United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
             Office of
             Emergency and
             Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/165
May 1991
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
          Love Canal (93rd Street)
          (Amendment), NY

-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/165
* 4. VMnd Subtitle
^•ERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
»^e Canal (93rd Street), NY
Third Remedial Action (Amendment) - Final
7. Aulfior(s)
t
9. Performing Organization Nairn and Address
t
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
05/15/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. ContracqC) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
 15. Supplementary Notes
 16. Abstract (Umit: 200 words)
   The Love  Canal (93rd Street)  site  is an inactive hazardous  waste site located  in
   Niagara Falls, New York.  The 19-acre 93rd Street School  site,  one of several
   operable  units for the Love Canal  Superfund site, is the  focus  of this Record  of
   Decision  (ROD).   This subsite is  located less than one mile northwest of the Love
   Canal  disposal area and is within  the Love Canal Emergency  Declaration Area.   Site
      tures  include the 93rd Street  School and adjacent vacant land, and the site is
      Idered  by Bergholtz Creek to the north and residential  properties to the east,
     'st,  and south.  From 1942 to 1953, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation (now
   Occidental Chemical Corporation)  disposed of over 21,000  tons of various chemicals
   including dioxin-tainted trichlorophenols at the Love Canal site.  In 1950, after the
   site was  deeded to the City of Niagara Falls Board of Education, the 93rd Street
   School was built.  In 1954, a second school, the 99th Street School, was built
   adjacent  to the mid-portion of the Canal.  Before construction  of the 93rd Street
   School, a drainage swale had  crossed the site.   In 1954,  the site was graded to its
   present contours with approximately 3,000 cubic  yards of  fill materials including
   fill from the  99th Street School.   The fill material is  reported to contain fly ash
   and BHC  (a pesticide) waste.   During the mid-1970's, contaminated leachate migrated

    (See Attached  Page)	
                                                    NY
17. Document Analysis a Descriptors
  Record of Decision  - Love Canal  (93rd  Street),
  Third Remedial  Action (Amendment) - Final
  Contaminated Medium:  soil
  Key Contaminants:   VOCs (toluene, xylenes),  other organics  (PAHs,  pesticides), metals
                      (arsenic, chromium,  lead)
  b. katntifiers/Open-Ended Terms
    e. COSATI Held/Group
la-Availabifity Statement
9
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
46
22. Price
 (See ANSU39.18)
                                     See Instructions on Reverse
                                                                           OPTIONACFORTM 272 (4-77)
                                                                           (Formerly NTIS-35)
                                                                           Department of Commerce

-------
  EPA/ROD/R02-91/165
  Love Canal (93rd Street),  NY
        Remedial Action (Amendment)  -  Final
  Abstract (Continued)

  to the surface of the Canal,  to some residential  basements  adjacent  to the Canal,  and
  thorough sewers to area creeks.   Those homes  have  been demolished,  and the sewers and
 * creeks in the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area have  been remediated.  In 1980,  the
  93rd Street School was closed because of public health concerns related to the
  potentially contaminated fill material.   Investigations conducted in 1988 revealed the
 •presence of VOCs, other organics,  and metals in the soil.   During previous
  investigations,  it was determined that low level  contamination present in the ground
  water compared to the ground water quality in the area and  did not pose an exposure
  threat to the concerned population.  A 1988  ROD addressed source control through
•  excavating and solidifying/stabilizing the excavated material,  placing the material
  into the same unit,  and capping with a low permeability soil cover.   The remedial
  action was not implemented and has been reevaluated in light of the  Niagara Falls Board
  of Education's 1989 plan to restore the 93rd Street School  as an educational facility
  and to address, objections to reopening the school if contaminatedp soil remains onsite.
  This ROD amends the 1988 ROD, and addresses  final remediation of onsite contaminated
  soil through excavation and offsite disposal.  The primary  contaminants of concern
  affecting the soil are VOCs including toluene and xylenes;  other organics including
  PAHs and pesticides;-, and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.

  The amended remedial action for this site includes excavating and disposing of offsite
  7,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil from hot spot areas; backfilling excavated areas
  with site soil of lower contamination; and capping and regrading the area with fill
  material.  The estimated present worth cost  for this amended remdial action is
              which does not include O&M costs.
  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:  Soil action levels were not provided.  Ground water
  clean-up goals were waived due to technical impracticability.

-------
                    ROD AMENDMENT FACT SHEET
SITE

Name: Love Canal - 93rd Street School
Location: Niagara Falls, New York
EPA Region: II
HRS Score: 52.23 (9/83)
NPL Rank:  157 (9/83)
ROD Amendment

Signed: 5/15/91
Remedy: Excavation/disposal off-site
Capital Cost: $2.25M
O i M/year: $0
Present worth: $2.25M
LEAD

Type: Remedial
Lead: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Primary contact: EPA/Damian Duda/(212) 264-9589
Secondary contact: NYSDEC/Amar Nagi/(518) 457-9280
Main PRP: None idenitified
Type: Inorganics  (metals), VOCs, BHCs
Medium: Soil
origin: Fill material from various locations
Est. quantity: 11,000 cu.yd.

-------
        DECLARATION FOR TEE RECORD OF DECISION AMENDMENT
SITE NAME AND LOCATION

     93rd Street School - Love Canal, City of Niagara Falls,
Niagara County, New York


STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

     The purpose of this decision document is to amend the Love
Canal 93rd Street School site 1988 Record of Decision to allow
for the off-site disposal of the contaminated soils.

     This decision document presents the modified selected
remedial action for the 93rd Street School site, located in the
Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area, Niagara Falls, New York,
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended  (CERCLA), and,
to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

     This decision document explains the factual and legal basis
for selecting the remedy for the 93rd Street School site and is
based upon its Administrative Record.  The attached index  (Appen-
dix C) identifies the items which comprise the Administrative
Record upon which the selection of the remedial action is based.

     The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy.  (See
Appendix D).


ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

     Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances  from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the remedial action
selected in this Amendment to the 1988 Record of Decision  (ROD),
may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE S^       REMEDY
     The remedy presented in this document addresses the off -site
disposal of the contaminated soils at the 93rd Street School
site.

-------
      The major components of the selected remedy  include:

      »     Excavation and off-site disposal of  approximately  7000
           cubic yards of the contaminated material  from the  hot-
           spot areas, which may be reused or recycled off-site as
           cover and/or fill material.

      *     Backfilling the excavated area  with  Site  soils from
           areas of lower contamination, covering  with approxi-
           mately one foot of suitable  fill material,  and regrad-
           ing to contours for proper drainage.

      The remediation of site soils,  which are  considered the
 principle threat to the site,  will prevent any potential ground-
 water contamination and reduce the risks  associated with exposure
 to the  contaminated soil.
 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

      The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
 environment,  since all threats associated with soils ingestion,
 inhalation and dermal contact would be eliminated.   The remedy
 also complies with federal  and state requirements that are
 legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
 remedial action,  provides for the reuse of the contaminated
 material, and is  cost effective.
   istantine Sidamon-Eristoff / /                Date
'Regional Administrator     //

-------
              DECISION SUMMARY




    93RD STREET SCHOOL - LOVE CANAL SITE




           NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY




                  REGION II




                  NEW YORK

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
  SECTION                                                 PAGE

  Introduction
     Love Canal History	   1
     Site Name, Location, and Description	   l
     Original Selected Remedy	   2
     Lead and Support Agencies	   2
  Reasons For ROD Amendment
     Regulatory Criteria	<	   2
     Scope of Response Action	   2
     Rational for Remedy Reevaluation.	   2
  Site Characteristics
     Soils.	   4
     Groundwater and Surface Water	   5
  Community Relations History	   6
  Description of New Alternatives
     Alternative 1	   7
     Alternative 2	   8
  Evaluation of Alternatives
     Threshold Criteria	   9
     Primary Balancing Criteria	;..  10
     Modifying Criteria	  13
  Modified Selected Remedy	  14
  Statutory Determination	  14
  Explanation of Significant Differences	  14
                            APPENDICES

Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: Tables
Appendix C: Administrative Record Index
Appendix D: NYSDEC Letter of Concurrence
Appendix E: Responsiveness Summary
                                ii

-------
I. INTRODUCTION

Love canal History

The Love Canal inactive hazardous waste site is located in the
southeast corner of the City of Niagara Falls and is approximate-
ly one-quarter mile north of the Niagara River.  Hooker Chemicals
and Plastics Corporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation)
disposed of over 21,000 tons of various chemicals, including
dioxin-tainted trichlorophenols, at the Love Canal site between
1942 and 1953.  In April 1953, the Love Canal property was deeded
by Hooker Chemical to the City of Niagara Falls Board of Educa-
tion (NFBE).

During the mid-1970's, contaminated leachate had migrated to the
surface of the Canal, to some residential basements adjacent to
the Canal, and through sewers to area creeks.  Those homes have
since been demolished and the sewers and creeks in the Love Canal
Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) have been remediated.

Site Name, Location, and Description

The 93rd Street School site, hereinafter, referred to as the
"Site", constructed in 1950, is one of the operable units of the
Love Canal National Priorities List (NPL) site and is located in
the Love Canal EDA, less than one mile northwest of the Love
Canal disposal site (see Figure 1).  The Site is bounded by
Bergholtz Creek to the north, 93rd Street to the west, residen-
tial properties and 96th Street to the east, and Niagara Falls
Housing Authority property and Colvin Boulevard the south.  The
total Site area covers approximately 19 acres and includes both
the 93rd Street School and the adjacent vacant land owned by the
Niagara Falls Housing Authority.

The Site was graded in 1954 to its existing contours with, among
other fills, approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill material,
reported to contain fly ash and BHC-pesticide cake, from the 99th
Street School, which abutted the Love Canal.  Low areas east of
the 93rd Street School including the playground and the swale
just south of the playground were filled and then covered with
approximately one to three feet of topsoil.

In 1980, the 93rd Street School was closed due to public health
concerns related to the presence of the potentially contaminated
fill materials.

In March 1988, through a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), through its contrac-
tor, LEA Associates, completed a remedial investigation/feasi-
bility study (RI/FS) for the 93rd Street School site.

-------
Original Selected Remedy

The  selected remedy  identified in the September 1988 ROD included
excavation of the contaminated soils, on-site solidification/-
stabilization of the excavated material, placement of the solidi-
fied/stabilized material back into the same unit of contami-
nation, and capping  with a low permeability soil cover.

Lead and Support Agencies

NYSDEC  is the lead agency for the Site with the EPA providing
technical and administrative support.


REASONS FOR ROD AMENDMENT

Regulatory Criteria

This Record of Decision  (ROD) Amendment will be issued according
•to the  requirements  identified in CERCLA §117 and the NCP
§300.435(C)(2)(ii).

The  ROD Amendment will become part of the Administrative Record
file as per the NCP  §300.825(a)(2).

Scope of Response Action

This response action addresses the principal threat at the 93rd
Street School site which involves eliminating the potential for
direct contact with  the contaminated soils, eliminating the
potential for the transport of contaminated volatiles and fugi-
tive particles into  the air, eliminating the transport of contam-
inated particles in  surface water runoff, and eliminating the
transport of contamination into the groundwater.

This response action focuses solely on the remediation of the
93rd Street School site.

Rational* for Remedy Revaluation

Since the signing of the September 1988 ROD, several developments
have taken place, most notably a decision on the habitability of
the  EDA and the development of an EDA Land Use Master Plan by the
Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency (LCARA), which resulted in
the  need to reevaluate the remedy.  These developments are
outlined in this section.

1.   In December 1989, in light of the anticipated redevelopment
     of the EDA neighborhoods and the reassessment of the 93rd
     Street School as prescribed in the LCARA's Land Use Master
     Plan, the NFBE  notified the NYSDEC and other public agencies

-------
that it was committed to reconstitute and restore the 93rd
Street School as a functional educational facility,  probably
a K-5 elementary school.  As a result of this decision,  the
NFBE took objection to any treated or untreated waste re-
maining at the Site and urged that the contamination be
completely and physically removed from the Site.  NFBE was
also concerned that there would be public opposition to the
reopening of the School if the contaminated soils were not
removed.  Thus, the NFBE objected to the selected remedy in
the 1988 ROD.

At the regularly scheduled January 17, 1990 Technical Review
Committee meeting, NFBE formally presented its objections to
EPA and NYSDEC on the 1988 ROD.  It was at that meeting that
EPA and NYSDEC agreed to consider the evaluation of other
cost effective remedial alternatives which would involve
potential off-site disposal of contaminated soils from the
Site.

Concurrent with the issuance of the September 1988 ROD, the
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) released the
Love Canal EDA Decision on Habitability, declaring a signif-
icant portion of the Love Canal EDA habitable, which in-
cluded residential properties surrounding the Site.  This
action relates directly to CERCLA §312 which mandates the
assessment of the risks associated with inhabiting the EDA,
the study of potential land uses within the EDA, and any aid
that EPA may grant state and local agencies to implement the
recommendations of the study in order to put the EDA proper-
ties to their best use.

During the public comment period for the 1988 ROD, the use
of the School building and grounds as an educational facili-
ty was hot anticipated by the NFBE, and NFBE considered the
selected remedy appropriate.  The 1988 ROD did evaluate,
however, the general use of the school in the risk assess-
ment and found the selected remedy would allow such use.  If
the outcome of the Habitability Decision had been known
during the public comment period, NFBE's concerns and poten-
tial community acceptance would have most likely been an
issue and may have modified the 1988 ROD'S selected remedy.
Thus, as a result of NFBE's request, reevaluation of other
alternatives was deemed appropriate by EPA and NYSDEC.  In
conformance with CERCLA §312, regarding land use recommenda-
tions, the best usage of the Site relates directly to the
reopening of the School.

EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response  (OSWER)
Directive 9347.3-01FS of July 1989 stated that RCRA Land
Disposal Restriction (LDR) are applicable only to RCRA
listed or characteristic wastes that are land disposed of or
placed.  The contaminated materials at the Site have been

-------
     determined not to be RCRA characteristic hazardous wastes
     nor RCRA listed hazardous wastes.  This determination is
     consistent with the 1988 ROD.  As a result, the LDR require-
     ments are not applicable for the Site.  Additionally, EPA
     has determined that the LDR requirements are not relevant
     and appropriate for the site.

4.   During previous investigations in 1984 and 1985, 2,3,7,8
     TCDD (dioxin) was detected in concentrations of 2.3 parts
     per billion  (ppb) in one subsurface sample (at 4-6 foot
     depth)  and 1.2 ppb in one surficial soil sample.  During
     Subsequent investigations, thirty-eight subsurface composite
     soil samples were collected and analyzed for dioxin.  Analy-
     sis of all these samples, however, showed non-detects of
     dioxin at detection limits below the 1 ppb level of concern.

     In April/May 1990, in order to further clarify the dioxin
     issue,  five  (5) surface soil and three (3) subsurface soil
     samples were collected from areas adjacent to the higher
     hits of dioxin.  These samples were composited from thirteen
     (13) individual soil samples.  Once again, the analysis,
     with detection levels below 1 ppb, showed non-detects of
     dioxin.  A report detailing both the recent and historic
     dioxin samplings is included in the Administrative Record.

     Based upon these findings, dioxin is no longer considered to
     be a contaminant of concern.

5.   Since none of the contaminated soils at the Site are consid-
     ered to be RCRA hazardous waste, it is expected that the
     contaminated material from the Site can be disposed of off-
     site with potential use as fill and/or cover material.

                                           •
SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Soils

The March 1988 RI/FS, prepared by LEA Associates, NYSDEC's
contractor,  concluded that soils at the Site are contaminated
with inorganics, volatile organics, base/neutral/acid extractable
organics and alpha-BHC and beta-BHC which exceed health and
environmentally-based values.  The extent of contamination is
identified on Figure 2.

Tables 1 and 2 list all inorganic and organic compounds, respec-
tively, detected in soils during the RI, along with the concen-
tration and station where the highest level was detected.  Back-
ground concentrations for inorganics in soils from around New
York State is presented in Table 1.  Various criteria, e.g.,
standards and background concentrations, have been considered in
evaluating the extent of contamination at this Site.  As shown in

-------
Table 1, some compounds exceeded background levels.   For example,
arsenic was detected in both the surface and subsurface soils up
to 350 parts per million (ppm),  while the average background
concentration for arsenic in soils around New York State is 7
ppm.  In addition, background levels from the Niagara Falls
Control Areas in the EPA study,  Environmental Monitoring at Love
Canal, showed no detectable concentrations of those PAHs which
were detected at the 93rd Street School site.

As noted in the Rationale for Remedy Reevaluation section, dioxin
is no longer considered to be a contaminant of concern.

Groundvater and Surface Water

Groundwater and surface water samples were collected and analyzed
during the previous remedial investigations.  The analyses
indicated that a non-health-based New York State secondary
groundwater standard for aesthetics (taste and odor) for iron was
exceeded at the Site and that the groundwater and surface water
at the Site were not otherwise contaminated at levels exceeding
the Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDLs).  However, for
certain compounds, the CRDLs used exceeded NYS and EPA drinking
water standards.

Tables 3 and 4 list all compounds detected at or above CRDLs in
groundwater monitoring wells and surface water, respectively,
along with the concentration and station where the highest level
was detected and the respective ARARs and/or other criteria/gui-
dance to be considered.  Some standards/criteria are either based
on aesthetics or advisories rather than actual toxicity.

As a requirement from the 1988 ROD, additional sampling was
conducted in April 1989 utilizing detection levels below NYS and
EPA drinking water standards.  Lead was the only inorganic
compound for which a health-based standard was exceeded.

During the evaluation of the groundwater sampling results, the
following factors were considered:

          1) The groundwater is not used nor is it
          planned to be used for drinking purposes,
          since the area is served by the City of Niag-
          ara Falls municipal water supply system and a
          city ordinance requires all buildings receive
          their water supply through the municipal
          system.

          2) There is no route of exposure for
          groundwater to the concerned population.

-------
          3) The regional groundwater quality compares
          to the groundvater quality in the Niagara
          Falls area.

          4) Treatment of groundwater may not be prac-
          tical, due to low contamination levels.

          5) All contaminated soils, which may be a
          source of groundwater contamination, are
          being excavated and disposed of off-site.

Historically, low level contamination, as shown in Table 3, is
present throughout much of the Niagara Falls area groundwater,
both upgradient and downgradient of the Site.  Under such circum-
stances, the treatment of this low level contamination at the
Site would not be practicable and is not necessary for the
protection of human health and the environment.  As a result, EPA
and NYSDEC, consistent with the NCP §300.430(f)(ii)(C)(3), are
waiving the applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) for groundwater, based upon technical impracticability.


COMMUNITY RELATIONS HISTORY

The state and federal governmental effort to ensure significant
community involvement on all Love Canal projects has been exten-
sive and is ongoing.  A comprehensive community involvement
strategy has been developed by NYSDEC.  NYSDEC maintains a Love
Canal public information office at which Love Canal documents,
including those for the 93rd Street School site,  are made avail-
able for public review as they are issued.  In addition to this
office, the EPA also has a public information office in the
Carborundum Center in City of Niagara Falls.

The formal public repositories for the Administrative Record,
which includes the Post Decision Proposed Plan (PDPP) and the
1988 ROD, are as follows:

          New York State Department
            of Environmental Conservation
          Love Canal Public Information Office
          9820 Colvin Boulevard
          Niagara Falls, New York  14304
*
          Environmental Protection Agency
          Region II Office
          EPA Document Control Center
          26 Federal Plaza
          New York, New York  10278

During the original public comment period (April 5-May 25, 1988)
for the 1988 ROD, the use of the building and grounds as a school

-------
was not anticipated, and the selected remedy was considered
appropriate by the NFBE, NYSDEC,  and EPA.   NYSDOH's Habitability
Decision and LCARA's Land Use Master Plan had not yet been
issued.  The NCP specifically identifies community and state
acceptance as modifying criteria for any proposed remedy.

The Post Decision Proposed Plan (PDPP) for the Site was released
for public comment on February 22, 1991.  On February 22, 1991,
NYSDEC transmitted a letter to the residents of the area announc-
ing the opening of the public comment period, the public meeting,
and a March 12, 1991 availability session at the NYSDEC PIO prior
to the public meeting.  Formal public notices were issued in the
Buffalo News-Sunrise edition and the Niagara Gazette on Wednes-
day, February 27, 1991.

EPA and NYSDEC held a public meeting and an availability
session on March 12, 1991 to discuss the PDPP and the preferred
remedial alternative.  The Responsiveness Summary (Appendix E)
addresses concerns raised by the public during the public comment
period, which closed March 28, 1991.  A transcript of the public
meeting was prepared, in accordance with CERCLA §117(a)(2), and
is available to the public at the above-mentioned repositories.
At the public meeting, the NFBE expressed strong support to the
governmental agencies for the off-site disposal remedy as identi-
fied in the PDPP.

During the PDPP public comment period, using the recommendations
of the post-1988 ROD NYSDOH Habitability Decision and LCARAVs
Love Canal Land Use Master Plan for the EDA, the community was
able to comment on both the 1988 selected remedy and the PDPP
preferred alternative.  EPA, NYSDEC, and NYSDOH support the
NFBE's new concerns on the selected remedy.  The selected remedy
from 1988 ROD now conflicts with CERCLA §312, since on-site
disposal of the treated waste would preclude, according to the
NFBE, LCARA, and the public, the Site's use as a school.


DESCRIPTION OF NEW ALTERNATIVES

After the recent reevaluation of the 1988 ROD alternatives and as
per the PDPP, EPA and NYSDEC have selected two alternatives for
consideration.

Alternative 1

This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 from the 1988 ROD
and consists of the following:

     *    Excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 7000
          cubic yards of the contaminated material from the hot-
          spot areas, which may be reused or recycled off-site as
          cover and/or fill material.

-------
     *    Backfilling the excavated area with Site soils from
          areas of lower contamination, covering with approxi-
          mately one foot of suitable fill material, and regrad-
          ing to contours for proper drainage.

Alternative 2

This alternative is the original selected remedy as identified in
the September 1988 ROD.

     *    Excavation of approximately 7500 cubic yards of contam-
          inated soil and subsequent on-site solidification/stab-
          ilization of the excavated material.  Additional test-
          ing to be conducted during the remedial design to
          further define the volume of soil needing excavation
          and treatment.

     *    Placement of the solidified/stabilized material on-site
          within the same unit of contamination from which it
          originated, with a low permeability cover, as per the
          Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR
          §264.310 landfill closure requirements, installed over
          these areas and extended to other areas which exhibit
          lower levels of contaminated soil at the Site.

     *    Additional sampling and analysis of the groundwater
          with the lowest achievable levels of detection.

     *    Monitoring of the groundwater in accordance with RCRA
          regulations, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F.

     *    Conducting treatability studies during the remedial
          design phase to determine the effectiveness of the
          solidification/stabilization process for the particular
          soil and its ability to meet specified treatment
          levels.  If not feasible, then treatability studies for
          other treatment techniques.would be performed.

     *    Reviewing the remedy at least every five years, since
          the solidified soil was expected to remain on-site, to
          ensure that human health and the environment continue
          to be protected.


EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The 1988 ROD and the PDPP evaluated alternatives for the 93rd
Street School site according to the nine criteria:

-------
     Threshold Criteria
     -Overall protection of human health and the environment
     -Compliance with ARARs

     Primary Balancing Criteria
     -Long-term effectiveness and permanence
     -Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment
     -Short-term effectiveness
     -Implementability
     -Cost

     Modifying Criteria
     -State acceptance
     -Community acceptance

 Threshold criteria

 Overall  Protection of Human Health  and the Environment

 The  NCP  requires that all remedies  be protective of human health
 and  the  environment.  This protection is primarily achieved by
-reducing health and environmental threats to the acceptable risk
 levels and by taking appropriate action to ensure that there will
 not  be any unacceptable  risks to human health  and the environment
 through  any exposure pathway.  This protection applies to the
 nearby residents within  the EDA and those using the school.

 Both Alternatives 1 and  2 ensure protection of human health and
 the  environment.  Alternative 1 ensures a greater level of
 protection in the long term in the  vicinity of the Site, since
 the  hot  spot soils would be excavated and removed from the Site.
 Alternative 2 is expected to immobilize the hot spot soils and
 thus eliminate any potential for leaching of both organic and
 inorganic contaminants.  Threats associated with soils ingestion,
 inhalation and dermal contact would be eliminated in both cases.

 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Require-
 ments

 CERCLA §121(d) and the NCP require  that remedial actions comply
 with all ARARs.  Both Alternatives  1 and 2 satisfy these require-
 ments .

 EPA  is currently undertaking an LDR rule-making that will specif-
 ically apply to soil and debris.  Until that rule-making is
 completed, the CERCLA program will  consider LDRs not to be rele-
 vant and appropriate  (except for dioxin) to soil and debris that
 do not contain RCRA restricted wastes.

 The  LDR  requirements have been found not to be applicable at  the
 Site.  The wastes at the Site do not exhibit the characteristics
 of ignitability, corrosivity or reactivity.  In addition, the

-------
                                10

binding properties of the fill material at the Site, its ability
to tie-up the contaminants within the soil/fill matrix, and
historical examination of Site contaminants and their concen-
trations as related to the toxicity characteristics leaching
procedure (TCLP) list compounds should preclude the soil from
being characterized as a RCRA hazardous waste by the TCLP method.
The need for any further TCLP analysis, however, will be deter-
mined during the remedial design.  As part of the treatability
study which was conducted during the remedial design phase as
required by the 1988 ROD, TCLP was performed for lead and arsen-
ic, both of which passed the test.  Thus, it has been determined
that since the wastes at the 93rd Street School site are neither
RCRA listed nor RCRA characteristic hazardous wastes, the RCRA
LDR requirements are not applicable.

The treated soils resulting from Alternative 2 (solidification/
stabilization) would be redeposited on-site in the same unit of
contamination from which they originated and a low permeability
cover having a permeability less than or equal to the permeabili-
ty of the natural subsoils would be placed over the area.  The
low permeability cover of Alternative 2 complies with landfill
closure requirements of 40 CFR §264.310 (RCRA Subtitle C).  Under
the above approach, RCRA minimum design and operating technology
requirements (e.g., double liner/leachate collection system)
would not be triggered since a new unit is not being constructed
nor is replacement or lateral expansion of the existing unit
occurring.  A low permeability cover would then be placed over
the area and would comply with RCRA Subtitle C (40 CFR §264.310)
landfill closure and post-closure requirements.

As identified in the 1988 ROD, the Stage 1 Archeological Survey
was conducted by the NYSDEC.  Both the alternatives satisfy the
requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act which has
been found to be a location-specific ARAR, and neither will have
any affect on cultural resources.

Primary Balancing criteria

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

Long-term effectiveness and permanence addresses the long-term
protection and reliability of the alternative.  The long-term
effectiveness of Alternative 1 would be high at the Site itself,
since the hot-spot soils would be disposed of off-site.

Alternative 2 also provides a comparable effectiveness since the
by-products are not expected to pose a hazard from a health and
environmental prospective.  Treatability studies which have been
performed during the remedial design phase of the selected remedy
in the 1988 ROD indicate that the treated material meets the
criteria with respect to leaching and durability, (in terms of
freeze/thaw and compressive strength).  However, long-term

-------
                               11

monitoring to ensure effectiveness of the remedy will have to be
conducted for 30 years and an evaluation of the effectiveness of
the remedy will be conducted every five years.

Given the lack of documentation regarding the long-term stability
of the non-inorganic components of the treated material, Alterna-
tive 1 would be considered to better achieve this requirement at
the Site itself than Alternative 2.

Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility or Volume

This evaluation criterion relates to the performance of a treat-
ment technology in terms of eliminating or controlling risks
posed by the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous sub-
stances.

Alternative 1 would not achieve a reduction in toxicity, mobili-
ty, or volume, since no treatment is involved.  However, since
the contaminated soils will be disposed of off-site and poten-
tially reused or recycled as cover and/or fill material, exposure
to the waste at the Site would be eliminated.

Alternative 2 involves treatment by solidification/stabilization
and is expected to immobilize the contaminants in the hot spot
soils, thereby, reducing any exposure to toxicity threats posed
by the contaminants.  Any future leaching of contaminants from
the treated soils and risks due to soil's ingestion would also be
reduced by this option since the soil cover over the solidified
and stabilized soil would minimize the probability of exposure.
With solidification/stabilization, due to the addition of the
fixating/stabilizing agents, the volume of the waste material is
likely to increase.  Treatability studies performed during the
remedial investigations indicate that the treated material meets
the criteria with respect to leaching and durability (in terms of
freeze/thaw and compressive strength).  However, long term data
on the stability and effectiveness of the treated hazardous
material is not available at present.

Short-term Effectiveness

Short term effectiveness measures the time needed to implement
the remedial alternative and the potential adverse impacts of its
implementation.

Alternative 1 requires excavation of hot spot soils; therefore,
the potential for air emissions exists.  Additional risks to
communities along the transportation route exists as a result of
the transportation of the hot-spot soils off-site.  However,
strict measures would be implemented to control air emissions,
soil spillage, or overturned trucks; contingencies will be
adequately planned.  The construction time required for this
alternative will be several months less than Alternative 2.

-------
                                12


On-site solidification (Alternative 2) requires excavation,
material handling and treatment; therefore, potential short-term
risks at the Site for air emissions during excavation, materials
handling and treatment exists.  This alternative would result in
the occurrence of more potential short term risks at the Site
over a longer period of time than Alternative 1 due to the longer
period for implementation and due to treatment and additional
material handling and mixing.  However, adequate mitigation and
safety plans will minimize the problem.

Although both alternatives have been shown to have potential
short-term risks, Alternative 1 better satisfies this requirement
than Alternative 2.

Jmplementabi1ity

Implementability addresses how easy or difficult it would be to
carry out a given alternative's construction and operation and
maintenance.  The implementability of the alternatives is evalu-
ated in terms of technical and administrative feasibility, and
availability of required goods and services.  Both alternatives
evaluated are technically feasible.

Implementation of Alternative l would not be difficult technical-
ly.  Excavation and transport of materials is a simple operation.
There are various options available for off-site disposal loca-
tions .

Treatability studies have been conducted for Alternative No. 2 to
determine the optimal conditions to satisfy the treatment re-
quirements and provide long-term effectiveness.  Frequent moni-
toring of treated material during operations and long term
monitoring would be needed to ensure system effectiveness and
reliability.

The availability of the necessary equipment and specialists is
more limited for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 1 since
solidification of organics is a relatively new technology.

Sufficient area exists at the Site to set up treatment units as
required in Alternative No. 2, and ample land area would be
available on-site for redeposition of the treated soil.

The severe winter weather conditions in this area would limit the
construction season for both alternatives, and the low winter
temperatures could require additional precautions to maintain
optimal reaction rates for Alternative 2.

While both alternatives meet this criteria, it is believed that
Alternative 1 would be simpler and easier to implement than
Alternative 2.

-------
                               13
Costs

Costs are evaluated in terms of capital cost,  O&M and present
worth.  The cost of Alternative 1 is estimated to be $2.25
million which assumes the transportation off-site in the Niagara
Falls area.  This cost is significantly lower from the estimated
cost of $4.8 million for Alternative 3, off-site disposal, in the
1988 ROD.  The wide difference in cost relates directly to the
fact that Alternative 3 included disposal of waste at a RCRA
facility in Ohio (estimated to be about 500 miles away) and
installation of a low permeability cover at the Site.  Alterna-
tive No. 2 which results in comparable effectiveness as Alterna-
tive 1 has a total present worth cost range of from $3.9-5.5
million.  The cost analysis of both the alternatives show that
Alternative 1 provides a similar degree of effectiveness at a
lower cost than Alternative 2.

Modifying Criteria

State Acceptance

This section addresses any concerns and degrees of support the
State has expressed regarding the remedial alternatives being
evaluated.

New York State supports a remedy that reduces the inherent hazard
posed by the contaminants at the Site.  The State's preference is
for Alternative 1 which removes the hazardous waste from the
Site, puts the Site to its best use, and satisfies the community.

Community Acceptance

This evaluation criteria addresses the degree to which the
members of the local community support the remedial alternative
being evaluated.

Both the RI/FS and the original Proposed Remedial Action Plan
were made available to the public and a responsiveness summary
was prepared addressing the comments raised during the comment
period before issuance of the ROD.  The PDPP was prepared as a
result of the NFBE concerns and the LCARA's Love Canal Land Use
Master Plan which was required by the Love Canal EDA Habitability
Decision and CERCLA §312.  The overall acceptance of this remedy
by the public has been documented.  Revision of the 1988 ROD
selected remedy will allow for the best use of this Site as
determined by the local entities responsible for its development.

-------
                                14
 MODIFIED SELECTED REMEDY

 Based upon the above evaluation of the two  alternatives,  EPA  and
 NYSDEC recommend Alternative 1  (Off-site  Disposal)  and  subsequent
 Site restoration as the preferred alternative  for the remedial
 action of the contaminated soils at the Site.   Prior to implemen-
 tation,  a remedial design effort will  be  performed  to elaborate
 on the specific details of the  preferred  alternative.


 STATUTORY DETERMINATION

 The selected remedy in this amendment  which modifies the  1988 ROD
 satisfies CERCLA §121 and §312  and best achieves the goals  of the
 nine evaluation criteria in comparison to the  other alternative. ,

 The EPA and NYSDEC believe that the preferred  remedy described
 above is fully protective of human health and  the environment and
•offers the best balance among the evaluation criteria,  thereby
 preventing any future groundwater contamination, reducing the
 risks associated with exposure  to the  contaminated  soils, and
 providing for the potential reuse/recycle of the contaminated
 materials.
 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES

 Based on CERCLA §117(b)  requirements, EPA and NYSDEC determined
 that  no  significant  changes have  been made to the  selected  remedy
 from  the time  it was originally proposed  in the  PDPP to  final
 adoption of the alternative in  this  ROD amendment.

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
                                        93RD STREET SCHOOL SITE-
    C£:
 5A BOUNDARIES TAKEN FROM NEW YORK STATE
REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW ARTICLE T7. SECTION
                                      [FIGURE  I)

LOVE  CANAL  EMERGENCY  DECLARATION  AREA
NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK      SCALE: T'7SCf  (SEVEN EDA
LEGEND                               NEIGHBORHOODS)
  i'-' EMERGENCY DECLARATION AREA (EDA)

-------
                   EITENT OF IDENTIFIED
                   MOT SPOT SOILS
                                           (o  \\
\
\(^
 ^<<>-
                       93HQ  STREET  SCHOOL
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        QC
                                                                                        O
                                                                                        m
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        u
       NOTE:
       EXCAVATION CONTOURS SHOW ARC
       APPROXIMATE AMD ARE BASED ON
       REMOVAL OF MATERIAL TO A DCPTH
       AT LEAST ONE fOOr BELOW THE DEPTH
       WHERE SIGNIFICANT CONTAHINATIOIf
       WAS FOUND.
                                                                              50 ft
                                   93RD STREET
                                                                         Scale
                                                                            FIGURE 2

-------
APPENDIX B

-------
                              TABLE 1
                            SOILS DATA

            INORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
Parameter

A1 urn nun
Antimony
Arsenic
Bartin
Beryl 11 ura

Cadmium
Calcluw
Chronlui
Cobalt
Cooper

Iron
lead
Magnesium
Manqanese
Mercury
 Nickel
 Potassium
 Selenium
 Silver
 Thallium

 Vanadium
 Z1nc
 Molybdenum
 THanlin

NY SOIL
BACKGROUND
Highest Cone
mg/kgt
(DOT) Sta
10700 1P13A
209n 1P4B
350 1P4D
565n 1P4C
3. An 1P4A
133n IP4B
202000 1P4A
516 1P1B
52 1P3E
44 1P11E
86600 1P150
843 2P1UA
42000* 1P13B
3000n* 1P3E
23 1P1B
47 1P8F
3550* 1P5B
4.1s 1P1C
3.2 1P90
1.2 1P8F
59 1P15C
. 18200* IP 48
229 1P4A
825 1P3C
Mean
rog/kg
(ppnQ
4S.OOO
0.75(<9)
7.0(10.6)
300
0.6
0.4ttt(4)
5,200
34
8
22
23,000
21(114)
5.000
1,100
0.15( 0.15)
14
15.500
0.3
No data
9.06
GO
64
NO data
to data
Mo.Samples
Exceeding
Background

      0
     59(59)
     21(15)
      4
     20

     68(27)
     42
     15
     21
     28

     17
     42(5)
     28
       5
     26(26)

     66
       0
       3
       0
      54
    t Subscript definitions for this column are as follows:
     n « Indicates spike sample recovery 1s not within control  Hills
     * • Indicates duplicate analysis Is not wltMn control  limits
     s • Indicates value determine* by Method of Standard Addition

  ttt Average  froa Cadilu* 1n the Envlronaent, J.  0.  Nrlagu, «d, pg.  586.
  ttttFroa  'SuMary of  inorganic Constituent Concentrations in Soil Scaplts frm
     Around the  State  of New York (Boerngen and Shacklette,  1961) with the
      exception of values 1n parentheses which are froa Michael  E. Hopkins of the
      Niagara  County  Health Dept., and were believed to be average backgrowd
      concentrations  for soils 1n the Niagara Fills area.

-------
                              Table 2
                     ORGANIC  SOIL COMPOUNDS
        OMAHICS
    dane chloride
I/*/*

1,4-01chlorobenzene

2-Metliyliie«*itha1efle
k>MtM^k»k^»*
^fcwn^pnvKvnc
Olbenzoforan
                      Highest Cone
                      ug/R*
                      (ppb)    SU
                       7700   IMF
                       4500   IPSft
                       UOOB»2P135
                       1500  2P135
                       5300   IP9B
                       2400  2P13S
                      i3oooe IPIOC
                       1600   1P9E
                       2000  IPIOC
                        830   1P4F
                       15000  1P4C
                        9100  1P4C
                       110000  1P4C
                       62000   1P4E
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS  (PAHs)
                       140000  1P4C
                       820000  1P4C
                       220000  1P4C
                       450000  1P4C
                       560000  1P4C

                       260000  1P4C

                         630   1P3A
                       240000  1P4C
                       310000  IP4C
                        49000  1P4C

                       190000  1P4C
                        82000  1P4C
               pcrylcne 2100   1MB
 8ento

 PESTICIOES/PCBs
                           13
                          137
                               1P8C
                               1P4C
• Subscript definitions for
  this col MM art as
  follow:

I • Indicates analytt MS
    found In blank as Mil
    as ;«p!e.

0 • Indicates swplt
    extract vas diluted due
    to sample satrlx and/or
    concentration leveli.

-------
                                  TABLE  3
                  AKALS5IS OF GOTNEHRTTO ANALYTICAL DMA
              THE RI/FS j^-t-OKr.  SUPM^^^TAL S'lUUy. AND
                          (ALL VALUES IN ug/l=p{±>)


Subscript Definitions for Table 2 are as follows:

B  <= indicates that aralyte was found in blanks as well as the sample
N  = indicates that spike sample recovery is not within control limits
*  = indicates that delicate analysis was not within control limits
4-  = indicates that the correlation coefficient for the method of standard
     addition is less than 0,995
NA <= Not analyzed
NC » Not calculable
ND = indicates that the analyte was analyzed for but not detected
£  = indicates a value estimated due to interference
•+•+• «= Secondary Maximtn c^'i*'-a'''ii|'j'jit Level (Aesthetic Guideline)
() = Proposed Maxim im Containment level
(-H-) = Piu^ufaed Secondary Jfeximum Containment Level
**   = KayiTnttn Containujent Level 
-------
                      Table A


 SURFACE WATER COMPOUNDS  AND RESPECTIVE ARARS
AND/OR OTHER CRITERIA/GUIDANCE TO BE CONSIDERED
(all values in
Highest Cone
Parameter
INORGANICS
Alumlnin
Antimony
Caldvn
Chromlun
Iron
lead
Hagnesliw
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Sod 1 in
Z1nc
uqm
259
90
52300
46
378E
12
25200
209E
55
44N
7400
72
Sta

SU1
SW2
SW2
SHI
SW1
SW1
SW2
SW2
SHI
SW1
SV2
SHI
ug/1 = ppb)
NYSOEC
A
Std

None
None
None
50
300
50
35000
300
None
50
None
300
UQ REGS
A
Guidance

None
3
None
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
None
NA
None
NA
NYSDOH
Source
Std

None
None
None
50
None
50
None
None
None
SO
20,000
300
VOLATILE OR6ANICS

B/H/A
Df-N-Octyl
phthtlite
None

21


SKI


None


50


None
PESTICIDES/PCBs/DIOXI*
                 None
tSubscrlpt definitions for this colwn are  K follows:
 E • Indicates • value estimated due to the presence of Interference
 N • Indicates splice sawple recovery Is not within control  Halts

-------
APPENDIX D

-------
  York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
                                                                      Thomas C. Joriing
                                                                      Commissioner
                                           KAY 15 1991
  Ms.  Kathleen C.  Callahan
  Director
  Emergency and Remedial Response  Division
  United States Environmental Protection Agency
  Region II
  26 Federal Plaza
  New York, New York 10278

  Dear Ms. Callahan:

  Re:   93rd Street School Site,  Niagara County,  New  York,  Site  No.  9-32-078

  The final draft  Record of  Decision (ROD)  amendment for the  93rd  Street  School
  site received by the New York  State Department of  Environmental  Conservation
  (NYSDEC) on May  14,  1991 has been reviewed.  The NYSDEC  concurs  with the
  selected remedial action as presented in  the draft ROD amendment.

  If you have any  questions  concerning this matter,  please contact Mr.  Michael J.
  O'Toole, Jr., P.E. at (518) 457-5861.
                                         Sincerely,
                                         Edward 0.  Sullivan
                                         Deputy Commissioner
  cc:  A. Wakeman, NYSDOH
       D. Duda, USEPA
       D. Garbarini, USEPA

-------
APPENDIX B

-------