A Brown Field Remediation Plan for Castle Hill Park

8/8/2019 A Brown Field Remediation Plan for Castle Hill Park

1/53

1

A Brownfield Remediation Plan for

Castle Hill Park, the Bronx: Final Report

Primary FacilitatorHeidi [email protected] FacilitatorVincent [email protected]

Conflict ManagerBryan [email protected] [email protected]

Process ObserverCipta [email protected]

ENGI E1102: Design Fundamentals Using Advanced Computer TechnologiesSection 001

ClientNew York City Department of Parks and RecreationClient ContactNette Compton

Gateway ProfessorDr. Jack McGourtyModeling ProfessorProfessor Jose Sanchez

Project AdvisorKathryn Schulte

April 29th, 2008


2/53

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation is in the process of conserving naturalspaces for recreation of the surrounding community inside New York. Part of their currentinitiatives is to transform brownfields, areas of land that have been contaminated with hazardous

chemicals due to previous use. The Capital Projects Division of NYCDPR is hoping to create apublic park in Castle Hill Park, the Bronx. This land is in prime location for use by nearbyresidents, but it has been contaminated with a myriad of volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals making the site a hazard to the community. It isimperative that these contaminants be removed before there can be any development of the area.

The NYCDPR has already given the Capital Projects Division funding for the project ofdeveloping Castle Hill Park. At the present time, $500,000 has been allotted to the developmentof Castle Hill Park, with $350,000 of this toward construction. As the design and developmentprogresses, the Capital Project Division will be able to request for more funding. There are alsonumerous grants that exist to help fund brownfield remediation, but unfortunately, the severity of

the contamination at Castle Hill Park makes it ineligible for these grants.

The purpose of the Castle Hill Park remediation project is to decontaminate the area at CastleHill Park to acceptable levels for use as a public park and for construction of a walking path andfuture park developments. The soil at Castle Hill Park has been found to have concentrations ofsemi-volatile organic compounds, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, PCBs, andpesticides that exceed USEPA and NYSDEC standards. The remediation plan our team developsshould reduce the levels of contaminants to values below the critical point of these standards;without doing so, Castle Hill Park is at a standstill for development. In addition to meeting all ofthese standards, the plan must also conform to the budget given by the NYCDPR in order for theCapital Projects Division to incorporate parts of our remediation plan into their overall design forCastle Hill Park. The plan must also be completed in, at most, five years in order to give time forthe development of the brownfield into a public park. The plan should preserve the originalenvironment of the park without disturbing nature, while at the same time creating public space.

Our four preliminary designs employed a variety of remediation techniques including soilflushing, thermal treatment, excavation, in situ mercury treatment, electrodialytic remediation,and phytoremediation. Our final design utilizes several of these techniques and two others notinitially part of our preliminary designs. The final design is divided into two phases in order tooptimize the current and future budgets. Phase I encompasses the upper portion of the park anduses concrete capping and excavation to reduce the high levels of heavy metal and semi-volatileand volatile organic compounds. Phase II encompasses the remaining area of the park, excludingthe shores, and uses soft soil capping, electrodialytic remediation, and soil vapor extraction toreduce the rest of the contamination.

Subsequent Gateway design teams will be able to utilize the information gathered by the team inthis report in order to conduct similar remediation projects or to continue work at Castle HillPark. Phase II of the design plan still needs approval for funding, the park can be designed forrecreational purposes (pier, bike path, walking paths), and the groundwater of the park can beremediated.


3/53

3

REPORT NARRATIVE

Background Research

Our client, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, is in the process of

conserving natural spaces for recreation of the surrounding community inside New York. Thedepartment consists of the following seven divisions; the Natural Resources Group, the UrbanPark Rangers, Marketing and Social Events, GreenApple Corps, Capital Projects Division,GreenThumb, and Historic House Trust. Our contact, Nette Compton, is a member of the CapitalProjects Division. The divisions duties include redesigning and rebuilding parks. It is from thisgroup that we are posed with a design problem at Castle Hill Park.

Castle Hill has a rich history, fortified by Siwanoy Indians when Adriaen Block first discoveredit in the early 1600s. Today, Castle Hill, located in what is now called the Bronx, is primarily alow-income, high-density area, where almost a fourth of the residents are below the povertylevel. The median household income of the families reported in 2005 was $29,357. There are a

reported 25,109 males and 31,057 females living there at the present time. Currently, themajority of people living in Castle Hill are Hispanic and black minorities. Castle Hill ischaracterized as being a low-lying, flat, peninsula that juts off from the Bronx and into the EastRiver.

The notion of market of recreational parks lies at the positive aspects parks bring to thecommunity. Cleaning up a park, like Castle Hill, will help with the areas infrastructure andprovide a scenic place for the people of the community to use as an escape from everyday rigors.Oftentimes, the revitalization of parks can evoke community pride and propel people to enactfurther beneficial changes in their community. It is for these reasons that, through the CapitalProjects Division, the NYC Parks Department wants to revitalize parks that have fallen to

disrepair. However, some parks like Castle Hill have not only fallen into disrepair but have alsoaccumulated various concentrations of hazardous materials. These areas of land are thenclassified as brownfield sites, which, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),are "real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by thepresence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Thecontaminants present at the Castle Hill Park site hamper the Parks Departments efforts toresurrect the park for the community.

Some easy solutions exist to deal with the contamination of brownfields. One is capping theentire surface of the contaminated area with asphalt or concrete to seal the contaminantsunderneath. While this certainly removes the need for lengthy and expensive remediation, usingthis solution at Castle Hill Park would involve destroying the park, its present ecosystem, andremoving any chance to create an outdoor recreation area for the community. Another of the easysolutions is to restrict the site as off-limit due to its contamination, but this is infeasible at CastleHill for several reasons. The site is located at the end of a residential area, and not reducing thecontamination may lead to a leak of contaminants into the community's homes. Reinforcing thisdecision to restrict the park will also be difficult and met by opposition from the community;although it is in a contaminated state, the park is still used as a place to walk and to hold small


4/53

4

celebrations. It is imperative that the plan to reduce the hazards of the contamination at CastleHill Park includes complete remediation of the contaminants.

Several funding options have also been discovered in the process of remediating brownfields.Brownfield remediation projects can be administered by both municipalities and community

organizations which have access to four major grants: Environmental Restoration Program(ERP), Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Program (State Superfund Program),Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program (BOA), and the Brownfields Law (established by theEPA). Each of these programs provide significant funding depending upon the severity of theissue at hand.

The ERP awards investigation grants and remediation grants. The investigation grant pays for thecosts of discovering the extent of contamination and remedy. The remediation grant is associatedwith the cleanup effort and longer terms costs of upkeep of that remediation technique. The StateSuperfund Program provides state funding for the cleanup of brownfields that are class 1 or 2 onthe NYS Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites. On average, the state receives 66% of the

funding from the companies that were responsible for the contamination. The state funds aregiven to identify and remediate the sites that have consequential amounts of hazardous waste.The Brownfields Law can give up to $950,000 in grant money associated with the cleanup effortthrough the Assessment Grant Program, Cleanup Grant Program, and the Job training Grants.The law can also provide up to another $1,000,000 in low-zero interest loans if the applicantalready has 60% of the necessary funds. The BOA is a grant that will reimburse up to 90% of theeligible cost claimed in the contract, as long as the applicant contributes 10% of the eligiblefunds and can complete the three rigorous, compulsory stages. The Castle Hill site, however,does not qualify for these grants--the severity of the contamination does not meet the minimumrequirements for these grants.

Through meetings with the client, Nette Compton of the NYCDPR, the team has also gainedspecific information regarding pollution in Castle Hill itself. After the first client meeting, theteam was given essential information regarding the types of contaminants present at Castle Hill,including their individual spreads and concentrations. Various contaminants might pollute asingle brownfield site, with the contents of the contaminants differing from area to area. Some ofthe post prominent contaminants are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organiccompounds (SVOCs), and heavy metals. VOCs are organic compounds that can vaporizesignificantly under normal conditions (room temperature and pressure). SVOCs are similar toVOCs, but do not vaporize as readily as VOCs. Heavy metals are elements that exhibit both ahigh mass and metallic qualities, i.e. lead and mercury. SVOCs and heavy metals contribute tothe majority of contamination at Castle Hill, with VOCs accounting to only one minor violationat the test sites. In addition to the wide array of contaminants (there are 26 kinds of contaminantsthat exceed either federal or state guidelines, or both) present at Castle Hill, there is also a smallarea within the park with very high levels of mercury concentration, exceeding the hazardouslimit by 1300 times.


5/53

5

Formal Problem Statement

The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYCDPR) is in the process ofincreasing the availability of usable park space for residents of the city. The Department intendsto establish new public parks by replacing brownfield sites within the city, including the Castle

Hill Park site in the Bronx. Although the Department has owned this land since the 1930s, thepark has never been developed. Within the past few years, the site has been deemed unacceptablefor public use by the NYCDPR because the soil is contaminated with semi-volatile organiccompounds, volatile organic compounds, heavy metals beyond accepted standards from the NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

In order to decrease the contamination to levels suitable for public use, the Castle Hill Park sitemust undergo brownfield remediation. However, there are many remediation techniques thattarget specific contaminants available for use, and a remediation plan must be designed using avariety of these techniques. This remediation plan must reduce contamination to levels beneath

the Unrestricted Use (Track 1) Soil Cleanup Objectives while also conforming to the budgetavailable from the NYCDPR. The plan must also take into account environmental costs and use aset of remediation techniques with low environmental deformation.

Design Specifications

In reviewing customer requirements and researching remediation solutions to the contaminationat Castle Hill Park, the team has identified several design constraints that must be met by thefinal design. A design specifications document was also developed from research on the problemspace. The design specifications and the justification for each of its components as well as theprojects design constraints are summarized below.

The purpose of the Castle Hill Park Soil Remediation Plan is to decontaminate the area at CastleHill Park to acceptable levels for use as a public park and for construction of a walking path andother possible future developments.

Nette Compton intends to incorporate elements of our remediation plan into her larger projectwith Castle Hill Park. She has informed the team that the effectiveness of decontaminationshould be treated as the most important constraint to consideralthough one technique may becheaper than another, if it does not remove contamination to below hazardous levels,development on the area would not be permitted. Additionally, the remediation plan shoulddecontaminate the park in 2 years to allow for prompt commencement of recreationaldevelopment.

Nette Compton supplied the team with a final report of the Phase II Environmental SiteInvestigation (ESI) for Castle Hill Park. The Phase II ESI report indicates that the soil at CastleHill Park is contaminated with heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenols, volatile organiccompounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and pesticides at concentrations that exceedUSEPA and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) standards.The concentration level of each type of contaminant present on the site is generally mild, withthe exception of the heavy metal mercury, which was found to be heavily concentrated in one


6/53

6

surface sample area. In accordance with the primary customer requirement, each contaminatedarea of the park must be treated with a remediation technique that sufficiently decontaminates thesoil.

The Brownfield Redevelopment Toolbox, accessible on the NYSDEC website, indicates that

only NYSDEC Soil Cleanup Objectives that apply to the sites intended use are required to bemet. These values can be found in 6 NYCRR Subpart 375-6, which delineates Soil CleanupObjectives for different levels of use restrictions on the site. The use restriction category thatapplies to Castle Hill Park is Unrestricted Use, the Soil Cleanup Objectives of which are found in6 NYCRR Table 375-6.8(a). Additionally, in the further research on regulations, the team did notfind any brownfield-related regulations specific to New York City. Accordingly, the values ofUnrestricted Use Soil Cleanup Objectives set in 6 NYCRR Table 275-6.8(a) were adopted for thedesign specifications.

Because the conditions on each area of the park varies, it may be necessary to apply customizedremediation techniques for each area for a most effective and efficient solution. The distinct

conditions for different areas of the park do not only include contamination details, but alsoinclude terrain and ecology. A secondary, but still significant, customer requirement is thepreservation of the parks existing ecology. Of particular importance is the functioning wetlandon the area of the park bordering the water. Therefore, the design specifications include anEcological section to ensure that the marshland along the shoreline of Castle Hill Park must notbe disturbed.

Nette Compton has requested the team to split the final design into two phases. Phase I is toconsist of the northern portion of the park around the existing gravel and paved walkways andPhase II is to consist of the remainder of the park, south of the area covered by Phase I. Netteinformed the team that her budget for the area covered by Phase I is $500,000, of which not morethan $350,000 can be used for construction. She intends to bring the teams research and costproposal to the Borough President to request funding for Phase II, the budget of which has notyet been set. The design specifications reflect the current budget values for Phase I, allocating$150,000 for remediation.

Throughout the project activities, Occupational, Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), theNew York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), and other applicable regulations should beadhered to. This is of particular urgency for excavation activities due to contaminated dust andparticulates that can be carried away in the air.

Several more important constraints on the final design are the NYSDEC regulations onbrownfield cleanup. To gain approval for successful brownfield cleanup, the applicant mustcomply with a set of guidelines and requirements: all remediation efforts must follow theBrownfield Cleanup Agreement (BCA), investigation must be thoroughly conducted, andremediation requirements must be fulfilled. The BCA is an agreement between the applicant andthe department which states that the applicant is committed to follow the regulations set forth bythe department and comply with the terms of the BCA including, but not limited to, a descriptionof the site, a description of the applicant, development and implementation of work plans, andsubmission of reports. Investigation requirements entail researching the site to be cleaned up for


7/53

7

the type of contamination present, its severity, and its source areas. Remediation plans must becreated, outlining the remediation techniques to be used, how the remediation will be carried out,and analyses of alternatives for other possible plans. Upon approval of the remediation plan, theapplicant is awarded a certificate of completion which states that the department approves of theapplicants work plan because it has no liability to the State for hazardous waste or petroleum at

or emanating from the Site.

Final Design

The soil in Castle Hill Park, the Bronx, is riddled with contaminants, many of which areextremely hazardous to the public. The New York City Department of Conservation andConstruction requested a detailed investigation of the contaminants following a proposedwalking route around the perimeter of the park. The Phase I soil tests of August 2007 wereconducted through the analysis of five surface soil (SS 1-5) samples and eleven test pit (TP 1-11)samples, each equally distributed geographically. These samples were analyzed for

Target Compound List Volatile Organic Compounds (TCL VOCs)

Target Compound List Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (TCL SVOCs)pesticides

polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs)

Target Analyte List Metals (TALMs)

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

pH levels.

The results of these tests were then subject to comparison with Spill Technology andRemediation Series Memo #1 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Alternative GuidanceValues (STARS TCLP AGVs), Characteristics of Hazardous Waste, Unrestricted Use (Track 1) ofSoil Cleanup Objectives (SCO), Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum #4046

and Recommended Soil Cleanup Objectives (TAGM RSCO). In November 2007, the Phase IIsoil tests were conducted, this time in the center of the park. The tests included one more surfacesoil sample (SS6) and seven soil boring points (SB 1-7). These results, too, were subjected tocomparison to the above regulations. To see a map of the different test areas, see Figure 1 inAppendix E.

The results of Phase I showed that only the TP3 sample in the northwest area of the sitecontained a TCL VOC, acetone, above the acceptable level for SCO. Unacceptable levels ofSVOCs, however, were found in twelve of the sixteen samples taken. The following SVOCsexceeded STARS TCLP Alternative Guidance Values:

Benzo(a)anthracene

benzo(a)pyrene,benzo(b) fluoranthene

benzo(g, h, I)perylene

benzo(k)fluoranthene

chrysene

dibenz(a,h)anthraceneindeno (1,2,3 -ed) pyrene

phenanthrene

pyreneThe following SVOCs exceed TAGM RSCOs:

benzo(a)anthracene

benzo(a)pyrene

benzo(b) fluoranthene

chrysene

dibenz(a,h)anthracene


8/53

8

The following SVOCs exceed SCOs:

benzo(a)anthracene

benzo(a)pyrene

benzo(b) fluoranthene

benzo(k)fluoranthene

chrysene

dibenz(a,h)anthracene

indeno (1,2,3 -ed) pyrene

In addition to the profuse amount of organic compounds, the site is also contains an abundanceof heavy metals in every soil sample. Exceeding the Eastern Soil Background Concentrations asper TAGMS RSCOs are:

arsenic

cadmium

calcium metal

chromium

copper

magnesium

mercury

nickel

zinc

Exceeding NYSDEC TAGM RSCOs are:

arsenic

cadmiumcalcium metal

chromium

copper

magnesium

mercurynickel

zinc

leadLead and Mercury exceed 20 times the Hazardous Waste Level. The PCB aroclor exceeds SCOsin certain soil samples, but this is most likely due to runoff from asphalt paving. The pesticides4,4-DDD, 4,4-DDE, and 4,4-DDT were also found in soil samples, most likely due to pesticidesused in the site and nearby households.

The soil results of Phase II revealed a large area of contamination in the center of the park that,without which, the team could not take into account during the first half of the semester. Thesame SVOCs that appeared in the Phase I tests also appear in the each of the soil boring tests andthe soil sample. However, the levels of contamination in these areas are not as severe, yet theyare very widespread. Also, the SB01 area contains a high concentration of lead; the SB02 areacontains a high concentration of lead and zinc; the SB04 area contains a high concentration ofmercury, chromium, lead, and zinc; the SB05 area contains barium, lead, and zinc; the SB06 areacontains a high concentration of mercury, lead, and zinc; the SB07 area contains a highconcentration of lead and zinc; and the SS6 area contains a high concentration of copper, lead,and zinc.

Prior to the creation of a final design to remediate the Castle Hill Park contamination, the teamdesigned four different remediation plans, allowing a larger variety and number of scenarios to

be analyzed by both the team and the client. Before the team can begin explaining thepreliminary design concepts, the results of the soil tests need to be analyzed. The SVOCs werefound in the majority of the soil samples, but they are most plentiful in SS2 and TP7 samples.The levels of SVOC contamination in these two samples are, for certain compounds, at least 10times larger than in any other samplethus, these two areas will require an extensive period ofremediation or a more intense technique than other areas. High levels of zinc, magnesium, andcopper are distributed throughout the entire site, and our technique to eliminate these metalsmust encompass the majority of the site. Of highest priority for decontamination, however, is the


9/53

9

SS3 area with 130 mg/kg concentration relative to the 0.1 mg/kg standard for TAGM RSCO.Because of the wide variety of contaminants throughout the Castle Hill Park site, it is morepractical in our design to choose several techniques to apply to separate areas according to theirrespective contaminants. The researched techniques pertinent to the situation at the site includein situ soil flushing, thermal treatment, in situ vitrification, in situ mercury remediation,

excavation and dredging, capping, phytoremediation, electrodialytic remediation, and cappingwith pavement or soft fill. At the preliminary stage, the most ideal techniques to use wereunknown, and so the team had created several different designs for remediation of Castle HillPark incorporating many different remediation techniques.

The first of the preliminary designs (see Figure 2 in Appendix E) consists of in situ soil flushingin each of the areas of the park, excluding the area around SS3. This technique would reducelevels of heavy metal and polychlorinated biphenol contamination in the soil. In situ soilflushing, however, is only effective in places with low levels of silt or clay, and before team canapply this technique, it is imperative to first schedule a visit to the site in order to determine themakeup of the soil. In addition to the widespread soil flushing, we must also decontaminate the

SS3 area which still contains mercury. The concentration of mercury exceeds standards morethan any other metal in this area, and soil flushing will not be able to mitigate the level ofmercury to a value below these standards. Instead, this area will be excavated, and the mercury-contaminated soil will be deposited in an appropriate facility, filling the area with clean soilinstead. In order to reduce the contamination from semi-volatile organic compounds, volatileorganic compounds, and polychlorinated biphenols, the team will use the thermal treatmenttechnique in the areas around SS1,2, 4 and 5 and TP12, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

The second preliminary design (see Figure 3 in Appendix E) consists of a mixture of thermaltreatment, electrodialytic remediation, and excavation. Although the electrodialytic remediationprocess cannot remove all heavy metal contamination in soil, it can reduce the amount to levelsbelow the critical amount, thus making the area nonhazardous. Electrodialytic remediation wouldbe used in all areas containing arsenic, cadmium, calcium metal, chromium, copper, lead,magnesium, mercury, nickel, and zinc, excluding the area around SS3; the level of mercury inSS3 is exceeds the standard to such a degree that electrodialytic remediation would leave thearea hazardous yet. It is still necessary to excavate the soil in the area around SS3 in order toremove the site's mercury contamination. In this case, the team will also utilize thermal treatmentin order to reduce the levels of SVOCs and VOCs in the soil at the site.

The team's third preliminary design (see Figure 4 in Appendix E) is very similar to the seconddesign, and consists of thermal treatment, electrodialytic remediation, and in situ mercuryremediation. We will use thermal treatment in areas around SS1-5 and TP12, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7to reduce SVOC and VOC contamination levels. The plan will also employ electrodialyticremediation in all areas contaminated by heavy metals, but, in this design, we will also apply it tothe mercury-contaminated area surrounding SS3. Electrodialytic remediation removes mercuryto a certain extent, and this mitigation of the concentration is important in order to proceed withthe second step: in situ mercury remediation. After the electrodialytic remediation takes place, itis viable to subject the area to in situ mercury remediation and thus reduce the level of mercuryto an acceptable level.


10/53

10

Unlike the previous designs, the team's fourth preliminary design (see Figure 5 in Appendix E) isbased upon bioremediation techniques, specifically phytoremediation. Phytoremediation can beused to reduce levels of heavy metals, PCBs, and hydrocarbons (the SVOCs and VOCs).Different types of plants can be used to reduce each contaminant through rhizodegradation,accumulation, uptake, extraction, metabolism, and phytoextraction. Plants that can reduce heavy

metal contamination include colonial bentgrass (arsenic, lead, zinc, and manganese, andaluminum), field chickweed (cadmium), miner's lettuce (cadmium), white lupin (arsenic),northern starwort (cadmium), vetch (aluminum), yarrow (cadmium), chives (cadmium), indianmustard (lead, nickel, zinc, copper, chromium, cadmium, and uranium), sunflowers (lead,uranium, strontium, cesium, chromium, cadmium, copper, magnesium, nickel, and zinc). Plantsthat reduce hydrocarbons include western wheat great, blue gamma grass, buffalo grass, bermudagrass, Canadian wild rye, tall fescue, red fescue, yellow, red and white clover, and St. Augustinegrass. The white clover also reduces PCBs along with garden orach, European white birch trees,osage orange trees, and mulberry bushes. In our phytoremediation design, a mixture of bluegamma grass, buffalo grass, and the clovers may be planted in the areas surrounding SS1, 2, 4,and 5 and TP12, 2-7 in order to reduce the SVOC and VOC contamination. White lupin will be

planted in the vicinity of TP3 to reduce arsenic levels. Sunflowers and Indian mustard will beplanted in all areas of the park excluding SS3 to reduce most heavy metals. The area in SS3,however, will still need to be either subject to excavation or in situ mercury remediation as noplant can reduce its levels.

After receiving the results from Phase II of the soil tests, visiting the Castle Hill site, anddiscussing the design progress with the client, the team began to use these preliminary designs toformulate a final design for the remediation of Castle Hill Park. The final design incorporatesdifferent aspects from each of the designs, justifying the need for more than one preliminarydesign. There is one major change to the final design, however. Once the client released to theteam the actual budget information for the project, the team decided to split the remediation planinto two distinct phases. The NYCDPR has not allotted a set amount of money to the CapitalProjects Division to remediate Castle Hill Park. Instead, there is an initial sum that the Divisioncan use to remediate the site, and as the remediation progresses, more money will be allocated tothe effort. The client prefers that the team focuses on having two different phases of the designplan in order to optimize the remediation in one area with the current budget. If the Divisionattempted to remediate the entire site at once, the budget would either be spread thinly, loweringthe quality of decontamination of the site, or the plan would not be affordable. Phase I will befunded with the current budget for the development of the park--$500,000 of which $350,000will be spent on construction. After the final design plan for Phase II has been finished, NetteCompton will present the remediation plan, estimated costs, and justification to the BoroughPresident for funding consideration.

Phase I of the plan occurs in the upper portion of the park and covers 23,601 ft2. Horizontally, itextends from the western boundary with Pugsley Creek to the eastern boundary with the EastRiver. Vertically, Phase I stretches from the northern boundary of the park to the edges of all soilsample areas (SS1-6) and top soil areas 2 and 3 (TP2-3). The total cost for this phase is$149,973.39. In the design (see Figure 6 of Appendix E), the trees and plants in SS1,2,4,5 andTP2,3 will be stripped, and the area will be capped with six inches of concrete to keep the heavymetals, VOCs and SVOCs concealed under the surface. The area in SS3 and SS6, however, will


11/53

11

not receive concrete capping as the main source of remediation. Due to the high level of mercuryin this area, it will undergo excavation as none of the other researched remediation techniquescan reduce contamination levels to those below the SCO guidelines. Because only a smallsample was taken of the area, excavation of the soil must first occur in a small region around theoriginal soil sample. Then, more soil tests must be taken around the perimeter, and if high levels

of mercury are still found, excavation of that area will occur, and soil tests will again be takenaround the perimeter. This process will continue until the results yield no high levels of mercury.The excavated area will be filled with clean soil, and this soil will be capped with concrete inorder to be consistent with the rest of the Phase I portion of the park and allow for development.Although concrete capping drastically changes the environment of the area, there are no qualmsin using this technique throughout the upper portion of the park. This area already contains aconcrete walking path, and reducing the heavy contamination is imperative. Maintenance ofthese two areas is not intensiveonly routine checks that the concrete is not cracking andallowing contaminants to seep through is necessary.

The remediation of Phase II will occur after the remediation of Phase I, given the BoroughPresident has approved of the plan and provided funding. The current estimated cost for this

phase is $745,791.51. Phase II encompasses the rest of the park, excluding shores and thesouthern tip of the peninsula below TP 9 and 10, and it covers 104,735.5 ft2. Phase II (see Figure7 in Appendix E) utilizes several different remediation techniques in the separate areas, includingin situ soil vapor extraction, soft soil capping, and electrodialytic remediation. The center area ofthe park encompassing SB01-07 will be covered layers of erosion control and soil. This soft capwill seal the heavy metal and SVOC contamination underneath the surface without completelydestroying the environment. Although the trees and shrubs of the area will be removed, it is mostimportant to remove the contamination in the area. Electrodialytic remediation and soil vaporextraction may have been employed in each of the test areas, but the results of these areas showthat there is a high probability that there is contamination spread throughout the park. In order toefficiently decontaminate the soil and reduce all contamination to levels below SCO guidelines,

the entire area must be remediated. Although of the entire area has not yet been tested, it is mostcrucial to remove any possibility of contamination that may be hazardous to the public. Aroundthe perimeter of the center area of Phase II, electrodialytic remediation will be used in the areasof TP3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12 to remove the various heavy metal contamination, and soil vaporextraction will be used in TP7 to remove the benzo(b) fluoranthene and indeno (1,2,3 -ed) pyrenecontamination. All of the remediation techniques require the same maintenanceroutine soiltests to make sure that the contamination is kept below SCO levels.


12/53

12

To see both Phase I and Phase II of the design simultaneously, see Figure 6 of Appendix E. 3Drepresentations of the park and cross sections of the soil may be found in Figures 7-19 ofAppendix E.

After the midterm report, there were various events that heavily impacted the course of thedesign process. The teams perception of the needs of Castle Hill greatly changed after the visit

to the site. Although the plants were barely blooming and garbage, abandoned cars, and tireswere strewn about the ground, the park showed vast potential to become a beautiful area to beused by the community. While observing some of the items left by people on the ground, theteam realized that the site is already used by the community for various small celebrations andfestivals, and increasing the availability of the park would benefit the community.

The first aspect of the park that changed the teams perception of the design was the size of thearea for remediation. During early design planning, the team shied away from using concretecapping on the upper (Phase I) portion of the park, and this technique wasnt even included in thefour preliminary designs. This type of capping is one of the most environmentally detrimentalremediation techniques we researched and would also incur a high cost compared to the clients

initial budget. However, viewing the site, the team realized that a concrete path already traversedSS1-6, and the land was simply a plain grass with few trees, not unique to the area. Capping itwith concrete would not prove very harmful to the natural environment of the entire site. Thearea was also smaller than expected by the team, and it would prove to cost less to cap the areathan previously estimated. The client also approved of the use of this remediation technique as itwould provide a quick yet reliable solution to the contamination in the area.

The team also realized that removing the brush and trees in the center of the park (SB01-07) for


13/53

13

remediation purposes would not be out of place with the NYCDPRs goal to develop Castle Hillinto a public park. Although a remediation technique involving the removal of the overgrownplants and brush would remove part of the sites natural environment, this would still occur whendeveloping it for public use (i.e. playground)it is almost impossible to stroll through thisportion of the site when the plants are at their height. Therefore, the team began to consider soft

soil capping in this vicinity in order to seal the heavy metals and SVOCs beneath the surface. Byusing this inexpensive technique, not only would the threat of contaminants disappear, but thearea would be more suitable for future recreational development.

As the team headed to the boundaries of the Castle Hill site, the land turned from grass andvarious brush and trees to sand and a marshy area at the edge of the water. This geographyhouses a variety of wildlife not found in usual parks within its ecosystem, and the client stressedthe importance of its preservation. Due to the very different soil content of this marshy area andvery low levels of contaminants, the team has opted to exclude these areas in the remediationplan. The contaminated areas adjacent to the marshes, however, will be subject to electrodialyticand/or soil vapor extraction to target areas of high contamination.

After the midterm presentation, the client Nette Compton gave the team some advice that alsochanged how the team proceeded with final design planning. Nette noted that one of theenvironmental regulations the team had researched was one that should be held in highimportance and referred to throughout the design process. The Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCO) isthe set of standards used by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to delineatewhether or not a plot of land qualifies for unrestricted public use. Following these standards willlead to a design that follows the main standards for environmental cleanup and heightens publicsafety, having a better chance of final implementation When creating the cost and budgetestimations, Nette suggested that the team also looks at the timeline for each of the remediationtechniques that have been researched and incorporated into the four preliminary design plans.The time it takes each of the techniques to come to fruition is an important component of thecost-effectiveness of the plan. However, she does not believe that the fastest remediationtechniques are the bestit is possible that a slow remediation technique may be a bettercandidate for the design if it has a lower monetary cost, may remove a larger amount ofcontamination, and/or has a small or insignificant negative impact on the environment. In orderto aid the team in understanding the impact and effectiveness of different remediation techniqueson brownfield land, Nette recommended that the team begins to research past case studies. Theteam analyzed these studies and found that they provided valuable information, includingdiscussions of the success or failure of different remediation techniques.

Alternative Solutions

Some of these techniques have been incorporated into the teams final design, but each processcan be utilized in different other portions of the park where we are using other solutions.Therefore, these techniques are alternative solutions because they can be employed to clean upthe Brownfield at Castle Hill Park in the Bronx. A summary of the following remediationtechniques can also be found in Figure 20 of Appendix E.

Excavation is a straightforward but effective technique for cleaning up contaminated soil. It is


14/53

14

vital to the projects success that the entire area of contamination is identified before theexcavation process beings. This technique calls for the removal the dirty fill and replacing it withclean fill that is brought in from an outside source. Then, the dirty soil is often brought to thatoutside source and deposited to replace the displaced clean fill. A major problem that arises whenusing excavation is that the soil is never cleaned; instead it is just trucked out of one place and

dumped into another. The costs that are incurred through trucking the clean fill in and removingthe dirty soil, often make excavation an expensive solution to the problem. Nevertheless, becauseof its reliability and cheap maintenance, agencies are often willing to pay the higher costs toensure that they have no future headaches. The estimate for using this technique at Castle Hill isaround $118.33 per cubic yard. The downfall to the use of excavation is that it totally destroysthe existing habit. As a result, this technique needs to be used sparingly, or factors need to be putin place to ensure that there is limited damage to the surrounding habit.

Capping with either soft soil or pavement is a very reliable and often relatively cheap way ofdealing with soil contamination. While capping with pavement is inexpensive, capping with softsoil can be relatively expensive because soil has to be brought in from an outside source. For

Castle Hill, the estimate for capping with pavement is $64.00 per square yard, while soft soilcapping hovers around $49.95 per cubic yard. Soft soil capping is characterized by the additionof at least two feet of soil and other materials that provide additional effectiveness. Some of thesematerials include: organic rich soil or sand, swelling clay, coke, apatite, or an erosion controlblanket. Organic rich soil or amended sand is useful in preventing hydrophobic organiccontaminants from degrading the cap. Swelling clay, such as bentonite, is a capping material thatcontrols the permeability of the soil, which prevents contaminants from seeping back into thetopsoil. Coke is high organic carbon sediment that confines organic contaminants. Like coke,apatite is sediment that confines metal contaminants and prevents them from entering into thesoft layer of soil. Finally, an erosion control blanket can be implemented as a prevention toolagainst topsoil erosion. This tool can be a form of insurance because the primary form ofmaintenance for soft soil capping is fixing compromised portions of the cap. Because of theaddition of topsoil, capping with soft soil is much more environmentally friendly than cappingwith pavement. Capping with pavement destroys the surrounding environment, while the softsoil promotes growth in the new, healthy soil. Due to its reliability, both types of capping reallydo not need any type of maintenance. However, they both need to be monitored often to ensurethat the contaminants do not migrate into the unprotected land.

Phytoremediation is a new, revolutionary remediation technique that environmental scientists arejust beginning to understand. Phytoremediation utilizes genetically engineered plants to clean-upsites that are contaminated with hazardous wastes. A benefit of phytoremediation is that it is arelatively cheap method of cleaning up sites that have a moderate to low concentration ofcontamination. The technique costs around $16.53 per square yard. Another positive is that thefield is expanding, and as scientists continue to do more research on this method, they willdevelop more plants that can clean a wider range of contaminants and at higher remediationrates. Also, phytoremediation is a very environmentally friendly technique because it does notharm the existing environment. Nevertheless, there are also pitfalls to this technique.Phytoremediation is a long-term method that can anywhere from a few years to a couple decadesto be clean up a site. Furthermore, it is restricted to places with shallow contamination becausethe contaminants must be within the rooting zone of the remediative plants. While


15/53

15

phytoremediation can be a remediation technique that can clean up various different types ofcontaminations, it also can be an effective and cheap way to ensure that the contaminants nevercome back after the site has already been cleaned. For the Brownfield at Castle Hill,phytoremediation can be a technique that is employed after the site has been capped with softsoil because it will ensure that the contaminants never re-enter into the topsoil.

Soil flushing is a pump and treat technique that utilizes injection and extraction wells to flush outthe soluble contaminants. To get the various organic and inorganic solutes out of the ground,different extraction fluids are necessary. In some cases, water is the only necessary solvent, butfor many of the inorganic compounds, specific chemicals must be added to the solvents to extractthe solute. Because of the high costs of drilling the wells, soil flushing is really only a viablesolution for low concentrations of a single contaminant; it costs an estimate $192.11 per cubicyard. Soil flushing can be utilized for moderate to high concentrations areas, but the costsassociated with the cleanup are extremely high. According to the Scientific Ecology Group, Inc.,the removal efficiency of metals is as high as ninety percent. Due to it high success rate,maintenance is usually minimal. However, sometimes soil flushing altars soil properties, which

many interfere with some plants growth. Therefore, monitoring is necessary to ensure that themethod did not interfere with the ecosystem.

Electrodialytic remediation is an environmental remediation technique that coupleselectrodialysis with electromigration of ions in the contaminated soil. By applying a directelectric current and producing an electric field between two electrode points, anions will movetoward the anode and cations will move toward the cathode. When this principle is applied topolluted soil, different metals can be directed toward a specific point of the soil, depending onthe ion formed by the individual metals. It is efficient to remove most hazardous heavy metals,although it is least effective with removing mercury. Studies show that only approximately 25%of metallic mercury can be removed by this method, clearly not enough to reduce mercurycontamination to a level below accepted standards. However, it is possible to add chloride andoxidizing agents in order to mobilize mercury and increase the rate of removal. Thisenhancement can also be applied to the other heavy metals in order to increase their respectiverates of removal if needed. In addition, this remediation technique is favorable for maintainingthe environment because there is very little permanent disturbance to the ground. Usingelectrodialytic remediation at Castle Hill is estimated to cost around $63.33 per square yard,which includes the maintenance requirements.

In situ thermal treatment is a type of remediation technique that mainly targets both volatile andsemi-volatile organic compounds. Steam is forced into an aquifer through injection wells tovaporize contaminants, and these vaporized contaminants then rise to the unsaturated zone. Here,they are removed by vacuum extraction and then treated in order to completely remove thecontaminants from the site. Contaminants can either be treated at the site (in situ) by condensingthe vaporized contaminants and then treating them, or they can be transferred to an off field site(ex situ) were they are treated. Although there are several different hot water and steam-basedtechniques including Contained Recovery of Oily Waste (CROW), In Situ Steam-EnhancedExtraction (ISEE), and Steam-Enhanced Recovery Process (SERP), we are most interested inSteam Injection and Vacuum Extraction (SIVE). This technique is applicable to shallow and deepcontaminated areas and is typically short to medium in durationlasting from only a few weeks


16/53

16

to several months. Furthermore, SIVE is relatively hospitable to the environment because it doesdeplete the minerals within the soil and it does not impact any of the existing habit. Thedownside to thermal treatment is that it solely focuses on the removal of SVOCs and VOCs, andit is a relatively expensive technique. For the cleanup effort at Castle Hill, the estimate forthermal treatment hovers around $96.93 per square yard.

Another type of in situ thermal treatment, which is primarily centered on mercury, is in situthermal desorption soil remediation (ISTD). This in situ remediation technique was developed toremove or reduce the mercury contamination levels within soil, but it also reduces levels of othercontaminants. This thermal treatment utilizes ground heaters to heat the soil to a temperature justabove mercurys vaporization temperature (three hundred and sixty degrees Celsius). Then, thevaporized mercury is removed from the soil through a vacuum system. As the vapors move upthe well and pass through the heated risers, it begins to cool, which causes the mercury tocondense. The condensed mercury then falls into a predetermined treatment facility. ISTD soilremediation system provides an economic, reliable, efficient, and safe solution to the removal ofmercury from a contamination site. The environmental impact and costs associated with ISTD

parallel that of typical forms of thermal treatment.

Transition Plans and User Documentation

The task of remediating a park, even in as small an area as Castle Hill Park, is a majorundertaking that requires a large amount of time and cooperation between people. The way thisGateway team works is no different. This design team builds from what others have done andprovides materials and resources for teams that will continue the work on Castle Hill.Throughout the task of designing a remediation plan, the team first consulted with the previoussemesters rain garden team that was also doing design work for the park. Test samples from ourCommunity Partner Nette Compton were used to determine remediation technologies that wouldwork at the park and their placements. Numerous reports on soil remediation from the FederalRemediation Technologies Roundtable are used as a valuable resource for determining budgetestimates and specific components for each technology. A full list of reports that the team hascited can be found on the references page.

Projects that will continue from this design work can vary. Future teams might concentrate onone of the technologies (and its implementation) this Gateway team has recommended andformulate a more detailed remediation plan and its budget plan. Another team may also inspectthe groundwater for contamination and conduct a groundwater remediation project. Other aspectsof the park can also be used as a project theme. Development plans for Castle Hill includesconstructing a pathway throughout the park, a pier, and a bike route connecting this park toPugsley Creek Park. No matter the project, this team advises future teams to start researchingearly and to maintain close contact with the community partner. Researching early will help theteam understand the community partners needs and requirements, and through bettercommunication future teams will have a better picture of the community partners plans. Forother teams doing similar projects with different partners, this team has provided a list ofcitations in the References section of Appendix D that other teams will find helpful in findingsuitable remediation techniques. The team has also included a preliminary budget list for eachremediation technology that other teams can use as a base and expand to be more accurate in cost


17/53

17

estimation early on. The team has also provided a project Gantt chart that other teams can use asan outline for the tasks and their respective timelines.

The team does not foresee the design to qualify for a patent application. In order to qualify for apatent, a design must solve a problem in a new and innovative way. Although the team has

indeed provided a design that may solve the contamination problem at Castle Hill Park, thedesign was of an implementation of various technologies that have been used in various sites andproven for their effectiveness, not an entirely new remediation technology on its own invented bythe team. This team's focus is to implement several well-supported solutions to effectively solvea problem, not create a new innovative solution. Therefore this Gateway teams design isunlikely to qualify for a patent.

The team has provided a set of documentation that will be used as a guideline for the teamsdesign. The team has supplied diagrams on where each of the remediation techniques will beimplemented and what these techniques are (see Figure 6 of Appendix E). In addition, the teamhas constructed a Maya model of the park and its surroundings to better visualize the parks size,

topography and orientation to its environment, and to visualize the remediation sites and whatremediation techniques are implemented at certain regions within the park. The Maya model isavailable through our community partner, Nette Compton, and can also be found in Appendix E.And as stated above, the team has made a budget table for each remediation technology (seeFigure 6 of Appendix E) that can serve as a general guideline to estimate costs for a remediationtechnology or the implementation on the park as a whole.


18/53

18

APPENDIX A

Gantt Chart


19/53

19


20/53

20


21/53

21


22/53

22


23/53

23


24/53

24

APPENDIX B

Product Design Specifications

Product title

Castle Hill Park Soil Remediation Plan

Purpose

To decontaminate the area at Castle Hill Park to acceptable levels for use as a public parkand for construction of a walking path and other possible future developments.

Need for product

The soil at Castle Hill Park has been found to have concentrations of SVOCs, metals, PCBs,and pesticides that exceed USEPA and NYSDEC standards.

Safety

Must comply with Occupational, Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the New YorkState Department of Health (NYSDOH), and other applicable regulations.

Quality

Concentrations of contaminants in soil must not exceed the following levels (in ppm) as setin Track 1: Unrestricted Use SCOs (6 NYCRR Table 375-6.8(a)).

Contaminant CAS Number ppmMetals

Arsenic 7440-38-2 13 cBarium 7440-39-3 350 cBeryllium 7440-41-7 7.2Cadmium 7440-43-9 2.5 cChromium, hexavalent e 18540-29-9 1bChromium, trivalent

e16065-83-1 30

c

Copper 7440-50-8 50Total Cyanide e, f 27Lead 7439-92-1 63

c

Manganese 7439-96-5 1600c

Total Mercury 0.18 cNickel 7440-02-0 30Selenium 7782-49-2 3.9

c

Silver 7440-22-4 2Zinc 7440-66-6 109 c

PCBs/Pesticides

2,4,5-TP Acid (Silvex)f

93-72-1 3.84,4'-DDE 72-55-9 0.0033 b4,4'-DDT 50-29-3 0.0033 b4,4'-DDD 72-54-8 0.0033

b

Aldrin 309-00-2 0.005 c


25/53

25

alpha-BHC 319-84-6 0.02beta-BHC 319-85-7 0.036Chlordane (alpha) 5103-71-9 0.094delta-BHC

g319-86-8 0.04

Dibenzofuran f 132-64-9 7

Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.005

c

Endosulfan Id, f

959-98-8 2.4Endosulfan IId, f 33213-65-9 2.4Endosulfan sulfated, f 1031-07-8 2.4Endrin 72-20-8 0.014Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.042Lindane 58-89-9 0.1Polychlorinated biphenyls 1336-36-3 0.1

Semivolatile organic compounds

Acenaphthene 83-32-9 20Acenapthylene f 208-96-8 100 a

Anthracene

f

120-12-7 100

a

Benz(a)anthracenef

56-55-3 1c

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 1cBenzo(b)fluoranthenef 205-99-2 1cBenzo(g,h,i)perylene

f191-24-2 100

Benzo(k)fluoranthenef 207-08-9 0.8 cChrysene f 218-01-9 1cDibenz(a,h)anthracene

f53-70-3 0.33

b

Fluoranthenef

206-44-0 100a

Fluorene 86-73-7 30Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene f 193-39-5 0.5 cm-Cresol

f108-39-4 0.33

b

Naphthalene f 91-20-3 12o-Cresol f 95-48-7 0.33 bp-Cresol

f106-44-5 0.33

b

Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 0.8bPhenanthrene f 85-01-8 100Phenol 108-95-2 0.33

b

Pyrenef

129-00-0 100Volatile organic compounds

1,1,1-Trichloroethane f 71-55-6 0.681,1-Dichloroethane

f75-34-3 0.27

1,1-Dichloroethenef

75-35-4 0.331,2-Dichlorobenzenef 95-50-1 1.11,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.02ccis -1,2-Dichloroethene

f156-59-2 0.25

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene f 156-60-5 0.191,3-Dichlorobenzenef 541-73-1 2.41,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 1.81,4-Dioxane 123-91-1 0.1 b


26/53

26

Acetone 67-64-1 0.05Benzene 71-43-2 0.06n-Butylbenzene

f104-51-8 12

Carbon tetrachloridef

56-23-5 0.76Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 1.1

Chloroform 67-66-3 0.37Ethylbenzenef

100-41-4 1Hexachlorobenzene f 118-74-1 0.33bMethyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 0.12Methyl tert-butyl ether

f1634-04-4 0.93

Methylene chloride 75-09-2 0.05n - Propylbenzene f 103-65-1 3.9sec-Butylbenzene f 135-98-8 11tert-Butylbenzene

f98-06-6 5.9

Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 1.3Toluene 108-88-3 0.7

Trichloroethene 79-01-6 0.471,2,4-Trimethylbenzenef

95-63-6 3.61,3,5-Trimethylbenzenef 108-67-8 8.4Vinyl chloridef 75-01-4 0.02Xylene (mixed) 1330-20-7 0.26

Footnotesa The SCOs for unrestricted use were capped at a maximum value of 100 ppm. See Technical

Support Document (TSD), section 9.3.b For constituents where the calculated SCO was lower than the contract required quantitation

limit (CRQL), the CRQL is used as the Track 1 SCO value.c For constituents where the calculated SCO was lower than the rural soil background

concentration, as determined by the Department and Department of Health rural soil survey,the rural soil background concentration is used as the Track 1 SCO value for this use of thesite.

d SCO is the sum of endosulfan I, endosulfan II and endosulfan sulfate.e The SCO for this specific compound (or family of compounds) is considered to be met if the

analysis for the total species of this contaminant is below the specific SCO.fProtection of ecological resources SCOs were not developed for contaminants identified in

Table 375-6.8(b) with "NS". Where such contaminants appear in Table 375-6.8(a), theapplicant may be required by the Department to calculate a protection of ecological resourcesSCO according to the TSD.

Timing

Must meet quality design specifications in 2 years.

Economic

Total cost for the remediation of the northern portion (Phase I) of the site must not exceed$150,000.


27/53

27

EcologicalMust not disturb marshland along shoreline of site.

Mapping Table

Customer

Requirements

Engineering Requirements Rationale

1 Phase I remediation cost shouldnot exceed $150,000

Based on calculations andpreliminary budget information

2 Remediation should be completedin 2 years

Based on case studies

3, 4 Contaminant concentrations in soil

should not exceed NYSDEC SCOs

Based on requirements for

brownfield remediation approval

4 Remediation should adhere toOSHA and NYSDOH regulations

Based on federal and staterequirements

1, 3, 5 Ex-situ remediation should notextend to area below mean sealevel

Based on soil analyses and sitemaps

1. Should be cost-effective2. Should be completed quickly

3. Should sufficiently decontaminate park area4. Should pose no danger or risks to humans5. Should pose no danger or risks to native flora and faunas


28/53

28

APPENDIX C

Budget Estimates and Materials List

Summary of Budget

These costs listed above are the estimate areas and total costs that are associated with each

technique. The breakdown that shows how each of these figures were determined is listed below.For excavation, concrete capping, and soft soil capping, the breakdown is minimal because theclient proved these figures to the team. These figures already included the cost of labor that isnecessary for completion of the specified area or volume.


29/53

29

Complete Budget and Materials List


30/53

30


31/53

31

Cost and budget information found from:

"Soil Vapor Extraction and Bioventing." US Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. United StatesArmy. 12 April 2008. Eriksen, Stacey, James D. Smith, Rick Beyak. "Soil Vapor Extraction at the Rocky

Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site, Motor Pool Area (OU 18), Commerce City, Colorado."Federal Remediation Technologies Roundable. 1995. United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency. 14 April 2008

Guerriero, Margaret, et al. "Soil Vapor Extraction at the Verona Well Field Superfund Site,

Thomas Solvent Raymond Road (OU-1), Battle Creek, Michigan." Federal RemediationTechnologies Roundable. 1995. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 14 April

2008

Tanner, Kendall. "In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction at McClellan Air Force Base, California."

Federal Remediation Technologies Roundable. 1995. United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency. 14 April 2008


32/53

32

APPENDIX D

List of Resources

10473 Zip Code Detailed Profile. 11 Feb. 2008 .

"A Citizen's Guide to In Situ Soil Flushing." United States Solid Waste and EPA 542-F-96-006,Environmental Protection Emergency Reponse. April 1996. 11 Feb. 2008.

"Appendix 6 - Sampling of Plant Species Studied for Phytoremediation." LID TechnicalGuidance Manual for Puget Sound. 11 Feb. 2008 .

Assessment of State Initiatives to Promote Redevelopment of Brownfields. U.S Department ofHousing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (HC#5966, Task Order 13), December 1999.21 Feb. 2008

Baylock, Michael, Dr., Steven Rock. Phytoremediation at the Magic Marker and Fort Dix Sites,NJ. 2002. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 30 Mar. 2008.

Brownfields Job Training Pilots/Grants. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 13 Feb.2008 .

Brownfield Opportunity Areas Program Summary. New York State Department of State'sDivision of Coastal Resources.11 Feb. 2008 .

Capital Projects Division. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. 11 Feb. 2008.

Castle Hill, Bronx. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 11 Feb. 2008 .

Castle Hill Park. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. 11 Feb. 2008.

Chemical Oxidation Site Profiles. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 21 Feb. 2008

Dredging. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 21 Feb. 2008 .

Excavation. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 24 Feb. 2008


33/53

33

Excavation>.

Environmental Remediation. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 21 Feb. 2008.

Environmental Restoration Program FAQ. New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation. 23 Feb. 2008 .

Fazzio, John. Personal interview. 31 Mar. 2008.

Garande, Steve, Brian Harre. In Situ Electrokinetic Remediation at the Naval Air WeaponsStation, Point Mugu, CA. 1998. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 30 Mar.2008 .

Graening, Guy J. "Perimeter Air Monitoring for Soil Remediation." Remediation Journal.Autumn (2007): 41-52. Hansen, Henrik K., Lisbeth M. Ottosen, Bodil K. Kliem, and

Arne Villumsen. Electrodialytic Remediation of Soils Polluted with Cu, Cr, Hg, Pb, andZn. Journal of Chemistry Technology & Biotechnology. 70 (1997) 67-73.

Hayes, Dawn, Mary Cooke, Robert Weld. Cyclodextrin-Enhanced In Situ Removal of OrganicContaminants from Groundwater at Site 11, Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek,Virginia Beach, Virginia. 2005. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable. 30 Mar.2008 .

Hazardous Waste Site Classification: Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Classification.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 28 Feb. 2008.

Henry, Jeanna R. An Overview of the Phytoremediation of Lead and Mercury. National Networkof Environmental Management Studies. 2000. 27 Feb. 2008 .

Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site Program FAQ. New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation. 23 Feb. 2008 .

In Situ Biological Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water, and Leachate. FederalRemediation Technologies Roundtable. 21 Feb. 2008 .

In Situ Physical/Chemical Treatment for Ground Water, Surface Water and Leachate. FederalRemediation Technologies Roundtable. 21 Feb. 2008 .

Iturbe, Rosario, Carlos Flores, Claudia Chvez, Adriana Ramrez, and Luis G. Torres. "InSituFlushing of Contaminated Soils From a Refinery: Organic Compounds and Metal


34/53

34

Removals." Remediation Journal 14 (2004): 141-152. Wiley Interscience. 27 Feb. 2008.

Kingscott, John. "Remediation Technology Cost Compendium- Year 200." EPA. Sept. 2001.Environmental Protection Agency. 31 Mar. 2008 .

Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). New York State Department of State'sDivision of Coastal Resources. 13 Feb 2008 .

Martin, Todd A., and Michael V. Ruby. "Review of in Situ Remediation Technologies for Lead,Zinc, and Cadmium in Soil." Remediation Journal 14 (2004): 35-53. Wiley Interscience.27 Feb. 2008 .

Moyers, J. Ryan, Nichols, Jessica D, and Whitlock, Ian. Disadvantages of Pump and Treat

Remediation. Fall, 1997. 21 Feb. 2008 .

Natural Resources Group. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. 11 Feb. 2008.

Palmer, Carl D. and Fish, William. Ground Water Issue: Chemical Enhancements to Pump-and-Treat Remediation. US EPA, EPA/540/S-92/001. January 1992. 7 Mar. 2008.

Parks Post: Bronx. New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. 13 Feb. 2008


35/53

35

Recent Developments for in Situ Treatment of Metal Contaminated Soils. PRC EnvironmentalManagement, Inc. 1997. 27 Feb. 2008 .

Reible, Danny, and Bettie M. Smith. In Situ Sediment Remediation Through Capping: Status and

Research Needs. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Texas. 27 Feb. 2008.

Seaman, John C. and Paul M. Bertch. In-situ groundwater remediation by selective colloidmobilization. FreePatentsOnline. 1997. 24 Feb 2008 .

Subpart 375-3: Brownfield Cleanup Program. New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation. 14 Dec. 2006. 12 Feb. 2008 .

"Surface Water, Groundwater, and Leachate." EnviroTools. 16 Feb. 2008

.

Sustainable Redevelopment of Brownfields. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 11Feb. 2008 .

Tadesse, Behailu, John D. Donaldson, and Sue M. Grimes. "Contaminated and Polluted Land: aGeneral Review of Decontamination Management and Control." Journal of ChemicalTechnology & Biotechnology 60 (2004): 227-240. Wiley Interscience. 27 Feb. 2008.

"Thermal Treatment." FRTR Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide.28 Feb. 2008 .

United States Patent and Trademark Office. 14 Feb. 2008http://www.uspto.gov/

Vinegar, Harold J. and George L. Stegemeier Soil remediation of mercury contamination. 24 Oct.2002. 2 Mar. 2008 .

Yeh, S. Luara, Gena Townsend, Dr. Leland Vane. Surfactant-Enhanced DNAPL Flushing atMarine Corps Base Camp LeJeune, Site 88, Building 25, NC. 2001. FederalRemediation Technologies Roundtable. 30 Mar. 2008 .


36/53

36

APPENDIX E

Figure 1Map of Soil Tests


37/53

37

Figure 2First Preliminary Design

Figure 3Second Preliminary Design


38/53

38

Figure 4Third Preliminary Design

Figure 5Fourth Preliminary Design


39/53

39

Figure 6Final Design, Phases I and II


40/53

40

Figure 7Cross-section of Soft Soil Capping


41/53

41

Figure 8Cross Section of Concrete Capping


42/53

42

Figure 9Cross Section of Soil Vapor Extraction


43/53

43

Figure 10Cross Section of Electrodialytic Remediation


44/53

44

Figure 11Cross Section of Excavation


45/53

45

Figure 123D Model of Castle Hill Park: Phases I and II


46/53

46

Figure 133D Model of Castle Hill Park: Phases I and II


47/53

47

Figure 143D Model of Castle Hill Park: Northwest Portion, Phase I


48/53

48

Figure 15 -- 3D Model of Castle Hill Park: Northwest Corner of Phase I


49/53

49

Figure 163D Model of Castle Hill Park: Concrete Barriers and Fence, Phase I


50/53

50

Figure 173D Model of Castle Hill Park: Concrete Capping of Phase I


51/53

51

Figure 183D Model of Castle Hill Park: Phase II and Marshes


52/53

52

Figure 193D Model of Castle Hill Park: Bridge through the fence of Castle Hill Park


53/53

Figure 20Remediation Technique Matrix

A Brown Field Remediation Plan for Castle Hill Park

Documents

Transcript of A Brown Field Remediation Plan for Castle Hill Park