LOVE CANAL SEWERS AND CREEKS REMEDIAL ...1-6 Impacts Associated With Love Canal 1-17 Remedial...

^ "'< PRO"-"

HA^RDOUSSITE CONTROL

DIVISION

^ RemedialPlanning/

FiddInvestigatiorr

Team(REM/FIT)

CONTRACT NO.68-01-6692

CH2MSSHILLEcology&

Environment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PageLetter of Transmittal

1. Executive Summary 1-12. Introduction 2-13. Toxicology Summary 3-14. Remedial Alternatives Under Evaluation 4-15. Initial Screening of Alternatives 5-16 . Remedial Action Alternatives 6-17. Impact Assessment of Remedial Alternatives 7-18. Summary of Costs 8-1

Appendix A Dioxin Disposal and TreatmentTechnology Summaries

Appendix B Risk Assessment of the No ActionAlternative

Attachment A Detention Limits for the1980 EPA Monitoring Study

Attachment B Detailed Listing ofPotential Receptors

Appendix C Chemical and ToxicologicalProperties of the Chemicals of Concern

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page1-1 Concentration Ranges in Individual Sanitary 1-6

Sewer Sediment Samples1-2 Concentration Ranges in Individual Storm 1-7

Sewer Sediment Samples1-3 Concentration Ranges in Individual 102nd 1-B

Street Outfall Sediment Samples1-4 Remedial Alternatives 1-91-5 Elimination of Screened Alternatives 1-141-6 Impacts Associated With Love Canal 1-17

Remedial Alternatives1-7 Summary of Estimated Costs for Feasible 1-26

Alternatives1-8 Summary of Alternatives and Concerns 1-283-1 Health Criteria, Guidelines, and Standards 3-6

for Various Contaminants3-2 Concentration Ranges in Individual Storm 3-12

Sewer Sediment Samples3-3 Concentration Ranges in Individual Storm 3-13

Sewer Sediment Samples3-4 Concentration Ranges in Individual 102nd 3-17

Street Outfall Sediment Samples4-1 Remedial Alternatives 4-35-1 Elimination of Screened Alternatives 5-46-1 Concentration Ranges in Individual 6-9

Sanitary Sewer Sediment Samples6-2 Concentration Ranges in Individual Storm 6-11Sewer Sediment Samples6-3 Estimated Costs for Cleaning the 6-12Additional Sanitary Sewers and the Culvert

in Black Creek

LIST OP TABLES(Continued)

Table6-4 Summary of Estimated Costs for Sewer 6-16

Remediation Alternatives

Page [

r6-5 Summary of Sewer Remediation and Repair 6-18

Actions Costs6-6 Concentrations Ranges in Individual 102nd 6-22

Street Outfall Sediment Samples6-7 Estimated Costs for Immediate Stabilization 6-27

at 102nd Street Outfall6-8 Estimated Costs of Creek Remediation 6-32

Alternatives6-9 Mechanical Excavation of Black Creek with 6-38 $

Front End Loader/Clamshell: Cost Breakdown rUS6-10 Sewer and Creek Cleaning: Estimated Water 6-42 §

Quantities Requiring Treatment6-11 Estimated Costs for Dewatering/Solids Removal 6-48

Alternatives6-12 Estimated Sediment Volumes 6-526-13 Preliminary Facility Dimensions for Above 6-54

Cap Storage, Earthern Berm6-14 Mechanical Excavation - 5,000 Cubic Yards 6-58

Above6Cap Secure Storage (Earthern Berm)Estimated.Costs6-15 Hydraulic Dredging - 5,000 Cubic Yard 6-59

Above-Cap Secure Storage (Earthern Berm)Estimated Costs

6-16 Hydraulic Dredging - 16,000 Cubic Yard 6-60Facility Above-Cap Secure Storage(Earthern Berm) Estimated Costs

6-17 Mechanical Excavation - 21,000 Cubic Yard, 6-61Above-Cap Secure Storage (Earthern Berm)Estimated Costs

LIST OF TABLES(Continued)

Table Page6-18 Hydraulic Dredging - 135,000 Cubic Yards 6-62

Above-Cap Secure Storage (Earthern Berni)Estimated Costs

6-19 Preliminary Facility Dimensions - In-Cap 6-64Secure Storage (Earthern Benn)

6-20 Hydraulic Dredging - 5,000 Cubic Yard Volume 6-66In-Cap Secure Storage (Earthern Benn)Estimated Costs

6-21 Mechanical Excavation - 5,000 Cubic Yards 6-68In-Cap Storage (Earthern Benn)

6-22 Concrete Storage Facility Estimated Costs 6-756-23 Offsite Incineration Costs - Rollins 6-816-24 Onsite Mobile Incineration Costs - USEPA 6-856-25 Onsite Mobil Incineration Costs - Huber Corp. 6-876-26 Onsite Mobil Incineration Costs - 6-89

Ensco/Pyrotech6-27 Onsite Fixed Incineration Costs 6-907-1 Impacts Associated With Love Canal Remedial 7-7

Alternatives8-1 Summary of Estimated Costs for Feasible 8-5

AlternativesAppendix AA-l Incineration Technical Status A-7Appendix B2-1 Summary of Chemical Concentrations in the B-5

Sanitary Sewers - Malcolm Pirnie's DataTaken in 1983

2-2 Soil Inorganic Concentrations (ug/kg) B-7

LIST OF TABLES(Continued)

Table Page2-3 Summary of Chemical Concentrations in the B-8

Storm Sewers - Malcolm Pirnie Data Takenin 1983

2-4 Summary of Chemical Concentrations in the B-9Storm Sewer Sediment - EPA-ORD Data TakenIn 1980

2-5 Summary of Chemical Concentrations in B-llBlack Creek Sediment - Malcolm PirnieData Taken in 1983

2-6 Summary of Chemical Concentrations in B-12Eergholtz Creek Sediment - Malcolm PirnieData Taken in 1983

2-7 Summary of Chemical Concentrations in Cayuga B-13 ^Creek Sediment - Malcolm Pirnie Data Taken LrtIn 1983 ' C£

2-8 Summary of Chemical Concentrations in the 102nd B-14 5Street Outfall Sediment ( a ) - Malcolm PirnieData Taken in 1983

2-9 Raw Water Concentrations at the Niagra Falls B-16Water Treatment Plan (ug/L)3-1 Flood Discharge on Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeks B-223-2 Flood Elevations on Bergholtz Creek at Selected B-22

Locations3-3 Flood Elevations on Cayuga Creek at Selected B-24

Locations3-4 Physical Characteristics of Contaminants B-274-1 Health Criteria, Guidelines, and Standards B-30

for Various ContaminantsAppendix B , AttachmentsA-l Soil and Sediment Detection Limits A-lB-l Number of Occupied Lots or Buildings Within B-2the Emergency Declaration Area (EDA)Boundary as of May 1984WDR102/027

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page1-1 Love Canal Area 1-21-2 Sanitary Sewers of the Love Canal Area 1-31-3 Storm Sewers of the Love Canal Area 1-41-4 Surface Waters and Sample Sites of the Love

Canal Area 1-53-1 Sanitary Sewers of the Love Canal Area 3-73-2 Storm Sewers of the Love Canal Area 3-83-3 Surface Water Sample Sites of the Love Canal

Area—Black and Bergholtz Creeks 3-9N3-4 Surface Water Sample Sites of the Love Canal l/

Area—Cayuga Creek 3-10 W3-5 Surface Water Sample Sites of the Love Canal ®

Area 3-116-1 102nd Street Outfall Contamination Assessment

Map 6-126-2 102nd Street Outfall Berm or Wall 6-146-3 102nd Street Outfall Permanent In-Place

Containment Alternative 6-196-4 102nd Street Outfall Excavation 6-196-5 Bergholtz .and Black Creeks Contamination

Location Points 6-236-6 Bergholtz and Black Creeks ContaminationLocation Points and Remediation Limits 6-266-7 Incremental Reaches of Bergholtz and Cayuga

Creeks for Potential Remediation 6-286-8 Creek Remediation Transport Routes, Water

Treatment, and Sediment Storage Facilities 6-296-9 Mechanical Dewatering/Solids Removal Alternative 6-476-10 Clarification/Filtration Dewatering/Solids

Removal Alternative 6-49

LIST OF FIGURES(Continued)

Figure Page6-11 Cross-Section--Concrete Storage Vault, Shown

With and Without Aesthetic Berm 6-716-12 Potential Locations for Concrete Storage

Facilities 6-73Appendix AA-l Rotary Kiln Incinerator A-3A-2 Cement Kiln Conceptual Flow Diagrams A-llAppendix B2-1 Sanitary Sewers of the Love Canal Area B-42-2 Storm Sewers of the Love Canal Area B-4 —in2-3 Surface Water Sample Sites of the Love Canal »"1

Area—Black and Bergholtz Creeks B-4 '§52-4 Surface Water Sample Sites of the Love Canal B-4Area—Cayuga Creek

2-5 Surface Water Sample Sites of the Love CanalArea B-4

2-6 Sanitary ,Sewer Sediment Samples ContainingDioxin and BHC Isomers B-4

2-7 Sanitary Sewer Sediment Samples ContainingToluene B-4

2-8 Sanitary Sewer Sediment Samples ContainingChlorinated Benzenes B-4

2-9 Storm Sewer Sediment Samples Containing Dioxinand BHC Isomers " B-7

2-10 Storm Sewer Liquid Samples Containing BHCIsomers B-7

2-11 Storm Sewer Sediment Samples ContainingChlorinated Benzenes B-7

2-12 Storm Sewer Liquid Samples ContainingChlorinated Benzenes B-7

LIST OF FIGURES(Continued)

Figure Page2-13 Stonn Sewer Sediment Samples Containing Toluene B-72-14 Surface Water Sediment Samples Containing Dioxin B-10

and BHC Isomers2-15 Surface Water Sediment Samples Containing Toluene B-102-16 Surface Water Sediment Samples Containing

Chlorinated Benzenes B-102-17 Surface Water Liquid Samples Containing BHC

Isomers B-102-18 Surface Water Liquid Samples Containing Toluene B-102-19 Surface Water Liquid Samples Containing ^

Chlorinated Benzenes B-10 U;

2-20 Surface Water Sediment Samples Containing ^Dioxin and BHC Isomers—102nd Street Outfall B-13'

2-21 Surface Water Sediment Samples ContainingChlorinated Benzenes—102nd Street Outfall B-13

2-22 Surface Water Biota Samples Containing Dioxin,Hexachlorobenzene, and EHC B-16

WDR102/028

Chapter 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTIONThis report evaluates several remedial alternatives for themitigation of contamination found in the sanitary and stormsewers of the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area ( E D A ) ,Black, Bergholtz and Cayuga Creeks, which border the EDA andthe City of Niagra Falls, New York; and an area known as the102nd Street Outfall, which is located in the Little NiagaraRiver (see Figures 1-1 through 1-4 and Plates 1 and 2 in therear). A previous report prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Incor-porated entitled Environmental Information Document (EID)"Site Investigations and Remedial Action Alternatives, LoveCanal' and submitted to t;ew York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (DEC) in October 1983 serves asthe starting point for this report. The Malcolm Pirnie EIDdocumented an intensive sampling effort designed to charac-terize the contamination present in the sewers and creeks ofthe Love Canal area (first investigated by the EnvironmentalProtection Agency [EPA] in 1978) and determine appropriateremedial actions. A summary.of the contaminants and concen-trations found by Malcolm Pirnie are shown in Tables 1-1 .through 1-3. The report and the alternatives recommended byMalcolm Pirnie were accepted by DEC; however, EPA officialschose not to issue a Record of Decision documenting (andfunding) the alternatives to be implemented without addi-tional information in the form of cost evaluations, riskassessments, and technical evaluations of additional reme-diation measures. EPA tasked CH2M HILL under the existingREM/FIT Zone II contract to augment the informationcontained in the Malcolm Pirnie EID, especially regardingtechnical and risk assessment issues.

PROCEDURESIn order to issue a Record of Decision before the start ofthe 1985 construction season and because extensive analysisof other alternatives had been done, EPA designated specificalternatives for evaluation. At the direction of EPA, reme-dial action alternatives suggested by the DEC and concernedcitizens were also evaluated. A complete listing of thealternatives evaluated is shown in Table 1-4.These alternatives were subjected to an initial screeningbased on criteria specified in the National ContingencyPlan. Those alternatives that were eliminated on this basisare shown in Table 1-5. Additional screening and evaluationof alternatives was conducted on the basis of the impactsassociated with the remedial activities (Table 1 - 6 ) . Costswere derived for the remaining alternatives (Table 1-7). Asummary of the feasibility, costs, and public health and

1-1

Table 1-1CONCENTRATION RANGES IN INDIVIDUAL SANITARY SEWER SEDIMENT SAMPLES

Range ofCompound*______ Concentration tug/leg) Sampling Location

Chlorobenzene1.2-Dichlorobenzene1.3-Dichlorobenzene

1.4-Oichlorobenzene

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene

Toluenea - BHC5 - BHCT - BHCFluoranthene

Benzoanthracene/ChryseneAnthracene/Phenanthrene

NaphthalenePyrene

Hexachlorobu-fcadiene1,1,1-TrichloroethaneTrichlorofluoromethanePhenolDichlorophenol2,4,6-Tri chloropheno12 , 3 , 7 , 8 - TCTD

NOTE:

HDNDNO

ND

ND

ND

78,00034,00052,000

98,000

510,000

85,000

ND -ND -ND -ND -ND -

ND -ND -

ND -ND -

ND -ND -ND -ND -ND -ND -ND -

35.000140,000130,000120,000

6,400

4.60016,000

7,0005,200

76,0002,5003,300

50063

56030

457, 779779, LS»6265, 773,779, LS»4LS»6285, 457. 7S4. 755, 773779, LS«9, LS«6251, 262, 264, 265, 267,457, 759. 773, 777,779,786, LS»4, LS«6262, 265, 267, 457,759,765, 777, 779LS»4285,457,752,754,755,779457, 777,779. LS»4457, 777, LS#4457, 777,779. LS»4257, 277, 754, 768,LS«4LS#4262, 754, 755, 779,LS»4, LS»6LS»6277,754,768, LS»4LS»6262, 265, 457, 777, 779457457273

777264, 759, 765, 786

* - Methylene chloride, phthalate esters, and heavy metals were notincluded.

1 - All results reported on a wet weight basis.2 - Manholes unless indicated otherwise.ND - Not DetectedLS - Lift Station

WDR101/029

1-6

Table 1-2CONCENTRATION RANGES IN INDIVIDUAL STOKM SEWEB SEDIMENT SAMPLES

Range of . ,Compound*____ Concentrations (ugAg) Sampling Location

BenzeneEthylbenzeneChlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene

ND -ND -ND -ND -ND -ND -

2,1002,200

55,00048,00060,00092,000

206221415, 715, 719, D . I . 9 9412, 719, D . I . 97. D . I . 9 9719, D . I . 9 7412, 715, 719, 750.

D . I . 9 7 , D . I . 9 9221, 412, 714, 715, 719,D . I . 9 7 , D . I . 9 9221, 412, 719, D . I . 9 7221, 412, 415, 715, 719,D . I . 9 9412


HexachlorobenzeneToluene

Napththalene2-ChloronaphthaleneFluoraJithene1,2-DiphenylhydrazineAnthracene/PhenanthrenePyreneHexachlorobutadienea - BHCB - BHC2,3,6-Trichlorophenol2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - TCDD

ND 130,000

ND -ND -

ND -ND -ND -ND -sn -ND -ND -ND -MD -ND -ND -

34,000280,000

11,00046,0006,800

19,00013,000

• 5,60043,00011,0006,8006,000

1.9

412 ^415, 431, 712, D.I.97 WA13 ^" • ' La431, D . I . 9 7 , D . I . 9 9 ®712, D.I. 97 , 0719, D.I.97412D.I.97D . I . 9 741S, 712

NOTES!


1 - All results reported on a wet weight basis.2 - Manholes, unless otherwise indicated.ND - Not Detected-DI - Drop Inlet

WDR101/030

1-7

Table 1-3CONCENTRATION RANGES IN INDIVIDUAL 102ND STREET

OUTFALL SEDIMENT SAMPLES

Compound C

Carbon tetrachlorideChloroformTolueneTrichloroethyleneTetrachloroethyleneTrichlorofluoromethaneChlorobenzene

Raoncentrat


nge ofions (ug/ko)

2,3002,0003,2006,200

26,0002,5009,100

1.2-Dichlorobenzene

1.3-Dichlorobenzene

1.4-Dichlorobenzene


HexachlorobenzeneBis(2-chloroethyl)Ether

a - BHC

S - BHC

Y - BHCS - BHCChrysenePyrenePhenanthreneAnthracene/Phenanthrene2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - TCDD

ND

ND

ND

MD

NDND

ND

ND

NDNDNDNDNDNDND

36,000

64,000

54,000

300,000

52,000S,200

48,000

49,000

2,400260710540

20,0002004

Location

E-13BE-9C, G-14A, G-15C

E-9AE-9AE-9AE-14A

E-7C, E-8C, E-9A, E-10C,E-11B, E-11C, E-12C, F-7A,F-7C, F-11C, G-7C, G-11CE-7C, E-9A, E-9B, E-11B,E-11C, F-11C, G-6AE-7C, E-9A, E-9B, E-11C,

G-6AE-9B, E-11B, E-11C,F-11C, G-6AE-9&, E-9B, E-9C,F-9B, G-6A, H-10A,

F-9A,E-9A,F-9A,E-8A,F-9A,K-21AE-9A, E-9B, E-9C, F-9AE-9A, F-9C, F-13A, F-13B,H-8CE-4A, E-8A. E-9B, E-9C,F-8A, F-9A, F-9B, G-6A.G-9A. G-14B, K-6A, K-21AE-8A, E-9A, E-9B, F-8A,F-9A, G-6A, K21AE-9B, G-6A

E-9BG-6AG-6AE-9AE-9BF-8

NOTE:

NO - Not Detected

1. Methylene chloride, phthalate esters, and inorganic compoundsdata were not included.

2. All results reported on a wet weight basis.3. Refer to Figure 3-1 for locations. The last letter in the

location designation indicates the depth of Sample ( i . e . A -0-12", B - 12-24", C-24-36") below sediment surface.

WDR101/031

1-8

Table 1-4REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

________________Alternative

I. SedUMDt Removal or Re—dial ion

Added (•r)or Deleted 1-1 as

Screened a* Remit of ReviewPart of 1983 BID by EPA, Evaluated Inby Halcola Pirnie DEC, and Public this Report

A. Sewers X

1. No action X1. Plug and abandon sewers X3. Clean cootrinated sewer scgwits x

a. Hydraulically clean Xb. Mechanically clean and hydraulically

flush lines X

1) Use power rodding —chanicalequipment X

2) Use bucket cleaning •ecbanical.equlpaent X

4. Hydraulically and/or •echanically cleansewers and repair X

a. Apply grout Xb. Slip line sewer segienta X

5. Reive and replace contaaioated sewerpip* and bedding •aterlal X

B. Creeks

1. (to action . X2. Delay reudlal action until additional

supling 11 completed downstreasi as faras tbe confluence of Cayuga Creek andLittle Niagara River

3. No re—dial action downstreaB of the93rd Steet School until saJpling at tbeschool is copleted

4. Reoedlate Black CreeX and BergholtzCreek areas designated in 1983 EID Ifroi96th Street to point between 94th and95th Streets) X

5. Re—dial* the area in 4 above plus anadditional 600 feet downstreaa to the93rd Street stor> sewer outfall

6. Pexediat* the area in f above plus anadditional 2400 feet troa tbe 93rd Streetoutfall to tb* confluence with CayugaCreek

1-9

m<£x r<

W^

®x

Table 1-«RQOBUL ALTERNATIVES

(Continued)Added (•••I

or Deleted (-1 asScreened as Result of Review

Part of 19B3 EID by EPA, Evaluated inAlternative___________ by Malcola Finite DEC, and Public this Report

7. Remediate the area la 6 above plus the61300-foot section of Cayuga Creek fro>the Bergholtl Creek to the LittleNiagara River

8. Institutional action only X

a. Increase public awareness Xb. Post signs Xc. Fence the creeks Xd. Ban fishing and water sports

9. Stabilize creek sediMdts X

a. Place saall stone on creek bedonly • X

b. Install filter fabric on creekand cover with stone X

c. Place Black Creek within a culvert Xd. Apply cnexical or biological

ageots to Bake contuinants inert(the K-20 process)

10. Hydraulically clean Black Creek culvertsand Jectaanically resove and dispose ofsedlaenti frosi creek bottoi

a. Hydraulically dredge creekb. Mechanically excavate creekc. Hecbanically excavate creek and construct

sediBent trap or tidal gate

C. 102nd Street Outfall

1. Ho action X2. Stabiliic sedis«nts (long tern) X

a. Solidify or destroy coiitaainantsin place X

t>. Bury scdrenu in place x

3. Repair tidal gate

a. Repair tidal gate onlyb. Repair tidal gate in conjunction

vlth alternatives C.4, C.5, or C.6

1-10

<TC£>ftC£ic^

X ®

Table 1-4REKEDIAL ALTEBNATIVES

(Continued)Added (*)

or Deleted (-) asScreened as Result of Review

Part of 1983 EID by ERA, Evaluated InAlternative___________ by Maleol* Ptrnie DEC, and Public this Report

4. Stabilize sedteents (short ten) X X

a. Cover deposits »itl> filter fabricand stone fill X X

b. Construct earth/stone ber> X Xc. Install sheet pile vail X Xd. Construct ben or vail and cover

sediments vith filter fabric andstone fill x inca

_ u?)c a®5. Construct bera or vail and reaov* aad

dispose of sedl—nts X

a. Mechanically excavate using snore-based equlpnent • X

b. Mechanically excavate using acOBMnJtioo of shore-based andbaroe-Bounted equipment X

c. Use barge •ounted claubell dredge Xd. Hrdraulically dredge using barge-

•ounted equlE—ot X

• 6. Construct ber* or vail and cap in-place

II. Transport and Oevatering of All SediJents, andTTeafent of Fluids

A. Transport wdl—at* to devatering facility X

1. Coover sediBents by pipe within a pipe(bydraulic cleaalag or dredging)

2. Convey sedlBeats by watertight trucks(•ecbanlcal excavation)

B. Oewater sedlJents X

1. Erect passive or oecbanical deosterlogfacilities X

2. Oewater solids in Interli storagefacility

C. Treat fluid*

1. Treat fluids at nidified Love CanalLeachate TreaUent Plant X

2. Erect separate fluid treataeat facility3. Discharge fluids to sanitary (ever

for treauent at the Niagara Falls 1-11Hast—later Treafent Plant


(Continued)Added I*)


Part o£ 19B3 EID by EPA, Evaluated inAlternative___________ by Maleola Pirate DEC, and Public this Report

III. Interii Storage

A. Cut through new Canal cap liner, depositsedinentSi and repair liner

B. Construct a separate, KCTA-grade*earthern berMd facility on topof the Lave Canal cap

C. Construct a RQSA-grade* earthern benedcell inside the fenced area of the cap, butoff the Canal

D. Construct a concrete vault* (Tioes Beachdesign) located Inside the fenced areaof the cap, off the Canal

E. Convert the 93rd Street School buildinginto an interf storage facility

F. Construct a RCBA^grade* eartbem berxedcell on the 93rd Street School grounds

G. Construct « Tlws Beach concrete vault* onthe 93rd Street School grounds

H. Construct a flats Beach concrete vault* atthe LaSalle bousing develofent followingacquisition of that developowit

IV. Treafent During Interia Storage

A. Ose K-20 processB. use Occidental Chemical systea of alcrohial

degradation

V. Treafent and Disposal

A. "In-situ Keutraliiatlon" XB. Land Disposal

1. Onsite (excavate portion o( clay cap,deposit •edixeBts, and constructnew cap; no further action). X

3. Offsite at approved hazardous »Mtelandfill x

1-12

* X

+ X

+ X

<• x

Table 1-4RBtEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

(Continued)

Alternative

Screened asPart. of 1983 EIDby MalcolD Pirnie

A A!ox DeleResult

byDEC, i

[ed (»)•fed (-1 asof Review

EPA,ad Public

Evaluated inthis Report

a. Send waste to local facility suchas CECOS or SCA

b. Send waste to other facilitiesincluding O.S. Pollution Control,Inc.; Great Midwest Corporation;and the Envlronaental Conserva*tion aad Manage—nt Cof&ny

C. Incineration with Landfill Disposal of Ash

1. Cosit*

Construct, fixed facilityOse a soclle incinerator

EFA •oblle IncineratorENSCO/PyrottCh Hotary KllaJM Huber advanced electric reactorBoTeCD Cascading systeasFlara Arc Incinerator

2. Offsif

a. BollUM facility, Oeer Park, Texasb. DISCO facility. El Dorado, Arkansasc. Caelcal Haste Maaagewnt facility,

Cbicago, Illinoisd. SCA Landfill facility, Niagara Falls,

New Tork

i with landfillD. Ose of GeoTecn Melt All systidifposal of ash

*RCRA-7Tad« storage facility (earthem bersi or the Tines Beach vault) will be double lined, with a leachatecollection srst—, a leak detection sr*te>, a cap, and a contingency plan la case of failure.The facility would Met RCKA criteria In all aspects.

HDR103/013

1-13

Table 1-5ELIMINATION OF SCREENED ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Criteria for Elimination

Sediment Removal

A. Sewers

o. Mechanically clean and hydraulicallyflush lines

-- Use power rodding mechanicalequipment

Costs/Exceeds Cost of Other Alternatives WithoutGreater Public Health Protection; and EngineeringPractice/Limited Feasibility for Conditions

Use bucket cleaningequipment

echanical

B. Creeks

Delay remedial action until additional Effectiveness/Does Not Protect Public Healthsampling is completed downstream asfar as the confluence of Cayuga Creekand Little Niagara River

No remedial action downstream of the93rd Street School until sampling atthe school is completed

Remediate Black Creek and BergholtzCreek areas designated in 1983 GID(from 96th Street to point between94th and 95th Streets)

Remediate the area mentioned aboveplus an additional 600 feet down-stream to the93rd Street stormsewer outfall

Effectiveness/Does Not Protect Public Health



006168


(continued)

Alternative Criteria for EliminationInstitutional action only by increas- Effectiveness/Does Not Protect Environment,ing public awareness, posting signs, or Effectively Protect Public Healthfencing the creeks, banning fishingand watersports.Stabilize creek sediments:

-- Install filter fabric on creek bed Engineering Practices/Not a Reliable Remedial Measureand cover with snail stone

Apply chemical or biologicalagents to make contaminantsinert (the K-20 process)

Place Black Creek in culvert

Hydraulically clean Black Creek

Engineering Practices/Not a Reliable Remedial Measure

Costs/Exceeds Cost of Other Alternative WithoutGreater Public Health Protection; and EngineeringPractice/Limited Feasibility for Conditions

Engineering Practices/Dredge Cannot be Used in BlackCreek

III. Interim Storage

Convert the 93rd Street School buildinginto an interim storage facilityConstruct a Times Beach concrete vaultat the LaSalle housing developmentfollowing acquisition of that development

Engineering Practices/Building Not Suitable for Use

Effectiveness/Possible Delays in Obtaining Propertyand Conducting Engineering Studies Do Not Contributeto Protection of Public Health

006169


(continued)


IV. Treatment During Interim Storage

o Use K-20 process

o Use Occidental Chemical system ofmicrobial degradation

V. Disposal

o Onsite (excavate portion of clay cap,deposit, sediments, and constructnew cap)

o Offsite at approved hazardous wastelandfill:

— Send waste to local facility suchas CECOS or SCA

Send waste to other facilitiesincluding U.S. Pollution Control,Inc.i Great Midwest Corporationiand the Environmental Conservationand Management Company

WDR102/014


Engineering Practices/Not a Feasible Remedial Measure

Engineering Practices/Insufficient Capacity

Engineering Practices/Facilities Will Not Accept Wastes


006170

Table 1-6IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH

LOVE CANAL REMECIM. ALTEWATIVES

IMPACTSAlternative Steps In Operation Reiedial Action t+iase

1. Sellers

a. Ho Ktio

b. nydraullcally cleanand repair.

None

1. Run blower and plug senersection.

2. Set up cleaning jet atdomstreaa, collection•whole.

3. Perfori cleaning operation(cleaning Jet propels Itselfupstrean and Is then reeledback to collection —nbol*

4. Manually or BechanlcallyreKive large debris (usingshovels and buckets).

5. Use suction equlpiwnt (sub-mersible pu«p and vacuumnot tie or vacuuB truck) torcBove sediments.

6. Transport sedlaent/nter totreatwmt/dlsposal facility.

7. Delve plugs lias cleanedsever section.

8. Decon blover, jet cleaningequlpBent and truck, and tanktruck.

9. Collect and treat decon washwater.

10. TV Inspection of cleanedsegment.

None

Public contact •lnl«tied.

Continued sedlMent •Igratlon to creeksand sewage treatient facility. Continuedpotential public exposure to contaBinants.See Chapter 3.

Potential for snail aM>unt of naterlal toreBBinf •InlBlxed by TV Inspection

Notice to residents of activitystartup.

Imedlate cleanup If backupreported In house.

Backfloc to cleaned sener.I—edlate cleanup If backupsegmits blacked.

Sever deund decreased by per-timing action during dryseason.

Volatlles Inside house•Inlllted by opening Hindoos.

Dust eBlsslons •InlMl becauseof ledlwnt water content.

Machinery noise during daylightwork hours.

Truck Traffic to devateringfacility.

Potential for discharge ofcleaning water •intuited bysever plugs.

2. 102nd Street Outfall

a. No action. None. Don Continued sedlrent •igratlon. Continuedaquatic life exposure. Continued poten-tial public exposure tn sedlwents andcontaBlnated fish. (See Chapter 3 . )

T»lIMPACTS At ED WITH

LOVE CANAL REMEI M/TERNHTIVES(Continued)

Alternative Steps In Operation RcR-dlal Action Phase ' Lonq-Tera

b. Mitigate backflowto sever by repairto tidal gat*.

1. Reive rocks and debris fro*In front of headwall.

One day of activity. Mitigates potential backflow fro* o u t f a l lto storB sewer.

2. HoblUie backhoe and portablegenerator to top of headvall.

3. Loner tidal gate Into positionon face'of headcaU.

«. Bolt tidal gate flange toheadull.

Snail disturbance of outfallsedliient because any actionsare at outfall.

Negligible public exposure.

Machinery noise at outfallduring daylight vork hours.

Continued sedlnent Bigratlon In river.

Continued aquatic life exposure.

Continued potential public exposure toto sedl—nis and contaBlnated fish.(See Chapter 3).

c. I—edlate Stabiliza-tion

11 Construct stoneben with tinnersheeting.

21 Construct steelpile wall.

1. Inspect Intended ben locationfor large debris and reivedebris as necessary (drillseveral borings along align-ment).

2. Beginning at shore line, usefront end loader and bulldozerto transport and place stone.

3. Use barge •ounted pile driverto place tl«ber sheeting(second barge Bay be necessaryto guide sheeting).

1. Inspect nail location fordebris, reive debris asnecessary.

2. Use barge-xounted drill rig todrill borings along rail allgn-•ent to deterilne depth of riverbed and Identify locations ofany burled debris.

3. Use barge-iunted pile driverto construct wall starting atshoreline (2nd barge Mill needto be used to guldtt sheet piling).

Little or no worker or equip-•ent contact with sediment,unless vben driving wall,debris or rocks are hit. Thenthe nail vlll be pulled out,reposltloned (or obstacle ill 11be Boved), and replaced. So*e•orker contact possible whilerepositioning sheeting.

SedlMnts disturbed andpossibly entrained duringconstruction.

See Kcll, except sedimentdisturbance lessened.

Bent/sheeting wi l l need to be ulntalnedto insure continued effectiveness.

See 2(ell.

OU6172


LOVE CANAL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES(Continued)

Alternative Steps In Operation Bmedtal Actton HiaaeIHPACTS

d. Long-ten retdlatlon

11 In-place contttn-•ent l»lth 2 (ellor 2.

}) 2(c) 1 or 1 tolloit-ed by reaoval using

land based equipment

1. Construct stone ben or wall(See 2 Id 1 or 2 above).

2. Deoater, backfill containedarea and cap It.

1. Construct stone bcr» or wall(See 2(c) 1 or 2 above).

2. Hoove rip-rap along shoreline and build benu or id•ats as necessary.

3. Use shore-based drag line orel—shell on cravler crane toexcavate sedlBents.

4. Load excavated sedlBents Intotruck and transport sedlBentsto devaterlng/dlsposalfacility.

5. Excavate stone ber» placingstone In trucks—transport todisposal facllllr. Rebuildshore rip-rap to depth ofexcavation.

6. Decon dragIlne/claiBhBll,trucks, and/or otherequipment.

See 2(c)l.

Haul trucks •1th fill.

Potential for splashingNorkers as sedlients aretransferred froB claashellto truck.

Biota will be lost.

Truck traffic to dewateringfacllltr.

See 2(cll.

None.

None.

Biota coiunlty expected to reappear.

3. Black Creek

a. Ho action. Continued sedl—nt llgratlon.Continued potential public exposure.(See Chapter 3)

None. None.


LOVE CANAL REMEDIAL ALTEBHATIVES(Continued)

Alternative Stepg In Operation ((Medial Action Phase"IMPACTS

b. Mechanically excavate

c. Construct tidal gateor sedlBent trap»l confluence conjunc-tion with 3.b. above.

1. Construct access road alongcreek bank, clear, and grab.

2. Construct berns up and down-streaa and dewater betweenusing pulps.

3. Use backhoe to excavatesedl—nts and place the* In anaterUght tnicli.

4. Transport aedl—nt* ID de-waterlng/dlsposal facilities.

5. Reive earth bens and disposeof •t haiardous Mast* facility.

6. Decon excavating equipment andtruck, etc.

1. Excavate approxlaately 18 InchesIn Black Creek (at confluence«ltb Errgholti Creek).

2. Mix and pour concrete to tontidal gate/sedlBent trap.

3. Continue Kith steps 6 and 1above.

Public contact ulnlBlzedo Restricted access during

activities.o Volatile emissions negli-

gible because no volatiledetected In sedlBent.

o Dust Missions •Inlul- Net state of sedfent- Cleanup of spills on

bankso SedlBent transport will

be In leakproot trucksoperating over shortdistance.

Temporary haul roads.

Machinery noise during daytlie•ork hours.

Creek biota will be lost.

Negligible addition to 3.b.

Potential for fall fraction ofcontulnated sedlBent to reaaln.

Creek biota •unity expected to renew.

Prevents backflcm of Bergholti Creeksedlients to Black Creek If t«o creeksnot cleaned concurrently or are cleanedby different aethods.

4. Berghoitt Creel; t Beyond

a. No action.

b. Mechanically excavate.

Non*.

1. Construct temporary bem atsouth of Black Creek to usestrean crossing.

2. Follow steps 1-6 under 3.b.above, except use frontendloader and claBshells.

Hams.

See 3.b. HuBerous trips(•ore than 1,1001 by haultruck to deposit sedlBents.Mould block SOBC streets attl—a. Noise anil possibledust fissions.

Continued sedtnent •Igratlon. Continuedaquatic life exposure. Continued potentialpublic exposure to sedlRent and contaBlnatedfish. See Chapter 3.

Potential for snail residential fractionof contaminated sedlBent to rexaln.

Table 1-6IMPACTS ASSOCIATED NIT11


IMPACTSAlternative Steps In Operation faaedlal Action Phase Long-Tern

c. Hydraullcally eicavatt 1. Construct teaporary ben attenth of Black Creek to use a:strean crossing.

2. Construct bens up and do»n-streai and derater between.

3. Construct access road, clear,and grub.

4. Manually reive large debris)retlood.

5. Use lud cat to dredge sedlaents.

Potential contact reducedbecause of closed transportIn pipes.

Potential pipeline leaks•Inlilsed by double •alls.

Volatile emissions •InlRalbecause no volatile! detectedIn sedl—nts. (91st Streetand Colvin Boulevard)

Bridges required vhere pipecrosses road.

Hachlnerr noise during vorkhours.

Creek biota nity expected to renew.

Potential residual contaBlnatlon) bankscannot be remedied using hydraulic dredge.Devatering facility •ay be open for year(s)to allov sedlBents to dewater and •tablllie

6. Dewater and Inspecti reflood andredredge If necessair.

7. Iterove earth bvrvs and disposeof at haiardous •aste tacHlty.

B. Transport sedlfnt to disposalfacility.

Creek biota vlll be lost.

Pipelines (t»o; each Is one•lie long) sust be In placethroughoutf puaps will runcontinually. Haul trucks vlllcarry debris through streets.

9. Dewater dredge spoils andtreat filtrate.

10. Decon id cat, truck,dewatering pulp, piping, etc.

6. Sedlaent De»aterlng

a. Mechanically dewater. 1. Transport sedlxent In vatertight truck or pipe sedl—ntto dewatering facility.

Sedlfnt coopresslon •ay Mitvolatlles. MinlBal dustMission because sedlBentstill net and Is dropped Intocovered container.

Action Is an Interedlate stage ofrenedlal action. SedlBents are rexovedto Inter I* Storage (See *?). No longter> iBpacts froa action.

1. Feed sedlBent onto vacmrfilter and air press.

3. Rewve filter cake andtransport to disposal facility.



IMPACTSAlternative Steps In Operation Reredlal Action Phase Lonq-Teni

b. Use Inlerli storagedredged sedlxents.EBlsslons possible.

4. Transport and treat filtrate,at LCTF, release to sewerSTstea and NTHTP.

1. Construct teaporary systel for Splashing fro« hydraullcallyseller sedlxent dewaterlng.

2. Construct Interix storagefacility (48,000 cubic yardscapacity for hydraulic dredgewater reclrculatlon) with•ajor design •edificationsfor hydraulic dredged sediments.

3. Pipe •ater/sedlBents by pipeline(3,000,000 gallons) or haulsedlBents to facility (1,400truck trips).

4. Collect liquid drained Intounderdraln/leachate collectionsystea or taken off top.Recycle to creek In hydraulicdredging. Treat and dispose ofvater eventually.

5. Choose disposal/treatBentoption froB B.

Hydraullcally dredged sedlBents•ay not solidify tor over a year;cannot cap facility until then.

Continual feed (3,000,000 gallons) toLove Canal leachate treatBcnt facilitytro« hydraullcally dredged sedlaenls.

Temporary feed (600,000 gallons) toLove Canal leachate treatment facilityfroa Bechanlcally excavated sedllentsicap facility iJKdtately.

7. Interia Storage

a. Construct an earthenbened facility.

1. Excavate soils and constructberes. It facility Is to bewithin the cap, cut hole Inexisting HOPE liner.

}. Fine grade base and Installhotter liner. If facilityIs In cap, weld bottoi linerto existing liner.

3. Compact clay layer and Installleak detection systea. CcupJCtadditional clay.

4. Fine grade and Install secondsynthetic liner.

Place—nt of Material In thethe facility could result Inthe release of contaminated•aterlals that ist be con-tained. Machinery would beInvolved, causing noise anddust. Haul trucks wouldbring Baterlal Into area.Essentially sue lupacts asactivities associated •1thcapping Love Canal.

Aesthetics; If hydraulic dredging used.facility •ay not be capped for over aa year. Operatlon/Balntenance needed foias long as 30 years. Can be capped1—edlately If •echanlcally excavatedsedlients disposed of.

006176

Table 1-tIMPACTS ASSOCIATB) HITH


IMPACTSAlternative Steps In Operation fteiKdial Action Phase

b. Construct a concretestructure (TinesBead; vault)

5. Place granular naterlal andpiping for leachate collectionsysto.

6. Deposit sedlaxnts and decon allcontacted equipment.

7. Construct cover Including instal-lation of a synthetic liner.(Hay be sow delay In covering iffacility Is used for dewaterlog).

8. Topsoll and red cover.

1. Excavate soils and Install See 7a.synthetic ——brane.

See 7a.Aesthetic lipact different than 7a.since vault would be taller, butOnly one-fifth as long. Vault can becapped sooner than 7a.

2. Place drainage gravel andgeotextlle layers.

3. Pour 8" reinforced concreteand coat •lib polyeric asphalt.

4. Place drainage gravel andgeotextlles to act as leachatecollection system.

5. Similarly construct concretesidewalls.

6. Follow steps 6-8 In 7.».,except no delay In covering.

8. Otislte Disposal1. Open storage facility, reaove

sedlient.Opening of storage facilityand reiMval of s«dl>ents couldgenerate dust, releasevolatlles. N111 take severalopenings to roove oaterlal.Many trucks required to •aXe1,500 •1|* irlpi possibleaccidents/Incidents. Treatnent/disposal should havefk(4^W7than "nonal" iJpacts atdisposal sites.

Facility iMial be •aintalned or de»ollshedonce enpty.

Table 1-6IMPACTS ASSOCIATED HITH

LOVE CANAL REMBHAL ALTERNATIVES(Continued)

Alternative Steps in Operation tteiedlal Action blaseIMPACTS

"Long-Ten

9. Incineration

a. Construct facilityonslle.

2. Load sedlient on truck.

3. Transport to site fc unload*

t. Treat or dispose.

5. Decon all equipBent.

1. Construct Incinerator.

}. Open storage facility.

3. Transport devateredsedlwnt to Incinerator.

4. Incinerate sedlaent.

5. Transport ash to securelandfill Cor disposal.

6. Decon equipment.

If operated within the regula- Several years to build; at least one ytlons, emissions and Incinerator of operation necessary; sLorage (acllll.operations should not pose a Mould essentially renain open entirerisk thresy to workers or period. Landfllling of residual Bayresidents. Materials Bust be necessitate construction of new facil i typrepared (ground up, dried), at Love Canal, or transport to offslteHandling and transport of facility (See B).sedliKnt will release dust,volatlles, and will generatenoise. Incinerator willgenerate noise, ash, and steaa. >-'Must have building to house It. ^Transport of ashcould result LJin spills. May require addi-tional area to acco—odateall of equipment. Coolingwater •ust be treated.

b. Use noblle Incinerator Sue as 9.a. except step 6 wouldInvolve deBobllliatlon ofIncinerator equip—nt.

See 9.a. Saae as 9.a., except Incinerator wouldbe onslte fro* 1 to 19 years and•obi 11 fat ion would be >uch shorter.

NDR102/005

006T78

environmental concerns associated with a number of alterna-tives, including those alternatives to be considered by EPft,DEC and the public in arriving at a decision on remedialaction, is contained in Table 1-8.

DATA VOIDSSeveral alternatives presented for the decisionmakingprocess could not be completely evaluated with existingdata. A limited sampling effort should be implemented todetermine the following:

o The presence of dioxin in the banks of Black,Bergholtz and Cayuga Creeks»

o The presence of dioxin in the bottom sediments ofCayuga Creek; and ff)

o The physical properties of the sediments in Black iand Bergholtz Creeks and the sewers (settleability, y;filter leaf rests, load bearing capability, e t c . ) . $e>

This information would be most useful in the detailed designof the following:

o the extent of removal of contaminated materialthat should occur?

o the amount and nature of material to be removed;and

o the manner by which.the material should beremoved, dewatered, stored and disposed.

This sampling program can be initiated and completed priorto the anticipated beginning of any remedial action for thesewers (summer/fall 1985) or creeks (summer/fall 1986 or1 9 8 7 ) . As the .following discussion of decisions regardingalternatives will show, the information can be used tofinalize several aspects of the remedial actions to beundertaken.

ALTERNATIVES FOR SELECTION

10 2ND STREET OUTFALLTwo immediate stabilization techniques can be used: a stoneberm with timber sheeting OR a steel sheet wall. Eitheralternative can be used in the long-term remedial actions ofcontainment inplace OR excavation and removal using landbased equipment.

1-25

Table 1-7SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Total Present1______________Alternative_____________ Worth ( $ )Sewer Remediation and Repair1. No Action2. Cleaning 1,348,0003. Abandon in-place and replace with new line 7,080,000102nd Street Outfall Remediation1. Immediate Stabilization

- No Action- Filter Fabric and Stone 207,000- Bern with Timber Sheeting 509,000- Steel Pile Wall 636,000

2. Long Term Remediation- No Action Subsequent to Bern or Wall- In-Place Containment 598,000- Removal Using

Shore Based Equipment " 350,000.Creole Remediation1. No Action2. Hydraulic Dredging of Bergholtz Creek

- 1983 EID limits only 700,000- 1983 EID limits plus 1st incremental reach 798,000- Afc-ive Plus 2nd Incremental Reach (PROBABLE AREA) 1,026,000

3. Mech.--.-cai Excavation—Land-Based Clamshell- 1983 EID limits 165,000- 1983 EID limits plus 1st incremental reach 225,000

4. Mechanical Excavation—Tracked Front EndLoader (and Clamshell as needed)

- 1983 EID limits 184,000- 1983 EID limits plus 1st incremental reach 248,000- Above, Plus 2nd Incremental Reach (PROBABLE AREA) 1,178,000- Black Creek only (PROBABLE AREA) 120,000

5. Additional Sampling Bergholtz andCayuga Creeks and Banks 169,000

6 . Fence Downstream Section of Bergholtz andCayuga Creeks 161,000

On—Site Storage1. Above-Cap, Earthem Berm

- Mechanical Excavation/S, 000 c-y 803,000- Hydraulic Dredging/5,000 cy 829,000- Hydraulic Dredging; 21,000 cy (Probable Volume) 1,131,000- Hydraulic Dredging/135,000 cy 4,924,000

1-26


(Continued)

Total PresentAlternative Worth ( S )

2. Concrete Vault- Minimum Volume, 5,000 cy 509,000- Probable Volume, 21,000 cy 1,135,350- Maximum Volume, 135,000 cy 7,298,000

Transport of Sediment, Dewatering and Leachate Water Treatment

1. Sewer Sediments Dewatering/Love CanalLeachate Treatment Plant

- Mechanical Dewatering 391,000- Claritication/Filtration/Mechanical

Dewatering 683,000- Temporary Steel Walls/Passive Dewatering 280,000

2. Transport and Dewatering of MechanicallyExcavated or Hydraulieally Dredged CreekSediments Costs Are Contained in CreekRemediationand Interim Storage Costs. 12,900,000-18,060,000'

Off-Site Incineration1. Bollins: 5,000 cy2. Rollinss 21.000 cy3. Rollinss 135,000 cyOn-Site Incineration

7,900,000-9,400,00018,000,000-31,500,000

206,900,000-247,400,000

1. EPA Mobile Incinerator: 5,000 cy 4,800.000-7,100,0002. EPA Mobile Incinerator: 21,000 cy 15,600,000-42,000,0003. EPA Mobile Incinerator: 135,000 cy 86,800,000-147,500,0004. Huber AER: 5,.000 cy 6,700,000-8,100,0005. Huber AER; 21,000 cy 12,900,000-18,060,0006. Huber AER: 135,000 cy 111,200,000-148,300,0007. ENSCO Mobile Incinerator: 5,000 cy 5,400,0008. ENSCO Mobile Incinerator: 21,000 cy 16,800,0009. EMSCO Mobile Incinerator: 135,000 cy 91.300,000

'•In 1984 dollars.

WDR102/002

1-27

| " I

I

I, I

5 3

1 U

= "1^

|i t : i

i I Ip If

i if I I

I- i I IS

iillli jli li {i II li I I

I | ill i!la ^' s

sa Is

5s

^ 3s Ss

= =

5 ^=5 s,

fi sss >"

Sl |i

i; 5? »?

= "

si?? i^

i is la

S! s8 aS ali

;

ss i5i is

IIIII

S I

I

I |

I I

1 3

•«

•

81

B

EB

e

«

I i;

I '

i i i

il

l°

"i

° B

8 g

g g

g "

is !• 11

ii i 8 og Is Is

"5 L

s,

S5

ss

Is

I 5 I 5

?5 ?2 Ti 5

?s

i'

^s5

^^

^ ^S>

^tp ^5i

«6

f&

9&

f^

s& S

iI? ^

3?

Ss sa

Ss Is Is 2s

&• s!

la 2g !y

st Is

ss is is

is

.us .,1

SS

u~

3

-3

S«*

9 M

q 9^

f^

^

'•

f

*'•

*'•

-a ig 'a

ss is

ss

ss gs

is -t

-sl?li H

It H It It it

It n H

I i . i i :| |

s!'! | . . |

"' li I i

l g

|! I »5 ll

I <

i ^

^ *

?"

't*'?

8?

*"

??

®5

ij

f !

ss a

Sa us 1

i &

S s

I 5

s i

| |

§i

!

E E

TB I?

I

8 |

&

&

III

I

II

^S

ai "5

"- S,

I-

^-

^-

*-

I- I-

I-

' 8

- I-

si 9 s

ss i| i| tj

li li ?j |t

is js

li5

"

63

SS

<S |5

I*

S

5 tl

IS

0-

°- °

i5

£& i"

is. la.

i&

-s. li is. tS.

>& :&

8=1as|

1"' id

-

i :| •

• •

• •

••

• •

g^

a

a a

a a

a a

i I

fl

is

a l

a :

3 :

3 „

a a

a

a a-

a a

aa

a

a -

a a

11

1 1

1 1

11

1 i i

i2

§ S

5 §

S 3

2 S

i— i"*

? ?

?:- ?

? Ss

? ?

? S ?

?.1.1

Is .1 .1

I" .pi .II".I .1

f8

f8

SS

f8

6

5 =

2 <25

68

68

S"

^E

SS

s 2 I

. ^ i ! ii i il

I

h S

I

^ I ^

. i

^ ^

^g i|

^ "

• .

•

• S

. 3

" 5=

*=

*3=

•8

i

a

a. a s

5 s

.. fl? •

E ss 53

s.f s.

2]

UJ

S

i

11

11

11

pP

l^

ji

il-

as

-a

eS

.,

,5

,,

,

1 f

1 ';. HI

"

8 i

i3,i'« |!H lii

^I 5u2»-ii

„ s«

1 ^

S i

SBJ ij

sSI 01 i 2!1

s ^

iI

-s"' i3Sj

. s

ii 1-.Sj5

i

-

1i

Pjjs

i1|5 1"s -It 1

11

1 i;

S t 3

1 iS

1

1

!

E t

"

is 'IS

•

Q

Ja

a •

s s

5 J

'^1 a

68

S.

i- 1"1 i

"t

^

»

.i

,

14

111'£, I5

!s;sI''m;&i«1

gia? iisi*•sai*s2a51b|Itcs

sf•|j• —

II'sa1'?2Is•

Ja

ItN^

fiptill'

"I.?

S"$

!|l?Jll!

ifc"^

iIIS

3:|

Si.llIlS

l

sJh•

12|•i11lri1«•>.;5

i\t?aJv

i iS

I?llp

ii-SifsS

|J

!i;gliaci"S11•ais1,ies1 1

1 Ji i

ii

IH a ': Ai 3!illn^

vsssItii

JiZsiin00r<W

1

§

g '

1^121•aii?I!!iI s;4

iii

T«bl« )••suiMMrr or U.TIRNXTIVES AW CGNCDBB

(ConUluwdl

{•il—fdLocitlon/ Coct (1,000'Bl Ttchhiol hibllc Hwtth Anticipated Public Envtrowntil

If dial Action Status lT«»nt Worth r——lbllltf Concern* Hn&oow Conctnn Otter

- Plp«llM To b* Coif IncluM la f*uUil« KinlMl MpOftir* ftcc«(itd>ltt SnorC-fni r—edltl Ti*o ao«-Bl !•-loa« Antil* pipe-oontldTri id •ban pot«ntl«l Ktlon li«ct» lliri rtqulred tor bfdfullc

OfOqlnqf •*]or iMpKl ontrfllci aolM Uvct.

b) lH««lerlD«

- ltech«itlc«k To b« 191 1(01 •lnl—1 r«*cUil«, S*e G HtniMil e«po>ur« Acceptkbl* Sbort-ter* r«Kdl«l Coitl c«lcul«L«d lot 5,OH) 07conil(Wr«l «olu— clfi SM Gl pofaLtal •cllon lf»«ct« oaLyi nitt*bl« for •wr •*dl-

•Mili aRLyi cr—h —aiMnt«alu— too lT—t

- U&e of InteilB To b* For —•( —4l——ft Pculbl* HinlMt *Kpo«ur* Acc«pfbl« Short-ten rcwdlil Sws •*dL—af cm b« d*«it«i-•locge fclllLy conBldcfd JW pofntlal •ctlon lt>«ct« •d ud fcMpo»rllr »toc«d inllMftw* dwierinq) •ft— »rilu to orr pr«»lous-

ly ufd •I IJOV C«wlf •yt«BMOUld b* Dl»Ultl«3 Mdd——t«ccd udlwnl* pt*c*d InIrttllB •tor«q* iKlllty whenbull I.

For Mdrnlcally r——lbl* HLnlwl •iipoBur* Accept«bl« Short-ten [«*edl«l InteriB sccur •Lor««< laclltlye«c*irt«a cr—k ••41- pofatlal action rp*ct« of •llher 4ftilqn 1— below)Mnfi locludttd In M would d«rt«< MchMilcallrbelow «iic«««l«d «rdL—nt« ulinq

l««cb«t« collKLtcw •)rif.InlTiB wom •tar«a« Ikcllttywt b* built Irfor* r——<in•ctloa b*9la«.

For hydnullcBllr r——lbr HInlMl •xpowir AcocpUbr Short- •ad lonq-lciw infriB —cur staswf, l»cllliydredged cr—fc ••dl—ntBi pofntft rcwalfti •ctloa l>p«cf Kit b* built MIor* rwdriIncludttd In 5c b«low «ctlon bcqlnx. H«loi 4*»lgn(•«• 51 ch*nq«« nwted t-o •d«pt •ft

toICttl»cth«—4dtl•tRblllitaq ••dl—ntif —y r«-quiye«optthiMhlch •IBO Is to b* uMd for M«i«clrcul«tlon lo drftdqi.

a* lor a—«frtng hydrw.ly dr«dqcd —tTlal. ftequiIlly to b« )-& tl— iTqwrfor •*chuilc«lly «ic«««t«d

—atl. H«y hBif ••rtouJlOtltY In dW—Lnlitq Utd

• (•clllty rc—tn op*n for!•). Mvdrwillc di«dgtngon cannot b* wd without

typM of d*««frlnq (•clllt

006184

l l l l l

T«bl< 1-«snwun or i.TX-uTin* — cocnus

IColtllMril

loallot/

5. lafrr S«xir« Slorwftclllli

•I Bilr CJf

b) ETthM b*n In c«p

el Euthn Ixr* lirldtCirl rUollDtor •t 9)rd Str—tsaxiol

dl Co»cr«r •ill ll»l<hC«M| rimiiJM or•I »)r<l St. Scteol

el Concr«t« null •tL»!»ll«

t. Tc..l«nl/Dl.l»>.l

•I «1|11( lIlJllIll

b) Offilf lncla»r*tlonlltelltui

c) Bloloqlol tr—t—nt

41 Cll—lcll IIUllllutlOfl

«1 Orltc InclMntlan

- Srtlnury

- EPk lkll)ll«

X

»ltu

Ell«r1C, 11,

Elllln1C, 0,

To becoiilftriJ

To t»cooxld

Elum1C, tl

EInn10

Vo twOOMid

eirrici(innICI

linn<BI

To b«oon*ld«r«d

•

•1«1El

•t«J

•red

•l«d

•t«4

•r*d

fled

Jt«d

«t«d

•EftllMKJColt (I.OW'llrinct ihrth

~ Not r««iibi*

Mot (Mllbll

1,1)1

1,1)5

Ibt leultir

Itot louUilo

11,100

•at i»ii6r

Not ruuir

ISM Gl

tl.OOO

cTK*mlc«l

rowUillltr

F——Uil*

r<—u>r Nini—i •Ptiltlll

Peulbl*

--r«*«ibiB

1<— Gl

ISM G)

Mini—I •pofntlil

ISM Gl

"•"•'

Mini—I •DOUDtIll

ISM Cl

ISw Gl

pofnttxl

Incmiripolmtn

IDCTM—OpM—tUI

Mini—I •pot«atl«l

PublicCono

•1

-

-

Iflth•nu

••pown Hat •oct>t*bl«

•XPOMN Not •cc«pt«bl«

•pOMM

•po«m kcotpltbl*

•pa«ur«

Kponm Xcaptdil* (SM Gl

-

-

•poJur* ActxpLabI* IS— Gk

Jlatlclp«f4l hibllcRcponJtt

xoE«ptai<

Ibt •cc«ptU>r

--

-

-

—

rDivlrowntAl

Concerns

Shorften r—edl«lKtloa Ifwcti

Short-fn r—edlal•ctloa Ifucts

Short ••fn r*Mdl«l•ctlon l *cf

Shorl-tftra r—cdl*l•Cllon tBfttCtB

Short-tT* medlRl•ctlaa lv*ct«

—

ftorl-fr* r*wdfl•ctlan Ifct*

—

—

—

Short- •nd lonq-trrwrewdlal •ctloa lap«cti

G

Other

No volu— Millibl* la cipbelow llirrf ttould rcqMirf•KOlwtloa of •or* coat—iirted••(•rial.

Insufllcl*nL voliM* (n cwi•ould r*qulre excavtioti of•or* cont—lnated Ml«rl«l.

Onl|r f««)lhle d««l«n hith•odiflutloff) for br4r«ullc

drrdqino dewfrlnf.Itar r——ln open (or yr(«).

Cannot be u—4 to dwfrhydcMillcallr drcdfd

wdl—otJ.Pmlttlna would d»I«r rwdr-tlon lor yu(l).

No fwllltlw t>r or «lllln«to 1«K« wdl——t«*

tBp*cl» of l«na(hy tnfck Lrwr-port dllflcult to dBt«nln*.

Not owunitrBfd «f(*c(lv ondioxin In •oil*.

Not dwonitratcd •((•elite andiMte in •oir.

Co«t •fr«ctlv only lor 100,000cff 2-* yr« to build •odDTBlt.

S«vr«) y«rx to process MHit*.

006185

-: Is?

;-1 ll:i ^

it:ll' '"S

- 3

i2«

^ i

2}s! 8^

. ^

151" ii"ii

i I^S

!J"ii "^V

lt;? s

i

jSi! 1,11 ;| tt | il '.Siii :!..1.

sa ijS it-!i I j| I It ISII; h

«J B

O

B

«C

Jo

Cf

«i

--

J>

*a

—h

i—

•«

•«

•»

SS ;

o ?S

3| -1 ^las -|S -is "| "is

••i 11:? 8 "it °^ I |

A

•l^ 2

1^ S

l IF

S ^ ^

SII SP

!' '

° lil

„ EaS3 SS

^ als SB a\ sla sllifi! slJE 5

s5

—

i

m

•

^

<« r''

•«

•

SEWERSHydraulic cleaning of the sewers seems most feasible.However, information is needed to determine the most effec-tive dewatering technique: mechanical dewatering of sewersediments followed by temporary storage in tanks OR usingthe leachate collection system of a temporary dewatering/storage system.Hydraulic cleaning of the culverts of Black Creek at thesame time as the sewers offers certain cost and engineeringadvantages, but time and contractual constraints mayprohibit that alternative.CREEKSEvaluation of the latest data on dioxin contamination in thecreeks resulted in a determination that the total amount ofsediment and other material to be removed and disposed ofamounts to between 15,000 and 21,000 cubic yards, and would ^be generated by cleaning Black Creek from the 98th Street ^culverts to the confluence with Bergholtz Creek; Bergholtz 0Creek from 150 feet upstream of the confluence with Black ®Creek to the confluence of Cayuga Creek; and removingvarious haul roads, benns and other potentially contaminatedmaterials associated with proposed remedial actions. Thetype of cleaning selected determines the total volume to beremoved.Two cleaning methods for the creeks remain for decision-making: mechanical cleaning using land based equipment ORhydraulic dredging. Both offer advantages and disadvan-tages; however, hydraulic dredging cannot be used to cleanthe creek banks if they are contaminated. Each method ofcleaning determines the type of sediment transport anddewatering techniques that must be used.Hydraulic dredging requires two long pipelines to transportsediment, and a specially designed earthen bermed interimsecure storage facility for dredge water recirculation andsediment dewatering^Because of design and spaceconstraints a concrete vault cannot be used with thehydraulic dredging option. The dewatering structure forhydraulic dredging must stay open (uncapped) for a year orlonger. The focused sampling effort would yield informationto more accurately evaluate the dewatering properties of thesediments.Mechanical excavation of sediments requires extensive use oftrucks to transport sediments, which can be dewateredwithout modifying the design of either the earthen benned orconcrete vault interim secure storage facility.

1-33

Regardless of the dewatering method used, an interim securestorage facility must be built before the creelcs arecleaned.INTERIM SECURE STORAGEBecause the sediments can be removed more rapidly than theycan be treated or disposed of, and because all treatment ordisposal methods require preparation of the sediments(dewatering, sizing, e t c . ) , all sediments must be stored.An interim secure storage facility meeting all RCRR guide-lines is proposed. The type of design must be decided:earthen bermed OR concrete vault. The location must bedecided:several places in3ide~the Love Canal fenceline aresuitable; the 93rd Street School grounds are also suitable,The concrete vault can be placed at several locations on theroad beds within the Love Canal fenceline. The vault willbe taller than an earthen bermed facility although it toocan be benned to blend with the landscape. The earthenbermed facility can only in one of three locations in theLove Canal fenced area. It will be 3 to 5 times as large asa concrete vault of the same capacity. It would be too QDlarge to fit within the fenceline without resting on top of ^the canal (undesirable) if designed to hold the maximum Wvolume of sediment. If used to dewater the hydraulically s

dredged sediments, it may not be closed for at least oneyear.

DISPOSALSeveral options are available: offsite incineration atRolling, which has a large transportation cost and undefin-able community relations concerns associated with it oronsite incineration using the EPA mobile incinerator OR theHuber AER OR the ENSCO incinerator^Each of these methodshave advantages and disadvantages associated with them.Following incineration o£ the sediment, the residue or ashmust be disposed of in a RCRA permitted facility OR s. spe-cial delisting process must be successfully completed toprove the ash is nonhazardous.The remainder of this report contains information regardingthe remedial alternatives discussed above.

WDR102/008

1-34

Chapter 2INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUNDBetween the years 1942 and 1952, Hooker Chemical and PlasticsCorporation (now Occidental Chemical Corporation) disposed ofover 21,000 tons of various chemicals into Love Canal. Thesolid and liquid wastes deposited into the Canal include acids,chlorides, mercaptans, phenols, toluenes, pesticides,chlorobenzenes, and sulfides.In 1978, monitoring studies by the New York Department ofEnvironmental Conservation ( D E C ) , New York Department of Health( D O H ) , and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)lead the DOH Commissioner to declare a state of emergency atLove Canal. President Carter also declared an environmentalemergency at the Canal which enabled the federal government toprovide financial assistance to the state for the initiation ofremedial measures. Residents were moved from the area under anauthorization by Congress which appropriated $20 million for theeffort.In October 1978, a series of remedial construction activitieswere started in the Canal Area. A leachate collection systemwas installed around the entire perimeter of the former canal inorder to prevent continuing lateral migration of contaminantsfrom the landfill. Additional trenches were dug from the mainbarrier drain trench towards the former canal and filled withsand and stone to hasten dewatering of the canal and tofacilitate construction. A clay cap was also installed overportions of the landfill to minimize volatilization ofcontaminants, prevent human contact with hazardous wastes,prevent runoff of contaminated surface water, and to minimizethe amount of precipitation infiltrating the landfill and thusreduce the generation of leachate. Leachate collection on thesite is currently treated at a permanent activated carbonfacility (the Love Canal Treatment Facility) which becameoperational at the end of 1979. In July and August of 1982, allRing 1 and 2 houses within the fenced canal area weredemolished. In February of 1983, work began on an expanded capconsisting of soil and synthetic materials. In June of 1983,the 99th Street School was also demolished to accommodate thefinal cap, which was completed in November, 1984.In March and April 1980, EPA constructed a six-foot chain linkfence as part of a removal action on both sides of Black Creekto deter human and animal contact with contamination spread fromstorm sewer drainage from the Canal.In June 1980, EPA began an extensive environmental samplingprogram at the Canal which extended over the area designated as

2-1

the Emergency Declaration Area ( E D A ) . This study was completedin May 1982, and revealed a pattern of limited environmentalcontamination in the area immediately adjacent to the Canal,probably caused by "localized and highly selective migration oftoxic substances from the former canal to the vicinity ofcertain Ring 1 houses." The EPA data also revealed that thecontamination was present in storm sewer lines which originatednear the former canal. No evidence of Love Canal-relatedcontamination was found in stonn sewers which were isolated fromdirect canal flow. Apart from these findings, the EPAmonitoring data revealed no clear evidence of environmentalcontamination in the area encompassed by the emergencydeclaration order that was directly attributable to themigration of substances from Love Canal.Based on the data collected during this study the Centers forDisease Control <CDC) stated that the areas adjacent toLove Canal are basically no less habitable than other areaswithin Niagara Falls, which could be characterized as industrial Qin nature. This statement was contingent upon the remediation <J)of the pathways of contaminants from the site, i . e . , the storm <"<sewers and waterways they drain into. w

In October 1981, the Love Canal appeared on the initial NationalPriorities List which made the site eligible for newlyappropriated Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensationand Liability Act (CERCLA) monies.In March, 1983, the sewers were severed at the Canal to deterfuture contaminant flow via these pathways. Cutoff walls wereinstalled in the fall of 1983. While the contamination thatcurrently exists in the sewers should not increase, thesepollutants could eventually migrate from the sewers and end upin the creek and river sediments.During the first three weeks of January 1983, fieldinvestigation was performed by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. undercontract to DEC, Nearly 1,000 samples were collected andanalyzed. The contract between DEC and Malcolm Pirnie calledtor sampling only in specific locations. As a result, BergholtzCreek downstream of -the 93rd Street School grounds was notsampled. None of the creek banks were sampled. Cayuga Creekwas only sampled in those areas where sewer outfalls from theEmergency Declaration Area were located, essentially fromMilitary Road to Linbergh Avenue. Sediments at 102nd StreetOutfall were only sampled to a depth of four feet.Analyses of the samples were collected by Malcolm Pirnie wereperformed under a sequential, two-phase program. The firstphase required the "screening" of a large representativepopulation of samples from the five specific task areas understudy. The screen had to be capable of detecting a wide varietyof different chemicals at widely varying concentrations. Thescreening approach involved a solvent extraction of the sample

2-2

followed by direct injection of the extract for GC/MS (gaschromatography/mass spectrometry) analysis. While otherscreening techniques were available, they were judged by MalcolmPirnie to be not as informative as the extraction — GC/MSanalysis method ultimately used. The objective of the screeninganalysis phase was to provide Malcolm Pirnie with preliminaryresults which were used to select certain samples for a morecostly, detailed quantitative analyses in the second phase ofthe analytical effort. The analytical effort of this phase wascomprised of three parts: qualitative and quantitative analysisof organic compounds; quantitative analysis for 2,3.7,8-TCDD(Dioxin); and quantitative analysis for inorganics (toxicelemental metals). All analytical results for sediment sampleswere reported on a wet weight basis, rather than the dry weightbasis used by EPA in the 1980 sampling. The dry weight method 5?is considered to be more systematic because it eliminates the rtvariability associated with different moisture contents in Wsamples. ®Contamination assessments were performed by Malcolm Pirnie basedon the results of the January 1983 investigation. Alternativesto remediate the sewers and creeks were developed and evaluated.Various alternatives were recommended including; hydrauliccleaning of the sewers; the mechanical excavation ofcontaminated sediments within specific reaches of Black andBergholtz Creeks? and the placement of a temporary earthen bermin the Niagara River to contain the contaminated sediments inthe vicinity of the 102nd Street storm sewer outfall.The Malcolm Pirnie Environmental Information Document ( E I D ) ,entitled "Site Investigations and Remedial Action Alternatives•Love Canal" (October 1983) was.considered by EPA to betechnically sound with the recommended alternatives being"intuitively" the most cost-effective. However, costs were onlypresented for those alternatives deemed feasible by MalcolmPirnie. EPA determined that "to be consistent with the NationalContingency plan, the accumulation of this data (on costs of thealternatives) will be necessary." Because of this, EPA chosenot to issue a Record of Decision, which would delineate theproposed remedial measures for the sewers and creeks and serveas the basis for funding of these remedial measures. EPA alsodetermined that while the EID "included a complete site andcontamination assessment," an expanded and enhanced riskassessment of the remedial alternatives was necessary forinclusion in the final ROD. In August of 1984, EPA taskedCH2M HILL under the existing REM/FIT Zone II contract tore-evaluate the alternatives previously analyzed, restate thebeneficial and adverse benefits of each, and provide costestimates. CH2M HILL was also tasked with providing a riskassessment of the remedial alternatives.

2-3

The following major developments or new data submittals have oc-curred that could impact the recommendations contained in theMalcolm Pirnie EID:

o Sampling by the DEC in 1983 detected low levels ofdioxin ( i . e . sub-part-per-billion) in fish andsediment in Cayuga Creek in the vicinity of theLindbergh Avenue 60-inch storm overflow, a knowncontaminant pathway from Love Canal. The limitedsampling of Cayuga Creek performed by Malcolm Pirniein 1983 identified no contamination along CayugaCreek.

o Sampling in 1984 by DEC of Bergholtz Creek sedimentsdownstream of the 93rd Street storm sewer outfallfound significant levels of dioxin ( i . e . 6 . 4 - 1 0 . 2ppb). The Malcolm Pirnie 1983 sampling effort did notinclude this area.

No Further sampling of Bergholtz Creek by DEC in the 0)summer of 1984 found dioxin at 11 ppb as far ^downstream as 90th Street near the confluence of ^Bergholtz and Cayuga Creeks. ®

o Preliminary results of the 1984 investigations of RCRAResearch, Inc. of the 93rd Street School site foundlevels of dioxin in the subsurface soils and in thewaters of Bergholtz Creek. Two of the subsurface soilsamples, taken from fly ash layers located four tosix feet below ground, averaged 1 . 6 3 ppb. Two watersamples were found to contain dioxin at levels "neardetection limits" of 0.001 ppb.

o Contact by DEC with local licensed hazardous wastelandfill owners revealed a reluctance on their part"to handle and store dioxin-tainted. Love Canalwastes."

o There was considerable public controversy regardingthe DEC'S attempt in July 1984 to dispose of 42555-gallon drums of contaminated sewer sediment removedfrom storm and sanitary sewers within Rings 1 and 2 byburying drums in the existing clay cap prior toplacement of the synthetic membrane cover over theCanal.

o On November 8, 1984, President Reagan signed into lawthe Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 19S4.These amendments significantly altered the scope ofthe Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)which governs the disposal of hazardous waste.Several disposal alternatives previously considered byMalcolm Pirnie because non-viable.

2-4

o On January 14, 1985, EPA amended the regulations underRCRA pertaining specifically to disposal of dioxincontaining wastes.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this report are to further assess thecomponents of the various alternatives developed during the 1983Malcolm Pirnie EID (including onsite disposal); provide detailedcost estimates for each defined alternative? identify furtherstudy needs or data voids; generate qualitative risk assessmentsof the remedial alternatives; and prepare the public for theinformation meetings associated with the presentation of theresults in the work elements defined above.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORTChapter 3 provides a summary of information on the contaminants,pathways and receptors in the Love Canal Area, summarizes thetoxicology of the "target chemicals" selected for evaluation,and summarizes the Risk Assessment of the No Action Alternative.Chapter 4 provides a description of how the remedialalternatives were selected, and lists all the alternatives thatwere evaluated. Chapter 5 discusses the screening out ofcertain alternatives. Chapter 6 discusses each of the remainingremedial alternatives and provides further screening. Chapter 7presents a qualitative risk assessment of each of the remainingalternatives. Chapter 8 presents a summary of costs associatedwith these alternatives. Appendix A provides summaries ofexisting research in dioxin destruction technologies.Appendix B is a detailed discussion of Chapter 3 (the No ActionAlternative Risk Assessment). .Appendix C is a detaileddiscussion of the chemical and toxicological properties of thetarget chemicals.

USE OF THIS REPORTThis report, in-keeping with EPA and NCP guidelines, does notcontain recommendations for specific remedial activities or acombination of activities. The decision making authority isvested in the EPA and the DEC which reach a decision only afterreceiving input from the public. The benefits, adverse impactsand costs of each alternative must be weighed in arriving at thefinal remedial measures; this report attempts to provide thedecision makers with that information. It should be noted thatthis report exceeds the bounds of MCP guidelines in certainrespects. Normally, a large number of alternatives would havebeen screened out during the initial phase of the FeasibilityStudy so that only a limited number (usually three to five )ofalternatives would be studied. However, the scope of workgenerated by EPA and the intensive public involvement in thisstudy yielded many alternatives which were carried forward into

2-5

the evaluation process. A Feasibility Study would also normallyinvolve a preliminary Remedial Investigation (RI) designed toprovide sufficient detailed information to support or eliminatealternatives on the basis of environmental and engineering data.If data gaps in the RI were identified during the FeasibilityStudy, then focused field investigations of limited scope couldnormally be undertaken to define the data needed. The MalcolmPirnie BID was not intended to be a RI and additional fieldstudies were not authorized for this Feasibility Study.Therefore, certain vital engineering data, such as the physicalcharacteristics of the sediments in the sewers and creeks, orthe ability of the road bed to support a "Times Beach" vault,must be obtained before an acceptable design can be developed.

WDR99/33

<n»-<V3^C

2-6

Chapter 3SUMMARY OF THE HEALTH ASSESSMENTOF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

INTRODUCTION

Under Section 104 of the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the EPAmay undertake a response to cleanup environmental contamina-tion ( 1 ) when there is a release of a hazardous substance orthere is a substantial threat of such a release into theenvironment; or ( 2 ) when there is a release or substantialthreat of a release into the environment of any pollutant orcontaminant which may present an imminent and substantialdanger to the public health or welfare.Section 104(a) ( 1 ) of CERCLA authorizes removal or remedialaction unless it is determined that such removal or remedialaction will be done properly by the owner or operator of thevessel or facility from which the release or threat ofrelease emanates, or by any other responsible party. Ifappropriate response actions are not being taken or executedproperly, including in a timely manner, EPA may initiateproper action, terminate any improper actions; advise anyknown responsible party of these actions, and completeresponse activities.It is important to note at this juncture that imminent doesnot mean immediate harm, rather it means an impending riskof harm. Similarly, endangerment means something less thanactual harm. It is sufficient if the harm is threatened; noactual injury need ever occur.In evaluating and selecting a response to uncontrolledreleases of hazardous substances a major concern is adequateremediation and protection of the environment. The NationalOil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP>requires, in Section 3 0 0 . 6 8 ( i » ( 2 ) ( D ) ;

( D ) An assessment of each alternative in terms of theextent to which it is expected to effectivelymitigate and minimize damage to, and provideadequate protection o£, public health, welfare,and the environment, relative to the otheralternatives analyzed...

Section 300.68 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( E ) requires:( E ) An analysis of any adverse environmental impacts,

methods for mitigating these impacts, and costs ofmitigation.

3-1

EPA guidelines state that the following should be assessedin determining whether and what type of remedial and/orremoval actions should be considered;

o Population, environmental, and welfare concerns atrisk;

o Routes of exposure;o Amount, concentration, hazardous properties,

environmental fate ( e . g . , ability to bio-accumulate, persistence, mobility, e t c . ) , and formof the substance(s) present;

o Hydrogeological factors ( e . g . , soil permeability,-depth to saturated zone, hydrologic gradients,proximity to a drinking water aquifer, floodplainsand wetlands proximity);

o Climate (rainfall, e t c . ) ; w7)o The extent to which the source can be adequately ^

identified and characterized; '•C

o The likelihood of future releases if thesubstances remain onsite;

o The extent to which natural or manmade barrierscurrently contain the substances and the adequacyof the barriers;

o The extent to which.the substances have migratedor are expected to migrate from the area of theiroriginal location or new location if relocated andwhether future migration may pose a threat topublic health; welfare, or the environment;

o Extent to which contamination levels exceedapplicable or relevant Federal or State publichealth or environmental standards, advisories andcriteria and the extent to which there are appli-cable or relevant standards for the storage,treatment, or disposal of materials of the typepresent at the release; and

o Contribution of the contamination to an air, landor water pollution problem.This chapter summarizes the information available on thecontaminant concentration and toxicology population(receptors), routes of exposure (pathways), and environ-mental fate of chemicals present in the Love Canal sewers

3-2

C

and creeks. Appendices B and C provide a detaileddiscussion of these subjects.TOXICOLOGY SUMMARYOver 100 chemicals have been found in the sewers and creeksof the Love Canal area. These contaminants were found inthe sanitary sewers, storm sewers, creeks and at the 102ndStreet Outfall. Subseauent sampling by DEC and others hasfound contamination in areas not sampled by Malcolm Pirnieor EPA.A complete evaluation of the chemical, physical andtoxicological properties of the entire range of contaminantsfound in the Love Canal sewers and creeks is beyond thescope of this study. Based on the number of times found,and the chemicals' toxicology, a number of target chemicalswere selected for evaluation of hazardous properties andenvironmental fate. A summary of the toxieological prop-erties is presented below. Appendix C contains moredetailed information on these target chemicals.2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxinTCDD has been shown to be extremely toxic in experimentalanimals and has teratogenic, mutagenic and carcinogeniceffects. Sensitivity and target organs differ for variousspecies. Chloracne and hyperkeratosis are distinctivesymptoms of TCDD exposure in animals and humans. A numberof reports suggest an association of soft tissue sarcomasand TCDD exposure in humans.Hexachlorocyclohexane Isomers (HCH or BHC)•y-BHC is stored in fat tissue of experimental animals, butis cleared from the system after cessation of exposure.Target organs include the brain, liver, and kidney. Chronicexposures may cause blood disorders. The a , B , and Tisomers of BHC have been demonstrated to induce cancer inexperimental animals.Chlorinated BenzenesThe main sites affected by acute exposure to highconcentrations are the hepatic, renal and nervous systems.Lower levels of exposure -to some of the chlorinated benzenesmay have adverse effect on the nervous system. Hexachloro-benzene has been demonstrated to produce fetotoxicity inexperimental animals. It has also been shown to be a animalcarcinogen.

3-3

TolueneThe primary effect of exposure to humans is dysfunction ofthe central nervous system. Levels required to induceeffects (100-300 ppm in air for short-term exposures) aresubstantially in excess of typical environmental levels. Noevidence of mutagenicity, teratogenicity or carcinogenicityhas been found in animal experimentation.ArsenicMutagenic changes have been noted in animal cells followingexposure to arsenic. Ingestion of arsenic contaminatedwater can result in changes in immune function, cardiovas-cular disorders, peripheral vascular disorders, and nervedegeneration in the peripheral nervous system. Arsenicexposure has been linked to cancer and reproductive effectsin humans. Dermal exposure can lead to skin reddening andformation of skin eruptions.Cadmium 00————— ff)Primary effects of chronic exposure to inhaled cadmium are ^pulmonary emphysema and renal tubular damage. Hypertension e;may be an early symptom of exposure. Recent evidence indi-' Ccates inhaled cadmium acts to induce lung cancer.ThalliumThallium has been used for medicinal purposes, but canproduce toxic effects when large doses (200 to 1,000 mg/kg-body weight) are ingested. Effects of overexposure includeneurological disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, hairloss, kidney damage, liver damage and death. Hair loss is asymptom of low dose exposure.The toxicological profiles above are based on exposure toonly one chemic.al, and synergistic and antagonistic effectsare not considered. The state of toxicological knowledge isinsufficient to describe the potential effects of multipleexposure to a variety of contaminants.The contaminants may be grouped into two primary healtheffects categories, --hose that are known or suspectedcarcinogens and those that are not. TCDD, hexachloro-benzene. and the a , 8 , and -y isomers of BHC belong in thecarcinogen group and the rest of the chlorinated benzenes»toluene, ingested cadmium, and thallium were evaluated asnoncarcinogens. There are no data on ingested cadmium as ananimal carcinogen, but there are data that it is carcino-genic when inhaled as a fume or injected.

3-4

Table 3-1 summarizes the various standards, criteria andrecommendations on acceptable levels of contaminants invarious environmental media.

IMPACT EVALUATIONIn the following discussion, each of the contaminated areas(see Figures 3-1 through 3-5, Plates 1 and 2 , andAppendix B) is summarized with respect to chemicals detectedand the potential for human exposure. Some people may beexposed to more than one area ( e . g . , creek sediments andfish), and therefore their total exposure would be greaterthan that from any single area.SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS

Tables 3-2 and 3-3 show the compounds and concentrationranges found during the January 1983 Malcolm Pirnie samplingprogram in the sanitary and storm manholes, respectively. V)While individual sediment samples contained organics within ^those ranges, many samples contained no detectable organics. <rt

0A comparison of the sampling data from samples collected in cthe storm sewers in 1980 by EPA-ORD and in 1983 by Malcolm .Pirnie shows an apparent decrease in the concentration ofTCDD, BHC isomers and hexachlorobenzene in the 2.5 yearinterval. This is consistent with an expected migration ofsediments from water entrainment following the plugging ofthe sewer lines from the immediate Canal area to the EDA.The maximum reported and mean TCDD concentrations were 1 . 9and 0.82 ug/kg, respectively in the Malcolm Pirnie data.From the EPA-ORD study, the maximum and mean concentrationswere 650 and 49 ug/kg, respectively. The maximum reportedand mean concentrations in the sanitary sewers were 30 and3 ug/kg, respectively, from Malcolm Pirnie data. Mondetect-able concentrations were reported by Malcolm Pirnie in 15 of19 samples in the sanitary sewers and 10 of 12 in the stormsewers.Although no one is exposed to sewer sediments on a regularbasis, several potential exposure scenarios were examined,and they are summarized below.

o Sewer maintenance. Sewers do not receive regularmaintenance. If maintenance is required on atypical sewer, standard practice would be toventilate the sewers before entry and to use nospecial equipment, such as respirators. Higherlevel protection, however, would be used for entryinto the EDA sewers in order to minimize workerexposure.

3-5

Table i-1HEALTH CRITERIA, GUIDELINES, MID STANDARDS FOR VARIOUS COKTAMItlANTS

Drinking

Contaminant

2,3,7,B-TCDD

a-BHCB-BHCY-BHC

Chlorinated benxenes

ChlarobenieneDichlorobenzenes1,2,1-TrlchlorobenientHexacblorabeniene

Toluene

Arsenic

CadfluiLJ

y, Thaillr

iliEPA, 1980.^'PAr lnn««»tnn t^f 1 1. rw

NaterStinoard Drinking

lvg/1) Wtter"

2.3 , lO-71"

o.ou;^,o.on t

4 0.026'"

lO""

0.0,1"'15,000

50 O.OOIS1'1

10 I.!"'

18

>r rixu -

EFA Mater QualityFish and

Drinking Hater

1.3 , lO-1"'-"

O.OOSi10

0.0163',!0.0186'"

9.1 x lO'*"*

14,300

oW".1'"

13

ResidentialSoil

Criteria lug/Ll Concen-———————————————— trat Ion

Freshwater Aquatic Life Iliq/kg)

1"»

0.08 ave., }.0 •ax.

350

1,HO acutr, 763 chronic

17,500

72 ave., 140 •ax.

(1.16 In(hardness)-3.841)e

AcceptableDally Cancer.^,

Intake Potency' '(•g/day) (kg-day/.g)

156,000

11. U1.841.33

1

1.67

30

15

0.17

0.037

' 'For Ingestlon of 2 L per day.—For Ingestlon of 2 L and 6.5 g of fish and shellfish per day.a O.S. EMt, 19844.- U.S. EPA, 19«4a.•"Uf- excess llfetit cancer risk.(«> Level of concern. KiBbrough, «l a^., 1983.

MOR101/25

006200

l )

Figure 3-3nfi£"7m Surface Water Sample SitesUiibAUJ ^ ^ pg^ ^gg

Black and Berholtz Creek KXJBI'S

Figure 3—4Surface Water Sample Sitesof the Love Canal AreaCayuga Creek

^~T . - lUicnasiHCEl—

-MAGA.RA EJVEB ^^^

-N-Figure 3-6Surface Water Sample Sitesof the Love Canal Area

Table 3-2CONCENTRATION RANGES IN INDIVIDUAL SANITARY SEWER SEDIMENT SAMPLES

Range ofCompound*______ Concentration (ug/Ttg) ' Sampling Location

Chlorobenzene ND - 7B,0001.2-Dichlorobenzene ND - 34,0001.3-Dichlorobenzene ND - 52,000

1.4-Dichlorobenzene ND - 98,000

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND - 510,000

Hexachlorobenzene ND - 85,000

Toluene ND - 35,000a - BHC ND - 140,0005 - BHC ND - 130,000y - BHC ND - 120,000Fluoranthene ND - 6,400

Benzoanthracene/Chrysene ND - 4,600Anthracene/Phenanthrene ND - 16,000

Naphthalene ND - 7,000pyrene ND - S,200

Hexachlorobutadiene ND - 76,0001,1,1-Trichloroethane ND - 2,500Trichlorofluoromethane ND - 3,300Phenol ND - 500Dichlorophenol ND.- 632,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND - S602 , 3 , 7 , 8 - TCDD ND - 30

NOTE;

457, 779779, LS»6265, 773,779, LS#4LS#6285, 457, 754, 755, 773779, LS»9, LS»6251, 262, 264, 265, 267,457, 759, 773, 777,779,786, LS»4, LS»6262. 265, 267, 457,759,765, 777, 779LS*4285,457,752,754,755,779457, 777,779, LS»4457, 777, LS»4457, 777,779. LS«4257, 277, 754, 768,LS»4LS#4262, 754, 755, 779,LS»4, LS#6LS»6277,754,768, LS»4LS»6262, 265, 457, 777, 779457457273

777264, 759, 765, 7B6


1 - All results reported on a wet weight basis.2 - Manholes unless indicated otherwise.ND - Not DetectedLS - Lift Station

WDR101/23

3-12

Table 3-3CONCENTRATION RANGES IM INDIVIDUAL STOBM SEWER SEDIMENT SAMPLES

Range of ,Compound*____ Concentrations (ug/kg) Sampling Location

206221415, 715, 719, D . I . 9 9412, 719, D.I. 97. D . I . 9 9719, D.I.97412, 715, 719, 750,

D . I . 9 7 , D . I . 9 9221, 412, 714, 715, 719,D . I . 9 7 , D . I . 9 9221, 412, 719, D . I . 9 7221, 412, 415, 715, 719,D . I . 9 9412412415, 431, 712, D.I.97412 r»431, D . I . 9 7 , D . I . 9 9 0712, D . I . 97 N

719, D.I.97 ©412 CD.I.97D.I.97415, 712

BenzeneEthylbenzeneChlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene

MD -HD -MD -MD -ND -ND -

2,1002,200

55.00048,00060,00092,000

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene MD - 130,000Hexachlorobenzene MD - 34,000Toluene HD - 280,000Mapththalene ND - 11,0002-Chloronaphthalene MD - 46,000Fluoranthene MD - 6,8001,2-Diphenylhydrazine MD - 19.000Anthracene/Phenanthrene MD - 13,000Pyrene MD - • 5,600Hexachlorobutadiene MD - 43,000a - BHC MD - 11,0006 - BHC MD - 6,8002,3,6-Trichlorophenol MD - 6,0002 , 3 , 7 , 8 - TCDD MD - 1 . 9

NOTES:* - Methylene chloride, phthalate esters, and heavy metals were not

included.1 - All results reported on a wet weight basis.2 - Manholes, unless otherwise indicated.ND - Mot Detected.DI - Drop Inlet

WDR101/24

3-13

o Inhalation of volatile organics by public.Volatile organics were detected in some samples inthe sewers. Emissions through manholes, or theoutfalls will be dispersed by winds and atmos-pheric turbulence. This will reduce the potentialfor the public to inhale volatile organics fromthe sewers.

o Surcharging of sediments to surface. Surchargingto within a few feet of the surface was observedin the manholes by Malcolm Pirnie. Surcharging ofthe sanitary sewers has been reported in the areaof 91st, 92nd, 93rd Streets and Reading Avenueduring periods of high rainfall, and of the stormsewers to the surface along 93rd Street. Chemicalconcentrations in material surcharged to thesurface will become diluted as mixing with waterand surface material occurs. The amount ofdeposited sediment will depend on local condi-tions. Human exposure will depend on the durationof the condition ( e . g . , surface washing by city °0services or rain, and chemical degradation will fdecrease concentrations), contact time, and the t£rates of soil inge'stion, intestinal absorption, , "dermal absorption and inhalation of entrainedsoil. Most of these parameters have very uncer-tain values.

o Backflow of sanitary sewer sediments to basements.Backflow preventers were not installed in the EDAhomes. Therefore, the potential exists that thesanitary sewer sediments may be discharged to thehomes. If the discharge remains undetected,exposure to contaminated material may result.

o Exfiltration to groundwater. Exfiltration, or theleaking of sewer material from the pipe, may beenhanced in the EDA by the absence of drainagesystem to channel the groundwater away from thepipes. The shallow groundwater increases thepotential release. The rate of exfiltration, ifany, is unknown. Subsequent migration routes andconsumptive uses are also not known. The poten-tial for transport to surface is not known,although it should be noted that several of thetarget chemicals, including TCDD, are stronglyadsorbed to soil and therefore would have limitedmigration with the groundwater.

CREEKSThe results of the January 1983 Malcolm Pirnie samplingprogram detected dioxin ( 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 TCDD) at five locations,

3-14

with concentrations ranging from 1.2 to 45.8 ug/kg wetweight. 3-chloronapthalene was found at one of the samelocations in Bergholtz and Black Creeks.The organic contaminants were found in the upper foot ofsediment. Mo detectable contaminants of suspected LoveCanal origin were detected below the one-foot depth or atany of the other sampling locations in Bergholtz and BlackCreeks. Concentrations in this same range have also beenreported by EPA-ORD and NYDOH.Mo volatile organics were detected by Malcolm Pirnie in thecreek sediments or water, so inhalation is not a major expo-sure route for volatile organics. TCDD was detected,particularly near the confluence of Black and BergholtzCreeks, at detected concentrations from 0.1 to 45.8 ug/kg.Nondetectable concentrations were reported in 13 of 15, 12of 15, and all 13 samples in Black, Bergholtz and CayugaCreeks, respectively.Sediment transport with stream flow will tend to decreasethe concentrations over time, but this possibility isreduced by the continued loading from the storm seweroutfalls. Potential human exposure may occur in twoscenarios (potential fish ingestion is discussed later).

o Recreational activities. Exposure will occurduring swimming, wading or other recreational useof the creeks. Access is limited along Black andBergholtz Creeks because of fencing along thebanks down to the 93rd Street School grounds.Although fences can'be breached, the generaleffect is to reduce exposure. Access to CayugaCreek is open, but the sediment here had thelowest concentrations. During recreational activ-ities, water may be ingested or absorbed throughthe skin. The exposure factors and their uncer-tainty is much the sane as discussed in thesection on sewer surcharging. Ingestion of driedsediment along the creek banks is a potentialadditional exposure route.

o Migration to residential yards. A high rainfallrate and/or a high stage of the Niagara Rivercould produce flooding of the creeks onto localresidential yards. The qualitative nature of thehuman exposure potential is much the same asdiscussed for surcharged sewer sediments above.

102nd STREET OUTFALLLove Canal related compounds were found in the Niagara Riveradjacent to the 102nd Street storm sewer outfall in a number

3-15

of sediment samples. Table 3-4 shows the compounds andconcentration ranges found in the outfall sediment.. Thesamples taken in the proximity of the 102nd Street outfallhad the highest contamination assessment levels.The physical characteristics of the river bed from 0 to3 feet consisted of fine silts, sand, and muck with miscel-laneous debris such as logs, tires, drums, bottles, etc. Afirm or impervious subbase such as clay was not encounteredin the sampling area. None of the liquid samples takenduring the January 1983 Malcolm Pirnie sampling program fromthis outfall area contained detectable levels of organics.Maximum and mean TCDD concentrations at the 102nd Streetstorm sewer outfall, as reported by Malcolm Pirnie, are 3 . 3and 0.4 ug/kg. Nondetectable concentrations were reportedin 30 of 31 samples between rows F, J, 3 and 16 in theMalcolm Pirnie report.Potential human exposure routes to the 102nd Street outfallsediments are much the same as in the discussion for the Qcreek sediments. <-<NWNiagara River water (after treatment) is used for drinking . 3water purposes. Concentrations of the target chemicals ®reported in the untreated water at the Niagara Falls watertreatment plant were below the water criteria shown inTable 3-1.FISHSamples of spottail shiners and creek chubs collected by theNew York Department of Environmental Conservation in 1984 inthe creeks below Porter Road had reported TCDD concentra-tions from 6 . 8 to 127 ng/kg wet weight. Two of 7 samplesexceeded 50 ng/kg and 3 of 7 exceeded 25 ng/kg. Concen-trations of TCDD in sport fish in the Niagara River weremost often reported as nondetects (detection limit 10 ng/kg)in 1980, but bass samples in 1981 were reported as nonde-tects (detection limit 1 ng/kg) to 30 ng/kg in the LowerNiagara River near Queenston. Sport fish captured in LakeOntario had concentrations from nondetects (detection limit10 ng/kg) to 19 ng/kg in 1980. These concentrations wouldbe expected to decline as new fish mature if the creek andriver concentrations decrease. Sediment migration down-stream would be expected over time.The consumption rate of fish caught in the creeks or nearthe 102nd Street outfall is not known, although anecdotalstories suggest summertime fishing.Based on its evaluation of TCDD toxicity. the U . S . Food andDrum Administration (FDA) stated that fish containing more

3-16

Table 3-4CONCENTRATION RANGES IN INDIVIDUAL 102ND STREET

OUTFALL SEDIMENT SAMPLES

CompoundRange of

Concentrations (ug/Tcg)'

Carbon tetrachlorideChloroformTolueneTrichloroethyleneTetrachloroethyleneTrichlorofluoromethaneChlorobenzene


2 3002 0003 2006 200

26 0002 5009 100




1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND - 300,000

Hexachlorobenzene ND - 52,000Bis(2-chloroethyl)Ether ND - 5,200

a - BHC KD - 48.000

Location

E-13BE-9C, G-14A, G-15C

E-9AE-9AE-9AE-14A

E-7C, E-8C, E-9A, E-10C,E-11B, E-11C, E-12C, F-7A,F-7C, F-11C, G-7C, G-11CE-7C, E-9A, E-9B, E-11B,E-11C, F-11C, G-6AE-7C, E-9A, E-9B, E-11C,F-9A, G-6AE-9A, E-9B, E-11B, E-11C,F-9A, F-11C, G-6AE-8A, E-9A, E-9B, E-9C,

F-9B, G-6A, H-10A,F-9A,K-21AE-9A,E-9A,H-8CE-4A,

F-9B,

E-9B,F-9C,

E-8A,

G-6A,

E-9C,F-13A,

E-9B,

H-10A,

F-9AP-13B,

E-9C,

6 - BHC ND - . 49.000

Y - BHC ND - 2,400S - BHC ND - 260Chrysene ND - 710Pyrene ND - 540Phenanthrene ND - 20,000Anthracene/Phenanthrene ND - 2002 , 3 , 7 , 8 - TCDD ND - 4

F-8A, F-9A, F-9B, G-6A,G-9A, G-14B. K-6A, K-21AE-8A, E-9A, E-9B, F-8A,F-9A, G-6A, K21AE-9B, G-6A

E-9BG-6AG-6AE-9AE-9BF-8

NOTE;

ND - Not Detected

1. Methylene chloride, phthalate esters, and inorganic compoundsdata were not included.

2. All results reported on a wet weight basis.3. Refer to Figure 3-1 for locations. The last letter in the

location designation indicates the depth of sample (i.e. A -0-12", B - 12-24", C-24-"'"' below sediment surface.

WDR101/26

3-17

than 50 ng/kg '"CDD should not be consumed, and thosecontaining between 25 and 50 ng/kg should not be consumedmore than twice a month. The FDA did not provide anyrecommendations for consuming fish containing less than25 ng/kg.

PREVIOUS HEALTH ASSESSMENT

In 1981, the U . S . Department of Health and Human Services(DHHS) obtained written opinions from eleven non-federalexpert consultants on the health implications of the dataobtained by the U . S . Environmental Protection Agency in its1980 chemical testing at Love Canal. The consultants metfor one day and were presented with a condensed form of theEPA monitoring data. The experts' opinions on the stormsewer and creek chemical concentrations were summarized asfollows:

"Consultants agree that levels of chemicals detected instorm sewers and in Area 11 (Canal itself and the first ^two rings of houses surrounding the Canal) exceed Nacceptable levels and represent a potential for ^increased health risk if remedial actions are not §pursued and if human access is not controlled....""Any judgment regarding the future habitability of theLove Canal area rests on two important requirements.The first reservation is that appropriate measures mustbe taken to clean up the obvious contamination of localstonn sewers and their drainage tracts. Second, thesecurity of Area 11 must be reevaluated to guaranteepermanent containment of. chemicals in the dump."

Although the U . S . Congress Office of Technology Assessmentcriticized the general conclusions of the 1982 EPA moni-toring report and the DHHS statement on habitability, nocriticisms were directed at the identified need to clean thestorm sewers and drainage tracts. This need was restated byDHHS on July 13, 1982. The New York Department of Healthhas also supported this position.Because the 1980 EPA sampling did not include the sanitarysewers, DHHS has not made any formal statements on thecontamination there. DHHS has not formally reviewed theresults of the 1983 Malcolm Pirnie investigation.

WDR101/21

3-18

Chapter 4REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES UNDER EVALUATION

BACKGROUND

The first step in planning a remedial approach for theLove Canal creeks and sewers, and the 102nd Street Outfallis to develop a list of feasible options. Necessaryconsiderations for choosing alternatives includes

o Depth of contaminated sedimento Degree of cleanliness requiredo Extent of contaminationo Chemical and physical nature of contaminantso Costs and availability of cleanup, treatment, and

disposal equipment „T-<o Feasibility of mobilizing required equipment NW

o Potential hazards to workers, the public, and the oenvironment

EPA has issued guidelines stating that six broad categoriesof remedial measures are to be evaluated. These are asfollows:

o Alternatives for treatment disposal at an offsitefacility that meets RCRA standards.

o Onsite alternatives that meet applicable Federalpublic health or environmental standards ( i . e . ,RCRA); however, RCRA and other permits are notrequired.

o Onsite alternatives that exceed applicable publichealth or environmental standards.

o Onsite alternatives that do not fully meetapplicable public health or environmentalstandards, but would reduce the likelihood ofpresent or future threat from the hazardoussubstances and which provide significantprotection to public health, welfare, and theenvironment. This must include an alternativewhich most closely approaches the level ofprotection provided by the applicable or relevantstandards,

4-1

o A no action alternative.o Remedial measures suggested by the potential

responsible party at the site.These guidelines were issued as part of EPA's implementationof the National Oil and Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan( N C P ) . The report prepared by Malcolm Pirnie (1983 EID) didnot meet the standards of the NCP, primarily because the NCPhad not been fully promulgated when the study was started.The alternatives that were evaluated as part of this studywere not selected solely on the basis of the NCP categories,but were derived from the following sources;

o U . S . EPA Headquarters and Region II whichspecified certain of the Malcolm Pirniealternatives as well as additional alternativesfor evaluation?

o NYSDEC, which suggested certain remedial <alternatives; <N

o The concerned citi-zens living within the EDA; and ^eo Citizen's groups from the Niagara Falls area.

Additionally, the results of previous studies conducted byCH2M HILL at Times Beach and other dioxin contaminated siteswere examined to determine if feasible remedial alternativesfrom these sites could be applied to the Love Canal.Appendix A contains a detailed discussion of these treatmentalternatives. Finally, certain vendors of cleanup ordisposal technologies either provided written suggestionsfor, or presentations of, remedial alternatives that wereevaluated.

ALTERNATIVESTable 4-1 summarizes the different alternative actions thathave been evaluated. The table provides a complete listingof the possible work elements involved in removal,dewatering and treatment or disposal of the sediments, andindicates which alternatives were proposed by the MalcolmPirnie 1983 EID, and which were added or deleted by EPA,DEC, and the public.

WDR99/036

4-2

Table 4-1RBTOIAL ALTERNATIVES

Alternative

Screened asPart of 1983 EIDty Malcoln Pirnie

Added (•>•)or Deleted (-1 asRtsult of Review

by EP».DEC, and Public

Evaluated inthis Report

I. Sedlaent KcKovil or Reaediatlon

A. Severs

1. No action2. Plug and abandon severs3. Clean contaminated sever seg—nts

a« Hydraullcally cleanb* Mechanically clean and hydraulically

tlusb lines

1) Dse powtr rodding aechanlcalequipoent

2) Dse bucket cleaning necbanicalequlpBent

4. Hirdraulically and/or aechaalcally cleansevers and repair

a. Apply groutb. Slip line sever segoents

5. ROOT* and replace contaBlnated severpipe and bedding •aterlal

B. Creeks

1. Ho action1. Delay re«»dlal action until additional

sailing is coapleted dovnstreax aJ faraJ bhe confluence of Cayuga Creek andLittle Niagara River

3. tk> r—edlal action dovnstreaH of the93rd Steet School until sanpling at theschool Is coBpleted

4. Rexedlate Blacit Creek and BergholtzCreek areas designated ID 1983 EID (fron»6tn Street to point between 9416 acd9fth Streets)

5. Rexedlat* the area In 4 above plus anadditional 600 feet (lovnstreaa to tbe93rd Street stof sever outfall

6. Remediate tbe area in 5 above plus anadditional 2400 feet fron the 93rd Streetoutfall to the confluence vlth CayugaCreek

4-3

in•

x NU)

. §

Table 4-1KEMfBIAL ALTERNATIVES

(Continued)Added (*)


Part of 1983 EID by ERA, Evaluated InAlternative____________ by Halcola Pirate DEC, and Public this Report

7. Renediate the area In 6 above plus the6,300-foot section of Cayuga Creek frottthe Bergholti Creek to the LittleNiagara fiver

8. Institutional action only X

a. Increase public avareness Xb. Post signs Xc. Fence the creeks Xd. Ban fishing aod oater sports

9. Stabilize creek sediwnts X

a. Place suit stone on creek bedonly . X

b. Install filter fabric on creekand cover •1th atone X

c. Place Black Creek niUilo a culvert Xd. Apply chetcal or biological

agents to Bake contaminants inert(the K-20 process) X

. 10. Hydraullcally clean Black Creek culvertsand r—ove and dispose of sedlnents fro*creek bottoB

a. Hydraullcally dredge creekb. Mechanically excavate creekc. Mechanically excavate creek and construct

sedlxent trap or tidal gate

C. Outfall

1. Do action X2. Stabilize sedlaeats Ilong tern) X

». Solidify or destroy contaBinantsin place X

b. Bur? sediMCts In place X

3. Repair tidal gate

a. Repair tidal gate onlyb. Repair tidal gate in con]unction. ulth alternatives C.< or C.5

4-4

(£T^

SX 0, ®


(Continued)

Alternative

Screened asPart of 1983 EIDby Halcoln Finite

Added (*>or Deleted I-) asResult of Review

by EPA,DEC, and Public

Evaluated Inthis Beport

Stabilize sediments (short ten)

a. Cover deposits with filter fabricand ston* fill

b. Construct earth/stone berac. Install sheet pile vaild. Construct ben or "all and cover

sediaeots with filter fabric andstone till

Construct bera or wall and resove anddispose of sedfents

a. Mechanically excavate using shore-based equipment

b. Mechanically excavate using acombination of shore-based andbargfounted ecutpaent

c. Use barge •ounted claashell dredgea. Hydraullcally dredge using barge-

•ounted ecuipBent

^X ^

NWC>

x 0

II. Transport and Dewatering of All Stdlnents, andTreatment of Fluids

A. Transport sediaeols to dewatering facility

1. Convey sedUenta by pipe within a pipe(hydraulic cleaniBQ' or dredging)

2. Convey sediiientt by watertight trucks{•echanlcal excavation)

B. Dewater sedrents

1. Erect passive or •echanlcal dewateringfacilities

;. Dewater solids in Interr storagefacility

C. Treat fluids

1. Treat fluids at •oditled Love CanalLeachate Treat—nt Plant

2. Erect separate fluid treataent facility3. Discharge fluids to saDltary sewer

tor treafent at the Niagara FallsHastewater TrMttnt Plant

4-5


(Continued)

Alternative

Screened asPart of 1983 EIOby Halcola Pirate

Added (»)or Deleted (-1 asResult ot Review

by EPA, Evaluated InDEC, and Public tills Beport


A. Cut through new Canal cap liner, depositsedlaents, and repair lines

S. Construct • separate, RCTA-grade*earthern berBed facility on topof the Love Canal cap

C. Construct a RCTA-gradt* earthem bemedcell Inside the fenced are* of the cap,off the Canal

D. Construct a concrete vault (Tiaes Beachdesign) located Inside the fenced areaof the cap, off the Canal

E. Convert the 93rd Street School buildingInto an Interia storage facility

F. Construct a RCRA-grade* earthem berwedcell on the 93rd Street School grounds

G. Construct a Tiaei Beach concrete vault onthe 93rd Street School grounds

H. Construct a Tines Beach concrete vault atthe LaSalle housing developneot followingacquisition of that developoent

IV. Treafent During Interr Storage

A. Use K-30 processB. Ose Occidental Chealcal syste* of nicroblal

degradation

V. Treatment and Disposal

A. "tn-situ NeutralIzatlon"B. Land Disposal

1. Onslte [excavate portlOQ of clay cap,deposit sediments, aad constructnev cap)

2. Ofcslte at approved haxardous wastelandfill

4-6


(Continued)

Alternative

Screened asPart of 1983 EIDby Malcolg Pimie

Added (*)or Deleted (-1 asRttull of Review

by EPA, Evaluated inDEC, and Public this Report

a. Send Baste to local facility suchas CECOS or SCA

b. Send waste to other facilitiesIncluding V.S. Pollution Control,Inc.; Great Hidvest Corporation;and the Envlronnental Conserva-tion and HanageBent Coapany

C. Incineration •ith Landfill Disposal of Ash

1. Onslte

a. Construct fixed facilityb. Use a •oblle Incinerator

1) EPA •oblle incinerator2) BISCO/Pyretech Rotary Kiln3) JM Huber advanced electric reactor41 RoTecb Cascading systems5) Plasu Arc incinerator

Wf(NW0®

2. Offslte

a. Bollins facility. Deer Park, Texas * Xb. ENSCO facility. El Dorado, Arkansas * Xc. Cbeoical Maste Management facility,

Chicago, Illinois •> Xd. SCA Landfill facility, Niagara rails,

He* York * X

D. Use of GeoTech Melt All systea •1th landfilldisposal of asb * X

•RCRA-grsde storage facility will be double lined, with a leachate collection systen, a leak detection systea cap, and a contingency plan In case of failure.

KDR99/034

4-7

Chapter 5INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

The EPA guidelines for implementation of CERCLA call for aninitial screening of alternatives. Three broad criteria areto be used;

1. Cost. For each alternative, the cost ofimplementing the remedial action must be consid-ered including operation and maintenance costs.An alternative that far exceeds the costs of otheralternatives evaluated and that does not providesubstantially greater public health or environ-mental protection, or technical reliability shouldusually be excluded from further considerationunless there is no other remedy which meets appli-cable or relevant Federal public health orenvironmental standards.

2. Acceptable Engineering Practices. Alternativesmust be feasible for the location and conditionsof the release, applicable to the problem, andrepresent a reliable means of addressing theproblem.

3. Effectiveness. Those alternatives that do noteffectively contribute to the protection of publichealth, welfare, and the environment should not beconsidered further.- If an alternative has signif-icant adverse effects, and very limited environ-mental benefits, it should also be excluded fromfurther consideration.

Utilizing the criteria of acceptable engineering practicesand effectiveness, a number of alternatives listed inTable 4-1 were eliminated from further consideration. Forstorm and sanitary sewers, mechanical cleaning was elimi-nated as an option because it is unnecessary for successfulremediation. The survey of the sewers conducted by MalcolmPirnie in 1983 revealed no evidence of root intrusion orheavy debris that would require the use of mechanicalequipment.For the creeks, delays in remediation or limiting remedia-tion to specific segments of the creeks do not adequatelyprotect public health. Sampling conducted by DEC in July1984 revealed dioxin contamination of sediment as far down-stream as the confluence of Bergholtz and Cayuga Creeks.Presently, several hundred feet of Bergholtz Creek betweenthe existing fence and the site of contamination remain

5-1

unfenced. ?s a result the contaminated sediments pose apotential threat to public health. In addition, delays inremediation would allow time for sediments to travel furtherdownstream or, in the event of a severe storm, to be washedinto yards along creek banks. Institutional steps to limitpublic access would not serve to eliminate the potential forexposure and would do nothing to prevent further contamina-tion of downstream creek and river reaches.Several proposed remedial alternatives would also beunacceptable for the creeks. The placement of filter fabricand small stone on the creek bed would not eliminate thepotential for contaminants to leach into water or subsoils.Also, the installation procedure would involve greaterworker exposure to the contaminated sediments than wouldoccur with other alternatives.Stabilization of sediments using chemical ( e . g . , the K-20process) or biological agents is also not a reliableremedial measure. Without extensive and expensivemonitoring it would be difficult to determine if completeand long-lasting stabilization of contaminants has recurred. <rtPlacing Black Creek in a culvert or hydraulically cleaning ^Black Creek are not appropriate. Installing a culvert would ®involve excavation of the creek bed in order to prepare a ®level surface. This excavation would result in the removalof most of the contaminated sediment thereby eliminating theneed for the culvert. Hydraulic removal of sediment isinfeasible due to problems in accessing the creek withhydraulic equipment.Infeasible interim storage alternatives include convertingthe 93rd Street School to a storage facility and construct-ing a concrete vault at the LaSalle Development. The schoolbuilding would require extensive structural enhancementsincluding installation of leachate detection and collectionsystems to ensure it would be secure. Construction of aconcrete vault at the LaSalle Development would requirerelocation of existing renters and demolition of severalhousing units. Both alternatives would involve lengthlypermit and study processes which would delay sewer, creek,and outfall cleanup activities.Treatment alternatives such as the K-20 process andmicrobial degradation applied during interim storage wouldnot be reliable or practical. K-20 would inhibit the futuretreatment or destruction of the dioxin waste. The microbialdegradation technique developed by Occidental Chemical issuccessful for most chlorinated organic compounds but isunproven for dioxin.

5-2

Finally, two disposal options are not possible. Onsitedisposal of the sediments in the clay cap is infeasible dueto the lack of capacity. The volume of dewatered sedimentsremoved from the creeks and sewers will exceed the spaceavailable within the cap. Second, offsite disposal at localor other facilities is not possible due to facility policyor design constraints which prevent their acceptance of thesediment wastes.Table 5-1 lists the alternatives that were eliminated, andprovides a summary of the reasons for elimination.Chapter 6 provides a more detailed evaluation of theremaining alternatives, and presents a cost analysis of allevaluated alternatives.

WDR101/19

5-3

Table 5-1ELIMINATION OF SCREENEDD ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Criteria for El iminat ion

Sediment Removal

A. Sewers

Mechanically clean and hydraulicallyflush lines

Use power rodding mechanicalequipment

Use bucket cleaning mechanicalequipment

Costs/Exceeds Cost of Other Alternatives WithoutGreater Public Health Protection; and EngineeringPractice/Limited Feasibility for Conditioning

Creeks

Delay remedial action until additionalsampling is completed downstream asfar as the confluence of Cayuga Creekand Little Niagara River

No remedial action downstream of the93rd Street School until sampling atthe school is completed

Remediate Black Creek and BergholtzCreek areas designated In 1983 EID(from 96th Street to point between94th and 95th Streets)

Remediate the area in 4 above plus anadditional 600 feet downstream to the93rd Street storm sewer outfall





006223

Table 5-1ELIMINATION OF SCREEMF.D ALTERNATIVES

(continued)


Institutional action only by increas- Effectiveness/Does not Protect Environment,ing public awareness, posting signs, or Effectively Protect Public Healthfencing the creeks, banning fishingand watersports.

Stabilize creek sediments:

— Install filter fabric on creek bed Engineering Practices/Not a Reliable Remedial Measureand cover with small stone

Apply chemical or biologicalagents to make contaminantsinert (the K-20 process)Place Black Creek in culvert

Hydraulically clean Black Creek


Costs/Exceeds Cost of Other Alternative WithoutGreater Public Health Protection; and EngineeringPractice/Limited Feasibility for Conditioning

Engineering Practices/Dredge Cannot be Used in BlackCreek


Convert the 93rd Street School buildinginto an interim storage facility

Construct a Times Beach concrete vaultat the LaSalle housing developmentfollowing acquisition of that development

Engineering Practices/Building Not Suitable for Use

Effectiveness/Possible Delays in Obtaining Propertyand Conducting Engineering Studies Do Not Contributeto Protection of Public Health

006224


(continued)


IV. Treatment During Interim Storage

o Use K-20 process

o Use Occidental Chemical system ofmicrobial degradation .

V. Disposal

o Onsite (excavate portion of clay cap,deposit sediments, and constructnew cap)

o Of f site at approved hazardous wastelandfill;

-- Send waste to local facility suchas CECOS or SCA

Send waste to other facilitiesincluding U.S. Pollution Control,Inc.) Great Midwest Corporation;and the Environmental Conservationand Management Company

WDR101/20


Engineering Practices/Not a Feasible Remedial Measu.e

Engineering Practices/Insufficient Capacity

Engineering Practices/Facilities Mil) Not Accept wastes


006225

Chapter 6REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

SEWER REMEDIATION

SEDIMENT QUANTITIESSediment depths measured during the sampling by MalcolmPirnie in 1983 ranged from 0-6 inches in the sanitary sewermanholes and 0-15 inches in the storm sewer manholes.However, most of the manholes contained very littlesediments (0-2 inches). Of the 100 sanitary sewer manholessampled, only 5 had sediment depths greater than two inches,while 52 had no measurable depth of sediment. Of the100 storm sewer manholes sampled, only 16 contained sedimentdepths greater than 2 inches with 21 containing nomeasurable depth of sediment. Exact quantification of theamount of sewer sediments cannot be made because sedimentdepth could not be determined in the sewers between manholes(sewers were too small to enter) and may vary from thedepths actually measured. NThe amount of sediment that would be cleaned from the . ^sanitary and storm sewers, if the recommendations from the oMalcolm Pirnie EID are followed, is estimated to be280 cubic yards, based on the following assumptions:

o 44,100 ft. sanitary sewero 10 inch average diameter—sanitary sewero 16,700 ft. storm sewero 24 inch average diameter—storm sewero 2,500 sq.ft. of lift station floors and walls to

be cleanedo 2 inch average depth of sediment in the sewers and

lift station wet wellsThese assumptions should result in a conservative estimateof quantities of contaminated sewer sediments.PATHWAYS OF CONTAMINANT MIGRATIONThis section briefly describes the contamination migrationpathways presented in the Malcolm Pirnie EID to provide anunderstanding of the applicability of the various techniquesto the Love Canal sewers.

o Sanitary Sewers—As shown on Plate 1 , sedimentscontaining the suspected Love Canal compounds werefound in numerous sanitary sewer manholes to thelimits of the study area. It was concluded byMalcolm Pirnie that most of the contamination in

6-1

th-' 3anitary sewers resulted from former directconnections to sewers in the Canal Area.Primary migration pathways identified include theWheatfield Avenue sanitary sewer which flowed viaWheatfield Avenue and 101st Street to ColvinBoulevard, and the 97th and 99th Street sanitarysewers which flowed into the Colvin Boulevardinterceptor sewer. All flow in the ColvinBoulevard interceptor travels to the west to LiftStation No. 4 at Luick Avenue and 91st Street.These sources of contamination have since beenblocked off and presumably have ceased tocontribute contamination to the sanitary sewers.Contamination was also found in sanitary sewersnot directly downstream of the system formerlyconnected to the Canal Area sewer. The conclusionwas made by Malcolm Pirnie that surcharging ofsewers during peak flow periods and attendant flowreversal could have transported the sediments into ^these sewers from the main interceptors. N

'£Sanitary sewers recommended for cleaning by . ®Malcolm Pirnie where no contamination was foundinclude sewers which are located between manholeswhere contamination was present (the assumptionwas made that the sediments may be transported upor downstream between the time of sampling and thetime when they are actually cleaned) and sewersconnected to main interceptors which have a highpotential for surcharging. For sanitary sewersconnected to the main interceptor, cleaning wasrecommended for one reach ( i . e . , to nextupgradient manhole) either side of theinterceptor.

o Storm Sewers—Contamination assessment of thestorm sewer system is shown on Plate 2. Primarymigration pathways identified are the 97th Streetand 99th Street storm sewers, both of which flowedsouth to Frontier Avenue, then east on FrontierAvenue to manhole 406, then south to the 102ndStreet outfall. The storm sewers on 97th and 99thStreets which flow to Black Creek via ColvinBoulevard and 96th Street and Colvin Boulevard and101st Street, respectively, are also considered tobe primary migration pathways. Storm sewers notdirectly connected to the Canal area could havereceived contamination from sanitary sewer liftstation overflows or from portable pumps used torelieve the surcharged sanitary sewers.

6-2

Storm sewers recommended by Malcolm Pirnie forcleaning in the absence of evidence of contamina-tion are those which receive overflows fromsanitary sewer lift stations and those stormsewers tributary to creek outfalls wherecontamination has been documented.

METHODS

Several potential remedial alternatives for the sanitary andstorm sewers were reviewed in the 1983 EID. These alterna-tives ranged from no action to the complete replacement ofsewers. However, the remedial actions, as described in thefollowing sections, are site specific.Possible sewer cleaning methods include;

o mechanicalo hydraulico bucket dredgingo suction equipment

Possible sewer repair techniques include:o pipe groutingo pipe reliningo removal and replacement

Monitoring activities include:o Periodic sampling/analysis of the sewer flows andsediments at strategic locations.

Investigative techniques useful in locating crossconnections and assessing the degree of remediation requiredinclude;

o Television inspection of selected sanitary andstorm sewers.

o Smoke testing.With the exception of certain sewers, abandonment in placewithout replacement cannot be undertaken because thesanitary sewers are used both by the residents livingthroughout the area, and by the Love Canal LeachateTreatment Facility.A detailed description and evaluation of all the aboveactions can be found in the 1983 EID.

6-3

CLEANING AS A REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE

Of the four sewer cleaning alternatives presented, themechanical methods (power roddinq and bucket cleaning) aremost effective in removing obstacles such as roots, stones,grease and sludges from sewers. Hydraulic flushing is mosteffective in cleaning sewers of loose or moderately accumu-lated sediments. Suction equipment is normally used toremove accumulated solids from manholes and to remove flushwater and sediments from manholes in conjunction with thehydraulic flushing method.Mechanical techniques have the advantage of removing heavymaterials without using large quantities of water. However,there was no visible evidence of root intrusion or heavysediment accumulation-in a majority of the sewers. Thesetechniques also do not remove all of the loosened debrisfrom the system. Mechanical cleaning must also be followedby hydraulic flushing. For these reasons, mechanicalcleaning can be screened as an alternative based onengineering acceptability, ffiNThe main advantage of hydraulic flushing is that essentially caall the sediment is transported to a manhole and removed ®from the sewers. The hydraulic flush method generates large -quantities of water (estimated at 7 gallons per foot ofsewer for the light cleaning required here, and up to20 gallons per foot may be required in the few sections withheavier sediment deposits). However, the sediments can beeffectively removed from the water by dewatering techniqueswhich are discussed elsewhere. The sediments must betransported to the dewatering facility, and the waterremoved from the sediments must be treated. These techni-ques are evaluated later in this report.Due to the nature and degree of contamination found in thesewer sediments, the release of significant amounts ofvolatile organics during cleaning is not anticipated. Thepresence of volatile organics in the sewer sediments wouldbe of concern because many of the homes served by contami-nated sewers do not have traps in the house laterals toprevent gases from entering them from the sewers duringcleaning. The potential for the release of sewer gases intoadjacent houses can be mitigated by adequate venting throughmanholes during the cleaning operations and proper coordina-tion with residents along the sewer lines.The potential also exists for the exposure of residents tocontaminated sewer sediments in the event that the sewersbackflow into house basements during the cleaningoperations. This, however, is not a likely occurrence andcan be mitigated through fu-11-time supervision of thecleaning operation, close coordination with area residents,

6-4

and the use of spill contingency measures in the event of abackflow.The most appropriate cleaning method is hydraulic flushing,in combination with flush water/sediment removal at variousmanholes using suction equipment. Some mechanical cleaningmay be required in specific sewer sections with heaviersediment deposits, but this can not be easily determineduntil the actual cleaning is initiated. After the cleaninghas been completed, television inspection can be made toverify that the sewer sediments were removed.Repair Following CleaningThe sewer repair alternatives are site specific and were notrecommended by Malcolm Pirnie for the general repair of allthe sanitary and storm sewers. Repairs would be done onlywhere required for structural integrity. Two areas wereidentified by Malcolm Pirnie as requiring repair. Thereappears to be a structural collapse of approximately300 feet of 10-inch pipe at a depth of approximately 10 feetof the sanitary sewer on Wheatfield Avenue (MH 457 to MH458). There is a second 300-foot section of sanitarysewer on Read Avenue between-MH 773 and MH 774 that appears.to be either structurally damaged or blocked by rootintrusion.Grouting and relining of pipe is very site specific. Theneed to grout or reline cannot be determined until after thesewer cleaning has begun and television inspections ofseveral sections of cleaned sewers are made.Although Malcolm Pirnie recommended such activities in theEID, the repair of the sewer system may be an activity moreadequately executed by the City of Niagara Falls, followingthe cleaning and inspection of the sewers. At the time ofwriting, DEC and the City are in negotiations regardingfunding for repairs, coordination of cleaning and repair,and personnel protection measures for sewer repair crews.Long-Term Monitoring Following CleaningSewer monitoring ( i . e . additional sampling and analysis)could be used in order to identify sections of pipe requir-ing either additional cleaning or to identity additionalsources of contamination.Inspection Techniques Following CleaningIn addition to any general television inspection made afterthe sewers are cleaned, television inspection could be usedto locate specific sources of infiltration ( i . e . verify thatsewers which have been blocked off in the past are not

6-5

active pathways of contaminant migration), broken pipes,etc.Specific locations recommended by Malcolm Pirnie for tele-vision inspection include:

o 1200 ft of sanitary sewer on 95th Street (MH283-MH 288)

o 300 ft of sanitary sewer on Wheatfield Avenue (MH457-MH 458)o 1150 ft of sanitary sewer on Read Avenue (MH

750-MH 756)o 950 ft of sanitary sewers entering MH 750 on 95th

Streeto 300 ft of sanitary sewer on Read Avenue (MH 773-MH

774) (."io 2200 ft of stonn sewer on 95th St (MH 427-MH 431) %

and beneath the LaSalle Expressway (MH 404-MH 406) ©o 750 ft. of stono sewer at 102nd Street landfill

(MH 402-MH 401) to ensure that no major faults orextraneous connections exist in that stretch.

Smoke testing could be used as necessary to determinesources and discharge points of pipes which may have actedas migration pathways. Smoke testing was recommended byMalcolm Pirnie for MH 277 (96th Street) and MH 265 (ColvinBlvd.)The costs for television inspection were estimated at $1.50per linear foot, and those for smoke testing were estimatedat $500 per manhole.In addition, after the sewer cleanup has been completed,solvent cloths will be used to take wipe samples in severalmanholes. The cloths will be analyzed for specific LoveCanal related compounds to assure that contamination hasbeen removed to an acceptable level.ABANDONMENT AND REPLACEMENT AS A REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE

Malcolm Pirnie recommended abandonment of approximately900 feet of storm sewer located on Frontier Avenue immedi-ately above the leachate collection system at Love Canal.Any exfiltration from this line would enter the leachatecollection system; abandonment of the line eliminates thispossibility. Two drop inlets ( D . I . 97 and D . I . 9 9 ) wouldhave to be blocked and the line plugged at MH 412 if

6-6

abandonment is undertaken. Estimated cost for this work is5500.With the exception of the above discussed sewer, abandonmentin place without replacement cannot be undertaken becausethe sanitary sewers are used by the residents livingthroughout the area and the Love Canal Leachate TreatmentFacility. Abandonment and removal of the contaminatedsewers would result in additional contaminated material tobe disposed of and offer no advantage over abandoning in-place and sealing off the sewers. Therefore onlyabandonment in-place and replacement with new sewers will beconsidered as a remedial alternative to cleaning the sewers.The 1983 BID recommended cleaning 44,100 feet of sanitarysewers and 16,700 feet of storm sewers. To estimate thecost of replacing these sewers, it has been assumed that theaverage diameters of the sanitary sewer and storm sewer are10-inch and 24-inch, respectively. The average installedreplacement costs for 10-inch and 24-inch sewers are byMalcolm Pirnie estimated at $97 and $162 per foot, respec-tively. Total replacement costs for the sanitary and stormsewers are estimated to be $4,300,000 and $2,700,000,respectively. In addition, the existing manholes and sewersthat are abandoned would have to be plugged with concrete atan estimated cost of $80,000. The costs to replace thesesewers are high primarily due to the physical constraints ofthe area ( i . e . numerous house laterals, road excavation,depth of excavation, e t c . ) .Since hydraulic cleaning of the sewers appears to be aviable remedial action, and sewer replacement costs arehigh, no further evaluation of the Love Canal area sewerabandonment and replacement remedial alternative has beendone.TIDAL GATE REPAIR AT 102ND STREET OUTFALLTo deter future surcharging through the storm sewers in thevicinity of 102nd Street and possible transport of contami-nants from the 102nd Street storm sewer outfall, thecurrently inoperable tidal gate at the 102nd Street outfallshould be replaced. The cost of replacement of this gate isestimated to be $1,500.ADDITIONAL SAMPLING VERSUS CLEANING

The Malcolm Pirnie EID recommended additional sampling andanalysis of sewer sediment at the following locations tofurther delineate possibly contaminated areas:

o Main interceptor sanitary sewer from Lift StationNo. 6 to the intersection of 66th Street and John

6-7

Avenue. Samples would be obtained from10 sanitary manholes and analyzed at an estimatedcost of $34,800 (Malcolm Pirnie estimates).

o A 1,400 foot portion of Black Creek withinculverts between the headwall at 102nd Street andthe outlet at 98th Street. The creek is containedwithin 310 feet of 72-inch diameter culvert pipeand 1,090 feet of twin 48-inch diameter culvertsin this area. The sediment in these pipes ispossibly contaminated due to former direct connec-tions to the storm sewers from the Canal Area. Atotal of 11 samples would be required in the BlackCreek culverts. The Malcolm Pirnie estimated costfor the collection and analysis of these11 samples is $36,000.

The estimated costs of cleaning the same reach of sanitarysewer as recommended for sampling above are shown inTable 6-1 and are based on the ur.it costs for sewer cleaningwhich were presented in the 1983 BID. The estimated cost to r0clean the 1,400 foot segment of Black Creek within the N48-inch diameter and 72-inch diameter culverts is also shown Win Table 6-1. • . §These costs are based on the assumption that mechanicalbucket cleaning would be followed by hydraulic cleaning toremove the estimated 4 " - 6 " sediment depth. The costs ofdisposal of the liquid and sediments generated by cleaningof these additional sewers will have minimal impact on thecost associated with onsite water treatment and onsitestorage. It is apparent that the cost to sample thesanitary sewers ($34,000) and'the Black Creek culverts($36,000) is lower than the cost to clean those same sewers($67,000 sanitary)/($69,000 culverts). However, due to thehigh probability that contamination will be found andremediation will be necessary following the sampling andanalysis, it is more cost-effective to forego the cosrs ofadditional sampling and proceed with the cleaning of theBlack Creek Culverts and additional reaches of sanitarysewer.EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION AND ANALYTICAL COSTSAfter sewer cleaning has been completed the equipment ( i . e .trucks, pumps, etc.) will have to be decontaminated. Thedecontamination procedures would most likely include hydro-blasting, steam cleaning, solvent wiping, and distilledwater rinsing. Water resulting from the decontaminationprocedure will be captured for analysis or treatment.Solvent wipe cloths will be stored with the sewer sediments.

6-8

Table 6-1ESTIMATED COSTS FOR CLEANING THE ADDITIONALSANITARY SEWERS AND THE BLACK CREEK CULVERTS

Sanitary Sewer Amount Unitshydraulic flushing 4,750 L.F.transportation ofcleaning residuals 33,250 gal

UnitCost

$9.00/L.F.

50.20/gal

CapitalCost

$42,800

6,700SUBTOTAL

Engineering, Contingency, Legal,Administrative 9 35 percent

TOTAL

BLACK CREEK CULVERTSmechanically clean 2,490 L.F. $10.00/L.F.hydraulic flushing 2,490 L.F. $9.00/L.F.transportation ofcleaning residuals 17,430 gal $0.20/galSUBTOTAL

Engineering, Contingency, Legal,Administrative S 35 percent

$49,500

17,500$67,000

$24,90022,400

3,500$50,800

18,200

TOTAL $69,000NOTE;1. All costs in 1984 Dollars.1. These costs are baaed on the assumption that mechanical bucket

cleaning would be followed by hydraulic cleaning to remove theestimated 4"-6" sediment depth. The costs of disposal of the liquidand sediments generated by cleaning of these additional sewers willhave minimal impact on the cost associated with onsite watertreatment and onsite storage.

L.F.—Linear Feet.

WDR99/004

6-9

When the decontamination procedure has been completed, wipetests will be used to sample the equipment. These wipecloths will then be analyzed for specific Love Canal relatedcompounds to assure that no contamination remain on theequipment. The analyses will take approximately three ( 3 )weeks during which time the equipment will remain impoundedwithin the Love Canal facility.SUMMARY OF SEWER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVESTable 6-2 shows the costs for the sewer remediation alterna-tives that were evaluated. The most cost-effective actionsfor the storm and sanitary sewers and associated costs aredetailed in Table 6-3. The total cost for these actions isestimated to be $1,432,000.All the known sewer connections to the Love Canal Area havereportedly been plugged or disconnected. However, msubsequent to cleaning, TV inspection and smoke testing c0should be undertaken to determine if there are any unknown N.connections to be plugged that would eliminate contamination ^from entering the sewers. Hydraulic flushing should remove ®the contaminated sediments, A final TV inspection of thecleaned sewers will determine if the sediments have beenremoved. Installation of a new tidal gate on the headwallat the 102nd Street outfall will prevent backflow orcontamination from the 102nd Street outfall from enteringthe stonn sewer system. In addition, the additional lengthof sanitary sewer and the culvert in Black Creek should becleaned without a sampling and analysis program to avoid ahigher total cost through duplication of services and thepossibility of continued exposure during the duration of thesampling program.

10 2ND STREET OUTFALL REMEDIATIONSEDIMENT QUANTITIESLove Canal related compounds were found in the Niagara Riveradjacent to the 102nd Street storm sewer outfall in a numberof sediment samples. The volume of contaminated sedimentswithin the remedial action zone, as defined by MalcolmPirnie in the 1983 EID and shown in Figure 6-1, wasestimated to be 14,800 cubic yards. This assumes anexcavation depth of 4 feet. The 4-foot depth was selectedby Malcolm Pirnie. No data about contamination is availablebelow 4-feet (the limits of the samples taken byMalcolm Pirnie), and contamination was found at the 3-footdepth. Additional sediments samples would be required todetermine the maximum depth of contamination. For thepurpose of estimating the remedial costs presented herein,it was assumed that the depth of excavation would be anaverage of 4-feet.

6-10

Table 6-2SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR SEWER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES

CostsAnnual Operation Total

Alternatives Capital and Maintenance Present Worth1. Hydraulic cleaning1 $1,348,000 - $1.348,0003. Abandon in-place

and replace withnew line $7,080,000 - $7,080,000

NOTES;<£>1. Cleaning costs are based on hydraulic flushing and television c*3

inspection of all the sewers. Short sections of sewers nay Nrequire mechanical cleaning and/or removal and replacement. Costs Qinclude all sewers designated for cleaning in EID plus sanitary 0sewer from Lift Station #6 to 66th and John Streets plusBlack Creek Culverts.

2. Includes 44,100 feet of 10-inch diameter sanitary sewer and16,700 feet of 24-inch diameter storm sewer.

MDR99/005

6-11

Table 6-3SUMMARY OF SEWER.REMEDIATION AND REPAIR ACTIONS COSTS

Remedial Activity

Hydraulic flushing - sanitary sewerHydraulic flushing - storm sewersHydraulic flushing - lift stations

TV Inspection - after sewer-cleaning

Smoke TestingMechanical cleaning - sanitary sewerMechancial cleaning - storm sewer

Remove and replace - sanitary sewerTransportation of cleaning residualsReplace Tidal Gate

Analytical Costs for Wipe TestsEquipment Decontaniination

Engineering, contlngt

Amount

52,75022,890

3

75,640

23002490

600481.500

1

105

incy, legal

Units

L . F .L . F .each

L . F .

manholesL. F .L.F.

L . F .galea

eaea

, Adminlsl

Unit Cost

$9.00/L.F.$9.00/L.P.$8000/ea

51.50/L.F.

$500/eaS10.00/L.F.$10.00/L.F.

$100/L.l- .$0.20/gal$1500/ea

$1000/ea$9000/ea

trative 8 35»

Capital Cost

$475,000$206,000$ 24,000subtotal

$113,500subtotal

$ 1,000$ 3,000$ 24.900subtotal

$ 60,500$ 96,300$ 1,500

$ 10,000$ 45,000subtotal

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL

2

$705,000

$113,500

$ 28,900

$ 60,500$ 96,300$ 1,500

$ 55,000

$1,060,700

$ 371,300$1,432,000

1. This assumes pipe on Wheatfleld (HH 45B to MH 457) and balance lines Read Avenue (MH 774 toMH 773) and MH 412 are replaced. Costs may be borne by City of Niagara Falls.

2. Al l costs are in 1984 dollars

3. Includes additional sections (Black Creek culverts, and sewers to 66th Street and John)recommended for cleaning.

WDR99/006 006237

REEVALUATION OF IMMEDIATE STABILIZATION AND LONG-TERMREMEDIAL ALTERNATIVESGeneralThe contaminated sediment deposits at the 102nd StreetOutfall are located adjacent to the Olin and Hooker 102ndStreet landfills. Those landfills may still be contributingcontaminants directly into the river or into the 102ndStreet storm sewer which passes through the landfills andthen into the outfall. Until such time that remedialactivities at the two landfills have been completed, nopermanent remediation of the outfall is consideredadvisable. However, there are immediate actions that can be gptaken in order to contain the contaminated sediments to nprevent migration. In addition long-term remedial actions Nwere evaluated. S

0Immediate stabilization alternatives considered in order tominimize the impact of the contaminated outfall sedimentsinclude the following:

o No actiono Temporary stabilization utilizing filter fabric

and stone fillo Temporary stabilization utilizing a berm, with or

without timber sheetingo Temporary stabilization utilizing steel sheet pile

Long-term remedial alternatives considered include thefollowing;

o No action subsequent to temporary bennconstruction

o In-place containmento Removal of the sediments and interim storage at

Love Canal, or disposal at a permanent hazardouswaste facility or by other means.All the long-term remedial alternatives (except no action)require construction of either a stone berm with timbersheeting or a steel sheet pile wall during immediatestabilization.

6-13

Immediate Remedial AlternativesImmediate stabilization alternatives considered in the 1983Malcolm Pirnie EID for temporary alleviation of the highpriority action zone are discussed below.

o No Action—The no action alternative included inthe 1983 EID referred to leaving the contaminatedsediments in place and not performing any remedialmeasures to stabilize or remove sediments. Thealternative also included a monitoring program toattempt to determine the rate of transport ofcontaminated sediments to downstream areas.

o Installation of Filter Fabric and Stone Fill—Thisalternative would involve placement of a filterfabric on the river bed to cover the area ofcontaminated sediment (Figure 6 - 1 ) . Then a layerof stone approximately 18-inches deep would be put ^down to cover the fabric. Approximately 9,000 Nsquare yards of filter fabric and 4,500 cubic ^yards of stone fill would be required to cover the ^area.The only benefit of this alternative over the noaction alternative is that after the fabric isinstalled, sediment transport into the NiagaraRiver will be minimized. A major adverse impactof this alternative is that preparation of thearea would require the removal and disposal ofmiscellaneous debris. Also, installation of thefabric would be difficult and would possibly haveto be done manually. In addition, during theactual installation of the fabric, the sedimentswould be disturbed causing increased transportdownstream. After the fabric is installedleaching of the contaminants into the water columnor migration to greater sediment depths cannot beruled out. Accordingly, further evaluation ofthis alternative was eliminated on the basis thathuman health and the environment are notadequately protected, and, as an engineeringalternative, the filter fabric/small stone cannotbe considered a reliable means of addressing theproblem.

o Construction of a Benn—This alternative wouldinvolve construction of a temporary stone berm(Figure 6-2) , approximately 900 feet in length,around the remedial action zone. Although thebenn is likely to be permeable, an overflow weirwould be constructed to assure that water enteringthe area from the 102nd Street outfall could

6-14

) PLAN V.IEWII II 1 > II 11 1 4 11 11 II II

FiGi-iRE 6-2

•EXISTING H I P RAP SLOPE

;ISTI»<G 4Z" OUTFALL

STONE BERM

WOTM VARIES 1 1 0 ' - 130'

EXISTING RIVER

RIP RAP

tia-a./\ I/EL 565

^__N^G*RA_RgR^

-TIMBEB SHEETING ORSTEEL SHEET WALL

CROSS SECTION A - A

NOTE THIS FIGURE IS A REVISION OFFIGUHE 0 7 . 1 TAKEN FRON THEW3 EIO

102nd STREET OUTFALLBERM OR WALL

discharge into the Niagara River. The benn wouldprovide a quiescent zone around the outfall tocontain those sediments already there and settleout and contain those sediments entering the area.An important benefit of the benn over the filterfabric alternative is that the contaminatedsediment would be contained to a greater degree.Adverse impacts of this alternative include thepossible downward migration of the contaminantsand leaching of contaminants into the watercolumn. During placement of the benn,resusponsion and movement of the sediments couldoccur; however, the berm would be constructed inthe area of low to no contamination. <-»If it was desired to make the berm impermeable to ^allow for the possibility of dewatering the area tfduring any future remedial action and to containany leached contaminants, then timber sheetingcould be used. Since it is unlikely that thetimber sheeting could be installed through stoneberm, the sheeting would have to be installedduring the initial construction of the berm.Therefore, a decision to retain the option todewater the area in the future must be made priorto implementing this alternative.

o Steel Sheet Pile—In this alternative, a steelsheet pile wall could be installed instead of aberm. The steel sheet pile wall is more costlythan the stone berm with timber sheeting, butoffers the following advantages:

Existing debris and sediments would bedisturbed to a lesser extent during installa-tion, since the steel sheets would occupy amuch smaller area than the berm.The long-term remedial alternative optionsfor dewatering, removal or in-place burialare preserved.Installation of the steel sheets can proceedmore rapidly than the berm and under anyweather conditions.

Costs for Immediate Stabilizationpresent worth, including capital and annual operating/maintenance costs, for the two immediate remedial alterna-tives are presented in Table 6-4. Operation and maintenancecosts for the alternatives include annual inspection and

6-15

Table 6-4ESTIMATED COSTS FOR IMMEDIATE

STABILIZATION AT 102nd STREET OUTFALL

Alternative

Benn2

Sheet Pile Wall

Capital492,000

619,000

CostsAnnual Operationaland Maintenance

2,0002,000

TotalPresent Worth

509,000636,000

MOTES:

1.

2.

1984 dollars. Present worth of capital and operation andmaintenance costs were calculated for 20 years at 101 discountrate. No provisions were made to inflate future operatingcosts.

Includes timber sheeting.

WDR99/008

6-16

miscellaneous repairs. The capital costs for the stone bennwith timber sheeting, and steel sheet pile alternativesinclude the costs associated with an exploratory soil boringprogram which would be required to determine the depth tobedrock and the type of soils beneath the 102nd StreetOutfall.The stone benn is considered the most cost-effectivealternative. The estimated capital costs to construct thebenn are $492,000 and are detailed in Table 6-5. Annualoperating and maintenance costs are estimated to be $2,000.The stone benn could be constructed as described in the 1983EID with the exception that shot rock or run of crusherstone would be used instead of the gravel fill material andtimber sheeting would be installed. The benn would beconstructed as shown on Figure 6-2.However, the difference in present net worth between thetwo alternatives ($127,000) is well within the normal ^estimating bounds (-30 percent to +50 percent) for remedial »?'alternatives. The two alternatives should therefore be oconsidered essentially equal in costs, and the decision to ®implement the short term or immediate stabilization can bebased on evaluation of other factors, such as adverseeffects on the environment.Long-Term Remedial AlternativesLong term actions should be coordinated with the remediationof the two 102nd Street landfills. Three long-term remedialalternatives (no action following construction of a berm or

' wall, in-place containment, and removal and disposal)considered in the 1983 Malcolm Pirnie EID are discussedbelow.

o No action subsequent to construction of the bennor sheet wall—In this alternative, no furtherremediation would be required following theconstruction of the berm or sheet wall.

The major advantage of this alternative is that noadditional cost would be required. The major disadvantagewould be that the contaminated sediments remain at theoutfall.

o In-Place Containment—In this alternative the102nd Street storm sewer would be extended todischarge on the river side of the berm or wall.The height of the benn or wall would be increasedfrom a top elevation of 565 ft. to 568 ft. Thenthe area between the berm or wall and the currentshoreline would be backfilled with clean fill,capped with clay, covered with topsoil and seeded.

6-17

Table 6-5ESTIMATED COST FOR TEMPORARY STOHE BERM

Item

Stone Be mi

Unit Cost Total*

Exploratory Boring Program Lump SUB $14,000Shot Rock or Run of Crusher 10,900 cy $20/cy

B50 cy $50/cy

18,000 sq.ft. $ 5/sq.ft.

Rip Rap

Timber Sheeting

SubtotalEngineering, Contingencies, andLegal (@ 35t)

TOTAL

$ 14,000$218,000

42,500

90,000

$364,500

127,500

$492,000

*1984 dollars.

WDR99/009

6-18

A clay slurry wall (approximately 20 feet deep) would alsobe constructed inside of the benn or wall through the fillto the river bedrock or impervious clay subbase. Thisslurry wall would prevent horizontal migration of anycontaminants. The conceptual design of this alternative isshown in Figure 6-3.

With this alternative the sediments are likely topermanently remain in-place, unless a majorflooding event disturbs the cover. Thepossibility of this occurrence can not becalculated at this time.

o Removal and Disposal--This alternative wouldrequire the excavation of approximately 4 feet ofsediment in the outfall area shown on Figure 6-4.The sediments would then be either transported for ^fdisposal to an offsite facility or stored at an Ninterim onsite facility at Love Canal. Excavation cof sediments could be performed by mechanical ?-excavation, or hydraulic dredging. Based on anassumed four-foot depth of excavation throughoutthe area shown on Figure 6-4, approximately14,800 cubic yards of sediment would be removed.Excavation and dredging equipment and disposalalternatives are discussed individually below:

Land-Based Mechanical Excavation—The excava-tion of contaminated sediments near theshoreline would require construction of abenn with timber sheeting or the steel wall,during the immediate stabilization phase.Next, the area would be dewatered, andexcavation would be accomplished through theuse of clamshells, draglines or backhoes(described in the 1983 Malcolm Pirnie EI D ) .However, the maximum reach of a clamshell isapproximately 80 feet, a dragline 68 feet anda backhoe 30 feet. Since contaminatedsediments extend approximately 150 feetoffshore, provisions would have to be madefor moving the equipment into the river.Since the bottom sediments will not supportthe weight of heavy equipment, a gravel haulroad would have to be constructed in theriver along the base of the existing rip-rapbank, and berms or mud mats used to allowequipment to reach the sediments farthestfrom shore. Water tight trucks would beloaded with the sediment, which would behauled to an interim storage facility atLove Canal, or transported elsewhere fordisposal. After the excavation is completed,

6-19

F I G U R E 6-3

•OOJf LIKOFlU

tfl<rNC£0®

II 1 ) II 11 14 I) 1} II II I I I 1 1 4 )

CROSS SECTION A-A

MOTE- THIS n&ME IS A REVISION OFFIOJK 0. 7-2 V.U.tH FHOM THEIMS 110

102nd STREET OUTFALLPERMANENT IN- PLACE

CONTAINMENT ALTERNATIVE

FIGURE 6-4

MOOIlCR L1NDFILL

A i.

11 11 I) 1( 11 II 11 II II

•EXISTING RIP RAP SU3PE

TEMPORARY HAUL ROAD

y / y-EXCAVATION- 4 FI. win \

\J^m / "NORMA1- "^,1——————^ WIOTH VARIES Illl'-ari

-. -^

1 JWIPTH VAH1ES 110

^-EXISTING HIVEM BED

CROSS SECTION A-A

-TIMBER SHEETING ORSTEEL SHEET WALLWITHOUT BERM

NOTE : THIS FIGUW B A REVISION OFFIGURE 0.7.3 TAKEN FROMTHE 1983 EID. 102nd STREET OUTFALL

EXCAVATION

all haul roads, berms, etc would have to bedisposed with the excavated sediments.

- Mechanical Excavation Using Land-Based andBarge Mounted Equipment—This alternative isnot considered necessary because theconstruction of the benn or sheet wall duringthe immediate remedial action would makebarge mounted equipment unnecessary.Hydraulic Dredging—Either a Mud Cat dredgeor a. 12-inch diameter suction cutterheaddredge could be used for hydraulic dredgingof the river sediments. The dredge wouldfloat on the water surface and vacuum up thesediments and then pump the sediment/waterslurry at approximately 10 percent solidsconcentration through a pipeline. The 00pipeline (a double pipe would be used to <rcontain any potential spills) would be laid ^directly on the ground along a suitable Soverland route to a Love Canal interim ®storage facility. At the storage facilitythe solids would be settled out of the waterand the water returned via a second pipelineto the outfall area for reuse. Mechanicaldewatering could also be used. Approximately2,000 gallons per minute Is the pumping rateused for a dredging operation.

Sites considered for the onslte dewatering and storage ofexcavated material Included Love Canal and the 102nd Streetlandfill which is adjacent to the site. However, a prelimi-nary evaluation of the 102nd Street Landfill indicatedinsufficient area to construct an above-grade storagefacility for excavated outfall sediments and berms (approxi-mately 26,500 c y ) . Additionally, specific information ( i . e .soil conditions,'land availability, etc.) with respect tothe 102nd Street landfill area was not available. Nofurther evaluation of the possible use of the 102nd StreetLandfill was conducted.The beneficial effect of the removal and disposal alterna-tives is the permanent removal of the sediments. Because ofthe berm or wall constructed around the outfall area, lossof sediments to the downstream reaches of the Niagara Riverduring the excavation or dredging operation would beminimal. The hydraulic dredging operation, however,presents several adverse impacts in comparison to themechanical excavation alternative, as follows:

6-20

o Hydraulic dredging may not be feasible due to theshallow (less than 24 inches) depth of the waterin the work area.

o Hydraulic dredging would require construction of adewatering facility, and would require treatmentof the water removed with the sediment. Since theremoval option should occur only after the 102ndStreet Landfill is remediated, the dewatering andwater treatment facility for this alternative maynot be required until well after similarfacilities required for the proposed remedialdredging of Bergholtz Creek have been dismantled.Therefore, the costs associated with dewateringthe hydraulically dredged material could besignificant.

o The hydraulic dredging generation would requireremoval of existing debris (rocks, tire, etc.)greater than six inches in any dimension from thebottom. Manual removal of these materials iscurrently the only feasible method, and could OTresult in additional exposure to workers. The Nmaterial would have to be trucked to a storage '•£facility. §

For these reasons, the hydraulic removal of sediments fromthe 102nd Street Outfall can be eliminated based on accept-able engineering practices, i . e . , it may not be a feasiblealternative.Costs for Long-Term Remediation. Capital and operating andmaintenance costs for the long-term remediation alternativesare presented in Table 6- 6 . Future actions (future capitalexpenditures) should be implemented only after resolution ofthe 102nd Street landfill litigation and remediation of thatsite. Capital costs which would be incurred in the futureare presented in' 1984 dollars. No present worth of thatfuture capital expenditure was calculated because it is notknown in which year the expenditure would be made.Costs for permanent in-place containment include additionalberm, rip rap, outfall extension, fill material, clay cover,topsoil and seeding. In addition, costs for a clay slurrywall and six monitoring wells were included. The operationand maintenance costs for the in-place containment alterna-tives would include maintenance of the rip-rap shoreline andcap and some long-term monitoring.Costs for the excavation alternatives include estimatedcosts for the excavation and transportation to an onsiteinterim storage facility ( i . e . Love Canal). Costs for theonsite interim storage at Love Canal of the sediments are

6-21

Table 6-6ESTIMATED COSTS FOR LONG TERM

REMEDIATION AT 102ND STREET OUTFALL

Alternative Costs

Future Annual OperationalCapital and Maintenance

No Action Subsequentto Temporary Bern

In-Place ContainmentRemovalShore Based Equipment

598,000

350,000

NOTES;01. Capital and Operations/Maintenance costs in 1984 dollars. ^NW

WDR99/010

6-22

presented later. The sediment removal alternative presentscosts using only the options of using shore-based equipment.Mechanical excavation costs were based only on the quantityof sediment to be removed. Since the excavationalternatives involve the removal of the contaminatedsediment, no annual operating and maintenance costs areassociated with that alternative.

CREEK REMEDIATIONAdditional Sampling of Cayuga Creek and the Creek BanksSince the 1983 Malcolm Pirnie sampling program creeksediment samples taken by the DEC (April and July 1984)downstream of the 93rd Street outfall were found to containdioxin. The DEC sampling results indicate that reaches ofBergholtz Creek downstream of the 93rd Street Outfall andpossibly Cayuga Creek may require remediation. In addition,the 600-foot reach of Bergholtz Creek upstream of the 93rdStreet outfall, to the EID limits, previously determined by • ^Malcolm Pirnie to have no significant contamination, may now cs!be contaminated by sediments either moving upstream during Cflperiods of back flow or downstream from the known Scontaminated reach. The DEC and Malcolm Pirnie samplingresults are insufficient in scope to fully define the degreeand extent of contamination throughout Bergholtz Creek, inCayuga Creek or on the creek banks. In order to resolve thepotential contamination question two alternatives areavailable:

o Develop and implement an extensive sampling andanalysis program followed by any necessaryremedial actions.

o Assume that remediation will be required in thefirst, second, and third incremental reaches ofthe creeks (see Figure 6-5) and implement removalof the sediments in the additional reaches duringthe currently recommended remediation project.

Contamination has been found at a number of separated areasin Bergholtz Creek. The remediation of just these "hotspots" is not technically feasible using either hydraulicdredging or mechanical excavation, nor is it acceptable froma public health protection aspect, since the "hot spots" mayhave migrated in the two years since sampling, andadditional sampling would be necessary to confirm that the"hot spots" had been cleaned. The cleaning of the entire?stretch of Bergholtz Creek is the more conservativeapproach. However, the volumes of sediment associated withCayuga Creek and the difficulties associated with removingthem are of such magnitude that a limited additionalsampling program is necessary to arrive at the most feasible

6-23

W_____0

SCALE IN FEET

BERGHOLTZ AND BLACK CREEKSCONTAMINATION LOCATION POINTS

006252

and cost-effective remedial alternative for mitigating thecontamination that might be found there.Consideration should also be given to sampling theembankments of Bergholtz and Plack Creeks within the reachesdesignated for remediation to determine if significantamounts of contaminants were deposited on the embankmentsduring flood conditions. From information collected fromthe U . S . Army Corps of Engineers, the 10-year flood level isapproximately 9 feet in elevation above the creek bed forthis reach of Bergholtz Creek and 10 feet in elevation abovethe creek bed during a 50-year storm event. Therefore,there is a possibility that if the creek sediments arecontaminated, that they could become resuspended during astorm event and redeposited along the creek banks. The U . S .EPA performed sampling in the backyard of one residentlocated on the north side of the creeks between 94th and95th streets in September, 1984. This area is low-lyingwith very gentle slopes to the creek. When the creekfloods, the water can be expected to travel as far as35 feet up the bank at this location. The results of thissampling did not indicate the presence of dioxin. Sincethis location is the most likely area to find significantdioxin contamination along the creek banks, there does not n

appear to be detected at other creek bank locations. NHowever, additional samples should be collected for fverification purposes. Sampling and analytical cost ^estimates for these limited sampling programs were prepared,based on the following assumptions:

o Sediment samples should be collected to a depth ofless than 12 inches and analyzed for only 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 -TCDD because, with the exception of one samplecontaining 2-chloronapthalene, no other organicsof suspected Love Canal origin were detected byMalcolm Pirnie in excess of the screening criteriain the creek sediments. Only sediment sampleswould -be taken because no significantcontamination was detected in the creek water.

o Bank samples on both sides of Black and Bergholtzcreeks can be taken simultaneously with theadditional creek bed sediment samples taken inCayuga Creek.

o Bank samples will be taken at two locations oneach bank, at the existing tree line andapproximately midway up to the top of the bank.Individual samples would be taken for eachlocation on both north and south banks andretained for separate analysis if needed. Theinitial SCV would be of samples composited bylocation i . e . , the two tree line samples would be

6-24

composited. A positive indication of dioxincontamination would lead to analysis of eachindividual sample in the composite.

o Sediment samples will be collected in Cayuga Creekat 50-foot intervals from the confluence withBergholtz Creek to the Little Niagara River atthree locations across the bottom of the streambed. The samples from one 50 foot interval willbe composited for one analysis.

o Soil cores should be collected across the formerconnection between Cayuga and Bergholtz Creeksalong the south side of Oak Island. In 1976 theCayuga Creek Drive Bridge over Cayuga Creek wasconstructed. Debris from the bridge constructionwas used to fill the channel on the south side ofOak Island. The sediment which collected in thepassage on the south side of Oak Island and/or thebend in Cayuga Creek could have been contaminatedwith Love Canal related sediments.

o Test borings should be conducted to a depth of tenfeet (or refused) at approximately 300 footintervals along the first and second Incrementalreaches to determine creek bed stability for useduring mechanical excavation alternative.

o Physical characteristics of the sediment should bedetermined by testing for settleability, filterleaf test; hydrometer test (fives fraction); watercontent; and Atterberg limits.

Approximately 116 composite creek sediment samples would becollected at Cayuga Creek to the Niagara River. In the areaof Bergholtz and Black Creeks, approximately 20 embankmentsamples would be taken.The estimated costs for the additional sampling and analysisare as follows:

o Cayuga Creek to the Niagara River $93,600o Embankment samples $28,000

In estimating the costs of the additional sampling andanalysis, the assumption was made that each reach would besampled at separate times requiring duplication of sometasks. These costs include worker decontamina'fcionfacilities, labor for sampling and appurtenances, samplingequipment, preparation of the work and safety plans,preparation of sampling and analysis plans, and preparationof an engineering report.

6-25

Although the potential exists that Love Canal-relatedcontaminants may have been discharged to Cayuga Creek,insufficient data exists to verify and quantify itsexistence and extent. For this reason, and because it wasspecifically outside the scope of the current work plan,remediation methods and costs for Cayuga Creek were notdetermined. The sampling program recommended above wouldenable an estimate to be made of the type and cost of anyremedial action necessary in Cayuga Creek or for the banksof Black and Bergholtz Creek. The timing of the samplingprogram can be such that no delay in the remedial activitiesin Black and Bergholtz Creek would be experienced. Thesampling program results would also assist in finalizing theremedial activity planned for Bergholtz Creek, since onlymechanical excavation could be used to excavate the banks.SEDIMENT QUANTITIES

Based on the results of the creek sediment analyses arecommendation was made in the 1983 Malcolm Pirnie ETD toexcavate Bergholtz Creek extending from 500 feet downstreamto 150 feet upstream of the confluence with Black Creek and ~^to excavate a portion of Black Creek extending from NBergholtz Creek to a point 200 feet upstream. This area ^included all locations where dioxin was found by §Malcolm Pirnie sampling effort as presented in Figure 6-5.For the purpose of estimating contaminated sedimentquantities and remedial costs, it was assumed that the depthof excavation would be an average of 18-inches across thewidth of the creek bed. All contaminated sediments, debrisand up to 6-inches of underlying dense silty clay would be'removed. The actual sediment quantities removed duringremediation are a function of the depth of excavation whichmay be limited by the method of excavation, and can only bedetermined during the remedial construction. Malcolm Pirniedid not estimate sediment quantities in 6-inch intervals toa depth of 4 feet because no contamination was detectedduring their sampling below the one-foot depth, andMalcolm Pirnie feels there is no justification forexcavation to an average depth greater than 18-inches.Approximately 1,800 cubic yards of sediment would be removedfrom the original limits of Black and Berghoitz Creekrecommended for remediation in the 1983 EID as shown inFigure 6 - 6 .Due to -the continued potential for contaminated sedimenttransport within the creeks and from the contaminated sewersto the creeks, and due to the potential existence ofcontamination in previously unsampled downstream reaches, orin the creek banks, the maximum quantities of sediment thatmay ultimately require excavation and disposal (seeTable 6-7) were estimated for the following incremental

6-26

SCALE IN FEET

BERGHOLTZ AND BLACK CREEKSCONTAMINATION LOCATION POINTS

WO REMEDIATION LIMITS

Table 6-7ESTIMATED CONTAMINATED CREEK SEDIMENT QUANTITIES

Contaminated -Sediment Quantities

Location (cubic yards)

Black and Bergholtz Creek 1,800(1983 EID limits)

Black Creek from EIDlimits to 98th Streettwin culverts (part of1st incremental reach) 300

Bergholtz Creek from EIDlimits to 93rd St.storm sewer outfall (partof 1st incremental reach) 1,670

Bergholtz Creek from 93rd St.to confluence with Cayuga Creek(2nd incremental reach) 11,250

Cayuga Creek from confluencewith Bergholtz Creek to LittleNiagara River (3rd incrementa*!reach) 24.000

Creek Banks3 . " 3.000

NOTE:1. Assumes 16-inch average depth of excavation within creek

bed.2. See Figure 6-7 for locations.3. Assumes the banks of Bergholtz and Black Creeks are excavated to a

depth of six inches for a distance of approximately 30 feet awayfrom the creek bed on the north bank, and about 22 feet away fronthe creek bed on the south bank.

WDR99/011

6-27

reaches of Black, Bergholtz and Cayuga Creeks (seeFigure 6 - 7 ) :o First Incremental Reach--500 feet of Black Creek |

upstream of the reach designated for remediation Lin the 19B3 Malcolm Pirnie EID to the 98th Streetculverts and 600 feet of Bergholtz Creek «downstream of the reach presently designated for |remediation to the 93rd Street storm sewer outfall( 1 , 9 7 0 cubic yards); —

o Second Incremental Reach--2000 feet of BergholtzCreek from the 93rd Street storm sewer outfall to _the confluence with Cayuga Creek (11,250 cubicyards)?

o Third Incremental Reach~-6300 feet of Cayuga Creek —from the confluence with Bergholtz Creek to theLittle Niagara River (24,000 cubic yards). 00ino Creek Banks—Approximately 3100 feet along the Nnorth and south banks of Black and Bergholtz ~?Creeks, with distances away from the creek bed t?varying between 22 and 30 feet. ~

As has been previously mentioned, the most recent samplingof Bergholtz Creek by DEC has revealed the presence ofdioxin in one sample near the confluence of Bergholtz andCayuga Creeks and in several samples taken between 90th and93rd Streets. While the following discussion of remedial _measures is oriented primarily toward those areas of thecreeks that were demonstrated to be contaminated by theresults of the Malcolm Pirnie sampling, the most effectiveremedial alternative would entail cleaning of the entire ~reach of Bergholtz Creek from above the confluence withBlack Creek all the way to the confluence with Cayuga Creek.That area is encompassed by the original EID remedial limits —and incremental reaches 1 , and 2above.EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES _

Hydraulic DredgingHydraulic dredging cannot be universally applied to all the ~creek sections. Black Creek cannot be hydraulically dredgedbecause of the physical constraints of the creek. Inaddition, if the banks along Bergholtz Creek are determined —to require remediation they cannot be hydraulically dredged.Hydraulic dredging of Bergholtz Creek could be accomplishedusing a 12-inch cutterhead suction dredge. Temporary benns ~would be placed in the creek to isolate a 500 foot section.The sediments in that section would be slurried with creek

6-28

water as they are mechanically agitated by the cutterheadand then pumped at an approximate 10 percent solids concen-tration through a double pipeline to a dewatering facilityat the Love Canal site. Because of the water usage rate,this alternative is probably limited to use with a nearbyonsite dewatering facility. For this alternative, approxi-mately 2,500 feet of 8-inch high density polyethylene pipe(HDPE) would be laid directly on the ground along a suitableoverland route to the dewatering facility located within thecanal site (see Figure 6 - 8 ) . At the dewatering facility thesolids would be settled out of the water and the waterreturned via a second 18-inch gravity HDPE pipeline parallelto the 8-inch pipeline to the creeks for reuse. The twoHDPE pipelines would be encased in steel pipe to containpossible leakage from pipe joints. Temporary earthen berms,as shown in Figure 6-4, would be installed in the creek toprovide adequate water depth to operate the dredge ( i . e . , aminimum of 24-inches). to minimize the quantity of waterultimately requiring treatment and to minimize the escape ofsuspended solids from the work area. The segment would bedewatered, and workers would enter the creek bed to removedebris larger than 6 inches in any dimension to avoidclogging the dredge pipe. The segment would be reflooded. 0One potential problem in attempting to flood the creeks to r§float the dredge is that there are two banks. These two coareas are on the north bank between 94th and 96th streets £and the south bank between 91st and 93rd streets. Floodingthese areas would encompass a larger area and may begin theencroach on residential lawns. Consequently, in these twoareas of Bergholtz Creek greater control would be requiredto confine the flooding within the creek bed, or short side(bank) containment berms would have to be erected on atemporary basis. Two passes of the dredge are likely to berequired. The first pass would pick up the loose sedimentswhile the second would actually cut down into the creek bed.The creek segments would be drained after two passages ofthe dredge for visual inspection to ensure the dredge hadcleaned the appropriate areas. If contaminated sedimentswere still present, although temporary earthen bonus will beplaced in the creeks, the flow of the creeks will not bediverted around the work zone, but will be allowed to poolbehind the berms. The berms will be constructed to allowstonn events to pass over the upstream berm and through thework area to avoid flooding the upstream areas. The factthat storm water would pass through the work area isconsidered to be equivalent to the existing creek flowpatterns. To minimize the potential for storm events, thecreek cleaning would be scheduled during historical dryweather periods. The benns would be "leapfrogged" down thecreek as the dredging progresses. The placement of bermsand scheduling of the creek cleaning will be similar for themechanical excavation alternatives, except that the section

0

6-29

T92900

of creek to be cleaned would not be reflooded untilexcavation was complete.Hydraulic dredging offers the primary advantage of minimalhandling of sediments between the dredging site and thedewatering/containment site. It also reduces the potentialfor fugitive dust that could result from mechanical excava-tion and transport. Hydraulic dredging, however, necessi-tates construction of two pipelines that remain in place forthe duration of the operation and building a dewateringfacility not necessarily required by mechanical excavation.Additionally, the depth of removal of sediments cannot beprecisely controlled. Finally, hydraulic dredging resultsin an extremely large volume of water (between 3 million and23 million gallons) that must be transported, stored andtreated. These difficulties were recognized in the1983 Malcolm Pirnie EIF which stated " . . . hydraulicdredging of Black and Bergholtz Creeks has been effectivelyeliminated from consideration as a feasible alternative.The difficulties involved with siting and constructing asettling basin, rehandling of dredge solids, and treatingthe return water were deemed formidable obstacles to theselection of this alternative."The factors affecting excavating efficiency of hydraulicdredging in shallow water bodies such as Bergholtz Creekare:

o Cutter lengths and designo Cutter speed and swing speedo Suction mouthpiece and suction velocitieso Elevation controlo Material characterization and stratification

Based upon the limited physical data available on BergholtzCreek sediments, a hydraulic dredge appears to be capable ofremoving the sediments; however, production efficiencies maybe substantially'different than the assumed values used herein preparing preliminary cost estimates. Production capa-bility would be hampered by excessive debris, much of whichwould have to be manually removed prior to dredging.The dewatering facility required for the dredged sedimentsand treatment facilities required for the water removed withthe sediments are described later. The creek sedimentsmostly consist of dense clays; however, slurrying thesediments during dredging will probably cause someconsolidation (settling) problems as the sediments aredewatered. This could affect the reuse of the water in thecreek segments by restricting the recirculation of waterfrom the dewatering facility back to the creeks, and coulddelay closure of the interim secure storage facility whichis be used as a dewatering facility. If consolidation/

6-30

stabilization is determined to be a problem, stabilizingagents such as flyash (available from local power plants)would be added to the sediments. Due to the poor settlingcharacteristics of the fine clay and silt sediment, it islikely that coagulants such as alum and or polymer nay berequired to aid in the settling process. Laboratory testingwill be required to determine appropriate chemicals,dosages, and settling/consolidation characteristics. Thesame laboratory tests can be used to determine if physicalagents, such as fly ash, can be used. It must be noted thatif coagulants are added to the sediment, the passivedewatering containment facility as described in thefollowing sections may not work, since the coagulants wouldblind the filter fabric and sand layers over the leachatecollection system. In that event, a separate dewateringwould be necessary for hydraulic dredging to be used, ormechanical excavation would have to be used in its stead.The minimum rental period for the dredge and appurtenancesis one month. Therefore, the cost for hydraulic dredging isprimarily a function of operating time and not volume ofmaterial removed.Based on an assumed optimum operating rate of 50 cubic yards rtof material removed per hour, approximately 34 working hours ware required to remove 1,700 cubic yards of sediments at 'c10 percent solids content. In addition to the minimum Crental costs, some 40 percent of the total costs are associ- °ated with the 8-inch and 18-inch HOPE pipes. It was assumedthat this pipe would have to be purchased and then either.stored for future use or disposed of with the sediments atthe end of the project. The ou'ter steel pipes would berented.Hydraulic dredging costs for the 650-foot section ofBergholtz Creek specified in the 1983 Malcolm Pirnie BID,including decontamlnation procedures, are estimated to beapproximately $700,000. The 8-inch and 18-inch HDPE pipesaccount for 40 percent of this cost. The present worth ofthis alternative is presented in Table 6-8.Due to the minimum rental period and assumed short dredgetime required for the reach of Bergholtz Creek recommendedin the 1983 EID, hydraulic dredging of the first and secondincremental reaches of Bergholtz Creek to the confluencewith Cayuga Creek (as shown on Figure 6-7) would notsignificantly increase the project costs if done under thesame contract. However, if those additional reaches,totaling approximately 3,000 feet in length, were dredgedindependently, the cost would nearly double. No operationand maintenance costs are anticipated in future years, sincethe removal of the sediments would negate the need for suchoperations.

6-31

Table 6-8ESTIMATED COSTS OF CREEK REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES

Costs1Alternatives Annual Operating

and MaintenanceTotal

Present Worth1. No Action2. Filter Fabric and Stone

1983 EID limits only3. Hydraulic Dredging of

Bergholtz Creek- 1983 EID limits only- 1st incremental reach only- 1983 EID limits plus1st incremental reach

- 1983 EID limits plus 1stand 2nd incremental reaches

4. Mechanical ExcavationLand-Based clamshell- 1983 EID limits- 1st incremental reach

only- 1983 EID limits plus

1st incremental reachTracked Front End Loader- 1983 EID limits only- 1st incremental reach

only- 1983 EID limits plus1st incremental reach

- 1983 EID limits plus1st and 2nd incrementalredress

- Black Creek only5. Additional Sampling on

banks of Bergholtz andbed of Cayuga Creeks

6 . Culverts- Culvert Bergholtz Creek- Culvert Black Creek

7. Fence Downstream Sections ofBergholtz and Cayuga Creeks

NOTES:

NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE

700,000378,500798,000

1,026,000

165,000128,000225,000184,000144,000248,000

.' 1.178120,000

169,000HOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLEMOT TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE145,000 2,000

700,000378,500798,000

1,026,000

165,000128,000225,000184,000 <TW144,000 (.0248,000 °

1,178120,000

169,000

161,000

1. Present worth is expressed in $1,000; based on 1984 dollars;assumes interest of 10 percent over 20 years.

1. Includes the reach of Black Creek from EID limit upstreamto the 98th Street twin 48-inch culverts.

3. Location of incremental reaches shown on Figure 6-5.4. Due to minimum rental period there is very little additional cost

associated with the hydraulic dredging of the 1st incremental and/or2nd incremental reaches under same contract with dredging originallimits.

5. Black Creek - from confluence with Bergholtz upstream to 98th Streettwin 48-inch culverts.

6 . Assumes all sampling and analysis done under one program.6-32WDR99/012

Additional lengths of the two pipelines (about a mile total)and booster stations would be needed to transfer the sedi-ments and dredge water from the further downstream reachesof the creek back to a dewatering facility at theLove Canal. The total cost of hydraulically dredgingBergholtz Creek from above the confluence with Black Creekto the confluence with Cayuga Creek would be $1,026,000.Mechanical ExcavationThe simultaneous mechanical excavation of the BID and 1stincremental reach areas of both Bergholtz and Black Creekscan be done using either land-based clam shells or acombination of tracked front end loaders and land based clamshells. Preliminary indications are that mechanical excava-tion of the Bergholtz Creek 2nd Incremental reach (93rdStreet to Cayuga Creek) could be done with a combination offront-end loaders and clam shells, or front-end loaders andtrucks working on a haul road constructed in the creek bed.Cayuga Creek can not apparently be mechanically excavated byany means. Mechanical excavation is the only method thatcan be used to clean the creek banks. ^

'£Land-Based Equipment. Mechanical excavation of the 650-foot Nsections of Bergholtz Creek and Black Creek recommended in fthe 1983 EID could be done through the primary use of land- ®based clamshells. In addition, as previously discussed, the500-foot section of Black Creek upstream of the 1983 EIDlimits to the 98th Street twin 48-inch culverts would beincluded in any remediation of Black Creek. Excavation of.this section represents minimal sediment volume (see• Table 6 - 7 ) .In order to dewater the creeks for excavation, temporaryearthen benns would be constructed, as shown in Figure 6-6.The work zone would then be dewatered as much as practicalto facilitate the excavation and minimize the potential ofspillage due to watery sediments when loading trucks.Dewatering would also allow better control and monitoring ofthe excavation depth. Again, the benns would be constructedto allow the normal creek flow to pool behind the benns, andto pass storm flow without flooding the upstream areas.Access to the creeks would be from a haul road (seeFigure 6- 6 ) constructed along the south bank from the 93rdStreet school to a point about 700 feet upstream fromBergholtz Creek on Black Creek. A temporary stream crossingat the mouth of Black Creek would be needed to excavateBergholtz Creek above the confluence. Clearing and grubbingwould be needed in the creek channels and along the bankaccess points. Mechanical excavation using only the land-based clamshells would require essentially total removal ofvegetation on the south banks of Bergholtz and Black Creeks.

6-33

The excavated sediments would be deposited in watertighttrucks for transport off site or to an interim securestorage facility at Love Canal. Since the majority of creeksediments to be excavated are dense clay, no problems areanticipated with consolidation and stabilization of thesesediments if the sediments are placed in a storage facility.If a problem were to occur, stabilizing agents such asflyash are readily available in the area. A decontaminationstation would be established in the 93rd Street Schoolparking lot or in the field behind the 93rd Street School(as shown on Figure 6-8) for washing down the trucks andexcavation equipment. While some dust and mud along thehaul route (particularly in the vicinity of 93rd Street andthe Canal Site) is unavoidable, it is considered control-lable through the use of double lined and caulked (watertight) trucks and dust covers. The sediments are alsoanticipated to be moist; additional water could be appliedfor dust control after the trucks are loaded. Potentialhaul routes to the onsite interim storage facility are shownin Figure 6-8. Water from the decontamination station wouldbe collected for treatment at the Love Canal TreatmentFacility. After completion of each portion of the sedimentexcavation, the access road would be excavated andtransported to the storage or disposal facility.At completion of the sediment removal, the clam shells,trucks, and other equipment would undergo deconlamination.This procedure is likely to include hydroblasting, steamcleaning, solvent wiping, and distilled water rinsing. Alldecontamination water would be collected and then treated at.the Love Canal Treatment Facility. Any solvent cloths usedto wipe down the equipment woul-d be disposed of or storedwith the sediments. After the decontamination procedure hasbeen completed, several wipe cloth samples would be takenand analyzed for specific Love Canal related compounds toassure that no unacceptable contamination remained on theequipment. The analyses would take approximately 3 weeks,during which time the equipment would remain impoundedwithin the Love Canal facility. If the analyses indicate noremaining contamination, the equipment would be released.However, if analysis indicates contamination, the decontami-nation procedure would be repeated.The total project cost for land-based mechanical excavationusing clam shells of the 650-foot section of Bergholtz Creekand 700-foot section of Black Creek is estimated to be$165,000. Ho operating and maintenance costs areanticipated in future years. The present worth of thisalternative for the BID and 1st incremental reach areas ispresented in Table 6-8. Because of the proximity of housesto the banks of Bergholtz Creek downstream of the 93rdStreet bridge (2nd incremental reach), the use of only

6-34

land-based clam shells Is not technically feasible, and canbe eliminated from consideration as an alternative.Tracked Front-End Loader and Land-Based Equipment. Ifremediation is determined to be required in the secondincremental reach in Bergholtz Creek, the use of trackedfront-end loaders possibly in connection with a land-basedclamshell becomes necessary due to the physical constraintsof this section of creek. Again, temporary earthen bermswould be constructed as shown in Figure 6-7 and the worksite sequentially dewatered as described in previoussections. Temporary by-pass pumping may be necessary toensure that the creek beds remain dewatered to maintainstability of the creek beds as haul road. Front-end loaderswould then excavate and move the sediments to one or morestock pile locations within the creek beds. As the front-end loaders excavate and move contaminated sediments, haulroads within the creek beds could be constructed, if needed,by placing filter fabric and two feet of crushed stone onthe clean creek bed. This would minimize dust from repeatedpasses of the front-end loader. The clamshell on the bankor a tracked front-end loader in the creek bed would then r»remove the sediments from the stockpile location and place ^them in watertight trucks. These trucks would then haul the ^sediments over the creek bed, haul roads, up the access oramps to the banks, be washed down at the decontamination °stations, and travel any one of the designated haul routesto the onsite storage facility.To remediate the areas between 98th and 93rd Streets either.of' the alternative decontamination stations identified onFigure 6-7 may be utilized. To remediate the creek beyond93rd Street another decontamination station would have to beinstalled between Cayuga Drive and the bank of the creekacross from 89th Street, since the haul trucks could notpass under the 91st Street bridge. A cofferdam would thenbe placed opposite this decontamination station in the creekbed so that the 'creek increment from 91st Street to 89thStreet would be divided into two working sections. Truckswould enter or exit the creek bed for either section via theaccess ramps located adjacent to the decontaminationfacility. Existing trucks would be thoroughly cleaned ofany creek sediments at the decontamination station beforeexisting onto the street. It is necessary for the trucks totravel across 91st Street on the intersection Cayuga Drivebecause there is not enough clearance under the 91st Streetbridge. Therefore trucks would travel a short distance on91st Street/Cayuga Drive past the 91st Street bride and thenre-enter the creek bed haul road via an access ramp. Thetrucks would then travel through the creek bed until 93rdStreet where the trucks would exit the creek and follow thehaul roads constructed to the onsite facility. The 93rdStreet foot bridge would need to be demolished and replaced

6-35

later to allow truck traffic through the creek beds. Inorder to minimize concern over any dust or sedimentaccumulated in the Streets due to truck traffic, a streetsweeper would be utilized during the entire period of thecreek cleaning operations.The total project cost for the mechanical excavationalternative is estimated to be $1,178.000. No operating andmaintenance costs are anticipated in future years.The costs of the mechanical excavation alternative arecomparable to the hydraulic dredging alternative. Theprimary attractions of the mechanical excavation approachinclude the following: ( 1 ) The size of the interim storagefacility can be substantially reduced (by a factor of 3 to5) from that required for hydraulic cleaning? ( 2 ) theinterim storage facility may be capped immediately followingcompletion of the creek cleaning; ( 3 ) the completeness ofthe creek cleaning can be more carefully controlled and( 4 ) mechanical excavation is simpler, and therefore lesslikely to find; than hydraulic dredging.The disadvantages with the mechanical excavation approachwould be the difficulty in excavating the sediments,particularly the upper layer of loose sediments, if the areawere not properly dewatered; and the potential instabilityof the creek beds to maintain a haul load. In order tobetter determine the stability of the creek bed sedimentsand hence their ability to maintain truck traffic, testborings could be performed along the creek beds. Ten.borings would be sufficient.Provided that the creek is kept properly dewatered and thesediments provide sufficient bearing capacity as determinedby the test borings, the tracked front-end loader incombination with the clamshell is better able to control andmonitor the excavation depth than a hydraulic dredge anddisturbance to nearby residences and streets is minimized byusing the creek beds as haul roads. As with all creekremediation alternative, personnel would be required toobserve appropriate health and safety measures.Mechanical Excavation of Black Creek. Black Creek can becleaned only by mechanical excavation in the open creek beddownstream of the culverts at 98th Street. This excavationcould be done simultaneously with the cleaning of BergholtzCreek as discussed in the previous section, or at the sametime the sewers are cleaned. This cleaning of Black Creekin conjunction with the sewers makes good engineering sensesince the culverts of Black Creek must. also be cleanedhydraulically. Combining the cleaning of the culverts andBlack Creek itself would prevent the recontaminantion of theculverts by back flow. However, budgetary and time

6-36

constraints roust enter into the decision to combine thecleaning of Black Creek with the sewers.If cleaning the 700-foot open section of Black Creek is doneindependently of Bergholtz Creek, excavation ofapproximately 400 cubic yards of sediment anddecontamination procedures would be the same as thosepreviously discussed. The access road would be constructedalong the south bank of Black Creek and out to GreenwaldAvenue. In addition, a concrete wall with a tidal gatewould be installed in Black Creek near the confluence withBergholtz Creek. This wall and gate would allow the waterin Black Creek to continue to flow into Bergholtz Creek, butwould prevent water in Bergholtz from backflowing into andpossibly recontaroinating Black Creek or the culverts.Excavation of the 700-foot open section of Black Creekindependently of the Bergholtz Creek cleanup is estimated tocost $120,000. A majority of these costs are associatedwith the mobilization/demobilization, decontaroinationstation, and equipment decontamination procedures. -Thecosts of this alternative are presented in Tables 6-8 and ffi

(flIn-Place StabilizationIn-situ stabilization includes methods which secure contami-nated sediments in place to prevent or minimize furthertransport of sediments downstream. In-situ stabilizationmethods discussed in the 1983 BID that might be applicableto Black and Bergholtz Creek sediments consist of thefollowing:

o Placement of filter fabric and small stoneo Placing and culvert for the creek to flow through

These are discussed individually below.Filter Fabric and Small Stone. In using this in-situstabilization approach, the creek section would bedewatered, the filter fabric placed on the creek bed, andthen approximately 8-inches of small stone placed on top ofthe filter fabric. Based on the 700-foot section of BlackCreek and the 650-foot section of Bergholtz Creekapproximately 45,000 square feet of filter fabric and1100 cubic yards of small stone would be required toeffectively cover the area. In order to place the fabricand stone, the creeks would be dewatered. Constructionshould be performed during periods of dry weather so thatthe potential for flooding the work site would be minimized.While this approach should minimize or eliminate the trans-port of contaminated sediments into the downstream reaches,

6-37

Table 6-9MECHANICAL EXCAVATION OP BLACK CREEKWITH FRONT END LOADER/CLAMSHELL

COST BREAKDOWN

I ten Quantity

Lump Sum

Lump Sum

400 cy

Lump Sum

400 cy

400 cy

500 cy

400 cy

400 cy

Lump Sum

1300 cy

Lump Sum

Lump Sun

Lump Sum

4

S120,000

Unit Cost

10,000

3,000

$12/cy

5,000

$1.50/cy

$ 4/cy

$ 4/cy

$ 12/cy

$ 4/cy

25,000

$ 4/cy

4,000

5,000

12,500

$ 1,000Subtotal

Total

$10,000

3,000

4,800

5,000

600

1,600

2,000

4,600

1,600

25,000

5,200

4,000

5,000

12,500

4,000$89,100

30,900

Mobilization/DemobilizationClearing and GrubbingAccessDewatering with BennsStaging with Front End LoaderRemove stockpiles with ClamshellRemove Temporary BennsBackfillRemove Access RoadWashdown StationTransport Material

• Concrete Hall and Tidal GateDecontanination ProcedureDown time for Equipment (1 month)3 Trucks1 Clamshell1 Front endloader

Analysis (wipe Samples)

Contingencies and Engineering (36»)TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST

WDR99/013

6-38

the sediments are not removed and therefore there is apotential, although minimal, for future sediment transport.Additionally, the alternative is not technically feasiblefor the entire length of Bergholtz Creek to Cayuga Creek orfor the banks. No further consideration of this remedialalternative was undertaken.Complete Culvert. Piping is not considered a feasiblealternative for Bergholtz Creek. The dimension of the creekand the associated drainage area is too extensive to renderpiping to be practical and would increase the possibility offlooding in developed areas.Black Creek could be completely piped through twin 43-inchby 68-inch elliptical culvert pipes as described in the 1983EID. The complete piping approach would involve piping theentire 700-foot stretch from the confluence with BergholtzCreek upstream to the existing twin 48-inch pipes.The section of Black Creek to be piped would be dewatered(same dewatering method as for mechanical excavation). Inorder to prepare an even bearing surface and to allow theculvert pipe to be laid at an even grade, some sediment ^excavation from the creeks would have to be done. This 3excavation would most likely remove the majority of the Ncontaminated sediments; therefore, these sediments would tahave to be placed in an offsite disposal facility or an ®onsite interim secure storage facility. After the pipes havebeen installed, clean soil would be back filled to cover thepipes or gabions could be installed over the pipes. The•area could then be seeded. Because it appears that thecontaminated sediments would have to be removed to permitinstallation of the pipe, the installation of a pipe andcover material would be an added cost (estimated at$207,000) to the mechanical excavation alternatives and haveno additional benefit. This remedial alternative can bescreened from further considerations.Fence Remaining Sections of Bergholtz and Cayuga CreeksAt the present time. only the sections of creek near theconfluence of Bergholtz and Black Creeks are enclosed by afence. In order to prevent access to the remaining sectionsof the creeks, fences could be installed along the remainingdownstream sections of Bergholtz and Cayuga Creeks. If thedownstream reaches of these creeks were to be fenced,approximately 20,000 feet of fence would have to beinstalled at an estimated cost of $145,000. Annualmaintenance costs are estimated to be $2,000. The presentworth of this alternative is presented in Table 6-8.Institutional alternatives, such as increasing publicawareness of the hazards associated with the creek, postingsigns, or passing ordinances prohibiting fishing or water

6-39

sports could be utilized in conjunction with the fencing tolimit human contact with the creeks. The reliability ofsuch institutional measures is dubious; furthermore, thecontamination in the creeks would not be removed, and wouldcontinue to pose some degree of hazard to the populace nearthe creeks, and to the environment of the Niagara River andother downstream areas. This alternative is not acceptableas a final remedial measure on the basis of protecting humanhealth or the environment, and can be removed from furtherconsideration, unless it is carried out in conjunction withone of the removal options.SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE CREEKSThe present worth of the alternatives evaluated arepresented in Table 6-8. Mechanical excavation of Bergholtzand Black Creek using a combination of tracked front-endloaders with clamshell equipment would provide the followingadvantages:

o minimize clearing and grubbing of numerous maturetrees along embankments of Black and BergholtzCreeks, .y

Is-o easily adaptable for excavation of creek banks if Nremediation is required. ca

o better control of depth and completeness ofexcavation.

.Due to the above-listed advantages the most feasiblecleaning alternative appears to be mechanical excavation ofBergholtz and Black creeks using front-end loaders withland-based equipment. The total excavation cost isestimated to be $1,178,000.Some concern has been raised regarding the potential forrecontamination of Bergholtz Creek by the 93rd Street Schoolsite. Although design of the cleanup of Bergholtz Creekcould be undertaken immediately to expedite the remediationefforts, actual cleanup of Bergholtz Creek should not beundertaken until the currently ongoing remedialinvestigation of the 93rd Street School site is completed.In order to further define the degree and extent of contami-nation in Cayuga Creek and develop remedial actions (ifnecessary), it is recommended that additional creek sedimentsamples be taken in Cayuga Creek from the confluence withBergholtz Creek to the Niagara River. In addition, embank-ment samples within the 1983 EID limits and the first andsecond incremental reaches should be taken to determine ifthe banks of Bergholtz and Black Creeks need to beexcavated. To minimize sampling costs, it is recommended

6-40

that all the sampling be done under one project. The totalsampling and analysis costs for all reaches recommended forsampling is estimated to be $169,000.Remediation methods and costs have not been evaluated forthose reaches of Cayuga Creek downstream of the confluencewith Bergholtz Creek. No attempt should be made to applyunit costs to these reaches because such aspects as limitedaccess to the creek, increased flow and greater depth maysignificantly increase the costs of remediation in theseareas.

SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND LEACHATE WATER TREATMENTGENERAL

Sediment removal from the creeks and sewers will be accom-panied by transport of these sediments to either an offsitedisposal area, or to an interim storage facility atLove Canal. If the sediments are hydraulically dredged, alarge volume of water (slurry carriage) will be generated.The sediments mechanically removed will contain "porewater." Unless the total volume of water and sediments is ntransported to an offsite disposal facility, water will be ^generated as the sediments undergo dewatering. Dewatering (.pof the sediments is necessary to reduce the volume of omaterial that must be stored in an interim storage facility ®and ultimately treated or disposed of. The estimatedquantities of water resulting from the cleaning of thecreeks and sewers are shown in Table 6-10. This water may.require pretreatment prior to discharge to the City ofNiagara Falls sanitary sewer system. The degree ofpretreatment required would be dependent on the waterquality, but at minimum could consist of solids removalfollowed by activated carbon treatment, presumably at theLove Canal Treatment Facility. The activated carbontreatment may be required because water collected duringsediment dewatering would have been in contact with thecontaminated sediments and may contain organic contaminants.Host of the Love Canal related organic compounds have arelatively high affinity for sediment particles and are notvery water soluble; therefore, disportion of organics intothe water column during creek and sewer cleaning is notanticipated. However, until sampling and analysis indicatesno detectable organics, it will be assumed that this watermust be applied to activated carbon beds. If analysis wereto be made of the water prior to carbon treatment and nosignificant organics were detected, then this water could bedischarged to the sanitary sewer, subject to approval by theDEC and the City. Any water applied to the activated carbonbeds at the Love Canal Treatment Facility needs to berelatively free of solids to prevent plugging of the carbonbeds. Thus, depending on the suspended solids

6-41

Table 6-10SEWER AND CREEK CLEANING ESTIMATED WATER QUANTITIES REQUIRING TREATMENT

Hydraulic MechanicalLocation (gallons) (gallons)Sewers1 482,000 482,OOO2

Bergholtz 6 Black Creek, - ,(as recommended in 1983 EID) 37,000 37,0001st increment of Bergholtz . .Creek to 93rd Street 34,000 34,0002nd increment of Bergholtz eCreek to Cayuga Creek 114,000Final volume in creek andtransfer pipe requiringtreatment 350,000Ponded water in DewateringFacility 2,650,000

114,000s

TOTAL 3,667,000s 612,000NOTES;

1. Estimated to require 7 gallons/ft, sewer cleaned.2. Mechanical cleaning of the sewers has been eliminated as not

technically sound. However', since hydraulic sewer cleaningwould be performed even if the remainder of the mechanicalremedial alternatives are implemented, the water quantityassociated with hydraulic sewer cleaning should be evaluatedfor treatment under both types of alternatives.

3. Pore water is estimated to be 10» of the sediment volume.4. Water associated with additional solids would add approximately

34,000 gallons ( i . e . , 10 percent of sediment volume).5. Water associated with additional solids» would add approximately

114,000 gallons ( i . e . , 10 percent of sediment volume).6 . Assumes 500 foot segment of creek and 250 feet of pipe. The

complete pipe length (one mile) would hold 106,000 gallons more.7. Assumes a 16,000 cubic yard interim storage facility which

would be used as a dewatering facility before closure. Two feetof water would be ponded on the facility when hydraulic dredgingis complete (1,070 feet x 165 feet x 2 feet deep), leaving2,650,000 gallons to be treated.

8. The assumption was made that hydraulic dredging water will berecycled thus greatly reducing the quantity of water ultimatelytreated. If recirculation is not possible, as much as36,000,000 gallons of water would be required for dredging,and would have to be treated.

WDR99/014

6-42

concentration, the collected water may require additionalsolids removal.SEDIMENT TRANSPORTThe methods used to transport the sewer and creek sedimentsto a dewatering facility prior to interim storage or treat-ment are dependent upon the sediment removal method. Thethree types of transport associated with the cleaningmethods are as follows:

Sewer Cleaning (hydraulic) Tank TrucksHydraulic Dredging of Creeks Pipeline and TrucksMechanical Excavation of Creeks Trucks

The sediments and hydraulic flush water that result fromcleaning the sewers would be vacuumed into a tank truck forhauling to the dewatering facility. The tank trucks arewatertight and no spills should result; however, leaks orsplashes during loading and discharging of the load arepossible. Volatile compounds would be disturbed during theflushing and vacuuming operation, possibly releasing vaporsinto the air. However, the amount of water used in theflushing operation would suppress the vapors to some degree, \f)and a buffer zone around the tank truck as it was loading i>and unloading would ensure that volatile material could Ndissipate into the air without affect. The haul route of ®the truck from the manhole to the dewatering facility would ®be carefully laid out to minimize disruption of traffic, toreduce the amount of time spent in populated neighborhoods.and to ensure that truck traffic would be at a minimumduring times of peak traffic and outdoor activities. Thetrucks would be inspected for leaks at the beginning and endof each trip; the contractor would be required to have acontingency plan for cleaning up any spills or leaks. Thepublic would be informed of the truck routes and travelschedule to minimize any conflicts, and would be asked toreport any leaks' or spills immediately. At least 70 trips(one per each day of cleaning) would be made.The hydraulic dredging of the creeks would require twodifferent pipelines and the use of haul trucks. In thisoption, access must be gained to the creeks for theconstruction of the berms used to isolate and dewater the500 foot segments of the creeks. After the berms are built.and the creek is dewatered, debris in the creeks (anythinglarger than Six inches in any dimension) would be removed byworkers who would enter the creek bed and haul out thematerial by hand. The debris would be hauled to the interimstorage facility in trucks. The debris would be drummedbefore being hauled away. The truck beds would bedouble-lined in plastic, all joints (at the tailgate ortruck bed) would be caulked, and layers of plastic would be

6-43

placed over the load and weighted down. Routes for thetruck could be established to minimize disruption oftraffic. If the material is drummed, leakage or spillagewould be of minimal concern. The amount of debris in thecreek is expected to be minimal? about one truckload per500 feet segment of creek ( 9 or 10 trips total) would beneeded to haul off the debris.The hydraulic dredging option would require two pipelines.One would be an 8-inch HDPE line (contained within a 12 inchsteel line) to carry the dredge water and sediment load tothe dewatering facility. The other line would be an 18-inchHDPE gravity flow line (within a 24 inch steel line) thatcarries water from the dewatering facility back to the creeksegment being dredged. Returning this water to the dredgingoperation greatly reduces the amount of water that must betreated. The two pipelines must be in place for theduration of the dredging operation, and would be lengthenedas the operation moves downstream toward Cayuga Creek. Ifthe entire length of Bergholtz Creek is dredged, over one „,mile of each pipeline will be in use. Booster pumps powered ^by gasoline engines would be located at different points Nalong the length of the dredge water/sediment pipeline c"0(roughly every 1,500 feet). These pumps would run at all ctiroes during dredging operation. The lines would beinspected at different times during the work day for leaks;the contractor would be required to have a contingency planand equipment for dealing with leaks and spills. The routeof the pipelines would be either along the creek bank to apoint near the dewatering facility, or along a street.parallel to the creek. In either case, the pipelines wouldbe encased in a "traffic bridge" at points where thepipelines crossed a road <91st Street, for example). Thetraffic bridges would be sized to accommodate the pipes(24-inch high or so) and to handle the biggest vehicle thatwould cross. Heavy vehicles would be routed around theareas where the pipelines cross streets.The mechanical excavation would require a number of trucksto haul the sediments away from the creek to the interimsecure storage facility. Haul roads would be constructed todifferent points on the creek bank for the trucks andclamshells to work from. The haul roads could be used bythe front-end loaders to move from segment to segment of thecreek. The clamshells could be stationed at the 91st StreetBridge to get sediments from several downstream segments;this would entail blocking access to the bridge for a numberof days. Brookside Drive could also be used to gain accessto the creek for the clamshells. Most probably, clam shellscould be located at 93rd Street School, and trucks orfront-end loaders could run up and down the creek bed toCayuga Creek.

6-44

The trucks used to haul the sediments would be prepared asdiscussed above.. Routes, time of day for trips and spillcontingency plans will be decided upon before operationsbegin. It is anticipated that the sediments will be moist(about 50 percent water) so that dust control should not bea problem. A number of trips will be needed to carry thesediments; if trucks with a capacity of 13 cubic yards areused, about 1,400 trips would be needed to haul the entire21,000 cubic yards of sediments from the length of BergholtzCreek.

DEWATERING: GENERAL

The sediments removed from the sewers must be dewateredprior to storage in the interim secure storage facility ortreatment. Two methods are available for use; either onecan be implemented rapidly so that the sewer sediments canbe removed during the 1985 construction season, dewatered,and deposited in the interim secure storage facility as soonas it is constructed. The sewers must be cleaned first toprevent recontanination of the creeks.The sediments from the creeks will also require dewatering.However, the method used to clean the creeks—hydraulic F"dredging or mechanical excavation—will determine the amount Sof material to be dewatered, and the method to be used. 1.0Regardless of the removal or dewatering technique used for ®creek sediments, an interim secure storage facility must bebuilt before creek remediation begins.EXISTING LEACHATE TREATMENT SYSTEM CAPABILITIESThe Love Canal Treatment Facility has a batch operatedactivated carbon system with a capacity of approximately150 gallons per minute. Love Canal leachate is pumped intoa 30,000 gallon underground storage tank. From the under-ground tank, the leachate is pumped into a day tank and theninto a clarifier. From the clarifier, the water is pumpedthrough bag filters (to remove remaining particulate inexcess of 50 microns) and then finally through the carbonbeds.Leachate generation varies throughout the year with theSpring months being the period of highest production. Theinstallation of the synthetic liner over the cap on theCanal should reduce the quantity of leachate produced. Atthis time (September, 1 9 8 4 ) , the carbon beds are operatedapproximately 3 days per week during the spring and only oneday per two weeks during the summer/fall. With a capacityof 150 gpm, the system could process approximately63,000 gallons per 7-hour day. Provided that the creek andsewer cleaning is not done during periods of high leachateproduction, the treatment facility has sufficient spare

6-45

capacity to treat the creek and sewer cleaning water. Theexisting Love Canal Treatment Plant has limited solidsremoval capabilities and the DEC has stated that only thecarbon beds at the facility can be used. Therefore, allsolids removal must be performed prior to transferring thewater to the treatment plant. If the activated carbon bedsat Love Canal were not available for use, rented carbontreatment facilities could be brought onsite at an estimatedcost of $158,000.Dewaterinq TechniquesThree methods of dewatering sediments were examined:mechanical dewatering, clarification/filtration, and use ofthe leachate collection system of an interim secure storagefacility to dewater the sediments. As stated, the sewersmust be cleaned first to avoid recontamination of thecreeks. Since it is unlikely that the interim securestorage facility of 16,000 cubic yards capacity could bebuilt in time to serve as a dewatering for the sewer sedi-ments, a temporary dewatering/interim storage facility based COon a system already used at Love Canal was also evaluated •;"solely for the sewer sediments. The use of mechanical or ^clarification filtration systems on the volumes of sediments 3from the creeks would be dependent on regulating the clean- e1ing operations to natch the operating capacities of thesystems, or building additional storage facilities and doesnot appear feasible. Regardless of the method chosen todewater the creek sediments, the interim secure storagefacility must be built first.Temporary Steel Wall/Passive Dewatering. One method fordewatering the sewer sediments consists of a system muchlike the one originally used in the first sewer cleaningoperation at Love Canal. In this system, an 80 ml HDPEliner would be placed within a benned area to providecontainment in the event of leaking. A sand layer with aleak detection system would be placed on the HDPE liner.Steel prefabricated walls would be erected around the leakdetection system on the sand, and used to support a secondHDPE liner that would be fitted over the walls and rest onthe sand layer. Another layer of sand and a leachatecollection system would be placed inside the walls on theliner, and covered with filter fabric, gravel or othersuitable material. The water/sediment mixture from thesewer cleaning would be introduced into this system, anddewatered from below. An overflow weir would take pondedwater from the top of the sediments into a secondcompartment of the system, which would hold this water untilit could be filtered through a low pressure sand filterprior to being pumped to the Love Canal Treatment Facility.The system would measure (steel wall dimensions) about100 feet long, 55 feet wide and 5 feet high. Its capacity

6-46

would be 100,000 gallons, divided into 80,000 gallon and20,000 gallon compartments, and would be sufficient forseveral days' storage of the water destined for the LoveCanal Treatment Facility. This would prevent a halt insewer cleaning if the treatment facility was working atcapacity or shut down. This temporary sewer sedimentdewatering facility would remain inplace within a floatingcover until the sediments are dewatered and the interimsecure storage facility is built. At that point, the innerliner, leachate collection system and dewatered sewersediments would all be deposited in the interim securestorage facility for eventual disposal. The cost of thissystem is estimated at $289,000.Mechanical DewateringFigure 6-9 shows a schematic of the mechanical dewateringprocess. For the purposes of providing a description of theprocess and developing a cost estimate, a vacuum filtrationsystem has been used. The specific mechanical dewatering _device to be used would be selected during the detailed ^design phase. The tank truck containing the sewer flushings Nfor example, would unload into a temporary storage tank. t£>

Prior to filtering the water, a coating (precoat) of diato- ^rnaceous earth would be applied to the filter. The water/sediments would then be pumped (50 gpm) into the vacuumfilter holding tank and filtered. As the filteringproceeds, the dewatered sediments and a layer ofdiatomaceous earth would be removed from the filter. Afterthe thickness of the precoat has been reduced to apredetermined thickness, the remaining precoat/sediments areremoved and the filter is recoated. Approximately 600 Ibsof diatomaceous earth are required per ton of dried solids.The filtered water would be transferred to the existingunderground storage tank at the Love Canal TreatmentFacility for subsequent carbon treatment, while the filtercake (dewatered sediments) would be placed in suitablecontainers for dnsite interim storage or transfer to anoffsite disposal facility. This dewatering alternativeoffers the advantage of resulting in a relatively dry solidscake.The mechanical dewatering process for the sewer sedimentshas been estimated to cost $391,000. A number of watertight containers (roll-off boxes. Baker tanks, etc.) wouldhave to purchased, or leased and decontaminated, if onsitestorage of the containers were required. In addition,suitable spill containment measures, such as a curbedconcrete pad and adequate security measures would have to beinstalled for the container storage area. The containers(30 13-cy roll-off containers) and concrete pad areestimated to cost $300,000. The present worth of thisalternative is presented in Table 6-11.

6-47

NOTE: VACUUM FILTER WAS USEDIN PRELIMINARY DESIGN FORDESCRIPTION AND COSTESTIMATING PURPOSES.SEWER FLUSHING

TANK TRUCK

SEWEREXISTINGBAG FILTERS EXISTING CARBON BEDS

006280

MECHANICALDEWTERING/SOLIDS REMOWL

ALTERNATIVE

Table 6-11ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DEWATERING/SOLIDS REMOVAL ALTERNATIVES

Item Present Worth1. Steel Wall/Passive

Dewatering $289,0002. Mechanical Dewatering 5391,0003. Clarification/Filtration/

Mechanical Dewatering $683,000

NOTES:1. 1984 dollars. There are no long term operating costs

associated with the dewatering/solids removal processes.T-»00

WDR99/015 ^C®

6-48

The preliminary cost estimates for the treatment/dewatering• equipment were based on processing the water at a flow rateof 50 gpm. This would allow treatment of each day's sewercleaning in 2-3 hours. It has been estimated that approxi-mately 1,000 feet of sewer can be cleaned each day. There-fore, approximately 70-75 work days would be required topretreat the sewer flush water.Clarification/FiltrationFigure 6-10 shows a preliminary schematic of aclarification/filtration process. The tank truck containingthe sewer flushing would unload into a temporary storagetank. From the storage tank the water would be pumped(50 gpm) through a clarifier. The clarifier should settleout the bulk of the sediments. Flocculants ( i . e . aluminumor iron salts and/or polymers) could be added upstream ofthe clarifier in order to promote settling. The underflow(settled sediments) slurry from the clarifier would have tobe transferred to an additional dewatering process. Theclarifier would be followed by a mixed media filter toremove the finer sediments not removed in the clarifier.The filtered water could then be transferred to theunderground storage tank for subsequent application to thecarbon beds. When sediment deposition in the filters £0requires the filters to be backwashed, the backwash water Nwould be piped into the temporary storage tank for treatment ^in the clarifier. CIt is important to note that clarification/filtration doesnot offer any advantage as a sediment dewatering alternativebecause the resulting solids slurry from the clarifier mustundergo further dewatering or be repeatedly processedthrough the clarifier. Either process would only add to thecost. The clarification/filtration process is estimated tocost $292,000. The cost for an additional dewateringprocess would be similar to that for the previouslydiscussed mechanical dewatering system. The present worthof these alternatives are presented in Table 6-11. Thepreliminary cost estimates for clarification/filtrationequipment were based on a flow rate of 50 gpm, the same asfor mechanical dewatering. The clarification/filtrationdewatering alternative can be eliminated from furtherconsideration.Creek Sediment DewateringBecause of the volumes of sediment involved, dewatering ofthe creek sediments would necessitate the use of the interimsecure storage facility. The mechanically excavatedsediments could be deposited directly into the interimsecure storage facility, and the facility's leachatecollection system would collect the pore water as the

6-49

1;

B

FR

FACILITY

EJNCSTQ

AC>

SEWER FLUSHINTANK TRUCK

00 UU

OM STORAGE

XISTING3ER6ROUNIRAGE TAN

KWASH WSUPPLY

«———1

DK

ATER-

r~i

i

pi0

-——

J— - y \ f—•—^-3 ^h-1>^ STORAGE .s

r TANK

BACKWASH. yASTEY»ATER

»

4—————(—"^

^MIXED

, . MEDIA\ • FILTER

1

A———1 .i—

^\CLARIFIER

Y-1

1J

n

ALUMADDITION

I

————— UNOFAC

^IT

ER FL(LITY

^

tPOLYMERADDITION

OW TO STORAGEBACKWASH WATER

SUPPLY

• UNDER FLOW TO STORAGEFACILITY

EXISTINGUNDERGROUNCSTORAGE TAW

BACKWASH WSSUPPLY

EOA

3<

HER-

XISTINy STOfTANK

——I*

———————»

GBAGE

^

MIXEDMEDIAFILTER

\/

[S—

—————k

EBAG

^

XISTIS FIL

•r

NGTERS

~»

UF<

^^

NDER»CILIT

^

L- ,

FLOW TOY

- TO CITY^ SANITARY SEWER

EXISTINGCLARIFIER

EXISTING CARBON BEDS

006283

CLARIFICATION/FILTRATIONDEWATERING/SOL1DS REMOVAL

ALTERNATIVEo>

o

sediments dewatered. This pore water would be treated and .discharged. The mechanically excavated sediments could bedeposited and dewatered in either the "Times Beach vault"type storage facility, or the earthen benned storagefacility.The hydraulically dredged sediments will be difficult todewater. In order to reduce the total volume of waterassociated with dredging, it has been assumed that thedredge water would be recycled. The Times Beach vault typeof interim storage facility would not be well-suited for usein recycling the dredge water, or in dewatering thehydraulically dredge spoils. The earthen benned type ofinterim secure storage facility could be designed to meetthe requirements of the hydraulic dredging option.Basically, the use of the hydraulic dredge removal optionrequires a dewatering facility that has a capacity largeenough for the sediments, pore water and settling agent; isdesigned to keep the sediments at a shallow depth (usuallytwo feet or so) so that water can trickle down through thevery fine materials to the leachate collection system; hasthe leachate collection system augmented with such devicesas wick drains, curtain drains, trench lateral drains ortube drains to speed the dewatering process; can be leftopen (uncapped) for a period of time (at least a year) whilethe sediments dewater and solidify enough to permitplacement of a permanent cap; and has a system to collectponded water from the sediments and return it to the dredgeoperation. These are major design features that couldroadically alter the cost, the dimensions and even thefeasibility of the interim secure storage features discussedin the following sections. It-is imperative that suitableengineering soils data be obtained on the creek sedimentsbefore the decision is made to use the interim securestorage facility as a dewatering facility for hydraulicallydredged sediments.

ONSITE INTERIM SECURE STORAGEGENERAL

The 1983 EID eliminated onsite (viz. at the Love Canal site)sediment encapsulation/storage from the detailed evaluationof alternatives based on discussions with DEC personnelwhich indicated that the need to erect onsite dewateringfacilities and the limited capacity of the Love Canalleachate collection system made onsite, in-capencapsulation/storage unfeasible. However, a detailedinvestigation in this report of a onsite interim securesediment storage facility revealed it to be a technicallyfeasible alternative. Storage is necessary since treatmentand disposal techniques currently available could not matchthe rate at which the sediments can be removed. Also, the

6-50

sediments must be prepared for disposal or treatment bydewatering. Disposal or treatment of the stored materialmust follow, however.Four onsite interim secure storage methods were evaluated indetail as follows:

o Storage in a totally segregated earthern benncontainment cell (with its own leachate collectionand leak detection systems) situated on top of therecently installed (October 1984) syntheticmembrane liner, either on top of Love Canal orbeside the canal within the fence line. A similarcell can be built at other locations in the LoveCanal area.

o In-cap storage in a totally segregated containmentcell (with its own leachate collection and leakdetection systems) situated partially beneath therecently installed synthetic membrane clay cap ontop of the canal.

o Concrete storage facility (with its own leachate ooand leak detection systems) at various locations. ^

It was assumed that the containment cell would be designed Sand constructed in accordance with Part 264 of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Title 6 , Part 360of Mew York Compilation of Rules and Regulations. Thefacility would be designed both to meet the standards.required of a permanent storage facility, and to permit easyremoval of the contaminated material for future treatmentor off site disposal. A brief discussion of the storage

methods is presented in the following sections.Table 6-12 shows the range of estimated volumes of contami-nated sediment to be removed from the sewers, creeks, andthe Niagara River near the 102nd Street storm sewer outfallthat might be stored in an interim secure storage facility.ABOVE-CAP STORAGEGeneralAbove-cap storage in an interim secure earthen benned orconcrete vault facility was evaluated for the minimum,maximum and probable estimated sediment volumes associatedwith the clean-up of sewers, creeks, and the 102nd Streetoutfall area, and the approximately 650 drums now stored atthe site. Facility requirements for both mechanical andhydraulic sediment excavation were determined for theminimum and probable sediment volume ( i . e . 5,000 and 16,000-21,000 cubic yards).

6-51

Table 6-12ESTIMATED SEDIKENT VOLUMES

StdtBent Reaoval ContBBinatedLocation_____________ Depths Sefllaent ley)

A. Severs 1 2 inches 2BO

B. 102nd Street Outfall2 4 foot 23,000

C. Black and Bergholti 18 Inches 1,800Creekl designated « feet 4,780tor mediation la EID

D. Iccr——nt froB rccoB- 18 Inches 1,670•ended downstre— reach In 4 feet 4,450Bergholti Creole to 93rdStreet stora sever overflow

f. Incresent on Berghoitt 18 laches 11,250Creek fro* 93rd Street to 4 feet 30,000conflueace with Cayuga Creek

F. lDCre«ent froB Cayuga 1B Inches 24,000Cre«lt and Berghoitt Creek 4 feet 64,000coctluenoe to Niagra River

G. Bergboltf Creek Banks 6 laches 3,000

——Hinism Bediaent Bfoval''*——————————————————3,000-5,000 ^HaxIsuB Sedloent Reaoval , , „ 135,000 NPROBABLE SEDIMENT REMOVAL- '' "' 16,000-18,000 t0

HPTE5T—————————————————————————————————————————— §T——Basil;

44,100 ft. tanUary sever10 iDch average diawter - sanitary sewer16,700 ft. storm sewer24 Inch avera?« diaieter - stom sewer2,500 sq.ft. of lift station floors « wall*2 loch avg. depth of •ediBit in sewers aad lift stationwet wells

2. 102nd Street outfall should not be cleaned until re—illation of102nd Street landfill was cos»Ieted. The 1983 Halcol* Finite saBpIng effortdetected contaalnation throughout the entire four feet depth sasipled. However,HalcolB Pirnie •ade no attapt to sample below that dtpth.

3. Includes sewer cleaning, erecting of EID ll*lts 1B Inch depth, and Toluneassociated with access roads and creek bems and the approxiMfly650 existing dnos-now stored at Love Canal.

4. The 3,500 cubic yard voluu asmaes hydraulic dredging. The 5000 cubic yard voluse•ssuses Bechanlcal excavation. The difference In voluie Is associated with theaccess roads necessary for —chanlcal excavation.

5. Includes •axteuB sedlixnt VOIUJK for all locations and voluie associated withaccess roads and creek bersa, *nd the approxliutely 650 existing dniBS nowstored at Love Canal.

6. Includes volmes associated with locations A, C, D, E, and the 650 arums.

7. The 16,000 cubic yard voluae assusies hydraulic dredging. The 18,000 cubic yardvoluBt assustti aecaanlcal excavation. To* difference In voime if axsoclateilwith the access roads necessary for •echanlcal excavation.

8. In estlBatIng total volu—s of •aterlal to be rc»ved, the asoimt of waterassociated with —eh alternative list be considered, as follows:Hydraulic Dredging 3,667,000 gallonsMechanical Excavation 612,000 gallons

HDR99/017

6-52

Description of Above-Cap AlternativesPlate 3 shows a cross-section and location plan for the18,000-21,000 cubic yard above-cap earthen berro storagealternative. The design for the volumes generated by othercleanup alternatives would be similar. However, the maximumvolume (135,000 cy) facility would be much larger and wouldcover the majority of the southern section of the Love Canalsite, including the Canal itself. Since it is extremelydesirable not to put any additional weight on the Canal, theearthern berned facility cannot be used for storage of themaximum volume of material. The facility dimensions foreach of the alternatives are summarized on Table 6-13.The following design parameters were established to size andcost the various above-cap earthen-berm interim securestorage alternatives:

o Topsoil currently in-place over the existing capliner would be removed and stored onsite for capconstruction.

o Installation of a synthetic membrane liner on thebottom of the facility. For cost estimating r-purposes, we have assumed that a 40 mil. high tcdensity polyethylene (HOPE) liner will be ^utilized. However, RCRA regulations require that sa compatibility test using actual creek and sewer esediment leachate must be performed duringdetailed design to determine if HOPE is suitablefor use as a liner for the storage facility.

o Installation of both leak detection and leachatecollection systems separated by a syntheticmembrane liner. Sand will be utilized as theinitial layer of the leachate collection system tofacilitate sediment dewatering. A particle sizedistribution analysis of the sediment will beperformed as part of the detailed design in orderto properly size the sand and prevent blinding offilter fabric and the leachate collection system.

o Design of the benns to include between 0. 5 and1. 5 feet of freeboard, depending upon the size ofthe facility and the method of creek cleaning.o Design of the benns for the hydraulic facilities

to include a minimum of 2.0 feet of ponding depth.This assumes that the sediment would be depositedat an even depth over the entire facility. Duringactual operation, if this facility is to be usedas a dewatering facility for the hydraulic sewercleaning, or the hydraulic creek cleaning, the

6-53

Table 6-13PRELIMINARY FACILITY DIMENSIONSABOVE-CAP STORAGE, EARTHERN BERM

3 4 2Above-Cap Alternative Inner Dimensions Outer Dimensions Benn Height PreliminaryLocation(Feet) (Feet)(Feet)

Mechanical Excavation5,000 cy 210 X 550 275 X 675 8.5 In the southeast section

of the Love Canal site approx-imately 600' north ofFrontier Avenue

Hydraulic Dredging -5,000 cy 215 X 550 280 X 675 9.0 As Above.

Mechanical Excavation -18,000 cy 165 X 780 260 X 930 10.0 As Above.

Hydraulic Dredging -16,000 cy

Hydraulic Dredging -135,000 cy

165 X 1070 260 X 1250

360 X 1500 580 X 1720

12.0

15.0

In the southeast sectionof the Love Canal site approx-imately 50' north ofFrontier Avenue

Centered in section of theLove Canal site south ofthe Leachate TreatmentPlant

NOTES; (1) All Dimensions approximate(21 Benn heights taken from center of bern(3) Bottom inside of benns (base)(4) Bottom outside of benns (base)

WDR99/018

006288

majority of the sediment will be deposited at theinlet end of the facility.

o Placement of a synthetic membrane liner along theinside and outside faces of the benns.

o Placement of drainage fabric along the inside faceof the berm underneath the synthetic membraneliner to facilitate leak detection.

o Cap construction identical to the recentlyinstalled synthetic membrane liner system.

OperationMechanical Excavation. The following description brieflyoutlines a preliminary operating procedure for the facility.The mechanically excavated creek sediments would be truckedto the site in water-tight trucks and unloaded into thestorage facility. A small bulldozer would probably be usedinside the facility to facilitate the placement and compac-tion of the sediments. This bulldozer would be decontami-nated at the end of the project. The sewer flush water/ ^sediments would be trucked in tanker trucks to the site for (JOonsite separation of the water and sediments. The dry ^filter cake or sediment slurry (depending on the solids -separation process used) would then be transferred to the Cstorage facility. The sediment slurry would then undergofurther passive dewatering. Since the sediments would notbe a source of wind-blown litter, have no food value whichwould attract vermin or birds, and are not a fire hazard,daily cover will not be necessary, but could be used toreduce any odors from decaying leaves, etc.The leachate collection/drainage system, as shown onPlate 3 , acts as a solids drying bed as the wateraccompanying the solids or rainwater filters down throughthe sand, the filter fabric and into the collection/drainagesystem. Since the system is above-grade and double-lined,ground water would not enter the facility. The leachateunderdrain system will be used for:

o additional dewatering of the sewer sediments if asediment slurry from the clarification/filtrationdewatering operation is transferred to the storagefacility

o removal of small volumes of pore wateraccompanying creek 5edimentso removal of precipitation that falls into thefacility prior to closure.

6-55

Water which enters the leachate collection system will flowto two sumps located within the benns of the facility. Thewater would then be pumped from the sumps into a haul truckfor treatment at the existing Love Canal leachate treatmentsystem. Upon closure, the sediment will essentially beenclosed in an impermeable synthetic membrane topped by asoil, clay, and grass cover, thereby virtually eliminatingrainwater infiltration. It is anticipated that only negli-gible quantities of leachate from the mechanically excavatedsediments will be generated after closure.Once the facility is closed, the following routine mainte-nance will be necessary:

o Routine checks of the leak detection system toinsure the integrity of the synthetic membranesand to insure that the leachate collection systemis working properly.

o Periodic leachate removal and treatment, ifnecessary.

o Maintenance of the surface of the berms and cap toinsure the integrity of the facility.

Hydraulic Dredging. Operation of the facility will besomewhat different if hydraulic dredging is used to removethe creek sediments. Prom the creek the dredge would pumpvia pipeline the sediment slurry to the southern end of thestorage facility. While the dredging is in progress, the.storage facility would be used as a large settling basin.The settled water would flow over a floating weir or into astandpipe(s) located at the northern end of the onsitestorage facility and flow by gravity back to the dredgingarea for reuse. The weir/stand pipe will be periodicallyadjusted to maintain a minimum of 1 foot of water over thedeposited sediments. No water would be pumped from theunderdrain system during the dredging.If the sewer sediments are placed in the storage facilityprior to the creek sediments, a small portion of the storagefacility could be partitioned from the remainder of thefacility for dewatering of the sewer sediments. This areawill be completely covered prior to initiation of dredgingactivities in order to insure that none of the contaminatedsewer sediments can be resuspended and recycled back to thecreek(s).When the hydraulic dredging has been completed water pondedon top of the facility (estimated to be about two feetdeep), would be pumped into the treatment system if it issufficiently free of suspended solids. Otherwise, thiswater would have to undergo mechanical dewatering/solids

6-56

removal treatment prior to being spread on the carbon beds.The ieachate collection system could then be utilized tofurther dewater the sediment as discussed above. Thisoption could be used only if the sediments are spreadsufficiently thin enough to allow dewatering to proceed, andif the sediments or coagulants added to the sediments do notblind the sand and filter fabric layers located above theIeachate collection system. Another alternative would be tostabilize the hydraulically dredged sediments with flyash,which would bind up the pore water and dredge water. Uponclosure of the facility, Ieachate generation would diminishwith time. Closure may be delayed for a year(s) while thehydraulically dredged sediments stabilize.The routine maintenance requirements outlined previouslywould also be required for these onsite storage facilities.Security. Assuming minimum (5,000 cubic yards) sedimentdisposal, the onsite Interim storage facility will beoperated approximately five months. If maximum(135,000 cubic yards, hydraulically dredged) sedimentdisposal occurs, the facility would be open in excess of ayear. Since Love Canal is already fenced for security and ^safety purposes, placement of additional fencing around the Nonsite encapsulation/storage facility is not considered ^necessary. However, if vandalism or safety becomes a ~yconcern, additional security measures (viz. lighting,security guards, additional fencing) will be taken.CostsThe construction and maintenance costs associated with theabove-cap storage facilities are presented in Tables 6-14through 6-18. Present worth is calculated based on a10 percent discount rate over a 20-year period. Table 6-17presents the estimated costs associated with a 21,000 cubicyard (mechanical excavation) earthern benn facility whichassumes that the Bergholtz Creek banks would also be cleanedto a depth of six inches. The cost of the facility withoutthe volume associated with the creek banks ( i . e . ,3,000 cubic yards) would be approximately $1,000,000. Hoattempts were made to optimize the size of the variousstorage facilities; therefore, these costs should beconsidered preliminary because changing the facility layoutmay have a significant impact on the total constructioncost. Size optimization would be performed during detaileddesign.

6-57

Table 6-14MECHANICAL EXCAVATION - 5,000 CUBIC YARDSABOVE-CAP SECURE STORAGE (EARTHERN BERM)

ESTIMATED COSTS

CONSTRUCTIONItem

SITE PREPARATION

Topsoil Removal

BOTTOM CONSTRUCTION

ClaySynthetic Membrane Liner

(40 mil. HDPE)Bank Run GravelBank SandFilter Fabric4" PVC Pipe (Schedule 40)Lined Concrete Sumps (2)Manhole Extensions (3)

BERM CONSTRUCTION

FillSilty-SandClay

. Synthetic Membrane Liner(40 MIL. HDPE)

TopsoilDrainage Fabric

CAP CONSTRUCTION

Silty-SandSynthetic Membrane Liner

(40 MIL HDPE)Topsoil (Purchase, Place and

Compact)Topsoil (Place and Compact)

ENGINEERING, LEGAL AMD CONTINGENCIES

MAINTENANCE COSTS ($2.000/yr)TOTAL PROJECT

Quantity

2,150 cy

4,300 cy231,000 sf

2,150 cy6,425 cy

231,000 Sf1,200 If

2 each3 each

9,600 cy1,250 cy

525 cy56,475 sf

625 cy13,875 sf

9,000 cy162,000 sf

850 cy2,150 cy

(@35»)

$803,000

V Unit Cost ($) 1

2.50SUBTOTAL

9.000.50

9.508.500.06

18.005,000.001,500.00

SUBTOTAL

7.009.009.000.50

10.000.06

SUBTOTAL

9.000.50

10.004.00SUBTOTAL

TOTAL

TOTALPRESENT WORTH

'otal Co£t($)

5,3755,375

38,700115,500

20,42554,61513,86021,60010,000

4,500279,200

67,20011,2504,725

28,240

6,250835

118,500

81,00081,000

8,5008,600

179,100

582,175203,825786,00017,000

WDR99/019

6-5B

Table 6-15HYDRAULIC DREDGING - 5,000 CUBIC YARDSABOVE-CAP SECURE STORAGE (EARTHERN BERM)

ESTIMATED COSTS

CONSTRUCTIONItemSITE PREPARATION

Topsoil Removal

BOTTOM CONSTRUCTION


(40 mil. HOPE)Bank Run GravelBank SandFilter FabricFloating Weir/Stand Pipe ( 1 )4" PVC Pipe (Schedule 40)Lined Concrete Sumps ( 2 )Manhole Extensions ( 3 )

BERM CONSTRUCTION

FillSilty SandClaySynthetic Membrane Liner

(40 MIL. HDPE)TopsoilDrainage Fabric

CAP CONSTRUCTION '




ENGINEERING, LEGAL AND CONTINGENCIES

MAINTENANCE COSTS (S2,000/yr)TOTAL PROJECT

Quantit;

2,150 cy

4,500 cy242,000 sf

2,250 cy6,725 cy

242,000 Sf1 each1,200 LF2 each3 each

10,200 cy1,350 cy500 cy

• 59,075 sf

675 cy12.925 sf

9,000 cy162,000 sf

850 cy2,150 cy

(@35»)

/ Unit Cost ( S ) 1

2.50SUBTOTAL

9.000.50

9.508.500.06

1,000.0018.00

5,000.001,500.00

SUBTOTAL

7.009.009.000.50

10.000.06SUBTOTAL

9.000.50

10.004.00SUBTOTAL

TOTAL

TOTALPRESENT WORTH

[•otal Cost($)

5,3755,375

40,500121,000

21,37557,16514,5201,000 n21,600 V>10,000 •^4,500 S

291,660 ®

71,40012,1504,500

29,540

6,750775

125,115

81,00081,000

8,5008,600

179,100601,250210,750812,00017,000

$829,000

WDR99/020

6-59

Table 6-16HYDRAULIC DREDGING - 16,000 CUBIC YARD FACILITY

ABOVE-CAP SECURE STORAGE (EARTHERN BERM)ESTIMATED COSTS

CONSTRUCTIONItem

SITE PREPARATION

Topsoil Removal

BOTTOM CONSTRUCTION


(40 nil. HDPE)Bank Run GravelBank SandFilter FabricFloating Weir/Stand Pipe (4)4" PVC Pipe (Schedule 40)Lined Concrete Sumps (2)

BERM CONSTRUCTION

FillSilty-SandClaySynthetic Membrane Liner


CAP CONSTRUCTION




ENGINEERING, LEGAL AND CONTINGENCIES

MAINTENANCE COSTS (S2,000/yr>TOTAL PROJECT

Ouantit;

3,075 cy

6,150 cy331,700 sf

3,075 cy9,225 cy

331,700 sf1 each2,300 LF2 each

33,300 cy4,275 cy1.985 cy

. 66,000 sf

2,150 cy53,600 sf

39,075 cy703,300 sf

3,025 cy10,000 cy

(@35l)

$1,420,000

/ Unit Cost (S)

2.50SUBTOTAL

9.000.50

9.508.500.06

1.000.0018.00

1,000.00

SUBTOTAL

7.009.009.000.50

10.000.06

SUBTOTAL

9.000.50

10.004.00SUBTOTAL

TOTAL

TOTALPRESENT WORTH

Total Cost($)

7,6907,690

55,350165,850

29,21578,41519,9001,000

41,40020,000

411,130

233.10038,47517,86533,000

21,5003,215

347,155

123,075123,000

15,00012,300

273,375

1,039,350363,650

1,403,00017,000

WDR99/057

6-60

Table 6-17MECHANICAL EXCAVATIOH - 21,000 CUBIC YABC FACILITY

ABOVE CAP SECURE STORAGE (BIRTHS) BERM)ESTIMATE) COSTS

ConstructionI tea

Site PreparationSubtotal 7,000

Botton ConstructionClaySynthetic Heobrane Liner

(40 til. HOPE)BanX Run GravelBank SandFilter Fabric4" PVC pipe (schedule 40)Lined Concrete Suaps (2)

Subtotal 351,200

Bern ConstructionFillSllty-SandClaySynthetic Meibrane Liner

(40 •II. HOPE)TopsollDrainage Fabric

Subtotal 222,225

Cap ConstructionSllty SanaSynthetic Menbrane Liner

(40 oil. HOPE)Topsail (Purchase, PlaceCoapact)

Topsoil (Place and Conpact)Subtotal 244,650

TOTAL 825,075Engineering, Legal and Contingencies

TOTAL 1,114,000

Maintenance Coals (S2000/yr)

TOTAL PSOJECT

QuantIty

3800 cy

5575 cy300,300 s£

2800 ey8,350 cy

300,300 sf1850 If

2 each

16,900 cy2,600 ey1,250 cy

108,500 sf

1,300 cy33,550 at

12,250 cy220,400 sf

1300 cy2800 cy

(@ 35»)

1,131,000

Unit Cost

2.50

9.000.50

9.508.500.06

18.001000.00

7.009.009.000.50

10.000.06

9.000.50

10.004.00

Present North 17,000

(S) Total Cost (S)

7,000

50,175150,150

26,60070,97518,00033,300

2,000

m118,300 0)23,400 N11,250 g54,250 ®

13,0002,025

110,250110,200

13,00011,200

288,925

6-61

Table 6-16HYDRAULIC DREDGING - 135,000 CUBIC YARDSABOVE-CAP SECURE STORAGE (EARTHERN BERM)

ESTIMATED COSTS


Topsoil Removal

BOTTOM CONSTRUCTION

ClaySynthetic Membrane Liner 1,

(40 mil. HDPE)Bank Run GravelBank SandFilter Fabric 1,Floating Weir/Stand Pipe (4)4" PVC Pipe (Schedule 40)Lined Concrete Sumps (2)Manhole Extensions (15)

BERM CONSTRUCTION

FillSilty-Sand

. ClaySynthetic Membrane Liner


CAP CONSTRUCTION

Silty-Sand.Synthetic Membrane Liner

(40 MIL HOPE)Topsoil (Purchase, Place and


ENGINEERING. LEGAL AND CONTINGENCIES

MAINTENANCE COSTS ($2,000/yr)TOTAL PROJECT

Quantity

10,000 cy

20.000 cy110,000 sf

10,000 cy30,000 cy

110,000 sf4 each4,480 LF2 each

15 each

136,200 cy17,000 cy4,475 cy

446,000 Sf

5,675 cy120,900 Sf

39,075 cy703,300 Sf

3.025 cy10,000 cy

(@35»)

PRESENT WORTH

f Unit Cost ($)

2.50SUBTOTAL

9.000.50

9.508.500.06

1,000.001B.OO

20,000.005,000.00

SUBTOTAL

7.0012.009.000.50

10.000.06

SUBTOTAL

9.000.50

10.004.00SUBTOTAL

TOTAL1,272,505

TOTAL

Total Cost(S)

25,00025,000

180,000555,000

95,000255,00066,6004,000

B0.64040,00075,000

1,351,240

953,400204,00040,275

223,000

56,7507,255

1,484,680

351,675351,650

30,25040,000

773,575

3,634,495

4,907,00017,000

$4,924,000

WDR99/021

6-62

IN-CAP STORAGE

GeneralIn-cap storage was evaluated for the minimum sediment volumeonly. An in-cap facility for the 16,000 cubic yard ormaximum sediment volume ( i . e . , 135,000 cubic yards) was notconsidered technically feasible. There is not adequate roomfor these amounts of material, and the effect of the weightof material on the Canal contents can not be fullyevaluated. On the basis of engineering practices, thein-cap storage of these amounts of material can beeliminated. The size of such facilities would also requirethe excavation of potentially contaminated materials (viz.outside the limits of the original clay cap). Since thesepotentially contaminated materials would have to be placedback into the facility, there would be no volume gainassociated with and no economic incentive to perform theexcavation. Facility costs would also escalate due to thespecial precautions associated with excavation ofpotentially contaminated materials.Description of In-Cap Alternatives ^

NFacility requirements were determined for both mechanical ^and hydraulic excavation of the minimum sediment volume §( i . e . 5,000 cubic yards) and the approximately 650 existingdrums now stored at the site. The specific facilitydimensions for the two alternatives are summarized inTable 6-19. The following design parameters were.established to size and cost the in-cap storagealternatives:

o Excavation of the recently installed syntheticmembrane liner system including 1 foot of theoriginal clay cap. This material would be storedon site for use in construction of thefacility(s).

o Installation of a synthetic membrane liner on thebottom of the facility. For cost estimatingpurposes, we have assumed that a 40 mil. highdensity polyethylene liner (HOPE) will beutilized. However, RCRA regulations require thata compatibility test using actual creek and sewersediment leachate must be performed duringdetailed design to determine if HDPE is suitablefor use as a liner for the storage facility.

o Installation of leak detection and leachatecollection systems separated by a syntheticmembrane liner. Sand will be utilized as theinitial layer of the leachate collection system to

6-63

Table 6-19PRELIMINARY FACILITY DIMENSIONS

IN-CAP SECURE STORAGE (EARTHERN BERM)5,000 CUBIC YARDS ONLY

In-Cap Alternative Inner Dimensions(Feet)

Outer Dimensions(Feet)

Bern Height(Feet) Preliminary Location

Mechanical Excavation5,000 cy 200 X 280 315 X 395 6.5 Centered in southern section

of the Love Canal site approximately 600" north ofFrontier Avenue

Hydraulic Dredging5,000 cy 200 X 280 330 X 410 8.0 Centered in southern section

of the Love Canal site approx-imately 600' north ofFrontier Avenue

NOTES: ( 1 ) All dimensions approximate(2 ) Benn heights taken from center of berm( 3 ) Any volumes greater than 5,000 cy could not be accomodated by in-cap storage.

WDR99/022

006298

facilitate sediment dewatering and solids removal from theleachate. A particle size distribution analysis of thesediment will be performed as part of the detailed design inorder to properly size the sand and prevent blinding of thefilter fabric and leachate collection system.

o Design of the benns to include a minimum of1 . 5 feet of freeboard.

o Design of the berms for the hydraulic facility toinclude a minimum of 2.0 feet of ponding depth.This assumes that the sediment would be depositedat an even depth over the entire facility. Duringactual operation, the majority of thehydraulically dredged sediments and dredge waterwould be deposited at the inlet end of thefacility.

o Placement of a synthetic membrane liner along theinside and outside faces of the berms.

C")o Placement of drainage fabric along the inside face iof the berms underneath the synthetic membrane ^?liner to facilitate leak detection. ^

o Cap construction identical to the recentlyinstalled synthetic membrane liner system.

Operation.Operation of these facilities would be identical to theabove-cap earthern benn alternatives.CostsThe construction and maintenance costs associated with thein-cap storage facilities are presented in Table 6-20 and6-21. Present worth is calculated based on a 10 percentdiscount rate over a 20-year period. No attempts were madeto optimize the size of the various storage facilities;therefore, these costs should be considered preliminarybecause changing the facility layouts may have a significantimpact on the total construction cost. Size optimizationwould be performed during detailed design.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSAn evaluation of the environmental impacts of above-capversus in-cap storage indicates the following;

o Both storage methods are technically-soundalternatives designed to mitigate any potential

6-65

Table 6-20HYDRAULIC DREDGING - 5,000 CUBIC YARDSIN-CAP SECURE STORAGE (EARTOERN BERM)

ESTIMATED COSTS


Topsoil RemovalSilty-Sand RemovalSynthetic Membrane Liner Removal

(40 Mil. HDPE)Clay Removal

SUBTOTAL

BOTTOM CONSTRUCTION

Clay (Purchaser Place s Compact)Clay (Place and Compact)Synthetic Membrane Liner

(40 mil. HDPE)Bank Run GravelBank SandFilter FabricFloating Weir/Stand Pipe (1)4" PVC Pipe (Schedule 40)Lined Concrete Sumps (2)Manhole Extensions (6)

SUBTOTAL 178,435

BERM CONSTRUCTION

FillClay (Purchase, Place f Compact)Synthetic Membrane Liner

(40 MIL. HOPE)TopsoilSilty-SandDrainage Fabric

SUBTOTAL 13B,7BO

Quantity

1,050 cy3,125 cy

4 Manday2,100 cy

250 cy2,100 cy

112,000 sf

2,100 cy3,125 cy

112,000 sf1 each

2,200 LF2 each6 each

11.000 cy600 cy

59,000 SF

700 cy2,100 cy

16,300 SF

Unit Cost

2.502.50

250.002.50

9.004.000.50

9.008.500.06

1,000.0018.00

5,000.001.500.00

7.009.000.50

10.009.000.06

($) Total Cost($)

2,6257,915

1,0005,250

16,690

2,250B.400

56,000

18,90026,5656,7201,000

39,60010,0009,000

77,0005,400

29,500

7,00018,900

980

CAP CONSTRUCTION

Synthetic Membrane Liner(40 MIL HDPE)

Silty-Sand (Purchase, Place andcompact)

Silty-Sand (Place & Compact)Filter FabricTopsoil (Purchase, Place and

compact)Topsoil (place and compact)

87,200 sf

1,725 cy3,125 cy

87,200 SF

500 cy1,050 cy

0.50

9.004.000.06

10.004.00SUBTOTAL

43,600

15,52512,5005,235

5,0004,200

86,060

TOTAL $419,9656-66

Table 6-20HYDRAULIC DREDGING - 5,000 CUBIC YARDS

IN-CAP SECURE STORAGE (EARTHERN BERM)ESTIMATED COSTS

(Continued)

CONSTRUCTION_________________________________________________________I t e m Q u a n t i t y U n i t Cost ( $ ) T o t a l Cost(S)

ENGINEERING, LEGAL AND CONTINGENCIES (@35t)___________________147,035____________________________________________TOTAL______567,000MAINTENANCE COSTS ($2,000/yr) PRESENT WORTH_______17,000TOTAL PROJECT _ S584,000

WDR99/024

6-67

Table 6-21MECHANICAL EXCAVATION - 5,000 CUBIC YARDS

IM-CAP SECURE STORAGE (EARTHERN BERM)ESTIMATED COSTS


Topsoil RemovalSilty-Sand RemovalSynthetic Membrane Liner Removal

(40 Mil. HDPE)Clay Removal

SUBTOTAL

BOTTOM CONSTRUCTION

Clay (Purchase, Place 6 Compact)Clay (Place and CompactSynthetic Membrane Liner

(40 Mil HOPE)Bank Run GravelBank SandFilter Fabric4" PVC Pipe (Schedule 40)Lined Concrete Sumps (2)Manhole Extensions (6)

SUBTOTAL

BERM CONSTRUCTION

FillClay (Purchase,Place c Compact)Synthetic Membrane Liner

(40 MIL. HDPE)TopsoilSilty-SandDrainage Fabric

Quantity

1,050 cy3,125 cy

4 Manday2,100 cy

250 cy2,100 cy

112,000 SF2,100 cy3,125 cy

112,000 sf2,200 LF2 each6 each

6,700 cy500 cy

57,300 sf

750 cy2225 cy

12,550 sf

Unit Cost ($)

IB. 00

1,500

2.502.50

250.002.50

9.004.00

0.509.008.500.06

5,000

7.009.000.50

10.009.000.06

SUBTOTAL

Total Cost($)

2,6257,815

1,0005,250

16,690

2,2508,400 1

56,00018,90026,5656,720

39,60010,0009,000

177,435

46,9004,500

28,650

7,50020,025

755108,330

CAP CONSTRUCTION

Synthetic Membrane Liner(40 MIL HDPE)

Silty-Sand (Purchase, Place cCompact)

Silty-sand (Place 6 Compact)Filter FabricTopsoil (Purchase, Place and

compact)Topsoil (place and compact)

83,700 sf

1,525 cy3,125 cy

83,700 SF

500 cy1050 cy

0.50

9.004.000.06

10.004.00SUBTOTAL

41,850

13,72512,5005,025

5,0004,200

82,300

TOTAL $384,755

6-68

Table 6-21MECHANICAL EXCAVATION - 5,000 CUBIC YARDS

IN-CAP SECURE STORAGE (EARTHERM BERM)ESTIMATED COSTS

(Continued)CONSTRUCTIONItem Quantity Unit Cost t$) Total Cost($)

ENGINEERING, LEGAL AMD CONTINGENCIES (@35t)135,245

TOTAL 520,000MAINTENANCE COSTS (52,000/yr)____________PRESENT WORTH_______17,000TOTAL

PROJECT _______________________________$537,000

WDR99/023

6-69

adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the Love Canalrelated sediments are being stored where they originated.

o In-cap storage would require disturbance of therecently completed synthetic membrane linersystem. The potential for contamination leaks tooccur during this period are minimal because theoriginal clay will not be completely removed.However, above-cap storage does not present thispotential problem.

o An in-cap facility must be located at the centerof the Love Canal site within the boundaries ofthe original clay cap. The above-cap facility canbe situated anywhere on the recently installedsynthetic membrane liner throughout the fencedarea at Love Canal. Therefore, it can be locatedso as to minimize the aesthetic impacts of thefacility and to take advantage of the optimalfoundation conditions.

o In-cap storage cannot accommodate the mostprobable volumes of sediment to be stored.

DISPOSAL BENEATH EXISTING CAPThe possibility of cutting through the existing syntheticmembrane liner and placing the sewer and creek sedimentsbeneath the existing cap was examined at the request of thepotential responsible party. However, since any soilsexcavated from beneath the cap would be considered contami-nated and would have to be placed back into the facility,there would be no volume gain and therefore, no capacitybeneath the cap to dispose of the contaminated creek andsewer sediments. In addition, excavation beneath the capwould present the potential for release of hazardous sub-stances and would require special precautions.ON-SITE STORAGE AT 93RD STREET SCHOOL SITEThe 93rd Street School Site was also considered as alocation for the onsite interim secure storage facility. Apreliminary evaluation of the site indicated sufficient areato construct an above-grade storage facility for thecontaminated creek and sewer sediments. Assuming similardesign criteria, the costs associated with this onsitestorage facility would be expected to be similar to thosedeveloped for onsite storage at the Love Canal site.However, specific information ( i . e . soil conditions, landavailability, etc) with respect to the 93rd Street SchoolSite was not available. A detailed feasibility study wouldbe required to accurately assess this alternative.

6-70

In addition, the possibility of utilizing the 93rd StreetSchool Building to store the contaminated creek and sewersediments was raised during a recent public meeting. Due tothe anticipated high costs associated with structurallymodifying the 93rd Street School Building, construction of anew concrete ("Time Beach" design) vault would be expectedto be a more cost-effective alternative. However,evaluation of this alternative would require performance ofa detailed feasibility study ( i . e . structural integrity,volume available, modifications required, e t c . ) .CONCRETE INTERIM SECURE STORAGE FACILITY ("TIMES BEACHV A U L T " ) ' ~ ~

Three sizes of concrete storage facility were evaluated; allsizes are of similar design. The sizes are:

o 5,000 cy; sewers and Black and Bergholtz Creeks tothe BID limits?

10o 18,000-21,000 cy; sewers. Black and Bergholtz ®

Creek to the EID and first and second incremental careach limits; drums, haul roads, and access ramps; ®

o 135,000 cys sewers. Black, Bergholtz, and CayugaCreeks.Figure 6-11 shows a cross section of an interim secureconcrete storage facility. The proposed design is discussedbelow.Base Layers Below the ContaminationVarious materials would be placed below the contaminated-naterial to drain moisture out of the containment and keepgroundwater from it. An impervious synthetic liner would beplaced above the prepared base. The liner could beconstructed of materials such as hypalon, PVC, or HDPE, andwould be protected by layers of geotextile fabric on eachside. Above this liner, a leak detection system ofperforated PVC, HDPE, or ABS pipe would be embedded in agraded rock drain. The leak detection system would bedivided into zones, each with a separate drain pipe runningto a leak detection sump. With this pipe system, any leakscould be easily located tor repair. While this systemshould collect very little water, any water it did collectwould be drained by gravity to a leak detection sump andpumped to the leachate treatment system.The drainage collection system would be above the leakdetection system and the concrete floor. The system wouldbe constructed of perforated PVC, HDPE, or ABS pipe embeddedin a graded rock drain. The system would be drained by

6-71

90C900

DETAILED BASEDESCRIPTION (TOP TO BOTTOM)

GEOTEXT1LEDRAINAGE GRAVELGEOTEXTILEPOLYMERIC ASPHALT COATINGr REINFORCED CONCRETEDETECTION GRAVELGEOTEXTILESYNTHETIC LINERGEOTEXTILE

Figure 6-11Cross-SectionConcrete Storage Vault Shownuviih and without Aesuieiic Sidewall

gravity to the drainage collection sump and pumped to theleachate treatment system. A layer of geotextile fabricwould cover the drainage collection layer, separating itfrom the contaminated material and preventing clogging.CoverThe concrete interim containment facility, when closed,would be covered with an impermeable cover. The cover wouldprevent water percolation, promote drainage, minimizeerosion, accommodate settling, and minimize maintenance.The cover system would consist of nine layers. The layers(from the contaminated material up) would be stabilizedsand, geotextile fabric, an impervious synthetic cover,geotextile fabric, drainage layer, geotextile fabric,compacted clean soils, erosion matting, and a vegetativecover (planted grass). The cover would be formed in to adome. The final slope of the cover over the containmentfacility would be no greater than 10 percent and no lessthan 5 percent. f"The stabilized sand layer would be directly over the contain- °inated material and would be a minimum of 6 inches thick (£when compacted to 90 percent of maximum ASTM D698 dry ^density. Maximum particle size would be 1/4-inch diameterwith less than 10 percent passing U . S . #200 sieve. Ageotextile fabric covering the sand layer would have aminimum thickness of 110 mils.Next, synthetic membrane placed over the geotextile fabricwould be either hypalon (chlorosulfonated polyethylene) orCPE (chlorinated polyethylene) material with a minimum•thickness of 36 mil (±10 percent) .The cover would have vents penetrating the syntheticmembrane to relieve gas that might be generated from organicdecomposition. These vents and the membrane would be bondedtogether.A 12-inch layer of clean imported granular drainage materialon top of a geotextile layer would be placed over thesynthetic cover. The granular material would conform to therequirements of less than 1-1/2-inch coarse aggregate forconcrete.The drainage layer would be covered with a final 110-milgeotextile layer, separating it from a layer of clean soil.A minimum of 16 inches of clean soil would cover this top-most geotextile layer. The soil would be applied andcompacted in 6-inch lifts, as would the 18-inch layer ofimported topsoil. The compacted topsoil would have aminimum thickness of 18 inches. The topsoil would then be

6-72

entirely covered with erosion matting and hydroseeded. Theuncontaminated surface runoff from the entire mound would becollected in surface trenches and drain away by gravity.After the cover is in place, an earthen benn may be placedon the outside of the concrete walls and planted with grassto blend the storage facility into the surroundings.Figure 6-12 shows how this optional benn would look.Dewatering of Sewer and Stream SedimentThe concrete storage facility could be designed to allow thecontaminated material to be dewatered in it. The water willbe collected and sent to the existing Love Canal leachatetreatment system. Several major design modifications (draincurtains overflow outlet with scum baffles, etc.) would beneeded to dewater the hydraulically dredged sediments;accordingly, this type of facility should not be consideredfor use as a dewatering facility for the hydraulicallydredged sediments.Location 00—————— ®Figure 6-11 shows several potential locations for a concrete Qstorage facility and show the comparative sizes of the Cearthern benn and concrete vaults. The facility cannot be clocated over the homes which are buried in the Love Canalarea because of uncertain settlement problems. It is alsodesirable to not place a concrete structure on the capcovering the canal because of uncertain settlement andpotential slippage caused by the HDPE liner in the cap. Theconcrete storage facility can be located almost anywhere onthe roadbed of 97th or 99th Street in the Canal area or onthe 93rd Street School property. If located on the 93rdStreet School property a new leachate treatment facilitywould have to be constructed or a leak protected pipelinewould have to run to the existing leachate treatmentfacility at the Canal. As stated earlier, a feasibilitystudy is required to accurately assess this alternative.Because the concrete vault is so much smaller than aearthern berm facility of equal capacity the vaults could beplaced at an optional location within the Canal fenceline.Additionally, if Cayuga Creek is to be remedied at somefuture date, additional concrete vaults could be built onthe Canal site to accommodate the total of 135,000 cubicyards. If earthern bermed facilities were to be usedadditional areas off the Canal site would be required.AestheticsA concrete storage facility located at Love Canal or the93rd Street School will be easily seen and rise 20 to25 feet above the ground. To make the facility blend into

6-73

006309

the surroundings a benn with a 4 to 1 slope can be placedaround it and planted with grass. This can easily be donewith a facility located on the 93rd Street School property,but on Love Canal it is very difficult due to space con-straints. Figures 6-11 and 6-12 show a berm.Cost of Concrete Storage FacilityTable 6-22 presents costs for the three sizes of concretestorage facility evaluated. These costs are presented withand without the cost for an earthen benn to improveaesthetics.

OFFSITE DISPOSALThe new regulations for disposal of dioxin-contaminatedmaterial (Federal Register January 14, 1965) allow disposalin fully permitted hazardous waste landfills providingcertain conditions are met. The major condition iscompliance with a waste management plan that has beenapproved by EPA. The waste management plan must considerthe following factors;

o The volume, physical, and chemical characteristicsof the wastes, including their potential tomigrate through the soil or to volatilize orescape into the atmosphere.

o The alternative properties of underlying andsurrounding soils or other materials.

o The mobilizing properties of other materialscodisposed with these wastes.

o The effectiveness of additional treatment, design,or monitoring requirements.

The regulations also allow for storage and disposal of thesewastes at some interim status facilities such as enclosedwaste piles, tanks, and containers.Several facilities which have submitted permit applicationshave already received their RCRA Part B Permits! others mayreceive them in 1985. New York State Department of Environ-mental Conservation conducted initial investigations ofdisposal facilities that may qualify to dispose of LoveCanal sediments. EPA also conducted an investigation ofparties interested in accepting dioxin contaminatedmaterials for disposal.

6-74

Table 6-22CONCRETE STORAGE FACILITY

ESTIMATED COSTS

Site PreparationContainment BaseContainment SidewallsCover ConstructionContingency, Engineering,Administration

Total without Berms.

Berms

Total with Berms.

MinimumVolume5000 cy

2,040116,600137,00036.000

131,200422,840

86,100508,940

ProbableVolume18,000 cy

7,344419,916264,036129,600

175,984996,880

138,4701,135,350

MaximumVolume135,000 cy

30,9001,732,0001,719,000644,000

1,811,000

6,836,9001,461,000

7,297,900

NOTE; The concrete storage facility for the probable volume of sedimentswould measure about 100 feet wide and 280 feet long if placed onthe Love Canal site, and about 180 feet by 180 feet if placed onthe 93rd Street School grounds. The cost of building on the 93rdStreet School grounds would be about 4 percent less than buildingon the Love Canal site.

WDR99/025

6-75

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION—STATE OF NEW YORK

The DEC has been in contact with two likely commercialhazardous waste disposal facilities.

CECOS International has expressed an interest in taking thecontaminated sediments or residue from treatment. CECOS hasaccepted small quantities of low concentration dioxin wastein the past. They are presently reviewing wastecharacteristic information, and will discuss with DEC andEPA Region II the possibility of accepting the contaminatedsediments at the same time in the future. CECOS review hasbeen in progress since July; no reply is forthcoming.

Chemical Waste Management has stated they are not interestedin landfilling any dioxin waste at this time.

MARKETPLACE STDDY—U.S. EPA

The marketplace study was initiated to investigatecommercial alternatives to the proposed Interim CentralStorage Facility for the storage of dioxin contaminatedmaterial from six priority sites in Missouri. Aninformational advertisement was published in the May 30 1 9 8 4Commerce Business Daily (CBD) requesting responses frominterested parties. The request said:

CBD INFORMATION ANNOUNCEMENTPRIORITY DIOXIM SITES

The Kansas City District Corps of Engineers is requesting informa-tion FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY of"interested parties to providestorage/land disposal of soil and large debris contaminated with2,3,7,8 TCDD (dioxin) located at various sites in St. Louis,Franklin, and Jefferson Counties in Missouri. The aggregatequantity of this material is estimated to be between 25,000 and50,000 cubic yards. It is presently planned that this material bestored in an Interim Central Storage Facility to be constructed atTines Beach, Missouri. The purpose of this announcement is todetermine if equally viable, similarly cost effective alternatestorage/land disposal facilities are available and willing toaccept this material. A formal solicitation is anticipated to beissued on or about 1 Aug 1984 with contract award anticipated on orabout 15 Jan 1985. All responding parties will be placed on themailing list to receive the formal solicitation. At a ninimmn, theformal solicitation will require a fully iinplenentable plan for thestorage/land disposal of the naterial. The transportation phasemay also be included or may be handled separately. All actionsunder the plan are to be completed no later than the 1985 construc-tion season. All transportation and disposal activities mustcomply with applicable federal solid and hazardous waste regulatorycriteria and the technical standards of 40CFR261-265 and otherpertinent federal, state, and local waste regulations for disposal

6-76

of dioxin contaminated materials. Note: Storage/land disposalmust be consistent with proposed EPA regulations for dioxincontaminated wastes under RCRA and be in compliance with the finalregulations when promulgated.

Interested parties should furnish the following information to theaddress listed below:

Name of Firm(s)Location and Description of Disposal FacilityMajor Information Pertinent to Regulatory

Compliance/Permitting Status—Include forinformation only;

Status of RCRA Part B PermitStatus of TSCA PermitDate and results of last RCRA and TSCA

inspectionsStatus of State permitsInformation concerning State dioxin waste

regulationsBrief summary of firm's history and qualifications

including regulatory compliance if applicableInterest in Transportation Phase—IMPORTANT: All

respondents must be capable of providingStorage/Land Disposal, Interest intransportation is optional.

Response to this inquiry must be received 15 days from the date ofTHIS issue. THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL; THIS IS A REQUESTFOR INFORMATION ONLY.

Questions of a technical nature-should be addressed to Ms. JanetWade <816) 374-5332, and those of an administrative nature to SuziAnderson (815) 374-5542.

U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City700 Federal Building, 601 E. 12th StreetATTO! HRKPS-K (Anderson)Kansas City, MO 64106"

Of the five formal written responses and numerous telephoneinquiries, three were determined by EPA to be suitable forfurther consideration in the marketplace study and wereevaluated for Love Canal sediment disposal for this report.

U.S. Pollution Control, Inc. (U.S. PCI)

U.S. PCI operates two secure landfills in extremely remoteareas—one near Wynoka, Oklahoma and one near Salt LakeCity, Utah. In the past, they have refused to accept anydioxin containing waste, but due to the low concentrationsof some dioxin containing materials and the volumes to bedisposed of, they have considered changing current policies

6-77

in order to accept low level dioxin contaminated wastes as along term goal. Future policies will depend in part ondevelopments in Oklahoma and Utah state regulations.Great Midwest CorporationThe Great Midwest Corporation response presented an approachwherein underground mines were to be used for storage afterthe dioxin contaminated material is solidified with flyash.This is a new venture and thus no definitive location,direct hazardous waste operating experience, or compliancehistory is available. Also, the facility would have to beidentified, purchased, technically characterized, designed,and permitted prior to construction.The October 1984 reauthorization of the RCRA law has aprovision which bans the disposal of hazardous wastes in anysalt dome, salt-bed formation, underground mine or cave.The provision does allow for such disposal if EPA issuesstandards and, for a specific facility, finds no environmen-tal threat and issues a permit. Given this additional ^constraint it is doubtful that this venture will continue. c"3If it does proceed, several years will be required to «identify and permit a facility after EPA issues standards. §No additional information is available.Environmental Conservation and Management Company (ECMC)The ECMC submittal proposed to store dioxin-contaminatedmaterial at a landfill-type facility they planned to buildand permit on Lewis Road in St. Louis County, Missouri. Theproposed facility was across the Meramec River from TimesBeach. Following a subsurface investigation of theirproposed site and meetings with EPA, Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, and the Missouri Division of Geology andLand Survey ECMC decided not to pursue development andpermitting of the facility at this time.

INCINERATIONFor hazardous waste destruction, incineration is becomingincreasingly common, particularly when the waste is liquidor has significant heat value. Solubilized TCDD destructionby incineration has been shown to be feasible in offshoretests burning liquid Agent Orange. More recently, wastescontaining large fractions of noncombustible solids havealso beftn treated by incineration, most notably electricalcapacitors and some soils contaminated with PCBs.EPA finalized dioxin regulations on January 14, 19B5. Theregulations require 9 9 . 9 9 9 9 percent (six 9s) destructionremoval efficiency ( D P E ) . The regulations allow for interimstatus incinerators to incinerate dioxin waste if approved

6-78

by EPA and if a successful test burn has been conducted onsomething more difficult to incinerate than dioxin. Fullypermitted incinerators (those with RCRA Part B permits) mustfollow similar guidelines. Once incinerated, the soil isstill a hazardous waste; therefore, it still must bedisposed of in a hazardous waste landfill unless it isdelisted by EPA. Delisting requirements are waste andincinerator specific.There are, to date, five commercial hazardous wasteincineration facilities in the United States that have U . S .EPA Toxic Substances Control Act permits for the commercialincineration of PCB contaminated waste. Operators of two ofthese facilities have expressed a willingness to consideraccepting TCDD wastes as a long-term goal. The principalconstraints have been public resistance to transport of thewaste material, undefined threshold concentration, andinadequate material handling capacity.PERMITTED INCINERATORS

1/SOf the five commercial hazardous waste incineration facili- r4ties permitted to burn PCBs, two only burn liquids and were, ctherefore, not considered further. The remaining three ^include Rollins in Deer Park, Texas; ENSCO in El Dorado, 0Arkansas; and Chemical Waste Management Inc. (formerly SCA)in Chicago, Illinois. EMSCO policy does not allow incinera-tion of dioxin contaminated materials. The remaining twofacilities have indicated an interest in accepting thedioxin contaminated materials, and Rollins has submitted.tentative cost estimates and scheduling requirements for thedestruction of Love Canal dioxin contaminated sediments.These two facilities are discussed in the followingsections.RollinsRollins currently operates three commercial hazardous wasteincineration facilities. Their locations are Deer Park,Texas; Logan, Mew Jersey; and Baton Rouge, Louisiana.Although all three are of similar design and operate in thesame mode ( i . e . same kiln temperature and retention times),only the Deer Park facility is permitted to burn PCBs.Public hearings are currently underway for a PCB test burnwhich is due to begin at the Baton Rouge facility during thespring of 198S. Rollina operators expect permit approvalfor PCB incineration at Baton Rouge sometime in early 1986.Rollins' facilities appear to be capable of handling theLove Canal stream/sewer sediments. A test burn conducted atthe Deer Park facility demonstrated a DRE of six 9 ' s withPCBs. Although this does not demonstrate that dioxin willbe destroyed with the same efficiency it does demonstrate

6-79

that the incinerator is capable of destroying hazardouschlorinated organic compounds. Rolling' facilities are alsofully equipped with air pollution control systems whichconsist of a packed scrubber and a jet particulate scrubber;solids handling capability for feeding drums, and onsitelandfills for residue disposal. Rollins has submitted theirRCRA Part B permit application for their landfill at DeerPark.Rollins management personnel have stated they could have theDeer Park facility available by July 1985 for the proposedincineration of Love Canal stream/sewer sediments. Theincinerator likely will not require any capital improvementsbefore accepting the sediments, and the facility landfillhas sufficient capacity to accommodate residual ash since itwill probably still be listed as a hazardous waste. If allthe material is incinerated at one location, theincineration phase of the remedial action could be completedin one to three years for 135,000 cubic yards of material,provided the facility is 100 percent available forincineration of Love Canal material.At the present time it is virtually impossible to make anaccurate treatment estimate due to the changing regulations.Rollins' tentative estimate for incineration and residualash disposal is $1200 to $1,500 per cubic yard of material.Cost for treatment of 5,000 to 135,000 cubic yards ofmaterial could range between $6 million and $202 million.Cost for incinerating 18,000 cubic yards could range from$23 to $28 million. In addition to the expense of incinera-.tion and disposal are costs for trial burns, permitting,dewatering, sediment preparation, monitoring,transportation, and decontamination of facilities.The currently available facility in Deer Park, Texas isapproximately 1500 highway miles from Buffalo, New York. Atan average truck transportation cost of $3.50 per loadedmile, assuming that each of the gasketed, water tightvehicles carry approximately 17 cubic yards, the transporta-tion cost could range from $1.5 million to $42 million for5,000 to 135,000 cubic yards of material. Thetransportation costs for 15,000 cubic yards would be about$4. 6 million.If the burn could begin before regulations change,permitting costs may be decreased, and trial burn costswould be comparable to daily operating costs. Total cost ofthis remedial alternative could range between $5.5 millionto $244 million.Table 6-23 presents the costs for treatment at the Rollins'facility.

6-BO

Table 6-23OPFSITE INCINERATION COSTS

ROLLINS(Cost in Thousands)

Solids Handling sSize Reduction*

Transportation

DOT PermittingLoadingHauling (1,500

Miles)

Incineration, AirPollutionControl ResidueDisposal*

TOTAL (in millions)

COST PER C . Y .

Cost Per C.Y.

LS

LS

300

1,200-1,500*

$1,580-1,880

5,000 C.Y.

300

2060

1,500

, 6,000-7,500

$7.9-9.4

1.540-1,840

15,000 C.Y.***

420

20180

4,500

18.000-22,500

23.1-27.6

1,530-1,830

135,000 C.Y .

2,910

201,460

40,500

162,000-202,500

206.9-247.4

*Cost provided by Rollins***The costs associated with incineration of 18,000 cy, which Includes the creek banks, will beapproximately $28 to $34 million.

WDR99/026

006317

Chemical Waste Management, Inc.Chemical Waste Management, formerly SCA, operates a commer-cial incineration facility in Chicago IL. Although thefacility is permitted to burn PCBs, the Region V EPArequires "waste stream by waste stream" approval and has notgranted approval of dioxin Incineration. Before ChemicalHaste Management could consider accepting the Love Canalstream/sewer sediments, they would need to give publicnotice, supply a detailed waste characteristic cuomary forEPA review, and conduct a trial burn of the sediments.However, Chemical Haste Management has recently indicatedthat they are not willing to accept any dioxin contaminatedwaste from Love Canal at any corporate facility at thistime.Chemical Haste Management is considering building ahazardous waste incinerator at its Model City, Hew Yorkfacility. The incinerator will be designed for both solidand liquid hazardous materials and will be approximatelyhalf the size of their Chicago facility. Presently, theyare conducting a marketing study and once completed will besubmitting the necessary permit applications. Once thepermits are approved. Chemical Haste Management anticipatesthat the incinerator could be constructed in about 2 years.Depending on how long it takes to get permit approvals, itwill be 3 to 5 years before this is an operable facility.ONSITE INCINERATIONFor incinerating only 5000 cubic yards of contaminated•material at Love Canal, building an incineration facilityonsite would not be feasible. Transporting a mobileincinerator to the site, however, could be a viablealternative. On the other hand, because the size, andtherefore the capacity, of a mobile incinerator is limitedfor transportation purposes, volumes on the order of100,000 cubic yards could take more than 20 years to burn inthe small units. For 100,000 cubic yards of material ormore, a stationary but temporary facility built on sitewould be more suitable. The sediment volume must beaccurately estimated before a comparison can be made betweenthese two options.MOBILE INCINERATORSMobile incinerators are available, but their availability islimited. Existing mobile incinerators capable of handlingthe Love Canal stream/sewer sediments include a facilityoperated by Pyrotech—an ENSCO subsidiary, and the EPAmobile unit. J . M . Huber Corporation is developing anadvanced electric reactor (AER) which has destroyed dioxinby pyrolysis in a test at Tines Beach, Missouri.

6-82

EPA Mobile Incineration SystemThe EPA mobile incinerator consists of major incinerationand air pollution control equipment, combustion and stackgas monitoring equipment and ancillary equipment all mountedon four heavy duty trailers. Each of the trailers requireconstruction of a concrete pad and some type of shelter.The overall plan area of the four trailers when assembled inoperating configuration is 7 feet by 139 feet. The overallcapacity is 15 million Btu/hr. Additional equipmentrequired for operation which is not included with the fourtrailers includes wastewater treatment, decontaminationfacilities, feed preparation, and fuel, sediment, residue,and spare part storage. This additional equipment occupiesanother 10 to 12 trailers and the overall size of theincineration complex can be as much as 2 to 4 acres.The EPA mobile incinerator is currently undergoing testingin Verona, Missouri, where it is scheduled to run a trialburn of dioxin contaminated materials. The trial burn is gbegan in February of 1985 at the Oenney farm site near rVerona HO, and was expected to take 2 weeks to complete. nAfter only a few hours of the trial burn, the incinerator 5malfunctioned and was shutdown for repairs. The trial burn 0is due to resume soon. After the trial burn, the incinera-tor will be shut down for approximately 5 weeks whileanalytical testing is done. After the testing is completed,the incinerator will be used for approximately 2 additionalmonths to complete the cleanup of the Denney Farm site andseveral other sites in southwest Missouri.

' A 50-foot by 200-foot building.was constructed to house theincineration trailers. Support equipment is stored outside.After completion of the planned work in Missouri, one to2 months would be required for transportation to Love Canal,setup, startup, and shakedown. Acquiring permits forincineration at Love Canal would take at least 3 monthsprovided there are no complications. On an optimisticschedule, onsite treatment with the EPA incinerator couldbegin in September of 1985. However, approval of the DenneyFarm site test burn required six months of negotiationsbetween EPA officials and the state of Missouri. A morerealistic schedule would place a treatment starting datesometime in early 1986. Other demands on the incinerator,such as the suggested use of the incinerator to cleanupmaterial from several Missouri sites could delay this datefurther.The EPA mobile incinerator design appears technicallycapable of treating dioxin contaminated waste and thetesting in Missouri should verify this. Test burns ofliquid PCBe demonstrated a DRE of six 9 ' s . The solidshandling capability of the system has been tested and

6-83

refined. The facility is also equipped with air pollutioncontrol and stack gas monitoring systems. Incinerationresidue would have to be properly disposed of either onsiteor in a secure landfill off site.Initial estimates indicate the capacity of the EPA incinera-tor is about 22 cubic yards per 24 hour day for materialcontaining 50 percent moisture. Assuming the incineratoroperates 200 days per year, completion of the remedialaction would take between 14 months for 5000 cubic yards and29 years for 135,000 cubic yards.EPA estimates the incineration costs will range between$1,000 to $1,500 per cubic yard. The unit has a capacity of22 cubic yards per day. Total incineration costs wouldrange between $8.3 million to $25B million for 5,000 to135,000 cubic yards of sediments. The cost tor 18,000 yardswould range from $19 to $37 million. Additional costsinclude those for site preparation, sediment dewatering,size reduction, sediment and residue storage, and residuedisposal. The cost for residue disposal would likely becomparable to the cost of offsite disposal of the stream/sewer sediments before incineration. Table 6-24 presentsthe costs for the EPA mobile incinerator.J . M . Huber CorporationJ. M. Huber Corporation has developed a process based on theAdvanced Electric Reactor (AER) in which dioxin and otherorganics are destroyed by pyrolysis. The process consists.of a solids preparation and feed system, the electricreactor, two post-reactor zones, and air pollution controlequipment. Preliminary designs of the process also includesolids size reduction (to particles of -10 mesh or smaller)and drying equipment (10 percent maximum moisture). Thefacility would cover a 100 ft. by 100 ft. area and reachabout 100 feet high. Feed and residue storage are notincluded in that size estimate.Huber currently maintains two AERs in Borger, Texas—one 3"diameter core, 1/2 pound/minute unit and one 12" diametercore, 50 pounds/minute unit. Dioxin tests have been conduc-ted by Huber with both reactors at the Borger facility andwith the 3" reactor in Times Beach. At Times Beach, treat-ment residues from materials containing 80 ppb dioxin haddioxin concentrations below a detection limit of 0.1 ppb.Huber has also conducted tests for PCS destruction all ofwhich yielded DREs of at least six 9 ' s .If enough applications are identified to utilize the systemat capacity for at least five years, Huber managementpersonnel claim a 15,000 to 20,000 cubic yard per year

6-84

Table 6-24ONSITE MOBILE INCINERATION COSTS

U.S. EPA MOBILE INCINERATOR(Cost in Thousands)

Mobilization/Demobilization

Permitting/TrialBurn

Storage

Solids Handling/Preparation

Incineration(1,000 - 1,500/C.I.}

Residue Disposal

TOTAL (in millions)

TOTAL COST PER C.Y.

5,000 C.

700

350

365

325

5,000-7,500 75,000-22,500 135,000-202,500

2,000

8,340-10,840 15,400 -

1,670-2,

Y.

6,000

170

Cost ($:15,000

700

350

530

325

1,030-2,030 1,410-1,910

1,000)*C.Y.

30,400

135,000 C.Y.

700

350

530

325

54,000

190,900-258,400

<-(NC1C600

*The cost for incineration of 18,000 cubic yards would range from $19$37 million dollars.

MDR99/027

6-85

transportable unit ( 2 4 " diameter core) could be completedand available by early 1 9 6 6 .Transportation and setup of the facility would take aboutone month. Assuming the permitting process for an AER and arotary kiln are equivalent, treatment of the sediments bypyrolysis could begin in the second quarter of 1986 at theearliest. At a capacity of 15,000 to 20,000 cubic yards peryear, treatment could be completed in four months (5000 cy)to seven years (135,000 c y ) .Huber has made a preliminary estimate of $400 to (675 percubic yard of material for treatment of the contaminatedsediments. Cost for treatment of 5000 to 135,000 cubicyards of material would range between (2. 0 million and$91.1 million. Cost for treatment of 18,000 cy would rangefrom $18 to $22 million. Table 6-25 presents the costs forthe AER.ENSCO/PyrotechPyrotech's mobile incinerator will occupy a 200ft x 200ftarea. The facility consists of six trailers on which theincineration and air pollution control equipment is mounted.A fully equipped analytical laboratory and control room areoperated in a separate 40ft van. The incineration equipmentincludes a rotary kiln which operates between 1800 to2000 degrees Fahrenheit and an afterburner which operatesbetween 2200 to 2600 degrees Fahrenheit. Air pollutioncontrol equipment includes a packed scrubber and a jet.particulate scrubber. Overall capacity of the incineratoris estimated at about 43 cubic.'yards per 24 hour day.The mobile, solid feed incinerator is not yet permitted toburn hazardous wastes. However, Pyrotech is currentlypreparing a permit application for the incineration ofdioxin materials for a private company in Arkansas. Stateregulatory authorities have made a commitment to issue atrial burn permit to Pyrotech within nine months (summer orfall, 1 9 8 5 ) . Within 30 days of the completion of the trialburn, Pyrotech expects to be issued a permit to incineratethe dioxin material provided the trial burn is successful.ENSCO operates a fixed incinerator in El Dorado Arkansasthat is permitted to burn PCBs. ENSCO's incinerator hasdemonstrated a DRE of six 9 ' s on PCBs. Since the mobileincinerator is similar in design and operation to the ENSCOincinerator, Pyrotech expects the trial burn to besuccessful.The mobile incinerator is currently preparing to burn non-hazardous waste in Hillsborough County, Florida. Pyrotechplans to complete operations in Hillsborough County by June

6-86

Table 6-25ONSITE MOBILE INCINERATION COSTS

HUBER CORPORATION(15,000 cy/yr unit)

Cost Per C . Y . 5,000 C.Y. 15,000 C.Y.* 135,000 C . Y .

Mobilization/De-mobilization LS 840 840 840

Permitting/Trial Burn LS 385 385 385Storage LS 320 780 780Solids Handling/Preparation LS 1,160 1,160 1,160

Incineration(Pyrolysis) 400-675 2,000-3,375 6,000-10,125 54,000-91,125

Residue Disposal 400 2,000 ____6,000 54,000____

TOTAL (in millions) $6.7-8.1 $15.2-19.3 $111.2-148.3

TOTAL COST PER C . Y . $1,340-1,620 $1,010-1,290 $820-1,100 C*}N*The costs for 18,000 cy would range from $18.2 to $23.2 million. "

0WDR99/028 °

6-87

1985. They also plan to complete construction of a secondsolids incinerator in the spring of 1985. Transportation toLove Canal, set-up, startup and shake down would take atleast a month. Pyrotech expects permitting and test burnsto take about two months although the state of Arkansas willrequire at least nine months. Provided there are nodelays, the earliest Pyrotech could be prepared to beginincineration with one facility at Love Canal is late 1985.However. ENSCO prefers to schedule burns at least a year inadvance and will likely have other commitments scheduled.With a capacity of 43 cubic yards per day, Pyrotech shouldcomplete Love Canal sediment incineration between 7 monthsfor 5000 cubic yards and 16 years for 135,000 cubic yards ofmaterial. This process could be speeded up if the secondincinerator were available.Pyrotech has submitted an initial incineration cost estimateof $320 per cubic yard of material. Permitting, test burns,and site preparation for one facility are included in theestimate. Treatment of 5,000 to 135,000 cubic yards ofsediments would cost between ( 1 . 6 million to $43 million.Cost for treatment of 15,000 cubic yards would be$12 million. Additional costs include sediment dewatering, <rsize reduction, sediment and residue storage, residue Ndelisting or disposal, and possibly permitting and r3preparation for a second facility. Table 6-26 presents the ocost estimate for the Pyrotech Mobile Incinerator. ®Stationary Onsite Incineration•Construction of an incineration- facility onsite, which wouldbe feasible for quantities of 100,000 cubic yards or more,would take 2 to 4 years. Required activities includepermitting, design, site preparation, construction, start-up, and shakedown.Cost for incineration alone would be about $220 per cubicyard or between $1.1 million and 29.7 million for 5,000 to135,000 cubic yards of material. Additional costs wouldinclude site preparation, sediment handling and dewatering,residue disposal, facility design and construction, permit-ting and trial burns, and fuel, sediment, and residuestorage. Table 6-27 presents a cost estimate for incinera-tion of 100,000 cubic yards of material.Cascading Rotary Incineration SystemRotech Inc. (formerly Redco) had developed a cascadingrotary incinerator which rotates at 10 to 20 revolutions perminute ( r p m ) . Conventional rotary kiln incineratorsnormally operate at 1 to 3 rpm. The faster rotationproduces a cascading motion of the solids in the reactor.

6-88

Table 6-26ONSITE MOBIL INCINERATION COSTS

EMSCO/PYROTECH(6 , 6 0 0 cy/year unit)

Cost Per C . Y . 5,000 C . Y . 15,000 C . Y . 135,000 C . Y .

Mobilization/Demobilization LS 700* 700* 700*

Permitting/Trial Burn LS 350* 350* 350*Storage LS 365 S30 530Solids Handling/Preparation LS 525 525 525

Incineration 261* 1,305 3,915 35,235Residue Disposal 400 2,000 6,000 54,000

TOTAL (in millions) $5.4 $12.0 $91.3

COST PER C . Y . $1,080 $800 $6BO

•Costs provided by vendon costs for 18,000 cy estimated at$14.4 million.

WDR99/030

6-99

Table 6-27ONSITE FIXED INCINERATION COSTS(Based on 100,000 cy facility)

General(Mobilization/Demobilization)Site PreparationStorage

BaseSidewallMaterial Compaction

Incineration/Air Pollution ControlSolids HandlingSediment IncinerationScrubber Blowdown TreatmentTest Burn

Treatment and MonitoringOperation s MaintenanceRestorationResidue DisposalTOTAL'COST PER CUBIC YARD

$ 4,151,0001,535,000

719,000347,000

1,886,000

2,911,0003,219,0002,920,000850,000

2,743,00012,676,000

396,00040,000,000$74,353,000$ 744/C.Y.

WDR99/031

6-90

This motion is said to improve the solids gas contactresulting in maximized heat transfer and improved combustionkinetics. The system operates in a countercurrent modewhich provides for air preheating and solids reheating bycounter current flow within combustion gases. In the RotechSystem Combustion takes place between 1,200 and 1 , 5 0 0 ° F .Currently, a small pilot unit is operational and has beentested on a number of wastes. Test data is not yetavailable but DRE's are expected to be comparable to orbetter than conventional rotary kilns. Costs are alsoexpected to be competitive with conventional incineration.

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES/INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVESAppendix A of this report briefly summarizes some of themany technologies which are being developed and applied tothe treatment and stabilization of hazardous wastes.However, only a small amount of the laboratory research anddevelopment work to date is directly applicable to the TCDD 2>levels found in the Love Canal sewers and creeks; i . e . , nlittle research has focused specifically on removal or tOdestruction of TCDD bound to sediment. °Recently, there has been a significant amount of researchconducted on treatment methods for dioxin-contaminatedmaterials. Some of the research which is most applicable tothe Love Canal sewer and stream sediment is discussed below.TIMES BEACH, MISSOURI, DIOXIN RESEARCH FACILITY•The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has made plotsof dioxin-contaminated soil in Times Beach available forresearch. Most of the projects that are underway at TimesBeach are not expected to yield any firm results for atleast a year. The major projects are:

o Biological degradation research is being conductedby PPM Inc. Their approach is to test microorga-nisms that have been acclimated to PCB-containingmaterials.

o Dechlorination with an organo-sodium reagent isbeing tested by PPM Inc. The company has beenusing the compound for 3 years to destroy PCBa inoil. PPM has modified the reagent for use in soiland plans to test it at Times Beach this spring.

o EPA'S Office of Research and Development istesting ultraviolet photolysis enhanced withpolyethylene glycol and dechlorination with alkalipolyethylene glycolate.

6-91

o Monsanto has studied the transport mechanism ofdioxin in soil and has concluded that dioxin movesto the surface where it is destroyed by sunlightin a matter of hours. They are testing theirtheory in test plots at Times Beach.

o Agro K of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is investigatingthe use of an enzyme additive to enhance naturalbiodegradation. They believe that their enzymewill make the dioxin available for naturalbiological oxidation properties.

o Research Manufacturing Consultation Corporation,in conjunction with Agro K , have been testing thecompound hydrazine hydrate as a means of degradingdioxin in the soil. Initial tests with thiscompound yielded no significant reduction indioxin concentration, more extensive testing isplanned.

o Huber Corporation tested their Advanced Electric gpReactor (AER) on Times Beach soil in November CM1984. The test was done on 70 pounds of soil C'3contaminated with 80 ppb dioxin. The AER success- w

fully reduced the dioxin levels to below one ppb. ®EPA MOBILE INCINERATOREPA has moved their mobile incinerator to the Denney Farmsite in southwest Missouri for a series of test burns andeventual cleanup of several small sites. The incinerator isscheduled to finish its initial test burn on dioxin-contaminated soil in February or March, 1985. After thetest burn period, the incinerator will be shut down for5 weeks while analytical work is completed. If the analyt-ical testing verifies that the test burn was successful thenthe incinerator will operate an additional 2 months to cleanup the Denney Farm site and several other small sites in thearea.INCINERATION TESTING BASEL, SWITZERLANDIn November, 1984, 10 kilograms of dioxin contaminatedwastes from Seveso, Italy, were test burned in Basel,Switzerland. The incinerator was a rotary kiln operating at1500°C followed by a holding chamber operating at 1200"C.Total burn time was 2.8 seconds. The results from the testindicate a DRE of 9 9 . 9 9 9 9 percent.BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION RESEARCH, OCCIDENTAL CHEMICALOccidental Chemical has been conducting research in thebiological degradation of chlorinated organic compounds for

6-92

approximately 4 years. They have conducted research withnaturally occurring organisms which were obtained from theHyde Park Landfill and they have used genetic engineeringtechniques to develop organisms with selected characteris-tics. Thus far they have achieved good success with mostcompounds but have not yet been able to degrade TCDD.EPA RESEARCHEPA is conducting research in the sorption/desorption ofTCDD in contaminated soils using a variety of solventsystems.EPA is also researching in situ stabilization/fixationtechniaues for dioxin-contaminated material using additivessuch as Portland cement and alphatic materials.CHEMICAL STABILIZATION, LOPAT ENTERPRISE, INC. K-20

Lopat Enterprises, Inc. manufactures a chemical stabilizingagent, K-20. In laboratory tests K-20 has been demonstrated g^to stabilize PCBs, pesticides, and other chemical compounds Cs(in various matrixes such as concrete, and soil. If applied ^to the Love Canal sewer and creek sediment it is believed ^that K-20 agent would stabilize the dioxin contamination. 0This stabilization of the material does not remove thedioxin; it merely inhibits the analytical test (or otherphysical/chemical process) from removing the dioxin. It isunlikely that the K-20 process could be applied directly tothe creek sediments in place, because although the dioxinwould be stabilized there would still need to be control of

''the sediments.The most likely application for K-20 for the sewer andstream sediment would be to use it in conjunction withstorage. However, this should only be considered forpermanent storage and disposal options since the use of theK-20 stabilizer -will likely inhibit future treatment ordestruction of the dioxin waste.PLASMA ARC TECHNOLOGYDEC, in conjunction with Pyrolysis Systems, Incorporated ofWetland, Ontario, Canada, has been investigating the use ofplasma arc technology to destroy dioxin contaminated liquidsassociated with the Love Canal Leachate Treatment Facility.The technology of plasma arc destruction is discussed inAppendix A. To date, the Canadian unit has successfullydestroyed non-toxic materials, with tests involving a "LoveCanal Surrogate" scheduled to begin at the test site at theRoyal Military College. The four year old design has beenextensively reworked to accommodate additional fail safemechanisms, and air emissions control. A prototype of this

6-93

unit achieved 9 9 . 9 9 9 9 percent ORE for an askerel <PCB)solution. It is anticipated that the unit will finish testsby the spring of 1985, and move to Love Canal shortlyafterwards. Since the permitting process in Canadaparallels that of Hew York, it is anticipated that permitapplication process will be expedited. The plasma arc unitis currently designed to burn only liquids, and is scheduledto dispose of Love Canal Treatment Facilities leachatecollection system materials for some time. Before the unitcould be used to dispose of the sewer and creek sediments, achange in the feed mechanism and additional testing would benecessary. The use of the plasma arc incinerator forsediment destruction would appear to be some time away.GEOTECH MELT-ALL SYSTEMThe Geotech Development Corporation, in conjunction withWizard Method of Niagara Falls, has formed a company calledChemical Vitrification, Inc. The Melt-All system uses asubmerged electrode continual melt process by which thewaste material is melted and converted into an inert glass-like material, pellets or a spin fiber material. The systemproduces temperatures from 2200-6200°?, which, it isclaimed, can be precisely adjusted. The waste material,when prepared to an ideal condition of one gram size withoutbridging and less than fifty percent moisture, is feed froma hopper to gravity feed tubes located between thethree electrodes of the system. The electrodes and feedtubes are located in an enclosed cauldron, which can have aslight negative pressure applied so that any gases given off

. b y the melting process are drawn off for treatment. Anelectric current is applied to'the three electrodes; ascurrent from the electrodes passes through the waste itmelts and forms a pool above an orifice on the cauldronbottom. The temperature of this melt pool can be regulatedby moving the electrodes closer together or farther awayfrom each other. The waste material slumps into the meltpool until, under ideal operating conditions, the pool islarge enough to form a "two hour reservoir" over theorifice. The two hour reservoir is based on the flow rateof the molten waste through the orifice, which can beregulated. A normal flow or pour rate for the models now inplanning would be 1,000 pounds of molten material per hour.As the molten material emerges from the orifice, it can becollected as blocks, pelletized. or spun into fibers,depending on the characteristics of the original materialand the treatment accorded it. Previous melts with fly ashhave yielded totally inert material that can be used as agrowth medium for plants, material that absorbs 500 tiroesits weight in liquid and can be used in oil spill cleanup,and material that can be molded into inert heat resistantjet airplane parts.

6-94

The contents of the cauldron are at different temperaturesaway from the melt pool; these temperatures are sometimessufficient to drive off volatile substances from the waste.These gases can be captured in a wet or dry baghouse, or incarbon absorption units. The residues from the airscrubbing can be reintroduced into the cauldron, if desired,or landfilled.The system has several "fail-safe" design features. Themelt can be maintained with three, two or one electrodes, sothat failure of any one or two electrodes is not a majorproblem. Electrodes are routinely replaced with a melt inprogress. If necessary, the melt can be halted by freezingthe orifice with liquid nitrogen or water, depending on themelt temperature. The melt pool can be maintained with theorifice frozen, or allowed to cool down and solidify, andstarted up again later.The system has been used extensively in France and Czecho- T<Slovakia; tests are underway in the United States. The ^company claims the system can be used to "destroy fly ash, f£expended filter cake, contaminated soil, mine tailings, ®contaminated filter media, sewage sludge, high acid andpetroleum sludges and residue of incinerated toxic liquidwaste."The company has a pilot plant in operation in Pennsylvania.This unit measures 8j feet wide by 24 feet long by 24 feethigh, and is housed in simple Butler building. The unituses electricity (400 kVA, 200 amps, 480 volts) and water(250 gpm non-contact cooling water).The pilot plant reaches a temperature of 5200°?, and haspour rates of 25-300 pounds per hour. Units have beendesigned with a pour rate of 8,000 pounds per hour. Thepilot plant cost approximately $3 million to construct? itis transportable, and can be erected and "shook down" infour days. While the system has never been tested on dioxincontaminated soil, several tests of fly ash, tailings andsludge have yielded volume reductions of 90 percent. A teston soil from an undisclosed location, alledgedly supplied byHooker Chemical Company, resulted in a 40 to 1 volumereduction. Since the Melt-All System is innovative techno-logy, it is improbable that EPA would permit delisting ofthe residue or melt, which would enable the material to bedisposed of in a sanitary landfill. (The other incinerationdevices face the same problems). The advantage of theGeotech Melt-All system lies in the volume reduction, sincemost incineration techniques result in volume expansion. Avolume reduction of 40 to 1 would permit the disposal of anoriginal volume of 1,500 cubic yards into a 375 cubic yardfacility.

6-95

Additional information has not been forthcoming from Geotechregarding costs. An estimate of $30 per ton ( . 3 kw ofelectricity per pound poured at $1.92/kw hour) was given,but cannot be verified.The Geotech pilot plant, with a stated capacity of250 pounds poured per hour, could dispose of 5,000 cubicyards of sediments in an estimated 12.5 years, assuming alinear relationship between pounds poured and poundsprocessed. The largest plant under design(8,000 pounds/hr.) could dispose of 5,000 cubic yards inroughly five months.

WDR99/001

6-96

Chapter 7IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Operations with heavy equipment have several typicalimpacts; generation of dust and fumes, noise, destructionof local vegetation during the movement of large vehicles,etc. In this sense, the potential remedial activities forthe sewers, creeks and 102nd Street outfall are no differentthan any other major construction actions. The significantdifference is that the potential remedial activities requirethe handling, processing and disposal of contaminatedmaterial. Extra precautions to mitigate exposures to thepublic and workers during the operations are thereforerequired.The remedial activities for the sewers, creeks, and outfallwill consist of removal of contaminated material, transport,dewatering, and disposal. Cleanup of each area will beconducted over a construction season (April to October).Basically, the materials will be removed by various methodsand transported over distances of up to a mile to theprocessing area, where water may be removed from the sedi-ments. Dewatering may also occur in the onsite interimsecure storage facility. The next action would involve ashort distance transport to the onsite interim storage sincethe sediments can be removed much faster than they can betreated or disposed of. Following a period of storage whilethe disposal option is determined, the storage facility.would be opened, and the sediments removed as scheduled fordisposal. The disposal options available presently arebasically onsite or off site incineration.In the following sections, potential public health andsafety concerns will be discussed, followed by discussionsof the potential mitigation measures and worker health andsafety issues.

REMOVAL ACTIVITIESDuring the average work day for sewer sediment removal,approximately 1,000 feet of sewer will be cleaned. Themajor concerns for public exposure during sewer sedimentremoval and mitigation measures are;

o Sanitary sewer backup to homes. Volatile organicswere detected in the sewer sediments. These gasesmay migrate under pressure to homes, and sedimentmay be flushed back to the homes. Residents willbe given notice prior to sewer flushing in thisarea; the Contractor will have a cleanup contin-gency plan and equipment available.

7-1

o Exposure to storm and sanitary sediments. Publicaccess to the work area will be restricted andgood worker safety practices, such as minimizingsplashing during the operations, will help mini-mize public contact. Sediments removed from thesewers will be extremely wet, ranging from 50 to200 percent water, depending on the excavationmethod. Therefore, there is a very low prob-ability that the non-volatile contaminants will bedispersed by the wind. Exposure to volatiles willbe minimized by the open air conditions of theactivity, ensuring the immediate reduction of theconcentrations of volatiles in the air. The odorthreshold for some of the organics is low, so itis possible that a chemical odor will be detectedduring the operation.

o Exposure to sediments being transported to thedewatering facility. As part of the operationssafety protocol, inspections of the transportvehicles will be conducted daily to ensure theyare leakproof, and that safety equipment ( e . g . , ^brakes) are operating correctly. Routes and ndriving times will be coordinated to minimize t£

impacts. §The major public safety and health concerns during the creeksediments excavation include:

o Exposure to Sediments. Exposure will be minimizedby restricting access during remedial activitiesand transporting sediments through the area indecontaminated leakproof trucks or pipelines.Spills and leaks would be cleaned up rapidly.

o Emissions. Removal of sediments would beconducted under open-air conditions ensuring quickreduction in chemical concentrations. The wetstate of sediments would prevent dust problemsduring excavation, although there may be someproblems with contaminated dust due to vehicletraffic on creek access roads. Dust control wouldbe accomplished by water spraying the roadsurfaces.

o Noise. Some machinery and truck noise will existduring daytime working hours.At the 102nd Street outfall, the present remedial objectiveis sediment migration control, not sediment removal. Theexcavation of sediments is expected to be considered onlyafter remediation of the 102nd Street landfills (Olin andHooker).

7-2

The major safety and health concerns at the outfall arerelated to worker exposure to sediments during constructionof stone berm and/or sheet piling. Due to the distancebetween the outfall and residences the public exposureconcerns are limited to noise and spillage during sedimenttransport operations.

DEWRTERING ACTIVITIES

The impacts associated with the dewatering of the sedimentshas been discussed at length in Chapter 6 . Impacts associ-ated with the dewatering of mechanically excavated creeksediments is expected to be minimal? the sediments arehauled to and placed in the interim secure storage facility,and the relatively minor amounts of pore water are capturedin the leachate collection system for disposal.The sewer sediments can be dewatered in a temporary facilityby mechanical or passive dewatering. The impacts includepossible release of volatiles; dust emission from themechanical filter press/dewatering; noise associated with %moving the dewatered sediment to the interim secure storage nfacility as discussed previously. w

0The impacts associated with dewatering the hydraulicallydredged sediments are many. The conceptual plan calls fortwo pipelines up to a mile long, one running from the creekto the dewatering facility and carrying creek sediments andwater, and the other running from the dewatering facilityback to the creek to the dredging operation. The reuse ofwater reduces the total amount of dredge water that must betreated from an estimated 23,00-0,000 gallons to2,300,000 gallons. One of the pipelines will have gasolinepowered pumps about every 1,500 feet; these pumps will runat all times during the operation. The pipelines (thebiggest will be 24 inches or so in diameter) are actuallypipes within a pipe; spills should be minimized.The interim secure storage facility would require majordesign modifications so that the hydraulically dredged creeksediments can be dewatered. The pipeline would pump about50 gpm into the facility; splashing and emissions could becontrolled. If the sediments do not settle out and dewaterrapidly, the facility must remain uncapped for y e a r ( s ) .although a temporary cover would limit contact or emissions.

ACTIVITIES

TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENTS

Public access during the loading of material followingmechanical dewatering will be restricted, minimizing thepotential for immediate contact. The dewatered material

7-3

will contain about 10 percent moisture. Loading andoffloading of contaminated material onto trucks willgenerate some dust emissions.Covered trucks will be used to transport the material to theinterim secure storage area. The trucks will be cleanedafter loading to remove any surface contamination beforeleaving the site.The transport of sediments to dewatering/temporary storagewill require more than 70 truckloads for the sewers? about 9or 10 truckloads will be needed for debris removed prior tohydraulic dredging; and over 1,300 truckloads for mechanicalexcavation. When moving to the interim storage facility,transportation distance and the potential for accidents (andpossible public exposure) will be minimized by route andtime of day constraints. Additional discussion of transpor-tation impacts are provided in Chapter 6 .

U?INTERIM ONSITE STORAGE f3-——-———————————— ^wThe sediments can be removed much more rapidly than they can ®be treated or disposed of; they must be stored for some ®period of time. Exposures during onsite storage could occurdue to spillage during placement sediments in the storagefacility or release of contaminants to the environmentduring the storage period. Since public areas to thestorage area will be restricted, exposures due to spills andassociated spill cleanup activities be a concern primarilyfor workers. Public exposure may occur in the form of dustblown sediment; however, dust problems will be controlled byspraying sediments.Contaminant release to the environment during storage willbe prevented mainly through the design of the facility. Thefacility will be double lined. Cover, leachate collection,and leak detection systems will meet all RCRA requirements.If the facility'is located inside the Love Canal fence, theexisting drain system and perimeter groundwater wells willprovide additional monitoring and protection. If thefacility is located at the 93rd Street School, a new moni-toring well system, and security measures will be installed.Aesthetics is another public impact to be considered.During storage the facility will appear as an elevatedrectangular mound. If a Times Beach concrete vault is used,the appearance may be softened by constructing bermsabutting the sidewalls. Following the storage period, thefacility may be removed and the area returned to itsoriginal state. Complete descriptions of the Interimstorage alternatives are provided in Chapter 6 .

7-4

INCINERATION (ONSITE)

Incineration onsite, using either a stationary facility (for100,000 cubic yards or more) or mobile incinerator, hasimpacts associated with the following;

o Opening the storage facility and removing andpreparing the materials. The impacts associatedwith these activities have been discussed above.

o Incineration. The Incineration of materialsgenerates heat, ash, steam, contact cooling waterand air emissions. The ash, air emissions andcooling water must be controlled. Ash and theresiduals from air emission control will beconsidered, in all likelihood, as hazardous waste,and must be treated or disposed.

o ftsh Disposal. Since incineration usually expandsthe volume of soil, the disposal of the soilresidue will be a major undertaking. The ash canbe landfilled (offsite facilities may be willingto accept the ash following incineration) or oceandumped (this would require special permitting) orsubjected to a treatment process that is notcurrently viable, but may be by the time astationary facility is built, permitted and burnsthe material (4 to 6 years), or a mobileincinerator finishes the incineration (1 to29 years).

o Dismantling of the Facility. The mobileincinerator would be decontaminated and disman-tled, generating solutions or materials fordisposal. A stationary facility would bedismantled, necessitating disposal in a sanitarylandfill.

Other impacts associated with Incineration onsite includethose of mobilizing or constructing the incinerator (heavymachinery, noise, dust, traffic) and the aesthetics associ-ated with the building or temporary housing of theincinerator and the operation of the unit (steam releases,etc.) .OFFSITE DISPOSAL

Offsite disposal includes any method of treatment ordisposal that occurs away from the Love Canal area, such asoffsite incineration or landfilling. The major activitiesinvolved in offsite disposal include opening the interimstorage facility; removal of sediments and loading oftrucks; transport to the disposal area; unloading; storage

7-5

and preparation of the materials; processing the material byincineration, burial e t c . ; and maintenance of the processedmaterial (burial of ash, e t c . ) . Impacts directly associatedwith the Love Canal area would be emissions and releasesfrom opening the interim storage facility, loading trucks(and any processing of the material for loading) and themovement of trucks•through the streets. Operational limita-tions (time of day, dust suppression, dust covers,monitoring wind direction and speed, monitoring emissions)can be used to limit impacts during the opening/loading/initial movement stages. It is difficult to determine theimpacts of leaving the facility essentially open and havingseveral thousand trucks drive through the streets over aperiod of time (one to several years). It is equally diffi-cult to estimate the impacts of these trucks during a1,500 mile trip to an offsite disposal facility. In addi-tion to dust emissions (which can be controlled to somedegree), the possibility of accident or incident exists.The very real possibility exists that negative communityfeelings would necessitate delays enroute or rerouting oftrucks, lengthening the trip.Activities at the disposal site should have minimal impacts, ^since the facility will be fully permitted and inspected Munder RCRA, TSCA, etc. The long term impacts there would (flprobably be the same as impacts currently existing at those §facilities. Long term impacts at Love Canal would includemaintaining or demolishing the interim storage facility.

WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETYPotential worker exposure exists at almost every step of theremedial activities. Each time the sediments are moved,potential exposure via dermal contact, inhalation andingestion exists. These potential exposures will bemitigated by the use of personal protective gear ( e . g . , airpurifying respirators, coveralls, gloves, etc.) and instruc-tion on safe work practices ( e . g . , no eating, drinking orsmoking in the work area).

SUMMARYTable 7-1 summarizes the potential public and environmentalconsequences that could result from specific alternativesand the exposure mitigation measures. Impacts associatedwith the no-action alternative were discussed in Chapter 3.

WDR102/006

7-6

Table 7-1IHPACTS ASSOCIATfE HITH

LOVE CANAL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Steps la Operation Benedlal AcHon Hiase"IMPACTS

""Long-To til

1. Sewersa. No action

b. HydraullCBlly cleanand repair.

None

1. Run blower ana plug sewersection.

2. Set up cleaning Jet atdownstream, collection•anhole.

3. Ptrfora cleaning operation(cleaning jet propels Itselfupstrea* and Is then reeledback to collection •anhole

4. Manually or mechanicallyrCTiore large debris (usingshovels and bucketa).

5. Use suction equlptnt (sub-•erslble pu^i and vacinnnettle or »»cuu» truck) torooTe sedlnents.

6. Transport »edl»»nt/»ater totreatBOTt/dlspOMi facility.

7. Ile»o»e plugs fro« cleanedsewer section.

8. Decon blower, jet cleaningequlpmnt and truck, and tanktruck.

9. Collect and treat decon washwater.

10. TV Inspection of cleanedsegment.

Public contact iilnlnIzRd.

Continued sedlient nlgratlon to creeksand sewage treatment facility. Continuedpotential public exposure to contottlnants.See Chapter 3.

Potential for swall anount of raterlal torettain; nInlRilted by TV Inspection

Hotice to residents of activitystartup.

I—edlate cleanup If backupreported In house.

Backflow to cleaned sewer.I—edlate cleanup If backupsegiKnts blocked.

Sewer denand decreased by per-foniing action during dryseason.

Volatlles Inside house•Intuited by opening windows.

Oust emissions ulnlMl becauseof sedlient water content.

Machinery noise during daylightwork hours.

Truck Traffic to dewateringfacility.

Potential for discharge ofcleaning water iilnlnlied bysewer plugs.

2. 102nd Street Outfall

a. No action. None. None. Continued sedl—nt nlgratlon. Continuedaquatic l i fe exposure. Continued poten-tial public exposure to sedlrents andcontaminated fish. (See Chapter 3.1

006339

Table 7-1IMPACTS ASSOCIATED BITH

LOVE CANAL RCTEDIAL ALTERNATIVES(Continued)

IMPACTSAlternative Steps In Operation Reinedlal Action Hiase

Mitigate backflowto sewer by repairto tidal gate.

1. BeiBve rocks and debris froniIn front of headwall.

One day of activity. Mitigates potential backflow from outfallto stom sewer.

2. Moblllie backhoe and portablegenerator to top of headwall.

3. Lower tidal gate Into positionon face of headwall.

4. Bolt tidal gate flange toheadwall.

Snail disturbance of outfallsedlient because any actionsare at outfall.

Negligible public exposure.

Machinery noise at outfallduring daylight work hours.

Continued sedlioent •igratlon in river.

Continued aquatic life exposure.

Continued potential public exposure toto sediments and contaminated fish.(See Chapter 3).

Imwdlale Stabiliza-tion

1) Construct stoneben •1th tiabersheeting.

2) Construct steelpile wall.

1. Inspect Intended bem locationfor large debris and renovedebris as necessary (drillseveral borings along allgn-iK-ntl.

1. Beginning at shore line, usefront end loader and bulldozerto transport and place stone.

3. use barge Bounted pile driverto place tilber sheeting(second barge nay be necessaryto guide sheeting).

1. Inspect vail location fordebris, reaove debris asnecessary.

2. Use barge-Bounted drill rig todrill borings along vail allgn-•ent to determine depth of riverbed and Identify locations ofany burled debris.

3. Use barge-mounted pile driverto construct vail starting atshoreline (2nd barge will needto be used to guide sheet piling).

Little or no worker or equlp-•ent contact with sediment,unless when driving wall,debris or rocks are hit. Thenthe wall will be pulled out,reposltloned (or obstacle willbe loved), and replaced. Semeworker contact possible whilerepositioning sheeting.Sedlacnts disturbed andpossibly entrained duringconstruction.

Bern/sheeting wi l l need to be maintainedto Insure continued effectiveness.

See 2(c)l, except sedlnentdisturbance lessened.

See 2(c)I .

006340

Table T-lIMPACTS ASSOCIATED KITH


Alternative Steps In Operation BeiMolal Action BiaseIMPACTS

d. long-ten roedlatlon

1) In-place contaln-•ent (with 2(ellor 2.

2) 2(c) 1 or 2 follow-ed by rcBoval using

land based equlp-ent

1. Construct stone ben or wall(See Kc) 1 or 1 above).

Dewater, backfill containedarea and cap It.

Construct stone her* or wall(See 2(c) 1 or 2 above).

2. Re»ve rip-rap along shoreline and build berns or id•ats as necessary.

3. Use shore-based drag line orclauhell on crawler crane toexcBTate sedlHents.

4. Load excavated sedlimits Intotruck and transport sedlientsto denaterlng/dlsposal(aclllty.

5. ExcaTBte stone beri placingstone In trucks—transport todisposal facility. Rebuildshore rip-rap to depth ofexcavation.

6. Oecon dragllne/cla—hell,trucks« and/or otheregulpeent.

See 2(c)l.

Haul trucks •1th fill.

Potential for splashingworkers as sedl>ents aretransEerred fron clanshellto truck.

Biota will be lost.

Truck traific to dewateringfacility.

See 2(c)l.

Hone.

None.

Biota co-unity expected to reappear.

3. Black Creell

a. Ho action. Continued sedlient •igratlon.Continued potential public exposure.(See Chapter 3)

None.

006341



IMPACTSAlternative Steps In Operation Ileiiedlal Action Muse Long-Tenn

c. Hydraullcally excavate. 1. Construct temporary beni at•outh of Black Creek to use asstreaa crossing.

3. Constnict bens up and down-stream and dewater between*

3. Construct access road, clear,and grub.

4. Manually remve large debris;reflood.

5. 0s* mid cat to dredge sedlients.

Potential contact reducedbecause of closed transportIn pipes.

Potential pipeline leaks•InlBlzed by double walls.

Volatile erisslons •Inlulbecause no volatlles detectedIn sedlnents. (91st Streetand Colvin Boulevard)

Bridges required where pipecrosses road.

Machinery noise during worthours.

Creek biota co—unlty expected to renew.

Potential residual contaBlnatlon; bankscannot be reiiedled using hydraulic dredge.

Dewatering facility •ay be open for year(s)to allow sedlrents to dewater and stabilize.

6. Dewater and Inspect; redood andredredge If necessary.

7. Re-ove earth bens and disposeof at huardous waste facility.

8. Transport sedlient to disposalfacility.


Pipelines (two; each Is one•lie long) lust be In placethroughout; punps will runcontinually. Haul trucks willcarry debris through streets.

9. Dewater dredge spoils andtreat filtrate.

10. Decon •ud cat, truckfdewatering patf, piping, etc.

6. Sedlaent Pewatering

a. Mechanically denater. Transport sedlnent In watertight truck or pipe sedlrentto dewatering facility.

SedlBent conpresslon •ay CBitvolatlles. Minliul dustfission because sedimentstill wet and Is dropped Intocovered container.

Action Is an IntenKdIate stage ofrecedlal action. Sedlients are reflovedto Interim Storage (See 17). No longtenn Impacts fror action.

2. Feed sediment onto vacuunfilter and air press.

3. Remove filter cake andtransport to disposal facility.

006342

l TB' ("l i' . "S A. 'AT& .1.1LOVE CANAL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

(Continued)

Alternative Steps In Operation Re«eiHal Action Biase"IMPACTS

b. Mechanically excavate

c. Construct tidal gateor sedlaent trapat confluence conjunc-tion vlth 3.b. above.

1. Construct access road alongcreek bank, clear, and grub.

}. Construct bens up and dow-strean and dewater betweenusing puips.

3. Use backhoe to excavatesedlwnts and place then In awatertight truck.

4. Transport sedlients to de-waterlng/dlsposal facilities.

5. R—ne earth bems and disposeof at haxardous waste facility.

6. Decon excavating equlpwnt andtrack, etc.

1. Excavate approximately U InchesIn Black Creek (at confluencewith Bergholti Creek).

2. Ml* and pour concrete to Eontidal gate/sedlaent trap.

3. Continue •1th steps 6 and 7above.

Public contact ilnllltedo Restricted access during

activities.o Volatile fissions negli-

gible because no volatllesdetected In sedlwnt.

o Dust olssloDS •lnl—1- Wet state of sedlient- Cleanup of spills on

bank*o SedlBent transport will

be In leakproof trucksoperating over shortdistance.

Tenporarv haul roads.

Hachlner7 noise during doytlienort hours.


Negligible addition to 3.b.

Potential for snail fraction ofcontaxinated sedlJient to re«aln.

Creek biota Co—unity expected to renew.

Prevents backflow of Bergholtx Creeksedlimits to Black Creek 1C two creeksnot cleaned concurrently or are cleanedby different lethods.

4. Berghoitt Creel; I Beyond

a. No action.

b. Mechanically excavate.

None.

Construct temporary ben at•outh of Black Creek to use asstrean crossing.

Follow steps 1-6 under 3.b.above, except use frontendloader and clarshells.

None.

See 3.b. NUKrous trips(•ore than 1,400) by haultruck to deposit sedliMnts.Mould block sone streets attlxes. Noise and possibledust erisslons.

Continued sedlmnt •Igratlon. Continued iaquatic life exposure. Continued potentla»public exposure to sedlaent and contailnatedfish. See Chapter 3.

Potential for —all residential fractionof contarlnated sedlient to reraln.

006343


LOVE CANAL REMEDIAL ALTEBIATIVES(Continued)

IMPACTSAlternative Steps In Operation Reredlal Action Phase "Long-Ten?"

b. Use interli storage

4. Transport and treat filtrate,•t LCTF, release to sewerays ten and NFNTP.

1. Construct teBporary systec forsewer s*dla«nt dewaterlng.

2. Construct Interlai storagefacility |t8,000 cubic yardscapacity for hydraulic dredgewater reclrculatlon) with•ajor design nodlflcationsfor hydraulic dredged sedlBents.

3. Pipe water/sediments by pipeline(3,000,000 gallons) or haulsedlBents to facility (1,400truck trips).

4. Collect liquid drained Intounderdraln/leacnate collectionsysten or taken off top.Recycle to creek In hydraulicdredging. Treat and dispose ofwater eventually.

5. Choose disposal/treatmentoption froi 8.

Splashing fr» hydraullcallydredged sedlnents.Bilssions possible.

Hydraullcally dredged sedlients•ay not solidify for over a year;cannot cap facility until then.

Continual feed (3,000,000 gallons) toLove Canal leachate treatnent facilityfroB hydraullcally dredged sedlBents.

Temporary feed (600,000 gallons) toLove Canal leachate treatment facilityfroM iRechanlcally excavated sediHents;cap facility 1—edlately.

7. Interlgi Storage

a* ConstnJCt an earthenbemed facility.

1. Excavate soils and constructbenu. It facility Is to bewithin the cap, cut hole Inexisting HDFE liner.

2. Fine grade base and Installhotter liner. If facilityIs In cap, weld botto* linerto existing liner.

3. Compact clay layer and Installleak detection systei. Conpactadditional clay.

4. Fine grade and install secondsynthetic liner.

Placenent of •aterlal In thethe facility could result Inthe release of contaminated•aterlals that (ust be con-tained. Machinery would heInvolved, causing noise anddust. Haul trucks wouldbring •aterlal Into area.Essentially save lipacts asactivities associated withcapping Love Canal.

Aesthetics; if hydraulic dredging used,facility may not be capped for over aa year. Operatlon/ralntenance needed (o>as long as 30 years. Can be capped1—edlately if Bechanically excavatedsedlBents disposed of.

006344


UWE CANAL MHEDIAl, ALTEWATIVES(Continued)

IMPACTSAlternative Steps In Operation Beoedial Action Phase "Long-Ten

b. Construct a concretestructure (TitsBeach vault)

5. Place granular raterlal andpiping for leachate collectionsystei.

6. Deposit sedldents and decon allcontacted equipment.

7. Construct cover Including Instal-lation of a synthetic liner.(Hay be sot delay In covering Iffacility'Is used tor dewatering).

B. Topsoll and seed cover.

1. Excavate soils and Install See 7a.synthetic ifbrane.

See 7a.Aesthetic Ixpact different than 7a.since vault would be taller, butOnly one-fifth as long. Vault can becapped sooner than 7a.

2. Place drainage gravel andgeotextlle layers.

3. Pour S" reinforced concreteand coat with polyeric asphalt.

4. Place drainage gravel andgeoteztiles to act as leachatecollection systei.

5. Similarly construct concretesidevalls.

6. Follow steps 6-8 In 7.a.,except no delay In covering.

8. Offslte DisposalI. Open storage facility, reiiove

sedlwnt.Opening of storage facilityand removal of sediments couldgenerate dust, releasevolatlles. Kill take severalopenings to remove •aterlal.Hany trucks required to wke1,500 •lie trip; possibleaccidents/Incidents. Treatiient/disposal should have no "orethan "nonnal" lupacts atdisposal sites.

Facility Bust beonce eiipty.

•Intalned or demolished



Alternative Steps In Operation Bfedial Action Hiase'IMPACTS

9, Incineration

g. Construct facilityonslte.

b. use •oblle Incinerator

2. Load sedlnent on truck.

3. Transport to site t unload.

4. Treat or dispose.

5. Decon all equipment.

1. Construct Incinerator.

2. Open storage facility.

3. Transport dewateredsedlBent to Incinerator.

4. Incinerate sedlrent.

5. Transport ash to securelandfill for disposal..

6. Decon equipment.

Sane as 9.a. except step 6 wouldInvolve dembllliatlon ofIncinerator equlpient.

If operated vlthin the regula- Several years to build; at least one yeartlons, erisslons and Incinerator of operation necessary; storage facilityoperations should not pose arisk thresy to workers orresidents. Materials •ust beprepared (ground up, driedl.Handling and transport ofsedlBent will release dust,volatlles, and wil l generatenoise. Incinerator vlllgenerate noise, ash, and steaH,Must have building to house It.Transport of ashcould resultIn spills. May require addi-tional area to acco—odateall of equipment. Coolingwater •ust be treated.

See 9.a.

would essentially reBaIn open entireperiod. Landfllling of residual naynecessitate construction of new facilityat Love Canal, or transport to offsltefacility (See 8 ) .

Sale as 9.a., except Incinerator wouldbe onslte frofli 1 to 29 years and•oblllzatlon would be mch shorter.

006346

Chapter 8SUMMARY OF COSTS

Cost estimates for the evaluated alternatives which are feas-ible to implement were presented in Chapter 6 . The costsare summarized in this section along with the major assump-tions associated with each alternative.

ESTIMATED COSTSThe National Contingency Plan requires that comparative costestimates be developed for remedial action alternatives.The estimates presented in this section include currentlyidentified direct and indirect costs associated with eachalternative. Changes in the description, sediment volume,site conditions, work scope, facility siting, criteria, orcontingencies for an alternative will correspondingly affect r»the estimated costs. Without a careful consideration of all <Tthese fundamental cost determinants, these estimates should rtnot be inferred to be representative for any other site. ®

0APPROACH

The total cost of a remedial action includes all perceivedcapital and operating costs associated with that alterna-tive. Direct costs such as personnel protection, onsiteconstruction, transport, storage, and treatment costs areincluded. Indirect costs are also a major part of a remedialaction cost, and include items such as decontamination sta-tions, perimeter fencing, additional sediment testing, com-munity relations, groundwater -monitoring, pilot testing, andpermitting costs.Because this feasibility study is conceptual and becauseavailable data are limited, a contingency and administrativeallowance will also be included. This includes a limitedallowance for normal process refinement, unknown site con-ditions, engineering, administrative costs, and other con-tingencies normally included. Allowances for inflation,additional material volume, and abnormal technical diffi-culties will not be accounted for in the contingency.

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONSMajor assumptions which affect the cost of an alternativewhich were not mentioned in Chapter 6 are listed below.1. Destruction alternatives will be applied to all sedi-ment with TCDD concentrations exceeding one ppb.

B-l

2 . Major equipment components will be preassembled in mod-ules offsite to minimize onsite activities during con-struction and demobilization.

3. An on-stream time of 4,800 hr/yr was assumed for pro-cessing the contaminated sediment through treatmentprocesses. This assumes a working schedule of 24 hoursa day for 200 days, with the remaining time spent inmaintenance, repair or inspection of the system. Anequally realistic on-stream time of 2000 hr/year can beused.

4. A minimum of Level C (protective clothing and air puri-fying respirators) personnel protection will be requiredfor all onsite activities associated with handling orprocessing, with the exception of vehicle operatorsworking entirely in enclosed vehicle cabs. Theseworkers will be required to use a minimum of Level D(work uniform with safety shoes, hard hats, etc.) pro-tective gear. The use of Levels C and D personnel pro- OGtective gear will reduce worker efficiency, shorten <Tsummer work periods, and include other health and safety (flrequirements. For Level C , these effects have been re- ®ported to increase labor requirements by at least threetimes over standard conditions. Decontamination trail-ers, truck wash stations, and site safety officers willalso have to be present for all onsite activities.

5. Extensive community relations efforts will be requiredfor all alternatives, especially in coordinating thelaying of pipeline, haulroads, etc.

6 . Onsite security will be provided during all construc-tion, excavation, and treatment activities. The forcewill consist of two guards during the day and one guardon each of the offshifts.

7. Leachate and wastewater treatment from storage facili-ties and mobile incinerator operation onsite will beprovided by existing leachate treatment facility atLove Canal. At a minimum, a new clarifier will be addedto the leachate treatment facility to remove solids.SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

The following assumptions are listed under the alternativeto which they primarily apply. Many also apply to otheralternatives but to a lesser degree. See the previous sec-tion for further descriptions of each alternative.

8~?

OFFSITE INCINERATIONo The solids dewatering and size reduction equipment

will be completely decontaminated and dismantledat the completion of the dredging and solids prep-aration activities. The equipment will be soldfor a reasonable salvage value. If not sold, theequipment will be retained for use by EPA or DECon other sites.

o Level C gear will be worn by workers involved indredging, analytical, preparation, and loadingactivities. Level D gear will be worn by workersinvolved in construction, hauling, restoration,and dismantling.

Wo Incineration residue will be disposed of at the ^onsite secure interim storage facility if offsite pdisposal cannot be achieved through delisting or ®by use of a commercial facility. ®

ONSITE INCINERATIONo Onsite construction of a stationary facility, ex-

cavation, incineration, demobilization, and resto-ration will take more than 8 years. Excavation,construction, and restoration will be performedduring the construction season of April throughOctober. Incineration will take place year-round.

o Sampling and analytical activities will includeyear-round perimeter air monitoring during theincineration phase of the project, sedimentsampling and TCDD analysis of areas being dredged,TCDD analysis of incinerated material, and TCDDanalysis of leachate generated by the interim se-cure s.torage facility.

o Incinerated sediments will be restored onsite ordisposed of in a secure landfill offsite.

o The incineration facilities will be completelydecontaminated and dismantled at the completion ofexcavation and incineration activities. The sta-tionary incinerator will be sold for a reasonablesalvage value.

o Access roads will not have to be significantlyupgraded.o Level C gear will be worn by workers involved in

excavation, analytical, and incineration activi-ties. Level D gear will be worn by workers in-volved in construction, restoration, and dismantl-ing activities.

8-3

o A storage facility will be constructed to containmaterial to be incinerated.

COST SUMMARYThe costs presented on the following table are comparativeorder-of-magnitude estimates, which are defined by theAmerican Association of Cost Engineers as follows:

Order-of-Magnitude Estimate; This is an approximateestimate made without detailed engineering data. Exam-ples include; an estimate from cost capacity curves,an estimate using scale-up or scale-down factors, andan approximate ratio estimate. It is normally expectedthat an estimate of this type would be accurate within+50 percent or -30 percent.

These estimates have been prepared for use in project eval-uation and implementation from the information available at °the time. The final costs of the selected remedial action ^will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive Wmarket conditions, final scope, levels of personnel protec- ®tion and decontamination, implementation schedule, and othervariable factors. As a result, the final project costs mayvary from the estimates presented here.

in

WDR102/001

8-4

Table 8-1SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOB FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Total Present1______________Alternative_____________ Worth ( $ )Sewer Remediation and Repair1. No Action2. Cleaning 1,348,0003. Abandon in-place and replace with new line 7,080,000102nd Street Outfall Bemediation

1. Immediate Stabilization- No Action- Filter Fabric and Stone 207,000

Benn with Timber Sheeting 509,000 <"^- Steel Pile Wall 636,000 ln

2. Long Term Remediation ^No Action Subsequent to Bern or Wall — 5In-Place Containment 598,000

- Removal UsingShore Based Equipment 350,000

Creole Remediation1. No Action —2. Hydraulic Dredging of Bergholtz Creek

- 1983 EID limits only 700,000. - 1983 EID limits plus 1st incremental reach 798,000

- Above Plus 2nd Incremental Reach {PROBABLE AREA) 1,026,0003. Mechanical Excavation—Land-Based Clamshell

- 1983 EID limits 165,000- 1983 EID limits plus 1st incremental reach 225,000

4. Mechanical Excavation—Tracked Front EndLoader (and Clamshell as needed)

- 1983 EID limits 184,000- 1983 EID.limitB plus 1st incremental reach 248,000- Above, Plus 2nd Incremental Reach (PROBABLE AREA) 1,178,000- Black Creek only (PROBABLE AREA) 120,000

5. Additional Sampling Bergholtz andCayuga Creeks and Banks 169,000

6 . Fence Downstream Section of Bergholtz andCayuga Creeks 161,000

On-Site Storage

1. Above-Cap, Earthem Benn- Mechanical Excavation/5,000 cy 803,000- Hydraulic Dredging/5,000 cy 829,000- Hydraulic Dredging; 21,000 cy (Probable Volume) 1,131,000- Hydraulic Dredging/135,000 cy 4,924,000

8-5


(Continued)

Total Present_____________Alternative_____________ Worth ($)

2. Concrete VaultMinimum Volume, 5,000 cy 509,000

- Probable Volume, 21,000 cy 1,135,350- Maximum Volume, 135,000 cy 7.298,000

Transport •'; Sediment, Dewatering and Leachate Water Treatment

1. Sewer Sediments Dewatering/Love CanalLeachate Treatment Plant

- Mechanical Dewatering 391,000- Clarification/Filtration/Mechanical

Dewatering 6a3,000- Temporary Steel Walls/Passive Dewatering 290,000

2. Transport and Dewatering of MechanicallyExcavated or Hydraulically Dredged CreekSediments Costs Are Contained in CreekRemediationand Interim Storage Costs. 12,900,000-18,060,000

Off-Site Incineration

1. Rollins! 5,000 cy2. Rollins; 21,000 cy.3. • Rollinss 135,000 cy

On-Site Incineration

1. EPA Mobile Incinerator: 5,000 cy2. EPA Mobile Incinerator: 21,000 cy3. EPA Mobile Incinerator: 135,000 cy4. Huber AERs 5,000 cy5. Huber AER: 21,000 cy6 . Huber AERs 135,000 cy7. TOSCO Mobile Incinerator; 5,000 cy8. EMSCO Mobile Incinerator! 21,000 cy9 . EMSCO Mobile Incinerator: 135,000 cy

7,900,000-9,400,00018,000,000-31,500,000

206,900,000-247,400,000

4.800,000-7,100,00015,600,000-42,000,000

86,800,000-147,500,0006,700,000-8,100,000

12,900,000-18,060,000111.200,000-148,300,000

5,400,00016,800,00091.300,000

'•In 1984 dollars.

WCR102/002

8-6

CSJ900

^19 I B I ? 16 15 I j 13 I? 1 1 10 9 6 J 6 5 ^ 3

GR1C C O O R D I N A T E SLE.GENC

CONTAMINATION ASSESSMEN-

PRIORITIT LEVFL'.

M E D I U M -.•.•.•.•.:-.-;.-.-;;.-LOW "N O SriADr N O C D N T A M t N A N i ;

DETECTT^(.1 CUANT1TAT£D S A M P L E

102 nd STREET OUTFALLCONTAMINATION

ASSESSMENT MAP

LOVE CANAL SEWERS AND CREEKS REMEDIAL ...1-6 Impacts Associated With Love Canal 1-17 Remedial...

Documents

Transcript of LOVE CANAL SEWERS AND CREEKS REMEDIAL ...1-6 Impacts Associated With Love Canal 1-17 Remedial...