TECHNICAL STUDY AND REMEDIAL ACTION FOR
DENNY FARM SITE 1, AURORA, MISSOURI
Final Report
September 15, 1980
Document No.: EFSR80-09-0105
TDD: F7-8006-01
EPA Contract No: 68-01-6056
ecology and environment, inc.
ROSSLYN CENTER, 1700 NORTH MOORE ST., ARLINGTON, VA. 22209, TEL. 703-522-6065
International Specialists in the Environmental Sciences
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
ROSSLYN CENTER, 1700 NORTH MOORE ST., ARLINGTON, VA. 22209, TEL. 703-522-6065
International Specialists in the Environmental Sciences
Monday, 15 September 1980
Mr. William Keffer
Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency Planning and Response Branch
25 Funston Street
Kansas City, Kansas 66115
Dear Mr. Keffer:
In response to Technical Direction Document (TDD) F7-8006-01
and subsequent modification, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E)
is pleased to submit fifty copies of its final report entitled
Technical Study and Remedial Action for Denny Farm Site 1, Aurora,
Missouri (Document No.: EFSR80-09-0105). This report is based on
the preliminary report (EFSR80-07-0104) completed in July, 1980; on
further geophysical and engineering studies; on meetings with
EPA-Region VII and the EPA Dioxin Task Force; and on participation
in the consent negotiations.
This final report is the culmination of an intensive effort by
E & E's Special Projects Team coordinated by the National Project
Management Office in Arlington, Virginia. Expertise has been drawn
from several of the regional offices involved in the Field Investigations
Team (FIT) project. E & E appreciates the cooperation of EPA Regional
Deputy Project Officers in making FIT personnel available for this
important project.
An evaluation was made of the technologies available for meeting
the objective of removing the TCDD from the environment. Treatment
of the waste by ultraviolet photolysis and by incineration are
currently the most promising techniques for final disposal of the
wastes. However, these technologies are not yet proven nor are they
immediately available.
E & E recommends that the waste and associated contaminated
material at Denny Farm Site 1 be excavated and stored in a temporary
storage structure to be erected on site until a suitable final
disposal option is available. A conceptual design of this solution
along with cost estimates are presented in this report. Our estimate
is that this will cost approximately $2,486,000 and take six months
to execute. E & E recommends that EPA proceed immediately with the
final design of the recommended action and select an execution con-
tractor to proceed with the project.
recycled paper
-------
Mr. William Keffer
15 September 1980
Page Two
We welcome the opportunity to discuss this report with you. We
will provide continued support to you through our Region VII FIT
project office and the FIT National Project Management Office to see
this project through to a successful conclusion.
Sincer
yours.
Project Manager
RJKrjbs
cc: Paul Nadeau
Roger J. Gray
James Buchanan
Les Greenbaum
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1
SECTION 2: HISTORY OF DENNY FARM SITE 1 2-1
SECTION 3: PREVIOUS STUDIES OF DENNY FARM SITE 1 3-1
INTRODUCTION 3-1
SAMPLING DATA 3-4
Groundwater Monitoring 3-4
Soil Sampling 3-4
Surface Water 3-6
Drums (Waste Source) 3-7
SECTION 4: TECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 4-1
INTRODUCTION 4-1
GEOGRAPHY 4-1
DEMOGRAPHY 4-3
CLIMATOLOGY 4-3
GEOLOGY 4-4
Regional 4-5
Local 4-8
HYDROLOGY 4-17
GEOPHYSICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF THE TRENCH ....... 4-22
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 4-27
SECTION 5: SITE CHARACTERIZATION 5-1
INTRODUCTION 5-1
METHODS USED FOR DISPOSING OF THE WASTE 5-1
DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTE 5-1
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 5-2
Toxicological Considerations of
2,3,7,8,-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) . . . 5-4
Environmental Fate of Farm Site Pollutants . . . 5-9
Public Health Routes of Expousre 5-11
Acceptable Cleanup Levels 5-13
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 5-15
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
SECTION 6: REMEDIAL APPROACH METHODOLOGY 6-1
INTRODUCTION 6-1
STATING THE OBJECTIVE 6-1
DETERMINING THE MEANS 6-3
METHODS 6-4
Disposal 6-4
Storage 6-5
Treatment 6-5
CRITERIA 6-5
Proven Technology 6-5
Risk 6-6
Time 6-6
Cost 6-6
Legal Ramifications 6-6
SECTION 7: EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS 7-1
INTRODUCTION 7-1
Definitions 7-3
Required Information 7-3
REMEDIAL APPROACH 7-4
Disposal ...... 7-6
Treatment 7-9
Storage 7-15
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 7-16
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7 7-17
SECTION 8: PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 8-1
COMPONENT 1. TEMPORARY STORAGE FACILITY 8-3
Foundation 8-3
Structure 8-4
COMPONENT 2. SITE SETUP AND MOBILIZATION 8-5
COMPONENT 3. EXCAVATION 8-7
Excavation 8-10
Drum Decontamination 8-10
Waste and Drum Removal 8-11
ILL
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Worker Safety 8-12
Worker Training 8-12
Excavation Time 8-12
Worker Fatique 8-14
Component 3B Excavation 8-16
COMPONENT 4. SITE CLOSURE 8-18
Summary of Component Costs 8-19
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING PROPOSED
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTIONS 8-21
Site Control 8-21
Storage Controls 8-21
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8 8-24
LIST OF CONTACTS 8-25
SECTION 9: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9-1
CONCLUSIONS 9-1
RECOMMENDATIONS 9-2
APPENDIX A: SAMPLING DATA A-l
APPENDIX B: RISK ANALYSIS B-l
APPENDIX C: BORING LOGS C-l
APPENDIX D: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS D-l
APPENDIX E: COST TABLES FOR PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION ... E-l
APPENDIX F: CREDENTIALS F-l
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1:
Figure 2-2:
Figure 2-3:
Figure 2-4:
Figure 3-1:
Figure 3-2:
Figure 4-1:
Figure 4-2:
Figure 4-3:
Figure 4-4:
Figure 4-5:
Figure 4-6:
Figure 4-7:
Figure 4-8:
Figure 5-1:
Figure 6-1:
Figure 7-1:
Figure 8-1:
Figure 8-2:
Figure 8-3:
Figure 8-4:
Map of Missouri 2-2
Denny Farm Site 1 Area Location Map 2-3
Aerial View of Denny Farm Site 1 Locale .... 2-4
Aerial View of Fenced Disposal Trench Area . . . 2-4
Plan View of Denny Farm Site 1 3-2
Environmental Sampling Locations 3-5
Plan View of Denny Farm Site 1 Area 4-2
Contour Plot of EM Data 4-10
Bore Hole Locations 4-11
Fracture Patterns 4-15
Selected Geologic Features 4-16
Gaining and Losing Stream Locations 4-19
Plan View of Drum Distribution 4-24
Radar Traverse—South to North of Disposal Trench 4-25
Exposure Routes of TCDD to the Public 5-12
Flow of Remedial Approach Methodology 6-2
Evaluation of Alternatives for Remedial Action . 7-5
Temporary Storage Facility 8-6
Plan View of Site Setup 8-8
Site Excavation 8-13
Plan View of Component 3B Excavation 8-17
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Summary of Sampling Data 3-8
Table 5-1: Compounds of Known or Suspected
"Presence at Denny Farm Site" 5-5
Table 7-1: Summary of Alternative Remedial
"Action Methods" 7-2
Table 7-2: Commercial Storage/Disposal Facilities 7-7
Table 8-1: Remedial Action Cost Summary 8-20
Table 8-2: Remedial Action Cost Summary with
Additional Excavation 8-22
VI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report contains the results of an investigation into an
uncontrolled hazardous waste disposal site located in Aurora, Missouri.
The site, called Denny Farm Site 1, consists of a trench in which an
estimated 150 drums of waste material have been buried. These wastes,
which are from a hexachlorophene-manufacturing process, have been
analyzed and are known to contain the highly toxic chemical TCDD.
The investigation of Denny Farm Site 1 was carried out by Ecology
and Environment Inc. (E & E) and included background data acquisition,
environmental and geophysical surveys of the site and its environs,
evaluation of alternative remedial actions, and preparation of a
conceptual plan for a proposed remedial action. This investigation was
undertaken at the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to meet the EPA's objective of removing the waste and contaminated
material from the environment. A preliminary report was prepared in June
1980; the current report is the final report of E & E's investigations.
Historical information on the Denny Farm Site 1 is presented in
Section 2, which includes a discussion of the relationship between
Hoffman-Taft, North Eastern Pharmaceutical and Chemical Company
(NEPACCO), and Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. NEPACCO, the generator of the
waste disposed at the Denny Farm, manufactured hexachlorophene. The
chemical process for a chemical intermediate to hexachlorophene was the
source of the TCDD, and the wastes from this process were then disposed
of in a trench on the Denny Farm.
Section 3 presents a discussion of the thorough research and field
investigations previously conducted on the site. This information
concerns the general geological and hydrological conditions of the area
surrounding the Denny Farm, as well as analytical data on the drum
contents. Analytical data determined the presence of TCDD in composite
samples as well as soil and water samples obtained from within the
partially excavated trench. Additional environmental monitoring included
1-1
-------
water samples taken at the private wells closest to the site, as well as
surface water samples from Calton Creek. Samples were taken from borings
around the perimeter of the disposal trench to determine lateral
migration of the waste.
Section 4 presents the results of further technical studies on the
site and the characteristics of TCDD. Although previous studies had
indicated no lateral migration, the potential for off-site migration
existed; additional areas were investigated in greater detail to confirm
and develop necessary engineering data for the remedial action. The
geohydrological investigation provided more precise measurements of
the configuration and approximate dimensions of the barrels in the trench.
The presence of drums beyond those visually noted by the EPA was also
confirmed. More importantly, lateral off-site migration was not
detected.
Specific information concerning the type and quantity of waste
disposed of in the trench at Denny Farm and the method of disposal are
presented in Section 5. Public health and environmental concerns with
respect to TCDD and its environmental fate and its toxicological
properties are discussed.
Section 6 presents the basis for the remedial approach. This
approach may be defined within the context of this report as taking all
the necessary steps required—identification, investigation,
determination of means and methods, and execution of determined
methods—for achieving a satisfactory solution to a specific hazardous
waste problem. The means of dealing with hazardous waste, whether the
generator is a manufacturer or an uncontrolled waste site undergoing
cleanup, include one or more of the following: storage, treatment, and
disposal. Various methods may be selected to carry out a given means.
Since those methods and means must be tested to determine their
applicability to a particular site, selection criteria have been
developed. Generic criteria applicable to any site are proven
technology, risk, time, cost, and legal constraints. Site-specific
criteria include the characteristics of the waste and of the site.
Section 7 presents the process employed to select those methods
which are considered for remedial action application. The first phase
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
HISTORY OF DENNY FARM SITE 1
During the 1960s, Hoffraan-Taft used its facility in Verona,
Missouri, (see Figure 2-1) for the production of 2-4-5-T, a component of
Agent Orange. In the late 1960s, Hoffman-Taft sold the Verona facility
to Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. In 1969, Syntex sold the equipment in the
Verona facility and leased the space to the North Eastern Pharmaceutical
and Chemical Company (NEPACCO). From 1969 through 1971, NEPACCO, now
defunct, used the Verona plant for the manufacturing of hexachlorophene.
During its tenancy, NEPACCO had a number of process waste streams
with dioxin contamination, including still bottom residues, solvent-
contaminated waste water, expended filter media, and a recrop liquor.
These were either contained or disposed of at a number of locations. One
of these locations was the Denny Farm in Aurora, Missouri.
The Denny Farm is located seven miles south of Verona, Missouri, on
Highway VV. The farm consists of 160 acres and is located in Section 20
on the Area Location Map (see Figure 2-2). The site of the disposed
material from NEPACCO is northwest of the Denny farm house. Access to
the site is via the north edge of a pasture and along a dirt logging
road. The site is on top of a ridge (see Figures 2-3 and 2-4) . A
spring-fed pond exists approximately 100 yards west of the site.
In 1979, the Air and Hazardous Materials Division (ARHM) of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regional Office in Kansas City,
Missouri, Region VII, received an anonymous complaint about the disposal
site on the Denny Farm. The complainant made a number of allegations
about the waste handling and disposal procedures of NEPACCO.
Surveillance and Analysis Division (SVAN) personnel from EPA-Region
VII, accompanied by representatives from ARHM and from the Springfield,
Missouri, MDNR office, conducted a two-week investigation of these
allegations. The investigation included personal interviews, site
reconnaissance, and photography of the disposal site. The investigation
team interviewed twenty-five individuals, including people who had worked
for NEPACCO as well as officials and employees of Syntex Agribusiness
2-1
-------
ro
I
CAPE
GIRARDEAU
Figure 2-1. Map of Missouri
-------
DENNY FARM SITE 1 AREA LOCATION MAP
/>• DENNY FARM SITE
HDD 40CC XOOD f(T>
Figure 2-2
2-3
-------
Fig. 2-3. Aerial View of
Denny Farm Site 1 Locale
(viewed to the west-northwest)
Fig. 2-4. Aerial View of
Fenced Disposal Trench
(southwest at top of photo)
2-4
-------
Inc. Some of those interviewed were eyewitnesses who reportedly hauled
wastes to the Denny Farm, dug the trench, and dumped drums of waste
materials into the trench.
On conducting a reconnaissance of the disposal site, investigators
noted a depression in the ground about 10 by 53 feet. Investigators also
found a mound of excavated soil next to the depression. The excavated
material consisted of clay and small rock.
Based upon information obtained from the interviews, it appeared
that there were between thirty and one hundred fifty 55-gallon metal
caustic drums with lids buried on the Denny farm site. The drums were
buried in June, 1971. According to those interviewed, the drums were
dumped out of the back of a dump truck and left as they fell. They were
then covered with from one to three feet of soil. The most reliable
eyewitness stated that the drums were in marginal condition at the time
of burial and at least one drum had leaked or spilled when an individual
walking around on the top of the drums in the back of the truck fell
through one of the drums when the lid gave way.
The EPA investigators concluded after their initial survey that
... It is reasonable to expect that most, if not all, of
the drums have rusted through and that the contents have,
to a large extent, been absorbed by the surrounding soil.
Although from the standpoint of safety, and sampling and
analytical procedures, the worst must be assumed—there is
(sic) no data, information or rumors to indicate that the
contents of this site include high strenght (sic) dioxin
contaminated wastes. Based upon all the interviews, the
material in this site is reworked liquor or recrop
material from which no additional hexachlorophene could be
extracted. Whether or not this residue contained
dioxin is unknown.
The EPA Regional Office in Region VII prepared a study plan for the
the investigation of the Denny Farm disposal site. EPA designated the
site as Denny Farm Site 1. The objective of the investigation effort
was
to document the presence or absence of dioxin, its precursors,
and/or degradation products and any other hazardous wastes in
the buried drums, adjacent soil, and immediate area surrounding
the disposal pit.
Implementation of the plan began on 22 April 1980 and lasted for
several days.
2-5
-------
SECTION 3
PREVIOUS STUDIES OF DENNY FARM SITE 1
INTRODUCTION
As a result of the anonymous complaint received in 1979 by the Air
and Hazardous Materials Division (ARHM) of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Regional Office in Kansas City, Missouri, about the
disposal site on the Denny Farm in Aurora, Missouri, several actions were
taken. A preliminary investigation was set in motion. The investigation
included personal interviews, site reconnaissance, and photography of the
disposal site.
Following this preliminary investigation, a study plan was devised
for an investigation of the disposal site. The objective of the
investigation was
to document the presence or absence of dioxin, its precursors,
and/or degradation products and any other hazardous wastes in
the buried drums, adjacent soil, and immediate area surrounding
the disposal pit.
The final plan was submitted to EPA authorities on 1 April 1980, and
implementation of the plan began on 22 April 1980.
Before any excavation was done on the disposal trench, several bore
hole soil samples were collected from the perimeter of the trench (see
Figure 3-1 for a sketch of Denny Farm Site 1 and location of proposed
bore holes). The purpose of these borings was to document any lateral
migration of contaminants from the trench.
As seen in Figure 3-1, two levels of bore holes were planned: one
level within five to ten feet of the trench; the other between forty-five
to fifty-five feet from the trench. The first level holes were bored.
Additionally, one sample bore hole blank was collected at the edge of the
pasture leading into the site. This blank was collected for purposes of
background and analytical quality control.
3-1
-------
1
4-14 •*-"
_. D..n— -n— -n-— n-- -D--D-
\ 3
\ | U— 20 — »+* 1S •-
D 1
i 2 L
0 .*/ -^ •«
, L
>- •*• •<
..n — D — D — n — n-— a--o
D
i
D
^-15' »|< 20— »J j
1 Q
4 '5 6 i
H -^- •<>• — r- .
DISPOSAL AREA 10' x S31 —7 T :
D ' ^ » D
D
• 12 111 ,
D -f- T~ -<
i
D
J
D
j
b H *"
24 b-D-~a~-o-~jp—o^
f ^T9^ * A *
' a ^ D t^.
-L^
DECONTAMINATION
AREA
S
1 '
XX/XX/ 1 !
? D
>i0 ^? -^-8-i ^
i
G
!
:
CHAIN LINK »CI
!
10' i FENCE :
'I 0
22 A-1--D--U-— D--U--L1
i"-^.! -$-21 -$
— — ^(p*S>>^ DOUBLE SWINGING GATES
18
y —
*
19
20
>
/
1
!
t
i
B
j
P 1
> i
S
\
!
i
M
18
i
\
i
,' ^k. PERIMETER OF
CLEARED AREA
A 00 BORE HOLE
~AND BORE HOLE
NUMBER
SCALE
1" = 25'
Figure 3-1. Plan View of Denny Farm Site 1
3-2
-------
The second level of planned borings—holes thirteen through
twenty-four—with the exception of hole twenty-two was not done on the
advice of a Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology
and Land Survey, geologist. There was concern that water percolating
through the trench would migrate vertically and cause further
contamination.
After the borings were completed, the disposal trench was excavated.
Through a careful excavation, thirteen drums were exposed to the EPA
investigation team. Several of the drums were found to be empty. Others
contained liquid and residues in volumes ranging from near-empty to
full. Samples taken from drums and soil in the trench at Denny Farm Site
1 were sent to the EPA-Region VII Laboratory for analysis for 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). The original analysis of the four
samples indicated that three contained between 65 and 100 mg/kg (ppm) of
dioxin. The fourth sample contained less than 29 mg/kg TCDD. From these
results EPA concluded:
. . . the information from the GC/NS scans supports the
conclusion that the material in the three samples ... is very
similar to the still bottom residue presently being treated by
Syntex Agribusiness. The GC/MS scans tentatively identified
2,4,5-trichlorophenol and at least two—and probably
three—ethers formed by combination of trichlorophenol with one,
two, or three molecules of ethylene glycol. Syntex has stated
that trichlorophenol and ethers of the above description are the
major constituents of the waste in their tanks. . .
Based on the field investigation, excavation, and results of the
sampling, the EPA further concluded that immediate action was necessary
to protect human health and the environment. This decision necessitated
the development of a short-term response program to minimize and/or
prevent the release of contaminants from the site until a method
ameliorating the hazard could be determined. An immediate and temporary
measure was taken by the EPA with FWPCA Section 311 funding. The
disposal trench was capped with an impermeable membrane. Surface water
was diverted from the site.
3-3
-------
Subsequent to the investigation of the disposal trench, a monitoring
program for surface water and groundwater in the general area of Farm
Site 1 was developed. A discussion of the sample data follows.
SAMPLING DATA
Groundwater Monitoring
Both on-site and off-site groundwater monitoring were carried out.
Initial off-site sampling was conducted during April 1980 and included
three wells with the closest proximity to the Denny Farm Site 1:
Garnatz-Williams (#4), Katherine Lamp (#5), and Dick Wallace (#13) (see
Figure 3-2). Sample analysis was based upon chemical process information
and interviews. A false positive due to cross contamination was
determined in well #13, while results for wells #4 and #5 were negative
for signs of contamination. Further groundwater studies were undertaken
on 3 June 1980, following EPA's on-site investigation and sampling at the
Denny Farm Site 1. Laboratory results confirmed the presence of TCDD.
Subsequently, additional sampling was carried out by EPA: wells #1, #2,
#3, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, and #12.
Sample results revealed the presence of phenolic compounds in wells
#3 and #4; 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (TCP) in well #2. Well #13, which
originally had a false positive, was sampled again on 5 June 1980.
Contamination was not detected.
Results of all the groundwater sampling may be found in Appendix A,
Table A-1. All samples taken after 6 June 1980 were analyzed for TCP.
None was detected.
Soil Sampling
As previously mentioned, an on-site investigation of the Denny Farm
Site I was conducted in April-May 1980. A portion of the suspected
disposal trench was excavated. Samples of the soil intermingled with
drums were obtained for analysis. Additionally, borings were initially
installed about the perimeter of the trench (cf. Figure 3-1), and samples
were obtained for analysis.
3-4
-------
I SEDIMENT SAMPLE
COLUMN
VSJT (ft VI D G E
DICK WALLACE-WELL 113
L,JAMES SHELDON-WELL
KATHERINE LAMP-WELL 15
WDENNY FARM SITE,
C.W. THOMAS-WELL 16
JAMES DENNY-WELLI1
EDWARDS WELL
SONNY LAMP-WELL 18 ',5
E.D. MARBUT-WELLI11
— .• 30
' rCHILDERSS-WELL 110
_S ft/'/c-^ -V
~~-^-^t
ELDON OLSON WELL <9 I
RESIN COLUMN SAMPLE
MAYNARD WILLIAMS-WELL 114
Figure 3-2. Environmental Sampling Locations
3-5
-------
Geophysical test methods were subsequently employed to define more
accurately the disposal trench as well as surrounding subsurface
configurations. Initial findings revealed an anomaly extending from the
western end of the trench. Additional borings were installed along the
perimeter of the fence surrounding the disposal trench and also within
the confines of the suspect anomaly.
Results, as seen in Appendix A, Table A-2, revealed the presence of
TCDD in concentrations of 92,000 ppt in the trench. The subsequent
geophysical test noted above uncovered that boring #1, originally thought
to be along the perimeter of the trench, was in fact part of the disposal
trench.
Boring logs and sample results confirmed the existence of an anomaly
west of the trench. Data showed the presence of a richer clay layer
rather than contaminate soil caused by leachate from the disposal
trench.
Soil test results indicate no lateral migration of contaminants
beyond the sides of the original trench. The tests, however, do not
eliminate the possibility of vertical migration. :
Surface Water
Surface waters were sampled to determine both the presence and
levels of contaminants. Because of the topographical and geological
makeup of the area, contaminated surface run-off and/or groundwater posed
a real threat for the contamination of area surface waters.
Two spring-fed ponds, one to the east and one to the west of the
disposal trench, were sampled. Sediment and fish samples were taken at
twelve different locations. The affinity of TCDD for soils and sediments
in addition to its bioaccumulation potential required the sampling. A
final sample station on Calton Creek was established for the above
samples as well as a resin column sample, i.e., a sample where a large
quantity of water is allowed to pass over resin that will attract,
concentrate, and retain certain chemical compounds found in the water.
Results indicated that in all cases contaminants were not present to
the level of detection. Results of this sampling are show in Appendix A,
Table A-3.
3-6
-------
Drums (Waste Source)
On 28 April 1980, the EPA-Region VII field investigation team
exposed thirteen drums in the excavated disposal trench at Denny Farm
Site 1. Eight of the drums were sampled. These samples consisted of
multi-layered liquid samples which varied in color and consistency. Some
of the sample material was analyzed on a drum-by-drum basis; other
portions of the samples were composited.
Wright State University (WSU) prepared a four-drum composite sample
based upon volume of waste contained in the respective drums. An
additional composite sample was prepared by EPA-Region VII and consisted
of sample material from a second set of four drums. This composite
sample was forwarded to WSU for analysis.
TCDD, TCP, ethylene glycol, tetrochlorobenzene, and alkylbenzene
compounds were tentatively identified. Concentrations of TCDD were
confirmed in both composite samples: 319 ppm in the WSU-prepared
composite, and 1.3 ppb in the EPA-prepared composite. Results of the
drum sampling can be seen in Appendix A, Table A-4.
Table 3-1 presents a summary of the results presented in Appendix A.
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-1
SUMMARY OF SAMPLING DATA
Type of
Sample
Dates of
Sampling
Total Number
of Samples
Number of
Positive
Samples
Contaminants
Detected
Groundwater 4/3 to
Wells and Springs 7/21/80
115
TCP, Phenolics
Soil
Bore Holes
Trench
4/22 to
6/16/80
23
1
TCP, TCDD
TCDD
Surface Water
Water
Sediment
Fish
6/8 to
6/18/80
4
12
33
0
0
0
Drums
Random
Composite Samples
4/28/80
4
2
4
2
TCP, TCDD
TCDD, Toluene,
Tetrachloro-
benzene, others
3-8
-------
SECTION 4
TECHNICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
In its investigation of Denny Farm Site 1, Ecology and Environment,
Inc. , (E & E) has carried out several technical investigations. The
purpose of this section is to discuss the technical background
information gathered in the areas of geography, demography, climatology,
geology, hydrology, and geophysical reconnaissance of the trench.
GEOGRAPHY
The Denny Farm Site 1 hazardous waste disposal site is located on
the Denny Farm in Barry County near the town of Aurora, in southwest
Missouri. Aurora lies approximately twenty-nine miles southwest of
Springfield and twenty-five miles southeast of Joplin.
The Denny Farm is on the west side of county road VV, south of
Pleasant Ridge and south-southeast of Calton Creek (see Figure 4-1). The
site of the disposal trench is west of the Denny farm house and about
three quarters of a mile from county road VV. It is in the northwest
corner of section twenty on the area location map (cf. Figure 2-2).
The disposal trench (Denny Farm Site 1) is located on a ridge top in
the dissected hills bordering the Ozarks and the rolling plains of the
Springfield Plateau. The ridge itself is on a topographically high area
bounded by Calton Creek on the north and west, and by the Little Flat
Creek on the south.
In this area, the topography and soil relationship is sometimes
referred to as the Baxter-Bodine soil association. Baxter areas, i.e.,
ridge tops, are wooded. They have the potential, however, for being
cleared and used as pastures. The Bodine soils exist primarily on the
steep hilly areas of the ridges. These hilly areas generally have more
chert and are used primarily as woodlands.
4-1
-------
VERONA
AURORA
I
o
5
US HWY 60
i
NJ
COUNTY ROAD Z
DENNY FARM SITE 1
LITTLE FLAT "V
CREEK
AREA OF
AREA LOCATION MAP-
Figure 4-1. Plan View of Denny Farm Site 1 Area
-------
DEMOGRAPHY
Barry County, the location of Denny Farm Site 1, is typically rural.
According to 1980 figures, the overall population of Barry County is
24,100. Projections for 1985 indicate that this figure will rise by
approximately 1,400 to a total population in 1985 of 25,500.
The town of Aurora, Missouri—the most densely populated area that
is closest to Denny Farm Site 1—has a population of 6,200. Aurora
Township, in which the town of Aurora is located, has a population of
7,110, including the population in the town of Aurora.
Verona, Missouri, just west of Aurora, has a population of 680.
Both Aurora and Verona are in Lawrence County—about four miles
north of the Barry-Lawrence County line. Denny Farm Site 1 is one to
three miles south of that county line (1).
CLIMATOLOGY
Officials of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, have compiled valuable climatological data
related to the Aurora, Missouri, area (2). The statistics are for the
Springfield, Missouri Municipal Airport—the information-gathering
station closest to Denny Farm Site 1. The data cover a fifteen-year
period.
Prevailing wind direction in the area is always out of the south-
southeast year round. Wind speeds are relatively constant throughout the
year with a mean hourly speed of 11.6 miles per hour. The general area
around Denny Farm Site I historically has a high incidence rate of
tornado touchdowns. The average tornado damage area has been estimated
to be about two square miles. (More detailed information regarding
tornadoes can be found in Appendix R of this report.)
Normal temperature averages during the reported period ranged from a
monthly low in January of 33.6°F to a monthly high in July of 78.8°F.
The yearly average temperature for the period covered was 56.5°F.
Precipitation figures for the observed period show a normal rainfall
average of a low in January of 1.96 inches and a high in May of 5.28
inches. The yearly average rainfall for the period covered was 41.08
inches. Figures of snow and sleet precipitation show a low—a "trace"
4-3
-------
too small to be measured—in October and a high of 3.4 inches in February
and March. The yearly average snow and sleet for the period covered was
13.0 inches.
The yearly averages for relative humidity in the area are:
o Midnight: 78 with monthly ranges from 71 to 85
o 6 a.m.: 82 with monthly ranges from 77 to 89
o Noon: 57 with monthly ranges from 50 to 62
o 6 p.m.: 61 with monthly ranges from 54 to 68
SUMMARY OF GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
The geology and hydrology of Denny Farm Site 1 and its
environs were studied by acquisition of existing data and by
geophysical exploration. E & E initiated remote-sensing
geophysical exploration to determine: (1) local
geology/hydrology, (2) boundaries of the barrels and trench, (3)
bottom of the trench, and (4) subsurface anomalies in and around
the trench. After careful review of the geological/geophysical
data obtained, test borings were made to confirm the
interpretations and obtain additional soil samples. The
geophysical methods used were electromagnetic conductivity,
seismic refraction, electrical resistivity, ground penetrating
radar, magnetometry, and metal detection.
Following are the conclusions drawn from the study:
o Movement of fluids out of the trench would occur
predominantly in a vertical direction with impetus
given by precipitation percolation (negated by
impervious cap placed recently) or by a sudden
release of large volumes of material due to corroding
drums.
o A great variance of the coefficient of permeability
of the soil should be expected with water movement
through the soil tending to be slow in the clay and
more rapid in the cherty zones. However, movement
into the bedrock would be very rapid through any
"pipes" (open soil fractures) that may exist under
the trench.
o Upon entering the weathered Reeds Spring Formation,
flow or seepage would continue vertically until the
water table is reached. Flow would then be lateral
4-4
-------
GEOLOGY
but predominately along the joint and fracture
patterns. Because of uncertainty as to the precise
orientation of the various joints, fractures, and
solution cavities, calculations of directions of
flow could be accomplished only on a probabilistic
basis.
o Some contaminant attenuation would occur with flow
through the soil. However, should contaminants
move into pipes or sinkholes, little attenuation
potential would exist.
o Although sinkholes are common in the vicinity of
Denny Farm Site 1, the probability of one forming
at any specific point such as under the trench is
exceedingly low.
o Conditions are potentially favorable for rapid
downward contaminant migration to the groundwater.
Although the impervious cap has greatly reduced the
likelihood of precipitation percolation dragging
the contamination deeper and closer to the
groundwater supply, corroded drums could release
volumes of fluid into the surrounding soil and
movement would begin independently of
precipitation. Therefore the local geology of
this site has conditions which could be conducive
to the seepage of liquid contaminants out of the
trench.
o On-site geophysical reconnaissance showed that the
trench is approximately 960 square feet in area and
6 to 8 feet in depth. It is estimated that the
trench could contain 140 to 150 drums.
Regional
Denny Farm Site 1 is situated on the Springfield Plateau on the edge
of the Ozark Mountains' foothills, with the Ozark dome about 190 miles
east-northeast of the site.
The region represents a section of the Ozark peneplain which had
developed in mid-Tertiary times (approximately 30-40 million years ago).
With subsequent uplifrt episodes from mid-Tertiary to present time, the
rejuvenated streams eroded downward to maintain gradient and created
incised valleys and thereby the existing dissected and rugged
conditions.
4-5
-------
The area is underlain by the Osagean and Kinderhookian Series
of Mississippian Age bedrock. The specific unit in the vicinity of
Denny Farm Site 1 is the Reeds Spring Formation, a gray to blue-gray
limestone with alternating bands of chert. Thickness of this
formation within the area has been reported as 125 feet to about 225
feet in the southernmost portions of the state. In most of the region
the Reeds Spring Formation lies conformably on the Pierson Formation.
However, the rock that immediately underlies the Reeds Spring Formation
in the area of Denny Farm Site 1 is the Compton Formation, a thin-bedded,
crystalline, crinoidal limestone with some chert nodules (3). The
Compton Formation ranges from 20 to 50 feet in thickness.
The ridge tops are capped with a thin 3-foot veneer of loess,
an aeolian-deposited buff silt. The loess is underlain by a red
kaolinitic silty clay and silt with numerous angular chert fragments.
This soil is residual in nature, the silty clays having been derived
from the weathering and disintegration of the underlying parent
limestone bedrock and the more resistant chert left behind in the
clay matrix. In some instances, the relict fabric of the chert bands is
visible in road cuts in the soil as dissected bands of angular chert.
Colluvial erosional processes have prevented ridge sides from
developing soil cover; thus bedrock is present at the surface in these
areas. Valley soils developed by colluvial infilling are thick, complex
mixtures of stratified and non-stratified materials.
Some folding and faulting of the strata occurred, most of it
concurrent with the Tertiary uplift episodes. McCraken (1971)
reports several structural features in the area, including the eastern
end of an east-west-trending normal strike-slip fault with total vertical
displacements of 150 feet (4). The end of this fault (Ritchey fault)
occurs about five miles north of the site, with the down-dropped
block on the south. The north-northwest axis of the Osage-Verona
anticline (an upward folding of rock) also exists about three miles
east of Denny Farm Site 1.
The uplift, and consequent folding and faulting, created many
fractures in the relatively soluble Reeds Spring limestones. Thus,
4-6
-------
solution activity from groundwater has created a classical karst
topography characterized by sinkholes, linear and right-angle valley
formation, pinnacle weathering, disappearing streams, springs, and
caves.
In many instances, infilling of fractures or solution cavities in
the bedrock occurs with the downward percolation of water through the
soil at the bedrock interface. Water seepage assisted by mass wasting
and gravity gradually enlarges or "stopes" upward the resulting void.
This stoping phenomenon continues until the void is within 7 to 10 feet
of the surface. At this point, the remaining soil overburden collapses
suddenly, forming a 40- to 70-foot-deep hole with nearly vertical walls.
Although sinkholes have developed independent of man's activities,
it has been illustrated by Aley et al. (1972) that changes in drainage by
either the impoundment of water or by the reduction or lowering of the
water table have induced sinkhole collapse (5). Examples of these
include the West Plains, Missouri, collapse of 1964 and 1966 in which
effluent entered the bedrock-groundwater system when a sinkhole developed
under a 49-acre two-cell lagoon. A similar incident occurred at
Republic, Missouri, in 1968.
In addition to the rejuvenation of streams and erosion of numerous
valleys, gullies have been formed by the sequential linear formation of
sinkholes in an uphill direction. This phenomenon is apparent on the
Verona, McDowell, and Aurora topographic quadrangle maps as well as in
aerial observations and photographs. Many of these linear progressions
of sinkhole development, as well as cave development, have been
associated with solution and water movements along joint fracture systems
within the bedrock. This is illustrated by the linear nature of the
area's valley-gully orientation and periodicity, as well as by the
right-angle turns observed in Calton Creek west of Denny Farm Site 1.
The solutional processes also lead to pinnacle weathering, which is
the enlargement of vertical fractures at the bedrock surface to the point
where the fractures actually occupy more space than do the intervening
bedrock remnants. These enlarged fractures, commonly up to 20 feet wide
at the top and up to 30 feet deep, are usually completely buried by the
residual soils and thus not visible on the land surface.
4-7
-------
Local
The Denny Farm Site 1 is located atop a northwest-southwest ridge at
SE 1/4, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, Sec. 20, T25N, R26W, approximately one-third of a
mile south of Calton Creek (cf. Figure 4-1 which outlines the area of the
Figure 2-2 area location map). The site is underlain by red, cherty clay
soils of the residual nature previously discussed, which grade into the
parent material, i.e., the cherty limestone of the Reeds Spring
Formation. Typically, this rock is highly fractured and exhibits
classical sinkhole development and pinnacle weathering. There is no
direct evidence of catastrophic sinkhole development existing within 200
yards of the disposal trench on the Denny Farm. However, numerous recent
collapsed sinkholes and piping were observed within a mile of the site.
Little direct hydrological investigation by coring, soil boring, or
backhoe excavation had been done in the vicinity of the site prior to
June 1980. In April 1980, fourteen soil borings were made by EPA-Region
VII around and adjacent to the trench. An attempt was made to sample the
soil in the interval 8 to 10 feet below the existing grade. In some
cases, auger refusal occurred before those depths were reached. Because
of the possibility of penetrating localized pockets of contaminated
seepage, no attempt was made to drill deeper to define the soil-bedrock
interface. In any case, the purpose of the boring program was to
collect and analyze only near-surface samples adjacent to the trench for
the presence or absence of dioxin.
However, it was still necessary to ascertain if downward movement of
contaminants was possible. In view of the complex geologic conditions
discussed above, it was not deemed safe to begin immediately drilling to
bedrock in the vicinity of the trench until some of the uncertainties
were removed by using geophysical methods that would not disturb the site
and trench soils.
Therefore, E & E initiated remote-sensing geophysical exploration to
determine: (I) local geology/hydrology, (2) boundaries of the barrels
and trench, (3) bottom of the trench, and (4) subsurface anomalies in and
around the trench. After careful review of the geological/geophysical
data obtained, test borings were then made to confirm the interpretations
and obtain additional soil samples.
4-8
-------
The geophysical methods used were the following:
o Electromagnetic Conductivity (EM)
o Seismic Refraction
o Electrical Resistivity (ER)
o Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
o Magnetometry
o Metal Detection
The EM data were collected along continuous northeast-southwest
traverses outside the site proper. Each traverse was 800 feet long and
25 feet apart. Figure 4-2 is a contour interpretation of the EM data.
The contours are representative of the electromagnetic conductivity
(reciprocal resistivity) of the upper 20 feet of the soil-bedrock
complex. The values are a function of the type of soil and bedrock
present, the degree of porosity in the soil and bedrock, and the nature
of any fluids which may be present in the pore spaces.
By reference to Figure 4-2, several important statements can be made
concerning the geology and soils outside Denny Farm Site 1. First, the
area surrounding the site has a relatively high conductivity (8-12
millimhos/meter), which diminishes to very low levels in the
northeasterly and southwesterly directions (2-4 millimhos/meter). In
both of these low-conductive areas, field investigation showed that the
soil cover ranges from very thin to non-existent. The limestone bedrock
is much less conductive than the overlying soil.
As shown on Figure 4-2, higher conductivity values were found in the
areas of Lines AB and CD. Initially it was thought that these anomalies,
particularly AB, might be caused by lateral migration of contaminants.
However, drilling and sampling of these areas (see Figure 4-3) showed
that the anomalies were zones of localized increases in clay and
reduction in the amount of chert fragments (7). Apparently the
anomalously high conductivities were caused by the higher conductance of
the clays, which maintain a higher moisture content. The clay zones
containing less chert may be the result of differential weathering of the
original bedrock or remnants of clay-filled joints and fractures of the
original cherty limestone.
4-9
-------
DISTANCE IN FEET
LEFT & RIGHT OF CENTER LINE
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 FT.
CONTOUR INTERVAL =
2 MILLIMHOS/
METER
A
100'
I SCALE |
FENCED
PERIMETER
ELECTROMAGNETIC
TRAVERSES
m
oz
m _
ZTl
. m
Z
m
-300
Figure 4-2. Contour Plot of EM Data
4-10
-------
-150
DISTANCE IN FEET
LEFT & RIGHT OF CENTER LINE
-100 -50 0 50 100 FT.
300
CONTOUR INTERVAL =
2 MILLIMHOS/
METER
\
100'
| SCALE |
FENCED
PERIMETER
"NO. 15A IS LOCATED
BETWEEN NO. 15 AND
13."
ELECTROMAGNETIC
TRAVERSES
CENTER LINE n
m
3D
m
-100
"NO. 30 IS LOCATED ON
ACCESS ROAD AT
TRAILER TURN," EAST
OF COMPOUND.
-150
BORE HOLE
-300
Figure 4-3. Bore Hole Locations
4-11
-------
Laboratory analysis of the soil samples was conducted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Surveillance and Analysis Division in
Kansas City, Kansas. Results of the soil samples tested have been
negative for those samples taken the week of July 14 through 19, 1980, in
the area surrounding the fence (cf. Figure 4-3).
The results of the geophysical tests andsubsequent ground-truth
borings indicate a three-layer system of
-------
notable that these deeper and very old soil clays were extremely
disordered (poorly crystalline) as established by their poor X-ray
reflections. . . ."(6). This horizon is also characterized by low
seismic velocities, albeit somewhat higher than those of the upper loess
horizon. Seismic velocities ranged from 2,400 to 3,500 feet per second.
Seismic and resistivity methods indicated that the residual clays, which
are about 11 to 16 feet thick along the west fence line, thicken to 29 to
37 feet along the east fence line. This was fairly well corroborated by
the ground-truth borings.
Ground penetrating radar detected an additional thin soil horizon
about 3 feet below grade. This layer was interpreted to be the fragipan
layer described in discussion with Dr. J. Hadley Williams (3) and in
various publications on Missouri soils and geology. This zone was
considered important because its normally low permeability could play a
role in controlling shallow drainage. Radar data showed that the zone is
generally broken and dissected but occurs as a continuous layer in the
vicinity of the west and north corner of the site fence. Augering, auger
sections, and split-spoon sampling were used in the borings to define the
fragipan layer (see Appendix C for details of soil borings). However, no
definite layers were found. It is likely that the fragipan occurs as a
poorly developed and dissected subtle layer so that it is not observable
by normal drilling procedures. As such, it does not seem to be
significant in controlling drainage.
The lowermost horizon encountered represents the top of the highly
weathered and fractured Reeds Spring Formation. The presence of residual
float rock somewhat isolated a short distance above the parent bedrock
indicates that the distance to relatively unweathered bedrock could be an
additional 10 to 30 feet below the top of the weathered zone. This
horizon consists of chert and cherty limestone, which the augers refused
to penetrate during drilling. The drilling characteristics about 2 to 3
feet above the refusal depth indicated that a high amount of weathering
has probably occurred. This interpretation is supported by the fact that
the highest seismic velocity measured was 6,000 feet per second.
Velocities in massive rock or limestone usually exceed 10,000 feet per
second.
4-13
-------
Using Borings #21, #25, and #28 (see Figure 4-3) as references, the
bedrock surface of the lowermost horizon encountered slopes to the east
at an angle of approximately 8° from the horizontal.
A single deep boring was drilled about 300 feet south-southeast of
the site along the access road (7). At that location (Boring #30),
massive gray white chert was encountered in a layer from 35 feet to 47.4
feet below grade. A combination of diamond coring and tri-cone roller
rock bits were used. This zone probably represents a surface of the
Reeds Spring Formation which has been only moderately weathered. Core
recovery was very low and averaged about 50% in the upper 4 feet, with
most of the deeper penetration requiring the use of rock bits. The lower
depths of bedrock (below 44 feet) represent a relatively unweathered
competent surface, as shown by the increase in core recovery (100%) at
that depth and the slow rate of core water loss.
During field inspections of the geology, joint patterns were
observed along Calton Creek in the lower portion of the Reeds Spring
Formation. The primary joint pattern trended northeast to southwest,
with a secondary pattern trending northwest to southeast (see Figure
4-4). As shown in the figure, Calton Creek negotiates two right-angle
turns north of the site, indicating structure-controlled flow, probably
along joints or fractures. The rectilinear trend of the gullies and
valley as seen in aerial photographs also indicates joint-controlled
features in northwest-southeast and northeast-southwest trends.
Evidence of past sinkhole development was apparent from the large
circular depressions observed on the ground in the valley about 700 feet
northeast of the site and along the west side of Calton Creek about one
quarter mile north of the point where Calton Creek flows into Little Flat
Creek. In addition, the cirque-like headwalls of some of the gullies
indicate that they originated from the coalescing of paleosinks (3) (see
Figure 4-5).
Small sinkholes/pipes 2 to 5 feet in diameter have also
developed as the result of water-percolation piping. These features have
been observed along the gullies surrounding the site and about 30 feet
southwest of the southwest fence corner (4" diameter). During the field
4-14
-------
J^
I
LEGEND:
OBSERVED FRACTURES
INFERRED FRACTURES Illllllllllllll
SCALE
1000 FEET
I 1
ADAPTED FROM TECHNOS
Figure 4-4. Fracture Patterns
-------
r
30 FOOT WELL IN
POSSIBLE PALEOSINK
LEGEND
• SINKHOLE/PIPING
•* SURFACE DRAINAGE PATTERN
•» LINEAMENT (INFERRED FRACTURE)
ELEVATION CONTOUR (100 FT)
SCALE
I 1
500 FEET
ADAPTED FROM TECHNOS
Figure 4-5. Selected Geologic Features
-------
geophysical survey, traverses were made with the ground penetrating radar
around the perimeter of the fence and along the access road. Results
indicated that piping and downward percolation of precipitation probably
occur at the site.
No caves were found or are known to exist in the immediate vicinity
of Denny Farm Site 1. The closest known cave is Stansberry Cave located
at SE 1/4, SW 1/4, R26W, T25N, about 3 miles east-southeast of the site.
HYDROLOGY
Denny Farm Site 1 is located in the White River drainage basin in
southwestern Missouri. Precipitation in this area averages approximately
45 inches per year. Half of this amount is evapo- transpired back to the
atmosphere, while most of the remainder infiltrates the water table. A
small amount runs off as surface drainage.
Groundwater movement in the area generally parallels the surface
drainage. In many geological terrains this generalization can be useful
even at a site-specific level. However, in fractured limestone terrains,
the density and orientation of fractures, as well as the degree of their
solution enlargement, can vary greatly over very small distances. For
example, yields from wells in limestones may vary by several orders of
magnitude in holes drilled only a few feet apart. Therefore, prediction
of directions and rates of local groundwater movement is difficult.
The Denny Farm Site 1 trench is located very near the topographic
high point of the ridge approximately 150 feet above Calton Creek.
Immediate surface drainage (cf. Figure 4-5) is to the east into a swale
opening into a tributary valley, which then opens to Calton Creek. The
drainage of Calton Creek flows south into Little Flat Creek about two and
a half miles from the site. Flat Creek flows east-southeast to the James
River and then south to the Table Rock Lake reservoir on the White River.
The drainages cover a distance of roughly forty miles.
It should be noted that little actual surface flow occurs in any
of the swales, gullies, and tributaries. There are seldom any defined
channels, wet or dry, in any of them. The soils and bedrock in these
swales are so permeable that precipitation cannot run off the surface;
instead water percolates downward to the water table and then moves
4-17
-------
laterally as groundwater to a more regional discharge point such as
Calton Creek. Even on the tops of ridges, which are covered with a thick
mantle of clayey soil, infiltration readily occurs. This phenomenon was
observed firsthand by field personnel conducting the geophysical field
work. During June 1980, several thundershowers deposited an estimated 3
inches of precipitation on the site. During these storms, the water
puddled over most of the relatively flat ridgetop surface. Within an
hour after the rain had stopped, the water in the puddles had soaked into
the soil. The high percolation rate was also apparent during aerial
reconnaissance of the area with Dr. Williams, who pointed out several
unsuccessful attempts to create farm ponds.
Once precipitation enters the soil in the vicinity of the trench, it
moves predominantly vertically. The fragipan layer would have little
effect on vertical movement because of its dissection, variable presence,
and shallow occurrence with respect to the anticipated trench base. Some
lateral movement would occur along the thicker relict chert horizons
bounded by the clay-rich lenses encountered (7). However, because of the
discontinuity of both the relict structures and the clay lenses, the
basic movement is vertically downward. This is further borne out by the
absence of springs on the hillsides in the immediate area and by the
absence of stream flow in the swales running off the hillsides.
It is also apparent from the flow of Calton Creek as well as other
tributaries that the amount of surface flow is controlled by the jointing
and fracturing of the Reeds Spring Formation. Certain segments of Calton
Creek have no flow and are colloquially referred to as "losing." Other
segments of the creek that do have flow are referred to as "gaining" (see
Figure 4-6). Recent dye tests (8) on the creek show good hydrologic
connections between successive losing and gaining segments. In one
instance, dye released on a gaining segment was soon picked up in a well
adjacent to the next downstream gaining segment. Apparently, the dye had
moved rapidly through the bedrock in the intervening losing segment. It
should be noted that this rapid subsurface movement occurs within
one-third mile of the Denny Farm Site 1.
Rapid infiltration of surface waters can occur through zones of
piping within the soil horizon or through sinkholes. Because of the
4-18
-------
S^A'l'.v
'0 NVsV
-
LOSING STREAM^
^
'^•mUT.
0 1000 MOD 1000 «00 WOO MOO
Figure 4-6. Gaining and Losing Stream Locations
4-19
-------
vertical voids in these structures, water can be directed very quickly to
the fractured weathered Reeds Spring bedrock and to the water table.
Williams and Vineyard have compiled a list of geologic indicators in
which subsidence or collapse may occur in karst terrain (9). This list
is reproduced below:
o Collapses are more likely to occur in residual soil ranging in
thickness from 40 to 100 feet (12-30 m)
o Collapses are more apt to occur in residual soil retaining the
fabric of the parent material; collapses are uncommon in
colluvial deposits or in alluvium deposited by gaining
streams
o Collapses are more likely to occur where the clay fraction has
low plasticity (MH; A-7-5), common to kaolinitic and halloysitic
clays
o Collapses are not common where a poorly drained surface soil
exists even if this surface soil is underlain by other features
typical of collapse indicators
o Collapses are more apt to occur in losing streams and watersheds
than in gaining, but are as common to the uplands or slopes as
floodplains of losing areas
o Sinkholes per se are not normally indicative of land surface
failure by catastrophic collapse
o Collapses are more frequent in areas underlain by limestone,
dolomite, and gypsum, but have been reported in other types of
bedrock
o Cave systems developed along the soil-bedrock contact are common
in areas having a history of land surface failure by collapse
4-20
-------
o Cave passageways are periodically or continuously drained by
streams
These conditions are essentially satisfied by the geologic conditions
observed at Denny Farm Site 1. However, the absolute likelihood of a
sinkhole developing at any particular location is still very low.
Within the compound clearings, no water was observed in the borings
which would be indicative of a perched water table. The deepest boring was
drilled 47.4 feet below grade (or about 60 feet below the existing grade of
the compound area), and the water table was not encountered. It is
estimated that the water table is about 114 feet below the site. This
assumes a local water-table gradient of 3%, which is typical in karst or
solution-developed terrain (8).
In summary, the borings indicate that the lateral movement of fluids
from the trench is unlikely. The fragipan layer has little effect on
vertical movement because of its dissection, variable presence, and shallow
occurrence with respect to the anticipated base of the trench.
The EM anomalies investigated were attributed to a higher clay and
moisture content. It can be inferred, then, that any seepage from the
trench would flow around zones of high clay and low permeability and seep
into more pervious zones (pockets or dessication cracks) (8). Due to the
lack of continuity of the high-plastic clay layer, flow or seepage would
occur laterally for a short distance before encountering a more pervious
horizon of cherty, clayey silt, or chert fragments. At that point,
vertical movement would continue. The above scenario of seepage out of the
trench, to this point, assumes that similar soil conditions exist under the
trench as were encountered in the borings.
The coefficient of permeability of the soil would vary depending on
the viscosity and temperature of the materials leaving the base of the
trench, the grain size distribution, dry density, and stress history.
However, it would probably range from 10~-*cm/sec (fine sands and
inorganic silts, stratified clay deposits) to lO'^cm/sec (homogeneous
clays below zone of seasonal volumetric change). By using these
permeabilities and assuming a constant head and no piping, it can be
4-21
-------
estimated that after nine years, the leachate boundary could be as
shallow as 1 foot (10~7 cm/sec) or could have reached bedrock
(10~3 cm/sec). Again, this does not take into account piping.
Although the sandstone was observed as a float rock outcrop along a
few of the gullies surrounding the ridge, it was not observed in any of
the borings drilled during this program. Therefore, it is unlikely that
seepage from the trench would occur toward the west ponds through the
sandstone extrapolated to underlie the trench (6). The geophysical and
geological studies which have been performed in the past two months have
been centered on both general and site-specific conditions. Contam-
ination has not been detected in the wells which surround the site and
have been continually monitored by EPA/SVAN Region VII (cf. Figure 3-2).
This simply means that contaminants have not arrived at those points.
The possibility still exists that the water table can become
contaminated.
Therefore, it is a distinct possibility that liquid contaminants
or leachate could emanate from the trench and reach the groundwater and
surface waters because of the following conditions:
o Variable but predominately high permeability of overburden
"soils"
o Evidence of piping in the immediate vicinity
o Highly fractured, permeable, and soluble bedrock
o Remote possibility of catastrophic sinkhole collapse
o Evidence of fracture-controlled drainage
GEOPHYSICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF THE TRENCH
Besides the geophysical reconnaissance and soil exploration outside
the Denny Farm Site 1 perimeter, E & E used similar remote sensing
techniques within the fenced area to define the trench,its contents, and
the subsurface geology in more detail. In addition to delineating the
4-22
-------
environmental conditions of the site, data were necessary for the
conceptual design effort for remedial action. Obvious concerns about the
site were
o Establishing the trench boundary and depth
o Defining the spatial distribution and number of drums
buried
o Defining the subsurface conditions around and below the
trench
o Identifying any potential movement of material from the
trench
Originally, the trench was thought to be delineated by the
1-foot-deep surface depression as 53 feet long by 10 feet wide. However,
the on-site studies conducted in June 1980 using magnetometers and metal
detectors led to the conclusion that the area occupied by the drums, and
thus the size of the trench, is somewhat larger. Figure 4-7 illustrates
this area (shaded). It is 960 square feet, i.e., 80% larger than the
original estimate (outlined). The shaded area as shown on Figure 4-7
does not indicate the boundary of the original excavation, but rather the
edge of the outermost drums regardless of the depth. Metal detector
data indicate that, in addition to the buried drums in the trench,
smaller metallic debris is present over much of the area.
The depth of the trench, as determined by ground penetrating radar
(GPR), is between 6 and 8 feet. The trench, as shown on the ground
penetrating radar plot (see Figure 4-8) appears to be shallower to the
south and deeper with steeper sides to the north. The GPR data also show
thai" thfi eastern ond of the trench is shallower than the western end.
The arrow in Figure 4-8 locates the deeper portion of the trench. The
smaller anomalies indicated on the traverse of the trench are probably
associated with reflection from the drums.
4-23
-------
DISTANCE (FT.)
-50 -40 -30 -20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
50
40
30
UJ
o
I
M
O
-20-
-30
-40-
-50
'12
\
I 20 FEET I
SCALE
E & E DETERMINATION
t
20'
i
EPA ESTIMATE
LEGEND:
EPA
BORE
HOLES
Figure 4-7. Plan View of Drum Distribution
4-24
-------
i
M
Ul
SOUTH
-10' +10' NORTH
WS8BW
INDICATES POSSIBLE
-o
-3'
^ LOESS
-6'
rJ'fJTRENCH BOTTOM WS
Iff',-- j -9-
FRAGIPAN
LAYER
TERRA ROSA
SOIL WITH
CHERT
Figure 4-8. Radar Traverse - South to North of Disposal Trench
-------
Resistivity measurements were also made within the perimeter;
however, limited data were collected and are thought to be influenced by
the metallic drums. From these measurements, the bottom of the trench
was estimated to be less than 10 feet from the surface, which basically
confirms the GPR data.
Based on the GPR, metal detector, and magnetometer data, E & E
estimates that the trench could contain approximately 140 to 150 drums.
Furthermore, from magnetometer data, the concentration of drums increases
from east to west. This conclusion is also supported by the GPR data.
In addition, the GPR data show the existence of a discontinuous soil
horizon approximately 3 feet below the surface; this horizon is suspected
to be the fragipan horizon.
Electromagnetic and resistivity data from inside the perimeter of
the site could not be applied to data outside because of the presence of
the fence and metallic materials within the perimeter. Therefore, the
lateral migration of materials could not be confirmed, nor could the
condition of the trench bottom.
4-26
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. Telephone conversation with Mr. Harmon Chapman, Transportation
Planner, Southwest Missouri Local Government Advisory Council,
Republic, Mo.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Climates of the States (Volume II). Port
Washington, New York: Water Information Center, Inc., 1974.
3. Personal communication with J. Hadley Williams, Missouri Department
of Natural Resources.
4. McKracken, Mary L. Structural Features of Missouri, Report of
Investigation No. 49. Rolla, Mo.: Missouri Geological Survey and
Water Resources, 1971.
5. Aley, Williams, and Masello. Groundwater Contamination and Sinkhole
Collapse Induced by Leaky Impoundments in Soluble Rock Terrain.
Rolla, Mo. : Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources, 1972.
6. Technos, Inc. Report of Geological and Geophysical Investigation,
Denny Farm Hazardous Materials Site, Barry County, Missouri. Report
prepared for Ecology and Environment, Inc., July 1980.
7. Ecology and Environment, Inc. Results of Recent Borings Conducted
at Farm Site No. 1, Verona, Missouri. FIT Region VII, July 1980.
8. Williams, J. Hadley. Hydrologic Aspects of the Farm Dump Near
Verona, McDowell Quadrangle, Barry County, Missouri. Report through
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Engineering Geology
Section, June 4, 1980.
9. Williams, J. Hadley and Vineyard, Jerry D. Geologic Indicators of
Subsidence and Collapse in Karst Terrain in Missouri. Rolla, Mo.;
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and
Land Survey.
10. Personal communication with Richard Benson, Technos, Inc.
4-27
-------
UNCITED REFERENCES
Bohra, Rex A. Correspondence to Dan Harris, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Region VII through Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, Subsurface Geology and Oil and Gas
Section, December 11, 1979.
Rowe, N. and Koenig, J. The Stratigraphic Succession in Missouri.
Volume XL, 2nd Series, Missouri Geological Survey and Water Resources,
1961.
Missouri Geological Survey. Geologic Map of Missouri. 1:500,000, 1979.
Scrivner, C.L., Baker, J.C., Miller, B.J. Soils of Missouri. University
of Missouri Extension Division.
Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 2nd
Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey
Interpretations, Clarksville Series and Wilderness Series.
U.S. Geological Survey. McDowell Quadrangle. Missouri, 1:24,000, 1972.
Williams, J. Hadley. Summary of Geologic Conditions at the McDowell Dump
Site, Barry County. Missouri. Report through Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, Engineering Geology Section, May 13, 1980.
4-28
-------
SECTION 5
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION
The hazardous waste site in Aurora, Missouri, identified as Denny
Farm Site 1 can be characterized by consideration of three elements: the
methods used for disposing of the waste, a description of the waste, and
public health and environmental concerns. Such characterization is the
purpose of this section.
METHODS USED FOR DISPOSING OF THE WASTE
As noted in Section 2 of this report, the North Eastern
Pharmaceutical and Chemical Company (NEPACCO) caused a trench to be dug
on the Denny Farm near Aurora, Missouri, for the disposal of chemical
wastes. Once the trench was dug, a truck backed up to the trench and
haphazardly dumped some 150 drums of chemical waste into the trench. The
drums were left as they fell. No attempt was made to make an orderly
disposition of the drums. The trench was then filled in with between
one and three feet of soil. No attempt was made to line or cap the
trench.
When the trench was first reported to EPA-Region VII and the initial
investigation was carried out, it was thought, because of surface
depression, that the trench was 10 by 53 feet in dimensions—a fairly
regular rectangle. Subsequent investigations by Ecology and Environment,
Inc. (E & E), have determined that the trench is irregular in shape,
somewhat the shape of a paramecium, and measures 20 by 65 feet.
Initially, the depth was undetermined by the EPA-Region VII
investigation. Based on E & E's investigation with electromagnetic
detectors, the trench depth has been estimated at 6 to 8 feet.
DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTE
Denny Farm Site 1 contains some 150, 55-gallon drums with chemical
in liquid, sludge, and tarry residue forms; water that has leaked
5-1
-------
into the trench and accumulated there; and contaminated intermingled
soil.
In more specific terms, known waste components (confirmed by
analysis) at Denny Farm Site 1 are: tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD),
2,4,5,-trichlorophenol (TCP), toluene, xylene, tetrachlorobenzene, and
ethylene glycol. Other suspected components of the contaminated wastes
are: benzene ethers, benzene, phenol, chlorinated phenols,
polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorinated benzene, sodium hydroxide,
sulfuric acid, carboxylic acid, formaldehyde, and hexachlorophene.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
SUMMARY
Evaluation of the public health hazards associated
with a chemical waste site requires consideration of the
toxic potency of the chemical spoils. Also important in
such assessment are those physical characteristics of
the waste that affect dispersal and longevity of the
hazard in the environment.
The overwhelming toxic feature of the Denny Farm
Site 1 is the presence of tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) in amounts exceeding 300 mg/1 in the liquid waste
material. This compound is one of the most poisonous
chemicals known, an orally administered dose being
lethal to the most sensitive test animal, the guinea
pig, in concentrations less than 2 yug/kg of bodyweight.
A comparable toxic dose in humans would be 140 yug, based
on a body weight of 70 kg. This amount of pure TCDD
would be barely visible to the human eye. In addition to
being toxic if ingested, TCDD is also capable of
penetrating the skin though absorption and is thus
poisonous via dermal contact. In rabbits, the dermal
lethal dose is about 2.5 times the oral dose.
The above toxicity discussion is based upon acute
or short-term exposure situations. Unfortunately, TCDD
levels required for toxic activity are much reduced in
long-term or chronic exposures. This fact is supported
by laboratory data that report toxic effects in guinea
pigs at dose levels as low as 0.008 >ig/kg administered
on a weekly basis. The scientific literature describes
diverse harmful effects from long-term exposure that
include cancers, fetal deformity, and suppression of
immunity response systems.
5-2
-------
Presently, there are no established "safe levels"
of TCDD exposure to humans in food or drinking water,
but the 300 mg/1 (ppm) measured level in the Denny Farm
Site 1 wastes is 300 million times more concentrated
than values being discussed as tolerable to humans.
This fact generates concern about the health hazards
presented by the disposal site in terms of the toxicity
potential.
The solubility of TCDD in water is only 0.2/ig/l.
This fact plus laboratory findings that indicate a
strong attachment affinity between the toxin and soil
particles results in its low mobility in soil moisture.
Several reports by independent investigators have found
that TCDD disappears at a moderate rate in soils, the
calculated half-life being about one year. The low
mobility in soil moisture and its lack of prolonged
persistence make TCDD a rare contaminant of groundwater
at distances removed from the pollutant source.
Environmental contamination from dioxin is usually
detected by analysis of stream sediments, to which it
binds, and of aquatic and terrestrial organisms which
bioaccumulate it.
Two factors that complicate the hazard evaluation
of the Denny Farm Site 1 are the lack of predictability
of limestone karst involvement in providing a conduit
for water contamination, and the unknown solubilizing
effects afforded by the other organic liquid
co-pollutants present in the waste trench.
Conceivably, these site characteristics could singly or
jointly provide abrupt and high-level contamination of
groundwater. Such an occurrence could be devastatingly
harmful to humans and animals living in the area.
Evaluation of the hazards presented by Denny Farm Site 1 entails
consideration of the acute and chronic toxicity of the chemicals known to
be present on the site and their respective environmental fates.
Environmental fate assessment includes consideration of mobility,
persistence, metabolism, and bioaccumulation potential. All these
factors interact to comprise the danger imposed upon the public adjacent
to the disposal area and personnel involved in cleanup.
Historical data on the Denny Farm Site 1 indicate that 55-gallon
drums containing the waste materials were dumped from a truck directly
into an open trench. Based on an estimated 150 drums buried within the
defined limits of the trench, a general assumption can be made that the
initial waste volume dumped into the excavation would equal roughly 8,250
gallons. This also assumes that each drum was completely full at the
time of disposal.
5-3
-------
Table 5-1 lists chemical wastes known to be present in the trench.
The presence of these wastes is based on conclusive analytical results
from EPA. Also noted in the table are other chemicals suspected to be
present in the waste due to their association with the manufacturing
process for hexachlorophene. This information was derived by reviewing
and reconstructing the synthesis scheme for that process.
Quantitative analysis on a four-drum composite sample taken by EPA
revealed TCDD present at 319 mg/1. It should be noted that this sample
was not homogeneous at the time of analysis. Therefore, this value may
not be representative of the entire sample. It may be arguable that
levels higher that this reported value may exist in different components
in the trench. At any rate the sample evidence indicated alarmingly high
TCDD levels within the confines of the trench.
Although the most toxic isomer (2,3,7,8-TCDD) has not been confirmed
through analysis, it is of assumed presence based on its known and well
documented association with the production of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol.
Isomer anaytical studies are underway at Wright State University to
confirm 2,3,7,8-TCDD presence in the waste. Although it is likely that
numerous other hazards exist at Denny Farm Site 1, this report
concentrates on hazards associated with the TCDD isomer because the toxic
potential it provides is over a million-fold higher than any of the other
chemicals known or suspected to be in the wastes. This evaluation is
based on acute toxicity data. Furthermore, it will be seen that the
remedial alternatives presented in this document will provide for
containment of all chemical wastes.
Toxicological Considerations of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD)
A. Acute and Chronic Toxicity in Animals
One of the major health concerns with TCDD contamination is that it
is one of the most potently toxic substances known in mammalian species.
Depending on the species, the acute and chronic toxic doses generally
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-1
COMPOUNDS OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED PRESENCE
AT DENNY FARM SITE 1
COMPOUNDS
TETRACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN (TCDD)*
2. 4, 5-TRICHLOROPHENOL (TCP)*
TOLUENE*
XYLENE*
TETRACHLOROBENZENE*
ETHYLENE GLYCOL*
BENZENE ETHERS
BENZENE
PHENOL
CHLORINATED PHENOLS
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
CHLORINATED BENZENE
SODIUM HYDROXIDE
SULFURIC ACID
CARBOXYLIC ACID
FORMALDEHYDE
HEXACLOROPHENE
5-5
-------
show a wide variation in the submicrogram to microgram range. As an
example, the following values have been excerpted from recent
literature:
Species Dosage Regimen Toxic Dose
Rhesus Monkey Single Oral LD50 70>ug/animal
Guinea Pig Single Oral LC$Q 2 jug/kg
Mouse Single Oral LD50 284/ig/kg
Rabbit Dermal LD5Q 275/ig/kg
Rabbit Oral LD5Q 115/ig/kg
An interesting feature of short-term toxicity tests with TCDD
is that they have revealed an unusual temporal dependence, i.e., acute
toxicity tests are always run for a time interval of a few days. Tests
with TCDD reveal mortality in a time range of five days to several weeks.
This prolonged interval and the variety of TCDD-induced tissue anomalies
across the species investigated have thus far confounded attempts to
determine the exact cause of death.
B. Carcinogenicity
A two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of TCDD has been
completed in rats by Kociba and co-workers (1). Ingestion of 0.1
/ig/kg/day caused an increased incidence in carcinomas of liver, lungs,
and mouth while decreasing the incidence of tumors of the uterus;
pancreas; and pituitary, mammary, and adrenal glands. Tissue samples
from animals at this dose level contained 24 ppb TCDD in the liver, and
8.1 ppb in fat. Interestingly, the increased incidence of tumors in the
lungs and liver at the high dose of this study occurred only in female
rats while the oral-nasal tumors were significant in males. The authors
also noted that at this dosage the animals manifested other signs of
significant toxicity including increased mortality; decreased weight
gain; depressed erythroid parameters; increased excretion of porphyrins
and aminolevulinc acid; as well as evidence of liver damage determined by
elevated serum activities of alkaline phosphatase, gamma-glutamyl
transferase, and glutamicpyruvic transferase. At dosages ten and one
hundred times lower than 0.1 yjg/kg/day, the chronic toxicity of TCDD
5-6
-------
diminished to nothing and there were no sigificant increases in
identifiable carcinomas when compared to the control animals. Thus, it
was concluded that during this two-year study in rats, no increase in
tumors occurred at dosages of TCDD causing slight or no manifestations of
toxicity. This suggests that the increased incidence of cancer observed
at high-dose levels may be due to increased cell death and replacement,
since an increase in cell turnover during constant exposure to cellulary
toxic compounds provides increased opportunity for spontaneous
carcinogenesis. It should also be re-emphasized that TCDD decreased the
natural incidence of tumorigenesis of some organs in this study and that
another study (2) using the two-state inttation/promotion test
demonstrated that the TCDD exhibited potent anticarcinogenic effects on
papillomas induced by demethybenz(a)anthrene.
C. Teratogenicity; Fetotoxicity; Reproductive Effects
TCDD is fetotoxic at maternally toxic doses in rats, mice, and
monkeys (3). In mice, doses of 1 ^ig/kg/day or greater consistently
produce fetal defects such as cleft palate and kidney anomalies. At
doses lower that 1 yjg/kg/day no teratogenic or fetotoxic effects
occurred, establishing that there is a "no effect" dosage. It has been
established (4,5) that chronic dosages of 1 jug/kg/day or higher have
effect on the reproductive capacity of rats and monkeys. Yet the
increased abortion rates occur at dosages which again are maternally
toxic. Barsotti et al. (4), using rhesus monkeys, concluded that the
debilitating toxicity seen at the dosage used (2 yug/kg) may have caused
the reproductive dysfunctions seen. The authors also found that the
surviving animals returned to a normal reproductive status once they were
removed from the exposure to TCDD. In another study (6) which determined
the effect of TCDD on three generations of reproduction in the rat, it
was concluded that 0.001 /ig/kg/day had no effect while 0.01 and O.I
/JR/kg/day clearly affected normal reproduction. These data correlated
well with the chronic toxicity and tumorigenesis study in this species.
That is, overt toxicity correlates with the effect. In summary, a review
5-7
-------
of the literature indicates that TCDD is teratogenic and does affect
reproduction in animals, but it also demonstrates that there is clearly a
"no effect" dosage level.
D. Other Chronic Effects
Guinea pigs receiving doses of TCDD of 0.008, 0.004, 0.002, and 1.0
yug/kg body weight per week were affected (7). All animals receiving 1
/jg/kg levels died or became moribund. They all exhibited atrophy of the
lymphoid organs, lymphopenia, and severe loss in body weight.
Additionally, cell-mediated immunity was suppressed at levels of 0.002
and 0.004 yug/kg. At the extremely low dose of 0.008 /ig/kg/week, guinea
pigs showed significant reduction in lymphocyte 'number.
E. Human Effects
Probably the best data on human response are the findings from the
Seveso incident in Italy (8). A study of the human exposure from this
incident divided persons into two groups labeled Zones A and B. In Zone
A the average contamination was 50 ^ug/sq.m. for the 447 inhabitants
studied. Zone B was comprised of 362 inhabitants with 3 _/ig/sq.m.
exposure plus 156 plant workers of the factory where the explosion
occurred. Chloracne was the major and most consistent effect. The
peripheral nervous system studies revealed subclinical signs in 10% of
the people living in the area of highest contamination. There was no
correlation between the neurological findings and chloracne. Transient
signs of liver damage without functional disorder occurred in 10% of both
groups. The imraunologic responses of the two populations were not
impaired. There was no increase in fetal deaths, birth defects, or
growth retardation out of the 7,350 births' occurring in the first two
years after the incident. Chromosome examinations did not reveal any
changes from the normal pattern. Thus, the author concluded "that man
has a higher degree of tolerance to TCDD than a direct extrapolation from
animal data would suggest." The conclusion is supported by the data
gathered on the one exposed person who died during this study. The body
5-8
-------
of a 55-year-old woman who died seven months after exposure from
pancreatic carcinoma unrelated to the accident was analyzed, after
autopsy, for TCDD. The woman had been exposed to TCDD from the explosion
and had lived in a contaminated area (162-1847 yjg/sq. m.) for fifteen
days. The total body burden of TCDD was calculated to be 40 jig at the
time of death. Of course, she had to have eliminated some TCDD in the
seven-month interval between exposure and death. Even though the amount
eliminated cannot be calculated, the analysis indicates that the people
comprising this study accumulated large amounts of TCDD without
exhibiting any serious adverse effects thus far. It should also be noted
that the amount of TCDD absorbed was 1000 to 3000 times higher than the
tolerable amounts calculated using rat or guinea pig acute toxicity
data.
Environmental Fate of Farm Site Pollutants
Evaluation of the significance of environmental contamination of a
particular toxin requires knowledge of its environmental mobility,
persistence, and bioaccumulation potential. Poisons that lack these
characteristics, even though highly toxic, have reduced impact as
pollutants.
Reports in the science literature describe the environmental
mobility and persistence of TCDD. One study (9) using 34 ppm TCDD showed
loss of less than 0.3% of the total after elution with 150 ml of water
through a sandy loam soil column 2.5 cm in length. This lack of mobility
through the soil is due to TCDD having extremely low water solubility
(0.2jug/l) and a tenacious binding affinity, particularly in soils having
a high ion-exchange capacity because of clay or organic content. This
strong affinity is illustrated by the rigorous extraction methods
required to remove dioxins from soils cnmtaminated with known
concentrations. Often efficient extraction is only achieved by
extracting the soils with boiling organic solvents for long periods.
Several investigators (10,11,12) have found the environmental
half-life of TCDD in soils to be about one year. The mechanism of
5-9
-------
destruction is thought to be tnicrobial, but no one has been successful in
attempts to isolate microbes capable of efficient TCDD breakdown in
vitro. There is an apparent negative correlation between the degree of
in vitro microbial degradation and the extent of dioxin chlorination.
Since TCDD is a heavily chlorinated isomer, it was not susceptible to
attack in laboratory studies.
In a field study (13), no TCDD residues were detected in soils that
had recieved repeated applications of TCDD-contaminated 2,4,5-T at a rate
of 1,000 Ibs/acre/year over a seven-year period. The destruction of
surface applications of TCDD is probably due largely to its photolability
to ultraviolet light. One study reported 100% loss of TCDD in methanol
solutions irradiated with simulated sunlight for a 24-hour period (14).
In evaluating the possibility of TCDD movement at the Denny Farm
Site 1, one must recognize typical disposal-site features which could
promote migration. The site contains large concentrations of dioxin
relative to an agriculturally-contaminated area, and the toxin is mixed
in an undefined matrix of organic liquids. Conceivably these organic
wastes could increase TCDD movement by effectively increasing its water
solubility and by tying up the soil binding capacity. However, it is
felt that these effects will be minimal in increasing soil migration, if
the clay soils are continuous and sufficiently deep to accommodate the
total binding load. The known organics present in the site are also of
low water solubility and would not be expected to increase greatly the
solubility of the dioxin. Also, the rapid dilution of these organics in
the soil as migration proceeded would prevent maintenance of high dioxin
load over long distances.
In summary, dioxin contamination of groundwater at sites removed
from the source is unlikely. Low water solubility and tenacious soil
binding largely account for this lack of mobility. Environmental spread
is more apt to occur in the form of contaminated soil particle movement
either by wind or surface water erosion. Consequently, a likely place to
detect the movement of dioxin is in surface waste sediments where soil
surface fines can accumulate. Additionally, aquatic animals are
5-10
-------
documented accumulators of TCDD in apparently uncontaminated waters and
could provide additional evidence of dioxin contamination. It is
suggested that benthic organisms and associated predator species be
sampled in Calton Creek and any other surface waters near the site as a
check for dioxin migration.
Because of lower mammalian toxicity, the other organic pollutants at
the Denny Farm Site 1 have received less scientific attention in terms of
environmental fate. Trichlorophenol has the greatest water solubility of
the known organic pollutants on the disposal site, and it is present in
the highest concentrations. Therefore, it would apparently possess the
largest potential for environmental movement via groundwater flow.
Monitoring of groundwater in the area for TCP contamination has thus far
been negative, indicating the absence of groundwater pollution from the
organic wastes. However, this monitoring does not absolutely rule out
the possibility that groundwater pollution has occurred in the past or
even is presently a problem in channelized water flows not confluent
with the monitoring wells. There are no direct scientific data available
on the soil-binding characterisitics or bioaccumulation potentials of TCP
or the other known waste organics in the disposal pit. Their common
aromatic structures would predict a high probability of similarity with
dioxin, i.e., moderate to high soil affinities and bioaccumulation
potentials. The comparatively low mammalian toxicities associated with
these chemicals, however, reduce the potential for detrimental public
health impact relative to dioxin.
Public Health Routes of Exposure
Exposure to the resident population near the site could occur
through a number of different pathways as shown on Figure 5-1. The most
probable route would be by ingestion of contaminated water or food or by
dormal or respiratory contact with contaminated soil or other particulate
matter. Accurate evaluation of the risk associated with dermal contact
with contaminated soil particles is difficult due to a lack of knowledge
regarding the partitioning characteristics of the organics, especially
5-11
-------
DIRECT HUMAN EXPOSURE
VIA DERMAL CONTACT
AND INHALATION
DEPOSITION ON CROPS-
INDIRECT HUMAN EXPOSURE
VIA INGESTION AND
BIOACCUMULATION IN GRAZING
GAME AND AGRICULTURE ANIMALS
FALL OUT
Ul
I
AIRBORNE
PARTICLES
FISH STREAMS
BIOACCUMULATION
HUMAN EXPOSURE
VIA INGESTED
FISH AND SEDIMENT
CONTACT
SURFACE EROSION OF
CONTAMINATED SOIL PARTICLES
SINK HOLE
DEVELOPMENT
COLLAPSE
POTABLE WATER CONTAMINATION
Figure 5-1. Exposure Routes of TCDD to the Public
-------
TCDD, between human skin and soil. It would undoubtedly depend upon the
degree of soil contamination, nature of pollutant mixture, soil type, and
extent of exposure. Additionally, potential for contaminated soil
movement would be maximum following soil disturbance in and over the
disposal trench. The soil would then exist in a loosely packed and
friable state, being more readily translocated by air and water. Since
the trench was covered with ground vegetation prior to the recent
opening, it is likely that soil-borne contamination has been low. Future
plans involving soil disturbance must consider control of soil-borne
spread, i.e. , dust and surface erosion control. An additional site
feature minimizing airborne spread is the density of tree and shrub
vegetation around the site that serves to retard wind and to filter'
aerial particulates.
Ingestion of food produced in the area that might be directly or
indirectly contaminated with soil-carried pollutants is also of concern.
The most probable exposure route of this sort would come from eating fish
taken from streams with contaminated sediment. Dioxins are known to
concentrate in aquatic organisms and this contamination in fact
represents a frequent indication of TCDD movement from a concentrated
source. Plants do not translocate accumulated dioxins or other
nonaqueous soluble organics in appreciable quantities. Contamination of
agricultural crops would occur via surface retention of airborne
particulates. Grazing animals could conceivably accumulate TCDD or other
dioxins from ingest ion of contaminated plants, thus serving as an
indirect human exposure source in the form of milk and meat products.
With regard to worker safety, the same routes of exposure apply.
Obviously, the risk is increased. Due to the high toxicity of TCDD
isomers, the most stringent safety procedures are warranted during
activities in and around the opened site. This includes use of fully
encapsulated rubber suits, SCBA, and thorough decontamination of
personnel and equipment as discussed in Appendix D.
Acceptable Cleanup Levels
The assessment completed during this study (Section 4) warrants
tnt.il removal of the drum contents and heavily contaminated soils.
5-13
-------
However, a determination of the acceptable TCDD level in the soil
remnants remains to be determined. Ideally, a zero-contamination level
is desired for TCDD. In view of the low mobility of this substance in
soil, this level of cleanup may be obtainable. The final decision on an
acceptable cleanup level currently is the purview of EPA. Several
factors, however, should be taken into consideration in establishing this
level, These include:
o Detectable limits of TCDD. (This will also affect sample
turnaround time.)
o Turnaround time required for sample analysis. This time directly
affects excavation and the length of time the trench must be kept
open.
o The possibility of cross-contamination due to the amount of
manpower and equipment in and around the trench.
o Mobility of dioxin in soil.
o Known acute and chronic toxicity data.
5-14
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5
1. Kociba, R. J. et al. Results of a two year chronic toxicity and
oncogenicity study of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rats.
Tox. App. Pharmacol. 46:279-303. 1977.
2. Berry, D. L., et al. Studies with chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins,
polybrominated biphenyls, and polychlorinated biphenyls in a
two-stage system of mouse skin tumorigenesis; potent
anticarcinogenic effects. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 320:405-414. 1979.
3. Smith, F.A., et al. Teratogenicity of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin in CF-1 mice. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol. 38: 517-523. 1976.
4. Barsotti, D. A., et al. Hormonal alterations in female rhesus
monkeys fed a diet containing 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
Bull. Environ. Contain. Tox. 21:463-469. 1974.
5. Courtney, D. C. Mouse teratology studies with Chloridobenzo-p-
dioxins. Bull. Environ. Contain. Tox. 16:674-681. 1976.
6. Murray, F. J. , et al. Three generation reproduction study of rats
given 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol.
50:241-252. 1979.
7. Vos, J. G., et al. Effects of 2,3.7.8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin on
the immune system laboratory animals. Environ. Hlth. Perspect.
5:125. 1973.
8. Reggiani, G. Estimation of the TCDD toxic potential in the light of
the Seveso accident. Arch. Toxicol. Suppl. 2:291-302. 1979.
9. Matsumura, F. and Benezet, H. J. Studies on the bioaccumulation and
microbial degradation of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins.
Environ. Hlth. Perspect. 5:253. 1973.
10. Helling, C. S., et al. Chlorodioxins in pesticides, soils, and
plants. J. Environ. Qual. 2: 171. 1973.
11. Kearney, P. C., et al. Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the
environment; sources, fate and decontamination. Environ. Hlth.
Perspect. 5:273. 1973.
12. Young, A. L., et al. Fate of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) in the environment; Summary and decontamination
recommendations. USAF Technical Report USAFA-TR-76-18. 1976.
5-15
-------
13. Woolson, E.A., et al. Dioxin residues in Lakeland sand and bald
eagle samples. Advances in Chemistry Series, No. 120, Chapter 12.
American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1973.
14. Crosby, D. G. , et al. Environmental generation and degradation of
dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans. Environ. Hlth. Perspect. 5:259.
1973.
5-16
-------
UNCITED REFERENCES
Bughman, Robert and Meselson, M. Analytical method for detecting'
TCDD (Dioxin); Levels of TCDD in samples from Vietnam. Environ.
Health Perspectives, No. 5:27. 1973.
Bently, P. W., Vaughn, W. K., and Neal, R. A. Effect of alteration of
rat hepatic mixed-function oxidase activity on the toxicity of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol,
45:513-519. 1978.
Crow, K. D. Effects of dioxin exposure. Lancet 2:82. 1977.
Drinking Water and Health. National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C. 1977.
Giovanne, S. Q. et al. Effects of pretreatment with 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin on the capacity of hepatic and
extra-hepatic mouse tissues to convert procarcinogens to mutagens for
Salmonello typhirium auxotrophs. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol. 50:229-239.
1979.
Goodman, L. S. and Oilman, A. E. The phartnacologic basis of
therapeutics, 5th Ed., New York: MacMillan Publishing. 1975.
Harris, M. W., et al. General biological effects of TCDD in
laboratory animals. Environmental Health Perspectives, No. 5:101.
1973.
Kenkyujo, K. G. S. Toxic and Hazardous Industrial Chemicals Safety
Manual, International Technical Information Institute. 1976.
Kimbrough, R. D. , et al. Epidemiology and pathology of the
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin poisoning episode. Arch. Environ. Health
27:77-86. 1977.
Laporte, J. R. Effects of dioxin exposure. Lancet 1:1049. 1971.
McConnell, E. E., et al. The comparative toxicity of chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins in mice and guinea pigs. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol.
44:335-356. 1978.
McConnell, et al. Toxicity of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in
rhesus monkeys following a single oral dose. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol.
43:175-18&. 1978.
Miller, R. A., et al. Toxicity of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) in aquatic organisms. Environmental Health Perspectives, No.
5:177. 1973.
Noal, R. A., et al. Studies on the mechanism of toxicity 2,3,7,8-
tPtrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Ann. N.Y., Acad. Sci. 320:204-213. 1979
5-17
-------
Patty, F. A. Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 2nd Edition, Volume 2.
York: John Wiley & Sons. 1963.
Schiffs, L. Diseases of the Liver, 4th Edition, Lippincott Publishing
Co. 1975.
Schwetz, B. A., et al. Toxicology of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins.
Environmental Health Perspective, No. 5:87. 1973.
Verschueren, K. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals.
New York: Nostrand Reinhold Co. 1977.
5-18
-------
SECTION 6
REMEDIAL APPROACH METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
In order to proceed with any remedial action for a hazardous waste
site, it is necessary to devise an appropriate methodology. The purpose
of this section is to communicate to the reader the remedial approach
methodology that has been designed by Ecology and Environment, Inc., to
determine the most effective means for solving the waste disposal problem
at Denny Farm Site 1. This methodology is summarized in Figure 6-1.
Application of the methodology to the specific situation at Denny Farm
Site 1 will be found in Sections 7 and 8 of this report.
STATING THE OBJECTIVE
As with any task, the most important—though often the most
frequently forgotten—first step is setting the task's objective. Simply
stated: What is the desired result of the work that will be done in this
task? The answer to that question is critical. Without it, the specific
work to be done cannot be determined. Furthermore, the more specific the
answer is, i.e., the more specific the statement of the objective, the
more helpful it is in determining the work to be done.
A simple example will make the above notion clear. There is a vast
difference between the following statements of an objective for Denny
Farm Site 1:
o Objective A: To clean up Denny Farm Site 1
o Objective B: To remove TCDD and associated
contaminated material from the
environment at Denny Farm Site 1
Objective A is clearly too vague. "To clean up" can mean many
different things, e.g., to dig up and remove the drums that were dumped
at Denny Farm Site 1; and then to fill up the pit, level the site, and
6-1
-------
SITE
IDENTIFI-
CATION
AND
INVESTI-
GATION
STATEMENT
OF
REMEDIAL
OBJECTIVE
INVESTI-
GATION
OF MEANS
TO ACHIEVE
OBJECTIVE
MEANS
• STORAGE
• TREATMENT
• DISPOSAL
K>
DETERMI-
NATION OF
METHODS
\
ELIMINATED
METHODS
REMAINING
AVAILABLE
METHODS
'/ X XX / / /
X FILTERING OF/
X SELECTED X,
X METHODS X
'/ THROUGH X
'/ SELECTION '/
\Ss CRITERIA 'A
CRITERIA
• PROVEN TECH
• RISK
• TIME
• COST
• LEGAL
RAMIFICATIONS
Figure 6-1. Flow of Remedial Approach Methodology
-------
plant grass. "To clean up" can be defined any way one wants to de-
fine it.
Objective B is much more specific and paradoxically calls for a more
far reaching and widespread delineation of subtasks (specific work) for
its accomplishment.
Stating the objective is, therefore, of paramount importance and the
sine qua non first step of a remedial approach methodology.
DETERMINING THE MEANS
Once the objective has been clearly stated, the next step is to
determine the means for achieving the objective. In the instance at
hand, those means have been determined by Federal regulation.
The Federal Register (Volume 45, Number 98) of 19 May 1980 presents
three means that are legally available for the management of hazardous
waste materials: disposal, storage, and treatment. Thus, any remedial
approach for the handling of hazardous waste materials is limited to one
or a combination of these three federally regulated means.
These legal means are defined as follows:
o Disposal: "the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,
spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or
hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that
such solid waste or hazardous waste or any
constituent thereof may enter the environment or be
emitted into the air or discharged into any waters,
including ground waters (sic)."
o Storage: "the holding of hazardous waste for a temporary
period, at the end of which the hazardous waste is
treated, disposed of, or stored elsewhere."
o Treatment: "any method, technique, or process, including
neutralization, designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition of
any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such waste,
or so as to recover energy or material resources
6-3
-------
from the waste, or so as to render such waste
non-hazardous, or less hazardous; safer to
transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for
recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in
volume."
Thus, at present, anyone involved in providing a remedial approach
for solving problems arising from hazardous wastes has the means defined
by Federal regulation.
METHODS
With the means for remedying a hazardous waste problem established,
various methods to be used in each one of the means can be examined. As
might be expected, methods are extremely varied and of greater or lesser
complexity.
Without attempting to be exhaustive, several methods can be listed
here for each of the available means noted above.
Disposal
The definition of disposal as given in the Federal Register cited
above really appears to cover a variety of disposals: accidental,
careless, intentionally destructive, and controlled. Obviously, in
discussing disposal as a remedial approach, one is talking about
controlled disposal. The definition also suggests some of the methods
needed in the use of this remedial means:
o excavation
o transportation
o burial
Connected with controlled disposal is the notion of a disposal
facility. "Disposal facility" is defined by the Federal regulations as:
"a facility or part of a facility at which hazardous waste is
intentionally placed into or on any land or water, and at which waste
will remain after closure."
6-4
-------
Storage
When storage is being explored as a possible means for remedying a
hazardous waste problem, a number of potential methods can be given
consideration: on-site or off-site storage, above-ground or underground
storage, type of storage facility, etc. Each of these presents it own
set of methodological components, for example:
o engineering design
o excavation
o structure design
o construction
Treatment
The presently available methods for the treatment of hazardous waste
materials are three:
o chemical, e.g., UV photolysis
o biological, e.g., biodegradation
o physical, e.g., incineration
CRITERIA
Once the means and various methods have been listed, it is necessary
to apply certain criteria which further delineate the appropriateness of
any one or combination of means. The criteria are applied to the methods
that comprise the means. At a minimum, the following criteria are
applicable:
o proven technology
o risk
o time
o cost
o legal ramifications
Proven Technology
The question that must always be asked is whether a technology that
is being presented for solving the problem is proven, i.e., is there
sufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that it works effectively.
6-5
-------
For example, is it accepted by the scientific community that UV
photolysis is an effective method for the treatment of
dioxin-contaminated waste?
Risk
Whatever the remedial approach that is being considered, a risk
analysis must be performed that takes into account the methods under
study. The purpose of this risk analysis is to answer satisfactorily
questions that arise concerning the health and safety of the public and
the protection of the environment.
Time
This criterion must be applied in order to ascertain whether the
methods being considered can be used and still meet any time constraints
placed upon the remedial approach in the statement of the objective. For
example, if the objective states that certain results must be
accomplished within sixty days, any method under consideration requiring
more than sixty days would be eliminated (unless the time requirement
stated in the objective is changed).
Cost
The need to apply this criterion is obvious and needs no
explanation.
Legal Ramifications
When considering any method in a remedial approach to a hazardous
waste site, Federal, State, and local regulations must be investigated
and applied. Again, the criterion is obvious.
Once the various remedial approaches and methods have been subjected
to scrutiny by the application of agreed upon criteria, some means and
methods will undoubtedly be eliminated for application to a particular
site. The remaining available means and methods may then undergo
whatever discussions are deemed necessary to arrive at an appropriate and
acceptable approach for the required remedial operation.
6-6
-------
SECTION 7
EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This section contains the results of an evaluation of the remedial
action alternatives potentially available for removing the TCDD waste and
associated contaminated material at Denny Farm Site 1 from the
environment. In accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), 40 CFR 260, there are several general means for dealing with
hazardous waste: disposal, storage, and treatment. A number of methods
are possible in each of these categories, and the method chosen for
dealing with any particular uncontrolled hazardous waste site is
dependent on site-specific conditions and the objectives of the planners
involved. The objective of the project, as directed by the EPA, was the
development of a remedial action plan, in conjunction with an engineering
assessment of Denny Farm Site 1, to minimize and/or eliminate the impact
to the public and the environment from the TCDD-contaminated waste at the
site.
During the course of this study, the available methods for meeting
this objective were first evaluated in relation to the environmental and
demographic characteristics of Denny Farm Site 1 and the characteristics
of the waste material buried in the trench. Further evaluation criteria
were applied to various methods depending on their compatibility with the
site and waste characteristics. These criteria included cost, risk,
time, proven technology, and legal ramifications.
Table 7-1 presents a summary of the alternative remedial action
methods, along with the various selection criteria (generic and site
specific) that were investigated for each method. Evaluation continued
until a criterion indicated that the method in question should not be
further considered. The asterisks on the table indicate that the
particular criterion was considered, but in no way do the asterisks
indicate whether that investigation was carried out to completion. Also,
no weight has been assigned to the asterisks with respect to positive or
negative impact on the particular remedial method.
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL ACTION METHODS
EVALUATION CRITERIA
METHOD
Site Waste Proven
Charac. Charac. Tech. Cost Risk Time Legal Other
Disposal
As is *
Monitoring wells *
Designated facilities
Deep well injection
In-situ containment *
* *
* *
* * * *
* * * *
* * *
Treatment
U.V. photolysis
Solidification (Chemical)
Biological treatment
Incineration—land
Incineration—ocean
Encapsulation
Carbon
Solidification
(Physical)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Storage
Designated facilities
On-site
^Indicates that the particular criterion was considered, but in no way does it
me.in that investigation was carried out to completion.
7-2
-------
Definitions
The following definitions are quoted from 40 CFR 260 (l).
"Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,
spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into
or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or
any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the
air or discharged into any waters, including groundwaters.
"Storage" means the holding of hazardous waste for a temporary
period, at the end of which the hazardous waste is treated, disposed of,
or stored elsewhere.
"Treatment" means any method, technique, or process, including
neutralization, designed to change the physical, chemical, or biological
character or composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize such
waste, or so as to recover energy or material resources from the waste,
or so as to render such waste non-hazardous, or less hazardous; safer to
transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for recovery, amenable for
storage, or reduced in volume.
Required Information
The complexities of any given site are such that site-specific
remedial actions must be developed. First of all, basic information is
required to characterize the site with respect to existing and potential
hazards both to workers and the public.
Identification of the wastes present, whether from records, actual
chemical analysis, or investigation will provide some insight as to the
options available. The waste at Denny Farm Site 1 has been identified
through a combination of investigation and chemical analysis as
TCDD-contaminated waste from a hexachlorophene-manufacturing process (see
Appendix A). The quantity of waste within the disposal trench has been
estimated at approximately 150 drums without an established
concentration.
In determining the existing and potential hazards, it is essential
to have information on the toxicological effects on human beings, flora,
and fauna, in addition to information on the environmental fate of the
wastes involved. TCDD has a high acute toxicity, is mutagenic, and has
been considered to be very persistent and to bioaccumulate in animals.
7-3
-------
The mobility of a compound in the environment is determined by the
physical and chemical characteristics of the compound in question as well
as those of the environment.
The hydrology and geology of the area in which an uncontrolled
hazardous waste site is located may either help or hinder remedial
actions. The intricate relationship of the two must be carefully
scrutinized to determine the existence or probability of migration of the
contaminant off site.
Aurora, Missouri, is located in an area known for its karat
geology, which is characterized by solution cavities and the free mixing
of surface and groundwater. Additionally, the soils in the area consist
of clay lenses and cherty soils with as much as a 30% gravel content.
Therefore, it is highly probable that the retention of liquids in the
soil matrix is quite low.
Indirect geophysical methods have been used to define the limits of
the disposal trench at Denny Farm Site 1. These tests have confirmed the
shape of the trench and its approximate depth and have indicated that
lateral migration beyond the trench walls has not occurred. The vertical
migration of the chemical waste and/or leachate has not been determined
to date. The negative results obtained from the borings and indirect
geophysical measurements should not be construed to indicate that
vertical migration has not occurred.
REMEDIAL APPROACH
The remedial approach initially entails a review of available means
and those methods applicable to each means that have a potential
application to the uncontrolled hazardous waste si,.? in question.
Consideration of off-site versus on-site methods and existing versus new
facilities must be taken into account during the evaluation of the means
and methods (Figure 7-1).
This section reviews the methods evaluated and provides the reasons
for eliminating those which are not appropriate for Denny Farm Site 1.
Those methods which were singled out for more in-depth review are
discussed in the next section.
7-4
-------
Ul
f^
Y
I
LEAVE IN PLACE
|_
^
REMOVE WASTE MATERIAL ^
i
NO [-- RISKS
'
t
I _.
IMMOBILIZE ft °N
STABILIZE IN SITU
1
1
— ^
"^^
1 YES
|
Y
SITE ALTERNATIVI
t
STORAGE |
r Y
r LONG-TERM |SHORT-1
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING
t t
FEASIBLE? |-
f
YES |
r-[ CHEMICAL H F
-{BIOLOGICAL ~* ' TREAT
-{ PHYSICAL hJ |
t
•^ FEASI
1
MENT
BLE? /
/
jH YES HH NO '
1
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
ON-SITE FEASIBLE
virc .•<- ,1 ,.w MO
/+
•\S
Y» FINALIZE &
^^
^ IMPLEMENT PLAN ^
[--- RISKS
1
r
ES p»- OFF-SITE ALTERNATIVES
Y
STORAGE |
Y
PERM LONG-TERM |
V
t
SHORT-TERM |
t
a r FEASIBLE? [-3,
Y Y
WO h YES |
1
T
NO J-J
i
/ TREATMENT)—
*~\ UMtMIUAL |
/ *-| BIOLOGICAL |
/
/ \**\ PHYSICAL
CCACIRI ft 1 —
rtAolDLCf l —
T
H YES [— H NO
Y
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
OFF-SITE FEASIBLE
h
H
>
^B
STORAGE
Figure 7-1. Evaluation of Alternatives for Remedial Action
-------
Disposal
Disposal may be achieved by any number of methods; however, in all
cases, the potential release of the waste to the environment must be
considered.
A. Uncontrolled Disposal
The two possibilities considered included (1) no action and (2)
leaving the waste buried but installing monitoring wells. Use of
monitoring wells to identify off-site migration would be contingent upon
a complete geohydrological investigation of the area to determine the
proper siting of these wells. Use of this approach would also be
contingent upon the fact that the wells were indeed properly sited and
could detect any off-site migration of contaminants.
These two options offer no protection to the environment or to the
population at risk and at best offer an early warning system comprised of
monitoring wells. Since this approach is not in line with the objective
as set forth by the EPA, this method has been eliminated.
B. Controlled Disposal
Controlled disposal is carried out in designated federal, state, or
private facilities which meet a minimum requirement of primary
containment. This containment may consist of one or more of the
following: synthetic liners, grouts, slurry walls, or natural
soils. The facilities operate under the RCRA guidelines.
The majority of commercially designated facilites have refused to
accept the waste either because of the facility design or the public and
political sensitivities associated with receiving TCCD-contaminated
waste. Although several facilities did agree to consider accepting the
waste, this avenue is not currently being pursued (Table 7-2).
Det;p well injection is a controlled disposal method currently
employed at various locations throughout the continental United States.
It must be emphasized that the geohydrological status of the area must be
sufficiently determined prior to the use of this method. Although this
method releases hazardous waste to the environment, it does so at such
depths and locations that these wastes are not expected to contaminate
groundwater resources utilized by the public.
7-6
-------
TABLE 7-2
COMMERCIAL STORAGE/DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Company and Address
Contact
Comments
Newcn Chemical Waste System
of Ohio
5092 Aber Road
Williamburg, Ohio
Mjtch McGee,
Tech. Rep.
(513) 793-3090
Landfill can handle dioxm-contaminated waste.
Will not dispose of liquids or sludge (Minimum
flashpoint of 150°). Ohio EPA approves
disposal on case-by-case basis.
New Chemical Waste System, Inc.
4526 Royal Avenue
Niagara Falls, New York
Waste Management of Alabama,
Inc.
P.O. Box 1200
Livingston, Alabama
(716) 285-6929
(716) 731-3281
Ed Brashier
(205) 652-9531
Will handle dioxin (see above).
proves disposal.
New Yoi k ap-
AIthough the facility design is such that
diox in-contaminated waste could be taken,
political and public relation aspects are
deterrents to acceptance
SCA Chemical Services, Inc.
1500 Ralmer Road
Model City, New York 14107
Wes-Con, Inc.
P.O. Box 564
Twin Falls, Idado
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1269
Portland, Oregon 97205
Casmalia Disposal
539 Ysidso Road
P.O. Box 5275
Snnta Barbara, California
93108
(716) 754-8231
(208) 834-2275
Sandy Davis
(503) 223-1912
Jim McBnde
(805) 969-4703
Does not handle diox in-cont ammat ed waste.
Will not handle dioxin.
Will not handle dioxin wastes.
Will handle dioxin-contam mated waste. State
has not approved out-of-state shipments of
d i ox i n.
Nurleni Engineering Company
9200 Shelbyville Road
Louisville, Kentucky 40207
(Site is located in Realty,
Npvada)
Knllms (Tnvi i onment al Sei vices,
Inc.
21)27 Battleground Road
View Paik, Texas 77536
Hi owning FPIiis Industries,
Inc. (BFI)
1020 llolcomhe Road
Houston, Texas 77030
Kamm Industrial fnviionmental
')PI V ir-f!!J
Wirhitn, Kansas 67201
Vicki L ynn
(502) 426-7160
Rolen Cains
(713) 479-6001
(713) 790-1611
State approval for acceptance of dioxm-con-
taminated material is not forthcoming because
of political ramifications. Therefore, the
facility will not accept the waste.
Will not handle dioxin or dioxin-cnnt ami narpd
wastes.
Does not handle dioxm-contaminated waste.
Does not dispose of diox in-contaminated materials;
however, it has experience in transportation nf
materials.
7-7
-------
Although deep well injection is widely practiced, its use for
disposing of such a toxic material as TCDD is questionable. Currently
there are no facilities specifically permitted for handling dioxins. As
a result, this method cannot be considered for the waste at Denny Farm
Site 1.
Controlled disposal by in-situ containment of waste must prevent
the waste or any constituent thereof from entering the groundwater,
surface water, and air (2,3). Such a concept involves surface runoff
control, capping or surface sealing, and impermeable barriers. Surface
runoff control may be implemented via proper engineering design of dikes,
berms, ditches, channels, culverts, surface stabilization, subsurface
interceptor drains and/or any combination of the above. This control
seeks to minimize surface infiltration into the disposal trench by
diverting water away from the trench.
Capping and sealing of the disposal trench surface eliminate
airborne contamination and minimize infiltration caused by precipitation
(2). Proper grading also enhances surface runoff. This seal and/or cap
may consist of any one or combination of the following: synthetic liner
material, fly ash, oils, soil-cement, lime stabilized soil, bituminous
concrete and asphalt/tar materials.
Impermeable barriers constructed of bentonite, slurry, cement or
chemical grouts, or sheet piling can be installed vertically to prevent
off-site migration of leachate and contaminated groundwater and to divert
non-contaminated groundwater around or away from the disposal trench.
Construction involves drilling, boring, pressure injection, pile driving
and excavation. These methods are applied to those sites which have an
impermeable layer whether it be low porosity soils such as clay or
continuous bedrock.
In-situ containment was not considered feasible for the following
reasons:
o Lack of data on the subsurface condition below the trench
floor, as well as the possibility for disturbance of the
geological structure and stability of the bedrock below the
trench. Concerns for fractures, piping, and increasing
contaminant migration have been raised.
7-8
-------
o The quantity and type of sealant needed to isolate the trench
was deemed highly speculative because of the karst conditions
and the effects of the organic wastes may have on the
sealants. Although it is realized that sealant selection is
contingent upon waste identification, that identification has
not been completed to date.
Therefore, in-situ containment is not considered further due to time
limits and problems with the feasibility of applying the technology.
Treatment
Although removal of the material from the enviroment is the
short-term objective of the project, treatment must be considered at some
time so that indefinite storage is not required. The following treatment
technologies have been investigated in relation the their applicability
to Denny Farm Site 1.
A. Chemical Treatment
Ultraviolet photolysis of TCDD is a potentially promising method of
treatment. Three conditions are required for significant TCDD
breakdown: dissolution in a light-transmitting (307 nanometers) liquid
film, the presence of an organic hydrogen donor such as a solvent, and
irradiation with ultraviolet light (4,5).
This process is currently under development by three firms:
Syntex Agribusiness, Inc., Westgate Research, and Vertac, Inc. The
Syntex process has received U.S. EPA approval as a treatment method for
dioxin and is presently undergoing testing at the Syntex facility in
Verona, Missouri (6,7,8,9). TCDD is not totally eliminated by this
process. Residual concentrations approximating 500,000 ppt, in addition
to other waste products, are generated by this process.
Vertac, Inc., of Jacksonville, Arkansas, has developed a process
for treating and/or destroying dioxin. Vertac, Inc., has indicated that
Vertac has filed a patent application for the process, which has been
successfully demonstrated Co the State of Arkansas and the EPA (10).
Commercial availability is anticipated by Vertac.
7-9
-------
A treatment process that uses ultraviolet irradiation in
conjunction with ozonization has been developed by Westgate Research (11)
for the detoxification of chlorinated organics. Westgate furnishes a
portable treatment system, thus enabling wastes to be treated on site.
For treatment in the Westgate process, the liquid waste does not have to
be clear; it may contain some color or sediment. Further, it may be
feasible to extract the dioxin from contaminated sludge waste with a
solvent such as methanol prior to treatment. As with the Syntex process,
the Westgate process operates at low temperature and pressure; thus the
potential for release to the environment is minimized.
The Westgate process is presently being tested for the
decontamination of PCB-containing oils for the General Electric Resistors
facility at Hudson Falls, New York. Tests to date have been successful,
with 99 percent removal achieved. The system was also tested
successfully for the detoxification of bottom sediments contaminated with
kepone in Hopewell, Virginia. These tests were done for an EPA task
force investigating alternative mitigative measures (12).
Ultraviolet photolysis appears to be a feasible, environmentally
sound, and safe means of treating the TCDD content of at least the liquid
portion of the waste at the Denny Farm Site 1. The possibility of
treating the sludges and soils after extraction is not viable at this
time. Although photolysis of chlorodioxins has appeared in research
articles and is known within the scientific community, its acceptance as
i \
a proven technology is limited. As previously mentioned, there are at
least three commercial firms developing this treatment method. In all
cases the methods are classified as proprietary and therefore not
available to the authors of this report. As a result, treatment
efficiencies, byproducts, and disposal and/or storage of these by-
products could not be evaluated in this report. However, this is not to
preclude future considerations of this alternative.
The chemical solidification of waste involves a chemical reaction
between the waste and the solidifying agent. The proper selection of a
solidification agent is dependent upon a thorough chemical analysis of
the waste in question. In each case, one must consider short-term and
7-10
-------
long-terra stability of the matrix and the propensity towards leaching
into the environment. Cement-based solidification techniques cannot be
used with particular organic matter because of interference with set,
cure, and permanence of the cement-waste matrix. Lime-based applications
cannot be considered because the porosity of the final material would
inevitably allow the TCDD-contaminated material to leach. Thermoplastics
solidification was also considered, but available literature indicates
that this procedure should not be used for solidifying materials
containing organic solvents or wastes which may break down when heated
(13). Organic polymer techniques, although applicable to a broader range
of compounds, involve the mixing of waste material with the organics
followed by a chemical reaction between the various resins, catalysts,
and waste. The waste must be properly dried prior to the process since
the resultant solidified matrix has a tendency to weep or release any
uncombined water. This water is often laden with pollutants.
Biological treatment through commercially available mutant
microorganisms is an established and proven technology for certain
applications—food processing, waste treatment, and limited subsurface
hydrocarbon spills (14). In each case the basic requirement for the
existence of the microorganism in the environment has been predetermined.
The commercially available organism mixture known as Phenobac has been
demonstrated to effectively biodegrade 2,3,5,-trichlorophenol and
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene, which are known to be present in the wastes
at Denny Farm Site 1. However, the other components of the waste at the
site may be toxic to Phenobac. In addition, the demonstrated destruction
efficiencies of 100% for 2,3,5-trichlorophenol and 80% for
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene were based on experiments in a controlled
environment in concrete pits (15). Data indicating positive results and
reinforcing a proven technology for application to uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites have not been produced. The material at Denny Farm Site 1
cannot be left in the ground to await the development of a mixture of
organisms specific to the waste at this site. However, testing of the
microorganism for applicability to the waste is recommended and can be
accomplished during removal and sampling the drums.
7-11
-------
B. Physical Treatment
Physical treatment methods are also available for dealing with
hazardous wastes. Incineration is a process in which organic materials
are degraded via the application of controlled heat. This degradation
occurs through the thermal oxidation of the organic molecule. Inorganic
constituents may not be affected. The proper method of incineration must
be selected based upon certain considerations: waste components,
physical characteristics, residence time, temperature requirements and
destruction efficiencies (16).
The TCDD-contaminated material at the Denny Farm Site 1 consists of
liquid waste, tarry still bottoms, and soil. Incineration of dioxin
requires a temperature of 2,300°F to 2,600°F and a residence
time of 5 seconds (16).
Land-based incineration provides the feasibility of on-site
treatment through the possible use of a mobile unit currently under
construction for the EPA by NB Associates of San Remon, California, and
was scheduled for completion by August 1980. Any on-site application
will be subject to initial testing and permitting (17).
A thorough investigation of incineration facilities throughout the
United States reveals that none are willing to burn dioxin and the
associated contaminated materials at this time (2). Currently, there are
no permits issued for the specific purpose of incinerating dioxin and the
dioxin-contaminated material. Such a permitting program, similiar in
scope to the PCB program, would provide the criteria upon which private
industry could develop facilities to handle the incineration as a
land-based operation. Although a modular unit is under construction for
the EPA, test burns have yet to be conducted. The two byproducts of this
process, scrubber residue and ash, must be dealt with. In summary, the
lack of land-based facilities eliminates this particular method for
consideration this time.
The only documented burn of dioxin-contaminated material is that of
Herbicide Orange incinerated in the Pacific Ocean west of Johnston Atoll
from July to September 1977. The burns were performed on board the M/T
Vulcanus, an incinerator ship chartered by Ocean Combustion Services,
7-12
-------
B.V. , of the Netherlands (19). The wastes were burned in two identical
refractory-lined incincerators with a calculated residence time of
approximately 1 second at a flame temperature between 2,372 °F and
2,732 ° F (2). Results of EPA calculations from the test burns were
promising since they indicated a minimum destruction efficiency of 99.96%
(2). However, the destruction efficiency during actual incineration
could not be determined because no traceable amounts of TCDD were
detected in the stack samples.
The potential problems with incineration at sea are based upon the
fact that traces of TCDD and related compounds were found in incinerator
residues and within stack residues despite the undetectable levels in the
stack emissions. Also, the M/T Vulcanus incinerators are not equipped
with scrubbers on the premise that many of the materials that would be
pollutants if emitted from land-based incineration are greatly diluted by
the ocean where they are natural constituents.
Ocean-based incineration costs are much lower than land-based
operations—$80 to $90 per metric ton. However, transportation and
storage costs must be added to obtain the total costs, and time must be
considered. The EPA has proposed the possibility of employing the M/T
Vulcanus for the incineration of dioxin-contaminated herbicides during
the spring of 1981 (2). This is an option for the liquid phase
contaminants but not for the contaminated soils or other debris.
Encapsulation is the process by which hazardous wastes are
physically enclosed by a synthetic encasement to facilitate
environmentally sound transport, storage and disposal. As a remedial
action, encapsulation may be used to seal particularly toxic or corrosive
hazardous wastes which have been removed from disposal sites.
Theoretically, encapsulation appears to be a viable answer for
dealing with the waste once it has been excavated and removed from the
disposal trench. However, the major disadvantage is that the process has
yet to be applied on a commercial scale under actual field conditions.
Additionally, the binding resins required for this process are expensive
and the process requires large expenditures for energy and capital
equipment costs. For these reasons, this approach is not being
considered further.
7-13
-------
Carbon treatment utilizes the physical phenomena of absorption and
adsorption. This technology was developed for water purification and
chemical processes, but recent applications have emerged for response to
chemical spills in surface water and groundwater. However, application
of carbon is dependent upon the physical and chemical characteristics of
the waste in question. Carbon treatment may not be appropriate for the
viscous, tarry, still bottoms at Denny Farm Site 1. The waste at the
site would coat the carbon material and reduce the efficiency of the
system to the point where it would not be feasible to use. In theory,
this particular treatment would remove the TCDD from a quantity of waste
and concentrate the TCDD in the carbon. Although this may reduce the
bulk volume of the waste containing TCDD, the TCDD component must still
be dealt with. The time constraints with respect to removal of the
material from the ground prohibit consideration of this approach to the
waste itself. It may be possible to use it to process wastewater for
decontamination of personnel and equipment during the handling of the
contaminated material.
Physical solidification involves a number of techniques designed to
seal the wastes in a hard, stable, immobile mass. High costs are
associated with this process, and a thorough chemical identification of
the waste is necessary. These waste-specific processes are not
applicable to all liquid wastes and must be thoroughly evaluated for each
waste.
This application involves physically surrounding the waste
particles with a solidifying agent. Short-term fixation is achievable in
some cases; however, long-term prelections for the stability of the
material must be made via ageing and other tests (20). Consideration
must also be given to the potential future release of waste material
before this method is chosen. Common methods include use of cement,
lime, thermoplastics or organic polymers; self-cementation; and
glassification.
Solidification of a hazardous waste is primarily used to insure the
safe handling and transport of the waste. The application of this
technology for some hazardous wastes has been proven. In this
7-14
-------
case, however, there is concern about the interaction of the organic
content of the waste with the solidifying agent(s). Although the
technology has been in existence for some time, its application to
hazardous waste is a recent innovation and therefore may require
additional research (21).
Storage
Storage involves the holding of the properly containerized material
over a period of time in such a manner as to remove the material from the
environment. This method may have both on- and off-site applications.
Operators of designated storage/disposal facilities were contacted
initially to determine their storage capabilities and willingness to
accept the TCDD-contaminated waste and soils. Existing facilities would
certainly eliminate the need for construction of an on-site structure,
thus saving time and decreasing capital investment.
Naturally, prerequisites to storage at commercial facilites are
excavation, temporary storage, and transportation. The first two areas
are dealt with in Section 8, while transportation via commercial
permitted carriers would have to be investigated beyond the limits of
this report. The waste and associated contaminated material would have
to be properly containerized in Department of Transportation (DOT)
approved hazardous waste drums. In addition to federal regulations,
transporters would have to comply with applicable state regulations based
upon the routes of transportation chosen. The commercial facilities
which were contacted and their replies are given in Table 7-2. The
replies obtained from the commercial facilities indicated that an on-site
storage structure would have to be considered in the conceptual
design stages of the remedial approach (Table 7-2). Standard approaches
such as tanks, buildings, etc., as well as innovative approaches, will be
reviewed. At a minimum, a viable concept at this time would have to
accommodate the anticipated volume of waste material to be stored, have
structural integrity consistent with the potential hazards posed by the
release of the materials, and meet the requirements of applicable codes
and regulations.
7-15
-------
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Application of the generic selection criteria (proven technology,
time, cost, risk, legal constraints) and site-specific criteria (site and
waste characteristics) have eliminated a substantial number of potential
remedial action methods. Storage and treatment and/or a combination of
both are the remaining viable means, and both of these require removal of
the waste and associated contaminated material from the disposal trench.
A logical sequence of events would involve excavation of the
material with immediate temporary storage until such time as treatment,
disposal, or permanent storage are available. Section 8 of this report
presents criteria for the excavation and storage methods proposed for
Denny Farm Site 1. These two phases are prerequisite to the application
of any treatment method. The most promising treatment methods are
chemical treatment by ultraviolet photolysis and physical treatment by
incineration. These are not yet available commercially and require full
investigation at some future date.
7-16
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7
1. Federal Register, Volume 45, No. 98, 33073-33067.
2. Ecology & Environment,Inc. Remedial Action for Denny Farm Site 1
Aurora, Missouri - A Working Paper. Washington, D.C., June 1980.
3. Ecology & Environment, Inc. Technical Study and Remedial Actions
for Denny Farm Site 1, Aurora, Missouri. Washington, B.C., July
1980.
4. Crosby, D. G. and Wong, A. S. "Photodecomposition of Chlorinated
Dibenzo-p-Dioxins," in Science. Volume 173, 748-749, 1971.
5. Crosby, D. G. and Wong A. S. "Environmental Degradation of 2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)," in Science, Volume 195,
1337-1338, 1977.
6. Personal communication with Howard Beard, Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., June 12, 1980. (202) 755-9205.
7. Inside EPA, Inside Washington Publishers, Inc., Washington, D.C.,
May 30, 1980.
8. Personal communication with Scott Ritchey, Region VII, U.S. EPA,
Kansas City, Missouri, June 13, 1980. (816) 374-6534.
9. Personal communication with Russ Wyer, Deputy Director of Oil and
Specialty Materials, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., June 12, 1980.
(202) 245-3048.
10. Wilcox, Jack, TAIL, Region IX, memo to Jim Buchanan, FITL, Region
VII, June 12, 1980.
11. Personal communication with Jack Zeff, President, Watergate
Research, Inc., Santa Monica, California, June 16, 1980. (213)
473-4541.
12. Personal communication with Charles Terrel, U.S. EPA, Aquatic
Protection, Washington, D.C. (202) 472-3400.
13. U.S. EPA. Survey of Solidification/Stabilization Technology for
Hazardous Industrial Wastes, EPA-600, 2-79-056, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1979.
14. Personal communication with Michele Telepchak, Sybron/Biochemical
Corporation of America, Technical Data Sheets, Farmingham, N.Y.
1979-1980.
15. Wilkinson, R. R., Kelso, G. L. , and Hopkins, F. C. State-of-the-
Art Report: Pesticide Disposal Research. EPA-600/2-7B-183, August
1978.
7-17
-------
16. U.S. EPA. Incineration in Hazardous Waste Management Publication.
SW 141, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, 1975.
17. Personal communication with E. Martin, U.S. EPA Oil & Special
Materials Control Division, Washington, D.C., August 27, 1980.
(202) 755-9203.
18. Personal communication with Steven Dorreler, U.S. EPA Emergency
Response Team, Edison, New Jersey, June 25, 1980.
19. Stevens, J. J., Grumpier, E., and Shin, C. C. "Thermal Destruction
of Chemical Waste," Presented at 71st annual meeting of AICE,
November 14, 1978.
20. U.S. EPA. Survey of Solidification/Stabilization Technology for
Hazardous Wastes. EPA-600/2-79-056. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
21. Personal communication with Robert B. Pojasek, Ray F. Weston,
Woburn, Massachusetts, June 1980.
7-18
-------
SECTION 8
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
This section discusses in detail the conceptual design recommended
for cleanup of the Denny Farm Site 1. It provides the general concept
for gaining control of the TCDD-contaminated waste and presents the
basis for Ecology & Environment, Inc.'s (E & E's) recommendations. Each
component of the remedial action is discussed and cost estimates are made
for the elements. Preliminary drawings are provided which illustrate the
sequence of events. Finally, the total cost and time associated with the
completion of the components of the remedial action are presented.
E & E has concluded from the prior studies of options for gaining
control of the TCDD-contaminated waste that, in the short term, the drums
of waste and the contaminated soil must be removed from the disposal
trench and placed in temporary storage. This recommendation is supported
by:
o The human toxicity of TCDD.
o The confirmed presence of TCDD.
o Poor condition of the barrels in the trench.
o Geological and hydrological conditions of the area which
contribute to significant uncertainty of the integrity of the
trench bottom and suggest the possibility of vertical
migration of contaminants into the subsurface formation and
groundwater.
o Risk of human exposure by leaving material in the trench is
significantly higher than removing.
8-1
-------
Both the release of toxic material from uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites and the remedial actions taken to deal with them pose certain
risks to the environment and to the public. E & E performed an analysis
of the risk of exposure in numerical terms for the public. This analysis
compared the the risk of several alternative remedial actions to the
option of taking no action.
A detailed discussion of the E & E risk model is contained in
Appendix B. A review of Table B-l indicates that a combined total human
exposure of 121.6 occurs if absolutely nothing else is done to the Denny
Farm Site 1 other than acknowledge its existence. The mere presence of
monitoring wells reduces this figure to 53.7 exposures (predicated on
monitoring wells which will intercept any release of contaminants). The
importance of proper well location, if possible, in a karst geological
setting cannot be over emphasized. A further reduction in exposures, and
the lowest value, occurs from the implementation of the recommended
remedial action of excavation and on-site storage. This value is 48.3
exposures and is primarily due to short-term worker exposure.
The off-site transportation of the waste to the Verona, Missouri,
facility offers a slightly increased element of risk (48.7 exposures)
because the population at risk increases with the inclusion of the
transportation route and the population in Verona, as well as the
production employees. This analysis lends credence to the decision for
undertaking the recommended remedial action.
The temporary storage on site provides the flexibility of utilizing
treatment technologies in the future such as ultraviolet photolysis.
The remedial action consists of four major components:
1. Temporary storage facility
2. Site setup and mobilization
3. Excavation
4. Site closure
As presented, each component is a product of a refinement process
in which engineering and cost estimating techniques were applied in an
effort to obtain the most practical and cost-effective option. The costs
were developed for each individual component based on data obtained from
a limited number of potential suppliers and contractors, estimating
manuals, price lists, and knowledge of local costs for labor and
8-2
-------
materials (1) (See also List of Contacts following References). Where
appropriate, these base costs were adjusted to reflect the hazardous
nature of the project by adding a premium to the costs for labor and
equipment usage.
The design concept will be discussed in the sequence in which the
individual components must be executed. In many cases the component is a
set of engineering procedures rather than an actual design element, thus
making the remedial action an integrated process. Each component will
have criteria defined, elements identified, and cost and activity time
estimated.
COMPONENT 1. TEMPORARY STORAGE FACILITY
To establish control over the waste materials and to provide
acceptable storage until final disposition is determined, a temporary
storage structure must be constructed. On-site storage has been selected
because there are no immediate facilities nationally that will handle
dioxin-contaminated wastes. Thus, the risks of exposure through
transport to a distant storage facility cannot be considered at this
time. On-site storage is the most reasonable approach since it limits
the handling and transportation to a minimum until the final disposition
of the waste is determined.
The storage facility is comprised of two units: foundation and
structure.
Foundation
Preliminary geotechnical investigations of the area indicate that
sinkhole development could threaten the stability of a storage structure.
Two alternative foundations were considered: a structural slab
constructed on bedrock and a structural slab constructed on grade
supported by a system of grade beams supported by caissons which extend
into the bedrock. For estimating purposes, the structural slab on
bedrock and the caisson-grade beam system were designed to span a sink-
hole 40 feet in diameter. The caisson-grade beam alternative was chosen
because it was more economical. The detailed design effort would include
a geotechnical study for purposes of selecting a site where risk of sink-
hole formation is low and determining the placement of the caissons.
8-3
-------
For considering foundation requirements, the storage facility
should be located near the disposal trench on the Denny Farm. This would
minimize the risks associated with transportation. The cost for a
foundation is somewhat proportional to the amount of overburden on the
bedrock; therefore, an area with minimal overburden should be selected.
For this analysis, the assumption was made that a location with only 12
feet of overburden above the bedrock would be used. The proposed
location should not be subject to flooding.
Structure
Two structural systems were considered: a reinforced concrete
system and a steel system. The steel system is similar to the systems
employed for standpipe water storage tanks. Both systems can be designed
to resist natural phenomena, have an expected life in excess of 20 years,
and are resistant to fire and unauthorized entry.
However, the steel plate structure offers several additional
advantages over and above the reinforced concrete systems. First, the
structure itself is a containment vessel, thereby providing secondary
protection against contaminant escape. Secondly, since this type of
structure is a standard commercial item, it can be procured, fabricated,
and erected quickly and economically. Thirdly, the structure can
withstand high wind loads, extremes in temperature, and certain types of
stress better than a reinforced concrete structure. Finally, the
structure has a salvage value either as a containment structure or as
scrap metal. The size of the structure was determined by the following:
o Anticipated maximum storage of 5,000 drums.
o Access for inspection and removal of individual drums.
o Ventilation.
A commercially available unit meeting estimated volume and dimensional
requirements was selected.
The major elements of the temporary storage component are:
o Select a number of potential sites on the Denny Farm for
subsurface investigation. Perform detail geotechnical
8-4
-------
investigations to determine the depth to bedrock and the
competency of the rock and to evaluate the factors which
would indicate potential sinkhole development.
o Prepare the necessary engineering designs for the foundations
and the structure.
o Prepare permit applications as required—state and federal
regulations.
o Prepare site for storage facility.
o Construct storage facility.
The total estimated cost for completion of Component 1 is $360,000.
The detailed cost estimate is presented in Table E-l of Appendix E.
Figure 8-1 provides a conceptual layout of the foundation and section
view of the storage facility.
The anticipated construction time for this component is four months
from execution of the geotechnical investigation to completion of the
facility. The time requirement for obtaining permits was not included in
this time projection.
COMPONENT 2. SITE SETUP AND MOBILIZATION
Site setup and mobilization include preparing the site for the
excavation and providing the necessary support facilities. The major
elements of this component are:
o Clear additional land to provide space for support facilities
and for the excavation area.
o Move on site and install utility systems; provide trailers
for the command post, equipment storage, and crew facilities
o Establish the necessary sanitary and water supply systems.
8-5
-------
CO
I
CAISSON
PLAN VIEW OF FOUNDATION
TANK BOTTOM
•.••.'V°'.-'-'.' SAND
CONCRETE SLAB
* ^
PRIMARY
GRADE
BEAM
SECONDARY
GRADE BEAM
• CAISSON
BEDROCK
DETAIL OF GRADE BEAM
AND CAISSON (A-A)
GRADE
SECTIONAL VIEW
nrxx
H = 58.78"
t
..-.
K i x x Y it >uOi 1 1 ij.
n
PLAN VIEW
PROPOSED DRUM LAYOUT
Figure 8-1. Temporary Storage Facility
-------
o Procure and provide on site all personnel protection
equipment.
o Conduct a worker training session once all systems are in
place and ready for use.
o Expand the fenced area to provide sufficient area for
equipment operation and material handling.
o Set up the drum and personnel decontamination facilities,
install air supply systems for the totally encapsulated
suits; and install construction lighting systems.
o Construct runoff control system.
o Remove the existing impervious cap and place the canvas tarp
system in place.
The total cost for Component 2 is $358,670, which includes moving
equipment onto the site, mobilizing labor and materials, and doing
initial site preparation prior to commencing the excavation. In
addition, all personnel protective equipment are procured and personnel
properly trained for its use. Detailed cost estimates are provided in
Table E-2 of Appendix E. Figure 8-2 shows a plan view of this proposed
site setup. Component 2 will require about 10 days and will run
concurrently with portions of Component 1 so that the excavation phase
can start at completion of Component 1.
COMPONENT 3. FXCAVATTON
Component 3 deals specifically with the excavation of a
predetermined volume of soil (for purposes of cost estimates) and the
removal of the drums and their contents. Since the extent of vertical
migration has not been determined, this component has been divided into
two subcomponents. Component 3A involves excavation of the trench area
as defined by the previous E & E geotechnical study—perimeter 150 feet,
8-7
-------
SHOWER TRAILER
PERSONNEL
DECONTAMINATION
STATION
«_ LOADING RAMP
(w) i—BULK DECON
^T^ STORAGE
STORAGE /"*^1
TRAILER / /
CO
I
CD
TARP
TO AIR
COMPRESSOR
CAP STORAGE
COMMAND POST
Figure P-2. Plan View of Site Setup
-------
depth 8 feet, total surface area 1,000 square feet, and 1:1 side slopes.
An assumption is made that contamination has not migrated laterally from
the trench. Component 3B involves excavation of additional volumes of
contaminated soil. Soil volume is based upon contamination reaching 4
feet below the anticipated trench floor, 8 feet below grade for a total
of 12 feet below grade. This volume is calculated for the entire length
of the trench with additional material for sides lopes based upon 1:1
slopes. Since volumes have been used, more excavation may occur in one
area of the trench than others and not affect cost estimates.
The proposed excavation and storage plan which formed the basis of
the cost estimates for Component 3A are:
o Removal of the contents of the drums and the drums from the
trench.
o Removal of contaminated soil to an acceptable limit to
prevent any residual material from being transported into the
groundwater by precipitation/percolation.
o Minimizing excavation time to reduce potential off-site
environmental contamination.
o Removal of the TCDD-contaminated waste from the trench
without spreading contaminants into presently uncontaminated
material.
o Utilizing excavation methods which present the lowest risk of
rupturing a drum.
o Decontaminating containers and personnel on exit from the
s ite.
o Isolating the workmen and all other personnel on site from
the contaminated material. The level of protection provided
8-9
-------
would be dependent on the task being performed, i.e., those
people who are in direct contact with the waste will have the
highest level of protection.
o Reducing the physical stress on the workers created by the
protective gear and the environment (rotating shifts).
o Using dust control to minimize the spread of loosened
contaminated soil by wind action.
o Using runoff control to minimize the spread of contamination
by a precipitation event and subsequent surface runoff.
o Using weather protection for the open trench to keep
precipitation from entering the trench and transporting the
material into the groundwater.
Excavation
Test boring and soil analysis during geophysical surveys indicate
no lateral migration of waste outside the limits of the trench as defined
by ground penetrating radar and metal detectors (2).
The objectives of 3A are to uncover the drums without rupturing
them and to remove the contents of the original drums while removing the
minimum amount of soil. The cost estimate is based on utilizing a small
tractor-mounted backhoe, in conjunction with hand labor, to place soil
into 55-gallon drums. The volume of soil to be removed during 3A of the
excavation process should be viewed as an upper limit. It is anticipated
that the 1:1 side slopes used for the purpose of the estimate could be
reduced. The soil contains chert and clay and should provide a safe side
slope at a steeper angle, thereby reducing the volume of the 3A
excavation. A portion of the excavated soil could be stored on the
floor and be removed as part of the 3B excavation.
Drum Decontamination
The exterior of all containers leaving the trench area would have
to be thoroughly decontaminated. This would be accomplished by washing
the drums with decontamination solution to remove any contaminated soil
8-10
-------
particles or liquid. To facilitate drum decontamination, roller or idler
bar conveyors would be used. An assembly line approach for drum
decontamination would then be possible. A small ramp would be excavated
at the end of this conveyor to allow the trucks to back up level with the
conveyor. Drums will be moved by use of hand trucks. A collection
trough and pumping system would be placed beneath the conveyor to collect
the water used to wash the drums. Once the trough becomes full, the
pumping system would drain the trough to a bulk storage tank. At this
time, it is not known if the water used to decontaminate the drums and
personnel will contain levels of contamination above the allowable limits
for discharge. All decontamination water could be sampled and analyzed
from the bulk storage tank.
If the decontamination water does not contain levels of
contamination above the allowable limit, water would be discharged or
reused. Should contamination be found, the water would be placed in
storage. The volume and cost estimates are based on the above procedure.
Waste and Drum Removal
After nine years it is reasonable to assume the drums in the trench
are corroded, and this has been partially confirmed. It has been assumed
that it is unsafe to lift any full or partially full drums directly out
of the trench. The procedure developed for removal of the waste from the
trench consists of pumping the contents from the original drum into the
55-gallon closed drums located on the side of the trench. An
air-operated positive displacement pumping system would be utilized
because it will help prevent the possibility of an explosion and has the
ability to pump viscous liquids. Once the liquid contents are removed,
the old drum would be placed into an overpack (85-gallon drum) and lifted
out of the trench. A crane would be used to lift all material from the
trench.
The chemical properties of the waste would have to be determined
prior to drumming so that proper materials can be selected for the wetted
surfaces of the pumping system and the drums. Samples of waste may be
obtained from EPA-Ttegion VII.
8-1 i
-------
Worker Safety
Providing for the health and safety of personnel requires
isolating the workmen and other personnel on site from the contaminated
material.
As discussed in a previous section, the exposure routes for TCDD
include skin absorption, ingestion, and inhalation. Therefore, it is
E & E's recommendation that all on-site personnel be completely protected
when in contact with any potentially contaminated material. The
personnel protective equipment for the different operations is defined in
Appendix D. The possibility of a spill, accident, and potential IDLH
(immediately dangerous to life and health) atmosphere precludes the use
of a lesser degree of protection. Totally encapsulated suits should be
adequate for personnel within the fenced area. Once the drums are sealed
and decontaminated, the level of protection can be reduced. Disposable
coveralls with hood, gloves, boots, and full face respirators should be
adequate for the off-site personnel, including the personnel at the
storage facility.
A metal grate walkway instead of a conveyor will be used for
personnel decontamination prior to leaving the fenced area. A collection
trough and water handling system similar to that used for drum
decontamination would be used. Separate personnel exits have been
provided to limit movement across the excavated area. The work will
always progress from low to high contamination (See Figure 8-3).
Worker Training
The use of safety equipment presents specific problems for workers,
such as communications, visibility, dexterity, and psychological changes.
A training period has been included to provide experience in equipment
and procedures on order to acclimate the worker to the restricted working
environment.
Excavation Time
In order to reduce the risk of spreading contaminated material, two
eight-hour shifts are used. The third shift would be used to replenish
8-12
-------
SHOWER CREW
TRAILER TRAILER
EXIT FROM
DECONTAMINATION
TARP
CO
COMMAND POST
Figure 8-3. Site Excavation
-------
supplies and service equipment. The shifts would be arranged to minimize
work activity during adverse temperature periods of the day. A five-day
workweek was used as the basis of the cost and time estimate.
Six- and seven-day workweeks were also evaluated. The seven-day
workweek was not cost effective, while there did not appear to be a
significant cost difference between the five- and six-day workweeks. The
five-day workweek was selected, however, to minimize any cumulative
worker fatigue.
Worker Fatigue
Performing physical work in the encapsulated suit will increase
fatigue and decrease productivity. An analysis of the workmen per shift
was made to develop cost estimates for the labor component of the various
work elements. For Component 3A, approximately 42 people per shift would
be required on site until all the drums were removed from the trench.
Approximately 20 people would be required for 36 on site, and the work
would be reduced to one shift, since the majority of the contamination
would have already been removed.
Only 19 of the 42 workmen required for the 3A excavation would be
on the site at any one time. The proposed distribution of the 19 workmen
is as follows:
o Six will be in the trench digging, filling drums, and
removing the contaminated material.
o Six will be at trench side assisting in the removal of the
material and handling of drums as required.
o Six will be in the drum decontamination area.
o One would operate the backhoe. With the exception of the
workmen in the trench, the on-site personnel would rotate to
other areas at any time to provide temporary assistance.
8-14
-------
The remaining personnel are distributed as follows:
o Six workmen would be utilized for personnel decontamination; two
stations with three workmen each were used as the basis of the
estimate.
o Four workmen would be utilized to load, unload, and transport the
drums from the decontamination area to the storage facility.
o One person would be required to operate the crane to lift materials
in and out of the trench.
o One safety officer, one foreman, and one engineer would also be
required.
Nine personnel, who would be located off site at a rest station,
would relieve personnel doing the work to reduce worker fatigue. A
rotation system has been considered which would provide for a one-hour
rest after two hours of work. The rotation system would also provide for
the workmen rotating among the hand excavation assignments, the material
handling assignments, and the drum decontamination assignment. The
equipment operators, decontamination personnel, and personnel used to
load, unload, and transport the material to storage could rotate jobs on
a daily basis to help minimize any cumulative fatigue.
The major elements of Component 3A are:
o Begin excavation at either the west or east end of the trench
by digging down and uncovering the drums for the full width
of the trench. This excavation would be accomplished by
using a backhoe in conjunction with hand excavation. Place
all the soil in drums and move to the decontamination area
and then to the storage facility.
o Hand excavate around the exposed drums to gain access to the
bung or high point in the drum. Place soil removed into
8-15
-------
drums which will be lifted from the trench to the
decontamination area and then transported to the storage
facility.
o Withdraw the contents of the drum by placing the suction hose
through the bung or opening by special equipment and pump the
contents to a drum located on the edge of the excavation.
When the drum has been emptied, the new drum will be sealed
and moved to the decontamination area.
o Remove the original drum from the excavation after all the
liquid has been removed and place in an over pack. Seal the
overpack and lift it from the trench to the drum
decontamination area.
o Decontaminate drums.
o Remove the decontaminated drums to the storage facility in
truckload lots.
o Continue the above sequence of excavation to uncover the
drums, remove the liquid fraction of their contents,
decontaminate the drum, and remove the decontaminated drums
to the storage facility until all the drums are removed from
the trench.
The anticipated activity time for this component is approximately
23 days. The estimated cost for Component 3A is $467,930. Table E-3 of
Appendix E contains the detailed cost estimates and supporting data on
materials and volumes of water required.
Component 3B Excavation
Excavation in 3B includes all the work required to determine the
extent of contaminated soil and its removal. The soil will be removed
and placed in 55-gallon drums. Layout of the 3B excavation is shown on
Figure 8-4.
8-16
-------
CO
SHOWER TRAILER
LOADING RAMP
PERSONNEL
DECONTAMINATION
BULK DECON-
STORAGE
CREW
TRAILER
STORAGE
TRAILER
BACKHOE
o
DRUMS
BULK OECON
STORAGE
RAMP tt PLATFORM
-CONCRETE PAD
—•TARP
TRENCH BOTTOM
u-
-CAP STORAGE
COMMAND POST
o
Figure 8-4. Plan View of Component 3B Excavation
-------
The major elements of this component are as follows:
o Sample the trench bottom and side to determine compliance
with acceptable cleanup level.
o Based on the results of the sampling and analysis, determine
the location and volume of contaminated soil to be removed.
If none, close out site as defined in Component 4.
o Set up drum loading area.
o Excavate the contaminated soil and place the soil in drums.
Remove the drums to the decontamination area, decontaminate,
and then move to the temporary storage structure.
o Sample the trench bottom and other areas inside the fenced
area to determine compliance with acceptable cleanup levels.
The activity time, which is based on the capacity of the storage
structure, is 10.5 days of soil excavation. There are two costs
associated with the Component 3B. The initial sampling ($44,000) of the
trench to confirm levels of TCDD and TCP contamination will be a fixed
cost. If there is a positive analysis, an additional fixed cost of
$3,110 will be incurred for construction of the loading platforms.
Variable costs, which include labor, equipment rental, and materials,
amount to $11,340 per day or $380 per cubic yard of soil removed. An
estimated detailed cost for Component 3B is found in Table E-4 of
Appendix E.
COMPONENT 4. SITE CLOSURE
Site closure consists of removing all equipment, tools, and
materials used to do the work, and backfilling and grading of the site.
The major elements of this component are:
o Decontamination of all equipment and reusable tools.
8-18
-------
o Removal to Che temporary storage facility of all contaminated
tools, equipment, and supplies which are expendable or are
unable to be decontaminated, and all the decontamination
water.
o Backfilling the trench with virgin material and regrading the
area inside and outside of the fence.
o Removal of all trailers and support facilities (note the
fence will remain).
The estimated activity time for this component is 10 days, and the
estimated cost is $23,810. A detailed cost estimate is included in Table
E-5 of Appendix E.
Summary of Component Costs
As shown on Table 8-1, the direct cost to complete the excavation
and storage of drums and contaminated soil around the drums is estimated
at $1,219,000. An estimated total project cost has been developed by
adding to the sum of the component costs an allowance for contractors'
overhead and profit and a contingency to account for unforeseen problems.
The value of 70% of the direct cost was used to compute the contractors'
overhead and profit.
Overhead is estimated at 45% while profit has been assigned 25%.
These values appear to be reasonable because they are within the range
used by contractors who are engaged in this type of cleanup work. A
value of 20% of the direct costs was used to compute the contingency, but
the contingency can he reduced once the plans and specifications are
defined. Normal engineering projects estimate contingency ar 10% at the
conceptual design level; however, the 20% contingency factor is
reasonable due to the nature of the work and safety requirements.
The total estimated project cost without the Component 3B is
$2,486,000 (Table 8-1). (Component 3B considers only the requirements
for further excavation. Storage through 3B is accommodated in the
orginal structure.) The maximum costs, which include Component 3B and
8-19
-------
TABLE 8-1
REMEDIAL ACTION
COMPONENT COST SUMMARY
COMPONENT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Storage Facility $360,000
Site Setup and 367,000
Mobilization
3A Excavation 468,000
4 Site Closure 24,000
Subtotal $1,219,000
Overhead and Profit
(70%) 853.000
Subtotal 2,072,000
Contingency (20%) 414,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $2.486.000
8-20
-------
provide for excavation of the trench to an equivalent of 12 feet in
depth, is $2,915,000 (Table 8-2). Not including permit preparation, the
estimated duration of the effort is six months.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION
A number of controls should be instituted for storage of the waste
material. These controls are necessary to protect workers on-site and to
prevent off-site migration of contaminants.
Site Control
A site control plan should be developed implemented which will
address the following areas:
o Designated hazard areas.
o Access control points.
o Establishment of on-site vehicle and personnel travel routes.
o Establishment of administrative command post area.
o Possible subdivision of the site for predetermined storage
areas, rest area, and other miscellaneous areas as needed.
Storage Controls
Storage control involves a complete plan to organize and maintain
proper records of all material placed within the storage structure. The
storage structure must meet certain basic requirements:
o The facility should be able to accommodate the anticipated
volume required for stored material.
o Ample room should be provided for the operation of storage
equipment such as forklifts.
8-21
-------
TABLE 8-2
REMEDIAL ACTION
COST SUMMARY
WITH ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION
Cost Summary for Trench
Excavation/Storage $1,219,000
Excavation*
Fixed: $91,000
Variable Total: $119,000 210.000
Subtotal 1,429,000
Overhead and Profit 1,000,000
(70%)
Subtotal 2,429,000
Contingency (20%) 486,000
TOTAL $2.915.000
*Based on 10.5 days of work with an additional 405 drums being stored.
"Excavation will lower trench to 12 feet."
8-22
-------
o Ample room is needed for the inspection and removal of selected
containers.
o The structure should meet applicable codes and be able to
withstand local weather and geologic conditions.
o Security must be provided for possible vandalism and accidental
entry.
o The structure should provide for containing a spill.
o Utilities must be provided.
o Venting should be provided
o Fire extinguishers, alarms, vapor detectors, and other safety
equipment should be provided.
A comprehensive storage site control plan should be formulated
including:
o Spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plans.
o Periodic inspections of storage structure and waste containers.
o Proper record-keeping to document all inspections, material,
movement, regulatory requirements, etc.
o Additional security requirements such as barriers, warning signs
emergency numbers, etc.
o Area drainage.
8-23
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8
1. Godfrey, R.S. (ed.), Building Construction Cost Data, R.S. Means
Company, Inc., Kingston, Mass., 1980.
2. TECHNOS, Inc., Report of Geologic and Geophysical Investigation:
Denny Farm Hazardous Material Site, Barry County, Missouri.
Miami, Florida, 1980.
8-24
-------
LIST OF CONTACTS MADE IN PREPARING
MATERIALS AND LABOR COST ESTIMATES FOR SECTION 8
EQUIPMENT
Contractors Supply Company, Kansas City, Mo.
Halco Equipment Company, Kansas City, Ks.
Donco Equipment Company, Kansas City, Mo.
Potter Equipment Company, Springfield, Mo.
(816) 221-7788
(913) 281-5700
(816) 229-3422
(417) 852-9275
UNION LABOR RATES
Builder's Association of Kansas City
(816) 531-4741
ACTIVATED CARBON SYSTEMS FOR DIOXIN REMOVAL
John Bellinger/Calgon Carbon Service,
St. Louis, Mo.
Dr. Dave Stallins, Columbia National
Fisheries Research Lab, Columbia, Mo.
(314) 863-3200
(314) 442-2271
STRUCTURES FOR WEATHER PROTECTION
Rockhill Building Company, Kansas City, Mo.
Munlake Construction Company, Kansas City, Mo.
Sutherland Lumber Company, Kansas City, Mo.
Payless Cashways, Kansas City, Mo.
Roth Farm Supply, Kansas City, Mo.
Kansas City Tent & Awning, Kansas City, Mo.
(816) 761-4993
(816) 254-5444
(816) 587-9200
(816) 474-4950
(816) 737-3650
(816) 924-1883
ANALYSIS OF TCDD AND TCP IN AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS
Dr. Mike Taylor, Brehm Laboratory, Wright State
University, Dayton, Ohio
(513) 873-2202
8-25
-------
LIST OF CONTACTS
MADE IN PREPARING SECTION 8 (CONT'D)
WELL DRILLING and PUMPING EQUIPMENT
Gerald Sill Drilling, Springfield, Mo.
Boyles Brothers' Drilling, Springfield, Mo.
Action Rotary Drilling, Wheat land, Mo.
Layne-Western Company, Kansas City, Mo.
(417) 866-7341
(417) 869-1298
(417) 282-5270
(816) 931-2353
CONTAINERS
Cortland Container Company, Kansas City, Ks.
U.S. Steel, Kansas City, Mo.
(913) 321-1212
(816) 221-8311
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND DECONTAMINATION FACILITIES
Mine Safety Appliances, Lenexa
Arrowhead Grating Company, Kansas City, Mo.
Donahower and Associates, Kansas City, Mo.
(913) 888-2628
(816) 471-3121
(816) 432-9306
8-26
-------
SECTION 9
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the geological, hydrological, and toxicological studies
carried out by Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E & E), and the geophysical
reconnaissance and risk analysis that have been conducted, E & E presents
to EPA the following conclusions and recommendations concerning Denny
Farm Site 1.
CONCLUSIONS
The geotechnical data, the toxicity of the waste, and the
environmental factors require the following actions:
o Removal of the waste and associated contaminated materials from
Denny Farm Site 1
o Storage of the waste and associated contaminated materials in a
structure to be erected at Denny Farm Site 1
To achieve the required storage, the following excavation procedures
are recommended:
o Consideration of weather protection
o Commitment to personnel safety
o Commitment to minimize time spent in the excavated disposal
trench
o Ensurance that no contaminants leave the disposal site other than
in containment vessels, i.e., drums
o Provision of sufficient storage to accommodate the removal of
contaminated soil and material from the disposal site
9-1
-------
To accomplish the recommended work, the cost estimate is
$2,486,000.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the conclusions of this report noted above, E & E
makes the following recommendations:
o That EPA proceed immediately to acquire the permits needed to
excavate and store the hazardous waste materials at Denny Farm
Site 1
o That EPA select a design engineering firm to prepare a final
design and also select an execution contractor to carry out the
required work at Denny Farm Site 1
o That EPA execute the recommended excavation and storage at Denny
Farm Site 1
o That EPA continue with a long-term investigation of treatment and
ultimate dispoal methods for the hazardous waste and associated
contaminated materials at Denny Farm Site 1 that may meet the
proven technology criterion before the expiration of the
short-term storage solution presented in this report
9-2
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLING DATA
-------
TABLE A-1
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA
Sample No.
AN3412
AN3413
AN3438
AN3502
AN3503
AN 3504
AN3505
AN3506
AN3507
AN3508
AN3509
AN3510
Well
No.
13
5
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
4-03-80
4-03-80
4-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
Parameter (s)
Analyzed
Phenohcs
TCOO
Phenolics
TCDD
Phenolics
TCDO
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDO
*Quantity
Detected
17,000
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
30
None
8,000
None
None
14,000
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
•Detect ion
Limit
5,000
2
5,000
2
5,000
2
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
Comments
False positive
*ppt
-------
TABLE A-1 cont.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA
to
Sample No.
AN3511
AN3512
AN3513
AN3514
AN3515
AN3516
AN3517
AN3518
AN3519
AN3520
AN3521
AN3522
AN3523
AN3524
AN3525
AN3526
AN3527
AN3528
JW3553
Well
No.
Sprmi
10
11
12
13
1
2
4
13
5
6
7
8
9
Spnnc
10
11
12
13
Date
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-03-80
6-05-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-07-80
Parameter (s)
Analyzed
Phenolics
TCP
TCOD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDO
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
Phenolics
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
•Quantity
Detected
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Mone
None
•Detect ion
Limit
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
5,000
3
20
3
20
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Comments
*ppt
-------
TABLE A-1 cont.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA
Sample No.
AN3554
AN3555
AN3557
AN3558
AN 3559
AN3560
AN3561
AN 3 562
AN3563
AN 3 564
AN3565
AN3566
AN 3567
AN3544
AN3545
AN 3 546
AN 3547
AN 3548
AN3549
AN3550
AN3551
AN3552
AN3573
Well
No.
5
4
1
2
6
7
8
9
14
Sprint
10
11
12
1
2
4
13
5
6
7
8
9
Date
6-07-80
6-07-80
6-08-80
6-08-80
6-08-80
6-08-80
6-08-80
6-08-80
"6-08-80
6-08-80
6-08-80
6-08-80
6-08-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
Parameter-Is)
Analyzed
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
No data available
•Quant ity
Detected
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
*0et ect i on
Limit
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Comments
»ppt
-------
TABLE A-1 cont.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA
Sample No.
AN3574
AM3575
AN3?76
AN3577
AN3578
AN3579
AN3580
AN3581
AN3582
AN3583
AN3584
AN 3585
AN3586
AN3587
AN3588
AN3589
AN3590
AN3591
AN3592
AN3593
Well
No.
Sprinc
14
10
11
12
1
2
4
13
5
6
7
8
9
Spnnc
14
10
11
12
1
Date
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-26-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
6-30-80
7-07-80
Parameters}
Analyzed
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
•Quantity
Detected
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
•Detection
Limit
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Comments
*ppt
-------
TABLE A-1 cont.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA
Sample No.
ANI3594
AN3595
AN3596
AN3597
AN3598
AN3599
AN5002
AN5003
AN5004
AN5005
AN 5006
AN5007
AN5008
AN5009
AN5010
AN 5011
AN5012
AN5013
AN5014
AN5015
AN 501 6
AN5017
Well
No.
2
4
13
5
6
7
8
9
Sprint
14
10
11
12
Melvir
Manor
1
2
4
13
5
6
7
8
Date
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-07-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
Parameters}
Analyzed
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
•Quant ity
Detected
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
•Detect ion
Limit
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Comments
*ppt
-------
TABLE A-1 cont.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA
Sample No.
AN5013
AN5019
AN5020
AN 5021
AN5022
AN5023
AN5024
AN5025
AN5026
AN5027
AN 5028
AN5030
AN5031
AN5032
AN5033
AN5034
AN5035
AN5036
AN5037
AN5038
Well
No.
9
Sprmc
14
10
11
12
Billy
Edwarc
1
2
4
13
6
7
8
9
Sprint
14
10
11
12
Date
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
7-14-80
s
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
7-21-80
Parameters}
Analyzed
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
TCP
•Quantity
Detected
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
*Detection
Limit
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Comments
*ppt
-------
TABLE A-2
SOIL SAMPLING DATA
Sample No.
AN 3400
AM3401
AN 3402
AN 3403
AN 3404
AN 3405
AN 3406
AN 3407
AN 3408
AN3409
AN 3410
AN 3411
AN3421
AN 3446
AN8001
Description
Borehole 01
Borehole 92
Borehole #3
Borehole #4
Borehole //5
Borehole it 6
Borehole //7
Borehole C/8
Borehole #9
Borehole #10
Borehole #11
Borehole #12
Borehole #22
Trench soil sample
Boring #13
Date
4-22-80
4-24-80
4-24-80
4-24-80
4-23-80
4-26-80
4-26-80
4-26-80
4-26-80
4-25-80
4-25-80
4-24-80
4-22-80
4-29-80
6-15-80
Sample
Type
Soi 1 /composite
Soil/composite
Soil /composite
Soil/composite
Soi 1 /composite
Soi 1 /composite
Soil/composite
Soil /composite
Soi 1 /composite
Soil/composite
Soi I/compos jt(
Soil/composite
Soil/composite
Composite
Composite
11 1/2-13 ft.
Parameter^;
Analyzed
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCOD
TCP
TCDD
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
•Quantity
Detected
63,000,000
4,000
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
42,000
None
None
•Detection
Limit
200,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
1,000
20,000
70
Comments
*ppt
WSU Analysis
EPA Analysis
-------
TABLE A-2 cont.
SOIL SAMPLING DATA
>
oo
Sample No.
AN8002
AN8004
AN8007
AN8008
AN8009
AN 801 6
AN8024
AN8034
AN8036
Description
Boring #13
Boring #15
Boring #15
Boring #15
Boring #15
Boring #16
Bonnq #21
Boring #28
Boring #28
Date
6-15-80
6-15-80
6-15-80
6-15-80
6-15-80
6-15-80
6-16-80
6-16-80
6-16-80
Sample
Type
Composite
13-14 1/2 ft.
Composite
16-17 1/2 ft.
Composite
5-6 1/2 ft.
Composite
6 1/2-8 ft.
Composite
8-9 1/2 ft.
Composite
14-15 ft.
Composite
10-14 ft.
Composite
8-9 1/2 ft.
Composite
19-20 1/2 ft.
Parameters)
Analyzed
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
•Quantity
Detected
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
•Detect ion
Limit
2,000
' 70
2,000
70
2,000
70
2,000
70
2,000
70
1,000
70
1,000
70
1,000
70
1,000
70
Comments
EPA Analysis
EPA Analysis
EPA Analysis
EPA Analysis
EPA Analysis
EPA Analysis
EPA Analysis
EPA Analysis
EPA Analysis
-------
TABLE A-3
SURFACE WATER MONITORING DATA
vo
Sample No.
AN3556
AN3568
AN3569
AN3570
VR5301
VR5302
VR5303
VR5304
VR5305
VR5306
VR5307
VR5308
VR5309
Description
Pond west of Farm
Site
Pond near Well 02
Calton Creek
Calton Creek
Spring River
Highway 166
Spring River
Highway 96
Spring Rivei
Highway 37
Spring River
County Road P
Spring River
U.S. U6
Calton Creek
County Road VV
Little Flat Creek
County Road C
Flat Creek
County Road U
Flat Creek
McDowell Mill Dam
Date
6-9-80
6-9-80
6-11-80
6-11-80
6-17-80
6-17-80
6-17-80
6-17-80
6-17-80
6-17-80
6-17-80
6-17-80
6-17-80
Sample
Type
Water (grab)
Water (grab)
Resin Column
water
Resin column
water
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Parameter(s)
Analyzed
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCP
Extractable Priority
pollutants
TCP
Extractable priority
pollutants
Extractable orgamcs
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
•Quantity
Detected
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
•Detect ion
Limit
3
20
3
1
1
5,000
5,000
20,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Comments
-------
TABLE A-3 cont.
SURFACE WATER MONITORING DATA
Sample No.
VR5310
VR5311
VR5312
VR5313
VR5314
VR5315
Description
James River
Nelson Mill Bridge
James River
Frazier Bridge
Table Rock Lake
Highway 76
Table Rock Lake
Highway 76
Table Rock Lake
Highway 86
Table Rock Lake
Highway 86
Date
6-17-80
6-17-BO
6-18-80
6-18-80
6-18-80
6-18-80
Sample
Type
Sediment1
Sediment
Sediment
Fish Samples
18 total
6 diff. species
Sediment
Fish
15 total
7 diff. specie:
Parameters)
Analyzed
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
TCP
TCDD
•Quant ity
Detected
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
*Detection
Limit
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
1,000
2,000
5,000
1,000
3,000
Comments
-------
TABLE A-4
DRUM (SOURCE) SAMPLE DATA
Sample No.
AN 34*0
AN 3441
AN3443
AN3444
AN3445
AN3441
AN3443
AN3444
AN3455
AN3440
AN 3448
AN3449
AN3450
AN3441
AN3443
AN3444
AN3445
AN3440
AN344B
AN 3449
AN3450
Description
Drum Sample Rusty
Colored Liquid.
Drum Sample
Black residue.
Drum sample, blact
granular residue.
Drum sample,
black residue.
Drum sample,
black residue.
Drum samples, EPA
Weighted average.
Drum samples.
26% Drum
65> samples.
323
36%
35?o Drum
10% samples.
40%
15S
Date
4-2B-80
4-28-80
4-28-80
4-28-80
4-28-80
4-28-80
4-28-80
4-28-80
4-28-80
Sample
Type
S i nq le
Single
Single
Single
Single
Volumetric
Composite
Volumetric
Composite
Volumetric
Composite
Volumetric
Composite
Parameter(s)
Analyzed
Not analyzed, see
composite sample
informat ion below.
TCP, others
TCDD
TCP, others
TCOD
TCP, others
TCDD
TCP, others
TCDD
TCDD
TCP
Ident if led
TCDD
TCDD
•Quantity
Detected
Ident if led-r
110,000,001
Identified-r
None
IdentiFied-r
65,000,001
Ident ified-r
87,000,00(
Weighted
average is
81,000,001
19,000,001
Tetrachloro-
benzene
toluene,
others
319,000,OOC
1.39C
•Detection
Limit
o quantity spec.
20,000,000
o quantity spec
29,000,000
o quantity spec
29,000,000
o quantity spec
29,000,000
Not specified
No quantity
specified
1,300,000
100
Comments
Analysis by EPA.
Each drum sample
is actually a com-
posite of the var-
ious liquid layer:
within the drum.
No single analysis
conducted on these
samples.
Wright State Uni-
verstiy analysis
Wnqht State Uni-
versity analysis
-------
APPENDIX B
RISK ANALYSIS
-------
APPENDIX B
RISK ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION: GENERAL APPROACH
The risks to human health posed by several alternative remedial
actions for Denny Farm Site 1 can be quantitatively estimated by making a
number of simplifying assumptions. This section defines what is meant by
the terms "risk" and "exposure" and describes the general philosophy and
methodology used to estimate the risks. The second section summarizes
the risk results, the third section describes in detail the exposure
scenarios and assumptions that were used to arrive at these results,
while the last section presents details of the methods of calculation.
The major hazard to human health due to the wastes at the site is
assumed to be the toxicity of dioxin (TCDD); for simplicity, only this
hazard is considered. An "exposure" is considered to occur whenever a
person comes directly in contact with TCDD in high enough concentrations
that the dose of TCDD to his body exceeds an assumed safe level, which is
taken to be 1 part per trillion (ppt) of body weight. The level of
effect, that is, severity of health impairment, produced in the exposed
person by this dose of TCDD cannot easily be predicted, and therefore the
person is counted as potentially subject to some adverse health effect.
Depending on the actual magnitude of the dose, which in turn depends on
time duration of the contact and other pharmacological factors, the
actual level of effect suffered may range from a mild and probably
reversible case of chloracne to cancer of the liver.
In order for exposure to TCDD from the trench at the site to occur,
a curtain amount of TCDD must escape from the trench, spread from the
site via some physical environmental pathway and ultimately enter the
human body directly. An effort has been made to systematically consider
all possible pathways and to identify those exposure scenarios which are
most credible for four alternative actions.
B-l
-------
In general, TCDD can enter the human body through several routes:
oral, respiratory, and dermal. In this case, the route of body entry
affecting the greatest number of people is oral ingestion of drinking
water contaminated with dangerous concentrations of TCDD after
environmental spread off site through groundwater ("Dangerous"
concentrations are those above the safe level of 1 ppt). This type of
pathway leads to the greatest contamination spread to the public off
site. By comparison, the only other possible exposure routes occur via
relatively short-range physical pathways and can potentially affect only
a few workers on site. These other routes are direct skin contact or
inhalation of TCDD-laden particulates or direct skin contact with liquid
wastes.
Once the credible types of release and spread of TCDD from the
trench are identified, the extent of the resulting exposure of people can
be quantitatively estimated. By making simplifying assumptions about the
physical mechanisms of the release and environmental spread and by taking
into account known physical properties and principles, simple model
calculations can be used to predict conservative distances of spread of
the contaminant away from the site. In particular, one can compute the
maximum distance around the site within which any sources of drinking
water such as wells would be subject to dangerous concentrations of TCDD.
Using a circular zone of influence around the site, the total number of
people within this zone can be calculated. This number is the total
exposures for the assumed release scenario.
In addition to the maximum extent of exposure, the probability of
occurrencp of such a release scenario must be considered. The
probabilities of the various scenarios can also be quantitatively
estimated by using historical data where available (e.g., for the
probability of a tornado strike) and by making reasonable assumptions
where numerical values are unavailable (e.g., the probability for the
sudden formation of a sinkhole under the trench). The "risk" of a given
exposure scenario is then defined as the mathematical product of the
number of exposed people and the probability of occurrence of this
scenario. Therefore, the risk of a given alternative action is the sum
of the risks calculated for each of the credible release scenarios
B-2
-------
identified for that alternative. The risks of several alternative
actions computed in this way can be compared quantitatively as an aid in
deciding which action to take.
The most difficult part of this methodology is the initial stage of
defining the credible exposure scenarios. The greatest problem is to
combine the available bits of information, sometimes inconsistent, about
physical properties of the contaminant TCDD, the geologic conditions
around the trench, and known physical fluid flow principles to arrive at
a plausible, yet consistent set of assumptions which can be used to
describe the spread of TCDD away from the trench in groundwater.
Quantitative calculations of extent of spread of TCDD away from the
trench were carried out only for this groundwater pathway. It was
credible to assume that successful mitigation methods such as dust
control would be used to cut off the only other possible environmental
pathway, i.e., wind-borne spread of TCDD-contaminated dust particles
generated during trench excavation.
Although the resulting combinations of methods used are necessarily
simplified, this analysis demonstrates that it is possible to arrive at
quantitative answers for the risks by making credible assumptions. These
answers, which are presented in the next section, should not be
considered absolute. They are initial guidelines for further
refinements but can be used in the meantime for discussing and comparing
the several alternative actions.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RISKS
Table B-l presents the maximum and average numbers of people
estimated to be exposed to dangerous concentrations of TCDD for each of
several alternative remedial actions. Here, "dangerous" is taken to mean
high enough to lead to a dose of 1 part per trillion (ppt) or greater in
the average human body. For drinking water, this threshold concentration
of TCDD is 0.035 parts per billion (ppb) (see Numerical Calculations
section). The 1 ppt dose in the body is considered here as the allowable
safe human dose of TCDD for either oral or dermal exposures.
The exposures in Table B-l are categorized into workers on site and
public off site, and also into short term and long term. "Short term"
B-3
-------
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RISKS
MAXIMUM AND AVERAGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE
EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS CONCENTRATIONS OF TCDD
DURING SHORT TERM
DURING LONG TERM
D
I
Workers Public
Alternative Remedial Action on site off site
1.
2.
3.
4.
Leave buried 0 1446 max
14.46 ave
Install & maintain a groundwater '0 379 max
monitoring system 0.13 ave
Excavate & store material 43 max 170 max
on site 20.6 ave 25 ave
Excavate + transport drums via 45 max 180 max
truck to Syntex facility in 21.0 ave 25 ave
Verona, Mo.
Workers Public
on site off site
0 119 max
107.10 ave
0 119 max
53.55 ave
0 67 max
2.7 ave
0 67 max
2.7 ave
Total Total Combined
on site off site Total exposures
0 121.6 ave 121.6 ave
0 53.7 ave 53.7 ave
20 ave 27.7 ave 48.3 ave
21.0 ave 27.7 ave 48.7 ave
a "Average" is the maximum number multiplied by the estimated probability of occurrence; see Table B-2
b "Dangerous" means high enough to lead to a dose of 1 ppt or greater in the average human body; in drinking water, this
threshold concentration is 0.035 ppb.
c "Short term" means during excavation period, approximately 1 month.
d "Long term" means greater than 1 year (assumes no other future actions are taken which lead to increased worker exposures).
-------
refers to a time of about 1 month (about the length of time the trench
would be open during the excavation in Alternative 3). "Long term" means
greater than a year; it is assumed that no further worker actions are
taken in the future which would lead to increased opportunities for
worker exposure.
In each case shown in Table B-l, the maximum number of exposures
given is that calculated for a specific release scenario, as described in
the following section. For example, for Alternative 1 (leave buried) the
value 1,446 is the maximum number of people estimated to be exposed to
concentrations of TCDD in drinking water greater than 0.035 ppb. In the
event of a hypothetical catastrophic geologic collapse or sinkhole
beneath the trench, the groundwater and ultimately the drinking water
wells from which these people are supplied would be rapidly contaminated.
This particular scenario might be called the worst case for this
alternative.
In addition to the maximum value shown in Table B-l, an average
value for exposures is also given in each case. This average is the
maximum number of exposures above multiplied by the estimated probability
of its occurrence. The following section details how this probability of
occurrence is estimated for each scenario, and Table B-2 summarizes the
estimated probabilities. For example, for the sinkhole scenario
described above for Alternative 1, the probability of occurrence was
estimated to be 1 percent, or 14.46 exposures.
For each alternative, the total average exposure value is found by
adding the average values for short term and long term. This is done
separately for on-site and off-site classifications, and finally the sum
of these two averages is the combined average risk (see far-right column
in Table B-l).
Several general conclusions can be drawn from the results in Table
B-l:
o Alternative 1 (leaving the trench as is) has the highest risk
(121.6) of any of the alternatives, while Alternative 3
(excavate and store on site) has the lowest (48.3)
B-5
-------
TABLE B-2
SUMMARY OF CREDIBLE EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
Alternative Remedial Action
1. Leave buried
to
i
a\
2. Install & mamtajn a
groundwater monitoring
system
Exposure Scenarios Considered
(a) Catastrophic sinkhole leads
to rapid release of contents
of all 150 drums to water
table below trench; subse-
quent horizontal flow of
contaminants in "under-
ground river" straight to-
ward nearest private drink-
ing water wells; people
drink contaminated water
from these wells (worst
case).
(b) No sinkhole; instead, drums
gradually leak maximum con-
centration at an assumed
rate; waste leaches down
conduit to water table,
where dilution occurs be-
cause of greater water
flow rate horizontally;
again, "river" flows
straight toward wells;
people drink contaminated
water from wells (most
likely case).
(a) Monitoring well system is
successful in warning near-
by residents in time not
to drink water in the event
contamination of wells does
occur (via either of scena-
rios at>pve).
Estimated Probability
of Occurrence
1 chance in 100
(i.e., 1 percent)
Estimated Max. No. jjf
People Exposed to TCDD
1,446
(total Barry County pop-
ulation within 4.29
miles of site)
90 chances in 100
(i.e., 90 percent)
119
(total Barry County pop-
ulation within 1.23
miles of site)
(0.01) (1/30) H
(0.90) (0.50)
= 5.94 x 10-'
-------
TABLE B-2
SUWARY OF CREDIBLE EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
Alternative Remedial Action
2. Cont'd.
CD
I
Exposure Scenarios Considered
(b) Catastrophic sinkhole
occurs right after a well
sampling time, with rapid
contamination reaching water
table and wells as above,
and monitoring system does
not warn residents in time;
as a result, a certain
limited number of people do
drink contaminated water
before a warning is issued
(Maximum warning delay time
of almost a sampling
interval, say 29 days.)
(worst case).
(c) Gradual release of wastes to
the water table occurs, and
monitoring system does not
warn residents in time; as a
result, a limited number of
people do drink contaminated
water before warning is
issued (On average, assume
"safe time" before
contamination of wells
occurs is about half the
well sampling interval, so
there is a 50 percent chance
that detection and warning
will occur in time, and 50
percent that a delay of
about a half sampling
period, or 2 weeks, will
occur.) (more likely case).
Estimated Probability
of Occurrence
(0.01) x (1/30)
=3.3 x 10-*
Estimated Max. No. of
People Exposed to TCDD
379
(0.90) x (0.50)
=0.45
119
-------
TABLE B-2
SUMMARY OF CREDIBLE EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
Alternative Remedial Action
3. Excavate and store
material on site
03
CO
Exposure Scenarios Considered
(a) Workers on site are exposed
directly to higji concentra-
tion of TCDO because of a
common accidnet during
excavation (either by
getting liquid or dust on
skin, or in a wound, or
inhaling contaminated dust).
(h) Tornado strikes site during
excavation of drums, when
trench is open, thereby
spreading contaminated soil and
perhaps liquids over a 2 square
mile damage area around the
site; people within this area
are thereby exposed to contam-
ination.
Estimated Probability
of Occurrence
0.20 over short term
Estimated Max. No. of
People Exposed to TCDD
2-3 workers
3.2 x 10'5 for
short term
50
(c) After excavation is complete,
trench closed, and all
excavated waste is stored in
secure building nearby, gradual
leaching of residual contamina-
tion remaining around the
trench occurs, with ultimate
contamination of wells; people
drink low concentrations of
TCDD in drinking water
0.95 over long term
-------
TABLE B-2
SUMMARY OF CREDIBLE EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
Alternative Remedial Action
3. Cont'd.
03
I
VO
Exposure Scenarios Considered
(d) After excavation is
complete, trench closed, and
excavated waste stored
securely, a sudden sinkhole
occurs releasing all
residual contamination
around trench to water
table; wells are quickly
contaminated and people
exposed through drinking
water.
(e) Workers in full suits are
imperfectly decontaminated
and leave site with amounts
of TCDD on their bodies high
enough to spread to other
people off site.
Estimated Probability
of Occurrence
0.04 during long term
Estimated Max. No. of
People Exposed to TCDD
67
0.1 x 0.25 = 0.025
probability of escape
for each worker
40 workers
120 off site
4. Excavate and transport
liquids and residues via
truck to Verona, MO
(Syntex facility) for
treatment
(a) All 5 scenarios for
Alternative 3 above apply,
so risk contribution due to
these is same as overall
risk for Alternative 3.
Additional possible
scenarios are discussed
below.
-------
TABLE B-2
SUMMARY OF CREDIBLE EXPOSURE SCENARIOS
Alternative Remedial Action
4. Cont'd.
I
I-
o
Exposure Scenarios Considered
(b) Truck accident occurs
during transport to Verona,
leading to release (spill)
of liquid waste, which runs
into Calton Creek because
accident occurs just as
truck passes over Calton
Creek; despite spill
contingency planning, 1 or
2 workers are exposed; no
members of the public are
exposed.
(c) Truck arrives safely at
Verona, but an accident
occurs at or near the
Syntex facility, releasing
some liquid wastes which
run into nearby surface
stream and ponds despite
spi11 contingency measures;
no workers are exposed, but
about 10 members of public
drink contaminated water or
get contaminated dust on
their skin (blown by wind
after spilled liquid
evaporates).
Estimated Probability
of Occurrence
(2.5
1Q-6)
(0.5)
Estimated Max. No. of
People Exposed to TCDD
1-2 workers
x (14 miles) x (0.02)*
= 3.5 x 10"7
•coincidence factor for
accident to occur right
near Calton Creek
sane as above
10
-------
o The second lowest risk is associated with Alternative 4, which
considers an additional component, transport via truck to
Verona. The increase in risk of this alternative over that of
Alternative 3 is small (48.3 to 48.7) and is due to the
additional possibilities for exposures occurring during the
truck transport and when the truck arrives at the more highly
populated area of Verona.
o Installing a monitoring well system (Alternative 2) could be
expected to reduce the risk to the public from drinking water
to less than half its value without the monitoring system
(Alternative 1) (53.7 compared to 121.6), by providing adequate
warning in the event groundwater contamination did occur.
o For Alternative 1, even through the catastrophic sinkhole
scenario leads to the largest number of exposures (1,446), the
gradual leaching scenario contributes more to the risk, since
its probability of occurrence is much greater (107.10 average
compared with 14.46 average).
CREDIBLE EXPOSURE SCENARIOS CONSIDERED FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
This section describes the credible scenarios which were considered
for each alternative and the simplifying assumptions necessary to
describe the consequences of the hypothesized environmental release of
TCDD in each case. This will provide the maximum exposure numbers in
Table B-l. The major parameters whose values were unknown and for which
values had to be assumed are identified. Table B-2 summarizes the
scenarios and gives as separate factors the estimated probability of
occurrence and maximum number of exposures in each case. These are the
factors which are used to develop the average risk number shown in Table
B-l.
B-ll
-------
Alternative 1: Leave Buried
The first scenario considered is a catastrophic geologic collapse or
sinkhole formation leading to a rapid release of the contents of all 150
drums from the trench. Even though a sinkhole would be only about 40
feet deep (1), it is hypothesized that a large amount of the liquid waste
from the trench could still make its way rapidly down through the
intervening clay layers to the water table about 120 feet below the
trench. The contaminant is assumed to reach the water table in the form
of a curtain 1 foot wide. The aquifer flows horizontally in a channel
assumed to be 100 feet wide and 1 foot deep. An initial section of this
aquifer assumed to be 50 feet in downstream length is taken as the known
volume of water which is instantly contaminated with TCDD to the highest
possible concentration of 0.2/jg TCDD/liter of water, or 200 ppt . The
total mass of TCDD which actually dissolves in this volume of water is
limited by the known solubility of TCDD in water, which is extremely low.
This mass is 2.83 x 10"^ kg of TCDD (see Numerical Calculation
section).
The contaminated water then flows horizontally in an underground
river assumed to be 100 feet wide and 1 foot deep, in a straight line
toward the nearest drinking wells. Ultimately, people are exposed to
TCDD by drinking well water which has concentrations of TCDD greater than
0.035 ppb.
A mathematical model must be used to calculate how great a distance
away in any one direction concentrations this high will occur. It is
recognized that prediction of groundwater flow using standard approaches
is impossible for the particular geologic setting of Denny Farm Site 1
(1,2). Such a prediction will nevertheless be necessary if a
quantitative estimate of the risk is to be made.
The basic law of fluid flow through a porous medium is known as
Darcy's Law (3). This principle has been used to make practical
predictions of groundwater flow rates in assessing leachate production
from landfills (3, 4, 5) and in analysis of the impact of groundwater
pollution on human health (6). By assuming reasonable values for the
porosity and hydraulic conductivity of the karst limestone through which
the aquifer flows (1, 3), the estimated 3% hydraulic gradient away from
B-12
-------
the trench area can be used in Darcy's Law to calculate a steady seepage
or pore velocity of 401 feet/day.
This steady flow velocity can then be used with a one-dimensional
mass transport convection-diffusion equation (5) to calculate dilution of
the initial spill mass. For simplicity, the aquifer is modeled as if it
were a river, and standard dispersion equations applicable to a river are
used (7, 8). Using the equation for an instantaneous spill of a mass of
2.83 x 10~5 kg of TCDD into the river flowing at the average
velocity of 401 feet/day, it is calculated that a maximum concentration
of 0.035 ppb will occur at a downstream distance of 4.29 miles.
Groundwater flow from the site is generally expected to be within
the directional sector between northwest and southwest (1, 2), but this
is not certain (1). Hence, it must be conservatively assumed that all
drinking wells and hence all people who live within a radius of 4.29
miles from the trench may be exposed to concentrations of TCDD in water
of 0.035 ppb or greater. Since the average population density of Barry
County is known to be about 25 people per square mile (9), a circle with
a radius of 4.29 miles includes about 1,446 people, which is therefore
the maximum number of exposures for this scenario (Table B-2).
In the absence of better information (1, 2), the probability of
occurrence of a sudden sinkhole and the ensuing instantaneous spill
scenario described above is assumed to be 1 percent. Thus the average
or mathematically, the expected value of exposures is 0.01 times 1446, or
14.46 persons, as shown in Table B-l.
The other scenario for groundwater contamination to occur and reach
the public off site involves a gradual, continuous release of waste from
the trench, with the liquid assumed to be dripping down a "hollow tube"
of "piping" in the karst limestone to the water table below. This
scenario considers the event to occur in the present without reference to
the 9 years the drums have been buried. Even assuming there is a nominal
drum leak rate of 5 gallons per hour and only 0.3% of the TCDD entering
the clay layers at the top comes through in solution at the bottom, there
is still enough TCDD reaching the water table to saturate the water. In
othor words, assuming the underground aquifer is the same river flowing
with the seepage velocity of 401 feet/day as before, the effective rate
B-13
-------
of mass spill of TCDD into this river is limited only by the volume rate
of river flow and the known maximum solubility of TCDD in water (0.2 ^ug
TCDD/liter of water). The rate of solution is not controlled by the
supply rate of TCDD in organic liquid wastes dripping down from the
trench, and the effective rate of mass spill of TCDD into the water is
thus computed to be 2.58 x 10~9 kg/sec. The concentration of TCDD
in water at the first point of contact with the water table is limited to
200 ppt by solubility.
Using the equation for downstream dilution in a river from a
continuous spill at this rate (7), it can be computed that a maximum
concentration of 35 ppt of TCDD occurs in the water at a distance
downstream of about 1.23 miles. Taking the distance to define a circular
zone of influence as before, the maximum number of residents exposed is
119, assuming a population density of 25 people/square mile (Table B-2).
The probability of occurrence of this gradual leaking scenario is
assumed to be quite high, say 90 percent. Hence, the average (or in
mathematical terms, expected) number of exposures due to this gradual
leaking case is 0.90 times 119, or 107.1 (Table B-l).
Note that during the remaining 9 percent of the time, it would be
necessary to assume that no release of TCDD from the trench occurs which
results in groundwater contamination. This is the case in which the clay
layer beneath the trench actually does retain the waste and keeps TCDD
from entering the water table (2). This case is not an exposure scenario
since no exposures occur.
In summary, there are actually three mutually exclusive scenarios
assumed possible for Alternative 1:
Scenario Estimated Max, no. of
percent probability Exposures
o Gradual release to water table 90 119
o No release (clay retains TCDD) 9 0
o Catastrophic (instantaneous release
to water table through sinkhole) 1 1,446
B-14
-------
No spread of TCDD away from the site via atmospheric transport is
considered possible in Alternative 1 since the trench remains closed.
Even if a tornado strikes the area, it is assumed that the waste will not
be disturbed since the trench is covered with a plastic cover and 2 feet
of clean soil.
Altenative 2; Leave Trench as is. But Install Groundwater Monitoring
System
Alternative 2 is geologically the same as Alternative 1, with the
addition of a warning system. Thus, the possible scenarios for
contamination of drinking water are the same as for Alternative 1, i.e.,
rapid release through a sinkhole or gradual continuous leaking of the
drums. The probabilities that these two types of release will occur are
also the same as they were for Alternative 1, namely 1 percent and 90
percent, respectively. However, there is now the possibility that the
sampling of the monitoring wells may provide adequate warning to some of
the residents not to drink the well water if water contamination occurs.
As a result, the probability of exposures occurring, the maximum number
of possible exposures, and therefore the risk (average number of
exposures), are all less than those for Alternative 1.
To estimate the probability that the well monitoring system will
warn the residents in the event of a rapid release, it is assumed that
well sampling is done once a month. If the time between the release and
the arrival of contamination at the wells is about 1 day, sufficient
warning can be given only if the release occurs within 1 day just before
a well sampling time (neglecting for simplicity the time required to
analyze the well sample). Thus, about 1/30 of the time a warning will be
issued in time and no exposures will occur. On the other hand, the worst
case would occur if the sinkhole formed within 1 day after a sampling
time. This occurrence would potentially lead to the maximum time elapsed
between time of well water contamination and its detection (29 days), and
hence the greatest number of people would be potentially exposed to this
drinking water before a warning is issued. This worst case warning delay
B-15
-------
also has a chance of roughly 1/30 of occurring, if the time of occurrence
of the sinkhole is random. Since the geologic occurrence of the sinkhole
and the well sampling are independent events, the probability of the
joint occurrence just described is 0.01 times 1/30, or about 3.3 x
10~4 (Table B-2).
Since it has already been assumed that the groundwater flows at the
seepage velocity of about 400 feet/day, the leading edge of contaminated
water from the assumed instantaneous spill would reach a downstream
distance of about 2.2 miles after 29 days. The maximum number of persons
exposed to concentrations of TCDD greater than 35 ppt in well drinking
water can be no more than the total population within this distance from
the site in any direction. Using the known average density of population
in Barry County, 25 people/square mile (9), this total population is
about 379 people (Table B-2).
The other possibility for well water to become contaminated is
through the gradual release of wastes from the leaking drums, resulting
in a continuous spill into the underground river (probability assumed to
be 90 percent). In this case, the average warning delay would be about
half the well sampling interval, or 2 weeks. Thus, there is roughly a 50
percent chance that detection and warning will prevent exposures, while
the other 50 percent of the time, a delay of about 2 weeks will occur
before residents are warned. At the constant flow velocity assumed (400
feet/day), the front of the pollutant will reach a distance of about 1.23
miles downstream from the site. Therefore, the maximum number of
exposures in this event will be no greater than the total population
within the distance, which is about 119 people. This is the same maximum
number of exposures as would occur if no warning were provided (see
Alternative 1); however, the probability of this case occurring is now
only 0.90 times 0.50, or 0.45 (Table B-2).
For Alternative 2, there are no possibilities for worker exposure or
for any above-ground spread of contaminant.
Alternative 3; F.xcavate and Store Contaminated Material On Site
For Alternative 3, there are more possibilities for exposures of
humans to TCDD to occur than for either of the previous two alternatives.
B-16
-------
Because of the excavation, the workers could be exposed directly to high
concentrations of TCDD as a result of an accident during the excavation
operations. Workers could get liquid waste or contaminated soil directly
on their skin or inhale contaminated fine soil particulates. Types of
possible accidents envisioned include one worker inadvertently striking a
co-worker with a pick or shovel, thereby penetrating his protective suit,
or a worker losing a glove. Workers would be trained to follow
procedures to minimize chances for such accidents, and communications
with and between workers in full encapsulated suits would be provided.
The total number of workers on site at any one shift is estimated to
be about 42 (see Section 7), with 19 of these in full protection suits
inside the fenced area. The workers farthest from the trench, outside
the fence (about 17), will have at least coveralls and face-mask
respirators with filters, which are efficient enough to remove any
respirable clay particles which might be contaminated with TCDD.
It is assumed that some form of dust control such as calcium
chloride will be used during excavation to keep the amount of airborne
contaminated soil particles to a minimum. Most of the excavation of the
highly contaminated soil intermingled with the drums will be done by
hand, which will not have as great a potential for generating airborne
clouds of contaminated dust as would the excavation of larger amounts of
soil by heavy machinery. This machine excavation phase would begin only
after the drums themselves and highly contaminated soil were removed by
hand, and the soil remaining would therefore not be as highly
contaminated. Even if the dust-control measures were to fail, the site
is located in a wooded area, and the trees surrounding the clearing would
effectively prevent long-range transport of a dust cloud off site, so
that off-site exposures to airborne contamination are prevented.
Nevertheless, there might be a 20 percent chance that 2 or 3
workers might be involved in accidents (not necessarily the same
accident) which result in their direct exposure. That is, it is not
credible that, for instance, 10 or more workers could be exposed.
Another possible scenario is that a tornado could strike the site
during the exact time when the trench is open, thereby spreading
contamination over a wide area. The probability of such a tornado strike
B-17
-------
can be estimated using available historical data (11) on occurrences of
tornadoes at about 3.2 x 10"^ (See Numerical Calculation section).
The consequences of a tornado strike would actually be limited in area to
the average tornado damage zone, which is known from historical data to
be about 2 square miles (11). The number of people off site who might
conceivably be exposed directly to high concentrations of TCDD in the
event of such a strike would be approximated by the resident population
within a circular area this size (about 0.8 mile radius) centered on the
site, or about 50 people. (Storm casualties are not considered.)
Even if no exposures occur during the 1 to 1.5 month excavation
period, residual TCDO contamination remaining in the soil around the
excavation may still reach groundwater and thereby contaminate wells. A
rapid release may occur following the formation of a sinkhole, or there
may be a gradual release fed by leaking drums in the trench. These two
types of release are somewhat more likely to occur than in Alternative 1
because of the geologic disturbance created by the excavation (2).
Therefore, the probabilities of occurrence are now taken as 95 percent
(compared to 90 percent) for the sudden sinkhole, and A percent (as
compared to 1 percent) for the continuous release case (Table B-2).
To estimate the extent of the exposures that could occur through the
drinking of TCDD-contaminated well water for either of these cases of
residual release, the residual source strength of TCDD remaining around
the trench after the excavation must be estimated. This residual amount
will depend on both the cleanup level that is decided upon as a stopping
point for soil excavation and on the extent of spread of TCDD in the soil
in lower concentrations beyond this level.
However, a representative calculation can be made if it is assumed
that the source strength is now effectively weakened to the extent that
the residual amount of TCDD which actually dissolves in the groundwater
is conservatively 1/10 of that originally assumed. Thus, for the case of
the sinkhole formation and subsequent instantaneous spill, the total
spill mass is now taken to be only 2.83 x 10~" kg of TCDD (compared
to 2.83 x 10~5 kg TCDD in the calculations for previous
alternatives). Assuming a spill of this amount into the same river as
before (average seepage velocity of 400 feet/day), the greatest
B-18
-------
downstream distance at which a concentration of 0.035 ppb of TCDD in
drinking water occurs is about 0.93 miles. At an average population
density of 25 persons/square mile, this distance potentially includes
about 67 residents (Table R-2).
For the other scenario of gradual release, the effective continuous
mass spill rate of TCDD into the water table is taken to be 1/10 of its
value previously, or 2.58 x 10~10 kg TCDD/sec. The corresponding
downstream distance at which the maximum concentration of 0.035 ppb of
TCDD in water occurs is 1/10 of the previous distance, or 649 feet.
There are essentially no drinking wells within this distance of the site,
and therefore, there are no exposures for this scenario (Table B-2).
Alternative 4: Excavate and Transport Both Liquids and Residues Via
Truck to Verona, Mo.
Alternative 4 includes the same possibilities for exposure to TCDD
as Alternative 3, and the contribution to the overall risk of this
alternative due to all these scenarios is the same as the total risk
computed for Alternative 3. However, there is now an additional
contribution to risk because of the opportunities for exposure of workers
and members of the public. A truck accident resulting in a release of
some of the liquid wastes from the bulk tank carrying them may occur
either on the highway during the trip to Verona or at the Verona
facility.
The probability of a truck accident is known from historical data to
be about 2.5 accidents per million truck-miles, or 2.5 x 10~°
accidents per truck mile (12). Further, the chance of such an accident
resulting in a release or spill of hazardous material, if the truck was
carrying such a cargo, is about 0.5, given the occurrence of the accident
(12). The length of the highway route from Denny Farm Rite 1 to Verona
is about 14 miles (north on Highway W, west on Highway Z to U.S. 60,
and back east to Verona). Hence the probability of a truck accident
resulting in a spill somewhere over this route can be calculated as the
product of the above factors. The worst case would be that in which the
accident occurred just as the truck was crossing a stream. The only such
B-19
-------
crossing on the route to Verona is that of Highway VV at Calton Creek
just north of the site. It is assumed that Calton Creek could be
contaminated if the accident occurred within an eighth of a mile of the
crossing. The chance that the accident, if it occurs at all over the
14-mile route, will occur within this quarter of a mile, is roughly 0.25
mile/14 miles, or 0.02. This coincidence factor would further reduce the
probability of this scenario (See Table B-2).
Even if a truck accident were to occur, however, it is assumed that
mitigating measures would be applied to minimize exposures resulting from
the spill. Contingency measures could include having properly trained
and equipped workers travelling with the trucks or stationed near the
Calton Creek bridge before the transport of the waste begins. As a
result, it could be assumed that no members of the public could be
exposed; however, as with the possibility of accidents in the trench
during excavation, it is possible that I or 2 workers could be exposod
(Table B-2).
The other possibility remaining is that the truck arrives without
incident at Verona, but an accident occurs after arrival. The
probability of occurrence of this would be the same as for the accident
on the highway. However, because of the proximity of the greater numbers
of people to the accident (the Southwest Local Government Advisory
Council projects a 1980 population of 680 for Verona), it is credible
that despite spill contingency measures, a liquid spill could reach
surface streams or ponds in the area. As many as 10 members of the
public could thereby be exposed. Exposures could be either by drinking
water or by direct skin contact with contaminated water or wind-borne
dust after the liquid spill evaporates.
Additional Risk Due to Decontamination Accidents
Alternatives 3 and 4 involve trench excavation and necessitate
decontamination of the trench workers wearing full protection suits
following oach working interval. There is thus the possibility that the
personnel decontamination procedures may be less that completely
effective, and some workers may be directly exposed to TCDD. If such
exposure is not observed by the supervisor, such a worker could then
B-20
-------
leave the site with high concentrations of residual TCDD contamination
still on his body or clothes and could subsequently spread this
contamination by direct contact with other members of the public off site
(e.g., his family). This scenario, which might be called "decon
accidents," could lead to a significant number of exposures of both
workers and public and therefore increases the risk of Alternatives 3 and
A. The following paragraphs describe how this risk can be estimated by
making several reasonable simplifying assumptions.
Decontamination of workers in full protection suits may not be
completely effective because of both (1) human error in following the
prescribed decon procedures and (2) the purely physical limitations of
reducing the amount of TCDD contamination remaining on the outside of the
suits and equipment, even when the procedures are carried out without
obvious accident due to human error. Human error is especially likely to
occur during the early stages of work, before extensive experience at
carrying out the decon procedures is gained. Workers could be exposed
directly to liquid wastes by skin contact or could inhale contaminated
particulates, if, for example, they rush through procedures because of
panic or if the contamination is not visually obvious. It is also
possible that the supervisory personnel observing the decon procedure may
not always adhere strictly to the specified safety procedures or may not
not Lee an opportunity for inadvertent worker contamination in the event
the worker has a minor accident such as mentioned above. It is less
likely that a worker might inadvertently take off site with him some
piece of his external suit or equipment (e.g., a camera) which was not
fully decontaminated and which should have been left in the decon area.
In order for worker exposure occurring during decontamination to
ultimately lead to off-site exposure of other people, three successive
events must happen: (L) the worker must become accidentally
contaminated himself, as a result of an accident or incomplete washing of
his suit, and this must further go unnoticed or unchecked by the
supervisor; (2) the level of residual contamination of the escapee's
body must he great enough and in such a physical form that contamination
C.TII he spread n»adily to another person off site via direct contact; and
( 1) the worker musf come Into direct contact with one or more other
B-21
-------
people off site. Tho likelihood of each of theso events, as wf:l 1 as the
average number of exposed people involved at each step, can be estimated
as follows.
First, consider the likelihood of a worker escaping decon with
undetected contamination. Taking account of the possibilities discussed
above, it is reasonable to assume that there is as high a chance as 50
percent that a given worker, especially an inexperienced one, might
encounter some difficulty or accident during the decontamination
operation and become contaminated to some degree. However, most of these
will be of minor consequence, and most incidents will be obvious enough
to be noticed by the observer, so that more intensive efforts can be
immediately applied to counter the accident (e.g., washing off a minor
splash onto skin). Assume that only 10 percent of the workers entering
the decon procedure will both suffer such an accident and go unnoticed by
the observer and hence leave the site with some level of residual TCDD
still on their bodies.
However, in most of these cases of "escape", the worker may still
not be highly enough contaminated to cause additional exposures of the
people he comes in contact with off site. The great affinity of TCDD for
soil particles and human skin, as compared to other substrates or water,
is a factor limiting the ease of further spread of TCDD from the
contaminated escapee. For concreteness, suppose that only 1 in 4, or 25
percent, of the escapees are so contaminated that they are able to spread
contamination to another person upon contact.
Finally, suppose that as he leaves the site each worker has a
certain definite chance of coming into direct contact with 0, 1 , 2, or 3
people off site. (For simplicity, assume that the chance of contacting
more than 3 people is negligible.) Assume further that each such contact
leads to the other person being exposed to residual TCDD. Suppose a 5
percent chance of not contacting anybody, a 70 percent chance of
contacting 1 person, a 20 percent chance of contacting 2 people, and a 5
porcpnt chanro of contacting 3 other people. Therefore, the average
number of secondary off-si to exposures caused by each highly contaminated
worker who has escaped decon is nbout 1.25 persons.
B-22
-------
To estimate the numbers of exposed people corresponding to these
assumed probabilities, consider that at any one shift there will be
approximately 20 workers in full protection suits who will have to
undergo the decontamination procedure. On average, about 10 percent of
these, or 2 workers per shift (4 workers per day), escape decon and leave
the site with some residual contamination. However, only 1 of these 4
workers is actally highly contaminated enough to be capable of causing
secondary exposures off site. On average, this 1 worker per day causes
1.25 secondary exposures per day. Assuming a rough duration of the
intensive hand excavation phase of about 20 days, this means that over
this short term an average of 20 workers have become exposed to this high
level, have escaped decon, and have caused 20 times 1.25 or 25 secondary
off-site exposures, for a total of 45 exposures.
The worst possible case could be envisioned as follows: On the
first shift, all 20 suited workers become contaminated and vet escape
decon; all 20 are highly enough contaminated to cause secondary
exposures; and finally, each of these 20 thereby exposes the maximum
number of 3 other people off site. Thus, 20 workers are exposed and 60
secondary off-site exposures occur, for a total of 80 exposures during
the one shift. If this worst case persists and also happens during the
second shift, then during the whole day, a maximum of 40 workers and 120
off-site people have been exposed, for a total of 160 exposures (Table
B-2).
Repetitions of this worst possible event over shifts on successive
days would not really lead to new exposures. The same 2 crews of 20
fully suited workers would be assumed to return for the 2 shifts the next
day, and the set of secondary contacts of a given worker would likely not
change greatly from day to day.
For any individual worker, the probability of the worst case assumed
.ibovp would be O.I times 0.25 times 0.05 or 1.25 x 10~^. These
factors are, respectively, the probability of escaping decon, the
probability of being highly contaminated, and tho probability of
contacting 3 secondary people. Thus, the probability of the worst case,
where every one of the 20 crew members is assumed to cause 3 off-site
B-23
-------
exposures, is the above value raised to the 20th power, assuming that
thhe workers are independent. This probability is very small, since the
worst case assumes a multiple coincidence of individual worst cases.
Total Exposures Shown in Table B-l for All Scenarios
The average numbers of exposures of both workers (20) and of
secondary off-site members of the public (25) estimated above for the
20-day duration of the excavation period must be added to the average
numbers of exposures in each category (on site and off site) due to other
possible exposure scenarios, described earlier. For example, for
Alternative 3, the average number of workers exposed during the short
term will be 0.6 (average from accidents occurring while working in the
trench) plus 20 (from decon accidents described above), or 20.6. The
average number of public or off-site exposures is similarly 1.6 x
10~3 (from the tornado strike scenario) plus 25 (secondary contact
due to escaped contaminated workers as above), or still essentially 25
(Table B-l). Similar average values apply for Alternative 4, except that
an average of 1.0 replaces the value 0.6 above.
The maximum possible numbers of exposures shown in each category in
Table B-l are similarly the sums of the maximum numbers estimated to
occur for each of the several exposure scenarios. For example, for
Alternative 3, the maximum number of workers exposed during the short
term is shown as 3 (due to accidents during work in the trench) plus 40
(the maximum due to decon accidents), or 43 workers. The maximum number
of off-site public exposures is 50 (from the tornado scenario) plus 120
(secondary exposures due to escaped contaminated workers), or 170 maximum
total.
Similar additions are performed and shown in Table B-l for
Alternative 4: For on-site exposures there is a maximum of 5 (estimated
for accidents during working—3 during work in trench, another 2 due to
the truck accident scenario) olus 40 (maximum due to decon accidents), or
45 total. For off-site exposures, the maximum shown is: 50 (from
tornado scenario during open trench phase), plus 10 (due to a truck
accident occurring near the populated area of Verona), plus 120 (maximum
secondary contacts of the 40 escaped contaminated workers above), for a
total of 180.
B-24
-------
NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS
This section presents some of the calculations made and methods used
in the course of the risk analysis.
Formulas Used to Compute Maximum Concentrations in River Flow
Table B-3 summarizes the formulas for non-tidal river flow used to
make the calculations of concentrations of TCDD downstream of the assumed
spill into the water table (7, 8). The diffusion coefficients used in
these formulas are those given in Reference 7.
Instantaneous Release (Sinkhole Scenario) Spill Source Strength
The total mass of TCDD released from the trench in organic liquids
is 26.4 Ib = 12.0 kg = total amount in all drums (see separate
calculation). However, because of the limited solubility of TCDD in
water, only a small fraction of this amount can actually dissolve in the
water when it reaches the water table.
Assume that the initial volume of water in the aquifer beneath the
trench into which the spill falls is 100 feet wide, 1 foot deep, and 50
feet long.
100 ft x 50 ft x 1 ft = 5000 ft3 = 141.6 m3 = 1.42 x 105 1 of water
Since the maximum solubility of TCDD in water is only 0.2 ug TCDD per
liter of water, the amount of TCDD dissolving in the above volume of
water is
M = (1.42 x lO5 1 water) x (0.2 jug TCPD per 1 of water)
= 2.83 x lO^yag TCDD
= 2.83 x 10~5 kg TCnn
This is then taken as the total mass of an instantaneous spill in the
formulas in Table B-1.
B-25
-------
TABLE B-3
FORMULAS FOR MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION
IN RIVER DISPERSION*
INSTANTANEOUS SPILL
max
NEAR FIELD
2M
(4lt )3/2Je-7-e-
max N x y z
FAR FIELD
max =
M
max
00
I
NJ
Oi
CONTINUOUS SPILL
max
H
(e e
X
C = M
max
UA
for large t.
max
MEANINGS OF SYMBOLS;
C = maximum concentration of pollutant at downstream distance x (at midstream, on water surface),
max
in
X/U, in sec
x = downstream distance from spill, m
time after spill when maximum concentration occurs at x ,t
"max "* " max
U = average river flow velocity, m/sec
2
A = cross-sectional flow area = width x depth of river, m
M = total mass of pollutant in instantaneous spill, kg
M = constant mass spill rate of pollutant for continuous spill, kg/sec
^ \
E, e , e , e = turbulent diffusion coefficients appropriate for river, m /sec (values given in Reference 13J
*See Reference 13
-------
Gradual Leaking (Continuous Release) Spill Source Strength
Assume the drum leak rate is 5 gal/hour of liquid organic wastes.
Taking the density of the waste to be 1.2 g/1, this is
5 gal x 1.2 g/rol x 3.785 x 103 ml/gal = 2.27 x 104 g
= 50.07 Ib organic liquid waste/hour
(Incidentally, at this rate, the entire 8,250 gallons of liquid waste
would be spilled after 1,650 hours, or about 2.3 months.)
Assuming a maximum concentration of TCDD in these waters of 319
ppm, the total amount of TCDD contained in this volume of water is
(2.27 x 10~2 million g waste) x (319 g TCDD per million g waste)
= 7.24 g TCDD
= 1.60 x 10~2 Ib TCDD
Thus, the effective rate of TCDD leaving the trench in the liquids is
1.60 x 10~2 Ib/hr = 7.26 x 10~3 kg/hr = 2.02 x 10 ~6 kg TCDD/sec
However, in this case, assume that both clay adsorption in the layers
passed by the liquids as they seep vertically downward to the water table
and the minimal solubility of TCDD in water reduce the effective
rate of mass entering the water table as a spill, as follows:
First, assuming a 99.7% retention factor for adsorption of TCHD by
tlie clay, the effective rate at which TCDD arrives at the water table is
only 0.3% of the above, or 6.06 x 10~9 kg TCDD/sec.
Secondly, flie solubility of TCOD limits the rate of dissolving:
Effective mass spill rate M = (river water volume Flow r.ite) x
(Solubility of TCDD).
Assume river dimensions; contaminant arrives at water table in
"rain" or "curLain" 100 feet wide:
B-27
-------
100 feet wide = 30.48 m( cross-sectional flow area
1 foot deep = 0.3 mi A = 9.14 m2
The average river velocity is the seepage velocity calculated using
Darcy's Law (see separate calculation).
U = 401.1 feet/day
= 4.64 x 10~3 feet/sec
= 1.41 x 10~3 m/s
Thus, volume flowrate of river is
Q = UA
= (1.41 x 10~3 m/sec) x (9.14 m2)
= 1.29 x 10~2 m3 of water/sec
Hence
M = (1.29 x 10~2 m3 water/sec) x (103 1/m3) x (0.2 yug TCDD/1 water)
= 2.58yig TCDD/sec
= 2.58 x 10~9 kg TCDD/sec
This value was then used in the continuous spill river dilution equations
in Table B-3 to calculate downstream concentrations of TCDD.
Calculations of Downstream Concentrations
The equations in Table R-3 yield mass concentrations of TCDD in kg/m3
To express these as percent by weight of water, they are divided by the
mass density of water (103 kg/m3) and then the power of ten
adjusted so as to express the result in ppm, ppb, or ppt, depending on
the magnitude.
Tl-28
-------
Calculation of Seepage Flow Velocity for Horizontal Movement
For karst limestone, assume
porosity n = 10%
hydraulic conductivity K = 104 gal/day/ft2
= 4.72 x 10"1 cm/sec
These values are within the range of values given in the literature
literature (3) for karst limestone and are likely to be reasonable for the
area of Denny Farm Site 1 (1).
The hydraulic head gradient away from the site is about a 50-foot
drop over a distance of a third of a mile (1760 feet), or
= (-50 ft)/1760 ft = -0.03 (about 3% gradient)
Hence, from Darcy ' s Law (3, 5), the velocity is
v = (-K) x (AH/AX)
= -(104 gal/day/ft2) x (1 ft3/7.48 gal) x (1 day/8
= 4.64 x 10~4 ft/sec (Darcy velocity)
Hence the seepage velocity is
Vs
= (4.64 x 10~4 ft/sec)/0.l
= 4.64 x 10~3 ft/sec
= 1.41 x 10~3 m/sec
= 401.1 feet/day
B-29
-------
Calculation of Total Amount of TCDD at Denny Farm Site 1
A. Assumptions
1) 150 55-gallon drums, each full (known to be conservative)
2) Average density of organic liquid wastes in drums
=1.2 g/ml
3) All drums contain TCDD at the highest concentration measured,
which is 319 ppm.
R. Calculation:
150 drums x 55 gal/drum x 1.2 g/ml x (3.785 x 103 ml)/gal
= 3.747 x lO^grams (total mass of liquid waste)
= 37.47 million grams
(37.47 million grams) x (319 grams of TCDD per million grams liquid)
= 11953 grams of TCDD
Dividing by 453.6 grams per pound, the total amount of TCDD is 26.4 Ib.
Note: This is consistent with a recent report that the total amount
of TCDD contained in the 4,300 gallons of waste at the Syntex plant in
Verona, Mo. prior to photochemical oxidation was 13 pounds (14).
There is reason to believe that the density of the liquids stored in
the drums at Farm Site 1 may be about the same as that in the Syntex bulk
storage tank. In the above calculation, the assumption that all drums are
full .means a total liquid waste volume of 8,250 gallons. According to the
above calculation, half of this volume of liquid, which is 4,125 gallons,
or approximately the same volume as the Syntex storage tank (4,300 gal),
would contain 13.2 pounds of TCDD. Therefore, the assumption of an
average liquid density of 1.2 g/ml seems reasonable.
B-30
-------
Calculation of the Safe Concentration of TCDD in Drinking Water
Once a given dose of TCDD is taken as a "threshold" or "no effect"
level for the human body for oral exposure, the corresponding "safe"
concentration level of TCDD in drinking water can be calculated. This is
the concentration in water which, when ingested, will lead to the
establishment of the given threshold dose within the human body. To do
this, it is necessary to take into account three factors:
o The average ingestion rate of drinking water of a person
assumed to be 2 liters per day;
o The average body weight of a person taken to be 70 kg;
o The average retention efficiency for TCDD ingested in drinking
water taken for simplicity to be 100% (that is, 100% of all
ingested TCDD in drinking water is assumed to be delivered to
the body as dose).
For simplicity, the question of possible bioaccumulation of TCDD in
the human body from drinking water is not considered here.
If 0.001 yjg/kg/day (i.e., 1 ppt of body weight per day) is taken as
the threshold concentration in the human body, CD> and cw
denotes the corresponding concentration in drinking water averaged over a
day, then:
cb = (2 liters of water) x cw x 1.0 x 106/70 kg
(• = threshold concentration in body, averaged over a day, in
C = corresponding concentration in drinking water, g/1
270 kg = average body weight
liters = average amount of water drunk per day
1.0 = assumed retention efficiency factor
B-31
-------
Solving the above for Cw yields C^, = 3.5 x 10~8 g/1, or C^, = 3.5 x 10 2
Jig/kg of water, which is 0.035 ppb or 35 ppt in water, averaged over a
day.
For comparison, it is worth noting that the maximum possible
concentration of TCDD in water is 0.2 ^ig/kg = 0.2 ppb = 200 ppt, since
the solubility of TCDD in water is 2 x 10"^ g/1.
The value of 0.001 jig/kg/day above is being considered as a possible
practical drinking water standard and is considered by some to be a "no
observed effect level" (NOEL) for oral exposure to TCDD based on feeding
studies with rats (10).
To allow for uncertainty in the assumed threshold dose Cjj
above, a safety factor of 100 could have been introduced to extrapolate
the animal data to humans, so that the threshold level in humans could
instead be assumed to be 10"^ jsg/kg/day. The corresponding safe
concentration in drinking water sould then be 1/100 of that computed
above, or only 0.35 ppt in water, daily average.
Calculation of Probability of a Tornado Striking the Site
1. Denny Farm Rite 1 is located in a 2-degree quadrangle defined by
92° and 94°W meridians of longitude, and 36°N and
38°N parallels of latitude.
2. The area A of this 2-degree square is approximately
A = (109.5 miles longitude) x (138.8 miles latitude)
= 15,198.6 square miles
3. The total number of tornadoes that have first touched ground within
this 2-degree square has been tabulated historically (11):
T = 111 tornadoes
over N = 46 years (1916-1961)
B-32
-------
See Figures 15A, 16A, or 16B in Reference 11. On average,
T/N = 111/46 = 2.413 tornadoes per year have occurred within this
2-degree square.
4. The average area D damaged by a tornado is 2 square miles (11, p. 31)
5. The probability per year of a tornado striking any particular point
within the 2-degree square (in particular, Denny Farm Site 1) is
therefore (11, p.28):
p = (T/N) x (D/A)
= (2.413 per year) x (2/15,198.6)
= 3.175 x 10~4 per year
This assumes that the Denny Farm Site 1 is effectively a point
target, i.e., its area is small compared to that of the tornado
damage zone (D = 2 square mi.).
6. Over an extended period, say 50 years, the probability of at least
one tornado striking the site is therefore:
1 - (1 - P)50 = 50 p
= 0.0158, or 1.6 percent
7. For the possibility of a tornado striking the site during the period
when the trench is open for excavation (Alternative 3), assume the
trench is open for about 1/10 of a year. Thus, the probability of
this scenario is about:
p = (3.2 x 10"^ per year) x (0.1 year)
= 3.2 x 10~5
B-33
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B
1. Personal Communication with Boyd Possin, E & R hydrologist,
August 20, 1980
2. Williams, Dr. J. Hadley. Hydrologic Aspects of the Farm Dump Site
Near Verona, McDowell Quadrangle, Barry County, Missouri. Geology &
Land Survey, State of Missouri, June 4, 1980.
3. Freeze, R. Alan, and John A. Cherry. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1979.
4. Boyle, William C. , and Robert K. Ham (University of Wisconsin).
Assessment of Leaching Potential from Foundry Process Solid Wastes.
pp. 129-147 in Proceedings of the 34th Industrial Waste Conference,
May 8, 9, and 10, 1979, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, J.M.
Bell, Ed., Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan,
1980; see pp. 137-139.
5. Cleary, Robert W. , David W. Miller, and George F. Pinder.
Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology. Princeton University,
Princeton, N.J.,1980 (course notes in 3-ring binder).
6. Del Pup, John, et al. (Ecological Analysts, Inc.), and Robert
Stadelmaier (RFCRA Reasearch Inc.). An Assessment of the Potential
Impact on Human Health from Operation of a Chemical Waste Management
System. pp. 270-276 in Proceedings of 1980 National Conference on
Control of Hazardous Material Spills, May 13-15, 1980, Louisville
Kentucky, published by Vanderbilt University, 1980; see p. 273.
7. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard. Assessment Models in
Support of the Hazard Assessment Handbook. CG-D-65-74, prepared by
A.D. Little,Inc., January 1974[NTIS AD-776 617]; see Chapter 4,
"Mixing and Dilution".
8. Eisenberg, N.A., et_ a\_. A Critical Technical Review of Six Hazard
Assessment Models. Prepared for U.S. Coast Guard by Enviro Control,
Inc., CG-D-122-76, December 1975 [NTIS AD/A-035 599 See Chapter 3,
"Mixing and Dilution Model."
9. State of Missouri, Division of Budgeting & Economic Planning;
contacted by John Caoile, E & E, August, 1980.
10. The FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Evaluation of the Oncogenicity,
Fetotoxicitv, and Exposure Characteristics for 2,4,5-T, Silvex, and
TCDD, Appendix I, p. 72325, in Final Determination Concerning the
Rebuttable Presumption Against Registration for Certain Uses of
Pesticide Products Containing 2,4,5-T..., Environmental Protection
Ap.ency, Federal Register, Vol. 44, Thursday, December 13, 1979,
72316-72328.
B-34
-------
11. Court, Arnold. Tornado Incidence Maps. ESSA Technical Memorandum
ERLTM-NSSL 49, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Environmental Science Services
Administration, National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma,
August 1970.
12. Menzie, Charles A. (EG&G Environmental Consultants). An Approach to
Estimating Probabilities of Transportation-Related Spills of
Hazardous Materials. Environmental Science & Technology 13(2),
February 1979, 224-228.
13. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard. Assessment Models in
Support of the Hazard Assessment Handbook. CG-D-65-74, prepared by
A. D. Little, Inc., January 1974 (NTIS AD-776-617), see Chapter 4,
"Mixing and Dilution".
14. Hazardous Materials Intelligence Report. 15 August 1980, p. 8.
B-35
-------
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS
-------
Field Boring Log
Project: Farm Site No. 1
Date:
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
July 15. 1980
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: 13
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation: 100.2
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Depth, ft.
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-10.0
10.0-11.5
11.5-13.0
13.0-14.5
14.5-16.0
16.0-17.5
17.5-19.0
19.0-20.5
20.5
PA
* 2" SPT
* 2" SPT
* 2" SPT
* 2" SPT
* 2" SPT
2" SPT
2" SPT
Drilling Discontinued
^^_
—
—
___
—
105
49
Reddish Brown Clay, silty, cherty,
moist, stiff
Same, but more moist to very moist
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
REMARKS:
* - 2" SPT were sampled by push-
ing spoon hydraulically into
soil.
No HNU Photo-ionizer Response
during drilling.
c-i
recycled paper
KEY
PA - Rower Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
tr and environment, int. .
-------
Field Boring Log
Project: Farm Site No. 1
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
Date: July 15. 1980
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: 14
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation: 99.9
Depth, ft.
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-3.0
3.0-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-10.0
10.0-11.5
11.5-15.0
15.0-16.1
16.1-20.0
20.0-21.2
21.2-27.0
27.0
PA
PA
2" SPT
PA
2" SPT
PA
2" SPT
PA
2" SPT
PA
Auger Refusal
—
^^^
69
—
50
—
50/1"
—
60/3"
—
Reddish Gray cherty gravels & sands,
some clay, dry, loose
i
Same but becoming more clay-like
Red. Clay, very cherty, slightly
moist, very stiff
Red Silty Clay, cherty, dry to
slightly moist, stiff . .
Red Silty Clay, cherty, dry to
slightly moist, stiff
Red Silty Clay, cherty, dry to
slightly moist, stiff
Red Silty Clay, cherty, dry to
slightly moist, stiff
Red Silty Clay, cherty, dry to
slightly moist, stiff
Reddish Brown Silty Clay, chertv,
slightly moist, stiff
Reddish Brown Silty. Clay, cherty,
slightly moist, stiff
'
REMARKS:
No HNU Photo-ionizer Response
during drilling.
C-2
recycled paper
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
erolupj anil « nvintiiiuriil. inr
-------
Field Boring Log
Project: Farm Site No. 1
Date:
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
July 15. 1980
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: 15
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation: 100.8
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-8.0
8.0-9.5
9.5
PA
2" SPT
2" SPT
2" SPT
Drilling Discontinued
80
40
39
Reddish Brown Silty Clay, slightly
moist to moist, stiff
Same
Same
Same
REMARKS:
No HNU Photo-ionizer Response
during drilling.
C-3
recycled paper
KEY
PA - Rower Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
«•( nli>K) mid riitinmiiiriii inr.
-------
Field Boring Log
Project: Farm Site No. 1
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
Date: July 15. 1980
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: ISA
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation: 100.5
Water Table: Completion
24 hours
dry
Method of
Depth, ft. Advancement N-value Soil Description
0.0-20.0
20.0
PA
Drilling Discontinued
i
Reddish Brown Silted ay, some
chert, moist, stiff
REMARKS:
The purpose of B-15A was to charac-
terize the anomaly area with respect
to an HNU-Photoionizer prior to
sampling at the other locations.
No meter response was observed
during drilling.
recycled paper
C-4
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
rrolog) and rnvirtimiient. inr.
-------
Field Boring Log
Project:
Farm Site No. 1
Date:
15, 1980
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Driller: Jim Murphy Boring No.: 16
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation:
99.2
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-2.0
2.0-3.5
3.5-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-10.0
10.0-14.0
14.0-15.5
15.5-19.5
19.5
PA
2" SPT; low recovery
2" SPT
2" SPT
PA
PA
2" SPT
PA
Auger Refusal
(Cherty Limestone)
30
32
25
85/3"
Buff Silt (Loessial Topsoil),
dry, loose
Red Cherty Clay, slightly moist,
stiff
Red Cherty Clay, slightly moist,
stiff
Reddish Brown Silt & Clay, slightly
moistj stiff, some chert fraaments-
Reddish Brown Silt & Clay, slightly
moist, stiff, somp chert fraaments
Same, less cherty
Same, becoming more cherty
Reddish Brown Silt & Clay, slightly
moist, stiff, some chert fraaments
REMARKS:
No HNU Photo-ionizer Response
during drilling.
C-5
recycled paper
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
••f ul\ nini f M\imiimrrii, inc. .
-------
Field Boring Log
Project: Farm Site No. 1
Date:
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
July 15, 198P
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: 17
Assistant Driller:
Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation:
99.3
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Depth, ft.
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-2.0
2.0-3.5
3.5-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-14.0
14.0-15.5
15.5-17.5
17.5-19.6
19.6-24.0
24.0
PA
2" SPT
2" SPT
2" SPT
PA
2" SPT; low recovery
PA
2" SPT
PA
Drilling Discontinued
— _
29
30
48
—
34
--
51
Buff Silt, come clay, dry,
loose
Red clay, silty, some chert frao-
ments ,' slightly moist, stiff
Red clay, siltv, some chert frao-
ments, sliqhtlv moist L stiff
Red clay, silty, some chert fraa-
ments, slightly moist, stiff
Same, but more clay & moisture at
8.5' - 10'
Red clay, silty, some chert fraaments
slightly moist, stiff
Red silty clay, numerous
Same
Same
REMARKS:
No HNU Photo-ionizer Response
during drilling.
recycled paper
C-6
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore
FH - Fish Tail Bit
mi rntinmnirni. inc.
-------
Field Boring LOG
Project: Farm Site No. 1
Date: July 16. 1980
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants E & E Geologist: J°hn Caoile
Driller: Jim Murphy Boring No.: £0
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation:
100.9
Depth, ft.
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-6.1
6.1-25.0
25.0-26.5
26.5
PA
PA
PA
Auger Refusal
—
—
—
Buff Silt (Loessial Topsoil),
dry, loose
Red Clay, Silty. Cherty, becoming
very cnerty below 20', moist, sti
Red Silty Clay and bedded chert,
slightly moist, very stiff
iff
REMARKS:
No HNU Photo-ionizer Response
during drilling.
C-7
recycled paper
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
i-iiiluei tun) pimninmi in. inr.
-------
Fielc Boring Log
Project- Farm Site No. 1
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
Da te: July 16, 19RO
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: 21
Assistant Driller: T°m Tillman
Surface Elevation: 101.3
Water Table* Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-0.5
0.5-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-8.0
8.0-9.5
9.5-14.0
14.0-15.5
15.5-19.0
19.0-19.1
19.1
PA
PA
2" SPT
2" SPT
2" SPT
Jar Sample taken
10'-14' auger cuttings
2" SPT
PA
2" SPT
Auger Refusal
—
59
33
40
-
25/1"
Buff Silt (Loessial Topsoil),
slightly moist to dry, loose
Red Clay, silty, cherty, slightly
moist, stiff
Same
Red Silty Clay, some chert frag-
ments, moist, stiff
Red Silty Clay, cherty, slightly
moist, stifr
Red Clay, some silt & chert,
moist, stiff
Same
Red Clay with chert fragments,
moist, stiff
Red silty clay and chert,
moist, hard
REMARKS:
No HNU Photo-ionizer Response
during drilling.
recycled paper
KEY
PA - power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diairo'nd Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
ft nltip\ mid i lit irnfiiMt in. ini
C-8
-------
Field Boring Log
Project: Farm Site No. 1
Gate: July 16. 19RO
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants E I E Geologist: John Caoile
Driller: Jim Murphy Boring No.: ^
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation:
100.2
Water Table: Completion
24 hours
dry
Method of
Depth, ft. Advancement N-value Soil Description
0.0-1.5
1.5-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-8.3
8.3
PA
PA
2" SPT
PA
Auger Refusal
—
56
—
Buff silt (Loessial Topsoil),
slightly moist, loose
Red Clay, trace silt, cherty, dry
to slightly moist, stiff
Same
Same
REMARKS:
No HNU-Photoionizer response
during drilling.
c-9
recycled paper
KEY
PA - Rower Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
ft u)ȣ\ HI id rm-iromnrni, inc.
-------
Field boring Log
Project:
Farm Site No. 1
Date:
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
July 16. 19RO
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: 24
Surface Elevation:
100.5
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Depth, ft.
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-3.2
3.2-5.0
5.0-5.5
5.5-10.0
10.0-11.5
11.5-14.0
14.0-14.5
14.5
PA
PA
2" SPT (no recovery)
PA
2" SPT
PA
PA
Auger Refusal
30/4"
—
24
—
__
Buff Silt (Loessial Topsoil); very
cherty at 2 - 3 deep, moist, loose
Red Silty Clay, cherty, slightly
moist, stiff.
Same
Same
Same
Red Silty Clay, Cherty, moist,
stiff
Numerous chert float rock, hard
REMARKS:
Offset S% feet'west of stake due to
tree branches overhead.
No HNU-Photoionizer Response
during drilling.
c-io
recycled paper
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
rrolugt and rmirvmmrnl. inr
-------
Field Boring Log
Project:
Farm Site No. 1
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Dri11er: Jim Murphy
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Date: July 16. 1980
E & E Geologist: John Caoi'le
Boring No.: 25
Surface Elevation:
99.8
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Depth, ft
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-1.8
1.8-2.0
2.0-3.5
3.5-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-8.0
8.0-14.0
14.0-15.5
15.5-19.0
19.0-20.5
20.5-27.5
27.5
PA
PA
9" CDT 1°W
i jr! recovery
2" SPT
2"SPT
2" SPT
PA
2" SPT
PA
2" SPT
PA
Auger Refusal
—
31
33
52
73
—
52
—
53
—
Buff Silt, tr. clay (Loessial
topsoil) , dry, medium
Red Clay, Silty, some chert 'frag-
ments, moist, stiff
Same, very cherty, moist, stiff
Red Silty Clay, cherty, moist,
stiff
Red Clay and chert fragments,
moist, stiff
Same
Same, but moist to very moist
about 8.5'
Same
Red Clay, some chert & silt,
moist, stiff
Same
• Interbedded Red Cherty Clay, and
chert float rock, hard.
REMARKS:
No HNU-Photoionizer Response
during drilling.
c-n
ri»< vclrd naner
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
-------
Field Boring Log
Project:
Farm Site No. 1
Date: July 16. 1980
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Driller: Jim Murphy Boring No.: 26
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation:
98.1
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-3.9
3.9-34.0
34.0
PA
PA
Drilling Discontinued
—
Buff Silt, trace clay (loessial
topsoil), moist, loose
Red Silty Clay, some chert, moist
to very moist, stiff
REMARKS:
Penetrated chert float rock about
10.5', 5" thick
No HNU-Photoionizer Response
during drilling.
recycled naoer
C-12
KEY
PA - power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
••colon* mid rmiraninrni. inr.
-------
Field Boring Log
Project:
Farm Site No. 1
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
Date:
July 16. 19BO
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: 27
Assistant Driller:
Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation:
99.0
Depth, ft.
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours 3ry~
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-2.5
2.5-6.0
6.0-6.5
6.5-32.7
32.7-33.3
33.3
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Auger Refusal
—
—
Buff Silt & Clay (Loessial topsoil),
moist, loose
Red Silty Clay, some chert fragments,
slightly moist, stiff
Chert - float rock
Red Silty Clay, trace chert fragments,
plastic; moist, stiff . .
Chert fragments, hard
REMARKS:
No HNU-Photoionizer Response
during drilling.
recycled paper
C-13
KEY
PA - Rower Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore
ulue
FH - Fish Tail Bit
and « minmmrnl. inc.
-------
Field Boring Log
Project: Farm Site No. 1
Date:
July 16. 1980
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Driller: Jim Murphy Boring No.: 28
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation:
99.9
Depth, ft.
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-2.1
2.1-5.0
5.0-6.5
6.5-8.0
8.0-9.5
9.5-14.0
14.0-15.5
15.5-19.0
19.0-20.5
20.5-25.0
25.0-32.2
32.2-33.2
33.2
PA
PA
2" SPT
2" SPT
2" SPT
PA
2" SPT
PA
2" SPT
PA
PA
PA
Auger Refusal
45
36
64
—
60/5"
—
35
—
—
—
Buff Silt, trace clay (loessial
topsoil), sliqhtlv moist, stiff
Red Silty Clay, some chert, "moist,
stiff
Same
Same
Red. Clay, moist to very moist,
Same
Same, but becoming less moist
Red Clay, some chert fragments,
moist, stiff
Same
Red Silty Clay, cherty, slightly
moist, stiff
"Same, becoming more cherty
Interbedded chert and Red Silty
Clay
REMARKS:
No HNU-Photoionizer Response
during drilling.
recycled paper
C-14
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
rrologt and riitiniiinirni, inc.
-------
Field Boring Log
Project:
Farm Site No. 1
Date:
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
July 17, 1980
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: 29
Surface Elevation:
100.3
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-2.5
2.5-4.5
4.5-5.0
5.0
PA
PA
PA
Auger Refusal
—
—
Buff Silt, some clay (loessial
topsoil), slightly moist, loose
Red Silty Clay, Cherty, moist,
stiff
Sandstone boulder
REMARKS:
No HNU-Photoionizer Response
during drilling.
Additional hole was drilled 5'
south of B-29 and designated
B-29A.
C-15
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
-------
Field Boring Log
Project:
Farm Site No. 1
Date: July 17. 19BO
Drilling Company. Terracon Consultants E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Driller: Jim Murphy Boring No.: 29A
Assistant Driller: Tom Till man
Surface Elevation:
100.3
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Depth, ft. Advancement N-value Soil Description
0.0-2.3
2.3-4.5
4.5-4.7
4.7-34.0
34.0
PA
PA
PA
PA
—
—
Buff Silt, trace clay {loessial
topsoil), sliahtly moist, stiff
Red Clay, some silt, cherty;
moist, stiff
Chert boulder or. zone
Red Clay, some silt & chert fraa-
ments , moist to very moist, very.
stiff
REMARKS:
Offset 5 feet south of B-29 due
to chert boulder.
C-16
recycled paper
KEY
PA - Rower Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
fitting* miH cininmrnrnu inc
-------
Field Boring Log
Project:
Farm Site No. 1
Date: July 17 to 19, 1980
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Driller: Jim Murphy Boring No.: 30 (well hole)
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation:
1.6
Water Table: Completion see remarks
24 hours
Depth, ft.
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-3.6
3.6-11.8
11.8-17.0
17.0-25.2
25.2-27.5
27.5-34.0
34.0-35.0
35.0-37.5
37.5-39.4
39.4-39.7
39.7-10.9
40.9-41.9
41.9-42.8
42.8-47.4
47.4
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
RB
DC (NX-size) 24%recove»
DC - 80% recovery
DC- 100% recovery
RB
DC- 100% recovery
DC- 100% recovery
RB
Drilling Discontinued
--
•V K
--
_ _
_ _
__
y Runtfl
Run # 2
Run # 3
Run # 4
Run # 5
Buff silt (loessial topsoil),
slightly moist, stiff
Red silty clay, some chert, "slight-
ly moist, stiff
Olive gray silty clay (shaley),
slightly moist to dry, stiff
Olive silt, dry, stiff
Cherty limestone, broken, hard
Alternating red clay and chert,
hard
Chert, very hard
Chert, ^gray-white, dense crystalline,
some fracture Tines
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
Same
REMARKS: No HNU-Photoionizer
Response during drilling.
Lost circulation at 44', continued
with rock bit. After 1 hour of
drilling, water was at 39.5'.
Core water level dropped to 41' in
2% hours, and was at 41' when the
well pipe was installed.
C-17
recycled paper
KEY
PA - Power Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
milii|;\ imrl rmircirimt lit. inr.
-------
Field Boring Log
Project: Farm Site No. 1
Date: July IE. igp.n
Drilling Company: Terracon Consultants
Driller: Jim Murphy
E & E Geologist: John Caoile
Boring No.: 31
Assistant Driller: Tom Tillman
Surface Elevation: 101.0
Water Table: Completion dry
24 hours dry
Method of
Advancement
N-value
Soil Description
0.0-0.8
0.8-11.2
11.2-12.5
12.5-15.5
15.5
PA
PA
PA
PA
Auger Refusal
^_
—
Buff Silt (Loessial topsoil), dry,
loose
Red Silt and Clay, some chert
fragments, moist, stiff
Same, but more chert fragments
Gray-White Cherty Limestone,
weathered, hard
REMARKS:
No HNU-Photoionizer Response
during drilling.
recycled paper
C-18
KEY
PA - Rower Auger
SPT- Standard Penetration Test
(split-spoon sampling)
ST - Shelby Tube
DC - Diamond Coring
RB - Rock Bit FT - Finger Tooth Bit
WB - Wash Bore FH - Fish Tail Bit
Prolog) and rnvirnnmrm, inc.
-------
SOIL SAMPLES TAKEN
Sample No. Boring No. Depth
AN8000
AN8001
AN8002
AN8003
AN8004
AN8005
AN8006
AN 8007
AN 8008
AN8009
AN8010
AN8011
AN8012
AN8013
AN8014
AN8015
AN8016
AN8017
AN8018
AN8019
AN8020
AN 8021
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
21"
lO'-ll1
11V-131
13'-14V
14V -16'
16'-17V
17V-191
19 '-20V
5'-6V
6V -P1
8'-9V
5'-6V
lO'-HV
15'-16J
20'-21'
3is' -5'
5'-6Js-
14--15'
2'-3i5'
3% '-5'
5'-6H'
17is'-19'
5 '-6^'
C-19
-------
SOIL SAMPLES TAKEN
(cont.)
Sample No. Boring No. Depth
AN8022
AN8023
AN8024
AN8025
AN8026
AN8027
AN8028
AN8029
AN8030
AN8031
AN8032
AN8033
AN8034
AN8035
AN8036
21
21
21
23
24
25
25
25
25
25
28
28
28
28
28
6V -8'
8'-9V
1CT-141
5'-6V
12'-14'
3V -5 '
5'-6V
6V -8'
14 '-15y
20' -2m1
5 '-6V
6V -8'
8 '-9V
14 '-1 5V
19 '-20V
C-20
-------
APPENDIX D
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
-------
APPENDIX D
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
In developing remedial actions for the Denny Farm Site 1 cleanup,
E & E examined carefully the safety requirements for contractor
personnel. This appendix addresses the occupational health and safety
considerations for excavation and cleanup of dioxin-contaminated
materials.
Because of the extreme toxicity of 2,3, 7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD), the unknown airborne concentrations of other organic
vapors, e.g., trichlorophenol, and the possibility of oxygen depletion in
the trench, utmost concern must be given to the safety and health of the
personnel performing the excavation. (For all intents, an IDLH—
Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health—atmosphere must be assumed
during the excavation phase.)
Personnel safety must take into consideration these hazards and
provide maximum protection from exposure via skin or mucous membrane
absorption and inhalation. It is evident that full body protective
clothing and supplied air must be provided for the excavation crew and
personnel working directly with contaminated material prior to
decontamination. The personnel protective equipment (PPE) has been
selected based on the need for worker safety, the nature of the required
operation, and the duration of the operation. The specified PPE for
different work crews affords the maximum protection and follows accepted
guidelines (NIOSH). Since the degree of hazard, i.e., exposure to
dioxin, is different for a number of operations necessary in the cleanup,
different levels of protection are recommended as defined below:
Excavation Team in and around Trench—Possible IDLH conditions
Fully encapsulated suit with cooling apparatue (vortex tube and
manifold)
Airline and self contained breathing apparatus (airline in
pressure-demand mode)
Impermeable gloves
Impermeable boots with steel shank
D-l
-------
Decontamination Crew—Contact with drums and equipment
Fully encapsulated suit with cooling apparatus (vortex tube and
manifold)
Airline and self-contained breathing apparatus (airline in
pressure-demand mode)
Impermeable gloves
Impremeable boots with steel shank
Personnel Decontamination Crew—Contact with personnel and
equipment
Airline suits/helmets with cooling apparatus
Impermeable clothing
Impermeable gloves and boots
Depending upon the location of the decontamination area, the
appropriate respiratory protection may be lowered to a full-face
piece air purifying respirator.
Back Hoe Operator in and around Trench
Self-contained breathing apparatus
Impermeable clothes (vinyl or tyvek)
Impermeable gloves and boots
Because of the possibility of damage to the airline hose and the
impracticability of attaching an airline to mobile equipment, SCBA
is the only alternative. Stay time should be longer for the
operator since activity is minimal. By rotating two operators there
should be no loss of efficiency during the overburden removal.
Crane Operator
Coveralls
Gloves
Boots
The low level of protection assumes that an enclosed and powered air
cab is available. If an open cab is used an air purifying
respirator and impervious clothing will provide the proper
protection for the operator. Vapor and dust levels may change the
PPE assessment for the crane operator.
Off-site Personnel
Protective equipment will be dictated by vapor concentrations and
the degree of airborne particulate (dust particles).
Upwind personnel will probably not need any PPE; however, in the
event that the above conditions exist, an air purifying respirator
along with coveralls will provide necessry protection.
D-2
-------
Additional Safety Support Equipment
1. Decontamination Trailer
For on-site personnel showers and laundry facilities to minimize
transport of contaminated material from site.
2. Air Compressors
To supply Grade 0 breathing air. The compressor must be equipped
with either a high temperature alarm or carbon monoxide alarm or
both.
3. Water
It is necessary that water be available for decontamination,
showering, and laundry purposes.
4. Steam Decontamination System
For equipment.
5. Organic Vapor Monitor
The possibility of organic and flammable vapor buildup within and
around the trench excavation area must be considered for personnel
safety. Regular monitoring for explosive vapor should occur during
operations. Several types of explosion meters are available from
suppliers.
6. Miscellaneous
There are numerous other safety and personnel protection measures
which should be considered during a hazardous operation of this
nature, especially for the excavation contractor. These
considerations may directly influence the total cost of the cleanup.
They include:
o Medical monitoring
o Non-sparking tools
o Explosion-proof equipment
o Fire-extinguishing materials
o Varying levels of personnel protection dependent on specific
task within or without secured area of site
o Providing for adequate rest, well-balanced meals, and other
personal hygiene during operations
o Daily safety briefings on site
o Training of personnel in safety and work procedures
D-3
-------
APPENDIX E
COST TABLES FOR PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION
-------
TABLE E-1
COMPONENT 1
TEMPORARY STORAGE FACILITY
ASSUMPTIONS
o Site for storage facility is available near waste site
o Shallow soil overburden
o Total storage requirement is 5000 drums.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THE ELEMENTS OF THIS COMPONENT:
Geotechnical Investigations $ 25,000
Land - 1 Acre 3 $l,000/per acre (assuming purchase of land) 1,000
Engineering Design Lump sum ID $25,000 (design of pad, caissons) 25,000
Steel plate fabrication, transport, and erection 190,000
Site Preparation - 1 acre at $l,000/per acre 1,000
Foundations
a. Excavation - 1200 C.Y. at S3/C.Y. 3,600
b. Caissons - 37 caissons X 12 V.F. ® $32/V.F. Ui,200
c. Grade Beams - 95 C.Y. at $285 C.Y. 27,100
d. Slab - 200 C.Y. at $165 C.Y. 33,000
Dium Rack, Misc. Interior 25,000
Electrical, Ventilation & Vandal-proof Access 15,000
TOTAL FOR COMPONENT 1 $360,000
*Cost estimate for fabrication & erection by Pittsburgh - Des Moines
Corporation
E-1
-------
TABLE E-2
COMPONENT 2
SITE SETUP \ MOBILIZATION
ASSUMPTIONS:
o Protective Equipment1 Mill be used by all personnel
o Offsite facilities to be available duration of project
o Requires installation of complete utilities
o Ten days for this component
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ELEMENTS OF THIS COMPONENT:
SITE CLEARING
expanding road, additional clearing
2 acres, $4,000/acre $ 8,000
UTILITIES
Telephone
$200 to connect phone
$l,000/mth phone bill $1,200
Sanitary Facilities
$200/mth. 1 month 200
Lighting System
2-30' lighting-towers
$600/mth. each 1,200
Power System
7.5 KW Generator
$300/mth. plus $30/day
operating cost for 30 days 1,200
3,800 3,600
OFFSITE BUILDINGS (TEMP.)
Command Post 12' x 8' Trailer
$300/mth plus $100 delivery 400
Storage Area 12' x 8' Trailer
materials, equipment, suits, etc.
$300/mth. plus $100 delivery 400
Crew Trailer 20' x 8
$500/mth x 1 month + $150 delivery 630
Shower Trailer
$350/day x 40 14,000
13,450 15,450
E-2
-------
TABLE E-2 con't
SITE PREPARATION
Material
Remove Portions of Existing Fence
$3.00/linear ft. x 100 linear ft. $300
Relocate Old Fence
$3.00/linear ft x 100 linear ft. 300
Install New Fence
$10.00/linear ft x 100 linear ft. 1,000
Personnel Gates
2 x $50.00 100
Vehicle Gate
1 x $120.00 120
Canvas Trench Cover
Canvas
$1.05/5.F. x 60' x 100' 6,300
Materials
(anchors, ropes, springs) 2,000
10,120 10,120
Equipment
Backhoe rental
1 x $550/wk. x 2/wks 1,100
Backhoe operating
1 x 40 hrs/wk. x 2/wks. x $3.50/hr. 280
1, 3BO 1,380
Laboi
Laborers
6x8 hrs/day x 10 days x $13.93/hr. 6,690
Foreman
1 x 8 hrs/day x 10 days x $19.85/hr 1,590
Supervisor
I x 8 hrs/day x 10 days x $40.00/hr 3,200
Backhoe Operator
1 x 8 hrs/day x 10 days x $16.85/hr 1,350
Per Diem
9 people x $45/day x 14 days 5,680
18,510 18,510
Training
(84 people for 2, 8-hour tinining sessions)
Assume average daily laboi cost
Labor
2 days x $10,100/day (Daily Labor) 20,000
Living expenses (per diem)
3 days x $5,670/day 17,000
37,000 37,000
E-3
-------
TABLE E-2 con't
DRUM DECONTAMINATION EQUIPMENT
Idler Conveyors
Water Storage Tank
Water Supply System for Drum Wash.
Decontamination Water Collection
System
Bulk Storage Tanks installed
Sampling
3 samples per Bulk Tank
2 x $ 500
1 x $ 200
1 x $ 500
2 x $ 700
2 x $1000
9 x $ 700/sample
PERSONNEL DECONTAMINATION EQUIPMENT
Water Storage A Supply Systems 2 x $700
Metal Grate Walkways 4 Decon Line 2 x $650
Water Collection Systems 2 x $700
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Personnel for Set up and within Fence
Fully Encapsulated Suits 2 shifts x 28 people x 2
Airline Mask with Escape Cylinder
Vortex Cooling Tubes
Cooling Manifolds
Disposable Splash Suits & Gloves
Setup
Excavation
Boots
Hardhats
Full Face Respiratois (when
off-site)
Respirator Cartridges
Setup
Excavation
per person + 20 x $800/unit
27 people +13 spares
x $925
40 x $230
40 x $50
9 people x $12/day
x 10 days + 10%
2 shjfts x 28 people/shu ft
x $12 day x 23 days +10%
2 shifts x 35 (7 spares)
x $30.00
35 (7 spares) x $3.50
32 (4 spares) x $70
9 x 8/day/person
x $3.85 x 10 days + 10%
2 shifts x 32 people x
4/day/person x 23 x $3.85
$1,000
200
500
1,400
2,000
6,300
11,400
1,400
1,300
1.400
4,100
105,600
11,400
4,100
37,000
9,200
2,000
1,190
17,000
2,100
125
2,240
3,050
22.670
202,180 202,180
E-4
-------
TABLE E-2 con't
Equipment Operators
Self Contained Breathing Appartus 2 x $680
Spare Tanks 4 x $220
Cooling vests 4 x $600
4,640
An Supply Equipment
Air Hose: Excavation Personnel
Decontamination Personnel
Air Hose Manifolds
An Compressor Systems
Rental
Operating Costs
Decontamination Personnel
Full Face Respirators
Boots
Hardhats
Disposable Splash Suits & Gloves
Respirator Cartridges
Robert Shaw Escape Masks
Personnel Outside Fenced Area
Full Face Respirators
Boots
Hardhat s
Disposable Splash Suits & Gloves
Respirator Cartridges
Robeit Shaw Escape Masks
20 hoses x 150 ft/hose
x $1.70/Ft.
12 hoses x 75 Ft x $1.70
32 connect x $121/4 connect
250/wk for 5 wks. x 3 units
3 x $30/day x 23 days
8 (2 spares) x $70
8 x $30 x 2 shifts
8 x $3.50
2 shifts x 6 people x $12/day
x 23 days + 10% for spares
2 shifts x 6 people x 8/day/
person x 23 days x $3.85 + 10%
8 x $200
10 (8 + 2 spares) x $70 x
2 shifts
10 (8 + 2 spares) x $30 x
2 shifts
10 (8 + 2 spares) x $3.50
x 2 shifts
2 sh i f ts x 8 peop le x
$12/day x 23 days + 10%
2 shifts x 8 people x 8/day
x 23 days x $3.85 + 10%
0 people x $200 each
5,100
1,530
970
3,750
2,070
13,420
560
480
30
3,645
1,400
600
70
4,860
12,470
1.600
21,000
13,420
15,670
TOTAI FUR POMPONENI 2
E-5
-------
TABLE E-3
COMPONENT 3A
EXCAVATION
ASSUMPTIONS:
o Union Wage Rates for Barry County are used and include a $4.50
per/hour premium
o Overall productivity is 70%
o The Excavation is established by a perimeter of 150 feet with an area
of 1000 S.F. and a trench depth of 8 feet.
o '150 drums of contaminated waste material exists in trench
Estimated Costs for Elements of this Component:
EQUIPMENT*
Crane
Rental
$3,900/mo. + 1 week ® $900/wk. $ 4,800
Operating
$5/hr. x 16/hr/day x 23 days + $400 Delivery 2,240
Backhoe
Rental
$2,025/mo. + 1 week HI $470/wk. 2,495
Operating
$3.50/hr. x 16/hr/day x 23 days + $200 Delivery 1,488
Forklift
Rental
$l,050/mo. + 1 week ® 245/wk. + $160 for drum
handling attachment 1,455
Operating
$4/hr. x 16 x 23 daya + $200 Delivery 1,672
Flatbed Truck
Rental
$750/mo. + 1 week ffl $173/wk. x 2 trucks 2,225
Operating
$l/hr. x 16 hr. x 23 days x 2 trucks 736
Water Truck
Rental
$l,900/mo. + 1 week ® $439/wk. x 1 truck 2,470
Operating
$4/hr. x 2 hrs/day x 23 daya 184
19,765 19,765
* Includes 50% surcharge for two shift operation
E-6
-------
TABLE E-3 con't
MATERIALS
Drums
Soil (from Tables E-3.1 & E-3.2)
2,370 drums x $25/drum $59,250
Waste drums
150 drums x $25/drum 3,750
Waste Overpacks
150 drums x $75/drum 11,250
Decontamination Water (assuming positive
sampling) 610 drums x $25/drum 15,250
Water (from Table E-3.2)
Drum Decontamination
5,875/gal. x $0.05/gal 295
Personnel Decontamination
24,800/gal. x 0.05/gal 1,240
Showers, Miscellaneous
46,370/gal. x $0.05/gal 2,320
Waste and Water Pumping System (purchase)
(Air operated pumps with anti-corrosive coatings) 3,000
Hand Truck for Drums 250
Disposable Supplies, Trashbags, Etc. 1000
Calcium Chloride for Dust Control 1000
98,610 98,610
LABOR
Laborers
36/shift x 23 days x 8 hrs/day
x 2 shifts/day x $13.93/hr. 184,500
Equipment Operators
Crane
1 x 23 days x 8 hrs/day x
2 shifts/day x 17.33/hr. 6,380
Backhoe
1 x 23/day x 8 hrs/day x
2 shifts/day x $16.85/hr. 6,200
Forklift
1 x 23/days x 8 hrs/day x
2 shifts/day x $16.25/hr. 5,980
Foreman & Supervisors
Project engineer
1 x 23/days x 8 hrs/day x
2 shifts/day x $40.00 14,720
Offsite foreman
1 x 23/days x 8 x $19.85 x
2 shifts/day 7,300
E-7
-------
TABLE E-3 con't
Safety officer
1 x 23/day x 8 x $19.85 x
2 shifts/day x 19.85/hr. 7,300
TOTAL LABOR 232,380 232,380
Living Allowance (per diem)
42 people x $45/day per x 32 days
x 2 shifts 117,180
TOTAL COST FDR COMPONENT 3A
E-8
-------
TABLE E-3.1
COMPONENT 3A
SOIL & WATER VOLUMES
SOIL EXCAVATION
Volume of Soil to be Excavated
Trench
1,000 S.F. x 8' deep
Sideslopes
150 linear feet x 32 C.F./L.F.
Volume Machine Excavated
Trench
1,000 S.F. x 2 feet
Sides lopes
4,800 C.F x 50%
Volume Hand Excavated
12,800 C.F. - 4,400 C.F.
WATER REQUIREMENTS
Drum Decont amination
2670 drums x 2 gal/drum
Personnel Decontamination
Inside Fence: 28 people/shift x 2 shifts
x 15 gal/day/person x 23 days
Outside Fence: 4 people/shift x 2 shifts
x 5 gal/day/person x 23 days
Contingency 10%
Personal Hygiene
42 people x 2 shifts x 20 gal/peison/day
x 23 days
Contingency 20%
8,000 C.F.
4,800 C.F.
12,800 C.F.
2,000 C.F.
2,400 C.F.
8,400 C.F.
GALLONS GALLONS
5,875 5,875
19,320
3,220
2,260
24,800 24,800
38,640
7,730
46,370 46,370
TOTAL WATER 77,045
E-9
-------
TABLE E-3.2
CONPONENT 3A
DRUM REQUIREMENTS
SOIL*
Machine Excavated
4,400 CF x 1.35/7.3 CF/Drum
Hand Excavated
8,400 CF x 1.35/7.3 CF/Drum
* Assumes 35% swell factor for soil
DECONTAMINATION WATER
Drum Decon
5,875 gal/55 gal/dium
Personnel Decon
24,800 gal/55 gal/drum + 10%
WASTE MATERIALS
Contents
Waste Drums in Dverpacks
Drum
815
1,555
TOTAL 2,370
110
500
TOTAL 610
150
150
2,370
610
300
TOTAL DRUM REG. 3,280
E-10
-------
TABLE E-3.3
COMPONENT 3A
LABOR REQUIREMENTS
ASSUMPTIONS
o Productivity of personnel in safety equipment at 100% is 15 CF/hr
for hand excavation
o Productivity of backhoe opeiatoi in safety equipment at 100% is
50 C.F./hr.
o Productivity of personnel in safety equipment at 100% foi
handling drums is the following:
a. Waste drums in trench
b. Excavated soil drums
c. Machine excavated drum
d. Drum decontamination
2 man-hrs/drum
1 man-hr/drum
1/2 man-hr/drum
1/2 man-hr/drum
o Labor rates with $4.50/hr premium on Union rates for Barry County
a. Laborer $13.93/hr.
b. Light, Fork Lift Equipment Operator 16.25/hr.
c. Medium Backhoe Equipment Operator 16.85/hr.
d. Heavy Crane Equipment Operator 17.33/hr.
e. Foreman, Safety Officer 19.85/hr.
f. Supervisor, Project Engineer 40.00/hr.
LABOR REQUIREMENTS (On site)
Hand excavation
Soil excavation within trench
8,400 C.F. © 15 C.F./manhour
Removal of waste from drums 4 removal
of empty drum in overpack
150 x 1 man hr./drum
Removal of drums filled with hand
excavated soil
1,555 x 1/2 man hi./dium
TOTAL
Hours
560
150
780
1,490 1,490
E-11
-------
TABLE E-3.3 con't
Machine Excavation
4,400 C.F./50 C.F./hr
Drum Handling
1. New Drums with Waste & Overpacks
150 drums x 1 man hour/drum
2. Drums Containing Hand Excavated Soil
1,553 x 1/2 man hour/drum
3. Drums Containing Machine Excavated Soil
815 drums x 1/2 man hour/drum
Hours Hours
88 88
Drum Decontamination
2,370 drums + 300 new drums & overpacks +
x 1/2 man hrs./drum
110
1,410
1,390 1,390
TOTAL HOURS* 4,298
» Does not include offsite support and supervisory personnel
TOTAL PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS PER SHIFT
a. Trench excavation
b. Backhoe operation
c. Drum Decontamination
d. Drum handling, drum removal,
transport to D-con
e. On-site backup personnel
f. Personnel decontamination
g. Crane operator
h. Off-site mateiial handling
i. Fork lift
j. Foreman
k. Safety officer
1. Project engineer
Outside Inside
Fence Fence
6
1
6
6
1
3
1
1
1
1
6
9
6
9
6
1
3
1
1
1
1
42 per shift
E-12
-------
TABLE E-4
COMPONENT 3B
EXCAVATION
ASSUMPTIONS
o Drums and intermingled soil removed from trench
o Sample trench floor and walls to determine concentration of TCP & TCDD are
within acceptable limits
o Only firm cost would be the first time sampling and, if positive results, the
platform construction.
o Single shift activity due to lower hazard
FIXED COST
Sampling of Trench $44,000
(WSU estimate on analysis of 40 samples)
Drum platform and loading ramp construction
Concrete pad 35' x 10' x 6"
for 50 drums
o Formwork and preparation $ 200
o Concrete, 1 C.Y. load, delivered 350
o Backhoe
2 day
-------
TABLE E-4 con't
MATERIAL
Drums (See Table E-4.1)
204 drums/day x $25/drum
Water (See Table E-4.1)
(Decontamination water)-t-(shower water)
= 944/gal/day x $0.05/gal
Personnel Protection Equipment
1. Respirator cartridges
16 people x 8 cart/day x $3.85 + 10%
4 people x 4 cart/day x $3.85 •»- 10SS
2. Disposable splash suits
20 people x $12/unit + 10%
TOTAL
$5,100/day
50/day
550/day
70/day
270/day
$6,040/day
$6,040/day
EQUIPMENT
a. Crane with Clamshell
Rental & operating
b. Backhoe Loader
Rental & operating
c. Forklift
Rental & operating
$ 340/day
$ 210/day
$ 130/day
d. Flatbed Truck
Rental & Operating $ 85/day
e. Water Truck
Rental A Operating $ 130/day
f. Shower Truck
Rental + operation $ 350/day
g. Miscellaneous equipment & utilities $ 350/day
TOTAL $1,550/day
$1,550/day
E-14
-------
TABLE E-4 con't
LABOR (see Table E-4.1)
Laborers
15 people x 8 hrs/day x $13.93/hr
Equipment operators
1. Crane
1 person x 8 hrs/day x $17.33/hr
2. Backhoe
1 person x 8 hrs/day x $16.85/hr
3. Forklift
1 person x 8 hrs/day x $16.25/hr
Supervisors
1. Project engineer
1 peison x 8 hrs/day x $40/hr
2. Safety officer
1 person x 8 hrs/day x 19.85/hi
Per Diem
20 people x $45/day
BACKFILL
Virgin Soil: 38.5 C.F. x $7.5/C.F.
TOTAL
$ 1,675/day
140/day
135/day
130/day
320/day
160/day
900/day
$3,460/day
TOTAL VARIABLE COST FOR
COMPONENT 3B
THE COST FOR REMOVING
1 CUBIC YARD IS
S 3,460/day
$ 290/day
$11,340
$ 380
E-15
-------
TABLE E- 4.1
EXCAVATION DATA
Labor requirement: 20 personnel
IZ on-SJte laborers (2 backup)
3 off-site laborers
1 crane operator
1 backhoe operator
1 folk lift operator
1 supervisor
L safety officer
SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS
SOIL
Volume of soil to be excavated
6 people x 4 drums/hour x 8 hours
192 drums x 7.3 C.F./drum x 1.35 (swell factor)
1040 C.F./day/27 C.F./C.Y.
Volume to be machine excavated
38.5 C.Y./day
WATER
Volume of decontamination water
Drums
192 drums x 2 gal/drum/day
Personnel
16 people x 10 gal/person/day
Volume of shower watei (not stored)
20 people/day x 20 gal/person
192 drums/day
1040 C.F./day
38.5 C.Y./day
384 gals/day
160 gals/day
544 gals/day
400 gal/day
DRUM REQUIREMENTS
Drums
192 drums contain soil
Personnel A Drum Contamination
544 gal/day/55 gal/dium
Micellaneous
192 drums
10 drums
2 drums
204 drums
E-16
-------
TABLF E-5
COMPONENT 4
SITE CLOSURE
ASSUMPTIONS
o Remove all materials From site
o Close site and secure storage facility
o All .contaminated material placed in storage
o No surcharge on equipment use
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR COMPLETION OF THIS COMPONENT:
EQUIPMENT
Steam cleaner
Rental + operating costs 2 wks 0 $250/wk ¥500
Flatbed truck
Rental
2 wks x $150/wk 300
Operating
4 hrs/day x 10 days x $l/hr 40
Water truck
Rental
2 wks @ $380/wk 760
Operating
4 hrs/day x 10 day x $1 hr _ 40 _
1 ,640 $1 ,640
PERSONNEL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT
Disposable coveralls
6 people x 1 unit/day x $12/unit
x 10 days + 10S 790
Respirator cartridges
6 people x 8 cart /day x
$3.85/cart + 1055 190
980 980
MATERIALS
Drums
Drums for disposables
2 drums/day x 10 days x $25/drum 300
Water
Steam cleaning
150 qal/day x 8 days x $0.05/qal 60
Personnel
6 people x 10 days x 5 qal/day x
$0.05/gal 75
E-17
-------
TABLE E-5 con't
Disposable supplies
Gloves, tiashbags, etc. $200
840 840
LABOR
Laborers
5 people x 8 hr/day x 10 days
x $13.93/hr 5,575
Supervisor
1 person x 8 hr/day x 10 day
x $40/hr 3«2DO
Per diem
60 man days x $45/man days 2,700
11,480 11,480
DEMOBILIZATION
Remove all equipment 3,000
Trench Backfill
(Based on Phase I Excavation)
Virgin Soil
640 C.Y. x 7.5/C.Y. 4,800 4,800
Bulldozer Rental
1 wk. x $400/wk. + $200 Delivery 600
Bulldozer Operating Cost
3 days x 8 his/day x $4.00/hr. 100
Bulldozer Operatoi
3 days x $16.85/hr. x 8 hrs./day 405
1,110 1,100
TOTAL COST OF
COMPONENT 4 $23.840
E-18
-------
APPENDIX F
CREDENTIALS
-------
APPENDIX F
CREDENTIALS
The selection of the remedial action necessary for the Denny Farm
Site 1 cleanup has necessarily been a multidisciplinary effort. Ecology
and Environment's (E & E) Region VII FIT office has been developed to
support the investigation requirements of the contract. In considering
both the technical and time requirements for the completion of this
present study, the E & E FIT National Project Management Office (NPMO)
developed a Special Projects Team composed of specialists from throughout
the country. Regional direction was maintained with technical and
publications support provided by the NPMO.
The following persons were assigned to the Special Projects Team
either through the duration of the study or for special support.
JAMES J. BUCHANAN
Discipline: Project Management
Team Assignment: Project Manager
Educational Credentials: Postgraduate Studies in Analytical Chemistry;
B.S., Aquatic Biology/Chemistry
Summary of Work Experience;
Mr. Buchanan has had extensive experience in the management of hazardous
waste and pollution control projects. At the present time, he is the
manager of Ecology and Environment's Field Investigation Team Regional
Office in Kansas City (Region VII). Mr. Buchanan has also been an
instructor in the control of hazardous materials for various groups, and
he has been an Environmental Emergency Response Team Leader in the State
of Ohio.
RUSSKLL J. ENDS
Disciplines: Toxic and Hazardous Waste Identification; Solid Waste
Management; Transportation of Hazardous Wastes
Team Assignment: Deputy Project Manager
F-l
-------
Educational Credentials: B.S., Botany and Chemistry; Pharmacy
Summary of Work Experience:
Mr. Enos has over five years of project management experience in the
investigation of solid waste and hazardous waste facilities including
background information search; environmental monitoring (air, surface
water, groundwater); short-term/long-term remedial measures; and
alternate methods of disposal and treatment. In addition, Mr. Enos has
served as a private consultant to those generating, transporting, or
disposing of hazardous wastes.
ROBERT J. KING
Disciplines: Mechanical Engineering and Public Health
Team Assignment: Resource Coordinator
Educational Credentials: M.P.H., Public Health; United Nation1s Graduate
Program on the Human Environment; B.M.E.,
Mechanical Engineering
Summary of Work Experience;
Mr. King is the Assistant National Project Manager for Training and
Safety for the Field Investigation of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites.
Mr. King has also been responsible for environmental work on a $40
million technical support contract with the Department of Energy's
Division of Fossil Fuel Processing coal conversion program.
JON R. BARKHURST
Discipline: Mathematics
Team Assignment: Risk Analyst
Educational Credentials; M.S., Mathematics
Summary of Work Experience;
Mr. Barkhurst works in Ecology and Environment's Risk and Hazards
Management Group. He has evaluated leaks associated with petroleum
transportation systems and has formulated mathematical models to predict
expected damage from large pipe breaks. He applied probability theory,
statistical methods, pipe fractional mechanics, and computer modeling for
this study.
F-2
-------
EDWARD M. BRIESCH
Discipline: Chemical Engineering
Team Assignment: Chemical Engineer
Educational Credentials: Professional Engineer
Summary of Work Experience:
Mr. Briesch has extensive experience in engineering investigations of
industrial accidents (including fire and explosions), defective product
designs, and accident preventions. He also has been responsible for the
analysis of hazards connected with various chemical products and the
installation of chemical facilities.
JOHN A. CAOILE
Discipline: Civil Engineering and Geology
Team Assignment; Geologist
Educational Credentials: B.S., Geology; Senior Undergrduate Standing in
Civil Engineering (1980)
Summary of Work Experience:
Mr. Caoile's previous work experience has been in the geotechnical
consulting field. His work included supervision and field logging of
drill crews, laboratory testing of soil and rock, preparation of geologic
maps and cross sections, and field inspections. Mr. Caoile's previous
projects have included seepage studies for wastewater treatment plants,
foundation soil investigations, sewage lagoon studies, development of
criteria for compaction requirements using bentonite to control
permeability, drainage of excavations, and settlement analysis.
GARY P. Cl.EMONS
Discipline: Biology
Team Assignment: Toxicologist/Puhlic Health
Educational Credentials: Ph.D., Fungicide Toxicology; M.S., Insecticide
Toxicology; B.S., Entomology
Summary of Work Experience:
Dr. demons has seven years of experience in laboratory research
investigation dealing with the mode of action and animal metabolism of
agricultural toxins and the purification and chemical nature of red-tide
algae toxins. He has also had five years of experience with the U.S.
F-3
-------
National Park Service and Ecology and Environment in the environmental
management of natural areas.
FRANK COATES
Discipline: Biology
Team Assignment: Safety Officer
Educational Credentials: B.A., Biology
Summary of Work Experience:
Mr. Coates was hired by Ecology and Environment, Inc., in April 1980.
Before joining E & E, he worked for a period of three years with OSHA in
St. Louis, Missouri Mr. Coates has also had one year's experience at
the Loyola (Chicago) University Medical Center.
RICHARD P. HARRINGTON
Discipline; Safety Management
Team Assignment: Safety Officer
Educational Credentials: M.S., Public Safety
Summary of Work Experience:
Mr. Harrington is experienced in handling emergency situations and has
several years of experience in establishing and operating fire fighting
programs at Air Force missile bases. He is knowledgeable in emergency
response field organization and practices. Mr. Harrington has studied
public safety, accident investigation, physical security, and law in
recent graduate studies.
JOSEPH H. HOFFMAN
Disciplines: Mathematics and Physics
Team Assignment: Risk Analyst
Educational Credentials: M.A., Mathematics; B.S., Physics
Summary of Work Experience:
Mr. Hoffman is a member of Ecology and Environment's Risks and Hazards
Management Group. As such, he analyzes the hazards to public safety
associated with a number of E & E's projects, e.g., the transport and
terminal transfer of liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas.
In order to quantify these risks in an objective way, Mr. Hoffman applies
the best available scientific knowledge and methodolopgy to develop
F-A
-------
mathematical models which can be used to predict the physical
consequences of an accident. This requires an interdisciplinary approach
to the description or modeling of several distinct types of problems.
BOYD N. POSSIN
Discipline: Hydrology/Geology
Team Assignment: Hydrologist/Geologist
Educational Credentials: B.S., Earth Science; M.S., Water Resources
Management; M.S., Geology
Summary of Work Experience:
Mr. Possin has over seven years field and office experience in defining
groundwater-surface water relationships in soil and bedrock regimes. He
has conducted landfill hydrology and groundwater containment movement
studies in residual soil, carbonate bedrock environments in Pennsylvania,
and in glacial soil, multiple lithological bedrock environments in
Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, and Indiana.
JOHN B. SCHULTZ
Disciplines: Information/Documentation Management and Public Affairs
Team Assignment: Public Information/Documentation Officer
Educational Credentials: M.A., Education; M.A., Religion; B.A. ,
Philosophy
Summary of Work Experience:
Mr. Schultz has nearly twenty years of experience in the gathering and
dissemination of information and in writing and editing for publication.
This experience has included work with highly technical data and with
sensitive, secret, and top secret material. Since 1973, Mr. Schultz has
been working mainly in the areas of medical education (particularly drug
abuse), energy, and environmental studies.
JACK E. WILCOX
Discipline: Environmental Engineering
Team Assignment: Environmental Engineer
Educational Credentials: Professional Engineer in Training (EIT);
B.S.E., Environmental Engineering
F-5
-------
Summary of Work Experience:
As a member of Ecology and Environment's Technical Assistance Team in
Region VI for EPA, Mr. Wilcox observed and monitored the cleanup of the
Vertac waste site near Little Rock, Arkansas. He also organized the
sample results and provided requested technical assistance for that job.
JOHN ZIRSCHKY
Disciplines: Environmental Civil Engineering
Team Assignment: Cost Estimating and Earthwork Evaluation
Educational Credentials: M.S., Environmental Engineering; B.S., Civil
Engineering
Summary of Work Experience:
Mr. Zirschky has one year of research experience involving the
construction and operation of land treatment systems. He has also worked
with conventional treatment systems.
The following subcontractors were used for the study:
F.C. Hart Associates, Inc.
Subcontractor to E & E on the FIT program; provided resources and
expertise on the evaluation of mitigative options.
Gross, Shuman, Brizdle. Laub & Gilfillan, P.C.
E & E corporate legal counsel; provided review of legal requirements
of the Denny Farm Site 1 cleanup.
Dr. Raymond D. Harbison
Discipline: Pharmacology and Biochemistry
Team Assignment; Health Advisor
Educational Credentials: Ph.D., Pharmacology and Biochemistry
Summary of Work Experience:
Dr. Harbison directs the National Hazardous Materials Training
Course which is sponsored by the Toxic Substance Control Institute.
He has also worked as a consultant to E & E on the Oil and Hazardous
Materials TAT program for EPA and on E & E's corporate Health and
Safety Committee.
F-6
-------
Dr. Robert C. James
Discipline: Toxicology
Team Assignment; Toxicologist
Educational Credentials: Ph.D., Pharmacology; B.S., Chemistry
Summary of Work Experience:
As a toxicologist for AWARE, Inc. , Dr. James assisted in the
assessing of the impact of toxic and organic materials on the
environment from various hazardous waste treatment and disposal
sites. Dr. James also has authored various publications on clinical
pharmacology and toxicology.
LaBella Associates, P.C.
Engineering and management firm in the design of waste management
systems; provided engineering expertise in the design and cost
estimates for storage operation.
Technos, Inc.
Geophysical survey firm; provided field evaluation of geology and
hydrology by use of remote geophysical sensing technology.
Terraeon, Inc.
Well drilling firm; completed drilling for sampling program.
F-7
------- |