NCD981927502_19920331_Geigy Chemical Corporation_FRBCERLA PM CI_Proposed Meeting Agenda-OCR

,~
I:
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
11
11
11 ,.
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORP. SUPERFUND SITE
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PROPOSED PLAN MEETING AGENDA
~
March 31, 1992
7:00 P.M.
American Legion Hall
209 East Main Street
Aberdeen, North Carolina
AGENDA
Welcome & Introduction of Participants
Tony Able, Groundwater Expert
Diane Barrett, N.C. Community Relations Coord.
Giezelle Bennett, Remedial Project Manager
Solomon Pollard, Risk Assessment Expert
Meeting Purpose & Explanation of Superfund
Process
Site Background, Results of Remedial
Investigation, Various Alternatives and EPA's
Preferred Alternative
Question and Answer Session
Closing Remarks, Adjournment
.t
••
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/
ll
I I
.i
I
,. 1
I-
I
I
I
I
I
Q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
ti
NOTES:
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN FACT SHEET
GEIGY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Aberdeen, Moore County,
North Carolina
INTRODUCTION
This Proposed Plan identtties the preferred options
for cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater
at the Geigy Chemical Corporation Stte (Geigy Stte)
in Aberdeen, North Carolina. This document is
being issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ( EPA), the lead agency for stte activities, and
the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR), the
support agency. While three Potent/ally Respon-
sible Parties (Olin Corporation, Ciba Geigy Cor-
poration, and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corporation) conducted the Remedial Investiga-
tion (RI) and Feaslblllty Study (FS), EPA was
responsible for overseeing and reviewing all studies
and work performed. EPA, in consultation with NC
DEHNR, will select a remedy for the Geigy Site only
after the public comment period has ended and all
information submitted to EPA during this time has
been reviewed and considered.
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of tts public
participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of
·the Comprehensive E'lvlronmental Response,
Compensation and L/aclllty Act (CERCLA) also
known as Supertund. Terms in bold face print are
defined in a glossary located at the end of this
publication.
This document summarizes information that is ex-
plained in greater detail in the Remedial Investiga-
tion and Feasibility Study(RI/FS) reports and other
documents contained in the Information
March 1992
repository/administrative record for this Site.
EPA and the State encourage the public to review
these other documents to better understand the Site
and the Supertund activities that have been con-
ducted. The administrative record is available for
public review locally at the Aberdeen Town Hall on
Poplar Street in Aberdeen, North Carolina.
EPA, in consultation wtth NC DEHNR, may modify
the preferred alternative or select another response
action presented in this Plan and the RI/FS Reports
based on new information or public comments.
Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and
comment on all alternatives identified here.
This Proposed Plan:
1. Includes a brief history of the Site and the
principal findings of Site investigations;
2. Presents the alternatives for the Site con-
sidered by EPA;
3. Outlines the crtteria used by EPA to recom-
mend an alternative for use at the Site;
4. Provides a summary of the analysis of alter-
natives;
5. Presents EPA's rationale for tts preliminary
selection of the preferred alternative; and
6. Explains the opportunities for the public to
comment on the remedial alternatives.
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
DATE: March 31, 1992
TIME: ·7.;00 pm· 9:00 pm
WHERE: American Legion Hall
209 East Main Street
Aberdeen, NC
SITE BACKGROUND
The Geigy Chemical Corporation Site is ap-
proximately one acre in size and is located just east
of the ctty of Aberdeen, in Mocre County, North
Carolina. It is located on a railroad right-of-way on
Route 211. The partially-fenced Stte is currently
vacant and consists of partial concrete foundations
from two former warehouses, an office building, and
a concrete tank pad (Figure 1 ).
The Geigy Stte is owned by the Aberdeen and Rock-
fish Railroad and had been leased to various com-
panies which operated at the Sttefrom 1947to 1989.
CIBA-GEIGY (formerly Geigy Chemical Company)
operated a pesticide formulation faciltty at the Stte
from February 1948 to December 1955. Geigy's
activities involved the blending of technical grade
pesticides such as DDT, toxaphene and ben-
zenehexachloride (BHC) with inert material to form
a usable product. This product was repackaged for
sale to various markets.
wooos
WOODS WOODS
Olin Chemicals (formerly Olin Mathieson) also
operated a pesticide formulation, packaging and
distribution faciltty and occupied the Stte from 1956
to 1967. Subsequent operators were primarily dis-
tributors, who rebagged and distributed prepack-
aged or bulk agricultural chemicals.
The North Carolina Department of Human Resour-
ces completed a preliminary assessment of the
Geigy Stte in February 1987, and completed a site
inspection in March 1987. A stte inspection was
completed by EPA in March 1988 to obtain informa-
tion on the current contamination present at the Site.
The Site was placed on the National Priorities List
(NPLJ in September 1989. The NPL is EPA's list of
nationwide priority hazardous waste sttes which are
eligible for federal cleanup monies from the Super-
fund Trust Fund.
i·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11~1 I
~ Ir r I " ;
rt••-··"
WOOS
)'v -----· ----
' " I \\·
" I\ " ,,
I I '' \, ,,
I' ,, ,, 1,
" !!
WOODS ii
! i I ,.
11
11
1------------------•1
- 2 -11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESULTS OF THE REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
Two removals were conducted at the Site during the
RI. These actions removed debris and soil heavily
contaminated with pesticides. All of the excavated
contaminated soils were disposed off-site in a haz-
ardous waste landfill or incinerator.
Pesticides detected in the soil after the completion
of the removals include toxaphene, DDT, and ben-
zenehexachloride. Surface soils (0 - 1 ft) contained
total pesticide levels ranging from O .35 mg/kg to
192.32 mg/kg. Pesticide contamination was also
detected in some samples down to a depth of 1 O ft.
The results of the groundwater study indicate that
pesticides are present in the groundwater at the Site.
Contaminants include benzenehexachloride,
endrin, ketone, toxaphene, aldrin, dieldrin, DOE, and
trichloroethene. Pesticides were detected in both
the upper and lower groundwater aquifers at levels
above the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
During the RI/FS, EPA analyzed and estimated the
human health or environmental problems that could
result if the soil and groundwater contamination at
the Geigy Site is not cleaned up. This analysis is
called a baseline risk assessment. In conducting
this assessment, EPA focused on the human health
effects that could result from long-term (30 years)
daily, direct exposure as a result of ingestion, inhala-
tion, or dermal contact with soil, groundwater and air
which are contaminated with carcinogenic (cancer
causing) chemicals. The baseline risk assessment
also focused on the adverse health effects that could
result from long-term (30 years) and short-term (5
years) exposure to non-carcinogenic chemicals.
In calculating risks to a population tt no remedial
action is taken, EPA evaluates the reasonable max-
imum exposure levels for current and future ex-
posure scenarios to Site contaminants. Scenarios
were developed for residents (children and adults)
living on the Site (worse case) and adults working on
the Site. EPA considers a long-term resident begin-
ning as a young child being exposed daily for 30
years to be the worst possible scenario for future
exposure to the Geigy Site.
_,._
EPA has concluded that the major risk to human
health and the environment at the Site would result
from the ingestion of groundwater contaminated with
pesticides and trichloroethene. This is not a current
risk because no one is currently living on Site drink-
ing the contaminated groundwater. However, tt a
hypothetical future resident were to use the con-
taminated groundwater as a source of drinking
water. there would be long-term risks to human
health.
For more information about the risks posed by the
contamination at the Geigy Site, please refer to the
Baseline Risk Assessment Report and other docu-
ments available for review at the information
repository in the Aberdeen Town Hall in Aberdeen,
North Carolina.
REMEDIAL RESPONSE
OBJECTIVES
Remedial response objectives were developed
based on the results of the Risk Assessment and
examination of potential Applicable or Relevant·
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). Action-
location-, and chemical-specttic ARARs were ex-
amined. Chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater
include MCLs and North Carolina Groundwater
Standards.
Because there are no Federal or State cleanup
standards for contamination in soil, cleanup goals
are established to reduce soil contamination to
within an acceptable risk range. Cleanup goals at
the Geigy Site will be established at stringent health
based levels. Cleanup goals were also established
to prevent any further degradation of the
groundwater. All state and federal ARARs will be
met. The contaminant specttic cleanup levels for
each of the site's environmental media are
presented in Tables 1 and 2.
The majority of waste materials disposed of at the
Site and soil contamination were removed during the
two removal cleanup operations.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
The following section provides a summary of the
alternatives developed in the FS Report and other
documents for groundwater and soil remediation.
The primary objective of the FS was to determine
and evaluate alternatives for cleaning up the Site.
Descriptions of the clean-up alternatives are sum-
marized below. The FS Report and other docu-
-3 -
ALDRIN 14
ALPHA-BHC 21
BETA-BHC 4. 1
DELTA-BHC 1.9
GAMMA-BHC 3.2
DIELDRIN 9.7
ENDRIN KETONE 0.28
TOXAPHENE 450
DDD 28
DDE 11
DDT 54
GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.049
ALPHA-CHLORDANE 0.045
TABLE 1
ALDRIN 0.1
36
ALPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC 25
DELTA-BHC 29
GAMMA-BHC 30
DIELDRIN 2
ENDRIN KETONE 4
TOXAPHENE 10
TRICHLOROETHENE 200
TABLE 2
- 4 -
0.113
0.28
1.15
NC
1.5
0.13
NC
2.0
7.6
5.5
4.75
1.43
1.4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.1
1.0
2.8
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
11
11
11
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ments contain a more detailed evaluation/descrip-
tion of each alternative, and is available for review in
the information repository.
The cost infonmation provided below for each alter-
native represents estimated capital cost, annual
operation and maintenance (O&M) and present
worth. Capital cost includes construction, engineer-
ing and design, equipment, and Site development.
Operating costs were calculated for activities that
continue after completion of construction, such as
routine operation and maintenance of treatment
equipment, and groundwater monitoring. The
present worth (PW) of an alternative is the amount
of capital required to be deposited at the present time
at a given interest rate to yield the total amount
necessary to pay for initial construction costs and
future expenditures, including O&M and future re-
placement of capital equipment.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO
ADDRESS GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION
The groundwater alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE 1A: NO ACTION
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
0
$140,000
$140,000
None
CERCLA requires that the "No Action" alternative be
evaluated at every site to establish a baseline for
comparison. No further activities would be con-
ducted with site groundwater under this alternative.
Because this alternative does not entail contaminant
removal, a review of remedy would be conducted
every five years in accordance with the requirements
of CERCLA. Operating costs are based on this five
year review. There would be no maintenance costs.
ALTERNATIVE 18: LONG-TERM MONITORING
OF SITE GROUNDWATER
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$ 130,000
$1,500,000
$1,630,000
1 month
This alternative requires the long-term monitoring of
Site groundwater based upon 30 years of monitor-
ing. Four additional monitoring wells would be con-
structed. Deed restrictions on future uses of the
property would also be required. Sampling would be
twice a year for pesticides and trichloroethane. The
five year review CERCLA requirement would apply
to this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 2: SLURRY WALL AND CAP
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$ 8,400,000
$ 1,800,000
$10,200,000
8 months
This alternative would involve construction of an
interconnected slurry wall and cap system to con-
tain Site groundwater. The slurry wall would be
installed down to a depth of approximately 70 feet.
The cap would consist of a 60-mil High Density
Polyethylene Liner, drainage net, filter fabric, soil
cover and vegetation. The cap would be con-
structed solely for the purpose of restricting infiltra-
tion within the slurry wall to minimize the amount of
groundwater collected. The area of the cap would
be approximately 3 acres. Extraction wells would be
located outside of the slurry wall to recover con-
taminated groundwater in the second uppermost
aqutter. Treatment of this groundwater would be by
activated carbon. A security fence would be con-
structed along the perimeter of the cap to deter
unauthorized access. This alternative also involves
the installation of additional groundwater monitoring
wells in the second uppermost aquifer to further
define p/umecharacterization.
.O.LTERNATIVE 3: GROUNDWATER RECOVERY
& TREATMENT TO ATTAIN REMEDIATION
LEVELS
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$ 710,000
$1,500,000
$2,210,000
3 months
All Site groundwater currently exceeding the
remediation levels would be recovered using extrac-
tion wells, treated by activated carbon, and dis-
charged either to the Moore County sewer system
or to an on-site infiltration gallery. Compounds re-
quiring treatment in groundwater are pesticides and
trichloroethane. The extraction system would in-
vo.lve the installation of approximately nine recovery
wells. This alternative also involves the installation
- 5 -
of addttional groundwater monttoring wells in the
second uppennost aquffer to provide further plume
characterization. Costs are based on discharge to
the POlW, which are higher than the cost of an
infiltration gallery, and operation of the_ system for 30
years.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO
ADDRESS SOIL CONTAMINA-
TION
The soil alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
0
$140,000
$140,000
Implementation: None
This alternative for soil contamination is the same as
Alternative 1 A for groundwater contamination. No
further activtties would be conducted on Site soils.
ALTERNATIVE 2: OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
TOTAL TOTAL
Capital Costs: $1,170,000 $5,000,000
PW O&M Costs: 0 0
Total PW Costs: $1,170,000 $5,000,000
Implementation: 2 months
-This alternative would involve the excavation and
off-stte dis.posal of Stte soils exceeding the remedia-
tion goals. Soils would be taken to either a secure
landfill or a fixed base incinerator. Soils failing the
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP)test forgamma-BHC ortoxaphene would be
considered hazardous by characteristic and in-
cinerated to satisfy land disposal restrictions
(LDR). Soils passing the TCLP test would be sent
to a RCRA-approved landfill. This alternative would
also involve removal of the concrete foundation to
access contaminated soils underneath the concrete.
The concrete debris would be taken to a municipal
landfill for proper disposal. To provide the greatest
allowance for potential remediation costs, tt was
· assumed that all soils went either to a secure landfill
(lowest cost) or to an incinerator (highest cost). ,,,.
ALTERNATIVE 3: CAPPING
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$ 95,000
$180,000
$275,000
2 months
This alternative consists of the construction of a
non-woven polypropylene geomembrane impreg-
nated and sealed wtth an asphalt overlay. The entire
area would be fenced to prevent further human
contact wtth contaminated soils. Demolttion of the
building foundation would be required to gain access
to underlying soils.
ALTERNATIVE 4: ON-SITE THERMAL DESORP-
TION
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$1,200,000
$ 0
$1,200,000
2 months
This alternative consists of excavating contaminated
soil and treating tt by thermal desorption. Treatment
will consist of volatilizing the organic contaminants
at temperatures usually between 300 degrees F and
1000 degrees F, wtth the off-gases being treated to
prevent the release of contaminants. Treatment will
coniinue until the soil can meet the remediation
levels and pass the TCLP test for toxaphene and
gamma-BHC. The waste stream will be treated or
disposed of off-stte. Demolttion of the building foun-
dation would be required to gain access to underly-
ing soils.
ALTERNATIVE 5: ON-SITE INCINERATION
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Implementation:
$3,100,000
$ 0
$3,100,000
2 months
Under this alternative, a mobile incinerator would be
used to burn contaminated soils at extremely high
temperatures up to 2200 degrees F. EPA's incinera'.
tion standards require that the incineration remove
99.99% of the contaminants. After confirming
through sampling and analysis that the incinerator
ash is non-hazardous (pass the TCLP test for
toxaphene and lindane), the ash would be disposed
on-stte in the area where the soil originated. The ash
- 6 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
would be covered with clean fill and revegetated. Air
pollution control wastes or sludges and excess water
will be reinjected into the incinerator for treatment.
Demolition of the building foundation would be re-
quired to gain access to underlying soils.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
EPA's selection of the preferred cleanup alternative
for the Geigy Site, as described in this Proposed
Plan, is the result of a comprehensive evaluation and
screening process. The Feasibillty Study (FS) for
the Site was conducted to idenrny and analyze the
alternatives considered for addressing contamina-
tion. The FS Report and other documents for the
Geigy Site describe, in detail, the alternatives con-
sidered, as well as the process and criteria EPA used
to narrow the list to potential remedial alternatives to
address the Site contamination.
EPA always uses the following nine criteria to
evaluate alternatives identttied in the FS. While
overall protection of human health and the environ-
ment is the primary objective of the remedial action,
the remedial alternative selected for the Site must
achieve the best balance among the evaluation
criteria considering the scope and relative degree of
the contamination at the Site.
1. Overall protection of human heatth and the en-
vironment: EPA assesses the degree to which each
alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to
public health and the environment through treat-
ment, engineering methods or institutional controls.
2. Compliance wtth Applicable or Relevant and Ap-
propriate Requiremeots (ABABs): The alternatives
are evaluated for compliance with all state and
federal environmental and public health laws and
requirements that apply or are relevant and ap-
propriate to the site conditions.
3. !:&st The benetns of implementing a particular
remedial alternative are weighed against the cost of
implementation. Costs include the capita! (up-front)
cost of implementing an alternative over the long
term, and the net present worth of both capltal and
operation and maintenance costs.
4. lmpleroeotabj!jty: EPA considers the techrii2a1
feasibillty (e.g., how difficult the alternative is· to
construct and operate) and administrative ease
(e.g., the amount of coordination with other govern-
ment agencies that is needed) of a remedy, including
the availabillty of necessary materials and services.
5. Short-term effectiveness: The length of time
needed to implement each alternative is considered,
and EPA assesses the risks that may be posed to
workers and nearby residents during construction
and implementatio_n.
6. Long-term effectiveness: The alternatives are
evaluated based on their abillty to maintain reliable
protection of public health and the environment over
time once the cleanup goals have been met.
7. Reduction of contaminant toxictty mobility and
volume· EPA evaluates each alternative based on
how It reduces (1 ), the harmful nature of the con-
taminants, (2) their ability to move through the en-
vironment, and (3) the volume or amount of
contamination at the site.
a. State acceptance: EPA requests state com-
ments on the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study reports, as well as the Proposed Plan, and
must take into consideration whether the state con-
curs with, opposes, or has no comment on EPA's
preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance: To ensure that the
public has an adequate opportunity to provide input,
EPA holds a public comment period and considers
and responds to all comments received from the
community prior to the final selection of a remedial
action.
EPA'S PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
After conducting a detailed analysis of all the feasible
cleanup alternatives based on the criteria described
in the preceding section, EPA is proposing a com-
prehensive, multi-component cleanup plan to ad-
dress groundwater and soil contamination at the
Site. The EPA preferred alternatives are:
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
Alternative 3 -Groundwater extraction to attain
remediation goals; carbon adsorption
$2,210,000
- 7 -
SOIL REMEDIATION
Alternative 4 -On-Site Thermal Desorption
$1,200,000
TOTAL $3,410,000
On-Stte Incineration, Alternative 5 for Soil Remedia-
tion ($3,100,000) has been chosen as a contingency
alternative. The preferred remedy for soil remedia-
tion (On-Stte Thermal Desorption) will involve some
testing to verify that the cleanup goals can be
reached. If the cleanup goals cannot be met, and/or
the remedy is determined not to be cost effective in
relation to on-stte incineration, then the more con-
ventional incineration technology would be utilized.
Based on current information, these alternatives ap-
pear to provide the best balance of trade-offs wtth
respect to the nine crtteria that EPA uses to evaluate
alternatives. EPA believes the preferred alternative
will satisfy the statutory requirements of Section
121(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621(b), which
provides that the selected alternative be protective
of human health and the environment, comply wtth
ARARs, be cost effective, and utilize permanent
solutions and treatments to the maximum extent
practicable. The selection of the above alternatives
is preliminary and could change in response to public
comments.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following summary profiles the performance of
the preferred alternatives in terms of the nine evalua-
tion crtteria noting how tt compares to the other
alternatives under consideration.
The following comparative analysis is provided for
the groundwater remediation alternatives and the
soil remediation alternatives.
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed
analysis for migration control:
Alternative 1 A: No Action
Alternative 1 B: Long-term monttoring .\l1
Groundwater ·· -
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Slurry Wall and Cap
Groundwater Recovery to Attain
Remediation Goals
Overall Protection. Groundwater poses no risks to
human health and the environment under current
condttions. The no action alternatives (1 A and 16)
would not address contaminant levels in
groundwater and therefore would not be protective
of human health under potential future condttions.
Alternative 2 would prevent the migration of con-
taminated groundwater in the uppermost aqutter and
recover groundwater in the second uppermost
aqutter to meet remediation goals. Alternative 3
would recover all contaminated groundwater to meet
remediation goals. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3
would be protective of human health and the en-
vironment.
CompHance Wttb ARARs. MCLs are ARARs for Site
groundwater. Alternatives 1 A and 1 B would not
comply with ARARs. Alternative 2 would meet
ARARs outside of the slurry wall. Alternative 3
would attain ARARs throughout the entire site.
There are no location-specific ARARs. Construction
of the groundwater recovery, treatment and dis-
charge systems for Alternatives 2 and 3 would satis-
fy action-specttic ARARs.
Long-term Effectjyeness and Permanence. Under
Alternative 1, groundwater contamination would
continue to migrate off-stte; therefore tt is not con-
sidered to be a permanent or effective remedial
solution. The long-term effectiveness of Alternative
2 is questionable, because the competence of the
slurry wall would have to be verttied over time.
Contaminant concentrations would be permanently
reduced through groundwater recovery for Alterna-
tive 3. Carbon adsorption is considered Best Avail-
able Treatment for pesticides and volatile organic
compounds in groundwater.
Reduction of Toxictty Mobi!tty or Volume. The no
action alternative would not signtticantly reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants in
groundwater. Alternative 2 would reduce the
mobiltty of contaminants in the uppermost aquifer
through containment and reduce the volume of pes-
ticides in the second uppermost aqutter through
recovery. Alternative 3 would reduce the volume of
pesticides in both aqutters through recovery and
treatment and comply wtth the statutory preference
for alternatives involving treatment.
- 8 -
• ,-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Short-term Effectiveness. All of the alternatives can
be implemented wnhout significant risk to the com-
munny or on-sne workers and without adverse en-
vironmental impacts.
Implementability. Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 3 would
pose no signtticant concerns regarding implementa-
tion. Construction of the slurry wall for Alternative 2
would approach the limns of technical feasibilny due
to the required depths (up to 70 feet). Design of the
treatment systems could not be conducted until dis-
charge requirements were defined.
~-Total present worth costs for the groundwater
remediation alternatives are presented below:
Alternative 1 A:
Alternative 1 B:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
$ 140,000
$ 1,630,000
$10,200,000
$ 2,210,000
SOIL REMEDIATION
The following alternatives were developed for Sne
soils and were subjected to detailed analysis:
Alternative 1 :
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
No Action
Off-Sne Disposal
Capping
and applicable land disposal restrictions (LDRs).
Consolidation of Sne soils and capping in place
would not trigger any RCRA requirements (Alterna-
tive 3). Alternatives 4 and 5 will comply wnh all
applicable ARARs, including LDRs.
Long-term Etteetjyeness and Permanence. Alterna-
tive 1 would not be effective in reducing contaminant
levels. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would result in a
permanent reduction in Site risks. Alternative 3
could be effective in the long term through regular
maintenance of the cap, but a review of remedy
would be required every five years since a cap is not
considered to be a permanent remedy.
Reduction of Toxicity Mobiltty and Volume. Pes-
ticide levels would remain unchanged for Alternative
1 . Alternatives 2 , 4 and 5 would reduce pesticide
levels signtticantly. Alternative 3 would not reduce
the volume, but would reduce the mobility and effec-
tive toxicity of the pesticides.
Short-term Effectiveness. All of the alternatives can
be implemented without signtticant risks to on-sne
workers or the communny and wnhout adverse en-
vironmental impacts.
Implementability. No implementation is needed for
the no action alternative. Off-sne disposal to a
AGRA-approved landfill and incinerator have been
conducted successfully in the past at the Geigy Site.
Construction of the cap wou Id pose no signtticant
difficulties. Implementation of Alternatives 4 and 5
may depend on the availabilny of mobile thermal
desorption equipment and mobile incineration
equipment, respectively.
Alternative 4: On-Sne Thermal Desorption ~-Total present worth costs for the soil alterna-
tives are presented below:
Alternative 5: On-Sne Incineration
Overall Protection. Potential risks due to Site soils
under current condnions and under potential future
conditions (residential scenario) are within the ac-
ceptable range of risk specttied by the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). Alternatives 2, 3 4, and
5 would mnigate any further degradation of the
groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs. There are no Federal or
State ARARs for pesticides in soils. There are:no
action-specttic ARARs for the no action alternative.
Alternative 2 would comply wnh EPA's off-sne policy
-9 -
Alternative 1 :
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Alternative 5:
$140,000
$1,170,000 (Landfilling)
$5,000,000(lncineration)
$275,000
$1,200,000
$3,100,000
State Acceptance. The NCDEHNR has reviewed and
provided EPA with comments on the reports and data
from the RI and the FS. The NCDEHNR also reviewed
this proposed plan and EPA's preferred alternative and
concur with EPA's selection.
Community Acceptance. Community acceptance of the
preferred alternative will be evaluated after the public
comment period ends and a response to each comment
will be included in a Responsiveness Summary which
will be a part of the Record of Decision (ROD) tor the
Site.
--------------------------------------
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA has developed a community relations program as mandated by Congress under Superfund to respond to
citizen's concerns and needs for information, and to enable residents and public officials to participate in the
decision-making process. Public involvement activities undertaken at Superfund sites are interviews with local
residents and elected officials, a community relations plan for each site, fact sheets, availability sessions, public
meetings, public comment periods, newspaper advertisements, site visits: and Technical Assistance Grants, and
any other actions needed to keep the community informed and involved.
EPA is conducting a 30-day public comment period from March 26, 1992 to April 24, 1992, to provide an opportunity
for public involvement in selecting the final cleanup method for this Site. Public input on all alternatives, and on the
information that supports the alternatives is an important contribution to the remedy selection process. During this
comment period, the public is invited to attend a public meeting on March 31, 1992, at the American Legion Hall in
Aberdeen, North Carolina, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at which EPA will present the Remedial lnvestigation/Feasit,ility
Study and Proposed Plan describing the preferred alternative for treatment of the contamination at the Geigy
Chemical Corporation Site and to answer any questions. Because this Proposed Plan Fact Sheet provides only a
summary description of the cleanup alternatives being considered, the public is encouraged to consult the
information repository for a more detailed explanation.
During this 30-day period, the public is invited to review all site-related documents housed at the information
repository located at the Aberdeen Town Hall, and offer commen1s to EPA either orally at the public meeting wl1ich
will be recorded by a court reporter or in written form during this time period. The actual remedial action coulcl be
different from the preferred alternative, depending upon new information or arguments EPA may receive as a result
of public comments. If you prefer to submit written comments, please mail them postmarked no later than midnight
April 24, 1992 to:
Diane Barrett
NC Community Relations Coordinator
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
North Remedial Superfund Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
All comments will be reviewed and a response prepared in making the final determination of the most appropriate
alternative for cleanup/treatment of the Site. EPA's final choice of a remedy will be issued in a Record of Deci:,ion
(ROD). A document called a Responsiveness Summary summarizing EPA's response to all public comments will
also be issued with the ROD. Once the ROD is signed by the Regional Administrator it will become part of the
Administrative· Record (also located at the Aberdeen Town Hall) which contains all documents used by EPA in
making a final determination of the best cleanup/treatment for the Site. Once the ROD has been approved, EPA
once again begins negotiations with the Potentially Reponsible Parties (PRPs) to allow them the opportunity to
design and implement the remedy determined in the ROD in accordance with EPA guidance and protocol. If
negotiations do not result in a settlement, EPA·may conduct the remedial activity using Superfund Trust monies,
and sue for reimbursement of its costs with the. assistance of the Department of Justice. Or EPA may issue a
unilateral administrative order or directly file suit to force the PRPs to conduct the remedial activity. Once an
-10 -
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
agreement has been reached, the design of the selected remedy will be developed and implementation of the
remedy can begin.
As part of the Superfund program, EPA provides affected communities by a Superfund stte wtth the opportunity
to apply for a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG). This grant of up to $50,000 is awarded to only one community
group per stte and is designed to enable the group to hire a technical advisor or consultant to assist in
interpreting or commenting on site findings and proposed remedial action plans. A citizens' group interested
in the TAG program needs to submtt a Letter of Intent to obtain an application package from:·
Ms. Rosemary Patton, Coordinator
NC Technical Assistance Grants
Waste Management Division
U.S.E.P.A., Region 4
345 Counland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
[phone]
FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Ms. Giezelle Bennett, Remedial Project Manager or
Ms. Diane Barrett, NC Community Relations Coordinator
North Superfund Remedial Branch
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Ga 30365
Pho11e: [phone] ,,,_
-11 -
GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS FACT SHEET
Aquifer: An underground geological formation, or
group of formations, containing useable amounts of
groundwater that can supply wells and springs.
Administrative Record: A file which is maintained
and contains all information used by the lead agency
to make Its decision on the selection of a method to
be utilized to cleanup/treat contamination at a Super-
fund site. This file is located in the information
repository for public review.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Require-
ments (ARARs): The federal and state require-
ments that a selected remedy must attain. These
requirements may vary among sites and various
alternatives.
Baseline Risk Assessment: A means of estimat-
ing the amount of damage a Superfund site could
cause to human health and the environment. Objec-
tives of a risk assessment are to: help determine the
need for action; help determine the levels of chemi-
cals that can remain on the site after cleanup and
still protect health and the environment; and provide
a basis for comparing dttferent cleanup methods.
Carcinogenic: Any substance that can cause or
contribute to the production of cancer; cancer-
producing.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Liability Act (CERCLA): A federal
law passed in 1980 and modttied in 1986 by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). The Acts created a special tax paid by
producers of various chemicals and oil products that
goes into a Trust Fund, commonly known as Super-
fund. These Acts give EPA the authority to inves-
tigate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites utilizing money from the Su-
perfund Trust or by taking legal action to force parties
responsible for the contamination to pay for and
clean up the site.
Groundwater: Water found beneath the earth's
surface that fills pores between materials such as
sand, soil, or gravel (usually in aquifers) which is
often used for supplying wells and springs. BeGause
groundwater is a major source of drinking •,iiarer
there is growing concern over areas where agricul
tural and industrial pollutants or substances are get-
ting into groundwater.
Information Repository: A file containing accurate
up-to-date information, technical reports, reference
documents, information about the Technical Assis-
tance Grant, and any other materials pertinent to the
site. This file is usually located in a public building
such as a library, city hall or school, that is accessible
for local residents.
Land Disposal Restriction (LDRs): Any place-
ment of hazardous waste in a landfill, suriace im-
poundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, underground mine,
cave and concrete bunker or vault.
MaxlmumContamlnantLevels(MCLs): The max-
imum permissible level of a contaminant in water
delivered to any user of a public water system.
MCLs are enforceable standards.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contin-
gency Plan (NCP): The federal regulation that
guides determination of the sites to be corrected
under the Superfund program and the program to
prevent or control spills into surface waters or other
portions of the environment.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the
most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial
action under Superfund. A site must be on the NPL
to receive money from the Trust Fund for remedial
action. The list is based primarily on the score a site
receives from the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
EPA is required to update the NPL at least once a
year.
· Plume: A visible or measurable discharge of a
contaminant from a given point of origin into either
air or water.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Any in-
dividual or company, including owners, operators,
transporters, or generators -potentially responsible
for, or contributing to, the contamination problems at
a Superfund site. Whenever possible, EPA requires
PRPs, through administrative and legal actions, to
clean up hazardous waste sites they have con-
taminated.
-12 -
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Remedial /nvestlgatlon/Feaslb/1/ty Study (RI/FS):
The Remedial Investigation is an in-depth, extensive
sampling and analytical study to gather data neces-
sary to determine the nature and extent of con-
tamination at a Superfund site; to establish criteria
for cleaning up the site; a description and analysis of
the potential cleanup alternatives for remedial ac-
tions; and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The Feasibiltty study also usually
recommends selection of a cost-effective alterna-
tive.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that
announces and explains which method has been
selected by the Agency to be used at a Superfund
site to clean up the contamination.
Responsiveness Summary: A summary of oral
and written public comments received by EPA during
a public comment period and EPA's responses to
those comments. The responsiveness summary is
a key part of the Record of Decision.
Slurry Wall: This method consists of digging a
trench approximately 18 inches wide down to a
depth below the contamination to a solid barrier that
water cannot migrate through. The trench is filled
with a substance, such as clay, concrete or grout,
that will stop the movement of liquid beyond the
trench. This method creates a dam effect stopping
migration of liquid substances.
Thermal Treatment: The treatment of hazardous
waste in a device which uses elevated temperatures
as the primary means to change the chemical, physi-
cal, or biological character or composition of the
hazardous waste.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Any or-
ganic compound that evaporates readily into the air
at room temperature.
-13 -
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
NORTH SUPERFlN' lflDl BRANCH .
87
.J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 THERMAL DESORPTION
3.1 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Thermal desorption technologies consist of a wide variety of processes that vaporize
volatile and semi-volatile organics from soil and sludge. The processes are planned and designed
to avoid combustion of the contaminants in the primary unit, resulting in several advantages.
After desorption, the volatilized organics may be subsequently treated in an afterburner or
condensed for reuse or destruction. The types of air pollution control equipment (APC) needed
to treat the exhaust gases will vary depending on the technology and the nature of the
contaminated media. Dust and particulates may be controlled with cyclones, baghouses or venturi
scrubbers; small amounts of acid vapor may require scrubbing; and residual organics may be
condensed and/or captured in activated carbon adsorption units.
Although there are no generally accepted definitions for grouping the different types of
thermal desorption, the following three terms may be used to describe the different processes:
Directly heated desorption
Indirectly heated desorption
In situ steam extraction
Soils containing organics
Heat (300'F-l 200'F)
Thermal
Desorption
3-1
Treated residual
Recovered contcminonts ·
Water from APC •
Treated oNgases
Particulale control dusl
Spent carbon •
(
1
3.1.1 Directly Heated Desorption
Direct-fired systems use a fuel burner as a heat source which may be either internal or
external to the primary soil-heating chamber. Internally fired units resemble rotary kilns,
operate at temperatures of less that 800'F (426'C), and have generally been limited to use for the
treatment of non-chlorinated organics such as petroleum spills. Exhaust gases from the rotating
cylinder pass through a dust-collection system prior to secondary combus:>.n. OH Materials, Inc.
operates a low temperature direct-fired desorber. Canonie Environmental has a low temperature
thermal aeration system, which consists of a rotating dryer that heats incoming air from 300 to
600'F. (148 to 31 S'C) by an external flame. The system forces heated air counter-current to the
flow of soils in a rotary drum dryer. The system can be used for chlorinated wastes with carbon
adsorption recovery of the treated organics.
3.1.2 Indirectly Heated Desorption
Indirectly heated systems transfer heat through metal surfaces to the waste. Indirect
heating produces a lower volume of exhaust gas which results in a low loading for the exhaust-
gas treatment and air-pollution-control systems. This also helps to control particulate carry-
over. Vaporized contaminants are removed from the thermal processor using a sweep gas with
low oxygen content to prevent oxidation (combustion and explosion). Desorbed organics may be
condensed and/or removed by carbon adsorption. These systems can be further characterized by
their operating range, with approximately 600'F serving as a breakpoint. Systems operating at
less than this temperature are designed for volatiles and systems above this temperature are
intended for semi-volatile organics and PCBs. It should be noted, however, that semi-volatile
organics may also be removed at the lower operating temperature range (below their boiling
point) as·a result of stripping in the presence of water vapor and/or volatiles.
Examples of developers of this technology at the lower operating temperature range
include Weston Services, Inc. and the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
(USA THAMA). These units consist of a low-temperature thermal-stripping process. which uses
a hollow-screw mixer that is filled with hot oil to heat the soil to approximately 450"F (232'C).
Two examples of technologies at higher temperatures (>600'F)(3 l 5'C) are Chemical Waste
Management's X*TRAX System and SoilTech's AOSTRA Taciuk Processor. Both processes
recover contami!'ants for subsequent recycling or destruction. The X*TRAX system uses a
nitrogen atmosphere to keep the process oxygen free. Waste is treated in an indirectly heated
rotating dryer at temper&.tures ranging from 600 to 900'F (315 to 482'C). The volatilized organics
are carried to a gas treatment system that condenses and recovers the contaminants. The Taciuk
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
process consists of a preheating chamber which operates at 300 to 600°F causing the vaporization
of water and light hydrocarbons. A second stage involves heating at temperatures up to 1, I 50°F
to cause vaporization and pyrolysis of heavy hydrocarbons. The desorbed hydrocarbons are then
recovered in a condenser.
3.1.3 Jo Situ Steam Extraction
This process uses hollow-stem drills to inject steam and hot air into the ground. Volatile
organics are stripped from the soil (or ground water) and collected in a shroud at the surface.
The technology is especially applicable for volatile contamination near the surface (where vacuum
extraction is less effective). Although not generally applicable for semivolatiles, some removal
may take place. Toxic Treatments (USA) has used their unit to treat soil at a state Superfund
site. Steam (at 450°F) (232°C) and hot air (at 300°F) (148°C) are injected through counter
rotating drills up to 30 feet in depth. Volatile contaminants and water vapor are collected and
removed from the off -gas stream by condensation.
3.2
3.3
3.4
TECHNOLOGY STATUS
•
•
This technology has been selected for 17 Superfund sites .
Three PRP sites in Region I have been remediated by Canonie
Engineering.
APPLICATION
•
•
•
Boiling points for selected compounds are given in Exhibit 4. These are
given for comparative purposes and most wastes will require treatability
studies to confirm removal levels. Removal efficiencies may vary widely
for similar soils.
Thermal desorption is appropriate for both high and low concentrations of
contaminants.
See the article on Status of Thermal Remediation in the chapter on
Incineration (Chapter 2.0).
TECHNOLOGY STRENGTHS
•
•
Lower temperatures eliminate volatilization of some metal compounds
(lead, cadmium, copper, and zinc)
Tl hese processes operJte a! lower temperatures than incineration and so use ess fuel.
3-3
Q
3.5
3.6
3.7
J._
•
•
•
Concerns with products of incomplete combustion are eliminated by
avoiding combustion in the primary desorbing unit.
The technology has the ability to separate and recover concentrated
. contaminants which may then be taken off-site for treatment.
Decontaminated soil still retains some organics and soil properties. It is not
ash.
TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS
•
•
The technology is not appropriate for inorganic contaminants .
Although thermal desorbers operate at much lower temperatures than
incinerators, some metals (i.e .• mercury, arsenic) may volatilize during
treatment.
POTENTIAL MATERIALS HANDLING REQUIREMENTS
• Excavation is required for desorber units.
•
•
•
•
Dewatering may be necessary to achieve acceptable soil moisture content .
(The cost of desorption increases as the moisture content increases.)
The material must be screened to remove oversized particles.
Size reduction may be needed to achieve feed size required by the
equipment.
The pH may be adjusted to achieve a pH between S and 11 .
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE
• Temperature and residence time are the primary factors affecting
performance.
• Wastes with high moisture content significantly increase fuel usage.
•
•
Fine silt and clay may result in greater dust loading to the downstream air-·
pollution-control equipment, especially for directly heated systems.
The volatility of the targeted waste constituents will be the primary factor
that affects treatment performance. A good indicator of volatility is the
pure component boiling point (see Exhibit 4). It is important to recognize
that almost all hazardous wastes are mixtures of various organic
constituents (both hazardous and non-hazardous) and these other
constituents often have a significant impact on the actual removal of the
specific compound from that matrix. RemOval may be achieved at
temperatures below the boiling point.
3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.8 EXHIBIT I -WASTE CHARACTERISTIC TABLE
Waste Type: Solis and Slud1es
Tecbnolo11Y: Low Temperature Thermal Stripping
· Characteristics
lmpactin1 Process
Feasibility
Presence of:
• Metals.
• Inorganics
• Less volatile
organics
pH<5,>11
Presence of mercury
(Hg)
Unfavorable soil
characteristics:
• High percent of clay
or silt
• Tightly aggregated
soil or hardpan
• Rocky soil or glacial
till
• High moisture
content
Reason for Potential Impact
Some process effective only for highly
volatile ~rganics iHenry's Law Constant
>3 x 10· atm-m /mole). XTRAX system
can treat organics with boiling points up
to about 800'F ( 426'C)
Corrosive effect on system components
Boiling point of mercury 670'F (356'C)
close to operating temperature for process
212 to 572"F (100 to 300'C).
Fugitive dust emissions during handling.
Incomplete devolatilization during
heating.
Rock fragments interfere with processing.
High energy input required. Dewatering
may be required as pretreatment.
Data
Collection
Requirements·
Analysis for priority
pollutants
pH analysis
Analysis for mercury
Grain size analysis
Soil sampling and
mapping
Soil mapping
Soil moisture content
Source: Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of Soils and Sludges EPA/540/2-88/004
(1988)
3-5
3.9 EXHIBIT 2 -DATA FROM SEMI-ANNUAL STATUS REPORT
Selection Frequency*
6
Th erma ID esorot,on
5
4 /
NUMBER
of TIMES. 3
~
__...., ,.
'
SELECTED
2 ~ ,,-~
1
,,-~
0 ~ ,,-
84 85 86 87 88 89 90
FISCAL YEAR
• Data dsrivsd from 1982 -1990 Rscords of Dscision ( RODs) and anticipatsd dssign and
construction activities. September 1991
Contaminants Treated By Thermal Desorption
Number
of
Supertund
Sites
voes PCBs PAHs PCP/Other SVOCs
• Data derived from 1982-1990 Records of Dscision (RODs) and anticipated design and construction
activities. At some sites, the treatment is for more than one major contaminant.
3-6
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I --- - ------ ---- -
3.10 .EXIIIBIT 3 _ INNOVATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES: SEMI-ANNUAL
STATUS REPORT
Thermal Desorption
LJ Site Nmne, St 11t e, Specific Site Media Key Contaminants LJ Reqion (ROO 0.1te) Technology Description (Quantity) Treated
1 Cannon [ngin~cring/ Thermal Aernt ion Chemical \Jeste Soil C 11,330 voes (Benzene, TCE, erd Project
Bridgewater, MA Hand\ ing, cy) Vinyl Chloride) cOOl)leted;
(OJ/31/88) Storage, & Operational
lncint>ration 5/90 10/90
Facility
1 Mc~ in, .,. Thcnnal Aeration \Jastr. Storage, Soi I (11,456 voes (TCE, BTX) Project
( 07 /22/85) Transfer, cy) coq,leted;
Disposal Operet ional
Feci l i ty 7/86 • Z/81
' Ott;it i & Goc.s, "" Thermal Aeration o,~ Soi I (16,000 voes ( TCE, PCE, 1,2-DCA, Project
(01/16/87) Rl'.'condi t ion-cy) end Benzene) C001)leted;
ing raci I ity Operational
6/89 · 9/89
1 Re-Solve, ••• RotAry Thermal Ch"."fflicnl Soil (22,500 PCBs Prede-sign;
(09/24/87) X*TRAX9 Oec.orber Reel Amat ion cyl Pilot test
(D~chlorinetion of Facility pl ar-ned for
Also see Dechlorination residul'.'S) Fall 191;
Design
c~letfon
olamod 1993
2 AmericAn Thermostat, "' Thermal Desorption Thermostat Soil (6,500 voes (PCE, TCE, DCE, erd In design;
<06/29/90) Manufacturing cy), Sediments vinyl Chloride) Design
(300 cy) c~letion
plamed Spring
•92
2 Caldwel I Trucking, NJ, . Low Ten-perature Unpermi tted Soi I {20,000 voes ( TCE, PCE, end TCA) In design;
02 (09/25/86) Vaporization Septic ~aste cy) Design
Facility C001)l et ion
planned Spring
,92
• lndic~tes that a trl'.'atability study has been r.Cllll)leted. 3-7
Note: Contacts listed are EPA regional staff unless otherwise indicated.
Lead Agency and
Treatment
Contractor (if
available)
PRP Lead; Cenonie
Engineering
PRP Leed; Canonie
Engi~ering
PRP Leed; Canonie
Engineering
PRP Le&d/
Mixed Funding;
Chemlul IJaste
Managem@nt, Inc.
FI..O:t lead
Fund Leed
Septelllber. 1991
Contee ts/
Phono
Den Coughlin
617-571-9620
ns e:n-9620
Sheila Ed:IN!lln
617-571-5784
FTS 833-1784
Stephm Calder
617-573-9626
FIS 833-1626
. ·-· Lorenzo Thantu
617·223-5500
FTS 833-1500
Christos Tslamis
212·264-5713 ·ns 264-5713
Ed Fimerty
212·264-3555
FTS 264-3555
-
Thennal Desorption
EJ Sit1;> NalTW', Statr, Sprcific s i tf' Media Key Conteminents
Region (ROO Oat1;>) Technology Description (Quantity) Treatrd
2 Claremont Polychemical, Thermal Desorption Chemical Soil (1,600 DDT, ODD, DOE, voes
NY (09/28/90) Facility cy) (OCE, PCE • TCE, ard
Toluene), svocs
[Benzoic acid, Bis(2·
ethylheMyl)phthalate,
Butyl benzyl phthalate,
Oi•n·butyl phthalate,
Naphtha!~, ard PCP],
and PAHs
(Benzo(a)ovr~)
2 Fulton Terminals, " Low T~rature Former \Jaste Soi I (4,000 Voes (Xylene, Styrenl!,
(09/29/89) Thermal 1 reatment Tank Farm cy) TCE, Ethylbenzene,
Toluene)
2 Marathon Battery, NY' Enhanced Former Battery Soi L (85,000 voes (PCE, Toluene, and
(09/30/88) Voletilization Manufacturer Cy) TCE)
'
2 Metaltec/AerosystNTIS, Low Ten,:,erature Metal Soil (9,000 voes CTCE>
NJ (06/30/86) Thermal Treatment Manufacturing cy)
2 Reich Farms. NJ Enhanced Uncontrolled Soi I (1,120 voes ard Semivolatiles
(09/30/88) Volatilization IJaste Disposal cy)
2 Sarney Farm, NY Low lefll)("rature Industrial end Soil (2,365 voes (Benzene, Butanone,
(09/27/90) Thermal Treatment Municipal cy) Chloroform,
Landfill Hethylpentanone, TCE,
and Toluene)
Indicates th~t a treatability study has been con1)leted.
Note: Contacts list~ are EPA regional staff unless otherwise indicated. 3-S ------------
~tafJer. 1991
LJ lead Agency erd Contacts/
Treatll'l!'nt Phono
Contractor ( If
available)
In design; F...-.d Lead; USACE Carlos R. Ramos
Design 212·264-5636
ConlJletion FTS 26'.·5636
planned
Uinter 192
Predesign PRP LHd Christos Talmnl•
212·264-5713
FTS 264-5713
Predeslgn F...-.d l••ad Pam lllffll!a
212·264-1036
FTS 264· 1036
In design; F...-.d Lead; USACE Jim Bely (USACE)
Design 816·426·5221
c~letfon
plamed Sumier
091
Pilot studies PRP Lead Gary Adarrt:levlcz
planned for 212·264· 7592
early 192; FTS 26'.· 7592
des lgn
c~letion
plarned: Fell
'92
Predesign; F...-.d Lead KevinUillis
Design 212·264-8777
c~letion FTS 26'.·8777
planned:
Spring 193
--

-
--
----

-

-
-

-
--

-
-----

-
-~ --· 1991
Thermal Desorption
EJ Site Mame, State, S~c if ic I s if{' Media Key Contaminants EJ lead Agency and Contee ts/
R{'qion (ROO Oat~) Technology Oescr ipt ion (0UMtity) Treated Tre11t~nt Ph°"'
Cont rector (if
available)
2 Ualdick ~ero~pace Low lf?ff'PE'rature Hanuhcturirtg soi I (2,000 voes (TCE and PCE) In design; FIJld Lead USACE Contracts
O~ll'i ce-., NJ• Therm.,l Treatrnr.nt •rd ey) Design Technical Issues:
(09/29/87) Electroplat· coq,letion Yilliam McFarland
ing of Plane pie~ [phone]
PArt5 October '91 Contract Issues:
Susan Anderson
(816) 426· 7424
4 Uamchem, sc• Low Tcq:,erature Former Dye Soi I (2,000 voes (81)() In ~sign; PRP Lead George Re~
(06/30/BBl Therm.,l Treatment Manufacturing ey) oes;gn 404·l47-7791
Plant ccq,letion FTS 257· 7791
plarf'led fall
'91
5 Outboard Low lefTfM'-rature HarinP. Soi I, PCBs In design; PRP lead; Canon1e Cindy Nolan
M.ir-ine/Uauk.egan Harbor. Thermal f)(tr-action Products Sediments Design Engineering 312-886-0400
JL• (Tociuk Process) Manufacturing (16,000 cy cOIT1)letion fTS 886-0400
(03/31/89) ccwrbined) plarned Fell
,94
5 University of Thermal Desorption University Soil (6,300 PCBs In design; PRP Leed-State Darrell <>wens
l'linne<:ote, "' (fune Incineration IJastes cy) • Debris Design oversight 312·886-7089
(06/11/90) of PCB Vapors) ( 160 ey) coqiletlon FTS 886-4089
planned David OouglH (MN)
Fall '92 612·296-7818
8 Martin Marietta (Denver Low leffl)erature Aerospace Soi I (24,400 voes (TCE) Pr~ign State lead GPOrge Denclk
Aerospace), co• Thermal Treatment Equifl'Tlent ey) (lrder RCRA 303·293-1506
(09/24/90) Manufacturer Corrective Action FTS 330-1506
See also Vecuun Authority)
E)(trection
Indicates that a t, ..,atabi Ii ty study has been conl)leted. 3-9
Note: Contacts listed are EPA regional staff unle~s otherwise indicated.
---I
3.11 EXHIBIT 4 -BOILING POINTS OF SELECTED COMPOUNDS
( Bollin& Point I
Chemical Name 'F CC)
BeCl2 7,052 (3,900) I Uranium and Compounds 6,904 (3,818)
Iron 4,982 (2,750)
FeCl2 1,238 (670) I FeCl3 599 (315)
Nickel 4,949 (2,732)
Chromium 4,842 (2,672)
Cr02Cl2 243 (117) I Copper 4,653 (2,567)
CuCI 2,491 (1,366)
CuCl2 1,819 (993)
Chromium, hexavalent 4,500 (2,482) I Manganese and Compounds 3,564 (1,962)
Lead (Pb) 3,171 (1,744)
PbCl2 1,742 (950) I Barium 2,084 (1,140)
BaO 3,632 (2,000)
Zinc and Compounds 1,665 (907)
ZnO 3,272 (1800)
Zncl2. 1,350 (732) I Cadmium 1,409 (765)
CdO 1,652-1,832 (900-1,000)
CdC12 1,760 (960) I SnCl2 1,153 (623)
Arsenic and Compounds 1,135 (613)
ASzO\ .. 379 (193)
2,3, 7, -d1oxm 932-1,500 (500-800) I Mercury 675 (357)
HgCL 575 (302)
Phenanthrene 644 (340)
ScO 2 603 (31 7) I Pentachlorophenol 588 (309)
Fluorene 559 (293)
Lindane 550 (288)
Polychlorinated biphenyls 512 (267+) I Pyrene 500 (260)
DDT 500 (260)
Methanol 360 ( 182)
Styrene 293 ( 145) I Xylene 280 (138)
Ethylbenzene 277 ( 136)
Chlorobenzene 270 (132)
Tetrachloroethane 264-295 (129-146) I l, 1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 295 (146)
Tetrachloroethene 250 ( 121)
1, 1,2-trichloroethane 235 ( 113)
Toluene 232 (111) I
I
I
l
3-10 I
I
-··-·-·
I
' I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.11 EXHIBIT 4 -BOILING POINTS OF SELECTED COMPOUNDS -(Continued)
Chemical Name
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
1,2-dichloroethane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
1, 1, I -trichloroethane
Chloroform
Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
l, 1-dichloroethane
Acetone
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride
l, 1-dichloroethene
Cyanides (for HCN)
Naphthalene
Vinyl chloride
"E
189
183
176
176
171
165
142
140
135
· 133
118
106
90
80
70
7
Boiline Point
CC>
(87)
(84)
(80)
(80)
(77)
(74)
(61)
(60)
(57)
(56)
(48)
( 41)
(32)
(27)
(21)
(-13.9)
Boilin1 point UI for the pure chemic&! it1elt a.nd may not reflect that for the variou1 compound,.
Sublimalu.
DecompoHI.
3-11
3.8 EXHIBITS -BOILING POINTS FOR SUBSTANCES OCCURRING MOST
FREQUENTLY AT NPL SITES'
Chemical Name
BeCI,
Uranium and Compounds
Iron
FeCl2 FeCI,
Nickel
Chromium
CrO,CI,
Copper
CuCI
CuCI,
Boiling
Point "FCC}
7,052 (3,900)
6,904° (3,8 I 8)
4,982"(2,750)
1,238 (670)
599 (315)
4,949'(2,732)
4,842'(2,672)
243' (117)
4,653'(2,567)
2,491 (1,366)
Chromium, hexavalent
Manganese and Compounds
Lead (Pb)
1,819' (993)
4,500 (2,482)
3,564' (1,962)
3,171'(1,744)
PbCI,
Barium
BaO
Zinc and Compounds
Zn02 ZnCl2
I, 742 (950)
2,084 (1,140)
3,632 (2,000)
1,665' <901)
3,272 (1800)
1,350 (732)
1,409'(765) Cadmium
CdO
CdCI,
SnCI,
1,652-1,832 (900-1,000)
Arsenic and Compounds
AS,0,
2,3, 7,8-dioxin
Mercury
HgCL
Phenanthrene
ScO,
Pentachlorophenol
Fluorene
Lindane
Polychlorinated · biphenyls
Pyrene
DDT
Methanol
Styrene
Xylene
Ethylbenzene .
Chlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethane
l, l ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
I, 1,2-trichloroethane
Toluene
I, 760 (960)
1,153 (623)
1,135'(613)
379 (193)
932-1,500' (500-800)
675 (357)
575 (302)
644 (340)
603(317)
588 (309)
559 (293)
550 (288)
512+ (267+)
500 (260)
500 (260)
360 (182)
293 (145)
280 (138)
277 (136)
270 (132)
264-295 (129-146)
295 (146)
250 (121)
235 (I 13)
232 ( I I I)
Chemical Name
Trichloroethylene ('fCE)
1,2-dichloroethane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
I, I, I -trichloroethane
Chlci'roform
Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
I, 1-dichloroethane
Acetone
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
Methylene chloride ·
l, 1-dichloroethene
Cyanides (for HCN)
Naphthalene
Vinyl chloride
Actual partitioning of substances may depend on matrix conditions
Boiling
Point "F l"C}
189 (87)
183 (84)
176 (80)
176 (80)
171 (77)
165 (74)
142 (61)
140 (60)
135 (57)
133 (56)
118 (48)
106 (41)
90 (32)
80 (27)
70 (2 I)
57 (-13.9)
.. This list is a frequency of substances documented during HRS score preparation, not a complete inventory or
• •
. 1ubstance11 at all sites.
Boiling point is for the pure chemical itself and may not reflect that for the various compounds .
Sublimates.
Deeomposes.
44 Preliminary Draft -April, 1991
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- -- - --- - - --- - - -
11111 -·-
---

-
--------
WOODS
-[Slll.lA JU) flftOPflHY UH[
EJ
WOODS WOODS
----
0
WOODS
-
" I I
'' '' I\
'' \,
,1
\' ,: ,,
\1
" " " \I
----·
wooos
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----
DOOR 5
DOOR 6
WAREHOUSE B
DOOR 3
LEGEND
DOOR 2
WAREHOUSE A
MAIN RAILROAD TRACK
~ AREAS DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL
DOOR 1
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
FlGURE 5
FEBRUARY AND OCTOBER 1989
REMOVAL LOCATIONS
----- ---- -
wooos
WOODS
LEGEND
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
" " "' 180 F"f.
- - - -0 --
WOODS
IISIRRINE ■ ~~
-
it WOODS t -.... ,:
I AU.HU}
PROP[RIY
FIGURE 2.5
SOIL/SEDIUENT SAMPLING L<
C[lCY CH[WIOJ.. CORPORATION "8[R0[(N. t-l()RTH CAAOl lW
-------
\
0
-----
t·l
0
........
(Nffllll'IIXNC.,,_p;:,..
"' \
L--,/
.... TIJl-1UI = ......
" "'
fSTil,olA TfD PROPERTY UNE
LEGEND I
[·l suRr ACE SOIL/BORING LflCA r l[ltlS
SED(H[NT SAMPLING t.f\[A 1 HlNS
(XCAVATION AREAS (H1'\R[H-°Al'1<\L, !'J'J\)
--------
[~__\ \~
M
M
~
[·I
Fl cUKI•: 9
I l.(l(:'TJONS.· J')91 Kl•:MOVA · "
0
t'="---
';;CALI if I I I ! I
SOIL REMEDIATION LEVELS \ I g~JJ!:F~¥i1J;;: I ~!ii~~g~ } l~'i; (1-fG/KG) LEVEL (MG/KG) .i ALDRIN 14 0.113 ALPHA-BHC 21 0.28 BETA-BHC 4. 1 1.15 DELTA-BHC 1. 9 NC GAMMA-BHC 3.2 1.5 DIELDRIN 9.7 0. 13 ENDRIN KETONE 0.28 NC TOXAPHENE 450 2.0 DDD 28 7.6 DDE 11 5.5 DDT 54 4.75 GAMMA-CHLORDANE 0.049 1.43 ALPHA-CHLORDANE 0.045 1.4 NC -Not Calculated -"
021 OB Ut ..
t9
0
--· ---- ---
--::--... __
I JI
JI ', I I ;,
' ' /,/
" /.' //'
" // ,, ,:, ;, ,,
/I
/
i '
---
SODOM
J~rr Allildolfcl OJJY"USJ
SOOOM
-- - ---- -
------
0 Q
.°]
r·----/
-c=r--·
CITY WELL # 4 -
WOODS
~
,i,GS-02-2 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WELL
~MW-75 MONITORING WELL
,i,PZ-1 PRODUCTION ZONE WELL
--
WOODS
MW-75 •
-
WOODS
--
MW-5S
/ MW-11D
•
----
MW-4S
WOODS
------
-N -
AUR[D
Pf~OPU<l)
FIGURE 2.1
t.40NITORING W[LL LOCATIONS
Ct IGI ri;fl.AICA< (Ol<PUH ... l1(ltl '.,fl!
. "-IHIWl!l1 NUlllt< C,..i,(J\ON,',
--------"I,<;,
'l-, <l. ,,,,
~~
~
0 ..._<,,
Q % -------~
I /> GS-02-2 •• ~ \ GS-0~1 S-02-J
CJ T;:J-/ \
CllY WELL 84
WOODS
♦1$-02-1 CZO.IXXA. _.,. 111:11
...... 1'5 -JCNC 111(1.1.
'° ltO , .. fl.
-----
\ i□s ,x
I \
\ lMW-8S .• I MW 75 •
"----
--
•x r·~-/ D
•• /
-
/
----,.
•• /
,,,,,..,-
FIGURE 2.2
SURflCIAL AQUIFER C0NTOU
GEIGY CH[WICAL CORPOFV.110'1 AOC ROHN. NORfH CAROi Jr;,&
------1,,<;, o,, q,
\, ~,,.
".;
n •-
v-
C:J[r;~~
~-=:::. ___
--;: __
CITY WELL #4
WOODS
LEGEND
.cs-02-2 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WELL
MONITORING WELL
PRODUCTION ZONE WELL
-
SECOND UPPERMOST AQUIFER CONTOUR
--
WOODS
MW-7S •
-----
wooos
/
-
-r,.v "' ·-D-:~'l[[i --
'"' , ,,
--
"''l
WOODS
-. _,
flGURE 2.J SECOND UPP[RMO
AOUIHR CONTOUR
GOC'I' CH[MIO,,L CORP()R,1;11
AOCROEEN. NORTH Of!()
-
I 1 -c-/ ~ ~
CllY WELL I<
-
. - . IJ~i ,.
11
l
!',,
-- -
!~~\(--1 ~~~
'~*_.:·"~I\
woous
.,.Gs-02-2
1/'MW-7S
.,.rz-1
KEY
ill,l;JiQ
GEOLOGICAL SURVlY WLLL
MONIIORING WELL
PHOOUCIION lONl Wf.l.L
IM II.
- -
woous
., -
•
-
TCI • IJ
-- -
__ ;: I~--.,
b•HC -IJ
d·UC • Jt
9-BIIC • JO U • 0.1,J 11111-~•
•·UC • I b·BUC • U
d·IIC • U 9-HC • I
U • 11-IJ
- -
J 0
--·~ ..... '-.I"··---
9
WOODS
lld.-h • O.IJ
Dhldda -o.,J
•·BBC -11 b-enc • 1
d-Bac ·-I
g- ■■c -11 U • D.IJ
Dhld•h -O.J.
::::g J :
d• ■IIC • I ,-uc -o., n . O.J Ald.-111 • 0.1 Dhl<l.-h -0,2 ttll -I
laf•IOI
•·BIIC • J
b·IIIIC -H d-BUC • J
,i-llC • 0,fJ I ■ • O,JJ II • t
Dlal<ldn • J
DDI • O.JJ
'fkG,
~ tif ✓c1e:hf-Jk k,ve FIGURE 2 ~-
---
fiii:1§1_
WOODS
•-10
"
--v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION LEVELS
·•·•· ··•·rn @I•MliM·····•·c:;w·•····>.· ·•···rai\'ouNDWATER··••t••···
i . CONCENTRATION··· . REMEDIATI01.f <
ALDRIN 0.1 0.05
ALPHA-BHC 36 0.05
BETA-BHC 25 0.05
DELTA-BHC 29 0.05
GAMMA-BHC 30 0.05
DIELDRIN 2 0.1
ENDRIN KETONE 4 0.1
TOXAPHENE 10 1.0
TRICHLOROETHENE 200 2.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GROUNDWATII
r
Al ternati;"I
rl
Alternati1;i
'" I
Alternati11
r
Alternatilli
I'
l,
l lA
'
l 1B
l 2
3
I SOIL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11 Alternati,:
111
Alternati~I
Alternati,1
1
2
3
Alternati,\ , 4
·,,I
Alternati,1 5
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
REMEDIAL ACTION
No Action
Long-term Monitoring
of Groundwater
Slurry Wall and Cap
Groundwater Extraction
for Remediation Levels;
Carbon Adsorption;
Discharge to POTW
No Action
Off-Site Disposal
Total Landfilling
Total Incineration
Capping
On-Site Thermal Desorption
On-Site Incineration
TOTAL PRESENT
WORTH COSTS
$140,000
$1,630,000
$10,200,000
$2,210,000
$140,000
$1,170,000
$5,000,000
$275,000
$1,200,000
$3,100,000
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
O' ~RALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
COMPLIA1 1 '.E WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
COST
IMPLEMENTABILITY
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
RE, ·:UCTION OF CONTAMINANT
STATE
TOXICITY, MOBILITY
ACCEPTANCE/
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE /
AN VOLUME
- - - - - - - ---

-

-

-

-
----·--.-EPA'S PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
FOR GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION
Alternative 3
FOR SOIL REMEDIATION
Alternative 4
Groundwater Extraction for Remediation Levels
Carbon Adsorption; Discharge to POTW
On-Site Thermal Desorption
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST FOR SITE REMEDIATION
--------
$2,210,000
$1,200,000
$3,410,000
---

-

-
.. -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
--·---
I
Extraction ·
Wells (9) ...
...
Q ~20gpm
Equalization
Tank
Pesticides = 10 lb/yr
Carbon
Adsorption
Monitoring
r-----,1-----Discharge to
1-1 ........ --....~-1 Moore
FIGURE 11
CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIAGRAM FOR
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
County
POTWor
On-Site
Infiltration
Gallery
------·---- ---- ---
Excavate
FIGURE 12
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THERMAL DESORPTION
Material
Handling
(1)
Desorption
(2)
Clean Otfgas
Gas Treatment
System
r
I
'
(3)
Treated
Medium
Spent
Carbon
Concentrated Contaminants
Water
-·-