NCD122263825_19920512_JFD Electronics - Channel Master_FRBCERCLA ROD_Draft Record of Decision-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E. ·RECl:IVED ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
MAY-12 B92
4WD-NSRB
Mr.· Jack Butler
NCDEHNR
Superfund Section
401 Oberlin Road
Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Mr. Butler:
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Record
JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site in
Carolina. Please review this document
convenience and provide any comments.
of June 30, 1992 is still in effect.
would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
}1lf t{.uvff ~
McKenzie Mallary
Remedial Project Manager
cc: Curt Fehn, NSRB
MAY 1 b 1992
SUPERfONO SECTION
of Decision for the
Oxford, North
at your earliest
The ROD signature date
Your timely response
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER SITE
OXFORD, GRANVILLE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA. GEORGIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DECLARATION
FOR
THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Oxford, Granville County, North Carolina
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for the JFD Electronics/Channel Master Superfund Site in
Granville county, North Carolina, chosen in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and, to the extent
praticable, the National Contingency Plan. This decision is
based on the administrative record file for this site.
The State of North Carolina concurs with the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the response
action selected in this Record of Decision, may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health,
welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This remedy addresses the principle threat posed by the Site.
The major threat is the contaminated groundwater emanating
from beneath the Site. This remedial action will also
address sludge and soil contamination.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The major components of the selected remedy include:
GROUNDWATER
SOIL
Extraction of groundwater across the site in the
overburden/fractured bedrock aquifer that is
contaminated above Maximum Contaminant Levels or the
North Carolina Groundwater Standards
On-site treatment of extracted groundwater via
Alkaline Chlorination, Precipitation/Filtration, Air
Stripping, and Carbon Adsorption to remove
contaminants to either MCLs or State Standards,
whichever are most protective;
Discharge of treated groundwater to the local POTW
or a nearby surface water pathway. The discharge
location will be determined in the Remedial Design
phase; and
Continued monitoring for contaminants in
groundwater.
Excavation of on-site contaminated soils;
On-site treatment of contaminated sludge and soils
using Reduction-Oxidation and Stabilization until
the Treatability Variance levels established for the
metals of concern have been met;
On-site disposal, or backfilling, of the treated
sludge/soil into the excavated area;
Placing a Non-RCRA cap over the treated sludge and
soil to: 1) minimize the potential for adverse
health risks due to direct contact with residual
contamination, 2) impede the infiltration of any
residual contamination into the groundwater aquifer,
and 3) minimize the possibility for surface water
runoff from the area of contamination.
ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AND MONITORING
Additional sampling and analyses of the aquifer to
determine the extent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and metals.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements
that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to
the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technology to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies
the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element. Since this remedy may result in hazardous
substances remaining on-site above health based levels, a
review will be conducted within five years after commencement
of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
Greer C. Tidwell
Regional Administrator
Date
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A.
B. c.
D.
Introduction . .
Site Description
Topography . . .
Geology/Hydrogeology ..
E. Surface Water .. . . . . . . . . . . .
F.
G.
I.
Meteorology ... . . . . . . . . . . .
Demography and Land Use
Utilities ••... . . . . . . . . . .
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Site History •••..
B. Enforcement Activities
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
WITHIN SITE STRATEGY ....
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
. . . . . .
A. Groundwater Investigation ........ .
B. Sludge/Soil Investigation ........•
C. Surface Water/Sediment Investigation
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS ••.
A. Contaminants of Concern
B. Exposure Assessment .. c. Toxicity Assessment ..
. . . . . . .
D. Risk Characterization Summary
E. Environmental (Ecological) Risk
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
7
8
8
9
9
18
36
42
42
42
53
54
54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
SECTION PAGE NO.
VII. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS (ARARs) ... 59
59
59
60
A.
B. c.
Action-Specific ARARs .
Location-Specific ARARs
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . 6 0
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) .•.. 60
NC Groundwater Standards . . . . . . . . 60
Sludge/Soil . . . . . . 61
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 66
A.
B.
Remedial Alternatives to Address
Groundwater Contamination
1. No Action . . . . . . . • . •
2. Institutional Actions ..•.
3. Collection/Treatment/Disposal
4. Collection/Treatment/Disposal
5. Collection/Treatment/Disposal
Remedial Alternatives to Address
Sludge/Soil Contamination
66
71
71
73
76
1. No Action . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 78
2. Institutional Controls .........•. 78
3. Excavation/Off-Site Disposal ........ 78
4. Excavation/Treatment/On-Site Disposal. 79
5. Excavation/Treatment/On-Site Disposal . 80
IX. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 82
A. GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION. . . . . . • . . . . . . 85
Overall Protection ............. 85
Compliance with ARARs . . . . . . . . . . 85
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. . 86
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 86
Short-term Effectiveness 86
Implementability 86
Cost. . . . . . . . . . 87
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
SECTION PAGE NO.
B. SLUDGE/SOIL REMEDIATION. . . . . . . . . . 88
Overall Protection . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Compliance with ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. . 89
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 89
Short-term Effectiveness 89
Implementability. 89
Cost . • • . . . . . . . 89
C. MODIFYING CRITERIA .............. 90
State Acceptance .............. 90
Community Acceptance 90
X. SELECTED REMEDY. 91
A.
B. c.
D.
Groundwater Remediation 91
Sludge/Soil Remediation 98
Cost. . . . . . . . 100
Treatability Studies ........••..• 100
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS ....•........ 103
I
I
I
I
I FIGURE
1
2
I 3
4
5
I 6
7
8
9
I 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE NO.
Site Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Potential Areas of Contamination 6
Groundwater Sampling Locations. . . . . 11
Borehole Location Map .......•..... 19
Soil GC Results-Parking Lot Area ....... 28
Soil Sample Locations-Sludge Drying Bed Area .. 29
Surface water/Sediment Sampling Locations 38
Sludge/Soils to be Remediated ........ 62
Process Flow Diagram for
Groundwater Treatment System. .94
Conceptual Flow Diagram for
Sludge/Soil Treatment System. 99
I
I
I
I TABLE
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE NO.
I 1 Selected Groundwater Analytical Results -
Volatiles and Semi-Volatiles . . . 11
2 Selected Groundwater Analytical Results -
I 3
Monitoring Wells . . . . . . . . . 13
Selected Groundwater Analytical Results -
Residential Wells . . . . . . . . 15
4 I 5
Selected Groundwater Results-.....
Temporary Wells . . . . . . . . . . 16
Selected Soils Sample Results -·
Background Locations . . . . . . . . 20
I 6 Selected Soil Sample Results-..... .
Borehole CMBH12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7 Selected Soil Sample Results-....... .
I 8
Lagoon Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2
Selected Soil Sample Results-...... .
Borehole CMBH04 . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9
I 10
Distribution of Nickel, Chromium, Copper. • 26
Selected Soil Sample Results-.....•.
Sludge Drying Bed Area. . . . . . . . 30
11 Sludge Sample TCLP Results . . . . . . . . . 37
I 12
13
Selected Sample Results ......••..
Surface water/Sediment. . . . . . . . 40
Chemicals of Potential Concern ..... .
I 14
for Sludge/Soil/Sediment. . . . . . • 43
Chemicals of Potential Concern ..... .
for Groundwater/Surface water. . . . . 45
15 Exposure Parameters for Current and Future.
I 16
17
Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Contaminants of Concern. . . . . . . . . . 55
Summary of Carcinogenic and Non-..... .
I 18
19
carcinogenic Risks . . . . . . . . . . 56
Summary of Groundwater Cleanup Goals 62
Soil Remediation Levels . . . . . . . 63
20 Preliminary Screening of Alternatives. . • 67
I 21
22
Summary of Cleanup Alternatives . . . . . . 84
Performance of Groundwater Alternative 4 . • 92
23 Groundwater Alternative 4 Costs . . . . • • 100
I 24 Sludge/Soil Alternative 4 Costs . . . • . . 101
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1-
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
The JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site (the Site) is located
at 620 West Industry Drive, Oxford, North Carolina, in
central Granville County. The Site is located approximately
2 miles southwest of Oxford. Since the construction of the
main building in 1961, JFD Electronics owned and operated
various activities primarily associated with the manufacture
of television antennas until 1979. From 1980 through 1984,
Channel Master owned the property and assembled satellite
systems at the Site. All manufacturing/assembly operations
at the Site ceased in 1984; Channel Master moved its
operations to their Smithfield, North Carolina facility.
B. Site Description
The Site is located on a 13.09-acre parcel of property.
property is bordered to the north by Pine Tree Road, to
west by Industry Drive, to the south by a railroad line
by Southern Railroad, and to the east by a residential
development. Refer to Figure 1.
The
the
owned
The main building at the Site is currently being utilized by
Hamilton/Avnet Electronics as a warehouse distribution
center. A smaller building located on-Site is currently
being used by the Bandag Corporation as a distribution
warehouse.
C. Topography
The Site, located in Granville County, is situated in the
Piedmont physiographic province in north-central North
Carolina. The Piedmont physiographic province surrounding
the Site is characterized by a broad, relatively level
highland, with ground surface elevations on-Site ranging from
448 to 478 feet above mean sea level.
- -- - - -
10385 BAS[MAP!.OGN J/10/91
OXFORD
PRINT1NC
CRISTEX
BUILDING
- - -- -
--~
·-="" MER -..----.._,
EATMENT -· \
PLANT HNKS
0
Figure l
Base Map
Channel Master Site
.
- - - -
••
CONCRETE
PAD
300
SCALE IN FEET
600
---- -
LEGEND
rENCE LINE
DRAINAGE CREO:
PROPERTY LINE
TREE lJf,1£
RAILROAD
I "' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-3-
D. Geology/Hydrogeology
The Site lies within the geologic belt known as the Carolina
Slate Belt. The Carolina Slate Belt generally consists of
crystalline basement rocks of unknown age overlain by a
volcanogenic sequence of late Precambrian to early Paleozoic
age. Most of these rocks near the surface have weathered
into a layer of "overburden", generally ranging in thickness
from 55 to 60 feet at the Site. This layer consists of
weathered bedrock, saprolite, residual soils, and to a lesser
extent, alluvium.
Groundwater at the Site occurs in an unconfined-to-
semiconfined aquifer consisting of overburden hydraulically
interconnected with underlying bedrock. Approximate depth to
groundwater generally ranges from 7 to 11 feet below land
surface. The saturated thickness in the overburden portion
of the aquifer is 40 to 50 feet. During the wetter periods
of the year, groundwater may intersect the ground surface at
specific locations of the drainage ditch located along the
southern border of the Site.
Site soils are classified as Appling loamy sands and
Appling-Urban land complex. Appling loam soils are
characterized as well-drained soils on nearly level to
strongly sloping piedmont uplands (e.g., sandy loam, clay.
clay loam, sandy clays). Urban land complex soils at the
Site are the result of both construction and former cleanup
activites undertaken by the owners/operators of the facility.
E. Surface Water
Surface water drainage and flow patterns on the Site are
generally controlled by grading and several man-made drainage
ditches. Runoff and drainage from the main building, the
parking areas south of the main building, and the former
lagoon and treatment tank area, generally flow southward and
are collected by the drainage ditch flowing along the
southern border of the property. Runoff and drainage on the
eastern portion of the Site generally flow into a drainage
ditch that borders the eastern edge of the Site. The two
drainage ditches converge near the southeastern corner of the
Site and flow southward approximately 1.75 miles to Fishing
Creek.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-4-
Potentiometric data indicates that groundwater generally
flows to the southeast beneath the Site, then turns eastward
in the vicinity of the Southern Railroad right-of-way. This
flow pattern is consistent with the topographic slope and the
direction of intermittent stream flow in the area.
Water level data and piezometers in the upper portions of the
aquifer have shown that horizontal hydraulic gradients range
from 0.014 to 0.021 (with an average gradient of 0.018).
Hydraulic gradient values in the deeper wells at the site
were slightly higher, ranging from 0.006 to 0.017 (with an
average of 0.011).
G. Meteorology
Granville County has a relatively moderate climate, with mild
winters and hot, humid summers. Seasonal temperatures
average between 42 and 44° in January to 78 and 80° in
July. Yearly rainfall across this portion of the Piedmont
averages between 44 to 48 inches.
The average wind speed throughout the Piedmont is 9 miles per
hour. Winds generally blow from a south/southwesterly
direction.
H. Demography and Land Use
The Channel Master Site is located in an industrial park, and
land use to the Site's west, northwest, and southwest is
primarily industrial/light manufacturing and storage.
Residential areas are located east and southeast of the
Site. The average population density in Granville County,
North Carolina, according to preliminary 1990 census data, is
72.2 persons per square mile. This density increases to 164
persons per square mile in. the city of Oxford.
The downtown area of Oxford lies approximately 2 miles
northeast of the Site. The projected population of the city
by 1995 is estimated to be 42,425.
I. Utilities
Electricity, telephone, natural gas, and city water are
available at the Site. Granville County sewerage connection
is available at the Site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-5-
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Site History
From 1962 to 1979 JFD Electronics manufactured television
antennas at the facility. An unlined lagoon was built from
1964 to 1965 to dispose of wastewater generated from a
chromate conversion process and a copper/nickel
electroplating process. The lagoon reportedly held from
800,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of sludge during its operation.
In October 1979, Channel Master Satellite Systems, Inc., a
subsidiary of Avnet Inc., assumed occupancy of the property.
Channel Master bought the property in 1980 and produced
satellite systems from 1980 to 1984. Indoor and outdoor
antennas, amplifiers, and boosters were also assembled
on-Site during this time period. Organic solvents were
reportedly used on-Site for cleaning tools and the antenna
elements prior to sending them off-Site for electroplating.
Reported sources of contamination at the Site included the
sludge lagoon and eleven sludge drying beds, an unconfirmed
number of underground storage tanks, soils contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with a leaking
waste oil tank, and several other areas associated with
disposal practices of cleaning solvents. Refer to Figure 2.
The North Carolina Department of Human Resources -CERCLA
unit (NCDHR-CERCLA) (now called the North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources or NCDEHNR)
conducted a site inspection on February 23, 1987. Analyses
of the lagoon sludge and adjacent soils revealed the presence
of chromium, lead, arsenic, cyanide, and voes. Sampling of
the groundwater revealed the presence of dichloroethane,
trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and xylene.
Channel Master initiated cleanup activities at the Site in
June 1987 under the supervision of the NCDHR-CERCLA unit.
These activities included excavating approximately 17,000
cubic yards of contaminated sludge/soil and disposing of it
in a permitted waste disposal facility. Approximately 2,000
cubic yards of voe-contaminated soil were also excavated and
thermally treated to release the voes. In July 1988, Channel
Master excavated and disposed of two fuel oil tanks and one
concrete waste oil tank.
--
CONCRETE
PAO -
-
l
FORHER .. ..,
IN-GROUND
CONCR[l[ WASTE OIL TAHX
(1910 SURVEY MAP I
FORMER I" CONCR(l[ PIP[
FORMER voe CONTAMINATED
DRAINAGE AREA IS • M£ 19161
FORMER SCRAP MCTAL
-
TRAIUR PARklNC AREA IS • ME 19161
OXFORD PRINTING
100
SCALE IN HH
10385 FIGRl-6.0GN l/10/92
-
.,,
--
POTENTIAL WEST
UST AREA
---
---
Figure 2
-- -
FORMER SHALLOW OVAL PIT
{1%5 AERIAL PHOTOI
Potential Onsite Contamination Areas
Channel Master Site
- --
POWHIAL EAST
UST AREA
SLUDGE DRYING AREA
11%5 AERIAL PHOTOI
LEGEND
-
POTENTIAL USTS
FENCE LINE
CREEK
PROPERTY LINE
RAILROAD
-
PILE or VOC-CONTAMINAT[O
SOIL PRIOR TO TREATMENT
rm 11 SLUOCE DRYING BEDS
-
I er
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-7-
Site visits were conducted by representatives of the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in March
1989 and later by EPA in September 1989. Based on these
inspections and information collected since 1988, both
agencies concluded that contamination still existed at the
Site which warranted further investigation. This
contamination was thought to include soils contaminated with
voes, groundwater contaminated with voes, and
metal-contaminated sludge/soil associated with the sludge
drying beds.
B. Enforcement Activities
The JFD Electronics/Channel Master Superfund Site was
proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1988
and was finalized on the list on October 1989.
On April 25, 1989, EPA sent special notice letters to the
following companies:
1. Channel Master
2. JFD Electronics
3. Unimax Corporation
The letters requested that the potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) conduct a Remedial Invstigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the Site. The notice letters
also informed the PRPs of their liability for past costs. On
November 8, 1989, EPA sent a letter to the PRPs informing
them at the Agency had made the decision to proceed with a
fund-lead RI/FS.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-8-
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Pursuant to CERCLA 113(K)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117, the RI/FS
Reports and the Proposed Plan for the Channel Master Site
were released to the public for comment on April 9, 1992.
These documents were made available to the public in the
Administrative Record located in an Information Repository
maintained at the EPA Docket Room in Region IV and at the
Richard H Thorton Public Library in Oxford, North Carolina.
The notice of availability for these documents was published
in the Oxford Ledger and the Durham Herald Sun newspapers on
April 9, 1992. A public comment period on the documents was
held from April 9, 1992 to May 8, 1992. In addition, a
public meeting was held on April 16, 1992. At this meeting,
representatives from EPA answered questions about problems at
the Site and the remedial alternatives under consideration.
Due to public request, a 30-day extension of the comment
period was granted, and will conclude on June 8, 1992.
Other community relations activities included issuance of a
fact sheet on the RI/FS process in January 1990 and issuance
of a fact sheet on the results of the RI in February 1992.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
The intent of this remedial action presented in this ROD is
to reduce future risks at this Site. This remedial action
will remove the threat posed by contaminated groundwater and
sludge/soil at the Site. Remediating the sludge/soil will
prevent the contaminants from adversely impacting the
groundwater and will decrease the direct contact threat
associated with Site sludge/soils. This is the only ROD
contemplated for the Site. No other operable units have been
identified at this Site, and will reduce the possibility of
runoff from the Site adversely impacting surface water and
sediments.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-9-
v. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI at the Channel Master Site included the characterization of groundwater, sludge/soil, and surface water/sediment contamination.
A. Groundwater Investigation
The groundwater investigation was conducted in two phases; phase I was conducted in January-February 1991 and phase II was conducted in September-November 1991. Refer to Figure 3 for groundwater sample locations. In the first phase, a hydrocone sampling device was utilized to collect 34 samples from 19 locations on-Site. Samples were collected at depths ranging from 15 to 24 feet below land surface. The hydrocone sampling instrument was used both as a field screening device to qualify the existence of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the Site, and a means of determining where to locate the permanent monitoring wells during phase I.
Thirty-four hydrocone samples were analyzed on-site with a HNU Model 311 Gas Chromatograph (GC); the GC analyses were for the voes trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), and perchloroethene (PCE) only. The results of the GC analyses indicated that voes were present in the groundwater from the parking lot south of the main building, to the former lagoon area, and migrating off-Site to the southeast. Total concentrations of TCE, 1,2-DCE, and PCE, as measured by the GC, ranged from 98,000 ug/1 in the parking lot area south of the main building (HC0l) to 31,000 ug/1 at the facility boundary near the former lagoon location (HC02). Other hydrocone sample locations (background and those in the eastern half of the Site) indicated lower total voe concentrations.
Based on the GC results, certain hydrocone samples described in the previous paragraph were selected to be analyzed through EPA's Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). The analytical parameters for those samples included field parameters (pH, temperature, specific conductance), Target Compound List (TCL) volatiles, semivolatiles, and pesticides, as well as Target Analyte List (TAL) metals. Total concentrations of TCE, 1,2-DCE, and PCE in four of the hydrocone samples from the parking lot area south of the main building ranged from 364,410 ug/1 to 697 ug/1. The remaining three samples (background and those in the eastern half of the Site) indicated lower voe concentrations. Table 1 shows analytical results from six on-site hydrocone locations.
- -- -
OXFORD PRINTING
LEGEND
FENCE LINE
CREEK
PROPERTY LINE
RAILROAD
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
HYDROCONE SAMPLING LOCATION
TEMPORARY WELL
TEMPORARY WELL 'il TH
PlfZONETER
MARSH
TREE LINE
20JB5 \1£LL5-4.DGN 1/JD/92
-
0 QIICOl
--.. - -- -
Figure J
GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
AT THE CHANNEL MASTER SITE
-- -..
200
-
400
.....
0
I
-
-------------------
CONTAMINANT
I , I , I-Trichloroethane
Benzene
I , I ,2-Trichloroethane
I, 1-Dichloroethane
I , 1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
I ,2-Dichloroethene
Toluene
Acetone
Xylenes
Carbon Tetrachloride
Ethy I Benzene
Methyl Butyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
1 = Estimated Value
ND = Not Detected
TJl.5
Table 1
Volatile Organics results (ug/L) for Hydrocone Samples Submitted to CLP Laboratory
CMHC0I21 CMHC032l CMHCIOIS CMHC0515 CMHCI024 CMHClllS
2901 ND 21 ND 11 ND
ND ND 21 ND ND ND
150 ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND 28 ND 7 ND
150 5 17 ND 41 ND
ND ND 21 ND ND ND
2101 15 630 ND 540 ND
IO ND ND ND ND ND
96 ND 86 ND ND ND .
20 ND ND ND ND ND
2201 ND ND ND ND ND
21 ND ND ND ND ND
3701 ND ND ND ND ND
8101 ND ND ND ND ND
42001 24001 ND ND ND ND
360,000 I I ,000 100 ND 97 87
ND ND 61 ND 31 ND
CMHCI315
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
61
ND
ND
I .... ....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-12-
Based on the results of the hydrocone sampling, five
permanent monitoring wells were installed on-Site
(CMMW01-CMMW05). Four of the wells were completed at depths
ranging from 45 to 55 feet below land surface, including the
upgradient well, and the fifth well was completed at 35
feet. During phase I, samples were collected from each of
the five monitoring wells on-Site as well as from three
off-Site residential wells. Refer to Figure 3 for the phase
I and II groundwater sample locations on or adjacent to the
Site. Refer to Figure 4 for the locations of the residential
well samples.
Total concentrations of TCE, 1,2-DCE, and PCE in four of the
wells ranged from 6,550 ug/1 to 925 ug/1. The upgradient
well, CMMW0l, did not contain any voes. The metals chromium,
copper, and nickel were also detected in the monitoring wells
at concentrations ranging from 120-33 ug/1, 220-33 ug/1, and
91-29 ug/1 respectively. Refer to Table 2.
Sample analyses from the three residential wells (CMPW0l,
Finch well; CMPW02, Hightower well; and CMPW03, Knott well)
did not indicate any TCL voes or SVOCs/pesticides during
phase I. All of the wells (sampled at the tap) revealed
elevated levels of copper, most likely due to the copper
pipes used for the delivery system. Cyanide was detected in
CMPW0l at 6.6 ug/1. No other Site-related metals were
detected in any of the wells. Refer to Table 3.
Based on the results of the first phase of groundwater
sampling performed in January-February 1991, EPA conducted a
second phase of groundwater sampling in September-November
1991. A total of thirty temporary wells were installed in
the shallow portion of the aquifer. Three of the temporary
wells were installed on-site and twenty-seven were installed
at locations south of the railroad tracks. Refer to Figure 3
for these locations. Six samples (CMTW0l, CMTW02, CMTW03,
CMTW08, CMTW24, AND CMTWBH17,20) were analyzed through the
CLP for confirmation of the field screening data. Refer to
Table 4.
In addition to the temporary wells, three permanent
monitoring wells were installed at locations south of the
railroad tracks in the intermediate-deep portion of the
aquifer (depths ranging from 56 to 78 feet below land
surface). Four residential wells were also sampled during
phase 2.
-- -
CMMW0I
2/6/91 9/25/91
I, I Dichloroethene
I, I Dichloroelhnne
1,2 Dichloroethane
Tctrachlorocthenc
Trichloroethene
I, 1,2 Trichloroethane
I, I, I Trichloroctlumc
Vinyl Chloride
I ,2,3 Trichloropropnnc
2+Nitrophenol
Phenol
Xylcnes
Chloroform
Ben1.cnc
E1hylbenzene
Toluene
Unidentiricd TICs
Alpha BHC
Phthnlates
- -- - - - - - -- -
Table 2
Selected Analytical Results (µg/L) for Groundwater Monitoring Wells
CMMW02 CMMW03 CMMW04 CMMW05 CMSME0I CMMW06"
ln/91 9/25/91 2n/91 9/25/91 2/8/91 9/25/91 2n191 9/26/91 2/5/91 10/26/91
(I) (2) (3) (4)
I) 51
2J
41 250 100 75 76 1501 340 3.41
890 1200 2700 1800 250 330 2100 2400 77
4300 3800 3600 3800 600 1200 3600 3800 14
I) 21
31
51
41
54 55
4/100 1/201
.052
-
CMMW07"
10/26/91
3.61
45
26
1/401
- -
CMMW0S"
10/26/91
I.JI
1/201
.... w I
--- - -- ---- -
Table 2 (cont.)
CMMWOI CMMW02 CMMW03 CMMW04
Z/6/91 9/25/91 2/7/91 9/25/91 2nt91 9/25/91 Z/8/91 9/25/91
(I) (2) (3)
Naphthalene
Aluminum 4900 240 76000 1100 26000 220 13000 400
Arsenic ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ba 88 33 510 41 290 70 140 90
Be ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Cd ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Cr 33 ND 120 ND 37 ND 13 ND
Co ND ND 71 ND ND(40) ND 21 9)
Cu ND ND 220 ND 65 ND 33 ND
Pb ND ND 15 ND 6 ND ND ND
Hg ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ni ND ND 91 ND 70 ND ND ND
jzn ND ND 360 ND 150 ND 64 ND
CN ND ND ND ND ND ND 800 1100
- - -- -
CMMWOS CMSMEOI CMMW06"
2/7/91 9/26/91 2/5/91 IO/Z6/91
(4)
3600 9700 64000 9400
ND ND ND ND
89 110 620 53
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND 29 35 38
ND 135 55 14
ND 31 38 22
5 ND 25 ND
ND ND ND ND
ND 29 71 42
44 76 450 52
ND ND ND ND
-
CMMW07"
10/26/91
1300
ND
57
ND
ND
50
ND
10
ND
ND
ND(20)
ND
ND
- -
CMMWOS"
10/26/91
100
ND
34
ND
ND
ND
ND
II
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I .... ..,.
I
-------------------Table 3
Selected Analytical Results (µg/L) for Potable Wells Near Channel Master
CMPWOl CMPW02 CMP03
(Finch Well) (Hightower Well) (Knott Well)
1/11/91 9/26/91 1/11/91 9/26/91 1/11/91 9/26/91
Volatiles ND ND ND ND ND ND
Semi-Volatilt:s ND ND ND ND ND ND
Hepachlor Epoxide ND ND ND ND ND ND
Arsenic ND ND ND ND ND ND
Barium 75 63 42 38 43 48
Be ND ND ND ND ND ND
Cd ND ND ND ND ND ND
Cr ND ND ND ND ND ND
Co ND ND ND ND ND ND
Cu 1801 180 3101 430 71J 89
Ph ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ilg ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ni ND ND ND ND ND ND
Zn ND 14 ND 3.8 ND 12
CN 6.6 NA ND NA ND NA
ND = Not Detected
NA = Not AnalyzeJ For
MOIS
CMPW04
(Brooks Well)
9/26/91
ND
ND
.015
ND
25
ND·
ND
ND
ND
280
ND
ND
ND
II
NA
I ....
V, I
--- - - - - -- - - - -
Figure 4
Selected CLP Results µg/L for Temporary Wells
Shallow Groundwater
CMTWOI CMTW02 CMTW03 CMTW08
9/16/91 9/16/91 9/16/91 10/7/91
Beryllium 80] 91 87) ND
Cadmium ND ND ND ND
Chromium 6401 260) 1400) 89
Cohalt 720] 240] 1500] 26
Copper 1900 250 2600 49
Lead 240 30 270 ND
Mercury .4 ND .93 ND
Nickel 540 280 1500 58
Zinc 2900 820 4000 59
Cyanitle ND ND ND ND
J estimated value
ND( ) not detected
( ) dett:ction limits
A peak avernge
1'09:'i
- -
CMTW24
10/7/91
50
ND
1300
1200
4400
ND(400)
ND
870
3900
ND
--
CM1WBHl720
9/30/91
ND
14)
250
460
ND
32
ND
350
2600
ND
-
I ....
'r
-
----- ----- --·-
Table 4 (cont:.)
Selected CLP Resull< µg/L for Temporary Wells
Shallow Groundwater
CMTWOI CMTW02 CMTW03 CMn'\108
9/16/91 9/ 16/9 I 9/16/91 10/7/91
1, I, I-Trichloroethane 409AJ
I, 1,2-Trichloroethane 84
I, 1-Dichloroethane 4101
1,2-Dichloroethene 2900 IOOO 92 9.71
I, 1-Dichloroethene 1200AJ 31
1,2-Dichloroethane I I JO
Telrnchlorc1ethene I 1000 13 1700 130
Trichloroethene 90000 46 3300 261
Vinyl Chloride 170 1400
Chloroform JO
Benzene 61 JJ
Ethyl henzene 18
Toluene 570AI 21
Uniden1ified TICs J 19001
Aluminum 580000 120000 920000 JIOOO
Arsenic ND ND ND ND
Barium ?JOO 2000 12000 220
1'09.:'i
--
CI\ITW24
10/7/91
431
JOO
351
860000
ND(JOO)
4300
--
CMTWBHI720
9/30/91
61
55
13
640000
ND
1800
-
I ... .... I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-18-
GC analyses from the temporary wells indicated total voe
concentrations of TeE, 1,2-DeE, and PeE generally decreased
as distance increased away from the parking lot south of the
main building. One on-Site well (eMTW0l) indicated 281,100
ug/1 voes while off-Site voe concentrations ranged from 1,630
ug/1 to none detected.
B. Sludge/Soil Investigation
The sludge/soil investigation was conducted in two phases.
Surface and subsurface soils were analyzed for TAL metals,
cyanide, TeL voes, svoes, and Peas/Pesticides. During phase
I, samples were collected from a background location, the
parking lot area, the former lagoon area, and the sludge
drying bed area as shown in Figure 4. A total of 82 soil
samples were collected from 12 boreholes (eMBH0l through
eMBH12) at 5-foot intervals to a depth of 40 feet below land
surface. Tables 5-9 show selected analytical results for
soil samples collected from the boreholes.
TeL voes were found primarily in three of the boreholes
located in the parking lot area (eMBHl0, eMBH13, and
eMBH16). The largest concentration of voes found in the soil
occurred at 5 to 7 feet below land surface in eMBHl0 (11,200
ug/kg). svoes (primarily PAHs) and pesticide compounds.were
detected in the fill horizons of boreholes eMBH05, eMBH09,
eMBHl0, eMBH12, and eMBH16.
Several boreholes indicated elevated levels of chromium,
copper, and nickel down to 40 feet. Analytical results for
phase I sludge samples eMSPG4A and eMSPE3A indicated elevated
levels of chromium (24,000 mg/kg), nickel (11,000 mg/kg),
zinc (2,000 mg/kg), copper (1,600 mg/kg), and cyanide (40J
mg/kg).
Based on the phase I sludge/soil analytical results,
additional samples were collected during phase II from the
parking lot area (see Figure 6), the former lagoon area
(Figure 5), and the sludge drying bed area (see Figure 7 and
Table 10). Eight subsurface soil samples (eMeP0l through
eMeP08) were collected from the parking lot area south of the
main building at depths from 6 to 10 feet below land surface
and analyzed on-site with the GC to investigate the possible
presence of residual voe contamination in the area of the
former 8-inch discharge pipe. GC analytical results revealed
elevated voe levels in 5 boreholes, with a maximum TeE
concentration of 17,000 ug/kg in sample eMeP02.
... --
LEGEND
--- -
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::: "®.NHEL .MAS-iE'
·-:-:-::::: MAIN 8\JllDIN
. ·.·.::::::::::::::::
~-~..:::,,... CMBHOB
OXFORD PRINTING
- -- - - -- -- -
FENCE LINE
Hl9 CMBH!1 f
DeH06 __ = = --_ CMBH20 1..---·.
-
PROPERTY LINE
RAILROAD
TREE LINE
Cll8HOS -·--..,, ~ ( -:_ --c..c-_. _ ... ---·-·__)
CMBH04 ---------.... _..-1.l -·'-... , .,,-., _ _,, ... ...._ ... ----·: ~ • -\I -. ../ -·
•"''""
0
CHANNEL MASTER BOREHOLE
AND HUMBER
200
LAGOON
400
,, ,..._ ........ ..._, ,,
\\
\\
\\
II
L----~----~
SCALE IN FEET
20385 BCBH4.0GN l/20/92 Figure 4
Base Map Borehole Locations and Cross Sections
Channel Master Site
I ....
"' I
-
d s· ------------------
Table 5
Selected Results (mg/kg) from Background Soil Sampling in Borehole CMBH3
CONTAMINANT
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
1 Average does not include NDs
1 = Value is estimated
CMBII0301
0-2 FT
ND
47
ND
ND
61
4.9
ND
14
ND
3.6
ND(20)
ND
ND( ) -Not Detected. ( ) Detection Limit
TJl5
CMBH0305
5-7 FT
ND
220
ND
ND
6.41
20
17
1.8
ND
12
751
ND
CMBH03IO CMBH0315 CMBII0320
l0-12 FT 15-17 FT 20-22 FT
ND ND ND
130 160 130
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
9.81 8.41 . 6.81
12 15 14
ND 13 ND(4)
2.1 1.4 I. 7
ND ND ND
10 10 9
651 741 741
ND ND ND
AVERAGE'
ND
137.4
ND
ND
7.48
13.18
15
4.2
ND
8.92
72
ND
I N
'r
-- -- - -- ---- - -- - - - - -
Table 6
Selected Analytical Results (mg/kg) for CMBHl2
CMBlll2011 MBlll205 CMBlll210 CMBlll215' CMBlll220 CMBlll225 CMBlll230' CMBlll235 CONTAMINANT 0-2 FT 5-7 FT 10-12 FT 15-17 FT 20-22 FT 25-27 FT 30-31.5 FT 35-37 FT
Arsenic ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Barium 93 35 57 220 94 60 180 100
Beryllium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Cadmium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chromium 48 IO 5.9 15 12 10 14 21
Cobalt 16 ND ND 23 ND ND 15 13
Copper 63 6.1 ND(7) ND(5) ND(IO) ND(4) ND(20) ND(20)
Lead l7J 4.7J 4.4J 4. IJ 2.4J 2.3J 3J l.9J
Mercury ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Nickel 41 ND(2) ND(9) 12 ND(8) 8 15 12
Zinc 69 ND(9) 38 61 43 40 64 56
Cyanide ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1 The following organics were detected: Ethylmethylbenzene (IOJN ug/kg); Napthalene (84J ug/kg); and Tetramethylbenzene (300JN ug/kg).
2 Methyl propane was detected at 30JN ug/kg.
3 Methyl Ethyl Ketone was detected at 54 ug/kg and Tetrahydrofuran at 20JN ug/kg.
ND( ) = Not Detected. ( ) is detection limit.
J = estimated value
T315
CMBlll240
40-42 FT
ND
62
ND
ND
22
12
22
3.2J
ND
14
60
ND
I "' ....
I
-------------------
Table 7
Selected Analytical Results for the Fill Horizons Found in the Lagoon Area of the Facility
Units CMBII06 CMBH05 CMBH05 CMBH15 CMBH16 CMBIIOI Cl\1B1101
0-2 rt 0-2 rt 5-7 rt 0-2 rt 5-7 rt 0-2 rt 5-7 rt
Anthracene µg/kg ND ND ND NA 1301 ND ND
Acenaphthene ND ND ND NA I !OJ ND ND
Benzo(a) anthracene ND 260} ND NA 450 ND ND
Benzo (a and/or k) ND 3901 ND NA 6801 ND ND
fluoranthene
Benzo (a) pyrene ND 1101 ND NA 2201 ND ND
Benzo (ghi) perylene ND 130} ND NA ND ND ND
Chrysene ND 2401 ND NA 430} ND ND
Fluoranthene ND 550 ND NA 2300 ND ND
Fluorene ND ND ND NA 53J ND ND
lndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene ND I !OJ ND NA ND ND ND
Phenanthrene ND 641 ND NA 6801 ND ND
Pyrene ND 560 ND NA 12001 43J ND
Benzyl Butyl Phthalate ND ND ND NA Sil ND ND
4,4-DDD µg/kg ND ND .7JJ NA ND ND ND
4,4-DDE ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.541
Endrin ND ND ND NA .961 ND ND
Endosulfan Sulfate ND ND ND NA 3.0J ND ND
4-4-DDT ND ND ND NA 2.11 ND ND
Heptachlorepoxide ND .441 ND NA ND ND ND
M003
CMBII0411
0-2 rt
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
691
ND
ND
ND
561
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I N
N
I
' -------------------
Table 7 (cont.)
Selected Analytical Results for the Fill Horizons Found in the Lagoon Area of the Facility (Cont.)
Units CMBH06 Cl\1B1105 Cl\1BH05 CMBH15 Cl\1BH16 CMBHOI CMBIIOI
0-2 rt 0-2 fl 5-7 rt 0-2 fl 5-7 rt 0-2 rt 5-7 ft
(Ethyloxiranyl) Ethanone ug/kg ND ND ND ND SOOJN ND ND
Anthracenedione ND ND ND ND IOOJN ND ND
Benzofluorene ND ND ND ND IOOJN ND ND
Chlorodinuorobutanone ND ND ND ND 6001N ND ND
Cyclobutaphenanthrene ND ND ND ND 6001N ND ND
Cyclopentaphenanthrenone ND ND ND ND IOOJN ND ND
Cyclopentaphenanthrene ND 200JN ND ND ND ND ND
Methyl Anthracene ND ND ND ND 3001N ND ND
(2 isomers)
Methyl Pyrene ND ND ND ND 300JN ND ND
Phenylnaphthalene ND ND ND ND 200JN ND ND
Benzofluoroanthene ND 300JN ND ND ND ND ND
(not B or K)
Benronaphthofuran ND SOJN ND ND ND ND ND
Hexadecanoic Acid ND 200JN ND ND ND ND ND
11TICs were Cyclobutanediylbisbenzene 900JN ug/kg; Ethylmethylbenzene 700JN ug/kg; and Propylbenzene 400JN ug/kg.
Unidentified -First figure indicates number of compounds; second total concentration.
J = Estimated value
ND ( ) = Not detected; ( ) = detection limits
NA = Not analyzed
J N = Estimated value, presumed present.
MOOJ
Cl\1B1104o
0-2 ft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I N ...,
I
-------------------
Table 7 (cont:.)
Selected Analytical Results for the Fill Horizons Found in the Lagoon Area of the Facility (Cont.)
Units CMBII06 CMBII05 CMBH05 CMBH15 CMBH16 CMBII0I CMBII0I
0-2 rt 0-2 ft 5-7 ft 0-2 rt 5-7 ft 0-2 rt 5-7 rt
Beta BHC ND ND ND NA ND ND .11
Aroclor 1254 ND ND ND NA ND ND ND
Unidentified ND 4/40001 3/20001 NA 3/30001 1/5001 ND
Arsenic mg/kg ND ND ND NA 2.41 2.51 ND
Barium 140 52 43 NA 68 64 140
Beryllium ND ND ND NA .70 ND ND
Cadmium ND ND ND NA 2.6 ND ND
Chromium 17 251 151 NA 790 231 2ll
Cobalt 16 11 4 NA ND (9) 12 47
Copper 32 16 9.7 NA 150 17 25
Lead 91 9.7 12 NA 161 6.1 5.5
Mercury ND ND ND NA ND ND ND
Nickel 8.4 10 ND (2.9) NA 370 8.2 11
Zinc 271 271 ND (20) NA 140 241 501
Cyanide ND ND ND NA 261 ND ND
MOOJ
CMBII04°
0-2 rt
ND
251
14/10000
2.9
79
ND
ND
1001
17
46
40
ND
54
641
351
I ,.., ,,.
I
-------------------
Table 8
Analytical Results (mg/kg) for Metals in Borehole CMBH04
CMBH401 CMBH405
Aluminum 19000 13000
Arsenic 2.9 ND
Barium 79 130
Beryllium ND ND
Cadmium ND ND
Calcium 2200 2300
Chromium 1001 291
Cobalt 17 26
Copper 46 19
Iron 28000 22000
Lead 40 8.5
Magnesium 2000 2500
Manganese 420 330
Mercury ND ND
Nickel 54 II
Potassium 770 290
Sodium ND (820) ND (250)
Vanadium 89 72
Zinc 641 ND (JO)
ND ( ) = Nol detected. ( ) indicates detection limits.
J = estimated value
MOO:!
CMBH410 CMBH415
7400 7200
ND ND
67 61
ND ND
ND ND
5400 5500
21 19
12 II
JI 21
21000 20000
I. I 1 1.31
4400 4700
340) 3001
ND ND
9.2 8.7
ND (210) ND (220)
ND (340) ND (340)
621 5 Jj
38) 4 JJ
CMBH420
16000
ND
270
ND
ND
9600
JI
JO
87
34000
I. 7)
13000
1800)
ND
22
ND (JOO)
ND (420)
83)
88)
CMBH430
21000
ND
280
ND
I.I
11000
59
JO
631
30000
1.3
14000
1600
ND
JI
320
240
67
79)
I N V,
I
-------------------
Table 9 -Distribution or Chromium, Copper, and Nickel Concentrations Over 30 mg/kg in Borehole Soil Samples
BOREHOLES
Depth (feet) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 15 16
Chromium:
0 29 100 48
5 790
10 110 I IO
15
20 110
25 34
30 59 97
35
40 230 82
Copper
0 46 70 63
5 31 41 150
IO 31 41 44 37
15 37 57 51
20 87 43 36 49 55 47
25 59 47 36
30 63 36
35
40 47 45
45 82
50 32 32
M004
I N
"' I
-------------------
Depth (feet) I 2 3 4 5 6
Nickel
0 54
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 I 10
M004
Table 9 (cont.)
BOREHOLES
7 8 9 IO 11 12
41
13 14 15
39
53
35
39
16
370
71
I N ._,
I
-- -------- - - - -- --
I! .,
!" 'I ~ I. ► • ta I ~ 0 3
> I ., .,
ii
'I :,
CLP 11
IO' IO'
CMCP04
DEPTH
O' 5'
TC£
PC£ 06J .
DC£ 2J
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
10385 GCRES,OGN J/10/91
ASPHALT
PARKING
TCE 11000
PC( 550
DC£ TJ
200
..........__ -----. .........._ ',, .... '--..... .....
----. .
0' 5' 10'
350 280 550
21J 22J " DEPTH
O'
Figure 5
South Parking Lot Area
Soil Sample Field GC Results (µg/kg)
Channel Master Site
S' IO'
0
LEGEND
BORING LOCATION
f£NC£ LIN£
CREEK
PROPERTY LINE
fOR)l[R PIPELINE
NOT OE:TECTEO
NOTE: UNITS ARE GIVEN IN Uo/KO,
· -----'-.
ASPHALT••~
PARKING
CONCRETE
PAD
CMCP08
DEPTH
5' 10' IS'
TCE -
PC£ 120
OCE • TJ
-
I N 00
I
-
-------------------
NS!00
NS000
N4900
+
O!AHNEL MASTER
MAIN BUILDING
+
+
TREATMENT
TANKS
+
••
+
BANDAG WAREHOUSE
F
+
+
CONCRETE
PAO
G H
2
• @ .,-
_.,-·· ~----1..,.,,-,;I.Qc___J ZERO LI NE
~
N4800•• ~: B :
0
+
I PHASE 11
100
SCALE IN FEET
200
20385 4C-I0.DGN J/23/92 Figure 6
Soil Samples Collected in the Sludge-Drying Area
Channel Master Site ·
M
LEGEND
N
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION
3
0
SLUDGE DRYING PITS UPPROXIMAT[)
TREE LINE
PROPERTY l lNE
FENCE LINE
RAILROAD
I N
"" I
- -- ------ - -- -- --Grid Organics Analytical -Surface Soil Samples
Grid Lines A-I & Q
CMSPAlOO CMSPDIOO CMSPB200 CMSPBJOO CMSl'C200 CMSl'.:100 CMSPJ.'JOO CMSPG400 CMSPll4.500 CMSPl.aoo C><SPQOl)I)
ANALYSIS ANAL\'TE .., .. "'"" .. , .. .., .. .., .. .., .. .., .. "'"" ucfk& -.. , ..
EXTRACTABLE ACENAPHTHYLENE ND ND ND ND ND 1101 ND ND ND ND ND
ORGANICS (SWC•} ANTHRACENE ND ND ND ND ND 56! ND ND ND ND ND
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE ND ND ND ND ND ''° ND ND NO "J ~D
BENZO(B AND/OR K)FLUORANTHENB ND ND ND ND ND 1100 ND ND ND ND ND
BENZO(GHl)PERYLENE ND ND ND ND ND 390 ND ND ND ND ND
BENZO·A-PYRENE ND ND ND ND ND "" ND ND ND ND ND
CARBAZOLE ND ND ND ND ND " NO ND NO ND ND
CHRYSENE ND ND ND ND ND "" ND ND ND '"' ND
FLUORANTHENE ND 821 ND ND ND llOO '"'! "' ND 1001 ND
IDENO(l,2,3-CD)PYRENE ND ND ND ND ND 390 ND ND NO ND ND
PHENANTHRENE ND '8J ND ND ND 510 631 ND ND '7l NO
PHENOL ND ND 9ll ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO
PYRENE ND 1001 ND ND '51 890 '"'' .. , 56) 1301 ND
MISCELL\NEOUS 1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND ND ND (00) ND ND ND ND ND ND 100! ND
EXTRACTABLE ) UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS ND ND ND ND 20001 20001 ND ND 10,CUJJ ND NO
OROANICS <t UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS ND ND ND ND ND ND 20001 ND NO ND ND
6 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 10001 IIIOOJ ND ND NO ND ND <00)! ND ND ND
I UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS ND ND ND l>'.XX)J ND ND ND ND NO ND ND I "" ANTHRACENEDIONE ND ND ND ND ND IOOJN NO ND ND ND ND 0 I
BENZACEPilENTHRYLENE ND ND ND ND ND «lHN NO ND NO ND ND
BENZ.ALDEHYDE <OOJN ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
BENZANTHRACENONE ND ND ND ND ND 4001N ND ND ND ND ND
BENZENEACETALDEHYDE IOOJJN ND ND ND ND ND ' ND ND ND ND NO
BENZOFI.UORANTHENE {NOT B OR K) ND ND ND ND ND IOOJN ND ND ND ND ND
BENZOFUJORENE (2 ISOMERS) ND ND NO ND ND 300JN NO NO ND NO ND
BENZONAl'HTHOTHIOPHENE ND ND NO ND ND JOOIN NO ND ND ND ND
BROMODIPHENYI.ETHANONE 4001N ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
CHLORODIFLUOROBlITANONE 9001N IOOJJN (OOJN ND ,<JOIN ND JOOJN ND 200JN ND ND
DIMETHYLBtrrENE ND ND ND ND ND ND NO <OOJN ND ND ND
ETHYLOXIRANYLETHANONE NO ND ND ND NO ND IOOJIN ND ND ND <IOOIN
HYDROXYNONANONE ND ND JOOIN ND ND ND ND ND Nil ND ND
METH~NTHRACENE ND ND ND ND ND IOOJN NO ND ND ND ND
METHYLETHYLBENZENE2 20001N ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
METHYLPHENANTHRENE ND ND ND ND ND IOOJN ND ND ND ND NO
METHYI.PYRENE (2 ISOMERS) ND ND ND ND ND 400JN ND ND ND ND ND
METHYL TRIPHENYLENE ND ND ND ND ND ,<JOIN ND ND NO ND ND
PHENYU:.IHANONE ND ND JOOJN ND ND ND ND ND NO ND ND
Tl:.IRADECANAL ND ,<JOIN ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND NO
T329
--
ANALYSIS
PESTICIDE.VPCB&
J -Ettimawl Value
ND -Not Dew=wl
- -
ANALYTE
4,4,4--DDD (P,P-DOD)
◄,4,4-DDE (P,P·ODE)
4,4,4-DDT (P,P-DDT)
AlDRIN
ALPHA-CHLORDANE 12
DJELDRIN
ENOOSULFAN I (ALPHA)
ENDRIN
OAM'MA-BHC (UNDANE)
GAMMA-CHLORDANE 12
HEPACHLOR EPOXIDI!
HEPTACHLOR
N -Preaumptive Evidence of Prctenee or M,,~rial
T329
-----Table - -
lO (cont.) - --Grid Organic-! Data~ -Surface Soil Samples
Grid Line, A-1 & Q
CMSPAJOO CMSPBIOO CMSP8100 CMSPBJOO CMSf'ClOO CMSPEJOO CMSPFJOO -..,.. ---ug/kg .. ,..
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
0.◄3J ND ND ND 1.41 ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND. ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND 0.3' ND ,.., ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
- -
CMSPG400 CMSPll4..SOO
ug/kg ug/kg
2. 7J ND
291 ND .,, ND
"' ND
"' ND
37J ND
ND ND
481 ND
'" ND
481 ND
l7J ND
161 ND
-
CMSPl400 -ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
--
Cf,4Sl'QOOO -'NO
I ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I "" ....
I
- - - - - - -- - - -- -
Table 10 (cont.)
Grid Organics Analytical Da_ta Summary -Subsurface Soil Samples
ANALYSIS TYPE
EXTRACTABLE
ORGANICS (SVOCs)
MISCELLANEOUS
EXTRACTABLE
ORGANICS
PERCENT
MOISTURE
J = Estimated Value
ND = Not Detected
ANALYTE
4-NITROPHENOL
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
PYRENE
I UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
ETHYLOXIRANYLETHANONE
NONAMIDE
N = Presumptive Evidence of Presence of Material
TJ29
CMSPB336 CMSPG424 CMSPJ736 CMSPK636
uglkg ug/kg ug/kg uglkg
190]
46J
39]
500]
400JN
21 14 10 29
- -- - -
CMSPM736 CMSPM936 CMSPQ036
uglkg ug/kg uglkg
500] 900)
200JN
24 25 23
I ...,
N I
-
---
ANALYSIS TYPE
l!XTRACTABI.E
ORGANICS (SVOC!)
MISCELI.ANEOUS
E:XTRACTABLE
ORGANICS
PCB/PF.STICIDF.S
PERCFNf
MOISTURE
J = l!stimatcd Value
ND = Not Detected
---
ANALYIB
BENZO(A)ANTHRACBNE
BENZO(B AND/OR K)FLUORANTHP.NE
BENZO-A-PYRP..NE
CHRYSENE
DI-N-UlITYLPHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
PHF.NANTHRENE!.
PYRENE
I UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
10 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
11 UNIDENTIFieD COMPOUNDS
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
7 UNIDP.NTIFIED COMPOUNDS
BENZOFLUORANTHENE (NOT B OR K)
DENZOFLUORENE
BlITANOIC ACID, ETHENYLESTER
CHLORODIFLUOROBUTANONE!.
eTHYLOXIRANYLETHANONE
METHYLPENTP..NE
OXYBISDIACETATEETHANAL
4,4-l>DE(P,P-DDE)
OAMMA-CHLORDANI! n
PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260)
N = Preswnptive Evidence of Presence of Material
TJ29
-- -----Table 10 (cont.)
Grid Organics Analytical Data Summary -Surf'ate Soil Samples
Grid Lines J-M
CMSPJSOO SMSPJ700 CMSPJ800 CMSPK600 CMSPKBOO
uelkr; uclkc ug/kg ui:lkc uclk&
821 140!
251ll :141ll
141ll
131ll 181ll
561
151ll 230J
75)
181ll 251ll
500J 500J
10,000J
2000l
.
200JN IOOJN
40IN
200JN
17 II 3 5 s
-- --
CMSPL700 CJ'tlSPl.900 CMS PP--1700
ug/kg uclkc ui:/lc
lllll m
:141ll 94)
180J
271ll 68)
7IJ
281ll 97)
500J
9000J
10,000J
IOOJN
300JN
900JN
71l1N
I.BJ
21JN
II 12 29
-
CMSPM.900
uclkc
IO,OOOJ
3.1
38
-
I ..., ...,
I
-------------Table 10 (cont.)
Grid Organics Analytical Data Summary -Sludge Samples
ANALYSIS TYPE
EXTRACT ABLES
MISCELLANEOUS
EXTRACTABLE
ORGANICS
PCB/PESTICIDES
PERCENT MOISTURE
J = Estimated Value
ND = Not Dctecled
ANALYTE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
(TETRAMETHYLBUTYL)PHENOL
20 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
21 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PCB-1254 (AROCHLOR 1254)
N = Presumptive Evidence of Presence of Material
T329
...
' CMSP226S CMSPEJA
ug/kg ug/kg
11 ,000
200,000J
·-·
2100 3201
73 74
--
CMSPG4A
ug/kg
3000JN
1100
68
- - -
CMSPG436S
ug/kg
4,600
100,000J
59
-
I ...,
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-35-
Based on the GC results, four samples (CMCP04, CMCP0S,
CMCP06, and CMCP07) were sent for off-Site laboratory
analysis through the EPA contract laboratory program (CLP).
CLP analytical results confirmed 250 ug/kg of trichloroethane
and 31 ug/kg of tetrachloroethene in sample CMCP06.
Five boreholes (CMBH13 through CMBH16) were installed at or
near the four corners of the former lagoon to investigate the
possible presence of residual inorganic contamination (Refer
to Figure 5). The analytical results did not show a pattern
of metals occurring in the soil; however, one sample (CMBH16,
from 5-7 feet below land surface) contained chromium at 790
mg/kg. A number of samples contained polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and pesticides above background levels;
however, concentrations did not exceed action levels.
A SO-foot grid was extended over the sludge drying bed area
and the surrounding vicinity to investigate the nature and
extent of metals contamination. A total of 168 surface and
subsurface sludge/soil samples were collected from 46 grid
points at one-foot intervals in the sludge drying bed area.
The samples were analyzed on-Site for the presence of
chromium, nickel, copper, and zinc using a HNU X-ray
fluorescence (XRF) analyzer.
Of the 23 surface soil samples collected, 8 samples in the
western half of the grid indicated elevated metals
concentrations. Chromium ranged from 1,350 mg/kg to 6,570
mg/kg (grid points Al and Ql, respectively), and nickel
ranged from 580 mg/kg to 3,010 mg/kg (grid points D2 and Bl,
respectively). In the eastern half of the grid, only two
grid points, M7 and N7, indicated elevated metals
concentrations. Chromium was present at 5,410 mg/kg and
23,120 mg/kg respectively, and nickel was present at 860
mg/kg and 5,920 mg/kg, respectively. Cyanide was detected in
14 out of 20 surface soil samples, and concentrations ranged
from 2.7J mg/kg (grid point JS) to 230J mg/kg (grid points Bl
and M7).
Surface soil SVOC concentrations ranged from 44J ug/kg
benzo-a-anthracene (grid point I4) to 1,200 ug/kg benzo-(b
and/or k)-fluoranthene (grid point E2). The largest number
of SVOCs were found in a sample collected at E2, which
contained 12 identified SVOCs, 10 TICs, and 3 unidentified
compounds. Surface samples from four points (J7, JS, L7, and
14) contained seven, six, six, and five identified SVOCs,
respectively. Samples from the remaining points detected
from one to four identified SVOCs.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-36-
0ne SVOC, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, was detected in two
sludge samples at concentrations of 4,600 ug/kg (sample
CMG3A) and 11,000 ug/kg (sample CMB226S).
One TIC was detected in sludge sample CMSPG3A, and
unidentified SVOC compounds were detected in sludge samples
CMSPB226S and CMSPG436S. Polynuclear Chlorinated Biphenols
(PCBs) were detected in four sludge samples corresponding to
grid locations B2 (2.1 mg/kg), E3 (0.32J mg/kg), G4 (1.10
mg/kg), and M7 (0.021 mg/kg). Pesticides were detected in
six surface soil samples.
In the western half of the grid, 66 subsurface soil samples
were collected at 22 sample location~. Three grid points
(points B2, G4, E3) directly overlaid subsurface sludge
drying beds. Sludge was encountered at depths of 26, 36, and
42 inches below land surface below these three grid points,
respectively; Samples were collected at the three locations
to characterize the nature of the sludge. Chromium
concentrations ranged from 100,000 mg/kg to 27,000 mg/kg
(points E3 and G4, respectively), and nickel ranged from
36,000J mg/kg to 10,000 mg/kg (points E3 and G4,
respectively). Based on the results of the XRF analyses, 20
samples were sent for CLP analysis for metals, cyanide, TCL
voes, TCL SVOCs, and PCBs/Pesticides. CLP analytical results
confirm the XRF analysis, indicating a general pattern of
elevated metals in surface samples in certain grid areas.
Subsurface soil samples from depths below the sludge drying
beds were collected and analyzed both by XRF analysis and CLP
analysis. CLP analysis of seven samples, including samples
collecting below the sludge drying bed locations, did not
indicate elevated metals concentrations.
Two sludge samples were also submitted for toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) analysis. The TCLP
analysis indicated that chromium leaching ranged from 0.29 to
0.71 mg/kg; no other metals leached above their respective
detection limit (See Table 11).
C. Surface water/Sediment Investigation
Surface water and sediment samples were collected on two
separate occasions during the RI. The first sampling event
occurred in January 1991 during the wet season. Four surface
water and sediment samples (CMSWOl through CMSW04 and CMSDOl
through CMSD04, respectively) were collected, one from a
background location (CMSW/SD04), two from locations adjacent
to the site (CM/SDOl and CM/SD02), and one from a location
downstream from the Site (CMSW03, CMSD03). See Figure 8.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-37-
Table 11
Sludge Samples TCLP Results
CONTAMINANT
SILVER
ARSENIC
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD
SELENIUM
MERCURY
CN
VOAs
EXTRACT ABLE ORGANICS
PESTICIDES/PCB
• Cannot fail TCLP test based on Scan Analyses
NA = Not analyzed
CMSPG4A
mg/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.71
ND
ND
NA
NA*
NA'
NA*
NA*
I ND = Not detected
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T329
CMSPE3A
mg/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.29
ND
ND
NA
NA'
NA*
NA*
NA'
---- -
D
ICE
PCE
OCE
c,-
cu
"
-
CNSW/SOOS
SD SW
- -
-
- -
II -
- -
--
-- -
\
\ \.
' '·, .. _
0
'·•. ----. ..._
--- -
300 600
SCALE IN FEET
OtSW/S0O4
SO SW
TC£
PCE
Cr 22 I 0
Cu IS !SJ
Hi
---_, -
LEGEND
-x-FENCE LINE
CREEK
RlllROAO
TREE LINE
PHASE I SURFACE WATER AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PHASE II SURFACE 10.TER
ANO SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PHASE II SEDIMENT SAMPLING
LOCATIONS IND SURFACE WATER AT TIME or SAMPLING)
UNITS
CJ OlSW/SOO2 so SW
TCE .OH " PCE • 046 JO
OCE .120 11
c,-16 6
·--------,.,
CNSW/S012 \
SD SW CMSDII '•·
TC£ SD CMSOI g' ...
1--P~CE+---l---l TC£ SO \
,co~;_'+-6-1-+---11-,P~CE+---1 ;~~ '. .•.
~ so SEDIMENT {mo/Kol
SURFACE WAT[R lug/U ~ SW
<;) ~ QISV/SD01 ; A QISV/SOOJ ~1/
CMSW/SDI 4
SO SW
TC£
PCE
Cr IS 8J CNSW/S001
so SW Cu I 1 I \J TCE - -Mi IS PCE --
OCE - -
c,-" -
cu 11 lJ
Hi II -
20385 SURFS£04.0GN J/Jl/92
cu 11 14J l=cl--'s"-o+-s~w, &J SD SW
" 1-c'-"'+-~---l "o~''+---1 ~~~~~ cu 11 Ct J1 "o~''+-----< TC£ ~ tcP7.CE+----t--, TC£ SW/SOo, tc7.ct----t--, '-.__ --._ t;P;;;CE,t-----j---j O SW
........
ANNEL MAST
IN DUILDUI ........ . . . . . . . .
c,-11
Ni 21 ,__D~CE+-c-,---+---, "-.. OCE '/
Cr 18 Ct 430 ll / Oil -IS
~,
Figure 7
Surface Water (µg/L) and Sediment
Sampling (mg/kg) CLP Results
Channel Master Site
Cu TC£ -JJ
!t,l l!IJ PCE
OCE
Ct 88
CU 16
CNSV/SD I
SO SW
Cl<SO~~~
APARTMENT BUlLOlNCS
Cr 84
Cu 42
Ni 56
so ~~
TC£ -~r--.._ PCE --.J
OCE ~ Cr J20
Cu •n
Ni 'J9
1]
I ..... er
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-39-
In general, metals data from the background location indicate that sediment samples should generally contain less than 25 mg/kg of chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, and nickel. There is little indication of the presence of arsenic, cadmium, and mercury in the sediment background samples. voe and SVOC results were negative. Cyanide was found in background sample CMSW04 at 6.2 ug/1. Refer to Table 12 for selected analytical results.
Barium and zinc appear to be naturally occurring at fairly substantial levels (100 to 200 mg/kg) in the sediments. Surface water samples at all four locations were clean, except for the water sample taken from the stagnant pool at CMSW05, which contain_ed lead at 53 ug/1.
Sample CMSW/SD02 revealed the presence of voes. It is not known if the source of this contamination is due to groundwater discharge or from chemicals in the soil gas that have escaped from the underlying groundwater plume. Sample CMSW03 showed a slightly elevated concentration of chromium (31 ug/1), while CMSD03 revealed 12J mg/kg of cyanide.
The second sampling event included collecting seven surface water and ten sediment samples during the dry season in September 1991. Sampling locations included one background (CMSW/SD05), two adjacent to the Site (CMSW/SD13, CMSW/SD14), and the remaining samples downstream. Refer back to Figure 8. Sample CMSW/SD13 indicated the presence of the voes 1,2-dichloroethene (91 ug/1), trichloroethene (32J ug/1), tetrachloroethene (BJ ug/1), and chloroform (4J ug/1); these results confirm the fact that voes occurred in sample CMSW/SD02 collected in January 1991.
Sample CMSW12, located imm~diately downgradient of the Site, revealed the presence of barium (20 ug/1) and toluene (3J ug/1), while CMSD12 revealed chromium (62 mg/kg), copper (31 mg/kg), and nickel (23 mg/kg) above expected background levels. Eight unidentified SVOCs were measured at a total concentration of 7 mg/kg; and one TIC was identified (bromohexane at 900JN ug/kg). Samples CMSW/SD0B, CMSW/SD09, CMSW/SDl0, and CMSW/SDll were collected south of the railroad tracks. Samples CMSW/SD0B, CMSW/SD09, and CMSW/SDl0 revealed various concentrations of chromium, copper, nickel, and cyanide. No volatiles were identified in the four samples; however, seven unidentified SVOCs with a total concentration of 6 mg/kg were identified in sample CMSDll. Two pesticides were identified in sample CMSD09 (4,4-DDD, 8.5 ug/kg and 4,4-DDE, 2.7J ug/kg).
------ ---- - - - - - -- -
Table 12
Selected Analytical Rcsulls · 1991 Surface Water and Scdimcnl Samp:ling__fucnl . -----. ---------------·----·· --· ----------· ... ···-··-·----____ .. -·-------------.. --__ ,,---,_--~ -
CMSWIJ CMSl>ll CMSWl2 C:MSl>ll CMSUll CMSIHO CMSU09 CMSW07 CMSll07 CMSW06 CMSll06 CMSWGII
9(16191 'J/16'9I 9/16/91 9/16/91 9/16191 9/16/91 ,,1..,,1 9/16/91 9/16/91 9/16{91 9/16(91 9{16,'91
C()N'TAMINANT --~~~~~ --inpt, -~v~-mu~,_ ~t!~'--_ __ mg/~&----__ _!!~--___ us,11. ___ ---~"-.. '·--·-"I''· ------.'!E'~l. ·-.. !JI~---.. -----------------·--------..
Ml· fAI.S
Ancnic NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND J2J
Barium 27 28 20 ,. 13 42 90 "' " " " Bef)ilium ND ., ND ·" .24 " 68 ND -" ND "" Cddmium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND ND
C:hrumium ND 2l ND 62 31 240 320 ND " Nil 88
Cob.tit ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO 22
Copper ND 50 ND JI ND " 93 Nil NO ND ,.
,~ .. J ND IIJ ND 2.9J ◄.5J ., 16J 13 IIJ ND l2J
Merc11ry ND Ul ND .S9J 2lJ .(9J .241 ND .27.5 ND ND
NicLel ND II ND 23 111 36 .. ND ND ND " Zinc ND 130 ND 110 " 70 110 " . 61 " 110 ----
OTIIER
Cy.llnidc ND ND ND ND .411 LU w ND ND ND I7J
VOLATII.ES ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Oichlon>Clhcnc 91 ' Tetnchlorocthcne ., ND
Trichlonxlhene 321 ND 3J
Chloroform ◄J ND 18
Toli.iene ND 3J 0021
Hromodichl<Wome1h1ne ND ND ◄J
SEM IVOI..A TILES/PEST ND (ll ND ND<2l '3) ND<4) (S) ND ND(6) ND (7)
TIC. ND (I) ND m (3) (◄) (S) ND (6) ND (7)
UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS ND II.SJ ND 8/7.0J 7/6.0J S/2.0J 17/30.0J ND ,n.01 :U:Z.OJ
1) The folluwins chemicals were de1e,1al: Diethyl rh1halale (I JQJ uifks); Di-n-bulyl Phthalatc 751 u&fl:.1). Detection limita ranged from .43 mifk& to 1.0 m'"'1,.&-One TICw.u dc1cc1al: Dime1hylpcn1anoic: Acid, Ethcnylcstcr (5001N uifkc)-
2) Dc-10::tion limits ranccd from .◄ 3 mg/1,:.1 to 1.0 mifk&-OneTICwu detectal: Bromohexane (900JN ug/1,:.1).
3) The foUowin& dtcmical1 were det«lal: Fluoranlhene (IOOJ uifk&); Benzo(b and/or k) nuoranthcne (290.J uv\c); Chryscnc(BIJ u&lks): Bi.s(2-E1hylhel)'l)Phthalate (3700 uifka); Oi-n-Bu1yt Ph1hala1e(S6J ug/1,:.1); and 4,4-DOE(I 8J uv&,:a).
Semi-volatile detection limiu ranscd from .47 m"1,:.110 I.I mitt,. One TIC was dc1ec1al: Bromoheune (SOOJN uc/kt).
4) Sc:mivula1tiJe de1cc1ion limi11 ranged from .43 m"1,:.& to I.I m&fl:.&• TIC. 1h11 were delet"lal were: Bromohe.ane (400JN ugll,:.c); and rropanctriol, Oiilt:etate (200JN u"1,:.c)-
j) Scmivol.11ilc deta1ion limits ransed from .52 mg/I,:.& 10 1.3 mJ'q. No BNl\.s weredelettcd, but lhc followin& pc11icides were P£CSCnl: 4,4-DOD (8.S u"1,:.g) and 4,4-DDE(2.7J ug/1,:.1). The following TIC. were ah.o detcacd:
CMurome1hylpcntanol (4001N ug/1,:.&)-
6) Scmivulatilc detection limits ran,.-d from: .47 mJlk& 10 I.I mv\1-Two TIC. wc:re detected: Bromoheune (IOOOJN ug/1,:.1) and Dmuonxhlorobutanone (800.JN uJlks).
7) Sc:mivulatilc drteciion limit• ran,ed from .44 m&fl:.& to I.I mJlk&-Detected .cmiYolatilr1 were: Fluonnthcne (660 ug/1,:.1); Benzo(band/or k)f-1uoranthcne (S70ug,'k1); 8en1.0(a)pyrmc (21QJ uc/ks); Ctuy,mc (360.I ug/1,:.1): Phcrtanthrene
(2SQJ ustq); and Pyr-enc (660J u&fks). TIC.. that were dele<:ICd were: Benzonuoranthcnc (not b or k) ( 400JN ugll.1): Benzofluorcnc (IOOJN uc/kc); Bromohc.une (80CUN u&fks); Chloni(propynyt)bc:nzcnc
(IOOOJN ug/1,:.&): McthylpyienClt (2 iwmcn)(400JN u&fl:.c): and rhenylethanonc (90.JN u~&)
8) Scmivul1tile de1a:tion limits nnscd rroltl .46 m~& 10 I.I mc,'k&-Three TJC..were detected: Dimethylbutcnol (lOOJN uJlk.1): rcntcnonc (700JN uc,'ki); and Propanctriol, Monoace111e (2001N u"1,:.1).
NO .. Not Detected JN • Eslimaled Value, P£elCnCc p-e1umc:d UJ • Eslimated value, pre.cncc in doubl
llnidenlificd compounds: -I-first r,,ure is number of compound• deteaed; second Ci&ure Is 10111 concen1ra1ion.
ND
93
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
" ND
23 ,.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
-- --------- - -
Table 12 (cont.)
Selected Analytical Results for Background Surface Water and Sediments
CMSW01 CMSD01 CMSW04 CMSD04 CMSW05
1/9/91 1 /9/9 t 1/9/91 1/9/91 9/16/91
11n/L mnlka ''"/L ma/knla1 un/L
Metals
Arsenic ND ND ND ND ND
Barium 28 57 63 92 220
Beryllium ND ND ND ND ND
Cadmium ND ND ND ND ND
Chromium ND 16 10 22 ND
Cobalt ND 12 ND 14 ND
Copper 7J 21 15J 15 ND
Lead ND 19J 10J 25J 53
Mercury ND ND ND .25 ND
Nickel ND 18 ND ND ND
Zinc 810 140 79 77 130
Other
Cyanide ND ND 6.2 ND ND
Volatiles ND ND ND ND ND
Semi-Volatiles/Pest ND ND(1) ND ND(2) ND
Fluoranthene
TICs ND ND ND ND ND
Bromohexane
Difluorochlorobutanone
Unidentified Compounds {b) ND ND ND ND ND
(1) -Detection linits ranged from .82 mg/kg to 4.0 mg/kg
(2) -Detection linits ranged from 1.4 mg/kg ta 6.9 mg/kg
(3) -Detection linits ranged from .43 mg/kg to 1.0 mg/kg
{4) -Detection linits ranged from .43 mg/kg to 1.1 mg/kg
(a) Reported on a dry weight basis. 53% moisture content may bias results upward as a calculation artifact
(b) -/-first number indicates total number of compounds present; second concentration
ND Nat detected
J Estinated value
JN Estinated value· presumed aresent
pdb\cm4-8.v3
- - - -- -
CMSD05 CMSW14
9/16/91 9/25/91
ma/kg µg/L
ND ND
42 45
.48 ND
ND ND
11 BJ
ND ND
ND 11
13J ND
.4J ND
ND ND
42 430
ND ND
ND ND
ND(3) ND
.046J
ND
.7JN
.9JN
9/10 ND
CMSD14
9/25/91
mg/kg
ND
180
3.1
ND
15
37
17
4J
1.3J
15
140
ND
ND
ND{4)
ND
ND
I .p. ,...
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-42-
VI. Smnmary of Site Risks
The JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site is releasing
contaminants into the environment. The Baseline Risk
Assessment presents the results of a comprehensive risk
assessment that addresses the potential threats to public
health and the environment posed by the Site under current
and future conditions. The assumption made is that no
remedial action takes place and that no restrictions are
placed on future land use of the Site.
The Baseline Risk Assessment consists of the following
sections: identification of chemicals of potential concern;
toxicity assessment; human exposure assessment; risk
characterization; and environmental assessment. All sections
are summarized below.
A.-Contaminants of Concern
Data collected during the RI were reviewed and evaluated to
determine the contaminants of concern at the Site which are
most likely to pose risks to public health or the
environment. These contaminants were chosen for each
environmental media sampled. Tables 13 shows chemicals of
potential concern for soil/sediment and Table 14 for
groundwater and surface water.
Once these contaminants of ·concern were identified, exposure
concentrations in each media were estimated. The maximum
concentrations detected were compared to the calculated 95%
confidence level of the arithmetic average of all samples,
and the lower of these values was chosen as the estimated
exposure concentration. Table 15 shows the exposure
parameters used to derive the chronic daily intake.
B. Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment identified potential pathways and
routes for contaminants of concern. Two overall exposure
conditions were evaluated. The first was the current land
use condition, which considers the Site as it currently
exists.
I -43-
I Table 13
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT AT THE CHANNEL MASTER SITE (a)
I Sludge Drying Area Soil Main Building Area Soil Creek
----------------------------------------------------------------Sediment
I Surface Shallow Int Dee~ Shallow Int Deep ------------(011-611) C 1 '-3') (5'·12') (15'· 2') (1'-3') (5'-12') (15 1 -521 ) East South
Organics:
I Acenaphthene X
Acenapthylene X
Aldrin X X
Anthracene X X
I Benzo(a)anthracene X X X Benzo(a)pyrene X X X X Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene X X X X X
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene X X
BisC2·ethylhexyl)phthalate X X
I beta·BHC X
ganrna·BHC X X X
Butylbenzylphthalate X X Carbazole X X
alpha-Chlordane X
I garrma·Chlordane X
Chrysene X X X X X
4,4-000 X X X X 4,4-DDE X X X X 4,4-DDT X X X X X X
I 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) X X X
Dieldrin X X X
Diethylphthalate X X
Di·n·butylphthalate X X X X
Endosul fan I X
I Endosulfan sulfate X :ndrin X X X
Fluoranthene X X X X X
'luorene X
Heptachlor X
I Heptachlor Epoxide X X
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene X X
Methoxyclor X
Methyl ethyl ketone X
2-Methylnapthalene X
I Napthalene X
4·Nitrophenol X PCB-1254 X X PCB-126O X
Pentachlorophenol X
I Phenanthrene X X X X Phenol X
Pyrene X X X X X
Tetrachloroethene X X X
Tri ch l oroethene X X
I Toluene X X X
Trichloroethene X X
Xylenes {total) X X X
I See footnotes on following page
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lnorganics:
Antimony
Bariu-n
Beryl l ii.El
Cactniun
ChromiUTI
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
-44-
Table 13
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
IN SOIL AND SEDIMENT AT THE CHANNEL MASTER SITE (a)
Sludge Drying Area Soil
Surface Shallow Int
(0 11-611) (1'-3') (5'-12')
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
Deep
(151-52 1 )
Main Building Area Soil Creek
Sediment
Shallow Int Deep ------------(1'-3') (5'-121 ) (151-52') East South
X
X
X
X X X X
X
X X X X X
X X X X
X
X X X
X X X X X
X
X = Selected as a chemical of potential concern.
{a) Chemicals selected in this table are potentially related to former on-site activity and are above
background concentration.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-45-
Table 14
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER AT THE CHANNEL MASTER SITE (a)
Organics:
Acetone
Benzene
alpha·BHC
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-0ichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Diethylphthalate
Dimethyl phthalate Oi-n-butylphthalate
Ethyl benzene
Methyl butyl ketone
Methylene Chlor.ide Napthalene
2-Ni trophenol
Phenol
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
InOrganics:
Baril.Ill
Beryl l illll
Cactn i Lnl
Chromil.lTI
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdem.111
Nick.el
VanadiLITI
Zinc
Onsite Groundwater Offsite Groundwater
Shall ow Inter. Bedrock Shall ow 1 nter. Bedrock
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X = Selected as a chemical of pott!ntial concern.
Creek
Surface Water
East
X
X
X
X
X
South
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ca) Chemicals selected in this table are pott!ntially related to former on-site activity and are above background concentrations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-46-
Table 15
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS FOR INCIDENTAL INGESTION
OF SURFACE SOIL/SEDIMENT
CURRENT LAND-USE CONDITIONS
Parameters
Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) (a)
Fraction Ingested (dimensionless) (b)
Exposure Frequency (days/year) (c)
Exposure Duration (years) (d)
Body Weight (kg) (e)
Period Over Which Risk is Being Estimated (years)
Carcinogenic (I)
Noncarcinogenic
Facility
Worker
50
1
250
25
70
70
25
Utility
Worker
480
7
70
70
1
(a) Ingestion rate tor facility workers is the standard default value tor adult soil ingestion in the workplace based on USEPA (1991 a). Ingestion rate for utility workers based on OSWER Directive 9285.6-03 (USEPA 1991 a) for short-term activities.
(b) A probability of contact factor (Fl) of 1 was conservatively used based upon USEPA Region IV direction.
(c) Value for a facility worker is based on USEPA (1991 a) at the request of USEPA Region IV. A utility worker is assumed to work 30 days over a one-year period.
(d) Value for facility workers based on USEPA (1991 a). A utility worker is assumed to conduct work at the site over a period of one year.
(e) Standard default value provided by USEPA (1991a, 1989a).
(I) Based on USEPA (1991a, 1989a) standard assumption for lttetime. This value is used in calculating exposures for potential carcinogens.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-47-
Table 15 (cont.)
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS FOR DERMAL CONTACT
WITH SURFACE .SOIUSEDIMENT
CURRENT LAND-USE CONDITIONS
Parameters
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (cm2) (a)
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm2) (b)
Dermal Absorption Factor (dimensionless) (c)
Organics
In organics
Exposure Frequency (days/year) (d)
Exposure Duration (years) (e)
Body Weight (kg) (I)
Period Over Which Risk is Being Estimated (years)
Carcinogenic (g)
Noncarcinogenic
Facility
Worker
1.960
1.45
0.01
0.001
250
25
70
70
25
Utility
Worker
3,120
1.45
0.01
0.001
7
70
70
1
(a) Values based on USEPA (1991a, 1989b). Value for the facility worker is the mean surface area
for hands and forearms. Value for the utility worker is the mean surface area for hands and
arms.
(b) Value based on USEPA (1989a) for commercial potting soil.
(c) Based on Region IV guidance.
(d) Value for facility worker based on US EPA (1991 a) at the request of USEPA Region IV. A utility
worker is assumed to work 7 days.
(e) Value for facility workers based on USEPA (1991 a). A utility worker is assumed to conduct work
at the site over a period of one year.
(I) Standard default value provided by USEPA (1991 a, 1989a).
(g) Based on USEPA (1991 a, 1989a) standard assumption for lifetime. This value is used in
calculating exposures for potential carcinogens.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-48-
Table 15 (cont.)
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS FOR INCIDENTAL INGESTION
OF SURFACE SOIL/SEDIMENT
FUTURE LAND-USE CONDITIONS
Parameters
Soil Ingestion Rate (mg/day) (a)
Fraction Ingested (dimensionless) (b)
Exposure Frequency (days/year) (c)
Exposure Duration (years) (d)
Body Weight (kg) (e)
Period Over Which Risk is Being Estimated (years)
Carcinogenic (I)
Noncarcinogenic
(a) Based on US EPA (1991 a, 1989a).
Child
(1-6 years)
200
170
6
15
70
6
Residents
Adutt
100
1
170
30
70
70
30
(b) A probability of contact factor (Fl) of 1 was conservatively used based upon USEPA Region IV
direction.
(c) Values for adutt and child residents are based on 5 days/week during the warmer months, April
through October, and 1 day/week during November through March (USEPA Region IV).
(d) Values based on USEPA (1991 a). Adutt duration is the national upper-bound time at one
residence (USEPA 1991 a).
(e) Standard default value provided by USEPA (1991 a, 1989a).
(I) Based on USEPA (1991 a, 1989a) standard assumption for lifetime. This value is used in
calculating exposures for potential carcinogens.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-49-
Table 15 (cont.)
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS FOR DERMAL CONTACT
WITH SURFACE SOIL/SEDIMENT
FUTURE LAND-USE CONDITIONS
Parameters
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (cm2) (a)
Soil to Skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm2) (b)
Dermal Absorption Factor (dimensionless) (c)
Organics
lnorganics
Exposure Frequency (days/year) (d)
Exposure Duration (years) (e)
Body Weight (kg) m
Period Over Which Risk is Being Estimated (years)
Carcinogenic (g)
Noncarcinogenic
Child
(1-6 years)
3,140
1.45
0.01
0.001
170
6
15
70
6
Residents
Adult
1,960
1.45
0.01
0.001
170
30
70
70
30
(a} Surface area for child residents is based on the recommendation of USEPA Region IV,
assuming hands, arms and legs are uncovered and exposed. Value for the adult resident is
the mean surface area for hands and forearms (USEPA 1991a, 1989b).
(b) Value based on USEPA {1991 a) for commercial potting soil.
(c} Based on Region IV guidance.
(d) Values for child and adult residents are based on 5 days/week during the warmer months,
April through October, and 1 day/week during November through March (USEPA Region IV}.
(e) Values based on USEPA (1991a). Adult duration is the national upper-bound time at one
residence (USEPA 1991 a).
(f) Standard default value provided by USEPA (1991 a, 1989a).
(g) Based on USEPA (1991 a, 1989a} standard assumption for lrretime. This value is used in
calculating exposures for potential carcinogens.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-50-
Table 15 (cont.)
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS FOR DERMAL ABSORPTION OF CHEMICALS
IN SURFACE WATER
FUTURE LAND-USE CONDITIONS
Parameters
Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (cm2) (a)
Dermal Permeability Constant (cm/hr) (b)
Exposure Time (hours/day) (c)
Exposure Frequency (days/year) (d)
Exposure Duration (years) (e)
Average Body Weight Over Exposure Period (kg) (f)
Period Over Which Risk is Being Estimated (years)
Carcinogenic (g)
Noncarcinogenic
Child
(1-6 years)
1,721
8x10-4
4
170
6
15
70
6
Residents
Adult
3,846
8x10-4
2
170
30
70
70
30
(a) Values for child and adult residents are the mean surface areas for hands, lower legs, and feet.
(USEPA 1989b).
(b) Based on USEPA (1989a). Assumes all chemicals penetrate the skin at the same rate as
water. It should be noted that there is some uncertainty associated wtth this value. A more
recent dermal permeability constant for water of 1 x10·3 cm/hr (USEPA 1992) could be applied.
This value differs from the permeability constant used in this evaluation (Bx1 o-4 cm/hr) by a
factor of 1.25, and therefore there is no significant difference between these two constants.
(c) Assumes a child would spend 4 hours per day and an adult would spend 2 hours per day in
creek surface water.
(d) Values for child and adult residents are based on 5 days/week during the warmer months, April
through October, and 1 day/week du.ring November through March (USEPA Region IV).
(e) Values based on USEPA (1991 a). Value for the adult resident is based on the upper bound
time at one residence (USEPA 1991a).
(f) Standard default value provided by USEPA (1991 a, 1989a).
(g) Based on USEPA (1991 a, 1989a) standard assumption for lifetime. This value is used in
calculating exposures for potential carcinogens.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-51-
Table 15 (cont.)
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS FOR INGESTION
OF GROUNDWATER
FUTURE LAND-USE CONDITIONS
Parameters
Ingestion Rate (llter/day) (a)
Exposure Frequency (days/year) (b)
Exposure Duration (years) (c)
Body Weight (kg) (d}
Period Over Which Risk is Being Estimated (years)
Carcinogenic (e) •
Noncarcinogenic
Child
(1-6 yrs)
1
350
6
15
70
6
Resident
Adult
2
350
30
70
70
30
(a) Value for a 1-6 year old resident is based on the recommendation of USEPA Region IV.
Value for adult resident is based on USEPA (1991 a).
(b) Values for child and adult residents are based on USEPA (1991a}.
(c) Values based upon USEPA (1991 a). Value for the adult resident is based on the upper
bound time at one residence (USEPA 1991 a).
(d} Standard default value provided by USEPA (1991 a, 1989a).
(e) Based on USEPA (1991 a, 1989a) standard assumption for lifetime. This value is used in
calculating exposures for potential carcinogens.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-52-
The second was the future land use condition, which evaluates potential risks that may be associated with any probable change in Site use assuming no remedial action occurs. The exposure pathways that were evaluated under current land use conditions were as follows.
* Incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of surface soil/sludge in the sludge drying bed area by facility workers
* Incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of shallow soil/sludge in the sludge drying bed area by utility workers
* Incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of shallow soil/sludge in the main building area by facility workers
The exposure pathways that were evaluated under future and use conditons were:
* Incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of surface soiltsludge in the sludge drying bed area by child or adult residents
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of shallow soil/sludge in the main building area by child and adult residents
Incidental ingestion and dermal absorption of creek sediment by child and adult residents
Dermal absorption of creek surface water by child and adult residents
Dermal absorption and inhalation of volatile chemicals in shallow/intermediate groundwater by child and adult residents while showering
Dermal absorption and inhalation of volatile chemicals in bedrock groundwater by child and adult residents while showering
Ingestion of shallow/intermediate groundwater by child and adult residents
Ingestion of bedrock groundwater by child and adult residents
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
-53-
C. Toxicity Assessment
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of adverse effects to occur in humans from carcinogens and noncarcinogens are considered separately. These are discussed below. The toxicity of the contaminants of concern are presented in "IRIS" -EPA's Toxicity Data base.
Carcinogens
EPA uses a weight of evidence system to classify a chemical's potential to cause cancer in humans. All evaluated chemicals fall into one of the following categories:
Group A chemicals -known human carcinogen
Group B chemicals -probable human carcinogen
Bl chemicals -limited human epidemiological
evidence
Group C chemicals -possible human carcinogens
Group D chemicals -not classified to human carcinogenicity
Group E chemicals -evidence of non-
carcinogenicity in humans
Noncarcinogens
Health criteria for chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects are generally developed using verified risk reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs). These are developed by USEPA's RfD/RfC Work Group or are obtained from the Agency's IRIS data base or Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST). The RfDs, expressed in units of mg/kg/day, are lifetime daily exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals. Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied. These uncertainty factors help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-54-
o. Risk Characterization
Table 16 shows the final contaminants of concern for the media of concern. To quantitatively assess the risks of these contaminants from the JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site, the chronic daily intakes (CDis) were combined with the health effects criteria.
For potential carcinogens, excess lifetime upperbound cancer risks were obtained by multiplying the estimated CDI for each chemical by its cancerslope factor. The total upperbound excess lifetime cancer risk for each pathway was obtained by summing the chemtcal-specific risk estimates. A cancer risk level of 1 * 10-represents an upper bound probability of one in one million that an individual could develop cancer due to exposure to the potential carcinogen under the specified exposure conditions.
Potential risks for noncarcinogens are presented as the ratio of the CDI to the reference dose for each chemical. The sum of the ratios of all chemicals under consideration is called the hazard index. The hazard index is useful as a reference point for gauging that the potential exists for adverse health effects to occur from the assumed exposure pathways and durations, and that remedial action may be warranted for the Site.
Table 17 summarizes the quantitative estimates of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk under the current and future land use scenario for each exposure pathway evaluated in the risk assessment respectively.
E. Environmental (Ecological} Risk
Potential risks to environmental receptors at or near the Site were evaluated based on site sampling data and a review of the toxicity of the chemicals of potential concern to ecological receptors. use of the Site, particularly the sludge drying bed area or the main building area, by terrestrial receptors such as birds and small mammals was considered unlikely, given the lack of trees or other cover at the Site. Therefore, the focus of the ecological assessment was on the intermittent creeks east and south of the site and the small low-lying area south of the railroad tracks. Although these creeks do not contain sufficient water to sustain fish populations, populations of aquatic insects could occur there.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Medium/Area
Groundwater
Sludge-drying beds/Soil
TABI-2
-55-
Table 16
Contaminants of Concern
Channel Master Site
Organics
Benzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1, I, !-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
None
lnorganics
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Antimony
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Nickel
Zinc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-56-
Table 17
SUMMARY OF TOTAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS FOR THE CHANNEL MASTER SITE
Cancer Risk Due to All Chemicals
Area/Pathway
Sludge Drying Area:
Incidental Ingestion Surface (011-611 ) Soil:
Dermal Absorption Surface (011 -611 ) Soil:
Dermal Absorption S/I Groundwater:
Ingestion S/I Groundwater:
Inhalation voes S/I Groundwater:
TOTAL:
Main Building Area:
Incidental Ingestion Shallow (1'-3') Soil:
Dermal Absorption Shallow (l'-3') Soil
Dermal Absorption S/I Groundwater:
Ingestion S/1 Groundwater:
Inhalation voes S/l Groundwater:
TOTAL:
East and South Creeks:
Incidental Ingestion Creek Sediment:
Dermal Absorption Creek Sediment:
Dermal Absorption Creek Surface Water:
TOTAL:
Current
Facility
\Jerker
3E·06
2E·D6
SE-06
2E·06
1E·06
3E·06
Future Child
Resident
8E·D6
2E·06
1E·05
lE-02
1E·D3
1E·02
7E-06
1E·06
1E·05
1E·02
1E·03
lE-02
6E·06
1E·D6
4E·08
7E-06
Future Adu! t
Resident
4E-06
1E·06
4E-05
2E·D2
lE-03
2E·02
4E·D6
lE-06
4E·05
2E-02
lE-03
2E-02
3E·06
9E·D7
4E-08
4E-06
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-57-
Table 17 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF TOTAL NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
FOR THE CHANNEL MASTER SITE
Area/Pathway
Sludge Drying Area:
Incidental Ingestion Surface (011 -611 ) Soil:
Dermal Absorption Surface (011 -611 ) Soil:
Dermal Absorption S/1 Groundwater:
Ingestion S/1 Groundwater:
Inhalation voes S/1 Groundwater:
Main Building Area:
Incidental Ingestion Shallow (1 1 -3') Soil:
Dermal Absorption Shallow (1'-3') Soil
Dermal Absorption S/1 Groundwater:
Ingestion S/1 Groundwater:
Inhalation voes S/1 Groundwater:
East and South Creeks:
Incidental Ingestion Creek Sediment:
Dermal Absorption Creek. Sediment:
Dermal Absorption Creek Surface Water:
(a) The hazard index exceeded one for CNS (2.3)
Current
Facility
IJork.er
>1 (a)
2E·01
9E·03
6E·04
Noncancer Risk Due to All Chemicals
Future Child
Resident
> 1 ( b)
BE-01
> 1 Cd)
>1 (f)
2E·01
1E·01
3E·03
> 1 (d)
> 1 ( f)
2E·01
9E·01
2E·02
2E·02
Future Adult
Resident
>1 (C)
1E·01
> 1 Ce)
>1 (g)
5E·02
1E·02
4E·04
> 1 ( e)
>1 ( 9)
SE-02
1E-01
3E·03
4E·03
(b) The hazard index exceeded one for CNS (30), lower body weight (2.5), and blood chemistry (1.9).
(c) The hazard index exceeded one for CNS (3.2).
Cd) The hazard index exceeded one for liver (3.6).
(e) The hazard index exceeded one for liver (2.0).
Cf) The hazard index exceeded one for liver (>3,000), CNS (80), kidney (41), hematology (19),
increased blood pressure (11), lower body weight (4.9), gastrointestinal irritation (4.5),
myelin degradation (3.0), anemia (1.3), and total tlJT'IOr (1.1).
(g) The hazard index exceeded one for liver (>1,000), CNS (34), kidney (18), hematology (7.9),
increased blood pressure (4.7), lower body weight (2.1), gastrointestinal irritation ci.9),
and myelin degradation (1.2).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
-58-
Ambient water quality criteria are considered inappropriate
for the limited aquatic receptors at this site, because they
incorporate toxicity data from sensitive fish species such as
trout that would not occur in these creeks. Therefore,
potential impacts to the aquatic receptors at the Site were
evaluated by comparing average and maximum surface water
concentrations with invertebrate aquatic toxicity data.
Potential impacts from exposure to sediment were evaluated by
comparing average and maximum sediment concentrations with
sediment toxicity values.
Based on these comparisons, it is possible that the presence
of elevated levels of sodium in surface water may be
impacting freshwater aquatic life, especially in the creek to
the south of the Site. It is also possible that some
sensitive aquatic invertebrates could be adversely affected
by chromium, nickel, and some PAHs present in the sediment.
If these impacts were to occur, they are expected to be
limited to the small segments of the creeks adjacent to the
Site. Impacts in Fishing Creek, the closest permanent
surface water body, are not predicted. Limited cover at the
Site limits its value as habitat for terrestrial species.
Based on a qualitative analysis, terrestrial wildlife
communities in the low-lying and wooded areas near the Site
are not likely to be significantly impacted.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-59-
VII. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Section 121(D) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that
remedial actions comply with requirements or standards set
forth under Federal and State environmental laws. The
requirements that must be complied with are those that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the (1) potential
remedial actions, (2) location, and (3) media-specific
chemicals at the Site. Thus, ARARs are used to determine the
appropriate extent of Site cleanup, to scope and formulate
remedial action alternatives, and to govern the
implementation and operation of the selected action.
This section examines the cleanup criteria associated with
the contaminants found and the environmental media
contaminated.
A. Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific requirements set controls or restrictions on
the design, performance, and other aspects of implementation
of specific remedial activities. Because action-specific
ARARs apply to discrete remedial activities, their evaluation
will be discussed in greater detail in Section VIII. A
retained alternative must conform to all ARARs unless a
statutory waiver is involved.
B. Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs must consider Federal, State, and
local requirements that reflect the physiological and
environmental characteristics of the Site or the immediate
area. Remedial actions may be restricted or precluded
depending on the location characteristics of the Site and the
resulting requirements. A listing of potential
location-specific ARARs and their consideration towards the
Site is given in Table 23.
Federal classification guidelines for groundwater are as
follows:
*
*
Class I: Groundwater that is irreplaceble with no
alternative source or is ecologically vital;
Class II: A -Groundwater currently used for drinking
water;
B -Groundwater potentially available for
drinking water;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-60-
* Class III: Groundwater not considered a potential
source of drinking water due to natural
contamination or insufficient yield.
C. Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs are concentration limits in the
environment promulgated by government agencies. Health-based
site-specific levels must be developed for chemicals or media
where such limits do not exist and there is a concern with
their potential health or environmental impacts. Potential
chemical-specific ARARs are discussed by media below.
Groundwater
Groundwater ARARs will be evaluated with respect to the
overburden-bedrock aquifer at the Site. Potential ARARs for
groundwater include Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), North
Carolina Drinking Water Standards, and North Carolina
Groundwater Standards.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
The NCP states that MCLs, established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SOWA), are potentially relevant and appropriate
groundwater standards for groundwater that is a current or
current source of drinking water (300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)). The
groundwater in the overburden-bedrock aquifer is a potential
source of· drinking water; therefore, MCLs will be considered
the primary remediation goal.
North Carolina Drinking Water and Groundwater Standards
North Carolina drinking water standards (10 NCAC 10D) are
essentially identical to the SOWA MCLs established by the
EPA. North Carolina Groundwater Standards (North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) Title lSA, Chapter 2, Subchapter
2L) are for Class GA groundwater, best usage as a source of
drinking water. As seen in Table 3-1 in the FS Report, the
North Carolina Groundwater Standard for vinyl chloride is
below the CERLCA Contract Required Quantitation Limit. In
such cases, the North Carolina Groundwater Standard defers to
the quantitation limit as the maximum allowable concentration
(15 NCAC 2L Section .0202(b)).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-61-
In addition to the listed standards, Section .0202(c)
specifies that substances which are not naturally occurring
and for which no standard is specified shall not be permitted
in detectable concentrations. Therefore, since pesticides
are considered man-made and not naturally occurring, the
North Carolina Groundwater Standard is the quantitation
limit. Groundwater remediation levels are provided in Table
18.
Sludge/Soil
There are no promulgated Federal or State standards
applicable for contaminants in soils at the Site. Cleanup
levels have been calculated based on tiirect exposure
residential asswnp6ions for the top five feet of sludge/soil
and are at the 10-end of the protective risk range (risk
that one person in one million people would experience
adverse helath affects). These levels were adopted as per
OSWER Directive 9355.0-30.
Directive 9355.0-30 states that remedial action is warranted
under CERCLA where the Baseline Risk Assessment indicates
that site risk to an individual exists. The reasonable
maximwn exposure for both current and future land use for the
Site indicates that the non-carcinogenic hazard quotient
exceeds 1 for chromiwn, nickel, and antimony in those area
shown in Figure 8. The total quantity of contaminated
sludg3/soil to be remediated is estimated to be 3,000
yards . It was determined that the Site's future land use
possibilities should include a residential scenario where a
home with a basement is constructed.
The health-based sludge/soil cleanup levels are identified in
Table 19. This table also indicates the range of detected
concentrations of those metals whose hazard index exceeded 1.
-------------------
NS\00
NSOOO
N4900
--
N4800
OiAN'[L MASTER
11.AlN BUILOINC
TREATMENT
TANKS
-~--
20JB5 JC-15.0GN 4/4/91
BAHOAG WAREHOUSE
0 100
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 8
200
~
~
ETITII
Area to be Excavated, Sludge-Drying Bed Area
Channel Master Site
LEGEND
SLUDGE DRYING PITS IAPPROXlMATEl
AREA TO BE EXCAVATED TO I fT
AREA TO BE EXCAVATED TD 5 FT
I "' "' I
I
-63-
I Table 18
Groundwater Cleanup Goals Summary (µg/L)
I Final Cleanup Goals
I Range of Detected SOWA NC Groundwater Detection Analytical
Contaminant Concentrations(al MCL(b' Standard(" Limits Method
Organics
I Benzene I - 6 5 0.20 Method
601/602
1,2, -Dichloroethane 2 -11 5 0.38 0.03 Method
I 601/602
1, 1,-Dichloroethene l -1,200 7 7 0.13 Method
601/602
I 1,2-Dichloroethene 6 -2,900 70 0.10 Method
601/602
Tetrachloroethene 52 -11,000 5 0.7 0.03 Method
I 601/602
I, 1, ! -Trichloroethane l -490 200 200 0.03 Method
601/602
I Trichloroethene 46 -360,000 5 2.8 0. 12 Method
601/602
Vinyl chloride 3 -1,400 2 0.015 0. 18 Method
601/602 I Inorganics
Barium 53 -12,000 1.000 1,000 200 90 SOW
I (ICP)
Chromium 8 -1.400 100" 50 90 SOW
(Furnace)
Method 220.2
I Copper 19 -2,600 1,000 1.000 25 90 sow
(Furnace)
Method 239.2
I Lead 30 -270 20 50 90 SOW
(Furnace)
Method 218.2
I Nickel 42 -1,500 100 150 40 90 SOW
(ICP)
Zinc 34 -4,000 500 5,000 20 90 sow
I (ICP)
Cyanide 800-1100 200 154 10 90 sow
Note:
I • Includes samples collected in boreholes or wells on the Channel Master property and contigumls properties.
I b SDWA MCL = Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant kvd and secondary maximum contaminant level.
' ISA NCAC 2L .200(g); Class GA standards.
I SOWA MCL for chromium will be 100 µg/L effective July 30, 1992.
I TABLE3-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTAMINANT
OF CONCERN
Chromium ( Cr' )
Nickel
Antimony
CONTAMINANT
OF CONCERN
Chromium
Nickel
-64-
TABLE 19
SOIL REMEDIATION LEVELS
(FROM 0-1 FOOT DEPTH)
DETECTED SOIL
CONCENTRATIONS
24-24,000 ppm
10-11,000 ppm
5.6-120 ppm
SOIL REMEDIATION LEVELS
(FROM 1-5 FOOT DEPTH)
DETECTED SOIL
CONCENTRATIONS
6.4-96,000 ppm
3.6-36,000 ppm
SOIL
CLEANUP LEVELS
310 ppm
1,000 ppm
25 ppm
SOIL
CLEANUP LEVELS
310 ppm
1,100 ppm
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-65-
This excavation-based scenario would make the concentrated but otherwise immobile sludge/soil available for direct exposure. An excavation scenario which would quantify this future possibility was not attempted due to the uncertainty of choosing adequate and appropriate exposure parameters. Thus, in order to be protective of this possible land use, it was determined that cleanup goals for sludge/soil would be calculated based on direct exposure and would be applied to sludge/soils at depth.
The remediation goals are based on exposure to contaminated sludge and/or soils via incidental ingestion and dermal contact. The following equation and exposure assumptions were used to calculate the remediation goals for chromium. All chromium present is assumed to be in the hexavalent state.
THI* AT* BW
EF*ED*[(l/Rfdo*FI*IR*CF)+(l/RfDa*SA*AF*AB*CF)J
where: THI
AT
BW
EF
ED
RfDO =
FI
IR
CF
Rfda =
SA
AF
ABS
= Target Hazard Index= 1
= Aver. time= 2,190 days (child), 8,760 (adult) = Body Weight= 15 kg (child), 70 kg (adult) = Exposure Frequency= 350 days/year = Exposure Duration= 6 yrs. (child); 24 yrs. (adult)
Oral Reference Dose (mg/kg-day)
= Fraction Ingested= 1
=Ing.Rate= 200 mg/day (child); 100 mg/day (adult)
= Conversion Factor= lE-06 kg/mg Adjusted Rfdo (5% oral absorp. eff.) [mg/kg-day]
= Surface are= 3,140 cm2 (child); 3,120 cm2
(adult)
= Soil to Skin Adherance Factor= 1 mg/cm2
= Dermal Absorption Factor= 0.001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-66-
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 20 summarizes the technologies considered for
remediating the groundwater and sludge/soil contamination,
respectively, at the JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site.
These tables also provide the rationale as to why certain
technologies were not retained for further consideration
after the initial screening.
A. Remedial Alternatives to Address
Groundwater Contamination
The groundwater alternatives were deyeloped to address
groundwater contamination at the Site:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Alternate Water Supply, Closure of
Private Wells, Deed Restrictions, Monitoring
Alternative 3: Groundwater Extraction, Treatment with
Ultra-violet Radiation-Oxidation, and
Precipitation/Filtration
Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction, Treatment with
Alkaline Chlorination, Precipitation/Filtration,
Air Stripping, and Carbon Adsorption
Alternative 5: Groundwater Extraction, Treatment with
Alkaline Chlorination, Ion Exchange, Air
Stripping, and Carbon Adsorption
The remedial response actions to address groundwater
contamination are discussed below.
Alternative 1: No Action
No activities would be conducted on-Site groundwater under
this alternative. The No Action alternative would include
the posting of warning signs, a 5-year review of the remedy,
as well as the initiation of a public awareness program.
This alternative involves the following costs:
Total
Total
Total
Capital Costs
0 & M Costs
Present Worth Costs
$170,000
$276.000
$333,000
--- -- -------- ------QINIRAL PROCESS RlaPONSI ACTION TECHNOLOGY OPTION DESCRIPTION INITIAL SCREENING COMMENTS I NO ACTION I INSHTUTIO~L ~ ACTIONS I CONTAINMENT I-I COLLECTION I I OISOiARGE I I IN SITU r TREATMENT 1535407 NONE NOT APPLICABLE I-No remedial adlom. Rtlalned u 11quired bJ CERCLA. rl ACCESS DEED RESTRICTIONS L-All duds tor property within pottntlaly conwnnated .u111 would lnd!OI r•trlcllonl on the use ol Potentially applicable. RESTRICTIONS groundwater and futu11 well drlllng. CITY WATER I-Extension ol Oxford thy wa.ter lines, southw,ml, aloog Hwy. 15 to residences OOwngr1.dltnt of conbmlnant Pottntlally applicable. H ALTERNATE WATER }1 plume: llckldes mandae thal residents In servlct aru bl conoecttd wtth city water. SUPPLY NEW (DEEPER) Nol applcable due to presence of lradured rocli: aqulflf that~ ncf have WELLS -lnlllllal:lon cl new, uncontamlnaled welll (lndlvldu.al or joint) !or 1tllded rnldent1. any barrier1 to vertlcal (downward) miwatlon. MONITORING SAMPLING/ Colectlon and ana:/y'lls of groundwater and surface water samples {from dladtarge ams) to monllor t-ANALYSIS .. continued move1mn1 and groundwater qua.11y trends. POltntlally applicable. Mulllmedla cap with low permea:blllty, drainage, and vegelatMI layer, dnlgnal to r.iur.a Not a,pplcabll; appllcatlon usualy llmlt.t to 1011rr.a arm; lnltlldive In contrOlllng }j RCRA-TY!'E c» I-lnfiltratlonNerllczl rnowmeni at contaminant, Into groundwater. groundwa!• contaminant migration. "1 CAPPING NON-RCRA CAP I-Single Of mulilayered soil, ctly, and/or pmrntnt (concrete, aphal) cap designed to ra:luce Not applicable: 111uaDy Im led lo source arm; lnlflectlve In controlling lnflttratlonNertlczl ll'IOVlmllll at contaminant, Into groundwahr. groundwalar contaminant migration. ~ VERTICAL BARRIERS }j Sll.ARY WALLS I,.. Conllructlon at a vertical low permeabllty llyar through exu.wtlon at trench and batkflln,g with 1olV Not appllcable lo lractured rock aqule11; horlzonlaly continuous confining layer blntonll 1tirry mb(ture; mtnlmtm: gr0111dwatlr contaminant migration a.bow a prNxlltlng confining layar. needed lor 1lurry wall key (below contaminated zone) II not pr11tnt Construction at a vertical low permeabllty layer, through hlgh-prusuni ln)ld:lon at grout Into dollly spar.ad GROUT CURTAIN I-Not appllcable to lractured rock aqull11: hortzootal confining layer II 1101 prnsnl bcweho6a; mlnimlzn groundwal1r cootamlnanl migration abow a preulsilng confining t,ytr. ""1 GRADIENT CONTROLS PUMPING/INJECTJONt° Control at groundwahlr !low and contaminant transport using pumping and/or ln)tctlon WIIII. Nol applicable: Injection prohibited by state regulations; exiracllon wells wookl require handlklg ol contamiuled groundwater. EXTRACTION WELLS I-, Welll and pumps Installed wthln the nmns at thl contaminant plume (Of tmma:llatety dowitngradlent) 10 Patentlally appMcable. -I withdraw contaminated groundwalar; also seiva lo modify hydraulic gadlentl. EXTRACTION INTERCEPTOR I-A grtvtl-or u.ncMllled collldlon trench with perforated pipe in ta•; Intercepts groundwater flow and P011rrUally applcabll. DRAINS tonVlyl II a dlsch&rgt point: allo •rvn to modify trydrwllc gradllfllt. OEEPINJECTION ~ ln)tctlon at utracttd groundwal11 Into dnp aquler mm isolated from shalklw aqull1rs. Not appllcable due lo al:unca at mnflnlng Jay.rw In lrad:ura:I rodt aquner; in addition, slate prohibits iljedlon of wasles. ...J ONSITE DISCHARGE~ lffRTRATION r Plrt:Olallon (nichargl) at untr•ltd groundwater using gravtl-or sand-llltd trenches and low pre1su11 Not applluble: would raul In recharge ol contaminated waler Into aquifer and GALLERY distrltutlon systsm. contaminated IOI. ADJACENT STREAM I-Dlscharoa at untm.tad groundwater to lrrtermltttnt strum aiuth at 1b. POl1ntlally applcable. 4 OFFSITE DISCHARGE I-POTW I-Discharge ol untrutld ;roundwaler to Oxford sewagt lraatmeni plant via lfttr lil1 U>ng Pine Tree Potlrrtlally applcable. Road. OFFSITE DISPOSAL t-Colltltd groundwahlr II hauled by tank truck lordllposal al wa1t1 tr•tment facllly llcenlld lo handle Nol appllcablt d111 to high volume ot groundwa.ler that must bl OfQlnlc and notganlc wallll. transported. n BIOLOGICAL BIOOEGRAOATION ~ Injection WIiis UIIICI to il)tct oxygen and.'or nutrlentl below wahlr tablt lo tnhara mtrobla.l Not applicable due lo anl101roplc. heterogenlOUI aquifer conditions and chkx"lnated TREATMENT decomposition at organic contaminants. aliphatlc corrtamlnants. HCHEMCAL TREATMENT CHEMICAL I-ln)tctlon wslls used to Inject dlemleal oxidants below water table to mldlZI contaminants; allo 1111d to Not applicable due to anllolroplc. heterogeneous aquifer conditions. OXIDATION tnhanCAI biological actMly. . L.j PHYSICAL TREATMENT VAPOR EXTRACTION t"" A vacuum II applled to unsaturated zone and dewatertd portions at the saturattd rone: wpor1 ar, Not appUcablll dUI lo anllOtroplc. hllero,otnlOUS aquifer conditions and dllorlnata:I collecttd on 1ur1ace In wpor-phase carbon adsorption or other system. aUl)hatlc contaminants. Table 20 Preliminary Identification and Screening of Technologies and Remedial Process Options for Groundwater "' ....
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
► ~ z z
" .. ..
-68-
!i I
~
ffi i=
T "T..._.,... ...
I
--GENERAL
•ESPGMSS •--•OM
I NO ACTION •
I 1NSHTUTIONAL ACTIONI--
I CONTAINMENT t-
I REMOVAL
I DISPOSAL r
1 Ui-'11.1
----------- -----REMEDIAL PROCESS DESCRIPTION INITIAL KR■■NINQ COllll■NT8 -~-HMQIO--o-•-u
No rtmtdlal action . Rllalned ill r1Qulrsd by CERCL.A.
• Restrictions placed on property dud lo prewnt futura bulldlng or other lilnd us• on or na.r Potentially applicable. • DEED RESTRICTIONS 1 sludgt-drylng beds .
--1 ACCESS RESTRICTION I---
• FENCING AND SIGNS : Ftnce la conslructtd aroond sh»Qt diylng b«tl and nsoclated ar111 with contamN.!ed soil. PotentlilJ>, appllcabll. •
-I MONITORING • • SAMPLING ANO Periodic sampling ol suttaca 10111, surface water (run-ofl), and sediment to Identify currentl1uture releae. Potentlally appllcablll. I ANAl.YSIS I
• RCRA·TYPE CAP • Cam sludge dtyng bids and contaminated sol with mull-media RCRA-type ca.p to restrict lnlllridlon, ellmlnate Pot1ntially applicable.
11.1rtat1 exposurn.
-I r.APPING 1--
NON•RCRA CAP • Ccrter sludgt drynQ beds and contamlnahd sol wllh mull-media RCRA-type cap to restrict lnlltrlllon. ellmlnate Pottntlally appllcab6e. surface aposurn.
SLURRY WALL ' Construction d I vertx:al Pll'fflGbilty barrlllr 111lng l trench batk-Ullld with 10U-bentonl1 slurry mix; restricts Not applicable glvtn absence ol horizontal
groundwaler flow. conllnlng lay11 inlo wtllch lklrry wall m111I bl
"""'·
Nol a.ppllcabll given absffltl of horizontal ....,,l VERTCAL BARRIER SHEET Pn..lNG • Conllructlon al a v1rtlca.l permnblltty barrllr using drtwn shffl pin; mtrlcll groundwater flow bensalh conllnlng layer lnlo which sheet pile must bl conttmlnalld a.ru. """'
GROUT CURTAIN • Coostructlon al a. ve111ca.l permublllty layer by Injecting grout al high pressure Into closely spaced borehokll;
rnlrk:11 groundwater. Nol a.pplcable In lra.cturld roek aqulltt.
HORIZONTAL BARRIER I BLOCK DISPLACEMENT I
Cootlructlon al a fixed barrier lfOllld and t.l'lllth the rk>w mus al a:mta.mlnafld 1011 and llu~e; bottom
barrier II formed by high prnsure lnJectlon al slurry: P1ffflet11 barrilf II tklrry wal.
Not applcablt due lo potenllal IOI' damage to
nearby bulkilng founda.tlons.
EXCAVATION • • SLUOGE/SOIL • Mecha.nlcal rwmoval al skldge drying bid wuta and contaminated sob llllng COOYll'ltiona.J construction Potenllally appllcable. I I EXCAVATION I 1Qulprnent.
Not apple.able due to llmltld size al site and , ONSITE DISPOSAL 1 • ONSITE I.AMJFILL A spacla.lly coostruc:tld ontlle dltposal cell dalgned wlh liner, linal cover, and other de5ign lealures con listen! llklllhood !or continued commercial USI al the ,ne. with appllcablt stall regulations.
-I OFFSITE DISPOSAL 1 1 OFFSITE TSO FACILITY Excavaled material It lrtnsportad lo permitted TSO ltclllty lor trtalmlnl (as needed) and disposal Potentially a.ppllcable.
Table 20 (cont.)
Identification and Preliminary Screening of Remedial Technologies and
Process Options for Sludge-Drying Beds and Soils
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• .. z • :II :II 0 u
" z i .. .. g .. ! ..
!
z ! ii: ¥ .. a
• • ..
8 .. ..
...
C ii .. :II .. ..
.. =· .. z ..
"
• I • i i l
I !
I f 8 • • • ! 8
f
.~ • • ! e e 8
l
I I
J r " I
f .. • J
1
i
~ ~ g
"' " ~ 8 ~ ..E
~ g
1
I ~ .• t
" • I
ll
j • •· ... .e •• il
j
I a i
1
l • .• t
.f
f
l
i
! l • 1
I l
~
• ~ 8
5 i! 0
~
,i ' E .
I .I " i ~
" " • • I I t i I j j j • • • ~ • • " ! " ii i • j ii j
j 1! ,• • 1 8 • z • • j JI • • E ! ! I i ~
! I
8 ; • li l a ! • 4 • 8 • ! • D • I 1! 1 'B i ; 8 .f e
.r J _g
• .~ I E .. .ill • • " i j f I • E • I _g • ; l i • ~ E @ • ~ 8 ~ I .. .ill .ill j I I • l l ~
-·~ ~
~
i lii !!!:
;f i;; ,. ,.
!II 0 ~ Ir .I ~ "' ~~ ~ ~ ~;e
-~ ~
l
I 0
I
T
.I ~ I ~ !I
2 8 il! ~ " -
•
I .I • e-.. • .. • I i
" • g • ll I J • ,i ,i • I I I I I j
! • • • • i i i " ~ . .
J J i i H l l
• j
j . • • • &
!
I • I . I ~ • i • • i • f 4 I • ~ ~ j % • • 8 I I • ~ ~ & & I .r .r I
I I I • .. E
8 8 • .ill
.i • ~ ! • •• l • • E E " ..
1! . • .• .• • " " • I!-• • ! ..
1 1 I 1 I i i I ... •• •• l J s s f E 8 I I • ;
l! . i i ; J u : : ll ll
---
!! F 0 0 • i I Ill ' ;s : ! ;f 5 ~1 !I &l s !:! !l iS -... -
--
z 0 ~ ~ I ~ I;; ,. r
-70-
e
: .ff lj ·" E-• • • ! l~
1 i • ~J . . • • • . .. • l I -1 l a j • ,h • • • • •• • • ~ • ] .. • ,.. ! .. ,.. ]r ,.. • i • ii ·• • Ji • li •a Ji l j j l j is l
i
" •
I i • • I ~ • l I I ..
! ! • l J : l .ii • f l ~ .. B l i 1 G' i • i 6' i ~ • • 1' ! ; l ! e ·r • t i e [;! " I ! ! • 3 f il I . 1 ~ ! ~ .. • l ... § i l ! ! .• I I ~ ,I. I • i i 1 & i I . • • • .ill i .. I ,..
j I s I I I . f .i . 1 1 .; J ..
; ; " l f f ; .!! t t t £ £
I l ! ; 'e ; ;
i it i i E E 8 8 8 " " " • • • ! ! ! ! l! l! l! 1 1' ! ! I I a % .I
~
• ~ i!i i !! s Ill 5 ~ ~ ! ► ~ 5 i i g !l • "' D l: ill ~ " ~ ~ 0
--
-
I I i i " " "' ~ ~ ~ ,. T T
f
ll ..
i, s
i K
I • • ~ . l l ! !
i • • • J• ,.. ,r • • ! :i i 1 l ii
JI • • ' • fl • .I E .fl ; • E i! i I I
I I I ! .! .. I I I ; J e ! J li • I • i ! I • ~ 1 • 1 ' • l ,.. & E . . :. I l l J I 1 1 : I • • .! .! i 1 E • f f .. i 8 8 ·!
I I 1 .r . .. .. • t f .. • l " r r I s E e
9 9 I i s s ii! s
0 ! Ill Ill !! ; ii ~ • i ~ g
le! " ..
-
-~
!! F i ~ ~
T T
l
~ l!! s I" ~
~ ......
f " §
i r~ I! :• -~ !I H •• ii
i
1! I ~ ;
i §
! , • I ~ ~ i • E I u •l 1· .. •. li •]! i~ . .;
H ... i ; if fu
lii ,.
!l "' §
-
5 • §
:I ~ ~
• • ! • t " • I
I
j
i
ii
§
I • i
!
.i
E ! i .. • I ;
& i
E 1 ~
1
i .. ;
.! i
C
--
Ii ~
-
3
~
0 N ., ...
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-71-
Alternative 2: Institutional Actions -Alternate Water Supply, Closure of Private Wells, Deed Restrictions, Monitoring
Alternative 2, considered a "limited action" response, is considered a site-wide remedial action. This alternative involves not only closing existing private wells, but supplying an alternate water supply for those potentially affected drinking wells located downgradient from the Site. Establishing deed restrictions would prohibit the drilling of new water supply wells and the use of existing groundwater in the area potentially affected by the Site. Monitoring of existing water supply wells located outside the area of deed restrictions would enable early detection of any site-related contamination.
The reduction of groundwater contaminants to acceptable levels would occur only through natural processes, thus requiring many years before cleanup goals would be met.
For costing purposes, Alternative 2 has been proposed as a site-wide remedial response. The following costs shown below include the groundwater remedy, the sludge/soil remedy, and total capital costs. The same costs are shown in the following section (Sludge/Soil Remedy-Alternative 2).
Total Capital Costs Total O & M Costs Total Present Worth Costs
$524,000
$338,000
$862,000
Alternative 3: Collection/Treatment/Disposal -Groundwater Extraction, Treatment with Ultra-violet Radiation-Oxidation and Precipitation/Filtration
This alternative involves the recovery of groundwater such that the remediation levels would be attained. Contamination would be removed through extraction wells placed in contaminated portions of the overburden-bedrock aquifer and reduced through treatment by Ultraviolet Radiation and Precipitation/Filtration. Discharge of the treated groundwater would be either to the local Publicly-owned. Treatment Works (POTW) or to a nearby, unnamed branch of Fishing Creek. All contaminants in the groundwater would be reduced to levels which would be acceptable by local POTW standards or to levels required by a NPDES permit.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-72-
The proposed extraction system (as with Alternatives 4 and 5)
would involve the installation of approximately six recovery
wells arranged in such a manner to extract all
voe-contaminated groundwater and to control any further
offsite migration of the contaminated groundwater.
Ultraviolet Radiation
The use of Ultraviolet Radiation, along with oxidizing agents
such as hydrogen peroxide and ozone, are a proven technology
for destroying dissolved organic contaminants as well as a
host of other contaminants including cyanide.
Precipitation/Filtration
Precipitation/Filtration (or flocculation) is also a proven
physiochemical process whereby inorganic substances in
solution are transformed into solids and removed from the
liquid waste stream by forcing the groundwater through a
porous substance acting as the filter media. The technology
is based upon alternation of the chemical equilibrium
relationships affecting the solubility of an inorganic
species. Removal of metals as hydroxides or sulfides is the
most common precipitation application in wastewater
treatment. Precipitation is applicable to the removal of
most metals from wastewater, including zinc, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, manganese, and mercury. Certain
anionic species such as phosphate, sulfate, and fluoride can
also be removed.
Precipitation and Filtration are well-established
technologies. Precipitation/Filtration equipment is
relatively simple, readily available, easy to operate and
control, and to integrate with other treatment technologies.
Several disadvantages are that residual sludge waste would be
generated from the treatment process and sent offsite to a
RCRA TSD facility in full compliance with its Part B permit,
in accordance with EPA's off-site policy. The process is
non-selective in that compounds other than those targeted may
be removed.
Discharge of the treated groundwater would be to the
Granville County POTW or to an nearby, unnamed tributary of
Fishing Creek. The actual method of discharge and operating
parameters would be established during Remedial Design.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-73-
Further characterization will be conducted to determine the
full extent of groundwater contamination and to attempt to
determine if a second source of VOC contamination exists near
the Site. This characterization will be necessary for
groundwater alternatives 3, 4, and 5 prior to drafting a
detailed design for a groundwater pump-and-treat system at
the Site.
This characterization will be conducted during the pre-design
activities associated with groundwater remediation. To
achieve this characterization, the installation of additional
monitoring wells will be necessary. The costs for these
additional wells are not included in this ROD.
Total Capital Costs
Total O & M Costs
Total Present Worth Costs
$2,657,000
$1,852,000
$4,509,000
Alternative 4: Collection/Treatment/Disposal -Groundwater
Extraction, Treatment with Alkaline Chlorination,
Precipitation/Filtration, Air Stripping, and Carbon
Adsorption
Alkaline Chlorination
Alkaline Chlorination is a proven technology for destroying
both voes and cyanide in groundwater with the use of chlorine
compounds such as sodium hypochlorite and chlorine gas.
PrecipitationiFiltration would be used to transform inorganic
substances in groundwater into solids and remove them from
the liquid waste stream by forcing the groundwater through a
porous substance. As described for alternative 3, sludge
would be generated from this treatment and would be sent
offsite for disposal.
Air Stripping
Air Stripping is the mass transfer process whereby volatile
contaminants are transferred from their combined state to a
gaseous state. Four commonly used methods for air stripping
liquids are packed column, cross-flow tower, coke tray
aerator, and diffused air basn procedures. Air stripping is
most commonly accomplished using a packed tower equipped
with an air blower. The packed tower works on the principle
of counter-current flow where the water stream flows down
through the packing material while the air is blown upward,
and is exhausted through the top. Volatile, soluble
compounds have an affinity for the gaseous phase.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-74-
In the cross-flow tower, water flows down through the packing
as in the counter-current packed column; however, the air is
pulled across the water flow by a fan. The coke tray aerator
is a simple, low maintainenance process requiring no blower.
The water being treated is allowed to trickle through several
layers of trays. This produces a large surface area for gas
transfer.
Diffused aeration stripping and induced draft stripping use
aeration basins similar to standard wastewater rteatment
aeration basins. Water flows through the basin from top to
bottom of the basin. The air to water ratio is significantly
lower in either the packed column or the cross-flow tower
units.
Air stripping is normally utilized to remove volatile
organics from aqueous waste streams. Generally components
with Henry's Law constants greater than 0.003 can be
effectively removed by air stripping. The waste feed stream
must be low in suspended solids and may require pH
adjustments to reduce solubility and improve transfer to the
gaseous phase.
Air stripping is sometimes only partially effective in
groundwater treatment and must be followed by other processes
such as carbon adsorption or biological treatment. The
combined use of air stripping followed by other applicable
processes can be an effective means of removing the
contaminants from groundwater. Equipment for air stripping
is relatively simple, start-up and shut-down can be
accomplished quickly, and the modular design of packed towers
makes them somewhat mobile in their application.
An important consideration in the utilization of the air
stripping technology are the implications of the air
pollution which may result from the air stripping operation
itself. The gaseous stream generated during air stripping
may require collection and subsequent treatment.
Carbon Adsorption
The process of adsorption onto activated carbon involves
contacting a waste stream with the carbon, normally by flow
through a packed bed reactor. The activated carbon process
can be designed to selectively adsorb hazardous constituents
by a surface attraction phenomenon in which organic molecules
are attracted to the internal pores of the carbon granules.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-75-
Adsorption depends upon the strength of the molecular
attraction between the adsorbent substance and absorbate,
molecular weight, type and characteristics of the absorbent
substance, electrokinetic charge, pH, and surface area. Once
the micropore surfaces are saturated with organics, the
carbon is spent and must either be replaced with virgin
carbon or removed, thoroughly regenerated, and replaced.
The time to reach breakthrough or exhaustion is the single
most critical operating parameter. Carbon longevity balanced
against influent concentration governs operating economies.
In the event that the carbon is regenerated on-site, the
supernatant from this process will be processed through the
system constructed for treating the site groundwater.
Activated carbon adsorption is a well-developed technology
which is widely used in the treatment of hazardous waste
streams. It is especially well suited for the removal of
mixed organics from aqueous wastes. Since carbon adsorption
is an electrical interaction phenomenon, the polarity of the
waste compounds will determine the effectiveness of the
adsorption process.
The more hydrophobic (insoluble) a molecule is, the more
readily the compound is adsorbed. As a result, low
solubility humic and fulvic acids which are present in the
groundwater can absorb to the activated carbon more readily
than any waste contaminants and result in rapid carbon
exhaustion. Also, some metals and inorganic species have
shown excellant to good adsorption potential. These include
antimony, arsenic, bismuth, chromium, tin, silver, mercury,
cobalt, zirconium, chlorine, bromine, and iodine. Activated
carbon can also be utilized in the powdered form, which
offers the advantages of greatly increased surface area
availability and reduced costs.
Carbon adsorption technology can be used in conjunction with
or flowing biological treatment and/or gravity filtration.
Its purpose in this application is to remove the refractory
organics which cannot be biologically degraded.
The biological treatment and/or granular media filtration
steps prior to carbon adsorption reduce the organic and
suspended solids load to the carbon adsorption units.
Reduction of organic and suspended solid load minimizes
carbon usage and regeneration costs. Air stripping has also
been applied prior to carbon adsorption in order to reduce a
portion of the volatile contaminants and reduce the organic
load to the carbon adsorption units.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-76-
Activated carbon usage is easily implemented into or along
with other treatment systems. The process is well suited to
mobile units as well as to on-site construction. Space
requirements are small and start-up and shutdown are rapid.
Regeneration of spent carbon for use is the highest operating
cost associated with the utilization of carbon adsorption
technology. In addition, high capital costs can be
associated with its use. Both capital and operating costs
can be substantially reduced through pretreatment of the
waste prior to its treatment with carbon adsorption.
Activated carbon treatment will not be utilized as a primary
remedial technology role at the Site, but will be used as a
supplementary technique in conjunction with other clean-up
technologies. This technology will be retained for further
consideration.
Treated groundwater would be discharged either to the local
POTW or a nearby tributary of Fishing Creek.
Costs for this alternative are based on discharge to the
local POTW as well as a remediation period of at least five
years.
Total Capital Costs
Total O & M Costs
Total Present Worth Costs
$2,657,000
$1,852.000
$4,509,000
Alternative 5: Collection/Treatment/Disposal -Groundwater
Extraction, Treatment with Alkaline Chlorination, Ion
Exchange, Air Stripping, and Carbon Adsorption
Alternative 5 would include the same treatment except Ion
Exchange would be substituted for Precipitation/Filtration.
Ion Exchange
Ion Exchange is a process where the toxic ions present in a
waste stream are removed by being exchanged with relatively
harmless ions held by the ion exchange material. Ion·
exchange resins are primarily synthetic organic materials
containing ionic functional groups to which exchangeable ions
are attached. These synthetic resins are structurally stable
(can tolerate a range of temperature and pH), exhibit a high
exchange capacity, and can be utilized to selectively
exchange ions.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-77-
This technology can be used to remove a wide range of
inorganic species from water. These include: all metallic
elements when present as soluble species (either anionic or
cationic); inorganic anions such as halides, sulfates,
nitrates, cyanides; organic acids such as carboxylics,
sulfonics, and some phenols; and organic amines.
A practical upper limit on contaminant concentrations in
order for ion exchange to work effectively is about 2,500 to
4,000 mg/1 (ppm). Suspended solids in the feed stream should
be low, less than 50 mg/1 to prevent plugging in the resin,
and the waste stream must be free of oxidants.
Ion exchange is a well established technology for heavy metal
removal and hazardous anion removal from dilute waste
solutions. A problem which exists with ion exchange is the
disposal of contaminated regeneration solutions.
Consideration should be given to selection of these solutions
when evaluating the technology. Based on the data available
for this screening, the contaminants present, amenability of
other treatment technologies, and costs, ion exchange is not
being considered for further evaluation as a remedial
technology at the Site.
B. Remedial Alternatives to Address Soil Remediation
The response actions to address sludge/soil remediation are:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Fencing, Warning Signs, Deed
Restrictions, Non-RCRA Capping
Alternative 3: Excavation and Off-site
Disposal
Alternative 4: Excavation, Treatment with
Oxidation-Reduction, Stabilization, On-site
Disposal, Non-RCRA Capping
Alternative 5: Excavation, In-situ
Vitrification, On-site Disposal, Non-RCRA
Capping
Each of the five alternatives is described below.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-78-
Al ternati ve 1: No Action
In this alternative, no sludge or soil remediation would
occur. The costs associated with this alternative are the
same as the costs shown for Alternative 1 for the groundwater
remediation. These costs include:
Total Capital Costs
Total O & M Costs
Total Present Worth Costs
$170,000
$276,000
$333,000
Alternative· 2: Institutional Actions -Fencing, Warning
Signs, Deed Restrictions, Non-RCRA Capping
This alternative would include fencing of the site to limit
access to the property, as well as posting warning signs to
identify the property as a EPA Superfund hazardous waste
site. Deed restrictions would also be established to limit
land and groundwater use in the area of contamination.
Prolonged monitoring of the contamination would be
implemented. A Non-RCRA cap would be placed over the sludge
drying bed area to reduce the possibility for physical
contact with contaminants, the possibility for airborne
contamination, as well as the possibility for contamination
of surface water and sediments.
Total
Total
Total
Alternative 3:
Capital Costs
0 & M Costs
Present Worth Costs
$524,000
$338,000
$862,000
Excavation and Offsite Disposal
Alternative 3 would include excavating the contaminated
sludge and soil and transporting the material offsite to an
approved RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSO)
facility. The sludge and soil is classified as a mixture of
RCRA -FOO6 and F019 Listed Waste, and would therefore be
regulated as such by the Land Bab restrictions (40 CFR 268).
Trucks would be loaded by conventional earthmoving
equipment. Once the trucks are loaded, a cover would be
installed over the material, and the trucks would be
transferred to a decontamination facility for final cleaning
and inspection prior to transport. The total quantity of
contaminate1 sludge and soils to be removed is estimated to
be 3,000 yd, which would require approximately 230
truckloads to complete the offsite transporting of the
material.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-79-
Once all contaminated sludge and soil is removed from the
Site and the excavated area is backfilled with clean fill and
topsoil, a vegetative cover will be established and the area
can be opened for unrestricted use. The time required for
excavation and offsite disposal of the sludge and soil may be
determined by local authorities and their restrictions on
truck traffic or by the disposal facility's processing
capabilities. At a disposal rate of 5 trucks per day, the
disposal would take approximately 2 months.
Total Capital Costs
No O & M Costs
Total Present Worth Costs
$2,363,000 _____ O
$2,363,000
Alternative 4: Excavation, Treatment with Oxidation-
Reduction, Stabilization, On-site
Disposal, Non-RCRA Capping
Alternative 4 includes excavating the contaminated sludge and
soil and treating the material with Oxidation-Reduction and
Stabilization.
Oxidation-Reduction
Oxidation-Reduction is a type of treatment whereby
contaminants undergo a chemical process to either destroy or
convert each constituent to a less hazardous form.
Stabilization
Stabilization and solidification are terms which are used to
describe treatment systems which accomplish one or more of
the following objectives:
*
*
improve waste handling or other physical
characteristics of a waste
decrease the surface area from which transfer or
loss of contained pollutants can occur
* limit the solubility or toxicity of hazardous waste
constituents
Stabilization is used to desribe processes whereby one of the
aforementioned objectives are obtained by production of a
monolithic block of waste with high structural integrity.
The contaminants do not necessarily interact chemically with
the resulting solidification reagents, but are mechanically
locked within the solidified matrix.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-80-
Contaminant loss due to leaching is minimized by reducing the
surface area available. Stabilization methods usually
involve the addition of materials which limit the solubility
or mobility of the waste constituents even though the
physical handling characteristics of the waste may not be
improved.
Stabilization and solidification techniques may include
various fixating agents such as cement, silicate-based
materials, and organic polymers; they may also utilize the
adsorptive capabilities of various materials including
thermoplastic processes, surface encapsulation, or
vitrification.
Non-RCRA Capping
Capping is a process to cover buried waste (in this case
stabilized sludge and soil) to minimize their contact with
atmospheric waters and potential leaching to groundwater.
The use of capping at the Site as a supplemental or follow-up
treatment subsequent to the backfilling of the stabilized
sludge and soil would also help to deny human contact with
the stabilized materials.
Generally, capping is utilized when subsurface contamination
at a site precludes excavation and removal of wastes because
of potential hazards and/or unrealistic costs, or the intent
of the remediation is to isolate a non-mobile waste from
direct contact.
The main disadvantages of capping include the potentially
significant maintenance requirements as well as the
uncertainty of the design life.
Total Capital Costs:
Total O & M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$1,090,000
$61,000
$1,151,000
Alternative 5: Excavation, Treatment with Vitrification,
Backfilling, On-site Disposal, Non-RCRA
Capping
Alternative 5 includes excavating the contaminated sludge and
soil, treating the materials with ex-situ Vitrification,
backfilling and capping the area with a Non-RCRA cap.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-Bl-
Vitrification
Vitrification uses electrical power to heat and melt
contaminants in the sludge and soil to form a stable glass
and crystalline structure with very low leaching
characteristics. Once the materials have been vitrified,
they will pass through a separation chamber, where the
glass-like materials are separated from the gases. The gases
then pass through a collection system before being
discharged. The materials would be backfilled and capped in
the same manner as in Alternative 4.
The advantages of vitrification include the potential ability
to destroy, remove, or immobilize all contaminant groups and
to reduce the waste/media being treated. The need for
off-gas collection and treatment, however, is a disadvantage.
Total Capital Costs:
Total O & M Costs:
Total Present Worth Costs:
$1,058,000
$61,000
$1,119,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-82-
IX. SUMMARY OF CAMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial alternatives to address groundwater and.soils
contamination were avaluated using the nine evaluation
criteria as set forth in the NCP 40 CFR 300.430 (e)(9). A
brief description of each of the nine evaluation alternatives
is provided below.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
1.
2.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment addresses how an alternative as a whole
will protect human and the environment. This
includes an assessment of how the public health and
the environmental risks are properly eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or controls placed on the
property to restrict access and (future)
development. Deed restrictions are examples of
controls to restrict development.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements /ARARs) addresses whether
or not a remedy complies with all state and federal
environmental and public health laws and
requirements that apply or are relevant and
appropriate to the conditions and cleanup options at
a specific site. If an ARAR cannot be met, the
analysis of the alternative must provide the grounds
for invoking a statutory waiver.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the
ability of an alternative to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over
time once the cleanup goals have been met.
4. Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility. or Volume are the
three principal measures of the overall performnace
of an alternative. The 1986 amendments to the
Superfund statute emphasize that, whenever possible,
EPA should select a remedy that uses a treatment
process to premanently reduce the level of toxicity
of contaminants at the site; the spread of
contaminants away from the source of contaminants;
and the volume, or amount, of contamination at the site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.
6.
-83-
Short-term Effectiveness refers to the likelihood of
adverse impacts on human health or the environment
that may be posed during the construction and
implementation of an alternative until cleanup goals
are achieved.
Cost includes the capital (up-front) cost of
implementing an alternative, as well as the cost of
operating and maintaining the alternative over the
long-term, and the net present worth of both the
capital and operation and maintenance costs.
MODIFYING CRITIERIA
8.
9.
State Acceptance addresses whether the public
concurs with EPA's Proposed Plan, the State concurs
with, opposes, or has no comments on the
alternatives EPA are proposing as the remedy for the
site.
Community Acceptance addresses whether the public
concurs with EPA's Proposed Plan. Community
acceptance of this Proposed Plan will be evaluated
based on comments received at the public meetings
and during the public comment period.
These evaluation criteria relate directly to requirements in
Section 121 of CERCLA 42 USC Section 9621, which determine
the overall feasibility and acceptability of the remedy.
Threshold criteria must be satisfied in order for a remedy to
be eligible for selection. Primary balancing criteria are
used to weigh major trade-offs between remedies. State and
community acceptance are modifying criteria formally taken
into account after public comment is received on the Proposed
Plan. Table 21 provides a summary of the ten alternatives
retained after the evaluation process along with the total
present worth costs for each. The evaluation of the
potential remedial alternatives to address soil and
groundwater were developed as follows.
I
I
I
I
Medium I Groundwater
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Medium
I Sludge/sou
I
I
I
I
I
I
-84-
Table 21
CHANNEL MASTER CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Description
Alternative
No-Action
GW-1
Alternative GW-2
Limited Action
Alternative GW-J
W/Oxidation -
Procipi tation
Alternative GW-4
Precipitation
Air Stripping/Carbon
Alternative GW-5
Ion Exchange
AiJ; Stripping/Carbon
Alternative
Description
Alternative
No-Action
SDB-1
Alternative SDB-2
Limitod Action
Alternative SDB-3
Ofteitu Disposal
Alternative SDB-4
Onsite Stabilization
Alternative SDB-5
Oneite Vefitication
I
General Reaponso
Action
No Action
Institutional Actions
Collection/Treatment/Disposal
Collection/Treatment/Disposal
Collection/Treatment/Disposal
General Response
Action
No Action
Institutional Controls
Containment
Removal
Disposal
Removal/Tre.atment/Diepoeal
Removal/Treatment/Oispoeal
Present Worth
Costa
$ ]]J,000
$1,062,000
$4,509,000
$5,101,000
$5,325,000
Preaent Worth
costs
$ 333,000
$1,132,000
S2,363,000
$1,200,000
Sl,188,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-85-
A. Groundwater Remediation
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed
analysis for groundwater remediation:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Alternate Water Supply, Closure of
Private Wells, Deed Restrictions, Monitoring
Alternative 3: Groundwater Treatment with
Ultra-violet Radiation-Oxidation,
Precipitation/Filtration
Alternative 4: Groundwater Treatment with Alkaline
Chlorination, Precipitation/Filtration, Air
Stripping, Carbon Adsorption
Alternative 5: Groundwater Treatment with Alkaline
Chlorination, Ion Exchange, Air Stripping,
Carbon Alkaline
Overall Protection
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human health.
Impacts to the environment were not identified during the
Remedial Investigation (RI), but if present would not be
mitigated by this alternative. Alternative 2 would provide
protection against any potential risk associated with the use
of contaminated groundwater, but would require long-term
enforcement of the institutional controls. Alternatives 3,
4, and 5 would mitigate future risks derived from exposure
due to inhalation, dermal contact, and/or ingestion of
contaminated groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 1 would not comply with the contaminant-specific
ARAR regarding the cleanup of the groundwater contamination.
ARAR waivers are not justified for this alternative because
none of the criteria for a waiver are met through "No Action"
remedial responses. Alternative 2 would not satisfy the
North Carolina requirements regarding the restoration of
Class GA waters (15A NCAC 2L) nor would it meet the
chemical-specific ARAR for the aquifer (NC water quality
standards). Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would recover all
contaminated groundwater and treat it to remediation levels.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-86-
Long term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the contaminant concentrations contributing to
the risks identified in the RI report. Groundwater
contamination would continue to migrate off-site; therefore,
it is not considered to be a permanent or effective remedial
solution. Existing risks regarding the contaminated
groundwater may decline in the future due to natural
processes, but in the absence of engineering or institutional
controls to prevent exposure, the Site will remain a threat
to human health.
Contaminant concentrations would be permanently reduced
through groundwater recovery and treatment in Alternatives 3,
4, and S. Carbon adsorption (alternatives 4 and 5) is
considered Best Available Treatment for volatile compounds in
groundwater. Metals found in the groundwater would also be
permanently reduced through either Precipitation/Filtration
or Ion Exchange. EPA would conduct a five-year review of the
remedial alternative to determine whether complete
restoration of the aquifer is feasible.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Alternative 1 would have no impact on the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the contaminants in the groundwater other than
those natural processes mentioned above. Continued
extraction and treatment of the aquifer in Alternatives 3, 4,
and 5 from the overburden/bedrock aquifer would effectively
reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the groundwater
contamination plume.
Short-term Effectiveness
All of the alternatives can be implemented without
significant risks to on-Site workers or the community and
without adverse environmental impacts.
Implementability
No implementation is needed for Alternative 1. Alternative 2
would require extensive coordination between State and local
agencies in order to institute long-term controls
effectively.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-87-
Alternative 3 would require compliance with EPA, Deaprtment
of Transportation (DOT), and North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR)
regulations regarding the transport and disposal of hazardous
materials. Alternatives 4 and 5 are technically feasible,
but would require treatability studies to determine the
effectiveness of each treatment technology.
Total present worth (PW) costs for the groundwater
remediation alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1: $333,000
Alternative 2: $862,000
Alternative 3: $4,509,000
Alternative 4: $5,181,000
Alternative 5: $5,325,000
State Acceptance
The State of North Carolina concurs with the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
A Proposed Plan fact sheet was released to the public on
Thursday, April 9, 1992. The Proposed Plan public meeting
was held on April 16, 1992. The public comment period on the
Proposed Plan was held from April 9, 1992 to May B, 1992.
The letters and comments submitted during the 30-day comment
period as well as the questions asked during the April 16th
meeting are summarized in the attached Responsiveness
Summary.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-88-
B. Sludge/Soil Remediation
The following alternatives were developed for Site sludge and
soils and were subjected to a detailed analysis:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Alternate water supply, Private
well closure, Deed Restrictions,
Monitoring
Alternative 3: Excavation, Off-Site Disposal
at a RCRA Facility
Alternative 4: Excavation, Treatment with
Oxidation-Reduction, Stabilization,
Backfilling, Non-RCRA Capping
Alternative 5: Excavation, Treatment with
Vitrification, Backfilling,
Non-RCRA Capping
Overall Protection
Potential risks due to Site sludge and soils under both
current and future conditions and potential future conditions
(residential scenario) exceed the acceptable range of risk
specified in the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human health.
Impacts on the environment have not been identified, but if
present would not be mitigated by this alternative.
Alternative 2 would reduce the potential risk due to dermal
contact or ingestion of the sludge and soil, but would not be
protective of groundwater or the environment. Alternatives
3, 4, and 5 would not only reduce the risk associated with
dermal contact and ingestion, but would mitigate any further
degradation of the groundwater by reducing the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the sludge and soil.
Compliance with ARARs
There are no federal or State ARARs for inorganic
contamination in soils. There are no action-specific ARARs
for Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 3 would comply with
EPA's off-site policy and applicable land disposal
restrictions (LDRs). Alternative 4 and 5 would comply with
all applicable ARARs, including LDRs (through a Treatability
Variance under 40 CFR 268.44).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-89-
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not be effective in reducing
contaminant levels and therefore would not be a permanent
remedy. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would result in permanent
reductions in contaminant levels.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Inorganic contaminant levels would remain unchanged for
Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 3 would reduce the
toxicity and volume of inorganics significantly.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would reduce the mobility of the
inorganics significantly, but would not reduce their volume
or inherant toxicity.
Short-term Effectiveness
All of the alternatives can be implemented without
signigifcant risks to on-site workers or the community and
without adverse environmental impacts.
Implementability
No implementation is needed for Alternative 1. Alternative 2
would require extensive coordination between State and local
agencies in order to institute long-term controls
effectively. Alternative 3 would require compliance with
EPA, DOT, and NCDEHNR regulations regarding the transport and
disposal of hazardous materials. Alternatives 4 and 5 are
technically feasible, but would require treatability studies
to determine the effectiveness of each treatment technology.
The present worth (PW) costs for the sludge/soil remedial
alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1: $333,000
Alternative 2: $862,000
Alternative 3: $2,363,000
Alternative 4: $1,151,000
Alternative 5: $1,119,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-90-
State Acceptance
The NCDEHNR has reviewed and provided EPA with comments on
the RI and FS Reports. The NCDEHNR also reviewed the
Proposed Plan and EPA's preferred alternative and concur with
EPA's selection.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will be
evaluated after the comment period ends and a response to
each comment will be included in the Responsiveness Summary
at the end of this document.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-91-
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY
Section 121 of CERCLA, as amended, 42 u.s.c. §9621, and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) establish a variety of requirements relating to
the selection of the remedial action under CERCLA. Having
applied the evaluation criteria to the groundwater and soil
remediation alternatives, EPA has selected the following
remedy for the JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site.
Groundwater Remediation
Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction, Treatment with
Alkaline Chlorination, Precipitation/
Filtration, Air Stripping, and Carbon
Adsorption
Sludge/Soil Remediation
Alternative 4: Excavation, Oxidation-Reduction,
Stabilization, Backfilling, and Non-RCRA
Capping
I A. Groundwater Remediation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This remedial action will consist of a groundwater extraction
and treatment system, and an overall monitoring program for
the Site. Groundwater contaminated above the remediation
levels indicated in Table 22 shall be extracted from the
entire area known to be effected.
For costing purposes, six recovery wells have been
anticipated. Actual design of the extraction system shall be
established during the Remedial Design.
Discharge of the treated groundwater shall be either to the
local, publicly owned treatment works (POTW) (commonly
referred to as the sewage treatment system), or as surface
water discharge to an unnamed branch of Fishing Creek.
All contaminants will be reduced to levels which would be
acceptable by local POTW standards or to levels required by a
NPDES permit.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-92-
Table 22
Performance of Alternative GW-4
Inorganics Removal By Precipitation
Feed
Min. Max. Mean
Inorganics (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
Barium 33 12,000 1,600
Zinc 44 4.000 1,200
Copper 10 4,400 800
Chromium 13 1.400 350
Cobalt 9 1.500 420
Nickel 29 240 110
Lead 5 270 86
Halogenated VOCs Removal by Air Stripping/
Carbon Adsorption System(dl
Feed
Min. Max. Mean
Volatiles (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
1.1-DCE 3.4 4,100 138
TCE 14 360,000 7,500
PCE 5 11.000 9.600
Cyanides Removal by Alkaline Chlorination(•>
Feed
Cyanides Min. Max. Mean
(Total) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
Cyanides 800 1.100 950
(Total)
(dl Information obtained from Continental Environmental Services. FL
(el Information obtained from Laney Environmental Systems. Inc .. PA
TABU6-5
Effiuent
(µg/L)
< 1,000
<50
<7
<50
<90
<88
<25
Effluent
(µg/L)
<7
<3.08
<0.8
Effiuent
(µg/L)
< 10 (for
amenable
cyanides
< 500 ( for total
cyanides)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-93-
Discharge to the POTW will require the construction of a
force main to the nearest manhole, located adjacent to the
Site. In the case where discharge to the POTW is
unnacceptable, a contingency will be maintained to obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit, allowing for the treated groundwater to be discharged
to surface water. All Actual discharge and operating
procedures shall be established during the Remedial Design.
An overall flow diagram for this groundwater treatment system
is shown in Figure 9. The extraction wells would
provide a estimated, combined groundwater flow of 90 gallons
per minute into the 10,000 gallon equalization tank, where
the pH and temperature would be adjusted and the flow would
be equalized.
The pretreated groundwater would be pumped into an alkaline
chlorination reactor. Dissloved hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and
complex inorganic cyanides would be oxidized to cyanate
(CNO-) under alkaline conditions by chlorine and
permanganate, according to the following reactions:
CN-+ CL2 H2O ---2HC1 + CNO-
CN-= 2MnO4 + H2O ---2MnO2 + 3CNO-+ 2OH-
Both of these reactions are carried out at a pH greater than
10. In the case of chlorine, it is important to maintain a
pH above 10 to avoid formation of toxic cyanogen chloride.
Although the cyanate is much less toxic than cyanide,
complete destruction is desirable, requiring further
oxidation of the cyanate with chlorine or hypochlorite as
shown in the following equation:
The optimum pH for the second stage of this reaction is
approximately 8.5. As in other oxidation reactions, time is
an important factor; the cyanide reactions generally require
more than 10 minutes and an excess of oxidizing agent to
provide complete destruction. The effluent from this reactor
contains nitrogen (which is released to the atmosphere.) and
dissolved chloride and bicarbonate ions (which are removed
from the water in the subsequent chemical precipitation
process).
·--- -- - - -- -
DISCHA
STREAM - - --- -
SPENl CARBON
DISCHARGE TO
ATMOSPHERE
FOR DFFSITE DISPOSAL -i
EXTRACTION
WELLS
• Groundwater exbaction
• Flow equalization
I I I I
I
I I
I
I
YU'OII PHI( .....
ADl°"1mlll
~-L....------------------------..
NaOCL
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
PROCESS
• Cyanide restruction
POLYMEII----,
N"21
FLASH SLOW
MIX MIX
LIQUID PHASE CARBON
ADSORPTION
(POLISHING STEP)
CLARIFIER
DUAL MEDIA
FILTER BED
L--1'1-il -GRAVITY
POLYMER
SLUDGE
DEWATERING
FILTER DEWATERED ◄f---f-"""'-"-'-7 SLUDGE FOR
DISPOSAL
-++-
• Removal ol melalllc tons
• Oewate1ing and disposal or sll.dge
THICKENER
DEHUMIDIFIER
COUNTER
CURRENT
AIR STRIPPER
• Removal ol halogernted voes
• pH and tempe,ature adjustment
• Removal of
suspemed
solids
Figure 9
Alternative GW-4: Alkaline Chlorination -Precipitation -
Filtration -Carbon Adsorption -Air Stripping
Process Flow Diagram
Channel Master Site
--
I "' ~ I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-95-
Chemical precipitation of dissolved metals by pH adjustment
using sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium sulfide (Na2S) is
the next treatment process in the process train. The metals
are precipitated from the solution as the corresponding
hydroxides, sulfides, or carbonates, depending on the
precipitating agent. The sludge generated through
precipitation undergoes gravity thickening, followed by
dewatering and subsequent disposal offsite. The supernatant
from the clarification tank is passed through a multimedia
filter to remove suspended solids .. In addition to removing
inorganics that exceed discharge limits, this treatment will
prevent fouling of the air stripper and the carbon adsorption
beds.
An air stripper will be used to strip the chlorinated voes
from the groundwater. To achieve a flow rate of 60 gallons
per minute and to meet the effluent discharge limits, the
minimum diameter of the air stripper will be 24 inches.
The VOC-laden air passes through a dehumidifier for moisture
removal before entering the vapor-phase carbon adsorption
system.
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) is a proven technolgy for
removing (by adsorption) contaminants both from the offgas of
a process such as air stripping and from a liquid waste
stream. GAC is an excellant adsorbent because o 2 its large
surface area, which can range from 500 to 2000 m /gram, and
because its diverse surfaces are highly attractive to many
different types of contaminants. An activation process (by
increasing the internal pore space of the carbon) is commonly
used to maximize the surface-to-volume ratio available for
adsorption.
The process of adsorption takes place in three steps. First,
as the contaminant flows through the column (or carbon bed),
the contaminants migrate to the external surface of the
carbon granules. The contaminants then diffuse into the
carbon pore structure. Finally, a physical or chemical bond
forms between the contaminant and the internal carbon
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-96-
surface. When operating a GAC process, suspended solids in a
liquid stream or particulate matter in a gaseous stream
accumulate in the column. This high level of suspended solids
can cause an increase in pressure drop, which adversely
effects the removal efficiency of the system. When the
quality of the treated groundwater does not meet the
treatment objectives, the suspended solids must then be
removed by backwashing or by replacing the spent carbon.
Pretreatment (such as Precipitation/Filtration) for removal
of solids from waste streams to be treated by GAC, is,
therefore, an important design consideration. Particle size
and hydraulic loading are often chosen to help minimize
pressure drop and reduce or eliminate the need for
backwashing.
Spent carbon from the treatment of liquid and/or gaseous
waste streams which contain hazardous substances is also
considered hazardous. Offsite transportation and handling of
the spent carbon therefore requires that a site safety plan
be developed to provide for personnel protection and special
handling measures.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore groundwater to
its beneficial use as a drinking water source. Based on
information collected during the RI and on a careful analysis
of all remdial alternatives, EPA and the State of North
Carolina believe that the selected remedy will achieve this
goal. The ability to achieve remediation levels at all
points throughout the area of the plume, cannot be determined
until the extraction system has been implemented, modified as
necessary, and plume response monitored over time. If the
implemented groundwater extraction system cannot meet the
specified remdiation levels, at any or all of the monitoring
points during implementation, the contingency measures and
levels described below may replace the selected remedy and
levels for these portions of the plume. Such contingency
measures will, at a minimum, prevent further migration of the
plume and include a combination of containment technologies
and institutional controls. These measures are considered to
be protective of human health and the environment and are
technically practicable under the corresponding
circumstances.
For cost estimating purposes, groundwater extraction was
projected for a period of 5 years, during which time the
system's performance will be carefully monitored on a regular
basis and adjusted as warranted by the performance data
collected during operation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-97-
Depending on a number of variables such as allowable pumping
rates and removal efficiencies, the period of extracting
contaminated groundwater may last up to 30 years.
Adjustments may include any or all of the following:
* alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
points;
* pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to
allow adsorbed contaminants to partition into
groundwater;
* installation of additional wells to facilitate or
accelerate remediation of the contaminant plume; and
* at individual wells where remdiation levels have been
attained, and after analytical confirmation, pumping
may be dicontinued.
To ensure that remediation levels will be obtained and
maintained, the aquifer will be monitored at those wells
where pumping has ceased initially every year following
discontinuation of groundwater extraction. This monitoring
will be incorporated into an overall Site monitoring program
which will be fully delineated in the Operations and
Maintenance portion of the Remedial Design.
If EPA determines, on the basis of the preceding criteria and
the system performance data, that certain portions of the
aquifer cannot be restored to their beneficial use, all of
the following measures involving long-term management may
occur, for an indefinite period of time, as a modification of
the existing system:
*
*
*
engineering controls such as physical barriers, or
long-term gradient control provided by low level
pumping, as containment measures;
chemical-specific ARARs may be waived for the
remediation of those portions of the aquifer based on
the technical inpracticability of achieving further
containment reduction;
institutional controls may be provided/maintained to
restrict access to those portions of the aquifer which
remain above remediation levels, since the aquifer is
classified as a current drinking water source.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-98-
* continued monitoring of specified wells; and
* periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for groundwater restoration.
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be made during a periodic review of the remedial action, which will occur at intervals of at least every five years, in accordance with CERCLA 12l(c). To ensure State and public involvement in this decision at this Site, any changes from the remediation levels identified in this ROD will be formalized in either an Explanation of Significant Difference document or an Amendment to this Record of Decision.
B. Sludge/Soil Remediation
The t_reatment technology selected for remediation of metal-contaminated sludge/soils is a combination of technologies including excavation, Oxidation-Reduction, Stabilization, Backfilling, followed by Non-RCRA Capping. See Figure 10.
After the sludge and soils have been excavated by mechanical means, Oxidation-Reduction will be utilized as the initial treatment process to destroy the cyanide in the sludge and soil by converting it to a nontoxic or less hazardous compound. Lab-scale tests have also shown chemical oxidation to be effective in treating wastes which contain chlorinated organics and metals such as arsenic, iron, and mangansese.
Oxidizing agents such as ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite, potassium permanganate, and chlorine dioxide are used in the treatment process. Sludges and soils must first be slurried prior to treatment to achieve a suspended solids content of 3 percent or less. The oxidizing agents and contaminants are then mixed in a process reactor where the oxidation or reduction reactions occur. Temperature and pH levels are regulated to ensure the reaction goes to completion.
A significant use of chemical oxidatign-reduction is the reduction of ~exavalent chromium (Cr+) to trivalent chromium (Cr+), which is less toxic and more susceptable to chemical precipitation.
-------------------
I 56 5680.4
STOCKPILE EXCAVATION
WATER
COOLING
WATER
BLURRY
PUMP
OXIOATION REACTION
STABILIZATION
BACl(flll
Figure 10
Alternative SDB-4: Oxidation/Stabilization
Process Flow Diagram
Channel Master Site
COOLING
WATER
I
"' "' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-100-
On-site storage and handling of the oxidizing agents is
necessary. The chemical oxidation-reduction process
generates a solids/liquids effluent that requires further
treatment. If the reduced hazardous components are still in
a soluble form under system conditions, chemical
precipitation methods must be employed to convert these
components into an insoluble form. Treatability studies are
required in order to establish operating parameters and to
determine side reactions.
Operating costs are competitive with other treatment
technologies. Oxidation-Reduction is also attractive because
the contaminants are destroyed rather than transferred to
another media.
Stabilization will be the follow-up treatment subsequent to
Oxidation-Reduction. The purpose of using Stabilization as a
treatment is to reduce the mobility of the metals in the
sludge and soil. The metals are immobilized within a mixture
containing silicate-or cement-based fixating agents.
Numerous commercial vendors offer
Treatability studies are required
effective stabilization mixture.
Stabilization is that it does not
volume of contaminants.
C. Cost
stabilization units.
to determine the most
Several drawbacks of
reduce the toxicity or
Tables 22 and 23 provide detailed cost summaries for the
selected remedial alternatives. The total present worth cost
for the entire remedial action is $6,332,000.
D. Treatability Studies
Because existing and available data do not demonstrate that
the full-scale operation of these treatment technologies for
groundwater and sludge/soil can fully attain the cleanup
goals, treatability studies will be used during the Remedial
Design phase to ensure the technologies will achieve the
cleanup goals.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-101-
Table 23
Alternative GW-4 Costs
Channel Master Site
Description Quant Unit
Support structure l LS
Collection system, including railroad crossing l LS
Monitoring wells 800 LF
Filtration system I LS
Ion exchange w/acid regeneration l LS
Air stripping/carbon adsorption system I LS
Electrical and instrumentation l LS
Discharge piping 500 LF
Subtotal
Overhead and construction management 40 %
Contractor profit 10 %
Contingency 2(1 %
Engineering and regulatory interface 15 %
Total Capital Cost
Description Years Annual Cost
Q,Qeration and Maintenance of Treatment Plant
/O&Ml 1-5 $30,000
Operator/mechanic 1-5 25,000
Parts 1-5 250,000
Carbon consumption 1-5 20,000
Process additives 1-5 10,000
Utilities 1-5 100,000
Waste disposal
Total O&M for Treatment Plant
Performance monitoring
Sampling l 35,000
205 15,000
Analysis for TCL, VOCs, SVOCs, metals l 90,000
2-5 40,000
Reporting l 8,000
2-5 6,000
5-year review 5 25,000
Total· performance monitoring (yrs 1-5)
O& M Subtotal
Contingency 20 % of O&M
Total present worth of O&M value
TOTAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE GW-4
TABLE6-6
Unit Cost Estimate
$100,000 $100,000
215,000 215,000
50 40,000
350,000 350,000
150,000 150,000
120,000 150,000
40,000 40,000
20 10,000
$1,175,000
$470,000
165,000
362,000
326,000
$2,498,000
Discount Estimate
4.330 $129,000
4.330 108,250
4.330 1,082,500
4.330 86,600
4.330 43,300
4.330 433,000
$1,884,000
0.952 33,320
3.378 50,670
0.952 85,680
3.378 135,120
0.952 7,616
3.378 20,268
0.784 19,600
$ 352,000
$2,236,000
$ 447,000
$2,683,000
$5,181,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-102-
Table 24
Alternative SDB-4 Costs
Channel Master Site
Description Quant Unit
Excavate and transport soil 3,000 CY
Verification testing I LS
Oxidation process 3,000 CY
Stabiliz.ation process 3,000 CY
Place and compact treated soil 3,600 CY
Purchase, place, and compact cover soil 400 CY
Purchase, place, and compact base soil 400 CY
Construct concrete cap 2,000 SY
Purchase and place topsoil 400 CY
Vegetation 2 AC
Security fence 1,500 LF
Subtotal
Overhead and construction management 40 %
Contractor profit 10 %
Contingency 20 %
Engineering and regulatory interface 15 %
Total Capital Cost
Description Years Annual Cost
Cap maintenance 1-30 2,000
Five-year review 5 25,000
O&M Subtotal
Contingency 20 % of O&M
Total present worth of O&M value
TOTAL COST FOR ALTERNATIVE SDB-4
T ABLE6-l I
Unit Cost Estimate
$ IO $ 30,000
25,000 25,000
50 150,000
50 150,000
5 18,000
23 9,000
17 7,000
45 90,000
18 7,000
2,000 4,000
15 23,000
$513,000
$205,000
72,000
158,000
142,000
$1,090,000
Discount Estimate
15.372 $31,000
0.784 20,000
$51,000
$10,000
$61,000
$1,151,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-103-
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
T
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake the remedial actions that
achieve adequate protection of human health and the
environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 u.s.c. §
9621, establishes several other statutory requirements and
preferences. These specify that when complete, the selected
remedial action for this Site must comply with applicable or
relevant and appropriate environmental standards established
under Federal and State environmental laws unless a statutory
waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be
cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the
statute includes a preference for remedies that employ
treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as their
principal element. The following sections discuss how the
selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy will permanently treat the groundwater
and sludge/soil and remove or minimize the potential risk
associated with the wastes. Dermal contact and ingestion of
,Site contaminants would be eliminated.
Compliance with ARARS
The selected remedy will comply with all Federal and State
applicable or relevant and appropriate chemical-, location-,
and action-specific requirements (ARARs).
Groundwater remediation levels would be met at the Site under
this alternative. Discharge of groundwater to the local POTW
or a nearby surface water stream would comply with all
permitting requirements.
For the sludge and soil, the remedial alternative will comply
with the LDRs through a Treatability Variance under 40 CFR
268.44. This Variance will result in the use of
Oxidation/Reduction and Stabilization to attain the Agency's
interim "treatment levels/ranges" for the contaminated sludge
and soil at the site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
-104-
Cost Effectiveness
The selected groundwater and sludge/soil remediation
technologies are most cost-effective when compared with the
other acceptable alternatives considered. The selected
remedies provide greater benefit for the cost because they
permanently treat the waste.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies of Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment can be practicably utilized
for this action. Of the alternatives that are protective of
human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EPA
and the State have determined that the selected remedy
provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term
effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume achieved through treatment; short-term
effectiveness, implementability, and cost; State and
community acceptance, and the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The preference for treatment is satisfied by the use of a
groundwater pump and treatment system to treat contaminated
groundwater and Oxidation/Reduction and Stabilization to
immobilize contamination in the sludge/soil at the Site.