United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R03-88/OSO
June 1988
Superfund
Record of Decision
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump, VA
-------
30372-101
RETORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
IV-REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R03-88/050
2.
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title end Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Rhinehart Tire Fire,.VA
First Remedial Action
5. Report Date
06/30/88
hor(»)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Orgenization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type at Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Notes
16" ^tfn'e* Rliinl??ar0£d*!rire Fire (RTF) site is located in a sparsely populated rural area in
Western Frederick County, Virginia, approximately six miles east of the Town of
Winchester. Between 1972 and 1983, the site owner, Mr. Rhinehart, conducted a tire
disposal operation which consisted of transporting discarded tires from various
locations and storing them on a wooded slope behind his home. By October 1983, an
estimated five to seven million tires had accumulated, and on October 31, 1983, caught
fire. A hot oil produced from melting and pyrolysis of the tires seeped from the pile
LK tires into Massey Run. An undetermined quantity of oil flowed into Hoque Creek,
Ifhich is a tributary to the Potomac River system. EPA's Emergency Response Team (ERT)
installed a catch basin to trap the oil; however, because the high rate of oil and water
seepage threatened to exceed the catch basin storage capacity, a lined 50,000-gallon
pond was constructed immediately downslope from the burn area. Approximately 800,000
gallons of oil product was collected, removed from the site, and recycled into fuel
oils. Soon after the fire, diversion structures were built by the owner of the site
under a consent order agreement with EPA. EPA, through the Army corps of Engineers,
conducted a Remedial Investigation (RI) to characterize and define the extent of
possible contaminants. The RI indicated that the ash-contaminated area continues to mix
(See Attached Sheet)
Rhinehart Tire Fire, VA
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: gw, sw, soil
Key contaminants: metals (arsenic, lead)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
30
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (*-771
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
*EPA/ROD/R03-88/050
tinehart Tire Fire, VA
rst Remedial Action
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
with both the solid residue and the liquid seepage by means of precipitation. This
remedial action will address the control of contaminated migration off-site via surface
water runoff. A subsequent remedial action will address source control at the site.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water, soil, and surface water
are metals including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes: collection of surface water
runoff with gravity settling; collection of shallow ground water oily seeps, oil-water
separation, and transport of water to a POTW; construction of berms to increase
freeboard on two existing on-site ponds; and implementation of soil erosion controls.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $1,332,340 with O&M costs
of $145,000.
-------
Record of Decision
Declaration
Site Name and Location
Rhinehart Tire Fire Site
Winchester, Frederick County, Va.
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
Rhinehart Tire Fire Site developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Envirorroental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and to the greatest
extent practicable, is consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances pollution Contingency Plan.
This decision is based upon the contents of the administrative record
for the Rhinehart Tire Fire Site.
The State of Virginia concurs in the selected remedy.
Description of the Remedy
This remedy is the first operable unit for this site, and addresses
the control of contaminant migration off-site via surface water runoff.
The function of this operable unit is to divert and contain surface runoff
at the site and to eliminate seeps of oily waste. A future operable unit
will address source control at the site.
The major components of the selected remedy are:
- Soil erosion controls;
- Increased freeboard on two existing on-site ponds;
- Collection of surface water runoff plus gravity settling;
- Collection of shallow ground water oily seeps; with
a) oil-water separation, and
b) transport of water to POTW
Declaration
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attains Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to this remedial action, and is cost effective.
-------
This remedy satisfies the preference for treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volune as a principal element. Finally, it
is determined that this remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Date
s K Self
ional Administrator
Region III
-------
Record of Decision
ROD Decision Summary
Site Name, Location, and Description
The Rhinehart Tire Fire Site is located in a sparsely populated rural
area in Western Frederick County, Virginia, approximately 65 miles West-
Northwest of Washington, D.C. The Town of Winchester, Virginia, is approxi-
mately 6 miles east of the site.
The Rhinehart Tire Fire Site is located in the Western portion of the
Valley and Ridge Physiographic province, in the Appalachian Highlands. The
Regional topography is dominated by a series of alternating Northeast - trend-
ing ridges and valleys. The site consists of fill and ash overlying a layer
of clayey silt and shale fragments that grades to weathered bed rock. Ground-
water flow in the overburden and weathered bedrock is toward Massey Run
(Figure 1). Deeper regional groundwater flow may follow the bedrock fractures
toward the southeast. Massey Run discharges to Hogue Creek which is a put-and-
take trout stream and a tributary
of the Potomac River System.
Site History
Between 1972 and 1983, the site owner, Mr. Rhinehart, conducted a tire
disposal operation which consisted of transporting discarded tires from various
locations and storing them on a wooded slope behind his home. By October,
1983, a stack of tires estimated at 5 to 7 million had been accumulated.
Land usage prior to 1972 is assumed to have been primarily livestock grazing.
On October 31, 1983 a fire broke out in the 5-acre tire storage area. A
hot oil produced from melting and pyrolysis of the tires began to seep out of
the toe of the tire pile and into Massey Run (Figure 1}. An undetermined
quantity of oil then flowed into Hogue Creek, which is a tributary to the
Potomac River system. Subsequently, a catch basin was installed by EPA's
Emergency Response Team, (ERT), to trap the oil; however, the high rate of
water of oil and water seepage threatened to exceed the catch basin's storage
capacity and additional storage was constructed in the form of lined 50,00-gallon
pond located immediately downslope from the burn area. Approximately 800,000
gallons of oil product was collected, removed from the site, and recycled
into fuel oils.
Concurrent with emergency activities at the site, EPA entered into an
administrative consent order agreement with the owner of the site, under
which the the owner constructed dikes and ditches for drainage control and
performed collection and pumping operations to minimize the volume
-------
/PONO (UNL1NED)
CLEARED
AREA
DUTCHMAN
INCINERATOR AND
LOADING PLATFORM
CURRENT SITE LAYOUT
WINCHESTER TIRE F
-------
of waste escaping from the site. More recently, the site owner has conducted
trenching and grading operations which affect shallow groundwater flow and
the distribution of ash residue.
Subsequent to the emergency response, EPA performed a groundwater study
and initiated a Remedial investigation/Feasibility Study for the site. The
groundwater study was undertaken to determine only if groundwater contamination
existed, and not to define the full extent. The study concluded that some
degradation of groundwater had occurred, but contaminants were likely to
remain within the Massey Run drainage basin, eventually discharging to Massey
Run, with little effect on local groundwater consumers.
Activities at the site
Subsequent to the emergency activities at the site, EPA, through the
Army Corps of Engineers, conducted a Remedial investigation (RI) to characterize
and define the extent of possible contaminants at the site. The RI was performed
in two phases, and a Feasibility Study (FS) was produced which summarized RI
activities and proposed a partial Remedy for Site Remediation.
RI activities included the sampling and analysis of surface and subsurface
soil, surface waters and groundwaters, and sediments, and biological studies
of Aquatic Life.
-------
Site Characteristics
Current conditions at the site present much different environ-
mental concerns than were present during the fire. The Remedial
Investigation of the site focused on these concerns as described
below.
* While diversion structures were built soon after the fire
to limit run off from entering the fire area, precipitation falling
on the ash-contaminated area continues to mix with both the solid
residue and the liquid seepage. Contaminated runoff has the
continuing potential to affect aquatic life in downstream waters
as well as downstream water users. Downstream waters are utilized
as a put-and-take trout fishery.
* Two ponds remain on the site at this time. Rhinehart's
Pond (unlined) was constructed before the fire and generally
collects run off from an area outside that which was affected by
the fire. The second, lined pond, (Dutchman's Pond), is currently
receiving runoff from the burn area. Both ponds are capable of
further degrading downstream surface waters from over flow and the
unlined pond could be impacting shallow groundwater quality.
* In several locations near the burn area, oily groundwater
seeps are visible. While it is anticipated that the volume of
oily material will decrease with time, the continuing potential to
contaminate local waters remains a concern.
* Ash and ash/soil mixtures remain available to further
contaminate water resources, to impact air quality, and for transportation
off-site as sediment.
* Subsurface materials, particularly the ash which has been
buried by site regrading, and bottom sediments in both ponds and
the stream contain contaminants available to degrade local water
resources by overflowing into the surface water.
* Much of the oil produced by the fire entered the soils
beneath the site and continues to seep from the ground.
Summary of Testing and Sampling Results
(Refer to Figure 2 for the location of groundwater monitoring wells and
Figure 3 for on site sampling locations).
-------
N
//
1 /
/ ///
VMBMM*
'/
'•'/',
RHINEHART'
POND (UNLINED):
' f /
w/.
^TF:
VV/v
7%
i T\//
%°^
NEWLY INSTALLED 0€EP
AND SHALLOW MONITORING
WELLS (MW-5D & MW-5S)
o.
/
s/ /;
>MASSEY RUN
.DUTCHMAN'S 3
^POND^^^-^
f/A
/EXISTING SHALLOW/;
x MONITORING WELL
«ri/ >u"
[EXISTING DEEP AND
.SHALLOW MONITORING-
'WELLS (MW-20 & MW-2S)
EXISTING DEEP AND
rx y SHALLOW MONITORING
},W/'r WELLS (MW-40 & MW-4S)
"V^^Xc !/r* '' •^"w**^j vv v
/ V> v^ J
xCx
/_
V
CAcceaS^
/;
&
950
EXISTING DEEP AND
SHALLOW MONITORING
/WELLS (MW-iO & MW-
SHEDS-
SCALE: r « 200
SOURCE ACOE
LOCATION OF GROUNOWATER
MONITORMG WELLS
WINCHESTER TIRE FIRE SITE
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA
FIG. 2
-------
CLEARED (
AREA !
MASSEY RUN
DUTCHMAN'S
INCINERATOR AND
AOINQ PLATFORM
TJ. ^
0= Surface Wttar/Soolmont
Sampling Lo««lio«i
X* Surfac* Wat«r Sampling Location
• » S«dim«nt Sampling Location
NOTE: A bloattcy ••mo*« w«« eo««et«d «t
••eft location wh«r« • turtae* w«t«r
•«mpl« «•• eoil«ct«d, «xe«pt at
SW-O14, wfiten was eoll««t«d from
a 4rainag« t««p.
Scala: 1' = 200'
SOURCE: ACOE
OM-STTE SURFACE WATER, SEDIMENT
AND BOASSAY SAMPLING LOCATKDNS
WINCHESTER TFE FIRE SITE
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA
FIG. 3
-------
Geology
Field activities reveal the site to consist of fill and ash overlying
clayey silt and weathered bedrock. Fill, which ranges from six inches to 7.8
feet, consists mainly of broken shale and sandstone bedrock with some ash.
Underlying the fill is a layer ranging up to several ft. in thickness of
relatively pure ash. Some wire and metallic materials were found within the
ash layer. Material below the ash consists of brown clayey silt with shale
and sandstone fragments, that grades into shale and sandstone bedrock.
Bedrock at the site consists of thinly bedded shale with interbedded sandy
shale and occasional thin sandstone beds. Numerous fractures are present
predominantly along the 30 degree bedding planes.
Hydrogeology
Water level data obtained during the Remedial Investigation indicates
that the horizontal direction of shallow ground-water flow is towards the
northwest. An upward component of groundwater flow at well nest J-W4, near
Massey Run indicates that Massey Run is recharged by groundwater in addition
to surface runoff. Deep groundwater flow in the bedrock is probably fracture
controlled.
Analytical
Surface Water—Results of surface water sampling indicate very low to
low concentrations of Target compound List (TCL) organics in on-site surface
water. However, it does not appear that detectable concentrations of TCL
organics are being transported off-site dissolved in surface waters. An
elevated concentration of cadmium and possible elevated levels of iron, manganese
an zinc were detected in surface water obtained from the drainage ditch on
bench 3. Several other on-site surface water samples contain possible elevated
levels of iron, manganese and zinc.
-------
Sediment—Sediment sampling results indicate several semi-volatile
compounds in Dutchman's and Rhinehart's Ponds. There was no evidence of any
downstream contamination from semi-volatiles contained in the two ponds. On-
site sediment samples, including the two ponds, had significantly higher
concentrations of zinc than did the background samples. Zinc was detected in
downstream samples. These concentrations decreased with increased distance
from the site. Zinc was the only significantly higher metal found in all
on-site samples.
Bioassay—Seven day fathead minnow larval survival and growth tests,
along with Ceriodaphnia survival and reproduction tests were performed on
surface water collected both on-site and offsite. Aquatic Bioassay data
suggest that acute and chronic toxicity has contributed to the elimination
some resident species in the stream extending from the site downstream to
Station SW-012.
Groundwater (Existing Monitoring wells)—semi-quantitative estimate of
Ipart per billion (ppb) Benzene was detected in MW-4S. All samples from
wells contained iron and manganese in concentrations exceeding National
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. These Standards were also exceeded for
zinc in the non-filtered samples of MW-2S, MW-3S, MW-4S. National interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations were exceeded for chromium and lead in the
non-filtered sample from MW-2S.
Groundwater (Resident Wells)—There is no evidence of offsite groundwater
being adversely affected by Fire related activities.
Groundwater (phase II Monitoring Wells)—Concentrations of toluene,
ethylbenzene and total xylenes, as well as qualitative estimates of benzene
and naphthalene were detected in MW-5S. There were no analytically valid TCL
organic concentrations in MW-5D. Elevated concentrations of aluminum were
detected in the non-filtered samples from MW-5d; elevated concentrations of
manganese were detected in both the filtered and non-filtered samples of MW5S
and MW-5D.
It should be clearly noted, however, that the Rl did not sufficiently
characterize the nature and extent of groundwater problems. Some of the
above results may or may not be indicative of contamination at the site.
Future investigations will determine the needed site characteristics.
Soil (Test Borings)—Six soil samples, plus one duplicate, were analyzed
for RCRA metals using TCLP and Batch Leachate procedures. TCLP results indicate
no concentrations above proposed regulatory levels. Also, there were no
Batch Dsachate concentrations above proposed TCLP regulatory levels.
-------
Groundwater (Packer Testing)—The pneumatic packer assembly
was used to collect groundwater samples from isolated intervals
along fracture zones determined during rock coring and geophysical
logging. The only TCL organics detected in groundwater samples were
those associated with laboratory contamination. Several samples
were found to exceed National Secondary Drinking Water Standards
for iron manganese in both filtered and non-filtered samples.
Ash-Soil/Ash (Test Pits)—Eight ash and soil/ash samples,
plus one duplicate, were analyzed for TCL organics and inorganics,
and TCLP RCRA metals. Laboratory samples were collected for 2
black ash, 2 white ash, 3 soil/ash mixtures, and 1 background
sample. Estimated and tentatively identified organic compounds were
found in numerous samples. Elevated metal concentrations were
detected in all ash and soil/ash samples. Numerous samples were
found to have metal concentrations above those of the background
sample. There were no TCLP concentrations above proposed regulatory
levels set for the RCRA metal analyzed. No significant differences
were observed between data of the white ash, black ash, and soil/ash
sanples.
Air Sampling—No polyaromatic hydrocarbons, (PAHs) ware detected
in any samples. Because the ground was saturated during air sampling,
no significant amount of airbourne dust was generated by test pit
activities. Therefore, at this time it can not be determined if
unhealthy concentrations of PAHs exist on-site.
Ash and Tire Debris
The extent and thickness of ash and tire debris in fill on
benches 1 and 2 was determined during test pit excavation. The
largest quantity and thickness (approximately 5 feet) of ash and
tire debris thins out radially away from the deepest point.
Approximately 125 feet northeast of the thickest area of ash and
tire debris is a smaller pocket of ash and tire debris. Here the
ash and tire debris thins out radially from a maximum thickness of 4
feet. The lateral extent of ash and tire debris was not determined
on bench 1.
On bench 2, as on bench 1, the area with the greatest quantity
and thickness of ash and tire debris is in the southwestern portion
of the bench. Here the maximum thickness of ash and tire debris is
over nine feet. The vertical extent of ash and tire debris could not
be determined in this area. The quantity and thickness of ash and
tire debris thins to zero feet of thickness gradually over a distance
of 225 feet, to the Northeast. To the southeast and southwest ash
and tire debris thins out to zero thickness within 50 feet.
The extent and thickness of ash and tire debris in fill on
bench 3 was determined during the drilling of test borings. On
bench 3, the greatest quantity and thickness (18.25 feet) of ash
-------
and tire debris is found in the western portion of the bench. The thickeness
of ash and tire debris thins out to zero feet of thickness approximately 175
feet to the northeast. Fill thickness, but not ash quantity, increases from
this point towards the northeast portion of the bench, reaching a thickness
of 6+ feet approximately 100 feet away.
Community Relations History
Very little public interest has been shown in the Rhinehart Tire Fire
Site. EPA's Office of Public Affairs held two public meetings on the site.
The first meeting, held in April 1986, was used for discussion of the RI/FS
workplan. On June 27, 1988, a second public meeting was held to receive
comments on the FS and the recommeded remedy for the site. In addition to
the two public meetings, EPA officials appeared at a Frederick County Board
of Supervisors meeting in July 1987 to discuss interim Rl results. News
releases and paid newspaper adds have been provided as required by Superfund
Cotmiunity Relations policies.
-------
Surinary of Site Risks and
Remedial Action Objectives.
Utilizing data generated during the RI, an Endangerment Assessment was
conducted to evaluate the potential impacts on public health and the environment
that may result from the release of hazardous substances from the Winchester
Tire Fire Site.
* Present Risks
Soils - Both the carcinogenic risks and the potential for noncarcinogenic
adverse health effects due to dermal contact with the soils of the Winchester
Tire Fire Site were evaluated using subsurface soil samples. The site is not
expected to cause any dermal contact carcinogenic risks or adverse non-carcinogenic
effects. Concentrations in on-site soils were calculated to present health
hazards and carcinogenic risks to young children \via soil ingestion. Arsenic
was calculated to present carcinogenic risks under both most probable and
realistic worst case conditions. Zinc was calculated to present a slight
health hazard under most probable case conditions. However, soil ingestion
is expected to occur primarily in children between the ages of two and six.
Since young children are not presently expected onsite, there are not any
immediately foreseeable health hazards or carcinogenic risks posed by soil
ingestion.
Groundwater. The Winchester Tire Fire Site does not appear to be posing
any carcinogenic risks or potential health hazards via the groundwater pathway.
Results of residential well sampling in the Site vicinity found one sample
from one well slightly exceeding the MCL for lead (0.05 mg/1) and potentially
causing adverse health effects. However, it is not possible at this time
to determine whether the site may be a source of lead for either the shallow
or deep groundwater below the site. Additional testing and analysis will be
conducted in a future phase of a Remedial investigation.
Surface Water. Hogue Creek is classified as a state "put and take"
trout stream. Assuming fish ingestion from this area of Hogue Creek, silver
was calculated to pose potential adverse health effects under both most probable
and realistic worst case conditions. Although calculations indicate that
silver poses a potential health hazard, the slim possibility of an individual's
total fish consunption being fish caught from Hogue Creek and the lack of a
current AIC for silver make the relevance of the calculations uncertain at
this time.
The mean concentrations of copper, lead, silver and zinc
-------
detected in off-Site samples exceeded Virginia Water Quality Criteria by at
least five times. In addition, chronic and acute toxicity were exhibited to
aquatic life in a number of surface water samples taken from on-Site and off-Site
surface water samples. Biologists from the U.S. EPA Region III Wheeling
Operations section Biology Unit suspect that zinc is the cause of the observed
chronic and acute toxicity. Lead and zinc on-site soil concentrations were
significantly elevated over background. Therefore, runoff from the Site may
be contributing to surface water metal concentrations and adversely impacting
aquatic life.
Air. Present inhalation risks are uncertain due to adverse sampling
conditions during sampling. Sampling results during the Phase II Remedial
Investigation were negative at least in part due to precipitation in the days
preceding sampling which prevented fugitive dust generation. However, the
region in which the Winchester Tire Fire Site is located averages 38 inches
of precipitation a year (NUS, 1984) and there are approximately 120 days per
year during which precipitation exceeds 0.01 inch (Cowherd et al., 1985).
Additional sampling of modeling for air risks may be needed.
Future Risks.
Soils, potential future carcinogenic risks and adverse health effects
are also unknown at this time and will be evaluated as part of a second operable
unit for this site.
Groundwater. Groundwater from the Winchester Tire Fire Site does not
presently pose any health risks or hazards and there is no reason to expect
this situation to change in the future because soil samples collected from
the Site did not contain significant amounts of contamination. The exception
to this is lead and zinc, which were present in subsurface soils at a mean
concentration which exceed average background levels by more than five times.
However, these elements are not very mobile in groundwater and the distance
from the Site to receptor wells is great. The complicated nature of groundwater
flow patterns at the Site precludes an accurate assessment of the future
migration of these elements, with existing data. More sampling/analysis will
be needed for these determinations.
Surface Water. Down gradient Surface water samples are currently exhibiting
both chronic and acute toxicity to certain species of aquatic life. This
effect is expected to continue in the near future because metals are persistent
in the environment and because offsite sediment samples contained high concen-
trations of thasa elements.
-------
Mr. Due to the lack of sampling resul.s, any potential
carcinogenic risks or adverse health effects via the air pathway
cannot be quantified. However, it is assumed that the Site is not
currently posing any risks via the air pathway. This situation is
not expected to change in the future.
Summary. The main environmental concern at the Winchester Tire
Fire Site is the chronic and acute toxicity observed for
Ceriodaphnia and the Fathead Minnow in surface water samples taken
from locations downgradient of the Site. Zinc, which was detected
in higher concentrations than ambient water quality criteria for
the protection of aquatic life in a number of surface water
samples, may be contributing to this toxicity. Other metals
(copper, lead and silver) were also detected at higher
concentrations than the other metals in on-site soil samples
relative to normal background levels. Therefore, runoff from the
Site into surface water may be elevating zinc concentrations in
surface water and sediments. In addition, off-site sediment
samples contained high metals concentrations and several organic
compounds which may also be adversely impacting aquatic life.
Lead was also detected in on-site soil samples in much higher
concentrations than normal background levels. If children are on
the Site in the future, ingestion of on-Site soils may results in
ingestion of unacceptable levels of lead, ingestion of on-Site
soils by young children may also result in adverse health effects
and/or potential carcinogenic risk.
Groundwater at the Winchester Tire Fire Site currently
contains very low levels of contaminants. There do not appear to
be any human receptors of this groundwater. Groundwater
discharging to the local surface water system may be contributing
to the aquatic toxicity impacts observed in the bioassay study.
However, contaminants were not commonly detected in on-site soil
samples; this suggests that a significant source of contaminants
available to enter the groundwater in the future does not exist.
Based on air sampling results risks could not be quantified
via the air pathway. However, the low levels of most contaminants
detected in soil samples, the isolated nature of the Site and the
lack of activity on and adjacent to the Site suggest that the air
pathway is not significant. However, this pathway may be signifi-
cant during earth-disturbance activities which promote dust genera-
tion.
Remedial Action objectives are long-term, permanent remedies
that minimize or prevent hazardous substance releases from the
site. This is accomplished preferably through treatment and/or
destruction of contaminants at the site.
-------
The objectives of proposed remedial actions for the Winchester
Tire Fire Site are being considered as both short-term and long-
term objectives. The long-term objectives will consider the
ultimate remediation of all sources of contaminants at the site
including all pathways for the migration of those contaminants.
Since additional field data and analysis are needed for such a long-
term remedy, this current record of decision will focus on a short-
term, or "operable unit" remedy for this site.
The operable unit proposed for the Winchester Tire Fire Site
is one that would significantly reduce or eliminate the continued
migration of contaminants off-site. This operable unit was chosen
since, as discussed previously, the major impact from this site is
continued environmental damage to off-site receptors downstream of
the site. Additionally, such an operable unit will not be inconsistent
with a long term remedy to eliminate contaminated pond and/or
stream sediments and possibly contaminated surface/subsurface
soils from site.
Alternatives Evaluation
Four alternatives for the management of migration of
contaminants were examined for this site. Since the potential
range of alternatives for this operable unit was not large, no
preliminary screening of alternatives was performed, rather, all
four alternative* were subjected to a detailed analysis.
The four alternatives considered for this action are:
Alternative No. Alternative
1 No Action
2 Soil Erosion Controls
Increase freeboard on
-------
Dutchman's & Rhinehart's ponds
Collection of surface water
runoff, gravity settling
Collection of shallow ground
water oily seeps: oil-water
separation metals removal
3 Soil Erosion Controls
Increased freeboard on
Dutchman's & Rhinehart's ponds
Collection of surface water
runoff, gravity settling
Collection of shallow ground
water oily seeps: Oil-water
separation truck water to POTW
4 Soil Erosion Controls plus
hydroseeding
Increase freeboard on Dutchman's
and Rhinehart's ponds
Collection of surface water
runoff, gravity settling
Collection of shallow
ground water oily seeps: Oil-
water separation, metals removal
A brief description of each alternative follows:
Alternative 1 - No Action
Under this alternative, no measures will be taken to prevent
migration of contamination offsite. A quarterly sampling and
analysis of surface water will be implemented to monitor offsite
conditions in the unnamed tributary and Hogue Creek and on-site in
Masey Run, Filtered and unfiltered samples will be analyzed for
zinc, copper, lead, silver, barium, manganese and arsenic.
Alternatives 2,3, and 4
General
The goal of implementing Alternative 2,3, and 4 is to minimize
the amount of contamination leaving the site via surface water.
Key issues involved with reduction of migration of contamination
are minimization of soil erosion, prevention of oily ground water
seeps from combining with surface water runoff, and collection and
-------
detention of surface water runoff prior to discharge offsite, in
order to remove settleable solids.
Soil Erosion Controls
All three alternatives will include minimal regrading of the
benches to direct surface water drainage toward channels that will
convey the runoff to a sedimentation basin. The proposed location
of the channels and basin are shown on Figure 4. Impervious
channels are proposed to minimize infiltration on the benches and
to prevent erosion of the south access road. Gabions will be
installed on the steep slopes between the benches to prevent
erosion of the slopes. Runon to the area of contamination will
be minimized by regrading the area above bench 1 so that it
drains to the east, around the fire area.
Increase Freeboard on Dutchman's and Rhinehart's Ponds
Alternatives 2,3, and 4 all include beras which will be placed
around Dutchman's and Rhinehart's Ponds to prevent runoff from the
surrounding uncontaminated area from entering the ponds. Instead,
drainage will be directed around the ponds, directly to Massey
Run. Key points will be riprapped. The water in the two ponds
contains elevated levels of metals. The freeboard provided by the
berms will prevent overtopping and further release of the con-
tamination to the streams leaving the site during a 20 year storm.
Collection of Surface Water Runoff, Gravity Settling
Alternatives 2,3 and 4 include using the existing Bhinehart pond
as a sedimentation basin designed to detain runoff.
-------
SURFACE WATER COLL6CTIOM SYSTEM LAYOUT
SCAC6: T : 118'
WINCHESTER TIRE PIPE SITE
FREDERICK COUNTY. VA
FIG. A
-------
Collection of Shallow Ground Water Oily Seeps
Two interceptor trenches are proposed to prevent the oily
seeps observed at the site from joining with surface water runoff.
previous analyses of the oil have indicated high concentrations of
both organic and inorganic contamination. Locations of the
proposed interceptor trenches are indicated on Figure 5. A
collection and treatment system was then designed based on
anticipated maximum monthly flow. In all three alternatives the
oil will be separated from the water by an API separator and
disposed of as waste oil.
In Alternatives 2 and 4, discharge of the intercepted ground
water, following separation of the oil, will be to Massey Run.
Since the onsite shallow ground water wells indicate zinc levels
well in excess of background surface water levels, removal of
metals is proposed prior to discharge. Traditional hydroxide
precipitation followed by sulfide addition is anticipated to
provide effluent quality compatable to background surface water
quality. Bench top treatability studies, exploring the proposed
treatment method and one or two alternate methods, are recommended
prior to implementation of treatment. A better understanding of
the oily seep material will be the key to determine the most cost
effective/teethed. Sludge generated by metals removal would be
disposed of as appropriate.
-------
— COLLECTION AND
TREATMENT FACILITY
UNDERGROUND PVC PIPE
LEGEND
Location of Oily Seep
LOCATION Of TRENCH
SHALLOW GROUND WATER
COLLECTION SYSTEM LAYOUT
WINCHESTER TIRE Fl«€ SITE
FREDERICK COUNTY. VA
FIG. 5
-------
In Alternative 3, following separation of the oil,
intercepted ground water well be stored onsite and trucked to a
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) in Winchester City,
Virginia. It is expected that the water will comply with the POTW
influent standards without any treatment other than separation of
the oil. Monitoring will be necessary to ensure compliance.
Analyses of the water following separation of the oil should
be performed to determine whether any additional treatment of the
ground water will be necessary in order to meet POTW standards.
Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
Each alternative described in the preceeding section will be
evaluated against specific criteria as follows:
1. overall protection of Human Health and the Environment
The No Action alternative would not be protective because
contaminants in surface runoff, oily seeps, and ponds sediments
would continue to present an unacceptable risk to the environment.
The remaining alternatives are protective in that each
prevents the continued off-site migration of contaminants of
concern.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
The ARARs considered for this operable unit are solely to
prevent continued migration of contaminants from the site. The
ARARs for the entire will be addressed in a subsequent operable
unit.
-------
All alternatives, with the exception of the No Action Alternative,
would meet ARARs that are pertinent specifically to the management of
migration of contamination via surface water by preventing the continued
migration of the contaminants of concern off-site. The No Action
alternative would not achieve this objective, would not be protective,
and therefore, will not be considered further. (Refer to the ARARs
compliance matrix).
3. Long - Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Each of the remaining three alternatives would provide some degree
of long term effectiveness by improving surface water quality at the
site. The permanence of each remedy would depend on the ultimate remedy
selected for the site but in any case would not be inconsistent with the
final remedial action.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, volume
Each alternative provides a reduction in toxicity by removal of
metals via settling. Mobility of the contaminants into the groundwater
will be reduced by the interception of leachate seeps. Alternatives 3
and 4 each additional provide a greater degree of treatment and minimi-
zation of direct contact to further reduce toxicity.
5. Short Term Effectiveness
The remedy proposed in each alternative could be accomplished in 9-12
months. A slight increase in dust and erosion would occur during
remediation activities but would be mitigated by application of appropriate
ARARs. Through effective controls there would be no short term effects
to the community or on-site workers during this remediation.
6. Implementabi1i ty
Each alternative is readily implementable, although alternatives 2
and 4 would require obtaining a local waste water treatment plant operator
and would therefore involve a higher degree of operator and maintenance
requirements.
-------
Alternative 3, however, may need additional waste treatment before discharge
to a POTW. Goods and services are readily available for all alternatives
each of which involve straight forward construction practices.
7. Comnunity Acceptance
A public meeting for the Proposed Remedy was held on June 27, 1988
in Winchester, Virginia. The meeting was lightly attended and no
questions were received from those present. Comments, however, were
received from three attendees. The responsiveness summary attached to
this Decision Summarizes the public Meeting.
-------
8. State Acceptance
The State of Virginia has reviewed the RI/FS for this site and
concurs in the selected remedy.
9. Cost
The capital, Operation and Maintenance, and Present Worth Costs for
each alternative are shown below:
Cost
Capital
0 & M
Present Worth
Alt. 1
0
13,600
55,555
Alt. 2
975,500
70,000
1,240,860
Alt. 3
780,400
145,600
1,332,340
Alt. 4
1,165,400
71,600
1,436,820
-------
Summary
The No Action alternative is not protective of human health or the
environment and does not meet ARARs; therefore, the No Action alternative
will not be considered for this site.
With respect to the remaining three alternatives, each is protective
and will meet ARARs for this site. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide a
greater measure of reduction of toxicity, and alternative 3 is most
likely easier to implement.
Selected Remedy
The remedy selected for the first operable unit of remediation at the
Winchester Tire Fire Site is Alternative 3. This alternative consists of:
- Soil Erosion Controls
- increased freeboard on Dutchman's & Rhinehart's ponds
- Collection of surface water runoff, gravity settling
- Collection of shallow ground water silty seeps, with oil-water
separation and transport of water to POTW.
This action would be an operable unit measure to control
contaminant migration off-site by surface water control. This
alternative would also not be inconsistent with a final remedial action
for this site.
Alternative 3 will eliminate the continued migration of inorganic
contaminants, particularly zinc, to Massey Run (and ultimately Hogue
Creek) from surface and subsurface soils, and from sediments in the on-
site ponds. Surface water quality in the streams will be improved
through implementation of the selected remedy direct soil/ash contact
will be minimized. The selected alternative can be operational in 9-12
months. Source control measures will not be directly addressed in this
operable unit.
-------
The selected remedy meets statutory requirements for utilizing
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies for the
principal currently identified threat at the site and is part of an
overall long-term remediation of the site, is not inconsistent with any
final remediation, and is protective of human health and the environment.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
pertaining to this remedy will be attained. The attached ARARs
compliance matrix shows the ARARs applicable to each alternative.
The selected remedy also provides the best balance among the
evaluation criteria cost in comparison with the other alternatives.
Alternative 3 provides the greatest protection of possible health and the
environment, will be easier to implement than alternatives 3 and 4, and
has a cost about equal to alternatives 2 and 4.
This remedy will provide protection to health and the environment at
this site, namely the migration of contamination via surface waters. In
so doing, it will reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of most con-
taminants at the site. Complete contaminant source remediation will be
addressed in subsequent operable unit. The preference for treatment to
reduce toxicity, mobility and volume of the hazardous substances will be
addressed in a subsequent operable unit.
-------
Table 2 - ARARS Compliance Matrix
Location Specific ARARS
* ARARS dealing with
archeological/histopical
sites, endangered flptciea,
flood plains, wetlands,
siting requirements
Chemical Specific ARARs
* Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (AWQC)
* Virginia Water Control
Board Water Quality Standards
Action Specific ARARs
* OSHA Standards
* VA Water Control Board
-Stream Discharge Standards
-Pretreatment Standards
-Ambient Water Quality
Alternative
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Alt. 1
N/A
N/A
Alternative
2
N/A
Discharge of
treated water to
Massey Run
Same As Above
Worker Protection
Discharge of
treated water to
Massey Run
Alt. 2
N/A
Discharge to
Alternative
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
Same as
Alt. 2
N/A
Alt. 3
Discharge
to po™
N/A
Alternative
4
N/A
Same as
Alt. 2
Same As
Above
Same as
Alt. 2
Same as
Alt. 2
Alt. 4
N/A
Discharge to
Criteria
Massey Run
Massey Run
-------
VA. Air pollution
Control Board
-Visible Emissions/ N/A Construction of Construction Construction
Fugitive Dust Control REMEDY of REMEDY of REMEDY
-Soil Erosion N/A Same As Same As Same As
and Sediment Control Above Above Above
RCRA requirements N/A . Construction Construction Construction
40 CFR 265.222 of of of
and 265.223 additional additional additional
(General operating Freeboard Freeboard Freeboard
requirements for
existing surface
impoundments)
-------
Responsiveness Summary
for the
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump
Winchester
Frederick County, Virginia
From May 31, 1988 to June 29, L988, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) held a public comment period on the
Prooposed Plan and the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
for the Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump in Winchester, Frederick County,
Virginia. The RI/FS and other information utilized by EPA to select
a preferred alternative is included in the Administrative Record which
has been available to the public since the beginning of the public
comment period. In addition, copies of the proposed plan were
distributed at the public meeting held on June 27, 1988.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC MEETING AND MAJOR COMMENTS
The public meeting was held in Winchester, Virginia on
June 27, 1988. Those attending the meeting included representatives
from EPA, the State of Virginia, the Army Corps of Engineers, area
news reporters, and 2 community residents. The EPA representatives
were Mr. Anthony Dappolone, Mr. William Hagel, and Mr. Harold Yates.
The Virginia representative was Mr. James Adams.
During the public meeting the proposed operable unit remedy for
the Rhinehart Tire Fire Site was described by Mr. Dappolone and an
explanation for selection of the prevention of migration of
contaminants offsite is the EPA preferred alternative. After the
presentatioin, the floor was opened for comments and questions.
No questions were received from the audience. Three people,
however, gave a brief statement concerning the remedy.
Mr. John Reilly, the County Administrator, expressed his belief
that the majority of contaminants leaving the Rhnehart site originate
from the onsite Dutchmans Pond. He also stated that he believed that
natural drainage should be looked at in the remedy process instead of
construction of concrete channels. Finally, he recommended that the
Virginia State Water Control Board review the findings- of stream
investigations at the site.
Mr Kenneth Stiles, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for
Frederick County, gave his support to Mr. Reilly1 s stataements and
added that his basic concern was that a large amount of money was spent
in investigating the site.
Mr Rober Rhoads, a local citizen, expressed some concerns for the
cleanup levels as stated in the Endangerment Assessment for the site.
Mr. Reilly1s comments will be considered in the design phase of
this project. In response to Mr. Stiles, EPA considers various
alternative actions for remedial investigations; however, hazardous
waste cleanups are, by their nature, expensive projects. With respect
to Mr. Rhoads, his comments did not consider EPA's policies and
objectives and therefore cannot be considered to affect the remedy.
------- |