NCD001810365_19870901_Martin-Marietta Sodyeco Inc. (Clariant)_FRBCERCLA FS_Feasibility Study-OCR

Martin-Marie~ Sodyeeo
Inc. (Clari.ant) NPL
NCDOOISI036~
I
I
I FEASIBILITY STUDY [1J1[]
I SODYECO SITE y
Mt. Holly, North Carolina ~ I [1J1[] = I y
00 I 0 PREPARED FOR
I ~
I U.S. ~
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY = ~ I AND [1J1[]
I NORTH CAROLINA [1J1[]
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ~ I = ~ I PREPARED BY ~
I ENGINEERING-SCIENCE [1J1[]
Atlanta, Georgia (lfm I AND
I LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
rum Charlotte, North Carolina
I SEPTEMBER 1987
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FEASIBILITY STUDY
SODYECO SITE
Mt. Holly, North Carolina
Prepared For
U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
September 1 987
Prepared By
ENG I NEER ING-SCI ENCE
57 Executive Park South, Suite 590
Atlanta, Georgia 30329
and
LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY
Charlotte, North Caroiina
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
a
I
I
D
0
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
SECTION 5
875J129
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SODYECO SITE
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Purpose of the Feasibility Study
1.2 Site History and Description
1.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination
1.4 Most Promising Remedial Action Alternatives
1.4.1 Comparison of Soil Remedial Action
Alternatives
1.4.2 Comparison of Ground-Water Remedial
Action Alternatives
1.5 Recommended Remedial Actions
INTRODUCTION
2.1 Site Background Information
2.1 .1 Location
2.1.2 Site History
2.1.3 Site Status
2.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination
2.2.1 Identification of Contaminants
2.2.2 Contaminant Assessment
2.3 Objectives of Remedial Action
2.4 Overview of the FS Report
IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL
ACTION TECHNOLOGIES
3.1 General Summary of Contaminated Media
3.2 Identification and Screening of Technologies
DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF REMEDIAL
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Formulation of Alternatives
4.3 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED REMEDIAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Evaluation of Soil Alternatives
i
1-1
1 -1
1-3
1-9
1 -9
1-12
1-14
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-11
2-11
3-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-3
5-1
5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R
D
SECTION 5
SECTION 6
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
875J129
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SOOYECO SITE
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
(Continued)
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED REMEDIAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
5.3
5.2.1 Technical Feasibility and Reliability
5.2.2 Protectiveness
5.2.3 Meets ARAR's
5.2.4 Reductions in Mobility/Toxicity/Volume
5.2.5 Cost-Effectiveness
5.2.6 Comparison of Soil Alternatives
Ground-Water Alternatives
5.3.1 Technical Feasibility and Reliability
5.3.2 Protectiveness
5.3.3 Meets ARAR's
5.3.4 Reductions in Mobility/Toxicity/Volume
5.3.5 Cost-Effectiveness
5.3.6 Comparison of Ground-Water
Al terna ti ves
RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Selection of Soil Remedial Actions
6.3 Selection of Ground-Water Remedial Action
6.4 Description of Recommended Remedial Actions
REFERENCES
LIST OF PREPARERS
COST ESTIMATING DATA
SUPPORT INFORMATION ON GROUND-WATER RECOVERY
SYSTEM
SUPPORT INFORMATION ON THE EXISTING BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEM AND THE ORGANIC LOADING FROM
CERCLA AND RCRA GROUND WATER
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
FOR NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0004375
ii
5-3
5-6
5-8
5-8
5-9
5-9
5-15
5-15
5-26
5-27
5-27
5-29
5-29
6-1
6-1
6-3
6-5
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
F-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
Number
1 • 1
1. 2
1 • 3
2. 1
2.2
5. 1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6. 1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
875J129
LIST OF FIGURES
SODYECO SITE
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
Title
CERCLA Areas at The Sodyeco Site
surface water and Sediment Sampling Locations
Ground-Water Wells Sampled During RI
Site Topography Map
CERCLA Areas at the Sodyeco Site
Approximate Location of Recovery, Observation,
and Mani taring Wells in the Intermediate
Aquifer Zone of Areas A and B
Approximate Location of Recovery, Observation,
and Monitoring Wells in the Shallow Aquifer
Zone in Area C
Approximate Location of Recovery, Observation,
and Monitoring Wells in the Aquifer Zones
in Area D
Approximate Location of Recovery, Observation,
and Monitoring Wells in the Residium, Weathered/
Fractured Rock, and in the Deep Aquifer Zones
in Area D
Approximate Location of Recovery, Observation,
and Monitoring Wells in the Intermediate
Aquifer Zone in Area E
Approximate Location of Monitoring and Observation
Wells Relative to the Capture Zone Boundaries
Recommended Remedial Actions: Areas A
Generalized Cap Cross Section for Area
Recommended Remedial Actions: Area C
Soil Profiles Used to Estimate Volumes
Recommended Remedial Actions: Area D
Region to be Excavated in Area D
and B
B
in Area C
Recovery Well Installation in Shallow Aquifer Zone
Recovery Well Installation in Intermediate and
Deep Aquifer Zones
Recommended Remedial Actions: Area E
iii
1-2
1-5
1-6
2-2
2-6
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-22
6-6
6-7
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
u
g
D
D
Number
,. 1
,. 2
1 • 3
3. 1
3.2
3. 3
3.4
4. 1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5. 1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
875Jl29
LIST OF TABLES
SODYECO SITE
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
Title
Summary of Preferred Remedial Action Alternatives
for Detailed Analysis
Summary of Screening Criteria for Comparing
Soil Alternatives
Summary of Screening Criteria for Comparing
Ground-Water Remedial Action Alternatives
Possible Remedial Technologies for Treatment
and Disposal at the Sodyeco Site
Possible Remedial Technologies for Containment
and Migration Control at the Sodyeco Site
Preliminary Screening of Treatment and Disposal
Technologies
Preliminary Screening of Containment and
Migration Control Technologies
Summary of Applicable Remedial Technologies For
Alternative Development and Applicable
CERCLA Areas
Development of Remedial Action Alternatives,
The Sodyeco Site
Preliminary Screening of General Alternatives
Based on Effectiveness, Implementability,
and Cost Criteria
Preliminary Screening of Ground-Water Recovery
and Treatment Alternatives Based on
Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost
Criteria
Summary of Remedial Action Alternatives for
Detailed Analysis
Alternative 6 Soils Cost Estimates
Alternative 8 Soils Cost Estimates
Alternative 9 Soils Cost Estimates
Alternative 10 Soils Cost Estimates
Summary of Screening Criteria for Comparing
Soil Alternatives
Water Standards and Applicable, Relevant, and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for the
Indicator Parameters
Estimated Cost of Ground-Water Remediation
Alternatives (Present Worth in 1,000's
of Dollars)
iv
1-10
1 -11
1-1 3
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-9
4-2
4-4
4-6
4-8
5-2
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-1 3
5-14
5-28
5-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
u
u
0
Number
6. 1
6.2
875J129
LIST OF TABLES
SODYECO SITE
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
(continued)
Title
Testing Requirements to Evaluate Innovative
Treatment Technologies for Areas C and D Soils
Estimated Cost of Soil and Ground-Water
Remediation for Alternatives 8 and 9
V
6-8
6-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I !H
0
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1, 1 PURPOSE OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
This feasibility study (FS) was carried out in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) towards fulfillment of Consent Order 86-07-C. Organic ground-
water contamination was first identified in an on-site water supply well
in 1980. Between 1980 and the present a number of studies and remedial
activities were undertaken. As a result of these previous studies, five
areas of known or suspected contamination were identified. The remedial
investigation (RI) characterized these five CERCLA areas (A through E in
Figure 1.1) in terms of the nature and extent of contamination. An
evaluation of remedial action alternatives for the five CERCLA areas is
conducted in this FS. The objectives of remedial action are to prevent
off-site contaminant migration and ensure continued protection of human
health and the environment. Source control and treatment alternatives
to improve the long-term ground-water quality on site are assessed.
The Sodyeco site differs from some of the other National Priority
List (NPL) sites in that it is an active manufacturing plant owned by
one company. In addition to the CERCLA activities, wastewater treat-
ment and discharge activities are regulated under the NPDES program. A
RCRA permit has been issued for the treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste on-site. In the future, surface irnpoundment closure and
post-closure monitoring will be part of the RCRA program. At the
conclusion of remedial activities for the five CERCLA sites, it is
expected that the CERCLA requirements will have been completed and
responsibility for follow-up monitoring will be continued under the RCRA
program.
1.2 SITE HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION
The Sod ye co site, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
was purchased by Sodyeco, Inc. (a former subsidiary of Sandoz U.S.A) in
875J129 1 -1
==
Z\
ma liiiiil
"' ,, ,
a
AREA A-......
•~. AREA E "---.:: .. ·-·
FIGURE 1.1
CERCLA AREAS AT
THE SODYECO SITE
LEGEND
,oo
sc;.-u: ~-~HH Lil CERCLA Area
---- --- -- - - -
\
\__
"\ , , r·~---
Clft~l"-OE ORrvl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
D
0
0
1983. The first manufacturing operations began in 1939 with sulfur dye
production. In the early 1960 's, production expanded to include other
dyes and intermediate chemicals. Growth continued over the years and
current product lines include chemicals for agricultural, electronic,
explosive, lithographic, pigment, plastic, and rubber industries.
Sodyeco has recently made a substantial investment in the manufacturing
and treatment facilities on site and are currently modernizing the
environmental programs. These efforts demonstrate the corporation's
commitment to environmentally safe and long-term operation of the
Sodyeco Plant site.
Of the approximate 1,300 acres at the Soydeco site, about 20
percent is occupied by production units and the wastewater treatment
facility combined. The majority of the remaining acreage is undeveloped
area. The two main surface water features are Long Creek and the
Catawba River, which is the western site boundary. These surface
features receive ground-water discharge, surface water runoff, and are
the primary exposure pathways for any contaminant migration off-site.
The Sodyeco site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province
which is characterized as a general northeast-trending geologic belt
underlain with igneous and metamorphic rock. A typical soil profile
consists of clayey surface soil underlain by sandy silts/silty sands and
residual saproli te. Partially weathered rock forms a transition zone
between soil and bedrock. Both the partially weathered rock and
unweathered rock contain fractures and joints.
Ground water is primarily recharged by precipitation and is
contained in pores of the weathered rock. In general, fractures are not
inter-connected to provide a continuous path for ground-water flow over
long distances. Ground water flows towards the major drainage features.
The Catawba River is the most prominent regional drainage feature which
acts as a ground-water sink and eventually receives flow from Long Creek
and smaller tributaries on site.
1.3 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
Chemicals used in manufacturing and laboratory operations were
identified as contaminants in soil and ground water at the five CERCLA
areas. The compounds found include toluene, chlorobenzene,
875J129 1 -3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
D
0
ethylbenzene, xylene, o-dichlorobenzene,
trichloroethy•lene. --·As part of the remedial
tetrachloroethylene and
investigation, all soil,
ground-water, and surface water samples were analyzed for these organic
indicator parameters. Surface water and sediment sampling points and
the ground-water monitoring well locations are shown in Figures 1.2 and
1. 3, respectively. In addition, surface water and sediment samples were
analyzed for fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene (polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, PAHs). Hazardous Substance List parameters were analyzed
at four primary surface water locations. The occurrence of these
contaminants in soils and ground water are reviewed .for each CERCLA
area.
Measurable off-site contaminant migration has not occurred as seen
by the nine (9) ground-water perimeter wells sampled and seven (7)
surface water locations sampled in the Catawba River. Ground-water flow
direction, based on water level measurements, is away from all drinking-
water wells in the area. The findings of the baseline public health
risk assessment indicate that the total impact from the five CERCLA
areas is within acceptable levels established by EPA. Remedial actions
in the CERCLA areas and site closure and other corrective action in the
RCRA area will reduce this risk even further. These risk findings are
supported in part by a Benthic Macroinvertebra te Analysis conducted by
the state of North Carolina (February, 1987) in the Catawba River.
General findings concluded that the plant effluent and any CERCLA area
discharge was not stressing benthic organisms in the river.
Areas A and B
Area A contains a previous landfill where clarification filter
cake, off-specification dyes, and general plant debris were disposed.
The landfill is currently covered by asphalt and buildings. Soil
borings north {upgradient} of the area did not indicate contamination.
Soil samples at the northern boundary showed low levels of selected
indicator parameters to a 5-foot depth and samples analyzed just south
of the area (downgradient) showed contamination to a 30 foot depth. The
upgradient ground-water wells (WQ-27 and WQ-31) were free from contamin-
ation. One downgradient well cluster (WQ-SA), which is also impacted by
Area B, was not contaminated in the shallow zone, showed contamination
in the intermediate zone, and had much lower contamination in the deep
aquifer zone.
875J129 1-4
!!!!!I == ;a;; liiiiiiiii liiil ---------
I
I
FIGURE 1.2
Iii. I
[l oA--. \
\
OHMEAOE DRIVE
o Q O 'A<!I. -TRIBUTARY A
(}, -A . ~ .r·-"'· ~ a Q +RIB,UTARY° C ;' \~o <•
CJ .,,.. ~ Olo BlA.c1<SN~,i:E ,p ~. '-,/. ~
~ofJO ---, .
. .-+-+-.:..__~o ~ ----~, , , ,
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
0 '" SCHE ~-~ fEET
LEGEND
6 Surface Water Sample
A Surface Weter And Sedimenl
Sample
;
I
- ---
I
I
,.,
I "'
= ;;;;;i
,
I
\. • WQ-'2
~
.. --
,/'; ___ ....,,,_ __ __
,
e W0-11
W0-31
FIGURE 1.3
GROUND-WATER WELLS
SAMPLED DURING RI
'" ::;c ... u ----FEET
LEGEND
• Previous Well
o New Well
- --
\
--
wo-10 •
---
, ,
-
' '
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
--
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
0
D
D
Area B contains a closed landfill with materials similar to those
disposed of in Area A. The landfill is covered with native soil and
gravel at the surface and is currently used as a truck staging area.
The upgradient soil boring showed low levels of organic contamination
(to a 30-foot depth) indicating migration from Area A. Downgradient
soil borings along the Area B southern boundary identified some sub-
surface volatile organics. The low concentration of one PAH compound
detected in the downgradient tributary sediment is not foreseen to
present significant risk and require remediation. Only one compound,
chlorobenzene, at a non-quantifiable concentration (<5 ug/L) was
netected in Tributary C. The 5 ug/L is well below the minimum ARAR of
60 ug/L.
Area C
Area C previously contained three (3) disposal pits that were
cleaned out between 1981 and 1983. The pits contained drums of waste
sol vents, distillation tars, and discarded laboratory samples. After
the wastes and visually contaminated soils were removed (approximately
3, 200 tons), the pi ts were backfilled with native soil and the area
currently has a grass cover. Soil analyses collected during the
remedial investigation indicate that some contaminated soils remain to a
25 foot depth. In general, higher organic concentrations were detected
in the center and aOwngradient boundary locations for each pit
indicating contaminant migration in ground-water flow and runoff.
ground-water well sampled upgradient of Area C did not
contamination while the downgradient wells contained organics in
The
show
the
shallow and intermediate aquifer zones with higher contaminant
concentrations in the shallow aquifer zone. Low l~vels of indicator
parameters were also detected in Tributary A sediments (the downgradient
tributary). The surface water location (TRIB A-1) sampled closest to
Area A showed some contamination which is believed to be from
ground-water discharge to the tributary during the sampling period.
Since no surface water contamination was detected further downstream in
Tributary A (TRIB A-1 ), surface water remediation is not considered.
Area D
Area D formerly contained two wastewater settling ponds and
currently holds a lined fresh-water pond and fuel storage tank. Shallow
875J129 1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
! ~I
0
D
m
soil contamination was identified in the low lying area surrounding the
fuel tank indicating that some residual deposits remained after the
ponds were initially cleaned out. Contaminant migration was detected
downgradient of Area Din surface soil and the ground-water well cluster
(shallow, intermediate, and deep aquifer zones).
Area E
Area E is primarily a drainage basin receiving discharge from the
old plant manufacturing area. No active sources are known or believed
to exist in this region. Aerial photographs depicting the history of
the Sodyeco site and interviews with long-time, Sodyeco employees
indicate that Area E was not used for disposal or any other hazardous-
waste activities. No soil contamination was detected during boring
installation. Ground-water contamination was confirmed in the inter-
mediate and deep aquifer zones indicating contaminant migration in
ground water. Former spills and storage from the old plant manufac-
turing area are believed to be the source. In an effort to establish
the subsurface flow pattern and migration towards Area E, one soil
boring and one monitoring well will be installed closer to the old plant
manufacturing area. Contaminant concentrations in the deep aquifer zone
were much lower than in the intermediate zone. Low levels of PAH
indicators were identified in the Tributary B sediments. These PAH' s
are also found in automobile exhaust. Given the tributary's proximity
to the highway, the presence of PAH indicators in sample blanks, general
low concentrations detected, and low risk based on receptor pathways,
the PAH concentrations in the Tributary B sediment are not perceived to
be significant, and therefore, further action is not deemed necessary
for tributary sediments. No contamination was detected in the tributary
surface water •
Additional Data Collection
As part of the detailed design phase, additional data collection is
planned. This additional data includes the following:
0
875J129
The use of existing moni taring wells combined with observation
wells for the ground-water recovery system to better define the
lateral extent of contamination and the effective capture zone
of extraction wells for each CERCLA area,
1-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
a
I
D
D
0
0
0
An Appendix VIII ( or IX) analysis of three ( 3) ground-water
samples (downgradient of Areas A & B, C and E) and one soil
sample in Area c,
An additional soil boring and ground-water monitoring well
between Area E and the old plant manufacturing area, and
Quarterly surface water monitoring over one complete hydrologic
cycle (i.e., one year) in Long Creek and the Catawba River.
This additional data collection is to ensure that the remedial
actions to be implemented will be effective.
1. 4 MOST PROMISING REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Remedial action alternatives considered for soils and ground water
include no action, containment, and several treatment alternatives. A
preliminary screening was conducted to compare the effectiveness,
implementability, and cost of each alternative. A detailed analysis of
the remaining alternatives was performed. Specific criteria used in the
detailed analysis are as follows: technical reliability and feasi-
protectiveness of human heal th
and state applicable, relevant,
and the environment, meeting
and appropriate requirements
bility,
federal
(ARARs),
(11/T/V)
reductions in contaminant mobility, toxoci ty, and volume
through the and cost-effectiveness. The alternatives carried
detailed analysis are listed in Table 1 .1 Specific ground-water treat-
ment alternatives were evaluated separately as listed in the note on
Table 1 • 1 •
Statutory preference for permanent treatment remedies
considered a priority in the assessment of each alternative.
was
The
detailed analysis then compared each alternative for the above criteria
which are the objectives stated in Section 121 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 198.6 (SARA).
1.4.1 Comparison of Soil Remedial Action Alternatives
A comparison of the soil remedial action al terna ti ves is given in
Table 1.2. Natural soil flushing without source removal in Alternatives
1 and 2 was not found to significantly reduce contaminant M/T/V within a
reasonable time frame. On-site incineration ( al terna ti ve 6) of
excavated soils was found to provide benefits comparable to the other
875J1 29 1-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
TABLE 1.1
SUMMARY OF PREFERRED REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
Alternative No. Technologies Employed
No Action
Natural flushing and long-term ground-water monitoring
Areas A-E
2 Natural soil flushing Areas B, c, o 1 Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
6 Cap Area B
8
9
1 0
Excavate Areas C and D
Incinerate excavated materials on-stte
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Same as Alternative 6 substituting thermal processing*
of excavated soils for on-site incineration
Cap Area B
Treatment of Area C soils by:
9A In-situ steam stripping*,
9B Composting*,
9C In-situ flushing*, or
9D Washing*
Excavate Area D and incinerate off-~ite
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Cap Area B
Natural flushing Area C
Excavate Area D and incinerate off-~ite
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Ground-water treatment options include the following which are
evaluated separately for all CERCLA Areas (A-E) combined:
o Use of the existing biological wastewater treatment facility
on-site,
o Construction of a new air stripper followed by treatment in the
existing biological system.
0 Off-site discharge to the CMUD POTW.
* An innovative/developmental technology for the treatment of hazardou~
materials.
875J129 1-1 0
== liiilia liiliill -- --- --- - --
TARl,E 1. 2
SUMMARY OF SCRP.ENING CRITERIA FOR COMPARING SOIL Al.'fP.RtlA'fIVES
Alternative
No Action
Natural soil flushing
Long-term GW moni taring Areas A-E
Alternative 2
Natural soi.I flushing Areas B,C,D
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 6
Cap B
Excavate Areas C and D
Incinerate excavated materials on site
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 8
Cap B
Excavate Areas C and D
On-site thermal processing* of
excavated materials
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 9
Cap B
Treatment of Area C soils
91\: In-situ Steam Stripping•
9B: Composting*
9C: In-Situ Flushing*
90: Washing*
Excavate O and incinerate off site
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 10
Cap B
Natural soil flushing Area C
Excavate Arert D and incinerate off site
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Technical Feasibility,
ReliabiJity
Monitoring is routine
No engineered soil
technology employed.
GW pump and treat is a
demonstrated technology.
All technologies are
demonstrated.
Includes an innovative/
developmental treatment
techno]ogy. Reliability
not proven.
1nclurles an innovative/
developmental treatment
technology. Reliability
not proven.
All technologies are
demonstr;ited.
Protectiveness
Baseline-adequate
Same as baseline.
Adequate.
Reduces exposure
pathways. Requires
air monitoring.
Reduce exposure
pathways. Requires
air monitoring.
Reduces exposure
pathways.
Requires air
moni taring.
Reduces exposure
pathways.
Requires air
monitoring.
N/A -Not Applicable. ARA.Rs do not exist for contaminant concentrations in soi ls. . -An innovative/developmental technology.
Meets
I\RARs
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
tl/A
Reduces
M/T/V
Minor reductions in contaminant
volume wjl} require an extended
time period. Not considered to
he long-term effective.
Minor reciuctions in volume achieved
through flushing. Significant reciuc-
tion in mobility.and toxicity are
achieveahle hy GW pump and tre<1t.
In the absence of source control for
Area D, the time required to pump and
treat ground water is 1inrealistic.
Provides perm;inent and significant
reductions in M/T/V.
Provides permanent and significant
reductions in M/TfV.
Provides permanent and significant
reductions in M/T/V.
Provides perm;inent and siqnificant
re(1uctipns in M/T/V. The long-term
impnct compared to Alternatives 6, R,
,-incl 9 is a more extende,~ perlod to
pump ;in<i tre;it GW in Area C.
--
Cost of
Soil Remedi;ition
0
(+ GW SJ
0
{+ GW $)
S 5,749,000
(+ GW $)
$2,757,000
(+ GW $)
9A: $2, 7A3,000
9B: $3,530,000
9C: S1,0R2,000
9fl: $2,R56,000
(+ GW $}
$ 552,000
(+ GW S)
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
m
D
0
remaining treatment technologies but at a cost of two to four times
greater. Of the innovative technologies evaluated, thermal processing,
in-situ steam stripping, in-situ flushing and washing of contaminated
soils are retained Eor experimental testing to determine which would
provide the most effective treatment. Alternative 10 --a cap over the
Area B land fill, natural flushing in Area C, excavation and off-site
incineration in Area D --was determined to be administratively unaccep-
table due to the time required to pump and treat ground water from Area
C in the absense of source treatment. All of these innovative technolo-
gies listed provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment as well as significant and permanent reductions in M/T/V.
-, • 4. 2 Comparison of Ground-Water Remedial Action Alternatives
Four ground-water remedial actions were considered for detailed
analysis for the CERCLA areas at the Sodyeco plant site. They are:
Alternative 1G No action, natural flushing.
Alternative 2G Ground-water collection and treatment in the existing
biological/aeration treatment system.
Al terna ti ve 3G Ground-water collection and treatment with RCRA ground
water in an air stripper followed by trea trnent in the
existing biological/aeration treatment system.
Al terna ti ve 4G Ground-water collection and discharge with RCRA ground
water to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department
(CMUD) POTW.
Table 1. 3 shows a comparison of these al terna ti ves based on the obj ec-
ti ves of SARA.
Because the ground water does not currently meet the ARARs, the no
action alternative ( 1 G) is not acceptable. Therefore, ground-water
withdrawal and treatment is recommended. Recovery wells will be located
downgradient of each CERCLA area to withdraw the contaminated ground
water prior to migrating to Long Creek or the Catawba River.
Treatment options are biological treatment in tha existing system
(2G), on-site air stripping for both the CERCLA and RCRA ground water
followed by biological treatment (3G), and off-site treatment (4G). All
875J129 1 -1 2
!!!!Iii
...,
I ...,
w
a;;;;
Alternative
1G, No Action
Natural flushing
2G, Ground-water recovery
in existing biological
treatment system
JG, Ground-water recovery
with RCRA. ground water in
an air stripper fo1Jowed
by biological treatment
in the existing system.
4G, Ground-water col lee-
tion and discharge with
RCRA ground water to
CMUD, a PON
iiiii -- -- -- - --
TABI,E 1 .]
SUMMARY OF SCREENING CRITERIA FOR
COMPARING GROUND-WATER RF.MF.DIAL ACTION AI.TF.RtlATJVES
Technical Feasibility
and Reliahi li ty
Monitoring is routine.
Technology is known and
available. System has
an average operational
removal efficiency of
more than 98\ (USEPA,
1985) and is capable of
receiving the add! tiona 1
flow. The ground water
is compatible with the waste-
water currently treated.
Technology is known and
available. System should
have a removal efficiency
greater than 99\. CERCLA.
ground water is compatible
with RCRA ground water.
Aval lahili ty of off-site
treatment is uncertain.
Protectiveness
Baseline-adequate
Reduces exposure
pathways. Requires
monitoring to deter-
mine effectiveness.
Reduces exposure
pathways. Requires
monitoring to deter-
mine effectiveness.
Recfoces exposure
pathways. Requires
monitoring to deter-
mine effectiveness.
Meets
ARA.Rs
No
Yes, Ground
water treated
until time when
A.RA.Rs are met.
Yes, Ground
water treated
until time when
A.RA.Rs are met.
Yes, Ground
water treated
until time when
A.RARs are met.
Reduces
M/T/V
Minor reductions in volume
over an extended period of
time.
Permanent and significant
reduction.
Pennanent and significant
reduction.
Permanent and siqni ficant
reduction.
- --
Cost of Ground-Water
Remerliatlon for 20 years,
10\ Interest
$170,000
$1,016,000
$1,486,000
$1,818,000
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I g
0
D
u
three alternatives provide similar and adequate protection of human
health and the environment and reduce the mobility, toxicity, and volume
of the contaminants. However, Alternative 2G is more cost-effective
than Alternative 3G. Sodyeco has recently applied to CMUD to discharge
both the RCRA and CERCLA ground water to their off-site treatment
facility, Alternative 4G. CMUD has not yet responded and may not accept
the ground water for treatment. Therefore, Alternative 4G is not recom-
mended since the availability of this option is uncertain. However, if
CMUD should accept the ground water for off-site treatment in a timely
manner, the alternative will be reconsidered. Overall, Alternative 2G,
biological treatment, is the preferred treatment option since it meets
the objectives of SARA, is relatively easy to implement, provides an
average reduction of greater than 98 percent for organic compounds, and
is most cost-effective.
1 • 5 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The recommended remedial actions for CERCLA Areas at the Sodyeco
site are to place a cap over the landfill in Area B, treat soils in Area
C by one of the innovative technologies--thermal processing, in-situ
steam stripping, in-situ flushing or washing, and excavation of the
northeast corner in Area D with thermal proce5sing or off-site incinera-
tion of excavated materials. In total, eleven ( 11) ground-water
recovery wells are currently planned for the shallow, intermediate, and
deep aquifer zones. Two wells will be located in the intermediate zone
downgradient of Areas A and B. Two wells will be located in the shallow
zone downgradient of Area c. Five wells will be located downgradient of
Area o, two in the gravel layer (shallow and intermediate) and three in
the deep zone. Two wells will be located in the intermediate zone of
Area E. Based on additional moni taring wells and observation wells,
this design will be revised as needed. Ground water from all areas will
be pumped into the existing sewerage system and transferred to the
on-site wastewater facility for biological treatment. Long-term
moni taring of the site will indicate the effectiveness of the
ground-water recovery system.
The present worth cost to conduct
above is estimated to be $2,089,000
this remediation as described
3,865,000 depending on which
innovative technology is selected. This estimate is based on a 1 0
875J129 1-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
D
0
percent interest rate and 20 year time frame. A sensi ti vi ty analysis
showed that the cost estimates are sensitive to interest rate and time.
Using a lower interest rate and longer time required to pump and treat
increases the costs significantly. The estimated cost range to conduct
the remediation at 5 percent for a 50 year period is $2,962,000 to
$4,673,000.
875J129 1-1 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
n
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
This Feasibility Study (FS) Report presents the evaluation of
remedial action alternatives for the Sodyeco site near Mt. Holly, North
Carolina. The technologies and al terna ti ves addressed are based upon
the nature and extent of contamination identified during the remedial
investigation (RI). The RI/FS work has been undertaken to implement the
Section 106 Administrative Order issued under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
2.1 SITE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2 .1 .1 Location
The Sodyeco Site is located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
approximately 10 miles west of Charlotte. The City of Mount Holly is
located across the Catawba River west of the plant. The plant site
consists of roughly 1,300 acres of which approximately 20 percent is
occupied by production units and the wastewater treatment facility
combined. The majority of the remaining acreage is wooded. (See Figure
2.1). The site extends over 2000 feet north of State Highway 27, south
past Long Creek, over 500 feet east of Belmeade Drive, and is bounded on
the west by the Catawba River.
2.1.2 Site History
The Southern Dyestuff Company (Sod ye co) began operations at its
current location in 1936. Initially, the plant produced liquid sulfur
dyes from purchased raw materials. American Marietta (which became
Martin Marietta in 1961) purchased the Sodyeco site in 1958. In the
early 1960s, as the company's product lines expanded to include vat dyes
and disperse dyes, Sodyeco began a major effort to expand into chemical
intermediate production. Since that time, the company has produced
specialty chemical prOOucts for the agrochemical, electronic, explosive,
lithographic, pigment, plastic, rubber, and general chemical industries.
875J129 2-1
►7 'v ;;;;a liiiii . llii llii ----
SITE TOPOGRAPHY MAP
0 2000
APPROX. SCALE'-----------' FEET
---- --- -- -
~~ ---. •. --------LEGEND
---Site Boundary
VJJI////J Not Owned By Sodyeco
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I g
:\
Sodyeco Inc., a, former subsidiary of Sandoz U .s .A., purchased the
Sodyeco Plant from Martin Marietta in 1983.
During the early years of Sodyeco' s operations, wastes consisted
primarily of low volume, aqueous acidic or alkaline: streams containing
inorganic sa·lts, which were discharged to the Catawba River. As
production diversified and expanded, the quantity and variety of wastes
also increased. The first waste treatment activities included the
implementation of settling ponds for suspended solids, neutralization of
waste streams, and equalization/aeration prior to discharge. Organic
solvents were used in increasing amounts after World War II. The
standard solid waste disposal practice was landfilling using pits.
l\mong the materials landfilled at the Sodyeco Site are residual
distillation tars from solvent recovery operations, empty drums and
cartons, discarded chemicals, off-specification products, general plant
wastes, and construction debris. The majority of solid waste disposed
of at the site is a dye-containing, dia tornaceous earth filter cake.
This material consists of water, diatomaceous filter cell, and residual
soluble dye containing sulfide.
The first indication of potential ground-water contamination at the
Sodyeco Site was the discovery of organic solvents in the company's
potable water well, Plant Well 3 (W-3), in September 1980 (Law Engin-
eering Testing Company, 1981, 1984). Contaminated ground water was also
detected in water supply wells adjacent to the plant. The substances
detected included chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. In
late 1980 Sod ye co initiated a hydrogeologic study to determine the
source and extent of contamination. Corrective action was immediately
undertaken to protect public health and provide adequate water supply at
the plant site and adjacent private wells. On-site shallow ground-water
contamination was found around the wastewater treatment area (RCRA
facility), the northeast section of the manufacturing area, and
northwest of the manufacturing area. In 1981 two closed disposal pi ts
(Area C) we~e identified and the contents were excavated and removed to
an off-site contract disposal area.
In June 1982 a hazardous waste site investigation of the Sodyeco
property was conducted by personnel from the Environmental Services
875J129 2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Division (ESD) of EPA Region IV. Surface water, ground-water and sedi-
ment samples were obtained. Organic contaminants were identified in
ground-water samples taken from selected monitoring wells on the site.
No organic compounds were found in significant concentrations in the
sediment samples taken from Long Creek, In February 1983, EPA Region IV
personnel conducted a follow-up site investigation.
water wells were sampled for pH, sulfate, and metals.
Eleven potable
All wells were
offsi te, to the east and north of plant boundaries. All samples met
primary and secondary drinking water standards for the criteria
evaluated.
Sandoz performed additional work at the Sod ye co Site in January
1983. Electranagnetic conductivity profiling and electrical resistivity
vertical sounding were performed in the northeast part of the site to
determine the source of chlorobenzene contamination in the shallow
ground water. A third closed disposal pit in Area C was identified and
subsequently excavated and disposed off site.
2,1,3 Site Status I The Sodyeco site contains an operating_ manufacturing facility
I
I
I
I
I
D
consisting of production units, a wastewater treatment area, and mater-
ial storage areas. The facility is partially fenced along open road
frontage areas and a security clearance is required for entrance.
Sandoz monitored nine on-site wells on a semi-annual basis as part of
a CERCLA moni taring program. Additional wells are monitored quarterly
under the RCRA Program. The site is listed on the National Priorities
List (NPL),
As mentioned, the Sodyeco site has ongoing programs to comply with
both CERCLA and RCRA, All RI/FS activities for the five identified
areas were carried out under CERCLA. Ongoing hazardous waste treatment,
including operation of several wastewater treatment NPDES impoundments,
is managed under RCRA. When the RI and FS Reports are finalized and
approved, EPA will issue the Record of Decision (ROD). It is
anticipated that remedial activities for the five areas will be managed
under RCRA with general oversight by CERCLA personnel.
Several studies had been conducted at the site prior to this
remedial investigation. An assessment of the previous sampling results
875J129 2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
indicated that the remedial methods implemented by Sandoz reduced
significant ,sources of ground-water contamination, but areas of contam-
inated ground water remain. The nature and extent of contamination is
presented in the following section.
2.2 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
2.2.1 Identification of Contaminants
Chemicals used in manufacturing and laboratory operations were
identified as contaminants in soil and ground water at the five CERCLA
areas. The compounds found include toluene, chlorobenzene,
ethylbenzene, xylene, and o-dichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, and
trichloroethylene. All samples were analyzed for these organic
indicator parameters. In addition, surface water and sediment samples
were analyzed for fluorene, phenanthrene, and anthracene (polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs). Hazardous Substance List parameters were
analyzed at four primary surface water locations.
2.2.2 Contaminant Assessment
The Sodyeco Site contains five CERCLA facilities identified as
Areas A, B, C, D and E. The approximate locations of these areas are
shown in Figure 2.2 Based on historical disposal records, past opera-
tions and sampling activities, volumes of waste materials associated
with the CERCLA areas have been estimated. The characteristics of each
area and contamination identified as part of the RI are discussed below.
Sampling activities were conducted in soils for source identification
(85 samples from 34 borings), shallow intermediate, and deep ground-
water aquifer zones (39 wells) to detect the extent of contamination and
potential migration, and surface water and sediments (15 surface water
and 8 sediment locations) to monitor potential off-site migration,
exposure pathways and corresponding human health impacts. As part of
the RI, a modified pump test and packer testing were also conducted to
further define the site's hydrogeologic conditions.
2.2.2.1 Areas A and B
Area A was the first on-site landfill which was operated from the
late 193O's until 1973 or 1974. The vast majority of material deposited
was dye clarification cake. Small quantities of off-specification dyes
and debris were also deposited. It is estimated that approximately
875J1 29 2-5
rv
I "' \
liiiiil iiil - -
,/•; ,
a
AREA A..__
•~. ..._____ AREA E "--= ..
0
·-·
FIGURE 2.2
CERCLA AREAS AT
THE SODYECO SITE
LEGEND
'" ,\'iil CE RCL A Area sc .. ~e ~-~ FEET
------ - --- - --
\
'--·)
I
I
(""--· ' '
BfLl,o!f.lDf DRIVE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
D
52,000 cubic yards of wastes were landfilled. Approximately 52,000
cubiC yards of soi 1 cover has been estimated. The area is currently
covered with asphalt and buildings.
Organic indicator parameters were detected in the immediate down-
gradient soil sample location with concentrations ranging from a low of
27 parts per billion (ppb) ortho-dichlorobenzene to a high of 220 ppb
chlorobenzene in the 23. 5 to 30-foot interval. No soil contamination
was detected at the downgradient location above a
contamination. was detected in the upgradient soil
screening.
20-foot depth. No
locations by field
Area B served as the on-site land fill after Area A was closed in
1974 and was operated until 1978. Approximately 26,300 cubic yards of
waste similar to those in Area A were deposited. After closure the area
was covered with soil and gravel and is currently used for truck
staging.
Indicator parameters were detected in shallow soil samples down-
gradient of the landfill. Concentrations ranging from a low of 5.8 ppb
chlorobenzene to a high of 11 ppb xylenes were detected in the 3 to
10-foot interval. Organic indicator parameters were identified in the
well cluster (WQ-5A) downgradient of Areas A and s. The intermediate
zone had the highest contaminant concentrations ranging from ( low to
high) 15 ppb tetrachloroethylene to 720 ppb chlorobenzene. The deep
aquifer zone had much lower concentrations and no contamination was
identified in the shallow aquifer zone. A 3.6 ppb concentration of one
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) was detected in the downgradient
tributary sediment which is not considered to be significant.
2.2.2.2 Area c·
Area C previously contained three disposal pits which were cleaned
out in 1981 and 1983. These pits contained drums of waste solvents,
distillation tars. and ·laboratory samples. Approximately 5,800 cubic
yards of contaminated soil and fill were found remaining beneath and
around the former pits. The area is now covered by grass.
Indicator parameters were detected in soil samples in and along the
pit boundaries with higher concentrations in the center and downgradient
direction. In Pit 1 (i.e., C-1) no contamination was detected along the
northern, eastern, and southern boundary. Organics were detected in the
875J129 2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
m
0
0
center location from an 8.5 to 20-foot depth and along the downgradient
(western) boundary from 8.5 to 2_5 feet. The greatest contamination
occurred in the 13.5 to 15-foot interval.
In Pit 2 (i.e., C-2) no contamination was found at the upgradient,
eastern location. Varying contaminant concentrations were identified at
the center and other three boundary locations to a 25-foot depth. The
depth interval of highest contamination changes with location and cannot
be generalized for the entire pit.
In Pit 3 (i.e., C-3) some organics were detected at the center and
along each of the four boundary locations. In general, contaminant
concentrations were much lower than found in the previous two pi ts.
Most contamination occurred within the first 15 feet with the highest
concentrations in the 8.5 to 10-foot depth range.
The downgradient ground-water wells had the greatest organic con-
centration in the shallow zone with concentrations ranging from a low of
17 ppb xylenes to a high of 4,400 ppb ortho-dichlorobenzene. Much less
contamination was detected in the intermediate aquifer zone (72 ppb
tetrachloroethylene only) and no contamination was detected in the deep
aquifer zone. The tributary downgradient of Area C, which is believed
to receive ground-water discharge, had some organic solvent contamina-
tion in surface water and sediments at the sampling location closest to
Area c. The more downgradient tributary location showed low PAH levels
(1.0 to 3.7 ppb) but not organic solvents. These low concentrations are
not considered to be significant.
2.2.2.3 Area D
Area D formerly contained two wastewater settling ponds, one of
which was cleaned out in 1973 and the second in 1976-77. A lined
fresh-water pond and fuel storage tank are currently in the old pond
locations.
Significant shallow soil contamination was identified in the area
surrounding the fuel tank. The highest contaminant concentrations
detected were within the first five feet. It is estimated that approxi-
mately 150 cubic yards of contaminated materials and soil cover are
located in the northeast corner of the former east pond. Organic
contaminants were detected in the upper alluvium, gravel, and upper rock
aquifer zones of the downgradient well cluster. No consistent trend was
875J129 2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
u
observed for
between these
contaminant concentrations of each
zones. However, a greater degree
found in the upper alluvium and upper rock zones.
2.2.2.4 Area E
indicator parameter
of contamination was
Area E is a drainage basin receiving discharge from the old plant
manufacturing area and is not known or believed to contain an active
source. The area contains a tributary and is primarily wooded. No soil
contamination was identified. Aerial photographs depicting the history
at the plant site and interviews with long-time Sodyeco employees
indicate that Area E was not used for disposal or any other hazardous-
waste activities. Spills which may have occurred in the old plant
manufacturing area is a potential source of contamination. In an effort
to locate the source of the organic compounds, one soil boring and one
mo~itoring well will be installed near the old plant manufacturing area.
Organic contaminants were detected in the intermediate and deep
aquifer zones with lower concentrations in the deep zone. The concen-
trations detected ranged from a low of 51 ppb toluene to a high of
36,000 ppb ortho-dichlorobenzene. The adjacent tributary sediments had
low PAH's which are not considered to be significant (1 to 14 ppb).
2.2.2.5 Additional Data Collection
To ensure that the remedial actions implemented are effective,
additional data will be collected as part of the design phase. This
data targets a more complete characterization of the horizontal extent
of ground-water contamination in each CERCLA Area, a more extensive
contaminant scan of selected ground-water samples, and further source
identification sampling in Area E. Each of these three data refinements
are outlined below.
Before constructing ground-water recovery wells, existing
monitoring wells combined with observation wells for the recovery system
will be utilized to better define the lateral extent of contamina.tion
and the effective capture zone of extraction wells. Placement of these
additional wells might be constrained by the proximity to Long Creek and
the Catawba River to avoid pumping from either of these two surface
water bodies.
To confirm the feasibility of ground-water treatment, Appendix VIII
( or Appendix IX) compounds wil be analyzed on three ( 3) ground-water
875J129 2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
0
D
samples. These samples are intended to be in the most contaminated zone
downgradient of the CERCLA areas and are as follows: ( 1 ) the
intermediate zone of well WQ-SA which is downgradient of Areas A and B;
(2) WQ-6, the shallow well in the WQ-29 cluster, which is downgradient
of Area C; and (3) Well K or WQ-32 (I) which are in the intermediate
zone of Area E. In addition, the results from RCRA wells the (SP-1
cluster is closest to Area D, and SP-BA is the worst case RCRA well)
will be used to assess downgradient of Area o. One Appendix VIII (or
IX) analysis is planned for soils in the unsaturated zone of Area C
prior to treatment.
Area E remains the only region investigated where a source has not
been positively identified. Miscellaneous .spills and storage from the
old plant manufacturing area (located hydrogeologically upgradient) are
collectively believed to be the source of contamination in Area E. An
additional soil boring and ground-water sample located closer to the old
manufacturing area will help establish the subsurface flow pattern and
migration towards Area E.
Lastly, as part of an overall monitoring program, surface water
sampling over one complete hydrologic cycle is recommended. Quarterly
moni taring at selected
will help distinguish
locations in Long Creek and the Catawba River
seasonal variations, verify predictions of the
ground-water models, and monitor any occurrance of off-site migration.
2.2.2.6 Potential Off-site Impact
Possible pathways of contaminant migration are through subsurface
flow and surface water runoff from the site waste disposal areas to Long
Creek and the Catawba River. The main receptor of potential contaminant
migration is the Catawba River. Possible human receptors of site-
related contamination include surface water users along the Catawba
River, ground-water users in the area, on-site workers, and local resi-
dents. No known ground-water users are impacted by contamination from
the site.
Fourteen wells along· the site property boundaries were sampled.
Since volatile organics were not detected in any of these wells,
contaminated ground water has not migrated beyond the north, south, or
east site boundary wells. Likewise, monitoring in the Catawba River did
not ~etect any contamination. Consequently, any ground-water discharge
875J129 2-1 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• n
B
n
0
I
I
to the Catawba River is below analytical detection limits as well as the
applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements (ARARs.)
The results of the ground-water flow and contaminant transport
models predicted that even under ultimate worst case assumptions, future
contaminant loadings from all CERCLA areas to Long Creek and the Catawba
River would be below analytical detection limits and the applicable,
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) in the receiving surface
waters. The combined effect of contaminant migration from the CERCLA
and RCRA areas on the Catawba River ( the primary receptor of contamin-
ation and possible exposure pathway) are not predicted to be significant
even under worst case assumptions including low flow surface water
·diluti·on scenarios.
2. 3 OBJECTIVES OF REMEDIAL ACTION
The primary objectives of remedial action at the Sodyeco site are
to manage potential long-term contaminant migration and protect human
health and the environment. The baseline public health risk assessment
conducted as part of the RI examined exposure pathways, maximum contam-
inant concentrations (in the absence of remedial action), and resultant
risk. Under worst case scenarios, public health was not found to be at
risk requiring short-term or immediate response. General remedial
actions to be evaluated in this report include source removal, contain-
ment, treatment, and no action alternatives. Remedial actions which are
permanent, reduce contaminant mobility, toxicity, or volume and employ
on-site treatment are preferred. Alternative treatment and resource
recovery technologies are considered where applicable. The recommended
remedial actions which combine these objectives in a cost-effective
manner will be recommended.
2.4 OVERVIEW OF THE FS REPORT
The Feasibility
accompanying appendices.
Study Report
Section 2,
includes five
The Introduction,
sections
outlines
and
site
background information, the nature and extent cf contamination identi-
fied during the RI, and objectives of remedial action. Based on general
response actions, technologies are identified in Section 3 and a prelim-
inary screening is conducted based on technical feasibility, site condi-
875J129 2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• a
I
n
0
0
tions, environmental/public health concerns, regulatory constraints, and
cost criteria. In Section 4, the suitable technologies are combined to
form remedial action alternatives for soil and ground-water contamin-
ation in each CERCLA area. The preliminary screening is based on public
health, environmental and order-of-magnitude cost criteria. A detailed
screening is conducted for the remaining remedial action alternatives
based on protectiveness of human health and the environment, applicable
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), reductions to mobility,
toxicity, or volume, permanence, alternative treatment (where practic-
able) resource recovery {where practicable), and cost-effectiveness in
Section 5. The recorrmended remedial actions are presented in Section 6.
875J1 29 2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
SECTION 3
IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF
REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 3
IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF
REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES
3.1 GENERAL SUMMARY OF CONTAMINATED MEDIA
As summarized in Section 2, soil contamination was identified in
Areas A, B, c, and D. The depth of contamination varied with location
ranging from 1 to 30 feet. No soil contamination w_as detected in Area
E.
Ground-water contamination was identified in each CERCLA area.
Areas A and B contain contaminants in the intermediate and deep aquifer
zones with higher concentrations in the intermediate zone. Area c has
ground-water contamination in the shallow and intermediate zones with
higher concentrations in the shallow zone. Area D contains
contamination in the shallow, intermediate, and deep aquifer zones with
no consistent correlation between depth and concentration. Area E
contains organics in the intermediate and deep zone with higher
concentrations believed to exist in the intermediate zone.
No significant contamination was identified in surface water and
sediments, and consequently, no remedial actions are considered for
these media. Low levels of indicator parameters were detected in
on-site tributary channels. No surface water contamination was detected
in any of the seven locations in the Catawba River, wh~ch is the primary
receptor of any off-site ground-water and surface water migration.
3.2 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
General response actions identified for soil and ground-water
remediation at the Sodyeco site include source control, treatment and
containment. Possible technologies for treatment and disposal are
outlined in Table 3.1. Technologies for containment and migration
control are listed in Table 3.2. A brief description of each technology
is given in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. Technologies are retained for further
875J1 29 3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
evaluation or eliminated at this stage based on technical feasibility,
site conditions, environmental/public heal th concerns, regulatory
constraints, and a· comparative cost assessment other criteria being
equal. Those technologies applicable to remediation at the Sodyeco site
are combined to form remedial action alternatives in Section 4.
875J129 3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3. 1
POSSIBLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL AT
THE SODYECO SITE
Technology Applicable Medium
Excavation
Landfill
Waste Piles
Incineration
In-Situ Flushing
Solvent Flushing
Soil Washing
Biodegradation
Composting
Soil Aeration
In-Situ Air Stripping
Thermal Processing
In-Situ Steam Stripping
Permeable Treatment Beds
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Resin Adsorption
Air Stripping
Steam Stripping
Biological Treatment
Chemical Oxidation
UV Oxidation
Reverse Osmosis
Liquid/Liquid Extraction
Deep Well Injection
Off-Site Treatment
875J129 3-3
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Soils
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3.2
POSSIBLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR
CONTAINMENT AND MIGRATION CONTROL AT
THE SODYECO SITE
Technology Applicable Medium
Capping
Solidification/Encapsulation
Fixation
Ground Water Pumping
Impermeable Barriers
Subsurface Collection Drains
Leachate Collection
875J129 3-4
Soils
Soils
Soils
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
w
' t.n
iiiiii ---
Technology
SOILS
Excavation
1.andfi 11
Waste Piles
Incineration
In-Si tu Flushing
Solvent Flushing
-- - -- - ----
TARLE 3.3
PRELIMINARY SCREENUIG OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSA.I. TOCl!NOI,OGIES
Description
Physical removal of contaminated
materials for treatment or dis-
posal.
Disposal of excavated materials
in an approved hazardous waste
facility. Materials may be
drummed or disposed of in bulk.
Surface storage of excavated
materials.
Thermal contaminant destruction
by combustion/oxidation at very
high temperatures,
Percolation of water through
contaminated soils to solubilize
adsorbed compounds and reduce
residual concentrations.
Percolation of solvent through
contaminated soils which can
achieve two purposes: waste
recovery for surface treatment
or solubilization of adsorbed
compounds to enhance in-situ
treatment. Recovery of solvent
is accomplished through a well
point system.
Comments
Possibly
Applicable
Should be considered for landfilled
materials in Area Band contaminated
soi)s in Areas C and n.
Since the total concentration of
F-listed solvents is >1\ in some
locations, landfilling is prohibited
at a RCRA facility. Land ban limits
scheduled for July 8, 1987 apply
to halogenated organic compounds {HOC)
in total concentrations greater than or
equa 1 to 1 000 mg/kg. However, a two-year
nationwide variance will delay the
compliance date until July, 1989.
Requires monitoring and maintenance,
Generally considered to be <Hl in-
terim as opposed to long-term
solution.
.A proven technology for destruction
of most organics. A possible treat-
ment technique for excavated materials/
contaminated soils. Disposal of
remaining ash must be considered.
Provides an alternative to excavation;
May shorten the time required for
ground-water pumping of the aquifer
by reducing the extent of source
contamination. Recovery woulcl be
achieved through a well system.
Given ground-water elevations and
depths of contaminated soils on site,
the flushing solvent could further
contaminate ground water.
X
X
X
-
Hot
Applicable
X
X
-- -
liliiil
w
I "'
iiii -
Technology
SOILS (continued)
Soil Washing
-
Biodegradation
Soi1 Aeration
Composting
In-Si tu
Air Stripping
Thermal Processing
- ---- --
TABLE 3,3
PRELIMINARY SCRF.ENING OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAi, TECIINOLOGIES
(Continued)
--
Description Comments
Possibly
Applicable
Place excavated, screened soils
and wash Wr\ter in a flotation
machine with a mechanical
impeller for mixing.
In-situ treatment using micro-
organisms to blodegrade the
organic contaminants,
Mechanical addition of air to aid
microbial decomposition, Fre-
quently used in conjunction with
in-situ treatment methods and
land disposal technologies,
Mixing excavated soils with
nutrients to achieve aerobic
degradation at an elevated
temperature.
Mechanical injection of clean air
into contaminated soils to vola-
tile organics. Air is withdrawn
and vented to the atmosphere
or to an emission control system
(e.g. activated cqrbon adsorption)
depending on volatile concentra-
tions.
An innovative technology where
excavated soils are placed in
a heat exchanger (thermal processor)
and heated to volatilize organics.
Vapors are treated in an after-
burner or otherwise treated as
necessary.
Withdrawn leachate would require
treatment.
Given the contaminant types, concen-
trations, depths, and soil permeabi l i-
ties, degradation in soils has a low
probability of success. Toxicity pro-
blems could result from some of the
degradation by-products.
Typically used in conjunction with
biological degradation,
An experimental technology for the hazar-
dous soils on-site. May he pcrformP.d with
an induced ·draft under control led
conditions.
Most effective for loose, sandy soils
well above the ground-water tahle. The
degree of fines, clay content, and rock
formations on-site are unfavorable
conditions which are expected to severely
limit contaminant removal. Ultimate
effectiveness has not been established
even under ideal soil conditions.
An alternative to in-situ air strip-
ping where soils an~ tiqhtly packed,
have high clay content, and/or
rock formations are pres,:-nt.
X
X
X
-
Not
Applicr\hle
X
X
X
-- -
"' I __,
I!!!! !!!!!!S e:=
Technology
~ (continued)
In-Si tu Steam
Stripping
GROUND WA'fER
Permeable Treatment
Beds
Activated Carbon
Adsorption
Resin Adsorption
Air Stripping
Steam Stripping
Ciilia iilii .. -- - -- --
TABLE 3.3
PREI,IMINARY SCREENHlG OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAi, TECHNOLOGIES
{Continued)
Description
An innovative technology where
bladed drilling equipment and
steam are used_ to drive volatiles
from contaminated soils to the
surface. Vapors are collected,
treated, and reinjected for
closed-loop operation.
A trench, installed downgradient
of a plume, is filled with.a
treatment media ( e •9., activated
carbon) to decontaminate ground
water as it flows through.
Ground water removed by pumping
is passed through a column where
organic contaminants absorb to the
carbon due to physical/chemical
forces.
Similar to activated carbon except
resin is used as the adsorbent.
Removes volatile organics from
an aqueous stream. If necessary,
dissolved gases transferred to
the air stream can be treated
by activated carbon or thermal
oxidation.
Similar to air stripping except
steam is used as the stripping
gas.
Comments
Possibly
Applicable
Steam will volatilize contaminants
faster than air. Equipment provides
soil mixing for more homogeneous treat-
ment. Maximum removal efficiencies
have not been demonstrated.
Requirements are a shallow aquifer
and underlying impermeable bed. The
shallow aquifer condition is not met.
Generally considered to be temporary
due to plugging potential,
An applicable method for removing
organic compounds from water,
A complex treatment scheme would result
since different resins would be required
to remove the different organic compounds.
Not cost competitive with carbon adsorption.
A demonstrated technology for removing
volatile organic contaminants from
water.
A demonstrated technology for removing
volatile organic contilminants from
water at rates f;ister than air stripping,
May be economically competitive with air
stripping when a source of inexpensive
steam is avililahle.
X
X
X
X
-
Not
Applicable
X
X
-- -
w
I OJ
li'liiii
Technology
Biological
Treatment
Chemical
oxidation
lN Oxidation
IJiii
Reverse Osmosis
Liquid/Liquid
(Solvent)
Extraction
Deep Well Injection
Off-Site Treatment
tl?<;,11 '.)<'j
- --- - ----
TABLE 3.3
PRELIMINARY SCREEtllNG OF' TREATMENT AND OISPOSAI~ TECHNOLOGIES
(Continued)
Description
Biological degradation technique
where bacteria utilize supplied
oxygen to oxidize organics to
CO2 ,
Contaminant aestcuction by
chemical reaction. Various
oxidizing agents exist for
org;rnic compounds.
Ultraviolet light is used as an
oxidizing agent. A primary
treatment process for organics.
Concentrates inorganic salts and
some organics by forcing the
solvent through a semi-permeable
membrance which acts as a filter.
Process where the contaminant
is removed from one liquid medium
into another easily extractable
liquid medium that has a higher
absorption capacity for the
contaminant. Extracted com-
ponents are disposed of or
reused.
Injection o[ contaminated waste-
water into a very _deep substrata
which is not hydraulically
connected to other aquifer zones.
Discharge to the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utility Department
(CMUD) Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) wastewater collect-
ion and treatment system.
Comments
Possibly
Applicable
Biological treatment (aerated lagoons)
are part of the existing RCRA waste-
water facility on site.
Chemical oxidation (i.e. ozonation)
is not economically competitive
with activated carbon for treating
low-level organic wastes.
Generally only economical for small
quantities of water.
Primary uses have been as a pretreat-
ment step in the removal of inorganics
(ion-exchange) or in recovery of
reusable impurities.
Primarily used for phenolic extractions
Most economical when material recovery is
possible to offset process costs. Final
polishing is usually needed. It is not
economically competitive with biological
oxidation or adsorption for lrtrge quantitiP.s
of dilute waste. Steam stripping is more
economical for low-moderate concentra-
tions of volatile solutes.
Under Section 3004(f) of RCRA, EPA
consideration of underground llOC injec-
tion is not expected unti 1 results of an
agency study {due August, 1988) evalu-
ating protectiveness are issued.
An application has been submitted.
Requirements for significcrnt industrial
users are being examined to <ietermine if
withdrawn ')round-water would be accepte,t.
X
X
-
Not
Applicable
X
X
X
X
X
- --
==
w
I
"'
a.a lilii iiill
Technology
SOILS
Capping
Solidification/
Encapsulation
Fixation
GROUND WATER
Ground-Water
,Recovery
Subsurface
Collection
Drains
Impermeable
Barriers
Leachate
Collection
- -- - - -- -
TAAU: 3, 4
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF' CONTAINMENT AND MIGRATION CONTROL TF.CIINOLOGIES
Description
An impermeable barrier is placed
over the soil surface to minimize
the amount of water percolation
through contaminated materials/
soils.
Contaminated materials/soils
are incorporated in a solid
matrix to reduce contaminant
mobility and leachate gen~ration
Can also be used in conjunction
with landfilling.
Process to mix chemical wastes
with inert material (e.g., lime
fly ash) to reduce waste
solubility,
Pumping from a well point sys-
tem and/or trenches to withdraw
contaminated ground water,
A trench is excavated, backfilled
with highly permeable material,
and usually llned to prevent
plugging.
Underground barriers used to
physically divert ground-wat1ir
flow away from an area or to
contain a contaminant plume,
Method used to intercept leachate
beforti it contaminates 9ro11nd
water. Consists of a series of
drains which intercept leachate
and channel it to a sump, wetwell,
or surface discharge point.
Comments
May be applicable to the landfill
in Area Band contaminated soils in
Areas C and D,
Most economical for small waste quanti~
ties, The technology is developmental
for organic contaminated soils,
Primarily applicable to acid, inorganic,
and scrubber slurlge wastes.
A demonstrated technique for
ground-water removal. Aquifer
characteristics must be determined
for design.
Requires continuous monitoring. May
be used in conjunction with ground-
water pumping.
The barrier must he tied into a rela-
tively shallow impermeable base layer.
Site conditions are not well suited
for this option.
Generally associated with designed
impoundments or landfills and used
in association with the h>achate
controls.
-
Possibly
Applicable
X
X
X
- -
Not
Applicable
X
X
X
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
0
D
SECTION 4
DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING
OF R&~EDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
D
I
SECTION 4
DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY SCREENING
OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to combine applicable technologies
into remedial action alternatives and to conduct an initial screening of
these alternatives. A variety of alternatives were formulated to
address contamination at the Sodyeco site. The range of alternatives
includes no action, containment and several treatment options •
Al terna ti ves were developed considering long-term and short-term
effectiveness and implementability. A preliminary screening was then
conducted based on these factors and cost criteria.
4.2 FOR~ULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
In formula ting potential remedial action , alternatives,
consideration was given to each CERCLA area and contaminated media, soil
and ground-water. Applicable technologies, as identified in Section 3,
and the corresponding CERCLA areas are summarized in Table 4.1.
Remedial technologies for contaminated soils include capping in
Areas B, C, D. Area A is currently capped by buildings and pavement and
no soil contamination was identified in Area E. Soi 1 excavation was
considered in the same three areas. Excavation in Area A is deemed
infeasible based on building locations and plant operations •
Additionally, the majority of waste deposited in the Area A landfill was
non-hazardous. Several treatment options were examined for excavated
soils. Both on-site and off-site incineration are technically feasible
for all excavated materials. Thermal processing of Area B excavated
materials is ruled out due to construction/demolition debris and the
waste size requirements of the equipment feed device (maximum allowable
waste particle size of 3 inches). Additionally, the majority of waste
deposited in the Area B landfill was non-hazardous. In-situ steam
875J129 4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4.1
SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICABLE CERCLA AREAS
Technology
SOILS
0 Capping
0 Excavation
0 Incineration
On-site
Off-site
0 Thermal Processing
0 In-situ Steam Stripping
0 Composting
0 In-situ Flushing
0 Washing
GROUND WATER
o Ground-water Recovery
Well Point System
CERCLA Area(s)
B, C, D
B, C, D
B, C, D
C, D
C
C
C
C
All Areas A-E
A-E I Trenching C,D
I
0
D
o On-site Treatment
Biological (Existing Facility)
Activated Carbon and/or Air/Steam Stripping
o Off-site Treatment
Discharge to CMUD POTW
875J129 4-2
All Areas A-E
All Areas A-E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
I
I
I
stripping was not considered for Area B based on low solvent concentra-
tions and general debris. Steep terrain in Area D precludes access by a
portable steam rig. Composting, flushing and washing were deemed
infeasible and/or impractical for the landfilled materials in Areas A
and B and of questionable success in Area D due to contaminant
concentrations.
Ground-water remediation by pumping and treatment was considered
for all CERCLA areas A through E. Ground-water removal through recovery
wells is feasible in all areas while shallow contamination in Areas C
and D are the only locations suitable for trenching. The treatment
options to be evaluated include on-site treatment in the existing
biological unit, a. new on-site system consisting of carbon adsorption or
air /steam stripping, and off-site discharge to the city /county publicly
owned treatment facility. Scoping of the remedial action alternatives
considers ground-water recovery and treatment. The soil and groundwater
treatment options are evaluated separately.
Using the screened technologies and suitable areas, a total of ten
alternatives were identified for the Sodyeco site. These alternatives
are summarized in Table 4.2 along with the technologies employed.
4.3 PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
The preliminary screening of alternatives is conducted based on
effectiveness, implementability, and cost criteria. The initial
screening is designed to eliminate al terna ti ves which do not provide
adequate protection of public health or the environment (i.e., are not
effective) or which are an order-of-magnitude more costly without
significantly greater protection. The cost criteria is only an
important screening factor when evaluating among treatment alternatives
with similar results. Table 4.3 presents the results of the preliminary
screening effort for the overall alternatives. Table 4.4 presents the
results for the preliminary screening of ground-water recovery and
treatment alternatives.
Al terna ti ve is the baseline case for comparisons in the absence
of remediation. Long-term ground-water monitoring is included to assess
the potential occurrence and impact of contaminant migration. This
alternative will be carried through the detailed review of alternatives.
875J129 4-3
I
I
I
I
I Alternative No.
I
I 2
I 3
I 4
I 5
I 6
I 7
I 8
g 9
D
D
I 875J129
TABLE 4.2
DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
THE SODYECO SITE
Technologies Employed
No Action
Natural flushing and long-term ground-water monitoring
Areas A-E
Natural soil flushing Areas B, C, o1 Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Cap Areas B, C, D 1 Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Excavate Areas B, C, D
Incinerate excavated materials off-rite
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Same as Alternative 4 substituting on-site incineration
for off-site incineration
Cap Area B
Excavate Areas C and D
Incinerate excavated materials on-stte
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Same as Alternative 6 substituting off-site
incineration for on-site incineration
Same as Alternative 6 substituting thermal processing*
of excavated soils for on-site incineration
Cap Area B
Treatment of Area c Soils by:
9A In-situ steam stripping,*
9B Composting,*
9C In-Situ flushing,* or
9D Washing*
Excavate Area D and incinerate off-rite
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
E
I
I
TABLE 4.2--Continued
DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
THE SODYECO SITE
Alternative No. Technologies Employed
10 Cap Area B
Natural flush Area C
Excavate Area D and incinerate off-rite
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
1 Ground-water treatment options include the following alternatives
which are screened in Table 4.4 for all CERCLA Areas (A-E) combined:
0
0
0
Use of the existing wastewater treatment facility on-site,
Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility including carbon
adsorption or air/steam stripping,
Off-site discharge to the CMUD POTW.
875J129 4-5
-
"' I "'
l!!!!!!I I!!!!
Alternative
No.
2
3
4
5
6
== ;;;a --- - -- -
TABLF. 4.3
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF GENERAL ALTERNATIVES
BASED ON EFFECTIVENESS, IMPLEMENTABILITY, ANO COST CRITERIA
Des er ipti on
No Action.
Natural soil flushing Areas B, C, D
Ground-water monitoring Areas A-E
Natural soil flushing Areas B, C, D
Ground-water recovery and treatment
Areas A-E
Capping of Areas B, C, D
Ground-water recovery and treatment
Areas A-E
Excavate Areas B, C, D
Incinerate excavated materials off site.
Ground-water recovery and treatment
Areas A-E
Excavate Areas B, C, D
Incinerate excavated materials on-site
Ground-water recovery and treatment
Areas A-E
Cap Area B
Excavate Areas C and D
Incinerate excavated materials
on-site
Ground-water recovery and treatment
Areas A-E
Comments
Public health not predicted to be
at risk. Provides baseline compari-
son for other alternatives.
Partial containment with treatment option.
Contaminants in the unsaturated zone
migrate naturally to the ground water
and are withdrawn and treated.
Combined containment and treatment option.
Capping in Areas C and Dis not effective
for lon·g-term source control.
Costs for excavating and off-site
incineration are approximately $48 million.
FindingS of the baseline public health
risk assessment do not justify this
level of expenditure over other
treatment alternatives ($0.8-5.B million).
Costs for excavating and on-site inciner-
ation are approximately $31 million,
Findings of the baseline public risk
assessment do not justify this level
of expenditure over other treatment
alternatives ($0.8-5.B million).
Adequate to protect public health and the
environment. Employs a permanent treatment
technology for contaminant destruction.
--
Retain for Detailed
Assessment
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
- --
- - - -
Alternative
No.
7
·B
9
10
-- -- - -- - - -
TABLE 4.3 (Continued)
PRP.LIMINARY SCREENING OP GENERAL ALTERtlATIVF.S
BASED ON EFFECTIVENF.:SS, IMPI,F.MENTABJl,ITY, AND cos·r CRITP.RIA
Descd pt ion
Same as Alternative 6 substituting
off-site incineration for on-site
incineration
Same as Alternative 6 substituting
thermal stripping* of excavated
soils for on-site incineration
Cap Area B
Treatment of Area C Soil by:
9A In-situ steam stripping,*
9B Composting,*
9C In-situ flushing*, or
90 Washing*
Excavate Area D and incinerate
off-site
Ground-water recovery and treatment
Areas A-E
Cap Area B
Natural flush Area C
Excavate Area O and incinerate
off-site
Ground-water recovery and treatment
Areas A-E
Comments
Is not cost competitive with on-site
incineration for the waste quantities of
concern. Requires transport of contami-
nated materials for a significant distance.
Offers no advantages over on-site
incineration.
Innovative/developmental treatment technology
with high success probability for organic soil
contamination. Adequate to protect public
health and the environment. Potentially
more cost-effective than on-site incineration.
Innovative/developmental treatment technology
with potential for the soils with organic
contaminants. Potentially more cost-
effective than on-site incineration.
Topography in Area D precludes in-situ
stripping. Contaminant concentrations in
Area D would make treatment hy the remaining
technologies more difficult.
Combined containment and treatment option.
The time to pump and treat ground water
recovered from Area C will be longer in the
absence of soil treatment.
An i nnova ti ve/deve l opmenta 1 technology
--
Retain for Detailed
Assessment
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
- --
l!!!!l!!!I
.,,_
I
0,
!!!!!I !!!!I
Alternative
No.
1G.
2G.
3G.
4G.
5G.
6G.
!!!!!9 me == ==
TAfll,E 4. 4
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF GROUND-WATER RP.COVERY ANO TREATMENT flI,TF:RNATIVES
BASED ON EFFECTIVENESS, IMPLF.MENTARILITY, AND COST CRITERIA
Desert ption
No Action.
Natural flushing and monitoring.
Pump and treat on site, treatm~nt
in existing RCRA, biological/
aeration treatment facility.
Pump and treat on site,
combined treatment of CERCLA
ground water and RCRA ground water
in air stripping unit followed by
biological treatment in existing
system.
Pump and treat off site, discharge
both CERCLA and RCRA ground water
to POTW.
Pump and treat on site.
Combined treatment of CERCLA ground
water and RCRA ground water in an
activated carbon system followed
by biological treatment in existing
system.
Pump and treat on site.
Combined treatment of CERCLA
ground water and RCRA ground
water in a steam stripping
system followed by biological
treatment in existing system.
Comments Retain for Detailed
Asr.essment
Public health not predicted to be
at risk. Provides baseline compari-
son for other alternatives.
Known, effective methods for treating
volatile organics in ground water.
Known, effective method of removing
volatile organics from ground water.
Feasible, however availability is
uncertain •
Activated carbon is a known, effective m0thod
of removing volatile organics with removal
efficiencies similar to air stripping. At the
combined flow rate of 175 gpm and expected
organic concentrations of o-dichlorohenzene
(20 mg/L) in the combined waste stream,
activnted carbon units are not economically
and operationally practical.
Steam stripping is an effective method of
removing vol a ti le organics from grounrl water.
Requir1?s arlditional piping anrl controls,
source of steam, steam jacket around column,
and collection system and opr-rational cost when
compan?d to air stripping. tlot economically
attractive since ilir stripping alone will meet
effluent stand;irds.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
n
g
g
u
H
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
The no action alternative or natural flushing allows the
compounds in the soil to leach with infiltrating rain water
organic
to the
ground water table. Once in the ground water, the compounds will
migrate off-site towards Long Creek or the Catawba River (eventually) in
the absence of ground-water remediation or will be intercepted by
recovery wells and treated (with ground-water remediation). The public
heal th risk assessment performed during the RI was based on the no
action alternative. Containment is included by capping and ground-water
recovery.
processing,
Treatment strategies
steam stripping and
include
composting
incineration,
of soils as
thermal
well as
biological, carbon adsorption, air stripping and municipal treatment of
ground water. Thermal processing, steam stripping, composting,
flushing, and washing of soils represent innovative technologies.
Composting is a well established technology for the treatment of
municipal sludges; however, composting hazardous waste is a new and
innovative treatment technology. Resource recovery technologies are not
applicable for the contaminants and concentrations identified.
875J129 4-9
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
0
0
D
D
m
m
I
I
I
I
SECTION 5
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED REMEDIAL ACTIONS
I
I
•
m
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
I
u
I
I
•
I
I
SECTION 5
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF PREFERRED REMEDIAL ACTIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Six alternatives remain after the preliminary screening to conduct
a detailed analysis as summarized in Table 5.1. In accordance with the
Super fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and EPA' s
Interim Guidance on Superfund Selection of Remedy, the detailed analysis
incorporates effectiveness, implementability, and cost considerations by
evaluating the following factors:
0 Technical feasibility and reliability,
o Protectiveness,
0 Meeting ARARs,
o Reducing mobility/toxicity/volume (M/T/V), and
0 Cost-effectiveness.
Technical feasibility and reliability address technology performance and
availablility as well as the ability to monitor and maintain a system.
Protectiveness applies to human health and the environment. ARARs are
defined as federal and state applicable, relevant, and appropriate
requirements. Reductions in contaminant M/T/V are assessed with respect
to significance and permanence. Cost-effectiveness is based on the net
present value of combined capital, operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs. Attention will be given to both long-term and short-term
effects.
After each alternative is evaluated for the above criteria, a
comparison of relative strengths and weaknesses is summarized. The
alternatives for soils and ground water are evaluated separately •
875J129 5-1
g
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
TABLE 5.1
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
Al terna ti ve No. Technologies Employed
No Action
Natural flushing and long-term ground-water monitoring
Areas A-E
2 Natural soil flushing Areas B, C, D1 Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
6 Cap Area B
A
9
10
Excavate Areas C and D
Incinerate excavated materials on-sfte
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Same as Alternative 6 substituting thermal processing*
of excavated soils for on-site incineration
Cap Area B
Treatment of Area C soils by:
9A In-situ steam stripping*,
9B Composting*,
9C In-situ flushing*, or
9D Washing*
Excavate Area D and incinerate off-~ite
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Cap Area B
Natural flushing Area C
Excavate Area D and incinerate off-rite
Ground-water recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Ground-water treatment options include the following alternatives
which are evaluated separately for all CERCLA Areas (A-E) combined:
o Use of the existing biological wastewater treatment facility
on-site,
o Construction of a new air stripper followed by treatment in the
existing biological system.
o Off-site discharge to th~ CMUD POTW.
* An innovative/developmental technology for the treatment of hazardous
waste.
875J129 5-2
D
D
m
D
D
I
I
I
5.2 EVALUATION OF SOIL ALTERNATIVES
5.2.1 Technical Feasibility and Reliability
Alternative 1, the baseline no action alternative, does not
incorporate an engineered system and therefore reliability, availability
and maintenance are not applicable. Long-term monitoring would require
a data tracking program to note the changes in environmental quality
over time. This option employs routine administration.
Alternative 2 does not employ a soil technology. Ground-water
recovery and treatment has long been demonstrated in numerous applica-
tions. The pump and treat system requires upkeep and eventual repair/
replacement of standard components. The reliability of the individual
treatment options will be evaluated in the ground-water section.
Alternative 6 employs the following soil technologies, all of which
are demonstrated: capping (Area B), excavation (Areas C and D), and
on-site incineration of excavated materials. Soils have successfully
been burned in on-site mobile incinerators equipped with a suitable feed
device. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of soil will be excavated for
incineration which exceeds the minimum quantity to warrant mobilization
of an on-site unit. The typically low heat content of soils (Btu/lb)
will require supplemental fuel or additional power demands, but neither
of these are limiting factors at the Sodyeco site. The availability of
a mobile incineration unit at the time of clean-up will depend on other
ongoing remedial actions. Unit availability will depend on competition
with sites containing PCB and dioxin wastes where incineration is
frequently the only acceptable alternative. Incineration is a proven
method for destruction of organic contaminants. A one-year lead time
might be expected to obtain the necessary permits. Periodic inspections
of the cap integrity ( Area B) would be required and repairs would be
performed on a routine basis as necesssary.
Alternative 8 employs a cap for Area B, excavation for Areas c and
D, and on-site thermal processing of excavated materials (6,000 c.y. }.
The low temperature thermal processing technique is currently being
demonstrated. Results from the pilot study and first full-scale project
showed effective removal of organics from contaminated soils.
Processing rates can vary with unit size and full operational capacity.
The equipment cannot handle over-sized (greater than 3 inch diameter)
875J129 5-3
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
debris. The method is most effective for fairly loose soils with
limited success in heavy/plastic clays. Bench scale testing would be
required to simulate processing residence time and temperature. A trial
burn would most likely be
permitting is required for
required for state/federal permitting if
a CERCLA cleanup. To date, destruction/
removal efficiency standards have not been set for these units as have
been for incinerators. Soils can be reprocessed if desired levels are
not obtained after the first processing. Provisions can be made to
treat off-gases in an afterburner or an equivalent type of unit.
Treated soils would be analyzed for the indicator parameters and
redeposited in the excavated area once the organic constituents were
effectively removed. Surface soils would then be revegetated. Steam
Unit may prove to be
availability is
an economical heating source in lieu of fuels.
not foreseen to be a limiting factor. Periodic cap
inspection (Area B) would be a maintenance requirement and repairs would
be performed as necessary.
Alternative 9 employs capping (Area B), treatment of soils in Area
C by in-situ steam stripping, composting, in-situ flushing, or washing
(approximately 5850 c.y.), and excavation and off-site incineration from
Area D (approximately 150 c.y.). In-situ steam stripping, composting,
flushing, and washing of soils are emerging technologies.
Looking first at steam stripping, results from the first pilot
study showed a reduction in organic contaminant concentrations to 100
ppm.
level
Final efficiencies have not been demonstrated since the 100 ppm
was a pre-established stopping point for treatment. Treatment
depths up to 30 feet have been obtained. Soils are hortiogenized by a
drill auger through which steam is injected. Volatilized contaminants
are captured through an over box which operates under negative pressure
(suction) conditions. Liquid residues remaining from off-gas control
require further treatment. On-site biological treatment and off-site
incineration are two possibilities. Further analysis would be required
to recommend adequate off-gas residue treatment. Bench-scale testing
would also be required to establish a baseline calibration for process-
ing rate and steam injection. The unit is expected to be available at
the time of remediation.
mitting if required.
completion.
875J129
Some lead time might be required for per-
Surface soils would be revegetated upon
5-4
I
I
D
D
D
I
I
ffl
I
I
Composting is the second soil treatment option in Alternative 9
where aerobic waste degradation occurs at an elevated temperature. A
controlled environment is used to provide an adequate oxygen supply,
thermophilic (high) temperature range, moisture, and nutrients for a
faster than natural degradation process. Bulking agents may be used to
enhance porosity. The three principal methods are wind rows, piles, and
mechanical systems (EPA, Sept. 1 980 l • Following treatment the
decontaminated soils would be returned to the excavated area and the
surface would be revegetated. Applications to sewage sludge and oily
wastes have been demonstrated. Less information exists for degradation
of hazardous organics in soil. To fully evaluate this option,
trea tabili ty testing would be required. This testing would examine the
required treatment retention times, optimal mixing process, and if
undesirable by-products result upon contaminant breakdown. The cap
installed in Area B used with either treatment scenario would require
periodic inspection and repairs as necessary.
In-situ soil flushing is the third treatment option in Alternative
9 where river water would be used to accelerate the natural rate of
contaminant removal from Area C soils. Waters would be in traduced
through a header system and collected through shallow well points. The
pumping rate and recovery well spacing would be designed to Prevent
leachate migration beyond the shallow aquifer to deeper zones. Labora-
tory column testing would be required to determine the quantity of flush
water, the injection/water percolation rate to design pumping for the
recovery well system, estimated time to reduce contaminant concentra-,
tions below ARARs in the recovered flush water, and ultimate contaminant
removal effectiveness. Flush water would be sent to the existing waste-
water treatment facility.
completion.
Surface soils would be revegetated upon
The remaining innovative technology listed for treating Area c
soils is washing. Excavated soils would be sifted (screened) to
eliminate debris and then placed in a flotation device with a mechanical
mixing impeller. Laboratory batch ( shaker) tests would be required to
determine the amount of wash water and number of sequential washes for
contaminant removal. Laboratory washes would be conducted with and
875J129 5-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
without detergent/~urfactants to evaluate potential enhanced removal.
Solvent surfactants would not be considered since they might introduce
additional contamination.
For the technologies described, post treatment soil sampling would
be required to determine adequacy. A more extensive amount of sampling
would be conducted with the in-situ techniques to insure that sufficient
contact and removal had been achieved.
Alternative 10 uses a cap in Area B, natural soil flushing in Area
c, and excavation and off-site incineration for Area D. Off-site
incineration is a proven technology for destruction of organics. Con-
taminated soils would be shipped off site in bulk. Given the relatively
small quantity of materials for incineration and contaminant types
(organics), acceptance at an
forward. The cap installed
requiring periodic inspection.
5.2.2 Protectiveness
off-site facility should be straight-
in Area B would be the only element
Each alternative is compared to the baseline public health risk
assessment (performed during the RI) to evaluate protectiveness of human
health and the environment. The potential exposure pathways identified
were volatilization from Area D, dermal contact with surface soils from
Areas C and D, ingestion of local waterfowl and small mammals feeding
from contaminated
potential future
soils in Areas
ingestion of
C and D and tributary sediments and
ground water. The impact of each
alternative on these pathways is examined. Technologies which eliminate
pathways eliminate the corresponding risk. The remedial actions
presented in the FS further reduce the total risk to human heal th and
the environment.
No action, Alternative 1, is the case used in the RI baseline risk
assessment. The combined risk to public health from all existing
pathways for the overall site was found to be well below acceptable
levels even in the absence of remediation.
Alternative 2 does not address soil remediation and therefore the
exposure pathways and associated risk are the same as for the baseline
case. Protectiveness of ground-water is addressed in the discussion of
ground-water alternatives.
875J129 5-6
I
I
I
D
I
m
D
D
I
Alternatives 6, 8, and 9 are equivalent in terms of protectiveness;
two of the existing exposure pathways are completely eliminated and the
third is partially eliminated. Area Dis excavated and treated in each
remedial action alterr.ative thereby eliminating potential volatilization
and dermal contact. Area C is removed and/or treated which eliminates
the remaining dermal contact potential and water fowl/small mammals
could no longer feed from these locations. The only remaining ingestion
possibility is waterfowl/mammals feeding from sediments. (Ground-water
ingestion was included in the baseline risk assessment to evaluate any
future development, although highly unlikely.) Each alternative
utilizes excavation in one or more areas which would result in some
volatile emissions to the atmosphere.
excavated in alternatives 6 and 8
A larger quantity of material is
than in the in-situ option of
alternat;:.ive 9 (6,000 vs.150 c.y), which is of concern primarily to the
remedial action team. The respiratory level of protection prescribed
for the removal activities would consider these emissions. Alternative
9 would result in fewer emissions if in-situ treatment is employed
rather than excavation in Area C. However, soils from Area D are
excavated and shipped off-site which would require contingency planning
in the event of a highway accident. Air quality monitoring would be
conducted during remedial activities to insure adequate protection to
nearby residents.
Alternative 10 eliminates Area D from both exposure pathways,
volatilization and dermal contact through excavation and off-site
incineration. The same concerns of air emissions during excavation and
contingency planning for off-site transport are similar to Alternative
9. Since natural soil flushing occurs in Area C, where minimal
surficial contamination was detected, dermal contact in Area C and the
ingestion of small mammals and waterfowl pathways still exist. Air
quality monitoring would be conducted during remedial activities.
875J129 5-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
D
1 I
I
5.2.3 Meets ARARs
•As ·directed by SARA, ·remedial alternatives should meet federal and
state ARARs. ARAR Standards can be waived when one or more of the
following conditions apply:
0
0
The remedial action is interim and the final remedy will obtain
ARARs upon completion.
Compliance would create a greater human heal th and
environmental risk.
o Compliance is technically impracticable.
0 An equivalent performance standard can be attained.
o Inconsistent application/enforcement of .state requirements can
be demonstrated.
0 Meeting standards would deplete the Fund for other remedial
actions (nonparticipating PRP sites only).
Current ARARs apply to ground water and surface waters. No levels
have been determined for soil concentrations, and consequently the ARAR
criteria will be evaluated in the ground-water section.
5.2.4 Reductions in Mobility/Toxicity/Volume
Reductions in contaminant M/T/V are evaluated in terms of
significance and permanence. This criterion incorporates the statutory
preference for treatment alternatives. Remedial actions which decrease
contaminant M/T/V have a positive impact on long-term effectiveness.
Alternative 1, no action, will eventually reduce the volume of soil
contamination through natural flushing. Contaminant mobility and
toxicity are not reduced in the absence of treatment. Given contaminant
concentrations in Area D, the time required to significantly reduce
contaminant levels is unrealistic. No action does not provide permanent
source control.
Alternative 2 combines natural soil flushing with ground-water
recovery and treatment. As described above, significant reductions in
contaminant volumes from flushing would require an extended time period.
By combining flushing with ground-water recovery, contaminant mobility
is intercepted and trea trnen t reduces toxicity. However, in the absence
of source control measures for Area D, the time required to pump and
treat is unrealistic.
875J129 5-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
I
I
I
Alternatives 6, 8 and 9 provide reductions in contaminant mobility
through a cap over the Area B landfill and eliminate future leaching
through source removal in Areas C and D. Incineration completely
detoxifies organics (99.9 percent efficient). Thermal processing,
in-situ steam stripping, composting, in-situ flushing, and washing
greatly reduce toxicity although final efficiencies have not been
demonstrated. All of these treatment technologies provide permanent and
significant reductions in M/T/V.
Alternative 10 provides mobility reductions by a cap in Area Band
source removal in Area D. Incineration will detoxify contaminated soils
removed from Area D. This action is ·similar to 6, 8, and 9 in contami-
nant control, the main distinction being a less significant toxicity and
volume reduction in Area C. Consequently, a longer period to pump and
treat ground water in Area C would be required.
5.2.5 Cost Effectiveness
The costs for the soil remediation alternatives are summarized in
Tables 5. 2 through 5. 5. Alternatives and 2 employ natural flushing
which does not incur a soil remediation cost. Due to
nature of the treatment technologies in Alternatives 6,
the permanent
8, 9, 1 0, only
one-time capital costs are incurred except for maintenance on the cap in
Area B which would require periodic inspection and maintenance.
Ground-water moni taring or ground-water recovery and treatment costs
must be added to these soil remediation estimates. The combined soil
and ground-water cost estimates are presented in Section 6 for the
recommended remedial action. Appendix C contains more detailed
component break downs and unit costs used for pricing.
5.2.6 Comparison of Soil Alternatives
Each criteria for the soil alternatives is summarized in Table 5.6.
Reviewing the technical feasibility and reliability condition, on-site
thermal processing, in-situ steam stripping, in-situ flushing, and
washing (Alternatives 8 and 9) represent the technologies of greatest
uncertainty. Reliability and final efficiencies have not been
demonstrated in these cases. However, initial results and literature
case studies show promise for organic contaminated soils.
The baseline public heal th risk assessment conducted during the RI
showed that adequate protection of human health and the environment
875J129 5-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
D
D
D
D
n
I
I
I
I
Cap a
Excavate
. b Incinerate
TABLE 5.2
ALTERNATIVE 6 SOILS COST ESTIMATES
CAP AREA B
EXCAVATE AREAS C & D
INCINERATE EXCAVATED MATERIALS ON SITE
Area B
229,000
Area C
1 57,000
3,015,000
Area D
7,000
76,000
Subtotal
Engineering (15%)
overhead & Profit (20%)
Contingency (25%)
Administration (5%)
TOTAL
Total
229,000
164,000
3,091 , 000
3,484,000
523,000
697,000
871,000
174,000
$5,749,000
Details of cost breakdowns and unit costs are listed in Appendix c.
a Includes O&M for 50 years@ 10% interest.
b Cost for on-site incineration is based on a minimum quantity of 5,000 c.y
(Areas C and D combined represent approximately 6,000 c.y.).
875J129 5-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
u
u
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
a Cap
Excavate
Thermal Strip
TABLE 5.3
ALTERNATIVE 8 SOILS COST ESTIMATES
CAP AREA B
EXCAVATE AREAS C & D
THERMAL STRIP EXCAVATED MATERIAL ON SITE
Area B
229,000
Area C Area D
157,000 7,000
1,277,000 (C&D)
Subtotal
Engineering (15%)
Overhead & Profit (20%)
Contingency (25%)
Administration (5%)
TOTAL
Total
229,000
164,000
1,277,000
1,670,000
251,000
334,000
418,000
84,000
$2,757,000
Details of cost breakdowns and unit costs used for pricing are listed in
Appendix c.
a Includes O&M for 50 years@ 10%.
875J129 5-11
-
"' I ,_.
N
- -
l!!!!!!!!I l!!!!!!!!I !!!!! Giiiiiiiil
TABLE 5.4
ALTERNATIVE 9 SOILS COST ESTIMATES
CAP AREA B
TREAT AREA C SOILS BY: IN-SITU STEAM STRIPPING, COMPOSTING,
IN-SITU FLUSHING, OR WASHING
EXCAVATE AREA D
INCINERATE EXCAVATED MATERIALS OFF SITE
9A: 98: 9C:
Steam Stripping Composting Flushing
Cap Area Ba 229,000 229,000 229,000
Excavate Area C Soils 0 157,000 0
Treat Area C Soils 1,353,000 1,648,000 322,000b
Excavate Area D 7,000 7,000 7,000
Incinerate D Off-site 98,000 98 000 98,000
Subtotal 1,687,000 2,139,000 656,000
Engineering ( 1 5%) 253,000 321,000 98,000
Overhead & Profit (20%) 337,000 428,000 1 31 , 000
Contingency (25%) 422,000 535,000 164,00
Administration (5%) 84,000 107,000 33,000
9D:
Washing
229,000
·157,000
1,240,000
7,000
98,000
1,731,000
260,000
346,000
432,000
87 000
TOTAL $2,783,000 $3,530,000 $1,082,000 $2,856,000
Details of cost break downs and unit costs are listed in Appendix c.
a Inr.ludes O&M for 50 years@ 10% interest.
b As~umes flushing for 10 years@ 10 % interest.
875J129
-iiii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
n
I
I
I
I
i I
I
TABLE 5. 5
ALTERNATIVE 10 SOILS COST ESTIMATES
CAP AREA B
EXCAVATE AREA D
INCINERATE EXCAVATED MATERIALS OFF-SITE
Cap Area Ba
Excavate Area D
Incinerate D Off-Site
Subtotal
Engineering (15%)
Overhead & Profit (20%)
Contingency (25%)
Administration (5%)
TOTAL
Total
229,000
7,000
98,000
334,000
50,000
67,000
84,000
1 7,000
$552,000
Details of cost breakdowns and unit cots are listed in Appendix C.
a Includes O&M for 50 years@ 10% interest.
875J129 5-13
-
u,
I
f-"
,I>
---!l!!!!!!I
Alternative
No Action
Natural soil flushing
Long-term GW monitoring Areas A-E
Alternative 2
Natural soil flushing Areas B,C,D
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 6
Cap B
Excavate Areas C and D
Incinerate excavated materials on site
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 8
Cap B
Excavate Areas C and D
On-site thermal processing• of
excavated materials
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 9
Cap B
Treatment of Area C soils
9A: In-situ Steam Stripping•
9B: Composting•
9C: In-situ Flushing•
9D: Washing"'
Excavate D and incinerate off site
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
Alternative 10
Cap B
Natural soil flushing Area C
Excavate Area D and incinerate off site
GW recovery and treatment Areas A-E
l!!l!!!I liaiil
TABLE 5,6
SUMMARY OF SCREENING CRITF.RIA FOR ·coMPARING SOIi, ALTERNATIVES
Technical Feasibility,
Reliability
Monitoring is routine
No engineered soil
technology employed.
GW pump and treat is a
demonstrated technology.
All technologies are
demonstrated.
Includes an innovative/
developmental treatment
technology. Reliability
not proven.
Includes an innovative/
developmental treatment
technology. Reliability
not proven.
All technologies are
demonstrated.
Protectiveness
Baseline-adequate
Same as baseline.
Adequate.
Reduces exposure
pathways. Requires
air monitoring.
Reduce exposure
pathways. Requires
air monitoring.
Reduces exposure
pathways.
Requires air
monitoring.
Reduces exposure
pathways.
.Requires air
monitoring.
Meets
ARARs
N/A
N/A
U/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reduces
M/T/V
Minor reductions in contaminant
volume will require an extenrled
time period. Not considered t.o
be long-term effective,
Minor reductions in volume achieved
through flushing. Significant reduc-
tion in mobility and toxicity are
achieveahle by GW pump and treat.
In the ahsence of source control for
Area D, the time required to pump and
treat ground water is unrealistic.
Provides per~anent and significant
reductions in M/T/V·
Provides permanent and significant
reductions in M/T/V•
Provide~ permanent and significant
reituctions in M/T /V •
Provides permanent and significant
rerluctions in M/T/V• The long-term
impact compared to Alternatives 6, A,
and 9 is a more extended period to
pump anrl treat GW in Area C.
N/A -Not AppJicable. ARARs do not exist for contaminant concentrations in soi.ls.
An innovative/developmental technology.
Cost of
Soil Remediation
0
(+ GW $)
0
(+ GW Sl
$ 5,749,000
(+ GW $)
$2,757,000
(+ GW $)
,9A: S2, 783,000
98: $3,530,000
9C: S1,0R2,000
90: $2,856,000
(+ GW $)
$ 552,000
(+ GW $)
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
u
D
u
m
I
I
I
I
I I
I
exists even in the absence of remedial action. All alternatives except
no action and natural soil flushing combined with ground-water recovery
and treatment (Alternatives 1 and 2) reduce risk even further by
reducing potential exposure pathways.
ARARs are not applicable to contaminant concentrations in soils.
After ground-water recovery and treatment, ARARs are expected to be met.
Alternative 1, no action, is the only option without ground-water
treatment and consequently ARAR's would be exceeded.
No action and soil flushing (Alternatives 1 and 2) do not provide
significant reductions in M/T/V. All other alternatives utilize soil
treatment/decontamination for a significant and permanent reduction.
Looking at Alternatives 6, 8, and 9, the same level of protec-
tiveness and reductions in contaminant M/T/V can be expected. All of
these alternatives treat soils from Areas C and D and differ only in the
method of treatment. Although incineration is the most technically
reliable ·option, strong potential exists for thermal processing steam
stripping, flushing and washing. The level of expenditure of
incineration (Alternative 6) over these other treatment options is not
deemed warranted based on expected benefits.
5.3 GROUND-WATER REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
After the preliminary screening,
alternatives remain:
four ground-water treatment
1G. No action,
2G. Ground-water collection and
biological treatment system,
treatment in the existing
3G. Ground-water collection and treatment with RCRA ground water in
an air stripper followed by treatment in the existing
biological/aeration treatment system,
4G. Ground-water collection and discharge with RCRA ground water to
the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD), a POTW.
5.3.1 Technical Feasibility and Reliability
s. 3.1.1 Ground-Water Collection System
Alternatives 2G through 4G require ground-water
875J129 5-15
collection and
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
a
u
D
D
D
D
E
I
I
I
I
I
pumping to a central treatment system. To collect the ground water, a
series of recovery wells are positioned to intercept the contaminant
plume in each area before it reaches Long Creek or the Catawba River.
To determine the number and location of the recovery wells, a capture
zone analysis was performed as described in Appendix D. Figures 5.1
through 5. 5 depict the approximate locations and number of recovery
wells. Several ·observation and moni taring wells will be positioned to
determine the effectiveness of the capture zones. Their approximate
locations relative to the capture zone boundary are shown in Figure 5.6.
In each CERCLA area two observation wells are located just within the
capture zone boundary to verify the capture zone width. One observation
well is placed between the capture zones in an area to determine
effective overlap and that contaminated ground water does not pass
between the two capture zones. Two moni taring wells in each recovery
area will be sampled and analyzed for the indicator parameters. These
results will indicate if contaminated ground water exists outside the
capture zone boundaries. A total of 10 monitoring wells ( 2 in Areas A
and B, C, D shallow, D deep,and E) and 16 observation wells (3 in Areas
A and B, C, D shallow,and E and 4 in Area D deep) will be installed. If
the observation and monitoring downgradient wells indicate that the
recovery wells are not completely intercepting the contaminant plume,
more recovery wells will be added. The moni taring wells will also be
used to better define the lateral extent of the contaminant plume in the
CERCLA areas.
In Areas A and B (Figure 5.1 ), two recovery wells are located
downgradient of the closed .landfills. The width of the zone of
influence or capture zone of the wells is estimated at 600 feet. The
recovery wells intercept the contaminants in the intermediate aquifer
zone only since the shallow aquifer zone is uncontaminated and concen-
trations of chlorobenzene and o-dichlorobenzene in the deep aquifer zone
are well below the ARARs. The deep well in well cluster WQ-SA which is
downgradient of both Areas A and B will be moni tared periodically to
determine if the concentrations in the deep aquifer zone will exceed the
ARARs in the future.
The location of the recovery wells in Area c is shown in Figure
5.2. Two wells with a capture zone approximately 600 feet in width will
875J129 5-16
I
I
I
I
R
g
0
D
D
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 5.1
APPROXIMATE LOCATON OF
RECOVERY, OBSERVATION, AND
MONITORING WELLS IN THE INTERMEDIATE
AQUIFER ZONE OF AREAS A AND B
LEGEND
~ Approximate Location of
Monitoring Wells
RlDfjj Approximate Limits of
CERCLA Area
O Approximate Location of
Recovery Wells
___ Approximate Width
of Capture Zone
@ Approximate Location
of Observation Wells ~
0
SCALE '-------....1 FEET
·N-
~ 200
32
♦ ---+----e--♦ @ --300FT.--@.
5-17
' a::::::::r z -----~ '
== ;;a lilliliil iiiil ---
0 200
SCALE...__...____. FEET
"Tl
C)
C ;u
m
V,
L:;... ______ ._......;;.;;,;;;,=================-;;.;.···;;.;.· ·;;.;.··,;;;-··;;.;.···-;.;;;··;;.;.-·============~"'
I
I
I
I
g
u
D
0
D
E
E
m
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 5. 3
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF_ RECOVERY,
OBSERVATION, AND MONITORING WELLS IN THE
SHALLOW AND INTERMEDIATE AQUIFER
ZONES IN AREA D
~ 001 °" TAN ~ ~ ~ ~
I l
PUMP //
HOUSE
I
✓,::.----1~
It~ ,,.--~~~
\1 ~Ll,/,..
\___, • I
\ 0 • ' ! (a i 338 C / ,,,. ---_____ ,
I -JL ~:s-/ Ii/, ~,
~~ [ JJ-135 FT.-'-:" I ,_
'' --=;;;;.. z ~ .... " 2
0 200
SCALE __ ..__ FEET
LEGEND
["'" .; ;J .Approximate Limits of CERCLA Area
C, .Approximate Location of Recovery Wells in
Shallow and Intermediate (Gravel) Aquifer Zones
@ .Approximate Location of Observation Wells in
the Shallow Aquifer Zone
♦ .Approximate Location of Monitoring Wells in Shallow Aquifer Zone
.Approximate Width of capture Zone
5-19
I
I
I
•
I
g
B
D
D
D
E
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIG.URE 5.4
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF RECOVERY,
OBSERVATION, AND MONITORING WELLS IN THE
RESIDIUM, WEATHERED/FRACTURED ROCK, AND
IN THE DEEP AQUIFER ZONES IN AREA D
PUMP
HOUSE
LEGEND
♦
0 200 SCALE ___ ..__,. FEET
WE ;!;!fi!(f!f!f;\ Approximate Limits of CERCLA Area
9 Approximate Location of Observation Wells
in Deep Aquifer Zone
@ Approximate Location of Recovery Wells in Residium, Weathered/Fractured Rock, and in the Deep (Bedrock) Aquifer Zone
♦ Approximate Location of Monitoring Wells in Deep Aquifer Zone
--Approximate Width of Capture Zone
5-20
I
I
I
m
I
I
0
D
D
E
I
• •
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 5. 5
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF RECOVERY,
OBSERVATION, AND MONITORING WELLS IN
THE INTERMEDIATE AQUIFER ZONE IN AREA E
='---='---j I
I , --..... I
I 1\j_
♦
a
SCALE ---i-.....i
LEGEND
e Approximate Location of Recovery Wells
lE]3g Approximate Limits of CERCLA Area
---Approximate Width of Capture Zone
X Location of Ground Water Level Measurement
WL Ground Water Elevation in ft. Above Mean Sea Level
@ Approximate Location of Observation Wells ♦ Approximate Location of Monitoring Wells
5-21
I
I
I
m
I
I
D
n
D
0
D
I
I
m
E
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 5. 6
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MONITORING
AND OBSERVATION WELLS RELATIVE TO
THE CAPTURE ZONE BOUNDARIES
w 100'
♦
AREAS A AND B, C, D SHALLOW, AND E
---•-------0--------•---@ . @
/)\ /f\ /f\
100' 100'
AREA D DEEP
LEGEND
O Recovery Well }II, Direction of Ground-Water Flow
@ Observation Well - Capture Zone Boundary
♦ Monitoring Well
5-22
0
D
D
D
0
I
m
I
m
m
• • •
I
I
I
I
I
I
intercept contaminated ground water prior to reaching Long Creek. The
-,wells will recover ground water from the shallow aquifer zone only since
the shallow zone contains approximately 98 percent {by mass) of the
organic contaminants. If the intermediate aquifer zone was pumped,
highly contaminated ground water would likely migrate downward from the
shallow aquifer zone into the much less contaminated, intermediate
aquifer zone. The intermediate aquifer zone will be monitored for the
indicator parameters on a semi-annual basis during the early operation
and annually once trends stabilize. The deep aquifer zone in Area C is
uncontaminated. Trenching to a depth of 20 feet in the shallow zone of
Area C is an alternative to the recovery well system. A trench the
width of the capture zone is filled with gravel.
trench is then pumped to a central treatment unit.
Ground water in the
Five recovery wells in Area D (Figure 5. 3} are necessary to
intercept ground water migrating from all aquifer zones to the Catawba
River. Two wells with a capture zone width of 300 feet intercept ground
water in the shallow and intermediate ( grave 1) aquifer zones. Three
wells with a capture zone width of approximately 300 feet intercept the
residium, partially weathered/fractured rock, and bedrock or deep
aquifer zone. Trenching to the shallow and intermediate aquifer zone is
not feasible because the depth of the trench required is 30 feet and
trenching beyond 20 feet with conventional equipment is difficult •
Two recovery wells in Area E are located as shown in Figure 5. 4.
The ground water in Area Eis likely to flow along the fractured,
drainage feature within the drainage basin of the small tributary in
Area E ( located along the northern boundary of Area E). The permea-
bility of the drainage feature is expected to be quite high since it has
undergone advanced weathering; fractures within the drainage feature
have also increased flow rates by providing channelization of ground
water. Figure 5. 4 shows that ground-water levels increase from 580. 4
feet in elevation near the recovery wells to 581.1 feet in elevation
west of the recovery wells. The difference in head between the levels
indicates that ground water does not flow directly west to the Catawba
but instead veers north along the drainage feature. The width of the
capture zone produced by the two wells is approximately 340 feet. The
wells intercept the intermediate aquifer zone only since this zone
875J129 5-23
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
contains approximately 95 percent (by mass) of the contaminants in Area
E. ··The shallow• •aquifer zone is not contaminated and pumping in the deep
aquifer zone would likely draw the highly contaminated ground water from
the intermediate zone into the much less contaminated, deep aquifer
zone. As a result, ground water in the deep aquifer zone which is
expected to have a very low yield because of its low permeability (10-5
to 1 0-6 cm/sec) would become highly contaminated and probably more
difficult to recover. The deep aquifer zone will be sampled on a
semi-annual basis for the indicator parameters during the initial
operation and annually once trends have stabilized.
Estimates of the well location and width of the capture zone
indicate that the contaminants in the ground water can be successfully
withdrawn from the aquifer zones at an estimated rate of 20 gpm ( total
flow rate from a 11 11 wells). The technology to drill and pump the
recovery wells is readily available and easy to implement and'maintain.
Trenching may be more difficult since only specially designed trenching
equipment can achieve a 20 foot depth while maintaining side wall
strength and few are available in this country. Monitoring wells
located downgradient of the recovery wells may be sampled in order to
determine the efficiency of the recovery wells.
5.3.1.2 No Action Alternative (Alternative 1G)
The no action alternative includes the natural flushing of soil and
saturated strata. Existing monitoring wells are sampled periodically in
order to monitor the migration of the plume.
5.3.1.3 Treatment in Existing Biological System (Alternative 2G)
In Alternative 2G, biological degradation and aeration of the
ground water, takes place within Sod ye co' s existing facility. In this
alternative, the ground water will be pumped from the recovery wells to
the existing Sodyeco sewerage system which currently transports
wastewater to the biological treatment system. The combined ground
water and wastewater will flow into a primary clarifier which is planned
for construction within a year. Currently the wastewater flows into an
equalization basin which will be replaced with the primary clarifier.
After primary clarification, the wastewater (both plant wastewater and
ground water) will enter a pre-aeration basin followed by an activated
sludge basin. The organic compounds will be biodegraded within these
875J129 5-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
B
E
m
m
I
I
lagoons; a portion of the organics will volatilize as a result of
aeration. The wastewater will then flow into two secondary clarifiers
where the sludge is separated and returned to the activated sludge
basin. The treated ground water will be then discharged to the Catawba
River under an NPDES permit. All polishing ponds currently in place
after secondary clarification, are scheduled for closure within the
year. This treatment system is more than 98 percent efficient based on
the removal of o-dichlorobenzene (an average of 950 ug/L in the influent
to less than 18 ug/L in the effluent as determined in an EPA study for
effluent guidelines [USEPA, 1985] ). Of the organic contaminants,
o-dichlorobenzene is the most difficult to remove. Removal efficiencies
near 99 percent are expected for the other compounds. A summary of the
EPA study is provided in Appendix E.
Alternative 2G is a technically feasible option for the organic
parameters as seen by the efficient removal of o-dichlorobenzene. It is
easy to implement since all that is required is the connection of the
CERCLA ground water collection system to the existing sewerage system.
The present system has the capacity to easily accommodate an additional
20 gpm or 29,000 gpd since the design capacity is 3.9 MGD and the
current influent is only 2 MGD. The CERCLA influent and total effluent
will be sampled periodically to monitor the effectiveness of the
treatment.
5. 3. 1. 4 Combined Treatment of CERCLA and RCRA Ground Water in an
Air Stripoer Followed By Biological Treatment in Existing System
( Al terna ti ve 3G)
Presently, Sodyeco is considering air stripping ground water
recovered from wells within the RCRA facility. Alternative 3G combines
the recovered ground water from the CERCLA sites and RCRA facility for
treatment in one air stripping system.
compatible since the organic compounds
The two treatment streams are
in each are similar. After
treatment in the stripping unit, the combined ground water is discharged
to the existing biological system as described above. An air stripping
system includes a pressure filter, packed air stripping tower (approxi-
mately 35 feet of packing), construction pad, and wet wells. The
purpose of the pressure filter is to avoid fouling of the packed tower.
A packed tower 35 feet in height, 3. 5 feet in diameter, and an air to
875J129 5-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
u
D
u
E
m
•
I
I
water ratio of 100: 1 by volume will provide a minimum efficiency of 90
percent and greater depending upon the compound stripped. The purpose
of the wet well is to provide backwash water for the pressure filter.
Air stripping is a technically feasible alterna'tive which provides
adequate removal efficiencies. Pressure filters and air strippers are
sold as a unit and can be delivered to the site.
5.3.1.5 Discharge CERCLA Ground Water with RCRA Ground Water to
the Charlotte Mecklenburq Utility Department (CMUD) POTW (Alternative
4G)
Sodyeco has applied to CMUD to discharge both the untreated ground
water from the CERCLA areas and the RCRA facility as an altern·ative to
on-site treatment. Both ground-water streams would be pumped to a
holding tank where the ground water would be neutralized if necessary
and then discharged to the CMUD sewerage system. An estimated, combined
flow rate to the sewer is 195 gpm or 280,000 gpd. Flow metering and an
influent characterization are required by CMUD on a continuous basis.
The availability of this option is currently unknown and dependent upon
acceptance by the CMUD facility.
5.3.2 Protectiveness
5. 3. 2.1 No Action (Alternative 1G)
Protectiveness of human health and the environment for each
alternative is evaluated with the no action (alternative 1G) as a basis.
Under worst-case conditions, the maximum plume concentrations with
natural flushing are predicted to be well below the ARARs upon dilution
in Long Creek and the Catawba River. The predicted volatile organic
levels in Long Creek and the Catawba River are also below detection
limits and do not pose a threat to public health and the environment.
5. 3. 2. 2 Ground-Water Collection and Treatment at a Central Loca-
tion (Alternatives 2G through 4G)
Alternatives 2G through 4G require the interception of contaminated
ground water before it migrates to Long Creek or the Catawba River. The
ground water is then treated at a central location. As a result, the
pathway for ground-water migration beyond the boundaries of the Sodyeco
Site is terminated. Since the pathway is removed, risk to public health
and the environment is further reduced and is well below acceptable
levels.
875J129 5-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
a
B
0
u
E
m
•
I
I
5.3.3 Meets ARARs
Under SARA, remedial alternatives must meet the ARARs listed in
Table 5. 7. These standards may be waived for the reasons listed in
Section 5.2.3.
5.3.3.1 No Action (Alternative 1G)
Based on the analytical results of the remedial investigation,
volatile organic concentrations in the ground water do not meet the
ARARs. At the present ground-water velocities, contaminant levels in
the ground water may still be above the ARARs even after 80 or more
years of natural flushing (Area D).
5.3.3.2. Ground-Water Collection and Treatment at a Central
Location (alternatives 2G through 4G)
Because the ground water at the CERCLA sites does not meet the
ARARs, ground-water collection and treatment methods must be considered.
The interception and withdrawal of the contaminated ground water until
the t-ime when ground water does meet the ARARs will ensure that
ground-water standards (ARARs) are met.
5.3.4 Reductions in Mobility/Toxicity/Volume
5.3.4.1 No Action (Alternative 1G)
Natural flushing of the soil and saturated strata does not reduce
mobility of the contaminants but instead will ensure migration of the
contaminated ground water toward Long Creek and the Catawba River.
Toxicity may be reduced since infiltration along the migration pathway
is likely to reduce the contaminant concentrations by dilution; however,
the contaminant mass is constant.
5.3.4.2 Collection of Ground Water and Treatment at a Central
Location
Alternatives 2G through 4G reduce the mobility, toxicity,and volume
of contaminated ground water to a similar degree. In each alternative
the contaminants in the CERCLA areas are withdrawn prior to reaching
Long Creek or the Catawba River. As a result, the mobility of the
contaminants is significantly reduced. Both al tern a ti ves 2G and 3G
reduce the toxicity of the compounds in the ground water since these
treatment options have a removal efficiency of greater than 98 percent.
The level of removal of the organic compounds in the RCRA and CERCLA
ground water (Alternative 4G) is being determined by the CMUD operators
875J129 5-27
-
u,
I
"' en
-I!!!!!!! t!!!!!!9 !!!!! == Cliiil iililil - ---
TABLE 5.7
WATER STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE, RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARAR's)
FOR THE INDICATOR PARAMETERS
Compound
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
1,2-dichloroJenzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenan threne
.Sf .k. (1 ) a e Drin 1ng
Water Act
MCLG's
(ug/1)
0
( 2 ) Proposed
MCL
(ug/1)
5
(1) Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, USEPA, 1986.
( 3) Proposed
MCLGs
(ug/1)
0
60
680
620
2,000
440
USEPA Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (ug/1)
Aquatic Organisms
and Drinking
Water
0(2.7) <4 >
0(0.8)
488
1,400
400(5 )
14,300
0(2.8 ng/L) (6 )
0(2.8 ng/L) (6)
0(2.8 ng/L) (6 )
Drinking Water
Only
0(2.8)
0(0.88)
488
2,400
470<5 >
15,000
0(3.1 ng/L) (6 )
0 ( 3. 1 ng/L) ( 6)
0(3.1 ng/L) (6 )
(2) Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level; 50 Federal Register 46902 (November 13, 1985).
(3) Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, 50 Federal Register 46936 (November 13, 1985).
-
(4) Th~6concentration value given in parenthesis for potential carcinogens corresponds to a cancer risk of
10
(5) Includes all isomers.
(6) As total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, no criteria set for these compounds alone.
875J129
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
B
m
I
I
I
I
and administrators. If accepted,. the facility will be able to
apegu_ately reduce toxicity before discharging. The volume of
contaminated ground water will be significantly reduced for two reasons
with all pump and treat alternatives. The first reason is the
contaminant plume upgradient of the recovery wells is withdrawn from the
subsurface strata and treated to effluent standards. The second reason
is that dispersion of the plume into uncontaminated areas is limited
since the plume is intercepted before trav~ling the full pathway to Long
Creek or the Catawba River.
5.3.5 Cost Effectiveness
The present-worth cost of all four ground-water remediation
alternatives is listed in Table 5. B. Because pumping and treating the
ground water to meet the ARARs cou.ld take up to 50 years, a range of
cost as a function of time is presented ( the 50-year estimate is based
on the hydrogeologica.l properties of the Area D deep aquifer zone and
the time equation presented in Appendix D). Ten percent is used as the
annual interest rate in accordance with the EPA guidance document;
present value costs at five percent annual interest are also shown to
provide a sensitivity analysis. Costs range from $170,000 for
al terna ti ve 1 G to $1 , 818,000 for alternative 4G ( 20 years, 1 O percent
annual interest). Biological and air stripping with biological
treatment are $1,016,000 and $1,486,000, respectively (20 years, 10
percent annual interest). These estimates include capital,
construction, overhead, engineering and administrative supervision,
labor, operation, maintenance, and contingency costs. A detailed cost
estimate for each alternative is given in Tables C.10 to C.14 in
Appendix c. The cost for long-term monitoring with the no-action
alternative is approximately $190,000 at 10 percent annual interest for
30 years.
5.3.6 Comparison of Ground-Water Remediation Alternatives
Of the four alternatives, biological treatment of the CERCLA ground
water in the existing facility is most practical and provides adequate
protection of public health and the environment. The no action alterna-
tive does not meet the ARARs and does not reduce the mobility, toxicity,
or volume of the contaminated ground water significantly. Although
Alternative 4G, off-site treatment, does significantly reduce the
875J129 5-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
D
u
I
I
I
mobility, toxicity, and volume of contami_nants, the uncertain availa-
bility of this option is a major weakness. Biological treatment
(Alternative 2G) and air stripping (Al terna ti ve 3G) provide similar
benefits. Public health and the environment are not at risk in either;
ground water which exceeds the ARARs is treated and the mobility,
toxicity, and volume of the contaminated ground water is significantly
reduced with both alternatives. However, biological treatment is the
more economical of the two alternatives.
875J129 5-30
--
V,
I w
I-'
-I!!!!!!! I!!!!!! I!!!!!!
1 O Years
== == liiill
TABLE 5.8
ESTIMATED COST OF GROUND-WATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
(PRESF.NT WORTH IN 1000'S OF DOLLARS)
15 Years 20 Years 30 Years Alternative i C 5\ i = 10\ i = 5\ i = 10\ i 5\ i = 10\ 5\ i = 10\
1G 154 123 208 152 249 170 307 189 (Uo Action)
2G 953 827 1,165 943 1,332 1,016 , • 565 1,089 {Biological Treatment)
3G 1,406 1,247 1,674 1,394 1,885 1,486 2,179 1,578 (Air Stripping and
Biological Treatment)
4G 1,696 1,453 2,105 1,678 2,426 1,818 2,874 1,959 (Off-Site Treatment)
percent annual interest.
----
50 Years
5\ i =
365 198
1,795 1,128
2,470 1,627
3,318 2,034
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I SSCTION 6
RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS • a
B
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
0
0
·o
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. 1 INTRODUCTION
SECTION 6
RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The remedial actions for the site were selected as the best balance
of the effectiveness, implementability, and cost factors from the
detailed analysis. The recommended remedial actions represent remedies
which meet the following objectives:
protectiveness of human health and the environment,
meet federal and state ARARs,
0
0
0 use permanent treatment technologies to significantly reduce
contaminant mobility/toxicity/volume, and
0 are cost effective.
Scoping, screening, and
statutory preference for
selection
permanent
of the al terna ti ves considered the
solutions. In addition to the no
action alternative, several treatment and containment alternatives were
carried through the detailed analysis. Among the treatment options,
three innovative or "al terna ti ve" technologies were evaluated. Recom-
mendations for the soil and ground-water alternatives are summarized
separately.
6.2 SELECTION OF SOIL REMEDIAL ACTIONS
In the detailed analysis, natural flushing in areas of soil
contamination was not found to significantly reduce mobility, toxicity,
and volume. Only minor volume reductions would be expected over an
extended time period, thereby limiting long-term effectiveness. The no
action alternative for ground water will not meet ARAR standards.
Additionally, in the absence of source control in Areas C and D, an
extended time period would be required to significantly reduce
contaminant concentrations by natural flushing. Consequently, the time
875J129 6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
n
D
B
m
E
•
I
I
I
required to pump and treat ground water was deemed unacceptable
administratively. For these reasons, Al tern a ti ves (No Action), 2
(Natural flushing in Areas B, c, D with ground-water recovery and
trea trnent), and 1 0 (natural flushing in Area C, excavation and
incineration in Area D and ground-water recovery and treatment) were
eliminated.
All of the remaining al tern a ti ves ( 6. 8, and 9) incorporate
containment, treatment, and ground-water recovery. The differences are
found in the level and type of soil treatment. Alternative 6 utilizes
excavation in Areas C and D with on-site incineration of excavated
materials.
protection
Since this al tern a ti ve provides the same basic
as treatment by thermal processing, steam
level of
stripping,
composting, flushing, or washing at two to four times the cost, it was
eliminated from further consideration.
Having eliminated Alternatives 1, 2, 6, and 10, Alternatives 8 and
9 remain. Each of the remaining options proposes an asphalt cap over
the landfill in Area B and ground-water recovery and treatment in all
CERCLA Areas A-E. Differences are found in the type of soil treatment
which are summarized below:
Alternative 8: Excavate Areas C and D
On-site thermal processing of excavated materials
Alternative 9: On-site treatment of Area C soils by:
9A: In-situ steam stripping
9B: Composting
9C: In-situ flushing
90: Washing (water and water-detergent)
To evaluate these options, the protectiveness criteria was first
considered • All of these options provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment. The baseline public health risk assessment
determined that calculated risk was well below acceptable levels
established by USEPA. Each alternative reduced the number of potential
exposure pathways and provides permanent reduction in M/T/V. The
technologies listed incorporate innovative treatment for the organic
875J129 6-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
D
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
parameters in soils. Composting was determined to be the least
promising of these technologies based on a preliminary technical evalu-
ation. Further experimental work would be required and is not currently
recommended. Experimental testing of the other four innovative technol-
ogies (i.e., thermal processing, in-situ steam stripping, in-situ
flushing and washing) is recommended to determine the contaminant
removal efficiencies and cost-effectiveness, which would be used to
distinguish among treatment alternatives having simila:r expected bene-
fits. This experimental work will be conducted as part of the detailed
design phase, prior to implementing remedial actions.
testing, the most promising technology will be selected.
Based on this
6.3 SELECTION OF GROUND-WATER REMEDIAL ACTION
Because ground water at the CERCLA sites does not meet the ARARs
listed in Table 5. 7, the no action alternative (1G) is not acceptable.
Ground-water collection by recovery wells and treatment •at a central
location is recommended. The purpose of the recovery wells is to inter-
cept ground water which does not meet the ARARs before it migrates to
Long Creek or the Catawba River. Ground-water interception improves
upon Alternative 1 G, the no action baseline, and is not predicted to
pose a threat to human health and the environment because it prevent:::i
the migration of contaminated ground water beyond the Sodyeco plant
site. Withdrawal of the ground water significantly reduces contaminant
mobility by intercepting the contaminated ground-water flow path. Since
the ground water is treated, the volume of contaminated ground water is
greatly reduced and rendered non-toxic. The technology for ground-water
recovery is readily available and implementable. The advantages of
ground water recovery are listed below.
0
0
0
0
875J129
Readily available and implementable technology.
Adequate protection of human health and the environment by
elimination of potential off-site migration pathways,
Withdrawal of ground water that does not meet the ARARs until
the time when ground-water quality improves and ARARs are met,
Significant reduction in the mobility, volume, and toxicity of
the contaminated ground water.
6-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
R
D
I
I
I
I
I
Of the three treatment options, biological treatment (Alternative
2G} is preferred since the ground water will be adequately treated in an
existing facility with known operational
study conducted by the EPA to determine
removal rates. Based on a
effluent guidelines for the
chemical
removed
industry, the present biological/aeration treatment
greater than 98 percent of the o-dichlorobenzene
:::;ystem
in the
wastewater influent (USEPA, 1985). The overall removal rate is greater
than 99 percent for organic compounds. Ortho-dichlorobenzene is c.he
most difficult of the organic compounds to biodegrade or volatilize
within the existing treatment system. The organic compounds that are in
the ground water are also present in the wastewater presently treated in
the biological/aeration treatment facility.) The present facility has
the capacity to easily accept approximately 20 gpm of CERCLA ground
wn. ter. The implementation of this alternative is relatively easy and
time efficient because the capital equipment is already installed.
Since the effluent from the biological treatment system must meet the
standards of the NPDES permit, human health and the environment will not
be adversely affected by the discharge of treated CERCLA ground water.
The current NPDES permit is up for renewal in September, 1987. As part
of the permit application, treatment of CERCLA ground water is listed
and analyses for indicator parameters will be submitted. The effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements of the current permit are
provided in Appendix F. Biological treatment and aeration of the ground
water will render it non-toxic. The mobility and volume of the
contaminated ground water is greatly reduced.
Alternative 3G, air stripping both the CERCLA and RCRA ground water
followed by biological treatment, provides similar levels of protective-
ness and reductions in mobility, toxicity, and volume; however, Alter-
native 2G is more cost-effective. Present value cost for Al terna ti ves
2G and 3G is $1,016,000 and $1,486,000, respectively (based on a 20 year
treatment period at 10% interest).
Off-site treatment (Alternative 4G) is not recommended as a viable
treatment alternative because the availability ·of this option is
uncertain. However,
treatment in a timely
if CMUD should accept the ground water for
manner, this alternative will be reconsidered.
Overall, Alternative 2G is the most practical alternative which meets
the objectives of SARA.
875J129 6-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
6. 4 DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The recommended remedial actions for the CERCLA Areas at the
Sodyeco site are the following: place an asphalt cap over the landfill
in Area B; treat soils in Area C by one of the innovative technologies
described thermal processing, in-situ steam stripping, in-situ
flushing, or washing; treat the northeast corner of Area D by thermal
processing or excavate and incinerate off site; and recover ground water
downgradient of or in each area with treatment in the existing
wastew~ter facility.
The cap location over the Area B landfill is depicted in Figure
6.1. This cap will be constructed of a gravel base layer and asphalt
cover. A binder coat will be placed between the base and asphalt. The
cap will be designed to prevent infiltration and serve as a truck
staging area. The layer depths and dimensions used for cost estimating
purposes are shown in Figure 6.2.
To evaluate the innovative technologies for Area C, experimental
testing will be conducted during the detailed design phase. Tech-
nologies, design requirements, and the planned testing are summarized in
Table 6.1. The approximate pit locations in Area Care shown in Figure
6. 3 and the profile used to approximate these pit volumes appears in
Figure 6.4. The surface soils will be revegetated following treatment.
The location to be excavated in Area Dis shown in Figure 6.5 with
the volume provided in Figure 6.6. If thermal processing is the
selected, it applies to the Area C and D soils outlined. Otherwise the
excavated soils from Area D would be incinerated off site, and
restoration would be achieved with clean backfill and revegetation.
Ground-water removal will be achieved through recovery wells. The
generalized design of a recovery well is shown in Figures 6. 7 and 6.8.
The placement and spacing of these eleven recovery wells in the shallow,
intermediate, and deep aquifer zones is shown in Figures 6.1 (Ar~as A
and Bl, 6.3 (Area Cl, 6.5 (Area D), and 6.9 (Area E). Ground-water
recovered from all areas will be pumped into the existing sewerage
system and transferred to the on-site wastewater facility for biological
treatment. As part of the detailed design phase existing moni taring
we 11s combined with observation wells for the recovery system will be
utilized to better define the lateral extent of contamination and
875J129 6-5
I
I
I
I
I
• a
n
0
D
D
m
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 6.1
RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS:
AREAS A AND B
LEGEND
♦ Approximate Location of
Observation Wells
@ Approximate Location of
Monitoring Wells
~
G
Approximate Limits of
CERCLA Area
Approximate Location of
Recovery Wells
___ Approximate Width
of Capture Zone
~ Approximate Cap
Location
0 200
SCALE ...___..._ ___ FEET
32
♦ ---♦-----e--♦ @ --Joo FT .. --@
6-6
- - - - --- ------I!!!!!! I!!!!!! !!!!!I l!!!!!!!I e!II!! m!!
"' I -.J
GENERALIZED CAP CROSS SECTION FOR AREA B
ASPHALT PAVEMENT BINDER
(BITUMINOUS CONCRETE)
'v 'v
'v
s· GRAVEL BASE GROUND SURFACE
14'
225' ----------------
350' ------------------
NOTE: Not To Scala
3" 2·
9"
"Tl
C)
C ;o
m
0, .__ ______________________________________ _JN
-
"' I 00
--
Technology
Thermal Processing
In-Situ Steam
Stripping
In -Situ
Flushing
Soil Washing
---l!!!!!!!I l!!!!!!I I!!!!! l!!!!!!I l!!!!!!I !!!!! l!!!!!9
TABLE 6.1
TESTING REQUIREMENTS TO EVALUATE
INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR AREAS C AND [) SOILS
TIIE SODYECO SITE
Description
Place excavated· soils in a heat
exchanger (thermal processor)
to volatilize organics. Vapors
are treated in an afterburner
or treated otherwise as
necessary,
In-situ steam injection through
bladed drilling equipment to
volatilize organics. Vapors are
collected, treated, and rein-
jected for closed-loop operation.
In-situ percolation of water
through contaminated soils to
solubilize adsorbed compounds
and reduce residual concentra-
tions. Water would be intro-
duced through a header system
and recovered through a series
of wells.
Place excavated, screened soils
and wash water in a flotation
machine with a mechanical
impeller for mixing. Treat
withdrawn leachate in the exist-
ing wastewater treatment
facility with recovered
Determinations
for Detailed Design
o Processing residence time
(processing rate).
o Processing temperature.
o Off-gas treatment requirements.
o Steam injection rate.
o Processing rate achieveable.
o Final removal efficiencies,
o Characteristics of liquid
residue from off-gases.
Experimental Testing
Bench scale testing by manufacturer.
Analyses for indicator parameters.
Bench scale testing by manufacturer.
Analyses for indicator parameters,
o Water injection rate and Laboratory column testing.
quantity for effective coverage 1\nalyses for indiciltor
(horizontal and vertical). parameters.
o Recovery well pumping rate
to ensure capture of all flush
and infiltration water,
o Effectiveness of contaminant
reduction,
o Time required to reduce contami-
nant concentrations below ARARs
in the recovered flush water.
o Quantity of water required for
contaminant removal.
o Number of sequential washes
necessary to reduce contaminant
concentrations below AR/\Rs in
leachate.
o Contaminant concentration(s) in
Batch testing of soils with water
and water/detergent mixture util-
izing a mechanical extractor for
agitation. Analyses for indicator
parameters.
ground water. leachate (for input to treatment
system).
o If the addition of detergents
(surfactants) accelerates the
contami.nant removal process.
!!!!! !!!!I !!!!!
Estimated Schedule
o Scope -1 mo.
o Rench scale test -2 mo,
o Eva I ua tion and report -
1 mo.
o Scope -1 mo.
o Rench scale test -2 mo.
o Evaluiltion and report -
1 mo.
o Scope (Work Plan) -1 mo,
o Column testinq -5 mo.
o Evaluation & report -1
mo.
o Scope (Work Plan) -1 mo.
o Batch testing -2 mo.
o Evaluation and report
1 mo.
e!l!I
- - - - - - --l!!!!!!!J l!!!!!!!J I!!!! l!!!!!!!I I!!!!! I!!!! !!!!!9 e!!!S == == ==
"' I
"T1
r
C
;,:i
m
0 .
FIGURE 6. 4
D ,-------------------------,
n
E
u
u
m
E
m
• •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOIL PROFILES USED TO ESTIMATE
VOLUMES IN AREA C
PIT C-1
PIT C-3
I \.._ __ .J
PIT
AREA
DOWNGRADIENT
AREA
6-10
PIT C-2
-2s·-,--,
I I
I
I ~::.;:...:;, :
!so·
o-2s· I
PIT
AREA
60"
LEGEND
I
I
, -7 Approximate , __ ..., Pit Boundary
P'77A Approximate
~ Area Of
Contaminated Soil
and Soil Cover
D
u
D
n
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 6.5
RECCOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS:
AREA D
: .. _ ... , ... , ... :.-.,_.:.
i,~i~
+:>II -E~'4"1~ ~ I'.\ I 1ill •120 F·T.-120 FT· .• 9J
' ~~~~ ::::![j-135 FT.-
-=-z-= --, ' 2
0 200
SCALE--------FEET
LEGEND
D Approximate Limits of CERCLA Area
o Approximate Location of Observation
Wells in Shallow Aquifer Zone
111 Approximate Location of Recovery Wells
in Shallow Aquifer Zone
◊ Approximate Location of Monitoring Wells
in Shallow Aquifer Zone
II Approximate Location of Observation Wells
in Deep Aquifer Zone
® Approximate Location of Recovery Wells
in Residium, Weathered/Fractured Rock.
and in the Deep (Bedrock) Aquifer Zone
♦ Approximate Location of monitoring Wells
in Deep Aquifer Zone
- -Approximate Width of Capture Zone
6-11
D
I
I
I
I
n
m
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REGION TO BE EXCAVATED
IN AREA D
FUEL
OIL TANK
.-----ao·-----i
' ........... ¢"" z ~
' 0
FIGURE 6.6
30
SCALE ._____,..._....,j FEET
LEGEND ro;a Area to be Excavated from 0-5'
G-12
•
I
I
I
g
D
D
u
B
u
H
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 6. 7
RECOVERY WELL INSTALLATION
IN SHALLOW AQUIFER ZONE
WELL COVER~
GROUND SURFACE
c___,---
BOREHOLE---►=
GROUND WATER ------o►f:"'...};~-e SURFACE
GRAVEL----o1,
6-13
PUMP DISCHARGE TO
EXISTING BIOLOGICAL
--TREATMENT SYSTEM
DEPTH TO
TOP OF
GRAVEL
DEPTH TO PUMP
INTAKE
WELL
SCREEN
INTERVAL
TOTAL
DEPTH
OF WELL
I
I
I
D
n
n
0
u
B
u
m
m
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE 6. 8
RECOVERY WELL INSTALLATION
IN INTERMEDIATE AND
DEEP AQUIFER ZONES
WELL COVER -----=n==l
GROUT SEAL
GROUT-----....1I
BOREHOLE-----,
PUMP----1->1-
0PEN FACE ----ROCK WELL
PUMP DISCHARGE TO EXISTING
,,.-BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
STICKUP
DEPTH TO
PUMP INTAKE
DEPTH OF
PVC PIPE
TOTAL DEPTH
OF WELL
DEPTH OF
OPEN INTERVAL
l
6-14
I
I
I
I
g
D
0
n
B
D
D
E
I
I
I
I
11
I
FIGURE 6. 9
RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS:
0
SCALE
AREA E
200
LEGEND
e Approximate Location ot Recovery Wells
E±2] Approximate Limits of CERCLA Area
---Approxima,e Width ot Capture Zone
X Location ot Ground Water Level Measurement
WL Ground Water, Elevation in ft. Above Mean Sea Level
@ Approximate Location ot Observation Wells
♦ Approximate Location ot Monitoring Wells
6-15
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
effective capture zone of extraction wells. The proposed monitoring and
observation well placement is shown in Figures 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, and 6.9.
More wells may be added depending upon the water levels and sampling
results from these illustrated wells. An add 1. tional soil boring and
moni taring well will also be installed in Area E prior to ground-water
recovery. This work was outlined in the recommendations of the RI
Report.
The costs to conduct this remediation are estimated to be from
$2,089,000 to $3,865,000 (soil plus ground-water recovery and treatment
costs) depending on which soil treatment technology is selected. This
estimate is based on a 10 percent interest rate and 20 year time frame
to pump and treat ground water. The cost to treat Area C soils varies
with the treatment technology and ranges from $15 to $73 per pound of
contaminants removed. The estimated cost range to treat Area D soils is
$73 to $290 per pound of contaminants removed. The ground-water
treatment cost is $5/1000 gallons or $16/pound of organics.
The remediation costs (Table 6.2) are sensitive to interest rate
and time. Using a lower interest rate and longer time required to pump
and treat increases the costs significantly. The costs to conduct the
remediation at 5 percent for a SO year period range from $2,962,000 to
$4,673,000.
875J129 6-16
-
"' I
f--' -.J
- ----!!!!!!!I em == == ~
TABLF.: 6.2
ESTIMATED COST OF SOIL AND GROUND-WATER REMEDIATION FOR ALTERNATIVF:S 8 AND 9
(Present Worth in 1,000s of Dollars)
Option
Alternative 8
o Cap Area B
0 Thermal process Areas C
and D soils
o Treat ground water in
existing biological system
Alternative 9A
o Cap Area B
o In-situ steam strip
Area C soils
0
0
Excavate and incinerate
Area D soils off site
Treat ground water in
existing biological system
Alternative 9C
0
0
0
Cap Area B
In-sif~)flush Area C
soils
Excavate and incinerate
Area D soils off site
o Treat ground water in
existing biological system
Alternative 90
o Cap Area B
o Wash soils in Area C
0 Excavate and incinerate
Area D soils off site
o Treat ground water in
existing biological system
10 years
=-5\ i = 10\
3,700 3,569
3,726 3,595
2,087 1,892
3,799 3,668
15 years 20 years
i = 5\ i = 10\ i = 5\ i = 1 0\
3,921 3,690 4,093 3,766
3,947 3,716 4,119 3, 792
2,309 2,013 2,4A1 2,0A9
4,020 3,789 4,192 3, ens
ta) Assume leachate from Area C soils meets ARARs after 10 years of treatinq.
i = Percent interest per year.
30 years
= 5\ i = 10\
4,335 3,841
4, 3fi1 3,A67
2,723 2,164
4,434 3,940
liiii
50 years
= 5\ i = 10\
4,574 3,882
4,fiOO 3,90A
2,962 2,205
4,673 3,981
D
n
D
D
0
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Means Company, Means Construction Cost Data 1987, 45th Edition,
Kingston, MA, 1986.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development Water Quality Section, "Sandoz Chemicals Corporation
Toxicity Examination NPDES, #NC0004375," February, 1987.
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc., The-Richardson Rapid System,
Process Plant Construction Estimating Standards, San Marcos, CA,
1987.
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Installation Restoration General Environmental
Technology Development, Task 11 -Pilot Investigation of Low
Temperature Thermal Stripping of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs) from Soil, Vol. 1 -Technical Report, West Chester, PA,
June, 1986.
Satriana, M. J., Large Scale Composting, Noyes Data Corporation,
Park Ridge, NJ, 197 4.
Toxic Treatments (USA), Inc., Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 1, San Mateo,
CA, Spring 1987. (In-Situ Thermal Processing)
USEPA, "Final Engineering Report, Plant Number 2--0rganic Chemical
Best Available Technology, Long Term Field Sampling," Contract
No. 68-01-6947, July, 1985.
USEPA, Handbook for Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites,
EPA-625/6-82-006, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
1982.
USEPA, Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, Office of water and Waste
Management, SW-874, September, 1980.
USEPA, Interim Guidance on Superfund Selection of Remedy, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive No. 9355.0-19,
December 24, 1986.
USEPA, Land Disposal Remedial Action, Incineration and Treatment of
Hazardous Waste, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Research
Symposium, EPA-600/9-86/022, August, 1986.
USEPA, Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual,
EPA-540/1-86-060, Washington, DC, 1986.
875J129 A-1
-
tll I f-"
- - -
Name
Ernest J. Schroeder
Leslie J, Blythe
Bruce E, B ~gs
Cynthia E, Draper
Susan K, Fullerton
Andrew h, Kubala
Roberts. McLecxl
Jimmy N. Smith
------ -- - -- --
1'ABI,E A. 1
NAMES, RF:SPONSIBTLITIES, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF PF.RSONS
RESPONSIALI': FOR PREPARING TtlE RI REPORT
Responsibility
Technical Director
Project Manager
Chemist
Environmental Engineer
Public llealth Risk Assessment
Senior Engineer
Senior Hydrologist
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
and Investigation Manager
Qualifications
B,S, and M.S. in Civil/Environmental Engineering, Senior Associate, and Manager
of Hazardous Waste for Engineering-Science, Professional engineer with 20 years
of envi ronmenta J engineering experience, nine yea rs with Union Carbide working in
research, engineering, construction and operations plus eleven years of
environmental consulting experience condncting industrial waste treatment and
hazardous waste management projects. Very actively involved, dnring the Just
seven years, in remedial action projects at hazardons waste sites.
B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering, Engineering-Science. Six years of
professional experience that includes hazardous waste site investigations,
evaluations, and reporting; regulation of municipal water supply systems,
construction_grants management, and design of wastewater treatment systems.
B.S. in Chemistry, Engineering-Science. Actively involved in environmental and
process chemistry for 26 years. Industries involved in this experience included
chemicals, electronics, utilities, mining and construction,
B.S. and M.S. in Environmental Engineering, Engineering-Science. Two years
experience which includes geological investigations, field data collection,
construction coordination, environmental studies and metal finishing waste
management.
B.S. in Chemical Engineering and M.S. in Environmental Engineering, Enqineerinq-
Science. Seven years of professional experience in hazardous waste management
including the preparation and implementation of Reme1Hal Investigation/
Feasibility Study Reports and Remedial Action Plans. Corporate wide responsi-
bility for reviewing and assessing site data in terms of public health and
environmental concerns and for preparing risk/health assessment documents.
s.s. in Civil Engineering, Engineering-Science, Over 23 years of professional
experience. Extensive project management experience in design, construction
management, and investigations in hazardous waste area; project management of
large industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants both turnkey and
traditional methods.
B,S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering, Engineering-Science. Professional engineer
and geologist with 24 years of experience in ground water and surface water
hydrology. Served as project manager on studies related to developing ground
water for industrial and municipal water supplies and on studies involving
remedial investigations, feasihility studies and cleanup activities at hazardous
waste facilities.
B.S. and C,P,. in Civil Engineering, Law. Professional engineer with thirteen
years experience conducting and supervising waste-related projectl'. addressing
civil, geotechnical, hydroqeoloqical and waste-handling considerations,
Responsible for site selection, detailed site assessment, facility design,
closure rlesiqn and supervision of construction inspection on hoth nf.!w and
remedial wn.ste-reln.ted projects. Provided technical direction and management of
various multi-rlisciplinary projects.
-
D
D
n
0
0
0
D
D
D APPENDIX C
COST ESTIMATING DATA u
m
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9
g
u
0
D
n
0
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE C.1
.AREA B LANDFILL CAP COST ESTIMATE
Item Unit Cost*
Approximate Cap Area: 300' x 350' 105,000 S.F.
11 , 700 S. Y.
= 2.41 acres
Capital
O&M
Clear and Grade
Gravel Base
(3/4'' stone, 9'' deep)
Binder
(Bituminous Concrete,
2" thick)
Asphalt
(Bituminous concrete,
3" deep)
For 50 years@ 10% interest
For 50 years@ 5% interest
$4,000/acre
7/S.Y.
4/S.Y.
6/S.Y.
Total Capital
$2,000/yr
$2,000/yr
Based on 50 years@ 10% interest SUBTOTAL
* Unit cap·i tal costs from Means, 1986 ( see references};
Unit O&M costs from Sandoz Chemicals Corporation.
875J129 C-1
Dollars ($)
10,000
82,000
47,000
70,000
209,000
20,000
40,000
$229,000
u
H
H
I
D
0
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quantity
Waste+ soil cover
(c.y. l
Quantity to excavate
(c.y.)
Item
a Excavation@ S25/c.y.
Analytical to
verify removal
@ S420/sampee and
$700/sample
SUBTOTAL($)
TABLE C.2
SOIL EXCAVATION COST ESTIMATE
Area B
35,625
36,000
$
900,000
20,000
$920,000
Area C
5,800
5,850
$
147,000
10,000
$157,000
Area D
115
150
$
4,000
3,000
$7,000
a Typical excavation rate for hazardous waste work including health and
safety equipment based on Engineering-Science project experience.
b Analysis of the organic indicator parameters on soils (@ $280/sample
x 1.5 rush charge) and selected soil extract samples (@ $470/sample x
1.5), IT Laboratory, Knoxville,.Tennessee
875J129 C-2
I
I
I
D
u
D
D
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE C.3
ON-SITE INCINERATION COST ESTIMATE
Unit Cost to incinerate including mob/demoba
Area B = $300/ton (Quantity> 10,000 tons)
Areas C + D = $375/ton (QC+ Q0 = 8100 tons)
a. Quanity Q
(tons)
b. Incineration ($/ton)
c. Time to burn
@ 100 tons/day
Item
Incineration$
(line ax bl
Backhoe+ Oper8tor $
@ $650/day
SUBTOTAL
Area B
48,600
300
490 days
( s )
14,580,000
319,000
$14,899,000
Area C
7,900
375
80 days
( s )
2,963,000
52,000
$3,015,000
Area D
200
375
2 days
( s )
75,000
1,000
$76,000
a Cost estimated for the mobile Shirco unit obtained from Haztech,
Decatur, Georgia, based on a minimum quantity of 5,000 c.y. (the unit
cost is quantity specific).
b Transport material to incinerator and backfill. Typical rate based
on Engineering-Science hazardous waste project experience.
875J129 C-3
g
g
u
0
H
0
D
B
D
I
I
I
I
TABLE C.4
OFF-SITE INCINERATION COST ESTIMATE
Tranportation Costa= $2,600/20-Ton Truck
Incineration Costa= $350/ton (assuming soils with 20% water, and 1000
Btu/lb)
Quantity (Q)
Tons
No. of 20-ton trucks
(Q/20)
Item
Transportation
@ $2600/truck
Incineration Cost
(Q X $350/ton)
Clean fillb
@ $9/ton X Q
SUBTOTAL
Area B Area c Area D
48,600 7,900 200
(waste) {waste+ soil Cover) (waste+ soil cover)
2,430 395 1 0
( $) ($) ( $)
6,318,000 1,027,000 26,000
17,010,000 2,765,000 70,000
437,000 71 , 000 2,000
$23,765,000 $3,863,000 $98,000
a Cost estimate obtained from Marine Shale Processors, Morgan City,
Louisiana.
b Unit cost from Means, 1986 (see references).
875J129 C-4
a
n
D
D
n
D
D
Item
1 •
2.
3.
4.
TABLE C.5
COST ESTIMATE: THERMAL PROCESSING OF
EXCAVATED SOILS IN AREAS C AND D
Bench Scale Test
Mobilization a
b Processing@ $150/ton
Analytical@ $420/sample C and $700/sample
$
23,000
8,000
1 , 21 5,000
23,000
5. Demobilization8 8,000
E SUBTOTAL $1 , 277,000
I
I
I
I
I
a Based on transportation from West Chester, Pennsylvania to Charlotte,
North Carolina and setup/disassembly requirements.
b Cost from Roy F. Weston (West Chester, Pennsylvania) based on Weston unit.
c Analysis for organic indicator parameters on processed soils ($280/sample
x 1.5 rush) and processed soil extract ($470/sample x 1,5), IT Laboratory,
Knoxville, Tennessee.
875J129 C-5
I
I
u
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE C.6
COST ESTIMATE: IN-SITU STEAM STRIPPING OF AREA C SOILS
Item _$_
1 • Bench Scale Test 23,000
2. Mobilization a 41,000
}. Processing @ $200/C. Y. b 1,170,000
4. Residue Disposalc 30,000
5. Demobilization a 41,000
6. Analytical@ $4~0/sample 48,000
and $700/sample
SUBTOTAL $1,353,000
a Based on transportation from San Mateo, California to Charlotte, North
Carolina and setup/disassembly requirements.
b Cost from Toxic Treatments (San Mateo, California} for Detoxifier Unit.
c Estimate for off-site residue incineration and carbon regeneration.
d Analysis for organic indicator parameters on processed soils ($280/sample
x 1.5 rush) and processed soil extract ($470/sample x 1.5 rush), IT
Laboratory, Knoxville, Tennessee.
875J129 C-6
I
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE C.7
COST ESTIMATE: COMPOSTING OF EXCAVATED SOILS
IN AREA C
Item
1. Treatability Testinga
2. Mobilizationa
3. Composting@ $200/tona
4. Demobilizationa
5. Analytical Following Compostigg
@ $420/sample and $700/sample
SUBTOTAL
_$_
25,000
10,000
1 , 580,000
10,000
23,000
$1,648,000
a Unit costs based on Engineering-Science (Atlanta, Georgia) project
experience.
b Analysis for organic indicator parameters on composted soil ($280/sample x
1.5 rush) and composted soil extract ($470/sample x 1.5 rush), IT
Laboratory, Knoxville, Tennessee
875J129 C-7
a
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE C.8
COST ESTIMATE: IN-SITU SOIL FLUSHING OF AREA C SOILS
Item $
Capital Costs
1 h 1 . a . Bene Sea e Testing
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Piping (installed, to and from Areg C)
1,700 ft 4" PVC, valves and joints
Header system for injection water b
2,100 ft, 1" PVC, valves and joints
Pumps (6 transfer, 10 withdrawl)c
' 11 ' d Power source insta ation
Excavation (600 C.Y.) and sand fill b
(350 C.Y.) for water injection system
Withdrawal wells (9)e
f Analytical@ $420/sample
Capital
Annual O&M
9. Labor
10. Materials/Supplies
11. Treat flush water in existing
biological systemg
For 10 years@ 10% interest
For 10 years@ 5% interest
O&M
O&M
O&M
Using 10 years, 10% interest SUBTOTAL
30,000
27,000
11,000
8,000
5,000
24,000
15,000
48,000
$168,000
$ 7,000/yr
1 3,000 /yr
5,000/yr
$ 25,000/yr
$154,000
$193,000
$322,000
a Estimate based on Engineering-Science (Atlanta, Georgia) project
experience and estimated analytical costs, IT Laboratory, Knoxville,
Tennessee.
b Unit cost from Means, 1986.
c Estimate based on Goulds Pumps, Ward Well Drilling Company, Inc.,
Atlanta, Georgia.
d Estimate based on Engineering-Science (Atlanta, Georgia) project
experience.
e Estimate based on unit costs of Mideastern Geotech, Marietta, Ohio.
f Analysis for organic indicators on flushed soils and flush water
(S280/sample x 1.5 rush), IT Laboratory, Knoxville, Tennessee.
g Costs from Sandoz Chemical Corporation (Mt. Holly, North Carolina).
875J129 C-8
n
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE C.9
COST ESTIMATE: SOIL WASHING OF EXCAVATED SOIL IN AREA C
1 •
2.
3.
4.
s.
Item
Bench Scale Testinga
Piping (installed, to and from Are8 C)
1,700 ft 4" PVC, valves and joints
Pumps (transfer)c
d Power source installation
Transfer excavated soils to flocculator8
$
$ 28,000
27,000
2,000
5,000
78,000
& backfill washed soils ($650/day, 120 days)
6. Processing@ $150/C.Y.f
7. Detergent/surfactant $.SO/ton (if used)f
8. Analytical@ $420/sampleg
9. Off-site incineration of residualh
(5% of total soil volume)
10. Treat ~ash water in existing biological i system
SUBTOTAL
878,000
4,000
23,000
190,000
5,000
$1,240,000
a Based on vendor experience (MTA Remedial Resources, Inc., Golden,
Colorado) and estimated analytical costs ( IT Laboratory, Knoxville,
Tennessee.
b Unit cost from Means, 1986.
c Based on Goulds Pumps, Ward Well Drilling Company, Inc., Atlanta,
Georgia.
d Estimate based on Engineering-Science (Atlanta, Georgia) project
experience.
e Based on Engineering-Science project experience and MTA estimated
processing rate.
f MTA Remedial Resources, Golden, Colo~ado.
g Analysis for organic indicators on washed soils and wash water
$250/sample x 1.5 rush), IT Laboratory, Knoxville, Tennessee
h Based on Marine Shale Processors, Morgan City, Louisiana (Table C.4).
i Cost from Sandoz Chemical Corporation (Mt. Holly, North Carolina).
875J129 C-9
I
g
D
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
TABLE C.10
COST ESTIMATE FOR PUMPING GROUND WATER TO EXISTING SEWERAGE SYSTEM
AND TREATMENT IN EXISTING BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
(IN 1987 DOLLARS)
A. Pumping Ground Water To and Connection with Existing Sewerage System
B.
1. Drilling and constructing
11 recovery wells with wire-
wrapped PVC screening
2. Drilling 10 monitoring wells
and 16 observation wells
3. 13 pumps ( stainless steel,
4 inch diameter)
4. PVC Piping (installed) to
Existing Sewer System
5. Excavation and Backfill
6. Power Source Installation
7. Electrical power
8. Miscellaneous Operation
and Maintenance
9. Labor
Treatment in Existing System
1. Treatment Cost
2. Additional Permitting
875J129
11 @ $400/each
1 @ $ 800
1 @ $800 as a back up
PUMPS
2100 ft@ 1" diameter
($11,000)
100 ft Schedule 40
carbon steel ($1,000)
Valves and joints ($1,000)
PIPING
2100 ft X 2 ft X 2 ft
$0.05 per Kw-hr
(10% of Capital
Investment)
40 hr/wk@ $16/hr
$0.33/lb BOD
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
(Items A and B)
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COST
( I terns A and B)
C-10
$ 86,000
$ 95,000
$ 6,000
$ 14,000
$ 1 3,000
$ 10,000
$ 6,000/yr
$ 22,000/yr
$ 33,000/yr
$ 5,000/yr
$ 6,000
$230,000
$ 66,000/yr
I
H
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c.
D.
E.
TABLE C.10--Continued
COST ESTIMATE FOR PUMPING GROUND WATER TO EXISTING SEWERAGE SYSTEM
AND TREATMENT IN EXISTING BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
(IN 1987 DOLLARS)
Analytical Cost
1. Sampling and Lab Fees for Indicator Parameters
(sample each monitoring well semi-annually for
2 years)
2. Sampling and Lab Fees for Indicator Parameters
(sample each recovery well semi-annually and
treated effluent monthly)
3. Water level measurements from observation wells
(monthly)
4. Sampling and Lab Fees for Indicator Parameters
(1 well in Area C, intermediate, and in Area E,
deep, semi-annually)
Indirect Cost
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
( Item C)
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COST
( Item C)
$ 14,000
$ 12, 000/yr
$ 1, 000/yr
$ 1,000/yr
$ 14,000
$ 14,000/yr
1. Engineering and Supervision 15% of capital investment $ 8,000
(drilling excluded)
2. Contractor Overhead and
Profit
3. Contingency
4. Administrative
20% of capital investment $ 10,000
(drilling and analytical
excluded)
25% of capital investment $ 61,000
5% of capital investment $ 12,000
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COST
(Item D)
$ 91,000
Total Capital Cost to Pump and Treat in Existing
system
$335,000
plus
Total Annual Cost to Pump and Treat in Existing System $ 80,000/yr
875J129 C-11
g
I
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A.
B.
TABLE C.11
COST ESTIMATE TO PUMP CERCLA GROUND WATER TO
TREATMENT SYSTEM (AIR STRIPPER) WHERE IT IS TREATED ALONG
WITH RCRA GROUND WATER AND DISCHARGED TO PRESENT
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
(IN 1987 DOLLARS)
Pumping Ground Water To Treatment System
1 •
2.
3.
Drill and construct 11 wells
with wire-wrapped PVC
screening
Drilling 10 monitoring wells
and 16 observation wells
13 pumps (stainless steel,
4 inch diameter)
4. Piping to Existing System
(PVC, includes labor)
5. Excavation and Backfill
6. Power Source Installation
7. Electrical power
8. Operation and Maintenance
9. Labor
11 @ $400/each
1 @ $800
1 @ $800 backup
PUMPS
5000 ft@ 1" diameter
($25,000)
2500 ft@ 2" diameter
($14,000)
500 ft Schedule 40
carbon steel ($7,000)
Valves and joints ($8,000)
PIPING
7500 ft X 2 ft X 2 ft
$0.05 per Kw-hr
( 10% of Capital
Investment)
40 hr/wk@ $16/hr
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
(Item A)
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COST
(Item A)
$ 86,000
$ 95,000
$ 6,000
$ 54,000
$ 29,000
s 10,000
$ 6,000/yr
$ 28,000/yr
S 33,000/yr
$280,000
$ 67,000/yr
Treatment with RCRA Ground Water in Air Stripper Followed By Treatment
in Existing System
1. Pressure Filter Unit $ 55,000
875J129 C-12
I
I
I
D
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c.
TABLE C.11--Continued
COST ESTIMATE TO PUMP CERCLA GROUND WATER TO
TREATMENT SYSTEM (AIR STRIPPER) WHERE IT IS TREATED ALONG
WITH RCRA GROUND WATER AND DISCHARGED TO PRESENT
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
(IN 1987 DOLLARS)
2. Air Stripping Unit, 35 ft of packing,
3.5 diameter
3. Construction pad
4. Wet Well for Backwash
5. Installation to Piping System
6. Additional Permitting
7. Electrical power
8. Operation and Maintenance
9. Treatment in Existing System
Analytical Cost
$0.05 per Kw/hr
( 1 0% of Capital
Investment)
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
( Item B)
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COST
(Item B)
1. Sampling and Lab Fees for Indicator Parameters
(each monitoring well semi-annually for 2 years)
2. Sampling and Lab Fees for Indicator Parameters
(each recovery well semi-annually, treated
effluent monthly)
3. water Level Measurement from Observation Wells
(monthly)
4. Samplin_g and Lab Fees for Indicator Parameters
(1 well in Area C, intermediate, and in Area D,
deep, semi-annually)
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
(Item C)
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COST
(Item C)
$ 45,000
$ 2,000
$ 10,000
$ 8,000
$ 5,000
$ 2,000/yr
$ 12,000/yr
$ 5,000/yr
$125,000
$ 20,000/yr
$ 14,000
$ 1 2, 000/yr
$ 1, 000/yr
$ 1,000/yr
$ 14,000
$ 14,000/yr
875J129 C-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D,
E.
TABLE C.11--Con~inued
COST ESTIMATE TO PUMP CERCLA GROUND WATER TO
TREATMENT SYSTEM (AIR STRIPPER) WHERE IT IS TREATED ALONG
WITH RCRA GROUND WATER AND DISCHARGED TO PRESENT
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
(IN 1987 DOLLARS)
Indirect Costs for Air Stripping System
1. Engineering and Supervision
2. Contractor Overhead and
Profit
3. Contingency
4. Administrative
15% of capital investment$ 36,000
(drilling excluded)
20% of capital investment$ 45,000
(drilling and analytical
excluded)
25% of capital investment $105,000
5% of capital investment $ 21,000
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COST
(Item D)
$207,000
Total Capital Cost to Pump to Air Stripper and
Treat with RCRA Wastewater
$626,000
Total Annual Cost to Pump to Air Stripper and
Treat with RCRA Wastewater
$101,000
875J129 C-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A.
B.
TABLE C.12
COST ESTIMATE TO DISCHARGE GROUND WATER WITH RCRA
GROUNDWATER TO THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG UTILITY DEPARTMENT (CMUD)
(IN 1987 DOLLARS)
Pumping Ground Water To and Connection with Existing
Sewerage System
1. Drilling and constructing
11 wells with wire-
wrapped PVC
2. Drilling 10 monitoring
wells and 16 observation
wells
3. 13 pumps {stainless steel,
4 inch diameter)
4. Piping (PVC, installed)
to Collection Tank in
RCRA Area
5. Excavation and Backfill
6. Power Source Installation
7. Electrical power
8. Operation and Maintenance
9. Labor
CMUD Treatment Cost
11 @ $400/each
1 @ $800
1 @ $800 backup
PUMPS
5000 ft@ 1" diameter
($25,000)
2,500 ft@ 2 11 diameter
($14,000)
500 ft Schedule 40
carbon steel ($7,000)
Valves and joints ($8,000)
PIPING
7,500 ft X 2 ft X 2 ft
$0.05 per Kw-hr
(10% of Capital
Investment)
40 hr/wk@ $16/hr
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
( Item A)
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COST
(Item A)
$1.44 per 100 cubic ft
$ 86,000
$ 95,000
$ 6,000
$ 54,000
$ 29,000
$ 10,000
$ 6,000/yr
$ 28,000/yr
$ 33,000/yr
$280,000
$ 67,000/yr
$ 66,000/yr
875J129 C-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c.
D.
TABLE C.12--Continued
COST ESTIMATE TO DISCHARGE GROUND WATER WITH RCRA
WASTEWATER TO THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG UTILITY DEPARTMENT (CMUD)
(IN 1987 DOLLARS)
Construction and Operational
Costs
1 • Piping
2. Pumps ( 2)
3. Valves and Joints
4. Manhole
5. Excavation and Backfill
6. Additional Penni tting
7. Electrical power
8. Operation and Maintenance
Analtyical Costs
3000 ft X 2.5 ft X 3 ft
At $0.05 per kwh
( 1 0% of Capital
Investment)
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
(Item C)
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COST
(Item C)
1. Sampling and Lab Fees for Indicator Parameters
(each rnonitoirng well semi-annually for 2 years)
2. Sampling and Lab Fees for Indicator Parameters
(each recovery well semi-annually, treated
effluent monthly)
3. Water Level Measurements from Observation Wells
(monthly)
4. Sampling and Lab Fees for Indicator Parameters
(1 well in Area C, intermediate, and in Area D,
deep, semi-annually)
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COST
( Item D)
SUBTOTAL ANNUAL COST
( Item D)
$ 25,000
$ 2,000
$ 3,000
$ 3,000
$ 15,000
$ 5,000
$ 2,000/yr
$ 5,000/yr
$ 53,000
$ 7,000/yr
$ 14,000
$ 12, 000/yr
$ 1,000/yr
$ 1,000/yr
$ 14,000
$ 14, 000/yr
875J129 C-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E.
F.
TABLE C.12--Continued
COST ESTIMATE TO DISCHARGE GROUND WATER WITH RCRA
WASTEWATER TO THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG UTILITY DEPARTMENT (CMUD)
(IN 1987 DOLLARS)
Indirect Cost
1 • Engineering and
Supervision
2. Contractor Overhead
Profit
3. Contingency
4. Admini~trative
and
15% of capital investment$ 25,000
(drilling excluded)
20% of·capital investment$ 30,000
(drilling and analytical
excluded)
25% of capital investment$ 87,000
5% of capital investment $ 17,000
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COST
(Item E)
$160,000
Total Capital Cost to Pump and Treat at
CMUD Facility
$507,000
Total Annual Cost to Pump and Treat at
CMUD Facility
$154,000/yr
875J129 C-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE C.13
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATE FOR REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
(IN 1987 DOLLARS)
A. No Action -National Flushing and Monitoring
Pumping Ground Water and Treatment in Existing
$ 20,000/yr
B.
c.
D.
Biological System
1. Capital Cost
2. Indirect Capital Costa
3. Annual Sampling and Analysis Cost
4. Annual Operation and Maintenance Costb
TOTAL Capital
Annual
Pumping Ground Water to Air Stripper with RCRA Ground
Water Followed by Biological Treatment
1 • Capital Cost
2. Indirect Costa
3. Annual sampling and Analysis Cost
4. Annual Operation and . b Maintenance Cost
TOTAL Capital
Annual
Pump Ground Water and Discharge with RCRA Ground Water
to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department (CMUD)
1. Capital Cost
2. Indirect Capital Costa
3. Annual Sampling and Analysis Cost
4. Annual Operation and Maintenance. Costb·
TOTAL Capital
Annual
$ 244,000
$ 91 , 000
$ 14,000/yr
$ 66,000/yr
$ 335,000
$ 80,000/yr
$ 419,000
$ 207,000
$ 14,000/yr
$ 87,000/yr
$ 626,000
$ 101,000/yr
$ 347,000
$ 160,000
$ 14,000/yr
$ 140,000/yr
$ 507,000
$ 154,000/yr
a Indirect cost includes engineering, supervision, contractor overhead and
profit, a 25% contingency, and administrative costs.
b Annual operation and maintenance cost includes electrical power supply,
labor, and miscellaneous O&M costs (10% of capital).
875J129 C-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
TABLE C.14
SOURCE OF COST ESTIMATES
FOR GROUND-WATER REMEDIATION
Item
Drilling Estimates
Pumps
Piping
Valves and Joints
Excavation and Backfill
Electrical Power
Miscellaneous nperation
and Maintenance
Labor
Treatment in Existing
System
Penni tting
sampling
Pressure Filter
875J129
Source
Unit Cost -Law Engineering Testing Co.
Goulds Pumps
Charlotte, North Carolina
Mid Eastern Geotech
Marietta, Ohio
Ward Well Drilling Co., Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc.
(see references)
Ten percent of capital cost for piping.
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc.
(see references)
and
Sandoz Chemicals Corporation 1987 cost
estimate to pipe under highways and
railroad tracks.
Current electrical cost ($0.05/Kw-hr) at
the Sodyeco facility.
Ten percent of total capital cost.
Assumed one-man hour per day, 5 day per
week, 52 weeks per year, $33,000/yr salary.
Present system cost is $0.33/lb. BOD.
Assumed 40 lb/day of BOD in CERCLA ground
water.
Based on Sandoz Chemicals Corporation
permitting experience.
Analysis of organic indicator parameters on
water (@ $280/sample). IT Laboratory,
Knoxville, Tennessee.
Vendor estimate: Infilco-Degremaunt,
Richmond, Virginia.
C-19
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
Item
Air stripper
Cone re te Pad
Wet Well
CMUD Treatment Cost
875J129
TABLE C.14--Continued
SOURCE OF COST ESTIMA'rES
FOR GROUND-WATER REMEDIATION
Source
Vendor estimate: Calgon Carbon
Corporation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Assumed dimensions of 10'x 20'x 8" for pad
and $300/cu. yd. for cement and labor.
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc.
(see references)
Based on CMUD's charge of $1.44 per 100
ft3.
C-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
SUPPORT INFORMATION ON GROUND-WATER
RECOVERY SYSTEM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE D.J
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM YIELD FROM RECOVERY WELLS
IN THE CERCLA AREAS
Estimated
Estimateda Number of Total Estimated
CERLCA Area(s) Flow Rate Wells in Flow Rate from Wells
and Aquifer Zone (gpm) Area (gpm)
A and B, Intermediate 2.5 2 5
c, Shallow 0.3 2 0.6
D, Shallow 0.6 2 } 1 • 2
b
D, Intermediate 3.3 2 6.6
D, Residium 0.5 3 1 • 0
D, Partially Weathered C Rock/Fractured Rock 0.2 3 0.6
D, Deep 0. 1 3 0.3
E, Intermediate 2 2 4
Total 11 19.3
(approx.) 20 gpm
a -Estimate based on pump tests conducted throughout the Sodyeco plant
site and the hydraulic conductivities of the area where the pump
test was conducted relative to the hydraulic conductivities of the
CERCLA areas.
b - A total of two wells are screened in the shallow and intermediate
zones of Area D (i.e., same well screened in both zones).
c -A total of three wells are screened in the residium, partially
weathered/fractured rock, and deep zones of Area D (i.e., same well
screened in these zones).
875J129 D-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CAPTURE ZONE ANALYSIS
INPUT PARAMETERS
The depth of the aquifer zone in each area was estimated from the
site boring logs presented in Appendix D of the Remedial Investigation
(RI) Report. The hydraulic conductivities were estimated from slug
tests performed in the CERCLA areas and throughout the site. The
transmissi vi ty for each aquifer zone in a particular CERCLA area was
calculated by the following equation:
where
T KbC
T -transmissivity (gpd/ft);
K -hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec);
b -aquifer thickness (ft); and
C -conversion factor (21,198 gpd/ft2 per cm/sec).
The combined transmissivity, T, for the aquifer was calculated by C
adding the transmissivity for each aquifer zone. The maximum yield from
a recovery well was estimated based on pump tests performed throughout
the Sod ye co plant site and the hydraulic conductivities of the CERCLA
areas relative to those of the area where the pump tests were conducted.
CALCULATION OF CAPTURE ZONE DIMENSIONS
Several equations were used to determine the geometry of
capture zone. Figure D.1 shows the capture zone dimensions.
the
The
maximum width of the capture zone was calculated by the equation listed
below.
875J129
Ymax _Q_
T I C
D-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure D. 1
DIAGRAM OF THEORETICAL
CAPTURE ZONE
FOR TWO RECOVERY WELLS
i
~0
RECOVERY WELL
y
Y MAX
i L
0
X
i RECOVERY WELL
y
LEGEND
-Theoretical Capture Zone Boundary
0 Recovery Well
O Stagnation Point
---► Ground-Water Flow Direction ™I Overlap Of Capture Zones
D-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
where
Ymax = Maximum width of the capture zone (ft);
Q = Maximum well yield from all aquifer zones pumped (gpd);
T = Combined transmissivity (gpd/ft); and C
I= Hydraulic gradient (ft/ft).
The width of the capture zone at the recovery well was calculated as
follows:
where
y = Ymax
2
Y -Width of capture zone at recovery well (ft).
To calculate the distance between the recovery well and the
stagnation point, the equation below was used.
X Q
2 II Tc I
where
x -Distance between recovery well and stagnation point {ft),
and Q, T, and I are the same as above.
C
The stagnation point is a point downgradient of the recovery well
where the pumping force drawing the ground water towards the well equals
the force produced by the hydraulic gradient. Consequently, at this
point ground water is not moving in ei the·r direction.
To ensurt! that tht! capture zones in an area overlap sufficiently,
the width of the capture zone at the recovery well was used ~o dt!termine
the number of wells needed. The approximate width of the contaminant
plume (width of flow lines through the CERCLA area) was divided by the
width of the capture zone at the recovery well to determine the number
of wells needed in each area. This method was followed in all areas
875J129 D-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
except in Area D where the maximum width of the capture zone (Ymax) was
used instead of the capture zone width at the recovery well. In Area D,
the width of the capture zone at the plume is equal to Ymax. To
determine this relationship, the following equation was used.
L-t e L
y
siny + cosy
where t = dimensionless time 2 TI Tc KI2 t
nQ
L = distance upgradient from recovery well (dimensionless)
y
2ITT IL C
L = Q
1/2 the width of the capture zone at some distance (L)
upgradient of recovery well (dimensionless)
y =
IT T I Y
C
Q
This equation is the steady state solution in dimensionless form of the
capture zone boundary which is shown in Figure D.2.
At infinity (where Y is constant), the equation becomes:
which can be reduced to:
L
y
L
siny -cosy
- --y/tan y.
The parameter L is calculated with L being the approximate distance
between the trailing edge of the .. plume and the recovery well. Once L is
calculated, Y is solved by trial and error. If y is greater than IT ,
875J129 D-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DIMENSIONLESS FORM
OF CAPTURE ZONE
y
I = -y/tan y
- -I -L -I =-:= sl n y + cos y e y
STAGN_!ITION POINT,
X=-1---~f--.J..:~~~-+-----------L
y = -TT/2
LEGEND
X Dimensionless Distance To Stagnation Point
L Dimensionless Distance Downgradieni Of Recovery Well
y One Half Of Capture Zone Width In Dimensionless Form
@ Recovery Well
ol( Ground-Water Flow Direction
Theoretical Capture Zone Boundary
D-8
FIGURE D.2
..
2TT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the width of the capture zone at the tail of the plume is equal to Ymax.
'Therefore, the effective width of the capture zone is Ymax. To
determine the number of wells necessary in Area D, the approximate width
of the contaminant plume was divided by Ymax.
Once the number of recovery wells was calculated, the drawdown in
the wells was estimated to determine if drawdown would exceed 2/3 of the
combined aquifer thickness. If the drawdown exceeds 2/3 of this thick-
ness, the equation used in the capt·..ire zone analysis would not be valid.
Drawdown in a well as a result of pumping in that well and surrounding
pumping wells is as follows:
where
where
Q
s = _2_
SC
s = drawdown (ft);
SC= specific capacity (gpd/ft);
Q
drawdown from surrounding recovery wells 1, 2 ••• (ft);
maximum yield from recovery well (gpd); and
(0.183 Q/T) log(0.3T t/r2s) C C
maximum yield from recovery well (gpd);
T combined transmissivity (gpd/ft);
C
t = time to reach steady state conditions (days). Assume to be 5
years or 1,826 days;
r = distance between recovery well and near-by recovery well (ft);
and
s storage coefficient (dimensionless).
Based on the above equations and hydrogeologic data from the CERCLA
areas, the estimated drawdown is not likely to exceed 2/3 of the
combined aquifer thickness.
PUMPING TIME ESTIMATE
The time to pump the contaminant plume in each aquifer zone was
estimated with the following equation.
875J129 D-9
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
where
t = nx
KIC
nQD ln (2 IT TXI/Q + 1)
211b ( KIC) 2
t = time to pump (days);
n = effective porosity (dimensionless);
K hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec);
Q = yield from recovery well (gpd);
b = thickness of aquifer zone (ft);
I
X
hydraulic gradient (ft/ft);
distance between the trailing edge of the plume and recovery
well (ft);
T = transmissivity (not combined transmissivity but that of a
specific aquifer zone) (gpd/ft);
C conversion factor (2,834 ft/day per cm/sec); and
D conversion factor (0.134 cubic feet per gallon).
To consider the effect of sorption, the time (t) should be multiplied by
the retardation factor, which is estimated in Table 4. 16 of the Sodyeco
RI Report.
875J129 D-10
REPORT/PROPOSAL DISTRIBUTION LOG
(ATTACH TO JOB FILE)
Project----------------------'-------
Date ______ _
Job# ______ _ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Mgr.-----~--------Dept. Secretary __________ _
COPIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECIPIENT
(Name and Location) Complete
-,
---..
,_
-. -·--
.. .. ·c ·' . .
.. '
,
PASADENA: Pat Gallemore
(2 Full Copies)
AUSTIN: Steve Neeley
BERKELEY: Jerry Cole
CLEVELAND: Carol Bowers
DENVER: Jan Snyder
DURHAM: Bill Piske
FAIRFAX: Tim Shea
HOUSTON: Connie Chavera
SAN DIEGC: Greg McBain
SYRACUSE: Gary Christopher
TAMPA: Woody Albury
Number of Copies Produced:
Remai~ing Copies:
I 8412.'131
Partial
. •;'l' ,' . ·-,.._.
REFERENCE
DATE SENT INFORMATION
SENT VIA BY (Airbill No., etc.)
I
0
ft
0
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
APPENDIX E
SUPPORT INFORMATION ON THE EXISTING
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM AND THE ORGANIC LOADING
FROM THE CERCLA AND RCRA GROUND WATER
u
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E
EPA STUDY ON THE SODYECO BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
APPENDIX E
EPA STUDY ON THE SODYECO BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT SYSTEM
In March of 1983, the EPA conducted a study of the Sodyeco
treatment system to determine influent wastewater characteristics and
r-emoval efficiencies ( US EPA, 1985). The Sod ye co
several other facilities were studied in order
guidelines for the chemical manufacturing industry.
treatment system and
to propose effluent
The purpose of this
appendix is to describe EPA 1 s sampling program and to report removal
efficiencies for the indicator parameters detected in the ground water
at the CERCLA areas.
SYSTEM DESIGN
Two influent wastewater streams (acidic and alkaline) flow into an
equalization basin. The acidic stream is neutralized prior to
equalization in order to avoid the production (at a low pH) of hydrogen
sulfide gas when mixed with the alkaline stream. A primary clarifier
will be constructed and will replace the current equalization basin
within the year. After equalization, the wastewater flows into a
pre-aeration basin before entering an activated sludge basin. Discharge
from the activated sludge basin is divided between two secondary
clarifiers. Settled sludge is returned to the activated sludge basin in
summer months and the pre-aeration basin in winter months. The effluent
is discharged to the Catawba River under a NPDES permit. Currently
several
secondary
future.
875J129
polishing ponds
clarification;
(post-settling and post-aeration)
however, these will be removed in
E-2
follow
the near
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Based on grab samples collected in December of 1982, sample
locations and EPA test methods were chosen. Four streams were sampled.
o Alkaline influent to the equalization basin (EIC).
0
0
0
Acidic influent to the equalization basin (EIC).
Pre-aeration influent (PI).
Secondary clarifier effluent (SCE).
Samples were collected for four weeks ( 20 days) beginning on March 27,
1983 and ending on Apri 1 22, 1983. Grab samples of the alkaline and
acidic influent streams were collected three times a day, one day per
week. The acidic and alkaline stream samples (totaling 6 per week) were
composited proportional to average flow conditions and analyzed as one
sample. Influent to the pre-aeration basin and effluent from the
secondary clarifier were automatically sampled and composited over a 24
hour period.
All samples were analyzed for the priority pollutants: volatile
organic compounds (EPA Method 624) and acid and base/neutral extractable
organic compounds (EPA Method 625). Samples were also analyzed for
toxic metals, dioxin, asbestos, and conventional parameters such as pH,
COD, BOD, TOC, TKN, and cyanide.
Analytical Results
Table E.1 lists the average concentrations of the indicator
parameters in the pre-aeration influent and in the secondary clarifier
effluent. From these averages, the percent removal for each compound is
calculated as shown in Table E.1. Composite samples collected at the
influent streams to the equalization basin were not used in the
efficiency calculation because they do not adequately represent the
total influent stream. The grab samples were composited proportional to
average flow conditions; however,
throughout the day. The use
the flow rates varied significantly
of average flow rates instead of
instantaneous flow rates is the likely explanation for the large
difference in concentrations between .the influent sample to the
equalization basin and the influent to the pre-aeration basin (or
effluent from the equalization basin). The analytical data for the
875J129 E-3
l!!!!!!!!I l!!!!!!!!I I!!!!! l!!!!!I
Indicator
Parameter
l!!!!I
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
C Ethylbenzene
Toluene
I!!!!! !!I!!!! l!!!!!I l!!!!!!I I!!!!! !!!!!I
TABLE E. 1
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR
THE INDICATOR PARAMETERS
Average a Averageb
Influent Effluent No. of
Concentration Concentration Times
(ug/L) (ug/L) Detected
11 ND 0
ND ND 0
215
952 18 11
319 ND 0
111 ND 0
I!!!!! I!!!!! I!!!!! l!!!!!I
No. of Percent
Times Not Removal
Detected ( % )
20 1 00
20 NC
19 >99.5
1 2 >98 .1
20 100
20 100
a Average concentration of the influent to the pre-aeration basin. Samples were automatically
sampled over a 24-hour period.
b Average concentration of the effluent from the secondary clarifier. Samples were automatically
sampled over a 24-hour period.
c Xylenes were not analyzed for because they are not a priority pollutant. Since ethylbenzene is
similar in chemical characteristics to that of xylenes, the removal efficiency for xylenes is
expected to be similar to that of ethylbenzene.
ND -Not detected.
NC -Cannot be calculated.
875J129
l!!!!!!!!I I!!!!!! I!!!!!
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
indicator parameters have been summarized by the EPA and is presented in
Tables E. 2 through E. 7. The results of the analyses show that all of
the indicator parameters were removed at an overall efficiency greater
than 99 percent. Ortho-dichlorobenzene is the most difficult to
biodegrade and has a removal efficiency of greater than 98 percent. The
reduction in tetrachloroethylene is likely the result of volatilization
from the aerated basins.
875J129 E-5
- - - - - ----LE-- - - - - -- - -
SAMPLING RAW DATA LISTING --1--.. .-tT 2 12:21 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1985 9
COMPOUND(3071 = CHLOROBENZEtlE
COJ1POUUD I 2 0 71 = CHLOROBEHZEHE-05 HOHIHAL DETECTION LIMIT= 10
COHPOUHD(0071 = CHLOROBEUZENE
CONCENTRATION UNIT= UG/L ------------===----------================--=========================-=============================================================
SAHPDATE SAMPLE LAB SITE Pit OIL DETLN0 CONCO DETLN3 CONC3 SPKLVL SPKCDtlC Y. RECOV
( 007) l 0071 ( 307 I ( 307) 1207) (2071
12/14/82 11421 140 AKEI 6.9 1 50
12/14/82 11423 140 ACEI 2 1 91700
03/27/83 11636 410 EIC 9 20 354 40.0 46.0 115.0
04/07/83 11647 410 EiC 7 1 1137 40.0 36.0 90.0
04/10/83 11658 410 ':IC 9 1 299 40.0 40.0 100 .o·
04/17/83 11669 410 EiC • 1 1919 40.0 32.O 8O.O
04/17/83 11669 410 EiC 6 1 1782 40.0 35.O 87.5
04/17/83 11669 410 EIC 6 1 1616 40.0 36.O 90.0
03/27/83 11632 410 PI 5.5 1 135 40.0 43.0 107 .5
03/28/83 11634 410 PI 9 1 160 40.0 36.0 90.0
03/29/83 11637 410 PI 9.4 1 140 40.0 37.0 92.5
03/30/83 11639 410 PI 9.5 1 99 40.0 37.0 92.5
03/30/83 11639 410 PI 9.5 1 98 40.0 42.0 105.0
03/31/83 11641 410 PI 9.5 1 79 40.0 36.0 90.0
04/03/63 11643 410 PI 8.6 1 284 40.0 43.0 107.5
04/04/83 11645 410 PI 8.6 1 404 40.0 46.0 115.0
04/05/83 11648 410 PI 8.8 1 429 40.0 38.0 95.0
"" 04/06/83 11650 410 PI 9 1 361 40.0 40.0 100.0 I 04/07/83 11652 410 PI 9.1 1 401 40.0 36.0 90.0 "' 04/10/83 11654 410 PI 8.6 1 163 40.0 41.0 102.5
04/11/83 11656 410 PI 9.6 1 152 40.0 41.0 102.5
04/12/63 11659 410 PI 9.5 1 161 40.0 39.0 97.5
04/13/63 11661 410 PI 9 1 200 40.0 48.0 120.0
04/13/63 11661 410 Pl 9 1 187 40.0 54.0 135.0
04/13/83 11661 410 PI 9 1 178 40.0 46.0 115.0
04/14/83 11663 410 PI 8.8 1 304 40.0 48.0 120.0
04/17/83 11665 410 PI 9.1 1 225 40.0 52.0 130.0
04/18/83. 11667 410 PI 9 1 302 40.0 40.0 100.0
04/19/83 11670 410 PI 9.3 1 214 40.0 48.0 120.0
04/20/83 11672 410 PI 10 1 159 40.0 43.0 107.5
04/21/83 11674 410 PI 10.3 1 116 40.0 43.0 ·107 .5
12/14/62 11422 140 SCE 7 I 31
03/27/83 11633 410 SCE 7. I 1 1 40.0 42.0 105.0
03/28/83 11635 410 SCE 7.3 1 10 ND 40.0 34.0 85.0
03/29/83 11638 410 SCE 7.3 10 ND 40.0 38.0 95.0
03/30/83 11640 410 SCE 7.4 10 ND 40.0 46.0 115.0
03/31/83 11642 410 SCE 7. 2 10 tro 40.0 46.0 115.0
04/03/83 11644 410 SCE 7.2 10 ND 40.0 39.0 97.5
04/04/63 11646 410 SCE 7 .2 10 ND 40.0 46.0 115.0
04/05/83 11649 410 SCE 7.2 10 ND 40.0 37.0 92.5
04/06/83 11651 410 SCE 7 .2 10 ND 40.0 36.0 90.0
04/07/83 11653 410 SCE 7 .2 10 ND 40.0 37.0 92.5
04/10/83 11655 410 SCE 7.4 10 tlD 40.0 37.0 92.5
04/11/83 11657 410 SCE 7.3 10 ND 40.0 45.0 112.5
04/12/83 11660 410 SCE 7. 2 10 tlD 40.0 43.0 107.5 s~~u~gi lltti ~18 SCE r1 18 NB 40.0 52.0 130.0 SCE . 1 40.0 49.0 122.5
-
'" I
-..J
--
CONPOUH0(307)
COHPOUND( 207) =
CONPOUHD( 0071 =
, SAMPDATE SAMPLE
04/17/83 11666
04/18/83 11668
04/19/83 11671
•04/20/83 11673
04/21/83 11675
- -
CHLOROBENZEHE
CHLOROBENZ~HE-05
· CH LOROBENZEHE
--- -- -TABLE E,2 (GQnbnucd).
SAMPLING --RAW DATA LISTING --PLANT 2 ---- -
11:59 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1985 10
NOMINAL DETECTION LIMIT= 10
CONCENTRATION UNIT= UG/l - ------------------------------===========================================================-
LAB SITE PH DIL DETU'IO COHCO OETLM3 COHC3 SPKLVL SPKCONC % RECOV 1007) 1007) 1307) 1307) (207) ,( 207}
410 SCE 7. I I
410 SCE 7 10 ND 40.0 48.0 120.0 I
410 SCE 7.2 10 tID 40.0 49.0 122.3 I
410 SCE 7.2 JO ND 40.0 47.0 117 .5 I
410 SCE 7.2 10 ND 40.0 44.0 110.0 I 10 ND 40.0 44.0 110.0
l!!!!!!!!!!I l!!!!!!!!!!I I!!!!!
..
- -- -- --- -- ---I!!!!!!! !!!!!!I !!!!I e!!!5 == -TABLE E.3
SAMPLING --RAM DATA LISTING --PLANT 2 11:59 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2 7, 1985 24
COl"IPOUNO( 3251 1, 2-0ICHL0R0BENZENE
COl1POUND(225l : 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE-D4 NOMINAL DETECTION LIMIT= 10 COMPOUNDC025J : 1,2-0ICHLOROBENZENE
CONCENTRATION UNIT= UG/L ;;::===============================================================================================================================
SAMPOATE SAMPLE LAB SITE PH OIL DETLMO couco OETLM3 CONC3 SPKLVL SPKCONC 1/. RfCOV
( 0251 l 025 l ( 3251 f 325 I 1225) l 225 l
12/14/82 11421 140 AKEi 6.9 3) 10700
12/14/82 11423 140 ACEI 2 31 662
03/27/83 11636 4)0 EIC 9 1000 1350 80.0 40.0 50.0
04/07/83 11647 410 F.IC 7 1000 1554 50.0 27.0 54.0
04/10/83 11658 410 EIC 9 1000 4387 80.0 48.0 60.0
04/17/83 11669 410 EIC 6 1000 2455 80.0 54.0 67.5
04/17/83 11669 410 EIC 6 1000 2455 80.0 54.0 67 .5
04/17/83 11669 4)0 EIC 6 1000 2421 80.0 61.0 76.2
03/27/83 11632 410 PI 5.5 1000 1570 80.0 34.0 42.5 03/28/83 11634 410 PI 9 1000 1390 80.0 61.0 76.2
03/29/83 11637 410 PI 9.4 1000 1248 80.0 58.0 72.5
03/30/83 116'39 410 PI 9.5 1000 970 80.0 54.0 67.5
03/30/83 11639 410 PI 9.5 1000 970 80.0 54.0 67 .5
03/31/83 11641 410 PI 9.5 1000 1070 80.0 48.0 60.0
04/03/83 11643 410 PI 8.6 1000 603 80.0 30.0 37.5
"' 04/04/83 11645 410 PI 8.6 1000 486 80.0 65.0 81. 3 I 04/05/83 11648 410 PI 8.8 1000 429 50.0 36.0 72.0 00 04/06/83 11650 410 PI 9 1000 469 50.0 26.0 52.0
04/07/83 11652 410 PI 9. l 1000 753 50.0 40.0 80.0
04/10/83 11654 410 PI 8.6 1000 1075 80. 0 38.0 47 .5 04/11/83 11656 410 PI 9.6 1000 1276 80.0 65.0 81.3
04/12/83 11659 410 PI 9.5 1000 1017 80.0 58.0 72.5
04/13/83 11661 410 PI 9 1000 1393 80.0 74.0 92.5
04/13/83 11661 410 PI 9 1000 1282 80.0 78.0 97.5
04/13/83 11661 410 PI 9 1000 1122 80.0 67 .0 83.7
Olt/14/83 11663 410 PI 8.8 1000 1231 80. 0 48.0 60.0
04/17/83 11665 410 PI 9.1 1000 694 80.0 42.0 52.5
0'1/18/83 1_166 7 410 PI 9 1000 533 80.0 63.0 78.7 04/19/83 116 70 410 PI 9.3 1000 594 80.0 61.0 76.2
04/20/83 11672 410 PI 10 1000 729 80.0 57 .0 71.2 04/21/83 1167(1 410 PI 10.3 1000 984 80.0 72.0 90.0 12/l'f/82 11422 140 SCE 7 10 NO
03/27/83 11633 410 SCE 7 .1 1000 21 80.0 58.0 72.5 03/23/83 11635 410 SCE 7.3 1000 18 50.0 29.0 58.0 03/29i83 11638 '110 SCE 7.3 1000 19 80.0 42. 0 52.5
03/30/83 11640 410 SCE 7.4 1000 13 80.0 51. 0 63. 7 03/30/83 116'-IO 410 SCE 7.4 1000 10 IID 80.0 34.0 42.5
03/31/83 11642 410 SCE 7.2 1000 10 ND 80.0 46.0 57.5
04/03/83 11644 410 SCE 7 .2 1000 26 80.0 30.0 37.5 04/04/83 11646 410 SCE 7 .2 1000 25 50.0 26.0 52.0
04/05/83 11649 410 SCE 7 .2 1000 )8 50 .o. 38.0 76.0 04/06/83 I H..51 410 SCE 7 .2 1000 16 50.0 35.0 70.0
04/07/83 11653 410 SCE 7.2 1000 20 50.0 · 27 .o 54.0 Qlt/}0/83 1 )655 410 SCE 7.4 1000 15 80.0 42.0 52 .5 04/11/83 11657 410 SCE 7.3 1000 10 110 80.0 56.0 70.0 04/12/83 11660 410 SCE 7 .2 1000 10 ND 80.0 68.0 85.0 04/13/83 11662 410 SCE 7.3 1000 10 80.0 54.0 67 .5
- - -
'" I
"'
COMPOUHD{ 325 I
COHP□utm( 225 I
COl1POUN0(0251 =
SANPOATE SAMPLE
04/13/83 11662
04/13/83 11662
04/14/83 11664
04/17/83 11666
04/18/83 11668
04/1.9/83 11671
O't/20/83 11673
04/21/83 11675
-- -
1,2-0ICHLOROBEHZEtlE
1 , 2-DICHLOROBEUZEllE-D4
1,2-DICHLOROBEHZENE
LAB SITE PH DIL
410 SCE 7.3 1000
410 SCE 7.3 1000
410 SCE 7 .I 1000
410 SCE 7 .1 1000
410 SCE 7 1000
410 SCE 7 .2 1000
410 SCE 7.2 1000
410 SCE 7 .2 1000
- --- -
'T'11 BLE E. 3 (C:ont.imwd}
SAMPLING --RAW DATA LISTING --PLAUT 2
OETLMO COHCO DETLM3
I 0251 I 025) l 325 J
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-- - - -
11:59 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1985 25
NOMINAL DETECTION LIMIT= 10
COUCEHTRATIOU UNIT = UG/l
COUC3 SPKLVL SPKCOtlC
l 325 I l 225) 1225 I
ND 80.0 66.0
HD 80.0 66.0
HD 80.0 38.0
HD 80.0 43.0
HD 80.0 50.0
HD 80.0 48.0
ND 50.0 35.0
HD 80.0 57 .o
7. RECOV
82.5
82.5
47 .5
53. 7
62.5
60.0
70.0
71.2
- -
----- --------------TABLE E.4
SANPLIHG --RAW DATA LISTING --PLANT 2 11 :59 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1985 33
COMPOUND(338) .. ETIIYLBENZEtlE
C0NP0UtlDI 238) ETHYLBENZEHE-010 tlOMitlAL DETECTIOtl LIIHT = 10 COMPOUND ( 0 38 I ETHYLBEHZENE
COUCEHTRATIOH UNIT = UG/L -------===----------=--===--------=-=-====-----===-=======--======================================--==============================
SAMPOATE SAMPLE LAB SITE PH DIL OETLMO COHC0 DETLN3 CONC3 SPKLVL SPKCOt~C 7. RECOV
(038) ( 038) 1338) I 338) (238) (238)
12/14/82 11421 140 AKEi 6.9 I 24
12/14/82 -11423 140 ACEI 2 1 196 03/27/83 11636 410 EIC 9 20 2210 40.0 52.0 130.0 04/07/83 11647 410 EIC 7 I 3331 40.0 "•2.0 105.0 04/10/83 11658 410 EIC 9 I 514 40.0 36.0 90.0 011/17/83 11669 410 EIC 6 1 1527 40.0 38.0 95.0 04/17/83 11669 410 EIC 6 I 1413 40.0 41.0 102.5 04/17/83 11669 410 EIC 6 I 1358 40.0 39.0 97.5 03/27/83 11632 410 PI 5.5 1 507 40.0 46.0 115.0 03/28/83 l 1634 410 PI 9 I 512 40.0 45.0 112.5 03/29/83 11637 410 PI 9.4 I 449 40.0 42.0 105.0 03/30/83 11639 410 PI 9.5 I 401 40.0 37.0 92.5 03/30/83 11639 410 PI 9.5 I 394 40.0 44.0 110.0 03/31/83 11641 410 PI 9.5 I 307 40.0 37.0 92.5 ~ or+/03/83 11643 410 PI 8.6 I 367 40.0 42.0 105.0 ,-...Oti/04/83 11645 410 PI 8.6 I 390 40.0 50.0 125.0 OOf+/05/83 11648 410 PI 8.8 I 489 40.0 43.0 107.5 04/06/83 11650 410 PI 9 I 546 40.0 46.0 115.0 04/07/83 11652 410 PI 9. 1 1 596 40.0 37 .o 92.5 04/10/83 11654 410 PI 8.6 1 292 40.0 39.0 97.5 04/11/83 11656 410 PI 9.6 I 303 40.0 36.0 90.0 04/12/83 11659 410 PI 9.5 1 280 {10. 0 39.0 97.5 04/13/83 11661 410 PI 9 1 219 40.0 50.0 125.0 Olt/13/83 11661 410 PI 9 1 203 40.0 58.0 145.0 Q{t/13/83 11661 410 PI 9 1 198 40.0 47 .o 117 .5 04/14/83 11663 410 PI 8.8 I 171 40.0 48.0 120.0 04/17/83 11665 410 PI 9.1 I 96 40.0 53.0 132.5 04/18/83 l 1667 410 PI 9 1 176 40.0 42.0 105.0 Olt/19/83 11670 410 PI 9.3 1 181 40.0 48.0 120.0 04/20/83 11672 410 PI 10 I 146 40.0 43.0 107 .5 04/21/83 116 74 410 PI 10.3 119 40.0 43.0 107 .5 12/14/82 11422 140 SCE 7 10 ND 03/27/83 11633 410 SCE 7. I 10 ND 40.0 41.0 102.5 03/28/83 11635 ·410 SCE 7.3 10 ND 40.0 35.0 87.5 03/29/83 11638 410 SCE 7.3 10 tlD 40.0 39.0 97.5 03/30/83 11640 410 SCE 7.4 10 ND 40.0 51.0 127.5 03/31/83 11642 410 SCE 7. 2 10 ND 40.0 45.0 112.5 04/03/83 11644 410 SCE 7.2 10 tlD 40.0 36.0 90.0 04/04/83 11646 410 SCE 7.2 I 10 tlD 40.0 49.0 122.5 04/05/83 11649 4)0 SCE 7 .2 1 10 ttD 40.0 38.0 95.0 0(1/06/83 11651. 410 SCE 7.2 I 10 ND 40.0 38.0 95.0 04/07/83 11653 410 SCE 7.2 1 10 ND 40.0 36.0 90.0 04/10/83 11655 410 SCE 7.4 1 10 HD 40.0 35.0 87 .5 04/11/83 11657 410 SCE 7.3 1 10 HD 40.0 45.0 112.5 04/12/83 11660 410 SCE 7. 2 I 10 ND 40.0 43.0 107.5 04/13/83 11662 410 SCE 7.3 1 10 ND 40.0 51.0 127.5 04/14/83 11664 410 SCE 7. I I 10 ND 40.0 so.a 125.0
-
M I >--' >--'
--
CottPOlJtlOl 3381 =
C0NP0UH0l 238) =
COMPOUI /0 ( 0 38 J =
--
ETHYLBEtlZEUE
ETHYLBEtlZEUE-010
ETHYLBENZENE
- -- ---TABLE E.4 (Continued)
SANPLJNG --RAW DATA LISTUIG --, .. AtlT 2 -- - - -
12:21 I-IEOUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1985
NOMINAL DETECTION LIMIT = 10
COUCEUTRATIOU UNIT = UG/l -------------------------------=-========================================-------------------------------=-========================
SAl1POA TE SAl1PLE LAB SITE PH OIL OETLMO CotlCO DETLM3 CotlC3 SPKLVL SPKCotlC 1/. RECOV ( 038) ( 038) ( 338) ( 338) I 238 I 1238)
04/17/83 11666 410 SCE 7 .1 10 NO 40.0 49.0 122.5 04/18/83 11668 410 SCE 7 ID NO 40.0 49.0 122.5 04/19/83 116 71 410 SCE 7 .2 10 110 40.0 45.0 112.5 04/20/83 116 73 410 SCE 7 .2 10 rm 40.0 43. 0 107.5 04/21/83 11675 410 SCE 7.2 10 NO 40.0 43.0 107.5
-l!!!!!!I
- ----------------.. I!!!!!!
TABLE E.S.
SANPLitm RAW DATA LISTING --PLANT 2 11:59 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1985 70
COMPDUtm( 385) TETRACl'ILOROETHEHE
COMPOUND( 285) TETRACIILOROETHENE-1, 2-l 3C2 Hot11HAL DETECTION LIMIT = 10 CONPOUHD(085) a TETRACHLOROETHEHE
CONCEtlTRATION UNIT = UG/L =---===-----===--======-------=========----============--=========================================================================
SAMPOATE SAtJPLE LAB SITE PII DIL DETLNO CONCO OETLN3 CONC3 SPKLVL SPKCOHC 1/. RECOV
I 0851 I 085) ( 385) ( 385) 1285) (285)
12/14/82 11421 140 AKEI 101
12/14/82 11423 140 ACEI • 10 ND
03/27/83 11636 410 ElC 10 ND
04/07/83 11647 410 EIC 7 10 IID 04/10/83 11658 410 EIC 1 10 ND
04/17/83 11669 410 ElC 1 10
04/17/83 11669 410 ElC 1 10 ND
04/17/83 11669 410 ElC l 10 HD
03/27/83 11632 410 Pl 1 10 ND
03/28/83 11634 410 Pl I 10 ND
03/29/83 11637 410 Pl I 10 ND
03/30/83 11639 410 Pl I 11
03/30/83 11639 410 Pl I 10
03/31/83 11641 410 Pl 1 12
"" ll4/03/83 11643 410 Pl I 11 I 04/04/83 11645 410 Pl I 10 ND I-'
Iv 04/05/83 11648 410 Pl 1 IO ND
04/06/83 11650 410 Pl II
04/07183 11652 410 Pl 10 04/10/83 11654 410 Pl I 10 ND
04/1 l/83 11656 410 Pl I JO NO
04/12/83 11659 410 Pl I 10 HD 04/13/83 11661 410 Pl I 10 ND
04/13/83 11661 410 Pl l 10 ND
04/13/83 11661 410 Pl I 10 ' IID
04/14/83 11663 410 Pl I 10 ND 04/17/83 11665 410 Pl I 10 ND 04/18/83 11667 410 Pl I 10 tlD 04/19/83 11670 410 Pl I IO HD 04/20/83 11672 410 Pl I JO NO
04/21/83 116 74 410 Pl I JO ND
12/14/82 11422: 140 SCE 7 10 ND 03/27/83 11633 410 SCE 7 .1 10 ND
03/2:8/83 11635 410 SCE 7.3 10 tlD
03/2:9/83 11638 410 SCE 7.3 10 IID
03/30/83 11640 410 SCE 7.4 10 ND
03/31/83 11642 410 SCE 7 .• 10 tlD 04/03/83 11644 410 SCE 7 .• 10 ND
04/04/83 11646 410 SCE 7 .• 10 tlD
04/05/83 11649 410 SCE 7.2 10 ND 04/06/83 11651 410 SCE 1., 10 ND 04/07183 11653 410 SCE 7 .• 10 ND
04/10/83 11655 410 SCE 7.4 10 IID
04/11/83 J 1657 410 SCE 1 ID ND
04/12/83 11660 410 SCE 1., 10 ND 04/13/83 11662 410 SCE 7.l 10 ND 04/14/83 11664 410 SCE 7. 10 NO
-
"" I ,..,
w
- -
COIIP0UHU( 385} ::
COIIPOUIIDI 285 I :;
COIIPOUtlDI 0851 :::
SAMPO ATE St..11PLE
04/17/83 11666
04/18/83 11668
01t/l 9/83 116 71
04/20/83 11673
04/21/83 116 75
- --
TETR.).CHLOROEHIENE
TETRI.CHLOROETHENE-1, 2:-13C2
TE TR ACH LOR OE TlfEtlE
LAB SITE PH OIL
410 SCE 7 .1
410 SCE 7
410 ·see 7 .2
410 SCE 7.2
410 SCE 7 .2
-----TABLE E.5 (Continued)
SAMPLING --RAW DATA LISTING --p..__ .• 1• 2 --- -
12:21 WEDttESOAY, AUGUST 14, 1985
tl0f11NAL DETECTION UNIT = 10
CONCEtlTRATIOtl UNIT = UG/L
71
----------=--==============-------------------------===--=-
OETLNO couco OETLHJ COUC3 SPKLVL SPKCotlC 7. RECOV (085) (0851 l 385 l 1385) ( 285 J ( 285 I
10 tm
10 ND
10 tlD
10 ND
10 HD
----------e!!! 11!!!!9 !!!!9 == == == a;;; .a 8111
TABLE E.6
SAMPLING --RAW DATA LISTUIG --PLANT 2 11 :59 FRIDAY, SEPTEtlBER 27, 1985 72
COl1POUHD C 386 l ; TOLUENE
cm1POUtlO( 286 J ; TOLUENE-2,3,4,5,6-D5 NOMINAL DETECTION LIMIT= IO COMPOUND I 086 I T•JLUENE
======= ==::::-=====;:;:::.==--==---------------==---:;:;-:;;:;::;::;::::::::;::;:::;:;:;:;:;:::::::;:;::::::::::::::::::;::::;::::;:::::::::
:
:
:
:
:
:
;
c
o
u
c
E
N
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
=
U
N
I
T
=
=
=
U
G
/
L
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
-
=

SAHPOATE SAMPLE LAB SITE PH OIL DETLHO CONCO DETLH3 COUC3 SPKLVL SPKCONC ?. RECOV ( 086 I t 086 l ( 386 l I 386 J (2861 (2861
12/14/82 11421 140 AKEi 6.9 I 77 '12/14/82 11423 140 ACE! 2 1 03/27/83 11636 410 EIC 9 20 680
04/07/83 11647 410 EIC 7 1 291 40.0 47.0 117 .5
04/10/83 11658 410 EIC 9 I 766 40.0 36.0 90.0
04/17/83 11669 410 EIC 6 I 95 40.0 38.0 95.0
04/17/83 l 1669 410 EIC 6 I 529 40.0 36.0 90.0
04/17/83 11669 410 EIC 6 I 489 40.0 39.0 97.5
03/27/83 11632 410 Pl 5.5 I 468 40.0 41.0 102.5
03/28/83 11634 410 PI 9 I 122 40.0 43. 0 107.5
03/29/83 11637 410 PI 9.4 I 130 40.0 41. 0 102.5
03/30/83 11639 410 PI 9.5 1 144 40.0 41.0 102.5
03/30/83 11639 410 PI 9.5 I 126 40.0 43.0 107.5
'" 03/31/83 11641 410 PI 9.5 1 125 40.0 38.0 95.0
I 04/03/83 11643 410 Pl 8.6 I 107 40.0 38.0 95.0 ....
"' 04/04/83 11645 410 PI 8.6 I 139 40.0 37.0 92.5
04/05/83 11648 410 PI 8.8 I 154 40.0 45.0 112.5
04/06/83 11650 410 PI 9 I 150 40.0 40.0 100.0
04/07/83 11652 410 Pl 9. I I 155 40.0 41.0 102.5
114/10/83 11654 410 PI 8.6 I 148 40.0 36.0 90.0
81 40.0 40.0 100.0 04/11/83 11656 410 PI 9.6 I 04/12/83 11659 410 PI 9.5 I 95 40.0 37.0 92.5
04/13/83 11661 410 Pl 9 I 95 40.0 39.0 97.5
78 40.0 48.0 120.0 04/13/83 11661 410 PI 9 I 04/13/83 11661 410 PI 9 I 72 40.0 55.0 137 .5
04/14/83 11663 410 PI 8.8 1 69 40.0 47 .o 117 .5
138 40.0 48.0 120.0 04/17/83 11665 410 PI 9.1 I 94 40.0 52.0 130.0 04/18/83 11667 l1 l 0 Pl 9 I 107 40 .o 39.0 97 .5 04/19/83 11670 410 PI 9.3 I 87 40.0 46.0 115.0 04/20/83 11672 410 PI ID I 04/21/83 11674 410 PI 10.3 I 67 40.0 44.0 110 .o 60 40.0 43. 0 107.5 12/14/82 11422 140 SCE 7 03/27/83 11633 410 SCE 7.1 I· 10 ND
03/28/83 11635 410 SCE 7.3 10 ND 40.0 42.0 105.0 I 03/29/83 11638 410 SCE 7.3 I ID ND {10. 0 37.0 92.5
03/30/83 11640 410 SCE 7.4 I ID ND 40.0 40.0 100.0
OJ/31/83 11642 410 SCE 7.2 I ID 110 40.0 47 .o 117 .5
04/03/83 11644 410 SCE 7.2 I 10 ND 40.0 40.0 100.0
O'i/04/83 11646 410 SCE 7.2 1 10 ND 40.0 37 .o 92.5
04/05/83 11649 410 SCE 7.2 I 10 NO 40.0 48.0 120.0
04/06(83 11651 410 SCE 7.2 I ID ND 40.0 38.0 95.0
04/07/83 11653 410 SCE 7 .2 I ID ND 40.0 37.0 92.5
04/10/83 11655 410 SCE 7.4 I 10 11D 40.0 37.0 92.5
04/11/83 11657 410 SCE 7.3 1 10 ND 40.0 35.0 87.5
04/12/83 11660 410 SCE 7.2 I 10 NO 40.0 45.0 112 .5
04/13/83 11662: 410 SCE 7.1 I 10 NO 40.0 42.0 105.0 04/14/03 11664 410 SCE 7. 10 N8 40.0 so.a 125.o 10 40.0 47 .o 17 .5
-
'" I
f-"' en
- -
COMPOUND( 386 I ::;
C0HP0utlD( 286 J =
CONPOUNDI0861 =
SAHPOATE SAMPLE
04/17/83 11666
04/18/83 11668
04/19/83 11671
04/20/83 11673
04/21/83 11675
--
TOLUENE
TOLUENE-2,3,4,5,6-05
TOLUENE
LAB SITE PH
410 . SCE 7. 1
410 SCE 7
410 SCE 7 .2
410 SCE 7.2
410 SCE 7.2
-
OIL
1
1
1
l
l
I!!!!!! !!!! e!! I!!!
TABLE E.6 (Continued)
SAMPLING --RAW DATA LISTING --PLAUT 2
OETLNO COHCO OETLM3
I 086) I 086 l f 386)
10
10
10
10
10
11:59 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1985 7l
flOMlHAL DETECTION LI/"IIT = 10
CONCENTRATION UNIT= UG/L
CONC3 SPKLVL SPKCONC
( 386) 1286) ( 286 J
ND 40.0 46. 0
tlD 40.0 46.0
tlD 40.0 44.0
tlD 40.0 44.0
ND lt0.0 43. 0
i". RECOV
115.0
115.0
110. 0
110.0
107 .5
Ciiiil -
---
COMPOut/Dl 387J =
COMP□Wml 2871 =
COf1POUNOI 0871 =
SAl1PDATE SAMPLE
12/14/82 l l't21
12114/82 11423
03/27/83 11636
04/07/83 11647
04/10/83 11658
Olt/17/83 11669
03/27/83 11632
03/28/83 11634
03/29/83 11637
03/30/83 11639
03/31/83 11641
04/03/83 11643
04/04/83 11645
t:r:l 04/05/83 11648
I 04/06/83 11650 ~ 1)4/07/63 11652
Olt/10/83 11654
04/11/83 11656
04/12/83 11659
04/13/83 11661
04/14/83 11663
04/17/83 11665
04/18/83 11667
04/19/83 116 70
04/20/83 11672
04/21/83 11674
12/14/82 11422
03/27/83 11633
03/28/83 11635
03/29/83 11638
03/30/83 11640
03/31/83 11642
Ql1/03/83 11644
Ott/04/83 11646
04/05/83 11649
Olt/06/83 11651
04/07/83 11653
04/10/83 11655
Ot1/l l/83 11657
O<t/12/83 11660
ll4/l3/83 11662
04/14/83 11664
01+117183 11666
Ot,/18/83 11668
M/19/83 116 71 1)4/20/83 tJtt/21/83 1'673 1675
--
TRICHLOROETHEHE
TRICHLOROETHENE-13C2
TRICHLOROETHENE
LAB SITE Pit
140 AKEI 6.9
140 ACEI 2
410 EIC 9
410 EIC 7
410 EIC 9
410 EIC 6
410 PI 5.5
410 PI 9
410 PI
410 PI 9.5
410 PI 9.5
410 PI 8.6
410 PI 8.6
410 PI 8.8
410 PI 9
410 PI 9. 1
410 PI 8.6
410 PI 9.6
410 PI 9.5
410 PI 9
410 PI 8.8
410 PI 9.1
410 .PI 9
410 PI 9,3
410 PI 10
410 PI 10.3
140 SCE 7
410 SCE 7 .1
410 SCE 7.3
410 SCE 7.3
410 SCE 7.4
410 SCE 7.2
410 SCE 7 .2
410 SCE 7 .2
410 SCE 7.2
410 SCE 7.2
410 SCE 7 .2
410 SCE 7.4
410 SCE 7.3
410 SCE 7.2
410 SCE 7.3
410 SCE 7 .1
410 SCE 7.1
410 SCE 7
410 SCE 7 .2 410 SCE 7.2 410 SCE 7.2
-----TABLE E.7
SAMPLING --RAW DATA LISTING --PLAUT 2
OIL DETLMO CotlCO OETLM3
(087) (087) (387)
10 NO
10 NO
10 NO
10 NO
10 HO
10 NO
10 NO
10 NO
10 NO
10 HO
10 NO
10 HO
10 HO
10 ND
10 ND
10 HD
10 . HD
10 NO
10 HO
10 NO
10 ND
10 tm
10 HD
10 ND
10 ND
10 HO
10 ND
10 HD
10 ND
10 ND
10 ND
10 HD
10 NO
10 ND
10 ND
10 .ND
10 ND
10 ND
10 HD
10 ND
10 ND
10 ND
10 ND
10 HD
10 ND
jg N8
-- -- -
11:59 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1985 74
HOHIHAL DETECTION LIMIT = 10
CONCENTRATION UNIT= UG/l
COUC3 SPKtVL SPKCOHC
( 387) (2871 I 287)
% RECOV
- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I,
'I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX E
ORGANIC LOADINGS IN THE EXISTING
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM AND THE ADDITIONAL
CERCLA AND RCRA GROUND WATER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
u
I
m
APPENDIX E
ORGANIC LOADINGS IN THE EXISTING
BIOLOGICAL 'rREATMENT SYSTEM AND THE ADDITIONAL
CERCLA AND RCRA GROUND WATER
The existing biological treatment system with a capacity of 3.9 MGD
is currently treating approximately 2 MGD. The CERCLA ground water at
20 gpm or 28,800 gpd will be a small fraction ( 1. 4% l, of the present
wastewater
appropriate
flow. After pretreatment in an air stripper or another
extracted from the RCRA treatment unit, the ground water
area will be discharged to the biological treatment system at an
estimated flow rate of 175 gpm or 250,000 gpd. Table E.8 lists the
estimated concentrations and mass
CERCLA and RCRA ground water and
of the indicator parameten:l
the plant wastewater. The
in the
concen-
tration of the organic parameteri:; in the CERCLA ground water are based
on the peak plume concentrations predicted in each CERCLA area { solute
transport model), maximum recovery well yields, and the number of
recovery wells in each zone. The chemical characteristics of the RCRA
ground water are based on the sample analysis of wells within the RCRA
area. The average concentrations in the influent wastewater were
calculated from the data presented in a study conducted by EPA to
determine removal efficiencies. ( This report was summarized in the
previous section). The total mass loading rate for each parameter and
the corresponding concentration upon mixing were calculated and are
listed in Table E.8. Based on the removal efficiencies determined from
the EPA study, the effluent concentrations were estimated. On July 30,
1987 the effluent was sampled and analyzed with EPA Method 624. The
results indicated that all indicator parameters were below the reported
method detection limit.
The EPA study on the plant influent and effluent was conducted in
1983. Since that time organic loadings to the treatment facility have
been reduced significantly. The organic loading to the treatment
875J129 E-18
I I I I I
I
I
I ~8~~=~: •• 0
I
I i
I
I
I .
I 0 ' i • ' ' l ~
I 0 ;
' ' i • g
" i ·-~~·~~ ::: ;:: --
I
0 E-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
facility .is not expected to increase in the near future since Sandoz has
imposed internal limitations on production processes which might
increase the loading.
875J129 E-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
FOR NPDES PERMIT NO. NC0004375
-------------------
hJ
A. ( 1). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORltlG REQUIREMENTS Final (1) Sumner: April 1 -October 31
12) Winter: November 1 -March 31
Dur.Ing the period beglnnlngon the effective date of the Permit and lasting unt11 expiration, the
penntttee ls authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s). 001.
Such discharges shall be llmltetl and monitored by the pennlttee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristics Discharge L1m1tat1ons Monitoring Requirements.
Fl ow
BOD5 + .45 (HH3-H)
BOD5 + .45 (NH3-N)
TSS
Phenols
Fecal Coli form
Temperature
Kg/day (lbs/day)
Dally Avg. Dally Max.
(ll (2667)
(2} (4749)
443(976)
0.8(1.8)
(8,001)
(14,247)
1,329(2,928)
1.6(3 .6)
Other Units
Dally Avg.
3. 9 MGD
(Specify)
Datly Max.
1000/100 ml 2000/100 ml
••••
.. ..Measurement ,,.Sarrple • Sample
Frequency Type Location
Daily Con ti nuous I or E
Daily Composite •••••I,E,U,O
Daily Composite *****I ,E,U,D
Daily Composite I , E
Monthly Grab E
Monthly Grab E,U,D
Daily Grab E,U,O
~ Dissolved Oxygen 5.0 mg/1 Oa i ly Grab E,U,D
COD
Total Residue
Settleable Matter
•sample Locations: 1 -Influent, E -Effluent, U -Upstream, D -Downstream
**All stream samples shall be grab.samples.
Weekly
Weekly
Oa i ly
Composite E
Composite I , E
Grab E
•••Daily means every nay on which a discharge occurs except Saturday, Sunday, and legal holidays. Daily stream sampling
may be reduced at each sampling station to one time per week except during the months of June, July, August, and September
when the frequency must be no less than three (3) times per week at each sampling station. ,.,:z-o -a ro nro 0,
••••The temper8ture of the effluent shall be such that lt will not cause a temperature in the receiving stream ~-8~ ~
of more than 5 F above ambient stream water temperature. ~ ~ ~ -
•••••B005 only on upstream and downstream samples.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units
and shall be monitored daily by grab samples at I, E, U, and D.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam 1n other than trace amounts.
0. ~ :z
u,v,O
I •
N
0
I
00 w