48
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
FACT SHEET
EPA Region 5 Records Ctr.
236470
OLD MILL SITE
ROCK CREEK, OHIO
£ EPA
REGION V
JUNE 1985
r
recefftyicompleted a Feasibil-
ity Study evaluating possible rem-
edies for the Old Mill hazardous
waste site. This summary describes
the remedial alternatives examined
in the study and the recommended
solution.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Old Mill site consists of two par-
cels of land in Rock Creek,
Ashtabula County, Ohio. Drums
containing oils, solvents, resins and
PCB's were stored on the 3-acre
Henfield property and on the 10-
acre Kraus property across the
?*"=et frorj-'/he Henfield property.
i properfies are contaminated
wrrh various chemicals including
heavy metals, solvents, and other
organic chemicals. In 1981 and
1982, EPA initiated emergency
cleanup action that removed 1,200
drums from the site.
The site is in a rural village; the
closest residences are approxi-
mately 75 feet from the site. Most re-
sidents in the area near the site ob-
tain their drinking water from a
municipal source rather than from
individual wells.
RESULTS OF THE
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
A Remedial Investigation of the Old
Mill site was completed in October
1984. Results from the investigation
indicate that heavy metal and or-
ganic contaminants are present in
soil and groundwater on and adja-
cent to the site.
Specifically, the Remedial Investi-
gation found high concentrations of
heavy metal and also found organic
contaminants in the soil on and just
west of the Henfield property, and
organic contaminants in ground-
water below and directly west of the
Henfield property. Low levels of or-
ganic contamination were found in
the sediment from the drainageway
located directly north of the Kraus
property. Soil and groundwater on
the Kraus property were found to be
contaminated with organics and
metals. These locations are iden-
tified on the site map in Figure 1.
RESULTS OF THE
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Because contaminants were found
at the site, an Exposure Assess-
ment was conducted to determine
the potential threat to human health
and the environment if no action
were taken at the site.
The major routes of possible expo-
sure at the site were determined to
be through direct contact with con-
taminated soil, groundwater, sur-
face water, or sediment from the
Henfield and Kraus properties.
FIGURE 1
tEOEND
E3 CONTAMINATED SOIL
LIMIT OF KNOWN
CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER
-------
Based on results of sampling at the
site, the Exposure Assessment de-
termined that an excess lifetime
cancer risk of 1 x 10~6 is possible if
no action is taken to reduce con-
tamination at the site. This means
that lifetime exposure to site conta-
minants could result in one excess
cancer per million people exposed.
. The cancer risk is calculated based
.on the theoretical potential of resi-
dents ingesting approximately five
ounces of soil or sediment per year,
or ingesting two liters of contami-
nated groundwater per day for a
lifetime. The Exposure Assessment
cc jded that action was required
tovtfduce this potential for direct
contact with contaminants.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PROCESS
The Feasibility Study evaluated vari-
ous methods for eliminating or re-
ducing the potential for exposure to
contaminants at the Old Mill site. It
looked at how well each remedy
would protect public health and the
environment, how much each re-
medy would cpst, and how easily
each could be implemented. EPA's
objective is to choose the most en-
vironmentally sound and cost-effec-
tive solution.
The Feasibility Study for the Old Mill
site evaluated 20 alternatives within
6 categories:
• Removal of contaminants from
the site
• Actions that exceed applicable
federal standards and criteria
• Actions that meet applicable fed-
eral standards and criteria
• Actions that attain the federal
CERCLA goals of minimizing
contaminant migration and pro-
tecting human health and the en-
vironment, but do not necessarily
attain applicable federal stan-
dards
• Limited action — minimal meas-
ures that prevent direct contact
with contaminants
• No action
The no action and limited action al-
ternatives were eliminated since
they would not adequately protect
human health and the environment.
Options that exceed federal stan-
HOLDING
TANK
EXTRACTION
WELL
GROUND SURFACE
GROUNDWATER
CONTAINMENT AND
EXTRACTION
Wells installed around the site
would contain and remove contami-
nated groundwater and pump the
water into holding tanks for storage.
The contaminated water would then
be cleaned in a carbon adsorption
treatment system.
CAPPING
A cap consists of compacted layers
of sand and clay separated by a
synthetic liner. At the Old Mill site, a
cap would be placed over contami-
nated portions of the site to prevent
human contact with contaminated
soil. It would also reduce the
chance that rainwater and melting
snow would carry contaminants
from the surface into underlying soil
and groundwater
Vegetation would cover the top
layer of the cap to allow for drainage
and to prevent erosion of the under-
lying soil. A cap would require only
minimal maintenance, including in-
spection, mowing, and occasional
filling of small cracks or depres-
sions.
^f,//)iUtf/MV//^[^^^
2'VEGETATIVE
COVER
.«, CONTAMINATED
SOIL
SYNTHETIC LINER
i
-------
CLEAN WATER
DRAINAGE
EXTRACTION WELL
STORAGE/
SETTLING TANKS
CONTAMINATED
AQUIFER
CARBON ADSORPTION
Contaminated groundwater would
be pumped through a series of
tanks that are packed with activated
carbon (treated material that at-
tracts the contaminants). The conta-
minants cling to the carbon and the
clean water leaves the system.
Sampling of water discharge would
determine when the carbon mater-
ials need to be replaced. After the
carbon is used, it would be regener-
ated or disposed of in a permitted
landfill. Clean water from the system
would be discharged to an onsite
drainage ditch.
.CONTAMINATED SOIL
TRANSPORT TO
PERMITTED LANDFILL
EXCAVATION AND
REMOVAL OF
CONTAMINATED SOIL
Contaminated soil would be exca-
vated from the site. Ongoing sampl-
ing and soil analysis would assure
that sufficient soil has been re-
moved to meet goals for reducing
the levels of contaminants. Soil
would be loaded onto trucks, and
the vehicles and equipment would
be decontaminated before the soil
would be transported to a permitted
landfill.
dards were eliminated based on the
high costs of construction or opera-
tion, and because other alternatives
that meet the standards and pro-
vide adequate protection of public
health and the environment are
available.
Three alternatives that meet applic-
able federal requirements were
selected for final comparison. Each
one protects human health and the
environment by eliminating the pos-
sibility of exposure to contaminated
soil and by reducing the migration
of contaminants in groundwater. All
three alternatives contain proven
and cost-effective technologies
(see the inserts above).
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
ALTERNATIVES
The following three alternatives were
considered for final comparison. (The
alternatives are numbered to corres-
pond with the text in the Feasibility
Study.)
Alternative 2A: Capping, Ground-
water Extraction and Treatment
• Install cap over contaminated soil
and sediment
• Install wells to contain and ex-
tract groundwater
• Treat contaminated groundwater
through carbon adsorption
Alternative 2A would prevent
human contact with contaminated
soil. Removal and carbon treatment
of contaminated groundwater
would control migration and prevent
contact with contaminants.
As with all alternatives, there would
be some short-term noise, dust, and
traffic during construction. Long-
term operation and maintenance of
the cap and the groundwater con-
tainment, extraction and treatment
facilities would be required. Also,
land use and access to the aquifer
as a water supply would be control-
led under this alternative. Alterna-
tive 2A would cost approximately 3
million dollars.
-------
Alternative 2D: Contaminant
Removal and Off site Disposal;
Groundwater Treatment Onsite
• Excavate contaminated soil and
sediment, dispose of offsite in a
permitted landfill
• Install wells to contain and ex-
tract groundwater
• Treat contaminated groundwater
through carbon adsorption
This alternative would remove 95
percent of the contaminant mass in
the soil for disposal at an offsite fed-
erally approved landfill. Groundwa-
ter treatment is identical to the pro-
cess described in Alternative 2A.
Additional noise, dust, and traffic
wo> ild be associated with the exca-
v .1 and transport of wastes; how-
evBf, noise standards would not be
exceeded, and measures would be
taken to control waste spills and
dust. Use of the groundwater ex-
traction system would be shorter
and more effective compared to Al-
ternative 2A because soil removal
would eliminate a source of ground-
water contamination. Aquifer use
controls would be required for this
alternative, in addition to ongoing
operation and maintenance ac-
tivities. Permanent land use controls
would not be required. Alternative
2D is estimated to cost 4 million dol-
lars.
A' -native 2F: Contaminant Re-
ntal and Onsite Disposal;
Groundwater Treatment Onsite
• Excavate contaminated soil, dis-
pose of on the Kraus property
• All of the provisions of Alternative
2D
This alternative is identical to Alter-
native 2D except excavated wastes
would be disposed of on the Kraus
property in a newly constructed
landfill. This would minimize the
risks of spills that could occur in
long-distance transport. Land use
controls for the new landfill would
be required. However, since con-
taminated soil would be removed
from the Henfield property, land use
controls would not be required on
that property. Use of the aquifer
would be restricted under this alter-
native. Alternative 2F would require
long-term onsite operation and
maintenance to maintain the landfill.
It is estimated to cost 3.5 million dol-
lars.
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
EPA recommends Alternative 2D as
the preferred solution for the Old
Mill site. Removal of contaminated
soil and sediment and offsite dis-
posal would eliminate the potential
threat of human exposure to con-
taminated materials from the site.
The site would not be capped, and
no permanent land use restrictions
would be necessary. Onsite build-
ings would be removed to allow soil
excavation. Clean soil would re-
place the excavated materials.
In this alternative, groundwater
would be extracted to contain and
treat contamination in the aquifer. It
is predicted that after 30 years the
average level of contaminants
would be significantly reduced.
Wells would be installed in the
aquifer to monitor effectiveness of
the system in removing the ground-
water contaminants. Use of the con-
taminated portion of the aquifer
would be restricted during this time.
All residences downgradient of the
site (within 0.5 mile) would be con-
nected to the currently available
public water supply.
PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD ON THE
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Copies of the Feasibility Study are
available for review at the:
Rock Creek Town Hall,
Rock Creek Library, and
Ashtabula County
Commissioner's Office
EPA will accept written comments
on the Old Mill site Feasibility Study
until June 19,1985. Both written and
oral comments will be accepted at
the public meeting June 11, 1985.
Written comments may be submit-
ted at the public hearing or mailed
to:
Margaret McCue
Community Relations Coordinator
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. EPA —Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-1728
(800)621-8431 (Toll free)
Following the public comment
period, EPA will consider all com-
ments, make any necessary
changes, and initiate design and
construction of the remedy.
MAILING LIST
I Anyone wishing to be placed on the
I Old Mill Site mailing list please fill
• out, detach, and mail this form to:
I Office of Public Affairs
| U.S. EPA — Region V
• 230 S. Dearborn Street
1 Chicago, IL 60604
Name
Address
Affiliation
Phone
I
|
------- |