Dump Site at RTB Bor - Risk Assessment and Remediation Pro. · proposal for the remedial actions. ... air). The second objective ... Bor Municipality and Region in order to contribute

AMENDMENT TO

RISK ASSESSMENT

of DUMP SITE

BOR MINING COMPLEX (October 2002)

March 2003

UNEP Cleanup of Environmental Hotspots (YUG 00-R71) Amendment (March 2003) to Risk Assessment, Dump Site � Bor Mining Complex (October 2002)

2

Executive Summary Table of Contents: Page 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Site name, location and brief description 5 3.0 Site History and enforcement activities 5 4.0 Community participation 6 5.0 Summary of Site risks 6 6.0 Assessment of current mapping results 7 7.0 Remedial action objectives 9 8.0 Comparative analysis of alternatives 12 9.0 Stepwise implementation strategy 16 10.0 Selected remedy 17

10.1 Summary 10.2 Technical description of selected remedies 10.3 Summary of estimated costs and implementation times

11.0 Conclusions 24 References/Bibliography 25 Appendix 1: Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, �Sampling and Analysis

PCB Risk Assessment of Dump Site-Bor Mining Complex�-Report, Belgrade February 2003 27

Appendix 2: Institute of Public Health of Belgrade,

Bor Mining Complex-Maps, Belgrade 2002 45


3

Executive summary In autumn 2002, UNEP performed a human health Risk Assessment of Dump Site located at the RTB BOR Mining Complex. The results were detailed in the report entitled �Risk Assessment of Dump Site, Bor Mining Complex�, October 2002. During this assessment, UNEP investigated the human health exposure risks associated with uncontrolled disposal of capacitors containing PCB contaminated oil. The risk based and regulatory levels of PCB pollutant in the site�s surficial soil have been established inclusive the associated proposal for the remedial actions. The health risk impact of the presence of heavy metals in the surficial soil has also been considered and associated human health risk values calculated. The assessment determined that the Site is, in fact posing imminent human health risks to public health and the environment. The report concluded with a series of recommendations for implementation of remedial actions at the Dump Site aiming at the reduction of concentration of PCB and heavy metals below risk based or regulatory levels of contaminants. As a follow up and supplement of the existing risk assessment report, UNEP performed additional pollution mapping of the entire Site. This report focused on the impact of the obtained mapping results on the previously obtained conclusions and remedial action recommendations as well as on phased strategy identifying priorities for risk reduction and most suitable remedial measures. The main conclusions of this UNEP assessment work is that the Dump Site still urgently needs environmental action and that feasible human health risk reduction measures are available in form of remedial actions taking into account final remediation level of PCB with associated Arsenic. The recommended remedy is In situ thermal desorption, which satisfies the requirements of effectiveness, long term liability, implementability, implementation risk and cost as compared to other remedies reviewed in this report. In order to facilitate the implementation of the recommended remedy, a phased strategy is proposed, conditioned upon the time frame for recycling of the Site�s slag bed. The aim of phased approach is to introduce steps, which, at the first instance are able to reduce essentially or eliminate human exposure and give the stakeholders a possibility of implementation of final remedial measures at the later stage. Furthermore, a cost review has been made, inclusive project tasks needed to be implemented in order to complete described remedy alternatives. Working safety recommendations are also a part of said review.


4

1.0 Introduction This report is a continuation of the Human Health Risk Assessment Report performed in October 2002 as a part of the UNEP Clean-up of Environmental Hotspots programme in Serbia. The risk assessment executed in autumn 2002 identified potential environmental and health risks stemming from the dump site within RTB Bor complex, where PCB contaminated debris from the destroyed transformer station, in addition to considerable amounts of other waste material have been dumped. The continuation of the Human Health Risk Assessment issued in October 2002 identifies amendments and describes in details the potential environmental and human health risks stemming from the overall pollution distribution obtained during latest mapping of the Dump Site within RTB Bor complex. Previously identified impact of the contaminants present at site shall be revalued in the light of the newly obtained mapping results and previously reached conclusions reassessed. The obtained spatial distribution of the contaminants will make basis of the remedial action proposals aiming at reduction to the acceptable levels or alternatively preventing of the exposure of human receptors to the contaminants present. While the previous Human Health Risk Assessment report (October 2002) identified the risks and proposed alternative remedial options, due to lack of more specific data concerning the exact extent and level of contamination, no detailed remediation strategy and technical project proposals could be elaborated. Consequently one of the recommendations of the RA was to undertake mapping of the site that would allow elaboration of more specific conclusions and elaborate detailed technical proposal (s) for the recommended risk reduction measures. Based on the recommended mapping, which has been completed by the competent FRY authority for waste characterization, IPH Belgrade, the current report will supplement the previous findings and recommendation through: ! Review of latest results of pollution mapping with elaboration of conclusions and

recommendations ! Based on latest mapping results and consequent review of the Risk Assessment report, to identify

and propose any necessary amendments to the Risk Assessment report ! Prepare a phased strategy, identifying priorities for risk reduction and remediation measures.

It is assumed that phased strategy for combating the dump site exposure threats is necessary, as the immediate implementation of the preferred remedy might take time, between other reasons due to extended time period for obtainment of necessary funds.

! Elaborate a detailed technical proposal for the most suitable remediation measure(s), including preliminary cost estimates and time schedules


5

2.0 Site name, location and brief description The site name is Dump Site, Bor Mining Complex. The PCB polluted soil that requires remediation is located in the municipality of Bor, at the premises of company RTB Bor, approximately 800 m to the Northeast from the location of the transformer station Bor TIII. The polluted Site consists of two parts and covers area of approximately 4060 m2 and 1574 m2 respectively and lies between the floatation pond �H� and the sulphuric acid factory1. Apart from construction material debris, the site contains damaged capacitors with supporting constructions. Some 66 capacitors could be visually identified at the Site, out of more than a total of 120, which have originally been moved from the transformer station to the Dump Site2. 3.0 Site history and enforcement activities Based on the information supplied by the Management of RTB, Dump Site was created as a result of removing debris remaining after bombing of the transformer station TIII during May and June 1999. The floor of the Site consists of deposited metallurgical slag originating from Cu melting process in the nearby Cu melting factory. The current slag bed is planned to be recycled in the future and the slag excavation process could reach the perimeter of the Dump Site within five years period2. This information has been crucial during the performance of Risk Assessment and required that excavation scenario has been taken into account as one of possible exposure paths. The remnants of the former transformer station that have been transferred to the Dump Site, consisted of the PCB polluted soil, damaged capacitors containing PCB polluted oil and construction debris placed at different locations. In year 2000, UNEP performed a feasibility study3 addressing PCB pollution at the Dump Site. Following this report, during the Mission in August 2002 UNEP performed an extended soil sampling at the Site. The work and analysis of the obtained soil samples has been performed by Institute of Public Health Laboratory in Belgrade4. Sampling has been concentrated at certain site locations, which were located in most cases closed to the remnants of the capacitors visible at Site. Based on the results available from this sampling campaign, UNEP performed human health risk assessment5. Risk Assessment was conducted in order to evaluate whether the Dump Site contains contaminants that pose a threat to human health or the environment as a consequence of uncontrolled disposal of damaged transformer capacitors containing PCB polluted oil and PCB polluted soil originating from the adjacent transformer station, which was bombed during the 1999 Kosovo-Conflict. The intent of the Dump Site risk assessment was two-fold. One objective was to assess the potential for health risks from current exposure pathways (soil, air). The second objective was to use pathway-specific information to develop soil intervention levels to protect against any immediate or future health risk for the worker community at Site.

1 Appendix 2, Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, Bor Mining Complex-Maps, Belgrade 2002 2 Information supplied by the management of RTB Bor 3 UNEP Balkans Task Force, �Feasibility Study, Environmental Hot Spots caused by the Kosovo Conflict�, April 2000 4 Competent Authority for Waste Characterization in Serbia. 5 �Risk Assessment of Dump Site, Bor Mining Complex�, October 2002


6

Subsequently in December 2002, UNEP extended sampling to the entire Site, based on the systematic sampling related to a grid mesh of 10 by 10 meters in order to establish the entire pollution map. The results were available in February 20036 and are utilized in this report in order to support the elaboration of proposal(s) for the remediation of the Site. 4.0 Community participation The Feasibility Study and Risk Assessment report has been made available by UNEP to all stakeholders, in particular Bor Municipality, management of RTB Bor Mining Complex and Serbian Environmental Authorities. UNEP also expects that all relevant material inclusive this report will contribute to the on-going environmental review process, incl. the preparation of Local Environmental Action Plan (LEAP) for Bor Municipality and Region in order to contribute towards continued efforts of the Bor as well as national stakeholders to advance the community environmental and health protection issues. 5.0 Summary of Site risks Based on the soil sampling results, a baseline risk assessment was performed to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse human health effects from the exposure to contaminants associated with the Dump Site, assuming no remedial action is taken5. The human health risk assessment followed a four-step process: • Hazard identification, which identifies those contaminants which, given the specifics of the Site

were of significant concern; • Exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways, characterized the

exposed human receptors, and determined the extend of possible exposure; • Effect assessment, which considered the types and magnitudes of adverse effects on humans

associated with exposure to site contaminants; • Risk characterization integrating the earlier steps including carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic

risks; Key findings of the risk assessment (October 2002) were as follows: • On the whole, the Dump Site shows evidence of restricted areas (hot spots) with high-level soil

contamination with PCB, as compared with the US EPA regulatory levels. In particular, the surface soil shows the highest levels of contamination as evidenced by the analysis of the soil samples collected at the different depths. In the �hot spot� areas, the PCB has not migrated significantly to deeper soil layer and is readily amenable to clean up actions that would prevent evaporation and human exposure.

• The sampling and analysis campaign revealed also presence of heavy metals in the site soil at

concentrations above the regulatory levels (Serbian Legislation). • Based on the established �base line review� the Dump Site presents risks higher than excess

cancer risk of 10-6 towards human health associated with the presence of contaminants such as

6 Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, �Sampling and Analysis PCB Risk Assessment of Dump Site-Bor Mining Complex, Report�, Belgrade February 2003


7

Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Copper, Cadmium, Lead, Zinc, Mercury, Chromium, Nickel and Arsenic.

• Based on available data, the preferred remedial action is to remove the upper 10 cm of site soil

from the hot spot areas with subsequent off-site disposal and/or treatment of the excavated soil. This action fulfils the requirements of the remedial selection balancing factors and diminishes the soil concentrations of PCB and Arsenic below the levels of 25 ppm and 120 ppm respectively. This action will also diminish the concentration levels of the other pollutants.

6.0 Assessment of current mapping results The dumpsite is located 800 m to the Northeast form the location of transformer station Bor T3 and covers the area of approximately, Location A = 4860 m2 and B=1574 m2,1. In order to extend the previously obtained sampling results5 and to cover the entire site, an extended mapping of contaminants of concern has been implemented. The mapping has been based on systematic sampling also called grid sampling or regular sampling. In this way the entire site has been covered by a grid with a mesh of 10 by 10 meters. The average soil sample has been taken from two locations, 0,02 and 0,1 m below the surface and as close as practically possible to centre of each square. Sampling activities included also spots in the vicinity of the identified capacitors. The mapping activities have taken place during December month in 2002. The analysis of the samples included determination of the concentration of contaminants of concern previously analysed for5, i.e. PCB, Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, Cr, Hg, As, Ba, Sb. The work has been performed by the Institute of Public Health of Belgrade and the report issued in February 20037,8 The obtained results refer to location A and B of the Site and indicate elevated values of elements identified in the first risk assessment as contaminants of concern5. The concentrations of PCB are in the range of 254.2 mg/kg to 33.7 mg/kg for site location A and in the range of 2930 mg/kg to 25.19 mg/kg for site location B8. Concentration ranges of remaining Contaminants of Concern in the surficial soil for location A and B are as follows: Location A all in mg/kg Location B all in mg/kg Lead 30240 to 27 18696 to 11,1 Cadmium 135 to 1.72 17.8 to <2.2 Zink 14520 to 49 13200 to 50.5 Copper 84960 to 599.2 101200 to 105.4 Nickel 1204 to <12.2 14976 to 11.1 Chromium 2643 to <11 18720 to 4.01 Mercury 157.5 to <0.272 432.9 to <0.3 Arsenic 6498 to 48.1 1562.1 to 5.55

7 Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, �Sampling and Analysis PCB Risk Assessment of Dump Site-Bor Mining Complex�-Report, Belgrade February 2003 (also attached as Appendix 1) 8 Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, �Dump Site-Bor Mining Complex- Maps�, Belgrade 2002 (Appendix 2)


8

Spatial distribution of the elevated concentration of PCB is indicated in Appendix 2 inclusive previously5 identified hot zones. Current obtained concentrations of PCB are not higher then previously identified at the hot spots, which indicate that the primary PCB pollution of surficial soil originates from leaking capacitors. It is probable that other localities where the higher concentrations of PCB have been detected are associated with the leaking oil during transportation of the capacitors through the Site. As pointed out in the previous report, the soil samples show high concentration of heavy metals. The presence of those contaminants is most probably due to disposal of flue dust originating from the Cu-melting operations. Especially the presence of Mercury and Arsenic in high concentrations detected is of most concern as those contaminants are contributing to a very high degree towards carcinogenic risk values and non-carcinogenic hazard quotient. The exposure assessment quantified previously with respect to the impact on the human health has been confirmed by the obtained values of the contaminants of concern, both with respect to PCB and heavy metals. The exposure pathways of concern and the classification of the Site is maintained in this assessment, inclusive the definition of the Dump Site as a non-residential industrial area. Ingestion of contaminated soil and inhalation are identified as the primary paths of exposure to Contaminants of Concern. Based on the results covering the entire Site, the previously made assumptions, calculations and conclusions are maintained. However the extend and the obtained concentration spread will have impact on the identification and evaluation of remedial action alternatives, which have to take into account the statutory requirements and risk based values for excavation scenario with respect to the contaminants.

Contaminant PRG* Value (risk based) Excavation Scenario

PRL** (statutory requirement)

PCB 63 ppm 25 ppm (US EPA) Arsenic 120 ppm 25 ppm (FRY)9 Cadmium 9.3E+05 ppm 3 ppm (FRY) Lead 600 ppm (US EPA) 100 ppm (FRY) Mercury (inorganic) 730 ppm 2 ppm (FRY) Chromium 100 ppm (FRY) Nickel 50 ppm (FRY) Copper 600 ppm (EPA NJ) 100 ppm (FRY) Zinc 120 ppm 300 ppm (FRY)

* PRG = Preliminary Remediation Goals ** PRL = Proposed Remediation Levels

Actual or threatened release of PCB and heavy metals loaded dust at and from the Dump Site surficial soil, if not addressed by implementing the response action recommended in this assessment, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment. The exposition of human receptors during off-site presence or excavation activities is of most of concern.

9 UNEP, �Assessment of Environmental Monitoring Capacities in Bor-Mission Report�, August 2002


9

7.0 Remedial action objectives The selected remedy shall be protective of human health and the environment, and comply with national (Serbian) or international (USEPA) regulatory requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action and is cost effective. The proposed remedy shall utilise permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extend practicable for this site. The proposed remedial action alternatives shall mitigate and prevent adverse human health effects resulting from the exposure to contaminants of concern. Major components of the remedy for the Dump Site soil include: ! Removal of damaged capacitors ! Prevention of further exposure of human receptors to air borne contaminants ! Prevention of further evaporation of PCB ! Possibility of future recycling of slag bed of the Site ! Reduction of concentration of Contaminants of Concern below risk based or regulatory level Areas of the Dump Site identified as hot spots or areas with concentration of contaminants above regulatory or risk-based levels may pose an unacceptable health risks towards human receptors. Taking into account existing uncertainties, the calculated exposure estimates calculated in this risk assessment are reasonable. Therefore, the range of remediation levels, that were developed for the targeted risk of 1*10-6 or HQ=1 in the risk assessment, are considered to be appropriate levels from which to select an action level for remediation of particular areas of the Site. The remediation goal is to reduce potential exposure to PCB and associated heavy metals by physically removing contaminated soil to extent practicable. The review of other remedial measures and their implementation is outlined below. It is estimated that 5400 m3 of soil shall be removed from the Site inclusive remnants and supporting structures of capacitors. This action will address the principal threat posed by the presence of contaminants at Site, which is evaporation of PCB and ingestion of PCB and heavy metal loaded dust. The acceptance criteria of the remedial action are proposed to be: Max. PCB concentration in the soil of 25 ppm with associated level of heavy metals. It is proposed not to apply risk based maximum values of concentration of heavy metals in the soil. However, it is expected that the concentrations will be lower then currently analysed in the surficial soil. The proposed remedial measures are based on the above-mentioned criteria. Following proposed alternatives are expected to comply with the remedial action objectives:


10

Alternative 1: No action inclusive On-Site management through engineering and institutional controls; Alternative 2: Excavation to protective level and off-site disposal; Alternative 3: Excavation to protective levels and Solidification with Stabilization and

Off-site Disposal; Alternative 4: In situ thermal desorption (ISTD) Alternative 1: No Action inclusive on-site management through engineering and institutional controls No Action response consists of implementing no remedial technology or process to reduce or minimize the volume, toxicity or mobility of the PCBs in the soil, but may include environmental monitoring and/or institutional controls. In this particular case, the No Action alternative includes the covering the soil at their present location with asphalt or concrete slurry and maintaining them at this location indefinitely, thus preventing evaporation and dust dissipation. The Dump Site would require a certain degree of maintenance for the life of the alternative. Such maintenance could include repairs of the cover system and control of surface water and erosion. The designated Dump Site area would need to be secured by fencing to prevent the public from entering the area. Furthermore, the designated area may have to be appropriated for ownership by the RTB Bor for the life of the alternative. In case this risk reduction option would be implemented, RTB Bor would not be in position to recycle the bed of the Site consisting of the slag originating from the Cu melting process. Alternative 2: Excavation to protective levels and Off-Site disposal Alternative 2 consists of off-Site disposal of the soil that has been excavated from areas where PCBs detected in soils exceeded 25 ppm to a soil management facility, constructed in advance in the vicinity of the Dump Site to permanently contain polluted soils. The base of the facility would be designed with a flexible membrane liner system consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and leachate collection system. In this alternative, the contaminated soil would be packaged in closed containers, typically with a rated capacity of 200 liters. The preferred method of treatment will be permanent controlled storage (if such a facility is available in Serbia or will be constructed for the purpose) as most likely as the thermal destruction is not the appropriate treatment process due to high levels of heavy metals. The individual filled containers would than be transported for storage at said facility. Alternative 3: Excavation to protective levels, Solidification and off-site disposal Alternative 3 consists of the off-Site disposal of the soil that has been excavated from areas where PCBs detected in soils exceeded 25 ppm to a soil management area constructed in the vicinity of the Dump Site to permanently contain PCB and heavy metals impacted soils. The base of the facility would be designed with a flexible membrane liner system consisting of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and leachate collection system. Contaminated soils would be stabilized to immobilize the


11

PCBs and heavy metals prior to disposal in the cell unit and thereby reducing the potential for leaching, mobility and bio-availability. The disposal cell cover would be designed with a cover system, which consists of a single layer of 0.15 mm HDPE, surface water collection, and removal system, and a 1.2 m thick vegetative cover soil layer. In the case the immobilized material complies with Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test regulatory levels7 the material may be stored at the municipal waste landfill and there will be no need for construction of soil management facility. The requirement of meeting regulatory values of heavy metal concentrations in the TCLP extract is internationally recognized proof that the solidified waste will not contribute to the pollution of underground water. The values shall be as follows:

Regulatory level Parameters Total content TCLP-extract

Heavy metals *in mg/kg and mg/l Lead 1000 5 Cadmium 60 1 Zinc 5000 250 Nickel 3000 20 Chromium (total) 2500 5 Copper 60000 25 Arsenic 50 5 Mercury 7 0.2 Antimony 700 15 Barium 10000 100 TCLP � Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure * - dry sample Alternative 4: In situ thermal desorption (ISTD) In situ thermal desorption process applies thermal blankets for removal of surficial contamination down to about 0.6 m. The heat is applied to soil from a high temperature surface in contact with the soil so that thermal conduction and convection occurs in the bulk of the soil volume. A significant feature of the ISTD process is the creation of a zone of high temperature (more than 540 deg. C) near the heaters, which oxidizes most of the contaminants before they exit the soil. This technology can also collect and capture some low boiling point metals such as mercury, arsenic and certain forms of cadmium and lead. Remediation levels and clean-up times can be predicted by computer simulation before the project begins. Although this alternative is a new emerging technology, the experience and treatment results confirm the applicability of this method for remediation of PCB polluted sites.


12

8.0 Comparative analysis of alternatives The evaluation of remedial alternatives is based on the compliance with nine criteria falling into three groups: • Threshold criteria • Primary balancing factors • Modifying criteria Threshold Criteria: The two threshold criteria described below must be met in order for the alternatives to be eligible for selection: 1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls; 2. Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (Regulatory Requirements) addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all environmental and facility siting standards, requirements, criteria or limitations defined by the Serbian authorities supplemented by the requirements of US EPA regulations outlined in 40 CFR 761, unless a waiver is invoked. Remedy Selection Balancing Factors (Primary balancing factors): • Effectiveness determines whether an alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls

threats to public health and the environment • Long-term reliability considers the ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human

health and the environment over time • Implementability considers the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing

the alternative, including factors such as the relative availability of goods and services

• Implementation risk considers short-term risk presented to on-site workers, the community

or the environment during implementation of the remedy • Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations and maintenance costs.

Costs estimates are expected to be accurate within the range of +50 percent.

Modifying criteria: • State acceptance • Community acceptance


13

These two modifying criteria are not reviewed in this report. Four remedial alternatives were evaluated for suitability for the Dump Site Remediation Action. These four remedial alternatives were individually compared with each of the five evaluation criteria to determine which of the alternatives met all of them. The alternatives, which satisfy the five criteria, are compared to evaluate the relative merits and deficiencies of each alternative relative to one another so that they can be ranked in terms of the various evaluation criteria. The detailed discussion and analysis concerning the alternatives is to be found below: Alternative 1: No Action inclusive on-site management through engineering and institutional controls This alternative was retained for comparative analysis. Under this alternative PCB and heavy metals contaminated soils would remain on Site and engineering controls such as capping and fencing will be utilized. Protectiveness will be enhanced through the use of institutional controls. However the Site is not an engineered containment system, thereby presenting a long-term threat to human health and the environment if engineering controls fail. Alternative 2: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal This alternative meets all five of the criteria evaluated to date and was retained for comparative analysis. Alternative 3: Excavation and Off-Site Solidification This alternative meets all five of the criteria evaluated to date and was retained for comparative analysis. Alternative 4: In situ thermal desorption (ISTD) This alternative meets all five of the criteria evaluated to date and was retained for comparative analysis. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: Alternative 1 (No Action) does meet the threshold criterion of being protective of human health and environment in case the capping action is implemented. As required by the US regulations 40 CFR 761.61, the soil containing PCB with concentrations above 25 mg/kg shall be treated if no institutional measures are implemented. Alternatives 2 (Off-Site Disposal), 3 (Off-Site Solidification), and 4 (In situ thermal desorption) meet this criterion. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence: Alternative 1 (No Action) retains PCB contaminated soil on Site for an indefinite period of time. Long-term storage under those storage conditions presents a long-term threat to human health and the environment. Alternative 2 (Off-Site Disposal) permanently removes PCBs with associated heavy metals from the Dump Site but requires location for off-site disposal. Alternative 3 (Off-Site Solidification) will permanently contain the PCBs and heavy metals and will not require location


14

for off-site disposal in case of acceptable TCLP test results. Alternative 4 (In situ thermal desorption) destroys PCBs in the surficial soil, thus making this alternative rank very high under this criterion. Implementability: Alternative 1 (No Action) is the most easily implementable alternative because the implementation of capping operation does not require excavation or remedial treatment. Alternative 2 (Off-Site Disposal) is technically, easily implementable. However, shipping and the off-site disposal of the polluted soils constraints and decrease the overall implementability rating. The advantage is also the restricted amount of excavated soil due to defined areas of PCB pollution. Alternative 3 (Off-Site Solidification) is readily implementable subject to the location of a suitable site for the storage cell on the Site where a permit from the authorities would be required. Potential permit requirements would reduce the implementability rating. The use of a standard design for the waste management unit shortens the design and specification phase of his alternative. The HDPE liner is readily available, but will require a skilled installation team to perform the work. In the case of meeting Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test requirements, implementability criteria will increase its rating. Alternative 4 (In situ thermal desorption) can be completed in the short timeframe conditioned availability of the plant able to thermally treat soil polluted both with PCB and heavy metals. The advantage of this method is avoidance of excavation, off-site or on-site treatment of excavated soils and subsequent disposal. Implementability rating is very high for this option. Implementation Risk: Alternatives 1 (No Action) is most protective for site workers and eliminates the risks to the community related to implementing an alternative that involves moving the contaminated materials or using heavy equipment. Alternatives 2 (Off �Site Disposal), 3 (Off-Site Solidification), are essentially equally protective of site workers and the community. The hazards associated with moving, treating and loading contaminated soils are manageable through the application of appropriate work plan controls and monitoring. Alternative 4 (In situ thermal desorption) is the protective for the site workers to the greatest possible extend as the excavation activities and subsequent transport/handling of polluted soil is avoided. Cost: The preliminary cost estimates associated with each individual alternative have been quantified and outlined in chapter 10.3 (see below).


15

The comparative analysis taking into account balancing factors for all above-mentioned remedial actions can be summarised as follows:

Remedy Selection Balancing Factor Remedial Action Effectiveness Long-term

liability Implementability Implementation

Risk Cost

Remedy Alternative 1: On-site management through engineering and institutional controls

Yes No Yes No Low

Remedy Alternative 2: Excavation to protective levels and off-site disposal

Yes No Yes Manageable High

Remedy Alternative 3: Excavation to protective levels, solidification and off-site disposal

Yes Yes Yes Manageable High

Remedy Alternative 4: In-situ thermal desorption

Yes Yes Yes No High

Remedy being efficient, with long-term liability, implementable with lowest implementation risk and cost shall be chosen as a preferred remediation option. In our case, Alternative 4 complies with those criteria and therefore has been chosen as a preferred remedy. The practical implementation of Alternative 4 may be preceded by immediate steps aiming at reduction of immediate exposure of human receptors, in form of engineering and institutional controls. These steps and the strategy are described in the next chapter entitled �Stepwise implementation strategy�. Recommendations for mitigation of current human exposure: As described in previous chapters, certain exposure of human receptors is currently taking place through evolvement of PCB vapours, PCB, Arsenic and Mercury loaded dust. It is recommended that off-site workers show higher degree of hygiene (hand wash prior to eating) while operating equipment placed off-site, which might have some dust deposited and originating from the Dump Site. As the site is industrial remote site, no human receptors are expected to be present at longer intervals at the Dump Site and therewith exposed to PCB vapours. The dilution of PCB at the locations off-site does not justify application of gas masks or any of this kind of equipment as long as workers are not working directly with excavation of soil or other activities directly associated with the Dump Site.


16

9.0 Stepwise implementation strategy In order to give RT Bor and other stakeholders a possibility of stepwise implementation of the preferred remedy at the Dump Site and therewith reduction of human health environmental risks, it is proposed to adopt �Site Cleaning Strategy� as outlined below. In this way, the immediate requirement of diminishing dust and vapour releases from the Site can be met and the stakeholders will obtain control over exposures originating from the Site. It has to be underlined that Alternative 1 through 4 are the integrated parts of this approach and Alternative 4 is preferred and recommended option, though preceded by institutional control measures. SITE CLEANING STRATEGY Remove all visible capacitors

Define �PCB polluted� sectors of the Site

Remove concrete rubble from said sectors and inspect for visible �PCB wet spots�. Those structures having such spots shall be stored separately.

Slag bed under Site to be re-cycled during 3-5 years?

NO YES

Base line options might be considered including capping option. Concrete or asphalt cap of the entire site or polluted sectors only.

Removal of soil from the contaminated sectors.

In-situ treatment of soil in the contaminated sectors.

Soil Management Facility

Solidification/immobilization process

Storage in closed containers

Storage at the Soil Management Facility

Storage at the municipal landfill

Construction of Soil Management Facility

Concrete rubble with �wet PCB spots�


17

10.0 Selected remedy 10.1 Summary

Of those alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and at the same time comply with regulatory or risk based requirements, the above presented remedies for the Dump Site soil material provide the best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term effectiveness and performance, treatment, implementability, cost and state of community acceptance. It has to be underlined that the immediate exposure risk is for people moving around the site or for off-site workers, in case extensive soil erosion from the Dump Site is taking place. There is no immediate health risk for the population outside the nearest vicinity of the Site. However, long term human exposure to PCB vapours shall be avoided and therefore based on certain scenarios (off-site workers exposed to excessive dust originating from the Site or exposure of workers during slag bed excavation activities) the risk analysis recommended implementation of certain remedial measure in order to diminish these risks.

10.2 Technical description of selected remedies

Alternative 1: No Action inclusive on-site management through engineering and institutional controls

The remedy involves capping the area in order to prevent spreading of contaminants to the surrounding environment through surface runoff due to heavy rain or wind, and to prevent evaporation and exposure towards human receptors. Capping would also stop percolation of contaminants to the groundwater. In order to be able to implement this option, concrete rubble has to be moved aside. Some levelling might be required supplemented with clean soil or gravel or crushed concrete. Subsequently the most convenient way of capping would be spreading of a layer of asphalt or concrete slurry. The thickness should be adequate to resist movements of the site and changing weather conditions. In-situ capping techniques of contaminated sites have been applied in the past and are considered appropriate when the costs of other methods are too high or their environmental effectiveness is not adequate. The main advantages of the method can be summarised as follows: ! There is no need for removal of contaminated material from the site. ! Bio-accessibility is prevented (no human contact). ! Dust creation and evaporation of contaminants is prevented. ! Contributes to the maintenance of stable geo-chemical and geo-hydraulic conditions. ! Easy to implement, and the cost is not excessive. ! Restricts the washout of contaminants by both surface water and groundwater. Working safety conditions:


18

During the removal of damaged capacitors, special attention shall be given to spillage of oil. The containers, where those capacitor remainings can be stored have to be prepared beforehand and closed after placement of capacitors. Workers, especially those helping manually in retrieving said capacitors and assisting in removing concrete rubble at the Site should wear light protective suits and gas masks applicable for PCB vapours. Alternative 2: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal The implantation of this alternative involves excavation of soil using mechanical equipment such as excavators, bulldozers or front-end loaders. Excavation it performed to a depth where protective PCB limit of 25 ppm is reached. The excavated soil will be transferred to a soil management facility for storage under controlled conditions. This facility ensures that the soil is stored under proper conditions preventing spreading and evaporation of PCB loaded dust, inclusive control of the produced percolate. During excavation, size separation to remove large concrete rubble, stones, etc. would be implemented for facilitate handling and/or disposal. The implementation of the option is conditioned upon existence and availability of soil management facility. The construction cost of such a facility is included in the cost review outlined below. Working safety conditions: Working safety conditions pointed out under Alternative 1 are applicable and shall be observed also during excavation and loading. The equipment operators having closed cabins do not need to wear gas masks. Dust musk is adequate. It is also advisable that machine operators are wearing light protective suits. Alternative 3: Excavation and Off-Site Solidification During excavation, size separation to remove large concrete rubble, stones, etc. would be implemented for separate handling and/or disposal. Contaminant mobility reduction is achieved by mixing soil with a binder that provides a combination of physical entrapment (e.g., encapsulation or porosity reduction) and chemical reaction (e.g., hydroxide precipitation). The physical mixing may be performed in a pugmill. A wide variety of materials are used as solidification/stabilization binders including portland cement, pozzolans, silicates, bitumen, and polymers. Portland cement and related aluminosilicate pozzolans (e.g., blast furnace slag or fly ash) are the most commonly used binders. Cement and water are mixed with soil using a pug mill, rotating drum mixer, or other slurry mixing apparatus. Additives may also be included in the mixture to improve the immobilization of specific contaminants or off-set negative affects of contaminants on setting time or ultimate strength. In order to confirm the efficiency of the process, TCLP leaching test is performed and based on the obtained results, the compliance with the regulatory standards is confirmed. The following factors may limit the applicability and effectiveness of the process: ! Long-term effectiveness has to be demonstrated through TCLP tests.


19

! Environmental conditions in the final disposal site may affect the long-term immobilization of contaminants.

! Some processes result in a significant increase in volume (up to double the original volume). ! Organics can interfere with binder setting. ! It can be difficult to formulate an effective binder for complex waste. ! Debris greater than 60 mm in diameter typically must be removed prior to processing.

Schematics of the immobilisation process Working safety conditions: Working safety conditions shall be implemented as described under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Alternative 4: In situ thermal desorption (ISTD) The spatial distribution and confinement of PCB to surface of the Dump Site make this method very attractive. In-situ thermal desorption processes, which either destroy contaminants in place or remove them without disturbing the soil, offer distinct advantages over those requiring excavation in that they eliminate exposures and handling/preparation costs. During the treatment process, heat and vacuum are applied simultaneously to subsurface soils. For shallow soil contamination, surface heater blankets are applied and seem to be highly effective in removing PCB from soil. The supplier obtained proves of the efficiency of this method under field conditions. The process possesses high removal efficiency because the narrow range of soil thermal conductivities provides excellent sweep efficiency and because its high operating temperature assures complete displacement efficiency of contaminants in the gas phase. ISTD is applicable to tight soils and clay layers or in soils with wide variations in permeability and water content. A significant feature of the ISTD process is the creation of a zone of very high temperature (>540 deg. C) near the heaters, which causes rapid destruction of the contaminants before they exit the soil.


20

Schematics of in-situ thermal desorption process. It is envisaged that the concrete rubble with extensive oily wet spots indicating possible pollution with PCB will be put aside and crushed subsequently with following thermal treatment in the same way as site polluted soil. The computer simulation and trial tests prior to final implementation will confirm to what extend the thermal treatment will decrease the content of mercury and Arsenic while thermally decomposing PCB. Working Safety conditions: Working safety conditions during the preparatory stages shall follow those outlined under Alternative 1 and shall be supplemented by directives of the ISTD method supplier. 10.3 Summary of estimated costs and implementation times It is assumed that only the impacted areas are remediated. From the mapping results it seems that 20 areas, each 100 m2 needs to be remediated, giving in total 2000 m2. In the following, the assumed amounts of soil for excavation are based on the 30 cm layer and density of 1.5 tonnes/m3. Other unit rates are outlined under respective Alternatives. Alternative 1: No Action inclusive on-site management through engineering and institutional controls Task description Estimated cost in � Project management and supervision 10.000 Mobilisation & demobilisation 10.000 Removal of concrete rabble and levelling 10.000 Crushing of �wet� concrete 10.000 Capping (2000 m2) 50.000 Fencing 5.000


21

Contingency 15% 14.250 Total 109.250 Implementation time: 4 to 6 months Cost estimation is based on the following assumptions: ! Project management and supervision includes the preparation of a remediation plan, a

work plan and a safety plan. It also includes management during the remediation work. ! Installation of 2.000 m2 of capping assumes a unit price of 25 USD per m2, and includes

necessary ground works. Alternative 2: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal Task description Estimated cost in � Project management and supervision 20.000 Mobilisation & demobilisation 20.000 Removal of concrete rabble 10.000 Excavation 30.000 Transport 20.000 Soil Management Facility 200.000 Contingency 15% 45.000 Total 345.000 Implementation time: 8 to 12 months Cost estimation is based on the following assumptions: ! Project management and supervision includes the preparation of a remediation plan, a

work plan and a safety plan. It also includes management during the remediation work. ! Excavation of polluted soil of 600 tonnes at a unit price of 50 �/tonne ! Transportation of excavated soil of 600 tonnes at a unit price of 33 �/tonne ! Construction of the Soil Management Site of 2500 m2 at a unit price of 80 �/m2 Soil Management Facility: Proper storage of PCB polluted soil is a part of remediation Alternative 2. Planning, design, construction and management of such a facility will not only contribute to controlled storage of polluted soil but also to the development of regional environmentally sound management practices for hazardous wastes. Siting of such facility has not been part of this assessment and a suitable site option closets to the Dump Site would be preferred.


22

However, the following design elements are recommended: ! A lining system consisting of a composite liner with an artificial liner on top of a clay liner

should be introduced. The clay liner must have a low permeability (1*10-9 m/s or less) and both the clay liner and the artificial liner must be resistant against leachate.

! On the top of the artificial liner a drainage system must be established to collect leachate, which, through a collection reservoir, should be analysed regularly and treated off-site if necessary.

! After the transfer of the polluted soil to the facility, the cell should be closed and capped with 1.5 mm LDPE membrane and clean soil on the top of it.

Alternative 3: Excavation and Off-Site Solidification Task description Estimated cost in � Project management and supervision 30.000 Mobilisation & demobilisation 20.000 Removal of concrete rabble 10.000 Excavation 20.000 Transport/immobilisation/landfill disposal* 250.000 Contingency 15% 49.500 Total 380.500 * under assumption that immobilised material passed TCLP tests Implementation time: 5 to 7 months Cost estimation is based on the following assumptions: ! Project management and supervision includes the preparation of a remediation plan, a

work plan and a safety plan. It also includes management during the remediation work. ! Excavation of polluted soil of 600 tonnes at a unit price of 50 �/tonne ! Transport of 600 tonnes of soil to off-site facility for solidification, immobilisation of 600 tonnes

of soil at a unit rate of 417 �/tonne and transport of the solidified material to the nearby landfill. Alternative 4: In situ thermal desorption (ISTD) Task description Estimated cost in � Project management and supervision 30.000 Mobilisation & demobilisation 20.000 Concrete rubble removal 10.000 ISTD 350.000 Contingency 15% 63.000 Total 483.000


23

Implementation time: 6 to 8 months Cost estimation is based on the following assumptions: ! Project management and supervision includes the preparation of a remediation plan, a

work plan and a safety plan. It also includes management during the remediation work. ! In-situ thermal treatment of designated areas, approximately 2000 m2 at unit rate of 175 �/m2


24

11.0 Conclusions: The intention of this report is review of previously made assumption and reached conclusions in the light of the established mapping of the pollution of the entire Dump Site. Based on the obtained analytical results for Contaminants of Concern such as PCB and heavy metals, in particular Arsenic, and their spatial distribution, certain remedial measures have been proposed. The aim of the proposed remedies is to eliminate or restrict to the extent possible the exposure of human receptors to the PCB and arsenic loaded dust or to vapours of PCB. These Contaminants of Concern show the greatest impact on human health as based on the performed risk assessment and the exposure paths applicable, which are soil injection and inhalation. However, it has to be underlined that the immediate exposure risk is for people moving around the Site and for off-site workers, in case extensive soil erosion from the Dump Site is taking place. There are no immediate health risks for the population outside the nearest vicinity of the Site. However, long term human exposure to PCB vapours shall be avoided and therefore based on certain scenarios (off-site workers exposed to excessive dust originating from the Site or exposure of workers during slag bed excavation activities) this risk analysis recommended implementation of certain remedial measure in order to diminish these risks. The proposed remedial actions are based on the regulatory criteria for PCB of 25 ppm in the surficial soil and industrial environment and shall comply with threshold and modifying criteria and primary balancing factors, discussed elsewhere in this report. Taking into account said criteria and factors, the recommended remedy is treatment of PCB surficial pollution by In situ thermal desorption (ISTD) technique. In order to give RT Bor and other stake holders a possibility of stepwise implementation of the preferred remedy at the Dump Site and therewith reduction of human health environmental risks, it is proposed to adopt �Site Cleaning Strategy� as outlined in chapter 9. In this way, the immediate requirement of diminishing dust and vapour releases from the Site can be met and the stakeholders will obtain control over exposures originating from the Site. It has to be underlined that Alternative 1 through 4 are the integrated parts of this approach and Alternative 4 is the preferred and recommended option, though preceded by institutional control measures.


25

References/Bibliography: 1. Risk Assessment of Dump Site Bor Mining Complex, October 2002 2. Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, �Sampling and Analysis PCB Risk Assessment of Dump Site-Bor Mining Complex� Report - Belgrade, February 2003 3. Institute of Public Health of Belgrade, �Dump Site-Bor Mining Complex-Maps� - Belgrade,2002 4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) �Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)�, November 2000 5. Institute of Public Health of Belgrade Bor: Environmental Assessment, May 2002 6. Institute of Public Health of Belgrade Chemical Analyses of Ground and Surface Water, Soil, Plants, River Sediment and Suspended Particles in Ambient Air in the Bor Area, Report 23 May, 2002 7. International Waste Management Group Assessment of Copper Smelter; Copper Mine; Landfill Site & Thermal Power Plant Bor, December 2000 8. International Waste Management Group Economic, Environmental & Public Health Assessment, Bor Municipality, Yugoslavia Part I, II, III, (December 2000 & February 2001) 9. Municipal Assembly Bor Report: Local Municipal Assembly Bor Group for the support to UNEP/UNOPS Monitoring Mission, Bor, May 2002 10. PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures EPA/600/P-96/001F, September 1996 11. RTB Bor Air analysis results, Publication dated Bor, 25.04.2002 12. RTB Bor Geological Review, August 2002 13. RTB Bor

Official Letter to UNEP from RTB Bor, dated 3.9.2002 14. The Municipality of Bor Letter to UNEP/UNOPS project implementation office, dated 27.06.2002 15. UNEP: Cleanup of Environmental Hotspots,


26

�Assessment of Environmental Monitoring Capacities in Bor. Mission Report September 2002� 16. UNEP Balkans Unit B.1 � Remediation actions concerning the PCB contamination at the transformer station Bor 17. UNEP Balkans Task Force Feasibility Study, Environmental Hot Spots caused by the Kosovo Conflict, April 2000 18. UNEP: PCB Transformers and Capacitors From Management to Reclassification and Disposal, First Issue May 2002 19. UNEP: Survey of Currently Available Non-Incineration PCB Destruction Technologies First Issue, August 2000 20. US Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR Protection of Environment Chapter I, Subchapter R -- Toxic Substances Control Act Part 761 -- POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS 21. US EPA 40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-01 Edition) PART 761� �Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions� 22. US EPA 540/g-90/007, August 1990 �Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contaminants�


27

APPENDIX 1

Institute of Public Health of Belgrade

Sampling and Analysis PCB Risk Assessment of Dump Site-Bor Mining Complex Belgrade February 2003


28

INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF BELGRADE

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PCB RISK ASSESSMENT OF DUMP SITE � BOR

MINING COMPLEX

- R e p o r t -

B e l g r a d e February 2003


29

Director- General: Dr. Slobodan Tosovic, MD,

Senior Specialist in Toxicology Head of Laboratory for Human Ecology: Dr. (Mrs.) Snezana Matic Besarabic, MD,

Senior Specialist in Hygiene Project Manager: Dr. Slavisa Mladenovic, MD, Specialist in Hygiene The analyses were performed by the IPHB Analytical Team:

Mr. Neboj�a Vuković, B.Sc. (Chemical Engineering) Mrs. Anka Jovanovic, B.Sc. (BioChem.) Mrs. Vladica Čudić, B.Sc. (Chemical Engineering) Mr. Radomir Nikodinovic, B.Sc. (Chemical Engineering) Mr. Dragan Crnkovic, B.Sc. (Chemical Engineering)

Associate:

Mr. Branko Miladinović, M.Sc. (Hydrogeology)


30

C O N T E N T S

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................31 2. DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES ......................................31 3. SAMPLING TEAM.......................................................................31 4. SAMPLING EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE ...........................32 5. SAMPLING SPOTS.....................................................................32 6. EXAMINED CHEMICAL PARAMETERS ....................................32 7. ANALYTICAL METHODS ...........................................................32 8. LABORATORY EQUIPMENT .....................................................33 9. RESULTS: DISCUSION ..............................................................34 ANNEX I � RESULTS OF EXAMINATION � TABLES ...............38 ANNEX II � SAMPLING SPOTS � MAPS ...................................43


31

1. INTRODUCTION The following Report is based on activities defined by the contract REF: C02, YUG 71-041, signed between UNEP/UNOPS and Institute of Public Health of Belgrade. This Project (sampling and analysis) was based on the above contract and defined assignments. The Project covered the dump site within RTB Bor complex, where PCB- contaminated debris and material from the destroyed transformer station (including 138 capacitors) has been dumped with considerable amounts of other waste material. About 80 of these capacitors, either complete or in parts, are visible on the spot. Some of these (66) are grouped in the so-called hot zone I. 2. DESCRIPTION OF FIELD ACTIVITIES In order to realize the aims of the Project, Sampling Team performed sampling (70 soil samples), from the grid that had been previously defined for the needs of this Project. The grid, to be found in Annex of this Report, was overlaid on the entire area and sampling was done according to it. At each spot we have taken an average sample: it incorporates samples of soil taken from two depths: 2 and 10 cm below the surface. Each sample was taken as close as possible to the center of each square. Samplng included the spots in the vicinity of identified capacitors. Sampling was performed in order to determine the total PCB concentrations and content of heavy metals (Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu, Ni, Cr, Hg, As, Ba and Sb). 3. SAMPLING TEAM The three- member IPHB team performed the sampling on December 23 and 24 2002: - Mr. Slavisa Mladenovic MD, Specialist in Hygiene - Mr. Rade Matic, Sanitary Technician - Mr. Dejan Stanojević, Sanitary Technician.


32

4. SAMPLING EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE At each spot we have taken an average sample: it incorporates samples of soil taken from two depths: 2 and 10 cm below the surface. Each sample was taken as close as possible to the center of each square. Sampling included the spots in the vicinity of identified capacitors. Stainless steel laboratory spoons were used for taking samples. The samples were stored in glass containers previously marked with the date, location and ID number of the sample. All sampling and analyses were performed according to documented standard procedure according to the principles of ISO 17025 and GLP. 5. SAMPLING SPOTS Sampling spots are given in Annex to this Report, on the map with x, y, z coordinates. We have not performed sampling in the squares covered with flotation waste material. The map points to these with the mark »J« (jalovina=flotation waste). The soil was analyzed in 70 locations. 6. EXAMINED CHEMICAL PARAMETERS In all samples we determined the contents of PCB and heavy metals ( Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu, Hg, Ni, Cr, As, Sb, Ba). 7. ANALYTICAL METHODS Determination of Moisture Moisture determination was performed by ONORM 6270- Analysis of sewage sludge: Determination of the water content and dry residue. Determination of Heavy Metals Samples of the soil for determination of heavy metals by atomic absorption spectrophotometric technique were prepared by acid digestion with concentrated nitric acid, hydrochloride acid and hydroxide peroxide, at 700C.


33

On Varian Spectra AA 475, atomic absorption spectraphotometric device, we determined the content of mercury using cold vapors technique. Content of Pb,Cd,Zn,Cu,Ni,Cr was determined by Spectra AA 200 atomic absorption spectraphotometric device. Spectra AA 20+ determined contents of arsenic using hydride technique and Ba and Sb using flame technique. All the results of heavy metal contents were given in mg/kg of dry sample. Determination of the Content of PCBs Soil samples with the aim of determining of the contents of PCBs by gas chromatography, were prepared by Soxlet extraction method, with a mixture of solvents: hexane: methylene-chloride (1:1). For the clean-up of the samples we used solid phase extraction column with silica gel and aluminium oxide. Clean extract was measured for the presence of PCBs by capillary gas chromatography, with mass spectrometry detection (HP 6890 gas chromatograph with HP 5793 mass detector, selecting ion monitoring). Quantification of PCBs was made according to Supelco standard, AROCHLOR 1260. Obtained results are expressed in mg/kg. 8. LABORATORY EQUIPMENT We used the following equipment for the preparation of samples and determination of their composition:

- Analytical balance, Mettler PJ 3600,e = 0.1 g - Analytical balance, Mettler AE 200, e= 1 mg, - Muffle furnace, - Drying Oven maintained at 105°C, - Heaters with adaptable thermostat, for setting the temperature of 70°C, - Rotary evaporator, Buchy, - Varian Spectra AA 475,atomic absorbtion spectraphotometric device - Varian Spectra AA 200,atomic absorbtion spectraphotometric device - Varian Spectra AA 20+,atomic absorbtion spectraphotometric device - Gas chromatograph, Hewlett Packard, HP 6890, with HP 5973 Mass

Detector


34

9. RESULTS: DISCUSION The IPHB team has experienced great dificulties collecting samples because the soil has frequently been frozen. We had expected to find greatest concentrations of pollutants, especially PCB, in the hot spots previously defined by former investigations. However, the results we have obtained show that the horizontal distribution of contaminants has also encompassed several neighboring squares (A 11, A 18, A 3, B 7 are among them). In Annex to this Report we shall give a detailed overview of the squares within which the sample showed increased values of PCB. A possible explanation for this type of horizontal distribution of contaminants is careless removal of dumped capacitors, by heavy machinery (bulldozers), from the hot spot II toward the hot spot III (both on Location B). This action was also undertaken to remodel the existing configuration of Location A. Climatic conditions have also contributed to the dispersion of pollutants, since the area is abundant with strong winds. The distribution of contaminants resembles "leopard skin" and a more precise determination of presence of pollutants calls for additional examinations in some squares. Detected PCB was screened against available US EPA criteria for soil standards. The risk-based protective level of PCB of 25 mg/kg for surface soil was recommended to be implemented as the limit value for remedial action. The value of 25 mg/ kg was used as referential for our laboratory findings.10 On Location A, elevated concentrations of PCB (in relation to the above referential value) were found in the following samples (in descending order):

- A 11 (ID number 11- 659) = 254.2 mg/ kg - A 18 (ID number 11- 630) = 229.98 mg/ kg - A 3 (ID number 11- 660) = 168.85 mg/ kg - A 8 (ID number 11- 652) = 95.3 mg/ kg - A 1 (ID number 11- 654) = 77.01 m g/ kg - A 27 (ID number 11- 606) = 52.97 mg/ kg - A 9 (ID number 11- 620) = 48.11 mg/ kg - A 5 (ID number 11- 602) = 45.61 mg/ kg - A 20 (ID number 11- 600) = 38.67 mg/ kg - A 7 (ID number 11- 618) = 33.70 mg/ kg

10 The value for industrial land- use scenario, as cited in literature, is 100 mg/ kg PCB.


35

On Location B, elevated concentrations of PCB (in relation to the above referential value) were found in the following samples (in descending order):

- B 7 (ID number 11- 645) = 2930 mg/kg - B 19 (ID number 11- 637) = 629.27 mg/ kg - B 2 (ID number 11- 649) = 320.77 mg/ kg - B 1 (ID number 11- 650) = 120.8 mg/ kg - B 3 (ID number 11- 655) = 84.80 mg/ kg - B 8 (ID number 11- 644) = 67.37 mg/ kg - B 6( ID number 11- 646) = 25.19 mg/ kg

Values for the examined heavy metals have been compared to standards EPA Waste Classification Regulations, Public Notice R-96-04, May 1998 (draft regulations).

Regulatory level Parameters Total content TCLP-extract Heavy metals *in mg/kg and mg/l Lead 1000 5 Cadmium 60 1 Zinc 5000 250 Nickel 3000 20 Chromium (total) 2500 5 Copper 60000 25 Arsenic 50 5 Mercury 7 0.2 Antimony 700 15 Barium 10000 100 TCLP � Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure * - dry sample Elevated values of heavy metals in all examined samples is the consequence of : a) geological features of the terrain, b) release of pollutants from the neighboring copper smelter works, c) allochthonous origin of the material dumped on the site.


36

Elevated concentrations of Pb have been registered in the following samples: - A 4 (ID number 11- 619) - A 34 (ID number 11- 595) - A 5 (ID number 11- 602) - A 37 (ID number 11- 623) - A 6 (ID number 11- 603) - A 38 (ID number 11- 596) - A 7 (ID number 11- 618) - A 39 (ID number 11- 609) - A 8 (ID number 11- 652) - B 1 (ID number 11- 650) - A 10 (ID number 11- 627) - B 2 (ID number 11- 649) - A 15 (ID number 11- 621) - B 4 (ID number 11- 648) - A 16 (ID number 11- 625) - B 5 (ID number 11- 651) - A 17 (ID number 11- 626) - B 6 (ID number 11- 646) - A 20 (ID number 11- 600) - B 8 (ID number 11- 644) - A 22 (ID number 11- 616) - B 14 (ID number 11- 643) - A 23 (ID number 11- 624) - B 15 (ID number 11- 656) - A 26 (ID number 11- 599) - B 17 (ID number 11-639) - A 27 (ID number 11- 606) - B 21 (ID number 11- 631) - A 29 (ID number 11- 629) - B 22 (ID number 11-632) - A 30 (ID number 11- 594) - B 23 (ID number 11- 633) Let us turn your attention to the samples B 14 (ID number 11- 643), with concnetration of 18696.0 mg/kg and B 15 (ID number 11-656) with concentration of Pb 16920. 0 mg/kg. Elevated concetration of Cd was found in only one sample, A 27 (ID number 11- 606). It was 135 mg/kg. Elevated concentrations of Zn were found in the following samples:

- A 27 (ID number 11- 606) = 14520.0 mg/kg - A 39 (ID number 11- 609) = 5772.0 mg/kg - B 6 (ID number 11- 646) = 13200.0 mg/kg

Elevated concentration of Ni was found in one sample, B 16 (ID number 11- 640) = 14976.0 mg/kg. Elevated concentrations of Cr were found in the following samples:

- A 36 (ID number 11- 608) = 2643.0 mg/ kg and - B 16 (ID number 11-640) = 18720.0 mg/kg.


37

Elevated concentrations of Hg were found in the following samples: - A 4 (ID number 11- 619) - B 1 (ID number 11- 650) - A 5 (ID number 11- 602) - B 3 (ID number 11- 655) - A 7 (ID number 11- 618) - B 8 (ID number 11- 644) - A 10 (ID number 11- 627) - B 13 (ID number 11- 642) - A 14 (ID number 11- 617) - B 14 (ID number 11- 643) - A 16 (ID number 11- 625) - B 15 (ID number 11- 656) - A 21 (ID number 11- 605) - B 21 (ID number 11- 631) - A 22 (ID number 11- 616) - B 22 (ID number 11- 632) - A 24 (ID number 11- 628) - B 23 (ID number 11- 633) - A 28 (ID number 11- 615) - A 29 (ID number 11- 629) - A 37 (ID number 11- 623)

NOTE: Let us point to the samples with extremely high concentration of Hg - A 5 (ID number 11- 602) with 157.5 mg/kg, - B 3 (ID number 11- 655) with 432.9 mg/kg - B 8 (ID number 11- 644) with 125.2 mg/kg - B 14 (ID number 11- 643) with 270.6 mg/kg and - B 15 (ID number 11- 656) with 102.0 mg/kg.

Elevated values of As were found in all but two samples: B 24 (ID number 11- 634) and B 25 (ID number 11- 635). Sb was present in only two samples ( A 14 (ID number 11- 617) and A 38 (ID number 11- 596)). Its values were not elevated. All the results of heavy metal contents were given in mg/kg of dry sample.


38

Table 1: Content of PCB in the waste material from RTB Bor � DUMP SITE � LOCATION A

Number of sampling spot ID number Total PCB

(mg/kg) A 1 11-654 77.01 A 2 11-653 <0.01 A 3 11-660 168.85 A 4 11-619 <0.01 A 5 11-602 45.61 A 6 11-603 1.43 A 7 11-618 33.70 A 8 11-652 95.3 A 9 11-620 48.11

A 10 11-627 <0.01 A 11 11-659 254.42 A 12 11-601 3.13 A 13 11-604 <0.01 A 14 11-617 <0.01 A 15 11-621 3.91 A 16 11-625 10.67 A 17 11-626 6.79 A 18 11-630 229.98 A 19 11-592 <0.01 A 20 11-600 38.67 A 21 11-605 <0.01 A 22 11-616 3.46 A 23 11-624 <0.01 A 24 11-628 6.46 A 25 11-593 7.61 A 26 11-599 <0.01 A 27 11-606 52.97 A 28 11-615 1.61 A 29 11-629 <0.01 A 30 11-594 6.54 A 31 11-598 <0.01 A 32 11-607 <0.01 A 33 11-614 <0.01 A 34 11-595 1.38 A 35 11-597 <0.01 A 36 11-608 <0.01 A 37 11-623 <0.01 A 38 11-596 3.74 A 39 11-609 <0.01 A 40 11-622 <0.01 A 41 11-610 <0.01 A 42 11-613 <0.01 A 43 11-611 <0.01 A 44 11-612 <0.01


39

Table 2: Content of PCB in the waste material from RTB Bor � DUMP SITE � LOCATION B

Number of sampling spot ID number Total PCB

(mg/kg) B 1 11-650 120.8 B 2 11-649 320.77 B 3 11-655 84.80 B 4 11-648 0.19 B 5 11-651 2.12 B 6 11-646 25.19 B 7 11-645 2930,0 B 8 11-644 67.37 B 9 11-647 3.71

B 10 11-657 <0.01 B 11 11-658 <0.01 B 12 11-641 <0.01 B 13 11-642 19.77 B 14 11-643 <0.01 B 15 11-656 <0.01 B 16 11-640 <0.01 B 17 11-639 <0.01 B 18 11-638 <0.01 B 19 11-637 629.27 B 20 11-636 6.34 B 21 11-631 <0.01 B 22 11-632 <0.01 B 23 11-633 <0.01 B 24 11-634 <0.01 B 25 11-635 <0.01 B 26 11-661 <0.01

UN

EP C

lean

up o

f Env

ironm

enta

l Hot

spot

s (Y

UG

00-

R71

) A

men

dmen

t (M

arch

200

3) to

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t, D

ump

Site

� B

or M

inin

g C

ompl

ex (O

ctob

er 2

002)

40

Tabl

e 3.

C

onte

nt o

f hea

vy m

etal

s in

the

was

te m

ater

ial f

rom

RTB

BO

R �

DU

MP

SITE

(mg/

kg o

f dry

sam

ple)

- LO

CAT

ION

A

N

umbe

r of

sam

plin

g sp

ot

ID

num

ber

Pb

Cd

Zn

Cu

Ni

Cr

Hg

As

Ba

Sb

A 1

11-6

54

111,

5 2,

30

161,

0 18

74,5

23

,0

<11,

0 <0

,30

108,

1 13

8,0

<230

,0

A 2

11-6

53

206,

4 1,

72

111,

8 21

84,0

18

,9

8,6

0,82

13

4,2

94,6

<1

70,0

A

3 11

-660

11

1,1

2,20

12

1,0

1507

,0

19,8

<1

1,0

0,77

12

1,0

220,

0 <2

20,0

A

4 11

-619

29

34,6

2,

68

187,

6 44

541,

6 26

,8

40,2

12

,73

250,

6 33

5,0

<270

,0

A 5

11-6

02

3024

0,0

2,52

37

8,0

2469

6,0

25,2

75

,6

157,

5 86

9,4

227,

0 <2

52,0

A

6 11

-603

25

09,0

4,

92

836,

4 24

674,

0 61

,5

110,

7 0,

49

1058

,0

86,0

<2

46,0

A

7 11

-618

39

48,3

2,

46

676,

5 10

209,

0 86

,1

123,

0 40

,6

590,

4 98

,4

<250

,0

A 8

11-6

52

1390

,8

17,0

8 24

40,0

47

214,

0 10

9,8

219,

6 1,

83

442,

9 73

,2

<240

,0

A 9

11-6

20

281,

0 4,

68

444,

6 22

23,0

93

,6

58,5

<0

,30

187,

2 18

7,2

<230

,0

A 10

11

-627

12

60,0

20

,16

1260

,0

1612

8,0

182,

7 18

5,2

8,06

51

6,6

138,

6 <2

50,0

A

11

11-6

59

395,

5 3,

39

293,

8 38

64,6

29

,4

25,9

1,

80

214,

7 25

9,9

<230

,0

A 12

11

-601

35

5,0

<2,7

2 62

,5

1183

,0

13,6

27

,2

1,1

177,

0 12

2,4

<272

,0

A 13

11

-604

24

6,0

<2,2

8 49

,0

3112

,0

22,8

11

,4

1,71

45

6,0

11,4

<2

28,0

A

14

11-6

17

932,

4 <2

,50

189,

0 25

45,2

12

,6

25,2

55

,4

400,

7 50

,4

<250

,0

A 15

11

-621

13

06,8

8,

47

1573

,0

3630

0,0

181,

5 18

1,5

2,06

33

7,6

48,4

53

2,4

A 16

11

-625

16

50,0

11

,00

1100

,0

1485

0,0

396,

0 41

8,0

7,04

44

0,0

121,

0 <2

20,0

A

17

11-6

26

1146

,8

8,54

13

42,0

18

056,

0 15

8,6

97,6

5,

61

488,

0 12

2,0

<250

,0

A 18

11

-630

33

,2

<2,1

0 11

7,7

599,

2 21

,4

10,7

<0

,30

48,1

85

,6

<210

,0

A 19

11

-592

27

,2

<2,2

70

,8

1013

,7

39,2

16

,3

1,09

69

,8

185,

3 <2

18,0

A

20

11-6

00

1281

,0

<2,4

4 30

5,0

3867

,0

29,3

47

,6

2,44

90

3,0

390,

0 <2

44,0

A

25

11-5

93

41,1

<2

,2

81,0

12

32,0

15

,5

11,1

0,

28

57,7

15

5,4

<222

,0

A 26

11

-599

11

42,0

3,

4 32

5,0

9296

,0

78,4

22

,4

1,0

638,

0 33

,6

<224

,0

A 27

11

-606

66

19,0

13

5,0

1452

0,0

5929

0,0

665,

0 60

5,0

1,94

64

98,0

24

,2

<242

,0

A 28

11

-615

23

4,4

9,92

57

0,4

3893

,6,0

81

,8

78,1

2 10

,54

1326

,8

62,0

<2

50,0

A

29

11-6

29

2667

,6

18,7

24

96,0

17

004,

0 15

8,1

312,

0 14

,60

1014

,0

358,

8 <3

10,0

A

30

11-5

94

1083

,0

3,57

40

4,6

1832

6,0

155,

0 71

,4

1,07

36

8,0

59,5

<2

38,0

UN

EP C

lean

up o

f Env

ironm

enta

l Hot

spot

s (Y

UG

00-

R71

) A

men

dmen

t (M

arch

200

3) to

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t, D

ump

Site

� B

or M

inin

g C

ompl

ex (O

ctob

er 2

002)

41

Tabl

e 3.

C

onte

nt o

f hea

vy m

etal

s in

the

was

te m

ater

ial f

rom

RTB

BO

R �

DU

MP

SITE

(m

g/kg

of d

ry s

ampl

e) -

LOC

ATIO

N A

(con

tinue

d)

N

umbe

r of

sam

plin

g sp

ot

ID

num

ber

Pb

Cd

Zn

Cu

Ni

Cr

Hg

As

Ba

Sb

A 31

11

-598

97

2,0

<2,4

39

6,0

9600

,0

43,2

42

,0

0,96

62

4,0

192,

0 <2

40,0

A 32

11

-607

14

0,3

<2,4

4 18

30,0

16

84,0

<1

2,2

97,6

0,

30

1013

,0

48,8

<2

44,0

A 33

11

-614

49

1,4

16,4

14

04,0

83

07,0

58

,5

58,5

0,

76

784,

0 58

,5

<230

,0A

34

11-5

95

1506

,0

6,9

575,

0 18

860,

0 57

,5

33,3

3,

45

701,

0 18

4,0

<230

,0A

35

11-5

97

183,

3 2,

38

261,

8 29

63,0

35

,7

23,8

1,

0 18

4,4

83,3

<2

38,0

A 36

11

-608

29

1,2

5,9

708,

0 45

55,0

12

04,0

26

43,0

<0

,29

197

113,

3 <2

36,0

A 37

11

-623

28

26,0

43

,90

408,

2 45

21,6

62

,8

235,

5 16

,33

2873

,1

109,

9 <3

10,0

A 38

11

-596

79

34,0

<2

,88

72,0

84

960,

0 14

4,0

14,4

<0

,4

316,

8 11

5,2

432,

0 A

39

11-6

09

1654

,0

<2,2

2 57

72

2275

5,0

36,6

23

,3

1,11

82

1,0

233,

0 <2

22,0

A 40

11

-622

23

2,5

<2,5

0 13

5,1

1230

,0

61,5

15

9,9

<0,3

0 87

,3

24,6

<2

50,0

A 41

11

-610

11

7,0

<2,6

26

0,0

3575

,0

52,0

26

,0

0,78

31

5,0

91,0

<2

60,0

A 42

11

-613

38

1,5

8,72

66

4,9

1362

5,0

65,4

54

,5

<0,2

72

425,

1 15

2,6

<218

,0A

43

11-6

11

98,4

<2

,5

664,

0 13

41,0

12

,3

36,9

<0

,31

55,3

36

,9

<246

,0A

44

11-6

12

130,

8 5,

45

392,

4 35

53,4

98

,1

43,6

<0

,272

24

8,5

163,

5 <2

18,0

UN

EP C

lean

up o

f Env

ironm

enta

l Hot

spot

s (Y

UG

00-

R71

) A

men

dmen

t (M

arch

200

3) to

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t, D

ump

Site

� B

or M

inin

g C

ompl

ex (O

ctob

er 2

002)

42

Tabl

e 4.

C

onte

nt o

f hea

vy m

etal

s in

the

was

te m

ater

ial f

rom

RTB

BO

R �

DU

MP

SITE

(m

g/kg

of d

ry s

ampl

e) -

LOC

ATIO

N B

Num

ber o

f sa

mpl

ing

spot

ID

nu

mbe

r Pb

C

d Zn

C

u N

i C

r H

g As

Ba

Sb

B 1

11-6

50

1452

,0

10,8

0 13

20,0

20

160,

0 13

2,0

108,

0 7,

92

564,

0 24

0,0

<240

,0B

2 11

-649

15

45,6

2,

24

537,

6 35

84,0

12

6,6

64,9

1,

34

200,

5 36

9,6

<220

,0B

3 11

-655

16

1,5

8,19

57

3,3

3510

0,0

52,6

90

,1

432,

9 13

33,8

70

,2

<230

,0B

4 11

-648

10

46,5

4,

60

874,

0 10

005,

0 17

2,5

770,

5 6,

67

258,

7 34

,5

<230

,0B

5 11

-651

15

69,4

17

,70

3658

,0

8850

0,0

236,

0 15

3,4

1,89

59

0,0

59,0

<2

40,0

B 6

11-6

46

2321

,0

3,3

1320

0,0

1012

00,0

63

,8

57,2

0,

69

229,

9 99

,0

<220

,0B

7 11

-645

50

9,7

4,62

69

3,0

1047

2,0

132,

4 75

,5

1,92

33

4,2

431,

2 <3

10,0

B 8

11-6

44

7114

,2

6,68

58

4,5

1503

0,0

38,4

1 4,

01

125,

2 53

4,4

183,

7 <3

30,0

B 9

11-6

47

487,

2 4,

64

556,

8 88

16,0

46

,4

34,8

5,

10

261,

0 69

,6

<230

,0B

10

11-6

57

522,

7 8,

26

920,

0 15

576,

0 30

,7

22,4

1,

30

708,

0 47

2,0

<240

,0B

11

11-6

58

844,

9 17

,8

1904

,0

3224

9,0

54,7

32

,1

3,09

84

4,0

285,

6 <2

40,0

B 12

11

-641

50

1,4

7,32

84

2,0

1171

2,0

112,

2 97

,6

0,85

26

4,7

170,

8 <2

40,0

B 13

11

-642

28

91,0

17

,1

1952

33

794,

0 15

8,6

122,

0 17

,93

488,

0 48

,8

<240

,0B

14

11-6

43

1869

6,0

6,15

66

4,2

7134

0,0

83,6

4 78

,7

270,

6 15

62,1

36

,9

<250

,0B

15

11-6

56

1692

0,0

7,20

69

6,0

1956

0,0

42,0

56

,4

102,

0 78

0,0

60,0

<2

40,0

B 16

11

-640

28

2,0

2,34

59

7,0

7722

,0

1497

6,0

1872

0,0

0,29

21

2,9

81,9

<2

30,0

B 17

11

-639

21

82,4

8,

68

1364

21

576,

0 83

,0

159,

9 0,

89

372,

0 34

7,2

<250

,0B

18

11-6

38

205,

3 3,

54

554,

6 79

06,0

48

,4

37,8

0,

77

472,

0 11

8,0

<240

,0B

19

11-6

37

734,

3 6,

15

750,

3 13

161,

0 97

,2

66,4

2,

95

366,

5 73

,8

<250

,0B

20

11-6

36

774,

0 2,

40

708,

0 88

70,0

70

,8

85,2

5,

76

200,

4 96

,0

<240

,0B

21

11-6

31

5831

,0

7,14

60

6,9

1404

2,0

59,5

71

,4

11,9

51

1,7

202,

3 <2

40,0

B 22

11

-632

12

31,8

<3

,50

242,

2 37

02,2

48

,4

121,

1 22

,50

480,

9 15

5,7

<350

,0B

23

11-6

33

2380

,8

9,92

16

12,0

29

884,

0 32

2,4

347,

2 16

,74

341,

0 29

7,6

<250

,0B

24

11-6

34

24,4

<2

,50

122,

0 36

6,0

24,4

24

,4

<0,3

0 24

,4

122,

0 <2

50,0

B 25

11

-635

11

,1

<2,2

0 50

,5

105,

4 11

,1

<11,

0 <0

,30

5,55

44

,4

<230

,0B

26

11-6

61

143,

9 2,

34

4212

,0

5733

,0

73,7

35

,1

0,41

63

1,8

245,

7 <2

30,0


43


44


45

APPENDIX 2

Institute of Public Health of Belgrade

Bor Mining Complex-Maps Belgrade October 2002


46


47


48


49


50


51


52


53

Documents

Dump Site at RTB Bor - Risk Assessment and Remediation Pro. · proposal for the remedial actions. ... air). The second objective ... Bor Municipality and Region in order to contribute