AR0008I5 · 2020-07-07 · hazardous waste landfill, does not have a continuous bottom liner, and fractured sandstone bedrock is generally permeable. The 1984 RCRA Amendments provide

$Page 1: AR0008I5 · 2020-07-07 · hazardous waste landfill, does not have a continuous bottom liner, and fractured sandstone bedrock is generally permeable. The 1984 RCRA Amendments provide$
PERFORMANCE OF REMEDIAL RESPONSEACTIVITIES AT UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS

WASTE SITES (REM II)

DRAFT

REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

FOR THE

. BRUIN LAGOON SITEBRUIN BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA

VOLUME 2

WORK ASSIGNMENT NO.: 06-3L03 .

U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO.: 68-01-6939

DOCUMENT NO.: 106-RI1-RT-CXRK-1

JUNE 1986

Prepared By:

Roy F. Weston, Inc.. Clement Associates, Inc.

This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency under Contract No. 68-01-6939. The material contained herein isnot to be disclosed to, discussed with, or made available to any personor persons for any reason without the prior expressed approval of a

, , responsible official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

AR0008I5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section PageLIST OF TABLES .............................................. v

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. v11

9.0 SITE REMEDIATION CONSIDERATIONS ............................. 9-1

9.1 Applicable or Relevant Environmental and PublicHealth Requirements ................................... 9-19.1.1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Requirements ................................. 9-19.1.2 Federal Ambient Mater Quality Criteria and

State Quality Standards ...................... 9-3. 9.2 Remedial Action Objectives ............................ 9-6

10.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES. 10-1

10.1 Evaluation Criteria for Remedial Action Techniques .... 10-1

10.1.1 Technical Criteria ........................... 10-110.1.2 Environmental Criteria ....................... 10-210.1.3 Public Health Criteria ...................'.... 10-210.1.4 Institutional Criteria ....................... 10-210.1.5 Cost Criteria ................................ 10-3

10.2 Review of Previous Screening .......................... 10-410.2.1 Technologies That Remain Inappropriate ....... 10-510.2.2 Previously-Screened Technologies To Be

Discussed Further ............................ 10-6

10.3 Screening of Remedial Action Technologies ................... 10-7

10.3.1 No Action Technologies ....................... 10-810.3.2 Containment .................................. 10-910.3.3 Groundwater Pumping .......................... 10-3110.3.4 Collection Systems ............................ 10-3310.3.5 Diversion .................................... 10-3710.3.6 On-s1te/Off-S1te Treatment ................... 10-3910.3.7 Treatment Methods ............................ 10-4210.3.8 In S1tu Treatment ............................ 10-5210.3.9 Complete Removal ............................. 10-5310.3.10 On-site/Off-Site Treatment ................... 10-54

AR0008I6

•"Section Page10.4 Summary of Technology Screening ....................... 10-55

11.0 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ................................ 11-1

11.1 Remedial Action Alternative.Development ............... 11-111.1.1 Summary of Previous Alternatives ............. 11-611.1.2 Identification of New Alternatives ........... 11-7

11.2 Description of Alternative 1 - No Action-Monitoring.. 11-1611.3 Description of Alternative 2 - Sludge and Liquid Zone

Stabilization and Soil Cap ............................ 11-1811.4 Description of Alternative 3 - Sludge and Liquid Zone

Stabilization, In Situ bedrock Treatment, RCRA Capand Monitoring ........................................ 11-19

11.5 Description of Alternative 4 - Removal, Stabilization,and Off-Site Disposal of Sludge, Perched Liquid Zone,Contaminated Soils - Post-Closure Monitoring .......... 11-21

11.6 Description of Alternative 5 - Removal, Stabilization,and Off-Site Disposal of Sludge and Liquid Zone -RCRA Cap Monitoring ................................... 11-26

12.0 ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES .................... 12-1

12.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................... 12-1

12.1.1 Technical Feasibility ........................ 12-112.1.2 Institutional Requirements ................... 12-212.1.3 Public Health Issues ......................... 12-312.1.4 Environmental Issues ......................... 12-412.1.5 Cost Analysis ................................ 12-5

12.2 Evaluation of the No-Action Alternative -Alternative 1 ......................................... 12-6

12.2.1 Noncost Analysis ............................. 12-712.2.2 Cost Analysis ................................ 12-11

12.3 Evaluation of Alternative 2 - Sludge and Perched LiquidStabilization, Soil Cap, Post-Closure Monitoring ...... 12-15


AR000817

Section Page12.4 Evaluation of Alternative 3 - Sludge and Liquid Zone

Stabilization, In Situ Bedrock Treatment, RCRA Capand Monitoring ........................................ 12-28

12.4.1 Noncost Analysis ............................. 12-2812.4.2 Cost Analysis .............V................... 12-53

12.5 Evaluation of Alternative 4 - Removal, Stabilization,and Off-Site Disposal of Sludge, Perched Liquid Zone,Contaminated Soils - Post-Closure Monitoring .......... 12-5812.5.1 Noncost Analysis ............................. 12-5812.5.2 Cost Analysis ................................ 12-60

12.6 Evaluation of Alternative 5 - Removal, Stabilization,and Off-Site Disposal of Sludge and Liquid Zone -RCRA Cap Monitoring ................................... 12-64


13.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 13-1

13.1% Summary of Alternatives for the Bruin Lagoon Site ..... 13-1

14.0 REFERENCES .................................................. 14-1

1v ARQQ08I8

.LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page9-1 Sources of Contaminants ............................. 9-9

9-2 Pathways and Potential Receptors ..'.................. 9-119-3 Summary of Developed Response Actions and

Corresponding Technologies .......................... 9-1510-1 Screened Technologies ............................... 10-5711-1 Summary of Alternatives ............................. 11-2

11-2 Waste Containment Strategy Summary .................. 11-811-3 Waste Fixation Summary .......*........................ 11-9

11-4 Waste Encapsulation Summary ......................... 11-1111-5 Off-Site Disposal Summary ........................... 11-12

11-6 Developed Remedial Action Alternatives .............. 11-13' . . . . . .12-1 Alternative 1 - No Action: Capital Cost Estimate .... 12-12

12-2 Alternative 1 - No Action: Post-Closure Analysis Cost 12-13

12-3 Alternative 1 - No Action: Post-Closure/Operating CostEstimate ............................................ 12-14

12-4 Alternative 2 - Sludge and Liquid Zone StabilizationSoil Cap: Capital Cost .............................. 12-29

12-5 Alternative 2 - Sludge and Liquid Zone Stabilization/Soil Cap: Post-Closure/Operating Costs .............. 12-32

12-6 Soil Characteristics ................................ 12-35

12-7 Suggested Bentonlte Addition for Soil Admixture CapSystems .............................................. 12-37

12-8 Capping Technique Assessment ........................ 12-39

12-9 Typical Materials Testing Parameters ................ 12-49

AR0008I9

table No. . Page12-10 Alternative 3 - Sludge and Liquid Zone Stabilization/

In Situ Bedrock Treatment, RCRA Cap: Capital Cost ... 12-54

12-11 Alternative 3 - Sludge and Liquid Zone StabilizationIn Situ Bedrock Treatment, RCRA Cap, Post Closure:Operating. Cost ...................................... 12-57

12-12 Alternative 4 - Removal, Stabilization, and Off-SiteDisposal of Sludge and Liquid Zone, In Situ BedrockTreatment: Capital Cost ............................. 12-61

12-13 Alternative 4 - Removal, Stabilization, and Off-SiteDisposal of Sludge and Liquid Zone, In S1tu BedrockTreatment, Post Closure: Operating Cost ............. 12-63

12-14 Alternative 5 - Removal, Stabilization, and Off-SiteDisposal of Sludge and Liquid Zone, RCRA Cap: CapitalCosts ............................................... 12-67

12-15 Alternative 5 - Removal, Stabilization, and Off-SiteDisposal of Sludge and Liquid Zone, RCRA Cap, PostClosure: Operating Costs ............................ 12-70

13-1 Alternatives Cost Analysis Summary .................. 13-213-2 Summary Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives .. 13-313-3 Conclusions and Recommendations of Remedial Action

Alternatives 13-11

vi. AR000820

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page

10-1 Typical Multilayer Cap System Profile ............... 10-1610-2 Slurry Wall Application ............................. 10-20

10-3 Upgradient Grout Curtain ............................ 10-22

10-4 Block Displacement Barrier .......................... 10-27

10-5 Final Block Displacement ............................ 10-3011-1 Alternative 1 ....................................... 11-17

11-2 Alternative 2 ....................................... 11-20

11-3 Alternative 3 ....................................... 11-22

11-4. Alternative 4~k...................................... 11-25

11-5 Alternative 5 ....................................... 11-28

ARQ0082!

• 9.0 SITE REMEDIATION CONSIDERATIONS

9.1 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLICHEALTH REQUIREMENTS

EPA policy, as reflected in the recent amendments to the NationalContingency Plan (NCP), provides that the development and evaluation ofremedial actions under CERCLA should Include a comparison of thealternative site responses to applicable or relevant Federal and stateenvironmental and public health requirements. The NCP does not provideacross-the-board standards for determining whether a particularalternative remedy will effect an adequate cleanup at a particular site.Rather, It recognizes that each site will have unique characteristics"•hat must be evaluated and compared to those requirements that apply

kinder the given circumstances.

The purpose of this subsection Is to review various potentialrequirements to determine which may be applicable, relevant, orappropriate to alternative response actions at the Bruin Lagoon Site.

9.1.1 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT REQUIREMENTS

Regulations promulgated under the Federal Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA) generally establish technology-based requirements foractive or proposed hazardous waste treatment, storage, and diposal (TSD)facilities.

Many of the RCRA requirements address operating landfill activities andare therefore not directly applicable to the Bruin Lagoon Site. However,one applicable closure requirement states that the final cover at ahazardous waste landfill must achieve a permeability of less

AR000822

than or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner system or naturalsubsoils present. The Bruin Lagoon Site, which was not established as ahazardous waste landfill, does not have a continuous bottom liner, andfractured sandstone bedrock is generally permeable.

The 1984 RCRA Amendments provide that new or expanding hazardous wastelandfills must have a bottom liner which 1s designed, operated, andconstructed to prevent the migration of any constituent through theliner. The Amendments specify that, generally, a liner with apermeability of no more than 1 x 10 centimeters per second is deemedto meet this requirement. Therefore, a relevant, although not directlyapplicable, guidance for cap design could be a permeability of 1 x 10cm/sec.

The RCRA regulations also establish health-based groundwater protectionstandards for corrective action at permitted hazardous waste facilities.These groundwater monitoring requirements and clean-up levels are notdirectly applicable to the Bruin Lagoon Site because they apply only tosites where disposal of hazardous wastes occurred after November 19, 1980.

The RCRA groundwater protection standards include maximum concentrationsfor certain organic and inorganic constituents which are identical to theMaximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established for these chemicals underthe Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). These levels are applied at thespecified point of compliance (e.g., edge of the landfill) unlessbackground levels for the particular chemical already exceed the maximumlevel. For those hazardous constituents detected in the groundwater forwhich MCLs have not established, the concentration must not exceedbackground levels unless Alternative Concentration Limits (ACL's) are set.

9-2 AR000823

Sampling and analysis of upgradient wells Indicate a variety of inorganicconstituents that exceed their secondary MCLs. These are discussed 1nSection 6, Table 6-27. In view of the existence of a variety ofpotential off-site sources, such as surface and deep mining, industrialand chemical plants in the area, and the former refinery plant on theproperty to the south of the site, the"background level" of contaminantscannot be quantitatively established. Even though there are severalpotential off-site sources, primary drinking water standards off-site arenot exceeded. Additionally, the sampling and analysis of monitoringwells on- and off-site have Indicated that the contamination ofgroundwater from the lagoon Is localized to the Bruin Lagoon Site. Theflow of groundwater under the site is Intercepted by Bear Creek, whichruns along the eastern side of the site. There are no withdrawals of

, a t e r from the South Branch of Bear Creek (for public and private use).The RCRA groundwater protection standards are therefore not directlyapplicable to alternative response actions at the Bruin Lagoon Site.

9.1.2 FEDERAL AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STATE QUALITY STANDARDS

Federal ambient water quality criteria documents have been published for65 pollutants listed as toxic under the Clean Water Act. These criteriaare unenforceable guidelines that may be used by states to set surfacewater quality standards. Although these criteria were Intended torepresent a reasonable estimate of pollutant concentrations consistentwith the maintenance of designated water uses, states may appropriatelymodify these values to reflect local conditions.

9-3 ARQ0082lf

The water quality criteria are generally represented in three basiccategories which can be aligned with different surface water usedesignations. Numerical guidelines are given for both freshwater andsaltwater aquatic life. Concentrations are specified which, if notexceeded, should protect most aquatic life against acute toxidty orchronic toxiclty. (24-hour average). For many chemical compounds,specific criteria have not been established because of insufficientdata. Narrative descriptions of apparent threshold limit values arepresented in the criteria documents in the absence of recommendedcriteria.

The third general category addressed .in the ambient water qualitycriteria Is human health. Recommended maximum ambient waterconcentrations are presented for the ingestion of both water and ,contaminated aquatic organisms as well as for the ingestion ofcontaminated aquatic organisms alone (assumes that the water is not usedas a source of supply). The human health criteria can be adjusted toderive a criteria for drinking water Ingestion. "The EPA's FeasibilityStudy guidance document presents these adjusted criteria. Where thepollutant is a potential or proven carcinogen, the ambient waterconcentration criteria is set at zero and concentrations for severalcancer risk levels (10 ,'10 , 10 ) are estimated based onextrapolated animal studies. The risk estimate range 1s presented forinformation purposes and does not represent the EPA's judgment on an"acceptable" risk level. For pollutants not suspected to be carcinogens,toxic threshold concentrations are estimated which are not.expected toproduce adverse effects in humans. These are calculated using exposureassumptions of 70 Kg for a person ingesting two liters of water and 6.5grams of contaminated aquatic organisms per day.

9-4 AR000825

While not directly applicable, Federal water quality criteria may be usedas guidance In conjunction with evaluating remedial alternatives at theBruin Lagoon Site. The freshwater aquatic life criteria can providegeneral guidance on the suitability of various discharge options. Inparticular the criteria could be used as guidance factors for thosealternative(s) that Include recovery of localized contaminatedgroundwater from under the Bruin Lagoon Site. These alternatives assumethat groundwater control technologies prove feasible and effective.Moreover, the appropriateness of using specific water-quality criteriadepends upon the local stream characteristics and uses. Given the highlypolluted condition of Bear Creek, the application of specificwater -quality criteria may not be entirely appropriate. This isespecially true when considering the Impact to local aquatic fauna.

South Branch of Bear Creek is characterized by the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources as a highly polluted stream and isreportedly devoid of life in the vicinity of the Bruin Lagoon Site(WESTON, May 1982).

Federal water quality criteria are utilized by the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Environmental Resources. Specifically, these are used fordeveloping NPDES permits for discharges into surface waters. Factorswhich are considered in establishing effluent limitations include theflow rate of the effluent, contaminant concentrations in the effluent,and ambient water quality of the receiving stream. Other upstream anddownstream discharges into the receiving stream are also considered.

9-5 AR000826

9.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Remedial actions for the Bruin Lagoon Site will address the specificenvironmental issues existing at the site and the following clean-upgoals and objectives: .

• Contain, reduce, and/or eliminate~0<,site contaminants Identifiedas representing possible sources of exposure to human and otherpotential receptors.

• Reduce or eliminate exposure of site contaminants to potentialreceptors by controlling potential contaminant pathways.

• Ensure technical feasibility, and environmental and costeffectiveness of the remedial actions. .

To meet the stated objectives, general response actions and associated ,remedial technologies have been developed to address the identifiedsources and pathways. The initial RI/FS completed in January 1982identified the Initial sources of contaminants and pathways, anddeveloped remedial action "strategies" (alternatives) from componenttechnologies. The remedial action "strategy" proposed and selected forimplementation was on-s1te containment. The key components of this"strategy" included supernatant removal, in situ physical stabilizationof the sludge, and placement of a multilayered cap on the stabilizedmaterial. Remedial work was Initiated and the following activities werecompleted:

• Removal of the abandoned tanks, equipment, and debris.

• Closure and backfilling of the effluent ponds.

• Removal of the supernatant from the lagoon areas.

9-6 AR000827

• Stabilization of approximately 9,200 cubic yards of sludge.• Partial reconstruction of the eastern dike along the South Branch

of Bear Creek. .

In May of 1984 a sulfur gas release (discussed in Subsection 1.9 of thisreport) halted remedial activities. Additional work performed during theemergency'action included: . • • > . . . . . . .

• Establishment of an air monitoring and surveillance system aroundthe site.

• Sampling and analysis of liquids and solids.• Grading of the site to promote drainage and containment of

upwelling sludge.

i. • Installation of gabion cages and erosion controls on the southeastslope of the dike along the creek.

• Backfilling of the open lagoon area with stabilized sludge.

• Extension of the security fencing to completely enclose the site.

The development of alternatives in this current RI/FS begins with thereview of the contaminant sources and pathways identified in the initialRI/FS and the corresponding response actions. A review of thetechnologies that were discussed under each response action is thenperformed. This review provides a base for identifying incomplete andsupplemental resonse actions and associated technologies that will beused to develop the current alternatives.

9-7 AR000828

This review Is presented In the first three columns of Tables 9-1 and9-2. Column 1 (Table 9-1) lists the sources of contaminants. Column 1(Table 9-2) lists the pathways and potential receptors Identified in theinitial RI/FS. Column 2 presents the remedial action objectivesdiscussed at the beginning of this subsection. Column 3 lists theappropriate response actions to the identified sources and pathways andthe associated technologies that were considered in the Initial RI/FS.The response actions and the associated technologies that were selectedfor implementation at the Bruin Lagoon site are Identified (underlined).

Column 4 of Tables 9-1 and 9-2 Identifies the selected response actionsand associated technologies that were completed or Initiated as part ofthe initial remedial action work and the emergency activities resultingfrom the gas release.

Column 5 (Tables 9-1 and 9-2) lists the response actions that wereselected and implemented during the initial RI/FS, but were notcompleted. Column 5 also presents the site Issues identified in thecurrent RI. Column 6 (Tables 9-1 and 9-2) lists the potential additionalresponse actions for the Bruin 'Lagoon Site based on the preceedingcolumns/Finally, column 7 (Tables 9-1 and 9-2) lists the technologiesassociated with the response actions listed in column 6.

The listed technologies presented in column 7 will be screened in Section10 of this RI/FS report. The technologies that remain after screeningwill be combined to form the remedial action alternatives for the BruinLagoon Site. These alternatives will be evaluated in Section 12.

Table 9-3 provides js a summary of the current response actions andassociated technologies. New technologies that were not considered inthe initial RI/FS report have now been added under the appropriateresponse actions.

9-8 AR000829

t . __E

E

i

g

e

se

IB

si!•Si

,t.g

I

Bi

lilllliililils'.HigHifitUS SS 2 f £*.£ C± «. S. * u £si

>! *ill-1 1 4 1

a, *tf - 4 cif iPi|l i .!! iuitt i. .tr f

< ••2 IT 2>!2«e5 -I :'***rfl ! t

li; C

if* fit11!i*. sill:

£if si!!i:

s- = -B S tf *

r. gE^S 35£5«*ft._

'£%•sH its 1*1§| t«[

«f SSl

•si?i i i i

I I I I

s,I;1I

Hi

I l-l

I I I I

ii

;I

tila* «•ItiE

i«Ji*?|«fflifisiliili

i«llsi

lilt? Us-£-? "*

i i i

i s

9-9

AK000830

*E

* -1*1 Ir

*I

3M

i

J||i

" - Pa

i 15 Si

5

3

511.3

i

• I!

'Jl&ifpif9-1 *• *• j|

illlll•s

IS"1l?i

J2 â1

1 111 1 IHfssalli=»

II

mt

I

AR00083I

i3!

i.- !3

rcs(7)

CHTEI

TO 1C SC

SWIJWS3I WWIIWWwuatu

H)KtliMS

KM lffilE

Swt

II/FS

3)ESS

TE* i m

S Of

AWCONIMI IM.

si

tt

"£ £i i

- « I - r F€ Tt-lit ;4 llJsj**!1l 'S Ill. s o

*-£i±--s

=

it! till!! II

• ill.1 Mill

-»*= 8fi

* =*Jlicilili ! i i^ X j » « ^ ' ' " "

• " " a s* .s B jsin______.9-11

I ti|j

S•£1s

AR000832

I

I

sSIS'is;

iii

{•s,

llUflp!

fi!

Ill5-

HI !.3 a. • S •

i

•• -a JI C >• M :

lil?!*!:a*l?al;-

i i i

if I f1 - - a 42 i

!'] Hfsl il!

J 3

|| ||iin si i ill>

Iiii fi 3S

Sll i !$_, i*l*?*U4* 7*3 1irii^|4!

5s

PJla i

ifiili f

9-12

AR000833

i 1 In iilr l

i!si >s

S£

I I r |

£ I f i

ii? U.ii! i

£

IT!If i IIfl.

• *

*lH'if*-lllxrtb

£

rii

If_.

iiifills-

fif| Jill fl! pi6 ** * ***** r

llfllII

fitI

III:III

! ! flfi rill iiii!' Ill- l!ll"i lsr? rfil

= -

aI

g - • f 5'» i' * ' ' 5 F • . *ill! lit

il * ilI I : »i ft! fli

5fifljj15**S-HUM

9-13

AR000831*

a

si

51K 333IS • v-s f 1.J -f-± * r •* "i ~ x-s

i lla1 3««*i siis1 "ill

IS

55 asa

at

I III2 5|iai Hi

:a iil1 5 3i^ 1!

" ' " ""IIIIF!

a« 1e

•

I flfs |I^ Ilii ll3 j Us* ii liii

fi

i

oi*.

f-s-» i3^J 3 î^*-*-iSJ_-.*4 «

e ss^liillHil!

,i• 1*3 • • f

53

L. .-Ji 11

9-14

AR000835

"aI

10.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF POTENTIAL REMEDIAL ACTIONTECHNOLOGIES

The purpose of this Section 1s to screen the potential remedial actiontechnologies presented in the final columns of Table 9-1 and 9-2, andsummarized on Table 9-3. This 1s done to reject those technologies whichare not feasible or appropriate, based on/fjve_eyaluation criteria. Theremaining technologies will be used In developing remedial actionalternatives. Many of the technologies screened in this section wereconsidered in the Initial RI/FS (technologies were referred to asremedial action strategies in the Initial RI/FS). Information presentedin the January 1982 RI/FS will be drawn from, where applicable, andupdated to reflect current site conditions and state-of-the-arttechniques. '

. ' * •10.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES

The following criteria are used to screen the potential technologies:

• Technical

• Environmental

• Public Health

• Institutional

• Cost •. • • .

10.1.1 TECHNICAL CRITERIA

Site data (physical and chemical) were reviewed with respect to eachtechnology to identify conditions that either promote or limit its use.Conditions that were reviewed include:

10-1AR000836

• Applicability to site conditions (geology, hydrology, availablearea).

• Applicability to waste characteristics (compatibility,ignltability, degree of hazard).

Performance, reliability, and implementability (construction, operationand maintenance) of each potential remedial technology was also assessedunder this criteria.

10.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA

In general, the potential remedial technologies are screened forperceived effectiveness of remediation, since Implementation of thetechnology should alter the contaminants and for their release paths tothe environment. These aspects include the expected environmental .condition at the site in regards to implementation of the technology.

10.1.3 PUBLIC HEALTH CRITERIA

Potential remedial technologies are screened for efficiency in reducingthe real and potential contaminant exposure of the general public.

10.1.4 INSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA

Each of the potential remedial technologies was screened in the contextof constraints Imposed by institutional criteria. Local, state, andFederal regulations may require ancillary equipment. Several permits maybe required to implement a particular technology. Effluent limitationscould set the level of remediation. Some considerations include, but arenot limited to, the following:

AR000837

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

• State and Federal Department of Transportation regulations on thehandling/shipping and manifesting of hazardous waste.

• Local zoning and construction permits.

Each potential remedial technology is screened for compliance with thesestandards and criteria. A single remedial technology that does not fullymeet all the institutional requirements 1s not necessarily eliminatedfrom the list. However, remedial actions that do_not contribute in anyway to meeting the Institutional requirements could be screened out underthis criterion.

10.1.5 COST CRITERIA

Potential remedial technologies that are an order of magnitude or moregreater in cost than other technologies are screened out 1f:

• The increased cost offers no greater reliability.

• The increased cost provides no greater environmental or publichealth benefit.

Cost estimates are provided only under those site applicable technologiesthat provide similar environmental and public health benefits compared torelated technologies and are an order-of-magnitude higher in cost.

AR000838

10.2 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS SCREENING

The technologies to be screened in this RI/FS are associated with theresponse actions to be completed and the potential supplementary responseactions Identified in Tables 9-1, 9-2 (columns 5 and 6), and 9-3.Technologies that were screened out in the initial RI/FS and are notincluded in the current technologies list, because they remainInapproriate and/or infeasible, are:

• Land treatment of groundwater and waste.

• Treatment and utilization of sludge for energy recovery.

The reasons for screening out the above technologies remain current, andtherefore have not been included 1n the technology list for this RI/FS. Adiscussion of these technologies and the reasons for screening them outis presented in Subsection 10.2.1.

Technologies that are included in the current list but were screened'outin the initial RI/FS are:

• On-site/off-site Incineration.

• Active groundwater controls (extraction and injection).

• Groundwater treatment (physical/chemical/biological).

These technologies are included in the current list in order that furtherdiscussion can be provided to address present costs and Informationconcerning site issues from the latest RI. A discussion of thesetechnologies is provided in Subsection 10.2.2.

10-4

AR000839

10.2.1 TECHNOLOGIES THAT REMAIN INAPPROPRIATE

Land Treatment .

Land application of the supernatant and the sludge was ruled out due tothe acidic nature of the waste. The acidity of the waste would bedetrimental to stimulating the growth of microorganisms required forbiodegradatlon. This was evident in the area of dead vegetation north ofthe lagoon. This situation resulted from supernatant overflow from asevere rainstorm in July 1980. In addition, there is Insufficientflatland area at the site to implement this strategy. Therefore, thistechnology remains inappropriate and .Is not discussed further in thisRI/FS.

^—/ treatment and Utilization for Energy Recovery

WESTON was informed in the fall of 1982 by the Pittsburgh office of thePADER that a number of inquiries had been made by firms in the area thatwould be interested in burning the sludge for energy recovery. One suchoperation would entail the construction of a pug mill, where the sludgewould be mixed with coal fines. The resulting product would be apelletized (1/8 in. diameter) material which would then be sold as asupplemental fuel source.

This option was eliminated from consideration primarily because of highprojected costs (est. $16 million in 1982 dollars). Coal fines must bepurchased for use in this process because the sludge and sludge soilmixtures have a variable heat value (low to acceptable) of 3,000 to11,000 Btu/lb. Drawbacks and concerns that remain regarding thistechnology are:

10-5AROOOSliO

• A guaranteed market for the processed material must be found andoff-site transportation arranged (today's fuel market 1s morecompetetlve than 4 years ago).

• Technical concerns remain on how coal fines would be mixed withthe viscous sludge, how would the mixture be fed Into the boiler,and how would the sludge be transported.

• An additional technical concern is the significant potentialcorrosion problems in the boiler from the combustion of acidicsludges.

• Institutional concerns include buring waste from an NPL site in anindustrial boiler and the disposal of the residual ash.

• An additional drawback is that a significant portion of the rawsludge 1s now stabilized with inert 11me. This further detractsfrom the possible use of this material as a supplemental fuelsource. The high water and sulfur content of the sludge alsodetracts from its valve as a fuel source (Bruin Lagoon FS, 1982).

• .10.2.2 PREVIOUSLY SCREENED TECHNOLOGIES TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER

Incineration .

On-site/off-site Incineration appears to remain inappropriate because ofsignificantly high costs and materials-handling difficulties. Theinformation concerning incineration will, however, be updated in thissection and in greater detail in Appendix Q to reflect current quantitiesof sludge and current costs.

10"6 AR0008U

Active Groundwater Controls and Treatment

Active groundwater controls and treatment of recovered groundwater alsoappear to remain inappropriate for the following reasons:

• Groundwater impacts from the site are very localized and off -sitemigration of this contamination has not been measured.

• Drinking water wells are not contaminated from the wastes at BruinLagoon. Any proposed remedial action should reduce the potentialfor this to occur.

• Background groundwater quality In the area is poor.

• Groundwater flowing under the site is eventually discharged toBear Creek.

• There 1s an absence of a continuous impermeable geologic layerunder the site (normally used for anchoring and tie-in) of thepassive controls.

These technologies will be further evaluated, however, in this Section toreflect additional sampling and testing of the shallow and deepgroundwater. The evaluation will compare effectiveness to othertechnologies with regard to the localized contaminated groundwatercondition.

10.3 SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES

The following subsection 1s the first phase of a two-phase processinvolved in the selection of the remedial action alternative that bestsatisfies the remedial action objectives listed in Subsection 9.2, andaddresses the sources and pathways of contaminants at the Bruin LagoonSite. The first part of the process is a list of the availabletechnologies corresponding to a potential response action that deals with

AR0008l*2

the environmental issues and contaminant pathway of the site (provided inTable 9-3). This 11st will then be screened to eliminate infeasible,inappropriate, or environmentally unacceptable technologies. Thescreening of the technologies is presented in this subsection. The secondphase involves an analysis of developed alternatives, based on thetechnologies initially screened in this subsection.

10.3.1 NO ACTION TECHNOLOGIES

10.3.1.1 No Action Technologies

No action technologies are those technologies that are associated withthe No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, no furtherremedial actions will be undertaken. Technologies incuded under the NoAction Alternative for the Bruin Lagoon Site are upgrading site securityand closure of existing monitoring wells. Upgrading site security wouldinclude backfilling soil under gaps in the existing chainlink fence andproviding a locked gate or continuous fence where the fence is cut toaccess downgradient monitoring wells. Improving site security will reducethe likelihood of unauthorized entry and physical contact with acidand/or caustic surface water.

Closure of existing monitoring wells will include grouting the wells andremoving the wellheads. Well closure will also reduce the potential fordirect contact with harmful gases or liquids by unauthorized persons.

These technologies will be retained for alternative development.

10-8

10.3.1.2 No Action Technologies - Monitoring

Groundwater monitoring 1s required under RCRA following closure of alandfill. Groundwater monitoring will be required for alternatives thatleave unstabillzed sludge in place (No Action) or redeposit stabilizedmaterial.

Sampling and testing of the bedrock groundwater in an off-siteresidential well (Hawk well) and an off-site downgradient well on thewest side of Bear Creek indicated that groundwater contamination islocalized to the immediate site area. Monitoring would, however, provideinformation concerning the extent of groundwater contamination.

Groundwater monitoring of up- and downgradient wells will be retained foralternative development.

10.3.2 CONTAINMENT

10.3.2.1 Capping

Capping techniques are designed to reduce percolation of precipitationthrough the waste materials and subsequent potential for leachategeneration. The reduction of Infiltration can be achieved through"capping" with impervious materials or surface-sealing techniques.Regrading of the cover material will be required prior to cap Installmentfor drainage purposes. Many methods exist for capping. These can begenerally grouped into the following classes:

AR0008M*

• Synthetic membranes.

• Low permeability soils.

• Soil/bentonite admixtures.

• Asphalt or concrete.

t Multilayered cover system.

Synthetic Membrane Caps

Several varieties of synthetic membranes may be applicable for use incapping remedial sites to prevent infiltration of precipitation. In someapplications, synthetic membranes may offer substantial cost benefitsover the use of other options such as compacted clays or other lowpermeability soils and mixtures. This 1s particularly true wheresuitable clays or low permeability soils of adequate strength areunavailable or where their transportation costs become prohibitive.

Major factors associated with the successful use of synthetic membranesare selection of the proper membrane material for the desiredapplication, proper seaming and placement to prevent tearing, andprotection against weathering or root penetration. The major benefits ofsynthetic membranes are their availability, extremely-low permeabilities,and their ease of placement on sloping terrains where compacted clays orclayey silts may be subjected to stability problems. The major designconsiderations or limitations of synthetic membranes are essentiallytheir potential for failure due to puncturing, tearing, or weathering.

AR0008l>5

Although some of the waste at Bruin Lagoon has been stabilized, a largeportion of it remains as unstabillzed sludge. Stabilization of theremaining sludge Is necessary to ensure long-term stability of the siteand minimize the potential for upward movement of unstabillzed sludge.Even after stabilization, however, some localized differential settlementmay occur, increasing the potential for failure of a synthetic membrane.

Clays and other low permeability soils of varying clay content are oftenreferred to as "self healing" materials; such is not the case withsynthetic membranes. Clays and clayey soils tend to remold within thesoil layer, whereas overburden places increased stress on a rupturedsynthetic membrane.

The use of a synthetic membrane as the cap will not be considered furtherbecause of the following factors: "

; • Uncertainty with regard to ensuring long-term integrity andfunction. This is particularly important in light of settling,weathering, and penetration.

• Possibility for gas generation over the long-term withaccumulation tinder the membrane.

Low Permeability Soils

The term low permeability soils is used in this Feasibility Study toinclude those fine-grained soils that when compacted, consistentlymaintain an in situ permeability of 10 cm/sec (0,1 ft/yr) or less.Low permeability soils must be of adequate strength to maintain'the capsystem's integrity and performance in terms of stability and permeability.

10-11AR0008i*6

A compacted cap composed of low permeability soils is commonly used as afinal cover system to reduce leachate generation by significantlyreducing Infiltration. A key advantage in the use of compacted lowpermeability soils Is that they are a natural material and may beconsidered more durable 1n the very long term.

Depending on the type of materials available locally, placementtechniques and local climatic conditions, a low permeability rate of10 cm/sec or less may be difficult to attain. To assure the capmaterial has attained the desired permeability, indirect methods ofmeasuring in situ permeability must be performed to assure that thedesired compacted soil permeabilities are achieved. Prior toconstruction, a relationship between density, moisture, content, andlaboratory permeability is established. This provides a guideline forthe optimum range of density and moisture content which must be \_/maintained during construction to achieve the desired permeability.During construction of the cap, representative samples must be analyzedusing laboratory testing procedures.

After site preparation and placement of fill materials to achieve propergrades, the compacted low permeability soil cover could be placed. Thecap could then be covered by a clean soil layer followed by top soil andvegetation. Since a natural material of adequate strength would be used,a long lifetime can be expected. In addition, no joint seaming isrequired. Clay and low permeability soils of adequate clay content are"self healing" to some extent and can be "repaired" via placement ofadditional clay, if differential settling occurs, which may be a concernat this site.

This technology will be retained for further evaluation.

10-12

AR0008U7

Soil/Bentonite Admixtures

A low permeability soil/bentonlte admixture can be placed as the caplayer In the multilayer cap system, or as a single layer cap system. Asa proven capping technique in waste management, which is gainingacceptance in field construction applications, soil/bentonite admixturesIncorporate a combination of naturally occurring and processed bentonitefor use in cap system applications. Soil/bentonite admixtures canreplace a natural low permeability soil (e.g., clay) layer whenappropriate soil deposits are not available or cannot be used in-acost-effective manner. This may be the case at the Bruin Lagoon Site.

The process typically Incorporates a geotechnical assessment of theavailable soils for use 1n the admixture and a determination of thenecessary bentonite application rate to achieve the desired capeffectiveness. The bentonite is placed and "admixed" with the soils, andthe mixture is uniformly spread and compacted. The bentonite, oncehydrated to the optimum moisture content, swells to fill the void spaceswithin the soil layer, and an effective seal 1s achieved to control siteInfiltration.

Chemical constituents in bentonite approach those of naturally-occurringclay, but its unique molecular structure accounts for its ability toabsorb many times Us own weight in water. Bentonites swellsignificantly in the process, with increases at full saturation rangingup to 15 times their original dry bulk (American Colloid literature).

10-13AR0008i*8

Since clay may not be readily available locally, there are severalprocessed bentonites that have been marketed with certain additives toreduce the potential for chemical attack for soil/bentonite applicationswith contaminated wastes. It 1s also assumed that a soil/bentoniteimpermeable layer would rest on a. graded clean soil fill cover resultingin little direct contact of the soil/bentonite layers with contaminatedresidues. The surface cap will significantly reduce Infiltration andtherefore minimize the primary pathway of contaminant migration togroundwater.

In general, the fine-grained soils have better applicability withbentonite admixtures since their pore size openings are smaller and theirinherent permeability rates are less than coarse-grained soils. Clay .soils, however, are an exception. The cohesive nature of clays, ingeneral, makes admixing operations difficult. Ideal soils tend to beinorganic soils and poorly-graded sand/silt mixtures. These type soilsare abundant 1n the surrounding areas of the subject site. Thistechnology may be more cost-effective than a natural low permeabilitysoil cap or layer in a multilayer cap, since abundant deposits(especially those composed of predominantly clay particles) may not bereadily available in close proximity to the Bruin Lagoon Site. Soiladmixtures, however, require special installation procedures since amixing of materials must be performed prior to placing lifts on thelagoon area. Further evaluation 1s needed.

This soil admixture technology will be retained for further consideration.

10-14

AR0008l*9

Constructed Cap (Asphalt or Concrete)

An asphalt or concrete cap can be an effective-means to control surfaceinfiltration and soil erosion. However, difficulties in placement andmaintenance can reduce their efficiency. Long-term effects ofdifferential settlement, sun aging, creep and sub-grade movements, andpossible freeze/thaw damage could combine to reduce the effectiveness ofthe cap and damage the integrity of the asphalt. Long term effects ofdifferential settlement could result in damage to a concrete cap. Bothfreeze/thaw action and settlement are concerns at Bruin Lagoon Site.

For these reasons an asphalt or concrete cover are not applicable forthis site and will therefore not be retained.

Multilayer Cap

The multilayer cap system represents a recently developed covertechnology that 1s gaining widespread use in the field as an infiltrationcontrol strategy for waste containment or 1n-place closure. Themultilayer cap system performs the basic functions of minimizinginfiltration Into the waste site; directing and transmitting percolationand gas migration away from the site; and providing a final cover for thesite and growth medium for vegetation. Atypical multilayer cap system,as shown in Figure 10-1, consists of the following three layers:

(a) Upperso11 layer. A top soil and native soil layer, typicallyplaced to a depth of 12 to 24 inches. This layer serves tosupport vegetation, provide a cover for the drain layer, anddivert surface runoff.

'

(b) Middle drain layer. A graded layer of porous flow zone material(e.g., sand, geogrid) to act as a drainage medium. This layerIs typically placed to a depth of about 18 inches.

10-15AR000850

PrecipitationDiagrammatic water budget

Vegetativecover

Percolationthrough soil

Percolation throughcap(£l%)

Percolation throughwaste material

Percolationthroughexisting soils

*'::$&&&&&:•

ExlsUInggrade

- Slope angle

FIGURE 10-1 TYPICAL MULTILAYER CAP SYSTEM PROFILE

10-16

AR00085I

(c) Cap layer. A compacted layer of fine-grained soils of lowpermeability designed to divert Infiltration that has percolatedthrough the upper soil layer. This cap layer is typicallyplaced to depths of 18 to 24 inches and Is the bottom layer of amultilayer cover system.

The successful multilayer cap system Incorporates the use of lowpermeability materials to provide a surface seal over the contaminatedarea. A zone of high permeability materials, such as graded gravel,aggregate, and drainage geotextlles, is typically placed over a cap layerto enhance lateral movement of water that percolates through the uppersoil layer. The upper soil layer provides the following:

(a) A soil cover to promote runoff. ..•-••

(b) A protective cover for the drain layer.. ' . ' •(c) A medium for growth of vegetative cover.

The vegetation not only stabilizes the cover system from possible damagedue to water or wind erosion, but also contributes to moisture lossthrough evapotransplration.

Several major advantages of the multilayer cover system as compared to astandard native soil cover Include the following:

(a) A protective soil layer is placed over the cap layer; the cap isnot directly exposed to potential damage due to weathering,cracking, or excessive root penetration. .

(b) A drain layer serves to divert additional percolating water soit does not eventually migrate Into the underlying wastematerial.

(c) Possible slumping of the topsoil and upper soil layers isminimized, particulary in slope areas.

10-17AR000852

Calculations using hydrologic simulation modelling show that themultilayer cover system can divert greater than 95 percent of theprecipitation falling on the site. The reduction of infiltration willreduce contaminant migration to groundwater and consequently, potentialpublic health and environmental impacts. Since the cover 1s constructedof natural materials, it is expected to remain effective in the long term.

This technology will be retained for further consideration.

10.3.2.2 Groundwater Containment - Barrier Walls

Groundwater diversion technologies are subsurface control measuresessentially designed to divert the flow of groundwater or contain acontaminant plume. The primary objective of these measures is not toeffect significant changes in the water table elevations, such as raisingor lowering the water table, but to redirect or divert the flow ofgroundwater around a waste site or contain leachate/contamlnatedgroundwater under a landfill. The successful use of these measures is,of course, dependent on the specific hydrologic and soil conditions ofthe site.

The available methods used in passive groundwater diversion technologiesinclude:

• Slurry/cutoff walls.

Soil/bentonite mixture.Cement/bentonite mixture.

• Grouting techniques.

t Sheet piling.

10~18 AR000853

Slurry Malls/Cutoff Walls

Slurry walls are fixed underground physical barriers formed by pumpingslurry, usually a soil or cement, bentonite, and water mixture, into atrench as excavation proceeds, and either allowing the slurry to set (forcement-bentonlte slurry) or back filling with a suitable engineeredmaterial (for soil-bentonite slurry). The slurry itself 1s usedprimarily to maintain the trench during excavation. Besides acting asshoring, the weight of the slurry forces bentonite to penetrate the voidsin the soil matrix or the inner trench walls and bottoms. The effect ofthis 1s to cause the sides and the bottoms of the trench to be lined witha layer of bentonite ("filter cake"), thereby reducing the permeability(U.S. EPA, 1983). In order to have an effective groundwater diversion orisolation of waste or leachate plume, a slurry wall must be connectedl keyed) to a low permeability stratum (aquiclude) or to a competentgeological member (bedrock) (Figure 10-2). This underlying lowpermeability stratum provides a "bottom seal" for the slurry wallenclosure. Without a bottom seal, the effectiveness of the slurry wallis ineffective.

The use of a slurry wall to divert groundwater away from the Bruin Lagoonsite would require the Installation of a slurry wall along the westernperimeter of the site. A slurry wall utilized to contain the localizedcontaminated groundwater, under the lagoon area, would require theinstallation of a fully encapsulating slurry wall around the lagoon areaat the site limit. The upper soil contains no Impermeable layer intowhich a slurry wall could be keyed. Therefore, a slurry wall would haveto be keyed Into the local bedrock which has been characterized as amoderately fractured sandstone. Groundwater being diverted by a Slurry

10~19 AR000851*

o2PUSt2!

CM

UlDC

oul

10-20

AR000855

wall keyed into fractured sandstone could travel under the slurry wallthrough fractures and enter the lagoon area. The highly acidic nature ofthe leachate and liquids in the bottom of the lagoon could presentcompatibility problems for a bentonite slurry wall.

The effectiveness of a slurry wall, both upgradient and encapsulating thesite, is questionable due to the fractured characteristic of thesandstone bedrock. In addition, there are area constraints along thenorthern side of the site further restricting the application of a fullyencapsulating slurry wall. Blasting of the bedrock would also berequired which may disturb local residents.

Because of these and the aforementioned concerns, slurry walls will notbe considered further.

Grout Curtain Techniques

Grout curtains are fixed underground physical barriers formed byinjecting grout, either particulate (such.as Portland cement) or chemical(such as sodium silicate) into the ground through well points (Figure10-3). Grout curtains can be used to:

• Contain contaminated groundwater.

• Divert a contaminated groundwater plume.

• Divert groundwater flow around a contaminated area.

Construction of a grout barrier is accomplished by pressure injecting thegrouting material through a pipe into the strata to be waterproofed. Theinjection points are usually arranged in a triple line of primary andsecondary grout holes. A predetermined quantity of grout is pumped into

10-21 AR000856

Typical Three-Row Grid Pattern for Grout CurtainSource: Sommerar and Kitchens, 1980

4O \) O IJ O |j O [1 O

0 v ° i/ V '

1.3 r

Grout Curtain

Clay LayerAquiclude

FIGURE 10-3 UPGRADIENT GROUT CURTAIN

10-22AR000857

the primary holes. After the grout in the primary holes has had time togel, the secondary holes are injected/ The secondary grout holes areintended to fill in any gaps left by the primary grout Injection (HaywardBaker, 1980). The primary holes are typically spaced at 20- to-40 footintervals (Guertin and McTigue, 1982).

There are several basic techniques that are utilized to form the groutwall. These Include (Hayward Baker, 1980; Guertin and McTigue, 1982):

• Stage-up method.

• Stage-down method.

• Grout port method.

• Vibrating beam method.- " ' • . • .In the stage-up method, the borehole is drilled to the full depth of thewall prior to grout injection. The drill is withdrawn one "stage,"leaving several feet of borehole exposed. Grout is then injected intothis length of open borehole until the desired volume has been injected.When injection is complete, the drill is withdrawn further and the nextstage is injected (Hayward Baker, 1980).

Stage-down grouting differs from stage-up grouting in that the injectionsare made from the top down. Thus, the borehole is drilled' through thefirst zone that is to be grouted, the drill is withdrawn, and the groutinjected. Upon completion of the Injection, the borehole is redrilledthrough the grouted layer into the next zone to be grouted, and theprocess is repeated (Guertin and McTigue, 1982).

10-23 flR000858

The grout port method utilizes a slotted injection pipe that has beensealed into the borehole with a brittle Portland cement and clay mortarjacket. Rubber sleeves cover the outside-of each slit (or port)permitting grout to flow only out of the pipe. The Injection processbegins by Isolating the grout port in the zone to be injected using adouble packer.. A brief pulse of high pressure water is injected into theport to rupture the mortar jacket. Grout is pumped between the doublepackers, passes through the ports In the pipe, under the rubber sleeve,and out through the cracked mortar jacket into the soil (Guertin andMcTigue, 1982).

The vibrating beam method is not an Injection technique as describedabove, but instead Is a way of placing grout so as to generate a wall. .This technique would not be applicable to the Bruin site because of theshallow bedrock.

The hydrologic and soil conditions that limited the application of slurrywalls to the site also limit the use of grout curtains. In addition* theapplication of a grout curtain to divert the upgradient groundwater, andcontain any leachate generated by the lagoon, is limited by the following:

t It is extremely difficult to ensure continuity, integrity, and toverify performance of grout media after injection into theground. This 1s particularly true because of the fracturedbedrock conditions at the site.

• Injection grout curtain construction is usually three times ascostly as conventional slurry wall Isolation techniques (U.S. EPA,1982).

t The highly acidic liquids may pose compatibility concerns withrespect to the grout.

This technology will therefore not be retained.

10-24

AR000859

Bottom Sealing

Bottom sealing refers to techniques used to place-a horizontal barrierbeneath an existing site to act as a floor and prevent downward migrationof contaminants. Most of these techniques Involve variations of groutingor other construction support techniques, and no documented applicationto.a hazardous waste site was found in the literature.

Installation of a bottom seal by grouting involves drilling through thesite, or directional drilling from the site perimeter, and injectinggrout to form a horizontal or curved barrier. One such technique, jetgrouting, Involves drilling a pattern .of holes across the site to theintended barrier depth. A jet nozzle is lowered and a high pressurestream of air and water erodes the soil. By turning the nozzle through acomplete rotation, a flat, circular cavity is formed. The cavity Is thengrouted. Intersecting grouted masses form the barrier. The directionaldrilling method is very similar to curtain grouting except that it 1sperformed In slanted rather than vertical boreholes.

Because these techniques are essentially developmental, no detailedanalysis of application, limitations, design, or constructionconsiderations is practical. ,..„...

10-25AR000860

Block Displacement Method

Block displacement represents a new technique being developed for the in .situ closure of waste disposal sites. This approach utilizes groutingtechnologies to Install a liner around the sides and bottom of thedisposal area. This technology cannot be considered proven from ahistorical application standpoint, and is reportedly undergoing fielddevelopment by means of an EPA demonstration program.

The block displacement method is a patented technique using groutingtechnology. A grout barrier is formed along the sides and bottom of thedisposal area using the methods described previously under grout curtainsand bottom sealing. Through the use of multiple injection points, acontinuous layer of grout can be constructed. Figure 10-4 shows a blockdisplacement barrier in place totally encapsulating the sides and bottomof a particular site (Brunsing and Grube).

This technique Is particularly applicable to the subject site conditionswhere an impermeable confining layer is not sufficiently continuous for aperimeter barrier. An example would be a slurry wall used to providesite containment. In fact, the block displacement method couldpotentially be used to construct a man-made barrier under a site whereone does not currently exist. This is the case at Bruin Lagoon.

10-26AR00086I

ccUJEcc

Ul

Ul

o.«5

2Ulec(9C

10-27

AR000862

The perimeter grouted section is first constructed using one of severaltechniques such as a slurry wall, or grouting methods. This perimetersection of a slurry wall can then be surcharged to ensure a positivehorizontal stress in the formation. The surcharge 1s applied at thesurface of the slurry wall, compacting the slurry and improving wallintegrity. This 1s shown on Figure 10-5 (Brunsing and Grube).

Construction of the bottom barrier then can be initiated and willprogress in the following four phases:

(a) Construction of injection borings through the waste site andformation of injection holes under the site using a slurry jetnotching tool.

(b) Injection of grout into the notched holes formed by the slurryjet.

(c) Further addition of slurry at each injection point to create asingle, larger bottom separation so that the injection holescoalesce into a large separation under the site.

(d) Continuous pumping of slurry to produce a complete layer of*grout under the site by controlling further displacement of theearth mass using low pressure slurry injection into thehorizontal separation.

Each of these four phases is conducted with controlled monitoring of theslurry pressure, the flow rate of the slurry, the slurry composition andviscosity, and the total volume of slurry injected. Through thiscontrolled block displacement, the thickness of the grout layer under thesite can vary from a few centimeters to more than a meter. The thicknesscan be increased by additional pumping of slurry down the injectionpoints. The continuity of the bottom layer of slurry can reportably beverified and checked by monitoring pressure communication betweeninjection points, and by topographic survey of the surface of the siteduring the displacement operation.

10-28AR000863

Figure 10-5 Illustrates the final block displacement configuration,showing the bottom and perimeter slurry walls. In essence, theterminology "block" refers to the entire waste disposal site, which isfloated on a bed of grout. .

While the block displacement technique has shown some promise as a resultof EPA's sponsored field demonstration, additional work will be needed toverify the applicability and cost associated with this technology.Additional field demonstration and verification work is needed prior toclassifying this approach as a proven technology.

The absence of competent (not fractured) shallow bedrock and constructionconstraints with regard to installing a slurry wall or grout curtainalong the existing dike eliminates this technology as a feasible method.

Sheet Piling

In addition to the groundwater diversion techniques discussed in theprevious subsections relating to grouting and slurry trenching, sheetpiling technology may be considered a .method for groundwater diversion.Sheet piling construction Involves physically driving rigid sheets intothe ground to form a barrier to groundwater movement. Typically thesesheets are composed of steel or concrete that can be Interlocked orsealed to form a continuous Impermeable barrier. Steel sheet piling ismore commonly used than concrete for groundwater cutoff due to agenerally lower cost and capability for interlocking between pilings.

This technology is not applicable at Bruin Lagoon due to the shallowfractured nature of the bedrock. It is also difficult or impossible todrive/anchor sheet piling into bedrock and to establish an effective sealwith sheet piling and bedrock.

' ' ' "Therefore, this technology will not be considered further.

10-29AR00086I*

GroutWastesite Ground

surface

Perimetersurcharge(when required)

Bedrock

Source: Brunslng and Grube

Perimeter Section and Bottom Barrier Construction

boringsNon-liftingsection ofblock

Groundwater_. __. _ Perimeter

section

• Bottom grout barrier

Source; Brunsing and Grube

FIGURE 10-5 FINAL BLOCK DISPLACEMENT

10-30

AR000865

10.3.2.3 Gas Barriers

Barriers against the lateral migration of gases and vapors are employedin a number of ways at waste disposal sites,usually in conjunction withother remedial measures. An effective barrier against lateral gas flowmust consist of a material with low gas permeability. Materials used toprevent gas migration Include compacted clay, concrete slurry walls,gunnite, and synthetic liners.

Since an effective barrier 1s needed to prevent gas migration, Bruin -Lagoon, with its fractured bedrock, would not be well suited to thistechnology. Additionally, the major path for gas migration at the site1s vertical, not horizontal. The field measurements indicated that thetrapped gases are generally localized and did not show Indication ofsignificant horizontal movement. Vertical gas migration by surfacecapping can be controlled by surface capping techniques.

For the above reasons, gas barriers will not be considered further.

10.3.3 GROUNDWATER PUMPING .

Groundwater pumping is a remedial technology, usually used in combinationwith capping, containment barriers, and treatment technologies to lower awater table and contain a contaminant plume. This technology, whencoupled with treatment technologies, can be used for groundwaterreinjection or surface water discharge.

10-31AR000866

Initially, groundwater pumping systems are developed and evaluated fortheir ability to remove contaminated groundwater. Typically, well pointsand pumps are placed in sand, till, bedrock, wastes, and combinationsthereof. Conventional cased wells would be used. Specific, well designshould optimize the location and spacing of the individual wells tomaximize total production for treatment.

At the Bruin Lagoon Site, upgradient pumping of the bedrock groundwaterto reduce the upward component that results in contact of groundwaterwith the perched liquid zone and sludge would not be as effective astreating (stabilizing) the sludge and perched liquid to reduce migrationof contaminants to the groundwater. Stabilization of sludge and theliquid zone, along with capping, offers a long-term, low-maintanancealternative to groundwater pumping for reducing the migration ofcontaminants Into the groundwater. Groundwater pumping could beindefinite since both sources (sludge) and major migration pathways(infiltration to perched liquid zone) would remain. Because of thegenerally poor groundwater quality in the region, the discharge from-thepumping wells would likely require an NPDES permit for discharge. Inaddition, upgradient pumping may possibly draw contaminants towardupgradient drinking wells, resulting in a potential public health threat.

Downgradient pumping of groundwater is not applicable for the followingreasons:

• No exceedance of primary drinking water standards off-site.

• Bear Creek acts as a hydrologic barrier that intercepts flow ofgroundwater under Bruin Lagoon.

• No downgradient users. No downstream public or private users ofBear Creek.

• Adjacent residential wells are upgradient.

10-32AR000867

Pumping of the perched liquid zone Is not feasible because 1t is composedof oil, jells, highly viscous solids, and water. In addition, the highlyacidic nature of the liquids would be very corrosive to the pump andcreate reliability and maintenance concerns. Recovery of the water bypumping does not appear feasible since it 1s found perched in isolatedareas of the lagoon with other liquid materials. Other technologies, suchas stabilization and capping, offer more effectiveness in addressing theperched zone.

Groundwater and perched liquid pumping will not be retained foralternative development.

10.3.4 COLLECTION SYSTEMS

.4.1 Sedimentation Basins and Geotextile Silt Fencing

Sedimentation basins may be used to collect and control suspended solidsentrained in storm water runoff at the Bruin Lagoon Site. Uncontrollederosion can adversely affect on-site and off-site surface waters.Sediment buildup in the surface water system 1s considered to be anadverse environmental impact. :

A sedimentation basin is constructed by 1) placing an earthen dam acrossa drainage channel, 2) excavating, or 3) a combination of both. Thepurpose of installing a sedimentation basin is to Impede storm waterrunoff and allow sufficient time for partlculate matter to settle. The .sedimentation basin would be cleaned when one-third of the design storagecapacity remains. Discharge from the sedimentation basin would be to anatural waterway. ,

10-33AR000868

Due to the topography of the site, some form of runoff control isnecessary as part of any final closure plan. Sedimentation basins wouldserve this purpose and would be considered as part of the site erosionsediment plan. Sedimentation basins will be retained.

Geotextile silt fencing may also be utilized as a temporary controlmeasure for controlling off-site soils migration. A series of siltfences located across drainage ditches of the site perimeter may beadequate, depending on runoff and sediment quantities for the site.

%

10.3.4.2 Gas Vents

Gas venting is necessary when a site contains biodegradable and/orvolatile wastes or when the pressure of a potentially hazardous gas hasbeen detected below the surface. • If a large quantity of gas is found, 1tthen becomes necessary to vent off gases, especially for any cappingsystem. Otherwise, the Impermeable layers may rupture due to animbalance of gas pressure between the subsurface and the atmosphere..

A gas venting system was installed at the Bruin Lagoon Site as part ofthe emergency response. This measure was initiated after elevated levelsof hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide were encountered during excavationactivities in the lagoon. This system can be utilized as part of asafety program for additional remedial action. Gas wells are located inareas where high levels of gas were found. These locations alsocorrespond to areas where unstabillzed sludge is located. Therefore, thegas wells can serve only as a temporary monitoring/venting, systemassociated with any excavation activities through the crust. Afterexcavation activities, a granular soil layer could be placed on theexisting grade prior to cap installment. This layer would then act aspart of a passive gas venting system.

10-34AROOQ869

Any gases could be vented to the atmosphere by a passive gas collectionsystem. Passive systems allow the gases to move through gravel channels.This occurs via naturally occurring pressure gradients toward vent pipesthat extend vertically through the cover material and then to theatmosphere. If the unstabillzed sludge material 1s excavated/stabilizedand the crust layer destroyed, gas accumulation and generation 1sexpected to be minimal. However, small quantities of gas could beproduced (i.e., from biological activity), and any site closure designplan should address this possibility. Gas channels are typically used inconjunction with either clay or synthetic covers, which act as aconfining or semi-confining layer to prevent undesirable and randomescape of gases.

Gas venting will be retained for alternative development.' ' ; . .. • -. • ; - • - . -, :

10.3.4.3 Gas Collection

Gas collection 1s needed at a site when the vented gas is a hazard tothose working at the site or to the surrounding community. At BruinLagoon, the gas is noxious and, therefore, a collection system was usedduring the previous emergency removal work and the gas was collectedthrough the venting system. This consisted of placing a valve at theoutlet of the system. The gas was then released periodically through atreatment system before being released to the atmosphere.

10~35 AR000870

The emergency removal work on-site and the recent field investigationactivities did not find indication of extensive trapped gases in thebottom of the lagoon. There appears to be one localized area wheretrapped gases could be encountered and any excavation/remedial contractoroperating on-site should be equipped to handle trapped gases. If theremedial program addresses stabilization/removal of the remaining rawsludge and acidic liquids, and breaking up of the crust, the potentialfor gas generation/accumulation should be significantly reduced oreliminated.

10.3.4.4 Interception Trenches

Interception drains are gravity systems that passively collectgroundwater. Trench systems can be applied either upgradient ordowngradient from a contaminated site. Upgradient trenches collect freshgroundwater, diverting its flow away from the site. They are used most •effectively in conjunction with flow barrier walls to assure thatgroundwater is successfully diverted. Downgradient interception drainscapture contaminated groundwater flowing out from the site. These can bekeyed into gravity treatment or disposal systems for the contaminatedgroundwater.

An upgradient Interception trench was proposed during the initialremedial action activities. Excavation was initiated, and it was foundthat most of the excavation would require blasting of bedrock. There wasa concern that blasting may disturb local residents. Sludge was alsoencountered during excavation along the western side of the site.Groundwater entering the trench would therefore become contaminated,requiring pumping and treating of the groundwater before discharge. Thisresulted in significant institutional concerns regarding NPDES permittingand long-term care.

10-36

AR00087I

..».*

:V

Current hydrologic data indicate that the perched liquid zone in thebottom of the lagoon 1s recharged by Infiltration. This zone presentsthe greatest potential migration pathway of contaminants to groundwater.Removing and treating this liquid,followed by Infiltration controls,would be more effective in reducing localized groundwater contaminationthan an upgradient Interception trench.

This technology will therefore not be retained.

10.3.5 DIVERSION

10.3.5.1 Grading and Vegetation •

Grading is used to.provide a uniform land surface that enhances surfacewater drainage from waste areas. This technology is a commonconstruction practice used to prepare areas for construction of aprotective cap and/or revegetation activities. Revegetation consists ofplacing topsoil, seeding, and mulching to establish the growth ofvegetated cover. Revegetation stabilizes the soil cover and preventssurface water runoff and wind erosion.

Surface regrading and revegetation will promote runoff, enhanceevapotranspiration, and reduce potential soil erosion on-site. When usedin conjunction with diversion ditches or swales, site grading caneffectively Isolate the contaminated area from surface runon andexcessive infiltration by channeling and diverting the flow offsite.

This technology 1s used in conjunction with the capping technology andwill be retained for further screening.

10~37 AR000872

10.3.5.2 Surface Water Diversion

Surface water diversion 1s used to control storm water runon to andrunoff from the site. Both occur during and after precipitation events,and control technologies to combat these phenomena are normally providedwith the remedial action developed for the site.

Control of surface water will reduce the amount of storm water fromentering the site during and after a remedial action alternative.Surface water control directly reduces the quantity of infiltration atthe site, protects vegetation against erosion, and reduces the transportof sediments in storm flows.

Surface water diversions were placed on-site during the initial remedialactions. The existing ditches will have to be cleaned and protected fromscouring. Runoff from the site would be directed to protected ditches onside slopes.

Since surface water diversion is existing at the site, and has been shownto be effective, it will be retained for further screening.

10.3.5.3 Dikes

Dikes are well compacted earthen ridges or ledges constructed in order toprovide short-term protection of critical areas by intercepting stormrunoff and diverting the flow to natural or man-made drainage paths orsedimentation basins. They also provide temporary isolation of uncappedor unvegetated areas from surface water runoff and erosion.

10-38

AR000873

Small dikes are in place on the north-west corner of the lagoon tocontain surface water and direct it toward the south end of the site.These dikes should be reestablished for any new cover/cap system.Improvements to the existing dike along the northern and eastern bordersof the site would include regrading of the slopes, improving erosion/scouring control at the toe, placing rip rap on the slopes along BearCreek, and vegetating the remaining slopes. Dike improvements willreduce likelihood of embankment failure under rapid drawdown conditions.Failure of the dike could destroy other control measures in place andresult in impacts to aquatic biota and threaten the water supplies of theAllegheny River.

This technology will be retained for further screening..

10.3.6 ON-SITE/OFF-SITE TREATMENT

10.3.6.1 Media

The five major media to be considered for on-site/off-s1te treatment arethe following:

• Sludge. ' '

• Contaminated soil.

• Perched liquid zone.

t Deep groundwater. -• Gas. . "

. This section will discuss the feasibility and/or need for treating of theabove media. Following this discussion, applicable treatment methods forthe remaining media, not screened out in this subsection, will bediscussed.

10-39AR00087U

Sludge

On-site treatment of sludge, in the form of stabilization utilizing lime,was performed during the Initial remedial action. Pilot and bench scalestudies on the stabilized material indicated adequate strength to bear acap. Lime stabilization demobilized inorganic contaminants in the sludge,neutralized the acidic materials and thus controlled the potential forleaching and contaminant migration to Bear Creek. In addition, there areother possible treatment technologies such as incineration, cementsolidification, and others that could be considered. Because the sludgeis the main contaminant source, treatment of the sludge will beconsidered further.

Contaminated Soils

Soils contaminated from contact with sludge (dike soils and soils mixedwith sludge during burial), from the former scrap tankage area, and fromareas contaminated by the 1980 flood overflow have been consolidated-andare contained within the lagoon area with stabilized and unstabillzedsludge. Analysis of soil samples from the lagoon area (see Tables 6-11and 6-12) indicate that much of the soils are not highly contaminated andare not a significant source of localized groundwater contamination. Inaddition, the contaminants found in the soils are not as easily mobilizedas occurs in the acidic unstabilized sludge. The primary pathway forsoil contaminants is through precipitation infiltration, which leachesthrough the soil to the perched liquid zone and/or bedrock groundwater.Capping provides a more cost-effective remedy by significantly reducinginfiltration.

10-40

AR000875

The more contaminated soils that are in contact with unstabillzed sludgewill be stabilized/neutralized as part of the sludge stabilizationoperation. Therefore, treatment of the more contaminated soils will beincluded with the sludge treatment technologies.

Perched Liquid Zone

The perched liquid 1s highly acidic and composed of oily liquids,groundwater and viscous solids. Pumping of this liquid is not feasibledue to the viscous nature. The treatment would be similar to any chosenfor the acidic sludge, possibly using stabilized agents to solidifyentrained liquids. Based on the above information, treatment of theperched liquid zone will be screened further.

Deep Groundwater

The deep groundwater at Bruin Lagoon is not highly contaminated beyondthe area immediately adjacent to the lagoon,.nor has migration been shownto be occurring downgradient of Bruin Lagoon beyond Bear Creek.Therefore, any pumping/treatment system does not appear to be necessaryat this time. This technology will not be screened further.

Gas

During the previous remedial action, significant release of carbondioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfuric acid mist .occurred. In the subsequent emergency action, the gas was collected andvented through a treatment system consisting of granular activated carboncanisters with eventual release to the atmosphere. A similar system can

10-41AR000876

be utilized, if necessary, during any additional site activities.However, the area of remaining trapped gases appears to be localized. Nofurther treatment methods will be screened for gas release in thetreatment method section due to the proven capabilities of this method.Treatment of gas will be retained for screening of remedial alternatives.

10.3.7 TREATMENT METHODS

Based on the screening of the media in the previous section, there isonly a need to discuss the potential treatment methods for the acidicsludge and the perched liquid zone. These methods assume that theperched liquid zone has had bulking agents added and been excavated alongwith the sludge.

10.3.7.1 Quicklime/Soil Bulking Agent Stabilization

Stabilization methods can be placed in two main groups based upon themethod of holding the wastes in the solid state. One group consists'ofmethods that physically surround the waste particles with the solidifyingagent. The other group is composed of methods that chemically fix thewastes in a reaction with the stabilizer.

Many processes rely on the reactions of such materials as Portlandcement, lime, and common silicates for the encapsulation, solidification,and/or cementation of a waste material. These processes entail themixing of such materials with the waste. Some of the processes relymainly on the ability of the chemical system to insulate each particle ofpollutant from adjacent leaching fluid. Others rely on the formation ofa relatively Impermeable mass to exclude leaching fluids from passingthrough the waste.

1<M2 AR000877

Some chemical admix techniques depend on a reaction between the additivesand the water contained in the waste to produce a cementing or pozzolanicreaction. Stabilization processes must usually be adapted to aparticular waste, generally by trial batches, because of the many complexchemical reactions that cannot be predicted.

Field construction work during the Initial remedial action at BruinLagoon showed that an optimum stabilization ratio by weight ofsludge/soil bulking agent/quicklime was 1:1:0.15. Inorganic contaminantsare leached from the sludge under the low pH conditions present in thesludge and perched liquid zone. Inorganic contaminants present in thesludge are demobilized with the addition of lime. The pilot studies andfield work also indicated that this mixture had an adequate strength tobear a cap and, therefore, could be filled back into the lagoon area.

'• • ' •Based upon the previous pilot studies and application during the previousremedial action, this treatment by the above mentioned mixture will beretained for alternative development.

10.3.7.2 Incineration

Waste incineration represents an applicable technology for use in aremedial action program in many situations where the waste stream ispredominantly organic 1n nature. Incineration processes differ widelyfor sludges, liquids, gases, and solids, and systems are usually selectedbased on their efficiency at burning the particular waste type.Incineration system designs are generally complex and are heavilyinstrumented for control and monitoring. Incinerators are designed todestroy the hazardous constituents of the waste as well as reduce thenecessary disposal volume, but environmental control concerns oftenextend to gaseous products, such as sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid, andto hazardous residuals, such as heavy metals.

AR000878

Incinerators may be categorized by the nature of the wastes to bedestroyed, either solid, liquid, sludge, or gas, and Incineration systemscan be adapted to burn more than one waste type at a time. In terms ofincinerating hazardous waste sludges, generally three systems areapplicable:

• Rotary kiln.

• Multiple hearth.

• Fluidlzed bed.

A rotary kiln is comprised of a cylindrical, refractory lined steelshell, supported at two or more points. The kiln is sloped gently(usually less than 3 percent) and rotated slowly (usually less than 2rpm) using an externally mounted gear. The internal surface of the kilnmay be smooth or contain various types of internal plates or ridges.Longitudinal ridges tend to lift and spill the material, circumferentialridges act as dams to hold back the material, and a series of bafflesimproves the contact of the material with the air. The rotary kiln hasbeen used extensively for incineration of hazardous wastes.

The multiple hearth furnace is the most widely used incinerator formunicipal sewage sludges and is quite adaptable to the incineration ofhazardous wastes. A typical unit consists of a vertical cylindricalshell containing between four and twelve firebrick hearths. A slowlyrotating hollow shaft (rate of 0.5 - 1.5 rpm) with attached rabble armsmix and carry the material through the unit while incineration takesplace. Cool air is fired up through the shaft, warmed through conductionand convection, and feeds the incineration process.

10-44AR000879

The fluidized bed Incinerator Incorporates high burning efficiencies withshort residence times. The unit is comprised of a vertical cylindricalrefractory-lined vessel with a perforated supporting grid at Its .base.In the lower section, a layer of sand 1s fluidized using a forced air

»system. Sludge is Injected and Incinerated. The fluidized sand enhancesrapid heat and mass transfer, and creates uniform vessel temperatures andshort Incinerator residence times. This type of an incinerator equippedwith a limestone bed could be considered for handling acidic wastematerials. .

Mobile incineration units are also available for hazardous waste. Mobilerotary kilns are available for on-site treatment with processing ratesranging from 0.6 to 5 tons/hour. For higher processing rates, on-sitetreatment could be accomplished by leasing multiple Incinerators or

^ construction of a dedicated incineration unit.

There are a limited number of off-site Incinerators capable of burningthe sludge found in the lagoon. Present incinerator operators charge ahigh premium for high ash, high sulfur content, and bulk solid wastesbecause of related handling problems, slow feed rates, and costly airpollution control devices. Present operators would also be veryreluctant to accept only waste from Bruin Lagoon for a period of 6 to 7years (estimated time-frame), because they would not be able to acceptother wastes.

x - / , ' . • '

10-45AR000880

There are several mobile Incinerators capable of handling the waste, butthe feed rate Is slow, requiring a lengthy Implementation time frame.Also, lengthy on-site Incineration could be regulated under RCRA, whichcould result In a required Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit, aswell as an air discharge permit. An air quality program would also bemandatory. There Is a potential that elevated concentrations of heavymetals (barium, chromium, and lead) may be present in the residue ashcreated by the Incineration. Should the ash fall EP toxicity testing, theash would require disposal at a RCRA disposal facility. Otherconcerns/drawbacks to Incineration are as follows:

• Commercial facilities are not set up to handle bulk solids. Theymust be repackaged in small 50 Ib. containers, which is a verycostly step. •

• Handling, contalnerization, and transportation problems can beexpected with the acidic viscous sludge. Corrosive effects onequipment can be expected. Container compatibility is also aconcern. Sludge may require neutralization prior tocontainerlzation to minimize these concerns.

• A major technical concern 1s the time required to achievebeneficial results. Estimated time-frames for the on-s1teIncineration range from 3 to 5 years and 6 to 7 years for off-siteincineration (see Appendix Q for discussion).

• Commercial facilities charge a costly surcharge to accept highash/low Btu materials. This 1s because of the additional costsfor fill and ash disposal.

An evaluation of both on-site and off-site incineration is provided inAppendix Q. Due to the lengthy implementation time-frame, high cost, andother institutional and technical concerns, as discussed in Appendix Q,incineration will not be considered further.

10-46AR00088I

10.3.7.3 Cement Solidification

This method Involves mixing the waste directly with Portland cement, avery common construction material. The end product may be a standingmonolithic solid or may have a crumbly, soil-like consistency, dependingon the amount of cement added. Although cement can physicallyincorporate a broad range of waste types, most wastes will not bechemically bound and are still subject to some low level leaching.

Cement solidification 1s most suitable for Immobilizing metals because atthe pH of the cement mixture, most multivalent cations are converted Intoinsoluble hydroxides or carbonates. However, metal hydroxides andcarbonates are insoluble only over a narrow pH range and would still be-.ubject to possible solubillzation and -leaching in small quantities.Portland cement alone is also not effective in Immobilizing organics.

Portland cement is an expensive additive when used as a stabilizingagent. Generally, cement kiln dust (CKD) is used as the stabilizingagent because of Its lower cost. Results from pilot studies performed 1n1982, using CKD as a stabilizing agent for the raw sludge, wereacceptable from a physical strength standpoint. Soil bulking agent wasutilized as an additive with the CKD to produce a more cost-effectiveblend. .

Because of Its high cost, Portland cement will not be retained as atechnology. However, CKD will be retained as a possible backup/alternateto the lime-based stabilizing agent. The use of CKD as the solecontrol/remedial technology, will not be considered as it does notimmobilize organics. The long-term Immobilization of Inorganics/metalscannot be assured under weathering conditions.

10-47AR000882

10.3.7.4 Silicate Based Processes

Silicate based processes are a very broad range of solidification/stabilization methods that use a siliceous material together with lime,cement, gypsum, and other suitable setting agents. Extensive research iscurrently underway on the use of siliceous compounds in solidification.Many of the available processes use proprietary additives and claim tostabilize a broad range of compounds from divalent metals to organicsolvents. The basic reaction is between the silicate material andpolyvalent metal ions. The silicate material that Is added in the wastemay be fly ash, blast furnace slag, or other readily available pozzolanicmaterials. Soluble silicates such as sodium silicate or potassiumsilicate are also used. The polyvalent metal ions which act asinitiators of silicate precipitation and/or gelation come from the wastesolution, or an added setting agent, or both. The setting agent shouldhave low solubility, and a large reserve capacity of metallic ions sothat it controls the reaction rate. Portland cement and lime are mostcommonly used because of their ready availability. However, gypsum,-calcium carbonate, and other compounds containing aluminum, iron,magnesium, etc. are also suitable setting agents. The solid, which isformed in these processes, varies from a moist^ clay-Uke material to ahard-dry solid similar in appearance to concrete (Granlund and Hayes,undated).

As was discussed under cement solidification, pilot studies performed in1982 using cement kiln dust (CKD) as a stabilization agent showed anacceptable improvement in the strength characteristics of the studge.CKD will be retained as a possible backup/alternate to the lime-basedstabilizing agent.

10-48AR000883

10.3.7.5 Sorbent Materials

Sorbents include a variety of natural and synthetic solid materials whichare used to eliminate free liquid and improve handling characteristics ofwastes. They may also be useful In waste containment when they modifythe chemical environment and maintain pH and redox potential to limit thesolubility of wastes. Although sorbents prevent drainage of free water,they do not necessarily prevent leaching of contaminants. Under loadingor compaction, sorbents may release the free water to the environment.

At Bruin, a major concern Is the leaching of the contaminants out of thesludge, into the groundwater and then Into Bear Creek. Since sorbentscannot provide protection from this leaching they alone are not usable atthe site and sorbents will not be screened further.. . . . • . ; . •,

10.3.7.6 Thermoplastic Techniques

Thermoplastic solidification involves sealing wastes in a matrix such asasphalt bitumen, paraffin, or polyethylene. The waste is dried, heated,and dispensed through a heated plastic matrix. The mixture is thencooled to form a plastic solid. Bitumen solidification is the mostwidely used of the thermoplastic techniques. Thermoplasticsolidification involving the use of an asphalt binder is most suitablefor organic wastes in addition to heavy metal or electroplating wastes.As compared to cement solidification, the increase in volume issignificantly less, entrained moisture and water is evaporated, and therate of leaching 1s significantly lower. Also, thermoplastics are littleaffected by either water or microbial attack.

1M> flROooeett

Cost data for thermoplastic solidification outside the nuclear industsryis not readily available. Werner and Pfleudern Corporation has developedan asphalt binder based process called the Volume Reduction andSolidification System; solidificaion costs for nonradioactive materialsare estimated at $20 to $70 per ton. This cost includes secondarycontainment but not final transport and disposal (EPA, October 1985).Stabilization is estimated at $161/ton.

High equipment and energy costs are principal disadvantages ofthermoplastic solidification. Another problem is that the plasticity ofthe. matrix-waste mixture generally requires that containers be providedfor transportation and disposal of materials, which greatly increases thecost.

Based on the high cost and lack of proven capability outside the nuclearindustry, thermoplastic techniques are questionable at Bruin Lagoon.They are, therefore, screened from further consideration.

10.3.7.7 Surface Microencapsulation

Surface microencapsulatlon describes those methods which physically microencapsulate wastes by sealing them in an organic binder and resin. Thebasic method is to seal a mass of waste in an impenetrable container.The major advantage of encapsulation is that the waste is completelysealed from leaching solutions. Each available process for encapsulationis unique and the feasibility must be determined for each site.

10-50AR000885

Environmental Protection Polymers has estimated that the cost of thepolybutadiene/HDPE microencapsulation method will be approximately$90/ton. Encapsulation 1n the seam-free HOPE overpack is approximately$50 to $70 for a 80-gallon drum load (EPA, October 1985). At the BruinLagoon Site, the cost of microencapsulation of the sludge, perched liquidzone, contaminated soils, and stabilized material would be over$9,000,000.

This technology is still experimental and would require pilot studies todetermine how best it could be used on the waste at Bruin Lagoon.Additionally, it is a very expensive process because of the high energydemand costs for binding agent, extensive materials handling, and theneed for skilled operators. Based on these concerns, it will not bescreened further.

. - . , . ' _ . . • : ' • : ' . • ' • • • . .

10.3.7.8 Vitrification

Vitrification of waste involves combining the wastes with molten glass ata high temperature. This process is quite costly and has been limited sofar to radioactive and highly toxic wastes. Vitrification offers a veryhigh degree of containment. Solids formed by vitrification havelow-leach rates, except for those made with borate-based glasses, whichare somewhat water soluble. The high-energy demand, and need for highlytrained personnel, limit the use of this technology (no costs arecurrently available).

At Bruin Lagoon, the waste 1s neither radioactive nor highly toxic.There are other technologies that provide adequate environmentaleffectiveness with much greater cost effectiveness. This technology isalso in an experimental mode. Based on these limitations, it will not bescreened further.

10-51AR000886

10.3.8 IN SITU TREATMENT

10.3.8.1 Perched Liquids and Bedrock Surface

The available technology for treating the bedrock surface at Bruin Lagoonis limited to chemical treatment/neutralization. This technology wouldbest be used in conjunction with excavation, since the excavation wouldexpose the bedrock surface. After a section of the lagoon is excavatedfor sludge stabilization, the shallow fractured bedrock would be mixedwith a caustic, neutralizing solution to treat the sludge impregnatedbedrock surface and any remaining perched liquids that were not absorbedand neutralized from the sludge stabilization operations.

One limitation of this technology is that the chemically treated areaswill not be evenly distributed and will be limited to the excavatedareas. Only the shallow fractured bedrock areas which can be excavatedwith typical construction equipment would be treated. The majoradvantages are that the bedrock will be easily accessible duringexcavation and that treatment will reduce the impact on the surroundinggroundwater and on Bear Creek.

Based on its attributes, treatment of the perched liquids groundwater andshallow bedrock surface under the lagoon will be retained for furtherscreening.

10-52AR000887

10.3.9 COMPLETE REMOVAL

The complete removal technology involves standard excavation procedures.At this site, it would include the excavation of approximately 70,000cubic yards of unstabillzed sludge, contaminated soils, cover soils, theperched liquid zone, and stabilized sludge. The free liquids wouldeither be solidified or pumped out for off-site disposition. Thistechnology would be used in connection with off-site disposal, but willbe screened separately.

The major advantage of this technology is that the source of thecontamination will be removed. Removal of the contamination source willbenefit the environment of the area in the long term and eliminate anypotential threat to public health emanating from this site. However,there are some constraints on complete'removal. There are many stateerosion and sediment control ordinances which must be followed.Additionally, gas monitoring, and possibly collection, will be requiredduring excavation activities. These constraints, however, are alsoassociated with sludge stabilization operations. The cost of thistechnology is higher than sludge stabilization alone due to the largevolume of material to be excavated, the longer time required to completetotal removal, and the need to refill after removal all add to the cost.

Although it has drawbacks, further screening of this technology isrequired since it is the only technology that offers total source removal,

10~53 flR000888

10.3.10 ON-SITE/OFF-SITE DISPOSAL

10.3.10.1 On-Site Disposal

On-site disposal of the unstabilized sludge, contaminated soils,stabilized sludge, and cover soils at Bruin Lagoon would involve theexcavation of 70,000 cubic yards of material, as mentioned under thescreening of the removal technology. It would also Include theconstruction of a secure landfill. A secure landfill would include aliner system that would occupy an area equal to or greater than thelagoon area. Unstabilized sludge would have to be treated before beingplaced in the landfill, to reduce the liquid content, improve physicalstrength and neutralize acidity. The site would have to.comply with RCRAstandards for landfill liner and cover systems. Post-closure care,maintenance and leachate management will contribute additional long-terminstitutional requirements.

The major disadvantage of this alternative is the capacity constraint.After construction of a landfill with 3:1 slopes and at least a 3-footthick dual liner system, there would be 48,000 cubic yards of capacityon-site for 83,000 cubic yards of treated material. If the entire 83,000cubic yards were placed on-site, the landfill would be approximately 15feet high. Significant stability and construction problems can beexpected. Public opposition can also be anticipated. The cost of thisalternative would be very high and would include design, construction andoperation of the landfill. Another consideration is that the easternside of the site might have to be shored to provide additional structuralsupport. Based on these drawbacks, high cost and technical/institutionaluncertainty, on-site disposal will not be considered further.

10-54AR000889

10.3.10.2 Off-site Disposal .

This technology would entail the complete removal of contaminants and thedisposal at an appropriate off-site landfill. This would include thetreatment of liquid and raw sludge waste (perched zone, sludge) withbulking agents to reduce migration off-site during excavation, loading,and transportation. The treated, stabilized wastes and the untreatedwastes would be disposed of at a RCRA facility as hazardous wastes.

With this technology, the drawback 1s a very high cost. This is dueprimarily to transportation and landfill costs. It has the advantage,however, of moving the contaminants away from the site, thus preventingany further impact to the bedrock, groundwater, or to Bear Creek.Another advantage is that the time frame for implementation would be muchshorter than on-site disposal. Despite some disadvantages, thistechnology is clearly better than on-site disposal, and, for the reasonsdiscussed, will be retained.

10.4 SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY SCREENING

The screening of the remedial action technologies is summarized in Table10-1. The technologies that have been retained after screening fordevelopment Into potential remedial alternatives are listed below:

• No remedial action - monitoring only.

• Low permeability soils cap.

• Soil admixtures in cap system.• Multilayer cap.

10-55AR000890

• Erosion controls - geotextile silt fencing/sedimentation basin.

• Gas vents/gas collection.

• Grading and vegetation.

• Surface water diversion.

• Dikes.

• On-site stabilization/neutralization of sludge and perched liquidzone with quicklime/soil bulking agent.

• Caustic or carbon treatment of collected gas.• In situ chemical treatment/neutralization of upper bedrock and

groundwater under lagoon.

• Complete removal - sludge, perched liquid zone, and contaminatedsoils.

• Off-site disposal - new landfill.

The technologies listed above will be combined in the development of thealternatives. The remedial action alternatives are formulated to addressthe environmental Issues and the contaminant pathways related to the siteand to meet the alternative screening criteria and the remedial-actionobjectives.

10~56 AR00089I

ti s3*

b

5 -383 is4v IE5«Bl

I «*H

I'S'S

11

e 43.2N '»

11

O L<M& C A f-9«-.WM.

lii:J.JNll§s!"8•?|g

g 3*{ I Q i-H

Is" ^s^^S1^«£<o a<H o*« *-H 8-a

t Is•K£» • «t•"•81 5S

ffJ1^' P eC B £ "B ' O «-H•5 *> gl C g CF^

S IM H $ -H E* S*Ko<£ w 8 —

e • '«o • - . .

ARD0089210-57

•3 >843 U

111

i

^s a

co

•p* -I.r

123 f«jISO Q 43I 3 3 S

Ij

sl

T!z*

x

.o1a«igi m 9M 2 5(S'H U

S1

(8

SS-S

8 u^

5-5J&1u ^ i *

|

(043 4)

Ifl

AR00089310-58

5 38rH 43 5

£lll5S2Si u

1

w

fig

£«•

i•o oSV •g 1

II1311«8€ *S i:|!i1*1S

i Si- *''II1? aji<o MH 4 o o<W 01 H S. » "HO C v D1 H 43cg.8S £$g5-jCB. S' S*j*I a?aK S • 43 5 8 43an w c QJ «j •8 £ i e w a wS8SS i-s^^5 &|l A-25TJMl %> Sj'cS*V C U O E 2 £A&^-H "Q 0)C e JJ+3 CFHI&IH«ljB8 SSSJ?|2p frfl«3IK&8 GSSS

1*5 -88 3frE -MS -°M4 Q tt <0 1

51

AR000891*10-59

*g S M

Ic

«

3 Sj —"-

la| a|

AR000895t 10-60

V>

1 •»•*

nii•n u 4

I

O 45 433 IM H S

< C

h S,a-;'43

«? 9•H «HS 43

g fi!!

fi!1'**'sJpi s

J

• j

3

W 0* *

o ;i£II

D>jlil *|lif i';wiSll-clili Vi^g s Is

|ll!MSff, I«lH ift"U O<u£i S «"« U

AR00089610-61

•a (8

i15

1 ilsiii•8*83

I « I 43

O

- ""U 41 -O 43

S

?Q *»•» j± Q •m J Tl l *O <v T

*? S 5 '*H O QU 0 SO 3 C U

: u q"3(O

si? s*

'4,-SI

43

, «

;iû

10-62

»Hfllifai«fli nt 01 — * * « - . .

" " -=- -« * O fi C= C58.*S ••* 4> "31 jj fi

01

$(8.

tO U_ _ ^ C U I D C - Dawfl4i

t M ? « M -UB O 4tH O 4J

(Q A Mkl 01 -HO £ 43W •-) JJ*tf C

SH 0)43lw"|.t5|

o^-S!3

.*E!*iIII?u|* «-« Mgf«|

4? I 3

uO-0n s a f D i 4

U*i*«47i ff u Z . f sI?-Jii.- •«• 3 ^g 5 3Auu --H tn

JJ O Q> C Cb -HS

0IH "O 4J - * u15 C u - 8JB

«J

u x6r4>• 5

t u 4* 4)J« 7 4^

971 E S to>O 45 IB u.Hy _ i ! K •¥. !5a

uv-B-S |C 2J C,g "g

§ H m 5 1§ £ m *DB 4) u * T5 u ft—i « 5 o tt •••< c « -3 43 no a> -r->•c i "6 b'b-H uz i> -^ tv >H o w 'Q« CH IDS OnS SCO o5 <M 23 4H3 i-l iJ C~* i-l E1*"

u

I

&AR000898

10-63

* <aU

43

2I 3

.astl

sl.3

U O% Si!553

3 0 V..-&TJ ff'S ' S So> *n a> di >«.£? of v O >«43 O CO -5 5 J aj ra H to ft mo)t a ^ 4 d l - Q Ol iMO^ $f49)M*HDtXd(MOCOOO C U 3 > £ c t t M mi J . < - 9 i 5 a i>a.

if]* ^ 43»3 i i -H -H 5 _i _g g,;H •H eg a t>i§

•* a-Sti-SS o 3 |a « IM S

aToioiBe 45 jJ iv o,3.._1S uyo, «,, «|g,

43 IM

CfliS:H.$iI Ji"l p8 1 §,Jn "* «» fA .U <M fi

i (Q CO 3 *H Qi51!"* « «? o

<8U

** ~I& *ff 111

9« 8 iH ?8a •2|| Is Sgla>H§1 43C 34143

(8U

38 111 3IS3lgjsss

g"4e 43

§• 5 3•3 43 a c c12 18-H -H

£3 .

AR00089910-64

^

IE!£

5 Til'*

ol||

•as,g

e 43 "IM-H S -H o»O •O "

<B

t)45 vi

C 1 LOH C <S P *

sa5 «

Tp?3hi]

MSpHtq-aO B 5SS ~ I f r S ? - « J

v ^43^^33 3 jSe c

Qi DO B &» • *. S "^ ' PI°Ii* j

*B £ C *S QE1! -a-ec-* JS.M 2-H S "D i 4J O 8J « «M 4) D (p C

•gd -siiii j-1- "*!

?8 «

c *

•1E 53 B u g . .8'Q .

AR00090010-65

ci tq -H o «Ha u n c e c o 3 0 3 p>45

K l » p > 8 E <H 43 C * ..55• 8* *

*l

* 2'B . 8 m K . 5 a ~~ K f

0' 8* a 2»S-^ '

E1

c-* JSB-Js •|8lg *55 «S

43 U

33

i!i2

2

u iO 43 43

3 IM H fl2 a

10—66

•H to 43 at <3?iS .. f |dSSg -23 8&• I

AR00090I

t

I

n

th al ons

ati

Public H and

Environm

Consider

1. i-24*t) 4543 43O 43 43oss

i i

M-0* #11*

i CtMo«NJ pffco R a c _'HOIM

4I4JC11WC'C454I

<Mo 0)

!•§

.au< s ** 1).

SI 1 gl!a -3 1* • • . .3 u»li2 1 *_

8

s w.Srt« S

43"So0)

«T'.Hi *i la*1...sa* _ „

SS -!1 ' " ""I-; " IB

II IScSO *O ' -s

(Q i >

o2 X

I EI« 45 g

fi I I'M

•lll^g"8I* JGC B ^#-fi O!H*J SC3 <3 |^ | 4343 «

" -i«3 **. * U i-l -M *S Si R fflP w ij it S ai e

AR000902

i

43 18

•H a)43 M

a,.m i

i>

u

Ill-H

O

C7* .

a i~^

Pisi?

*«a44 rH 10

B V 01 145 u -3 SL i «S8*5 _u

,....-..;.-I

IÎSi^ C^S -738.1 r-dsâs*

m

'* a**3^g ?3.

IM IM u

58 •13% 85gJ 2!"! 2S-S S JH o * o «3> >HV 4J U C

O w*®MiHoi a,51

a S43 C••?

-33

a c 01'S

.su - Jai **" "4J C

lf«MIZ

d43l MQ

X

3•a

o,5coiIMo13•HI<Mos

AR000903

g43 '

643"4 IB43 U3 0)43 >Q4 45

i 07 mi "O e *«I'M

atide

i

-.1- .-

u i . • • c rvnajracjib

'", '- I'.'ife.- '" 0! -H O t>. • i 7~ E >O . 43

'-H O t> '"H

5w

3?Bi«g:«? 32,; 3* S C5 * * - 6 -*

?I ffJt "8 , .. 0-i•u ID I 01 *«H 0)

s**g I &*%•o^^ss -a a? >, j« B 4>Zl-H • 43 fl OAT F 4)_ H C W * OIR-H 4J 4> -i-l JJ

g a gig g) ^Sg c S, c? is £ _ 0** c* c*«. .2 BJ 5

eM- • - " • • • - -. - . . U "JJ «J U 43 -H— « j - — | i

u -o BIg, -X j*j &ij'stj &5i i<oi3 5e S5 «<5 fc? ra-5•3 IM eu KOI43C E <M ^5 41 w Quo440) re i o 45 4 J>a> M 5 45 o P.IM•O E 0> "COS C VIM

H-^« R J B C 33* 43 . ?, •§ 2*13 o ei o o w 2 41 e to i s 43: n - H i 6 p e C ^ j 3 g ** 2 •" R SSS* «3£ Si5 S38$•38 S « *|? I SI

JU S . C tO IE -H U 4 n* ID .c m 5 4! " ""0)iH O W 4) O CJr-i 8 ID 4j IM $

£ S S

O $9 » O 0 O - n E Q j U*+ « ' K ' 0»16j5 4J 5 4343 S V Z) u 4J 4) 4J u mC A O ^4»IB COn43^HOE5 ii 8 5-^ 49^3 *»iojQIM 4Jftw'«4j'35^4'a O. & 5 43 -H S'•H to to ID "O C-HîcO) Jf 4n S iu ffi

13 J8d-l-«ljijl? |{3I%S!£ SfiSiS 5Sels« Hfiff&ls

flR00090lti-

32313 to

ic Health

and

ronnental

iderations

43

1

1

$ 1 0)C U 5-4 b 01 4<a o 43 43

1 0) 1U 5 iH

Scr

81w 8 kC 43 43 u oi Q, i • -C '.S fi «. •*O b »H O» 4j PC (Q C to OtEC C to to•H O <8 >| C C W *•• *— • 0}

Un•-ClC -1C9Je

32a<BltJjJ JC S H U^4 3 ST 3 Hi co otto rt asb u - H b b o -HO3*û0143-0 (TiOO » OS'043

14a(043

5": 43iS jSa

°"j

%i

*li!13, a;*44

U

41 : O -3Q j ol -^ «»<8 c i H c 4)IM n d s utObb— o o

18

*— • 0}XI • >i Mt O C O C q a ) 4 J CD &•* H H

X) S H U VtJ.lb3.343

O

rt4) c 0)43 ** 43 U JJ

CtQOt ^Ô S Wn

C 3 CD rHI8

443C4J cDm «) 4J(3 CD rH•ACQiM43s

AR000905

m

II43 U

' 11

S 3i

• 0 I.IbSlSO 43 43IM H IS

11111

..f-

to: i i->L « IB " Brti •Q I m 0 • B» » C 41 4344 09 45~IB b C Wl*<M

gnE-gfi «..O to >rt oS J 3 a 4 J•V

. *

•H PH "3-H . «* «.« i» H «d *«!£{•d *«5* J fl) g Q,Bt ID •! •

Pi IS

•af 8g|.fifing*

, 5C *^

,xo> «i >H e iH • * •

s

10-71- .A R 0009 06

O 434S a)43 b

5 3| *!«, 3£

alll5a|a

2 IM H 3« 2 c

f13

HaSaiQ<8'-ix! :

2 « _ .. j i.•*» i.0) • 1 43 1jC X! 43 D) -H to -H* •" c 3 S L 51 i a--i -Hco -S -4 H n c •<*•!* x-*co -S -4 H n c •<*•!* x-* G<M 3 > S 4>43 grnSoo>iOB'O43bi-i '8 Sof f a o i u o l i !9o»43iM•*OOI*H<80l<8ttt85*4 O 3 4 3 t Q C u i 8 04*0 Q ^4]bU43 bveTl ^^f^*^S9« <g •H C w 443fH4343*H<8Q>0?c^ utuointQaj-eaârca 'MCytOKtO->4«-^<a434ieQcoinX|4) a-H *) -H Q 3 ot tacQ-H**1-33 «MI

35

11^4 O

<8 01s 54 4

bQQi

U<O ' S

' 01 <8

B 3id! rHI ^4

i 5 3! J -gi. a

01 rH

(M tff

S3

10-72 AR000907

11.0 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

11.1 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT

The process of remedial action alternative development follows the stepsoutlined below:

1. Alternative development begins with the technologies that havebeen retained after screening. The technologies that areapplicable to the remediation of the Identified environmentalIssues of the Bruin Lagoon Site were summarized at the end ofSection 10.0 1h Table 10-1.

2. Technologies are combined that are complementary andinterrelated. For example:

• Surface capping - Site regrading and surface water diversion- gas venting. •

• Complete removal - Off -site disposal.3. Alternatives are then developed from the Individual and grouped

technologies that address the site Issues and contaminant pathwaysdeveloped. in tables 9-1 and 9-k, and summarized in Table 11-1.

4. Alternatives are developed to address the remedial actionobjectives listed below:

i Contain, reduce, and/or eliminate sources of sitecontaminants, which are possible sources of exposure topotential receptors. i

> Reduce or eliminate exposure to site contaminants bypotential receptors by blocking contaminant pathways thatlead to possible exposure.

i Ensure technical feasibility, public acceptability, andenvironmental cost effectiveness of the remedial actions.

Not all the alternatives developed will meet the objectives or beas effective in addressing part or all the site Issues andcontaminant pathways.

AR000908

TABLE 11-1

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Site Environmental Issues and Remedial Action and AssociatedContaminant Pathways Screened Technology

17,500 cubic yards of unstabilized No action, monitoring only.asphaltic sludge remains in lagoon.

Complete removal with off-sitedisposal.On-site treatment using soilbulking agent (SBA) and quicklimestabilization.

Sludge/soil and contaminated soil No action, monitoring only.located through lagoon area.Precipitation/infiltration reacts Complete removal with off-sitewith sludge and becomes acidic, disposal.mobilizing inorganic contaminantsfound in soils. On-site treatment using soilContaminated sludge/soil carried bulking agent and quicklimeoff-site by runon and runoff. stabilization.

Capping - multilayer cap or soilcap.Erosion control-siIt fencing/sedimentation basins, dikes/levees.

Existing surface depressions No action, monitoring only includesaccumulate in pond water in some upgrading site security.locations of lagoon. Waterbecomes extremely acidic. Without Capping - multilayer or soil cap.any further remediation, possibleexposure could result in dermal Diversion of surface water byand eye contact and Ingestion regrading and vegetating.by animals. Direct surfacerunon and runoff from lagoon areaflows into Bear Creek.

11-2 AR000909

TABLE 11-1(continued)

Site Environmental Issues and Remedial Action and AssociatedContaminant Pathways Screened Technology

Precipitation infiltration through Capping - multilayer or soil cap.sludge and contaminated soils flowsinto and recharges perched liquid On-site treatment - stabilizing/zone. Infiltration becomes acidic neutralizing sludge and perchedmobilizing inorganic contaminants. liquid zone.Perched liquid flows Intogroundwater, which is Intercepted Removal and off-site disposal ofby Bear Creek. Contaminant sludge and liquid zone.entering Bear Creek could affectfuture biota, if upgradient ,

, . quality of stream Improves.—' .........................................................................

Bedrock groundwater below-the lagoon In situ treatment of shallowarea was found to be highly acidic. fractured bedrock and shallowUpper bedrock was also found liquids to neutralize acidity.impregnated with sludge.

Although recent testing shows no Provision for gas venting,extensive elevated concentrations collection, and treatment,of sulfur dioxide or hydrogen along with monitoring programsulfide, accumulation of gases may during further remedialoccur in localized areas below a activities, including excavation.crust. If the crust is punctured, :a potential for a dangerous gas Passive gas venting layer to berelease exists. included in multilayered cap

system.

11-3

AR0009IO

5. As part of the Feasibility Study at least one alternative for eachof the following categories must at a minimum, be evaluated.

• No action: No-action alternatives could include monitoringactivities.

0 Alternatives that meet the CERCLA goals of preventing orminimizing present or future migration of hazardoussubstances and protection of public health and theenvironment, but do not attain all of the applicable orrelevant standards. (This category may include analternative that closely approaches but does not meet thelevel of protection required by the applicable or relevantstandards.)

• Alternatives that meet the CERCLA goals and attain allapplicable relevant Federal public health and environmentalstandards, guidance, and advisories.

• Alternatives that exceed all applicable or relevant Federalpublic health and. environmental standards, guidance, andadvisories.

• Alternatives specifying off-site storage, destruction,treatment, or secure disposal of hazardous substances at afacility approved under the Resource Conservation, andRecovery Act (RCRA). Such a facility must also be incompliance with all other applicable EPA standards.

6. The following criteria are then used in the screening andevaluation of the developed alternatives:

• Initial Screening

- Environmental and Public Health Factors- Cost Factors

• Evaluation

Noncost Analysis

- Technical Feasibility- Environmental Evaluation- Institutional Requirements-j>jublj£ Health Evaluation

Analysis-

11-4

AR0009II

'-•••'$*•',-

In summary, the cost-effective alternative is defined as the lowest costalternative that is technologically feasible and reliable, effectivelymitigates or minimizes damage, and provides adequate protection of publicKeaTthl welfare^ândthe environment (NCP, 1985). Alternatives weredeveloped by applying the technologies to the site singly or incombination, based on previously developed remedial objectives.

The NCP specifies that remedial alternatives, besides filling each of thecategories, should be classified either as source control (40 CFR300.68(e)(2)) or off-s1te_(management of migration) remedial actions (40CFR 300.68(e)(3)). Source control remedfaT~actions address situations 1nwhich hazardous substances remain at or near the areas where they wereoriginally located, and are not adequately contained to prevent migrationinto the environment. Management of migration remedial actions addresssituations in which the hazardous substances have largely migrated fromtheir original locations. Alternatives developed may fall solely 'Ineither classification or may involve a combination of source control andmanagement of migration measures. •

With respect to the Bruin Lagoon Site, all remedial action technologiesthat_remaln_after screening are wider the source control classificationThis 1s because the potential site contaminant and pathway characteris-tics can be best addressed with on-site source control measures withoutposing a threat to the public health and environment. Subsection 11.1.2presents the source control remedial action alternatives that have beendeveloped for the Bruin Lagoon Site. The following subsection discussesthe alternatives, "Remedial Action Strategies," developed in the initialRI/FS of January 1982.

11-5

AR0009I2

11.1.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ALTERNATIVES

Five alternatives or "Remedial Action Strategies" were developed in theinitial (1982) RI/FS for the Bruin Lagoon Site. The five strategiesincluded the following:

• No Action

• Waste Containment

• On-site Waste Fixation• On-site Waste Encapsulation

• Off-site Waste Disposal

The "no action" strategy included the following components:

• Leave the sludge and supernatant in place.

• No collection or treatment of contaminated groundwater.

• No site management or containment measures.

A summary of the remaining strategies is presented in the followingtables:

Table No.

11-211-311-411-5

Strategy

Waste ContainmentOn-Site Waste FixationOn-Site Waste EncapsulationOff-Site Waste Disposal

11-6

4R0009I3

Tables 11-2 through 11-5 also identify the remedial actions that havebeen completed or initiated, as well as correlation of terminology fromthe initial RI/FS with the present RI/FS.

In summarizing the preceding tables, the strategy that was chosen for theinitial remedial action was a combination of the waste containment andfixation strategies. The objective of these strategies was to containthe primary sources of contamination by fixation/stabilization of thesludge and removal of the supernatant in the lagoon and effluent pond.The strategies addressed the Infiltration pathway and called for capping,surface water diversions, and ensuring integrity of the dike and capsystem. The objectives of the initial remedial action strategy arecomparable to the current objectives for the remedial action alternativesto be checked in this RI/FS. However, the Initial strategies have beenupdated to reflect work completed and new information on sources andpathways, as outlined in Section 9.

11.1.2 IDENTIFICATION OF NEW ALTERNATIVES

The new remedial action alternatives presented in Table 11-6 weredeveloped by the process outlined in the beginning of this section andcomply with the requirements of the NCP as amended. These newalternatives contain components of the remedial action strategies of theinitial Rl/FS but ajso contain new components that reflect completion andinitiation of response actions and current information regarding sourceand pathway characterization.

11-7

AR0009U

TABLE 11-2

HASTE CONTAINMENT STRATEGY SUMMARY3

Open Lagoon Covered LagoonArea Area . Effluent Pond Site Management

Supernatant removal and Physical surface Liquid removal General site cleanup0off-site disposal.0 stabilization. and off-site (tanks were removed

disposal. and disposed of off-site) .

Physical stabiliza- Application of Excavation of Security0 (chain linktion of sludge in multilayer cap contaminated fence around siteplace0»d (35 system. surface soils requires upgrading).percent of sludge and disposalis stabilized). ' in open lagoon.b

v

Application of Cover/revegetate° Backfill/regrade Monitoring0multilayer cap (silty soil was pond.° (continues).system. backfilled in some

areas of closedlagoon).

Cover/revegetate° Cover/revege- Surface water diver-(open lagoon was tate.° sions° (diversionscovered with stabilized ' have been installedmaterial and loose - needs upgrading).silty soil).

aPassive and/or active groundwater controls were recommended in conjunction with thisscenario.Remedial actions that were completed.CRemedial actions that were initiated (explanation follows).Initial feasibility study recommended in situ stabilization by adding lime, fly ash,kiln dust, or soil filter fabric. Fly ash was added previously but did not preventsludge upwelling. Pilot studies, both laboratory and field, were conducted and anoptimal stabilization ratio of 1:1:0.15, sludge/bulking agent/quicklime was determined.Stabilization required excavation of sludge, mixture, and reburial. In situstabilization is not feasible because of the nature of the sludge. Because the limealso chemically immobilizes the inorganic constituents in the sludge by raisingthe pH, these stabilization procedures also fall under the category of sludge"fixation," which is a component of the fixation strategy. Therefore, the term"stabilization," used in the current RI/FS, includes techniques of the stabilizationand fixation components of the initial RI/FS although stabilization is theprimary objective.

11-8

AR0009I5

TABLE 11-3

WASTE FIXATION SUMMARY

Open Lagoon

Supernatant removal.

Supernatant disposal.3

Sludge excavation. b»c

i terials handling/Staging.*3'0

Mixing and fixa-tion.

Mixture reburialb'c(35 percent of sludgeis stabilized) .

Dike stabilization0(dike bordering BearCreek repaired and par-tially reinforced -additional toe rein-forcement regrading andrevegetation needed) .

Close staging area.3

Closed Lagoon

Sludge/soil removal.

Materials handling/staging.

Mixing and fixation.

Mixture reburial.

Mixture reburial.

Dike stabiliza-tion.13

Close stagingarea.a

Site regrading.

Effluent Pond

Supernatantremoval.3

Supernatantdisposal.3

Soils excava-tion.3

Backfill/regrade.3

Cover/revege-tation.3

Site Management

General site cleanup13(tanks were removedand disposed of off-site).

Security0 (chain linkfence requires upgrade-ing).

Monitoring13(continues)

Surface water diver-sion13 (diversions inplace need upgrading) .

11-9

AR0009I6


Open Lagoon Closed Lagoon Effluent Pond Site Management

Site regrading3 Stabilization/(to promote runoff and capping.runon diversion).

Stabilization/capping. Cover/revegetation.

Cover/revegetationb(open lagoon coveredwith stabilizedmaterial and loosesilty soil).

3Remedial actions that were completed.Remedial actions that were initiated (explanation follows).°See explanation in footnote d under the waste containment strategy, Table 11-2.

11-10

AR0009I7

TABLE 11-4

WASTE ENCAPSULATION SUMMARY


Supernatant removal and Excavation of sludge Liquid removal General site cleanup.off-site disposal. and contaminated and off-site

soils. disposal.

Excavation of sludge Materials handling/ Excavation of Security.staging. ~ contaminated

soils and re-burial withsludge in linedopen lagoon area.

•filiation of liner. Installation ofliner. "

Reburial of excavated Reburial of exca- Cover/revege- Monitoring.sludge and contaminated vated sludge and tate.soil. contaminated soil.

Physical stabilization Application ofof sludge. ' multilayer cap

system.

Application of multi- Cover/revegetate.layer cap system.

Cover/revegetate.

11-11

AR0009I8

TABLE 11-5

OFF-SITE DISPOSAL SUMMARY


Supernatant removal and Waste excavation. Liquid removal General site cleanup.off-site disposal. and off-site

disposal.3

Waste excavation. Materials handling/ Excavation of Security.temporary storage. contaminated

soil and off-site disposal.

Materials handling/ Material transport. Regrade/revege- Monitoring.temporary storage. tate.

Material transport. Off-site waste Surface waterdisposal. diversion.

Off-site waste disposal. Regrade/revegetate.

Regrade/revegetate.

11-12

AR0009I9

TABLE 11-6

DEVELOPED REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1986

Alternative 1

• No action monitoring only

Alternative 2« On-site stabilization/neutralization of remaining unstabilized

sludge and perched liquid zone.

- Gas monitoring during site activities.- Gas venting/collecting/treating (If necessary).- Geotextile silt fences to control off-site soil transport.

• Complete dike embankment reinforcement/stabilization.• Cap lagoon area - clean soil cap.

- Grading and vegetating.- Surface water diversions.- Post closure monitoring.

Alternative 3

• On-site stabilization/neutralization of remaining sludge andperched liquid zone.

- Gas monitoring during site activities.- Gas venting/collecting/treating (1f necessary).- Geotextile silt fences to control off-site soil transport.

t In situ shallow bedrock treatment (neutralization).• Complete dike embankment reinforcement/stabilization.• Cap lagoon area - multilayer cap.

- Grading and vegetating.- Surface water diversions.

v , • Post closure monitoring.

flR000920 11-13


Alternative 4

• Complete removal - sludge, perched liquid zone, and contaminatedsoils.

- Gas monitoring during site activities.- Gas venting/collecting/treating (if necessary).- Geotextile silt fences and/or sedimentation basins to controloff-site soil transport.

• On-site stabilization/neutralization of sludge and perched liquidzone (soil if necessary).

• Off-site disposal - RCRA landfill.

• Backfill, grade, vegetate lagoon area - surface water diversions.

• In situ treatment of shallow bedrock.

• Post closure monitoring.

Alternative 5

• Complete removal - sludge and perched liquid zone.

- Gas monitoring during excavation activities.- Gas venting/collecting/treating (if necessary).- Geotextile silt fences to control off-site soil transport.

• On-site stabilization of sludge and perched liquid zone.


AR00092I

TABLE 11-6(continued).

Alternative 5 (continued)

t Cap lagoon area - RCRA multilayer cap. '- Backfill, grade, and vegetate.- Surface water diversions.

• Complete embankment reinforcement/stabilization.• Post-closure monitoring.

AR000922

11.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION-MONITORING

The purpose of presenting a no-action alternative 1s to provide a basisfor comparison of existing conditions with the other proposed remedialalternatives. Under the no-action alternative, no additional remedialactivities will be taken. This would mean that precipitationinfiltration through the sludge and sludge/soil mixtures will continue toresult in the leaching of contaminants to the perched liquid zone.Eventually, the leaching would reach the bedrock groundwater, which thenflows into Bear Creek. Standing water in depressions on the coveredlagoon will continue to become acidic and slowly percolate through thesoil or runoff.

This no-action alternative, however, Includes a long-term groundwatermonitoring program to provide information concerning contaminant presenceand concentration because no downgradient contamination beyond Bear Creekhas yet been determined. Groundwater monitoring will be performed infour existing upgradient and downgradient deep wells. The monitoringprogram would not improve site conditions, minimize the generation ofcontaminants, or mitigate the potential risks associated with continuedmigration of the contaminants. Instead, the monitoring program wouldserve as an early warning system to detect Impending changes 1n healthrisks and environmental impacts. In the event contaminated groundwatermigrates beyond Its present localized area and poses a threat to drinkingwater wells, a contingency plan could be activated to safeguard potentialreceptors. This alternative also includes upgraded site security toprevent access to the site and preclude exposure to acidic and/or causticstanding surface water in the old open lagoon area and exposed raw sludgematerial which has upwelled to the surface. Figure 11-1 illustrates theenvironmental issues and conditions associated with the no-actionalternative.

11-16 AR000923


11.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 2 - SLUDGE AND LIQUID ZONE STABILIZATIONAND SOIL CAP

• On-site stabillzaton/neutrallzation of remaining unstabillzedsludge and perched liquid zone. *

- Gas monitoring during site activities.- Gas venting/collecting/treating (1f necessary).- Geotextile silt fences to control off-site soil transport.

• Complete embankment reinforcement/stabilization.

* Cap lagoon area - clean soil cap.

- Grading and vegetating.- Surface water diversions..

• Post closure monitoring.. • • . • . • . .

.Alternative 2 consists of stabilizing the remaining unstabilized sludgeand perched liquid with a soil bulking agent and quicklime at the ratiosrecommended from the previous remedial work on-site. This procedurereduces the leaching of contaminants Into the groundwater. Stabilizationmethods similar to those utilized during the Initial remedial action willbe employed. A health and safety program will be initiated during siteactivity which will include air monitoring and gas venting, collection,and treatment, If necessary. Silt fences will be set up to interceptrunoff and prevent off-site clean and contaminated soil migration beforea vegetated cover is established. This alternative also Includesregrading, completing riprap and gabion installment on the embankment ofthe eastern dike running along Bear Creek, and establishing a vegetatedcover on the north dike embankment to ensure long-term stability ofembankment slopes. After stabilization of the sludge is completed, aclean soil cap will be installed. The cover would be installed over boththe former open and covered lagoon areas. The total area has been

Vv—' delineated from aerial photogrphs, analytical data, and soil borings (seeAppendix A). Capping of this area will significantly reduce infiltration

11-18 AR000925

through materials Identified as sources of localized groundwatercontamination. The cap will be graded and vegetated to promote runoff,further reducing Infiltration and collection of water in surfacedepressions. The soil will also provide a physical barrier over thestabilized sludge.

This alternative closely approaches the level of protection provided bythe applicable or relevant standards. It also meets CERCLA's objectiveof adequately protecting public health, welfare, and environment bytreating the primary sources of contaminants and addressing several siteIssues and contaminant/exposure pathways. However, the soil cap does notmeet RCRA technology guidelines. Alternative 2, therefore, does notattain all applicable or relevant public health or environmentalstandards for an NPL site, but does reduce the likelihood of present orfuture public health threats and environmental impacts. Figure 11-2Illustrates this alternative.

11.4 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 3 - SLUDGE AND LIQUID ZONE STABILIZATION- IN SITU BEDROCK TREATMENT - RCRA CAP AND MONITORING

• On-site stabilization/neutralization of remaining unstabilizedsludge and perched liquid zone.

- Gas monitoring during site activities.- Gas venting/collecting/treating (if necessary).- Geotextile silt fences to control off-site soil transport.

• In situ shallow groundwater/bedrock treatment (neutralization).

• Complete dike embankment reinforcement/stabilization. -

t Cap lagoon area - multilayered cap.- Grading and vegetating- Surface water diversions

• ' • • • - •• Post-closure monitoring.

11-19 HR000926

AR000927

This alternative consists of stabilizing and neutralizing the primarysources of contaminants with soil bulking agents and quicklime. Thisprocess will Improve the physical strength characteristics and reduce theleaching of contaminants. Capping the lagoon with a multilayer cap 1salso part of the process. This results 1n significantly reducingInfiltration and, subsequently, the potential for groundwatercontamination. The cap would be Installed over both the former open andcovered lagoons.

Alternative 3 1s similar to Alternative 2, but includes a RCRA cap, and1n situ treatment of the shallow fractured bedrock with a lime slurry.The multilayered RCRA cap will be more effective In reducingprecipitation Infiltration. Capping includes: (1) regrading andvegetating to promote runoff, and (2) surface-water diversions to directrunon and runoff away from the site. In situ shallow bedrock treatmentby lime slurry Injection will further reduce acidic conditions anddemobilize Inorganic contaminants 1n both the sludge andsludge-Impregnated upper bedrock. The dike embankment Improvements wouldbe completed. Post-closure monitoring will ensure that site contaminantsare not migrating off-site.

This alternative attains all applicable and relevant public health andenvironmental standards. Figure 11-3 Illustrates this alternative.

11.5 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 4 - REMOVAL, STABILIZATION, AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE, PERCHED LIQUID ZONE, AND CONTAMINATEDSOILS - POST-CLOSURE MONITORING

• Complete removal - sludge, soil-sludge mixtures, perched liquidzone, and contaminated soils.

11-21AR000928

- Gas monitoring during site activities.- Gas venting/collecting/treating (if necessary).- Geotextile silt fences and/or sedimentation basins to controloff-site soil transport. •

• On-site stabilization/neutralization of unstabilized sludge andperched liquid zone (soil, If necessary).


t In situ treatment of shallow groundwater.• Backfill, grade, vegetate lagoon area.

- Surface water diversions.• Post-closure monitoring.

This alternative includes of the removal of all sources of contaminantsand the disposal of these materials at an off-site RCRA hazardous wastefacility. Complete removal of the sludge, perched liquid zone, andcontaminated soils will eliminate the sources of groundwatercontamination and subsequent impact to Bear Creek. All waste residuesand soil-sludge residues in both the former open and.the covered lagoonareas would be removed. Because of the viscous nature of theunstabillzed sludge and high liquid content of the liquid zone,stabilization of these materials will be needed prior to excavation ofthe liquid zone and prior to transport and disposal of the sludge and,possibly, some of the soils.

Some of the material composing the dike along the northern and easternsides of the site 1s suspected of being contaminated from sludge andperched liquid. The dike should remain intact until the unstabillzedsludge, perched liquid zone and contaminated soils within the lagoon areaare removed, although slumping of the dike during excavation is antic-ipated. Shoring of the dike may be required. Material contained 1n thedike suspected of contamination will be the last material removed beforebackfilling and dike reconstruction is initiated. The scope of dikereconstruction will depend on the dike material removed and the final

""" AR000929

elevation of backfilled material. Dike reconstruction will includemeasures to minimize scouring and provide adequate stability. Thesemeasures may Include regrading slopes and placing riprap or gabions atthe toes of the embankments.

To protect the health and safety of workers and local residents, a healthand safety program that Includes gas monitoring/venting/collecting/andtreatment will be followed during site activities. An erosion andsediment control program, consisting of silt fencing and a sedimentationbasin, will be initiated for excavation activity and, to a lesser degree,at post-closure. The control program will mitigate the migration ofcontaminated soil/material off-site. Before the site is backfilled withclean fill, regraded, and revegetated, the .shallow sludge-Impregnatedbedrock will be mixed with a lime slurry to neutralize the acidic sludgedeposits located there. Erosion of the cover soil will be minimized byproper grading, vegetating, and drainage control structures. Amonitoring program will be implemented after the closure of the site.

• »

This alternative 1s anticipated to exceed applicable and relevant publichealth and environmental standards. The alternative does so by reducinglevels of contaminants in the groundwater that enter Bear Creek, belowupgradient surface water background concentrations, by completelyremoving the downgradient sources of contamination. Figure 11-4Illustrates this alternative.

11-24

AR000930

t »

11.6 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 5 - REMOVAL, STABILIZATION, AND OFF-SITEDISPOSAL OF SLUDGE AND PERCHED LIQUID ZONE - RCRA CAP - MONITORING

. •

• Complete removal - sludge and perched liquid zone.

- Gas monitoring during site activities.- Gas venting/collecting/treating (if necessary).- Geotextile silt fences to control off -site soil transport.

•

• On-s1te stabilization of unstabilized sludge and liquid zone.

• Off-site disposal -.RCRA landfill.

• Cap lagoon area - RCRA multilayer.

- Backfill, grade, and vegetate.- Surface water diversions.

• ' - .• Complete embankment reinforcement/stabilization.

• Post-closure monitoring.

Alternative 5 consists of the removal, stabilization, and off-sitedisposal at a RCRA facility of the remaining unstabillzed sludge, perchedliquid zone, and the stabilized sludge, and includes capping the lagoonarea with a multilayer cap system. Embankment reinforcement andstabilization will also be performed under this alternative as well -asmonitoring of groundwater after site closure. This alternative issimilar to Alternative 4 in that it addresses the primary sources ofcontamination by complete removal, however Alternative 5 does not includeremoval of the contaminated soil.. These contaminated soils areessentially located In the former covered lagoon area. Continuedmigration of contaminants Into the groundwater from contaminated soil byprecipitation infiltration will be mitigated by capping the lagoon with aRCRA cap. This alternative can be compared to Alternative 3 for cost andenvironmental effectiveness of removing and disposing of the stabilizedsludge and perched liquid as opposed to reburying the sludge after it hasbeen stabilized.

AR000932

A complete health and safety program will be followed during siteactivities and will Include gas monitoring, venting, collecting, andtreatment. Stabilization of the sludge and perched liquid is included inthis alternative to allow for excavation of the liquid and transportationof the sludge. After the sludge and perched liquid Is removed, areas ofdeep excavation will be backfilled with clean fill, the site will beregraded, and the embankment Improvements will be completed. Amultilayer cap will then be installed to promote runoff and significantlyreduce Infiltration through the contaminated soils.

* . ' '

This alternative falls in the category of alternatives that includedisposal at an off-site facility approved by the EPA and will be compared ,to Alternative 3 which involves reburylng of the stabilized sludge. Thisalternative also attains all applicable and relevant standards. Figure11-5 Illustrates Alternative 5.

- AR000933

A;R;OD&9'3li-

12.0 ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

12.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

' • " " • • ". '

The five remedial action alternatives developed in Section 11 will beevaluated in this section, based on both noncost and cost criteria. Thenoncost analysis Includes the following:

• Technical evaluations.

• Institutional requirements.

• Public health Issues.• Environmental Issues.

. . -12.1.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The technical feasibility criteria address critical objectives in thetechnical evaluation of potential remedial action alternatives. Theseobjectives Include performance, reliability, Implementation, and safety.The technical evaluation of each remedial action alternative is based onit ability to achieve the following goals:

• Performance - Two aspects of remedial alternatives determine theirdesirability on the basis of performance: effectiveness anduseful life. Effectiveness refers to the degree to which analternative will prevent or minimize substantial danger to publichealth, welfare, or the environment. Useful life 1s the length oftime this level of effectiveness can be maintained.

AR000935

• Reliability - To be reliable, a potential remedial actionalternative should Incorporate proven technologies that have ademonstrated and dependable record of use, and should be capable ofaccomplishing the desired corrective results over the planned lifeof the Implemented remedial action. Also, the frequency andcomplexity of necessary operation and maintenance should beconsidered in evaluating the reliability of alternatives.

• Implementation - Another Important aspect of remedial alternativesIs their ab~H1ty to be Implemented the relative ease ofInstallation and the time required to achieve a given level ofresponse. The time requirements can be generally classified as thetime required to Implement a technology and the time requiredbefore results are actually realized.

• Safety - Each remedial alternative can be evaluated with regard tosafety. This evaluation can Include short-term threats to thesafety of nearby communities, the environment, or to workers duringImplementation.

The Bruin Lagoon site RI/FS has considered a variety of technicaloptions. Among them are those technologies, as outlined in the NationalContingency Plan that have proven track records and that have met thesetechnical objectives elsewhere. All potential remedial actionalternatives identified for application at the Bruin Lagoon site aretechnically feasible. The effectiveness of each, however, can vary withthe individual techniques employed and the site-specific characteristicsencountered while carrying out the remedial actions.

12.1.2 INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Institutional factors can be critical to the overall ability to Implementand select an effective remedial alternative action program. Thisevaluation criterion includes the following factors:

• Short-term impacts during construction, including odors, dust,truck traffic, and noise.

AR000936

• Federal, state, and local government acceptance.

• Local resident perceptions.• Regulatory permits.

• Local zoning or other land-use ordinances.

• Property easements and similar agreements.• Long-term management and operational requirements.

As an example, on-s1te alternatives generally require sedimentation anderosion control plans, as a minimum. The removal of waste material fromthe site requires Identification of an approved RCRA-disposal site.

A management arrangement should be Identified to cover the long-termoperation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements for each alternative.

12.1.3 PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES '

The remedial action alternative selected must adequately protect publichealth, welfare, and the environment. Documentation that the alternativeadequately controls the long-term effects of any residual contaminationand protects the public, both during and after the alternative, isrequired. Applicable health and environmental health standards are usedto evaluate each alternative.

AR000937

12.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

The overall goal of the selected remedial action alternative program 1sto mitigate the existing environmental threats without creatingadditional adverse effects. The environmental effectiveness evaluationcriterion focuses on the key environmental contaminants. Theenvironmental effectiveness of each potential remedial action alternativeis evaluated according to the requirements outlined In the NationalContingency Plan. The factors to be incorporated into the environmentaleffectiveness evaluations Include the following:

• The likelihood of on.-site source control or off-site remedialactions being effective to mitigate and/or minimize the threat topublic health and welfare.

• The prevention of additional environmental (soil, surface water,and groundwater) contamination.

• The potential for adverse environmental effects resulting from thealternative or its Implementation.

In considering the environmental effectiveness of remedial actionalternatives for the Bruin Lagoon site, more specific goals have beenidentified as follows:

• Protect local residents from Ingesting contaminated water.

• Control the long-term leaching of Identified substances.• Minimize or prevent continued addition of contaminants to

groundwater.

• Control runoff or surface-water impacts during on-site remedialactions.

AR000938

• Properly dispose of any contaminated materials that must beexcavated and/or removed from the site.

During the evaluation of source-control alternatives at the site, workerhealth and safety must be considered. Any measures that have thepotential for worker contact or release of hazardous substances mustconform ta Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requirements.

12.1.5 COST ANALYSIS

A remedial cleanup program must be Implemented and operated in a cost-effective manner and must mitigate the environmental concerns at theBruin Lagoon site. In considering the cost effectiveness of the variousalternatives, costs are considered as follows:' . :.- . '. ' - -.' ' . : .

• Capital costs.• Maintenance costs.

• Monitoring costs.

The present worth value method (1986 dollars basis) is utilized toevaluate the total cost of a remedial action alternative, Including thepost-closure period. The cost effectiveness of the various alternatives1s compared based on total present worth.

Monitoring and maintenance operations can represent a substantial portionof a remedial action alternative. Alternatives should aim to minimizethe added costs for these operations. '

12"5 AR000939

12.2 EVALUATION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE - ALTERNATIVE 1

The No-Action Alternative 1s presented as a basis for analysis of thepotential and existing environmental and public health impacts posed bythe Bruin Lagoon site. It considers no remedial controls exceptmonitoring. The No-Action Alternative 1s also used for comparison withthe other remedial action alternatives. Under the No-Action Alternative,no additional remedial activities will be taken at the Bruin Lagoonsite. This would mean continued Impact on groundwater flowing under thesite and into Bear Creek.

This No-Action Alternative calls for a long-term groundwater monitoringprogram to serve as an early warning system. The system would be used todetect Impending changes in the health risks and environmental impacts.In the event of a potential risk to receptors, a contingency plan couldbe activated to safeguard those identified receptors.

The monitoring program will be performed for either an extended period(30 years) or until the level of contaminants in the wells closest to thelagoon (DW-5 and DW-3) diminishes to background levels.

Site security will also be upgraded to prevent unauthorized access intothe site. A permanent gate will be installed in the fence, near thestream (northwest corner), at the point where the fence was cut, to gainaccess to the monitoring wells and, at the gap under the fence, wheresurface depressions will be filled in.

12-6

AR0009W

12.2.1 NONCOST ANALYSIS

Technical Evaluation

Since no remedial actions are taken under this alternative, a technicalevaluation is not applicable in this Instance. Existing deep wells(DW-3, DW-4, DW-5, and DW-9) will be used for the long-term groundwatermonitoring program. DW-9 will provide upgradient data, while DW-4 willmonitor migration of site contaminants beyond Bear Creek, which is actingas a hydrologic barrier. DW-5 and, to a lesser degree, DW-3 arecurrently Impacted by the site. DW-3 and DW-5 will be used to assess thecondition of the lagoon wastes and their Impact on local groundwater.

Existing shallow wells A-l through A-ll, excluding A-7 will be groutedand the well casing removed. The remaining shallow wells A-7, A-12,A-13, and A-l through A-ll will be left in placed to be used Ifadditional response actions are taken in the future. Although only DW-4,DW-5, DW-9, and DW-3 will be used for the post-closure monitoringprogram, the remaining deep wells will remain Intact to be used ifadditional remedial actions are taken and groundwater Information isneeded. Security on shallow wells A-7, A-12, and A-13 will requireupgrading to prevent exposure of perched liquids to unauthorized personsentering the site.

Institutional Requirements

Public opposition may be anticipated for this alternative. No oppositionhas been reported as a result of shutting down remedial action activitiesbecause of the gas release. Nonetheless, the potential long-term Impactson Bear Creek and groundwater resources directly downgradient may be

AR0009«»I

unacceptable to the public. Present site conditions do not meet stateand local accepted practice for erosion, sedimentation, and runoffcontrol. The No-Action Alternative does not meet RCRA guidelines forcover systems.

Other Institutional requirements included in this alternative would be aprovision for long-term regularly scheduled site Inspections to check onsecurity structures and monitoring of the groundwater. The monitoringwould continue to use the existing monitoring wells.

Public Health Issues

The public health concerns associated with the no-action alternative areessentially those Identified in Subsection 8.5 of this RI/FS report.They include the following:

• The contaminated groundwater does not currently pose a directthreat to public health. Contaminated groundwater 1s Interceptedby Bear Creek and there are no downstream public or private usersof Bear Creek. The nearest downgradient water intake is locatedon the Allegheny River approximately 35 miles downstream of theBruin Lagoon site. •

• Future use exposure scenarios for groundwater Include theinstallation of drinking water wells directly downgradient of thesite. This scenario was evaluated for the no-action alternative,utilizing the VHS groundwater transport model reference. Resultsof the model indicate that several inorganic contaminants wouldexceed drinking water standards posing a hazard to individuals whodrink the groundwater. This scenario 1s, however, highlyunlikely, but it does demonstrate a potential health threat.

• If no restrictions are placed on the use of the Bruin Lagoon site,exposure to sulfur gases could occur at levels which do pose risksto human health should the site subsurface ever be disturbed.

12-8AR0009i*2

• Upgraded site security, as proposed under this alternative, wouldbe more effective in preventing unauthorized access to the site.In the absence of site remediation, however, there still exists thepossibility of unauthorized persons entering the site andsustaining Injury. This could be In the form of either dermalcontact or eye contact (splashing) from the acidic standing waterlocated in surface depressions in the lagoon area. Raw,unstabillzed sludge Is also exposed at the ground surface due toupwelUng.

Environmental Issues

Under the no-action alternative, the current environmental conditionswill remain unchanged.

The primary environmental concern 1s the. contamination of the groundwater,under the Bruin Lagoon site, and the Impact on Bear Creek, whichintercepts the contaminated groundwater. Because of the preexistingdegraded condition of Bear Creek, an Indigenous population of freshwateraquatic life does not exist. Bear Creek, however, converges with theAllegheny River approximately 4.5 miles downstream from the site.Contamination from the 1968 spill of about 3,000 gallons of acidic sludgewas observed over 100 miles downstream and resulted in a major fish kill(EPA 1984a).

In the future, however, the water quality in the creek could. possiblyImprove sufficiently to support fish populations. (It 1s not possible topredict when, or If, this would occur considering the mining andIndustrial activities 1n the area.) Thus, exposure to groundwatercontamination, recharging Into nearby surf ace water by freshwater aquaticlife, will be considered a complete exposure pathway under potentialfuture conditions. Current contaminant concentrations in the groundwatercannot support aquatic life. In addition, the pH of the groundwater islethal to fish.

Although there 1s no indication that gases are currently volatilizingfrom the site, there 1s a possibility that acid gases may buildup in thefuture. If the lagoon subsurface is ever disturbed 1n the future, these .gases may be vented and reach local plant populations resulting 1n toxiceffects on plant life.

Animals entering the site could also be exposed to the acidic surfacewater and raw surface sludge on the site. Exposure would result in burnsthrough dermal contact and health risks if the acidic water were ingested.

The no-action alternative does not provide for effective environmentalmanagement, nor does 1t provide for control of groundwater and surfacewater contamination. Environmental management would Include control ofthe pathways where water comes in contact with the sludge andcontaminated soils. This type of contact results In the migration ofcontaminants to the groundwater, and, eventually, into Bear Creek.

The major pathway is precipitation Infiltration through the existing-cover. Precipitation Infiltration recharges the perched liquid zonewithin the bottom of the lagoon, which is a primary source and secondarypathway for contaminants entering the groundwater. Surface depressionsalso collect precipitation, which Increases Infiltration and results inacidic standing water. Acidic standing water and contaminated soils maybe carried off-site in runoff from heavy precipitation. Thus, anothercontaminant pathway is created as a result of the runoff.

Embankment reinforcement and stabilization measures have not beencompleted. Under probable maximum flood (PMF) rapid drawdown conditionsthe embankment may fall resulting in a potential release of sludge,acidic liquid, and contaminated soils, that may impact aquatic biota andthreaten drinking water supplies of the Allegheny River.

12-10AR0009H

The no-action alternative does not meet the remedial action objectives todo the following:

• Contain, reduce, and/or eliminate sources of site contaminantswhich have been Identified as representing possible sources ofexposure by potential receptors.

• Reduce or eliminate exposure of site contaminants by potentialreceptors. This would be accomplished by addressing thosecontaminant pathways that lead to possible exposure.


The capital costs associated with this alternative include Installing anew gate, where there is a breach 1n the gate, and fliving 1n gaps underthe fence where there are surface depressions. Capital costs will alsoinclude decommissioning the existing shallow and deep wells. Anexception would be the four deep wells to be used for monitoring.

Long-term monitoring 1s Included 1n the alternative; existing deep wellsDW-3, DW-4, DW-5, and DW-9 will be used. Tables 12-1, 12-2, and 12-3will provide capital cost estimates; post-closure and well-monitoringanalysis and sampling; and estimated post-closure and operating costs,respectively. Present worth analysis and total cost estimates forAlternative No. 1 and the other alternatives are provided In Table 13-1.

12"]1 AR0009if5

TABLE 12-1

ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION: CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Activity Quantity

Upgrade Security Fence

• New Gate (20 ft) 1 each

• Backfill under erodedand depressed areas(50-100 ft) 10 cu yd

• Well closures 10 wellsUpgrade security on shallowwells (A7, A-12, A-13) 3 wells

Unit Cost

$1,100

38/cu yd

Lump Sum

$200/well

Subtotal

Contingency(25%)

Total(rounded)

Total

$ 1,100

400

9,500

600

$11,600

2,900

$15,000

12-12AR0009l*6

TABLE 12-2

ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION: POST-CLOSURE ANALYSIS COST

Analysis

Indicator Parameters

Total Organic Carbon

Total Organic Hal IdesOil and Grease

23 Hazardous Substance List Metals

Sulfates

Linear Alkyl Sulfonltes

Total

Organics Analysis

Hazardous Substance List VolatileOrganic Analysis

Hazardous Substance List Base/Neutral/Acid Extractables

Total(per

Frequency

Quarterly

QuarterlyQuarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly Cost

Annually

Annually

Annual cost (rounded)well)

CostPer Sample

$ 35

75

40

275

25

25

$ 475

235

450

$2,600

12-13AR00091*?

TABLE 12-3

ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION: POST-CLOSURE/OPERATING COST ESTIMATE

Activity Quantity Unit Cost Annual Total

Well Monitoring: 4 wells - Quarterly $l,000/quarter $4,000(DW 9, DW3, DU4 and DW5)(2 person team)Monitoring:

Indicator parametersand Inorganics (4 wells) Quarterly 475/well 7,600

Organic Analysis(4 wells) Annually 685/well 2,700

Fence and AccessMaintenance Quarterly 500/quarter 2,000(performed at sametime as well monitoring Subtotal $16,300activities)

Contingency(25%) 4,000

Administrative(15%) 2,400

Annual Total $23,000(rounded)

12-14AR0009l*8

12.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES - SLUDGE AND PERCHED LIQUIDSTABILIZATION - SOIL CAP - POST-CLOSURE MONITORING

Alternative 2 consists of treating the primary sources of contaminants bylime-based stabilization, completing the embankment stabilizationefforts, capping the lagoon area with a clean soil cap and post-closuremonitoring. Alternative 2 provides measures that reduce potential publichealth risks through stabilization of the sludge and liquid zone, andgrading and capping the lagoon area, thus, reducing groundwater andsurface-water contamination. These measures also reduce environmentalImpacts from the site. The vegetated soil cap will promote runoff andreduce infiltration, but It will not be as effective in reducinginfiltration as a multilayer cap system. A comparison of the existingcover and soil cap will be presented under this alternative. Acomparison with the multilayer cap system will be provided under theevaluation of Alternative 3.


Technical Evaluation

Sludge and Perched Liquid Stabilization. Field testing of severalstabilization materials, which Included fly ash, cement, Hrne, andbulking agents, was performed during the remedial construction work ofwinter - spring 1984. An optimum mixture of sludge, soil bulking agent(SBA), and quicklime in a ratio of 1:1:0.15 by weight was determined.The SBA and quicklime were obtained from local sources.

12~15 AR0009l*9

Stabilization of the sludge is directed at achieving two objectives:

t Increasing the bearing capacity of the sludge 1n order to supportthe existing cover materials without continuous upwelllng, and tosupport a final cap system to minimize differential settlement thatcould significantly damage the cap. .

• Immobilizing the Inorganic contaminants in the sludge by increasingthe pH of the sludge and decreasing its Teachability.

Bench-scale stabilization and geotechnical testing of sludge wasperformed in October and November 1985 to assess the strength .characteristics of the stabilized material. A discussion of these testsis provided in Section 7.0. The results of these tests Indicate that thestabilized sludge would be able to support the.present overburden and asoil cap system with only minimal localized settlement.

•The second objective of stabilization 1s achieved with the addition ofquicklime, which raises the pH and thus immobilizes the metals present inthe sludge. Inorganic contaminants are of the greatest concern at theBruin Lagoon site.

Both laboratory and full-scale field testing have shown that thedeveloped stabilization process for the asphaltic sludge is successful inachieving the desired objectives and, therefore, is effective inminimizing the danger to public health, welfare, and the environment.Stabilization processes use proven technologies that can be expected tomaintain their effectiveness over the long term.

12-16AR000950

The sludge stabilization operation was field tested during the initialremedial action and an efficient procedure developed. Stabilization ofthe perched liquid zone can be Integrated with the sludge stabilizationoperation. The SBA and stabilization agent can be added to the liquidzone to allow for excavation and transfer to the mixing pits with thesludge where the mixing process is controlled better and the optimummixing ratio 1s more easily achieved. Some modification of the ratio mixmay be necessary for materials from the perched liquid zone. Just beforethe gas release that halted the remedial activities, 6,400 tons of sludgehad been stabilized in the last month of operations. The remainingunstabillzed sludge Is located In the presently covered "open" lagoonarea (northern section of site) and 1n a small area 1n the southeasterncorner of the lagoon area. These areas have been identified 1nSubsection 5.2. Additional cost is associated with the off-site disposalof site runon and ponded precipitation in excavated areas that became 'contaminated. A cost item for this activity will be inlcuded In the costanalysis of all alternatives that Include stabilization activities.

Health and Safety Program. As part of the remedial activity health andsafety program gas monitoring, as outlined In Subsection 6.4.2 forsampling operations, should be performed during all site activity. If •gas monitoring and treatment becomes necessary during excavationactivities and large quantities are encountered, gases could be ventedthrough existing wells and directed through a mobile treatment unit. The

^ . • •".. - • .treatment unit will be similar to the system used during the emergencyaction, consisting of granular activated carbon canisters. This systemproved effective and reliable In treating the gases for safe release intothe atmosphere. Monitoring equipment should be calibrated regularly toensure accurate performance.

12-17 AR00095I

Embankment Stabilization and Reinforcement. Analysis of the stability ofthe embankment under critical conditions (rapid drawdown - PMFconditions) was performed by Geo Mechanic in 1983. A retaining structureand gabions were Installed at the southern (upstream) end of theembankment during the Initial remedial action as part of the recommendedstabilization and reinforcement efforts based on this analysis. Toensure long-term effective performance and reliability even underworst-case conditions, additional stabilization and reinforcementmeasures are necessary as a continuation and completion of the initialefforts.

A safety factor greater than 1.0 is desired under rapid drawdownconditions. To achieve a safety factor of 1.1 the following measuresmust be taken:

• Reduce the slope of the embankment to 2-1/4H:lV.• Install a minimum 3-foot layer of free-draining material on the

remaining uncovered embankment along Bear Creek.

The procedures to follow that will ensure slope stability and erosioncontrol during embankment Improvements are discussed 1n this paragraph.Regrading of the embankment slope should be performed in conjunction withthe placement of the free-flowing material. Regrading of the top of theslope should begin, pushing large material downslope and reducing theslope of the embankment to 2-l/4H:1V. Graded slope should be compactedto within 2 percent of its optimum dry density as determined by theStandard Proctor Test (ASTM D698). A geotextlle support fabric should beplaced on the regraded slope before the free-flowing material 1sinstalled. Free-flowing material should be either PennDOT 2B stone orgabions. When grading operations reach the bottom of the embankment the

12-18AR000952

existing large riprap should be pushed to the front of the toe of theembankment and free-flowing material filled in behind the large riprap.These procedures should ensure performance and reliability of theembankment during remedial activities and for the long term.

Along the northern embankment, the existing large riprap at the toe ofthe slope should be left 1n place. The slope of the embankment should beregraded and the large rocks pushed to the toe. After regrading and soilcompaction topsoil can then be placed and the slope hydro-seeded. TheseImprovements are adequate to ensure slope stability since the creek doesnot encroach oh this embankment. All other slopes should be properlygraded and vegetated.

Soil Cap. Several capping techniques and materials were discussed inv -/ Section 10.0 under the screening of remedial action technologies. The

cap proposed under this alternative utilizes a two-layer cap systemcomposed of an l8-1nch layer of compacted local clean clayey silt coveredwith a 6- inch vegetated topsoil layer. The clayey silt layer 1s to beplaced In 9-Inch (loose thickness) lifts and compacted to 95 percent ofits maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM01557-70). Compaction of the clean soil layer will Improve theperformance of the cap. The use of a soil cap system is a proventechnology for reducing percolation Into contaminated areas and forcontrolling erosion. .

The permeability of the compacted local clean soil Is expected to exceedthe recommended RCRA technology guideline of 10 cm/s, which can.beachieved only with a clay or soil admixture material. When properlycompacted, graded, and vegetated the soil cap will reduce precipitationInfiltration entering the lagoon area. The effectiveness of a soil capwas evaluated using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance

12-19AR000953

(HELP) model program developed by P. R. Schroeder et al. (1983). Theprogram models the effects of hydrologic processes, Includingprecipitation, surface storage, runoff, infiltration, percolation,evapotranspiration, soil moisture storage, and lateral drainage using aquasi-two-dimensional approach. Default climatologic data fromPittsburgh, Pennsylvania from 1974 to 1978 were used to represent thesite conditions from available data. A permeability of the silty clay

5 2cap of 9.5 x 10 cm/s and a cover area of 35,200 ft was used forthis simulation. The cover area was determined from aerial photographs ofthe past lagoon configurations, soil borings, and analytical data fromsoil and sludge samples. A potential two-layer soil cap system with thefollowing characteristics was developed and read into the program:

Good Grass Vegetated Cover

Layer 1 - Topsoll Layer

Item Value

Vertical percolation layerThickness 6 inchesEvaporation coefficient 3.4 mm/day**0.5Porosity 0.43 vol/volField capacity 0.16 vol/volW1H1ng point 0.06 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity 11.6759 inches/hour

12-20AR000951*

Layer 2 - Compacted Clayey S1lt Layer

Item Value

Vertical percolation layerThickness 18 inchesEvaporation coefficient 3.1 mm/day**0.5Porosity 0.3375 vol/volField capacity 0.1357 vol/volWilting point 0.06 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity 0.139 Inch/hour

Layer

Item

3 - Existing Cover Soil

Value•

Vertical percolation layer3Thickness 60 InchesEvaporation coefficient 3.4 mm/day**0.5Porosity 0.43 vol/volField capacity 0.16 vol/volWilting point 0.06 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity 2.78 inches/hour

*An average thickness of 5 feet was used — cover thickness varies from0 to 15 feet.

12-21AR000955

Layer 4 -Stabilized Sludge

Item Value

Waste layer0Thickness 300 InchesEvaporation coefficient 3.3 mm/day**0.5Porosity 0.52 vol/volField capacity 0.32 vol/volWilting point 0.19 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity 0.283 inch/hour

DAn average 25-foot stabilized sludge layer was used.

The complete output of the program is provided In Appendix P.The average annual totals (using 1974 through 1978 weather data) follow: .,

Two-Layer Cap System Performance Summary

PrecipitationRunoffEvapotransp1rat'1onPercolation through

Item

sludge materialDrainage from base of cover

Inches

38.91.0422.9915.710

Cubic Feet

429,1922,147

253,652173,393

0

Percent

100.0.5

59.140.40

12-22

AR000956

The results of the simulation indicate that the soil cap would beeffective in limiting the precipitation Infiltration through thestabilized sludge to 40 percent of the total Infiltration. A total of 60percent of the Incident precipitation is retained in the cap system andIs eventually lost to evapotranspiration. The model Indicates negligiblerunoff with nearly all incident precipitation infiltrating the cover,with the largest percent of infiltration being lost toevapotranspiration. This 1s due to the model's Interpretation of covervegetation, drainage distances, and soil characteristics. It 1santicipated that under field conditions runoff will contribute a greaterpercentage to the reduction 1n Infiltration. These results can then becompared to existing conditions. The following data were read Into theprogram:

Bare Ground

Layer 1 - Existing Cover Soils

Item Value

Vertical percolation layerThickness 60 inchesEvaporation coefficient 3.4 mm/day**0.5Porosity 0.43 vol/volField capacity 0.16 vol/volWilting point 0.06 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity 2.78 Inches/hour

12-23AR000957

Layer 2 - Both Stabilized and Unstabillzed Sludge

Item Value

Waste layerThickness 300 InchesEvaporation coefficient . 3.3 mm/day**0.5Porosity 0.52 vol/volField capacity 0.32 vol/volWilting point 0.19 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity 0.283 Inch/hour

The complete output of the program is provided in Appendix P.

The average annual totals (using 1974 through 1978 weather data) are asfollows:

Existing Conditions Summary

Item Inches Cubic Feet Percent

Precipitation 38.09 429,192 100.Runoff 0.19 2,146 0.5Evapotranspiration 16.57 186,698 43.5Percolation through sludge m material 21.33 240,347 56.0

In comparing the results of the two simulations, approximately 56 percentof the precipitation that falls on the lagoon area Infiltrates throughthe cover soils, leaching the sludge and recharging the perched liquidzone compared to 40 percent for the soil cap. This would mean areduction in Infiltration of 16 percentage or points approximately 8,800

12-24AR000958

gallons/year as a result of Installing a soil cap. Greater reductions inInfiltration may be expected for low permeability multilayered capsystems.

Surface management of the soil cap will ensure its effectiveness inreducing Infiltration. Surface management Includes regrading,vegetating, and surface-water diversions. Surface regrading and partialbackfilling will be performed prior to the placement of the clean soillayer to ensure proper compaction and overall Integrity of the capsystem. Surface regrading will eliminate depressions existing andcreated during stabilization operations in the lagoon area, and willcreate a site contour pattern that promotes runoff away from the lagoon.Additional surface management measures will Include upgrading thedrainage ditches along the western and southern sides of the site toprovide site runoff and control erosion of the slopes and ditches.Ditches can be lined with gravel or vegetated to control ditch erosion.The ditches will be equipped with sedimentation controls such as fabricfences, stone filler berms, etc. These sedimentation controls wouldserve on a temporary basis to remove any transported sediments until thefinal cover 1s vegetated and stabilized.

Once the vegetated cover layer Is established, it will require limitedregular maintenance. The entire vegetated area should be mowed once ortwice a year to minimize the potential for growth of deep-rootedvegetation. The cap should be periodically inspected to ensure continuedIntegrity and repair of any erosion or settlement damage.

12-25AR000959

Post-Closure Monitoring

Post-closure monitoring for Alternative 2 and the following alternativeswill Include annual sampling and analysis of groundwater using deep wellsDW-3, DW-4, DW-5, and OW-9. Analysis will Include .indicator parameters,inorganics, and organics analysis as outlined in Table 12-2 under the NoAction Alternative.

Alternative 2, as well as Alternatives 3 through 5, will Include groutingand well casing removal of the remaining deep wells, and shallow wellsA-l through A-ll excluding A-7. The remaining shallow wells located inareas where sulfur gas was detected in the past may be used to monitorand vent gases during excavation operations. Before excavation of thearea where A-7 1s located, the well will be grouted and the casingremoved. Grouting of the AW wells 1n areas that will be excavated is notnecessary because these wells do not extend Into the bedrock. Shallowwells AW-1, AW-9, and AW- 10 are not 1n potential excavation areas andwill require closure. A total of 14 shallow wells and 6 deep wells willbe closed. Grouting of the wells will prevent migration of contaminantsthrough wells to the bedrock groundwater.

Institutional Considerations

The following Institutional considerations are associated with thealternative:

• There are RCRA design standards for surface capping.- The proposedsoil cap for this alternative Is composed of local clayey siltsthat are not anticipated to meet the RCRA technology guideline forcover material permeability of 10-' cm/s.

• Long-term groundwater monitoring and cap maintenance are involvedwith this alternative. Long-term funding and administration mustbe in place for these functions.

12-26AR000960

• All state erosion, sediment, and dust control ordinances wouldapply during construction and until a vegetated cover isestablished.

Public Health and Environmental Issues

Alternative 2 reduces the potential public health risks and environmentalimpacts posed by the site by addressing the following environmentalissues and contaminant pathways that are part of potential exposurepathways for Identified receptors:

• The approximately 17,500 cubic yards of remaining unstablllzedasphaltic sludge will be stabilized under this alternative, thus,minimizing the potential for upwel lings and Immobilizing Inorganiccontaminants that pose a potential health threat.

• Capping the lagoon area with a soil cap, which Includes regrading,vegetating, and surface management, will reduce Infiltration Intothe lagoon area by approximately 16 percentage. The pointreduction of Infiltration will result in a reduction of leaching ofcontaminants from the lagoon area, thus, reducing the potentialpublic health threats and environmental Impacts.- Regrading andcapping will also eliminate surface depressions and acidic/causticstanding water, which pose a potential human and animal exposurerisk. The soil cover will also provide a physical barrier over thestabilized sludge material.

• The stabilization of the perched liquid zone will eliminate aprimary pathway for contaminants to enter the groundwater. Incombination with infiltration reduction by capping, contaminantloading to the groundwater and its associated potential healththreats will be reduced.

• Stabilization of the sludge and perched liquid zone willsignificantly reduce the potential for additional HgS gas -production. Monitoring with available venting and treatmentsystems will reduce the potential health risks during stabilizationoperations. However, the contractor must be prepared to respond topotential gas releases should they occur.

12-27AR00096I


The capital cost estimate for Alternative 2 is presented in Table 12-4.Post closure and operational costs are provided 1n Table 12-5. A summaryof the total costs and present worth analysis of each alternative ispresented in Section 13.0.

12.4 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE 3 - SLUDGE AND LIQUID ZONE STABILIZATION -IN SITU BEDROCK TREATMENT - RCRA CAP AND MONITORING

Alternative 3 consists of stabilization of the sludge and liquid zone,reinforcement/stabilization of the embankment, and post-closuremonitoring, all of which were Included in Alternative 2, but withadditional environmental effectiveness provided by 1n situ treatment ofthe sludge Impregnated shallow bedrock, and Installment of a lowpermeability multilayer cap system.


Technical Considerations

The technical evaluation of the stabilization of the sludge and perchedliquid zone, the health and safety program, and the embankmentstabilization and reinforcement measures has been performed underAlternative 2, in Subsection 12.3.1. These technologies are both fieldtested and proven technologies that, when executed properly, haveacceptable performance and reliability records. Therefore, the noncostanalysis for this alternative will concentrate on evaluating the in situtreatment of the shallow fractured bedrock and capping the lagoon areawith a multilayer cap system. It is anticipated that a low permeability

flR000962

TABLE 12-4

ALTERNATIVE 2 - SLUDGE AND LIQUID ZONE STABILIZATION/SOIL CAP:CAPITAL COST

Activity

Removal and Reburial ofStabilized MaterialCovering Unstabillzed Sludge

On-site Stabilization ofSludge and Perched LiquidZone

Stabilization Materials

Soil Bulking Agent

Quicklime

Health and Safety Program

Gas Monitoring

Gas Treatment (blower,caustic scrubber, granu-lated activity carbon)

Control and Disposal ofContaminated Run-on DuringStabilization Activity

Well closures

Quantity1

26,500 tons

18,900 tons

18,900 tons

2,800 tons

3 months -full time .SafetyTechnician

74,000 gal/month x 3

20 wells

Unit Cost

$8/ton

$16/ton

5/ton

103/ton

30/hr

Lump Sum

0.30/gal

Lump Sum

Total

212,000

302,400

93,500

288,400

14,400

13,000

66,600

19,000

^Quantities were determined from soil borings and analytical data. Thequantity calculations are found in Appendix R.

12-29AR000963


Activity

Drainage and ErosionControls(100 ft silt fencing, cleanout drainage ditches andplace gravel /stone protec-tion 1n ditches - 800 ftditches)Complete EmbankmentImprovements(place riprap on slope,regrade slopes, vegetate)Soil Cap (24 In.)(cleanfill)Geotextiles

Top Soil (6 in.)

Seeding/Mulching

Quantity1 Unit Cost

Lump Sum

4,800 sq yd 4.20/sq yd

10,100 cu yd 11.20 cu yd

135,200 sq ft 0.17/sq ft

2,500 cu yd 13.75 cu yd

135,200 sq ft 0.06/sq ft

SubtotalMobilization, Demobilization,Construction Management, andSite Services (22%)

Subtotal

Total

4,000

20,200

113,000

23,100

34,400

8.100

$1,213,100

266,900

$ 480,000

12-30

AR000961*


Activity Quantity1 Unit Cost

Insurance (2%)Overhead and Profit (10%)

SubtotalContingency (25%)Engineering (5%)

Total(rounded)

Total

29,600

148.000

$1,657,600

414,400

82.900

$2,155,000

12-31

AR000965

TABLE 12-5

ALTERNATIVE 2 - SLUDGE AND LIQUID ZONE STABILIZATION/SOIL CAP:POST-CLOSURE/OPERATING COSTS

Activity Quantity Unit Cost Annual Total

Cap Maintenance

Mowing (1 per year) 5,050 sq yd $0.20/sq yd $ 1,000Erosion Repair and 1,500 sq yd 1.35/sq yd 2,000Reseedi ng/SettlementRepair Inspections 4 each Lump Sum 2,000(cap, wells, etc.)

Security Maintenance 12 each Lump Sum 500(performed duringmonitoring activities)

Post-Closure MonitoringIndicator Parametersand Inorganics Annually $475/well 1,900

Organic Analysis Annually $685/we11 2,700

Labor 2 person Lump Sum 1.000team(annually) Subtotal $11,100

Contingency 2,800(25%)Administrative 1,700(15%) —— ——

Annual Total $16,000

12-32AR000966

multilayer cap system will significantly reduce infiltration into thelagoon area. A significant reduction in infiltration, along withstabilization of the sludge and perched liquid, should hasten thereduction of contaminant concentrations to background levels.

In Situ Bedrock Treatment. Contamination of the bedrock below the lagoon1s discussed 1n Subsection 6.5.5. Inspection of core samples taken inthe lagoon area showed that the bedrock surface has been impregnated withacidic sludge material. The pH of core samples indicated that in someareas of the lagoon the bedrock condition was acidic down to 20 to 30feet below the bedrock surface. Acidic conditions usually diminished inmost cores between 12 and 23 feet. The sandstone bedrock is moderatelyfractured. Groundwater 1s found at the bedrock surface.

Alternative 3 includes treatment "of the sludge-impregnated bedrocksurface and neutralization of groundwater found at the surface of thebedrock by applying a caustic slurry onto the bedrock surface. Thecaustic slurry will raise the pH of the bedrock at the time ofremediation activity, immobilizing the Inorganic contaminants In thesludge and neutralizing the acidic groundwater on the surface and withinthe shallow fractured bedrock. Neutralization of acidic material iscommonly performed using lime products; there are several lime productsavailable commercially that form a slurry and can be pumped from a mixingarea to the exposed bedrock surface. A diluted solution of approximately5 percent lime may be applicable, however, field pilot studies must beconducted to determine the best applicable solution. Bedrock treatmentcan follow the sludge stabilization operation. As sludge 1s excavated,using standard excavation equipment, and transferred to on-s1te mixingpits for mixing with lime and bulking agent, the caustic slurry can bepumped onto the exposed bedrock surface and worked into the fracturedbedrock to the extent possible. The amount of fracturing of the bedrock,the strength of the surface bedrock, the height of groundwater, and the

12-33AR000967

results of field pilot studies will determine the amount and applicationof the lime slurry.

Multilayer cap system. Cap materials that have a history of successfuluse were discussed in Subsection 10.3, under screening the remedialaction technologies. The site applicable materials that were retainedafter screening Include the following:

t Low Permeability Soils. A low permeability soil cap or layer 1n amultilayer cap system Is highly efficient when properly placed andprotected. Since low permeability soils are natural materials, along lifetime can be expected. In the event significantdifferential settling occurs, a low permeability soil cap could berepaired in the affected areas using standard constructiontechniques.

Typical design practices set the thickness of the compacted lowpermeability soil layer generally at 18 Inches to 2 feet so thatthe desired degree of Impermeability and reliability 1s attained.The feasibility of a low permeability soil as a cap material 1sbased on the availability of a sufficient supply locally. Sincesources are limited near the Bruin Lagoon site, soil admixtureswere also retained in the screening process.

• Soil Admixtures. A low permeability soil/bentonite or other lowpermeability soil admixture can be placed as the cap layer In themultilayer cap system, or as a single layer cap system, if naturallow permeability soils are not locally available or cannot be usedin a cost-effective manner.

Soil/bentonite admixtures are a proven capping (and lining) technique inwaste management that are gaining acceptance in field construction appli-cations. Soil/bentonite admixtures incorporate a combination of naturaland processed bentonite for use in cap system applications. When mixedin the proper proportions with an acceptable native soil, permeabilitiesas low as 10' cm/s can be achieved. Tables 12-6 and 12-7 present theapproximate bentonite addition rate suggested to yield a permeability ofno greater than 7 x 10 cm/s with each soil type listed. Because of

12-34AR000968

TABLE 12-6

SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

Major Divisions Letter

COARSE GRAINED SOILS

Gravel and Gravelly SoilsGW

GP

GMGC

ys~-x Sand and Sandy Soils

SW

SP

SMSC

FINE GRAINED SOILS

Silts and Clays (LL SO)

ML

CL

OL

Name

Well-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines.Poorly-graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures,little or" no.* fines.Silty gravels, grave 1 -sand-si It mixtures.Clayey gravels, gravel -sand-clay mixtures.

Well -graded sands or gravelly sands, little orno fines.Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little orno fines.Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.Clayey sand, sand-silt mixtures.

Inorganic silts and very fine sands rock flour,sllty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts withslight plasticity.Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,gravelly clays, sandy clays, sllty clays, leanclays. -Organic silts and organic silt-clays of lowplasticity.

1 Liquid limit - ASTM 423-66.

AR000969


Major Divisions Letter Name

FINE GRAINED SOILS (continued)

Silts and Clays (LL >50)

MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous finesandy or silty soils, elastic silts.

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,

organic silts

12-36AR000970

TABLE 12-7

SUGGESTED BENTONITE ADDITION FOR SOU ADMIXTURE CAP SYSTEMS

Classifica-tion

.GW

GP .

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT

PermeabilityCoefficient Range

(cm/sec)

k>10-2

K'10-2K = 10-3- 10-6

K « 10-6-10-8

K >10-3

K=>10-3

K - 10-3-10-6

K * 1 0-6-10-8

K - 10-3-10-6

K * 10-6-10-8

K * 10-4-10-6

K - 10-4-10-6

K = 10-6-10-8

K = 10-6-10-6

Variable

Approximate Bentonite Addition Rate toYield No Greater than 7 x 10-6

Possibly not scalable without use ofborrow material. -*

Possibly not scalable without use ofborrow material.

2% - 8% by weight of soil.

None

^8% by weight of soil.

>8% by weight of soil.


None


None2% - 6% by weight of soil.

2% - 6% by weight of soil.NoneNone ,

Unsuitable soil for sealing.

Source: WYO-6EN, INC., Billings, Montana

12-37AR00097I

bentonite's unique molecular structure, while results in swelling up to15 times Us original dry bulk at full saturation, bentonite can providean excellent "self healing" mechanism in a cap system. Composed ofnatural materials, a soil/bentonite layer would be expected to have along design life.

Other low permeability soil admixtures that should be considered duringdesign optimization are fly ash/fine grained soils/lime stabilization andfly ash/lime stabilization cement kiln dust. Detailed design evaluationand costing is needed before these admixtures can be considered for siteapplication. A bentonite/soil admixture was proposed during the initialRI/FS as a low-permeability layer 1n a multilayered cap system.

The above materials can be utilized as a single cap system, or as a lowpermeability barrier layer, 1n a multilayered cap system. Themultilayered cap system was also retained in the screening process.

Table 12-8 provides a performance assessment of the retained cappingtechniques. If a capping technique was given a positive relativeperformance rating, a plus sign appears in the criteria column. If anegative relative performance rating was given, a minus sign appears inthe criteria column.

In assessing the performance of a single layer cap system composed ofclay or a soil admixture to a multilayer cap system, the multilayer capshows the best relative performance.

The single layer low-permeability soil cover is slightly less effectivein impeding infiltration in the long term because of weathering damage(i.e., cracking, freeze/thaw, dessiccation, etc.). Some of thesepotential long-term uncertainties may be minimized by placing acover-soil layer (which includes a topsoil, vegetated layer) and proper

12-38AR000972

TABLE 12-8

CAPPING TECHNIQUE ASSESSMENT

LowPermeability Soil Multilayer

Performance Criteria Native Soil Admixtures System

Historical Applications as a CoverMaterial +

Trafficability

Impede Water Percolation +

Erosion Control

Aid Surface Run-Off +

Dessiccation -Freeze/Thaw Stability

Ease of Repair +

Crack ResistanceSide-Slope Stability

Potential for Side Slope Seepage +.Resistance to Rodent Burrowing

Supports Vegetation (assumes 6-1nchtopsoil layer on each cover material) +Ease of Construction . . . . . +

Cost of Placement +

Resistance to Biological Deterioration +Resistance to Root Penetration .

+ Positive relative performance rating.- Negative relative performance rating.

12-39AR000973

design of the cover grades and slopes, and/or use of geotextilereinforcement. The multilayered cap system, as presented in Figure 10-1,however, addresses additional long-term performance concerns by providingdrainage of the cover layer through the lateral drainage layer. In atwo-layer cap system composed of a low permeability barrier layer and avegetated cover layer, precipitation infiltrates the cover layer and 1strapped within this layer and on top of the low permeability soil layer.

Most of the moisture contained in this layer is eventually lost toevapotranspiration. Long-term, high-moisture content conditions In thecover layer, however, could effect the long-term performance of the capsystem, as the low permeability layer becomes saturated. Softening ofthe low permeability layer and loss of stability of the entire cap system(I.e., slumping) could result from these conditions, particularly onslopes. The addition of a lateral (horizontal) drain layer to thetwo-layer cap system can alleviate these long-term performance concerns.

The effectiveness of a multilayer cap system was evaluated using the HELPmodel. The following potential multilayer cap system was developed andused for model simulation.

Grass Vegetated Cover

Layer 1 - Cover Layer

Item Value

Vertical percolation layer(uncompacted sllty soil)Thickness 18 inchesEvaporation coefficient 3.4 mm/day**0.5Porosity 0.43 vol/volField capacity 0.161 vol/volWilting point 0.06 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity 11.6759 Inches/hour

12~4° AR00097I4

Layer 2 - Gravel

Item

Lateral drainage layer (gravel)SlopeDrainage lengthThickness .Evaporation coefficientPorosityField capacityWilting pointEffective hydraulic conductivity

Value

4. percent100 feet12 Inches3.3 mm/day**0.50.351 vol/vol ,0.174 vol/voK0.107 vol/vol

"11.95 inches/hour

Layer 3 - Low Permeability Layer

Item Value

Barrier soil layerThickness 18 InchesEvaporation coefficient 3.1 mm/day**0.5Porosity - • 0.52 vol/volField capacity 0.45 vol/volWilting point 0.36 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity .000142 Inch/hour

12-41

AR000975

Layer 4 - Existing Cover Soils

Item Value

Vertical percolation layer(regraded existing soil cover)Thickness 60 inchesEvaporation coefficient 3.4 mm/day**0.5Porosity 0.43 vol/volField capacity 0.161 vol/volWilting point 0.06 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity 2.78 inches/hour

Layer 5 - Stabilized Sludge

Item Value

Waste layer (stabilized sludge)Thickness 300 inchesEvaporation coefficient 3.3 mm/day**0.5Porosity 0.52 vol/volField capacity 0.32 vol/volWilting point 0.19 vol/volEffective hydraulic conductivity .283 inches/hour

The complete output of the programs provided in Appendix P.

The average annual totals (using 1974 through 1978 weather data) arepresented below.

12-42

AR000976

Multilayered Cap System Performance Summary

Item Inches Cubic Feet Percent

Precipitation 38.09 429,192 100.00Runoff 0.27 3,004 0.7Evapotranspiration 16.30 183,694 42.8Percolation from base of cover 1.41 15,880 3.7Percolation through sludge material 1.41 15,880 3.7Drainage from base of cover -

lateral drain layer 20.11 226,613 52.8

The results of the simulation show that the multilayered cap system 1seffective in preventing more than 96 percent of the Incidentprecipitation from reaching the waste material (stabilized sludge). Themodel also clearly shows the effectiveness of the lateral drainage layer,which allows more than 52 percent of the precipitation to drain off thecover layer and only 4 percent to reach and percolate through thelow-permeability barrier layer. The model Indicates negligible runoffwith nearly all incident precipitation infiltrating the cover, with thelargest percentage of infiltration being lost to evapotranspiration anddrainage from the lateral drainage layer. It Is anticipated that underfield conditions runoff will contribute a greater percentage to thereduction in infiltration. ,

A summary of the average annual performance for the existing cover, thesoil cap presented under the evaluation of Alternative 2, and themultilayered cap simulations is presented below:

AR000977

AVERAGE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Total precipitation: 57,400 gal/yr

MultilayerExisting Cover Soil Cap Cap

Amount of precipitation 'infiltrating to the sludge 32,100 gal/yr* 23,200 gal/yr 2,200 gal/yr(potential recharge toperched liquid zone)

Percent reduction 1n 44% 60% 96%precipitation infiltrationinto lagoon

*Will be greater in areas where the cover Is less than 5 feet.

In comparing the effectiveness of the three simulations, the multilayercap would be the most effective in reducing precipitation infiltration.A multilayer cap would reduce by over 50 percentage points the currentamount of precipitation infiltrating into the lagoon and recharging theliquid perched zone. As calculated by the HELP Model simulation using a135,200 sq ft permeable surface area, that amount equals a potentialreduction in contaminated recharge loading to the groundwater of 29,900gal/yr or more.

12'44 AR000978

Based on this preliminary analysis, a multilayer cap system consisting ofa vegetated top soil, clean soil cover, a horizontal drainage layer, anda low-permeability soil cap layer would be a technically effective capsystem at the Bruin Lagoon site. Further detailed analysis and designoptimization Is needed to determine the layer thickness and the mostcost-effective layer materials.

The following considerations for each component layer should be made whendesigning the multilayer cap system. These considerations will alsoaffect the final cost analysis of this alternative.

Soil Cover Layer. The upper soil cover layer typically incorporatesclean fill soils, topsoil, and a vegetative cover. Clean fill may beutilized as a general grade-and-fill material to form the basis of thetop soil cover layer. Top soil, which Is usually placed above cleanfill, is typically a loose, uncompacted surface layer of loams forvegetative support. Vegetation serves to reduce the potential for windand water erosion, enhances evapotranspiration, and helps to establish anaturally fertile and stable soil base. The key to the effectiveness ofthe upper soil layer Is the success in establishing and promoting aneffective vegetative cover.

The layer of clean fill soils may range 1n thickness from a minimum of 12Inches to 3 feet or more. This soil layer must be free of large rocks orstones; roots, branches, or wood; and rubble, debris, or other waste

'. . . . . . . . , J . . " • - , - .

material. The selection of the thickness of this soil-fill layer shouldconsider factors such as the following:

• Availability of suitable material.• Thickness of top soil layer.

12-45AR000979

• Possible root penetration depth.

• Frost depth.

• Climatic conditions and extremes 1n precipitation.• Possible long-term soil losses.

Top-soil thickness 1s usually limited to about 6 to 12 Inches because ofits relatively high cost. If adequate quality top soiT 1s not available,it may be necessary to supplement existing soils with fertilizers andconditioners. This supplemental enrichment will provide the general soilcomposition and macronutrients needed to adequately support vegetation.

Several vegetation characteristics are Important to the establishment ofa successful vegetation cover over the multilayer cap system. Theseinclude (JRB Associates, 1982) the following:

• Low-growing vegetation.

• Limited soil penetration of plant roots.

• Rapid germination and development.

• Long-term durability (resistance to fire, Insects and disease).

• Low maintenance requirements.

Slope stability represents an important aspect of the upper soil layer.Side slopes should be limited to a maximum ratio of 3 horizontal to 1vertical (3:1) to ensure slope stability. This represents the maximumslope on which vegetation can be established and maintained, assuming useof soils with low erosion potential and adequate moisture-holdingcapacity. Top surfaces should utilize a slope of approximately 3 to 5percent to promote drainage and encourage runoff.

AR000980

Drainage Layer. The drain layer (horizontal drain layer) Is "sandwiched"between the upper soil-coyer layer on top and the low-permeability caplayer underneath. The drain layer 1s separated from the underlying capmaterial and overlaying soil using geotextile fabric placed above andbelow. This would reduce the potential for drain layer clogging byrestricting the possible movement of fine particles into the porous soilvoids. .

The drain layer consists of a relatively high permeability material3 2(10 -TO" cm/s or greater) to provide a lateral drainage path for

water that percolates through the upper soil cover layer. The drainlayer must provide rapid transmission of the water that will tend tocollect (perch) on the cap layer. Drain layer performance can be modeledusing the Hydrological Simulation for Solid Waste Disposal Sites (HSSWDS)computer simulation model developed for the U.S. EPA (Moore, 1980). Therequired drain layer thickness can be evaluated using this model. Thelayer thickness requirement 1s a function of the following designconsiderations:

• Annual infiltration rate.• Drain layer length. ; !

• Permeability of drain layer material.

• Drain layer slope.

Physical testing of the low-permeability soil layer and slope stabilityanalysis are also part of the evaluation of the horizontal drainagelayer. Along the steep side slopes a geogrld may provide a cost-effective drain layer for greater slope stability.

12-47AR00098I

Low-Permeability Soil Cap Layer. The cap layer can be constructed usingthe cover materials discussed in this subsection. The type of materialand thickness that Is the most cost effective for use in the cap layer 1sdetermined as part of the design optimization process. Native clay,soil /bentonite admixture and fly ash/soil lime admixtures can all achievepermeabilities of 10- cm/s or less when properly compacted. Theavailability of these materials will determine their cost effectiveness.For cost analysis purposes under this alternative, the cost oflow-permeability soils as quoted from a local supplier will be used. Oneof the first steps 1n the performance verification process is materialsverification. If the materials do not meet the desired specifications, acomponent in the in situ closure design may not achieve the desiredperformance. This type of materials test generally can be performed In asoils laboratory and may typically Include the parameters shown in Table12-9.

Surface Management and Gas Venting. Additional measures that willenhance the overall effectiveness of the multilayer cap system aresurface management techniques and gas venting. Surface regrading andbackfilling will be performed prior to the placement of thelow-permeability barrier layer. This measure will ensure propercompaction and overall Integrity of the cap system. Surface regradingwill eliminate the existing depressions in the lagoon area and establisha site contour pattern that promotes runoff away from the lagoon.Additional surface management measures will Include the construction of adrainage ditch along the west and south sides of the landfill to directrunoff away from the lagoon area. The ditches will be equipped withsedimentation controls such as geotextHe fabric fences, stone filterberms, and a sedimentation basin, where needed. These sedimentationcontrols would serve on a temporary basis to remove any transportedsediments, until the final cover is revegetated and stabilized.

12-48AR000982

TABLE 12-9

TYPICAL MATERIALS TESTING PARAMETERS

Component

Upper Soil LayerMaterial

Topsoil

Soil Fill

Drain Layer Material

Cap Layer (clayey soil)

1.2.

3-

1.

2.

3.

1.2.

3.

1.

2.

Characteristics

Organic contentpH

Suitability-clean

Low course fragments

Suitability-clean

Compact able

Soil typeAllow rapid watermovementSuitability-clean

Workability

Soil type

1.2.

3.

1.

2.

3.

1.2.

3.

1.

2.

Test Protocol

. •

Soil classification.Field testingprocedure.Visual — free fromforeign matter and. other debris.

Sieve analysis AASHTOT-27.Visual — free fromrocks, stones,debris, wastematerial, roots,sticks.Density at optimummoisture — AASHTOT-99.

Soil classification.Sieve analysis —permeability.Visual — free fromplants, roots,stones, debris.

Liquid limit —AASHTO T-89. Plasticlimit — AASHTO T-90.Sieve analysis —AASHTO F-ll andAASHTO F-27.

12-49

AR000983


Component

Cap Layer (clayey soil) 3.(continued)

4.

5.

Characteristics

Restrict watermovementCompactable

Suitability-clean

Test Protocol

3. Permeability.4. Maximum density

at optimum moisture— AASHTO T-180.

5. Visual — free fromstones, roots,plants, debris.

12-50AR00098U

Recent testing has shown no elevated concentrations of hydrogen sulfidewithin the lagoon. However, accumulation of hydrogen sulfide gas maystill be occurring below the sludge. Stabilization of the sludge and insitu treatment should eliminate any remaining gases and significantlyreduce the potential for additional gas production.

The effectiveness of a multilayer cap system, as a low permeable barrier,has been demonstrated with the HELP model. A multilayer cap system wouldalso be effective In trapping gases under the low permeability layer. Ifadditional gases are produced, it 1s not desirable to trap these gasesand accumulate concentrations. The gas accumulation could result in agas release that might damage the cap system and pose a public healththreat. A gas venting layer composed of high-permeable materials couldbe placed below the low-permeability layer and gas vents could beinstalled to vent gases from this high-permeability material to theatmosphere.

Once the vegetated cover layer is established on the multilayer cap itwill require limited regular maintenance. The entire vegetated areashould be mowed once or twice a year to minimize the potential for growthof deep-rooted vegetation. The cap should be periodically Inspected toensure continued integrity and repair of any erosion damage. In additionto cap maintenance, security maintenance and post- closure monitoring areIncluded in this alternatives operation and maintenance program. Themonitoring program will consist of the same analysis as outlined underthe No Action Alternative, but sampling will be performed annuallyInstead of quarterly. < •

12-51AR000985


The following Institutional considerations are associated with thealternative:

• There are RCRA design standards for surface capping. The proposedmultilayer cap for this alternative meets the RCRA technologyguidelines.

• Long-term groundwater monitoring and cap maintenance are involvedwith the alternative. Long-term funding must be 1n place for thesecosts.

• Will meet the intent of all state erosion, sediment, and dustcontrol ordinances during construction and until a vegetated coveris established. .


Alternative 3 addresses the following environmental issues andcontaminant pathways tnat are part of potential exposure pathways;environmental issues and contaminant pathways are also addressed underAlternative 2:

The approximately 17,500 cubic yards of asphaltic sludge will bestabilized under this alternative. The use of this alternativeeliminates upwelllngs and Immobilizes Inorganic contaminants thatpose a potential health treat when reaching groundwater and createan environmental Impact when reaching Bear Creek.

The stabilization of the perched liquid zone will eliminate aprimary pathway for contaminants to enter the groundwater. Incombination with infiltration reduction by capping, contaminantloading to the groundwater and its associated potential healththreats will be reduced.

Stabilization of the sludge and perched liquid zone willsignificantly reduce the potential for additional HgS gasproduction. Monitoring with available venting and treatmentsystems will reduce the potential health risks during stabilizationoperations.

12~52 AR000986

In addition to addressing the above public health and environmentalissues, Alternative 3 also addresses the following:

• Capping the lagoon area with a multilayered cap will provide anadditional reduction in infiltration into the lagoon of 50 percent(96 percent total reduction in Infiltration). The reduction ofInfiltration will result in a significant reduction of leaching ofcontaminants from the lagoon area. By reducing infiltration, thepotential health threats and environmental Impacts associated withthe localized contamination of the groundwater are also reduced.Regrading and capping will also eliminate surface depressions andacidic/caustic standing water. These two conditions pose apotential human and animal exposure risk.

• Providing a gas venting layer and venting pipes, as part of themultilayered cap system, will significantly reduce the potentialfor future gas accumulation under the cap system. The effect hereis to also reduce any potential public health risks.

• In situ treatment of the sludge Impregnated bedrock will reduce thecontaminant migration into the groundwater and neutralize theacidic condition of the groundwater in the bedrock. This resultsin reducing the environmental Impact and potential human healththreat posed by the present localized contamination of thegroundwater.

Alternative 3 is more effective than Alternative 2 in providingadditional remedial actions to reduce the existing and potential publichealth risks and environmental impacts.


The capital cost estimate for Alternative 3 1s presented In Table 12-10.Post closure and operating costs are provided In Table 12-11. A summaryof the total costs and present worth analysis of each alternative ispresented in Section 13.

12-53 flR000987

TABLE 12-10

ALTERNATIVE 3 - SLUDGE AND LIQUID ZONE STABILIZATION/IN SITU BEDROCK TREATMENT/RCRA CAP/CAPITAL COST

Activity Quantity1 Unit Cost Total

Removal and Reburial ofStabilized Material andSoil Covering UnstabilizedSludge 26,000 $8/ton $ 212,000

On-S1te Stabilization ofSludge and Perched LiquidZone 18,900 tons $16/ton . $ 302,400

Well closures 20 wells Lump Sum 19,000• • ' •


Soil Bulking Agents 18,900 tons 5/ton 94,500

Quicklime 2,800 tons 103/ton 288,400

Health and Safety Programduring Project Length

Gas Monitoring 3 months $30/hr 14,400

Gas Treatment — Lump Sum 13,000

Control and Disposal ofContaminant Site Run-on 221,000 gal 0.30/gal 66,300

Drainage and Erosion Control 800 linear ft 4/linear ft 3,200

In Situ Bedrock Treatment 150,000 gal 0.32/gal 48,000(caustic slurry) of lime slurry

(6 in. x 37,280sq ft)

Material quantity calculations are provided in Appendix R.

12-54

AR000988


Activity

Complete EmbankmentImprovements (riprap,regrading slope, vegetate)Multilayered Cap

Granular Base (12 in.)

Low Permeability Soil(18 in.)

Gas Vent Stacks

Geotextiles

Horizontal Drainage Layer(12 in.)

Cover Soil (12 in.)(clean fill)Top Soil (6 1n.)

Final GradingSeeding and Mulching

Quantity1

4,800 sq yd

5,000 cu yd

7,500 cu yd

5 each

3 x 135,200sq ft

5,000 cu yd

5,000 cu yd

2,500 cu yd

15,000 sq yd

135,200 sq ft

Subtotal

Unit Cost

4.20/sq yd

$13.70/cu yd

14.25 cu yd

LS

0.17 sq ft

15.80/cu yd

11.20/cu yd

13.75/cu yd

0.83 sq yd

0.06/sq ft

Mobilization, DemobilizationConstruction Management, SiteServices (22%)

Subtotal

Total

20,200

$ 68,500

107,000

1,500

69,000

79,000

56,000

34,400

12,500

8,100

$1,517,400

333,800

$1,851,200

12-55AR000989


Activity Quantity1 Unit Cost

Insurance, Bonds, Permits(2%)Overhead and Profit (10%)

Subtotal

Contingency (25%)

Engineering (5%)

TOTAL (rounded)

Total

37,000

185,100 .

$2,073,300

518,300

103.700

$2,695,000

12"56 AR000990

TABLE 12-11

ALTERNATIVE 3 - SLUDGE AND LIQUID ZONE STABILIZATION/IN SITUBEDROCK TREATMENT/RCRA CAP/POST CLOSURE/OPERATING COST

Activity

Cap MaintenanceMowing (1 per year)

Erosion Repair andReseed Ing/SettlementRepairInspections (quarterly)

Security Maintenance(monthly)

Post-Closure MonitoringIndicator Parametersand Inorganics

Organic Analysis

Labor

Quantity

5,050 sq yd

1,500 sq yd4 each12 each

" : ." >

Annually

Annually

2 person team(annually)

Unit Cost

$0.20/sq yd

1 .35/sq yd

Lump Sum

Lump Sum

$475/each well$685/each well

Lump Sum

Subtotal

Contingency(25%)Administrative(ISO-

Total

Annual Cost

$ 1,000

2,000

2,000

500

1,900

2,700

1,000

$11,000

2,800

1,700 ,

$16,000

12-57AR000991

12.5 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE 4 - REMOVAL. STABILIZATION AND OFF-SITEDISPOSAL OF SLUDGE. PERCHED LIQUID ZONE. AND CONTAMINATED SOILS -POST CLOSURE MONITORING

Alternative 4 addresses the site issues and contaminant pathways byeliminating the primary sources of contamination. Eliminatingcontaminants is accomplished through removal, stabilization and off-sitedisposal. The disposal of the sludge, perched liquid zone and thecontaminated soils takes place at a RCRA facility. The sludgeimpregnated bedrock will be treated with a caustic slurry before the siteis backfilled with clean soil, regraded and vegetated.



Off-site disposal at a RCRA facility will reduce or eliminate anypotential of future contamination of the groundwater and surface watersnear Bruin Lagoon by removing all the significant sources. Sourceremoval provides an effective long-term solution to groundwater andsurface water contamination, and it can be considered a permanentremedial action. The quantity of material to be removed includes all thematerial within the old and new lagoon configurations, including thedike. "Clean" cover soils have been included in the quantity because itwould be very difficult to separate stabilized sludge and contaminatedsoils from "clean" soils.

Stabilization of the sludge, the perched liquid, and the contaminatedsoil (1f necessary) will allow for ease of excavation of the liquidmaterials and will allow for the handling, transporting, and proper

12'58 AR000992

disposal of the materials removed. Stabilization of the excavated mate-rials will also reduce potential public health hazards if a spill shouldoccur during transportation. Because of site area constraints removal,stabilization, and off -site transport of the site material would have tobe performed on a well coordinated schedule. Delays can occur because oflimited areas for stockpiling of stabilized material. A well coordinatedschedule would prevent this situation from happening. Surface water andsedimentation controls must be in place before excavation begins tocontrol off -site contaminated soil and surface water migration.

Excavation .and off-site disposal are proven technologies which are oftenused for site remediation. The .other technologies used in thisAlternative have been previously evaluated under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.


The following Institutional considerations are associated with thisalternative:

• Depending on when additional site remediation efforts begin,limited space at existing permitted RCRA facilities 1s anImportant concern associated with this alternative.

• Transportation, hauling permits and licensed haulers for theover-the-h1ghway transport of the materials must be obtained incompliance with U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines.

• The disposal of the material in a permitted landfill would have toconform to state and Federal regulations.

• Construction permits for on-site excavation may be required.

• Long-term groundwater monitoring is involved with thisalternative. Long-term funding must be in place for these costs.

t Will meet the intent of all state erosion, sediment, and dustcontrol ordinances during excavation activities, until a vegetatedcover is established over the backfilled site.

12-59AR000993


Alternative 4 addresses all the site environmental issues and contaminantpathways that were addressed in Alternative 3, but it provides a morelong-term solution to contaminant migration by source removal. Thefollowing public health and environmental Issues are addressed under thisalternative:

• The 17,500 cubic yards of asphaltic sludge, perched liquid zone,and contaminated soils will be removed, stabilized, and disposedoff-site. The removal of these materials will significantly reduceor eliminate the leaching of contaminants from these materials tothe groundwater, which is intercepted by Bear Creek. Sourceremoval can be expected to significantly reduce or eliminate thepotential public health risks and environmental -impacts resultingfrom localized contamination of the groundwater and surface watersfrom the site.

• Possible exposure to acidic/caustic surface water is eliminated byremoving the sources of acidic conditions.

• The sludge impregnated bedrock will be treated under, thisalternative. Treatment will reduce the potential for furthercontamination migration to the groundwater and reduce the potentialpublic health risks and future potential environmental impacts toBear Creek.

• Gas monitoring with available gas venting and treatment systems,during site work, will address the health risk of the acidic gasesduring remedial action work. Removing the sources of gasproduction addresses any long-term potential public health risksand environmental impacts.


The capital cost estimate for Alternative 4 1s presented in Table 12-12.Post closure and operating costs are provided in Table 12-13. A summaryof the total costs and present worth analysis of each alternative ispresented in Section 3.

12~6° AR000991*

TABLE 12-12

ALTERNATIVE 4 - CAPITAL COST, STABILIZATION OF SLUDGE AND PERCHEDLIQUID ZONE/REMOVAL AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF STABILIZED MATERIAL

AND CONTAMINATED SOILS/IN SITU BEDROCK TREATMENT

Activity

Complete Removal ofStabilized Material andContaminated Soils

Complete Removal andStabilization of Sludge,Perched Liquid

Stabilization Materials/Soil Bulking AgentsQuicklimeWell closures

Transportlon/Disposal ofStabilized Material(Sludge and Perched LiquidZone) and ContaminatedSoils at RCRA Facility

Health and Safety Programduring Remedial Action

Gas Monitoring

Gas Treatment

Control of and Disposal ofContaminated Runon

Quantity1

70,200 tons

18,900 tons

18,700 tons2,800 tons20 wells

110,800 tons

6 months(length ofproject) -

- —

444,000

Unit Cost

$4/ton

$16/ton

5/ton103/tonLump Sum

$175/ton

30/hr

Lump Sum

0.30/gal

Total

$ 280,800

$ 302,400 .

93,500288,40019,000

$19,390,000

28,800

13,000

133,200

1Material quantity calculations are provided in Appendix R.

12-61AR000995


Activity

In Situ Bedrock Treatment(caustic slurry)Backfill, Regrade, VegetateLagoon area

Reconstruct Embankment

Quantity1 Unit Cost

140,000 gal 0.32/galof lime slurry

53,000 cu yd 15.25/cu yd

Lump Sum

Subtotal

Mobilization, Demobilization,Construction Management,Site Services (22%)

Subtotal

Insurance, Bonds, Permits(2%)Overhead and Profit (10%)

Subtotal

Contingency (25%)Total (rounded)

Total

44,800

808,300

15,000

$21,417,200

4,711,800

$26,129,000

522,600

2,612,900

$29,264,500

7,316,100

$36,581,000

12-62AR000996

TABLE 12-13

ALTERNATIVE 4 - REMOVAL, STABILIZATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OFSLUDGE AND PERCHED LIQUID ZONE/IN SITU BEDROCK TREATMENT/

POST CLOSURE/OPERATING COSTS

Activity

Security Maintenance


Indicator Parametersand Inorganics

Organic AnalysisLabor

Quantity

12 each

Annually

Annually

2 person team(annually)

Unit Cost

Lump Sum

$475/each well

$685/each wellLump Sum

Subtotal

Contingency(25%)Administrative(15%)

Total(rounded)

Total

$ 500

1,900

2,700

1,000

$ 6,100

1,500

900

$ 9,000- . •

12-63AR000997

12.6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE 5 - REMOVAL, STABILIZATION. AND OFF-SITEDISPOSAL OF SLUDGE AND PERCHED LIQUID ZONE - RCRA CAP - MONITORING

Alternative 5 combines remedial technologies utilized in Alternatives 3and 4. Alternative 5 does not provide the complete permanent remedialaction of Alternative 4 by the removal of the sludge, perched liquidzone, and previously stabilized sludge/contaminated soils, but it wouldbe expected to provide comparable environmental effectiveness by cappingthe contaminated soil, Including the previously stabilized sludge, with amultilayer cap system. It does not appear feasible to remove just thepreviously stabilized sludge because it 1s mixed with contaminated soils,Including the previously stabilized sludge, and other cover soil.Alternative 5 offers a similar level of environmental effectiveness andreduction of the public health risk, compared to Alternative 3, byremoval of the significant sources of contamination, as opposed tostabilizing these sources and controlling the pathways of contaminantmigration performed 1n Alternative 3. Alternative 5, however, provides amore permanent solution than Alternative 3 through source removal.



Alternative 5 combines remedial action technologies discussed under thetechnical evaluation of the previous alternatives. The technologiesutilized are both proven and site applicable.


The following institutional considerations are associated with thisalternative:

1W4 AR000998

• There are RCRA design standards for surface capping. The proposedmultilayer cap for this alternative meets the RCRA technologyguidelines.

• Transportation and hauling permits and licensed haulers for theover-the-highway transport of the materials must be obtained 1ncompliance with U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines.

• The disposal of the material in a permitted landfill would conformto state and Federal regulations.

• Long-term groundwater monitoring is involved with thisalternative. Long-term funding must be in place for these costs.

• Will meet the intent of all state erosion, sediment, and dustcontrol ordinances during excavation activities, until a vegetatedcover is established over the backfilled site.


Alternative 5 addresses the site environmental issues and contaminantpathways by calling for the removal of two primary sources ofcontamination and by capping the remaining materials with a multilayeredcap. Alternative 5 provides the basic benefits that are offered underAlternatives 3 and 4 by significantly reducing the migration ofcontaminants to the groundwater, eliminating the acidic/caustic standingwater, managing and controlling the accumulation and release of gases,and eliminating the primary pathway of contaminant migration(infiltration - perched liquid zone - groundwater - Bear Creek).Potential public health risk and environmental Impacts will besignificantly reduced under the alternative.

12~65 A.R000999


The capital cost estimate for Alternative-5 is presented in Table 12-14.Post closure and operating costs are provided in Table 12-15. A summaryof the total costs and present worth analysis of each alternative ispresented in Section 13.

12"66 A R O O I O O O

TABLE 12-14

ALTERNATIVE 5 - REMOVAL, STABILIZATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OFSLUDGE AND PERCHED LIQUID ZONE/RCRA CAP/CAPITAL COSTS

Activity

Removal and Reburial ofSoils Covering UnstabilizedSludge

Complete Removal andStabilization of Sludge andPerched Liquid


Soil Bulking AgentsQuicklime

Well closures

Transport and Off -siteDisposal of StabilizedSludge and Perched LiquidZone

Health and Safety Programduring Remedial Action

Gas Monitoring

Gas Treatment (blower,caustic scrubber,granular activatedcarbon)

Control and Disposal ofContaminant Site Runonduring ExcavationActivities

Quantity1

26,500

18,900 tons

18,900 tons2,800 tons

20 wells

40,600 tons

3 months

74,000 gal /mox 3 mo

Unit Cost

$8/ton

$16/ton

5/ton103/ton

Lump Sum

$175/ton

30/hr

Lump Sum

0.30/gal

Total

$ 212,000

$ 302,400

94,500288,400

-19,000

7,105,000

14,000

-13,000

66,600

, - . . - • •'Material quantity calculations are provided in Appendix R.

12-67A R O O I O O I


Activity Quantity1 Unit Cost Total

Complete EmbankmentReinforcement/Stabilization 4,800 sq yd 4.20/sq yd 20,200

Backfill and Regrade 29,700 cu yd 15.25/cu yd 452,900

Multilayer Cap

Granular Base (12 in.) 5,000 cu yd 13.70/cu yd 68,500

Low Permeability Soil(18 in.) 7,500 cu yd 14.25 cu yd 106,900

Gas Vent Stacks 5 each Lump Sum 1,500

Geotextiles 3 x 135,200 .17/ sq ft 69,000sq ft

Horizontal Drainage Layer 5,000 cu yd 15.80/cu yd 79,000(12 in.)

Cover Soil (12 1n.) 5,000 cu yd 11.20/cu yd 56,000(clean fill)Top Soil (6 in.) 2,500 cu yd 13.75/cu yd 34,400

Final Grading 15,000 sq yd 0.83 sq yd 12,500

Seeding and'Mulching 135,200 sq ft 0.06/sq ft ___8JOO

Subtotal $ 9,023,900

Mobilization, DemobilizationConstruction Management, SiteServices (22%) 1,985,300

Subtotal $11,009,200

12-68AROOI002


Activity Quantity Unit Cost

Insurance, Bonds, Permits(2%)

Overhead and Profit (10%)

Subtotal

Contingency (25%)

Engineering (5%)Total (rounded)

Total

220,200

1,100,900

$12,330,300

3,082,600

616,500

$16,029,000

12-69

AROOI003

TABLE 12-15

ALTERNATIVE 5 - REMOVAL, STABILIZATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OFSLUDGE AND LIQUID ZONE/RCRA CAP POST-CLOSURE/OPERATING COSTS

Activity Quantity Unit Cost Total

Cap Maintenance

Mowing 5,000 sq yd 0.22/sq yd $ 1,100

Erosion Repair andReseeding 1,500 sq yd 1.33/sq yd 2,000

Inspections 4 each Lump Sum 2,000

Security Maintenance 12 each Lump Sum $ 500


Labor 2 each Lump Sum 1,000

Indicator Parametersand Inorganics Annually $475/each well 1,900

Organic Analysis Annually $685/each well 2.700

Subtotal $11,200

Contingency 2,000(25%)

Administrative 1,700(15%)

Total $16,000(rounded)

12"7° AROOIOOl*

13.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13.1 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR THE BRUIN LAGOON SITE

A summary of the cost analysis for the five remedial action alternativesis provided In Table 13-1. A summary of the evaluation for the fiveremedial action alternatives is presented in Table 13-2.

13-1

AROOI005

TABLE 13-1

ALTERNATIVES COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Operation and MaintenanceAnnual Present Total

Alternative Capital Cost Cost Worth3 Cost*

1.

2.3.

4.

5.

$ 15,000

2,155,000

2,695,000

36,581,000

16,029,000

$23,000

16,000

16,000

9,000

16,000

$216,000

150,000

150,000

85,000

150,000

$ 231,000

2,305,000

2,845,000

36,666,000

16,179,000

a1986 dollars, assuming 30 years of use, and a 110 percent average rateof return on private Investment.

13-2AROOI006

i JOa *i «i

if '

5'11g_^ i* ha iM -H

I 3 .4)

52§

118S

CO)«Q^§25C <H* fl£ jjCDO)•ME

IS

•i-l M

SSfl

3S,!

£

l 43 334343 Di C B^ kiJ6 £ ft it <43<H«

«10 43— . . ^H *O "rtat iH

43 .2* irs H^» ^.8 § S * S n"5

gg^Jd •C& 'S "b*°?J35

13-3

« a,43 43 S •• at •*-> -

jS

3«H Jt M M

JD C H *J £ i •*5 !:! l«5aas:'>bb>o OO9JS 8 *« "u m 2 ca •

AROOI007

43CO43

I *~* ^

%§i cu -Hill

Health and

tal Concer

5:

43

S

ta-H • 3! TJm | tu *M ) w*fS M 5 * 4J(0 3 Q) »O *M JC

r-i • oo

. c s . e *b ><<n O S.IH C ff 5 43 43 Q O rH rH <C0) -T (8 -rt W g J -3 fli 43 0) ip C 0 G 3 4) -O •- CO4343b43igj2B in O CT14J • ffi . U b C u ; > i V<o c o> fl 3-Hoi 3 ft -a 41 W S43«»c0 f c e - H_3SCU434i'OJ!i $30143 Oobbi-incSi-lfa5J''-|»! V^? 'b oat — • j. 43 E (-H O-M43 4J43bH<W <Mb P ?• "? (>nc? C > -H -H m <n 4) c <0 C 33 J-> iO i ' C Q C O b S i a to * T) O -H 5 * 4 3 C < < bî3o aiQia Sou a)wj5r-i•a -a 43 43 d) 43 C 4>CQ3>-I-^ bV'O-H35 w Qi43 og o o Cat % wra•••'H3CS-**J-^!2. 3 3} 4) 4> 3 4333<M

(g %J ffl C *tj S J3 y 43I043O43 Cw'O 93Kc *o C *9 6 w 4 3 o^ iQ w u to b ^>f 0) iv v 'b cn|braQ<Q< ev'OigJ: 43 o cO 3 ff C 5 S B ' O ! B - H>O Tl -H C rn-H43>.H3-H43c 3 c JJ Qis.3 *y -^ U "Q a JJioQ.csa'Eo-OdiOOS^M&CTb f i u Q cO S Q,O 3 O 3^ fl 3J S fl fl fl .H4J.aT3

13-4 AR001008

«Pwt|tuS-Slg|43 -5 0)

11? wft « *'2i-< e j= ID10 -H 43 "Dip i-l C£ll£

• 43b « W | Jj «) 8(V P > 9 C TJ iH -H

_ 48 g-H E •!? b fi 43•H B O.C43 *POIQ-Hrt c,8*(w" ~£•6 ™ S 43 g EtC K E<4-l "O 43 m O 4fH«S<i-lbl« t «-H o-i « y c-fi K

ii43 ID CO

S|«5« iiggiSJi0' «>I»«r5>^88-«8 .--l*.fca 4??gf^SScjqt-S -SI6 85=! 8•«U e «>DCb43i-53.8 Sllî^

•S^«a4

.•-t b <o a«H 3 CO C "5"SScU^B)

1% •i.l&t'Si? -gSglgl 25S-S.S ' __

fS A> *r«|w88 H-.HtwitCXJ-^-Sci ^4 S b 43 £ u q C 4) U 0 0 «J WH iw -6 i> CO .4JtHciDiu4ij3b!cr » x o «3 a jj 4? o jj MJ . 43 e T 4) coroC5&iOS«}nO 3 u c co (6 (H u -TJ o C iq iH 5-D u ft)

N & C b B i 4 3 f f i a QIO)CLi43 O^lbi-lOW O N 10 CV-M•H-;H*HQcvicaja43 Sj u c -S c .e «f u o JJ inw5 -H -H c S * 43dB115fiK «S Ss-Sspjgp 8so°32t{ rJ-yS-S*'!?v4 n^ÔO.fl'O 4343 C*D3 CO MH43I4ID 'HC'HCQ >JO iH 43 b V & b r - l l p l O C - ^ - M O iH 43<OO)43b J3V43 ^ H43^HOCCDDbp' O b X - H t O C J 5 O C 43 O -Oi O •»< 43Oi-Hwso-H-HiBSalo o5 cr> S 43 -H 45 3 tS B 3 * > o E w fi. 3

*5ri ,43 ID -»4 <D H -

Sirtss-si—•••* b &

JbiqOi4>(Ti>co2caMO 43 q b p .43 C | .H 3 («

> p -3 5 -H S -H Q g» f>S 3 ~I-H H m Q, C 43 "b O C > XJ-rl C43 P 3 ICT*H IB HI 3) -H CO E P<a S -9 o _ a c a r-i b rH -H 5 -s

(jsgaa BS*||. ffs§sg»8^ eSS a?§coaS lolsÛa.S'b'QdiUc; B 43 a 45 C rH C 43 Sir-3 to g -a

b W -H CS -H CU b G J5 CO 43 *H 3 01 <Da * a "• . J3 p S 3J *! 3 o -H bj5bi-**-^ a^g^s^-aiC H ib "O CU-H C3 g -^ P $ b O a) O 3>3<-H 5 Q J5-MCAJ3 45 C5 •£ s » „ ° 1? a . a -y -s « « »-n 10 -r ^3 -*^ * b (7 * 4* Ci IQ A O n3 w '

43(44.> «C4343VVQICOP>-Q QWbi-lw-Hc.aiflfl.afl.beaaraa ^ i 3 «CP rH C CTI bO> -HS U -?J43*<-I|-I.43 4 'O * -rlb:>l43>rj2o IM g X b IB b^cauitoajOgtouiâjj o-S 4j 5 JJ S.•q o» 3rH4.J;iiHacu4Ja i-i"aj.)o•7. •S-.^S-S^^.-. *• S 51 a M ??.. 'aSSSIjf (Q >n M **4 2 M V Q| •n O V • 4* w fo £s 134 O

•afafi?!3. is«aij«J<33!2'o~-S3.aiilVi8~<3 iHîotTliil

•3 S S s 3 S'rH o*rH S .3 «.8 a nj •§ o M 3 2 b 9 S?> i c u a c u l o i s o aJJ7 b I l j3 I ffl C HJ I -H Tj m 9 £ 4<•H 4> • H j s i a u c o d o O -rt S v tj in 43 jj <-t

M "9 § ** "3 S. 'S 3 75 ** S u 5NdA 41*3 b b J; -H -r( S TJ O 41 3 >i J 4) 43 S1 CU CU•HCp 2S-HC 4> 43 CO 3 Q, 3 43 -3 fi O (SirH I? O*IO <0 COP 43 K^-ÛS4 41 W 2 S 43 CO C UH § rH 3 43 rH fJ>S CO CjC IM >i S CU *S*H b>3yb a S -H 4j ti 9-**bg <H jj 33 o 43 o^mascbT!jj 3 o bt: Haoio4{»ail U B b c a •-* -S iq e J z JJ>i S e C U i o - H v C U UJ 41 -3 C *W NM ffl 3 4) 4$ C b .. S. 5 T* b 43 3. .• O -

M-a -s.-q sos.s.-d.S-lP H

>- -as .ss-yag,^ •g-gg.yM.S- ags> n 4 ! H b l O P rV O» O S J3 b -3 -H><jcq < b i a c u b u j 4 3 o £ ( 3 i g a JJ •oIQOJ'C]ftl-H43U4(O OCO^dl^JjCU* {Od

"553 J-STP-^ 5Hî8,<D3S- 1ij-aii5SS§ti S'eoassî5|| *s2% 3lia,'83to -al'i-s^8ata I5"Ills«8l5 ItiSS gS3S°Sj34l aaia.SB.q.SS: ^juS^43§45i_ s-a •a S-H cu cu a EO-H c 0,4)_ JQ. . ~<ri •« S H 41 41 g M-H C CL43 jQ rHC 3Q|434I S G >,> O & m<a «9rHp -H ff o r-i --jogc^Snc aJ-HO W-3 (9 < <b3»430-H(3 U»

«-i 43 uîOCliCb

00CN

c •S- ,- - 1 4 3 r H 0

-43iBl

.e cceCrH 43 m j2 <o g ag(z>4J.HQcypcV43CN 41 o S41 -H rH M Tl afi>4345SbZiC4)^H3bt5l4J rH rO S 41 ffl -S KIC9->H4JaiCUSr443•H-HbSaiX! Mb«4tO'OSrHSffl~H^H

b f u C 3 < l > < Q O ( v b b J3 CO IB 41 b<3 uaiO)jj aj UH rH ai O J 3 < 3 p 4 3 C o < u b i aW C O tfl ftS I I I OJ3lWU}IHuOlOrHI

•

13-6 A R O O I O I O

I i

w

;§4 2

i

v — '..

104J

'

•H

•8 i o

1 1!10 rH 4)C -H IU

1 rH•H ii -Hu e ID•H ra JJ|||EH b <H

Public Health and

(Environmental Concerns

Ii

§ 43C f.

6s"

I4314)rH

•'* -t *.• ' . ' t.

Multilayer cap construction will elim-

inate surface depressions, which collect

precipitation that become acidic or

caustic. The precipitation either perco-

lates through the cover into the sludge

or remains on the surface. This situation

presents a health hazard if there is

human contact with the precipitation, or

causes environmental impact if washed off-

site with the runoff. Vegetated cover on

cap will promote runoff and control

erosion.

isfi> ~i w cQ 10 o 45ID b b >-i bb 3 5 T S

•H P (JJ -H 43 -H43 n 3t >g co CPI CM £ .<£• • ' •rn

' *

' '- 'Stabilization of sludge will reduce

potential for

further sulfur gas accum-

ulation under the site.

Gas monitoring

and stand-by gas venting and treatment

will address gas releases during site

activities.

Gas venting layer in multi-

layer cap system will prevent the

. accumulation of gas under low-permea- .

bility barrier layer.

Vented gas will be

treated.

. . . :

l ' ' ' '

Completion of embankment stabilization

and reinforcement will ensure integrity

of embankment even under the worst case

conditions.

In situ bedrock treatment will iimo-

bilize inorganic contaminants in the

sludge which is impregnated in upper

bedrock, thus reducing contaminant

loading to groundwater.

.

' .

13-7 AROOIOM

(N I

A

a *'•

i*' — C Oj Ol U O „

V

43"5i I 01 CO Q "O~* & ID-O i b-H .3 241 L f «J flj fi O Hi 35 -O (0 CO rH ft)' Cb9>£j3. (U-H -J

13

' 9 C £jo S3irH 41

^£

CU(Ul I ' O C U C U Q IB bjS

' *1 .43

u oj jA jj fr) > Q n jj o_ to P C <0 U fl rj 3c 3 6, 50 a<_ce<w

fH-H 43j=«43

co . _-HHCPK<9Qi4 b S H -rl M M QiH rH C u 'Q•a c 43 o Js «> 43 J: 4> J o b to >< ID • o ST <o "H <3 3 4> 3> 41 bB43C<o3-Heci'nQ H, 3 b g 4< -n D il . 4J -IS -3 . C jS u jj oj 3 4 3 f H ' Q - H C U H Q e ffft4)SbilfftO <Ob<MCUCIl 43 H 143-HCUHQe ffft4)SbilfftO <Ob<MCUCIl 43 H 143 I C CO

434JrHi845 S rH J5 4> C £ 2 «( 4> •« J-> 2 3 CO 3 CJI-H JS Dl-H 43-r«43'H p iaD>3D<4j^H34e a) 3 i; ra 3 c i 5" 5 c 3 c coc7H43pb bCig-H!gia-iHb45 j! g <q JJ -H 3 c S Q (3 T< Q 4> O43 M CO 43 03 EH 43 jj JS S 4) S P rH PSr5t043 OPb J6*iaj3O

ffubBCCi4IO• SJiJti.•s*'aa,cotSflicB4J-Hj3j3(uC«H-H^H.O43-HCOCO 4T S CIDjQI 43 rH .-HU-HCUb7cfUH4ICfliH<UiHqiH4.>

4) b CO-HrH *•"

•-A *L -f. ^L C S - H i - H d u i -AAe i iS-f £ tq <3 43 O> > 0 b OS 43 u O Co : v 4j ia - H B O V b o » c o y S0 9» ? 0 5 P CO S rH JJ -D c l b O b X « O O9Tl^3O« Q3=>gSJ. ,p a p JCibJ _ 413 -H CO ft

ajT-M S-H

ill:g«o ajso» cu or!...

55 -g a j; "•< r »i-a' ftS^-H«S ^""S STbcj. -a'bb»* 3 <a° S P^SJI^BNS^ "<35"B!S5 S^S J^B.^H ifi -HQtb ( U i H C U i b b b O -H H•Sgl'-o'" S3§ «u3g.«.»«•"• .4 Ail e .. .a _> s § î

II 9111.11£ ia«

fii;:5ib

M1^^1a 3ol5 ?cq43 ccs-a-sci 3 43 c o 3 3 -s a 43 -a 35 tg 3 S aj b 5

a) H -HCcoca-Hb —3 ^S Slllll-l

ji 3 8 S a H « ba "1 .3*3-S 211 Sl^^l^SgSo pbj t3 S * a 5-0 43 s

C >1 S gi "O 4»•2 3 43 ii & "8 i -H433 3 -a 1 <943 -H <D rH »^l d ^ H 4 3 C 4 3 C O b S (9V O 3 O>-a to c c 41 c c IH 43 J3 » bti ^< w c

5C Q C P V S O S O r H « a i l B Q COP-HiS^H SC>S-HEb3lb rH 41 43 A b b i H b3 45 <o w 45 43 is o -H>3«c<t44>juup

u5 - b > rH I

AROOIOI213-8

3v_^ i

71 ' - - 4J 'd *> :»i3

1

£33.S

Si!I "H

.«£&i \-x

10E

II

: V_x

8|« -6

43

1

w^«> d)II

VO«

W <1"H

..cCO 43 9 C V 0) 4) -n

m, - s. - o > 4 i J c V 4 3 ft • >O ft) JS S C-^ -S S 43 a-H in c . P> « 5 3 4 -3

rH M O W rjl IU prH-r« C 4J 43 •-( -H< C f l a E 4 l 5 < O b gObg rH -H CO rH 43 43

S! n fli n *rf ILJ in ILJ at mwI43QW-C45'S-l •O K P <C rHbiovoepioiHi i

• '•in

A R O O I O I 313-9

3

343 i43

3-H43

SM

3

SrH 01•rt U4

P?C rH >,5 a> JJO o. -H

s•93«j Qjj O•SrHas.a|I!

O 4343 o e jsCO O CD 4JQ » 3> uO rH 4> O

u

rH S3 4) P V b C J j - i n ,^. ^4 43O1 -r* C U I B C O CT? -H.IBO c a o > 4 3 g N p T ia 3 -as2

uS

i iO -O 43 •UH ft] UlC J-> O

13-10AROOIOU

£

* 6585 J*r;s> IP4J-H *^ -43

1

&I

I43

3

« I -5 I* - I* * ***£* •&&&£ «.9 *5JS.3 «5^

bb343 . -Hb43O> M US J> b O)-H

~Tn 15-rV>H 3 tt O b cp b rH 43g 41E 4J rH rH iS O> (BO-HM K<5 > Cc sH . o & > g* 458C fi £1'<3=<7C F4! 3-C. *3--Ho

^îH 'db&nDtta'O'D • "O* b« « rH 1C 41 C C n 1C 5 C i*H "O CO 0>CC-H •H430l*Sl-i O>H 1C -H OU to £ 43

43 4Vy Ce PD

*Sl-i O>H 1C -H OU to £ 43 rH

ab b f <O b UU-O 'lO'H *O4J 4) 3 b3 b 3 •A-rlC IBf <O b UU-O lO'H O C 4!3 b 3 •A-rlC IB S> bfHI043 *!3«Hn COCO %m3a -rt 2 K 4< E O4J

- H U 3 5 £« rH O 3-C < Qt£ F b bi 43 MH

43 C.C Q,a 13 E68 g"IM 8 b B

iil

b43ato

Q

* •

!E1•H

|

g-rt*»

go

13-11 A R O O I O I 5

CO

43 'g10 3

•H o b5 J 2 . 3§• Is ^•S • J3 J3 _43-

13 a1*

s sa s s s - 5I L 43

,Qi9- 381 3b -oB-aa -H H*lil 3$ ISS ?> ?i f"1 « 'H •?{ a ?{ s " ** 5 S"** S ii "3 u **4) T3 CTi q 3 O> CO § OI'OOi Oi43>geuoOb CO -H -fiSlOI43 45-0 JJ » En Si 43 4i IO 3. 3 ft b 3 4> b J S"ubOb (DO C C C Q 'ObPb COb rH O -H 03 01 £• 413d 8- 8 Si* -HrHS8, rHrH1" • S | 2 8 |l ISbHS| las |»a .W3gi ^^^S-S 53 B--

V! b

43 -S g U- !-s 1* •*•3^-1 a-a- 1»^ S^^l |,8lil0^J<JJ *?-* *'^TJIS* ass s«v i'as* 5 .-a"! s? a "3 rHjsa o 3 g .• 34>r. r!$S. '•3>?SlsS.3-H-a.

•- - - >99<« —._10) rH C-3 4) 9 3 i« JQ O--J 41 43

*H°1 -3au 3S ^§ $'l! j3 5 dSS co 2.3 3 5

? *43 43 TJ 43b 3 IB IB b

N

•8

3

I 1 ?43 S 43H O rH 8 ft 3 O

S'H 43 CO >O -H Itf b 43rH 43 H -H rH 43 0 43 H

43 C rH J3 S C rH 4J S Q H" O COO CU O C O O A b C U

S.c c <w co i B ^ i c ' b c v j u t ai S a 5 ^ ° 1 5 ^

J 3 « r H 4 3 J Q § 4 3 C 0 4 3I Q ' Q 4 3 ' r ] - H t a lt!'Q43'QrH CO4 J f i 1 s & P O 4J C g C 3 C Ow 3 fl 3 tS a to 3 a <o z IH is

flRooioie

Q

!

s1

.

O I L 01 41> -r( C E *B b >b-HfH Q 5 5 $ C -H43 4? O 43 E 0! E 43

IM *H•

w * . b

-:f!?«»«' -., .11 3

<• • •I fe i -H -C•H fc •fc rH I 73 C•H 43 Ii rn •*< M b P C»•e e . £ -D -f ' JS8, ^ -4J 4

•^4 flTin »u£ 4J C m * * * - t £** "* J? *" ** «£'^**^ * i"4 flj U "* 4-* **•<

Q O 03 *^* £ CP O. O *w *6 D ** w

I *S e i^d § r?3 S-o'ta u " o l

3 d3 I j-"g | ^ ...•tifi-'Bi "-B "«ft to Sslg. S |« "v. ^Sôjfi cB 3 $ • J? Ssc-s 2 BC

• • •

13-13 A R O O I O I 7

SECTION 14

REFERENCES

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienlsts (AC6IH). 1985.Threshold Limit Vaues for Chemical Substances 1n the Work EnvironmentAdopted by ACGIH with Intended Changes for 1985-1986. ISBN:0-936712-61-9.

B1rge, W.J. 1978. Aquatic Toxicology of Trace Elements of Coal and FlyAsh. In: Energy and Environmental Stress 1n Aquatic Systems. Thorp,J.H. and Gibbons, J.W. eds. OOE Symposium series (CONF-771114).

Blrge, W.J., Black, J.A., and Ramey, B.A. 1981. The ReproductiveToxicology of Aquatic Contaminants in Hazard Assesment of Chemicals.Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC). January 1985. Preventing LeadPoisoning In Young Children. U.S. Department of Health and Human

, , Services, Atlanta, Georgia. USDHHS Publication No. 99-2230.N — ' • . . . • . : ' • " . ' ' • '

Congressional Research Service (CRS). May 1984. Add Rain: ASurvey of Data and Current Analyses. Prepared for the Subcommittee onHealth and the Environment, U.S. House of Representatives. CommitteePrint 98-X.

Domenico, P.A. and Palcrauskas, V.V. 1982. Alternative Boundariesin Solid Waste Management. Groundwater 20:303-311.

Domenico, P.A. and Robbins, G.A. 1985. A New Method of Contaminant PlumeAnalyses. Groundwater 23657:476-485.

Doull, J., Klaasen, C.D., and Amdur, M.O. 1980. Toxicology: The BasicScience of Poisons. 2nd Ed. MacMillan Publ. Co., Inc., New York.

Ecological Analysts, Inc. (EA). November 1981. The Sources, Chemistry,Fate, and Effects of Chromium 1n Aquatic Environments. Prepared forAmerican Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). October 1980a. Ambient WaterQuality Criteria for Copper. Office of Water Regulations andStandards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC. EPA440/5-80-036.

AR001018

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). October 1980b. Ambient WaterQuality Criteria for Cadmium. Office of Water Regulations andStandards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC. EPA440/5-80-025.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). October 1980c. Ambient WaterQuality Criteria for Z1nc. Office of Water Regulations andStandards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC. EPA

. 440/5-80-079.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). October 1980d. Ambient WaterQuality Criteria for Lead. Office of Water Regulations andStandards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC. EPA440/5-80-057.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). December 1982a. Air QualityCriteria for Partlculate Matter and Sulfur Oxides. Volume III.Environmental Criteria and'Assessment Office. EPA-600/8-82-029C.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). January 1982b. Review ofNational Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter:Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information. Office of A1rQuality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NorthCarolina. EPA 450/5-82-001.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1984a. Federal On-SceneCoordinators Report: Major Pollution Incident, Bruin, Butler County,PA. Emergency Removal Project.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). September 1984b. UpdatedMutagenicity and and Careinogenicity Assessment of Cadmium.Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA600/8-83-025B.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). September 1984c. Health EffectsAssessment for Chromium VI. Environmental Criteria and AssessmentOffice, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 540/1-86-019.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). September 1984d. Health EffectsAssessment for Chromium III. Environmental Criteria and AssessmentOffice, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 540/1-86-035.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). September 1984e. Health EffectsAssessment for Copper. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 540/1-86-025.

U~2 HROOIOI9

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). March 1984f. Health AssessmentDocument for Zinc. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,Washington, DC. EPA 600/8-83-048.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1984g. Health Effects Assessmentfor Lead. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati,Ohio. EPA 540/1-86-055. >

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985a. National Primary.DrinkingWater Regulations; Synthetic Organic Chemicals, Inorganic Chemicalsand Microorganisms (proposed rule). Fed. Reg. 50:46936-47025.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985b. Proposed Guidelines forthe Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Fed. Reg.50:1170-1176.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Ambient Aquatic Life WaterQuality Criteria for Alum1n1m. Draft 2/18/86. Office of Research andDevelopment, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota.

Faust, S.D. and Aly, O.M. 1983. Chemistry of Water Treatment.Butterworth Publ., Woburn, MA.

Gosselin, R.E., Hodge, H.C., Smith, R.P. and Gleason, M.N. 1976.Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products: Acute Poisoning. 4th Ed.Williams and Wilkins, Co., Baltimore. <

Gruse, W.A. and Stevens, D.R. 1960. Chemical Technology of Petroleum.McGraw Hill, NY. .

Hawk, Mrs. 1986. Personal communication March 5, 1986.

Heck, W.W. and Anderson, C.E. 1980. Effects of Air Pollutants on Plants.An Introduction to Environmental Toxicology. Guthrie, F.E. and PerryJ.J., eds. Elsevier North Holland, Inc. New York.

ICF, Incorporated. 1985. Draft Superfund Public Health EvaluationManual. Prepared for the OffIce of Emergency and Remedial Response,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. December 18,1985.

AROOI020

ICF-Clement. 1986. Risk Assessment of the Tyson's Dump Site, MontgomeryCounty, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersand the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency* February 1986.

JRB Associates. 1985. Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.Prepared for Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Leikauf, G., Yeates, D.B., Wales, K.A., Spektor, D., Albert, R.E., andLlppman, M. 1981. Effects of Sulfuric Add Aerosol on RespiratoryMechanics and Mucociliary Particle Clearance in Health NonsmokingAdults. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 42:273-292.

Merck Index. 1983. An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, andBiologicals. M. Wlndholz, Ed. Merck and Co., Inc., Rathway, NewJersey.

Nagy, B. and Columbo, U. 1967. Fundamental Aspects of Petroleum . .Geochemistry. Elsevier, Amsterdam. -

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). September1977. Occupational Exposure to Asphalt Fumes: Criteria for aRecommended Standard. U.S. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare. DHEW (NIOSH) Publ. No. 78-016.

National Research Council (NRC). 1979. Hydrogen Sulfide. Committee onMedical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants. UniversityPark Press, Baltimore

Ogllvle, D.M. and Stechey, D.M. 1983. Effects of Aluminum on RespiratoryResponses and Spontaneous Activity of Rainbow Trout, Salmo gairdneri.Environ. Tox. Chem. 2:43-48.

Pennsylvania Air Pollution Regulations (PA REGS). 1983. Ambient AirQuality Standards. PA Code, Title 25, Part 1, Chapter 131. Env.Rept. 491:556-557.

Rand, G.M. and PetrocelH, S.R. 1985. Fundamentals of AquaticToxicology. Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington, DC.

Roy F. Weston, Inc. January 1982. Remedial Investigation and FeasibilityReport for Bruin Lagoon, Bruin Borough, Pennsylvania. West Chester,Pennsylvania: WESTON. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Contract No. 68-03-1613.

AROOI02I

Wilson, D.C. and Stevens, C. November 1981. Problems Arising fromthe Redevelopment of Gas Works and Similar Sites. AERE Harwell,Environmental and Medical Sciences Division. HL81/3178 (CIO).

Wolff, R.K., Silbaugh, S.A., Brownsteln, O.G., Carpenter, R.L., andMauderly, J.L. 1979. Toxldty of 0.4 and 0.8 urn Sulfuric AcidAerosols 1n the Guinea Pig. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 5:1037-1047.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1985. Remedial Action atWaste Disposal Sites Handbook (Revised). EPA/625/6-85/006. FederalRegister, January 14, pp 1640-1655.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1981. Water Resources Data, Pennsylvania WaterYear 1981, for the Ohio and St. Lawrence River Basins, Volume 3, WaterData Report, PA-81-3.

14-5AROOI022

Documents

AR0008I5 · 2020-07-07 · hazardous waste landfill, does not have a continuous bottom liner, and fractured sandstone bedrock is generally permeable. The 1984 RCRA Amendments provide