of the containment facility and site
limitations, the facility would have to be constructed over
approximately 24 of the demolished Ring II homes (see Figure
1). The old basement foundations and house debris would have
to be removed in order to provide a stable foundation for the
containment facility. The facility has been designed and
sited to minimize the number of demolished homes that require
excavation. A change in the lateral dimensions of the facility
would require the removal of Ring I basement debris and would
further encroach on the Love Canal cap, therefore potentially
impacting the integrity of the cap. As designed, the contain-
ment facility is scheduled for construction in 1988, so that
it could receive creek sediments scheduled for removal in
1989.
Sediments in Bergholtz Creek will be removed from approximately
150 feet above its confluence with Black Crn^k to its confluence
with Cayuga Creek. Sediments will be remove! from Black
Creek from the 98th Street culverts to its confluence with
Bergholtz Creek.
_ A
Approximately fifteen thousand cubic yards (cy) of sediment
is scheduled to be removed from Black and Bergholtz Creeks in
1989. Additionally, an approximate nine to nineteen thousand
cy may be generated as a result of the creek cleaninq effort
(i.e., haul roads placed in the creek during remediation) and
from approximately 2400 drums containing spenn actiya^ed
and miscellaneous remedial wastes currently stored on-site.
proximately 5500 cy of house debris and soil from the area where
where Ring II homes once stood will be store.5 in a Construction/
Demolition Debris Facility (CDDF). The hous<= debris and soil need
to be removed in order to build the dewaterinq/containment facility.
The contaminant of concern in the creek and sewer sediments
is 2,3,7,8 - tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ("dioxin")• The
creeks and sewers have been sampled for dioxin on several
different occasions. Results of the creek sampling
indicate dioxin concentrations in the range of non-detectable
(generally less than 1 ppb) to 46 ppb in the top 12 inches
of creek sediments (See 1985 EPA report). No dioxin has been
detected above the detection limit in the sediment/bed below the
one foot mark.
-------
-5-
In addition, dioxin has been detected in fish and other
aauatic organises from these creeks. The levels of the
dioxin in the fish were above the New York State Department of
Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guidelines for
dioxin in fish.
Current plans call for removal of the contaminated sediments
in the creek sediment/bed. The removal of the sediments from
the creeks is necessary to eliminate the potential for direct
contact with the sediments/soils above 1 oob and also to
reduce the potential *or further bioaccumulation of dioxin
in the creek biota. As recommended in the 19P5 POD and 1985
EPA report, approximately 18 inches of creek sediments will be re-
moved in order to eliminate the contaminant pathways mentioned
above. This represents a oermanent solution for potential
risks to public health and the environment.
In addition to the 2^,000-34,000 cv of creek sediment and
associated material (excludina house debris), approximately
1,000 cy of sewer sediment would be stored in the dewatering/
containment facility. The concentration ranoe found in the
sewers was from non-detectable to 650 ODD. therefore, the
total amount of material which would be stored in the facility
would be 30, 000-41, OOn cy. Table 1 provides a breakdown of
auantities and sources of material to be Generated from the
creek remediation.
Durina the time when the interim containment facility was
beina desianed, EPA and the State were evaluating final
treatment and disposal options for the creek and sewer sediments.
prepared a Draft Addendum Feasibility Study (Addendum
PS) that examined final remedies for the sediments. The
Addendum FS, entitled Alternatives for Destruction/disposal
of Love Canal Creek and Sewer Sediments, was released for
public review on June 24, 1987.
As a consequence, EPA and the State have revisited the desian of
the dewaterinq/containment facility to assure that it is able to
meet the goals and objectives outlined in the Addendum FS. Speci-
fically the review included re-estimatina the rruantity of material
generated durina the remediation which could reauire thermal treat-
ment. The review focused on several pertinent factors: (1)
sediments needina to be dewatered; (2) a storaae area needed
for staging material prior to thermal treatment; and (3) the
feasibility of separating those materials containing an averaae
dioxin concentration above 1 ppb from those below 1 ppb. The
Centers^ for Disease Control (CDC) has Generally applied a
level of concern for dioxin in residential soils at 1 ppb
for other areas in the country. Tn addition, criteria for
rehabitatina the EDA call for dioxin levels in surface soil
to be below 1 ppb.
-------
Table 1
Quantities of Soil/Sediment/Debris
Requiring Thermal Treatment
Activity
Creek Remediation
Waste Stream
Generated
Creek sediments
Creek naul roads,
access and staging
areas
Quantity
(cubic yards)
15,000
2,000-6,500]
Remarks
DCF/CDDF
DDSF1
On-site Storage
Total Volume
Excavation
Haul road fill
Basement debris
Daily cover
DCF drainage
blanket
Excavation and
basement debris
Drums
Sewer sediment
2,400
800
4,0002
0-6,OOO1
2,500
,5002
3 ,200
1,000
30,400-40,900
CDDF to be
constructed
as a compartment
of the DCF.
]--Range as specified in TAMS Conceptual Desian Report
(August, 1987)
2—To be stored permanently in the CDDF
* Decontamination/Drum Storage Facility. The DDSF would
t>e constructed to provide appropriate drum storage/ and
decontamination facilities, to comply with RCRA storage
regulations.
Source: TAMS Inc., "Black and Bergholtz Creeks Remediation
Conceptual Design Report" (August, 1987)
-------
-6-
Based upon this review, the interim containment facility is
now termed a dewaterinq/containment facility (DCF) and would
contain a separate storage area for the Ring II house debris.
This storage area would be termed a Construction Demolition/
Debris Facility (CDDF).
A report on the results of this review can be found in the
August, 1987 TAMS, Inc "Black & Bergholtz Creek Conceptual
Design Report."
The construction cost for the creek remedy selected in 1985
is approximately $13 million. Of this $13 million, approximately
$4 million will be spent on construction of the DCF. Construction
of the facility is scheduled to begin in the 1988 construction
season. The remaining S9 million will be allocated for the
actual excavation of the creek sediments and construction
of decontamination/drum storage facility in 1989. In addition,
$750,000 has already been spent on the design of the creek
remedy, which is 95% completed.
Several remedial activities are ongoing. Sampling is being
performed at the 102nd Street outfall under the 102nd Street
Landfill Superfund site remedial investigation; a remedial inves-
tigation/feasibility study is being conducted at the 93rd Street
School.
In addition, approximately 16,000 gallons of Leachate Treatment
Facility (LTF) sludae are stored on-site. The viability of
thermally treating the LTF sludge with a plasma arc unit is cur-
rently being evaluated under the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program. Operation of the Love Canal LTF will continue
to generate sludge and activated carbon.
The majority of sewer cleaning work required under the 1985
ROD was completed in August 1986 while the remainder was
cleaned in the fall of 1987. Work entailed the removal of ..
dioxin-contaminated sewer sediments by hydraulic cleaning,
followed by remote television camera inspection to assure that
sediments had been completely removed. Approximately 68,000
linear feet of sewer was cleaned. These sewer sediments have
been dewatered in a sewer sediment dewatering facility and
are currently being stored on-site. The sewer sediment
dewatering facility could not be used to dewater the creek
sediments since it is not nearly large enough, nor is it
designed to treat wastes that have the physical characteristics
of the creek sediment. This facility will be decontaminated
once the sewer sediments have been removed.
-------
-7-
A comparison study to examine the suitability of the EDA for
human habitation is underway. A technical review committee
(TRC), composed of senior officials of the EPA, DEC, DOH, and
CDC was formed to oversee this work and other activities
pertaining to the habitability of the EDA. Criteria for the
habitability study have been developed by the TRC and a group of
expert scientists. The criteria were peer reviewed by an in-
dependent scientific panel and revised accordingly. Criteria call
for a measurement of the presence of a set of chemicals specific
to Love Canal (Love Canal Indicator Chemicals (LCICs)) in the EDA
soil and air, as well as dioxin in soil. The EDA soil LCIC con-
centrations will be compared to soil LCIC concentrations in the
samples taken from other Buffalo/ Niagara Falls communities. A
pilot study was conducted in 1986, and used to design the
full-scale study. The results and recommendations from the
pilot study were also peer reviewed. Field sampling began in
July 1987. A draft report detailing the results of the study is
scheduled to be prepared in the winter of 1987/1988. The
final report will be made available to the DOH Commissioner
who will determine whether or not the EDA should be rehabitated.
ENFORCEMENT
On December 20, 1979, the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of
EPA, filed a federal law suit against Hooker Chemicals and Plastics
Corp. pursuant to numerous environmental statutes, alleging
an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the
environment. New York State filed a lawsuit in state court in
April, 1980, against Hooker for damages sustained at Love Canal.
This action was stayed on August 8, 1980. On September 11, 1980,
New York State was realigned as a plaintiff in the federal case,
and on September 18, 1980, the State filed its claims in federal
court.
On April 16, 1982, The Department of Justice on behalf of EPA sent
Hooker a CERCLA notice letter. On July 26, 1982, EPA and the State
met with Hooker to explain the remediation activates which would be
taken under Superfund. Hooker has refused to assume responsibility
for remedial action at Love Canal. On January 17, 1984, the United
States filed its second amended complaint against Hooker to include
claims under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Hooker has filed
counter claims against the United States and the State and cross
and cross claims against the City of Niagara Falls, the
Niagara Falls Board of Education, and Niagara County.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS '
The governmental effort to ensure significant community
involvement at Love Canal has been extensive. A comprehensive
public relations strategy has been developed by DEC to keep
-------
-8-
concerned parties cognizant of CERCLA activities at the site.
The DEC maintains a Love Canal public information office at
which Love Canal documents are made available for public
review as they are produced. The office is located in the
EDA at 9820 Colvin Boulevard. In addition to this office,
the EPA has a public information office in the City of Niagara
Falls. The public is also kept informed through frequent
public meetinas.
A public meeting and a workshop were held respectively on
March 5, 1985, and March 12, 1985 to discuss the cleaning of
contaminated sewer and creek sediments and interim storage of
the sediments. A more detailed discussion of the outcome of
these public meetings can be found in the March 28, 1985 Re-
sponsiveness Summary.
The Draft Addendum FS identifying three remedial options
was released for public comment on June 24, ]987. The Proposed
Plan For Destruction/Disposal of Love Canal Sewer and Creek
Sediments was released for public comment on August 5., 1987.
EPA and DEC held a technical workshop to discuss thermal destruction
technology and the implementation of the Proposed Plan on
August ]2, ]987. In addition, EPA and DEC held a public meeting
on August 25, 1987 to discuss the addendum FS and proposed
plan. The October 26, 1987 Responsiveness Summary addresses
Questions and concerns raised by the public curing the public
comment period which closed October 9, 1987.
-------
-9-
ALTERNATIVES "EVALUATION
The alternatives identification and screeninq process was
conducted as required by the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
The effectiveness, implementability and cost of each of the
remedial alternatives were summarized in the Draft FS Addendum
and Proposed Plan. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) requires that permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
options be utilized to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, under SARA, treatment alternatives which signi-
ficantly reduce the mobility, toxicity, or volume of the
waste are preferred over remedial actions which do not involve
treatment. These factors have been fully considered in the
evaluation of the alternatives that is discussed below.
Alternatives for final destruction/disposal of the dioxin-
contaminated sediments are evaluated in the Draft Addendum
FS. Treatment alternatives evaluated include biological
(e.g. microbial degradation), physical (e.g. in-situ vitrification
and thermal destruction), and chemical (e.g. polyethylene
glycol dechlorination) methods. Disposal alternatives evaluated
include transport to an off-site facility and on-site disposal.
All but three alternatives which underwent initial screening
were eliminated. Table 2 lists the technologies/disposal
options which were evaluated and summarizes reasons for
retaining or rejecting specific technologies/disposal options.
A more detailed discussion of the rejected technologies/disposal
is provided in Appendix A of the Draft Addendum FS. Several
of these technologies could be applied to the treatment of
dioxin-contaminated soils. However, none has demonstrated
the desired destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs) for
initial dioxin concentrations in the concentration ranges
which exist in the creek sediments. In addition, none have
resulted in a non-hazardous residual which would not pose a
threat to human health or the environment through any exposure
pathway. In summary, the technologies which were rejected
have not achieved the preferred stage of development for
utilization at Love Canal.
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES/DISPOSAL
OPTIONS EVALUATED IN INITIAL SCREENING
Location/
Remedial Action
1. DISPOSAL
On-site;
Beneath
Existing Cap
Beneath Ex-
panded Cap
Final Disposal
in Currently
Designed
Dewatering/
Containment
Facility
Off-site
Di sposal
2. TREATMENT
Off-site
Thermal
Destruction
Biological
Treatment
Chemical
Treatment
Physical
Treatment
On-site
Thermal
Destruction
Status
Rejected
Rejected
Retained
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Retained
Reason for Rejection
No volume available
in cap below liner;
would require excavation
of more contaminated
material. Integrity of
existing cap and containment
system could be compromised.
Integrity of existing
cap and containment
system could be compromised.
Public is extremely opposed to
expanded cap disposal.
No disposal facilities currently
permitted to receive dioxin-
contaminated wastes.
No thermal destruction facilities
permitted or certified to treat
dioxin-contaminated waste.
Not demonstrated to be effec-
tive on dioxin in sediments.
Not demonstrated to be effective on
sediments with initial con-
centration in the low ppb range.
Not demonstrated to be effec-
tive on dioxin in soils/sediments
-------
-10-
Three remedial alternatives were developed from the two
technologies that passed the initial screening. The
alternatives are as follow:
1. On-site land disposal;
2. On-site disposal of untreated sediment containing an
average dioxin concentration less than 1 ppb;
On-site thermal destruction of untreated sediment
containing an average dioxin concentration greater than
1 ppb; On-site .disposal of non-hazardous residuals from
the thermal destruction process
3. On-site disposal of untreated sediment with an average
dioxin concentration less than 1 ppb; On-site thermal
destruction of untreated sediment containing an average
dioxin concentration of greater than 1 ppb; Off-site
disposal of non-hazardous thermal treatment residuals.
The three alternatives were evaluated in light of the 1985
ROD, which called for the removal of the creek and sewer sediments
and interim storage of the sediment. The alternatives analyzed
here deal with final treatment /disposal of the sediments as
removed and stored in the dewatering/contain-ient facility.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a brief description of the three
alternatives. A more detailed description of the alternatives
can be found in the Draft Addendum FS .
1 - On-Site Land Disposal
This alternative would use the recently designed on-site
dewatering/containment facility required for implementation
of the 1985 creek remedy. It would be designed to meet all
the Federal and State requirements for a dewa-.er ing/containment
facility. The facility would contain leak detection and leachate
collection systems as well as a double liner, cap and ground
water monitoring system.
To implement this alternative, the sediments would be removed
from the creeks and sewers, placed in the containment facility,
and dewatered. Subsequent to dewatering, the facility would be
capped. Ground water monitoring and post-closure maintenance
would continue indefinitely.
-------
Alternative 2 - On-Site Thermal Destruction/On-Site Disposal
This alternative would use both an on-site dewatering/containment
facility and an on-site thermal destruction unit. To implement
this option, the sediments would De removed from the creeks
and sewers and placed in the DCF. After dewatering, sediments
would be treated in a transportable thermal destruction unit
where a 99.9999% destruction and removal efficiency (six 9's
ORE) for dioxin would be the performance standard.
There are two major considerations involved with this alternative:
(1) which sediments to thermally treat; and (2) the options
for disposal of the residuals of thermal destruction.
As originally conceived, a sampling program would distinguish
between those sediments containing dioxin above the previously
prescribed level of concern of ] ppb of dioxin in residential
soils. Under this approach, those sediment testing above 1
ppb would be thermally treated. Those testing below ] ppb
would remain in the DCF untreated. However, due to the
potential difficulty of effectively separating greater than
] ppb material from less than ] ppb material and the time
and implementation issues associated with assuring separation,
the thermal destruction of all excavated sediments was also
considered as a possibility under this alternative.
TAMS was tasked to examine the implementabi1itv of effectively
separating the sediments above the ] ppb level from those
below, as compared to tne option of thermally treating all
excavated sediments and associated material. The feasibility
of implementing a segregation program is discussed under the
implementabi1ity section of the alternatives evaluation
( pg. ]8 ).
Secondly, regarding the final disposal of the thermally-treated
sediments, there are also two options. The first option
would be to dispose of the treated residuals in the DCF.
The second option would be to place the non-hazardous residuals
in selective areas of the site in such a way tviat the integrity
of the existing cap would not be threatened. "or example
the sediments can be placed in the northeast a.id southeast
corners of the site. This would result in less than a 3
foot increase in elevation in these areas.
-------
-12-
If the residuals «rere disposed of on the site, the DCF would
be altered prior to closure to account for the reduced volume
of material.
Alternative 3 - On-Site Thermal Destruction/Off-Site Disposal
of Residuals
This alternative is identical to Alternative 2 except with
regard to disposal of residuals. Alternative 3 makes two
assumptions. The first assumption is that the thermally treated
sediment residuals would be non-hazardous. The second assumption
is that a Subtitle D landfill would accept the residual materials
for disposal. If an appreciable quantity of residuals were
disposed of off-site, the DCF would be altered
prior to closure to account for the reduced volume of material.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The above three alternatives were evaluated using evaluation
criteria derived from the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
These criteria relate directly to factors mandated by SARA in
Section 121 including Section 121(b)(1)(A-G) and EPA's Interim
Guidance on Selection of Remedy (December 24, 1986 and July 24,
1987). The criteria are as follow:
0 Compliance with legally applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements
0 Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume
0 Short-term effectiveness
0 Long-term effectiveness and permanence
0 Implementability
0 Cost
0 Community acceptance
0 State acceptance
0 Protection of human health and the environment
-------
-13-
COMPARISON OF- ALTERNATIVES
A comparative discussion of the three alternatives using the
evaluation criteria is provided below.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended bv SARA, reauires that
remedial actions comply with all applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal and state requirements for the hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants that are present
on-site.
Each of the three Alternatives would comply with applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). The on-site
DCF will comply with all the requirements of Part 264 Subpart
N of RCRA (desion requirements for facilities such as the DCF)
and Title 6, Part 373 of the New York Compilation of Rules
and Requlations (desiqn requirements for secondary containment,
leachate collection and detection systems). The construction/
demolition debris facility would comply with Part 2S7 of RCHA
(Subtitle D non-hazardous waste facility) an^ Title 6, Part
36n of the New York Compilation of Rules and Regulations.
Consistent with SAPA, the continued effectiveness of the DCF
would be evaluated every five vears to assur1- continued
protection of human health and the environment.
Land Disposal restrictions under Subtitle C of RCRA and
implementing reoulations qovernina the disposal of dioxin-
contaminated wastes are expected to qo into effect in November
1988. Because the creek sediments will not he excavated
until 1989, final disposal of these sediments in the DC*1
(i.e., Alternative 1) would have to comply with the PCRA land
disposal restrictions. The proposed land disoosal restrictions
state that dioxin-contaminated materials mav '^e land disposed
only if they pass the proposed Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (see Appendix A of the 1987 Draft
Addendum PS for a more detailed discussion). Based upon results
of the dioxin analyses of the creek sediment (see data tables
provided in EPA, 1985 report), the Aqencv expects that the excavated
sediment would pass the existing proposed TCL° test. Under Alter-
natives 2 and 3, the DCF will be used as an interqral component of
the waste treatment method. The placement of the creek sediments
and associated materials in the DCF is considered a necessary com-
ponent of the thermal destruction process. The Agency expects that
the treated sediment residuals will also pass the TCLP.
-------
-14-
while permits are not reouired for on-site remedial actions
at Superfund sites, any action must meet the substantive
technical reauirements of the permit process. The thermal
destruction process would comely with all the applicable
requirements of Part 264 subpart 0 of RCRA (desiqn and operatina
reouirements for hazardous waste incinerators).
Operation of an on-site thermal destruction unit would require
that the transportable unit underdo waste specific trial or
demonstration burns to demonstrate satisfactory destruction
of the toxic components of the waste. The trial or demonstration
burn must show that the unit achieves 99.999°% destruction
and removal efficiency (six 9s DPE), and controls air emissions
of products of incomplete combustion, acid qases and particulates
to specified levels. Specific operating reauirements for a thermal
destruction unit would be established based upon results of trial
or demonstration burns. Under Alternative 3, off-site disposal of
residuals would reauire that the residuals be certified as non-
hazardous. Similarly, if it was determined under Alternative 2 that
the residuals should not be placed in the DCF, but rather disposed
of on-site in some other fashion, the material must also be
non-hazardous.
deduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
This evaluation criterion relates to the performance of a
technoloay or remedial alternative in terms of eliminatinq or
controllina risks oosed bv the toxicity, mobilitv or volume
of hazardous substances.
Under Alternative 1, in addition to dewaterino the sediments,
the DCF would contain the contaminants on a lona-term basis
and prevent their migration out of the facility. Leavinq the
sediments in the creeks and sewers creates a hiah potential
for miaration and bioaccumulation. Dioxin, the contaminant
of concern, has limited solubilitv in water, is not volatile,
and binds tightlv to sediments. Therefore, the DCP should
effectively prevent the miqration of dioxin (i.e., it reduces
mobility). Alternative 1 does not provide a reduction in
the toxicity or volume of sediments since it does not involve
treatment.
In contrast to Alternative 1, the thermal destruction under Alter-
native 2 and 3 would virtuallv eliminate the toxicity of the creek
and sewer sediments. They would also reduce the volume of the
material, but only to the extent the creek sediments contain
orqanic matter. Onlv the volume of oraanic veqetative material
-------
-15-
overlying the creek bed and the sewer sediment, which is not exoec-
ted to be greater than 20% of the total quantity of material, would
be substantially reduced. The lona-term mobility of the contamina-
ted sediments would be reduced by thermal destruction, since the
contaminants would be destroyed, but there would be a limited
increase in the mobility of contaminants over the short-term due to
air releases of products of incomplete combustion and increased
materials handlina. This would be controlled through careful
handling and operational procedures for the thermal treatment
orocess (such as scrubbers). The only difference between the two
thermal destruction alternatives is that Alternative 3 would result
in a smaller volume of material beina diseased on-site.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness criterion measures how well an
alternative is expected to perform, the time to achieve
performance, and the potential adverse impacts of its implementation.
Alternative 1, final on-site land disposal of creek and sewer
sediments in the DCF, provides a qreater dearee of protection
over the short-term, since the on-site thermal destruction
under Alternatives 2 and 3 would reauire additional materials
handling on-site, such as pretreatment (e.g., shredding,
crushina) of the contaminated sediments orior to feedinq to
the thermal destruction unit. The thermal Destruction alterna-
tives may result in air emissions from operation of the
thermal destruction unit. As noted above, strict measures
would be implemented to ensure that such emissions would not
be harmful to human health or the environment.
Alternative 3 would reauire off-site disposal of residuals.
This would reauire the loading of the residuals onto trucks
for off-site transport. If the material bel^w 1 pob
cannot feasibly be separated from that above 1 ppb, then a
total of 25,000-35,000 cy would he thermally treated. If it
is assumed that 1 cy of untreated sediment would result in 1
cy of treated residual, then more than 1500 - 2000
truckloads (17 cy per truckload) would be ne^ed for transport
of residuals to an off-site facility. This <'ould result in a
oreat deal of truck traffic through the com^i'nitv and other
communities enroute to an off-site disposal -ite.
The time required to implement and complete action called for
in the alternatives varies widely. Excavation of the creeks
will occur durina 1989. Sediments may not be sufficiently
dewatered until 1990, at which time under Alternative 1 the
facility would be capped and closed. Alternative 1, therefore,
would not reauire anv additional time or action to implement.
-------
-16-
On-site thermal destruction (Alternatives 2 and 3) would
require similar steps and timeframes leadino UD to full-scale
operation. Fiaure 2 outlines those steos and estimated
time-frames. The reouired time ranaes from 32 to 60 months.
The first element, procurement of a desian contractor for
preparation of bid specifications for treatment of the wastes,
could begin immediately. The procurement of a contractor to
treat the wastes could be carried out upon the completion of
the desian phase.
It is not likely that trial burns would beqin until after the
summer of 1989. At best, the initiation of full-scale operation
may occur in the Sprina of 1990. After full-scale operation
is initiated, the treatment of the wastes (assume 25,000 -
35,000 cy) under Alternative ?. could be conducted in about 12
to 16 months if a unit with a capacity of 5.0 tons per hour
(capacity based on 75% ooerational efficiency) were operated
24 hours a day. This would out the completion date for
treatment at 1991 to 1993. Under Alternative 2, the residuals
could be disposed of by spreadina over selective sections of
the site. This action could be accomplished bv 1992 to 1994.
If the DCF was used for residual disposal, the closure of the
DCF would place the final completion date at 1992 to 1994.
The timeframe for cappina and closina the DCF under Alternative
3 would be about the same as for Alternative 2.
Lono-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-terra effectiveness and permanence addresses the lona-term
orotection and reliability of an alternative.
Over the long-term, on-site thermal destruction Alternatives
2 and 3 provide essentially equivalent protection to the
local community. As mentioned earlier, the residuals from
thermal destruction are expected to be non-hazardous. This
will be determined at the approoriate time (most likely at
the trial burn staae. Assumina the residuals are non-hazardous,
whether the residuals are disposed off-site or on-site is of
no concern from a health perspective. Both of the on-site
destruction alternatives provide areater protection than
Alternative 1, on-site land disposal, since Alternative 1
does not eliminate the toxicity threat posed bv contaminated
sediments.
The final disposal in the DCF under Alternative 1 prevents
exposure to the sediments. Dioxin has a verv limited solubility
in water, is not volatile, and binds tiahtlv to sediment
soil. Therefore, exposure to the sediments, not the leachate
generated from dewaterina durina storaae, is of most concern.
Because the DCF is designed to meet all applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements for a RCPA facility, human
-------
Figure 2
Transportable Thermal Destruction Unit - Estimated Time Frames
for Events Leading to Start-Up Full-Scale Operation
State procurement
of design con-
tractor*
6 months - 10 months
Performance of RD
9 months - 1 year
State procurement
of a vendor for RA
6 months - 1 year
Permitting/Approval
to trial burn (TB)
or demonstration
burn
4 months - 1 year
Mobi1ization
2-3 months
Trial burn/
demonstration burn
1-4 months
Review TB/demonstra-
tion burn results
Certify residues as
non-hazardous.
Issue full approval
or permit to operate
4-7 months
Start-up
Full-Scale
Operation
*Design contractor will perform necessary studies/tests to
adequately define waste characteristics and nrepare performance
based bid specifications used for the selection of a vendor/
as well as establishing criteria for evaluating different vendor
technologies.
-------
-17-
exposure to the sediments durinq containment would not be
likelv.
Under Alternative 1, the stored sediments would continue to
contain dioxin (some at concentrations qreater than 1 opb)
and, therefore, would not be as "clean" as material Generated
from thermal destruction of the sediments. Alternative 1,
therefore, does not provide a oermanent reduction in toxicitv
of the waste, and would require lonq-term waste management, such
as general maintenance or potential replacement of the facility.
In addition, the disposal remedy would have to be revisited every
five years (as cart of revisitinq the wastes contained in Love
Canal proper) to ensure the continued effectiveness of the
facility.
Implementability
Implementabilitv addresses how easy or difficult, feasible or
infeasible it would be to carry out a aiven alternative.
This covers implementation from desian throuah construction
and operation and maintenance.
The imolementability of the alternatives is evaluated in terms
of technical and administrative feasibility, and availability
of needed aoods and services. All three alternatives evaluated
here are all technically feasible. However, some implementation
problems are inherent in each of the alternatives.
As noted above, interim storage of the sediments in the DCF
is necessary prior to the implementation of any treatment
alternative so that the sediments could be farther dewatered,
characterized, crushed, etc. Routine maintenance and monitoring
of the DCF durina dewatering and orocessino would ensure
reliability and minimize the ootential for failure. If
monitorina indicates a problem with the DCF, maintenance or
repairs would be made. It should be noted that with the
selection of Alternative 1, the DC? may need major repair or
replacement over the lona-term. Such short-'-.erm or long-term
repairs are clearly feasible, but may result in a limited
short-term increase in risk from human exDosure to the
sediments.
As noted above, under Alternatives 2 and 3, there are substantial
implementation problems in segreqation of sediments above 1
pob from those below 1 cob.
-------
-1R-
The first step in segreqatina the sediments would be to design
a olan to determine which sediments are below the action level
and which are above. Since existino creek sampling data is not
adeauate for makinq this determination, additional testing would
be reauired. The sediments could be sampled at any one of three
different staaes of the remediation process in order to seqreaate
those reauirina treatment, namely:
1) Recharacterizinq the sediment in-situ orior to
excavation.
2) Characterizinq the sediment as it is beinq excavated
from the creeks but prior to placement in the DCP.
3) Characterizinq the sediment after it has been
removed and placed in the DCF.
The objective of recharacterization of creek sediments in-
situ would be to isolate zones of contamination above and
below 1 pob prior to removal. A sampling effort to delineate
these zones would need to be developed, implemented and
evaluated in accordance with protocols. It is hard to
define the scope of the sampling proqram without doing a
detailed statistical design. If it is assured that 10 random
samples per 100 cubic yards of in-situ sediment is reauired for
analytical testinq, for a total -of 1000 samoles), then it
would take approximately 9 months to evaluate, report and
decide on material excavation requirements based on these samples.
Full implementation of a program of this type could cost 0.5 .to
to l.n million dollars.
Although the samplinq aspects of option 1 are feasible,
significant difficulties would arise durinq the implementation
of an excavation program based upon in-situ sampling. The
creek material would have to be removed in a controlled
manner (e.g. 6" lifts or discrete areal removal) that would
slow excavation production rates and increas-3 the comolexitv
of the program, slower excavation could hinder the completion
of excavation in one season, and therefore impact the overall
remediation schedule. Furthermore, filling of the DCF with
sediments would need to be controlled so that sediments above
and below the action level could be segregated. Special
measures would need to be taken to minimize cross-contamination.
Such measures would include construction of additional berms
within the DCF, thereby potentially increasing the dimensions
of the DCF. Since modifications to the existing design would
be reauired, the remediation schedule would be adversely
impacted to a substantial decree.
-------
-19-
Site characteristics sianificantlv restrict characterization
of the sediments after excavation but before placement in the
DCF. Characterization durina excavation would be carried out
bv olacinq the excavated creek sediments in temporary storaqe
containers and staainq the material. Each storaoe container
would be sampled and tested to determine its contamination
level. Based on the results of this testina the materials
would be deposited in segreaated comoartments of the DCF.
Because of the larae temporary staainq area required (limited
by site characteristics), and the inability to predict size
and desian of the various components of the DCF which miqht
be reauired, this method is not feasible.
A program that involves samolina after the sediments are
excavated and placed in the DCF also has substantial implementation
problems. The sediments to be excavated from the creeks and
deposited within the DC? will be "soft and runny" even after
gravity separation of free water. It would be infeasible to
separate this soft and runny creek bottom material within
the DCF, until the results of analytical tests are evaluated,
to determine whether removal and thermal treatment is reauired.
Furthermore, there remains the possibility of cross-contamination
following samplina due to settlina out of potentially contaminated
suspended solids from an aaueous level which may be aenerated
durina filling operations. Therefore, samoMna after placement
in the DCF, is not likelv to be implementable from a technical
standpoint.
In summary, significant problems exist in either institutina
an effective samplina program once the sediments are excavated
or implementinq an excavation and storaae program based uoon
in-situ samplina of the creeks. Physical site limitations,
the "soft and runnv" nature of the sediments, schedule
constraints, technical considerations etc., are such that
searegation of the sediments is not deemed oractical or
implementable. The feasible alternative to samplinq and
segregation is the treatment of all sediment? and associated
materials. Althouah thermal treatment of all materials
appears to be the most costly alternative, U is an implementable
alternative, free of additional technical co-olexitv, modifications
to the existing design, and schedule delays. Thus, thermal
treatment of all sediments remains an implementable and
cost-effective approach.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to be completed between
1992 to 1994 (assumina 25,000 - 35,000 cv reauire treatment
and usina a 5 ton/hr. unit). The time reauired for actual
on-site thermal destruction could potentially be decreased
by using two or more transportable units; however, due to
on-site space limitations, it is unlikely that two or more
units could be used at the site.
-------
-20-
Routine maintenance and monitorina of the thermal destruction
unit are also clearlv feasible and would ensure reliability
and minimize the potential for failure. If monitorina indicates
the potential for failure of the thermal destruction unit,
the unit would be shut down until corrective measures are
taken.
Operation of thermal destruction units has shown that they
are capable of successfully destroyinq dioxin-contaminated
materials and are able to meet aoolicable or relevant and
appropriate reauirements. In addition, operation of the EPA
mobile incinerator system elsewhere has demonstrated that
the residues from the treatment of dioxin-contaminated materials
can be determined to be non-hazardous. .Based on this experience,
the residues from Love Canal sediments should also be able
to be determined non-hazardous. Process wastewater from the
on-site .thermal destruction could be treated at the Love
Canal Leachate Treatment Facilitv. Depending upon the size
of the thermal destruction unit and the eouioment reauired
for pretreatment of materials, the fenceline at Love Canal
may have to be expanded to site the unit and accessories.
The TAMS report evaluated the use of rotary kiln incinerator
as a baseline and determined that such a unit could be sited
within the fenceline just north of the DCF and the Administration
Building (west side of
Canal).
Full-scale operation of transportable units ^t hazardous
waste sites has been limited. Units have exoerienced extended
periods of downtime (beyond that taken into account in the
75% operational efficiency previously noted). It is likely
that operation of a unit at Love Canal would also result in
some extended downtime periods. Downtime periods would delav
the completion of thermal destruction of wastes and ultimately.
closure of the DCF. However, in all situations, transportable
units have been repairable and have been brouaht back up to
full-scale operation.
As stated above, transportable thermal destruction units are
currently available for use at hazardous wast-? sites and could
be used at Love Canal. Sufficient disposal capacity exists
on-site in the DCF for final disposal of the treated creek
and sewer sediments.
The residuals from the thermal destruction process are expected
to be non-hazardous; however, it is unlikelv that an off-site
facility would accept Love Canal materials. It is difficult to
predict whether a facilitv will accept these Love Canal residuals
at the time the residuals reauire disposal. If off-site facilities
are not willina to accent the residuals, residual materials would
have to be returned to the DCF or disposed of in selective areas
-------
on-site, so as not to imoinge on the intearity of the cap.
If an off-site subtitle D facility aareed to accept the
delisted material, the DCF may still be needed to contain
the house debris. The size of the facility could be altered
if a substantial quantity of material were treated and disposed
of off-site or disposed on-site in some fashion other than
in the DCF. Therefore, some degree of aesthetic impacts of
the DCF may continue under any of the three alternatives.
Cost
Costs are evaluated in terms of capital and operation and
maintenance costs. As noted above, the baseline cost for the
creek remedy selected under the 1985 ROD (i.e., construction
of the DCF and creek sediment excavation) is estimated to be
S13 million (S4M for construction of DCF and S^M for creek
excavation). This S13 million is included in the anticipated
costs for Alternatives 1-3.
The on-site land disposal under Alternative 1 has the lowest
cost over the short-term since it does not reauire any additional
action above that called for in the 1985 ROD. Therefore,
the total cost for this alternative would be the baseline
cost of S13 million. As noted, this alternative does not
provide a permanent reduction in the toxicitv of those sediments
which pose the threat to human health and the environment.
As noted in Fiaure ?, followinq excavation vid storage of the
sediments, several additional tasks must be romoleted prior
to initiation of thermal destruction of the sediments under
Alternatives 2 and 3. Table 3 provides a summary of component
costs for Alternatives 2 and 3 as well as Alternative 1. The
design of the thermal destruction plan and preparation of bid
specification is estimated to be $500,000. Trial burn expenses
are also estimated to be 5500,0^0.
Table 4 provides cost/ton estimates for on-site thermal destruction
of the sediments (Alternatives 2 and 3). The estimates were
provided by vendors of transoortable thermal destruction
units. The estimates cover introduction of "le waste to the
unit and removal of ash residue from the unit. Site preparation
and materials pretreatment (sizing, shredding, crushing) is
estimated to add approximately 10% to the thermal destruction
processing costs.
-------
Table 3
Summary of Estimated Costs for Alternatives 1-3
(Assume all materials require treatment)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Construction $4M $4M+ $4M+
of DCF
(1985 ROD)
Creek
Excavation $9M $9M $9M
Des ian/
Preparation of
Bid Specs. $0.5M $0.5M
Trial Burns $0.5M $0.5M
Waste Handling/ $1.1M-$].6M $1.1M-$1.6M
Pretreatment
Thermal Treatment $]1.3M-15.8M S11.3M-15.8M
Off-site Transport
of Ash $0.51M-$0.74M
Off-site Disposal
of Ash $1.0M-$1.4M
Total
Estimated
Cost $13M $26.4M-$3].4M* $27.9M-$33.4M
* Additional costs of aoprox. S0.4M would be incurred if the
material were spread on-site.
Cost incurred to alter the DCF would be roughly equivalent
to costs which would have been incurred had the residuals
been returned to the DCF and a RCRA cap placed over the
facility. These costs are approx. $0.4M and are included in
$4M.
-------
TABLE 4
TRANSPORTABLE THERMAL DESTRUCTION UNIT
TOTAL COST/TON ($/TON)
Based on a Total of 25,000 - 40,000 Cubic Yards of Sediment
% Moisture
20(1)
50(2)
70(3)
Range
Median
Mean
Range
Median
Mean
Range
Median/Mean
$1
$1
$1
50-450
200
230
50-400
260
260
70-350
260
(1) Costs at 20% moisture were obtained from responses
to questionaires received from five thermal destruction
unit designers and/or manufacturers.
(2) Costs at 50% moisture were obtained fron six designers
and/or manufacturers.
(3) Costs at 70% moisture were obtained from two designers
and/or manufacturers.
-------
-22-
An estimated cost of 5450/cv for on-site thermal destruction
was used. This estimate was based uoon: (1) an estimate for
sediment moisture content of 50% (as used in 1985 ROD); (2)
the median value provided in Table 4; and (3) a bulk density
reoresentative of moisture free sediments eoual to 1.33
(g/ml). These assumptions result in a conversion factor of
1.68 tons of sediment per cy sediment and therefore, a cost
of S450/cy (versus S260/ton) to treat the sediment. S11.3 -
S15.8 million would be required to treat 25,000 - 35,000 cy
of sediment and associated material.
Usina the median value, total costs for treatina 25,000 cy
(16,000 cv of contaminated creek and sewer sediments, 9,000
cy of associated material) of the waste (including trial
burns and oretreatment) is estimated to be S12.9 million.
Therefore, the comolete remedial cost for excavation of the
creeks (oer the 1^8^ ROD) and associated material an-d treat-
ment of 25,000 cv of sediments would be approximately $26.4
million. Assuminq 3^,000 cy (16,000 cy of contaminated creek
and sewers sediments, 19,000 cy of associated material) of
material reauire treatment and makina the same assumptions as
above, the cost for imolementina Alternative 2 would be $31.4
million.
The cost for the treatment portion of Alternative 3 is -
identical to that orovided under Alternative 2. Additional
costs would be incurred for transoortation of residual material
to the off-site disoosal facility and disposal of the residuals
Assuminq 25,000 cy of sediments reauire treatment and that
the volume of the residual treated sediment Moisture free)
is also about 25,000 cy, then aoproximately 1500 truck loads
(17 cy oer truck) of material would need to he disposed of
off-site. Assuminq that a disoosal facility is located
within 100 miles of the facility, and cost oer loaded mile is
S3.50, then transporation costs would total $525,000. Disposal
costs at a subtitle D facility are estimated to be $980,000
(assuming a tipping fee of $35 per ton and a conversion
factor of 1.12 tons/cy for moisture free residuals).
-------
-23-
Under Alternative 3, the total estimated cost for thermal
destruction and disposal of 25,000 cv of sediment would be
S14.9 million. Complete remedial action cost for excavation
of the creeks (1985 ROD) and treatment and disposal of the
sediments would be aporoximately $27.9 million. Applying the
same assumptions and basinq the estimate on treatment of"
35,000 cy of sediments, the estimated cost for imolementina
Alternative 3 is $33.4 million.
Under Alternatives 2 and 3, if the residuals are not returned
to the DCF and the DCF is altered or dismantled to accommodate
a smaller volume of material, the costs incurred to alter
the DCF would be rouohly eouivalent to costs which would have
been incurred had the residuals been returned to the DCF and
a RCRA cap olaced over the facility. These costs are approxi-
matelv S0.4M. Costs for soreadina residuals on-site under
Alternative 2 are estimated to be S0.4M. Table 3 provides
the cost of the individual components of the three alternatives.
All of the alternatives examined here mav reauire lona-term
operation and maintenance of the DCF. These costs are expected
to be low since the DCF will be built on land currently being
maintained under the remedial proaram (e.a., limited incremental
lawn maintenance costs) and since the DCF would utilize the
existing Love Canal Leachate Treatment Facilitv for treatment
of any leachate (generation of leachate is ^voected to be
minimal after the sediments are dewatered an-' the facility is
closed in 1990). In addition, the DCF monitoring wells would
be monitored as cart of the existing Love Canal perimeter
well monitorino proaram.
The ooeration and maintenance costs for a 20,<">oo cv containment
facility were estimated bv CH2M Hill f!985 F? report) to be
S3000/vr. It would cost approximately $5000/vr for operation
of a DCF (assuminq 40,000 cv caoacity). Replacement or major
repair costs may be necessary over the lona-t^rm (i.e. 20-40
yrs.). Both on-site thermal destruction options would also
reauire similar expenses for ooeration and maintenance if the
DCF was not dismantled.
Studies to be performed everv five years to ensure the continued
effectiveness of Alternative 1 would be included as part of a
larger five year studv to ensure the continued effectiveness
of the containment of Love Canal proper. The costs associated
with the review of the DCF as part of a five vear review are
not expected to exceed $100,000 per review.
-------
-24-
Community Acceptance
This evaluation criterion addresses the dearee to which members
of the local community supoort the remedial alternatives beinq
evaluated.
The local community has shown a mixed dearee of acceotance of
all alternatives due to various short-term remedial action
imoacts and aesthetic imoacts. Any variation of the alternatives
is likely to qenerate the same mixed acceptance.
In general, the community ooooses storaae or final disposal
of any sediments or residuals in an on-site containment
facility. As noted above, Alternative 1 would involve disposal
of material in the DCF as well as disposal of approximately
5,500 cy of basement debris in the CDDF. In addition, the
on-site treatment Alternatives 2 and 3 reouire interim storaqe
of the contaminated sediments in the DCF so that the materials
mav be further dewatered, characterized, sized, crushed,
ground, etc., prior to treatment.
Members of the communitv have Questioned whether the ooeration
of an on-site thermal destruction unit woul^ delay rehabitation
of the Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) until 1992-1994.
Some members of the community opoose the re-oval, of the
sediments from the creeks (reouired under 19^5 ROD).
Based uoon the Responsiveness Summary and the unavailability
of offsite disoosal/destruction, public acceotance can be
characterized as follows:
1. Acceptance of on-site destruction of all creek materials
not just those containing dioxin above 1 ppb.
2. Better acceptance for leaving open t'-e option of
off-site disposal of residuals in ca~e it becomes a
possibility in the future; otherwise dispose of
the residuals outside the DCF.
3. Better acceptance for dismantling; or scaling down
the DCF as much as possible followinn destruction of
all creek materials.
-------
-25-
Detailed responses to the community concerns are contained in
the responsiveness summary (Attachment).
State Acceptance
The State acceptance criterion addresses the concern and
deqree of support that the State Government has expressed
regarding the remedial alternative beina evaluated.
The State supports the thermal destruction of excavated creek and
sewer sediments and the thermal destruction of all existing waste
material stored in the Love canal site, with all residuals becom-
ing delistable waste.
The State has projected that the schedule for remediation will be
longer than the current schedule (1992-1994).
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Protection of human health and the environment is the central
mandate of CERCLA as amended by SARA. Protection is achieved
primarily by reducing health and environmental threats to
acceptable levels and takina appropriate action to ensure
that there will be no unacceptable risks to '"uman health and
the environment throuah anv exposure oathwavs.
All of the alternatives evaluated here are orotective of
human health and the environment under, the standards mandated
by CERCLA as amended bv SARA. On-site thermal destruction
under Alternatives 2 and 3 provide the greatest degree of
protection because both virtually eliminate t*e toxicity of
the dioxin-contaminated sediments. Because thermal treatment
of the sediment would destroy the dioxin in t'ne sediment, the
potential mobility of dioxin in those sediments would also be
eliminated.
Appropriate measures would need to be taken Coring creek
excavation work and construction of the DCF (--oplicable to
all three options) to protect workers and the community. In
addition, prior to implementing treatment under Alternatives 2
and 3, measures would have to be taken to assure that implementa-
tion of the thermal destruction process does not pose a
threat to human health or the environment. A few of the
potential problems are outlined below.
Workers and the residents would be protected throuqh measures out-
lined in project specific health and safetv plans and throuq.h
contractor adherence to Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
regulations.
-------
-26-
An on-site transportable thermal destruction unit (TTDU)
and/or associated air pollution control equipment, materials
handling eauipment, or materials pretreatment eauipment may
generate noise during routine operation. Any such noise
would probably not be noticeable except during niqht-time
©Deration (if night-time operation is acceptable to the
community). Proprietors of TTDUs have indicated a willingness
to house or insulate anv noisv pieces of eauipment or take
any other measures necessarv to eliminate the generation of
noise.
Dust and particulate matter could be generated during materials
handling and oretreatnent. The potential for air releases of
products of incomplete combustion also exists. Measures would
be taken to ensure that all these potential hazards are
controlled prior to full-scale operation.
Under Alternative 1, the DCF would remain as a permanent
structure and would, therefore, continue to impact the community
aesthetically. If the residuals are disposed off-site as in
Alternative 3, or spread on-site as in Alternative 2, then the
aesthetic impact of the DCF could be lessened since the size
of the DCF could be reduced upon completion of thermal treatment.
For thermal treatment/off-site disposal under Alternative 3,
a major potential safety and noise impact would be the need
to transport approximately 1500 - 2000 (assuming all creek
and sewer material (25,000-35,000 cy) is treated) truckloads
of the treated residuals to an off-site disposal facility. The
on-site containment option would have the least problems
during the remedial action implementation phase. However, in
the lona term, the thermal destruction alternatives would
provide the greatest degree of protection since the toxicity
of the waste will be virtually eliminated.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon CERCLA as amended by SARA and detailed evaluation
of the alternatives, the Aaency has determine^ that Alternative
2, on-site thermal destruction/on-site disposal is the
selected remedy.
As a result of public comment on the Proposed Plan and concern
that effective separation of materials containina less than 1
ppb is not practical, a technical review was conducted by EPA
and the State to determine the feasibility of separation of
these materials. Based uoon this review (refer to implementa-
bility discussion Pg. 18), separation and consolidation of
-------
-27-
the dioxin-contaminated sediments above 1 opb from those below
1 opb is not implementable and will lead to unacceotable
project delays. In addition, the community is opposed to
any option which does not call for thermal destruction of all the
contaminated creek and sewer sediments. As a conseauence of the
above factors, all materials (excluding 5,500 cy of house
debris to be placed in the CDDF) will be thermally treated.
The entire Quantity of sewer sediment (approximately 1000 cy) would
reauire treatment. The majority of the 2400 drums of waste stored
on-site (activated carbon from the leachate treatment facility,
inner sewer sediments, and miscellaneous solid waste from remedial
efforts) would also be expected to require treatment. Based upon
this review, the total quantity of material that would reauire
treatment is estimated to be 25,000 - 35,000 cv (see Table 1).
These materials would be treated in a transportable thermal
destruction unit operated at Love Canal. On-site thermal
treatment of the sediments will involve transportina and
settinq UD a transportable unit on the site to treat the
sediments. The sediments will have to be dewatered prior to
treatment. In addition, the sediment will require some
dearee of pretreatment such as screenina, shredding or crushing
to be suitable for feedinq to the thermal destruction unit.
Storage systems for waste blending and material feeding will
also be necessary. Included with this technology will be the
need to have laboratory facilities present at the site to
assure compliance with all regulatory emission or discharge
standards. These comoonents are necessary to ensure the
protectiveness and effectiveness of the selected remedy.
The steps involved in establishina a TTDU are outlined in figure 2.
The time required to procure, mobilize and beoin full-scale
operation of a unit could be between 32 months and 60 months.
It is possible that some of these steos coul^ be performed
in parallel. 'However, it is unlikely that full-scale operation
could begin in less than 32 months. Once full-scale operation
begins, the 25,000-35,000 cy of material coul 1 be treated
in 12 to 16 months if a 5 ton per hour unit (jssuming 75%
operational capacity) was operated 24 hours a day. Operation
of the TTDO 24 hours a day has not received anv neqative
community reaction. The overall schedule for the remediation
of the creek and sewer sediments is provided :.n
Table 5.
Following the thermal destruction process, the DCF would be
scaled down to accommodate only the construction/demolition
debris material.
-------
Table 5
OVERALL REMEDIAL SCHEDULE
]. Record of Decision
2. Construction of
DCF
3. Excavate Creeks/Fill
DCF
4. Thermal treatment
procurement
package
5. Installation of
thermal treatment
unit/test burn
6. Treat dioxin-
contaminated
sediments
1987
1988 J989 1990 199]
-------
-28-
Statutory Findings
The selected remedy satisfies the nine evaluation criteria to
the greatest degree of any of the alternatives examined.
The thermal destruction process would comply with all action-
specific ARARs as specified in RCRA, (see 40 C.F.R. Section
264, Subpart 0). The thermal destruction process would be
required to demonstrate six 9s ORE. In addition, the residuals
from the thermal destruction would be determined non-hazardous
and would not pose a threat through any exposure pathway to
human health or the environment.
The Agency has been explicitly directed by Congress in CERCLA
§121(b) to select remedial actions which utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery options to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the Agency is to prefer remedial actions that
permanently and significantly reduce the mobility, toxicity
or volume of site wastes. Applying this statuatory preference
here, Alternative 2 provides the greatest degree of long-term
effectiveness and permanence by utilizing a treatment technology
that will virtually destroy the dioxin. In addition, excavation
to approximately 18 inches will also fulfill the preference for
permanent elimination or reduction of the public health and
environmental risk. Because of the potential mobility of the
sediments and the bioaccumulation in fish, this permanent
solution is appropriate. There would be virtually no residual
risk associated with this alternative since the contaminant
of concern, dioxin, would be virtually eliminated through the
thermal destruction process and the excavation plan. In
addition, there would be no need for eventual replacement of
the remedy since the residuals from the treatment process
will be nonhazardous. Finally, this remedy is reliable and
would avoid the long-term uncertainties associated with land
disposal of untreated wastes. Hence protection of human
health and the environment on a long-term permanent basis is
best assured by Alternative 2.
The Agency believes that the thermal destruction technology
is available and relirable for the treatment of dioxin-contaminated
waste. The land area.is available for the siting of the
TTDU and disposal of the residuals on-site. Trial-burn data
would be utilized to ensure the operational reliability of
the thermal destruction process. Although this remedy would
require measures to control possible risks related to construction
and operation (e.g., air emissions), the Agency's analysis
indicates that all these factors can be adequately controlled.
-------
-29-
Capital cost for the thermal destruction of all the sediments
is higher than the cost of land disposal of the sediments in
the DCF. However, the fact that the remedy is permanent
means that future replacement of the DCF and associated
costs under Alternative 1 (desian life of the DCF is twenty
years) would not be incurred.
In addition, the costs of five vear reviews, operation and
maintenance and major repairs of the DCF would not be incurred.
While the selection of remedv involves balancing costs and
cost-effectiveness against the relative benefits of each
alternative, the Aaencv is statutorily reauired to favor
remedies that are permanent and that utilize treatment technologies,
which permanently and sianificantly reduce the toxicity,
mobility or volume of the contaminants. Thus, even though
Alternative 1 is less expensive than Alternative 2, the
Agency finds that the balance is tipped in favor of permanent
thermal treatment under Alternative 2.
The community prefers that all contaminated sediments be
destroyed and that no final disposal facility be left at Love
Canal. The selected remedy meets public acceptance by virtually
destroyinq all- the contaminated sediments. The selected remedy
calls for a scaling down of the DCF to accommodate solely the house
debris. Althouqh the community ooposes any cinal disposal facility
including a construction/demolition debris facility, the house
debris is not known to be contaminated and would not pose any threat
to human health and the environment. In addition, the community
opposes placina the non-hazardous residuals on-site. Similar to the
house debris, the residuals do not pose a threat to human health
and the environmental. Thus, the selected remedy has considered
community acceptance to the maximum decree possible in liaht of the
other factors to be weighed.
The selected remedy would be protective of hu^an health and the
environment by: 1) utilizing treatment to re^jce toxicity and mo-
bility of the waste; ?) being the most effeo-.ive and permanent
remedy in the long-term; 3) beina the easies- to implement and 4)
assuring short-term effectiveness.
In summary, EPA has selected Alternative 2 berause it is protective
of human health and the environment, will attain all applicable or
relevant and aporooriate requirements, is cosi-effective, and
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technoloaies
or resource recovery options to the maximum e
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
xvEPA
Responsiveness Summary for
Proposed Plan for Destruction/
Disposal of Love Canal
Creek and Sewer Sediments
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
In August 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) released a document entitled "Proposed Plan for Destruction/
Disposal of Love Canal Creek and Sewer Sediments." The present docu-
ment serves as a companion document to the June 1987 draft feasibility
study entitled "Alternatives for Destruction/Disposal of Love Canal
Creek and Sewer Sediments". Copies of the Proposed Plan are available
at the EPA Public Information Office, Carborundum Center, Suite 530,
345 Third Street, Niagara Falls, New York, and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Love Canal Public
Information Office, Colvin Boulevard, Niagara Falls.
As called for in Section 117 of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), EPA has presented the Proposed
Plan for public review. EPA accepted written comments on both docu-
ments until October 9, 1987. A public meeting was held on August 25,
1987, at the Frontier Avenue Firehall, Wheatfield, New York, to dis-
cuss the proposed remedial action directed toward the final destruc-
tion/disposal of the dioxin-contaminated sediments from specific
stretches of sewers and creeks at the Love Canal hazardous waste site.
In addition, a workshop was held in Niagara Falls on August 12, 1987
to discuss the thermal destruction of dioxin-contaminated wastes from
Love Canal.
Background
The Love Canal site is located in the southeast corner of the
City of Niagara Falls and is approximately one-quarter mile north of
-------
the Niagara River. Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp. (now Occidental
Chemical Corporation) disposed of over 21,000 tons of various chemi-
cals (including dioxin-tainted trichlorophenols) into Love Canal
between 1942 and 1953. Over the course of the next two and one half
decades, contaminated leachate migrated to the surface of the Canal
and to the basements of nearby residences which have since been demol-
ished. Contaminants also migrated through area sewers that have out-
falls in nearby Black and Bergholtz creeks.
NYSDEC and EPA entered into an initial assistance agreement for
remediation at the site in 1978; in July 1982, EPA and DEC entered
into a cooperative agreement under the Federal Superfund program to
continue the remedial activities at the site. Contamination at the
site itself has been contained through the implementation of various
remedial measures including the installation of a barrier drain leach-
ate collection system; a leachate treatment facility; and a clay cap
over the original 16-acre site; and in 1984, an expanded 40-acre cap
with synthetic liner. Following containment, studies were undertaken
to address the remediation of contaminated drainage tracts (i.e., sew-
ers and creeks). The studies led to the May 6, 1985, Record of Deci-
sion (ROD) that called for the removal of contaminated sediments from
specific stretches of the sewers and creeks. It was determined that
the excavated sediments should be placed in an interim containment
facility. There were several reasons for this decision, including: a
viable option for destruction/disposal of the sediments did not exist
at that time; the creek material would require dewatering, sizing,
shredding, etc., prior to implementation of any treatment alternative;
the rate of sediment removal would be much greater than the rate at
which the wastes could be treated (i.e., the creek excavation would be
completed in approximately 24 weeks, whereas thermal destruction of
the sediment would require at least one year of operation).
Approximately 95% of the sewers which required remediation were
cleaned in 1986. The creek excavation is planned for 1989. Approxi-
mately 25,000 - 35,000 cy of creek and sewer sediment and miscella-
neous remedial wastes will require destruction/disposal. The draft
feasibility study recommended that three alternatives for destruction/
disposal of these wastes be considered.
-------
The three alternatives, as provided in the draft feasibility
study are: On-Site Land Disposal; On-Site Thermal Destruction/On-Site
Disposal; and, On-Site Thermal Destruction/Off-Site Disposal. The
Proposed Plan evaluates these three alternatives using criteria der-
ived from the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and SARA. These criter-
ia are: Protection of human health and the environment; Compliance
with legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements;
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume; Short-term effectiveness;
Long-term effectiveness and permanence; Implementability; Cost; Com-
munity acceptance; and State acceptance.
At this time, based on all available information, the selected
option is Alternative 2, On-Site Thermal Destruction/On-Site Dis-
posal. The objective of Alternative 2 is to thermally treat (via
transportable thermal destruction unit) the material contaminated with
dioxin. By thermally treating the dioxin, the toxicity and mobility
of the threat posed by the dioxin would be virtually eliminated.
The design of the May 1985 ROD Creek Remedy (i.e., sediment exca-
vation and construction of the interim containment facility) is cur-
rently at the 95* completion stage. The design calls for the con-
struction of a containment facility, which would be approximately 900
feet long, 300 feet wide, and 25 feet above grade (at crest).
EPA and the State have revisited the project design to assure
that it meets the goals and objectives outlined in the Proposed Plan.
Specifically, the review included re-estimating the quantity of asso-
ciated material requiring thermal treatment and focused on the fact
that the sediments need dewatering, and that a storage area is needed
for staging material prior to thermal treatment. The scale of the
containment facility has not changed significantly, since it would
still receive approximately the same quantity of materia1 as planned
earlier for interim storage. The facility is now referred to as the
dewatering/containment facility (DCF).
As originally conceived under the selected alternative, sediments
contaminated with an average dioxin concentration greater than 1 ppb
would be thermally treated, while those contaminated with less than
1 ppb of dioxin would remain in the DCF untreated.
-------
As a result of public comment on the Proposed Plan and concern
that effective separation of materials containing less than 1 ppb is
not practical, a technical review was conducted by EPA and the State.
As a result of this review, EPA has determined that it is infeasible
to separate these materials, that separation will lead to project
delay, and that separation is generally a non-implementable option.
As a consequence, all material (excluding 5,500 cy of house debris to
be placed in the Construction/Demolition Debris Facility [CODF]) will
be treated.
There were two options available for treated residuals from the
thermal destruction process. The first would be to dispose of the
residuals in the OCF. The second would be to place the residuals on
the site rather than returning them to the OCF. Implementation of the
second option may allow the scale of the DCF to be reduced following
thermal treatment. Based upon analysis of the two options and on
public comment, EPA has determined that the residuals should be spread
on-site, adjacent to the existing cap.
Prior to approving full-scale operation of a thermal treatment
unit at the site, trial burns would be required to demonstrate that
the unit is capable of successfully and safely treating the dioxin-
contaminated waste. Specifically, 99.9999% destruction and removal
efficiency for thermal treatment of dioxin would have to be achieved
and the treated waste residuals would have to be non-hazardous.
This Proposed Plan would make use of the DCF, a CDDF for the
basement debris (for the debris to be removed from Ring II basements
so that a stable foundation can be provided for the DCF), and an
on-site thermal destruction unit. The estimated total cost ranges
from $26.4 to 31.1 million.
This Responsiveness Summary details the comments received from
residents of the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area, citizen groups
from Niagara Falls and surrounding communities, the scientific experts
who reviewed the document, and other interested parties. The discus-
sions answer the most prevalent concerns expressed by citizens, as
well as addressing individual comments. Verbatim transcripts of pub-
lic meetings, written comments, meeting notes, telephone memoranda,
newspaper accounts, and notes made following conversations were used
when compiling the comments.
4
-------
2. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
Question: Will Ring II basement debris be placed in the dewatering/
containment facility (DCF)? Will this material be permanently stored
or thermally destroyed?
Response: Excavated Ring II basements will be placed in one section
of the DCF, known as the construction/demolition debris facility
(COOF). No contact will occur with excavated creek sediments. Ring
II basement debris will not be thermally threated. It will be
permanently stored.
Question: What will happen to material contaminated during the creek
remediation—haul road material, for example?
Response: Contaminated construction debris from the actual creek
remediation will be placed in the DCF with contaminated creek sediment
and will be thermally treated. Material which is not contaminated
will not be stored with the sediments in the OCF; however, it may be
stored with the basement debris in the CDDF.
-------
3. OEWATERING
Question: Is dewatering of sediments necessary?
Response: Some dewatering of sediments is necessary for any thermal
treatment process qualifying as implementable at the Love Canal site.
Question: What is involved in sediment dewatering?
Response: Several steps will be taken to dewater the sediments, in-
cluding dewatering in the OCF. Initial dewatering of the sediments
will occur at creekside. This will include drainage of free liquids
during excavation, followed by further drainage at a holding/staging
area at creekside. This initial dewatering is anticipated to take
approximately 1 week. A schedule will be finalized during the design
phase. The material will be transferred to the DCF where it will
undergo further dewatering until a thermal destruction unit is avail-
able to treat the sediments. The sediments may be further dewatered
or dried as part of the thermal treatment process in order to promote
efficient and cost effective thermal treatment. At creekside and at
the DCF, measures will be taken to avoid odors and other nuisances.
-------
4. SEGREGATION OF DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED MATERIALS
Question: Is it possible to segregate waste contaminated with more
than 1 part per billion (ppb) of dioxin from material contaminated
with less than 1 ppb? How much would it cost to provide this separa-
tion? How much would it cost to burn all the waste? Will excavation
and the mixing of the wastes which may occur dilute the dioxin so that
all the material ends up below 1 ppb?
Response: The feasibility of segregating wastes contaminated with
greater than 1 ppb from waste with less than 1 ppb is an important
consideration in the formulation of the remedial plan. Based upon
this concern, EPA and NYSDEC directed TAMS consultants to evaluate
measures to segregate the materials. The alternatives examined for
sampling were:
- Re-characterize the sediments in-situ prior to excavation so
that segregation during excavation could occur;
- Characterize the sediments at creekside following excavation
but prior to placement in the OCF to allow segregation at this
point; or
- Characterize the sediments after placement in the DCF but prior
to thermal treatment.
-------
For reasons discussed in detail in the ROD, EPA concludes that signif-
icant problems exist with regard to either instituting an effective
sampling program once the sediments are excavated, or implementing an
excavation and storage program based upon in-situ sampling of the
creeks. Physical site limitations, the "soft and runny" nature of the
sediments, schedule constraints, technical considerations, etc., are
such that segregation of the sediments is not deemed feasible or
implementable. The only implementable alternative to sampling and
segregation is the treatment of all sediments and associated mate-
rials. Although treatment of all materials appears to be the more
costly alternative, it is an alternative that is free of additional
technical complexity, modifications to the existing design, and sched-
ule delays. These factors make the non- separation approach the most
implementable and cost-effective approach.
-------
5. RESIDUAL DISPOSAL
Question: Where will the residuals be disposed of on-site?
Response: The residuals will be spread on-site within the. fence line
at Love Canal, adjacent to the existing cap. The residuals would be
placed in such a manner that they would not compromise the integrity
of the existing cap. Potential areas for placement of the residuals
on-site include the northeast and southeast corners. This would
result in less than a 3-foot increase in elevation in these areas.
Question: Will the residuals be disposed of above or below the exist-
ing cap?
Response: The possibility of disposing of creek sediments on the cap-
ped area of the Canal is not considered technically feasible. Dis-
posing of the sediments above the synthetic membrane liner and below
the liner were considered and rejected for several reasons: the
effects of the weight of the material on the Canal contents cannot be
fully evaluated; and the integrity of the cap and barrier drain system
may be compromised. Therefore, residuals will be disposed of in areas
adjacent to the cap. Under no circumstances would the residuals be
placed on the cap or under the cap.
Question: Could the residuals from thermal destruction be placed back
in the creeks?
-------
Response: This could occur under the following set of circumstances:
if thermal destruction of the sediments could be conducted at the same
rate as excavation of the sediments; if all work could be conducted in
one construction season; and if no flood event impaired the remedia-
tion process. However, this set of circumstances is not possible.
The creek sediment will be excavated in 18 to 24 weeks, while thermal
treatment will take 12 to 16 months. Placement of the sediments back
in the creeks over more than one construction season would require
further berming and dewatering of the creeks to remove sediments which
would have been deposited during that time. This would result in
additional construction costs and impacts on residents whose proper-
ties abut the creeks.
Question: What off-site disposal options are being considered for
disposal of residuals?
Response: A 1984 marketplace study conducted by EPA found that com-
mercial waste disposal facilities are not interested in accepting'
treated wastes from Love Canal, even if they are non-hazardous.
Although this could change, the further impacts of more than 1,500
truckloads of waste and associated traffic on the community have led
EPA to conclude that at this time off-site disposal of the residuals
from thermal destruction of creek and sewer sediments is not an
implementable alternative.
10
-------
6. THERMAL DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY
Question: Is destruction of dioxin by thermal treatment proven, or is
this just an experiment?
Response: Destruction of dioxin-contaminated materials by thermal
destruction has been proven effective. Destruction of dioxin in con-
taminated soils has been used successfully by EPA to remediate other
hazardous waste sites. At this time, several manufacturers as well as
EPA operate thermal destruction units proven to be capable of destroy-
ing the dioxin in Black and Bergholtz Creek sediments.
Question: What is emitted into the air from incineration? Do we have
to worry about the air we are breathing?
Response: Operation of the thermal destruction unit will comply with
all applicable or relevent and appropriate state and federal emissions
requirements in addition to the six 9s (99.9999%) thermal destruction
efficiency. Compliance with these emissions requirements will be
assured through use of air pollution control equipment, through con-
tinuous monitoring of stack emissions, and through the use of specific
parameters for operation of the thermal destruction unit. These
requirements are designed to assure the protection of public health
and the environment. Operation of the thermal destruction unit would
not be approved unless trial burns indicate that the unit could be
operated in such a manner.
11
-------
Question: Will thermal destruction capacity increase as time goes on,
or will the unit start at full capacity?
Response: Following successful completion of trial burns, the unit
would be operated at full design capacity.
Question: Where will the trial burns be done?
.»
Response: The trial burns will be conducted on-site at Love Canal.
Question: Will the public be notified before burning begins?
Response: NYSDEC's public participation program will keep the public
informed of activities related to thermal destruction.
12
-------
7. OTHER/NON-CATEGORICAL
Question: Is 93rd Street covered under Superfund?
Response: A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study is currently
being conducted at the 93rd Street School, which is an operable unit
of the Love Canal Site. A record of decision selecting an appropriate
remedy for the school is expected to be signed in the spring of 1988.
Question: Did you give us 24 hours notice of the public meeting?
Response: During the weeks leading up to the August 25, 1987, public
meeting, there was an extensive effort made by EPA to assure that all
concerned individuals knew of the meeting. Two weeks before the meet-
ing, a Legal Notice was printed in the Niagara Gazette announcing the
public meeting. The Niagara Gazette printed two front page articles,
and the Buffalo News printed three articles announcing the date, time,
and location of the meeting during the 2 weeks preceding the meeting.
One week before the meeting, a press release was sent to all local
newspapers, and radio and television stations. Additionally, a mail-
ing was sent to more than 1,000 areas residents, public officials, and
other concerned individuals to assure that they were aware of the
upcoming public meeting.
Question: Has Hooker been consulted regarding the locating of the
thermal destruction unit at Love Canal?
13
-------
Response: Hooker, now Occidental Chemical Corporation, has been kept
aware of remedial activities at Love Canal through public notice and
through direct correspondence. Their comments on the proposed plan
will be considered with all others.
Question: Would you recommend a containment facility be placed in
front of the Jefferson Memorial if there was contamination in the
Potomac Basin?
Response: Selection of appropriate remedies depends upon site-speci-
fic conditions which dictate whether treatment or non-treatment
options will be pursued.
Question: Following the release of the proposed plan for destruction/
disposal of Love Canal creek and sewer sediments, a vendor of environ-
mental clean-up technology submitted an alternative plan. This plan
called for the use of an essentially closed system for the hydraulic
removal, and hydraulic transport of creek sediments with concurrent
dewatering and thermal destruction of the dioxin in the sediments,
followed by off-site disposal of the residuals of thermal destruction.
The advantages suggested in connection with this alternative included
the elimination of the DCF, the elimination of traffic caused by the
trucking of sediments from creekside to the DCF, lower cost, the
completion of the project in two construction seasons, and shorter
time required for implementation.
Response: The proposed alternative calls for the thermal destruction
of creek sediment without interim storage in a DCF. The advantage of
using the DCF is that sediments can be removed from the creeks prior
to the approval of the operation of a thermal destruction facility.
EPA's timetable for meeting the requirements of the contracting and
permitting process would require three to four years before the opera-
tion of a thermal destruction facility could be approved. As such,
the dioxin-contaminated sediments would remain in the creeks until at
least 1992, while under the remedy selected by EPA the sediments would
be removed during 1989. It is clear that by removing the contaminated
sediments from the environment a minimum of three years sooner, the
14
-------
remedy selected by EPA provides better protection of human health and
the environment over the short term than does the proposed alterna-
tive.
The proposed alternative calls for hydraulic dredging of contaminated
sediments from the creeks. Hydrauljc dredging was considered and
eliminated during the preliminary design phase of the project. It was
eliminated both on the basis of its inability to insure complete
removal of the contaminated zone of material, and on its adaptability
to project site conditions. The Black Creek portion of the project
and the banks of the creeks along the entire project do not have
sufficient water during most of the construction season to permit
hydraulic dredging using standard equipment. Additionally, the large
amount of debris in the creeks (branches, bricks, wheels, etc.) makes
the use of mechanical excavation equipment,-as is currently planned,
more appropriate for this project.
Under the proposed alternative, the hydraulically excavated material
would be transported by piping to a temporary dewatering facility
located near the thermal destruction unit. A separation tank capable
of holding 200,000 gallons would also be required at this location
according to the proposed alternative. In order to accomplish this
without piping across city streets, an area adjacent to the creeks
would be required. The only area adjacent to the creeks sufficient to
accommodate these facilities is the area adjacent to the 93rd Street
School. However, the utilization of this area is limited due to the
ongoing RI/FS at the school, and the possibility of interfering with
future remedial action at this site. As such, the dewatering and
thermal destruction activities of the project would have to be per-
formed away from the creeks, probably within the same area proposed
for the DCF, therefore requiring the transportation of the dredged
material by truck.
Linking the removal of the sediments from the creeks with the thermal
destruction process is unacceptable to EPA. Under the proposed alter-
native, the rate of sediment removal would be controlled by the rate
at which the thermal destruction facility can process the material.
15
-------
Should any mechanical problems occur with the thermal destruction
facility requiring a delay in the processing of the wastes, creek
excavation would be halted. The failure of any of the other compo-
nents of this complex materials processing system (i.e., pumps, filter
presses, settling tanks) could also cause a delay in the excavation of
the creeks. Under the selected remedy, all sediments to be excavated
would be removed during one construction season, stored and staged in
the DCF, and then processed by the thermal destruction unit when it
was available.
Based upon these problems with the proposed alternative, EPA considers
it to be less easily implemented, potentially more costly, and less
protective of human health and the environment than the selected
alternative.
16
-------
8. OUTSIDE WASTES
Question: What will prevent the site from being expanded from the
original purpose to a permanent landfill which will ultimately take on
residuals which CECOS can't handle?
Response: This Record of Decision (ROD) document gives EPA authority
to thermally treat the Love Canal creek and sewer sediments and
associated remedial waste material. EPA could not allow wastes from
other Superfund sites to be brought to Love Canal without first going
through the same procedure which was followed before finalizing this
ROD. This procedure included the release of a proposed plan and the
consideration of public comment. EPA is not considering accepting or
treating any wastes other than those which are specified in this ROD.
Question. Are you going to be handling wastes from 93rd Street or
102nd Street at Love Canal?
Response: While 93rd Street is an operate unit of the Love Canal
Site, it is not part of this ROD. The 102nd Street Landfill is a
separate Superfund Site currently under investigation by the
responsible parties.
17
-------
9. POINT OF ORIGIN
Question: Doesn't Superfund say all waste must be returned to its
point or origin? Why not send it back to Hooker?
Response: For the purpose of remediating a hazardous waste site,
Superfund policy states that any waste emanating from a Superfund site
may be stored or treated at that site. A source of contamination does
not necessarily refer to the place of manufacture; rather, it refers
to the place where contamination has come to be located. For example,
the contaminants in the creeks were determined to have emanated from
Love Canal. Therefore, they are being brought back to Love Canal,
their source, and will be thermally treated at the Love Canal Site.
-------
10. POLICY
Question: If thermally treated wastes are non-hazardous, why need
they be stored at Love Canal? Why not somewhere else?
Response: See Section 5.
Question: Who is responsible for setting up the six 9s criteria for
thermal destruction of dioxin?
Response: EPA's six 9s (99.9999*) destruction and removal efficiency
(ORE) was published in the January 14, 1985, Federal Register, Part
11, 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265, 250, and 775, Dioxin Containing Wastes
Rule (Section IV, B.2(a)). These regulations were promulgated follow-
ing standard procedures. The regulations were first proposed for com-
ments, comments were addressed, and the regulations were finalized.
More specific details regarding these regulations are provided in the
above reference. Six 9s DRE is required of incinerators that burn
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); compounds that are less toxic than
dioxin. Since dioxin is one of the most toxic compounds known, the
best achievable ORE should be required. The six 9s ORE will result in
the lowest achievable emission rate and thereby minimize any short-
term, impacts to human health and the environment.
Question: Is contamination in Cayuga Creek being addressed?
19
-------
Response: Cayuga Creek was most recently sampled in 1986. At that
time, further monitoring of Cayuga Creek was recommended to help
determine the impact of the Black and Bergholtz creeks cleanup on the
Cayuga Creek fish and the potential for secondary human contact with
dioxin through ingestion of fish.
Question: Is EPA going towards containment on-site as a policy?
Response: As specified in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriza-
tion Act (SARA), EPA is mandated to utilize permanent solutions and
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Question: Are you going to consider our feelings,- or are you going to
forget about us after this public meeting?
Response: EPA and NYSDEC consider public comment throughout the
decision-making process. This Responsiveness Summary is a formal
response to those questions and comments received at the August 25,
1987, Public Meeting, as well as those received in writing. Community
acceptance is one factor considered in selecting a remedy. Many
comments and concerns have been incorporated into this Record of"
Decision.
Question: If it is decided to contain wastes on-site, does it mean
that the Department of Health does not have to make a habitability
decision?
Response: For the Commissioner of Health to make a decision about
habitability, an acceptable plan for the remediation of the creeks
must be in place. The Commissioner has stated that the choice of one
alternative or another would not affect his ability to make a decision
about habitability.
Question: Can the public be part of the process of selecting a treat-
ment technology?
20
-------
Response: DEC has a public participation program in place to keep the
public informed of all remedial activites taking place at the site.
The criteria for the selection of the thermal treatment technology
have been presented to the public for comment, in order to adequately
address their concerns. In addition, the public will be an integral
part of the design and construction process.
Question: Can you define a "permanent remedy?"
Response: A permanent remedy is one which eliminates or controls the
risks posed by the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous sub-
stances, over the long-term.
Question: Does EPA make this decision alone, or does the decision get
made with DEC?
Response: Although the EPA Assistant Administrator selects the remedy
for the site, the State actively participated in the decision process,
and formally concurs with the selected remedy. State comments and
concerns are addressed in a section of the Record of Decision devoted
to State acceptance of the selected remedy.
Question: What incentive is EPA giving to industry to develop incin-
erators?
Response: Operation of the EPA mobile incinerator at the Denny Farm,
Missouri, Superfund site demonstrated the ability of rotary kiln
incinerators to treat dioxin wastes. EPA Office of Research and
development also operates an incinerator in Pine Bluff, Arkansas,
which performs test burns on Superfund wastes. In addition, EPA's
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program provides the
opportunity for proprietors of innovative technologies to demonstrate
their technologies. This includes the demonstration of thermal
destruction processes.
Question: Is your mind made up on having the dewatering containment
facility (DCF) at Love Canal?
21
-------
Response: The DCF is an integral part of the Black and Bergholtz
Creek remediation. The OCF is needed to dewater and store sediments,
as well as for the staging of sediments prior to thermal treatment.
Question: Why not burn all the dioxin?
Response: See Section 4.
Question: What will happen to all the unoccupied homes if EPA is not
going to start thermal destruction until after 1990?
Response: The operation of a thermal destruction facility at Love
Canal should not affect the decision as to when the area should be
rehabitated. In the meantime, EPA and DEC have implemented a program
for maintaining the unoccupied homes owned by the Love Canal Area
Revitalization Agency (LCARA). The Commissioner of Health is expected
to make a decision on habitability in 1988.
22
-------
11. RISK
Question: What is the risk for each alternative?
Response: The three alternatives evaluated for destruction/disposal
of diox in-contaminated creek and sewer sediments at Love Canal have
different risks associated with them. The ROD and the underlying
studies detail- the nature of these risks. The on-site containment of
wastes, with no treatment, while posing the smallest short-term risk,
does not reduce the toxicity or volume of the dioxin over the long-
term. The thermal destruction alternatives, by destroying the dioxin,
reduce the long-term risk posed by the contaminated sediments. EPA
considers that the long-term benefits that would be gained by destroy-
ing the dioxin would outweigh the short-term risk potentially posed by
the operation of the thermal destruction unit.
23
-------
12. TRAFFIC
Question: Will the roads of Niagara Falls be backed up with truck-
loads of contaminated sediments?
Response: Trucks will only be permitted to travel on designated haul
routes, as shown in the August, 1987, conceptual design report.
Question: How much truck traffic will be generated by the creek exca-
vation?
Response: The number and size of trucks transporting sediments will
be dependent upon the contractor's approved operations plan. It is -•
anticipated that loaded trucks transporting sediments from the creek
to the DCF would make no more than 25 trips in a given day.
Question: How many truckloads could be handled in 1 day?
Response: Twenty-five truckloads of sediments can easily be disposed
of in the DCF daily. Thermal destruction would occur at a much slower
rate. This is one of the primary reasons why a OCF is needed. Off-
site truck traffic will not be required for the transfer of sediment
from the OCF to the thermal de^* ~tion unit.
24
-------
13. Response to Occidental Chemical Corporation's Comments
on the Proposed Plan for Destruction/Disposal of Love Canal
Creek and Sewer Sediments Submitted October 8, 1987.
The comments presented by Occidental Chemical Corporation
(OCC) address the adequacy of the remedial investigations and
feasibility studies as they concern the risks posed to public
health and the environment prior to remediation and health
considerations in the selection of an adequate remedial
alternative.
In the Record of Decision that was signed on May 5, 1985,
EPA fully considered the need to remediate the creeks because
of TCDD contamination, and found it necessary to remediate to
the level of 1 ppb. The proposed plan under consideration
addresses the destruction and disposal of the creek sediments
following their excavation as called for in the May 5, 1985
ROD. Therefore most of OCC's comments address issues that
have been previously decided. Nonetheless, the Agency will
respond to OCC's comments, especially to the extent that
additional information has been provided in the current
record which supplements the 1985 ROD.
a. Consistency With Agency Procedures
OCC states that the USEPA Superfunc Public Health
Evaluation Manual (SPHEM) requires that a proper public
health evaluation consists of: 1) a baseline health evaluation,
and 2) development of performance goals for remedial alternatives.
OCC then contends that the RI/FS (for the 1985 ROD) does not
include an adequate public health evaluation, and that a
performance goal for creek remediation was only set or suggested
by a document in the current record.
Response; In October 1986, EPA published SPHEM as a
guidance document to supplement earlier guidance on conducting
evaluations of potential public health impacts at Superfund
sites. The May 1985 decision to remediate the creeks predates
the publication of the SPHEM by more than a year; therefore,
decision.
principles
Malcolm
Pirnie and CH£M Hill reports, and by the two Responsiveness
Summaries and the 1985 Decision Document.
SPHEM provides that a public health evaluation should
contain two key elements as part of a feasibility study:
"1) a baseline public health evaluation and 2) public
health analysis of remedial alternatives." SPHEM at 4.
the publication of the SPHEM by more than a year; thei
the SPHEM is not directly applicable to the May 1985 <
Nonetheless, the 1985 decision is consistent with the
in SPHEM, as shown by the RI/FS contained in the Malc<
-------
-2-
A baseline public health evaluation is an analysis of site
conditions prior to remedial action. The 1985 ROD (including
the above mentioned documents) provides such an evaluation
of site conditions. The 1985 ROD selected TCDD as the indicator
chemical because of its high toxicity at concentrations lower
than any other contaminant. Also, the 1985 ROD considered
exposure of TCDD in the streams in the residential area and
considered the routes of exposure. EPA has found the remediation
of Black and Bergholtz creeks to be necessary because the
potential exists and will continue to exist for human exposure
to the TCDD in these creeks.
Exposure to TCDD in a residential area presents a serious
health concern, particularly because EPA generally considers
carcinogenesis to be a non-threshold effect. Exposure at
the Love Canal site, which may occur during recreational
activity or through ingestion of fish, presents a significant
concern for the health and welfare of residents of the EDA
as well as the Niagara Falls area. EPA applied the CDC
level of concern of 1 ppb of TCDD to the situation at Love
Canal, considered remedial alternatives, and selected excavation
of approximately 18 inches of sediment for specific portions
of the streams. This represents a permanent solution to the
risks to public health and the environment.
The 1985 ROD provided a public health analysis of remedial
alternatives and developed performance :oals. The remedial
alternatives included no action, in-sitj stabilization and
excavation. Each of these was evaluate: in terms of public
health and environmental impact. EPA used the principles of
risk assessment in arriving at the 1 ppb level for TCDD in
Black and Bergholtz creeks consistent with the guidance
provided in SPHEM. The SPHEM is flexible and recognizes
that there are differences among sites to be assessed.
While SPHEM provides one approach for analyzing risk, it
advises that in performing risk assessment: (1) other approaches
may be equally valid; (2) the evaluation should be limited
to the complexity and level of detail necessary to adequately
assess the risk; and (3) the applicability and level of
detail of the process is dependent upon professional judgment.
SPHEM at 4-6. EPA's assessment of risk currently in the
record is consistent with the SPHEM.
-------
-3-
Although the SPHEM states that the purpose of the performance
goal procedure is to use techniques of risk analysis to assist
in setting target levels of contaminants at exposure points,
and that a risk-based approach can be used to determine the
extent of removal where soil removal is part of the remediation,
the SPHEM clearly allows flexibility of approach on a case-
by-case basis. In the 1985 ROD, EPA decided on the amount
of sediment to remove — approximately 18 inches — based
on engineering judgment and design requirements needed
to effectuate a permanent and protective remedy.
OCC also states without being specific that the risk
assessments and risk management documents for Love Canal do
not use a risk-based approach like that performed for Times
Beach and other Superfund sites. EPA has not selected a
remedy for Times Beach, and there is no record of decision
for that site; therefore, OCC is incorrect in asserting that
EPA is acting inconsistently with decisions for Times Beach.
Because OCC has not supplied any specific comments as to
alleged differences between EPA's decision at Love Canal and
its decisions at other Superfund sites, the Agency is unable
to provide any further response.
b. Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
OCC comments that CDC did not establish 1 ppb of TCDD
as the automatic level of concern for s^il regardless of
location and potential exposure, and therefore 1 ppb is not an
"applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement" (ARAR)
which EPA must observe in selecting a remedy.
Response; CDC has established 1 ppb of TCDD as the
"level of concern" for residential soils. Since "ARARS"
involve duly promulgated statutory or regulatory requirements,
standards, limitations, and criteria, the CDC level of concern
is not strictly an ARAR. EPA has not treated it as an ARAR
in making its decision. In both the 1985 ROD and the current
record, EPA did not decide to remediate the creeks to 1 ppb
"automatically;" rather, it considered the specific circumstances
of the Love Canal site. Among these are: the location of
the contaminated creeks, which flow through residential
yards on both banks; the fact that these residential yards
are subject to flooding from the creeks; the nature of the
aquatic organisms inhabiting the creeks; the recreational
uses the residents make of the creeks; and the bioaccumulation .
of TCDD in the food chain. In light of these factors, EPA
determined that the 1 ppb level of concern recommended by
CDC for residential soils is appropriate for this site.
-------
-4-
The propriety of applying a 1 ppb cleanup level to
Black and Bergholtz creeks is further supported by the study
currently underway to assess the habitability of the Love
Canal Emergency Declaration Area (EDA). Habitability criteria
were established by New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH),
the CDC, EPA and the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). The previously established level of
concern for dioxin in residential soils of 1 ppb was used as
a starting point in establishing habitability criteria for
the EDA. Based on a concern for public health the decision
was made that if TCDD was found in concentrations above
1 ppb in the EDA or a portion of the EDA, which includes
Black and Bergholtz creeks, then that area would be considered
habitable only if remediation could be accomplished and
other circumstances do not cause it to be declared uninhabitable.
These criteria were subjected to peer review and public
comment and have been accepted by all the above agencies.
c. Comparative Risk Assessment Methodologies
for Direct Ingestion
OCC's comments include its own public health evaluation
ostensibly based on the same methodology as CDC used at
Times Beach, on the basis of which OCC asserts that remediation
of the creeks is not justified.
Response; The methodology used by OCC departs from
that actually used by CDC for Times Besch in two key respects:
first, it ignores adult exposures (from ages 18-70), and second,
it omits pathways of exposure other than direct ingestion
(such as inhalation and dermal absorption). The second omission
is minor since these two pathways account for only a small
portion of the total lifetime intake in CDC's model.
Adult exposures, however, should not be ignored. By
assuming adult exposures to be zero, OCC significantly understates
the resultant TCDD level of concern. Although OCC asserts
that soil ingestion rates for ages 18 to 70 years were "not
ascertainable from [the] CDC article," the value provided in
Kimbrough e_t al. (1984) in Table 5 (p. 74) for five-year olds
applies-for all older ages as well. The contribution to
total lifetime intake of dioxin during this age period as
well as from other exposure routes is part of the basis for
CDC's 1 ppb level.
Because of these problems, as well as problems with
OCC's exposure assumptions described below, OCC's analysis is
flawed and not appropriately conservative.
-------
-5-
d. Exposure Assumptions
OCC's comments contain numerous statements and assumptions
related to the Agency's assessment of potential exposures
and recreational uses of the creeks.
Response; The Agency's assessment of potential exposures
is appropriate for this site. OCC's information does not
clearly call into question the Agency's assessment for several
reasons. Many of the exposure assumptions and site descriptions
are provided without references or supporting documentation*
and are insufficiently conservative for the purposes of risk
assessment. For example, OCC offers no support for statements
such as "children of young age are not routinely allowed to
play in these creeks regularly" (page 1). OCC has apparently
ignored contrary documented evidence provided in the administrative
record which demonstrates that the creeks have in fact been
used as primary sources of recreation (wading, swimming,
fishing, and ice skating)
and that edible fish as well as other food-chain organisms
(e.g., crayfish) have been caught in these creeks.
OCC states that the physical configuration of the creeks
(steep banks with muddy slopes and bottoms), is such that it
is unlikely that children under 5 years old would ever be
allowed to play in the creeks, even under supervision. This
statement implies that steep banks and muddy slopes are
found at all points along the creeks. This is not an accurate
depiction of conditions at the site. 'See "Site Investigations
and Remedial Action Alternatives Love Canal," Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc., October 1983). Stretches of the banks are gently
sloped, and directly abut unfenced backyards of homes.
Hence, it is not reasonable to assume that children under
five years old would never be allowed to play in portions of
the creeks, even if supervised and that when unsupervised,
would not venture into the creeks on their own.
The Agency's approach is to ensure adequate protection
of human health and the environment. In part, this is
accomplished by making conservative exposure assessments,
which necessarily ensure that adequate protection will be
achieved. OCC's comments are based on some exposure assumptions
that are not appropriately conservative. OCC's assumptions
that no adults will come in contact with creek sediments,
and that children will come in contact with creek sediments
only 52 days per year, are examples. Since the creeks run
through residential areas, more extensive contact with creek
sediments than OCC has postulated is reasonable and should
be assumed in developing a conservative risk assessment. In
the absence of empirical data regarding activities of exposed
populations, conservative assumptions should be made.
-------
-6-
OCC claims that the documents cited in EPA's risk manageme
assessment document show that the exposure assumptions employed
by OCC "conservatively overstate the actual exposure." OCC
does not provide any specifics in footnote 8 of its comments
to support its statement. EPA has reviewed the documents
referred to and has found nothing to support OCC's view.
EPA's September 1987 memo does not question the exposure
assumptions used by Kimbrough et. al. (1984) in arriving at
the 1 ppb level for dioxin. Therefore, the EPA's memo does
not show that "OCC's analysis of exposure to sediments conservativel;
overstates the actual exposure scenario along the creeks."
e. Exposure to TCDD-Contaminated Fish
In estimating exposure to TCDD-contaminated fish, OCC
makes a number of assumptions which it claims to be "conservative."
Response; The assumptions upon which OCC's scenarios are
based are not conservative and at least one calculation is
erroneous. Examples are:
1) OCC's Exposure Scenarios are Based Only on Children.
Both of OCC's scenarios assume only children fish in Cayuga
and Bergholtz creeks and that only children consume fish caught
from the creeks.
This assumption, and the next assumption discussed, are
based upon OCC's assumption that adults -ould seldom/ if ever,
fish these streams and that the fish than children would
catch would be rough fish, not likely to be consumed. OCC's
assumptions ignore these facts: a) dioxin levels above Federal
and State guidelines have been found in fish, such as northern
pike and rock bass caught in Cayuga Creek (9/28/87 Sterling to
Garbarini memorandum); b) fish migrate from these creeks to the
Niagara River, so that fishermen who fish in the Niagara River
near the confluence with Cayuga may be catching fish that
lived in, and were exposed to sediments in, the creeks? and
c) adults and children who live near the creeks may fish there
more often than elsewhere simply because of convenience.
Because of this assumption, OCC used an abbreviated exposure
period of only 10 years. This assumption is not appropriately
conservative. Adults should also be included. If adults let
their children eat fish they catch, it is likely that the
adults will also eat the fish, as well as children younger
than eight. It is reasonable to expect that adults and children
younger than eight will also fish in the creeks.
-------
-7-
2) OCC Improperly Assumes that Only a Small Fraction of
Fish Consumed are from the Creeks. OCC's assumption that only
1% to 10% of total fish ingested are from the creeks is certainly
not conservative. A realistic worst case assumption is that
75% of fish eaten by local residents are from these creeks.
3 > QCC Uses An Improper Assumption for Body Weight.
OCC assumes an average body weight of 70 kg. Although 70 kg is
an appropriate weight to use for adult risk assessments, OCC
bases its risk calculations only on children ages 8 to 18.
Thus, the body weight for its calculations is approximately
two times too high.
4) OCC Improperly Uses Geometric Means. As discussed
below, it is more appropriate to use arithmetic mean values
rather than geometric mean values in determining the level of
risk.
5) OCC Has Erred In Calculating ADI. OCC converted
FDA's fish advisory level to an ADI using typical assumptions
of body weight and fish consumption. As described later, OCC
incorrectly stated the ADI units (at least for the FDA number).
It should read 13 pg/day, not 13 pg/kg/day, for the FDA ADI.
This error means that the calculations on page 9 overestimate
"allowable levels" and "safety margins" by a factor of 70
because OCC erroneously double counted human body weight in
arriving at an allowable daily intake ir. Table 2.
6) OCC Uses an Improper ADI Approach. OCC uses the
"allowable daily intake" approach in calrulating an appropriate
safety factor. However, ADI is commonly used for non-carcinogens,
not for carcinogens such as dioxin.
7) OCC used the FDA's advisory level of 25 ppt TCDD as its
basis for calculating a margin of safety. However, using the
risk assessment methodology accepted in the Hyde Park case,
25 ppt of TCDD in fish corresponds to a 7.8 x 10~4 risk.
(Affidavit of Joseph V. Rodericks, Ph.D., In Support of Stipulation
and Judgment Approving Settlement Agreement, December 11,
1985, United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (C.A.
79-989 W.D. N.Y.)).
Using OCC's unorthodox methodology and making different,
but reasonable, assumptions and correcting OCC's errors, the
calculated safety margin would be much lower than suggested by
OCC; in fact, these may be no safety margin at all.
-------
-8-
* f. Position of New York DEC re Need to Remediate Creek Banks
OCC comments that the risk from direct exposure to the
creek or bank sediments is not a basis for remediation. OCC
quotes from a January 23, 1987 letter from DEC to EPA that
excavation or other measures relative to the banks is not
warranted.
Response; This letter from DEC was only one part of the
correspondence and communications between the relevant agencies.
The January 23, 1987 statement had been made without reviewing
the pertinent sampling data. On February 13, 1987, DOH
wrote the DEC to suggest that the banks be considered for
inclusion in the remedial excavation to the extent warranted
by sampling results. In March 1987, the representatives of
the above agencies met and reviewed the composite sampling
data results from May 1986. This review resulted in « determination
that the data indicated TCDD probably above 1 ppb on the
creek banks. Consequently, on May 29, 1987, John J. Willson
of DEC again wrote to George Pavlou of EPA, this time to
state that DEC believes "that the current plan to remediate
the creek beds and banks complies with the intent of the
(1985) ROD."
g. Position of New York DOH re Posting of Creeks
OCC quotes a letter from J. Hawley, Ph.D., to J.J.
Willson, dated March 3, 1987 to the effect that DEC has
concluded that the posting of the areas of Black and Bergholtz
Creeks and Cayuga Creek to advise that no species of fish be
consumed are "protective of the public health."
Response; Actually, the statement was made by DOH in
its letter to DEC. Dr. Hawley in his statement referred
only to Cayuga Creek, not to Black or Bergholtz Creeks.
His statement was preceded by the important qualification
that "(i)f followed" these measures would be protective.
Dr. Hawley also wrote that "(t)he levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
found in Bergholtz Creek are considerably in excess of the
levels in Cayuga Creek" in the context of discussing the
need for the dredging of Bergholtz Creek between Love Canal
and Cayuga Creek.
h. Remedial Alternatives
OCC proposes three alternative remedial actions in its
comments: 1) removal of fish from the creeks, 2) removal of
the fish plus covering the stream beds with coarse aggregate,
and 3) the first two options plus excavating six inches from
-------
-9-
the stream beds, and placing the sediment under the expanded
clay cap. OCC also recommends delaying taking any action
until performing further risk assessment.
Response; OCC's proposals are similar to those considered
and rejected during the process of selecting a remedy for the
creeks because they do not adequately protect human health
and the environment on a permanent basis.
As a general matter, delaying remediation does not adequately
protect human health because delays in remediation would
allow sediments to travel farther downstream, or in the
event of severe storms, to be washed into yards along creek
banks. Fencing and posting of the creeks would not eliminate
the potential for human exposure and would do nothing to
prevent further contamination of downstream creek and river
reaches.
Clearing all fish from Black and Bergholtz creeks and
preventing fish of "consumable size" from returning by installing
a weir would not prevent the further downstream migration of
contaminants. Nor would it reduce the possibility of human
exposure to the contaminants, or reduce the possibility of
fish coming in contact with dioxin contaminated sediments
downstream from such a weir. The fish weir proposal would
result in a further disturbance of the ecosystem, and would
further degrade the quality of life in the area. In addition,
fish weirs are inherently unreliable in the long term, as
fish may be inadvertently or deliberately re-introduced to
the cleared creeks by fishermen or other humans or by natural
means such as deposition by birds of fish eggs originating
from other near-by waters. This solution is contrary to the
preference expressed in CERCLA § 121(b) for permanent remedies
that significantly reduce or eliminate the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the hazardous substances.
Installing filter fabric and/or gravel fill over the creek
beds could reduce sediment transport to the Niagara River
after installation. However, during installation the sediment
would be disturbed, resulting in increased downstream migration.
After the filter or gravel is installed, leaching of the
contaminants into the water column could still occur. Thus,
this remedy is not considered adequately protective of human
health or the environment, and does not satisfy the SARA
mandate for remedies which reduce the mobility as well as
the toxicity and volume of contaminants.
Excavating six inches of sediment from the creeks and
placing it under the clay cap at Love Canal is not an
-------
-10-
implementable alternative. After considering the limitations
on construction/excavation techniques within the constraints
of the Love Canal site, EPA has determined that to assure an
adequate margin of safety on a permanent basis, approximately
eighteen inches of sediment should be removed from the creeks,
Furthermore, in its January 5, 1984 letter commenting on the
remedial action alternatives for sewer and creek sediments,
OCC recommended the excavation of 18 inches of sediment.
Even following dewatering, the effects of the weight of
the sediments on the Canal contents, if placed under the
Canal cap, could not be fully understood. Therefore, it is
not appropriate to implement OCC's proposal to dispose of the
sediments there.
To assure adequate protection of human health and the
environment, and to satisfy the SARA mandate to select a
permanent remedy which significantly reduces the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of contaminants, Black and Bergholtz
creeks must be remediated.
i. Use of Means In Evaluating Data
OCC's comments on pages 7 and 8 shows the geometric mean
concentrations of TCDD in sediment, and uses these geometric
means to argue that the existing level of TCDD contamination
in the creeks is acceptable. Use of geometric mean values
in this context is misleading and underestimates the average
exposure to TCDD, based on the available data. Arithmetic
mean values would be more appropriate fo.r OCC's exposure *
scenarios. Risk is a function of total lifetime exposure,
which is the sum of each exposure event. Since total exposure
is an arithmetic sum, an arithmetic mean is the most meaningful
representation of the average exposure concentration.
The arithmetic mean of the twenty positive TCDD sediments
measurements is 12.7 ppb of TCDD. If the 24 "non-detect"
samples are included at OCC's assigned value of 0.20 ppb,
the arithmetic mean of the 44 samples is 5.4 ppb of TCDD.
These two arithmetic means are 3.3 and 7.0 times higher than
the geometric means, respectively.
j. Department of Health Sampling Results
OCC's comments on page 7, footnote 9, question the
accuracy of the sampling results reported by DOH in a memorandum
dated June 28, 1984. OCC comments that these results may be
-------
-11-
overstated by about one-third. OCC had previously made
comments on these sample results in its March 28, 1985
letter. This letter was responded to as part of the 1985 ROD,
by letter of April 4, 1985 by CH2M Hill because OCC's letter
was submitted after the close of the comment period. Cf^M Hill
stated that the Malcolm Pirnie report served as the basis for
the Remedial Alternative Evaluation and Risk Assessment and
that the data gathered by Malcolm Pirnie were subjected to quality
assurance audit and clearly showed the presence of Love Canal
related contaminants in the creeks.
If the DOH results reported in the June 28, 1984 memorandum
are divided by two or even three, the result would still be
levels of TCDD above 1 ppb. Additionally, OCC provides no
information to form a basis for stating that the DOH laboratory
did not meet generally acceptable standards of quality. This
is the first time OCC has claimed that the DOH data packages
are ..incomplete even though OCC has been receiving this information
on a regular basis.
-------
LOVE CANAL FEASIBILITY STUDY/PROPOSED ELAN
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
INDIVIDUALS SUBMITTING COMMENTS INCLUDE:
Albond, Mr. Harvey
Bugman, Ms. Rose
Cardone, Ms. Barbara
Cook, Mr. Richard J.
Crafts, Ms. Susan D.
Dane, Mr. Thomas
De Darie, Ms. Linda
Devantier, Mr. Edward
Donovan, Mr. Gerald F.
Eldridge, Mr. Frank F.
Eldridges, Ms. Audrey .
Giarrizzo, Mr. Sam
Hale, Ms. Joann
Hardcastle, Mr. Glenn
Hense, Mr. Paul
Hoffman, Ms. S. Margeen
ladicicoo, Ms. Violet
LaFalce, Hon. Rep. John G.
Lentine, Ms. Roberta
Lewis, Ms. Louise '. . - •
LoVerid, Mr. Don •_ •- •'
Lubick, Ms. Susan
Mendola, Ms. Marge
Moynihan, Hon. Sen. Patrick
Niagara County Legislature, The
Occidental Chemical Corporation
O'Connor, Mr. Lloyd
Pilliterre, Mr. Joseph T.
Pirkle, Mr. Franchon
Rhoney, Mr. Earl M.
Sanoin, Mr. Cory
Sobel, Mr. Ed
Soda, Mr. Frank A.
Volte, Mr. Bruno
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Mr. Charles W. Mailory)
------- |