NCD122263825_19960816_JFD Electronics - Channel Master_FRBCERCLA FS_Draft Supplemental Feasibility Study-OCR

,41a,GERAGHTY
Alf& MILLER, INC. pr::,....,_
AfEnvironment and Infrastructure _____________ '--'__:C"'"':'"'/---'\'-/.,CC=--,...f"l-e-___________ _
Mr. David Lown
S uperfund Section
Division of Solid Waste Management
40 I Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27611
~-~,
AUG 19 7996
a heidemij company
August 16, 1996
Re: Supplemental Feasibility Study for the JFD Electronics/Channel Master NPL Site,
Oxford, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Lown:
Please find enclosed for your review the draft version of the Supplemental
Feasibility Study (SFS) for the above referenced facility. The report will be finalized
pending review by Mr. McKenzie Mallary of the EPA.
This report includes a brief summary of the recently completed treatability study
performed for the stabilization of metals in the soil. The study initially reported that the
stabilization treatment did achieve the secondary treatment standard but not the primary
treatment standard for nickel in the TCLP extract; this result was reported in the enclosed
SFS. A subsequent review of the treatability study data indicated that both the secondary
and the primary standards were achieved by the stabilization methods. The stabilized soil
would therefore be in compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs).
The final SFS will be revised to indicate this result in the subsequent final version of the
document.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the SFS or the stabilization
treatability study.
Sincerely,
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
David Falatko, P.E.
Project Engineer
cc: J. Lawrence Hosmer, P.E., Vice President, Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
William H. Doucette, Ph.D., Project Coordinator, Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
G:\PRJCTSICHNLMSTR\NC0202\0Sl'SCVLT.DOC
1131 Benfield Boulevard, Suite A• Millersville, Maryland 21108 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AUG 19 1996
SUPPLEMENT AL FEASIBILITY STUDY
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER NPL
OXFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
July 1996
Prepared by
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Cross Pointe II
2840 Plaza Place, Suite 350
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
and
GMCE, Inc.
Cross Pointe II
2840 Plaza Place, Suite 350
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
GERAGHTY 8 MILLER, INC
L
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTENTS (continued)
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
~
3 .2.4 Cost ................................................................................................................ 3-7
3.3 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 3: OFF-SITE ALKALINE CHLORINATION
OF CYANIDE AND ON-SITE METALS STABILIZATION ............................. 3-7
3.3. l Overall Protection ....................................................................................... 3-8
3.3.2 Effectiveness ............................................................................................... 3.9
3.3.3 Implementability ......................................................................................... 3-9
3.3.4 Cost ........................................................................................................... 3-9
4.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE .................. 4-1
4.1 OVERALL PROTECTION ................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................................. 4-3
4.3 IMPLEMENTABILITY ..................................................................................... 4-5
4.4 COST ................................................................................................................ 4-7
4.5 COMPARATIVE RA TING OF REMEDIAL AC ERNA T ES ....................... 4-7
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 6-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-4
4-5
A.
B.
Opinion of Probable Cost for Re
by On-Site Chlorination of Cyani
1 · n ide and Metals Impacted Soil
nd abilization for Metals.
Opinion of Probable Cost for Reme 1ali of Cyanide and Metals Impacted Soil
by Thermal Deso Cyanide Stabilization of Metals.
Opinion of
by Off-Site
Remediation of Cyanide and Metals Impacted Soil
and On-Site Stabilization for Metals.
ompara · ve Assessment of Remedial Alternatives. <::) APPENDIX
S · 1zation Treatability Study Report.
Detailed Cost Estimates for the Remedial Alternatives.
GERAGHTY & /vl!LLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTENTS
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... l-l
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. l-l
1.2 OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................... 1-4
2.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES .......................... 2-1
2.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ............................................................... 2-1
2.2 AREAS AND VOLUMES TO BE REMEDIATED ........................................ 2-2
2.3 TECHNOLOGY SCREENING CRITERIA .................................................... 2-3
2.3.1 Overall Protection................................................................... . ................. 2-4
2.3.2 Effectiveness ................................................................................................ -4
2.3.3 Implementability ......................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.4 Cost ............................................................................................................. 2-6
2.4 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMEN ......................................... 2-6
2.5 POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TECHNOLOG S .......................................... 2-8
2.5.1 On-Site Cyanide Treatment Technologies .................................................. 2-8
2.5. I. I Oxidation by Alkaline Chlorination.................. ........ . .......................... 2-8
2.5 .1.2 Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide ......... ................ . ............................. 2-10
2.5 .1.3 Thermal Desorption........... ......... . ...................................................... 2-10
2.5 .1.4 Acidification and Volatir zati~ with ide Recovery ..................... 2-12
2.5.1.5 Biological Degradation ......... \,t............. . .......................................... 2-13
2.5.1.6 Electro kinetic Recovery ...................................................................... 2-14
2.5.2 Off-Site Cyanide Treatment Te ol gies .................................................. 2-15
2.5.2.1 Landfill Placement ............................................................................. 2-15
2.5.2.2 Acidificaf nan Volatilizati with Cyanide Recovery ..................... 2-16
2.5.2.3 Oxidaf n b Alk line Chlorination ...................................................... 2-16
2.5.3 Metals S iii ati n ...... . ........................................................................... 2-17
eatabi · y Study ............................................................ 2-18
2.5 .3 .2 Excava · on an S ilization Procedures .............................................. 2-I 9
2.5.4 Soil and Slud Exe •ation and Handling Procedures ................................ 2-20
2.6 Tt:k-~OLOGIES AINED ......................................................................... 2-21
3.0 D CRIPT N AND ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ............... 3-1
3 .~~ pf 0~~1:~~~'.'.\~.~.~I~~I!.~£~0~~!~'.~~~~~;~~!:~;::::: ~:~
3. .2 Effi liveness .................................................................................................. 3-4
3.1. plementability ............................................................................................ 3-4
3.1.4 Cost ................................................................................................................ 3-5
3.2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 2: ON-SITE THERMAL DESORPTION
AND ON-SITE METALS STABILIZATION ...................................................... 3-5
3 .2.1 Overall Protection .......................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.2 Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 3-6
3 .2.3 Implementability ............................................................................................ 3-7
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
This report represents the results of a Supplemental Feasibility Study (SFS)
completed to address potential remedial alternatives for cyanide and metals-impacted soil
and sludge at the JFD Electronics/Channel Master (Channel Master) Nationa riorities
List (NPL) site in Oxford, North Carolina. This SFS was completed to ent the
results of the Feasibility Study (FS) completed by Bechtel Environme al · Apr I 992.
The FS, as well as the Remedial Investigation (RJ) completed by Bech el in ril 1 92
are referenced as the foundation upon which this SFS is cons! ed.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The JFD Electronics/Channel Maste 'te is located at 620 West Industrial Drive,
Oxford, North Carolina. JFD Elect aster manufactured television
antennae at this location from 1968 until Sep 0. Other parties had leased the
property previously, having constructed the existing main building in 1962 and
manufactured television an
Television g at the site involved copper/nickel electroplating
o antenna parts. Waste generated by these processes,
primarily wastewaters a d sludges, contained chromium, lead, and cyanide.
cesses also involved the degreasing of parts using solvents, including
tr' aste water from the electroplating and chrome conversion processes
on-site treatment plant consisting of interconnected concrete tanks.
uded reduction of hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium. Sludge
generated from the treatment process was disposed in sludge drying beds (SOB) along the
southern property boundary, and also accumulated in an unlined lagoon. The lagoon,
constructed between I 964 and I 965, was approximately 24,000 square feet in aerial
extent.
GERAGHTY f.ci' MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
l-2
In October 1979, Channel Master Satellite Systems assumed site operations and
eventually purchased the site in 1980. Channel Master continued production of television
antennae for a short period of time, ceasing operations in 1980; the lagoon was
decommissioned at the same time. Channel
operations prior to November 1980. From 1980 to 1984, Channel
satellite antennae, amplifiers, and boosters. Channel Master had als
stored solvent containing waste oil in a concrete tank.
and
Channel Master performed a voluntary remedial lagoon area and the
areas where solvents were disposed (including the wast oil st age tank) in 1987 and
1988. In February 1987 the former North Carolina Depa · Human Resources
Superfund unit (now referred to as the Nort rolina Departmen of Environment Health
and Natural Resources [NCDEHNR]) co ed a si ection. The lagoon sludge and
adjacent soils were found to contain , arsenic. cyanide and VOCs.
Groundwater was found to contain tetrachl roet ene, trichloroethene, dichloroethane, and
xylene. The contents of tne--!"-'1 udge and impacted soil, was remediated
in 1987 and 1988 unde he direc ·on of the North Carolina Division of Solid Waste.
listed on the NPL in
e National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1988 and was
1989. Bechtel Environmental, under contract to the
USEP , conduc d the RI and the FS beginning in 1990. The final RI report was
re ase~il 1 92, and the Final FS report was released in May 1992. The Record of
Dec· ion (Rof)) or the site was signed in September 1992. A treatability study was
include s rt of the Remedial Design (RD) activities to evaluate the effectiveness of
on-site alkaline chlorination, which was the cyanide destruction remedy specified in the
ROD. The treatability study workplan required a series of treatability studies to evaluate
the most promising technologies for the site. A number of potential technologies for
GERAGHTY & ~llLLER. lNC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
1-3
cyanide destruction had previously been evaluated, and the most promising technologies
had been determined to be hot alkaline chlorination and thermal desorption.
The results of the initial treatability study indicated that cyanide oxidation and
destruction by alkaline chlorination under the conditions tested was not suffic · n o meet
the performance requirements. Additional tests in 1994 of alkaline ch
different conditions were conducted and, although the oxidation of cya id
generally successful, the oxidation of cyanide in the sludge was not sufficient to
performance standards.
The treatability studies of alkaline chlorinatio were eviewed for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) -Region I by RC Environmental
Management (October 13, 1994). As a r It of the review, it was determined that
additional treatability studies for these o ~men hnologies should be completed
since they appeared to be the most promis'ng 6t'sileisen«edial alternatives.
An additional trea cted in 1995 determined that alkaline
required to achiev standards. The treatability study on thermal
desorption determine rformance standards could be met, but due to a
discrepancy in the mass ba n of cyanide, it was unclear whether the cyanide was being
e air scrubber was not functioning properly. Both techniques also
a ear~use e production of hexavalent chromium from the trivalent chromium.
In s 1mMhe 995 treatability study left unresolved technical issues regarding the
remedia ·on
technology.
the cyanide with either the alkaline chlorination or thermal desorption
After completing the treatability study and assessing the results, other potential
options for the remediation of the cyanide impacted materials were identified. It was
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
1-4
determined that other options should be revisited due to the technical limitations
discovered with the two remedial technologies which had previously been considered as
the most promising. This SFS provides the documentation of this supplemental
assessment of the available remedial technologies.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this SFS are as follows:
• supplement the initial FS with a rev1 an
chlorination and thermal desorption, as
technologies for cyanide and metals in sludge and s
ssment of alkaline
alternate treatment
• complete detailed cost a e or the nmary soil/sludge remedial
technologies retained in this as ssm t; and,
• recommend specifi treatment technology for the cyanide and metals in the
soil/slud e.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
2.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
The identification and screening of remedial technologies for the impacted-soil
and sludge, as presented in the following sections, builds upon the results of the original
FS. Technologies or methodologies reviewed and accepted in the FS are acce d in this
document without reconsideration; however, review and comparative se ment of
supplemental technologies evaluated in the treatability study or ot
considered is presented herein.
2.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The remedial action objectives pertaining to soil an
FS, are:
• prevent direct contact with an or~e~cm..~r the soils and sludges containing
contamination above health-bas d go ls; and,
• prevent t
preventi
ditches and s earns.
f contaminated runoff from the SDB area, thereby
d sediment contamination in nearby drainage
The ~ermin that in order to achieve these objectives, treatment by destruction or
r ova of th cy nide in the soils and sludges, and stabilization of the metals was
reqm d. e cord of Decision (ROD) for this facility determined that the following
treatmen c ·teria must be achieved to meet the objectives and concurrently be in
compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LOR):
GERAGHTY & i'v!ILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-2
• cyanide levels in the soil must be reduced to 590 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
of total cyanide in the non-TCLP extract and 30 mg/L of amenable cyanide;
and,
• metals levels in the TCLP extract must not exceed the LOR level
Cadmium 0.066 mg/L
Chromium 5.2 mg/L
Lead 0.51 mg/L
Nickel 0.32 mg/L
Silver 0.072 mg/
2.2 AREAS AND VOLUMES TO BE REMEDIATED
The RI/FS described and delinea ed a oximate 3,000 cubic yards of soil and
sludge that would potentially require t eatm t for cyanide and metals; however,
additional delineation of these impacte m terials; i.e., soils and sludges, was
anide-impacted material is located in and
adjacent to the slud,
and metals. Lower 1
is area contained the highest levels of both cyanide
ere detected in the surficial soils in and surrounding
e presence of metals in the soil at these areas indicated
concurrently present at levels requiring remediation. Supplemental soil
s in~anal ses conducted in January and February 1996 conversely indicated that
al ough vrfi al soil in the sludge drying bed area and the adjacent outlying areas
woul equtre abilization for metals, it would not require cyanide remediation since the
levels wer elow the remedial endpoints established by the LDRs. With the completion
of additional sampling and segregation of the soil surrounding the SDBs, the volume of
soil requiring remediation for cyanide is therefore estimated to be approximately 1,750
cubic yards. The remaining volume of soil, requiring stabilization for metals only. is
GERAGHTY 8 MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-3
currently estimated at approximately 1,250 cubic yards. Additional characterization of
these soils may refine these estimates further, but these volumes are utilized for budgetary
projections in this document. The delineation of these areas is included in the Rl/FS and
the supplemental assessment is included in a letter report to Mr. McKenzie Mallary of the
USEPA, dated March 13, 1996.
2.3 TECHNOLOGY SCREENING CRITERIA
The technology screening process was conducted based on the crite and
methods utilized in the FS. Therefore, the technologies ret ·ne
to the site specific treatment requirements and the app · able ant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) pertaining to regulatory statu tha were described and
considered in the FS. Where the FS considered several di t remedial scenarios,
including no action, this document only c remedial scenarios that are consistent
with the results, conclusions and intent The re edial technologies proposed in
this document are consistent with the pr t tme t options retained in the FS. The
acceptable treatment options must result in !ruction or removal and containment of
metals by stabilization. Because the the cyanide and the
pc sented herein only supplements the FS, the screening
d re ced where appropriate. In addition, this document
sult of the additional sampling and analysis, there is soil
which wu· H't~ire remediati with stabilization only for metals; previously, all materials
technology screenin
criteria have been c
were o 5:Jedi ted for both cyanide and metals.
The mit" list of technologies and process options are evaluated with respect to
four crit · : overall protection, effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The
technology process options are also evaluated based on these criteria relative to other
process options. A description of the four criteria and their application in the evaluation
process is provided in the following sections.
GERAGHTY 8 MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3.1 Overall Protection
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-4
The "overall protection" criterion synthesizes performance with respect to the
major considerations of the human health and environment. which
comprise this criterion include:
• The general perspective on protection of human heal h and the enviro
• The potential impacts to human health
implementation phase.
• An assessment of the method
to be eliminated, reduced, or c
1ronment during the
· ch each source of contamination is
• or risk t workers or the community during the
effectiveness" criterion focuses on the following elements:
GERAGHTY 8 MILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. l 996
2-5
• The potential effectiveness of process options m handling the estimated
volumes of contaminated material and in meeting the remedial action
objectives identified in the ROD.
• The reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume.
• The reliability and proven effectiveness of the process
contaminants and conditions at the site.
• Compliance with the ARARs noted in the F
• The long-term reliability of the remedy and t
maintenance to sustain the pe
2.3.3 Implementability
re ect t the
need for long-term
feasibility of impl
includes both the technical and institutional
ss option. This screening eliminates technology
ar clearly ineffective or unworkable at the site. The
implementability criteria ar ·
~ pot ntial for obtaining necessary permits and rights-of-way for remedial
Yust ct1on.
• The availability of commercial vendors which can supply the necessary
materials, equipment and skilled workers to implement the technology.
GERAGHTY 6' MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-6
• The technical ability to complete the remedy and achieve the remedial
objectives.
• The availability of treatment, storage, and disposal services.
• The ability to construct the remedy in an acceptable period o 1me.
2.3.4 ,CQfil
The "Cost" criterion plays a limited role in the rocess options, but is
used to evaluate options that are otherwise relatively equa In t e screening process,
relative capital and operating costs are of primary concern rathe han detailed estimates.
For this immediate evaluation, the cost a lysis is d upon best engineering judgment,
and each type of process option is evalu ted~ati e to ther process options within the
same technology type. Three cost ranges, ow, oderate, and high, are considered in the
evaluation of the capital and O&M costs fo ea process option. The low cost range is
defined as between $
between $500,000
$1,500,000. The
d $500,000, the moderate cost range is defined as
and the high cost range is defined as above
initially compared for overall protection,
effectiveness, and imple nta · ity within site conditions, and subsequently for cost. If
other cess o ions within the same technology type would achieve the same level of
ov all ~on d effectiveness at a lower cost, then a technology process option can
be imin~n t e basis of cost alone.
2.4 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
The development and selection of remedial alternatives must conform to the
requirements identified in The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. I 996
2-7
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and as amended in 1984. CERCLA Section 121(b)
identifies the following preferences when developing and evaluating remedial
alternatives:
•
•
•
Remedial actions involving treatment that permanently and · gn 1cantly
reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the contaminan or azardous
substances are preferred.
Off-site transport and disposal of hazardous substances or con mi ed
materials without treatment are considered the ast favorable alte
remedial action when practical treatment tee olo
Remedial actions using permanent lutions, alternative treatment
technologies, or resource recovery technolo · es mu be assessed.
Based on these preferences and the reme · action objectives noted in Section 2.1,
remedial alternatives were developed llowing criteria to the extent
practicable:
•
• Tll
terna e attains chemical-specific ARARs and can be
a ashion consistent with location-and action-specific
remedial alternative uses permanent solutions and alternative
ent technologies to the maximum extent practicable. ()trea
• e alternatives developed are capable of achieving a remedy in a cost
effective manner.
The FS included a wide range of remedial alternatives in its assessment in order to
include different degrees of remedial effort applied to both migration and source controls.
The intensity of the remedial alternatives reviewed in the FS ranged from the no-action
GERAGHTY & ~-!ILLER. !NC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. l 996
2-8
scenano to complete destruction of the contaminants. Based on the assessment of
alternatives in the FS, and the requirements of the ROD, it was determined that treatment
of the cyanide and stabilization of the metals would be required. All potential treatment
and stabilization technologies must achieve the LDRs for cyanide and TCLP limits for
metals. Therefore, only the remedial alternatives which can achieve these r u ements
are considered in this document. These remedial alternatives are assess
screening criteria and the CERCLA evaluation preferences noted previ us
2.5 POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES
The applicable treatment technologies are grou ed in
treatment: on-site and off-site options. Metals treatm
included since a portion of the soil will require metals
sections for cyanide
-site stabilization is
ion without cyanide
treatment. Appropriate procedures for ich must be completed in order to
implement the remedial technologies, s ch ~e excav ion and handling of the soils
and sludges, are also described in this sect n.
Oxidation fthe cyanide by alkaline chlorination was proposed in the original FS.
I this ~' cy nide is oxidized when a hypochlorite salt is added to a soil/sludge
slu at~ ove I 0. To complete this process on-site, the cyanide-impacted
·xture would be excavated, covered and stockpiled on a lined and secured
area. Portions of the soil/sludge mixture would then be mixed with water in a
continuously-stirred reactor, where chlorine would be added. Sodium hydroxide or other
chemicals would be added to raise the pH above IO to prevent the generation of hydrogen
cyanide. A treatability study (Geraghty & Miller, 1995) indicated that the reactor must be
GERAGHTY & ;'vllLLER. lNC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-9
heated in order to achieve the treatment efficiency required to meet the remedial
endpoints. After cyanide oxidation, the soil/sludge slurry would be adjusted to a neutral
pH level. The treatability study also indicated that significant levels of hexavalent
chromium were produced from trivalent chromium due to the oxidation process. It is
expected that some reduction of chromium to the trivalent form would be re I d prior
to stabilization. Once the pH is adjusted and chromium is reduced, t could be
stabilized to immobilize any metals present.
To complete this process on-site, a design for the
mixing equipment would be prepared based on the proc
study. A supplemental treatability study would be comp
hexavalent chromium reduction prior to stabilization. The
nd sludges slurry and
ed in the treatability
nt for the treatment
system would be constructed and assembl similar to that utI ized in the treatability
study in order to foster the oxidation pro~ an After oxidative
destruction of the cyanide, the treated m teriV w,-~-'V'-'e disposed in an on-site landfill
constructed to RCRA Subtitle D standards.
On-site oxidat' n alkaline chlorination of the cyanide can provide
vironment by the destruction of the cyanide. The
excavation, handling, d st ag of the soil/sludge can be completed in the manner
described in Section 2.5.4, t · will provide protection to the workers, the community,
and t enviro ent. The actual process of hot alkaline chlorination with a system
co stru~-site specifically for this project would involve significant quantities of
che ical~e ndling and use of these chemicals could present a potential hazard to
workers, pa · cularly during the start-up portion of the treatment. Hot alkaline
chlorination can meet the remedial goals for cyanide, but the procedures developed in the
treatability study result in significant hexavalent chromium production; this would make
metals stabilization more difficult.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-10
The implementation of on-site hot alkaline chlorination will be difficult since
there are no vendors available to supply the service. A full-size treatment system would
necessarily be designed based on the treatability study. The system would be comprised
of"off-the-shelf' components, which may be difficult to configure into a viable full-scale
treatment system.
The cost to complete this on-site treatment is high due to the aes· stem
construction costs, equipment costs, labor costs and operational chemical costs. Fu er,
an on-site landfill would be necessary for disposal of the ma ri after treatment, which
would also have design, construction, and maintenance c
increase to the total cost.
2.5. l.2 Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxi
Cyanide oxidation with hydrogen wa proposed in the treatability study
workplan as an alternate to alkaline chlorin tion. Hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidant,
but it is also unstable, dif
completely oxidizin
wastewaters. Beca
limited shelf life, and may have difficulty
. It has been used with some success on cyanide in
red t t it would be less effective and more difficult to
at oxidizing the cyanide, hydrogen peroxide was not
will o~efo , be
s 1/slu~eria s.
Cyanide oxidation with hydrogen peroxide
considered further for potential use as a treatment for the
2.5.1.3 Thermal Desorption
Remediation of the cyanide in the soil/sludge material could be accomplished
with low temperature thermal desorption. This process heats up the material to
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-11
approximately 450° Fahrenheit (F), at which point the cyanide is volatilized from the
solid phase and into the air; a vacuum is applied to the soil/sludge to promote
volatilization. The cyanide is then captured in an air pollution control device which
scrubs the air and removes the cyanide, typically employing granular activated carbon
(GAC) and a basic solution such as sodium hydroxide.
This process can provide protection of the environment by th re fthe
soil through the removal of the cyanide. The cyanide is, however, only transfe
GAC or the liquid in the air scrubber which collects it ra
treatability study (Geraghty & Miller, 1995) indicated
than destroy. The
o ems with the bench
scale system in determining a mass balance for the c in ensuring that the
cyanide was volatilized and retained in the air scrubber liq · d. T cyanide may have
been destroyed by the temperature of the atment unit; it is unclear whether partial
thermal destruction along with volatili tio
alternative. Nevertheless, low temperat
considered a suitable treatment
capable of achieving the remedial objecti s of the soil/sludge material as demonstrated
by the treatability study. rature apparently, however, caused the
Chromium reducti
method. This reme
available
the production of hexavalent chromium.
tment could therefore also be required with this
ould be implemented by commercial vendors with
orption equipment; additional evaluation of treatability
metho s woul be required to determine the treatment efficiency, the operating
p me~d t complete and certify the mass balance of the cyanide to ensure
ade ate Vef ent treatment. The cost for remediation of the cyanide-impacted
w1 thermal disorption is moderate to high, but it appears to be one of the
lower cost remedial alternatives.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-12
2.5.1.4 Acidification and Volatilization with Cyanide Recovery
The cyanide could be removed from the soil/sludge mixture by acidification of the
soil to change the cyanide to non-ionized form, then removed as a volatile compound
under vacuum. The cyanide would then be recovered with a caustic liquid a·
Low temperature (up to 200°F) could be applied to enhance the volatili
This process has the advantage of maintaining a low temperature wit aci
which acts to maintain chromium in the trivalent state and use less energy. T · s sy m
would be very efficient at removing the cyanide due to the c ination of acidification,
emoving the cyanide
This process has not, however, been ested at the pilot sc e with mobile, portable
units. It is similar to the common extr e used in laboratories to quantify
the amount of cyanide present. It also h va ge f producing trivalent chromium
from hexavalent chromium; subsequent re
would, therefore, not be required.
of hexavalent chromium after treatment
This proce
implementation due to th
to the environment through the cyanide
~----, .. ial, but could provide some risk to personnel during
ction of cyanide from the materials. Cyanide gas could
be rem effluent air scrubber.
Qcati n and volatilization could be implemented using existing low-
temper ure d orption equipment modified for this purpose. Commercial vendors which
have comp eted this process with mobile equipment for on-site treatment are not available
at this time, however. Additional treatability studies to determine the efficiency of the
process and the operational parameters would be required.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. !NC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-13
The cost to implement this process would be moderate to high, but would still be
at the lower end of the spectrum for the potential treatment technologies. Additional
costs would be incurred in performing treatability studies and completing the design
modifications to the process equipment.
Although this process could be implemented, additional treatabi · y s dies and
process development are required. In addition, it does not offer sig 1fi
over other on-site remedial technologies. There is the potential for emitting cy
so the effluent air treatment process must be very
acidification and volatilization will not be considered rt
alternative.
For these reasons,
potential remedial
2.5.1.5 Biological Degradation
Degradation of the cyanide on an sludges could be completed by
biological action; biological degradation as ]j en demonstrated in the laboratory on
cyanide in wastewater.
partially demonstrate on
type of white rot fun us.
straw, and it secretes
de in a soil or sludge material has been
-amended material in the laboratory with growth of a
proc s, the fungus grows on a cellulose material such as
of oxidant which acts to destroy the cyanide; other
m1croor·g;i,=~ may also p a role in this process. Commercial vendors of the process
repo t~sign 1cant amount of straw has to be added to the soil for the fungus to
g w; t icall it · a 1: 1 ratio of straw to soil. The ratio and the growth conditions
woul be dee ned in a treatability study. An innoculum of the fungus is applied to the
mixture e straw and soil, which is then spread on a liner to collect leachate and
covered to prevent contact with precipitation. The mixture would be rotated to provide
aeration and adequate contact between the soil and the fungus. The mixture of straw, soil
and fungus is repeatedly rotated and aerated during the degradation period.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-14
The biological degradation of the cyanide could act to protect the environment if
it results in the degradation of the cyanide. The process of mixing the straw with the
soil/sludge material and spreading the material on a lined area could, however, expose
cyanide to the environment and the workers during implementation, until
treated.
s fully
The effectiveness of the white rot fungus is currently unproven in this ap ic · on.
Additional treatability studies and pilot studies would be e ired to determine the
treatment efficiency.
Implementation of this process would be difficult du to th excavation, mixing,
and rotation requirements for the soil/sludg large, lined area would also be required,
and a larger volume of the soil and s aw~xture uld remain for stabilization of
metals. Due to problems associated ith ~is /1'1:JDcess regarding effectiveness and
implementability, treatment of the cyanide wit white rot fungus will not be considered
further.
EJ.eeffllcl<inetic recov is the process of moving and recovering charged ionic
spec· s~· duci an electrical potential in the subsurface. To recover cyanide, anodes
a catfi des oul be installed in the cyanide impacted areas. A 40-volt direct current
(DC) ould e plied and a potential established. Anodes and cathodes are installed in
area to depths of six feet and are spaced approximately ten feet apart. The
spacing would be changed as needed to prevent "dead" zones with little or no treatment
between electrodes. The cyanide ion (CN")would migrate toward the positively-charged
anode. The subsurface would be maintained at a pH above IO in order to prevent the
GERAGHTY 6i' MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-15
generation of cyanide gas. This type of process has been used primarily with metals
recovery in wastewater and in soils, but it has the potential for acting on other charged
species, such as cyanide. A treatability study would be required in order to determine if
the process would be effective on the materials at this site.
The representative for a commercial vendor of this process reporte tha cyanide
impacted site in Europe is undergoing pilot testing for this process, ut ·
completed at this time. Although this process could be successful, if the p
subsurface was not above I 0, cyanide gas could be generate . rther, the material may
need to be excavated, treated, and resampled to confi tr tment. The cost to
complete this process has been presented as comparab
(moderate to high), but the up-front treatability cost and des1
others. The treatability study costs and desi e difficult to justify since this technology
has not been demonstrated at another 1 ause this process has not been
demonstrated at other sites or proven to c ics,u:""91.Jplicable to different situations, it
will not be considered for further evaluatio
2.5.2
2.5.2.1 Landfill Placeme
~ent f cyanide-impacted soils and sludges in a landfill would be the least
co lica~m ial procedure. The soils and sludges would be excavated and
stockp d te orarily on a lined area and covered prior to shipment to the landfill. The
excavation, handling, and shipment of the materials could be handled in a manner
consistent with that described previously in the FS (see Section 2.5.4). The LDRs do,
however, require that the cyanide levels be reduced to the performance standards prior to
landfill placement. This means that the cyanide would require pretreatment in the same
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-16
manner as other off-site treatment options. All off-site treatment options also result in
subsequent landfill placement of the treated material. Therefore, landfill placement as a
stand-alone remedial option will not be considered further in this evaluation. Rather,
landfill placement of the treated material is considered as a component of other off-site
treatment alternatives.
2.5.2.2 Acidification and Volatilization with Cyanide Recovery
The remediation of the cyanide-impacted so, b;: volatilization through
acidification of the soil and recovery of the cyanide ga
Off-site treatment of the material with this method could
and shipment to a treatment vendor. This process has the ad
d in Section 2.5.1.4.
lished by excavation
e of being conducted
at a permitted, fixed-location facility; the fo • he risk of operator error or equipment
malfunction is less and the overall prot ctio~ good. is process is an effective and
proven method of removing cyanide fr m so · o semi-solid materials. The only
commercially-available vendor, however, does not have the capacity to handle bulk
uld therefore be provided in basins, stored
ip ing and handling. This type of packaging would make
implementation di n.J-.... vn,ens· e. Further, the additional handling of the material
xposure to workers. The cost to process the material is
high; th~e ~~~d cost to pac ge the materials further increase the cost. Therefore, this
tech 1~11 ot be considered further
p cess V an the overall high cost.
due to the difficulty in implementing the
2.5.2.3 Oxidation by Alkaline Chlorination
Cyanide destruction by alkaline chlorination can be performed off-site by a
commercial vendor. This process was described in Section 2.5. l. l; the commercially-
GERAGHTY c«' MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-17
available method is a variation on this process and does not require the addition of heat.
After treatment for cyanide, the material is stabilized for metals treatment and it is then
placed in a landfill. The facility is permitted and monitored by the USEP A, the operators
are experienced, and the equipment and methodology are proven. A preliminary
treatability study for acceptance of the materials has already been comp! e by the
vendor; the remedial goals can be achieved for both total and amenabl
soils and sludges will require some chemical treatment for chromi m
treatment, will be stabilized for metals, and then placed in a landfill.
placement after stabilization. The method is effective, it an
The
after
od
objectives, and is available from a commercial vendo The mplementation of this
treatment would require excavation and shipment of the mate ·al to e treatment facility.
Standard excavation, handling, and ship .. ,,_ . ....___procedures, sucli as those described in
Section 2.5.4, would be utilized to provi e p~tion orkers, the community, and the
environment. The cost to complete the o -sitMtlk91,.™<,,c;alorination treatment is high, but
is less than on-site alkaline chlorination t atm nt due to the use of an existing vendor
2.5.3 Metal
s . ich is not im cted by the cyanide sludge, but is impacted with metals will
requ· e ~ati to reduce mobility of the metals. The metals present in the impacted
s ·1 are ~ily hromium and nickel. Chromium is present primarily as trivalent
chro · um; m t · s form it is relatively immobile and is easily stabilized with a variety of
agents. el is also present and is more difficult to immobilize with stabilization. The
metals in the soil exist in the areas outside of the sludge drying beds; these soils will not
require cyanide treatment but will require stabilization.
GERAGHTY ct MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-18
2.5.3.1 Stabilization Treatability Study
Metals stabilization will be required for all soil and sludge materials treated for
cyanide ( either on-site or off-site), and for all soils which were not treated for cyanide but
which are impacted with metals. A preliminary stabilization treatability
completed in order to verify that the soil could be stabilized with
stabilization agents in order to immobilize metals. The report on this
more
ed in
Appendix A. The quantities and types of agents were evaluated in order to d ermi a
suitable mixture. The types of stabilization agents tested in ed Portland cement, fly
ash, and lime; these agents were added in various prop "" ,~.,..__the soil, mixed, and
allowed to cure for a period of seven days. The s01 mixtur were then tested for
strength with a pocket penetrometer. Soils which did not h e the enetration resistance
goal of 3.0 tons per square foot were not tested further.
The soil and Portland cement m1 es~ a 3 percent, respectively) were the
only mixes that achieved the resistanc and thereby demonstrating structural
integrity. These mixtures were tested furthe w· a larger quantity of soil in order to test
the unconfined comp re 1 ve stre gth and the potential for leaching metals. Both mixes
achieved the uncon strength requirement of 20 pounds per square inch
pnm 1mit o .32 mg/L.
-Oata 1lity study
P extract at an average of 0.89 mg/L; this was less
1.0 mg/L as required in the ROD, but it exceeded the
indicated that the soil could be stabilized with Portland
cement d w id meet the strength requirements of 20 psi at additions to the soil of 20
and 30 percent Portland cement by weight. The addition of Portland cement at these
concentrations only marginally decreased the mobility of the nickel present, although the
nickel did pass the secondary standard for the TCLP extract. An additional treatability
study may be required by potential vendors supplying on-site services prior to actual
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-19
treatment. This demonstration study will be completed to optimize the stabilization by
the mixture of soil and stabilization agents.
2.5.3.2 Excavation and Stabilization Procedures
Stabilization of metals-impacted soil that is not impacted with cy 1de ill be
conducted in-situ at all locations, if feasible. Impacted soil that will re
for metals (without treatment for cyanide) will be delineated laterally
this time, the existing data indicate that all soils which are outside of the SOB a , and
will require stabilization only, are present at a maximum
surface (BLS). The majority of the soil is present at less than one foot.
The soil which is impacted with metals at depths of up to LS will be excavated
with standard construction equipment and placed on top of ot r tals-impacted soil in
a temporary treatment area. This tempor ment area will be utilized to complete
the stabilization of metals-impacted s il. \;fe exca ted soil will be spread and
pulverized with a tractor and disc. The st ilizati a nt will be applied in dry form and
mixed into the soil. After mixing, water will be applied to the soil to complete the
process. After curing, co
to positive test resul
excavated area. TH'
ill be collected and analyzed. Subsequent
tab lized material will be collected. and replaced into the
will b repeated with other areas where metals impacted
~
11 reas exhibiting impacted soils at depth have been excavated and
st bilize the ea with only shallow, impacted soil will be stabilized. This will include
areas here e · pacted soil is present at depths of less than one foot. These areas will
disced to pulverize the soil, mixed with the stabilization agent, moisture
conditioned and left to cure. After curing, all areas will be sampled and analyzed to
confirm sufficient treatment. Once confirmation of treatment is obtained, the areas will
be covered with topsoil and seeded. Erosion controls will be maintained during the entire
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-20
stabilization process to ensure that there will be no sediment run-off from the treatment
areas. These controls will be retained after treatment until a vigorous stand of grass has
developed.
2.5.4 Soil and Sludge Excavation and Handling Procedures
Remediation activities at this site will include the excavation, toe nd
segregation of the soils and sludges prior to treatment. ome segregation
excavated materials will be completed in order to ensure ly soil which does not
meet performance standards is excavated and treated or tabili cl.
The soil would be excavated with conventional constru · o equipment. The area
to be excavated would be delineated with e e, ing data and data collected in the pre-
design site investigation. Additiona · analys may be conducted during
excavation in order to confirm the ex f impacted materials. The excavated
materials would be stockpiled on a lined p d wi bermed sides, and covered to prevent
contact with precipitatio
and sludges prior to
potential for exposu
event.
ad would a as the temporary staging area for the soils
e size of the pad will be established to minimize the
acte materials during worker handling or a precipitation
~ls hich would be treated on-site would be transferred from the stockpile
a an~d t the on-site treatment system with either a front-end loader or a
conv or syste . Soils and sludges to be treated off-site for cyanide would be loaded
cks, covered with plastic and sealed to prevent the generation of dust and
exposure to precipitation. The trucks would transfer the material to a Treatment, Storage
and Disposal (TSO) station in South Carolina, where the trucks would be loaded onto rail
cars and shipped by rail to a treatment facility in Oklahoma.
GERAGHTY & ivl!LLER. !NC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-21
Confirmatory sampling would be performed in the excavation area to ensure that
all impacted materials are removed. Analyses will be completed on metals-impacted
soils in the field in order to determine the required extent of the excavation, with
confirmatory samples analyzed in the laboratory. All analyses on cyani -1 pacted
materials will be completed in the laboratory. After the materials are exca ted and
treated, the excavation areas would be backfilled with either clean or
storage pad will be removed, the area graded, covered with topsoil, and seeded
activities are complete.
2.6 TECHNOLOGIES RETAINED
The
The technologies for treatment of am -contaminated soils and sludges which
are considered applicable and therefore h ve ~ retaine or further consideration are:
site
or
• on-site oxidation by alkaline chi inat n;
aline chlorination; and,
• on-site sta
etals bilization will be conducted on impacted materials which remain on-
T~lud mixture will require metals stabilization whether it is treated on-site
f-sit~ls ot requiring cyanide treatment but identified as impacted will require
metals t through stabilization. All remedial alternatives will therefore combine
one of the etained cyanide treatment technologies and metals stabilization. The remedial
alternatives which remain to be fully evaluated will therefore include discussions on
technologies which will only treat the cyanide. Subsequent stabilization of metals is
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996
2-22
required and will be completed in accordance with the methods described in Section
2.5.3. These remedial alternatives are discussed in Section 3.0.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
3.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE l: ON-SITE ALKALINE CHLORINATION OF
CYANIDE AND ON-SITE METALS STABILIZATION
On-site oxidation of the cyanide with a hot alkaline chlorinatio pr ess with
subsequent metals stabilization is Remedial Alternative I; this a em
preferred alternative in both the FS and the ROD. To complete this remedi ·on, s ils
and sludges would be excavated and stockpiled, treated wit
with cement or other agents prior to backfilling and ca in
sludges requiring treatment would be excavated
equipment in accordance with Section 2.5.4. Large d
encountered, but any inert debris larger than 2 inches in maxi
decontaminated and replaced into the exc
materials. Soils and
entional construction
ot expected to be
dimension would be
Excavated soils would be placed a · ned and berrned stockpile area prior to
treatment. A synthetic membrane cover oul be maintained, as necessary, over the
of precipitation into
be moved into the tre
indbo e transport of contamination and to prevent infiltration
e stockpiled contaminated soils and sludges would
a front-end loader.
and sludges would be loaded into a bar screen to separate the coarse
ma ria~ soi and sludges would be transported by conveyor to the main mixing
ta whe~o d be fluidized into a 20 percent soil (by weight) slurry (large-scale
mixers d p ps are generally limited to soil slurries with solids content of 25 percent
or less). A steam boiler would be utilized to inject steam into the mixing tank to raise the
temperature of the slurry. The pH of the slurry would be raised to prevent the release of
hydrogen cyanide gas. Hypochlorite would be added to oxidize the cyanide after the
appropriate temperature and pH conditions had been reached. The slurry would be mixed
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
3-2
for the period of time required to achieve performance standards for cyanide; this was
determined in the treatability study to be approximately 36 hours. The soil slurry would
be mixed continuously during the treatment period in order to prevent the settling of
solids.
After treatment for cyanide, the slurry would be pumped to
dewatering area. The solids would settle in this area and free water w
the mixing tank. Recycling of the water would reclaim some of the
se mg and
ed to
res1 al
chlorine present in the water. The settled materials would be ilized in the dew tering
area after the water had been removed. If required, a red ound could be added
at that time to promote reduction of the hexavalent chro ium. ilization would occur
by the addition of Portland cement or another chemical a ent. he cement could be
applied to the soil in lifts as each batch is finished. Altema · ely, the soil could be
removed from the dewatering area after
stabilized by mixing with the stabilizing
been treated for cyanide and then
After metals stabilization, the treate CY, ide-impacted soils would be placed in
an on-site landfill const cted in compliance with RCRA Subtitle D requirements. It is
expected that the t ate d be stockpiled temporarily until the landfill liner
arn~m~\i(Juld be placed in an area where it would not interfere
with on-site operations a a s nificant amount of excavation would be unnecessary for
its con ructio . The most plausible location is the sludge drying bed area. After
co ru~e l dfill would be maintained and monitored for a period of 30 years.
oils ich do not require cyanide treatment would be excavated and handled in
the manne described in Section 2.5.3.2. The stabilized soil would be replaced into the
excavated areas after treatment, and the area would be regraded. It is expected that the
increase in volume due to stabilization will require that the area where the treated
material is backfilled be raised slightly above the surrounding areas and graded to meet
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30. 1996 ' ,. J-J
the existing contours. The backfilled area will receive topsoil and will then be seeded.
Raising the grade of the treated area will enhance run-off minimize infiltration, and will
limit erosion.
3.1.1 Overall Protection
On-site oxidation of the cyanide with hot alkaline chlori
protection of human health and the environment by the destruction of the cyan· he
excavation, handling, and storage of the soil/sludge can e mpleted in a manner
consistent with that described in the original FS; thi wil o · e protection to the
workers, the community, and the environment. The ctual rocess of hot alkaline
chlorination with a system constructed on-site specifically fo this oject would involve
significant quantities of chemicals, howev . The handling an use of these chemicals
could present a hazard to the worke s,
treatment.
uring the start-up period for
unity exists due to potential exposure to
cyanide present in the xcavate materials or off-gas during treatment. The long-term
ent from the residuals are minimal due to the
destruction of the cyan e.
he on-s1 treatment processes present some short-term risk to workers and the
c mu~e to exposure from the excavated soil and its handling. The long-term
imp ts M vironment and the risk to human health are minimal due to the
stabiliza ·on ocess and limited exposure to the stabilized soil.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.1.2 Effectiveness
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
3-4
On-site oxidation would result in destruction of the cyanide and would therefore
provide long-term effectiveness. It would comply with the ARARs noted in the FS and
would reduce the toxicity of the soils and sludges present at the site.
The treatment of the cyanide with the hot alkaline chlorin
provide effective cyanide treatment, but it will require significant amo
to complete the process. Hot alkaline chlorination can me t the remedial g
can
als
cyanide, but the procedures developed in the treatabilitY, resulted in significant
hexavalent chromium production; this will make m als s iii tion more difficult.
Because there are no available vendors to complete this pro ss on ite, the equipment for
the on-site process must be constructed to handle the quan ·1 of soils and sludges
requmng treatment. The system must be esign based on the results of the treatability
study, and will likely require pilot sc le ~ng prior o full scale implementation.
Because there is no standard design proc ure r this type of system, the efficiency of
the full-scale system is difficult to assess; t e de ign and construction of the system will
therefore account for a s ·
lower the overall effi
3.1.3 Implementability
e costs. These difficulties can potentially
the
~pie entation of on-site hot alkaline chlorination will be difficult since
are ~nd s available to supply the service. The full-size treatment system will
ed b sed on the treatability study procedures. The system would be comprised
of "off-the-shelf' components which may be difficult to obtain and configure into a
viable full-scale treatment system.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
3-5
Permits to construct and operate the treatment system will be required; including
an air discharge permit; air emissions were not, however, assessed during the treatability
study. The time required to complete the design, construct the system and complete the
treatment is difficult to assess, but should be complete within 1.5 years. The actual time
required may increase due to the difficulty in scaling up procedures and m
results of the treatability study in a full-scale system.
3.1.4 ,C,!!fil
ing the
The cost for on-site alkaline chlorination is hi cost of the design,
construction and chemicals required for the treatment.
RCRA Subtitle D landfill for the treated material also increa s thi cost. An opinion of
probable cost is presented on Table 3-1; t otal cost to implement this alternative is
3.2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE 2: 0 SIT THERMAL DESORPTION AND
LIZATIO
involves on-site thermal desorption and recovery
n f the metals present in the soil. Impacted soil and
ated and stockpiled in accordance with the procedures of
the F and outh ed in Section 2.5 .4. Remediation of the cyanide-impacted materials
w Id ~uct by heating the material to 450°F under an applied vacuum. The
· e i;Vati · ed and recovered in an air pollution control device which consists of
et gas scrubber with sodium hydroxide. The system operates in batches,
with a limited quantity of soil processed each cycle. After treatment, the soil would be
stabilized for metals by the addition of a chemical agent. Final disposal of the treated,
cyanide-impacted material in an on-site landfill constructed in accordance with RCRA
Subtitle D standards. Stabilization of metals-impacted soil that does not require treatment
GERAGHTY 8 MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
3-6
for cyanide would also be performed. This stabilized soil would be replaced into the
excavated area from which it was removed, covered with topsoil, and the area seeded.
3.2.1 Overall Protection
This process can provide good protection to human health and the nv1r ment by
removal of the cyanide from the impacted materials. The process oe
destroy the cyanide; it only transfers it from the soils and sludges to the air st
then to the GAC and wet gas scrubber used as the air pol
system. The cyanide in the devices must to be otherwis
the cyanide is only transferred in this process, there are
control device on the
destroyed. Because
risks to workers and
the community during implementation. The long-term impa s to man health and the
environment from the residual soil/sludge erial remaining a er treatment should be
minimal since the cyanide has been rem ed\/
3.2.2 Effectiveness
the process could achieve the
toxicity of the soils and sludges
· e. The treatability study did not, however, demonstrate
adequatee,,emrtau· nment of the yanide in the air pollution control device. A mass balance
for e <.\t o cyanide released and the amount captured in the effluent air stream
c Id no~mp ted. While the cyanide may have been destroyed by the temperature
of tli treatme unit, it is unclear whether partial thermal destruction along with
volatiliza · would be considered a suitable treatment alternative. Additional treatability
studies would be required to determine the treatment efficiency and the operating
parameters, and to certify the mass balance of the cyanide to ensure adequate air effluent
treatment. The elevated temperature apparently caused the oxidation of trivalent
GERAGHTY<:" MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, l 996
3-7
chromium; therefore chromium reduction after cyanide treatment could also be required
with this method.
3.2.3 Implementability
Implementation of low-temperature thermal desorption could b
commercial vendors with skilled workers and available equipment. A" di its
and stack testing may be required. The actual ability to implement this pr ess and
contain the effluent cyanide present in the air stream scale has not been
on the problems demonstrated, and may be difficult. This
encountered in the treatability study. If the system is de rmine to be feasible and can
be implemented, treatment of the soil would likely require les than e year.
3.2.4 .G!fil
The cost for implementation of t erm desorption is moderate to high, but
additional costs may the problems encountered in the air
treatment system dur· rea bility study. An opinion of probable cost is presented
· app ximately $3,100,000; a more detailed estimate is
included in Appendix B.
3. ~L LTERNATIVE 3: OFF-SITE ALKALINE CHLORINATION -?F ~ID AND ON-SITE METALS STABILIZATION
0 1te alkaline chlorination of the cyanide-impacted soils and sludges could be
accomplished by the excavation and transfer of the material to a suitable treatment
facility. A facility which has the equipment and personnel to complete this process is
available. After treatment for cyanide, the material would be treated for chromium
GERAGHTY 81\llLLER. lNC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, l 996
3-8
reduction, stabilized for metals, and then placed in a RCRA Subtitle D landfill. The soil
which did not require treatment for cyanide, but did require treatment for metals would
remain on-site, excavated and stabilized by the addition of a chemical reagent in
accordance with the procedures described in Section 2.5.3.
To complete this treatment process, the soil would be excavated an
accordance with the requirements of the FS and the procedures describ
The soils and sludges would be transferred by truck to an appropriate
the material would be loaded onto rail cars for shipment to
facility. Shipment of the soil would be completed in line an
times. The excavated area would be backfilled with c
vered containers at all
any excess stabilized
soil from the other areas; the area would then be covered 'th to oil and seeded. The
time to complete the excavation and stabilization of the soi ould be less than six
months.
3.3. l Overall Protection
Off-site alkali of the cyanide-contaminated soils and sludges would
alth and the environment by destruction of the
Some short-term risk could be
present due to the potentia , osure of the soils and sludges to workers during handling
and t the com unity during transport. This potential risk would be minimized by
se ing ~ and sludge material in the trucks with liners and covers, and enacting dust
aba en~ro . It would require approximately 97 truckloads at 18 cubic yards per
e all of the impacted material. The long-term risks to human health and
the environment would be minimal with this alternative since the cyanide is destroyed
and the residual soil/sludge material is stabilized and placed in a RCRA Subtitle D
landfill at an off-site location.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3,3,2 Effectiveness
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
3-9
The off-site treatment and disposal of cyanide-impacted materials would achieve
the remedial action objectives and would fulfill the Land Disposal Requirements (LDR's)
for the listed RCRA cyanide waste. The treatment process at this facility has b en tested
on this waste with a vendor-completed treatability study; the treatment e 1ci cy was
established and proven to meet the remedial requirements. This proce
ARARs as noted previously in the FS. Since the treated waste wou aced a
RCRA landfill, there is no long-term maintenance associated "th this alternative, ong-
term management of the treated residuals is the responsib" 1ty
the facility accepting the impacted soils and sludges.
3.3.3 Implementability
This technology is readily imp em~d nc it 1s an established process
completed by a commercial vendor by the USEPA. The technical
implementation has already en proven by e rocessing of other similar wastes and by
the treatability study. I titution 1 controls on the implementation of this process 'should
be limited since th p
handle the material.
assessment of the alternati
3 . .4~
permitted and the TSD facilities are prepared to
ent was considered previously in the FS and the
st to treat and dispose of cyanide-contaminated soil/sludge at an off-site
location is high, but less than other alternatives. There is a higher confidence level in the
costs associated with this technology than with the others since it is the most proven and
least likely to have cost over-runs. An opinion of probable cost is presented on Table 3-
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, l 996
3-10
3; the total cost for this alternative is approximately $2,600,000; a more detailed estimate
is included in Appendix B.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
This comparative analysis has been completed to determine which of the remedial
technologies for the cyanide-impacted soils and sludges optimally achieves the four
criteria established to measure the success of the technologies. Each alte
require separate on-site treatment for the soils impacted by metals but not
site treatment of the metals will be completed in a similar manner for lte
analysis therefore compares only the three cyanide treatment alternatives curr
consideration for the cyanide-impacted soils and sludges.
4.1 OVERALL PROTECTION
The general perspective on the protection o.
and human health through either the remo I or he destruction of the cyanide in the soils
desorption transfers it o a othe medium; it is opined that destruction provides better
protection to hum d the nvironment. The on-site remedial methods (hot
alkaline chlorination a al esorption) are unproven methods at this time; the off-
site treatment (alkaline ell · ation) is a known and commercially-available process.
The o -site proc s with subsequent placement in a landfill after treatment is considered
to rov~est verall protection.
The p nt" I impacts to human health and the environment during the
implementation phase:
On-site treatment can limit the potential exposure due to soils and sludges
handling problems, but could present a potential hazard due to the chemicals used in the
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
4-2
treatment processes or the off-gases emitted during treatment. Because the proposed on-
site treatment processes have not been completed at full scale, they may be more subject
to problems during the initial implementation and may therefore present more of a risk to
workers. Off-site treatment presents some potential impacts due to the increased off-site
transportation of the impacted materials and therefore potential exposure to t
public. Because these materials will be packaged securely and will not b
potential impacts due to the off-site shipment are minor.
An assessment of how each source of contamination is to
controlled:
eliminated, redu ed, or
Alkaline chlorination, either on-site or off-site, wi act t destroy the cyanide,
while thermal desorption will only transfer the cyanide to anot medium (GAC or wet
gas scrubber) for subsequent destruction. mme I destruction of the cyanide provides
more immediate protection than transfer f th~anide t other medium.
The s/rort-term impacts or risks to or rs or t/re community during the
implementation phase:
and the community due
s present potential short-term risks to the workers
handling and processing of the soils and sludges. In
additio , the o -site treatment methods also present potential risks due to either the
che ic~ling associated with alkaline chlorination or the cyanide
ef ent ~m t e thermal desorption system.
present in the
Of -site alkaline chlorination treatment also involves chemical handling, but the
process would be conducted at a TSO facility by trained workers. There is a potential
risk associated with off-site treatment due to the transportation and increased handling
associated with moving it off-site for treatment. The risk associated with transporting the
GERAGHTY & i\·!ILLER. lNC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, l 996
4-3
soil/sludge material can be minimized by proper containment of the material during
transport.
The long-term impacts or risks to the human health and the environment due to the
presence of residuals:
The on-site treatment alternatives should act to destroy most
will require that the soils and sludges be placed in an on-site RCRA Subtitle
after treatment. This landfill must be monitored and mainta·
material, and will act to limit the potential exposure
alternative allows for the treated material to be placed ·
also limit exposure to any residuals.
4.2 EFFECTIVENESS
after placement of the
The off-site
edial action objectives identified in the
ROD:
volume of soils
re edial alternatives will be able to handle the estimated
equiring treatment for cyanide. The time required for
treat nt may ry, however, between the different remedial alternatives due to the
d · ere~h-p t treatment rates. All altemati ves should be able to meet the remedial
acti o~e although the treatability study for the two on-site alternatives (hot
alkaline lo · nation and thermal desorption) indicated some difficulty in achieving these
endpoints. The treatability study for the off-site alkaline chlorination process apparently
was able to meet the remedial endpoints without problems. It is expected that the off-site
alkaline chlorination process will be able to achieve the endpoints in the full scale process
easier than the other alternatives.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
4-4
Tlte reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume:
The on-site and off-site alkaline chlorination treatments will result in the
destruction of the cyanide. On-site thermal desorption will remove the cyanid
soil and collect it in an air treatment unit. All three options lower the toxi
by the removal of the cyanide. Thermal desorption only transfers
collection devices in the air scrubber; the cyanide must still be destroyed
method. The volume of the soils and sludges is unaffected bY,
soils and sludges would increase in volume due to the a chemical stabilizing
agents during subsequent treatment for metals. Stabili also act to lower the
mobility of the metals, but not the toxicity of the metals, wh h wo remain on the soil.
Tlte reliability and proven effectiveness
and tl,e conditions at tlte site:
s witlt respect to tl,e contaminants
Off-site alkaline chlorination at a p d TSO facility appears to be the most
studies completed,
performance standar
still involved in method
three remedial alternatives had treatability
on-site methods had difficulty in achieving the
that this is because both of the on-site methods are
ent, while the off-site alkaline chlorination is a proven
T. co~e w th tlte ARARs noted in tlte FS:
If a three of the remedial alternatives meet the performance standards, then all
three alternatives should provide equal compliance with the ARARs noted in the FS.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
4-5
The long-term reliability of the remedy and the need for long-term maintenance to
maintain the performance of the remedy:
The on-site treatment alternatives will require that the soils and sludges be placed
in an on-site RCRA Subtitle O landfill after treatment. This landfill must be
and maintained after placement of the material for an extended period o
order of 30 years. The off-site alternative requires that the treated m
an existing landfill which is then the responsibility of the accepting TS
to manage and monitor. The TSO owner/operator accepts r
when it is accepted into the TSO; therefore, there is no lo aintenance associated
with this remedial alternative after it is implemente h all three remedial
alternatives will require long-term monitoring and maintena ce in landfill, the two on-
site treatment methods will require continued on-site monitorin d maintenance, which
will act to lower the overall effectiveness
The two on-site remedial alternat Ire that the treated residuals be placed in
a RCRA Subtitle O landfill after treatment i co plete. On-site treatment is significantly
less acceptable because is Ian Ill must be maintained and monitored indefinitely after
it is completed.
Jo obtaining necessary permits and rights-of-way for remedial
Each the remedial option will likely require similar permits. All three remedial
alternatives will apparently require permission to remove soil from the railroad right-of-
way for metals stabilization. The on-site thermal desorption process may require an air
discharge permit and testing to conduct remediation.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
4-6
Tl,e availability of commercial vendors wl,icl, can supply tl,e necessary materials,
equipment and skilled workers to implement tl,e tecl,nology:
Off-site alkaline chlorination is the only remedial alternative
completed by a commercial vendor at this time. Thermal desorption woul
by a commercial vendor, but the process would require additional
equipment must to be modified for this process. There are no commerc1
currently available to perform on-site alkaline chlorinati The on-site
rs
chlorination process would therefore require further des· n
fabrication. Off-site alkaline chlorination could be co
with readily-available equipment; this process is there
ment and equipment
a commercial vendor
asiest of the three
alternatives to implement.
Off-site alkaline chlorination is a via le, ermitted, commercial process which has
two on-site process
achieving the perfo
e soils an sludges to the performance standards. The
ination and thermal desorption, both had difficulty
in the treatability studies. Although it is expected
processes can be configured and operated to achieve the
perfo nee st <lards, additional process development work may be necessary.
T. av~ ojjtreatment, storage, and disposal services:
Th off-site treatment alternative is the only one of the three which will require a
TSD facility; the required TSD facilities are available.
GERAGHTY 8 MILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
4-7
The ability to construct the remedy in an acceptable period of time:
Although there does not appear to be any significant time constraint on the
implementation of the remedial alternative, the off-site treatment with alkaline
chlorination could be the most rapidly implemented; the time to implement s option
would be less than six months. The remaining options would likely eq
eighteen months to complete.
4.4 COST
The total costs to implement the three propo d re edial technologies are
summarized on Table 4-4. The costs are divided into major t ks o Tables 3-1, 3-2, and
3-3. The lowest cost alternative is off-s· chlorinal!on, the next lowest is
ite alternative is less expensive thermal desorption, then alkaline chlori ati~ The o
primarily because there are no on-site ndfl11 qes:ij" µ>( construction, maintenance, and
monitoring costs associated with it. The ff-s1 e alternative, as well as the two on-site
alternatives, has five-year
and ensure adequate
three alternatives due to
alysis costs associated with it to monitor
The two on-site alternatives have a 30-year
intenance program associated with them to ensure
n-"te alkaline chlorination is the most expensive of the
oesign, development, and construction of the treatment
syste , and the Ir h chemical usage and the costs associated with the landfill.
~
4.5 C MPA TIVE RA TING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The three remedial alternatives were comparatively assessed and rated based on
compliance with the screening criteria. A numerical rating system was established in
order to provide an objective, quantitative assessment of the remedial alternatives.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
4-8
Although this system is subjective in the assignment of a numerical rating for each of the
criteria, it summarizes in broad terms the overall ability of each alternative to meet the
screening criteria objectives.
Each of the three alternatives were rated based on the major and minor
criteria. A numerical score of between one and five was assigned to e
based on how well that alternative met the objective of the screening
score achieves the assessment criteria.
assessments for each alternative presented 4.4. The
individual numerical scores were summarized into the our
categories; overall protection, effectiveness, impleme
or screening criteria
The summary
table for this ranking system is included in Table 4-5.
Remedial Alternative 3: Off-Site hlorination with Landfill Disposal,
was ranked higher than the other two on-ite hJatment thods based on all of the major
screening criteria. The three remedial al erna · es were similar in ranking for overall
protection and effectiveness, but Remedial ative 3 was significantly higher when
arative ranking system did not emphasize the cost
'""'<'°''""'.I< criteria and the numerical ranking as presented in
· nation is the preferred remedial alternative, consistently
e other alternatives in the four major screening criteria.
cost, but the const
criterion. Based on
GERAGHTY 8 MILLER. INC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This document was completed as a supplement to the original FS in order to
consider additional remedial alternatives due to the difficulties encountered in the
treatability studies required by the original FS and the ROD. The two most-om1smg
on-site treatment technologies identified in the original FS, hot alkaline c ori tion and
thermal desorption, both had technical difficulties in achieving the pe o iteria.
In addition, both appeared to be more expensive than originally estimated wh
cost for implementation was determined. For these re s, additional
technologies were reviewed and compared with these tee in order to determine
if a different technology might be more applicable at thi time.
This SFS builds upon the results and conclusions of the · ginal FS. As such. the
existing ARARs and general guidance f assess1 emedial alternatives were retained
and utilized. The criteria for acceptabl rei¥tal alte lives as required by the ROD
were also utilized in this SFS. The ROD equi d that cyanide and metals in the soil be
lowered to the performance standards whi a consistent with the LDRs, and that if
cyanide-impacted mater· ls wer treated on-site, a RCRA Subtitle D compliant landfill
would be construct to contain the residual material. This SFS did not,
1ves which could not achieve the LDRs. Remedial
demonstrated and proven in the field and which would
require oditio I treatability and pilot studies were also reviewed critically due to the
pro e~the suits of the previous treatability studies.
he a essment criteria utilized to evaluate the remedial technologies were
condensed rom the typical nine standard criteria into four major criteria; these were:
overall protection, effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Where feasible, the
evaluation in this SFS was similar to the evaluation in the FS; as such, the SFS was able
to utilize the conclusions and results of the FS evaluations.
GERAGHTY 8 i\•llLLER. lNC 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
5-2
The potential on-site treatment technologies considered and evaluated in the
screening process included hot alkaline chlorination, oxidation by hydrogen peroxide,
thermal desorption, acidification and volatilization with cyanide recovery, biological
treatment, and electrokinesis. The potential off-site treatment technologies
included acidification and volatilization with cyanide recovery and
alkaline chlorination. Land disposal was also considered in the sere in
since it would be a component of all of the off-site processes, it was not nsid ed
further as a stand-alone treatment alternative. The potential t ment technologies were
assessed based on the screening criteria. s were assessed and
eliminated from further consideration if significant c · eria
technology. Metals stabilization was not assessed critical " e screening criteria
since it was the remedy recommended and accepted in the origin Sand the ROD.
The treatment technologies were
site cyanide treatment technologies. Met ls tr tment technologies were limited to on-
site stabilization since this was the prefe atment in the FS and accepted in the
ROD. On-site sampli condu ted in 199 determined that there was approximately
1,750 cubic yard
approximately 1,250
evaluated to include
and metals-impacted soil/sludge material, and
etals impacted soil. The remedial alternatives were
off-site treatment for 1,750 cubic yards of cyanide
impact mate · I with subsequent metals stabilization, and on-site treatment of 1,250
cu · y~ me ls impacted material. Each of the final remedial alternatives would
ha the~ on-ite treatment alternative for metals, but the cyanide treatment would
vary.
Three remedial alternatives for cyanide treatment were selected and identified as
optimal to achieve the goals and intent of the screening criteria. These treatments were
on-site hot alkaline chlorination, on-site thermal desorption, and off-site alkaline
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, 1996
5-3
chlorination; all three would include an on-site metals stabilization component. These
alternatives include subsequent metals stabilization after cyanide treatment of the
soil/sludge mixture and landfill disposal (either on-site or off-site), and on-site metals
stabilization for soils impacted with metals but not with cyanide. The three alternatives
were assessed and compared to each other based on the primary screening crite · .
Remedial Alternative l is on-site hot alkaline chlorination rea
cyanide and stabilization for the metals. Hot alkaline chlorination was th
r the
remedial technology in the original FS. Treatability studies w
its potential effectiveness and, based on the results of
screening criteria, it was determined that on-site ho
difficult to implement, could expose workers and the com
would be high in cost.
bility studies and the
lorination would be
various hazards, and
Remedial Alternative 2 is on-s1 e
metals. Thermal desorption had been co
and treatability studies were conducted to
treatability studies
tion and stabilization of the
d after the original FS was completed,
ine its effectiveness. The results of the
the screening criteria determined that
implementation of
that the effluent gas
high.
· n would be difficult and require additional studies,
ss could be difficult to treat, and that the cost was
~ial
fill d~l,
lternative 3 is off-site alkaline chlorination, metals stabilization and
th on-site metals stabilization. A treatability study was completed by
the ve or an it was determined that their process could treat the cyanide-impacted soil
and sludge mixture. The screening assessment determined that this alternative appeared
to provide overall good protection, could be easily implemented, presented no long-term
on-site monitoring requirements, and was the least expensive of the final three
alternatives. Remedial alternative #3 was ranked higher than the other two on-site
treatment methods based on all of the major screening criteria. Based on the assessment
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Revision No. 00
July 30, l 996
5-4
criteria and the numerical ranking as shown in Table 4-5, off-site alkaline chlorination
appears to be the preferred remedial alternative. It consistently ranked above the other
alternatives based on the four major screening criteria and should be considered the best
choice for remediation.
GERAGHTY & iv!lLLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 REFERENCES
Bechtel Environmental, Inc., 1992. Feasibility Study Report, JFD Electronics/Channel
Master Site.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1994a. Treatability Study Report, JFD Electroni
Master NPL Site, Oxford, North Carolina. Prepared for Acurex
Corporation.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 19946. Addendum to: Treatability S
Electronics/Channel Master NPL Site, Oxford, North Carolina.
Acurex Environmental Corporation.
ental
D
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1995a. Treatability Stu an Amendment II,
JFD/Channel Master NPL Site.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1995b. Treatability Study Repo JF Electronics/Channel
Master Site.
PRC Environmental Management, 199 . ~ Pre 1
Study for the JFD Electronics/Ch nne~as r N
Prepared for USEP A, Atlanta, Geo gia.
11fY Report on the Treatability
Site, Oxford, North Carolina.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T,b\c l-1. Opioioo of Proi,,bic Cos< fo, R=cdia<ioo of Cym;~
Impacted Soil by On-site Chlorination of Cyanide and On-site Stabiliza · n Metals
JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site, Oxford, North Car ina
A
Design & Contracted
Otno "" 7"'' Management: Expenses: Expenses:
A REMEDIAL COMPONENT
/ / -
/ / / ' REMEDIAL DESIGN: < . /
Pre-design Activities: . SSl.092 " SI 7~00 B,530 $54,622
Remedial Design: $95.976 ' ' Sll.379 $107,355
RCRA Landfill Design: S/48,320 ' / S/48,320
REMEDIAL DESIGN SUBTOTAL: $295,388 S1.7.iu0 SIS,439 SJJI,327
,-.....
CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT SUBTOTAL: / Sl:U,.W $674 $13,318 ,__ ----REMEDIAL ACTION: \ \ > /
Preconstruction Activities: I "$58,IUX '-./ $65,000 $5,976 $129,024
Excavation for Cyanide Treatment: I su,399 $63,500 $7,983 $109,881
Excavation/or Metals Stabilization: I SNl,880 $23,750 $3,954 $47,584
Cyanide Chlorination: I ) Sl,933,'16 so $1,933,426
Soil Stabilization/or Metals: ,,---......_ ,-137,724 S/80,470 $7,445 $225,639
RCRA Landfill Construction: / \ " $31,800 S/50,000 $5,523 S/87,323
Site Restoration: / -J S/6,080 $83,500 $3,106 $102,686
REMEDIAL ACTION SUBTOTAL:/ ( ) ........ $201,930 $2,499,646 $64,870 52,766,446
' "-'-?
CLOSURE SUBTOTAL: " ' '-/ $40,156 S2,255 $42,411
' ' MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE SUll'<:OTAV. $49,280 S385,726 $4,725 $439,731
(30 year present wonh fpL.JHJJundwater monitorilik/
and landfill maintentfnce) "'-Conrracted ExpetUes Subtotal: \ $2,902,872
/ / ' ADMINSTKATION N 0% of Qontrac ed costs) $290,287 S290,287
' ' J I
' . /
' /
TOTAL ,/ $599,398 SJ,193,160 $90,963 SJ,883.521
!TOTAL COST+ JO% CONTINGENCY= $3.883,521 + Sl.165.056 $5,048,577
GERAGHTY c;;> \IILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
0 .. f
I
I
Table 3-2. P••o, of PrnOObl, CM< fu, Romedi,tio, o c,.,i<k md ~ Soi
by Thermal Desorption of Cyanide and Stabilization of Metals
JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site, Oxford, North Carol" a .
Design& Contracted a:::,,.,"" Su)a/:
Management: Expenses:
I ' V REMEDIAL COMPONENT: A
/ )
/ /A.
REMEDfAL DESIGN: / (/ '
I Pre-Design Activities: S59,428 ' S27,SOO SJ.780 . S90.708
Remedial Design and Specifications: S95,976 ' <._so SJJ.179 S/07,155
Landfill Design: S148.310 ' !Ill so S/48,120
REMEDIAL DESIGN SUBTOTAL: SJ0J,724 '\.$27,500, SIS.1;9 S346.J83
I '/
CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT SUBTOTAL: r--. Sl2,6« S674 Sl3.Jl8
/ ..___
REMEDIAL ACTION: ( ~ .......
I Preconstruction Activities: I \ :,;58.048 7 S65,000 SS.976 S/29.024
Excavation for Cyanide Treatment: v S38-.?¥.M. / S63,500 S7,98J S/09,881
Excavation for Metals Stabilization: ST9,880 S2J,750 SJ,954 S47,584
Treatment for Cyanide: \ \ 26,-164 5578,750 $5,189 S6I0,403
I RCRA Landfill Construction: I l/,800 S/50,000 S5,52J $187,313
Soil Stabilization/or Metals: I / 37,7].I 5180,470 S7,445 S125,6J9
Site Restoration: / ' V S/6,080 S83.500 SJ.106 S/02,686
REMEDIAL ACTION SUSBTOT AL: / \ S228.J94 $1,144,970 $39,177 Sl,412,541
I / /, L
CLOSURE SUBTOTAL: / '-I ....... $40,156 $2.255 S42,411
" ,, /
MONITORING ANO MAINTENANCE -~lBTOTAl..: '-./ $49,280 $385,726 S4,725 $439,731
I (30 year present worth/or groundwater moniJllnng ) ' and landfill maintenance) ' /
Contracted Expenses SublJJlal: V SJ,558,196
I / ' ADMINSTRA TIQN ( 10% of contrail,!: ed costs) S155,S20 S155,820
/ / ' ( ' ' I ' ' J
TOTAL ' V / 5634,198 $1,714,016 $61,991 $2.410,205
' /
iTOTALCOST + .Ja...% CJ01~TlNGENCY ::::,c $2,410.205 + $723,061 . SJ,133.266
I
V
I
I
I GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
I
I
I
I
I Table 3-3. Opinion of Probable Cost for Remediation of Cyanide and Metals p ed Soil
by Off-site Cyanide Treatment and On-site Stabilization for etals
I JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site, Oxford, North Ca r a
I
Labor n Other olask Subtotal:
Expensn: Expens : Expenses:
REMEDIAL COMPONENT 'A
V /
I " /
REMEDL\L DESIGN: " " Pre-design Activities: S53,JJl " SI 7.511{1 SJ.597 S56,919
I
Remedial Design and Specifications: 595,976 " /SO Sll.379 5107.355
REMEDIAL DESIGN SUBTOTAL: -$149.308 :017.500 $14.976 SISl.784
/ "-..
CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT SUBTOTAL: / Slr,64.,4 $674 SIJ.318
I I \ ..___ --.._
REMEDIAL ACTION, \ \/ -/
Precorutruction Activities: I Y>8,0Jli.r 565,000 55,976 5129,024
Excavation for Cyanide Treatment: / 538,398 563,500 57,983 Sl09,881
I Excavation for Metals Stabilization: \ S/9,880 S23,750 SJ,954 S47,584
Sludge/Soil Treatment for Cyanide \ / so SI,Jl4,750 so S/,//4,750
Soil Stabilization: / ....,__ \ / SJ7,72.J 5100,/30 57,./45 5145,299
Site Restoration: / \ , S/6,080 583,500 SJ,106 S/02,686
I REMEDIAL ACTION SUBTOIT AL: / I 5131,732 S1.387,130 S20,482 Sl.539.344
/ / ) "-..
CLOSURE SUBTOTAL, '-' <_ ") $40,156 $2,255 $42,411
'-'-' /
I MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE SlltSTOTAL!\. S49,280 SIJ,750 S4,725 $67.755
(5 year present wort/, for soil sampling & analyNJ >
Contracted Expenses Subtotal: '\. / Sl,418.380
V
/ ' I AOMINSTRA TIO[)(( I 0'.1/o of contr=.ted costs) $141,838 S141,838
/ -\
/ ( \
" " I
I TOTAL " "\._/ / $383,120 Sl,560.218 SJS.388 Sl.986,450
' /
}TOTAL COST+ JO¾ CONTmGENCY -Sl,986,450 + $595,935 a SZ.582.385 I
V I
I
I
I GERAGHTY & :\!ILLER. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-4. Comparitive Cost Summary for the Three Reme ial Alte
JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site, Oxford, Nortll: ar
Remedial / ~':'dial
Alternative 1 < 0ative2
REMEDIAL COMPONENT
" \.
" \
REMEDIAL DESIGN $331,327 / $346,383
~
CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT 7
-------
$13,318 $13,318
\ I:---
--------REMEDIAL ACTION \ V • $2, 7K6,446 $1,412,541
\ /
CLOSURE ' \ $42,411 $42,411
I )
MONITORING AND MAINTENANC:;:, " / $439,731 $439,731
/ \
ADMINSTRA TION / /\ L $290,287 $155,820
( \._J ">
CONTINGENCY " \. "-/ $1,165,056 $723,061
" " \. /
TOTAL -V $5,048,577 $3,133,266
NOTES:
I) Remedi altem ive #I "nclud l!s on-site hot alkaline chlorination and metals stabilix\zation.
2) Remedial temati # ncl es on-site thermal desorption and metals stabilization.
3) Renmedial a mative #3 · eludes off-site alkaline chlorination and stabilization with subsequent landfill
placement, and on-'te m Is stabilization.
GERAGHTY c? MILLER. INC
atives,
a
Remedial
Alternative 3
$181,784
$13,318
$1,539,344
$42,411
$67,755
$141,838
$595,935
$2,582,385
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-5. Comparative Assessment of Remedial Alternatives
JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site, Oxford, North Carolina.
OVERALL PROTECTION:
Protection of human health & the environment
Impacts to human health & the environment
Source elimination, reduction or control
Short term impacts to workers & community
long term impacts to workers & community
OVERALL PROTECTION SUBTOTAL
EFFECTIVENESS:
Volume capacity & remedial objectives
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume
Reliability & proven effectiveness
Compliance with ARA.Rs
Lomg term reliability
EFFECTIVENESS SUBTOAL
IMPLEMENTATION:
Permit & right of way require
Technical ability to achie remedi
Availability of TSD services
Ability to complete remedy in a
IMPLEMENTATION SUBTOTAL
COSTSUBT
3: moderate
4:good
5: very good
REMEDIAL REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE2
On-site hot alkaline
chlorinalion
4
4
4
3
4
19
4
8
4
2
3
3
3
15
I
53
On-silethe
4
4
4
2
4
4
18
4
3
3
3
3
16
3
55
Numerical ranking was based on the ability to achieve the screening and assessment criteria.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
4
4
4
4
5
DIAL
21
5
4
5
4
4
22
4
5
5
5
4
23
4
70
0
-------------------
C,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER NPL SITE
OXFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
July 17, 1996
Prepared for:
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
2840 Plaza Place, Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27612
Submitted By:
Acurex Environmental Corporation, a Geraghty & Miller Company
4915 Prospectus Drive
P.O. Box 13109
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER NPL SITE
OXFORD, NORTH CAROLINA
July 17, 1996
Prepared for:
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
2840 Plaza Place, Suite 350
Raleigh, NC 27612
Submitted By:
Acurex Environmental Corporation, a Geraghty & Miller Company
4915 Prospectus Drive
P.O. Box 13109
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
David Liles
Project Scientist
Christopher C. Lutes
Senior Project Scientist
Program Area Manager, Technology Evaluation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION Ai'ID OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
2.0 LABORATORY STUDY METHODS ................................ 3
3.0 DATA EVALUATION AND Ai'IALYSIS .............................. 4
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION, INCLUDING FIELD/FULL-SCALE
CORRELATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
TABLES
APPENDIX A-TREATABILITY STUDY WORK PLAi'I
APPENDIX B-MATERIALS, SPECIFICATIONS, Ai'ID PRICES
APPENDIX C-Ai'IAL YTICAL LABORATORY REPORTS
APPENDIX D-VOLUME INCREASE CALCULATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT
JFD ELECTRONICS/CHANNEL MASTER NPL SITE
OXFORD, NORTH CAROLJNA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This repon presents the results of a treatability study conducted during the implementation
of the supplemental feasibility study (SFS) for the lFD Electronics/Channel Master (Channel
Master) National Priorities List (NPL) site in Oxford, Nonh Carolina. The laboratory studies
were performed by Acurex Environmental Corporation (Acurex) for Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
(Geraghty & Miller), the supervising RD contractor. The study was conducted in accordance
with the Treatability Study Work Plan prepared by OBG Laboratories, and approved by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) -Region IV (see Appendix A).
The purpose of this treatability study was to evaluate the stabilization method prescribed
by the USEPA Record-of-Decision (ROD) for the site as applied to ponions of the site soils that
do not require treatment for cyanide. Funher details of site background are presented in a
companion repon (Acurex/Geraghty & MiHer, 1994).
In performing the treatabilicy study, the objectives, as stipulated in the Work Plan, are to
demonstrate treatment techniques that are effective, and that can be extrapolated to a full-scale
field application. Specifically, the objectives are:
a) co reduce the total and amenable cyanide levels to the following maximum levels.
either in discrete or mixed materials:
Total Cyanide (Sludge and Soil)
Amenable Cyanide (Sludge and Soil)
I
590 mg/L
. 30 mg/L:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b) to immobilize metals to meet the following leaching concentrations in Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract:
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
(I)
(2)
Primary Limit (mgJL)<ll
0.066
5.2
0.51
0.32
0.072
Secondary Limir2l
0.2
I
40
2
6
3
0.008
I
0.005
20
The primary limits apply unless the study demonstrates. to USEP A
satisfaction, that the limits cannot be achieved.
The secondary limits may apply, through a Treatability Variance, if the
primary limit cannot be achieved."
c) to achieve an unconfined compressive strength of at least 20 pounds per square
inch (psi) for the stabilized material when tested in accordance with ASTM
D2166 at 7 days of age.
While not a criterion, penetration resistance and paint filter tests were also performed on the
stabilized material.
Since this particular study was focused on developing methods to be used on material that meets
the treatment standard for cyanide with no treatment, only objectives b and c are relevant.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 LABORATORY STUDY METHODS
The treatability study was conducted in accordance with the USEPA-approved Treatability
Study Work Plan. Split-spoon samples were collected for the treatability study by Geraghty &
Miller in accordance with Field Sampling Work Plan dated November 19, 1993 and transported
to Acurex for laboratory analysis. Five of the eleven sampling locations were profiled. During
profiling, six inch soil samples were collected above and below the sludge, composited, and
stored in a 20-gallon polypropylene container and designated soil only (sampling/homogenization
date April 22, 1994). This homogenate, which was used in some earlier treatability work
(Acurex/Geraghty & Miller, 1994) was stored under refrigeration until used in this study.
The laboratory tests consisted of physical and chemical tests of the treated (stabilized)
material since the untreated material was studied in the earlier work. Physical tests were
performed on the treated (stabilized) samples, including unconfined compressive strength (ASTM
D2166), penetration resistance, and paint filter test (EPA Method 9095). The density,
penetration resistance, and paint filter tests were performed by Acurex; the unconfined
compressive strength test was performed by Ardaman & Associates of Orlando, Florida.
The chemical test performed on the treated soil was the TCLP metals extraction followed
by appropriate analyses. The chemical analyses were performed by Savannah Laboratories,
Savannah, Georgia. Given the rapid turnaround schedule for this project this dataset is
preliminary and is still awaiting validation by Geraghty & Miller.
Stabilization tests were scheduled to be conducted in two-phases:
I) screening to test for physical properties only, and
2) performance standards evaluation to verify meeting the project performance
requirements.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mixtures for the soil stabilization experiments were selected based on reference to the
Work Plan, published literature (principally EPA, 1989), and visual observation of the preliminary
screening mixtures. The cement, lime, and ash materials used were representative samples of
materials readily available at the site in economical bulk quantities (manufacturers' information
on these materials is found in Appendix B). Flyash samples were provided by both Duke Power
and Carolina Power & Light (CP&L). A Hobart AS-200-F mixer (1/3 HP) was used in the
preparation of the stabilization performance standards mixtures for the soil.
3.0 DATA EVALUATION AND Ai"IALYSIS
The discussion below presents the specific laboratory results achieved from the studies
described previously for contaminated soil from the Channel Master site. Data reports from
analytical laboratories are reprinted in Appendix D.
The studies conducted to assess the ability of the stabilized soils to meet the performance
requirements as specified in the Treatability Study Work Plan are discussed below.
3.1 SAMPLE PREPERATION
As previously described the soils were collected and composited in the field and
transported to Acurex where they were sieved through a 3/8" sieve as required by the workplan.
3.2 SAMPLE CHARACTERIZATION
Standard Proctor density, moisture content, and TCLP analysis were performed on the
untreated soils in the previous work (Acurex/Geraghty & Miller, 1994). These results are
repeated here for reference. The maximum dry density achieved was I. 73 grams per cubic
centimeter (g/cm3), or 108.0 pounds per foot (pd) and moisture content range of 16.3 percent to
17. 7 percent. TCLP metals analyses indicated that primary treatment standards were met with
the exception of nickel (see Table I). The nickel concentrations in the two TCLP extracts were
1.3 mg/L and I .4 mg/L; the primary limit for nickel is 0.32 mg/L. Two compounds. mercury
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and selenium, were not detected in the TCLP extracts, but had detection limits above the
secondary limit of 0.008 mg/L and 0.005 mg/L, respectively; all other metals met the secondary
limit.
3.3 STABILIZATION
Nine reagent/soil mixtures were prepared employing either cement or flyash and lime as
the reagent. Three of the nine mixtures used Type I portland cement for the stabilization reagent
and the remaining six used a flyash and lime mixture as the stabilization reagent. Flyash was
provided by both Duke Power and CP&L, but was applied separately (see Table 2).
Cement was added to the soil at approximately 10, 20 and 30% of the combined wet
weight, along with a quantity of water judged adequate by experience. These materials were
mixed by hand (Table 2). Each of these mixtures was cured in a sealed container and the
penetration resistance measured after I, 3, and 7 days using a Pocket Penetrometer. The
penetrometer readings for the portland cement mixtures at 20 and 30% were >4.5 tons per square
feet (tsf) after 7 days. The penetration resistance goal of 3.0 tsf was therefore met (see Table
3). The penetration resistance goal was not met by the mix with 10% portland cement.
Three mixtures of Duke Power flyash and lime were prepared as shown in Table 2. The
resulting penetrometer readings ranged from O to I tsf (Table 3):. Therefore, these stabilization
mixtures did not meet the penetration resistance standard.
Three mixtures of CP&L flyash and lime were also similarly prepared (Table 2). The
penetrometer reading ranged from Oto 1.5 tsf (Table 3). These flyash/lime mixtures also did not
meet the penetration resistance standard.
After 10 days, the paint filter test was performed on all of the stabilized materials and all
passed.
Thus, the cement stabilization mixtures at 20 and 30% passed the initial screening test.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A mixture containing 80 percent soil and 20 percent cement was selected for the performance
standards testing since this was the minimum concentration of cement necessary to pass the initial
screening. Approximately 2.45 kg of cement were combined with 9 .8 kg of soil and 3.06 1 of
water. The mixture was then cured at an ambient laboratory temperature in sealed containers.
After 5 days of curing, unconfined compressive strength specimens were sent to the
laboratory for testing on or after the 7th day. Due to a holiday weekend the unconfined
compressive strength test was performed on the 10th day. The unconfined compressive strength
ranged from 107 psi to 161 psi (see Table 4). These results were well in excess of the
performance standard of 20 psi. These results are a substantial improvement over the
stabilization results obtained on oxidized soil with portland cement previously (Acurex/Geraghty
& Miller. 1994). The geotechnical laboratory also determined a moisture content of 37 .3 % (on
a % of dry weight basis, average of triplicate determinations).
The density of this material was determined by Acurex after 10 days of curing. Triplicate
determinations varied from 1.694 g/cm3 to 1.699 g/cm3• The average value was 1.697 g/cm3•
The TCLP extraction was similarly delayed by the holiday weekend and occurred on the
10th day after preparation. The TCLP results indicated that nickel. 0.91 mg/L and 0.87 mg/L.
had met the secondary limit of 1 mg/1 but not the primary limit of 0.32 mg/L. However. this
treatment was not quite as successful as the treatment in the previous study (Acurex/Geraghty
& Miller, 1994) where oxidized soil was stabilized with portland cement to below the nickel
primary limit. Note that as before stabilization treatment, mercury was not detected in the TCLP
extracts, but had detection limits above the secondary limit of 0.008 mg/L. Discussions are
underway with Savannah Labs to push the reporting limit down closer to the secondary limit.
A better detection limit for Selenium was achieved in the post stabilization testing. It was not
detetected at a detection limit equal to the secondary limit (using Method 7740). All other metals
met either the primary or secondary limit. As expected this continued to be true in the stabilized
material. Volume increase was observed to be approximately 78 percent (see Appendix D).
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION INCLUDING FIELD/FULL-SCALE
CORRELATION
The results in this additional treatability study predict that a portland cement stabilization
can adequately treat the metals contamination in the portions of the site soils that are not
contaminated with cyanide above the treatment standard. Fly Ash/ Lime stabilization was not
adequate. The only metal that was shown to be present in the pretreatment soil above the
treatment standards, nickel, was treated to below the secondary limit. The stabilized material also
easily passed the unconfined compressive strength standard and passed the paint filter test. The
stabilized material exhibits a significant volume increase over the untreated material. This
increase needs to be carefully considered in remedy design. Caution should be exercised in
extrapolating these results to full-scale however since scale-up related issues have not been
covered in this report. In conclusion, portland cement stabilization can be considered a
technically adequate alternative for the treatment of these materials based on the available bench
scale data.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 REFERENCES
"Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes" USEPA 1989, EPA/625/6-89/022.
"Treatability Study Report, JFD Electronics/Channel Master NPL Site, Oxford, NC", Submitted by Acurex
Environmental Corporation to Geraghty & Miller Inc and then to U.S. EPA, July 22, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A), 1988. Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines
For Evaluating Inorganics Analyses. Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. July.
8
Table 1. TCLP Metals Dalo, JFD/Channel Master Trealablllly Study
Soll-4 Soll-5 Soil-73 Soil-74
Preliminary Preliminary Aller Slablllzallon Aller Slablllzallon
Characterization Choraclerlzollon Prsllmlnary Results Prellmlnary Resulls Primary Secondary
Metal Cone In TCLP Cone In TCLP Cone In TCLP Cone In TCLP Limit Llmll
Analyte Extract mg/l Extract mg/L Extract mg/l Extract mg/L mg/I mg/I
Arsenic dl.20 <0.20 <0.2 <0.2
Barium <3.9 1 / <3.3 1 I <l El <1 El 40
Cadmium <0.010 0.010 <0.01 <0.01 0.066 2
Chromium 0.077 0.076 0.092 0.089 5.2 6
Lead <0.20 <0.20 <0.2 <0.2 0.51 3
Selenium dl.50 <0.50 <0.005 WI <0.005 WI 0.005
Sliver <0.010 <0.010 <0.01 <0.01 0.072
Mercury <0.020 <0.020 <0.02 <0.02 0.008
Antimony dl.050 <0.050 <0.05 <0.05 0.2
Copper 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11
Vanadium <0.050 <0.050 <0.05 <0.05 20
Zinc <3.8 11 <3.2 ll <0.25 <0.25
Nickel 1.4 1.3 0.91 El 0.87 El 0.32
11 Metal concentrallon Is qualified as undetected due lo TCLP extract fluid method blank conlamlnatlon.
El Qualified as estimated by !he laboratory.
WI Qualified as post spike not within conlrol llmlls by laboratory
Pagel -------------------
Table 2. Soil Stabilization Screening Mixtures, .JFD/Channel Master
Additional Stabilization Treatabilily Study
Unoxidized Total Weight Tap Water
Mold Soil (g) Cement (g) Lime (g) Duke Ash (g) CP&L Ash (g) Added (g) Added (ml)
J 180 20 () 0 0 200 55
K 160 40 () () 0 200 50
L 140 60 () () 0 200 50
M 140 0 30 30 0 200 65
N 140 0 14 46 0 200 55
0 170 0 15 15 0 200 50
p 140 0 30 0 30 200 65
Q 140 0 14 0 46 200 57
R 170 {) 15 () 15 200 50
·-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3. Soil Stabilization Screening Mixtures • Pocket Penetrorneter Data
JFD/Channel Master Treatability Study
Mold Penentrorneter Readings ( ton/fr)
I Day 3Days 7Days
J 0.0 0.0 1.0
K' 1.0 2.3 >4.5
L 4.3 >4.5 >4.5
M 0.0 0.0 1.0
N 0.0 0.0 1.0
0 0.0 0.0 1.0
p 0.0 0.0 1.5
Q 0.0 0.0 1.3
R 0.0 0.0 0.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4. Unconfined Compressive Strength Data
Sample
Name
Soil 70
Soil 71
Soil 72
JFD/Cbannel Master Additional Stabilization Treatability Sn
Results after Stabilization and IO Days of Aging
Unconfined
Compressive
Slrength
Qb/in2)
161
107
121
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lllMlDIALCOMPIINt:r<T
Table I. Opinion of Probable Cost for Rcmcdia1ion of Cyanide and Metals
Impacted Soil by Onsite Chlorination of Cyanide and Onsite Stabilization for Mct&.ls
JFD ElcctnmicslChanncl Master Siu:. Oxford, Nonh Carolina -· c-~ -" ,. -· u ... ,~ ~ -·-
R!MlDIALDESlt:11:
""-"---".....,_,
WMl'I .. R'"'-"'""'
• O...t:oHoct"'"
'iuol' oA__...,,
T-1 ... s-,.,.......,,....,h.....,
M_,H OMI R,.,.., w,<lo EPA
M"""' ... R,._ ,.,,~ LI'A
l!!ll"Sfo...!U-u _o..,,.s"""'""
RCRAIAftolllllfl,,o.,.
11C.t<i.-.,.J10..,,-.i:.,,.,,oL
lllMlOIAL !J[.~ICII MPBTOTAL:
Rl.\UOIALt0.~Tll,U,1'0R PIUM.l'IIDIE..,-,-
11 .. ,_ 11,.i. .... s,1 .. , ..:. .. -...
c-s.i-wsdtw•·
CO~L"TOR 1'1U>L\1RlMF..'"T '-1111TOTAI..
ltl\llPIAL,\<.:llO~• ......,_,_.., .. ,,, ....... ,
O..ol,•H•"•.0.,..,,,.1, .. ..:.-...,.,.,..,.vcr,. _,_
,s..,.. •• .._ O.U,nA,..d""SYl
s-... ... ,c..11 .... ,,. • ..iM .. •••'"""' ~_,.., __ .,...., •. _..,,....E ... ,,.-r-t,_.r,..,_
Soc -)<<JCYC""""'"'""''
"' ,._,,. l!OO CY c .. -S.n.Slud • AooJ•"'" , ••• ~1 ... ,, ., 1, cv, .. _ c..,,.,,,,. .... ...-•• , .. ,E.. .. ,_
/•-•-•""-•l!Sl'l , .................... .,,E.. .. , ...... -.. £rnr,,oj_,.,c.,...,.,r,..,_.,-_ -~ ..... -r,,..1i..w,,,.,.,1a,..,,.
h,;no,., .. s,,.;,..111""CYS... s_..._.,._ .. ,..~f., ... ,_,
1.-~...,. ... ,._...,.. •• 11sr, ~1--,,,,.i..1·,.,,.~,.,,----.-~
u.,, ........................ , .. ,,· • .-
T-D/SloJ10,S...l(-.. T-.IA)
oi-. s-•·
c,,.,,,_,..., ,.,.,, -lmdS.•-...,
s..l.Sl°""':,,-1-, 0/<1.t.S•"'"'"'-'
llCIIA l.ao,u;u c ......... , ... , ... T """"' Slud,.,S,,.1
II(;~ t-,,f,JJ c--......... "
Nl•iwo-...-"-0,,,,..,.,,,,.,.,
......... ,~ ............ 1i,.,. ... ,
... 1illl'l-•l
s ... ---~·..., .. .i;
REMEDIAL .\<."TIO, .,rnrro r,, I..;
. " .
<."UL'<Vllf PIUl<;,:Wl-"~'-'''RmT,Ua
✓
TOTAL
'"
' ✓ V
,
✓
~ltll
s:U.910 ··-S7.041
SIO.l(,I • -ll!'/fl u
U/,l!fJ
Sl7.6lJ n••
SlUll
5l.l•I
rn.l<-0 ....
Sil.Ill
Uf.01'
IIUllO
S/.UJ1• ,....,.
SHU
SJ)<" u1,,. 11u,,
Ul...._.
S!H.,I
s10.1u
S~II(,
S(l.l.U
1107'2 ,,
lJIO.U
SI• J.A ~ co
Slr•~l< ,m -,
~llU ,.
U.IIOII ,
• 1JU\lf
111,000
12.11'-'I
HU••
u
SJIM u
111.l>M> •= ,,. "" .. " -SJI.IJ,
SJI."'"' u
J.J/.IM
1:z.:.w u
""" , .. " -~ ,_ " Sl.~lU ,m " JIUII u ........
11 llQ
ll.l-"'
U'IO<ll
uuJ, ..,~
~~210 • u =-
:1c...,,1 ... tho...,...,.,...i....i, .... ,.,,,.,,.....,...,,.,._,.....,...,_...'" ................ nF .... ....
JJ!llalol-,cd-••••lli..,.i...~,_,, ..... ,..,,_•lwal~l-.•-..l••llbopl...,. .. ul,._•'""'i.....,-i
11s..1 ..... 1 ... ,,~ ..................... , ..... F"''"'"•·""'
= ''·""'
SIOODII = SU.000
m m
"" ,
"" ·~
""
~l.9JU2'o
nl.000
00
'" ""
Sl"-'OOl'I
mum m , .
n
,m
$.171.'17&
'
112.j(JO
JS<>OO
111.J•
.
✓ ' , '" ✓ ;
✓ , ,
' ' ' ' ' SIO<ffl
S«l<>ll
!llO<.i
JU.-
Sll.)00
!J7.!C"
191'-'}
no.ooo
U,7l0
JlJ.1JI
ll.OlHl6
11.0Ult
lllOOO
'11211 000
Sl7.,00
111.'170
l/H.'10
SlOJ._.,
no.ooo
0000
IIUOO
UJ.S-
n.,w . ..-
•
IIJ.7!0
llTl.'176 ,.,_n,
ll.!Hll.J1l
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
✓
' ,
•• ns•
ml
-"·"·
"" ··~ M
' ' sqs1 ...
S//J7'1
u■ . .L.19
"M
S~l ,., ..
161•
11.7M s1.1~•
11,0-ll
IJ.~11
II.Ill
U.lll
11•J
1111 • •
-
J .JH
Sl"--11•
UJI.J17
J/JJ/1
lllJII
111u1,
J/,,,111
1/IUU
UaJ-'ll
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table I-A. Opinion of Probable Cost for On-site Soil Tn:atrncnt Using Hot Alkaline Chlorination
JFD Electronics/Channel Master. Oxford. North Carolina
Description
Mobilization
Treatment S stem E ui mcnt and Construction:
Bar Screen and Conveyor
150,000 Gallon Modular Tanks
Steam Injection Heating System
Mixers and Circulation Pumps
System Construction
Soil Dewntering/Stabiliz:ation Area
Water Collection Area
TranstCr Piping and Pumps
Temporary Cover for Worlc and Treatment Areas
Utility Installation
Processing and Treatment of Soil:
Earth Moving Equipment and Operators
Treatment System Manager and Crew
Chemical Usa e for Cvanidc Oxidation:
Sodium Hypochlorite (13% solution)
Lime
Sulfuric Acid (50 % solution)
Chemical Usat?e for Chromate Reduction:
Sodium Sulfi1e
Sulfuric Acid (50 % solution)
Lime
Utilitv Usaee:
Propane
Electric
De-mobilization
Subtotal:
Design of Chlorination Syst
20 % Contingency;
Total Cost of Soil TreaJ-nt by Ho
Estimated
Quantity
I
2
17.000
230,000
Unit Unit Cost
LS $30,000
LS $4S,OOO
oich S6S,OOO
LS $119,025
LS $78,000
LS $24,0
LS $14,000
LS $6,500
LS SI0,000
LS 110.866
LS $25,000
s 0,000
L $90,000
gaJ\ons Sl.11
pounds SO.I I
gallons SI.IS
S0.34
SI.OJ
SO.I I
gallons $1.04
KW hours SS.03
gallons S0.75
LS $30.000
based on treaancnt in a soil slurry with 20 % solids and a slurry density of 72 lbs/ft1.
ingrate ·s approximately 25 cubic yards per day for cyanide oxidation.
tmcnt estimated to lake approximately one day in the second 150,000 gallon tank.
-site r manager llnd crew is estimated at two months.
Total ti on-s · for equipment and operators is estimated at one month.
hcmicals r uircd for cyanide oxidation are based on the doses used in the trcatnbility study.
It assu d that sodium sulfite will act to reduce the chromate present in the soil.
ls required for chromate reduction arc based on an average chrome concentration of 400 mg/kg,
a sodium sulfite dosing rate 3.64 pounds per pound chrome, and an overdosing rate of twenty
times the stoichiometric amount
9) The actual sodium sulfite dosing rate may be greater than the amount noted due to the residual amount
of hypochlorite present in the soil slurry after cyanide oxidation.
10) Propane usage based on a water temperature change from 70°F lo 140°F.
11) The disposal costs for the generated water may vary significantly depending on the available options.
12) Equipment costs are capital expenditures, no salvage or resale values arc accounted for in the
cost of the treatment system.
GERAGHTY 8 /v1ILLER. INC
Cost
$30,000
$80,000
$90,000
$277.500
$24,750
S41.J00
$22,100
$36,050
$24,750
$10,400
$85,510
$172,500
$30,000
Sl.487.251
$148.725
$297,450
Sl.933,426
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2. Opinion of Probable Cost for Remediation of Cyanide and Metals
Impacted Soil by Thennal Desorption of Cyanide and Stabilization of Metals
JFD Electronics/Channel Master. Oxford, North Carolina
UIGDUJ,.COMl'Ol'<L'fT
llMl.DtALDJ,lilGN,
" -~ ...... -\11 .......
---~ .. £PA ..,_,,__ -~ __ , ................ ,_
T--0... -l•l"-,._S_ -· -· ) ... 0.., --.... llo ... •-EfA
..... 0.., .. ,...,, .. 1
.... 11 ......... 1.P .. ·-•-o.. .... "-----RCIIA i-........ .., ,,_.,, ---,......., ._. _...., ............. , ... 1._..i-..--
llDIWI.-L l)JJIIG.~ ,uann.u ...
11,u,\U>U,l,l OelTR.\CTtlR Pll!Xl'Rf.Mf.NT,
c,...,11,,10.,.-.. --..-.i-11o10.~-
x .. --.... s.i...,c--(.'U~II.A('l"<)~ PR0<1"R••••.r<T ,u.-roT Ai.,
REMU> ... LA<.TIU"· __ _. ......... ,
O. ...... H, .. ,.s.,.,...., ..
C_<J,,.uo.;r,,. --...... • 1-..,. .. 1,..,,n
--CoU..•-.... M-•-,..__,..., _ _.._ _ .... ,~-•-
"'"-"<:Y"'-S. ,,_ l~XICY l., ............ ~ .... .-., ... , , .. ncv, c--....-..:1-• .. -
~....,,..,..,E,..,,._, -1orr,_., __ _
.... t,_ ... , ......... -f.-.---· l•..,CY-• ,oJ ,._.,Mol E=•-
;:::.:;:;~~.:.-';;' -rr-~,-IIClV,~-·· / ' IIC~ C , I -T-•-,J,,..cy-
S..k/,ll<J'"C c....... ,..... ·•"""''-""•· ·--, .. .,_.' ' -·-' ~
"-"'""'""' a. .. , •• .._
•otrot.U ,,vnu~ ,1J,irrcrr.t1.t
' CU:,,.llll ~----,~~-
~,nor.,1.1 -/ -:,0 Ml,~f'J.IAl~TP_~A~(-~,
:lo, ,i.,., ....... _,.,_ ...
1· ... -... 1,-
JIK)~ITOR~•" .,,,o \UI.YT[.~A,,U: >t;STOTAL,
'"
/IOTUA,,DA"-"IJ"l"Tlt>""'
·~ m .... -"~ "= . .
U.l96 I UI
~-u JJt,ll
5?1,6ll •= U••ll
t1,1u I
,11.1<0 ·~-uuu
'"·'"
ln .....
lll""
uoi,r
IUl<o ,,,., ..
l\HH / l
'"~
11, ,,
\tr>. I'
I• <.O n
" 111.JN
"
' ' ' '
1,.... /
n-~ n:i.,:o :,,.,,
11•"-'
11, ... ,:roo
"''"" \7,0 •. @
JJUU
no• ..... :ooa
IUlO
... llO
u
"
" "
u u
u
u
u
~
/
TT'JD61
mo
SIOOOO
IIOl>W •• 11'1 ....
m
m
1i,o
~,
11~>
m
llll
HD,000
suoo m,
110000
"' n
ll7'
IJ11...U
l!l.lOO
ll.<JOO
1111.<JOCI
111.J•
" /
-
"" =• ""
~
"" U.7'1
"" n, m, =• "" U)<,Q w•
l/1.J!'f
11'1.1!,
' ,,,,..
/
/
"" ' ""
/
/
1, • ..., 11.1,.
""""' nu.i 111.000I !l.041 ,..,_ noi,
... ~ ..
11.J,JH
o.no JJJ_,,.
m•• u.,, ..
ll!l.l)O
IJ7'1l•
11,0-'""'
IIJ•.-
n, .. .,
11"-"'"'
117)00
1119'0
Jr,1,,.
IIU"O
Do ..... ••= 11).)(Q -11.1-<-1...-..
111.1•0
IJ11,97'
U0,.71•
ll.UJ.J.,. j
u., ..
"" 111•
W,) ..
11.11•
l!.lll
,uu
11.""
11.J,O ..
UU7T
1,,17!l
.. , .... ,
l)C_.,. __ ... ...._...__,.,. ___ "'_..._.._..,.._....__ ...... _.. .. -,..,.....i..,
• .,,__.,_,,.._,.,_... ..... a..._ l)C-,.,...,_.,_....._,.._,..,,.,.,, __ ...,., __ _, .. _w .. xu-..
l)Sl,h,l ........... ,.,U,.,pl"""''.,. • .,, .. , .. ,,.._ ,1,,.1.c_..,_.,,.,,,., ........ .., ................. .....,_,. ,1n...-, ....... ,._,..~ ... --wii.-c-c ... o...,_,.._,...,_p,,-.__.,,u.,.,,__..w .... -f"',_" ___ ... , ___ ..,.,. ___
))>ool---·-· .... ~·~ ......... 1,_""_'"""
GERAGHTY & \•IILLER. INC
-
/ ·-~
"
11"1.JJI
IUI.J/1 ~·
1/J.J/I
'1l.,IU
JUHi,
IIH.111
IJ-7.JJI
IIJJOJJ
W'-ll1
<1.4111lO!
11.-<1-.za,
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table J. Opinion of Probable Cost for Remediation of Cyanide and Metals lmpac;;led Soil
by Offsite Cyanide Treatment and Onsite Stabiliution for Metals
JFO ElcctronicSIChaMd Muter Site. iliford. North Carolina -· (......,,_ ... ~ 1(---~,
RllllDlAL COMPOl'ftNT _,, ,-,_ ,~
'
RIMllllAL DESIGN: ,.,..__ ""'"'-~ ... "'"' ' ,-i,,,,,.., ll,,mal, .. ,.,._ won Pl.., lll.~IIU
"""!k>-1...-wullEI',\ =" WOft.Plml!A\-1-$1.IMI
-•, l).laCol-110.l,M
Sools.m,,lc-w w ""' T.-w,s:..;.-1,;,-Slall<I....,'°" 1Ul6 ' u UJllU ,.,....,.,..,_,.,., ilJJJ1
a-io1 o..,,~ ••~ ~Ilea"""'
J<l'!I.Deaon-.lLII ll7.6!2 ' M,,ot,n~ and It<,,-,.,Ill Er A =" ,,n%Dea111-ll4.llU M«I"'• and It<¥-"'"~ EPA ,,_,u
'l/%0-..,-<lal W.240
).le<l,n• and Re«l<W w10! fPA ll.lUI I
Jm,,;F .... 0-.,, Ill.Ill -Du•c--s,,,...iu.-., 1,01~
RIMLl>IAL DISICN SUBTOTAL: IUt.JIII
RIMIDIAL CONTit,KTOR PRDCUREMUH
c ....... 11;.i0o.:--. IS.~U ;
ualo!•Conlnclon. i...,. !ll<l D><IIIMnl U.JIOI ' R£>,...lhd,-iSc1c,.1Co,,.,...,,. U.IS<> ' ;
C.-,_.,_~,1,a-,S""'--: J/1,6,U I I ;
CONTIV,.L'TOR PROCUREMENT ~UBTOTAL: 11?.l>U ' <
' RtMt:DIAL ACTION: ' Pffa•""'" ... Affl•obn; ~ jt,,,)U,&S.ld•I'!.. 1U.to•~ ~ C"""'"""""" <JN(JC !'Ion 1l!UII
Mob1l1Zat1<>11 1US6 ' LS 11!1.IUI
A 1s1orooo1t !laxlllA..,.ill•'l~Yl 111.l"" ll~., SY "' I
Sloml,..,.,, c~u..:oon -.i Moria'"'""'" IIU.75l ' I LS Sl!,IIXI ,.,._,,..,_,1 .. , ..... s.,;,,.,,o1: IJI ..... I
si • .....,s..1111e .. ,,_,., c ... i,1, r-,,...,,
Suma,. ,i.,cy c""',.., slLl<h<~ 114,-wl 5W ., m
•'" llllll..'YC,.,,iJ<l>t>1~SluJc~ ' ~,u 15<,1 C m
An.I .. ,,_ S.ulll>h•II• "' lS CY/ ,. <c "' ' -·~ ' Co,uirm,,u,r, • G! faoa,-,,on .IW
tonc.--,01c...,.o:u Sf) " ;
~Aaot,,.,.otE":a,,01KlftS " =• £xa<_,_ ,,, .... ,.,....,r,.,. __ ..,."'"'<Q' " /
Soll t1<ondo• for Mcl•b ~!ob,liu,~,n < ;
E•co•ot,,anol Slod,;ule l"'' CY S.,ol 117,11 H••I C, nu
1,,.. .,.J "-"" OI F.=vob<>11 ,,_ ..
("""-"""l'"'!><l'"llS;) " " ~ "" ' ~•-.... lfd,W.!lMll:a' .... .\"M/Jl"'.J: JI,_,,, ;
Sl.......,S.11 Troot,.,.., 1..-Cvon,,M
' ~1-Sool 10 Fo,ahtv 1175' ' " 1:~,.,, ·-Sl7ll
T"'"' ond Di olSIOl<Ulo,So,! w -w,
Sbul'9'SM<I T,.,._ •L'-•4 u
Soni SIU~b••-fe, ,-...,, ;
Mo!nlwi.-; ' 1l.llM ' LS 125.!UI r ..... ,t Stai>,hu \l}\l <:I'{ s..,I ; IIIJ ... l mo '"" '" IJ~d.l\ll I 25<> CY ." < , Sl\.7W 175<1 -1111
(oRlirfllo'°"'." l 01 Slab,huol ' 1~ .... , " ~ "" S-Sl-""<:a',_ .r,,bt-,oJ: ' ' ' ; 01.1:,
SU.Jl.<o<arw<la• ' ' D<m,,1,1lwu, .... ' ' U.2-lll ' ~ JIIJ.CUl
A<"tw!t R=o•al .,.i n,-, .. 1, ' !A 1141! 11n, " "' c1 .... @11:oc...-SI\.CJ>l'I nn, CT ~· -~ ' ; "-'" ,~, " " • __ .,_ S,,b,uJol: ' ; l/,1,IIU
ll C'TlONSUlllOITAL; ~ 1Ul.l'l1
CLOSUJl.t ' A• Bwil 0,.-.,nn ' U.!llO
-.I Par,,,_ Vcn1"""""' "-'~ U~-"" a,,,,.,,;-,,,,. .. .,. .. .,.s....,,.i, u-.1J,
SURI SUUOTAL: I Ull.151i
' ;
M " "'" M•Ct:
Sotl~jli••---···'""""""'la,•-1 l-4¥.llll " -1l7!
MOfj!TORL"IG MAL"ITll"A."ICE SUlllOTAL: ~,.2111
;
'""'""H ax.i,,,,,.i
' ;
~ TIOJ'ltlll'II,"' umtnLt<d,0..,1
' 70TAL
(IIUIMO"")
"' u..J.ll•
jTOTAL COST,. TOTAL+ .J<l'l'o COl"lU''!G[~CY,.
l"OTU A!<D A~UMPTJOl'<S·
11c-.,.,..1,o-.1.,.""'..-q,0uol~tor""""'1u.1 .. ,__,_ .. ,__~.......,..1,.-1..,11w,._01-"""".-....im
1M -.01 A.ilOII n. .-1,.. r.qwtol h• t1>c EPA.
1}Coou for11>< '"''"I'('"' ...i .,.,1.,,. "' 1h< "'"''"'""'"""' '"'"" --1oa .,....,1,1 ,..,_,,., ,.,Ill XJlf onalym.
l) Slal,oliz<d •ml w1II O<plo,c.-l~11<I. 111 !O< "''-"'""""' <Icon lill :..-..1 """"''I "'ill bepi.:..ion COi) ol \ho >1obilil..J .. ,i
__,
112.S<IJ
lhllJ
J/1.JN
,.
11.~
; ' ;
;
; ;
,
' '
",. ll!l.101 =rn~ , ' UJ.-
112.l!•l
117.l!Xl w.,,,i
,-.l!ll
Jai.J.JM
un.i.,i
IJ.7SU
JU.lll
l-416.}m
S691.2"1
J/,/14,151
W.lUI
JU.l<"
117.51-1
1S.ll0
JIN.IJ•
IIIJ.IHI
1)0.IUI
Ull.101
IIUOO
UUH
ll.ll7,UO
SlUSO
111.751
Sl.~IS.llMI
IUl,llll
11.5MI 111
•.. '"---· -
.,.
'2,J(,O
mi
"M U.1'7
' ' m, .,
llj61l
IU7
JJI.J1'
IU,~74
ISSU
,.,
' l&74
""
11.7t\6
~i.10~
1l.l14l
JJ.91~
11.Hll
1UJI ,u,
'711
" " J1.HJ
1U-M
m<
" u.,J.4
" " " ,.
" "" U.591
11.46l
11.766
J1,UJ
SUl7~
11.}40 .. ,
1.J,/H
Jl0.-'11
,..
'"" ,u .. ,
Jl,:JJ
Sl.155
•.m u.m
1.IJ.112
41 Th<co"' li_,<>I on lllulal>lc ...,,-._i"" t1w M.ouu,Consuut.11°" Co-I ilMa. •-in!onnatoon ..-.lli<r-•1111~ .._ Moll.,. ._,.....,,..,u, ,u,11lorp"',e,;1». Acluol
l>i<biNq""""lun"""'_,"'<"<>i•lllotoU-.
S)Sotl ....J .i..i,c ~.;,.i,, """'"'-"<>I., I • '""" p<1 culnc •111\1.
~)Off•••'-<""'""""'.,....,. ,i.no.i< nnp ... lOJ .iw,c...J ,od 1, ,.,.lu,Jal ia lhn """"""'·
GER,\GHTY & 'v!ILLER. INC
r ... ~-""'"'""
. , ' ; '
/Jj,0:J
' ' ' ' ' I> ' '
JIAJJJ
1111.
J/JJ/1
UJ.JLW
H:,.,u
,,.,,u,
U1.JU
i/./U,11'
SUJ.J'9
1112.Uf
"-"'.J..M
~1.'11
~l.~11
S67.,~
SIU.Ill
1US,i,-""
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-4. Opinion of Probable Cost foz):) Years of
Landfill Maintenance & Mo · o~?
1 JFD Electronics/Channel Master Site, ~rd, o Carolina
Labor Contr"~ " Other Task Subtotal
Expenses: Expences. Expenses:
V
TASK DESCRIPTION -...__
7 -.....
L\NDFILL ~LVfENANCE \ ,, $2.040 7 $5,000
GROUND WATER MONITORING: I v -7
Yearly Monitoring: 7
Sample Collection 7 $1,806 $450
Sample Analysis I \ $0 $1,125 so
Yearly Reponin~ \ / $2,316 $282
Yearly GW Monitoring Subtotal: / '-\ / U,112 S1,115 $731
YEARLY O&.M SUBTOTAL: / \ $6,162 $6,125 5732 $13,019
Thirty Year Present Worth Tot.al / I 371,976
(at 5% interest factor) / / l .......
( ,.t --,
' '' /
' ' ~
TOTAL COST, ' ' $371,976
-V
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC