L ̂

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DRUM WASTEREMOVAL FROM THE CHEM-DYNE SITE

Hamilton, OhioWork Assignment Z-2-11

Phase A - Task 7

--1̂ —

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DRUM WASTEREMOVAL FROM THE CHEM-DYNE SITE

Hamilton, OhioWork Assignment Z-2-11

Phase A - Task 7

10 September 1982Prepared for U.S. EPAContract No. 68-03-1613

Prepared by:Roy F. Weston, Inc.Designers/ConsultantsWeston WayWest Chester, Pennsylvania 19380

Terese M. OlsonProject Engineer

Robert J. Millman, P.E.Project Engineer

John W. Thorsen, P.E.Site Manager

Peter B. Lederman, Ph.D., P.E.Project Director

W.O. 0300-91-13

1.1 Background

On 23 Ju ly 1982, Roy F . W E S T O N , I n c . received WorkA s s i g n m e n t Z-2-11 u n d e r Con t r ac t 68-03-1613. This WorkA s s i g n m e n t involves remedial action engineering services atthe C h e m - D y n e R e c y c l i n g Facility in Hamilton, Ohio. Atwo phase approach has been adopted by the USEPA in dealingw i t h the C h e m - D y n e s i te whereby a "fast-track" surfacec l e a n - u p ( P h a s e A) wi l l precede a la ter c l ean -up ofcontaminated soil and groundwater (Phase B).

The C h e m - D y n e site occupies approximately ten acres in an o r t h e r n section of the City of Hamilton. (See Figure 1.1)Whi l e in operation, the site was used for waste storage andwas te reprocessing from the fall of 1975 to February 1980.A f t e r the f a c i l i t y was shu t down and placed in court-ordered r e c e i v e r s h i p , several thousand drums and 19 bulkt a n k s were l e f t on-s i t e . A significant amount of wasteswere then removed through cooperative agreements with wasteg e n e r a t o r s and by u s i n g the r e m a i n i n g assets of thec o m p a n y . F o l l o w i n g these e f f o r t s , approximately 8 ,600d r u m s and 19 t a n k s wi l l remain and must be removed underPhase A. Wrthin Phase A. it is understood that the removalof the d r u m m e d was te wil l follow the bulk waste clean-upand tha t these o p e r a t i o n s wi l l be carr ied out u n d e rjseoarate contracts..f •>

Once the bulk waste removal e f f o r t has been completed,\ \ a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1500 d rums wi l l have been staged to a bermed

area at the no r theas t corner of the site. Seventeen of then i n e t e e n t anks wi l l have been completely removed and the twor e m a i n i n g ha l f t anks , #16 and 17, will have been emptied andcovered . A vehic le decontamination facility used during theb u l k was te removal ope ra t ions will be left in place at thesouth end of the site for use during the drum waste clean-up.

1.2 Scope and Objectives

This report addresses the development of alternatives forthe drum waste removal and includes as key elements:

• Col lect ion and interpretation of existing and newbackground data.

• P r o j e c t i o n of waste types and quantities on thesite.

-1-

PRELIMINARY RGOGH DRAFT

N

FIGURE 1.1 LOCATION MAP

-2-

• I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of v iab le wastem a n a g e m e n t a l ternat ives, including cost estimatesa n d a n e n v i r o n m e n t a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s a n a l y s i sconsistent with the National Contingency Plan.

• Ranking of viable alternatives.

B a c k g r o u n d data collected i n t h i s e f f o r t p r i m a r i l yconsis ted of analytical data provided by the Ohio EPA fromear l i e r drum sampling activities, topographical surveys andd r u m counts from aerial photos, surface and subsurface sitec h a r a c t e r i s t i c s repor ted in Ecology and Environment ' sg r o u n d w a t e r study, and new drum sampling results collectedby W E S T O N ' s f i e l d team. The information gathered in thisr e v i e w i s d i s c u s s e d a n d i n t e r p r e t e d i n Sect ion 2 .Subsec t ion 2.3 c o n t a i n s a p r o j e c t i o n of the types andq u a n t i t i e s o f was tes c o n t a i n e d i n t he d r u m s . T h i sp r o j e c t i o n represents WESTON's best estimate derived fromall of the above background sources.

Viable alternatives considered for the drum removal projectare i d e n t i f i e d in Section 3. The universe of options wass c r e e n e d i n i t i a l l y t o e l i m i n a t e those w i t h grossdef ic ienc ies and viable options were condensed to a core ofs e p a r a t e waste m a n a g e m e n t s cena r ios . Each s c e n a r i oou t l i ne s a method of d isposal for the individual wasteca tegor ies and was evaluated based on its feasibi l i ty,costs and impacts.

An overal l r a n k i n g of alternatives was developed and usedin recommending a remedial action plan. Section 4 outlinesW E S T O N ' s r ecommendat ions , as well as a suggested approachto implement this plan.

PRELIMINARY nCOGSI DRAFT

-3-

SITE AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS

2.1 Site Map and Features

A site p lan and topographical map, prepared from an aerialpho to s u r v e y , is dep ic ted in Figure 2.1. This site planr e f l e c t s the expected l ayou t of the site immedia te lyf o l l o w i n g the b u l k was t e removal project, as well as thenew construction proposed for the drum removal e f for t .

T h e b u l k w a s t e r emova l o p e r a t i o n w i l l r equ i r e tha ta p p r o x i m a t e l y 1500 drums be staged to Area 5. Drum areasshown in Figure 2.1, therefore, are as they will appear atthe start of the d rum removal projec t . The vehicledecontaminat ion facili ty (Area 2), to be constructed duringthe bu lk t ank cleanup will be reused for the drum removale f f o r t . This facili ty consists of a concrete pad, vehiclew a s h i n g equipment and a wastewater collection system. Thef e n c e l ines and site truck routes shown in Figure 2.1, arealso those used or constructed in the bulk waste cleanupa n d w i l l n o t b e c h a n g e d d u r i n g d r u m removal sitepreparation activities.

The staging area, Area 5, was previously an asphalt parkinglot and w i l l be completely bermed along the perimeter forspill control p u r p o s e s . D u r i n g the drum waste cleanup,th is area wi l l be used to store staged drums, conduct drums a m p l i n g a n d a n y w a s t e t r e a t m e n t ( s o l i d i f i c a t i o n ,neu t ra l i za t ion , e tc . ) , bulk and load waste for shipment andc r u s h e m p t y d r u m s . An a g g r e g a t e pad w i t h a l i qu idco l lec t ion sys tem wi l l be cons t ruc t ed to support drumc r u s h i n g e q u i p m e n t . As reques ted by the Ohio EPA, thed r u m s staged during the drum waste cleanup will be dividedi n t o two g r o u p s : d rums i d e n t i f i e d by genera tor andunidentified drums.

The d r u m waste c leanup mus t also address the removal ofseveral miscel laneous items presently stored on the site.These items include:

o 4 semi-truck trailerso 2 tanker trucks (5000 gal. capacity)o 2 flat bedso miscellaneous debris in the Chem-Dyne buildingo 2 s m a l l , open - top , at grade tanks (1000 and 1500

ga l . capaci t ies) containing rainwater and locatedwest of former tank 300A.

o smal l , empty fuel-oil type tank (300 gal capacity)

-4-

f\

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP PREPARED BY:

PHOTOCRAMMETRIC SERVICES, INC.

6455 E. Livingston AvenueReynoldsburg, Ohio 43068

100'

CONTOUR INTERVAL ' l'

LEGEND

©

m

Parking and Contractor office area

Government trailer area

Decontamination area

Truck route

Drum staging, bulking and crushingarea

Chem-Dyne Building

Approximate existing drum areas

Site Boundary

Area Boundary

PRELIMINARY lESH DRAFT

FIGURE Z.I

SITE LAYOUT ANDREMEDIAL ACTION CONCEPT DESIGN

CHEM-DYNE SITEHAMILTON, OHIO

SEPTEMBER

PRELIMINARY ,CTI DRAFT. \_ C. l-\ A u . _ .« . l __£C TN 1 —. «. ^>along east fence , south of Ransohoff Plant,

o o p e n - t o p t a n k at n o r t h e a s t corner of Truck Dock(700 gal capacity); contains rainwater,

o r eac to r vessel u p s t r e a m of t a n k fa rm plumbing;capacity 100 gal; contents not known,

o 6 react ion vessels inside the Chem-Dyne buildingeach w i t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 , 7 0 0 ga l . capac i ty ;contents are not known.

The t r a i l e r s are empty, except for some debris (adsorbent,emp ty c o n t a i n e r s , e t c ) . Of the t a n k e r t rucks , one isbe l i eved to be empty while the second contains an unknownv o l u m e of " j e l l e d " was t e . This waste was sampled by theOEPA on October 9, 1979 and a n a l y z e d by the FinneganI n s t i t u t e . Common so lven t s , s i l i cones , ke tones a n da l c o h o l s were f o u n d in the t a n k e r sample and a moredetai led list of compounds can be found in Appendix A.Neither of the tankers are considered roadworthy.

2.2 Drum Waste Characteristics

2.2.1 Drum Counts and Physical Condition

Since the C h e m - D y n e faci l i ty was closed, a substantialn u m b e r of d r u m s have been removed f r o m the site underthe c o u r t - o r d e r e d r e c e i v e r s h i p and through cooperativea g r e e m e n t s w i th the generators and the State of Ohio. OnJ u l y 12, 1982 an aer ia l photograph of the site was takenu n d e r contract to the U.S . EPA. Using photo interpretatione q u i p m e n t , the U .S . EPA Las Vegas Laboratory counted 8,867drums f r o m the photograph. The most recent drum count wasconducted by the Ohio EPA on July 24, 1982. Roughly 10,120d r u m s (+_ 5 - 7 % ) were coun ted i n th i s s u r v e y , includingthose d rums located inside the buildings. The discrepancybe tween the U . S . E P A ' s count an dOhio E P A ' s f igure i sa t t r i b u t e d to the n u m b e r of drums which were obscured bythe shade in the photo or stored in the buildings, out ofv i e w . Since the O E P A ' s c o u n t , h o w e v e r , approximately6 0 0 - 7 0 0 more d r u m s h a v e been removed and an additional1 ,000 are expected to be removed before the site is closedto f u r t h e r g e n e r a t o r arranged out-shipments. (1) At thes t a r t of the d r u m c l e a n u p pro jec t , then , approximately8 6 0 0 d r u m s w i l l be l e f t on the site. The Ohio EPAo f f i c i a l l y p lans to close the site two weeks before bidsfor the bulk waste cleanup are solicited.

The drums are generally in badly deteriorated condition andm a n y are l e a k i n g . A su rvey of the physical condition of268 drums located in the southwest quadrant of the site wasc o n d u c t e d by WESTON's field team. These field records ares u m m a r i z e d in Table 2.1. From survey figures, 19% of thed rums were either leaking or deteriorated, and this figuremay represen t the percent of drums requiring re-packagingb e f o r e s t a g i n g . The ove r - s i zed d r u m s used to overpackuns tab le drums, however, may often be reusable. The numberof o v e r - s i z e d d r u m s , w h i c h wi l l be requi red in thec lean-up , t h e r e f o r e , was estimated as 10% of the totalnumber of drums on-site.

-6-

PRELIMINARY »Sl!GE! DRAFTTABLE 2.1

SURVEY RESULTS OF PHYSICAL CONDITION OF DRUMS

Physical Condition

Leaking drums

Drums without cover

Drums without bungs or withhole in cover

Deteriorated drums

Empty drums

No. ofDrums

20

66

49

30

3

Percent .of Total (i>

8

25

18

11

1

(1)Total number of drums surveyed was 268.

-7-

P!>h2 . 2 . 2 Waste Types and Quantities

D r u m s a m p l e s h a v e b e e n co l l ec t ed b y t h e Oh io E P Ai n t e r m i t t e n t l y between October 1980 and June 1981 and mostr ecen t ly by WESTON. Results from OEPA's sampling activityh a v e been used pr imar i ly for generator identification andin g r a n t i n g app rova l for d i sposa l . These samples werecompos i t e s of d r u m s from individual generators. The onlyd r u m w a s t e a n a l y s e s which are available consist of GC/MSscans by O . H . Mater ia l s . Since many of the sampled drumse i t h e r have been removed or will be removed before the drumc l e a n u p starts, the specific results are not included here.From the O h i o EPA ' s gene ra l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of thesea n a l y t i c a l r e s u l t s , h o w e v e r , a large number of the drumsamples were said to be b u r n a b l e and rio PCB compoundswere i d e n t i f i e d ( 2 ) . The was tes were primarily organictype materials and often were described as common solvents,paint sludges or polymers.

\ - ' W E S T O N ' s f i e l d team r a n d o m l y selected 200 d rums fo rs a m p l i n g and c o m p a t i b i i t y testing. One hundred of thesewre sampled for priority pollutant analyses at the NationalE n f o r c e m e n t I n v e s t i g a t i o n Cen te r ( N E I C ) Laboratory i nD e n v e r , Colorado. All 200 were tested by WESTON personnelaccord ing to a compatibility testing protocol developed forthe s i te and all were analyzed by WESTON's laboratory forPCB c o m p o u n d s . The BTU contents were determined for 20 ofthe d r u m s . Table B.I of Appendix B summarizes the resultsof all the above analyses excluding the NEIC results. Thepriority pollutant scans are forthcoming.

Several s i m p l i f y i n g a s s u m p t i o n s and the results of thef i e l d c o m p a t i b i l i t y tests were used to estimate the typesand quantities of wastes which are present in the projected8 6 0 0 drums. The 20 waste categories, and the criteria usedto c a t e g o r i z e the was tes are presented schematically in

'*•*' F i g u r e 2 . 2 . It was assumed that solid and liquid phaseswould not be ca t ego r i zed separately in drums containingless t h a n 50 g a l l o n s . Solids and l iqu ids in d rumsc o n t a i n i n g 50 or more gallons were placed in two separatecategories.

In the 200 sampled d r u m s , the average drum content wasca lcu la ted to be a p p r o x i m a t e l y 43 ga l l ons . The totalvo lume contained in the expected 8600 drums, therefore, ise s t ima ted as 3 6 5 , 8 0 0 ga l lons . '*' Was te fractions ineach ca tegory for the sample group were similarly extendedto p ro jec t the d i s t r i b u t i o n for all of the drums. Thisd i s t r i b u t i o n is presented in Table 2.1. Categories notf o u n d in Table 2.1 were not found in the 200 sampled drums.

The 8,600 drums includes an estimated 100 empty drums.

-8-

i 05

FIGURE 2.2

DRUM WASTE CATEGORIZATION

DECISION TREE

67"

I *

PRELIMINARY ROUGH DRAFTThese i n c l u d e rad ioac t ive wastes, PCB solids and l iquids ,a n d s u l f i d e w a s t e s . T h e f i v e l a rges t c a t e g o r i e s i ndecreasing order of magnitude are:

1. Non-volatile, acidic aqueous solution2. Non-volatile semi-solids3. Solids4. Non-volatile, non-halogentated organic liquids5. Volatile semi-solids

These f i v e w a s t e types comprise 63% of the sampled waste.In t e rms of waste v o l u m e , the phase distribution was asfollows:

Liquid 66%Semi-solids 21%Solids 13%

The l i q u i d f r a c t i o n was f u r t h e r composed of 74% aqueoussolutions and 26% organic liquids.

-10-

TABLE 2.2

DRUM WASTE DISTRIBUTION

DEFT

Waste Category

2. T^H packs, explosives4 . Solids

Semi -sol ids:5. Volatile6. Non-volatile8. Vfeter reactive10 . Cyanides11. Acids12. Bases

Acidic Solutions:13. Volatile14. Non-volatile

Alkaline Solution:15. Non- volatile16. Volatile

Organic Liquids:17. Volatile, halogenated18. Non-volatile,

halogenated19 . Non-volatile , non-

halogenated20. Volatile, non-

halogenated

Bipty Drums

TOTALS

Sample Group# ofDrums l '

130

17336331

2130

51

811

12

20

Volume(qal)

351,100

6791,14628010510955

8201,547

47315

362482

527

879

«__

8,614

Vol. % ofSample Group

0.412.8

7.913.33.31.21.30.6

9.518.0

5.50.2

4.25.6

6.1

10.2

1.0

Projected Distribution* ofDrums

391,183

6691,30223411711739

8281,498

43239

313432

471

787

100

8,600

TotalVol. (gal)

1,46046,780

28,87048,61012,0604,3804,7502,190

34,72065,790

20,000730

15,35020,460

22,290

37,280

_ ___ „

365,820

Two hundred total drums were sampled. The liquid andsolid phases of some multi-phase drums were classifiedseparately so that the total of this column does not total200.

-11-

no» .ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION

3.1 Approach

Six management techniques were examined as possible drum wasted i sposa l m e t h o d s a t the C h e m - D y n e s i te . These optionsinclude both on-site and off-s i te methods, specifically:

• Off-site- Landfilling- Incineration- Deep well injection

4

• On-site- Treatment and Reclamation- Incineration- Landfilling

An in i t i a l screening was used to eliminate other options whichare not a v a i l a b l e or can not be considered viable; some oft h e s e i n c l u d e : long t e r m s t o r a g e , c h e m i c a l d e s t r u c t i o ntechnologies , deep well inject ion was not el iminated, however,it was d e t e r m i n e d that this method has limited applicability.T h e r e i s p r e s e n t l y o n l y one deep-wel l f a c i l i t y wi th in ac o s t - e f f e c t i v e h a u l i n g d i s t a n c e . I n c o n v e r s a t i o n s withf a c i l i t y p e r s o n n e l , WESTON was informed that the facility isnot permitted to inject chlorinated compounds ( 3 ) .

L i k e w i s e , solvent recovery was evaluated. One facility ownerhad r e c e i v e d , e v a l u a t e d and reprocessed some of the wasteso lven t s f r o m the s i te in the past. In conversations withf a c i l i t y p e r s o n n e l , i t was i n d i c a t e d tha t no P C B ' s o rpes t ic ides are acceptable ( 4 ) . Previous attempts to recovers o l v e n t m a t e r i a l s f r o m the C h e m - D y n e si te a t th is samef a c i l i t y were desc r ibed as unsuccessful . Stringent purityr e q u i r e m e n t s and suspended solids limitations were additionalf a c t o r s w h i c h lead to the rejection of solvent recovery as aviable option.

The pos s ib i l i t y of separating out contaminated rainwater fromother d r u m m e d wastes among the open top drums and sending thew a s t e w a t e r t o o f f - s i t e t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s w a s alsoe v a l u a t e d . Less t h a n 1 0 , 0 0 0 ga l lons of th is material isexpec ted , however, so that any cost savings gained in terms ofd i sposa l costs for th is w a s t e f r a c t i o n would be lost inincreased handling costs at the site.

The u l t i m a t e was te management scheme for the drum cleanup isexpected to i n v o l v e an array of disposal methods because ofthe l a r g e n u m b e r o f was te types p r e s e n t . Some was tem a t e r i a l s , such as explosives or PCB contaminated wastes, can

-12-

PRELIMINARY S?!!G!I DRAFTo n l y be a c c e p t e d by a v e r y l i m i t e d n u m b e r of f ac i l i t i e sn a t i o n w i d e and c o n s e q u e n t l y must be treated separately. Ina d d i t i o n , cost and r e g u l a t o r y factors will provide fu r theri n c e n t i v e s in the select ion of the disposal method for eachwaste category.

The eva lua t ion of the six management techniques was approachedby c o m p a r i n g the t e c h n i c a l f e a s i b i l i t y , safe ty concerns,i m p l e m e n t a t i o n time f r a m e , and environmental effect iveness ofo n - s i t e d i s p o s a l m e t h o d s to a c o m p a r a b l e set of off-s i teo p t i o n s . Af ter evaluating the general disposal methods, threes i te specif ic al ternatives were ident i f ied . A conceptual coste s t i m a t e for each of the alternatives and an analysis of theire n v i r o n m e n t a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s was developed and used to rankt h e m . F i n a l l y , each a l t e rna t ive was ranked on the basis off ive criteria to determine their overall feasibility.

3.2 Evaluation of Disposal Methods

3.2.1 On-Site Management Techniques

O n - s i t e management of the drum wastes will involve either thec o n s t r u c t i o n of a new f a c i l i t y , such as a landfi l l , or theins ta l l a t ion of a mobile faci l i ty , such as an incinerator. Ine i t h e r case , the re are two regulatory requirements that mustbe met:

• a permit to install• approval by the State Hazardous Waste

Facility Board.

In a d d i t i o n , if there is the potential for air emissions, thep r o j e c t mus t be r e v i e w e d for compliance with the Clean AirAct.

O n - s i t e m a n a g e m e n t has several associated implementation andt e c h n i c a l d r a w b a c k s . The availability of mobile facilities,for example is questionable. On-site alternatives also tendto i n v o l v e c o m p l e x o p e r a t i o n s . A was te t r e a t m e n t orr e c l a m a t i o n f a c i l i t y , in par t icu la r , would require highlysk i l l ed operators, extensive safety measures and long start-upperiods.

C e r t a i n negative environmental risks have been associated witho n - s i t e a l t e r n a t i v e s . W i t h t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a ni n c i n e r a t o r , the c o n s e q u e n c e s of an air po l l u t i on eventr e s u l t i n g f r o m o p e r a t i o n a l p rob lems could be serious andsocia l ly d i s r u p t i v e , especially in view of the site's closeproximity to residential zones.

-13-

PRELIMINARY ROUGH PRAFTThe e n v i r o n m e n t a l risks involved wi th on-site l and f i l l i ng maybe e v e n m o r e severe. The site is located wi th in the 100 yearf l o o d p l a i n . In a d d i t i o n , the top soil material pr imar i lyc o n s i s t s of a p e r m e a b l e sandy gravel up to 40 feet thick insome l o c a t i o n s ( 5 ) . Regu la to ry requirements for locating as e c u r e hazardous waste landf i l l in a flood plain area involvese i t h e r e x t e n s i v e f l o o d p r o o f i n g m e a s u r e s o r a de t a i l edc o n t i n g e n c y plan to show how the waste could be removed duringa flood inundat ion event, ( 4 0 C F R 2 6 4 . 1 8 ( b ) ) .

Due to the var ie ty of drummed waste types at the site and theneed for t i m e l y a c t i o n , no s i n g l e on-site option could beu t i l i z e d as the total management solution. On-site options,t h e r e f o r e , can not t o t a l l y el iminate all risks involved intransport ing wastes off -s i te .

T y p i c a l l y , the permit t ing process for similar proposed on-sitef a c i l i t i e s has r e q u i r e d 3-5 y e a r s . A de l ay in the sitec l e a n - u p of t h i s du ra t ion , however, would allow the drums tod e t e r i o r a t e f u r t h e r and to d e v e l o p additional leaks. Thed e t e r i o r a t e d c o n d i t i o n of the drums has been, a motivatingf a c t o r behind the U . S . EPA's "fast track" approach in cleaningup the s i t e . The s e l e c t i o n of an on-site waste managementm e t h o d w o u l d also delay the clean-up of contaminated soil andg r o u n d w a t e r near the site (Phase B). Phase B remedial actionscan not be completed until the Phase A clean-up is completed.C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s o b j e c t i v e o f qu i ck was te remova lp r e d e t e r m i n e s the need for o f f - s i t e disposal methods andon- s i t e m a n a g e m e n t of the d r u m was te s was not a seriouslyconsidered option.

Major advantages and disadvantages of on-site options include:

ADVANTAGES

• R i s k s associa ted with hauling wastes off-site arereduced.

DISADVANTAGES

• The long permitting and approval process could delaythe bulk waste removal for years.

• T h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f m o b i l e f a c i l i t i e s i squestionable.

• The loca t ion of the s i te in both a residential areaand f lood p l a in inc reases the risks and impacts ofp o t e n t i a l air pol lut ion or groundwater contaminationevents.

• On-s i te me thods can not be appl ied to all of thed r u m m e d w a s t e s , t h e r e f o r e , some o f f - s i t e disposalwould be required.

-14-

• O p e r a t i o n and s t a r t -up procedures tend to be complexan may create unacceptable environmental problems.

3 . 2 . 2 Of f -S i t e Management Techniques

O f f - s i t e d i s p o s a l w i l l r e q u i r e that the drummed wastes ande m p t y d r u m s be ca re fu l ly packaged for shipment and hauled toa p p r o v e d l andf i l l s or incinerators. No major d i f f i cu l t i e s aree n v i s i o n e d in l o c a t i n g available, reasonably close disposalf a c i l i t i e s of e i t h e r t y p e . At least one of each type area v a i l a b l e w i t h i n a 250 m i l e r a d i u s o f the site and as u b s t a n t i a l q u a n t i t y of drum waste from the site has alreadybeen h a u l e d to nearby landfi l ls , and incinerators or dep wellinjection facili t ies.

O f f - s i t e d isposal m e t h o d s , unlike on-site options, will notr e q u i r e that new permits be obtained since existing, permittedf a c i l i t i e s will be used. The implementation times required tod i spose of the was t e s by o f f - s i t e methods, therefore, ares i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced, f rom a minimum of one year for on-siteoptions to a maximum of six months for off-site actions.

T r a n s p o r t i n g wastes off -s i te involves those environmental ands a f e t y risks normally associated with hauling hazardous waste,s u c h as acc idents , spills and exposure of people to the wastem a t e r i a l s . Due to the proximity of disposal facilities to thes i t e , h o w e v e r , even these risks are minimal compared to thep r e v i o u s l y desc r ibed potential hazards introduced by on-sitedisposal facilities.

The following advantages and disadvantages are expected:

ADVANTAGES

• M u l t i p l e p e r m i t t e d o f f - s i t e m a n a g e m e n t facilitiesare available within close proximity to the site.

• No f u t u r e o p e r a t i o n a l problems would be encounteredonce the bulk wastes are removed from the site.

• The t ime s chedu l e to complete the drum waste removali s r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t ( 4 m o n t h s a f t e r No t i ce t oProceed).

• E n v i r o n m e n t a l r i s k s to the r e s iden t s in thev i c i n i t y o f the s i t e , f r o m these w a s t e s , a rem i n i m i z e d once the waste is removed from the site.N o s e c o n d a r y r e s i d u a l s a r e produced a n d n olong-term monitoring is required.

-15-

3.3 Ident i f ica t ion of Disposal Alternatives

T h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s were ident i f ied and evaluated in detail asp o t e n t i a l d r u m w a s t e d i sposa l s t r a t e g i e s . Based on thep r e v i o u s e v a l u a t i o n of off -s i te versus on-site actions, onlyo f f - s i t e me thods were developed and evaluated in detail. Thet w e n t y w a s t e c a t e g o r i e s developed in Section 2 were used ind e v e l o p i n g d i s p o s a l a l t e r n a t i v e s . C a t e g o r y 4 , solidm a t e r i a l s , h o w e v e r , w i l l also include al l the miscellaneousd e b r i s d e s c r i b e d in Section 2.1 and empty drums currently atthe site and those that will result dur ing the site clean-up.

C o m b i n a t i o n s of the three off-s i te management techniques:l a n d f i l l i n g , i n c i n e r a t i o n and deepwell injection wered e v e l o p e d i n t o t h r e e scenarios, and each alternative^ isd e s c r i b e d in Table 3.1. The basic differences between thet h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s involve the potential actions to handlel i q u i d wastes. Alternative/ #1 consists of landf i l l ing alln o n - P C B w a s t e s in a p p r o v e d secure landfil ls . Liquid andsemi-sol id wastes would require a solidification step. Thes e c o n d a l t e r n a t i v e , i n v o l v e s i n c i n e r a t i n g vo la t i l esemi-sol ids and all liquids except acids, bases and cyanidew a s t e s . Alternative #3 d i f f e r s from Alternative #2 only inthat acids will be sent to a deep well injection facili ty.

A l t h o u g h no PCB c o m p o u n d s we re f o u n d in the 200 drumssampled by W E S T O N , a few PCB drums may be present on thes i t e . T h e r e is some e v i d e n c e that PCB drum wastes haveb e e n s t o r e d a t C h e m - D y n e i n t h e pas t . T h e P C Bc o n t a m i n a t e d l i q u i d contained in Tank #15 (to be removedu n d e r the b u l k w a s t e removal contract) , for example, wasw a s t e tha t had r e p o r t e d l y at one t i m e been pumped fromd r u m s . Even t h o u g h only a small n u m b e r are likely toc o n t a i n PCB ' s , a t t e m p t s should be made to isolate these.One d r u m alone of concentrated PCB liquid would contaminatean e n t i r e b u l k t a n k load of w a s t e . I f PCB d rums aree n c o u n t e r e d , these must be disposed of in accordance withthe Toxic S u b s t a n c e Control Act (TSCA) i.e., solids mustbe sent to an Annex I Landfi l l and liquids containing moret h a n 500 ppm of PCB compounds must be sent to an Annex Iincinerator (40 CFR, Part 761).

To e v a l u a t e the th ree a l t e rna t i ve s , a cost estimate wasdeve loped for e ach . These estimates and a discussion ofthe me thodo logy used a re p r e s e n t e d in the f o l l o w i n gsection.

-16-

TAKLE 3 .1

DRUM WASTE DlfP(|

i-faste Category

1. Radioactive

2. Lab pack, explosives

3. PCB solids

4. Solids

5. Volatile semi -sol ids

6. Non-volatile semi-solids

7. PCB Liquids

8 . Water reactive

9. Sulfidest

10. Cyanides,

11. Acids

12. Bases

Other Non-HalogenatedLiquidsCategories : 13 , 14 , 15 ,16,19,20

Halogenated LiquidsCategories: 17,18Landfill

Est. Quantity(gal)

0

1,460

0

46,780

28,870

48,610

12,060

0

4,380

4,750

2,190

180,810

35,810

Disposal Methods •Alternative

#1

N.A.(1)

Landfill

N.A.

Landfill

Solidify/Landfill

Solidify/Landfill

Annex IIncineration

Solidify/Landfill

N.A.

Solidify/Landfill

Solidify/Landfill

Solidify/Landfill

Solidify/Landfill

Solidify/

Alternative#2

N.A.

Landfill

N.A.

Landfill

Incineration

Solidify/Landfill

Annex IIncineration

Solidify/Landfill

N.A.

Solidify/landfill

Solidify/Landfill

Solidify/landfill

Incineration

Incineration

Alternative#3

N.A.

Landfill

N.A.

landfill

Incineration

Solidify/Landfill

Annex IIncineration

Solidify/landfill

N.A.

Solidify/Landfill

Deep WellInjection

Solidify/landfill

Incineration

Incineration

Not Applicable

Lab packs and explosives will be separated. Explosives are to be detonatedbefore disposal and lab packs will be specially packaged.

-17-

3.4 Conceptual Alternat ive Cost Estimates

C o n c e p t u a l costs for each of the alternatives were estimatedby W E S T O N and are p r e s e n t e d in Tab le 3 . 2 . I t should bes t r e s sed t h a t these costs are conceptual. The estimate forthe chosen a l t e r n a t i v e w i l l . b e upgraded to an "Engineer 'sE s t i m a t e " . The costs serve as a basis upon which to comparet h e a l t e r n a t i v e s . F rom these cost f i g u r e s , t h e t h i r da l t e r n a t i v e , w h i c h i n v o l v e s a l l t h r e e o f f - s i t e disposalm e t h o d s , r e p r e s e n t s the lowes t cost option at $1 ,493 ,600 .L a n d f i l l i n g all w a s t e s (except any PCB f lu ids) proved to bethe most e x p e n s i v e of the three alternatives at $1 ,966 ,700 .All costs i n c l u d e 10% overhead and prof i t , 15% contingenciesand Ohio State disposal tax.

Severa l key a s s u m p t i o n s we re made in developing these costes t ima tes . It is emphasized in particular, that the projectedw a s t e c a t e g o r i e s and quantities in Table 2.1 were derived onthe bas i s of r e s u l t s f r o m a 200 d r u m random sample. Thisr e p r e s e n t s a l i t t l e more than 2% of the total expected 8 ,600d r u m s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , there is insuff ic ient historical datafor s imilar drum waste removal projects to determine the levelof conf idence associated with a 2% sample. The projections inTab l e 2 . 1 , t h e r e f o r e , r e p r e s e n t WESTON's best estimate forthe Chem-Dyne site.

A n o t h e r a s s u m p t i o n was made, common to all the alternatives,t h a t 40 d r u m s of PCB f l u i d are present on the site, despitethe f a c t t h a t no P C B ' s were found in the 200 sampled drums.J u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h i s assumption was given earlier in thisr e p o r t . D i sposa l costs for PCB fluids were estimated on thebas i s that they would be incinerated at an Annex I incineratorin E l d o r a d o , A r k a n s a s , one of two such permitted facilitiesin the nation.

Based on W E S T O N ' s f i e l d team observations, 10% of the drumswere assumed to require repackaging. This is an expensive andd i f f i c u l t item to estimate, and therefore, could substantiallya f f e c t the cost . I t w i l l not, however, affect the relativeorder of the a l t e r n a t i v e costs . Approximately 1.0% of thei n i t i a l l y selected d r u m s for WESTON's sampling effor t weree m p t y . On the basis of t h i s f i g u r e , it was assumed that atotal of 100 empty drums are present.

Of the expected 39 total drums of category 2 waste, i.e., labp a c k s , e x p l o s i v e s , e t c . , i t was a s sumed that 3 containede x p l o s i v e mater ia l . These will designated to be removed fromthe si te by C i t y of Hamil ton personnel, and detonated by theB u t l e r County S h e r i f f ' s Department, Bomb and Arson Squad. Ther e m a i n i n g 36 n o n - e x p l o s i v e d r u m s were costed on the basistha t they would be specially contained and placed in a securelandfi l l .

-18-

TABLE 37

CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR DRUM WASTE REMOVAL

Task

A. ProjectStart-upand SiteServices

B. SitePreparation

C. Drum Handlingand WasteDisposal

D. Tankage Handlingand Disposal

E. Demobilizationand ProjectClose-out

TOTAL COSTS:

ESTIMATED COSTS

Alternative#1

563,200

20,500

1,338,700

27,200

17,100

$1,966,700

Alternative#2

560,300

20,500

871,400

27,200

17,100

$1,496,500

Alternative#3

560,300

20,500

868,500

27,200

17,100

$1,345,400

-19-

PRELIMINARY ROOSH DitMlAn e x p l a n a t i o n of the m e t h o d o l o g y and assumptions used ine s t i m a t i n g t h e costs f o r d i sposa l o f a l l d r u m w a s t e s ,e x c l u d i n g PCB f l u i d s and lab p a c k s , a re presented in thefol lowing subsections.

3.4.1 Alternative #1

In e s t i m a t i n g the costs for landfi l l ing fluids and sludges, aw o r s t case e s t i m a t e was used whereby it was assumed that thee n t i r e v o l u m e o f l i q u i d a n d s l u d g e wou ld doub le upons o l i d i f i c a t i o n . A 2:1 solidification ratio was used based onv e n d o r in format ion (6) for liquids only. The actual volume ofs o l i d i f i e d waste, therefore , may be somewhat less if the ratiois s igni f icant ly d i f f e r en t for sludges.

Th i s e s t i m a t e is a l so based on the a s sumpt ion that local( w i t h i n 300 m i l e s ) f a c i l i t i e s would be used. A 6% stated i s p o s a l tax was applied, therefore, to the cost of disposal.T r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs wi l l also d i f f e r i f more d i s t an tfacilities are used.

3 . 4 . 2 Alternative #2

The second a l t e r n a t i v e was costed by a s s u m i n g that a l lv o l a t i l e semi-solids, halogenated organic liquids (except PCBf l u i d s ) and n o n - h a l o g e n a t e d l i q u i d s (except concentrateda c i d s , b a s e s a n d c y a n i d e s ) a r e acceptab le t o locali n c i n e r a t o r s . U n i t p r i ces provided by vendors (7) for thei n c i n e r a t i o n of these materials, however, were given as ratherb road r a n g e s ( $ 0 . 5 0 - 1 . 0 0 per ga l lon of waste f l u i d s ands l u d g e s ) . W o r s t case e s t ima te s were made by assuming them a x i m u m i n c i n e r a t i o n costs in t h i s range. Transportationcosts were aga in estimated by assuming that local facilitieswould be used.

3.4.3 Alternative #3

The cost of A l t e rna t i ve #3 represents the cost developed forl a n d f i l l i n g a l l was t e s l a n d f i l l e d in Alternative #2 , fo ri n c i n e r a t i n g a l l f l u i d s and semi-so l ids i n c i n e r a t e d i nA l t e r n a t i v e #2 except t h a t volume of concentrated acids inexcess of the volume required to neutralize the concentratedbases . The r e m a i n i n g v o l u m e of concentrated acid would bed isposed of by deep-wel l in jec t ion . It was felt that thisacid ca tegory of was te was the only category which coulds a f e l y be a s sumed to be accepted at a deep-well facility, inv i e w of the s t r i ngen t r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s mentionedearlier herein.

-20-

PRELIMINARY SOT DRAFT3.5 Exist ing Environmental Analysis

3.5.1 Existing Environmental Conditions

Site Location

The C h e m - D y n e s i te is loca ted in southwestern Ohio, inB u t l e r C o u n t y , w i t h i n the C i t y of Hamilton at 500 FordB l v d . The si te is s i t u a t e d in a p a r t i a l l y abandonedi n d u s t r i a l a r e a , b o u n d e d t o t he sou th and east byr e s i d e n t i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t . The FordH y d r a u l i c C a n a l f o r m s the northern boundary to the site,and to the west are municipal power generation facilities,i n d u s t r i a l i n s t a l l a t i o n s , r e s i d e n t i a l developments andu l t i m a t e l y the G r e a t M i a m i R i v e r . Due to the s i te ' sp r o x i m i t y to the Grea t M i a m i River , the site is locatedwithin the 100 year flood plain.

The s i te encompasses approximately 10 acres, and consistsof p r i m a r i l y level open land, approximately 8,600 drums, 4major buildings and assorted storage-type structures.

Climate And Air Quality

• Climate

The c l i m a t e of the a rea may be c a t e g o r i z e d as h u m i dc o n t i n e n t a l . Average annual precipitation amounts to 38.3i n c h e s of r a i n and 16.9 inches of snow. The mean annualt empera tu re is 53 .9 degrees F, wi th a min imum monthlyaverage of 31.6 degrees F in January and 75.3 degrees F inJuly.

• Air Quality

Air q u a l i t y measurements were taken at the Chem-Dyne sitep r io r to and d u r i n g W E S T O N ' s drum sampling activities toes tab l i sh ambient and non-ambient pollutant concentrations.The a m b i e n t air m o n i t o r i n g program consisted of two (2)b a c k g r o u n d s a m p l i n g days (August 1 and 2, 1982) and three(3) o p e r a t i o n s s a m p l i n g days (August 3 , 4 , 5 , 1982). Thel o c a t i o n s of both the background and operations samplersare shown in F i g u r e 3.1. The prevailing winds during theb a c k g r o u n d sampl ing period, which included one (1) upwinda n d f o u r ( 4 ) d o w n w i n d s a m p l e r s , were generally from t h es o u t h w e s t . As a r e s u l t , the four downwind samplers wereplaced east to n o r t h e a s t of the s i te . The operationss a m p l e r s , w h i c h opera ted d u r i n g the subsequent on-sitea c t i v i t i e s , were located to most effectively measure thed o w n w i n d c o n t r i b u t i o n assoc ia ted w i t h a n y f u g i t i v eemiss ions released on tha t particular day based on windd i r e c t i o n a l data acqu i r ed from an on-site meteorological

-21-

PKUfflM WrSampfiogId, aflomOne Up Wind (U)Four Downwind (DA

Opeitflon Samplng

00)

Day 3 (8/3>—U and DCDay 4 (B/4)—O6 and DCDay 5 (B/5)—DA

too

•SAMPLER MOVED TO WEST SIDE OF SITEBECAUSE OF WIND DIRECTION (AT MID OAYJ

"VARIABLE NATURE OF WIND NECESSITATED;

SAMPLERS ON BOTH SIDES OF SITE

FIGURE B.I AIR SAMPLING LOCATIONSAUGUST 1-S.19B2CHEU DYNE SITE, HAMILTON OHIO

TABLE 3.3

AIR MONITORING RESULTS AND EXPOSU ••••

.44(4)

.065(4)

.194(4)

MEGppb

600(4)

240

238(4)

239

24

240

240

240

300

240

240

390

2,380

TLVP£m

1,000

1,000

100

25(2)

350

100

10

100 (5)

100 (5)

600

100

1,000

HI no A*&M/#/Observed

4

11

7

1

7

4

5

2

9

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

3

1

(1)(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Isohexane

2-Nitropropane

Substance is 1/2 or more of lowest exposure criteria

Lowest criteria

Exposure by cutaneous route

-23-

PRELIMINARY ROUGH DRAFTs t a t i o n . Two s a m p l e s were collected on each operationss a m p l i n g day excep t for the last day. On day 5, only ones a m p l e was t a k e n due to o p e r a t i o n a l p rob lems with thesampling equipment.

I t shou ld be noted here tha t the b a c k g r o u n d samplingp r o g r a m i m p l e m e n t e d a t C h e m - D y n e does not necessarilya c c u r a t e l y c h a r a c t e r i z e the ambient air concentrations ofthe substances detected prior to on-site remedial activity.Some d e g r e e of on-site activity was occurring during bothd a y s of the background survey, e .g. , CECOS removal of drumso n - s i t e and Weston drum staging operations. Additionally,the one u p w i n d T e n a x sample on two consecutive days isi n a d e q u a t e to d e f i n i t i v e l y determine contribution to theambient air not related to chem-Dyne.

The a m b i e n t air samples were collected on 10 centimeterlong by 1.5 cen t ime te r i .d. glass tube containing 8 cm of35 /60 mesh Tenax GC with glass wool on the ends to providesuppor t . Personal monitoring pumps (MAS and DuPont models)were used for the sample co l l ec t i on . Flow rates werea d j u s t e d to approximately 0.05 1/min for 8-hour collectionperiods.

Table 3.3 l ists all the substances identified during theC h e m - D y n e s a m p l i n g p r o g r a m . I t g ives t h e h ighes tconcen t r a t i on seen d u r i n g the s amp l ing period in bothm i c r o g r a m s per cub ic meter and parts per billion. Threecommon exposure criteria are also presented to allow for ac o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e m e a s u r e d levels . These exposurec r i t e r i a , Cancer Assessment Group values (CAGs) , MultimediaE n v i r o n m e n t a l Goals ( M E G s ) and Th re sho ld Limit Values( T L V s ) are based on va r i ed levels of research and ared e s i g n e d for d i f f e r e n t levels and types of exposure andthey must be utilized with these differences in mind.

T h e r e s u l t i n T a b l e 3 . 3 i n d i c a t e t h a t b e n z e n e ,tri ch lo roe t hene, and tetrachloroethene (perchloroethylene)w e r e all de t ec t ed above their respective CAG values. TheCAG value was established by the EPA Office of Research andD e v e l o p m e n t to e s t ima t e a l i f e t i m e exposure level thatwould r e su l t in _o/ily an incremental increase in populationcance r r i sk (10 ) . It is the most appropriate exposurec r i t e r i a to use because it relates to population exposureover a long period of time.

The most c r i t i ca l chemica l contaminants detected on-siteare p re sen t ed in Table 3.4 along with the concentrationsm e a s u r e d a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r m o n i t o r i n g s i te . T h ec o n c e n t r a t i o n s of benzene, the most important contaminantf r o m a long t e rm health effects point of view, range from20 to almost 300 t imes the CAG value of 0.065 parts perb i l l i o n ( s e e T a b l e 3 . 3 ) . T r i c h 1 o r o e t h e n e a n dte t r ach lo roe thene also exceeded the i r respect ive CAG

-24-

. mm DRAFT•v a l u e s . Acetone and 1,1,1-trichloroethane are included inTab le 3.4 because their highest concentrations approach theMEG v a l u e . (No CAG v a l u e has been deve loped for theses u b s t a n c e s . ) Toluene is included because of the number oftimes it was detected on days sampling was conducted.

It is i m p o r t a n t to note here that the sampl ing wasc o n d u c t e d at l oca t ions in close p r o x i m i t y to the sitei t se l f because of the potential of vandalism to monitoringe q u i p m e n t . T h e r e f o r e , the concentrations detected at them o n i t o r i n g l oca t ions would be higher than those impactingo n t h e n e a r b y r e s i d e n t s d u e t o both w i n d d i r e c t i o nv a r i a b i l i t y and the increased distance from the emissionsources.

The r e d u c t i o n and e v e n t u a l e l i m i n a t i o n of the emissionsources is of u tmos t i m p o r t a n c e in order to limit thepo ten t i a l hea l th impacts on the surrounding residents whomay have been exposed to these contaminants for a number ofyears.

Surface and Subsurface Features

• Topography

The C h e m - D y n e site is located in the Great Miami River Basin,w i t h i n the 100 year flood plain and, as such, is composed ofa l l u v i a l s e d i m e n t . T h e s i t e e l eva t ion va r i e s f r o ma p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 0 0 ' t o 583 ' M S L . T h e s i t e ' s generalt o p o g r a p h i c t r end decreases from the southeast to northeast,w i t h a total r e l i e f of 17 f e e t . Shallow depressions existt h r o u g h o u t the site and contain standing water for extendedperiods of time.

• Soils

The g e n e r a l cha rac t e r of the soils present at the Chem-Dynes i te is one of f l u v i a l type sediment, predominantly composedof O r d o v i c i a n aged sha les and l i m e s t o n e s . The physicalc l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the soils would be brown-grey silts, siltysands and clayey loams. This is a general characterization ofthe p r e v a i l i n g soils as there is a wide variation across thesite due to the presence of man made fil l and the effects ofg lac ia l act ivi ty on the underlying strata. The soils presenton the site e x h i b i t increas ing permeability with depth ( 0 . 6i n / h r f r o m 0-6 inches to 6 . 0 + in/hr from 32-60 inches) andhave low to moderate shrink-swell potential.

-25-

TABLE 3.4

AIR QUALITY SURVEY R]

Acetone(Propanone)

1,1,1-Tri-chloroethane

Trichloroethene(TCE)

Benzene

Tet rachloroe thene(PERC)

Toluene

CONCENTRATIONS IN

DAY 1 (8-1-82) WINDS OUT OF (SSW-W)

u-l(Upwind)

63.1

DA-a DB-1

4.6

1.8

1.6

.62

3.7

DC-1(Front)

193

8.0

1.4

3.5

DC-1(Back:

117

1.7

DD-1

117

1.8

1.0

1.3

1.4

DAY 2 (8-2-82) WINDS OUT

U-2(Upwind)

351

2.8

.49

3.3

DA-2

2.4

4.0

DB-2(Front)

DC-:(Bac

6.

(1)(2),

No peaks were found

Sanpler was moved near fire hydrant at Ransohoff at 11:00 AM - it was then down-wind.

NOTE: No entry indicates no peaks were found.

•k

PRELIMINARY RSUGSoil c o n t a m i n a t i o n was previously investigated in GroundwaterI n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Chem-Dyne Hazardous Materials RecyclingF a c i l i t y in H a m i l t o n , Ohio by Ecology and Environment, Inc.D~ecember , 1981. C o n t a m i n a t i o n of the upper soil layers wasi n d i c a t e d i n t h e r e p o r t . F u r t h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n a n dq u a n t i f i c a t i o n of the extent of con t amina t i on wi11 beinitiated as a subsequent component of this investigation.

• Geology

The C h e m - D y n e s i te over l ies a deep bedrock valley generallycomposed of a sequence of C a m b r i a n , Ordovician, Silurian,D e v o n i a n , Miss i ss ippian , Pennsylvanian and Permian aged rocksw i t h a P r e c a m b r i a n b a s e . The m a n t l e of the area i sW i s c o n s i n a n aged outwash sediments. Structural modificationssuch as b a s i n s , arches and domes are all present in the sitearea.

Hydrology

• Groundwater

G r o u n d w a t e r y i e ld in the area f r o m the Great Miami RiverV a l l e y ( G R M V ) has historically been considered one of the mostp r o d u c t i v e in the midwest. Total groundwater withdrawal fromthe G M R V is a p p r o x i m a t e l y 100 mgd, with Hamilton accountingfor about 18 m g d . G r o u n d w a t e r remains the chief source ofpo tab le as well as i n d u s t r i a l water for the Hamilton area.The upper l i m i t s of groundwater encountered at the site varyf r o m 560 ' to 564 ' MSL. Groundwater recharge occurs throughoutthe year due to the proximity of the Great Miami River, withOctober-November and March-April providing the peak rechargingperiods.

A g r o u n d w a t e r su rvey wi l l be conducted during the remediali n v e s t i g a t i o n . Survey resu l t s wi l l provide spec i f i ci n f o r m a t i o n on the groundwater flow characteristics and thepotential presence of contamination.

• Surface Waters

The two p e r t i n e n t surface water bodies to the Chem-Dyne siteare the Great Miami River and one of its man made tributaries,t h e F o r d H y d r a u l i c C a n a l . T h e r i v e r f l o w s i n asouth-southwesterly direction with an average annual dischargeof 3 2 0 0 c f s , and a g r o u n d w a t e r r e cha rge component o fapp rox ima te ly 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 gpd/acre of streambed. As previouslys t a t e d , the site lies within the 100 year flood plain of ther i v e r . The Ford H y d r a u l i c Cana l ( F H C ) forms the northernb o u n d a r y to the site. Discharge from the FHC is dif f icul t toq u a n t i f y , as it is used for hydroelectric power generation bythe C i ty and has a wide fluctuation in diurnal flow. The FHCis down gradient from the site and will therefore be examinedas pa r t of subsequen t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s to evaluate ambientcontamination in the proximity of the site.

-27-

Biological Resources

• Terrestrial

PRELIMINARY R89GH DRAFTThe C h e m - D y n e s i te is located in an area characterized byr e s i d e n t i a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l d e v e l o p m e n t . There a r e n osignif icant natural areas in the immediate vicinity.

The s i t e , i t s e l f , a f fo rds a marginal habitat: vegetation isl i m i t e d to p i o n e e r i n g and e a r l y successional species. Thes i te is e s s e n t i a l l y treeless. The ground cover consists ofassorted grasses, goldenrod and Queen Anne ' s lace.

The site is m o s t l i k e l y i n h a b i t e d by typical field rodentssuch as c o t t o n t a i l r a b b i t s , meadow voles , m i c e , shrews,w o o d c h u c k s , and possibly muskrats along the canal bank. Thistype of h a b i t a t p r o v i d e s h u n t i n g grounds for a variety ofb i r d s such as s p a r r o w h a w k s and owls . Songbirds are alsolikely to be present at times on-site.

T h e r e are no s ignif icant wetlands on-site or in the immediatev i c i n i t y . No species l is ted by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeServ ice as t h r e a t e n e d or endangered are known to inhabit thearea.

• Aquatic

The a q u a t i c ecology of the G r e a t M i a m i River in the sitev i c i n i t y is s t r essed . The r i v e r is currently impacted bysewage treatment plant discharges.

Soci©economics

• Population

The site is en t i r e ly contained within the City of Hamilton.T h i s c i ty covers an area of 22 square miles. The currentestimated population is 70,000.

• Soci©economic Structure

T r a d i t i o n a l l y , i n d u s t r y and manufacturing make up the majorc o m p o n e n t s o f t h e a r e a ' s e c o n o m y , s u p p l e m e n t e d b yc o n s t r u c t i o n , t r a d e , f i n a n c e and government activities. Inthe immedia t e s i te v i c i n i t y , power plant and manufacturingi n d u s t r i e s are located to the west; areas to the north area g r i c u l t u r a l . South and east of the site the area isr e s i d e n t i a l i n t e r s p e r s e d w i t h commerc ia l zones and ballplaying fields are located to the immediate east.

• Transportation

-28-

PRELIMINARY ™m DRAFTThe C h e m - D y n e s i te a rea is se rved by a wel l deve lopedt r a n s p o r t a t i o n n e t w o r k . I n t e r s t a t e 75 , running north ands o u t h , passes w i t h i n ten miles of the site. Locally, thereare seve ra l two-lane highways which traverse the area between1-75, 1-275 and the site.

• Noise

The d o m i n a n t n o i s e sources in the area are: movement alongra i l l i n e s , a i r c r a f t over f l igh t s , auto/truck t r a f f i c , f i res t a t i o n a c t i v i t y a n d r i ve r f l o w . D u r i n g non-peak hours( 8: O O p m - 5 : OOa .m . ) the area would be relatively quiet. Thereare la rge trucking f i rms located nearby in the community. Theaccess roads in the immediate vicinity of the site are used bythese vehicles, contributing to noise generation.

3.5.2 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

The r e m e d i a l a c t i o n e v a l u a t e d for the Chem-Dyne site wass u b d i v i d e d i n t o t w o s e p a r a t e s t r a t e g i e s ; o n - s i t ed i s p o s a l / r e c l a m a t i o n and o f f s i t e disposal/reclamation. Ass u c h , the p o t e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts summarized belowwere evaluated in the same context.

• On-Site Land Filling

Due to the n a t u r e of this activity, there is a potential forvarious negative impacts. These are summarized below:

Surface Water Degradation

This impac t can occur in several ways, the firstof w h i c h is d i r e c t l y related to wind erosion ofsoi ls . The proximity of the Ford Hydraulic Canala n d t h e G r e a t Miami R i v e r could a f f o r d t h epossibility of e n t r a i n i n g fugi t ive dust into thes u r f a c e w a t e r , t h u s decreasing water quality. Asecond type of impact involves the fact that thesite exis ts w i t h i n the 100 year flood plain. Thes t r i n g e n t r e g u l a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s ( 4 0 C F R2 6 4 . 18 ( b ) ) for landfil ls constructed in this typeof area were de sc r ibed earlier. Inundation of aproposed landfill could severely degrade the waterq u a l i t y of the proximal surface water bodies. At h i r d type of s u r f a c e water impact could evolvef r o m t h e s o l i d i f i c a t i o n p r o c e s s b e f o r el a n d f i l l i n g . A spill du r ing the solidificationprocess could cause exfiltration off-site to thewater bodies.

-29-

PRELIMINARY HOUGH DRAFTWind Erosion of Site Soils

The v o l u m e of d r u m w a s t e s to be removed is sucht h a t extensive excavation would be required. Thisa c t i o n presents the possibility of releasing largeq u a n t i t i e s of potentially contaminated "fugitived u s t " i n t o the a i r , t h u s a f f e c t i n g the nearbyindustrial and residential areas.Groundwater Contamination

Due to the l i q u i d n a t u r e of much of the waste,s o l i d i f i c a t i o n is required before landfi l l ing. As p i l l d u r i n g t h e p r o c e s s c o u l d resul t i ng r o u n d w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h edep th of the w a t e r table is such as to promotel e a c h i n g of g r o u n d w a t e r in and out of thel a n d f i l l , t h u s p r o m o t i n g d e g r a d a t i o n o fgroundwater quality.

Incineration

T h e m a i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l d r a w b a c k t o i n c i n e r a t i o ni n v o l v e s potential air quality degradation. Impropero p e r a t i o n or the varied nature of the wastes on sitec o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y cause e m i s s i o n s in excess ofa l l o w a b l e levels a n d , due to the proximity of larger e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s , adve r se ly a f f e c t the health orsocioeconomic conditions of the area.

Treatment and Reclamation

Th i s a l t e r n a t i v e wou ld involve an extended start-upp e r i o d , complex operations and would require a highlysk i l l ed labor fo r ce not immediately available. Theh a n d l i n g of such a l a r g e vo lume of d r u m l iqu ids( a p p r o x . 2 5 7 , 7 0 0 g a l l o n s ) may resul t in a spilli n c i d e n t that could impact the area soils, ground ands u r f a c e waters. Due to the deteriorated nature of thee x i s t i n g storage tanks, the lag time involved in thisa l te rna t ive could cause a negative impact by increasedleakage of the bulk liquids onto the site.

On-Site Handling; General

Due to the va r i ed n a t u r e of the w a s t e s , no ones t r a t e g y is s u f f i c i e n t for remedial action. Usingc o m b i n a t i o n s of t e c h n o l o g i e s fo r t r ea tmen t andh a n d l i n g increases the poss ib i l i ty of an incidentimpacting the area environment.

-30-

PRELIMINARY RQOGH DRAFTOff-Si te Landf i l l ing

O f f - s i t e l a n d f i l l i n g at an approved facili ty greatlyr e d u c e s the p o s s i b i l i t y of n e g a t i v e environmentali m p a c t s . The poss ib i l i ty of fugi t ive dust emissionsis r e d u c e d due to the fact the landfi l l utilized willa l r e a d y be in e x i s t e n c e . The si te for potentiall a n d f i l l i n g would not be located in a flood plain or,i f s o , w o u l d h a v e t h e proper f l ood p ro t ec t i ona p p u r t e n a n c e s already in place so that no degradationof surface or groundwaters would be expected.

T r a n s p o r t i n g was t e s o f f - s i t e i n v o l v e s t h e usua le n v i r o n m e n t a l and s a f e t y r i s k s normally associatedw i t h h a u l i n g h a z a r d o u s w a s t e . However, due to thep r o x i m i t y of potential landfi l ls , as well as the otherdisposal techniques described below, the advantages ofo f f - s i t e d i s p o s a l f a r o u t w e i g h t h e po ten t ia le n v i r o n m e n t a l impac t s of t r a n s p o r t i n g or on-sitedisposal.

• Incineration

O f f - s i t e i n c i n e r a t i o n would present fewer potentialn e g a t i v e impac t s t h a n on- s i t e inc inera t ion due toe x i s t i n g operational procedures and safeguards at thef a c i l i t i e s . The use of was te specific incineratorf a c i l i t i e s would f u r t h e r reduce the potential forn e g a t i v e impac t s on air quality or the evolution ofsecondary residuals.

As s ta ted p r e v i o u s l y , the main drawback to off-sited isposa l is d u r i n g the h a n d l i n g and transportationphases of the act ion. A proper site management planwi l l m i n i m i z e th i s po ten t i a l i m p a c t , and therebypromote o f f - s i t e disposal as the more environmentallysound alternative.

3.5 .3 The Environmental Impacts of The Proposed Actions

The proposed remedial action plan calls for off-site disposalof the chemica l was t e s by a combination of landfil l ing andincineration, depending on the nature of the wastes removed

f r o m the site. As delineated in Section 3 . 4 . 2 , ENVIRONMENTALI M P A C T S O F A L T E R N A T I V E S , there a r e po ten t ia l n e g a t i v ee n v i r o n m e n t a l impac t s i n h e r e n t in any disposal technique.O f f - s i t e d isposal i s f a v o r e d , h o w e v e r , due to grea terf l e x i b i l i t y in dealing with the various wastes from the siteand a l e s s e r p o t e n t i a l for n e g a t i v e impacts than byi m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f d i s p o s a l ac t iv i t i e s on-s i te . The

-31-

PRELIMINARY CT DRAFTu n a v o i d a b l e po t en t i a l for the release of vapors, spills, andf u g i t i v e dust emissions is common to both on-site and off-s i tea l t e r n a t i v e s due to the h a n d l i n g o f d r u m w a s t e s . Thepotent ia l environmental drawbacks to the two proposed disposaltechniques are described below.

Landfi l l ing

Poss ib le negative environmental impacts due to the landfi l l ingof chemical wastes include;

• p o t e n t i a l l i q u i d spil ls d u r i n g s o l i d i f i c a t i o nprocesses

• d e g r a d a t i o n of air q u a l i t y due to f u g i t i v e dustemissions

• g r o u n d and s u r f a c e / w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n due toi n u n d a t i o n , i n f i l t r a t i o n or leaching of the landfillarea.

Incineration

P o s s i b l e n e g a t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts d u e t o t h eincineration of chemical wastes include:

• p o t e n t i a l l i q u i d spills d u r i n g p r e - i n c i n e r a t i o nhandling

• d e g r a d a t i o n of air q u a l i t y due to i nc ine ra to remissions

• g e n e r a t i o n o f p o t e n t i a l l y h a z a r d o u s secondaryresiduals during incineration.

The o f f - s i t e a l t e r n a t i v e proposed for this project limitsthese n e g a t i v e af fec ts . The incinerators and landfills to beu t i l i z e d w i l l be a p p r o v e d , e x i s t i n g fac i l i t i es that haveo p e r a t i o n a l records illustrating their performance standards.In a d d i t i o n , the disposal facilities will be required to havein -p lace m a n a g e m e n t p l ans and safety and contingency plansd e s i g n e d to l i m i t the poss ib i l i ty of adverse environmentali m p a c t s . On-si te management will also decrease the potentialfor n e g a t i v e impac t s by h e l p i n g to ta i lor the disposalprocedure to make it as "waste-specific" as possible.

Biological Resources

• Terrestrial Ecology

No s ign i f ican t negative impact to site or regional terrestrialecology can be expected f r o m p e r f o r m a n c e of the remedialac t ion p l a n . Physical disruption of the site will be limitedto tha t caused by heavy equipment movement. This will onlyrepresen t a t e m p o r a r y loss of vegetation since the on-sitespecies are prol if ic , fast-growing colonizers.

-32-

iU1Some animals will vacate the site during the project due toi n c r e a s e d ac t iv i ty and noise levels. They can be expectedto r e t u r n f o l l o w i n g c o m p l e t i o n o f t he p r o j e c t . Ther e m e d i a l a c t i o n represents a net positive benefi t to siteand regional wi ld l i f e by removing sources of contamination.The on-s i t e a n i m a l s may be accumulat ing PCB' s and othercon taminan t s in their bodies and passing them along to eachs u c c e s s i v e t r o p h i c l eve l . I t i s f e a s i b l e t ha t somei n d i v i d u a l s could be accumulating significant levels, whichmay, at some time, reach toxic concentrations.

• Aquatic Ecology

The p o t e n t i a l exists for impact to aquatic ecology due to them o v e m e n t of contaminated material into the river in the eventof a sp i l l . It is therefore, necessary that intensive spillcon t ro l m e t h o d s and a monitoring program be conducted duringthe project.

Socioeconomics

• Population and Economic Structure

R e m o v a l and disposal of the sites' contaminated material willnot r e s u l t in any signif icant impact to the area's populationor e c o n o m i c s t r u c t u r e . The remedial action contractors willmost l i k e l y be brought in from outside the area. During thew o r k per iod t h e r e wi l l be a slight economic increase due tothe worker 's revenue.

• Transportation

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n impacts cannot be q u a n t i f i e d un t i l thee n g i n e e r i n g p l ans are f i n a l i z e d . It is assumed that thet r a n s p o r t i n g e q u i p m e n t w i l l enter the area via interstate.T h i s would resu l t in t h e i r us ing approximately 20-30 miles( r o u n d t r i p ) of local r o a d w a y s . Due to the s ize of thetransport vehicles, this could cause short-term t r a f f i ci m p a c t s . H o w e v e r , t h e r o a d w a y s a r e c u r r e n t l y h e a v i l yt r a v e l l e d by the local t r u c k i n g f i r m s , and th i s has notp r e s e n t e d a m a j o r p rob l em. The a d d i t i o n a l t r a f f i c fromc l ean -up operations should not adversely impact local t raff icconditions.

• Noise

Based on the c u r r e n t no ise sources and the i r associatedl e v e l s , the l imi ted n u m b e r of con t rac to r vehic les ande q u i p m e n t ope ra t ing on-site will not adversely affect localnoise levels.

-33-

PRELIMINARY H3.5.4 Mitigation MeasuresAn e r o s i o n and sedimentation control plan will be implementedto m i n i m i z e r u n o f f of so i l s , organics , waste materials ando t h e r p o l l u t i n g m a t e r i a l s d u e t o s i t e w o r k . T h er u n o f f - d r a i n a g e con t ro l m e a s u r e s w i l l d iver t site runoffa r o u n d s t a g i n g and s to rage areas . The holding and stagingareas w i l l be b e r m e d to c o n t a i n r u n o f f and also to divertr u n - o n o r i g i n a t i n g from outside these areas. Run-off will bed i sposed of w i t h m i n i m a l e ros ion impact. Ponding water inactive areas will be analyzed to determine f inal disposal.

S t a g i n g a reas w i l l be developed to minimize fur ther on-sitecon tamina t ion and off -s i te transport of contaminant materials.All equipment will be decontaminated after the remedial actionto minimize off-s i te transport of contaminants.

Spi l l con t ro l p r o c e d u r e s w i l l be i m p l e m e n t e d to preventf u r t h e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n due to on- s i t e operations of soil,w a t e r , a t m o s p h e r e , u n c o n t ami na ted equipment, or materials.

v-.r All s p i l l a g e w i l l be contained in the area where it occurredand all contaminated soils will be properly containerized andd i s p o s e d . Any previous ly uncontaminated equipment which hasbecome contaminated due to spillage will be decontaminated andall residues containerized and disposed.

All workers will wear protective clothing, as developed in thes a f e t y p l a n , to m i n i m i z e exposure to toxic materials. Thew o r k e r s will wear chemically treated coveralls to prevent skinc o n t a c t w i t h these materials. Special gloves will be worn top r e v e n t i n f i l t r a t i o n of contaminant materials into the body.N e o p r e n e safety boots (steel toe) , hardhats and safety glassesw i l l be worn in all areas. Respiratory equipment will be usedto f i l t e r out contaminated dust and possible organic vapors.Head caps w i l l a lso be worn to keep dust out of the worker 'sh a i r . D e c o n t a m i n a t i o n p rocedures w i l l be implemented forw o r k e r ' s equipment to avoid transmission of contaminants from

*.* the work area to the off-site environment.

-34-

3.6 Ranking of Alternatives

The overall feasibility of the three alternatives described inSection 3.3, as well as on-site management alternatives as agroup, were compared by ranking each against five criteria:

• Technical Uncertainties• Cost• Implementation Time Frame• Environmental Effectiveness• Institutional Factors

A value from one to four was used to rank the alternatives foreach of the criteria, where four represents the least feasiblescore. These scores are presented in Table 3.5. A summationof the values for each option provides a general ranking ofits potential application. Total scores again suggest thatAlternative #3 is the most feasible option. A discussion ofthe factors considered for each of the criteria is presentedin the following subsections.

3.6.1 Technical Uncertainties

A l t e r n a t i v e #1 was r a n k e d as the strategy with the fewestu n c e r t a i n t i e s , s ince the re is a high possibility that allw a s t e s d e s i g n a t e d to be l a n d f i l l e d are amenable to thist e c h n o l o g y . The o f f - s i t e alternatives were ranked lower ande q u a l l y , s ince there is a slightly greater uncertainty thatf r a c t i o n s of the bulk waste may not be incinerable. On-sitea c t i o n s have a la rge n u m b e r of t echn ica l uncertaint iesassociated with them, as previously described in Section 3.2.1and were therefore ranked last.

3.6 .2 Cost

The o f f - s i t e a l t e r n a t i v e s were r a n k e d in terms of costa c c o r d i n g to the concep tua l cost e s t ima te s developed inSect ion 3 . 4 . No cost e s t i m a t e s were prepared for on-sitea c t i o n s , h o w e v e r , the cost of any on-site option is believedto far exceed those costs associated with off-site actions.

3.6 .3 Implementation Time Frame

The r e q u i r e d t ime to i m p l e m e n t any of the three off-si tea l t e r n a t i v e s will not d i f f e r significantly. On-site remediala c t i o n s , h o w e v e r , wi l l r e q u i r e m u c h longer implementationpe r iods , a factor which pre-determined the elimination of thisopt ion f r o m se r ious consideration. The large difference inscores for on-s i te ve r sus o f f - s i t e options reflects thissituation.

-35-

TABLE 3.5

RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES

HUfT

Remedial ActionOptions

Alternative #1

Alternative #2

Alternative #3

On- Site

CriteriaTechnical

Uncertainties

1

3

2

4

Cost

3

2

1

4

ImplementationTime Frame

1

1

1

4

EnvironmentalEffectiveness

1

1

1

4

InstitutionalFactors

1

1

1

4

TotalScore

7

7

6

20

-36-

3.6.4 Environmental Effectiveness

The s c o r i n g for t h i s c r i te r ia stresses those conclusions ofSec t ion 3 .5 . The environmental hazards involved with of f -s i tea c t i o n s a p p e a r to be m i n i m a l compared with those associatedw i t h o n - s i t e o p t i o n s . T h e lowes t score poss ib le w a s ,t h e r e f o r e , g iven to on-site actions, and the best score, one,was given to each of the off-site alternatives.

3 . 6 . 5 Inst i tut ional Factors

O n - s i t e a l t e rna t ive s were ranked least favorable against thisc r i t e r i a b e c a u s e of the p e r m i t t i n g , regulatory and publica p p r o v a l c o n s t r a i n t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s option. Minori n s t i t u t i o n a l obstacles are expected in implementing any ofthe o f f - s i t e alternatives so that these were rated equally andmuch more favorably than on-site actions.

-37-

SECTION

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Fie ld o b s e r v a t i o n s and compatibility test results for 200of the C h e m - D y n e d r u m s s a m p l e d by W E S T O N were used top r e d i c t the types and quant i t ies of drummed wastes whichw i l l be r e m o v e d as a part of the Phase A clean-up. Basedon an a v e r a g e d r u m w a s t e volume of 43 gallons, the 8 ,600e x p e c t e d d r u m s are estimated to contain 365,800 gallons ofw a s t e . Of the to ta l v o l u m e , the p h a s e distribution ofs o l i d s , s e m i - s o l i d s and liquids was predicted as 13%, 21%and 66% r e s p e c t i v e l y . L i q u i d s consisted of 74% aqueouss o l u t i o n s a n d 2 6 % o r g a n i c l i q u i d s . Thirty-one percent( 3 1 % ) of the organic liquids were halogenated.

No PCB - c o n t a m i n a t e d drums were found , however, for coste s t i m a t i o n purposes it was assumed that 40 PCB - drums arep r e s e n t at the s i te . Th i s c o n s e r v a t i v e assumption wasp r o m p t e d by c o n c e r n s over the l i m i t e d n u m b e r of drumss a m p l e d , e v i d e n c e that PCB wastes were stored at the sitein the p a s t , and the cost ly consequences of accidentlyc o n t a m i n a t i n g a t a n k e r l o a d o f w a s t e w i t h P C B -contaminated material .

O the r specia l wastes were found in the following ratios ofthe to ta l d r u m w a s t e v o l u m e : lab packs and explosives( 0 . 4 % ) , w a t e r r e a c t i v e was tes ( 3 . 3 % ) , cyanides ( 1 . 2 % ) ,acids ( 1 . 3 % ) and bases ( 0 . 6 % ) .

The f e a s i b i l i t y o f t h r ee on-s i te and th ree o f f - s i t ed isposa l alternatives was evaluated. On-site alternatives,w h i c h i n c l u d e d i n c i n e r a t i o n , l andf i l l ing and treatment,w e r e c o n s i d e r e d n o n - f e a s i b l e because of their fai lure tof i t w i t h i n the d e s i r e d implementation time frame. Rapidremova l of the surface wastes at Chem-Dyne has been given ah i g h p r i o r i t y by the U . S . EPA and Ohio EPA as evidenced bythe A g e n c i e s ' " f a s t - t r a c k " approach in the clean-up andbecause of the d e t e r i o r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n of the drums.O n - s i t e m a n a g e m e n t options would require a minimum of oneyea r to implement , while off-s i te disposal would require am a x i m u m of 6 m o n t h s af ter the contractor has received theNotice to Proceed with the project.

The th ree o f f - s i t e a l t e r n a t i v e s which were evaluated ind e t a i l c o n s i s t e d o f c o m b i n a t i o n s o f l a n d f i l l i n g ,i n c i n e r a t i o n a n d / o r deep-well injection. Five evaluationc r i t e r i a ; t e c h n i c a l feasibil i ty, cost, time requirements,e n v i r o n m e n t a l effectiveness and institutional factors. An

-38-

PRELIMINARY HOUGH DRAFTa l t e r n a t i v e i n v o l v i n g a l l t h r e e o f the above disposalm e t h o d s was d e t e r m i n e d to be the mos t f eas ib l e . Thisa l t e r n a t i v e , w h i c h was also the least costly consisted ofthe following components:

• Project start-up and site services• Site preparation• R e m o v a l and d i sposa l of d r u m and miscellaneous

wastes by:

I n c i n e r a t i o n of a l l l i q u i d s , except a c i d s ,b a s e s , cyanides and PCB f lu ids , and all volatilesemi-solids ( 2 4 5 , 6 0 0 gallons)I n c i n e r a t i o n o f P C B f l u i d s a t A n n e x Iincinerator (1 ,700 gallons)S o l i d i f i c a t i o n and l a n d f i l l i n g o f cyanides,n e u t r a l i z e d a c i d s a n d bases , n o n - v o l a t i l esemi-solids(57 , 400 gallons)D e e p - w e l l i n j e c t i o n of a c id s remaining afterneutral izat ion of bases ( 2 , 6 0 0 gallons)

- l a n d f i l l i n g o f a l l d r u m m e d sol ids ( 4 6 , 8 0 0g a l l o n s ) , s p e c i a l l y packaged lab packs (1,500g a l l o n s ) , t a n k e r w a s t e ( 5 , 0 0 0 g a l l o n s ) ,miscellaneous scrap and crushed drums

• Project close-out and demobilization

The cost of i m p l e m e n t i n g t h i s o p t i o n has been roughlyes t imated as $ 1 , 4 9 3 , 6 0 0 . D i sposa l costs obtained fromv e n d o r s h o w e v e r , were often provided as broad ranges sincev e r y l i t t l e analytical information is currently available.W o r s t case u n i t p r i ces w e r e t h e r e f o r e u t i l i z e d . I na d d i t i o n , t h i s cost includes 10% overhead, 10% profit and15% c o n t i n g e n c i e s . It is also stressed that the disposalcost of t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e depends on accuracy of WESTON ' Swaste type and quantity predictions. A little more than 2%of the d r u m s were s a m p l e d . The cost es t imate will ber e v i e w e d and rev i sed i f n e c e s s a r y and a l t h o u g h i t isconceptual it comparatively indicates that this alternativewas the most cost-effective.

Of the alternatives examined, the rankings were close amongthe three off -site alternatives. Alternative $3 was rankedthe lowest because it was the most cost-effective.

W E S T O N is currently developing the plans and specificationsfor this project at the direction of the U.S. EPA and underthe a s s u m p t i o n tha t off -s i te disposal will be selected asthe a l t e r n a t i v e for implementation. WESTON has developedan approach to i m p l e m e n t this project which includes thefollowing highlights:

Common to all alternatives

-39-

o Site preparation

placement of trailers, equipmentconstruction of a drum crushing pad

o Waste removal and disposal

staging of drums to staging areacompatibility testing and bullcing of wastesloading, haul ing and disposal of wastes topermitted facilitiescrushing and disposal of empty drums

o Danobilization and project close-out

WESTON personnel are available to assist the U.S. EPA andOhio EPA in the selection of an alternative. We are alsoavailable to meet and consult with the Corps of Engineersto facili tate the coordinated development of a bid packagefor the removal of drummed and other miscellaneous wastes.

-40-

APPENDIX A

OHIO EPA ANALYTICAL DATA

MRWARY ROUGH DRAFT

EXHIBIT A-l

TANK TRUCK ANALYTICAL RESULT(By Finnegan Institute)

PMIBWIMWANALYSIS OF SAMPLE D1003

A. Scope of Work (D1003)

The important portion of the analysis of this sample wasto check for the presence of aniline and phenol. The sampleconsisted of a solidified sludge, dark green in color,surrounded by a dark brown liquid.

B. Actual Performance (D1003)

The liquid surrounding the sludge was the sample of interest.Tests showed that it was organic in nature, soluble in bothneutral and somewhat polar organic solvents. Since acetoneis a good solvent for both phenol and analine, the samplewas diluted directly in acetone.

A 1:50 dilution was made and screened by flame ionizationgas chromatography. Since the pattern was extremely complexand exact identification was important, the sample was thenrun by GC/MS on an SP-2100 30 meter capillary column asdescribed for Sample D1001.

A headspace sample was also run by the technique describedfor Sample DlOOl. The results of the two are largely compli-mentary.

Discussion (D1003)

1. General

The compounds present to the most significant extentare propanol, 2-butanone (MEK) and toluene. The re-mainder of the sample appears to be a mixture ofhydrocarbons with a few ketones and alcohols beingpresent. It would almost appear that the sample hasbeen diluted with a gasoline. There is a paucity ofaromatic compounds suggesting a gasoline rather than acoal derived product. The low molecular weight of thecomponents also suggests a refined product rather thana crude.

No evidence of aniline and phenol was x'ouhd.Authentic standards were run to establish that thetechnique was valid.

PRELIMINARY HOOCH DRAFT2. Headspace Sample (D1D03A)

The compounds found in the headspace sample are shownin the accompaning table. A total of forty-fourcompounds were detected. The most significant ofthese are propanol, 2-butanone (MEK) and toluene.Of these only three are priority pollutants andthese three are present in very low concentrations.Most of the other constituents are hydrocarbons orsome oxygenated hydrocarbons.

-r

D1003 - HEADSPACE - RUN D1003A

COMPOUND FOUND SCAN NO. PRIORITY POLLUTANT

I1

T̂

!1

i^

ii

.̂ Dimethylether2. Acetone

PropanolMethylenechloride

5. 2-ButanoneC7H16 (methyl hexane) (tent.)C7Hi6 (methyl hexane) (tent.)

8. 2 propenoic acid, ethylester (tent.)Q. Trichloroethene1 . C5H80 (ester)IJL. Trimethyl pentene12. Methylcyclohexane3 . Triroethylpentene.̂.. Toluene

f 15. 2-raethyl heptane] :. Dimethylcyclohexane

i ] '. Dimethylcyclohexane18. TetrachloroetheneI"). Octane: i. Dimethylcyclohexane21. C8H16 (tent.)??. Trircethylcyclohexane (: 1. Dimethy Ibenzene14. Etheny Ibenzene25. Dimethy Ibenzene: ;. CgHiaL7. 2-ethoxyethanol acetate (tent.)28. NonaneT?. CgHigO (ketone)

56586064 X78122129135137 X149160169182208221227246250 X254278285308319342346356364382464

r1II3i

I1

i1111

(

RIC DATA: 01GG3A ill18/65/79 11:17:00 CALI: ClOObB S3SAMPLE« 56 UL. HEAD5PACERAIIGE: G 1,2000 LAbEL: H 0, 4.0 QUAM: H U> l.d BftSEi U 20, 3

73

SCANS 1 TO 2*G

]

4

i

7 22 32 41 /

7

60

1!

1

y'v-

1

1

V.-S.

c- •

ii

151

S| .. 1631^5 I ^" ;i iP''

U? 97 'P '3? A /k / 1 A /L A".68 ,9C

b7o,:ij;:

50 168 150 20yTIL

( (

R1C DATA: Q1003A ftl SCnUS 20* TO i:^10/06/73 11:17:00 CALI: C16066 «3 OUT OF 2S3 TO :-:;..5.:.SAMPLE: 58 UL. HEADSPACERAHGE: G 1/2000 LABEL: H 0, 4.6 QUAMs A 0- 1.6 BASE: LI 2S.. 3

00.0

V\,

c.

Ĵl_UL-il̂ ->. • 455 A 493 541 584 £50 £53 765 825 537' 342 1006 1662 1115, j , | — i | , | ,

400 600 300 1000 •

PRELIMINARY ROO3. Acetone Dilution (D1003B)

The acetone dilution sample is shown in the accora-paning table. Some one hundred and thirty-two peakswere detected in the chromatogram. Of these,eighty-one compounds were identified. There are onlya few "priority pollutants" in the sample and theseare relatively low in concentration. There arevirtually no halogenated species present, with theexception of a trace of trichloroethene.

The compounds found are largely hydrocarbon.The largest portion of the higher molecular weightspecies are straight or branched chain hydrocarbons.There are scree aromatic compounds and some oxygenatedspecies; alcohols and ketones. The sample appears tobe largely cue to dilution with a petroleum distillate,

The large rise in the chromatographic baseline beyondscan 1200 appears to give spectra which have typicalra/z values and representations for silicon containingcompounds. It is possible that some relatively high ^-molecular weight silicon containing compounds are (present as well.

PRELIMINARY mm DRAFTD1003 - ACETONE DILUTION Run D1003B

31

fll COMPOUND FOUND

II1. Benzene

_. 2. Acetic acid 1-methyl ester33. 2 Methylhexane (C7H16) (tent.)™ 4. 3 Methylhexane (CvE^e) (tent.)

5. 2 Propenoic acid, ethylester|| 6. Trichloroethene31 7. Heptane (tent.)

SCAN NO. PRIORITY POLLUTANT

101 X- 102

109115123126 X135

3. 2 Methyl, 2 Propenoic acid, Methylester 13611 (tent.)

9. Acetic acid propylester>— '10. 2, 4 , 4-trimethyl-l-pentene

11. Methylcyclohexane (C7H14)ja 2. Trajnethyl-2-Pentene"' j.3. Ethylcyclopentane (tent.)14. 1,2,4 trimethylcyclopentane (CgH^

g| (tent.)_5. Toluene '16. 1,3 Dimethyl (trans) eye lohexane

gl "(C8Hi6) (tent.)|[ 7. Octane18. Ethylbenzene"9. Xylene

1 0. Trimethylcyc lohexane (tent.)31 21. Trimethylcyclohexane (tent.)

72. Styrene•I 3. Trimethylcyclohexane (tent.)

*4. Xylene25. 2-Ethoxyethanol acetate

§ 6 . Nonane_7. Decane (tent.)28. Butylbenzene (tent.)9. C11H24 (tent.)

81 0. 5 Butylnonane (tent.)31 31. 3 , 5 , 5-Trimethyl 2 Cyclohexen-1-one

~"2. Naphthalene

9 3. Dodecane34. Tridecane (tent.)^5. Hydrocarbon (tent.)6. Hydrocarbon (tent.)

|| _>7. Hydrocarbon (tent.)' 38. Hydrocarbon (tent.)s 9. Hydrocarbon (tent.)

-' 0. Hydrocarbon (tent.)»• 41. Hydrocarbon (tent.)

138145152160167

) 170

186205

234288 X300319322324326329349366531602654666

(tent) 69382592711291691182819392034212021992302

—j K -*«• r TM L_RIC19/OS/73 14:40:00SAMPLE: 59:1 DILUTION OF PrtlllT SLUDGE SAMPLERANGE: G 1,3309 LABEL: H 0, 4.0 QUAII: A 0,

DATA: D IQO:;B «lCALI: 1008A ttl

.6 BASE: U 20. 3343

1 TO T-00

11 111 '111

\

111

i

iI3oi

i

i

\ 123

\ >fX !'.

'"'AUV.,

152

H i' 1VUW

iii1

i

iv_

i iii

32< |y*

234j 265 2881 7 •

205 ,i

W'u>l 1 J\ „/! k.1

\J

:0

j

Ju

i

i i1 '

r

1

3bb

i 11Ul UL

4?£

432

i f

PIC -.TH: _._)03E10/03/73 14:40:00 CALI: 1008A 81SAMPLE: 56si OILUTIOH OF PAIHT SLUDGE SAMPLERANGE: G 1,3000 LABEL: H 0, 4.6 QUAH: ft 0, 1,0 BASE: U 2Q, 3

653

30'? ':'': II'"'1'-1

OUT OF 53-J

20"'0

i•1!:i

11j

iiiiiiii

- h- ;r

•

ii

i,V'

11i

i

1ji

Vv1 \\

5r

'

•I'|M

.

1,1,I ;II11

i'i

i,

11

6

11111 • ,,

' HI U • r 1I |I A 1if! i1J \M

ibOO

855

i1

ilu

')!iiI 1,'/

~

|iti!i i1 !1 !i i>

iii1

lyft

i

iiii !

i!1

IIili

i1 nIi

1i

1' 1' \

H

l|

P

32? IE11

|11

•̂ •̂ "ndOM^V

1325

I

ia/08.'75 1-1:46:00•-•.nnPLE: 53:1 DILUTIOH OF PfllllT SLUDGE SAMPLERANGE: G "l,3SOo LABEL: II 0, 4.0 QUAD: A 0,

DATA: 0100JBML I: 1008A

•Iil.ll':.OUT OF

C'iJ TO 2 ':OO YO I"J

1 443

I1. r•I'

1514

It 31

17191828

i,

L/"1 Wi V

175?,Y

1S39

1993

V̂ |

•-if*'•

2155 •v?-i

VL..J

1706 2000 21 GO 2200

(

RIC OH!A: DIG83B ill13/133/73 14:40:00 CALI: ieS8A SISAMPLE: 56:1 DILUTION CF PAIHT SLUDGE SAMPLEKANSE: G 1,3000 LKBEL: H 8.. 4.0 QUA!!: A 0/1.6 BASE: U 20, 3

2330 2433

2423

2357

2727

'''"KV.

EXHIBIT A-2

TANK TRUCK ANALYTICAL RESULTS(By O.K. Materials)

\mSAMPLE 300-73-12

DISCUSSION

Sample 300-73-12 was found to contain a fair amount of halo-genated hydrocarbons. The majority of the sample was madeup of aromatic hydrocarbons. The sample was found to contain noPCB's, and no pesticides were identified in the sample.

Sample 300-72-12 was diluted 1:20 with hexane prior to GC/MSanalysis.

C

64 SAMPLING AND MONITORING

uniform and rational fashion. WESTON has been using the follow-ing criteria to evaluate the range of risk levels of interest:

•Cancer Assessment Group Values (CAGs)1

These are recommended lifetime exposure limits to known car-cinogens which have been developed by the USEPA for a limitednumber of toxic compounds. The CAG number represents max-imum allowable concentrations that may result in incremental riskof human health over the short-term or long-term at an assumedrisk. This assumed risk is the expected number of increased in-cidences of cancer in the effected population when the concentra-tion over a lifetime equals the specified value.

The CAG values are listed in the "Land Disposal Toxic AirEmissions Evaluation Guideline" published by the USEPA in Dec.1980. They represent a further refinement of carcinogenic assess-ment beyond the MEG values because of the compound specificnature of the toxicological evaluation involved with CAGdocumentation. Therefore, Cancer Assessment Group valuesshould be used in all cases of conflict between MEGs and CAGs.•Multimedia Environmental Goals (MEGs)'

The MEGs were developed in recent years by the ResearchTriangle Insti tute for the USEPA to meet the need for a workablesystem of evaluating and ranking pollutants for the purpose ofmultimedia environmental impact assessment. Consideration in ar-riving at these ambient level goals was given to existing Federalstandards or criteria, established or estimated human thresholdlevels, and acceptable risk levels for lifetime human exposure tosuspected carcinogens or teratogens, among others.

•Threshold Limi