United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROCVR05-86/035
September 1986
Superfund
Record of Decision
EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.
91201
Fields Brook Sediment, OH
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleat read Instruction! on the revent before completing)
EPA/ROD/TR05-86/035
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Fields Brook, OH
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
S. REPORT DATE
September 30, 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENt NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final ROD Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
800/00
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Fields Brook is located in the City of Ashtabula, Ohio and drains a 5. 6- square mile
watershed (defined as the "site"). The 3.5 mile main channel of Fields Brook flows
through an industrial area that is one of the largest and most diversified
concentrations of chemical plants in Ohio. The brook empties into the Ashtabula River
which subsequently flows into Lake Erie 8,000 feet downstream of its confluence with
Fields Brook. Industrial sources have contaminated the sediment in Fields Brook with a
variety of organic and heavy metal pollutants, including TCE, PCE, chlorobenzene , vinyl
chloride, arsenic, zinc, mercury and chromium. Base-neutral compounds including
hexachloroethane, toluenediamine and toluene diisocyanate also have been detected in
Fields Brook sediments. Sediments taken from the Ashtabula River in the vicinity of
Fields Brook are contaminated with PCBs. The U.S. EPA believes that the amount of
contamination entering the brook at this time has been substantially reduced due to the
recent development of pollution control laws and discharge permitting requirements.
The selected remedial action for the Fields Brook site includes: provisions for the
excavation of contaminated sediment from Fields Brook, the temporary storage and
dewatering, and the thermal treatment of a portion and the solidification and onsite
landfilling of the remainder. Based on criteria presented in the ROD, approximately
36,000 cy of contaminated sediments will be solidified, and 16,000 cy will be thermally
(See Attached Sheet)
17.
1. DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Record of Decision
Fields Brook, OH
Contaminated Media: sediments
Key contaminants: VOCs, TCE, PCE, base-
neutral compounds, PCBs, arsenic, chromium,
zinc, mercury
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
None
20. SECURITY CLASS fTltiipagtl
None
c. COSATi Field/Croup
72
22. PRICE
EPA Fwm 2220-1 (IUv. 4-77) PREVIOUS COITION is OMOUCTK
-------
EfA/ROD/fc05-86/035
Fields Brook, OB
16. ABSTRACT (continued)
treated, The remedy also includes treatment of waste water fro* the
dewatering process, and provision of OfcM costs for one year. The estimated
capital cost of the remedy is $35,100,000 with annual OfcN costs of $72,000.
-------
v
RECORD OF DECISION
Remedial Alternative Selection
Site.: Fields Brook Sediment Operable Unit, Ashtabula, Ohio
Documents Reviewed:
I am basing my decision on the following documents describing the analysis
of the cost-effectiveness of remedial alternatives for the Fields Brook
Sediment Operable Unit, Ashtabula, Ohio:
- Remedial Investigation - Fields Brook Site, Ashtabula, Ohio,
CH2M Hill, March 1985.
- Feasibility Study - Fields Brook Sediment Operable Unit,
Ashtabula, Ohio, CH2M Hill, July 1986.
- Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection.
- Responsiveness Summary, September 1986.
Description of Selected Remedy:
- Provisions for the excavation of contaminated sediment from
Fields Brook, the temporary storage and dewatering, and the
thermal treatment of a portion and the solidification and landfilling
of the remainder. The breakdown is based on criteria in the
Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection. Subsequent water
treatment is also included.
- First year Operation and Maintenance costs to provide for long-
term monitoring after the remedy has been completed.
Declarations:
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR
Part 300), I have determined that the excavation and thermal treatment/
landfilling of Fields Brook Sediment is a cost-effective remedy and provides
adequate protection of public health, welfare, and the environment. The
State of Ohio has been consulted and agrees with the approved remedy. In
addition, the action will require future operation and maintenance activ-
ities to ensure the continued effectiveness of the remedy. These activities
will be considered part of the approved action and eligible for Trust Fund
monies for a period of one year.
-------
-2-
I have also determined that the action being taken is appropriate when
balanced against the availability of Trust fund monies for a period of one
.year.
»
The U.S. EPA will undertake additional remedial investigations/feasibility
studies to address any ongoing sources of contamination to Fields Brook and in the
Ashtabula River (If deemed appropriate) and evaluate proposed remedies. If
additional remedial actions are determined to be necessary a Record of
Decision will be prepared for approval of the future remedial action.
VaTdasyv. Adamkus
Regi onal/Adrn ni strator
-------
I
,>
v
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
FIELDS BROOK SEDIMENT OPERABLE UNIT, ASHTABULA, OHIO
SJTE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Fields Brook is located in the City of Ashtabula, Ashtabula County in
Northeastern Ohio (Figure 1). The brook drains a 5.6 square mile watershed
(defined as the "site" for the purpose of this study), the eastern portion
draining Ashtabula Township and the western portion draining the City of Ashta-
bula (Figure 2). The 3.5 mile stretch of main channel begins just south of
U.S. Highway 20, about a mile east of State Highway (STH) 11. From this point
the stream flows northwesterly, under U.S. Highway 20 and Cook Road, to just
north of Middle Road. Then the stream flows westerly to its confluence with
the Ashtabula River. From Cook Road downstream to STH 11, the stream flows
through an industrial area that is one of the largest and most diversified
concentrations of chemical plants in Ohio. Downstream of STH 11, to near its
confluence with the Ashtabula River, the brook flows through a residential area
in the City of Ashtabula (population, 24,449 in 1980). Fields Brook is con-
sidered a navigable body of water which varies greatly in width and depth. Some
of the areas surrounding the brook are thickly covered with vegetation. The
Ashtabula River empties into Lake Erie about 8,000 feet downstream of its
confluence with Fields Brook. The City of Ashtabula's drinking water intakes
are located within Lake Erie.
SITE HISTORY
Industrial sources have contaminated the sediment in Fields Brook with-a variety
of organic and heavy metal pollutants. Organic compounds reported in sediment
-------
PIELOS SHOOK
SITE
WILLIAMS* IE LD
STATION
• FIELDS
-------
€
C
I»«lINM
KMIMfllt
FICtnSKRCIOK
WAIIHSHI O I OCA I ION M^
I II I !>-. I • I t
-------
sampled during previous studies of Fields Brook include volatile organic compounds:
chlorobenzene, 1,1,1 - trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1,-dicloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, trlchloroethene, and vinyl chloride; base-neutral compounds:
hexachloroethane, hexachlorobutadiene. toluenediamine, and toluene diisocyanate;
chlorinated benzene compounds: 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene; and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Hetals (zinc, mercury, chromium, lead, and
titanium) have also been found in the sediment at concentrations reported by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in the Toxic
Summary Report (April 1982) to be above background. The Agency believes the
amount of contamination entering the brook at this time has been substantially
reduced due to the recent development of pollution control laws and discharge
permitting requirements.
Chemical analysis of sediment core samples, collected by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) in 1982. indicated sediment in the Ashtabula River in the
vicinity of Fields Brook may be regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA) because of the presence of PCBs.
Analysis of tissue from fish caught in Fields Brook and the Ashtabula River
prior to 1982 indicated the presence of chlorinated organic compounds such as
PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobutadiene. Because of possible fish
contamination with PCBs and other organic chemicals, on March 1, 1983, the Ohio
Department of Health and Ohio EPA issued a health advisory recommending that
people not eat fish caught in a 2-mile reach of the Ashtabula River from Lake
Erie to the 24th Street Bridge.
-------
The Fields Brook site was first proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities
List (NPL) in October of 1981. It was included on the NPL in September of 1983,
with-a Hazard Ranking System (MRS) score of 44.95.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The U.S. EPA conducted a remedial investigation (RI) at the Fields Brook site
beginning in 1983. Sampling was conducted in-two phases, during the summers
of 1983 and 1984, and included sediment, surface water, industrial effluent,
macroinvertebrate, and fish samples. Results of the RI are summarized
according to environmental medium in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 3 through 8.
EVALUATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH RISK
Potential risks from contaminated sediment, surface water and fish from Fields
Brook are based on the assumption that the site would be used in the future
for both residential and industrial/commercial development. These estimated
risks are theoretical quantifications, and are presented separately. For
carcinogens, the potential risks are reported as excess lifetime cancer risks,
which is defined as the incremental increase in the probability of getting
cancer compared to the probability if no exposure occurred. For example, a
10~6 excess lifetime cancer risk represents the exposure that could increase
cancer by one case per million people exposed. The risk levels were calculated
if
|| using the U.S. EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group cancer potency values.
.[ i*
For noncarcinogens, those substances with EPA published acceptable chronic
daily intakes (AICs), the daily chemical intake was calculated depending on the
exposure route and then compared to the AIC. An AIC is the dose that is anticipated
k t to be without lifetime risk when taken daily.
-------
TVffCAl CONCINTMTKW NMMlt
row soil i
niiMto
-------
er
TC* I.IJ tmttui
tte* i.uj
c» <
net t.t t«
Ct ct
tc*
nc* «. «
tort <• tt
ItCt N. II
tCI H I]
NO. u*
I. I. M MI««CMIO"«<»
ItHMN IH '"I UVll
r*tM Tim ior»no» it
IIUIM»M< „.(.
Ittc* «il
trcr <• JMHMimi
tet <» I
ITTCA <*
COWCfWTn'ATIONS OF ONOMMS WIOMtTV
POLLUTANT tU**H)U»H)» OCTKTtO M
SURFACE WATER SAMPIISWL)
I II I tH IIHIKIK HI
-------
IJ
«M MJ
tltt MM
•*•§•«««
Mon«"i
-------
€
SS^ii^,:,,.^.,,...,'..,,
FIGURE" eawit
c.
Cn CTAMIOI
M HKIfl
«• MlfMIUM
A* tllvfD
Tl THMHUV
k. tm
v •
(•> IMC
CONCtNTNATNKM Of IMOMOA*HC O
MCraMTCO AM>VE OUANTITATION LIMIT* IN
SURFACt WATER SAMPLES tmt/LI
mini •«<'o««i
-------
CON«TI TUCNT* Hf^WITtO MWt
OUANTITATKM LIMIT! IN - •
INOUtTNIAL irPLUf NT
A)
-------
' '-^m ' •••: ;
Reach
1 o»rcx Tributary
uv. Tributary
: rite 11
J'T Ibutary
1 -named; Tributary
;; '.cat V on 9)
i':-.nat*d Tributary
• Location 22)
: ields BrooK
r-.I-ove Detrcx
tributary
! :tlds Nrook
•row STII11 to
rtrlx
: ; biliary
:>?lds Brook
• • 11 Ashtabula
ivet to
••:•!!! 1
*• h tabu la
i i vcr
:Kitmaa®mKt
Stationing
Along
Fields
Brook0
10600
7900
6500
3600
13000
10600 to 19900
6400 to 10600
0 to 6400
„
TVJtfS" )•
CONCOnTATlON RANfiKI OK OW.AN1C CdMPOIINIij: MORE KP
HHTtTKO IN r.KDlfUWT ^AHI'U^
Total
Polychlnrlnatcd
ntphcuyl
Compounds (rcn'r.)
ND
ND
ND-1,544
57
ND
ND
ND-518,300
ND-11,450
ND-63,125
Range* (
Total
Total Volatile
llcx.ichloro- Orgonlc
butadiene Compounds (VOC)
1,716-389,300 ND-24,9fl7
250-140,000 22-466,000
ND 3-202
HI) 7.f.
ND 34.5
ND 4-144,000
ND-600,000 23-820,000
ND-2,700 ND-797
ND 5-4, B25
•• »^
1 .
ug/kg) ,
Total Total
rolyrinclear Chlurlriated
ND-2,408 I*,^?0-3n7,000
ND-46,104 300-815,400
NO-2,300
ND HI)
HD ND
ND-188,265 ND-330
ND-47,204 ND-322,712
%• '
ND-5,4OO ND-5,IIPO
ND-78,892 Nl>-9,3f-0
^
Total
riitlialatc
•»-lf6»
HO-2,547
BOTi
537
KD
ND-29,730
ND-2,700
KD-156,250
• •»: The ranges of concentration shown In this table arc for sediment samples taken from 0 to 70 inrhc.s in drpth.
tals ar« calculated using concentnit Ions reporlcil In Appendix E. Coiqiniinils dcteclnl .it concent rot Ions In-low the qunntlt.it Ion limit have
t • • ;i Includfd in the totals a^.sumlmj a value ecnuil to the qiiniil Itation limit. ,,
" Figure 3-1 for stream stationing til the Li llmt.irlos from tin? couf luruc-e with Flrlils llrook.
Indlcrttes "none detected."
,413/135
-------
n C ci EL a fa
TABLE 2.
n ri r
Car*
Ibck •»••
f«r»
:<••!'I*
"I1'1!!1
ri ooi 014
II 10 OM
M KI| 00»
11 c« > on
II • •'! 001
>l I Oil
II '. « 001
M . ' I OP Carp
'I'M OOT Hoc* Itoll
M o. ) nn«
1:1 • on
LMtik HMO %
Jail Jil Mfi*l
Ht lAWWATtWT MMLTHin Mr.Nl.n HNM lltM TIKtlttt r.ANriRI lt>ltrtTllt MWIMl riflfW NNU MimiMM. IMVBTIOATION
••
Til«M«r*-
111
410
l.
111
}t4 lit
4M I,1M>
.•*
.It
.44
.11
ljirf*«Mltl
141
P»
lit 0.14
«« 1.01
444
III
ri ivl OM UrfffMiulh 147
1 1 i-ci wi r»n»
II ' 'I Oil Utitrvnulh
110
•M)
101
I.M)
17.1
I.Ji
J.7J
I.on
!.'»•
1,1,1,1-
.00»
.011
.001 .440
.007
.011
.000
.OH
.1V»
.01)
.010
Tfttnritli
rthwM
.010
.OK
.1*t
.014.
.00?
.Of*
.011
.771
.01*
.011
.011
.OOT
fl«nr-
.OOT
.141
.011
.OH
O.OJ1
1.09
I.It
o.«o
0.11
I). 10
0.4«
I.M
4.1U
10.11
0.11
I.H
1.44
1.10
•f'f
0.1S
14.1
0.14 10
o.io o.n 40
0.14 n
0.It 0.01 0.40 <
0.10 0.40 M
1.J« 4.0
1.10
1.40
0.11
n -n
fl.J7
0.74
I*
II
I11
!'.••. I
renwM»ln4) (life «Ht» cenetniratlnm of
ceniuMiInf flih t»llh rnnr«mt ration! of Br
lh«i 1.0 •»!/>•» In t4lkl* pnrllMm nl HM> flih.
qrrclor tlMii I. II B9/M In Mlble |>orlloni el lh» Huh.
c
-------
V
Sediment
Two groups can incur health risks resulting from exposure to contaminated
sediment, residents and adult workers in the area. Residents near the streams
could ingest contaminated sediment during outside activities, arrd sediment may
be transported into the houses on hands, clothing, footware, or by pets.
Lifetime ingestion rates were estimated to be about 15 ounces of sediment per
year. Risks were calculated using both average and maximum concentrations of
contaminants in the sediment based on a 70 year lifetime.
Adult workers whose place of work may be adjacent to the streams could ingest
about 1/10 of an ounce of sediment per year. Risks for workers were assumed to
occur over a 40 year working lifetime with an average of 8 hours per working
Vjjr day, and were also calculated using both average and maximum concentrations.
I
• The results of this assessment concluded that in most reaches of Fields Brook
I and its tributaries, excess lifetime cancer risks greater than the 10"6 level
-£
could occur due to sediment ingestion. For example, the excess lifetime cancer
risk for residents near the Detrex Tributary is estimated to be 5xlO~2 for
maximum concentrations and 2xl0'2 for average concentrations. In this same
tributary, the excess lifetime cancer risk for workers 1s estimated to be
5xlO~* for maximum concentrations and 1x10"* for average concentrations.
The primary chemicals contributing to the risk are 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane,
fvii
tetrachloroethene, PCB, hexachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobutadiene.
The assessment also concluded that estimated dally chemical intakes for cadmium,
thallium, silver, and mercury approach or exceed the published AIC in a number
^Sr of reaches of Fields Brook and its tributaries.
-------
It was also expected that dermal absorption or dust Inhalation of sediment
could further Increase cancer risks.
f
Surface Water
Residents and casual visitors can be exposed to volatile chemicals in surface
water by wading in Fields Brook and its tributaries. For example, at maximum
Observed volatile contaminant concentrations, the excess lifetime cancer risk
due to dermal absorption from wading 5 to 10 times per year in the OS tributary
Is IxlO-4.
Exposure to vapors released from surface water could occur for both residents
and workers. Because vapor concentrations are not available from the site,
H
only the qualitative statements car be made that exposure to volatile chemicals
would increase.
Fish Consumption
Fillets from bass, perch, catfish, and carp (edible portions) were considered
to assess exposure to contaminants via ingestion of fish. The health risks
were estimated based on a 70-year lifetime during which 6.5 grams of fish per
day from Fields Brook or the Ashtabula River are consumed.
The estimated excess lifetime cancer risk for the ingestion of contaminated fish
fillets from the Fields Brook area is as high as IxlO'3 although the brooks
contribution 1s uncertain. The major chemicals contributing to this risk are
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, hexachlorobenzene, and PCBs.
-------
ENFORCEMENT (CONFIDENTIAL) (see Attachment A)
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The major objective of the feasibility study (FS) was to evaluate remedial
alternatives using a cost-effective approach consistent with the goals and
objectives of CERCLA. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan (NCR), 40 CFR Part 300.68 (i), identifies^ the procedures and criteria used
to select a cost-effective remedial alternative that effectively mitigates and
minimizes threats to, and provides adequate protection of, public health and
welfare and the environment. The selection should attain or exceed applicable,
relevant and appropriate Federal public health and environmental requirements
that have been i
-------
Table 3-$ (P««e 1 of 5)
3CHBtOClES FOR THE FIELDS BROOK SITE SEDOCH
General
Action
Access Restriction
In Situ Coat*
la Situ TreetBsnt/
Extraction
Technology/
Technology Option
F«ncln|
In ilea stabilization
Injection grouting
Vitrification
K20 process
OltravloUt/Oconatlon
Convents
Biodetradatloo
Ctieatcal Oxidation
Radiation
Bloharvestlng
Doe* not prevent the
Migration of contaminants.
Sot appropriate for
fin* sediaents.
Hot proven for application
to larce volumes of wet
sedlasnt In place.
Rot proven for application
to large volian of wet
urtiaant In place.
Pilot state, closed sys-
tea only. Obable to pene-
trate deeply Into Mdlaents,
not available for In-place
uae, end prodncts nay
have toxic effect.
Hoc proven for Mdiaent*
or vide variety of conta-
adnanti Identified at the
site.
Hot cenerally suited for
heterogeneous waste,
applications Halted,
•ay have envlronjental
lapact by nature of
treataent Hthod.
Hoc feasible for In-
place applications
Conceptual, Halted
effectiveness, slow,
experience Halted to
liquid waste stneaas,
Solvent Extraction
Soil Aeration
solvents are toxic,
conceptual, no field tests
with fine sedioent and the
variety of contaminants
identified at the site.
Hot appropriate for fine
sedlnents in plj
-------
Table 3-5 (Page 2 of 5)
INAPPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE FIELDS BROOK SITE SEDIMENT
General Response
Action
Technology/
Technology Option
Retrievable Sorbents
Comments
Conceptual, no field
testa, nay be ineffec-
tive with high concen-
trations.
Removal:
Removal Methods
Mechanical Dredging
(clamshell, dragline,
dipper, bucket,
ladder, sauerman)
Hydraulic Dredging
(hopper, cutterhead,
dust pan, sidecaster)
Pneumatic Dredging
(airlift, pneuma,
namtech, oozer)
The narrow width, shallow
water depth, and irregu-
lar stream bed character-
istics of Fields Brook
and its tributaries are
inappropriate for barge
baaed mechanical dredging
operations.
r
The narrow width, shallow
water depth, and irregu-
lar stream bed character-
istics of Fields Brook
and its tributaries are
inappropriate for these
barge based hydraulic dredg-
ing operations. Inappli-
cable for materials above
the water line.
The narrow width and
shallow water depth are
inappropriate for barge
based pneumatic dredging
operations. Also, the
shallow water column may
limit the effectiveness
of these pneumatic
methods. Inapplicable for
materials above the water
line.
Sediment Treatment
(following removal)
Onsite:
Thermal
Pyromagnetics
Conceptual, more tests
needed, solvent extrac-
tion required for soil.
-------
INAPPLICABLE
TabU 3-5 (Pig* 3 of ^
ZOTIOLOCIES FOR THE FIELDS BROCK SITE SEDOCSI
General
Action
Technology/
Technology Option
U»c air oxidation
*iltlple Hearth
Fluid Izeti 1*4
Coebuster
its
More applicable to aqucoua
wastes, solids aust be
ground. Catalytic reagents
needed for destruction of
chlorinaced organics.
Tiered hearths usually have
SOM relatively cold spots
which inhibit even and
complete casjbustian.
LlBited applicability due
to difficulties in handling
of ash and residuals.
Molten Salt Reactor
Plassje arc Reactor
So i lasmMil unit currently
available. Difficulties with
**MrtHng **M* disposing of
usdnated salt.
ash
Conceptual. Uadted
Decblorlnatlon processes
Aeurex
Conceptual, solvent
extraction required for
soils.
RydrotherBal
Conceptual; not
aerated for the wide
variety of compounds
detected in sediaent at
the site.
Conceptual; not
strated for the wide
variety of cosiponnds
detected In sedlaent at
the site.
XaPEC
Conceptual; not
strated for the wide
variety of compounds
detected in sedlaent at
the site.
-------
Table 3-5 (Page k of 5)
INAPPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE FIELDS BROOK SITE SEDIMENT
General Response
Action
Technology/
Technology Option
PCB X
Comments
Conceptual; not demon*
strated for the wide
variety of compounds
detected in sediment at
the site.
Goodyear
Conceptual; not demon-
strated for the wide
variety of compounds
detected in sediment at
the sice.
Aeration
Conceptual, not applicable
for wide range of compounds
found in the sediment.
Ultraviolet/ozonmtion
Radiation
Solvent extraction
Retrievable sorbents
(l
Air Stripping
Steam Stripping
Biodegradation
Conceptual, shallow pene-
tration depth.
Conceptual.
Some solvents are toxic
and may be left at resi-
dual levels.
Conceptual.
Questionable application
for limited group of
compounds and not demon-
strated for large volumes
of sediment.
Questionable application
for limited group of
compounds and not demon-
strated for large volumes
of sediment.
Not demonstrated for the
wide variety of compounds
detected in sediment at
the site.
-------
table 3-5 'Page 5 of 5>
nUPPLICABtE tECBMOLOCIES FOR THE FIELDS BROOT SHE SEDDEST
General
Action
Technology/
Technology Ope too
OffslCC:
Thermal
?yromagi.etics
Comments
Facility with ability co
process Urge quanti.ci.3s
of sedianc unavailable.
Uec air oxidation
Facility with ability to
process large quantities
of scdiaenc unavailable.
Uacer Treatanc
Onsite Chealcal/niysical
Activated aliaiinusi
Solar evaporation
ponds
Spray evaporation
Sot applicable to treat-
ment of low volume aqueous
waste streams.
Climace at Fields Brook
is not appropriate.
Climace ac Fields Brook
is not appropriate.
0X50*765
-------
V
The next step in the process was to consider general response actions for the
Fields Brook site. The following general response actions were considered but
Eliminated during the initial screening process using the NCP criteria of cost,
acceptable engineering practice, and effectiveness at addressing site problems.
1. Sediment collection by means of downstream sedimentation basins or sediment
traps. These traps or basins would collect contaminated sediment transported
naturally by Fields Brook. Contaminated sediment would have to be periodically
removed from the basins and either be treated or disposed of. This alternative
was screened out for several reasons. First, it would take approximately
800 years for all the contaminated sediment to be removed. Secondly, since
the sediment would remain in place, the current risks due to direct contact
and sediment ingestion would remain. Lastly, sediment removal effectiveness
is considered unpredictable, and should a major flood occur, contaminants
could by-pass the structures, with their movement uncontrolled.
2. Sediment containment by means of capping. Four different
capping scenarios were evaluated. They were: 1) capping with new channel
excavation, 2) capping Integrated with existing brook location, 3) capping
with in-channel conduit, and 4) capping with external conduit. In general,
capping was not considered to be a reliable long-term solution. It has not
been previously demonstrated to be effective in a flood plain, and should
the cap fail potential exposure of contaminated sediment to the environment
could occur. For these reasons sediment containment by capping was screened
out.
-------
3. Mechanical excavation of sediment from Fields Brook to the defined 10~*
risk level with temporary diversion. In this alternative, approximately
991 of the sediment contaminant mass would be removed. It was screened out
because a source of contamination would be left in Fields Brook, primarily
in areas where potential exposure is greatest (residential areas). The
incremental cost increase of removing the additional contaminated sediment
to the defined 10~fi risk level was not significant compared to the benefit.
The initial screening concluded that the appropriate general response action
for the Fields Brook Sediment Operable Unit would require the mechanical excava-
tion of sediment from Fields Brook and its tributaries to the defined 10~6 risk
level or background (whichever concentration is greater), with the temporary
diversion of Fields Brook during excavation. Thus, the assembled alternatives for
detailed analysis would all be similar in terms of sediment removal from Fields ,j
Brook and its tributaries. They only differ in what would be done with the
sediment once it is removed.
DETAILED ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
After the Initial screening phase was completed, the following alternatives
were developed and examined in detail:
1) Excavation of sediment with offsite RCRA/TSCA landfill ing;
2) Excavation of sediment with onsite RCRA/TSCA landfill ing;
3) Excavation of sediment with complete thermal treatment;
4) Excavation of sediment with partial thermal treatment;
5) No action.
-------
1) Excavation of Sediment with Offsite RCRA/TSCA Landfilling (AA-1)
AA-1 includes excavation of contaminated sediment in stream reaches with a
Calculated 10'6 or greater risk level (10~6 risk level removal option). Follow-
ing excavation of contaminated sediment, gravel-filled gabions would be placed
in the disturbed streambed to prevent erosion and promote repopulation by
aquatic species. The estimated volume of excavated sediment is 39,000 cubic
yards. Additional estimated volumes of 3,900 cubic yards of material are
expected to be generated during the site work and onsi'te sediment hauling,
3,600 cubic yards of sand and gravel from the uppermost layer of the interim
storage facility, and 2,900 cubic yards of clay and concrete from the uppermost
layer of the curing cell. It is assumed that onsite solidification of the
excavated sediment would increase the excavated volume (39,000 cubic yards) by
another 10 percent. Thus this alternative would require the disposal of about
53,000 cubic yards.
Excavated and solidified sediment and waste material would be landfilled offsite
in RCRA- and TSCA-approved landfills. Sediment and waste with a PCB concentration
of 50 mg/kg or greater would be disposed of in a TSCA-approved facility, and
remaining sediment and waste would be disposed of in a RCRA-permitted facility.
Water generated during onsite dewatering at an interim sediment storage facility
would be collected and hauled offsite to a RCRA-permitted treatment facility.
The total present worth for this alternative is $30.6 million. More detailed
costs are shown in Table 4.
2) Excavation of Sediment with Onsite TSCA Landfilling (AA-2).
AA-2 incorporates the same sediment excavation plan as AA-1, i.e., removal of
contaminated sediment in stream reaches with a calculated 10~6 or greater risk
-------
cr -r:^- ;;•*£
DI 1.
crs
USK
c.
c.
L
F. 5fiV on aanra.
119 Oft
SC?£
CXT^'ktii M Ofil TtHL
PRTTI5S S« LfaS.
Ul Cocts «rt tfw*> to 3
for atttuwl ewt
fi|«m or t^•
If i%!^3tf ttw *iT;ft
10) Urt «C«Jfit:c-. not irz'.jcvl in cost
(f! iVmM BOrtn •: :ti intiPMt O*tr ^
thooiwd doilan.
wd cHMttty rvlit
-------
10
w
level (10~6 risk level sediment removal option). Following excavation of
contaminated sediment, gravel-filled gabions would likewise be placed in the
•disturbed streambed to prevent erosion and to promote repopulation by aquatic
species. Disposal volumes are also the same as AA-1.
AA-2 includes sediment solidification and related waste material disposal at an
onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill. Sediment and wastes with a PCB concentration of
50 mg/kg or greater would be disposed of in a separate onsite cell.
Water generated during onsite work would be collected and treated onsite for
removal of suspended solids and dissolved organic compounds by activated
carbon adsorption. Treated water would be discharged to the Ashtabula POTW or
directly to Fields Brook taking into consideration National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The total present worth for this
alternative is $18.6 million. More detailed costs are shown in Table 5.
3) Excavation of Sediment and Complete Thermal Treatment (AA-3).
AA-3 incorporates the same sediment excavation plan as AA-1 and AA-2, i.e.,
removal of contaminated sediment in stream reaches with a calculated 10"^ or
greater risk level (10~6 risk level sediment removal option). Following
excavation of contaminated sediment, gravel-filled gabions would likewise
be placed in the disturbed streambed to prevent erosion and promote repopulation
by aquatic species.
AA-3 includes construction of an onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill. The":onsite
RCRA/TSCA-type landfill would be used to temporarily store excavated sediment
during the siting, permitting, design, construction and operation of an onsite
-------
TMLC 6-5
COST Snare 5JMWY (aJ
OSSBKS) 4.TEMnve ML 2
COST CDJTOOir
COO
Olfl
(YEM 1-
(YEMS8)
1. 9EDQ0T QOMRnOi 10 It ESTIMTQ
USK
3. CLTHMSFETY
c.
o. oncstoi OF
L ffixwai, acmnnoi
F.
•10,111
•389, «•
•999, Mi
OIIEIDI acne snmr STOMK
ft. SITEI
i. CELL
C.
0. OJHUt «• OTP W
L
ni,
iu,
3*,
$191,
M
10
1 IHI1EUMFIU.
A.
I.
c. OOL cosnuruM _
IL FROUTIES fiW MMTQHM
E. ORP
(kl
ft
*
HPLTIY
L QPEMnOI OF SYSTEM
C
If
•I
turn
TOIHOBPnU. COST (t)
uonH
CM
(M
(12Q
TDTIL
iOIH
JOTESi
Ul Cortort
doll
(U
(O
to 3 fifttficMt
of l«dfill CM a
irtmnui aid narvnviranMnUl pcmtt, «d commit* rtlatiam.
tut utin| ttndy wd !*nrt or pilot icalt stodin for solidification
" on not ucloM in cost otuatt.
at IK iatarat over
N for
-------
11
V
TB'~
J( thermal treatment facility. Sediment with a PCB concentration of 50 mg/kg or
greater would be contained in a separate onsite cell. Solidified sediment
contaminated with only arsenic (3,000 cubic yards) would be disposed of in a
j separate compartment within one of the cells of the new onsite RCRA/TSCA-type
landfill. An estimated total of about 41,500 cubic yards of contaminated
material would be thermally treated (See Attachment C for thermal treatment eval.),
.*
Ash resulting from thermal treatment of the sediment would be considered a
i*
hazardous waste and disposed of in the onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill
unless it is demonstrated through testing that the ash could be managed as a
nonhazardous waste. If conditions require it, permanent landfilling of the
ash from thermal treatment at an offsite RCRA/TSCA-approved facility may
also be considered.
Water generated during onsite work would be collected and treated onsite for
removal of suspended solids and dissolved organic contaminants by activated
carbon adsorption. Treated water would be discharged to the Ashtabula POTW or
directly to Fields Brook taking into consideration NPOES requirements. The
total present worth of this alternative is $61.7 million. More detailed costs
are shown in Table 6.
4) Excavation of Sediment and Partial Thermal Treatment (AA-4).
AA-4 is the combination of AA-2 (complete onsite landfill) and AA-3 (complete
onsite thermal treatment). AA-4 incorporates the same sediment excavation
plan as the three previous alternatives, i.e., removal of contaminated •*
sediment in stream reaches with a calculated 10~6 or greater risk level
-------
COST CBtDCIfl
L saoeir aownoi TO it
US
«.
a.
C,
D.
C.
F.
BTWIIB
SITE
oncfiUM OF STORM
0. snEMBMnoi
L - -- --
C. OELLglOTU.mil
•L HjDLITIB •!••* of la^fill cap tt ymr 3fc
cart cmltf rap WH»I tSM •» «U3M por nbic
(•) bcirtta tte utu| ««tfy «a avdi or pilot «Ui« ttwia far tolidificrtiaR
(fl Lvtf aansitioji not uclaM i» cart
t Itl wtvirt mv 31
dollars. SH miaiiiii H for drtaiiod
on • «nt cort of fTN par cakic yard. This -jnit
tto*«l
-------
12
(10"6 risk level removal option). Following excavation of contaminated sediment
gravel-filled gabions would likewise be placed in the disturbed streambed to
prevent erosion and to promote repopulation by aquatic species.
AA-4 includes construction of an onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill. Portions
of this onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill would be used to temporarily store
about 16,000 cubic yards (approximately 40%) of excavated sediment during the
siting, permitting, design, construction and operation of an onsite thermal
treatment facility. This 16,000 cubic yards of sediment would be subject to
thermal treatment. The remaining portions of the landfill would contain about
36,000 cubic yards of solidified sediment and other material.
Ash resulting from thermal treatment of the sediment will be considered a
hazardous waste and disposed of in the onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill unless
it is demonstrated through testing that the ash could be managed as a nonhazar-
dous waste. If conditions require it, permanent landfilling of the ash from
thermal treatment at an offsite RCRA/TSCA approved facility may also be considered,
Water generated during onsite work would be collected and treated onsite
to remove suspended sol Ids and dissolved organic contaminants by activated
carbon adsorption. Treated water would be discharged to the Ashtabula POTW or
directly to Fields Brook taking into consideration NPDES requirements. The
total present worth of this alternative is $48.4 million. More detailed costs
are shown in Table 7.
5) No Action (AA-5).
|y, j AA-5 is the no action alternative. Under AA-5, no further action of any
': kind would be done at the site. There are no costs associated with this
alternative. It is presented as a baseline for comparison.
-------
TMLEfr-7
COST EsrnanE aNvwr (a)
OLTEMTIVC ML «
RBCDIflL
OBroavatar
GETS
HfEflR 1-3]
0«N
(TBM 1-3U
JBUCSCOT
u SEDOOT EffiMnoi TO it
219 !WOSOM>
A.
a. __
C. SITE
9.
E.
F.
(F SHEW
EXQMTIOI
•JD, an
1389, *•
•999, 9M
M
•a
M
fa
LJIIEIU STDMBE rBCLITT
STIEPOMRnOI
GBJ. cocnunoi
ft.
a.
c.
oosuKBr
SEDUOT
til, «i
I&1,W
3KMI
«C7tM
,z£m
LoaniE
A. SITE
a. EM
C. CELL
B. ^^
F. CUP ORsraucnoi M MHBBKE w
i.oanTE TICBN. iBBmcw OBTMT am
A. SITE PagMATTOI
a. BUtOBa
C UBTAUJmDi MSTAtT IP
B. CPBHTIOi OF FROLITY (e)
HOB
tl,23i,MI
«24,M
M
•a
M
M
M
•a
ca
M
ff
$*
sa
99999
A. IgiPlHaH BOJTr
I. IHHIUli OF FACILITY
C.
«, Ml
M
fa
M
ocrnajcnoi AM OM SUBTOTAL
m
MairtCrmi M DM TOTAL
<±minim AM LEW. MJ
«3z,aai
M
M
M
M
M
•35, Ma
•a
«t
sa
si
taas, Ma dtn
fS7B,Ma
ffi,Ma U3U
fB,Ma (2f*)
gra.
COST
COST (•)
tL.au, Ml (S)
fi.i2a.Ma u»
urai capfTAi COST (fi
UltTM FCTOi
MB1H
doll
OB i «it cost of «7M per nbic yard. This «dt
Ul Costs art stast to 3 uanfiast fisirts or
(Bl Goiacsssnc of lartfillai at yaarTB.
(c) Total opsratioBil aocnscs osriit clsa* «• activities
cost mid ranvt MMSB S90 art »1,5M per CTOJC yard.
U) laclrtn swiroMBBtai art nomnvironsntal psrnts, art coaBsuty rtlati
(t) I«cl«n tUt sitiat strty art bsndi or pilot seal* strtias for solidification art tiiaraal
Lart acousitioB not includrt i* cost
•orth at 1M. iatsrast ovsr j»
for drtailrt cost
-------
13
ALTERNATIVE SCREENING PROCESS
The detailed screening process used to select the remedy was performed
<3>nsfstent with the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300.68(h), U.S. EPA's most recent guidance
concerning the selection of off-site remedial alternatives, and other Agency
guidance as appropriate. The NCP criteria used in the detailed alternatives
analysis were:
1. Consideration of established technology and innovative alternative technology
as appropriate.
2. Detailed cost estimation, including operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs,
and distribution of costs over time.
3. Evaluation in terms of engineering implementation, reliability, and construct-
4. An assessment of the degree of protection provided by a given alternative,
including the attainment of relevant and appropriate Federal standards.
5. An analysis of whether destruction or other advanced technologies is appro-
priate to reliably minimize present or future threats.
6. An analysis of adverse environmental impacts.
7. Consistency with the final remedy.
i;
& &'! A summary of the alternatives with respect to the above criteria is presented in
; Table 8.
ii i •
;!l f i COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
ASSEMBLED ALTERNATIVE AA-5
The no action assembled alternative is ineffective in preventing further
contaminant migration and does not mitigate or minimize the existing threats to
-------
OMDMOt
MAONITUM o
OMT MTIMATM
NMTITUTIONAI
OMTMIA<
INVIHOMMNTAL
CftlTIMIA<
•UM.IC MALI
CMITIftlAf
MHO ALTtftNATIVI
to
•
•I
•no mllliloi, nniurl OH •« IHU-
Hour!* MM *o» 1C
MJllOAlTINNATlVt
I
III!
IIM
jjofuTii'i" n'iojo»»io)'Sio>Bi
• •OJOJH Ao
Mfv to OW) ••MWto •
•Atf MHIIMt, MOOWM OM M mtH<
M iw Dun ttT
AMtmiD ALTtftNATIVf
I
+ 4
f •»
no»»op IP tMoM
MOJflOMMOBI
IOMMOM IfO l«
itolon
Ml««* MiwnMHrM OM« I ytofl
, f ftfHHUit Mfl
IMA tMINNINI fHfe Im IhM 10
OtfiMt «wl»n»w«l •• In
iMMIOAlTIMNATIVt
OMIO toilflOimol IO*IIHIMIOJII
tamolMMi •••*•«>• I AMM
IIJWwMnMlWoMI
4 OMMOMHAI I0« MM •
•N*illoMlM*OM
«K«10MIOMW«I
tt***1,.»mm»,w«
u> *> OWN HCHAftKA n*> I
MiMMI HOMMVJM lOHHIV «•«•• to
IW «VH Ml OMIWOM 10 POIW O
I ol III IVOIIK Ml Ol
IwUllV Mil MWVta* |TMH« M
Mfly to MHW ••«•««• W NwlrW *M
mt itMm. nnmmxtot»u
IWI t >illf» (Ml MH linn 10*.
H«M, MM. MtM| iMIMM
MH |M PCfc M MHIWM
MM.ID AkTIMMATIVI
Unumwt IIH miMi «M.mii mi
. IMIM HlMIIW (MM I
NOTII
*Tk>AMl
•( ton IttfMMn MinM w Oi«c«l MKAHU* IMMHW M MI •*>a«mu Mmw in*
Ml MMMI *t Ihw ly
4 Ihw lyp> M OMU'IM WlklA HO* M 'Mft. bum Ol OW
Inl.iwlwi HiehM* IN U,l MAI "CompoiioiiiAl ol COM ol HimMill ToUimlloill M HoH>0*gl Mom fcm," Ikf Mom
hit Woik COM DM* Otim, Coil NOI«OM» O»io» ta» Coxinu
*T«m donn Con iMInoJ iMkon OM I* tnfMi
ITVIOM. lojtl Ion, •omtMiiroiioii ooili tnd coil c
Roto; w loMoi 14 UVOWA 17 loi • iwiMonr ol ito OMI wmioii lor ••" OMUWM.
•MI Iw toAOtiM foM w JtaMJnMotf AnwnolMOl No ] tfltf 4
• Aoeofobio w H» Nolloral Contln—ner Phn ond ounom U.I. I PA polky, oni»ronmonm
pormHt ort not raqulrod lor omlio •und-llnoncod' CIRCLA osltoM, homomi, llM Motmml
•VDVInmom imy w obiotn • pormli wt toejjlfod u bi lullHMI.
1
when to an aHiut tactltiy to dttpoMl, DM
..•dot 0 tar tforllnitHMot at crtMMti.
»•!"»» b*c«mM 0.
C
LIOIMO
-- IXTHIMILVNIOATIVIIFFICrHViNKWTMMITIQATINOMIAiUHH. CAfAHI-l OF tLIMINATINO AN ALTiHNATIVI
— NIOATIVI irrlCTdUT NOTITRONQiNOUOHOHCiHTAININOUGH TO II THf toil JUITIFICATION fOH
IIIHINATINO AN ALtlHNATIVI, OB Of ONLY MOOIHATI 1IONIHCAHCI
O Of VIRV LITTLI APPAHINT POIIIIVI OR NtQATIVI IMtCIl IUT INCLUIION CAN It JUITIFIID FOH IOMI VICIAL
RIAWN.ON NOCHANOI f«OM txlllINO CONUITIONI
+ A POIITIVI ON MOOIHATILY fOIITIVI tf NiPIT
if ANtXTREMILV*OII1IVEIENfl-IT
ANALVII1 NOT COMPLETE OR INAPPROPRIATE IO DRAW CONCLUSIONS AT THIS TIMf
NOT APPLICABLE
c
-------
14
public health and welfare and the environment. The Exposure Assessment concludes
tfiat there is a potential for exposure of the public to contaminants at the
site at levels that may adversely affect public health and welfare. Therefore,
remedial action is required to mitigate or minimize this exposure. Thus, the
no action assembled alternative is not appropriate and is not recommended by
U.S. EPA. ..
ASSEMBLED ALTERNATIVES AA-1, AA-2, AA-3, AND AA-4
Assembled alternatives AA-1, AA-2, AA-3 and AA-4 all involve mechanical excavation
of contaminated sediment in Fields Brook and its tributaries to the level
defined for the 10~6 excess lifetime cancer risk. Excavated sediment would be
solidified and disposed of at an offsite RCRA/TSCA facility (AA-1), solidified
and disposed of in a RCRA/TSCA-type landfill constructed onsite (AA-2), thermally
treated at an onsite facility with the resulting ash landfilled onsite
(AA-3), or a combination of onsite thermal treatment and onsite landfill (AA-4).
Water generated from sediment excavation, sediment dewatering, sediment solidifi-
cation, or construction and operation of onsite landfill facilities would be
treated either offsite (AA-1) or onsite (AA-2, AA-3, and AA-4).
The extent of sediment removal for these four assembled alternatives would be
the same; therefore, the environmental and public health benefits from sediment
removal at the site would be similar. U.S. EPA believes that the risk associated
with exposure to or ingestion of contaminated sediment would be reduced7 by
sediment removal to levels that are protective of public health and welfare and
-------
15
the environment. Onsite and offsite water treatment also have similar environmental
benefits. Thus, these four assembled alternatives differ primarily in respect
to the treatment and disposal of the excavated sediment.
Assembled alternative AA-1 (offsite disposal) has similar long-term environmental
and public health benefits as AA-2 (onsite disposal); however, its present worth
is greater. Thus, on the basis of present worth cost only, AA-2 is preferred
over AA-1. Assembled alternative AA-1 has a shorter time frame to implement,
however, there Is no assurance that there would be available RCRA/TSCA landfill
capacity, that these landfills would accept the solidified Fields Brook sediment
and that these landfills would be in compliance with the applicable environmental
regulations. Assembled altenative AA-1 also depletes existing landfill capacity
that could be used for disposal of other hazardous wastes, while AA-2 creates
Its own landfill capacity. Alternative AA-1 does not require resolution of
Issues relating to siting a RCRA/TSCA-type landfill at the Fields Brook site,
while AA-2 does. However, based upon the cost and the uncertainty of landfill
capacity and availability, U.S. EPA does not recommend AA-1.
U.S. EPA believes AA-3 has greater long-term environmental and public health
benefits than AA-2 and AA-4, because organic contaminants present in the sediment
would be destroyed through thermal treatment. U.S. EPA also believes that AA-4
would have greater long-term environmental benefits than assembled alternative
AA-2 because the more mobile and higher risk organic contaminants in about 40
percent of the contaminated sediment would be destroyed through thermal treatment.
Assembled alternative AA-2 solidifies all of the sediment and disposes-of the
solidified sediment at a new onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill.
-------
16
AA-4, sediment that contains organic contaminants with higher mobilities
s (soll-water partition coefficients) less than 2,400 ml/g) and greater
, (greater than the 10~6 excess lifetime cancer risk for sediment ingestion),
.hat contain PCB's greater than 50 mg/kg, would be thermally treated (See
achment B). The organic contaminants in the remaining 60 percent of the
itaminated sediment would be treated through solidification to further reduce
e mobility of the remaining organic contaminants Before disposal in an onsite
;RA/TSCA-type landfill. It is expected that" this 60% of the contaminated
ediment could be successfully solidified and landfilled with long-term reliability,
• f l is not the case, this sediment may also be subject to thermal treatment.
All three of these assembled alternatives (AA-2, AA-3 and AA-4) require resolution
of issues related to the technical requirement of the permitting process and the
sitlsg of a RCRA/TCSA-type disposal facility at the Fields Brook site. In
AAi$i it is possibile that the ash may not be considered a hazardous waste, if,
i •• j
af
-------
17
another site after the contaminated sediment at Fields Brook has been treated.
Because destruction of hazardous substances possesses greater environmental
•and public health benefits and permanent reduction of the potential risk of
landfill failure, it is considered more reliable in the long term. Consequently,
U.S. EPA believes AA-3 and AA-4 are preferred over AA-2.
While AA-3 destroys all of the organic contaminants by thermal treatment, AA-4
destroys those organic contaminants that are more mobile and have higher risks
associated with them or the sediment with PCB concentrations greater than
SO mg/kg, leaving the relatively less mobile and lower risk contaminants to
be landfilled after solidification. Thus, AA-4 combines the best features
of AA-2 and AA-3, thermal destruction of organic contaminants with higher
mobilities and higher risk, while using lower cost landfill disposal for the
less mobile or lower risk contaminants. Assembled alternative AA-4 is therefore
recommended by U.S. EPA for implementation as the cost-effective alternative
for the Fields Brook Sediment Operable Unit.
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
In determining appropriate remedial actions at CERCLA sites, consideration must
be given to the requirements of other federal environmental laws in addition to
CERCLA. Primary consideration is given to attaining or exceeding applicable or
relevant and appropriate environmental and public health laws, regulations,
standards, and guidelines.
The applicable or relevant environmental and public health standards are reviewed
for each alternative examined in detail and summarized in Table 9.
-------
c
s-^^
J of |tf '
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
LAWS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND STANDARDS
FOR THE FIELDS BROOK ASSEMBLED ALTERNATIVES
Law, Regulation,
Policy, or Standard
FEDERAL
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
Source of Regulation
RCRA Subtitle C,
40 CFR 260
Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities
RCRA Section 3004,
40 CFR 264 and 265
Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance
on Non-Contiguous Sites and
Onsite Management of Waste
and Treated Residue
U.S. EPA Policy
Statement
March 27, 1986
Applicability or Relevance
and Appropriateness
RCRA regulates the generation,
transport, storage, treatment,
and disposal of hazardous
waste. CERCLA specifically
requires (in Section 104(c)
(3)(BM that hazardous sub-
stances from removal actions
be disposed of at facilities in
compliance with Subtitle C
of RCRA.
Regulates the construction,
design, monitoring, operation,
and closure of hazardous waste
facilities. Subparts N and O
specify technical requirements
for landfills and incinera-
tors, respectively.
If a treatment or storage unit
is to be constructed for on-
site remedial action, there
should be clear intent to
dismantle, remove, or close
the unit after the CERCLA
action is completed. Should
there be plans to accept
commercial waste at the
facility after the CERCLA
waste has been processed,
it is EPA policy that a RCRA
permit be obtained before the
unit is constructed.
Alternative Affected
AA-1 through AA-4. In
accordance with the NCP,
excavated sediment will be
managed as though it is
a hazardous waste.
Landfill design require-
ments apply to the interim
storage facilities of AA-1,
and AA-4 along with the
onsite landfills of AA-2,
AA-3, and AA-4. The in-
cinerator design require-
ments of RCRA apply to
AA-3 and AA-4.
AA-2 through AA-4. The
onsite thermal treatment
facilities will be dis-
mantled, and landfill and
storage facilities will be
capped for closure follow-
ing processing of Fields
Brook waste. This FS
assumes that the technical
requirements of RCRA will
be met. Thus, the onsite
facilities would not be
required to obtain RCRA
permits.
-------
Table 6-2 (Page 2 of I)
Law, Regulation,
Policy, or Standard
Standards Applicable, to
Transporter! of
Haiardoui Wast*
Source of Regulation
RCRA Section 300),
40 CFR 262 and 263,
49 CPU 170 to 179
EPA Administered Permit
Programsi The Hasardous
Naste Permit Program
RCRA Section 3005,
40 CfR 270, 124
EPA Interim Policy for
Planning and Implementing
CERCLA Offsite Response
Actions
50 PR 45933
November S, 1985
Hasardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984
(1984 amendments to RCRA)
PL 98-616, Federal Law
71i3101
Applicability or Relevance
and Appropriateness
Establishes the responsibility
of offsite transporters of
hasardoua waste in the hand-
ling, transportation, and
management of the waste.
Requires a manifest, record-
keeping, and immediate action
in the event of a discharge
of hasardoua waste.
Covers the basic permitting,
application, monitoring, and
reporting requirements for
offsite hazardous waste
management facilities.
Discusses the neod to consider
treatment, recycling, and
reuse before offnite land dis-
posal is used. Prohibits use
of a RCRA facility for offslte
management of Super fund haz-
ardous substances if it has
significant RCRA violations.
Specific wastes are prohibited
from land disposal under the
1984 RCRA Amendments. This
includes a ban on the placement
of wastes containing free
liquids. Also, solvent-
containing wastes are pro-
hibited from land disposal,
effective November 1986. EPA
is also required to set
treatment levels or methods,
exempting treated hazardous
wastes from the land disposal
ban. To date, these trcnt-
ment (standards have not
Alternative Affected
AA-1. This alternative
may involve Interstate
transport of contaminated
sediment to RCRA/TSCA
disposal facilities.
AA-1. CKRCLA requires
that offnite disposal of
hasardoua substances (con-
taminated sediment) will
be trtkon to permitted and
inspected hazardous waste
management facilities in
compliance with RCRA.
AA-1 through AA-4. Hu-
qutrttmonts for solf-rting
nffsite storage, truatmnnt,
or disposal facilities
apply to AA-1. AA-2
thiouqh AA-4 conniilrr
solidification or thermal
treatment of contaminated
sediment in accordance
with this policy.
AA-1 through AA-4. If
treatment standards are
not promulgated, land-
filling of "banned" waste
would not ho acceptable
without a Ducceasful
demonstration that land
disposal is protective of
human health and welfare
and the environment..
Incineration of the sedi-
ment (nnsuminq it is to bo
managed it a though it is a
RCRA waste) may bo the
only applicable* treatment;
method.
-------
c
Law, Regulation,
Policy, or Standard
Source of Regulation
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)
40 CFR Part 761
Permit* for Discharges of
Dredged or Fill Material
Into Waters of the U.S.
(Section 404 permit)
33 CFR 320 to 330,
Section 404 of the
Clean Hater Act
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978
International Joint
Commission, Canada
and the United States
of B)
Applicability or Relevance
and Appropriateness
been promulgated. The RCRA
amendments will also restrict
the landfilling of most RCRA-
listed wastes by 1991 unless
treatment standards are
specified.
Applies to the disposal of
liquid wastes containing PCB
concentrations at or greater
than 50 ppm and PCB"a that
have migrated from the origi-
nal source of contamination.
PCB concentrations greater
than 500 ppm must be incin-
erated in an incinerator
that complies with 40 CFR
761.70. PCB concentrations
less than 500 ppm and greater
than 50 ppm may be disposed
of in a landfill that
complies with 40 CFR 761.75.
Part 323 requires permits to
discharge dredged or fill
materials into navigable
waters or their tributaries,
including wetlands adjacent
to such waters. Part 322
requires permits for struc-
tures or work in or affect-
ing navigable waters.
This intergovernmental Agree-
ment sets specific water
quality objectives and
develops monitoring and con-
trol programs to eliminate or
reduce the discharge of pol-
lutants into the Great Lakes
basin ecosystem.
Alternative Affected
AA-1 through AA-4. Sedi-
ment will be sampled and
analyzed during excavation.
Based upon the data
in the RI report, PCB
levels are between 50 and
500 mg/kg for approxi-
mately 12,000 cu yd of
sediment. For purposes of
evaluation in this feasi-
bility study, it has been
assumed that sediment con-
centrations are below
500 mg/kg. If PCB levels
are found to exceed 500
mg/kg, these sediments
must be incinerated in a
TSCA-type facility.
AA-1 through AA-4. The
temporary diversion of
portions of Fields Brook
during excavation may be
subject to the authoriza-
tion procedures of these
regulations.
AA-1 through AA-4. Fields
Brook is in the Great
Lakes drainage basin since
it feedq into the Ashtabula
River which feeds into
Lake Erie. Sediment exca-
vation and discharge of
treated water to surface
water shall consider the
specific objectives of
this agreement including
the control of toxic sub-
stances entering the Great
Lakes waters.
-------
Table 6-2 (Page 4 of •)
Law, Regulation,
Policy, or Standard
Statement of Procedure* on
Flood Plain Management and
Metland Protection
Source of Regulation
Appendix A to 40 CPU 6,
Executive Order 11981,
and 11990
Clean Air Act (CAA)
40 CPR 1 to 99
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
NEPA Section 102(2)(a)
Applicability or Relevance
and Appropriateness
Requires federal agencies to
avoid wherever possible
adversely affecting flood
plaine or wetlands and to
evaluate potential effects
of planned actions in these
designated areas.
Applies to major stationary
sources that have the poten-
tial to emit significant
amounts of pollutants such as
NO , SO., CO, lead, mercury,
anfi partlculates. Regula-
tions under CAA do not speci-
fically regulate emissions
frost hasardoua waste incinera-
tors, but it is likely that
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) provisions
would apply to an onsite ther-
mal treatment facility.
CERCLA actions are exempted
from the NEPA requirements to
prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS) be-
cause US EPA's decisionmaking
processes in selecting a
remedial action alternative
are the functional equivalent
of the NEPA analysis.
Alternative Affected
AA-1 through AA-4. Pro-
cautions will bo taken
during excavation of sodi-
munt to minimi Kb the Im-
pacts on the flood plain
and for the protuction of
wetlands. Hemovul of the
contaminated aodimiint and
runtoration aftor excava-
tion will improve the brook
conditions. Onaite facili-
ties must be rnnutructud
consistent with standards
oHtartl inhori under the
National Flood Inniu-
anco Program. I. andt ill-
Ing of wetlands is not
anticipated.
AA-3 and AA-4. Thc
-------
c
Law, Regulation,
Policy, or Standard
Intergovernmental Review of
Federal Program
Relocation Assistance and
Property Acquisition
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit
Source of Regulation
Executive Order 12372
and 40 CFR 29. (Re-
places state and area-
wide coordination pro-
cess required by OMB
Circular A-95.)
Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1979,
40 CFR 4
Clean Water Act
Section 402,
40 CFR 122, 123,
125 Subchapter N
age 5 of ftl
Applicability or Relevance
and Appropriateness
Requires state and local coor-
dination and review of pro-
posed EPA assisted projects.
The EPA Administrator is
required to communicate with
state and local officials to
explain the project, consult
with other affected federal
agencies, and provide a com-
ment period for state review.
Requires that property owners
be compensated for property
acquired by the federal
government.
Regulates the discharge of
water into public surface
waters.
c
Alternative Affected
AA-1 through AA-5.
AA-1 through AA-4. Land
acquisition may be required
for the interim storage
facility, onsite landfill,
onsite thermal treatment
facility, and/or onsite
water treatment facility.
AA-2 through AA-4. These
alternatives may include
discharge from the onsite
water treatment facility
to Fields Brook.
Pretreatroent Regulations
for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution
Toxic Pollutant Effluent
Standards
US EPA Groundwater Protection
Strategy
40 CFR 403 Subchap-
ter N, FNPCA
40 CFR 129
U.S. EPA Policy
Statement
August 1984
Regulates the quality of water
discharged into publicly
owned treatment works (POTW).
Regulates the discharge of
the following pollutants:
aldrin/dieldrin, DDT,
endrin, toxaphene, benzidine,
and PCB's.
Identifies groundwatcr
quality to be achieved during
remedial actions based on
the aquifer characteristics
and use.
AA-2 through AA-4. Those
alternatives may include
discharge from the onsite
water treatment facility
to the Ashtabula POTW.
AA-2 through AA-4. These
pollutants are not ex-
pected to be present in
the discharge from the
onsite water treatment
plant.
AA-1 through AA-5. It is
not known at present if
contaminants from Fields
Brook affect groundwatcr
quality.
-------
Table 6-2 (Pago 6 of II
Law, Regulation,
Policy, or Standard
Conservation of Wildlife
Resources
Occupational Safety and
Health Act
-------
c
Law, Regulation,
Policy, or Standard
Local Approval of Sewer Use
Permit
Ohio Water Quality Standards
Ohio'Pretreatment Rules
State Permit Requirements
for Emissions in Prevention
of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Areas
State Permit Requirements
for Emissions in Nonattain-
men t Area
Local Approval of Grading
(Erosion Control) Permit
(Ohio has requirements for
erosion control.)
Source of Regulation
Local sewer connection
and pretreatment ordi-
nances, as well as
some zoning, as sub-
division, and/or
building codes.
Ohio Administrative
Code 3745-1
Ohio Administrative
Code 3745-3
Clean Air Act, Part C;
State Implementation
Plans, Ohio Administra-
tive Code 3704 and
3745-17,18,21,71
Clean Air Act, Part D>
State Implementation
Plans, and Ohio
Administrative Code
3745-31,35
Local grading ordi-
nances or erosion con-
trol ordinances.
.ge 7 of •)
Applicability or Relevance
and Appropriateness
Permit, approval, and/or fee
for connection to public
sewer system. Requirements
as to quantity and quality
of effluents discharged to
sewer system.
Establishes minimum water
quality criteria requirements
for all surface waters of the
state.
c
Establishes state require-
ments and standards regulat-
ing the introduction of
pollutants into POTN's.
A major source of air pollu-
tants such as NO., SO., CO,
hydrocarbons, lead, and parti-
culates in PSD area must be
permitted by the state and
is subject to requirements
applicable to PSD areas.
If a major source is in
a nonattainment area for
those pollutants for which it
is a major source, it must
comply with requirements
applicable to nonattainment
areas.
Requirements affecting land
slope and cover, surface water
management, alteration of
natural contours, or cover
by excavation or fill.
Alternative Affected
AA-2 through AA-4. Regu-
lates the discharge from
the onsite water treat-
ment facility to the
Ashtabula POTW.
AA-2 through AA-4. The
designated use of Fields
Brook has been defined as
a limited warmwater aqua-
tic life habitat. Dis-
charges from the onsite
water treatment facility
must meet the necessary
criteria.
AA-2 through AA-4. Regu-
lates the discharge from
the onsite water treat-
ment facility to the
Ashtabula POTW.
AA-2 through AA-4. This
regulation may apply to
the emissions from all
onsite facilities, partic-
ularly the thermal treat-
ment facility.
AA-3, AA-4. The Fields
Brook site is in a non-
attainment area for ozone.
The thermal treatment
facility emissions should
meet the permit require-
ments .
AA-1 through AA-4. Ero-
sion control will be incor-
porated into channel
restoration following exca-
vation and the proper
maintenance of onsite
facilities.
-------
Table 6-2 (Pag* 8 of 8)
Law, Regulation,
Policy, or Standard
Local Approval of Uee
Source of Regulation
Local Building Cod*
Local Building Pnrmlta
(includci electrical,
plumbing, and MVAC)
OLT525/34
Local Building Codea
Applicability or Relevance
and Appropriatencaa
Demonstration through pre-
aentation of evidence or
onaite inapeotion that
remedial action coaipliea
with the requireMenta of
local health and aafety
lawa and ordlnancea.
Obtain permlta (or con-
struction
Alternative Affected
AA-1 through AA-4. Build-
Ing and conatruotion per-
mita would be neceaaary
for the onaite interim
atorage, landfill, water
treatment, and theraial
treatment faoilitiea.
AA-1 through AA-4. Build-
ing permita will be
obtained for the onaite
Interim atorage, landfill,
water treatment, and ther-
mal treatment facilities.
c
c
-------
18
The recommended alternative is expected to meet all applicable standards and
v requirements listed in Table 9.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The U.S. EPA's recommended alternative is assembled alternative AA-4, excavation
of sediment and partial thermal treatment. It consists of these elements:
0 Mechanical excavation of contaminated sediment in Fields Brook and
its tributaries to the defined 10~® excess lifetime cancer risk level.
For organic contaminants where the 10'*> excess lifetime cancer risk
level is below current U.S. EPA Contract Lab Program (CLP) detection
limits, the detection limits will be used to define the level of
sediment removal. For inorganic contaminants, background levels (the
upper 99 percent confidence limit) or health based guildlines, whichever
is higher, will be used to define the level of sediment removal.
0 A new onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill will be constructed with separate
cells for: solidification of and permanent storage of sediments
containing relatively immobile or lower risk organic contaminants,
including sediments contaminated only with arsenic (36,000 yd^), and a
temporary storage cell for the sediment that will be thermally treated
(16,000 yd3). The latter cell may permanently contain the residual
from thermal treatment if disposal in a RCRA/TSCA-type facility is
required. Included in the sediment to be landfilled is additional
waste due to haul roads and decon stations, demolished part of the
interim storage facility and a demolished curing cell. Refer to
Appendix M. of the Fields Brook FS for a complete Breakdown.
-------
19
0 Dewatering and temporary storage in a separate cell of the onsite
RCRA/TSCA-type landfill of 16,000 cubic yards of the contaminated sediment
containing organic contaminants with higher mobility and the highest
sediment ingestion risk, or sediment with PCB concentration greater than
50 mg/kg. This quantity of sediment will be themally treated.
0 Solidification, for containment in a separate compartment of a cell in
the onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill,' of an estimated 2,600 cubic yards
of contaminated sediment where the sediment ingestion risk is strictly
due to the presence of inorganic contaminants (arsenic).
0 Solidification of the remaining quantity of contaminated sediment for
containment in separate cells within the onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill.
The total volume after solidification is an estimated 33,400 yd3. 'w
0 The resulting ash from the thermal treatment of the contaminated sediment
will be analyzed to determine whether or not it should continue to be
•anaged as though it Is a hazardous waste. If the ash needs to be
managed as a hazardous waste, it will be placed back into the original
storage cell of the onsite RCRA/TSCA-type landfill. If the ash does
not need to be Managed as though it is a hazardous waste, it could be
disposed of as a solid waste, in the same onsite facility or possibly
offsite.
0 Water generated during the excavation of contaminated sediment, the
dewatering process, the solidification process, thermal treatment, or
within the temporary storage cell of the RCRA/TSCA-type landfill will
be treated onsite using filtration and a granular activated carbon sysfW?
Discharge of treated water will be either to the Ashtabula POTW or directly
-------
'•>«
:1
20
to Fields Brook taking into consideration NPDES requirements. The
total present worth of this alternative is estimated at $48,400,000.
The annual Operation and Maintenance cost of this alternative is $55,000.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA
The National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.68 (j) states that, "the appropriate
extent of remedy shall be determined by the lead agency's selection of a cost-
effective remedial alternative that effectively mitigates and minimizes threats
to and provides adequate protection of public health and welfare and the environment."
The lead agency should "consider cost, technology, reliability, administrative
and other concerns and their relevant effects on the public health and welfare
and the environment." The recommended alternative meets these criteria and
is cost-effective. The recommended alternative can be readily designed and
'
constructed, and would be accepted by the public.
The alternatives which involved total landfilling (both onsite and offsite)
were not considered as effective in mitigating and minimizing the threats to
public health, welfare, and the environment because long-term reliability and
permanence of remedy did not approach that of thermal treatment. All compounds
including those most mobile (those likely to migrate from a landfill upon
failure) would be disposed of in the landfill under these alternatives.
Thermal treatment offers added benefits beyond that of landfilling of long-term
reliability, and destruction of the most mobile and highly toxic contaminants.
-------
21
While the alternatives to thermally treat all of the sediment (AA-3) and to
thermally treat a portion of the sediment (AA-4) both possessed substantially
equivalent public health and environmental benefits, the cost of AA-3 exceeds
that of AA-4 and therefore was not considered to be cost-effective. (AA-3)
also did not take Into account the relative mobilities and risks of the different
contaminants present in the sediments and the possibility that more than one
technology may be appropriate. Total thermal treatment Mould include the
treatment of reaches of Fields Brook in which the risk was attributed to compounds
which are not very mobile. These compounds, after solidification, would be
expected to remain contained in a RCRA type landfill and not represent a potential
future problem should the landfill fail. The additional cost to thermally
treat this remaining quantity was not deemed cost-effective. The recommended
alternative (AA-4) combines the best features of landfilling and thermal treatment vj
to arrive at an appropriate solution to the problem. It is consistent with the
current U.S. EPA Interim Policy for Planning and Implementing CERCLA Offsite
Response Actions, which discusses the need to consider treatment, recycle, and
reuse before land disposal Is used, as well as the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments 1984.
Three criteria were considered to decide what portion of the sediment should be
thermally treated as well as what portion could be satisfactorily landfilled
with long-term effectiveness; mobility, toxicity, and concentration of PCBs.
These criteria are more completely described again in Attachment B. Thus
alternative AA-4 demonstrates long-term reliability, permanence of remedy, and
appropriate technologies to warrant recommendation.
-------
22
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs are costs associated with post-clos
activities after completion of the remedial action, such as ongoing landfill
r-
maintenance and groundwater monitoring. The O&M costs were estimated on an
annual basis over 30 years. The O&M for the recommended alternative will
require ongoing maintenance and monitoring of the onsite landfill and
construction, maintenance, and replacement of the cap . The costs are described
f
in Table 6. The State of Ohio will assume responsibility for long-term O&M of
the remedial action. The U.S. EPA will enter into a State Superfund Contract
with the State of Ohio to formalize this agreement.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
I III There has been public interest in the Fields Brook site throughout the RI/FS.
j Public meetings have been held, and there have been a number of letters and
;i phone calls regarding the site. Media coverage for the public meetings has
,'; been through the local paper and radio station.
; ;'•!"
4 The main concern of the community during the RI/FS was to complete the study as
! :|:
;J soon as possible. The community has stated that 1t is rather obvious that
I • i I
j; li Fields Brook represents a health risk and that the U.S. EPA should stop studying the
i% brook and clean it up. These sentiments have also been expressed by the Ashtabula
City Council. The Citizens For Clean Water have also expressed an interest in
: this project and have been kept up to date on the status.
Another concern was that the industries responsible for the contamination
should be held accountable. Some extreme animosity toward the industries was
4 j expressed by several people at the latest public meeting.
-------
23
Residents and local officials have also expressed an interest in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers proposed dredging of the Ashtabula River and how the Fields
Brook project impacts that project.
» •»
Many of these concerns were expressed during the public comment period for the
FS. The comment period was extended to 40 days from the normal 21 days
to accomodate the citizens' and PRPs' request for additional time to submit
comments. Comments from residents and the Citizens for Clean Water generally
support the recommendation. The Ashtabula Township Trustees support a different
alternative, but expressed willingness to work with EPA in siting a landfill
and thermal treatment unit. The comments received and the U.S. EPA's response
to them are detailed in Appendix C.
SCHEDULE
MILESTONES
Complete Enforcement Negotiations
Approve Remedial Action (sign ROD)
Begin Pre-Design Activities
Award contract for Design
Begin Design
Complete Design
Award contract for Construction
Begin Construction
Complete Construction
FUTURE ACTIONS
DATE
September 1986
September 1986
October 1986
January 1987
January 1987
January 1989
March 1989
March 1989
March 1992
Future actions for the Fields Brook project can be divided into two general
categories:
1) activities related to the Sediment Operable Unit, and
2) subsequent RI/FS activities.
-------
24
V
The necessary pre-design studies related to the sediment operable unit are a
sediment quantification study, pre-burns, a facility siting study, chemcial
characterization of the wastewater that will be generated by remedial activities,
r-
bench scale wastewater treatability studies, and a pilot study to determine if
solidification is an acceptable method to reduce organic contaminant mobility.
A sediment quantification study is necessary to re-evaluate the sediment volume
estimates used in the FS. Implementation of more detailed sampling and analysis
plan would better define the contaminants present, their concentration, as well
as their vertical and horizontal extent. A radioactive element analysis would
also be a part of this study. The results of the sediment quantification study
"J will be used in conjunction with earlier results as the basis for distinction
between sediment to be thermally treated and sediment to be landfilled after
I J solidification, and for determination of their quantities. In the event that the
.i'i quantities change significantly, the size of the necessary facilities would
T-
Sf need to be adjusted, and would be designed to meet those needs.
Pre-burns are necessary to demonstrate whether the various types of thermal
treatment processes considered are applicable for Fields Brook's waste. This
would be accomplished by sending small volumes of Fields Brook sediment to a
number of existing facilities.
A facility siting study is needed to identify feasible locations for the facilities
needed for the recommended alternative (i.e. thermal treatment unit, landfill).
Considerations would include property availability, proximity to the community
and potential impacts on flood plain/wetlands. This study would be subject
to a public review similar to that in Environmental Impact Statements.
vj
-------
25
Information must be generated on the chemical content of the wastewater that
Mill be generated during the remedial activities, such as sediment dewatering,
and thermal treatment (i.e., scrubber water). This information will be necessary
f0r the actual design of a wastewater treatment system and the eventual develop-
ment of direct or indirect discharge limitations. Similarly, treatability testing
will be necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed treatment
technologies at removing the contaminants in the wastewater and to identify other
technologies that may be effective or necessary.
s
Lastly, a pilot or small bench scale study would be needed to demonstrate that
the mobility of organic contaminants can be successfully reduced by means of
solidification. If the study reveals that mobility reduction cannot be accomplished,
the sediment designated for solidification and landfill ing may also be subject to
thermal treatment.
In addition to the above mentioned pre-design activities, two subsequent activities
are proposed. The first is an RI/FS to identify any ongoing sources of contamina-
tion to Fields Brook. This study would involve a hydrogeological study of the
Fields Brook watershed area. The second would be a study to address the contamina-
tion in the Ashtabula River. Samples would be taken outside the Corps of
Engineers federal project area proposed for dredging. The Office of Policy and
Program Evaluation in Headquarters is evluating the appropriateness of this
type of area wide investigation, whether it is evaluating the appropriateness
of this type of area wide investigation, whether it is economically feasible
and within the scope of the Superfund program. Both of these studies would
include an exposure assessment to determine if any further remedial action is
required. Both of these studies are also planned to be undertaken concurrent
-------
26
V
with the design of the Sediment Operable Unit. If remedial action is warranted,
1t will be conducted as separate operable units of the Fields Brook site, in
t^me frames consistent with maintaining the environmental benefits of the Sediment
Operable Unit.
-------
ATTACHMENT B
THERMAL TREATMENT CRITERIA
The costs associated with landfill ing solidified contaminated sediment are
lower in comparison to the costs of thermal treatment and landfill ing.
Because of this, a combination alternative that thermally treats a portion
of the sediment and landfills the remainder was viable.
Factors important in differentiating between solidifying before landfilling
or thermal treatment of contaminated sediment are:
0 Toxicity
0 Nobility
0 Persistence
0 Bioaccumulation capacity
0 teachability
Current data for the Fields Brook site are limited to mobility, concentrations,
and toxicity. Concentrations and toxicity are combined together and expressed
as the risk of excess cancer due to sediment ingestion. A methodology based
upon these three types of data was developed to evaluate which contaminated
sediment should be thermally treated.
The mobility or transport of a contaminant through soil or sediment can be
expressed by the absorption coefficients or soil-water partition coefficients
(Koc).
An extensive set of Koc values has been developed by Griffin (Seymour Remedial
-------
Investigation Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985). This set
Included Koc values for most of the contaminants found in Fields Brook sediment.
Griffin has also derived a classification system based on the relative
T-
mobilities of these contaminants. This classification system is:
Koc (ml/g) Mobility Classification
0-50 ' Very High Mobility
50 - 150 > High Mobility
150 - 500 Moderate Mobility
500 - 2,000 Low Mobility
2,000 - 20,000 Slight Mobility
greater than 20,000 Immobile
Application of Griffin's classification system to those compounds found in
£• Fields Brook sediment at levels which represent a greater than 10'6 excess
lifetime cancer risk due to sediment ingestion (as a measure of toxicity),
l|l resulted in Figure B-l, which is a plot of sediment volume vs. Koc. In
reviewing this graph it is apparent that a breakpoint occurs at Koc value
of 2,400 ml/g, and a volume of 7,800 cubic yards.
Based upon the large volume increase above the Koc value of 2,400 ml/g,
that value was selected as the cutoff between sediment to be thermally
:!|' treated and sediment to be solidified prior to landfilling. This value
'¥'..
"; Indicates that compounds with greater than slight mobility according to
Griffin warrant thermal treatment at this specific site.
-------
It is uncertain whether sediment with PCB concentrations greater than 500
•g/kg do actually exist in Fields Brook. However, several analyses indicate
;that PCB concentrations above 50 mg/kg do exist in the sediment. In determining
the volume of contaminated sediment to be thermally treated. U.S. EPA recommends
that sediment containing PCB concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg be thermally
treated. This is in accordance witn the PCB disposal requirements in 40 CFR
761.60 (a)(4) and (5) which require contaminated soil or dredged materials to
s
be disposed of by incineration or by a chemical waste landfill. This is
referenced in the U. S. EPA Interim Policy for Planning and Implementing
CERCLA Offsite Response Actions which also states that whenever disposal of PCB's
are undertaken they must be incinerated unless the concentrations are less than
50 ppm. This policy also states that if the concentrations are between 50 and
500 ppm certain exceptions to incineration (primarily disposal in an EPA approvev^
landfill) may be implemented. These guidelines for the disposal of PCB's are
considered both relevant and appropriate for Fields Brook sediment. Therefore
sediment containing PCB's greater than 50 mg/kg is proposed for thermal treatment.
In sumoary. the volume of sediment to be thermally treated was determined based
upon three guidelines:
0 Nobility
0 Toxldty and concentration
0 PCB concentrations only
About 7.800 cubic yards of contaminated sediment will be thermally treated
based upon the first two guidelines. Another 7.800 cubic yards will be thermally
treated because of PCB concentrations only, for an estimated total volume
of 15,600 cubic yards of contaminated sediment to be thermally treated.
-------
« fc « • •>«••_ M U » • • >!••
100.000
Koc — (AFTER GRIFFIN)
FIGURE L-2
FIELDS BROOK FS
-------
Appendix K
THERMAL TREATMENT OF SEDIMENT
Thermal treatment is a general term for the destruction of
hazardous organic wastes through the application of heat.
Incineration is currently the most widely used thermal
treatment technology although several new technologies are
emerging. Another technology capable of efficiently treat-
ing Fields Brook sediment is the high temperature fluid wall
reactor developed to pyrolize organic wastes by the Thagard
Research Corporation in Costa Mesa, California and marketed
by the J.M. Huber Company. Pyrolysis is the application of
heat in an oxygen deficient atmosphere in contrast to incin-
eration where combustion by oxidation decomposes hazardous
waste. Each technique has its own advantages and will be
discussed later in the chapter.
This appendix summarizes existing and potential facilities
for offsite and onsite thermal treatment of contaminated
sediment from the Fields Brook site. r
OFFSITE RCRA INCINERATORS
Within a 600-mile radius there are three RCRA-permitted
incinerators capable of handling contaminated waste from
Fields Brook: Rollins in Bridgeport, New Jersey; Trade
Waste Incinerator in St. Louis, Missouri; and Chemical Waste
Management in Chicago, Illinois. The three operating
facilities will only accept contaminated sediment that has
been containerized or drummed. Incineration costs at these
facilities have been estimated to range from $700 to $1,300
per cubic yard of waste material. This does not include the
material or labor cost for excavating, containerizing,
transporting, and storing the sediment, nor the cost of ash
disposal. Considering existing offsite incinerator capac-
ities, material handling difficulties, potential
transportation and shipping constraints, and scheduling
coordination with other users of the incineration
facilities, offsite incineration of the excavated sediment
(10* removals) is expected to require over 10 years to
complete.
OFFSITE TSCA INCINERATORS
Currently, there are five commercial waste incineration
facilities in the United States that have U.S. EPA TSCA per-
mits for incineration of PCB-contaminated wastes. Two of
these facilities burn only liquid wastes and were not con-
sidered further. The other three facilities are Rollins in
Deer Park, Texas; ENSCO in El Dorado, Arkansas; and Chemical
Waste Management (formerly SCA) in Chicago, Illinois.
Incineration costs at these facilities range between $1,000
K-l
-------
and $1,500 per cubic yard (excavation, transportation,
storing, and ash disposal .not included).
ONSITE PORTABLE THERMAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
Portable thermal treatment facilities are defined as onsite
facilities constructed or installed to operate for the
length of time necessary to destroy the contaminants in the
sediment. Once the tnermal destruction is complete, the
portable facility will be dismantled and salvaged or reused
at other sites. Portable facilities primarily differ from
mobile units in that mobile units are generally constructed
and mounted on mobile trailers that limit their size and
capacity. The two portable systems considered are a rotary
kiln incinerator and an Advanced Electric Reactor marketed
by the J.M. Huber Corporation.
ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR
The rotary kiln is capable of incinerating solid, sludge,
liquid, and gaseous hazardous wastes either separately or
simultaneously. A rotary kiln is a slowly rotating
refractory-lined cylinder mounted at a slight incline to
horizontal. The tumbling action about its horizontal axis
allows for mixing of the wastes, heat, and air, improving
the efficiency of combustion.
A rotary kiln incineration system (Figure K-l) for the
"' Fields Brook site would consist mainly of the kiln and
afterburner for solids destruction, possibly a waste heat
?; boiler for energy recovery, and a venturi scrubber for
emissions control. Destruction of approximately
41,500 "cubic yards of waste and sediment with a 20 percent
moisture content is assumed to take, over 6 years in a kiln
' operating 290 days per year, 24 hours per day, at a feed
;* rate of 24 cubic yards per day. Operating the kiln
continuously would reduce thermal stress on the refractory,
although some downtime has been allowed.
Design, installation, and startup of the incinerator is
assumed to take 1.5 to 2 years. Siting, permitting, and
bidding of the incineration facility may require an addi-
tional 3 to 6 years.
'"If The rotary kiln'would be approximately 20 feet in length and
10 feet in diameter, operating at about 2,200°F. Combustion
temperatures for rotary kilns range from 1,500 to 2,200°F.
In addition to the physical parameters of the unit, resi-
dence time of the material is also a function of the kiln
speed which varies from 0.25 to 1.5 rpm, and the angle to
which it is positioned, usually a 2 to 3 percent rake.
Trial burns, as required by RCRA, will be conducted upon
startup to determine these operating parameters along with
K-2
-------
OEWATERED
SEDIMENT
UNLOADING
TO ATMOSPHERE
ATMOSPHEHE
CAUSTIC OR _
BICARBONATE I
SCRUBBING
WATtH
ENCLOSED
CONVE VOH
(ORSCMfW
FECDtHI
WASTEWATtM 10
ORANULAH
ACTIVA1IO
CARBON
THIATMINf
LIOIND
(OH SCMEW FEEDER)
SI7E
REDUCTION
ROTARY
KILN
INCINERATOR
P ARTICULATE
REMOVAL
VENTURI
SCHUBBER
AfTER
BURNCH
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
PACK til
SCRUBBER
COMBUSTION
AIM
COMBUSTION
AIM
ASK DISPOSAl
OUINCH
CHAMBER
SCRUBBER
SLOWDOWN
TANK
IUII
SIOHAdl
CENTRATE
TANK
t POSSIBLE MXAIION
SLOWDOWN I
I
CONCENIMAtt
•HCCNTRIFUOE
8CRIWMIOIR
,H tlLT^t
1C) ^-J U
(CiACI * , -1
WAtTI ITRIAM
— lOff LIMflNTAL MATERIAL
FIGURE K 1
CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIAGRAM FOR
ROTARY KILN INCINERATION
tnLOS BROOK Ft
-------
the solids retention time, which can be as long as
60 minutes.
t .•-
J- • T
Rotary kiln systems usually have a secondary combustion
chamber or afterburner following the Jciln to ensure complete
combustion of the waste and gases from the kiln. Liquids
can also be injected into the afterburner for destruction in
some cases. This chamber is usually designed to have a gas
residence time of a few seconds with temperatures between
2,200 and 3,000°F.
Wastes with a heating value of 4,000 to 5,000 Btu's per
pound generally do not require auxiliary fuel to sustain
combustion at lower operating temperatures. Sediment from
Fields Brook is assumed to have a low heating value,
therefore burners would be mounted near the kiln to provide
a supplementary source of heat. Approximately 260 gallons
per hour of fuel oil would be needed to maintain 2,200°F.
Solids wastes will be ram fed or conveyed through the high
end of the kiln. Liquid wastes such as the leachate col-
lected at the storage facility could enter through atomizing
nozzles. As the kiln rotates, the waste burns to ash and
moves to the lower end .of the kiln where it is discharged.
The residual ash would then be placed in the storage facil-
ity and capped once incineration is complete. Laboratory
testing of the ash is required to determine if its content
is nonhazardous in character. If this is the case, it may
be possible to delist the ash in accordance with RCRA regu-
lations.
Incineration produces heat which can be reclaimed and util-
ized. The most frequent form of energy recovery is to con-
vert the kiln's waste heat into steam. Using a waste heat
boiler in the incineration system, the net steam flow avail-
able for useful work would be 16,000 pounds per hour. This
is equivalent to 5.6 MW of electricity. Comparison of the
costs and benefits from energy recovery through a waste heat
boiler should be considered in more detail at the time of
the final design.
High levels of NOx emissions are expected, especially when a
rotary kiln is operated at higher temperatures. Nitrous
oxides are formed from thermal fixation of nitrogen in the
air used for combustion or from organic nitrogen compounds
present in the waste. Emissions of SOx and particulate mat-
ter are dependent on the waste. Sulfur oxides are formed
from sulfur present in the waste material and auxiliary
fuel.
Emission control devices currently available may be categor-
ized as either wet or dry process devices. Dry process
devices include cyclones, dry scrubbers, dry electrostatic
K-4
-------
precipitators (ESP's) and fabric filters or baghouses. Wet
control devices include wet scrubbers and wet ESP's. The
wet scrubber process uses a technique of bringing a contam-
inated gas stream in contact with a liquid. Existing waste
incinerators predominately use wet scrubbers to.control
emissions of particulate matter and the gaseous products of
combustion. For illustrative and cost estimating purposes,
a wet scrubber, the venturi scrubber, has been selected as
the emission control device to be used with the rotary kiln.
The venturi scrubber is a high efficiency, high energy gas
cleaning device characterized by typical pressure drops
between 30 and 50 inches of water. The water is injected in
the venturi throat where gases pass through a contracted
area reaching velocities of 200 to 600 feet per second.
Gases then pass through an expansion section and a large
chamber for separation of particles or for further scrub-
bing. High energy venturi scrubbers provide the highest wet
scrubber efficiency with* particles in the range of 0.3 to
1.0 urn in diameter. r
ADVANCED ELECTRIC REACTOR
The J.M. Huber Company has purchased the patent on the high
temperature fluid wall reactor from the Thagard Research
Corporation. The Huber Company in Borger, Texas, now
designs and markets art Advanced Electric Reactor (AER) to
pyrolize organic wastes. Figure K-2 presents the conceptual
flow diagram for the AER.
Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of organic matter
through the application of heat in an oxygen deficient atmo-
sphere. Destruction by pyrolysis rather than oxidation
offers several advantages. Higher operating temperatures
(4,000* to 4,500°F) can be achieved in an AER in contrast
with a rotary kiln incinerator (2,200°F). This allows for
high destruction efficiencies and a fused nonporous ash.
Secondly, typical products produced by incineration such as
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxides are not
formed in significant concentrations in an electric reactor,
which could be an important consideration in nonattainment
areas (Clean Air Act). The AER also has several inherent
fail-safe operating features. This lessens the need for
extensive emission controls.
The electric reactor has demonstrated the ability to handle
large volumes of contaminated soil with destruction and
removal efficiencies (DRE's) far exceeding the RCRA require-
ments for hazardous wastes incinerators. Removal efficien-
cies for PCB-contaminated waste have been demonstrated at
99.99999 percent. The AER is also well suited for treatment
of material with low heating values (Btu-content) as is the
case with Fields Brook sediment.
K-5
-------
DEWATERED
SEDIMENT
UNLOADING
MATERIAL
PREPARATION/
SIZE REDUCTION
POST
REACTOR
TREATMENT
ZONES'
INDIRECT:""
COOLING ZONE
AIR TIGHT
HOPPER
fORFEED
METERED
SCREW FEEDER
'ADVANCED
ELECTRIC
REACTOR
*- HIGH TEMPERATURE
INSULATED ZONE
STACK
GAS
MONITORING.
STACK
SLIDE VALVE
BAGHOUSE
RESIDUAL
ASH BIN
MAKEUP WATER
AND N«OH
CAUSTIC
SCRUBBER
(FOR CHLORINE REMOVAL)
ASH DISPOSAL
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
SEDIMENT IN
O
q?
ll 9
™^M
•B^—
•r-
f
\
1
t
j_
i
1'
k
?
: v
,?
r
0
1
31
L— • WASTE
, STREAM
=3
» 5 •*- NITROGEN
CAS FEED
1 __^ CAHBON
•• HEATING
EltClHOOE
^ INSULATED
SHELL
- POHOUS GHAPHI ft
-**| HEACTOHCOHE
TREATED SEDIMENT
OUT TO RE ACTOR
TREATMENT ZONES
ADVANCED ELECTRIC
REACTOR SECTION
FIGURE K 2
CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIAGRAM FOR
ADVANCED ELECTRIC REACTOR
f IE LOS BROOK FS
-------
Solid waste materials are introduced into the top of the
reactor by means of a materials screen feeder that connects
an airtight feed hopper to the reactor. Solid feed streams
must generally be free flowing and reduced to 35 U.S. mesh
size. Assuming Fields Brook sediment is approximately. 60 to
80 percent sands and silts, a shredder or jet impactor would
be needed to reduce the particle size of the remaining waste.
Huber Corporation has designed, but not field tested, a trans-
portable unit with a designed feed rate of 20,000 tons per
year. A stationary, commercial scale, reactor permitted
under RCRA and TSCA is, however, maintained at Huber's Borger,
Texas research facility. Assuming one cubic yard of sediment
is approximately equal to 1.4 tons, and allowing for downtime,
destruction of 43,000 cubic yards of waste and sediment from
Fields Brook is estimated to take approximately 4 years.
Design, installation, and startup of the reactor is assumed
to take approximately 1.5 years. Siting, permitting, and
bidding for the facility has not been considered in this
time frame and may require an additional 3 to 6 years.
The reaction chamber consists of a tubular core of porous
refractory material insulated in a fluid-tight vessel. In
the reactor, energy is transferred to the waste by radiation
rather than by conduction or convection as with conventional
incinerators. Carbon electrodes are used to heat the reac-
tor core to temperatures between 4,000° and 4,500°F. Normal
energy requirements for treatment of contaminated soils
range between 800 and 1,000 kWh per ton of material
processed. Nitrogen gas is injected radially through the
porous walls of the chamber to prevent the hazardous
materials from contacting or sticking to the reactor's
walls. This protective gas blanket or fluid wall is
transparent to the radiant energy generated inside the
reactor.
After leaving the reactor, the product gas and waste solids
pass through two postreactor treatment zones used to cool
and further aid in destroying the wastes. The waste resides
for about 5 seconds at 2,500°F in the first treatment zone,
which is an insulated vessel. The second zone primarily
cools the product gas for about 10 seconds to 1,000°F prior
to emissions control. Particles in the waste gas are
removed via a cyclone and a baghcuse filter followed by an
aqueous caustic scrubber for chlorine removal. Residual
organic compounds and chlorine in the gas exiting the
scrubber are removed through activated carbon beds.
Solids exiting the postreactor treatment zones would be col-
lected in a bin and returned to the onsite storage facility
for disposal. Because of the high operating temperatures
and rapid reactions, the residual remaining is vitrified
K-7
-------
beads resembling glass shot. Most metal salts are soluble
in the molten glass and become chemically bound within the
residual. The residual may be considered a sterile sand
with a greatly reduced leachability. It may be possible to
delist the residual as a waste regulated under RCRA through
confirmatory laboratory testing.
ONSITE MOBILE THERMAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
As an alternative to hauling sediment to offsite
incinerators or using a thermal system constructed onsite,
transporting a mobile incinerator or reactor to the site is
possible. Mobile incinerators are available but their
availability is limited. Existing mobile incinerators or
reactors capable of handling Fields Brook sediment include a
facility operated by Pyrotech, an ENSCO subsidiary, the U.S.
EPA mobile unit, and the high temperature fluid wall reactor
from Vulcan Resources Ltd.
PYROTECH'S MOBILE WASTE PROCESSOR (ENSCO)
Pyrotech's mobile incinerator occupies a 200-foot by r
200-foot area. The facility consists of seven trailers on
which the incineration, air pollution control, analytical
laboratory, and control room equipment are mounted. Setup
time is approximately 2 to 3 weeks. The solid incineration
equipment includes a rotary kiln which operates between
1,800° and 2,000°F. The feed system is a belt conveyor with
a charging hopper plus a ram feeder. Residual ash is
collected in a discharge chute. Liquid wastes can also be
injected into the afterburner which operates between
2,200° to 2,600*F. Air pollution control equipment includes
a packed bed tower and a steam ejector scrubber.
The mobile system is designed to simultaneously incinerate
up to 3,600 gallons per day of liquid waste and 96 tons per
day of contaminated solid material. Sediment with a mois-
ture content of 20 percent together with the desired
destruction efficiency is expected to limit the feed rate to
between 35 and 50 tons per day. Assuming a rate of 40 tons
per day and 290 operating days per year, it would take
approximately 6 years to treat the Fields Brook sediment.
This does not include time for siting, permitting, design,
and construction of the treatment facility. Currently, the
unit is not permitted to incinerate PCB-contaminated wastes,
although ENSCO has plans for a compliancy test in the near
future.
U.S. EPA MOBILE INCINERATOR SYSTEM
The EPA mobile incinerator consists of major incineration
and air pollution control equipment, -combustion and stack
gas monitoring equipment, and ancillary equipment—all
K-8
-------
mounted on four heavy-duty trailers. Each trailer requires
construction of a concrete pad and some type of shelter.
The overall plan area of the four trailers when assembled in
operating configuration is approximately 10 feet by
150 feet. The overall capacity is 15 million Btu/hr.
Additional equipment required for operation, which is-not
included with the four trailers, includes wastewater
treatment and decontamination facilities; feed preparation
equipment; and fuel, sediment, residue, and spare part
storage. This additional equipment occupies another 10 to
12 trailers and the overall size of the incineration complex
could be as much as 2 to 4 acres.
The EPA mobile incinerator design appears technically capa-
ble of handling Fields Brook sediment. Test burns of liquid
PCB's demonstrated a destruction removal efficiency of
99.9999 percent. The solids handling capability of the sys-
tem has been tested and refined. The facility is also
equipped with air pollution control and stack gas monitoring
systems. Incineration residue would have to be properly
disposed of either onsite or in a secure landfill offsite.
Initial estimates indicate the capacity of the EPA incinera-
tor is about 30 cubic yards per 24-hour day for material
containing 20 percent moisture and a PCB destruction removal
efficiency of 99.9999. At this rate, it would take approxi-
mately 6 years to treat the Fields Brook sediment, assuming
290 operating days per year.
MOBILE HTFW REACTOR
A mobile high temperature fluid wall (HTFW) reactor to
pyrolize organic wastes similar to the Advance Electric
Reactor has been developed by the Thagard Research
Corporation and is licensed by Vulcan Resources Ltd. The
system consists of three trailers occupying a 100-foot by
100-foot area. The reactor is approximately 5 feet wide and
30 feet high. Once the trailers are on the site, the setup
time is about 1 week. Generally the reactor is run continu-
ously although it can be shut down on weekends without a
loss in efficiency.
Contaminated sediment is brought to the top of the reactor
via a bucket elevator or conveyor system and then dispersed
through a power feed-through assembly. Some material prepa-
ration may be necessary before the contaminated sediment is
fed into the reactor. Fine grain sand and silt which will
pass through a 100-mesh screen can be treated directly.
Larger waste material must be sent through a shredder or jet
impactor to reduce the particle size. To avoid the need for
emission control equipment, lime is frequently added to
highly chlorinated wastes.
K-9
-------
1.
The mobile reactor is designed to treat 50 tons of contam-
inated soil per day. Moisture and gases present in the sed-
iment may slightly reduce this capacity. The reactor has
achieved DRE's exceeding the 99,.99 percent RCRA requirement,
and the unit''is also permitted'to treat PCB-contaminated
waste. Energy requirements for the reactor are approxi-
mately 800 kWh per ton of material processed.
Assuming a feed rate of 2.6 tons per hour and operation for
290 days per year (20 hours per day), a single HTFW reactor
would take about 4 years to treat the Fields Brook sediment.
According to Vulcan Resources, a mobile reactor can be
designed, constructed, and delivered to a site in less than
1 year. This does not include consideration of time assoc-
iated with siting and permitting, which may require an addi-
tional 3 to 6 years.
ONSITE THERMAL TREATMENT PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
Permitting of a hazardous waste incinerator may require that
a trail burn be performed to establish acceptable operating
parameters for the material being incinerated. The r
complexity of the trial burn depends on the nature of the
wastes to be incinerated. A trial burn may not be required
if the incinerator being used has already been permitted to
burn wastes of the same form and of equal or greater
incineration difficulty. A trial burn may also not be
required if the incinerator is similar enough to another
incinerator which is permitted to burn such wastes.
To meet the substantive requirements of obtaining a permit
to operate a hazardous waste incineration facility, a trial
burn may be required in accordance with 40 CFR 270. The
trial burn is conducted to determine the conditions that the
incinerator would be operated at to maintain compliance
required the performance standards. These standards
include, destruction and removal efficiencies (DRE) of 99.99
percent for principal organic hazardous constituents (POHC)
or 99.9999 percent for PCB's and dioxin, controlled hydrogen
chloride emissions not to exceed 1.8 kg/hr, and particulate
matter emissions of less than 0.08 grams per day standard
cubic foot (40 CFR 264).
The trial burn is also intended to determine the operating
parameters (waste feed, waste restrictions, combustion
temperature, etc.) which will be specified in the permit.
Therefore, waste incinerated during the trial burn must be
representative of the waste to be incinerated during the
incinerator operation. An allowance for a trial burn should
be included in the cost estimate to encompass preparing the
trial burn plan, waste steam characterization, operation for
up to 720 hours prior to the trial burn to establish the
K-10
-------
required operating conditions, a trial burn operation,
monitoring procedures, and sample analyses.
In addition to the need to meet the substantive requirements
of a RCRA permit, the onsite incinerator will need to meet
Clean Air Act requirements for air emissions. An NPDES
permit would be required if scrubber water is to be
discharged to a surface water. If the scrubber water is
instead sent to a sewer, the water would be required to meet
federal POTW pretreatment standards.
GLT525/38
K-ll
------- |