bechtel inc - preliminary (30%) design report for … · bechtel associates professional...

OUIK. '

___ *PRELIMINARY (30 PERCENT) DESIGN REPORT

FOR THE

FIELDS BROOK SITE

SEDIMENT OPERABLE UNIT REMEDIAL ACTION

FEBRUARY 1995

Prepared for

Fields Brook Potentially Responsible Party Organization

by

Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation of Ohio

BecfifefOak Ridge Corporate Center151 Lafayette DriveP.O. Box 350Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-0350

Febnary 21, 1995Facsimile: (615)220-2100

Mr. Edwurd HanlonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion V (HSRM-6J)77 West Jackson Blvd.Chicago, IL 60604-3590

SUBJECT: FIELDS BROOK SEDIMENT OPERABLE UNIT SUPERFUND SITE REMEDIALDESIGN. Bechtel Job No. 22257-001Draft Preliminary (30 Percent) Design Report

References: 1. EPA and FBPRPO meeting on May 13, 1993, in Chicago, IL2. Letter from E. J. Hanlon to J. A. Heimbuch dated May 18, 1993, Subject:

Sediment Operable Unit, Fields Brook Site3. Letter from R. B. Barber to E. J. Hanlon dated August 26, 1993, Subject: Draft

Final Design (60-, 90-, and 100-Percent) Work Plan4. EPA and FBPRPO meeting on April 7, 1994, in Chicago, IL, Subject: SOU

Design Status Report5. Letter from B. C. McConnel to J. A. Heimbuch dated May 24, 1994, Subject:

Draft Final Design (60-, 90-, and 100-Percent) Work Plan, May 19946. EPA and FBPRPO meeting on August 8, 1994, in Oak Ridge, TN, Subject: SOU

Design Status

Dear Mr. Hanlon:

In accordance with the project design schedule and on behalf of the Fields Brook PotentiallyResponsible Party Organization (FBPRPO), attached is the draft preliminary (30 percent) remedialdesign report for your review and comment. Your review is required in writing by April 25, 1995,to meet the project schedule. We would prefer that your comments be in the form of markups to theattached document so that the location and context of the concern is clear. To assist in your review,the following issues are identified:

• As established in References 1, 3, 4, and 6, the basic philosophy used in preparation of theremedial design is a performance-based approach. As identified in Reference 3, this performance-based approach will be used to the maximum extent practical to provide the most cost-effectiveremedial action. Many of the actual details will be left to the remedial action contractor to definein remedial action submittals based on the contractor's observations of the field conditions andspecial knowledge.

• We have reviewed the previous EPA comments pertaining to this report, which the FBPRPO hadindicated would be incorporated. Approximately two-thirds of these comments, at least in part,have been incorporated. The remaining one-third relate to detailed information that will not bedeveloped until a later stage or may not be available, as noted above, until the remedial actioncontractor's submittals are received and reviewed.

• The estimate volumes used in this report were based on the Sediment Quantification DesignInvestigation dated February 21, 1995, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants.

AOI Bechtef Environmental, Inc.2/21/95 l:40pm

Mr. Edward HanlonFebruary 21, 1995Page 2

• Section 3, Design Investigations, contains the executive summaries as written in the designinvestigations. Therefore, commenting on these sections would be redundant to your review ofthe design investigation executive summaries. If you provide comments on the designinvestigation summaries, these changes will be imported from the summaries into this document ata later date.

• Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Preliminary Designs, describe the remedy, design criteria, andcontingent design processes. Consistent with our performance-based approach, the performancecriteria for each remedial design process (i. e., excavation and dewatering, water treatment,thermal treatment, solidification, and facility siting) are listed in Sections 4.2.3, 5.2.2, 6.2.3,7.2.3, and 8.2.3, respectively.

• Section 9, Air Pollution Control, provides an integrated air control program that considers all ofthe preliminary design processes.

• Section 10, Cost Estimate and Schedule, provides the philosophy used to develop the cost andschedule for this project. The cost estimate is connected to the ongoing negotiation between EPAand the FBPRPO and will not be provided in this document or under separate cover.

• Section 12, Final Design Work Plan, refers to the final (60-, 90-, and 100-percent) design workplan transmitted to you by Reference 3. This work plan was reviewed by EPA inDecember 1993, was revised to incorporate comments, and issued by Reference 5. The onlychanges made to this work plan were to update the figures to reflect Phase II sampling and theresulting volume changes and to update the ARARs section to be consistent with die designinvestigation reports.

If you have any questions, please call me at (615) 220-2570.

Sincerely,

B. C. McConnelProject Manager

BCM/adj

cc: NOAA, Ron Gouget (1 copy)USACE-Buffalo, Steve Golyski (3 copies)USEPA, David Charter (1 copy)USDOI, Don Henne (1 copy)USEPA, Mark Mekes (1 copy)USFWS, Bill Curry (1 copy)OEPA (7 copies)CH2M Hill-Milwaukee, L. Weyer (2 copies)CH2M Hill, Kevin Klink (1 copy)USACE-Omaha, Robert J. Curnyn (1 copy)USACE-WES, Ron Heath (1 copy)

AOl2/2I/M l:40pm

PRELIMINARY (30 PERCENT) DESIGN REPORT

FOR THE

FIELDS BROOK SITE

SEDIMENT OPERABLE UNIT REMEDIAL ACTION

FEBRUARY 1995

Prepared for

Fields Brook Potentially Responsible Party Organization

by

Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation of Ohio

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This preliminary (30 percent) design report is for the Fields Brook sediment operable unitremedial action. The Record of Decision (ROD) for this remedial action requires a residual risklevel of 10~6 for each chemical of concern. This will be accomplished by removing and treatingsediments from the brook that are contaminated above the confidence removal goal. This goal isthe concentration at and sbove which contaminated sediment will be removed, which will resultin a 95 percent upper confidence level of the mean concentration of the remaining sediment thatmeets the EPA cleanup goal. Treatment options include dewatering, thermal, and solidificationmethods; after treatment, the sediments will be disposed of at an onsite landfill.

The ROD estimated the volume requiring excavation and treatment to be 52,000 yd3 (16,000 yd3

for incineration and 36,000 yd3 for solidification). Additional design investigations wereperformed since the ROD was issued; these investigations significantly reduced the estimatedvolume of sediment at the Fields Brook site that will require treatment (11,000 yd3). Because ofthe significant reduction, the original remedial action processes specified in the ROD may not beas cost- or schedule-effective when compared with the contingent design processes evaluated andpresented in this report. The contingent design uses the same treatment methods specified in theROD but at offsite locations.

The contingent design is described in detail in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and is summarized asfollows:

• The process of excavating and stockpiling brook sediments would remain unchanged from theprocess specified in the ROD (see Section 4.3).

• The water treatment system would be downsized to treat water from dewatering activities andthe stockpile area (see Section 5.3).

A9112/20/95 6:10^0

Materials would be treated at offsite treatment facilities to meet the selected offsite disposalfacility requirements (see Sections 6.3 and 7.3).

The onsite landfill would not be required except for short-term stockpiling before the material

requiring removal is disposed of offsite (see Section 8.3).

2/2QW5 6:10pm 111

CONTENTS

PageFIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiTABLES . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiUNITS OF MEASURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12.2 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22.3 SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

3.0 DESIGN INVESTIGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13.1 SEDIMENT QUANTIFICATION DESIGN INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.1.1 Objectives and Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23.1.2 Summary of Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43.1.3 Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3.2 SEDIMENT DEWATERING AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT DESIGNINVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63.2.1 Objectives and Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63.2.2 Summary of Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63.2.3 Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.3 THERMAL TREATMENT DESIGN INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-83.3.1 Objectives and Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-83.3.2 Summary of Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-93.3.3 Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

3.4 SOLIDIFICATION DESIGN INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-113.4.1 Objectives and Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-113.4.2 Summary of Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-123.4.3 Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13

3.5 FACILITY SITING DESIGN INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-163.5.1 Objective and Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-163.5.2 Summary of Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-183.5.3 Results and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19

4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR SEDIMENT EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING . . 4-14.1 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1.1 Engineering Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14.1.2 Mass Balance and Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34.1.3 Major Processes and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34.1.4 Contingency Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-104.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

A9H7:53un IV

4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-114.2.1 ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-114.2.2 Permit Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-174.2.3 Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

4.3 CONTINGENT DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-184.3.1 Description of Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-184.3.2 Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

5.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR WATER TREATMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15.1 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1.1 ENGINEERING STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15.1.2 Mass Balance and Flow Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-125.1.3 Major Processes and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-135.1.4 Contingency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-165.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

5.2 DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-165.2.1 ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-165.2.2 Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-215.2.3 Sediment Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-215.2.4 Demobilization Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22


6.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR THERMAL TREATMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16.1. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1.1 Engineering Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16.1.2 Major Processes and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-66.1.3 Vesta Unit 100 Mass and Energy Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-116.1.4 Contingency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-126.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13

6.2 DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-176.2.1 ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-176.2.2 Regulatory Compliance Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-216.2.3 Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-256.2.4 Sediment Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-266.2.5 Demobilization Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26


7.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR SOLIDIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17.1 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1.1 Engineering Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17.1.2 Mass Balance and Flow Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

A9112T21/9S 7:3&un

7.1.3 Major Processes and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-27.1.4 Contingency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-47.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

7.2 DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-57.2.1 ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-57.2.2 Permit Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-87.2.3 Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-87.2.4 Sediment Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9

7.3 CONTINGENT DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-97.3.1 Description of Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-97.3.2 Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10

80 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR FACILITY SITING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1.1 Engineering Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18.1.2 Mass Balance and Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-28.1.3 Major Processes and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38.1.4 Contingency Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-58.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

8.2 DESIGN CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-58.2.1 ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-68.2.2 Permit Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-118.2.3 Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-118.2.4 Sediment Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-128.2.5 Closure Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12


9.0 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-19.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-19.2 CONTROL METHODS AND MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

10.0 COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-110.1 GENERAL COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.1.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-110.1.2 Cost Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-210.1.3 Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3

10.2 BASE DESIGN SCOPE AND SCHEDULE BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-310.2.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-310.2.2 Schedule Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-5

10.3 CONTINGENT DESIGN SCOPE AND SCHEDULE BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-610.3.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-610.3.2 Schedule Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-7

A9117:3Swn VI

11.0 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-111.1 STANDARD APPROACH TO PROCUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-111.1.2 Subcontract Strategy and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-211.1.3 Subcontract Procurement Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11.2 ALTERNATE APPROACH TO PROCUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-511.3 RECOMMENDED APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-6

11.3.1 Base Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-611.3.2 Contingent Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7

12.0 FINAL DESIGN WORK PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1

13.0 ACCESS STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-1

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R- l

APPENDIX A Final Design Work Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-l

A9112/21/93

FIGURES

Figure Title Page

2-1 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52-2 Site Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-62-3 Reach Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-72-4 Designation of Exposure Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-82-5 Compounds Detected at Levels Greater Than EPA 11/93 Cleanup

Goals in Exposure Unit 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-92-6 Compounds Detected at Levels Greater Than EPA 11/93 Cleanup

Goals in Exposure Unit 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-102-7 Compounds Detected at Levels Greater Than EPA 11/93 Cleanup








Goals in Exposure Unit 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-182-15 Remediation Process Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-192-16 Contingent Design Process Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-204-1 Potential Excavation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-214-2 Potential Flow Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-225-1 Water Treatment System Flow Diagram (Base) (Sheet 1 of 2) . . . . . . . . . 5-265-1 Mass Balance for Wastewater Treatment (Sheet 2 of 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-275-2 Water Treatment System Flow Diagram (Optional) (Sheet 1 of 1) . . . . . . . 5-285-2 Mass Balance for Wastewater Treatment (Sheet 2 of 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-295-3 Water Treatment System Flow Diagram (Contingent Design) (Sheet

1 of 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-305-3 Mass Balance for Wastewater Treatment (Sheet 2 of 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-316-1 Use of Thermal Treatment Technologies at PCB-Contaminated

Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-366-2 Frequency of Use for Thermal Systems Versus Site Size for PCB

Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3"6-3 Vesta Unit 100 Rotary Kiln Incinerator System Process Flow

Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3H

AWl2/21/95 7:53un V11I

6-4 Mass & Energy Balanje Results for the Vesta Unit 100 System . . . . . . . . 6-398-1 Remedial Facility Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1610-1 Fields Brook Base Design Summary Remedial Action Schedule . . . . . . . . 10-910-2 Fields Brook SOU Contingent Design Summary Remedial Action

Schedute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-10

A9112/21/95 7:Mun

TABLES

Table Tide Page

2-1 Confidence Removal Goals Based on EPA Cleanup Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-212-2 Summary of Removal Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-224-1 Physical Descriptions of Exposure Units and Reaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-234-2 Hydrologic Characteristics of Exposure Units and Reaches . . . . . . . . . . . 4-244-3 Descriptions of Areas Adjoining Exposure Units and Reaches . . . . . . . . . 4-254-4 Summary of Water Control, Excavation, and Dewatering Methods . . . . . . 4-264-5 Contingency Plan for Sediment Excavation and Dewatering . . . . . . . . . . . 4-275-1 Contingency Plan for Water T r e a t m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-326-1 Organic Analytical Results for Untreated Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-406-2 Comparison of Thermal Desorbers and Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-426-3 Example Thermal Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-436-4 Thermal Treatment Contractor Experience Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-446-5 Summary of Potential ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-466-6 Format for Permit Applications for PCB Incinerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-606-7 Format for the Demonstration Test Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-616-8 Performance Criteria for Thermally Treated Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-626-9 Proposed Operating and Performance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-637-1 Contingency Plan for Sediment Solidification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-128-1 Contingency Plan for Facility Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-179-1 Maximum 8-Hour Air Concentrations at Closest Residence (300 m

from site) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

A9I12/21/93 7;3*m

ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS

ACTANSIAPCARARASTMAWFCOCEMCERCLACFRCRFDD/EEDEPAFBPRPOFSDIITTDK

MCLNAAQSNCPNPDESOACORCOSHAOTSPCBPOTWRCRARODSARAsecSDWTDISLDISOUSOWSVOCSQDITAPTCDD,TCLPTSCATSDFTTDIVOCWCC

'eq

activated carbon testAmerican National Standards Institute

~air pollution controlapplicable or relevant and appropriate requirementAmerican Standards for Testing and Materialsautomatic waste feed cutoffcontinuous emissions monitoringComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActCode of Federal RegulationsCentral Remediation FacilityDivision Director, Exposure Evaluation DivisionEnvironmental Protection AgencyFields Brook Potentially Responsible Party Organizationfacility siting design investigationInternational Technology Corporation, Technology DevelopmentLaboratory, Knoxvillemaximum contaminant levelNational Ambient Air Quality StandardsNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency PlanNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemOhio Administrative CodeOhio Regulatory CodeOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationOffice of Toxic Substancespolychlorinated biphenylpublicly owned treatment worksResource Conservation and Recovery ActRecord of DecisionSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Actsecondary combustion chambersediment dewatering and water treatment design investigationsolidification design investigationsediment operable unitstatement of worksemivolatile organic compoundsediment quantification design investigationtemporary appurtenant facilities2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo para-dioxin toxicity equivalencetoxicity characteristic leaching procedureToxic Substances Control Acttreatment, storage, and disposal facilitythermal treatment design investigationvolatile organic compoundWoodward-Clyde Consultants

A9112/21/95 7:55tm XI

UNITS OF MEASURE

Btu British thermal unit°C degrees Centigradecfs T:ubic feet per secondcm centimeter°F degrees Fahrenheitft footg gramgal gallongpd gallons per daygpm gallons per minutehr hourin. inchkg kilogramIb poundAtg microgramm metermg milligrammgd million gallons per daymL milliliterMM millionppb parts per billionppm parts per millionppmv parts per million (volume)ppmw parts per million (weight)psi pounds per square inchpsig pounds per square inch, gages secondyd yard

A9112/21/95 7:33un X .

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This preliminary (30 percent) design report for the sediment operable unit (SOU) remedial actionat the Fields Brook site located in Ashtabula, Ohio, has been prepared to meet the requirementsdescribed in Section 8 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) statement of work(SOW) for the site (EPA 1989a). This report complies with the:

• Unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA on March 22, 1989, under Section 106 of theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)(EPA 1989b)

• Record of Decision (ROD) for the site (issued on September 30, 1986) (EPA 1986a)

This report is based on data from SOU design investigations (described in Secdon 3) undertakento provide results of treatability testing performed on sediments collected from Fields Brook. Asrequired by the SOW, this report represents the culmination of the design investigation effortsand meets the following objectives:

• Summarize results of the design investigations (see Section 3)

• Compile design criteria developed in the design investigations (see Section 3)

• Develop design criteria for the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) -type landfill(see Section 8)

• Identify data deficiencies (see Sections 3 through 8)

• Identify process uncertainties and perform sensitivity analyses on design elements that couldsignificantly affect cost or schedule (see Sections 3 through 8)

AMI10pB 1-1

• Develop a plan and schedule for overall implementation of the remedial action, includingplanned closure and monitoring (see Sections 4 through 10)

• Prepare a refined cost estimate for the remediation and describe the remedial action system onwhich it is based (see Sections 4 through 10)

• Develop a strategy for procuring the remedial action contractor (see Section 11)

• Develop a work plan for the final design (see Section 12)

Section 2 provides background information for the project and site, describes the site, andsummarizes the selected remedy for the site.

Section 3 presents an overview of the design investigations performed for sediment quantification,sediment dewatering and water treatment, thermal treatment, solidification, and facility siting.The design investigations form the basis for this preliminary remedial design, which is describedin Section 4. Based on the design investigations, the estimated volumes of material to beremoved to achieve the cleanup goals (Hanlon 1993a) for the SOU are as follows:

• Incineration 3,000 yd3

• Solidification 8,000 yd3

• Construction 16,000 yd3

Sections 4 through 8 present the preliminary design for the remedial action. The designprocesses prescribed by the ROD [i.e., sediment excavation and dewatering, wastewatertreatment, thermal treatment, solidification, and facility siting (landfill)] were evaluated. Thevolume of sediments to be remediated (determined by the sediment quantification designinvestigation to be 3,000 yd3 for incineration and 8,000 yd3 for solidification) is significantly lessthan the volume projected in the remedial investigation report (CH2M Hill 1985) and the ROD(16,000 yd3 for incineration and 36,000 yd3 for solidification). Therefore, the contingent design(which has processes consistent with the ROD) is also provided in these sections as an alternate

A9112/20/956:10^01 1 "2

based on information that was not available when the ROD was prepared. In general, the

contingent design processes, where applicable, are more cost-effective or schedule-effective thanthe ROD processes. Based on this information, EPA should be able to decide whether tocontinue with the ROD design or to adopt the contingent design.

Section 9 describes the strategy for controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) releases duringsediment excavation, processing, and stockpiling. Measures to be used for controlling emissionsfrom thermal treatment systems are discussed in Section 6. The results from previous airemission studies are included in this section to illustrate the expected maximum 8-hour airconcentration at the closest residence during a plausible worst-case scenario.

Section 10 presents the cost information and schedule for implementing the remedial actionrequired by the ROD. The evaluation addressed in Section 9 shows that onsite thermaltreatment, solidification, and landfilling required by the ROD would not be cost-effective inmeeting the cleanup goals and would result in an extended schedule. The contingentdesign—offsite treatment and disposal—will result in decreased life-cycle cost and a 65 percentdecrease in project schedule duration (17 months versus 6 months) when compared with onsitetreatment and landfill maintenance.

Section 11 presents the recommended and alternate procurement strategies for the remedial actionat the site. It summarizes how the remedial design is structured so that it can be performed byeither a single remedial action contractor or by a general contractor supported by severalspecialty subcontractors. This approach maximizes competition and provides significantflexibility to the procuring party.

Section 12 describes the final design work plan, which identifies the specifications and drawingsagreed to by EPA during past reviews (Hanlon 1993b, 1994; McConnel 1994). The work plan isprovided in Appendix A.

A9112/2W93 fclOpm 1-3

Section 13 describes a strategy for obtaining access to Fields Brook for remediation. Becauseprivate properties will be involved in this remedial action, an access strategy has been developedto ensure continuity of the remedial action once it begins.

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

2.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND

The Fields Brook site in Ashtabula, Ohio, is owned by industrial companies and privatehomeowners. All property composing the site is in the watershed of Fields Brook. In general,the lower portion of the contaminated brook from State Highway 11 is occupied by privateresidences, and the upper portion east of State Highway 11 is occupied by the various industries.

Fields Brook was included on the National Priorities List in September 1983. EPA conducted aremedial investigation/feasibility study at the site from 1983 to 1986. EPA and the OhioEnvironmental Protection Agency determined that Fields Brook contains contaminated sediments(CH2M Hill 1985, 1986). The ROD, which specified the selected remedy for the site, was issuedon September 30, 1986 (EPA 1986a).

In response to the March 1989 Unilateral Administrative Order, the Fields Brook PotentiallyResponsible Party Organization (FBPRPO) initiated the remedial design for the SOU. TheFBPRPO selected Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation of Ohio to prepare this remedialdesign. EPA is overseeing the FBPRPO's work for the site.

A variety of organic and heavy metal contaminants have been identified in the Fields Brooksediment and soil. VOCs found in sediment sampled during earlier studies of Fields Brookinclude chlorobenzene; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; 1,1 dichloroethane;tetrachloroethylene; and vinyl chloride. The following semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)were detected: hexachloroethane, hexachlorobutadiene. toluene diamine, and toluenediisocyanate. Chlorobenzene compounds including 1.2.4-trichlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene,and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were also detected The metals zinc, mercury, chromium,lead, and titanium were detected in the brook sediment at concentrations reported by EPA asabove background concentrations. EPA reported that the quantity of contaminants entering thebrook since that time has been substantially reduced because of the development of pollutioncontrol laws and discharge permitting requirements

A9116:lOfm

2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

Fields Brook is located in Ashtabula, Ashtabula County, in northeastern Ohio (Figure 2-1). Thebrook drains a 5.6-square mile watershed, the eastern portion draining Ashtabula Township andthe western portion draining the City of Ashtabula (Figure 2-2).

The 3.5-mile stretch of the main channel begins just south of U.S. Highway 20, about 1 mile eastof State Highway 11. From the main channel, the stream flows northwesterly, underHighway 20 and Cook Road, to just north of Middle Road. Up to this point, the brooksediments are not contaminated. At the point where the contamination begins, the stream is madeup of a series of reaches (Figures 2-3 through 2-14) that receive industrial outfall flow. Thebrook flows westerly through an industrial area to Highway 11, then continues to flow westerlyunder Highway 11 through a residential area to its confluence with the Ashtabula River.

Fields Brook varies greatly in width (2 to 53 ft) and depth (0.5 to 2 ft), with a normal flow rateof 15 cfs. Some areas surrounding the brook are thickly covered with vegetation, and portions ofthe areas have been flooded behind beaver dams.

2.3 SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY

This preliminary design report addresses the following selected remedies, which were designatedby the EPA SOW:

• Removal of the sediment from Fields Brook to attain the cleanup goals. The sediment cleanupgoals and resulting confidence removal goals are designated in Table 2-1.

• Dewatering of sediment removed from Fields Brook.

• Thermal treatment of the excavated sediment that exceeds the cleanup goals designated forthermal treatment. The volume of sediment designated for thermal treatment is listed inTable 2-2.

2/30/95 6: 10pm ^ -»2~2

• Solidification of the excavated sediment that exceeds the cleanup goal designated forsolidification treatment. The volume of sediment designated for solidification treatment islisted in Table 2-2.

• Treatment of water collected from waste handling, treatment, and disposal operations.

• Disposal of treated sediment in an onsite landfill.

Figure 2*15 presents a remediation process flow diagram that shows all aspects of the SOUremediation, from removal of sediment from the brook to final disposal. The design covers eachaspect of the remediation operation and indicates the use of equipment that has been proveneffective and is commercially available for work packages that can be implemented by a generalcontractor.

Because of the significant reduction in sediment volumes as a result of the design investigations,Figure 2-16 presents a contingency design process flow diagram. It shows all aspects of theSOU remediation, from removal of sediment from the brook to final disposal in a more cost- andschedule-effective manner. The design covers each aspect of the remediation operation andindicates the use of equipment that has been proven effective and is commercially available forwork packages that can be implemented by a general contractor.

A9n2/2CV93 6:10pm 2 "3

FIGURES AND TABLES FOR SECTION 2

2/30/95 6:lQtm 2-4

HtUUU

Figaro 2-1Location Map

2-5

Approximate CurrentWatershed Boundary

OpvmbtoUritI I Sour« Central\_l

Figure 2-2Site Map

LCGCNO

Figure 2-3Reach Designations

I Simple Location ISEDUOQS41 I DRAFT

Sample Locallc*ARSEN1CMH{BERYLLIUMS'

SEOllCWS-117L7jn»*>|j•A mi - • M *«^2.70 mi/kg .|jp

Sample LocationField ID

1-1/7.0SA1GSO


1-1/8.1SA1HS1


1-1/9.2SA1IS2

I Sample Location1SE01104S-121

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCBs

1-1/6.0SA1FSO5.50 mg/kg

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCBsSample LocationField IDTotal PCBu

1-1/2.0SA1BSO14.0 nig/kg1-1/10SA1BDO8.40 mg/kg


1-1/0.2SA1QS213.0 mg/kg

Simple LocationField IDTotal PCBs

1-1/0.1SA1QS110.00 mg/kg

Sample LocationI Field ID

1-1/10.1SA1JSI

Sample Location | SBQU11S-11


1-1/9.1SA1IS13.20 ing/kg


1-1/7.1SA1GS11.90 mg/kg


1-1/tt.lSA1FS11.90 mg/kg


1-1/5.0SA1ESO12.0 mo/kg


1-1/3.0SA1CSO1.50 mg/kg

Note: Samples wilboul potted fcsults Indicate that compoundswere Dot detected la excess of USEPA11/D1^3 Clean Up Goats.Shading Indicates samples collected during Phase 1.1.

• Sample: Phase I Stream Sediment^ Sample: Phase II Stream Sediment

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsA (1 in-325 ft)

200 400 60C 800

1 Source: WCC 1994b. Figure 2-5Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 1

DRAFT

HEXACHLOROBEWTOTAtPCBBERYLLIUM

Note: Samplei without pocied resnlb lodioiie that cotapoondswen aot deleded in exccu of USEPA \\JQIJ93 Cleat Up Goals.Sbidiog iodlcates umples collected during Phase I.

• Sample: Phise I Strtim Scdimcol

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsft (1 in = 550 ft)

500 1000 1500

Soarte: WCC I994b. Figure 2-6Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 2

SunpU Location^HEXACHLOROBBKZBNBHEXACHLOROBBNZBNE"'


3-1/13.1SC1MS13.80 ing/kg

I StmpUUcstfon | SB03114S.ltSample LioitiontSB03il4D.il


3-1/6.0SC1FSO6.70 me/kg Sample Loo don

Field IDTotal PCBs

3-1/14.1SC1NS10.70 mg/kg

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCBi

3-1/12.0SC1LSO3.30 mg/kg

3-I/I 1.0SC1KSO8.20 mg/kgSimple Location

m

Sample LocationField IDTotal FOB*

Simple LocationField IDTotal PCBsSample LocationField IDTotal PCBs

SC1ODO19.0 mg/kg

• Sample: Phase I Stream SedimentSample: Phase II Stream Sediment

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsft (1 In = 200 ft)

200 400

Note: Samplei without posted results Indicate thai compound!were not detected in excess of USEPA 11/01/93 Clean Up Goala.Shading Indicates samples collected during Phase I.

Source- WCC I994b.

Figure 2-7Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 3


4-1/10.1SD1JS1

Sample LocatiooField ID

4-1/11.1SD1KS1

K)i*-•to

Sample LocationHeld IDTotal PCB« [Sample Localloa | SB04niD-ll

DRAFT

rSample LocationField IDHe xachlorobeaze neTotal PCBs

4-1/11.0SDiKSO50mg/kg

Sample LocatioaField IDHexacblorobenzeneTotal PCBs

4-1/9.0SD1ISOUmg/Vg2°mg/k«

RMI Extrusion

Sample LocatioaField ID

4-1/1.1SD1AS1

Hole: Samples without posted results Indicate that compoundswere ool detected fa excess of USEPA 11/DI/93 Clean Up Ooils.Shading Indicates samples collected during Phase I.

Sample LocatiooField IDTotal PCBs

Sample LocationField (DTotal PCBs

4-1/2.0SD1BSOZ4 rag/kg

4-1/2.0TD1BSO6.4mg/kg

Sample LocatioaField IDHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBs

4-1A.OSD1HSO10.0 rag/kg23mg/kg • Sample: Phase I Stream Sediment

fy Sample: Phase II Stream Sediment

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsft (110-2000)

?no 400

Sourr* WCC Figure 2*8Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 4


1I-V7.0SK2GSO

SUte Road DRAFT

Sample L o .IIEXACIILOROBENZEKB (F)

SEU205S41

Sample LocationField IDUA2-TETRACHLOROBTHANBTETRACHLOROBTHENBTOCHLOROETHENBHexscUorobenzene

11-2/4.0SK2DSO1300 mg/kg1400 mg/kg1600 mg/kg160mgAg

Sample LocationField IDHexachtorabenzene

11-2/11SK2BS118.0 mg/kg

Occidental Chemical Corporation

Sample Location | SE11102S.il |—I Sample LocaHoo | SBU102S-12 I

Sample LocationField IDTETOACHLOROETOENBHexachlofobeuene

11-2/7.1SK2GS1220 mg/kg32.0 mg/kg

RMI Titanium Company Sodium

.SipWtociiioil;?;^^^"- •>• .HEXACHLOROBEN2ENE (P)HBXAGHLDROBENZBNB?S)Sample Location ̂ i ̂ i>i-x^-^ ;

HEXACHLOROBENZBNBCP)1

HEXACHLOROBENZENE(Si

SEU206S-117.60 mg/kg10.00 mg/kgSB112QB1M16. 70 mg/kg9.50mg/1cg

Sample LocationField IDHexschlofobenzeoe

U-2/6.0SK2FSO40.0 mg/kg

Sample LocationField IDUA2-TBTOACHLOROETHANETCIRACHLOROBTHENBSample LocationField ID1.IA2-TCTOACHLOROEIHANE

11-2/4.1SK2DS11000 mg/kg430 mg/kg

11-2/4.1SK2DD1490 mg/kg

...,.HEJOCHLOROBEN2ENBHEXACHLOROBENZENB

Sample LocatmiField IDHexachlorobeozeM

Sample LocationField IDHexachlorabenzeneARSENIC

11-2/3.0SK2CSO10.00 mg/kg30.0 mg/kg

Sample LocationField IDHexachlorobenzene

11-2/2.0SK2BSO17.0 mg/kg

Note: Samples without pasted results Indlcsla that compoundswen not detected la excess of USEPA 1J AH/93 Clean Dp Goals.Shading Indicates samples collected during Phase I.

Sample LocationHeld IDTotal PCDs

1 1-1/1.0SK1ASO7.50 mg/kg

• Sample: Ph«t I Strc*m Sediment^ Sample: Phase II Strtam Sediment

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsft (I In -450 ft)

ffY> innn

Source: WCC 1994b. Figure 2-9Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA 11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 5

Staple LocatioaField IDToUlPCBs

Sample LocatioaField IDTEIRACHLOROCTHENEToUlPCBs

5-2/11.1SE2KS131.0 ma/kg5-2/1 I.ITE2KSI200mg/kg28.0 mg/kg

I Sample Location | SBD3212S-11' jI SampU Location ISBOS212S-12

Simple LocatioaField ID1.1,2,2-TETRACHLORQgTHANB

Sample LocadoaField IDI,! A2-TBTRACHLOROBTHANBTHTRACHLOROBTHENBSample LocalloDFKld ID1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANBTETRACHLOROBTHENBHexachlorobcDzeaaToUlPCBs

5-2/1X2SE2LS2550mg/kg

DRAFTN -

5-2/112TB2LS24800mg/kg6600mg/kg48.0 mg/kg4ZOmg/kg

Simple LocationField IDTETRACHLOROETHENBHeiacbkwobeazeMToUl PCBi

5-1/3.0SB1CSO200m|Ag7.90 mg/kg15.0 rng/kg

Sample LocationTOTAL PCS 'JARSENICBERYLLIUM!

Detrex CoqxMitioa

Sarnpl* Location VBENZO(A)PYRBNB

SB05214S-111.50 m24JQ mg/kg

Sample LocaTKnUCHLORbBTHENE

SB05214S-12530rog/kg

SCMPIiDl2-TiQ4

RMI TiUalum Compaay ExtmslonSample LocaboaField IDI leiacblorobc UCMTout PCBs

5-1/10TE1BSO15.0 m|A|8ZOmi/k|

Sample LocattiTBIKAaiLOROBTHHMB SrS?̂ 1'

MOmaAtJI

Sample LocatioaField IDHeucblorobeBzeoeToUlPCB*

5-2/3.1SE2CSI6.80mg/kl14.0 mtAl

Note: Samplei without posted retails lodlcate that convooodswere ool detected ID excess of USEPA 11/01/93 Clean Up Goals,Shading indicates samples collected during Phase I.

Sample LocatioaField IDToUlPCBs

S-2/5.0SE2ESO3.00 mg&g

SampU Locatioa I SB052Q4S.il jmpU Locatioa

Satnple LocatioaField IDTCrRACHLOROETHENBTOICHLOROETTffiNEllexacblofobeaztMTotal PCBs

5-2/3.2SE2CS24400mgAgHOOmgykg150 mg/kg93.0 rog/kg

Sample LocationHeld ID

5-2/10.1SE2JS1

Sample LocalioaField IDToUl PCBi

5-2/10.0SE2JSO2.80 mRAft

TOTALPCBSED5209S-117.90 mg/kg

[Sample Location 1SB05209S-12 |

• Sample: Phaie 1 Stream Sedimentft Sample: Phase II Si ream Sediment

Woodward-Clyde Consultants

•inn ADO

6 Source: WCC 1994b. Figure 2-10Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 6

DRAFT

State Road

Sample LocationField IDARSENIC


\\3/5.03ESO

11-4/1.3SK4AS3180 mo/kg

11-4/1.3SK4AD378.7 me/kg\

Sample LocationARSENIC &$.»!'.BERYLLIUM f

SE114Q2S-11419 mg/kg5JM) ing/kg ;

ISupple Location | SE11402S-12


11-4/1.4SK4AS4129 ma/kg



RMI Titanium Company Sodiom

Sample Location ISB1J302S411Sample Location ISE11KQS-12

Reach 11-3Sample Location

SK3DS331.5 mg/kg

Field IDARSENIC Sample Location

Field IDARSENIC

11-3/4.2SK3DS231.1 mg/k


Sample Local tooField IDARSENIC


11-4/1.2SK4AS244.3 mg/kgA11-4/1.1SK4AS1106 ing/kg

Sample Location | SB11401S-11

Sample Location 5E11306S-11[ Sample Location SE11306S-12

Vygeo

SK3ASO44.7 mg/k»


11-3/1.1SK3AS1

Sample LocationField ID1,1,2^-TETRACHLOROETKANETCTRACHLOROBTOENBTTUCHLOROBTTffiNBHexachlorobeueoe

11-3/2,1SK3BS12100 mg/kg1800mg/kg4100 mg/kg34.0 mg/kg

Note: Samples without posted results Intflcsle that compoundswere detected In excess of USEPA11/D1/93 Clean Up Goals.Shading Indicates samples collected during Phsse I.

Delrex Coipofatiot

• Sample: Phase I Stream Sediment9 Sample: Phase H Stream Sediment

Woodward-Clyde Consultants________ft (1 In = 350 D)

500 1000

Sount: WCC 19946. Figure 2-11Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 7

Simple Location ^p:.HEXACHLOROBEN2ENB (P)HEXACHLOROBENZENB (S)

SE06107S-1148.0 mg/fcg30.0mg/kg

I Sample Location I SE061Q1S-USB06101S-1219000 rngftg35000 mg/kgJ5000 ig*g

Simple LbatlaoSample Location ISE06107S-12

Reach 12 (Detrex TribuUcy)

HBXACHLOROBEN2ENB (P)

ROBBNZBNB(S)

Sample Locstioo" Detrex Cocporslion

Sample Loci lion

Sample Location Sample LocationSF1BSO1600 mtAi Sample Locattoa

Sample LocalKMSF1BS13.60n|/kt

Field IDTotal PCBi SamoU Location

S«npl6 Location

Note: Samples wllbout posled reavlts lodicale mat compovsidswen sol detected to excess of USEPA 11 A) 1/93 Oeaa Up Goals.Shading Indicate! samples colleckd during Fbasa I.

Sample: Phase I Stream SedimentSample: Phase II Stieam Sedlmenl

[I (I In-250 H)

200 400 600

8 : WCC 19946. Figure 2*12Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 8

Former TDI Facility DRAFT

Vygep,Sample LocationField ID

8-1/5.0SH1ESO

Sample LocationHeld ID

8-1/7.2SH1GS2

Sample LocationFteMID

8-1/11SH1BS1


' ——————— 1 — 1 —— TT-1

8-1/3.2SH1CS2

1Simple LocatiooField ID

8-1/7.1SM1GS1

DcUcx Corporation


8-1/10SH1BSO

Reach 7-1

SCMH.Di2.Tia4

Sample Locatioo

Sample Location

I Sampktocaih)* I SB073D1S-U


I Sample Location

Simple Location | SBM103S-11 ISample Location 7-2/2.0Field ID SG2BSOI

Staple Localion

Note: Samples without posted rttnlti Indicate that compoundswere not detected in excess of USEPA 11/01/93 Dean Up Goats.Shading Indicates samples collected during Phase I.

• Sample: Phase I Stream SedimentSample: Phase It St/eam Sediment

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsft (1 ID =2000)

200 400

WCC lW4b Figure 2-13Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 9

DRAFTSimple Location Simple Location

I SampULbcafr* ISBtMOltMl I Simple LocationSample London

Sample LocalionSample Location Simple Location Sample Location SB08302S-Ule Locatk^i | SB08203S42

Sample LocationSample Location | SBUlOlS-UiJReach 13-2Suapla LoaBai I SHlMOiS-ia

Reach 13-1 Simple Location' I Sample Location SE08303S-11

Sample LocatiField ID Sample Location SE08303D-11

Reach 13-AV

I Sample Lbcatk* | SB13AOt^tlili Saapte Locattoa I SBlJADlsH l̂ Sample: Phase I Stream Sediment

Sample: Phase II Stream Sediment

A (Ho = 650 ft)Sample Location

Sample Location

1000 1500

Note: Samples without posted rente lodicale thai compovodawere not detected la excto of USBPA11 A) 1/93 Clean Up Ooala.

Source: WCC 1994b.

Hgure 2-14Compounds Detected at Levels Greater ThanEPA11/93 Cleanup Goals in Exposure Unit 10

SITtPR£P*R*t!QN

[XCWTION OCMTERINGLK

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

®

©

®

©

®

®

®

©

®

©

®

©

®

®

®

®

©

®

©

©

©

©

®

©

©

©

©

flcinwn MS ust

TI.IMO

»»»rtI.«M nM*W>

inII «M

tMMO

it, mo•>.M«at«in(.moidii *•

«(M

i.MKn),MnK,«HCI

DM Km

M M

IMCf

n.mn

IM

• •«

l.« x l«" IW

1MWC

t«

a,wia,m»H W M

acr1*1 UO»

NT MB

WiB

WtlBi

NMMLE MMI

n.MQ 10 M.M Cl

I.M 10 !.«*« n

r,«M re II.M* rr

1 10 n.mciii n 11 enu.»» n M.«H a

MhMIH M,M«L

nt» metMM ID 1MM Ct

1 1* I4CY

t n nm«•• jwnio I«M «u«n

M n I«(MII.«N n JMH K»t.w* * t,w nIMM n a,m ni,wt n 4,Mt«nwit i«nI.tK 11 I.M CT

!*,«•* TO ZkW CT

BMC MdM Mltl

1.4 »M> iV'tW

1 !• l«0«

UO IW KSHHI

a,w*n3M,MpB,*W1«M,M*

IW 1MVH

I1»««CT

coMwn

MilS. ID IMS OT OWES TO W»

MIIS TOLWi«B BMES TO *•»

Hili: IDlIMi NO OURS T05-IW

EMnan • KMIS m MUowMOMin »IL nm tiwtsiw

SM Ml IM M( K Iff!

tumo «Mnw •? MTICINID

7S3S7/TIW3.MN07/15/95 I. If IHIS MSI'T KEN imlO IWtt JIK V. NC1 K1HW i*5t UStMB nouat nwtES. *.» ENSURE caeisTtHcr «w MX ti mnm.l. «r> IKUW WT n MOVIK * swilf i« wi rot nc taowwn KICBI.

1. WUlt *SP H UMfH TO MMIK DtSIM (XITniAWSlS » TM TCIT » TttU fOH.

Figure 2-15Remediation Process

Flow Diagram2-19

STMW WTER SIOfiAGE STORKE IW DISPOSIL

0 PKIIK m viffMcI.X.X

© UMF1UI.X.X

IM

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

®

©

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

©

<5>

imnnMrwi uaIMWCtM

XMCi

I.MCT

K.WCT

I,M or

l.mn

H.mOf

,,-n

LMCT

I.MCT

1.MCT

MMtrN.MCI«nIWCT»•*

in,wwW.MW

1.MM

• Ct

turnM.MCN.

fWMIU HM

B.M II «,H* CMM*.NI n M.IM «Mi. mm *. maI.M n I*,M a1S.W W M.N» Ct

LM* w *.«• err,w TO n,m aii,m « M,** ni n 4,m cr• n«.mn• W4.MOCT

* m».**inin N.Nini n x.m nis n » w aIS CT TO IN CI

4T.SCM. Tl MM

i«.m w IP ti»,m MLN.IWHL f>«.m«H

],«• U n I.M CN.

i » M.m n

m.«iwi»mmaL

worn

•HIS n LMI M MH U • HK

twn n LMI «• mm n • Mtun n IMS M* WHS * • MM Ml WF • LffI

V PMUtt « «T 1VMD

V IDWIt M00 !••>. lUMMI

f •••0TI M MT nU(D

v »«an MOM M.MVIUIKM

•a <9O N iRimMIMTEKRIWCILMi*i« wo ID m turn masWU MHMtH M.H* en V OOTE5iwiB ami mat* auino

WIER ItJMHIIU « Ma LMI

COMMMtnt ML FHt IIOSIM

E1IIMIB KM1I W W*

Figure 2-16Contingent Design

Process Flow Diagram2-20

Table 2-1Confidence Removal Goals Based on EPA Cleanup Goals

-

Chemical of concern

1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1,1,1-Tetrachloroethanc

1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

ArsenicHexachlcvobcnzenc (s)

H exac hlo robe nzene

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzcne

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobenzene

PCBs

PCBs

PCBs

PCBs

PCBs

PCBs

Tetrachloroethene

Tetrachloroethene

TetrachloroetheneTetrachloroethene

Trichloroethene

Thchloroethene

Trichloroethene

Vinyl chloride

Vinyl chloride

"See Figure 2-4 for expoaure unit locations.The cleanup goal for anenic u the background level.

A9112/20/W 6: 10pm

Exposure unit*

EU5

EU6

EU7

EU8

EU7

EU3

EU4

EU5

EU6

EU7

EU8

EU1

EU3

EU4

EU5

EU6

EU8

EU5

EU6

EU7EU8

EU5

EU6

EU8

EU6

EU7

2-21

EPA hcleanup goal"(Hanlon fy93a)

51,000

51,000

119,000

119,000

27,600

6,380

6,380

6,380

6,380

15,000

15,000

1,300

1,300

1,300

1,300

1,300

3,100

196,000

196,000

459,000459,000

927,000

927,000

2,168,000

5,400

2,168,000

Confidenceremoval goal

0<£/kgl(WCCl$4a)

102,000

102,000

238,000

238,000

53,000

39,000

40,000

39,000

45,000

2,000,000

1,800,000

6,800

4,700

9,200

6,400

7.000

42,000

392,000

392,000

918,000

918,000

1,854,000

1,854,000

4,336,000

10,800

4,366,000

Table 2-2Summary of Removal Volumes

Exposureunit1

EU1EU2EU2EU3EU4EU5EU5EU6EU6EU7EU7EU8EU8EU9EU9EU10EU10EU10EU10EU10EU10EU10

Source: WCC

- Streamreachb

12-lc

2-2c

34

11-111-25-15-211-311-4

67-17-28-113-113-213A8-28-38-48A

SubtotalVolumeestimate

1995a.'See Figure 2-4 for exposure unitbSee Figure 2-3 for stream reach'Includes total excavation of EU2

A9112/20/95 6: 10pm

Thermaltreatment

000000

1651,3121,302

300

3560000000000

3,166

3,000

locations,locations.

2 - I I

Volume estimates (yd3)

Solidification

8142,2871,0741,193

95618578

331163

0810

00000000000

7,889

8,000

No treatment

7803,270

290950

1,710200840

1,1002,4701,840

2302,140

0000000000

15,820

16,000

3.0 DESIGN INVESTIGATIONS

Design investigations were performed to meet the requirements of the EPA SOW, Sections 2through 7 (EPA 1989aj. Work plans for each of the required design investigations were

submitted to and approved by EPA and the State of Ohio. The design investigations required bythe SOW were:

• Sediment quantification• Sediment dewatering and wastewater treatment• Thermal treatment• Solidification

• Facility siting

The design investigations were prepared and submitted under separate cover, but the findingsfrom these investigations are summarized in this section. Each summary contains:

• Objectives and scope of work• Summary of studies• Results and conclusions

Details of the information summarized can be found in the design investigation reports(WCC 1995a,b,c,d,e). The following subsections are taken directly from the executivesummaries of those reports.

A9112/20/93 3:10pm 3'1

3.1 SEDIMENT QUANTIFICATION DESIGN INVESTIGATION

3.1.1 Objectives and Scope of Work

This document supports the implementation of Remedial Design in accordance with the Record ofDecision (ROD) for the Fields Brook Superfund Site, dated September 30, 1986 (USEPA 1986a).The Fields Brook Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) Organization (FBPRPO) has undertakenthis study in response to a Section 106 Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) issued by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on March 14, 1989. Woodward-Clyde Consultants(WCC) has been contracted by the FBPRPO to perform this investigation.

Included in this report is a summary of data collected and evaluated during the course of thePhase I Design Investigation. In addition, preliminary design criteria are presented anddiscussed. These data and preliminary design criteria will be reviewed and incorporated, asappropriate, in subsequent stages of the Remedial Design.

This report presents the results of one of the SOU Design Investigation (DI) tasks: the SedimentQuantification Design Investigation (SQDI). This SQDI Report - Phase II, supplements theOctober 1992 SQDI Report - Phase I, and incorporates comments from the USEPA and OhioEnvironmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA).

This report consists of seven sections:

• Section 1.0 Introduction• Section 2.0 Field Investigation and Characterization Studies• Section 3.0 Volume Estimates• Section 4.0 Hydrologic and Scour Analysis• Section 5.0 Construction Impact Assessment• Section 6.0 Design Considerations• Section 7.0 References

The objectives of the SQDI Phase II are: (1) to refine the hydrologic data on Fields Brook, (2)to further delineate the extent of contamination in the sediments and soil of Fields Brook and itstributaries, (3) to assess chemical bioavailablility, bioaccumulation and potential effects on thearea's ecology, (4) to identify site-specific design parameters and operational conditions to beconsidered in remedial design, and (5) to evaluate the potential impact of construction activitieswithin the Fields Brook watershed. The Phase II field investigation gathered data to achievethese objectives and includes the following components:

• Selected hydraulic crossings and floodplain cross-sections along Fields Brook and itstributaries were surveyed to refine hydraulic modeling for the determination of floodplainboundaries. Suspended sediments and bedload sediment measurements were obtained topredict the rate of sediment leaving the watershed.

A9112/20/W 3:10pm 3 '2

• Sediment/soil samples from Fields Brook and its tributaries were collected and submitted forchemical analyses to refine the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination and todelineate the boundaries of materials containing polychlonnated biphenyl (PCB)concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg, high mobility (K^ < 2,400 ml/g) compounds, andcompounds in concentrations greater than the sediment clean up goals (CUGs).

The scope of work for the SQDI Phase II essentially follows the SQDI Phase II Field SamplingPlan (FSP) Addendum dated February 1994 and fulfills the objectives of the SQDI Task WorkPlan, Revision 3, dated May 15, 1990 as modified. Between submittal of the February 1994 FSPand actual performance of the work, several modifications were made to the Phase II scope andtiming of the work. The Agencies approved these modifications. Listed below are summaries ofthe major work items as identified in the October 1992 and February 1994 FSPs:

• Sediment and soil sampling to further delineate the extent of contamination in Fields Brook,its tributaries and floodplains;

• Conduct a more refined hydrologic and scour analysis;

• Evaluate material handling issues by performing test pit excavations

• Perform a construction impact assessment;

• Refine volume estimates for remedial design; and

• Evaluate impacts on the Fields Brook watershed; and

By agreement with the Agencies, portions of the above scope of work were removed entirelyfrom the SQDI, while others were rescheduled for performance between the 30% and 60%Remedial Design activities. All work associated with potential ecological impacts and risks to thefloodplains and wetland areas of Fields Brook will be reported in documents being prepared byEA Engineering. Floodplain/wetland work is being performed by the FBPRPO on a voluntarybasis and is being reported to USEPA directly.

The work associated with the Construction Impact Assessment, the Excavation and MaterialInvestigation, and the delineation sampling to refine excavation cutlines was rescheduled forperformance between the 30% and 60% remedial design activities. The Agencies agreed to thischange of timing.

A brief explanation needs to be provided regarding the development and use of CUGs andConfidence Removal Goals (CRGs). Prior to issuance of the SQDI Report - Phase I, theFBPRPO and the Agencies had yet to complete discussions and negotiations regarding numericalvalues for remediation of Fields Brook sediments. Subsequent to the Phase I report, theFBPRPO agreed to use the CUGs listed in the November 1993 letter from USEPA to establishthe preliminary excavation cutlines provided in the SQDI Report - Phase II. The definitions ofCUGs and CRGs are provided below:

A9112/30/95 3:10pm 3~3

• CUG: This value is derived from the risk equation and represents the average level of acontaminant that may be left in place over an exposure area without unacceptable risk.

• CRG: This is the concentration of a contaminant above which sediment must be remediatedin order to achieve"an average concentration equal to the CUG. It is also referred to as anot-to-be-exceeded cleanup level. This value is calculated for each exposure unit (EU) andfor each contaminant so that the average contaminant concentration of sediment left in place(post-remediation) corresponds to the CUG.

The concentration values for CUGs and CRGs for both residential and occupational remediationscenarios are presented in the SQDI Report - Phase II. They form the basis for evaluating thePhase I and Phase II data for development of the remedial volume estimates and delineation ofsediment remedial areas that have been identified.

3.1.2 Summary of Studies

The reaches of Fields Brook and its tributaries were grouped into 10 EUs for the SOU Phase IIchannel sampling activities. Designation of these 10 EUs are based on industrial practices andphysical setting. The Phase II channel sampling program was designed to provide an adequatedatabase for calculations of reliable statistics. This was accomplished by having a combinedminimum (Phase I and II) of 20 sediment samples per EU in maximum average distances betweensampling locations of 200 to 300 feet (ft) depending on the EU.

Sample locations were selected to investigate locations where the potential for scour was greatest.Typical sediment sampling depths were limited to the first 2.0 ft of sediment, scour areas weresampled to a typical depth of 4.5 ft. Samples were also located in areas of the channel that hadthe potential for higher frequency of human use and those that indicated sediment aggradation inpool areas on the upstream sides. Sediment samples for evaluation of pooled areas werecollected from both the 2.0 and 4.5-ft depths.

All Phase II sediment samples were analyzed for all compounds detected in Phase I samples atconcentrations greater than CUGs for the compounds of concern (COCs). The results werecombined with the Phase I data to recalculate excavation volume estimates for thermal treatment,solidification, and construction-related materials.

Preliminary sediment excavation volumes were calculated using reach-specific characteristicsobtained during the Phase I SQDI sampling activities (i.e. channel width), sediment depth, andlocation of CRG exceedance information obtained during Phase II SQDI activities. An additionalcalculation was performed to estimate construction-related volumes which considered over-excavation of the channel bottom and bank sides along Fields Brook.

A9112/20/9! 3:10pm 3~4

The hydrologic and scour analysis was performed to estimate the extent of the 100-yearfloodplain and the scour associated with a 100-year frequency flood. The study areaencompassed the entire Fields Brook watershed. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)Flood Hydrograph Package HEC-1 computer model was used to simulate the rainfall-runoffprocess for the watershed. Drainage area, runoff characteristics and rainfall amounts were inputinto the model to estimate peak runoff rates at various locations for the 100-year frequency event.These runoff rates were then used to estimate the 100-year flood elevations.

Hydraulic analysis was performed using the results of the hydrologic analysis (HEC-1) and theUSAGE'S Water Surface Profiles computer program, HEC-2. Cross-sectional data wers obtainedfrom field surveyed floodplain cross-sections and from 2-ft contour maps. Culverts and bridgeswere modeled using the special culvert and special bridge options of HEC-2. Both HEC-1 andHEC-2 models were calibrated using the September 6 and 7, 1990 storm event.

An analysis was performed to estimate potential scour from the 100-year flood. The USAGE'SHEC-6 computer program was used to aid in the scour computations. Estimates of erosion ratesfor input to the HEC-6 model were developed from the "Cohesive Material Erosion byUnidirectional Current" by Kamphuis and Hall.

3.1.3 Results and Conclusions

The Phase II channel sediment sampling activities resulted in the acquisition of 127 samples from122 sampling locations. When combined with the Phase I samples, a total of 213 samples wereobtained from 182 sampling locations. Section 2.5 of the SQDI Report - Phase II contains thenarrative descriptions and figures detailing sample locations as well as GUG exceedances for theCOCs.

The nature and extent of contamination of Fields Brook sediments was used to estimate sedimentvolumes for thermal treatment, solidification, and construction-related materials as shown below:

• Thermal Treatment 3,000 cy• Solidification 8,000 cy• Construction Related 16,000 cy

As a result of reassessing the scour potential within Fields Brook, the maximum degradationoccurs as contraction scour near bridges or, in the case of the HEC-6 model, at the constrictivecross-sections in the Fields Brook floodplain. This scour appears to be very limited upstreamand downstream from the constrictions. The HEC-6 mode) using the model input assumptionshas shown that the potential for the resuspension of sediment below a depth of 2.0 ft of theexisting channel is limited to the areas upstream and downstream of bridges. In other areas ofthe Fields Brook floodplain that were modeled, the potential for scour of sediments greater than2.0 ft for a 100-year event was minor.

Mil2/20/95 3:10pm

3.2 SEDIMENT DEWATERING AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT DESIGNINVESTIGATION


The Sediment Dewatering and Wastewater Treatment Design Investigation (SDWTDI) wasconducted to collect and generate data for the purpose of designing an aqueous treatment systemand sediment dewatering operations to support the remedial activities planned for the FieldsBrook site. The objectives of the SDWTDI as presented in the Fields Brook Sediment OperableUnit Engineering Design Investigation (SOUEDI) Statement of Work (SOW) were accomplishedby performing the following activities:

• Field sampling and treatability sample preparation;

• Characterization of treatability samples and aqueous waste streams;

• Estimation of the quantity of wastewaters generated requiring treatment;

• Identification and preliminary evaluation of applicable wastewater treatment technologies andmethods of sediment dewatering;

• Initial treatability testing of wastewater treatment technologies including chemical precipitation,granular activated carbon adsorption, and coagulation/flocculation;

• Initial testing of sediment dewatering methods including gravity drainage, vacuum-assisteddewatering and methods of filtration; and

• Identification of relevant and potential discharge requirements and other regulatory limitations.

Included in this report is a summary of data collected and evaluated during the course of theTTDI. In addition, preliminary design criteria are presented and discussed. These data andpreliminary design criteria will be reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, in subsequentstages of the Remedial Design.


Chemical and physical characterization of treatability samples and other aqueous waste streamsidentified metals, organics, and solids as constituents of concern at the site. The concentrationsof the constituents varied for each of the aqueous waste streams, but was found to increase withincreasing solids content and quantity of free liquids.

A dewaterability evaluation was performed to: (1) characterize the untreated sediments; (2) testthe methods of sediment dewatering; and (3) evaluate the properties of the dewatered materials.Characterization of the homogenized sediments included analysis for moisture content, specificgravity, particle size distribution, atterberg limits, paint filter and liquid release. Dewatering

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 3~6

methods evaluated as part of the SDWTDI included gravity drainage, filtration and vacuum-assisted dewatering. The resulting effluent and dewatered sediment were evaluated for moisturecontent, solids content, and turbidity.

Wastewater treatabilitytesting was performed on six composite aqueous samples. Thesetreatability tests were conducted to: (1) characterize the untreated samples; (2) evaluate treatmenttechnologies for metals, solids, and organics removal; and (3) analyze effluent streams forchemical and physical properties. Treatability samples were analyzed for selected metals, volatileorganic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) and pesticides. Aqueous treatment technologies evaluated during the SDWTDI includedmetals precipitation, coagulation/flocculation, and granular activated carbon adsorption. Theresulting effluent streams and treatment sludges were sampled and analyzed to assist indetermining disposal and discharge options.

3.2.3 Results and Condusions

The waste stream and treatability characterization showed the aqueous chemicals of concern to besimilar to those identified in the feasibility study. These chemicals were identified as PCBs,hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) and chlorinated benzene compounds. In addition, other chemicalsof concern were determined to adversely effect wastewater treatment and/or discharge based onexceeding a potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR). Thesecompounds include metals and solids.

Based on estimates performed as part of the SDWTDI, the average rate of flow to the wastewatertreatment system will be approximately 14.5 gallons per minute (gpm). Assuming a reasonabledesign capacity allowing for 24 hours of retention time, the treatment system design should beequipped with for storage of approximately 21,000 gallons. This design capacity represents aconservative approach to wastewater containment and is not based on any other study or designconstraint (i.e., availability of space).

Due to the contribution solids play in increasing the concentration of certain chemicals ofconcern, solids removal should be a primary unit operation in the wastewater treatment train.The investigation of more sophisticated solids removal techniques is recommended to promoteimproved downstream metals and organics removal. Because many of the chemical of concernare associated with the sediments, effective removal of solids from the waste streams will likelyreduce the aqueous concentrations requiring treatment prior to discharge. Existing metalstreatment techniques provided the desired level of reduction and additional treatment techniquesare not warranted. Organics removal was accomplished through granular activated carbon (GAG)adsorption. Additional organics testing is recommended to determine the most effective GAGbed design and/or configuration. Evaluation of additional organics treatment technologies shouldalso be considered for cost effectiveness due to relatively high carbon usage rates predicted insome of the treatability samples.

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 3-7

3.3 THERMAL TREATMENT DESIGN INVESTIGATION


The overall objective of the Thermal Treatment Design Investigation (TTDI) was to obtain datafor preparing a performance-based specification for a full-scale thermal treatment system.Specific objectives of the TTDI included to:

• Identify locations in the Fields Brook that contain sediments with polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) and/or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at concentrations that exceed the cleanupgoals (CUGs).

• Sample sediments from these locations and perform various analyses to characterize thesediments and conduct treatability testing to evaluate the effect of thermal treatment on thecharacteristics of these sediments.

• Estimate approximate quantities of sediments that are anticipated for thermal treatment.

• Evaluate the effect of sediment treatment temperature and residence time (at sedimenttreatment temperature) on the total concentration of PCBs in the treated sediment.

• Identify concentrations of selected VOC and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) in theuntreated and treated sediment.

• Identify concentrations of dioxins and furans, expressed as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo para-dioxin toxicity equivalences (TEQ) in the untreated and treated sediment.

• Identify the degree of metals partitioning from the sediment to the gas phase.

• Measure toxicity characteristic leachate procedure (TCLP) for all compounds with TCLPcriteria in the treated sediment.

• Evaluate the physical characteristics of the treated sediment to determine load bearingcapacities.

• Identify potential applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and otherinformation needed for the remedial design and implementation of on-site incineration forFields Brook sediments.

Included in this report is a summary of data collected and evaluated during the course of theTTDI. In addition, preliminary design criteria are presented and discussed. These data andpreliminary design criteria will be reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, in subsequentstages of the Remedial Design.

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 3-8


Focus Environmental, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee, was subcontracted to perform the treatabilityportion of the TTDI.

Field tests for VOCs and PCBs were used to select samples for the treatability testing that metthe objective of containing these constituents at the highest concentrations found in the samplingregions. The resulting sediments were sampled in the field and the resulting field samplesshipped to a laboratory for VOC and PCB analysis. The bulk sediments were shipped to anotherlaboratory for thermal treatability testing. Samples were also taken by the treatability laboratoryof the as-received bulk sediments and shipped to analytical laboratory for VOC and PCBanalysis. Based on the results of these analyses and previous particle size distributions measuredon sediments from these reaches, the sediments from Reach 5-1, Cross-section 2, was eliminatedfrom the testing. This sediment was eliminated because it has a similar particle size distributionto Reach 5-2, Cross-section 14, and did not contain VOCs.

The as-received samples were prepared for thermal treatability testing by homogenizing anddrying under a hood to lower die moisture content of the sediments (and potentially thecontaminants via volatilization) for easier handling. Samples were taken of the prepared sedimentand analyzed for parameters including PCBs, VOCs, and SVOCs.

Static tray tests were conducted on the prepared sediment to evaluate the effect of residence timeand temperature on the concentrations of PCBs in the sediment. A total of nine tray tests wereconducted (three temperatures each at three residence times). The sediment temperatures testedwere 700, 1,000, and 1,300°F. The residence times were measured as residence time at targetsediment temperature and included 0, 10, and 30 min. for each temperature. Residence time toreach target sediment temperature ranged from 15 to 20 min. such that total residence timeranged from 15 to 50 minutes. The treated sediment from each tray test was analyzed for PCBs.

Based on the results of the tray tests, target sediment temperatures and residence times wereestablished for conducting rotary thermal apparatus (RTA) tests that more closely emulate heatand mass transfer conditions in a full scale unit. The conditions chosen were 700 and 1,000 °Fsediment temperature and 0 min. residence time at the target sediment temperature. Treatedsediments from the RTA tests were analyzed for various parameters and compared to the resultsfrom analysis of the prepared sediment to determine the effect of the thermal treatment on thesevarious parameters.

Aroclor analyses were conducted on soil/sediment samples to evaluate the concentrations ofmulti-component polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and were preformed by SW-846 Method 8080which employs gas chromatography (GC) utilizing an electron capture detector. Treatedsoil/sediment samples (i.e., ash) from the TTDI were analyzed for the total mono- through deca-polychlorinated biphenyls by a modified California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 428.The CARB Method 428 employs GC and high resolution mass spectroscopy (MS) operating in aselected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. Selected ash samples were also analyzed for Aroclors byMethod 8080.

A911lOpm 3*9

Method 8080 provides data on the concentrations of Aroclors present in a sample. Arociors arecommercial mixtures of chlorinated biphenyls and are only a subset of the possible PCBs thatmay be present in a sample. The CARS Method 428 provides data on the concentrations ofPCBs at each of the chlorination levels (i.e., total monochlorobiphenyls through totaldecachlorobiphenyls) and is more specific for chlorinated biphenyls. Therefore, results from thetwo methods may not be directly comparable. However, results from CARB 428 would includethe concentrations of any Aroclors present in the sample analyzed whereas Method 8080 resultswould include results for only the Aroclors present in the sample and not necessarily all PCBs.Therefore, it would be expected that the CARB 428 method would yield equivalent results toMethod 8080 only if all the PCBs present resulted from Aroclors and would be more likely toresult in higher total PCB concentrations than Method 8080.


The three sediment samples received from the field were determined to contain PCBs at thefollowing concentrations:

• Reach 5-1, Cross-section 2 - 140 mg/kg• Reach 5-2, Cross-section 14 - 260 mg/kg• Reach 6, Cross-section 1 - 140 mg/kg

Tetrachloroethene and vinyl chloride were the only VOCs detected above the residential CUGs inthe sediment from Reach 5-2, Cross-section 14, and Reach 6, Cross-section 1, respectively.

Samples taken after the prl^aration step (homogenization and drying under the hood) indicatedthat concentrations of VOCs had decreased significantly during the drying step (average of 90percent concentration reduction for VOCs with starting concentrations in excess of 10 mg/kg).After the preparation step, all VOC concentrations were measured to be less than the residentialCUGs. Hexachlorobenzene and PCBs were the only SVOCs found in the prepared sediment tobe in excess of the residential CUGs. This was true for sediments from both Reach 5-2, Cross-section 14, and Reach 6, Cross-section 1.

The total concentration of PCBs was measured to be approximately 200 mg/kg in the preparedsediment samples obtained from both reaches. The treated sediment from all three tray test runsat 700°F contained detectable PCBs at concentrations of less than 1.8 mg/kg using Method 8080.PCBs were not detected in any of the treated sediments from the 1,000 and 1,300 °F tray testruns.

The organic carbon contents of the prepared sediment samples from both of the reaches wasapproximately 4.6 weight percent each. Concentration reductions for organic carbon in thetreated sediment from the RTA test runs were 70 percent at the 700°F test run and 84 percent atthe 1,000°F.

Concentrations of all organic constituents of concern were found to be less than the residentialCUGs for all treated sediments from the RTA test runs, including PCB concentrations. PCBs

A911WOWS 3:10pm 3 - 1 0

were verified to be present in the treated sediment from the 700 °F test run but at concentrationsof less than 1.3 mg/kg.

Dioxins and furans (PCDDs/ PCDFs) were detected in the prepared sediment samples obtainedfrom both Reach 5-2, Cross-section 14, and Reach 6, Cross-section 1, at a concentration of lessthan 1.0 /ig/kg, expressed as TEQ. The concentration of dioxins and furans in the sedimentsamples appeared to decrease after thermal treatment of the sediment. A 60 percent reductionwas measured at a sediment treatment temperature of 700 °F and a 99 percent reduction wasmeasured at a sediment treatment temperature of 1,000 °F.

3.4 SOLIDIFICATION DESIGN INVESTIGATION


The Solidification Design Investigation (SLDI) was conducted to collect and generate data fordesigning a solidification process as pan of the remedial activities planned for the Fields Brooksite in Ashtabula, Ohio. The following objectives were presented for the SLDI in the FieldsBrook Sediment Operable Unit Engineering Design (SOUEDI) Statements of Work (SOW) (U.S.Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 1989a):

• Demonstrate the effectiveness of solidification in reducing the mobility of contaminants insolidified sediment;

• Establish the measurements of treatment effectiveness and guidelines for performancemonitoring;

• Identify Potential Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for landdisposal of solidified materials; and

• Develop basic design criteria for performance specifications, including refined estimates of thelandfill capacity required for the disposal of solidified wastes.

The SLDI objectives were accomplished by performing the following activities:

• Field sampling of sediment;• Obtaining solidifying reagents from vendors;• Characterization of sediment samples and solidifying reagents;• A phased bench-scale treatability study;• Data validation, review and summary;• Data evaluation and conclusions; and• Review regulations and laws pertinent to waste processing, treatment and disposal.

The sediment would be considered suitably solidified in the SLDI for the purpose of structuralintegrity if the solidified matrix met or exceeded the following criteria (USEPA 1992) using themethods specified in the approved SLDI Work Plan, Revision 2A, dated September 1993:

A911irXWS 3:10pm 3-11

• No free liquids (USEPA Method SW-846-9095);

• Nonreactive (USEPA 5W-846 Sections 7.3.3 and 7.3.4);

• Nonpyrophoric (USEPA SW-846-1010/1020);

• Resistant to microbial growth (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] MethodsG 21 and G 22);

• Minimum unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of 50 pounds per square inch (psi) (ASTMMethod D 1633); and

• Wet/dry and freeze/thaw durability (ASTM Methods D 4843 and D 4842);

The SLDI Work Plan gave the following criteria for meeting the permanence requirement underthe Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA):

• Constituent concentrations in leachate generated using the Toxicity Characteristic LeachateProcedure (TCLP) not to exceed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatorylimits; and

• Total Waste Analysis (TWA) of TCLP leachate demonstrating at least a 90 percent reductionin concentration compared to untreated sediments.

Included in this report is a summary of data collected and evaluated during the course of theSLDI. In addition, preliminary design criteria are presented and discussed. These data andpreliminary design criteria will be reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, in subsequentstages of the Remedial Design.


The SLDI consisted of two basic studies: field sampling and bench-scale treatability testing.The field sampling study consisted of the following activities:

reconnaissance of three proposed sampling locations;sediment sample collection for characterization and treatability testing;sediment screening for chemical constituents;chemical and physical characterization of sediment;a volatilization study on field-mixed versus non-mixed sediment; andtracking and shipping of sediment samples to the laboratory.

The bench-scale treatability study consisted of the following activities:

A9112/3V95 3:10pm 3-12

• collection of the following solidifying reagents: portland cement, Class F fly ash, hydrateddolomitic lime, cement kiln dust, and HWT-7/11 and HWT-25, proprietary reagents fromInternational Waste Technologies (TWT);

• chemical and physical characterization of reagents;

• Phase 1 treatability study: screening and selection of solidification reagents and mix ratios toevaluate their effectiveness in terms of UCS, teachability and absence of free liquids;

• Phase 2 treatability study: evaluation of mixes using two reagents selected from Phase 1 interms of bulking, free liquids, UCS, freeze/thaw and wet/dry durability and monolithicteachability, and selection of a final design mix;

• Verification Phase testing: evaluating the final design mix in terms of free liquids, UCS,freeze/thaw and wet/dry durability, resistance to microbial growth, monolithic leachability,and RCRA hazardous characteristics of reactivity and ignitability.


Samples of coarse-grained sediment from Reaches 2-1 and 2-2 and fine-grained sediment fromReach 11-4 of Fields Brook were collected for the bench-scale treatability study. Reach 2-1 and2-2 sediments were classified as silty sands (SM) and Reach 11-4 sediment was classified as silt(ML). The water contents of the sediments ranged from 37 to 51 percent (dry-weight basis) andhad wet unit weights ranging from 103 to 105 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The coarse-grainedsediments contained both organic and inorganic constituents that included polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), benzo(a)pyrene, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, arsenic, chromium,lead and mercury. The finer sediment primarily contained inorganic chemical constituents thatincluded arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury and selenium.

Phase 1 Bench-Scale Solidification Study

Six solidifying reagents or blends which included portland cement, 1:2 portland cement-fly ashblend, 1:2 hydrated lime-fly ash blend, 1:2 cement kiln dust-fly ash blend, and proprietary agentsHWT-7/11 and HWT-25 were demonstrated to be effective at solidifying Reach 2-1 sediment.This reach was selected for reagent screening because the sediment gradation and the broad rangeof organic and inorganic constituents would represent more challenging conditions forsolidification (SLDI Work Plan, 1993).

Mixes representing each of the six reagents yielded 28-day strengths of 50 psi or greater. Mixeshaving a minimum strength of 50 psi were demonstrated not to exhibit the RCRA toxicitycharacteristic in leachate from the TCLP.

Portland cement at 25 percent dry sediment weight and the two proprietary agents at 20 percentdry sediment weight produced the least volume increases (bulking) in the solidified sedimentwhile meeting the 50-psi strength objective.

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 3-13

Phase 2 Bench-Scale Solidification Study

Portland cement, cement with fly ash and HWT-25 were selected for mix design optimization onsolidifying both coarse-grained sediment from Reach 2-2 and fine-grained sediment from Reach11-4. These locations "were selected so that the mix would be designed for sediments withdifferent grain size characteristics and chemical constituents.

At 11 percent cement-to-sediment, UCS ranged from approximately 35 psi to 50 psi. At 12percent HWT-25, UCS ranged from approximately 10 psi to 35 psi. The cement mixes wereselected for further study based on the higher strengths achieved at the lower reagent-to-sedimentratio.

Durability testing was performed on sediment samples solidified with 11 percent cement. Thesolidified samples lost less than 2 percent cumulative mass in wet/dry testing but lost between 20and 60 percent cumulative mass in freeze/thaw testing. Test failure was defined by ASTM D4842 and D 4843 as 15 percent.

teachability testing was performed on the 11-percent cement samples using American NuclearSociety (ANS) Method 16.1 modified for 48-hour duration to generate leach ate. No volatileorganic compounds (VOCs) or PCBs were detected in leachate from solidified Reach 2-2sediment. Two semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), benzole acid and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and two RCRA metals, arsenic and barium, were detected. For solidifiedReach 11-4 sediment leachate, no VOCs, SVOCs or PCBs were detected, and only one RCRAmetal, arsenic, was detected.

Verification Phase Treatability Study

A 15 percent cement-to-sediment ratio was selected for the Verification Phase based on statisticalanalysis of Phase 2 UCS results to achieve a 28-day UCS on cylindrical samples of 50 psi orgreater and to improve freeze/thaw durability. The mix was tested on sediment fromReaches 2-2 and 11-4 for comparison with Phase 2 results.

The solidified sediments were cured at room temperature (20 degrees C [68 degrees F]) and at 4degrees C (40 degrees F) to evaluate the effect of cold-temperature curing on strengthdevelopment and durability. UCS ranged from 127 to 149 psi for samples that were cured atroom temperature. The cold-cured samples had lower early strengths but ultimately developed28-day strengths of 169 to 217 psi, exceeding the 28-day UCS of the room-temperature curedsamples.

In wet/dry durability testing, both room-temperature and cold cured samples lost less than 1percent cumulative mass. Room-temperature cured samples experienced less than 4 percentcumulative mass loss in freeze/thaw testing. Cold-temperature cured samples lost approximately2 percent cumulative mass or less. These losses are below the ASTM recommended maximumof 15 percent. All solidified sediments passed the paint filter test.

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 3-14

Leachate generated by ANS Method 16.1 did not contain detectable levels of SVOCs or PCBs.Three VOCs, acetone, benzene and methylene chloride, and two RCRA metals, arsenic andbarium, were detected in leachate from solidified Reach 2-2 sediment. Two VOCs, acetone andmethylene chloride, and two RCRA metals, barium and selenium, were detected in leachate fromsolidified Reach 11-4 sediment. Most compounds were undetected in both the unsolidified andsolidified sediment leach ate s. Some inorganics, such as calcium and potassium, were observed toincrease in the solidified sediment leachate. This was attributed to the portland cement. Otherinorganics, such as magnesium, manganese and zinc, decreased in teachability by at least oneorder of magnitude in the solidified sediments.

The solidified sediments were tested for the RCRA characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity andreactivity. Flashpoints of the solidified sediments were greater than 140 degrees F. The pHranged from 10.3 for solidified Reach 11-4 sediment to 11.8 for solidified Reach 2-2 sediment,below the maximum regulatory guidance value of 12.5. Reactive cyanide was less than 0.05mg/kg for both reaches compared to the regulatory guidance level of. 250 mg/kg. Reactivesulfide ranged from 10.8 mg/kg for Reach 11-4 to 11.3 mg/kg for Reach 2-2, both significantlybelow the regulatory guidance level of 500 mg/kg.

The solidified sediments were tested for resistance to microbiaJ growth. No bacterial growth andonly a trace (less than 10 percent) of fungal growth was observed. Fungal growth was observedonly on undecayed plant matter on the surface of the solidified samples.

Thermal treatment ash from the Thermal Treatment Design Investigation (TTDI) and wastewatertreatment sludge from the Sediment Dewatering and Wastewater Treatment Design Investigation(SDWTDI) were also solidified using the 15 percent cement mix. The solidified ash and sludgesamples attained a 28-day UCS of 300 psi and 214 psi, respectively. Both passed the paint filtertest. Only one RCRA metal, barium, was detected in ANS Method 16.1 leachate. Additionalphysical and chemical testing could not be performed because of the lack of available residuals.

Conclusions

The SLDI bench-scale treatability study demonstrated that portland cement at a 15 percent drysediment mix ratio effectively solidified the Fields Brook sediments examined, thermal treatmentash and wastewater treatment sludge. Solidified sediments met the "no free liquids" requirement,exceeded the preliminary design strength of 50 psi, and were nonreactive, noncorrosive,nonpyrophoric, durable in freeze/thaw and wet/dry, and resistant to microbial growth except fora trace of fungi observed on undecayed plant matter. Solidified TTDI ash and SDWTDI sludgecontained no free liquids and exceeded the UCS objective of 50 psi.

The solidified sediments effectively immobilized most of the constituents of concern based onconstituent concentrations in ANS Method 16.1 leachate. Excluding VOCs which were not ofconcern in the SLDI, the only detected analytes were three RCRA metals, arsenic, barium andselenium. Arsenic was detected in duplicate samples of leachate from solidified Reach 2-2sediment at estimated values slightly above the detection limit of 0.02 mg/kg. The detectionsoccurred in only one aliquot per sample and at different time intervals for the duplicate samples.

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 3-15

Furthermore, arsenic was not detected in leachate from solidified Reach 11-4 sediment which hadapproximately ten times more total arsenic in the untreated sediment compared to Reach 2-2.Therefore, the presence of arsenic in solidified Reach 2-2 sediment leachate was not consideredto be significant. Barium was detected in all leachate samples but was attributed to the chemicalcomposition of portland cement. Selenium was only detected in leachate from solidified Reach11-4 sediment but was not considered to be significant because it was detected in only one aliquotat an estimated value of 0.04 mg/kg, just above the detection limit of 0.035 mg/kg.

Treatment effectiveness as measured by reduction in mobility was not evaluated using the TCLP.The final design mix was leached using ANS Method 16.1. Because of differences in leachantchemistry (e.g., pH, ionic strength), sample agitation, sample size and shape, and length of testduration, a comparison between the TCLP results for the untreated sediment and ANS Method16.1 results for the solidified sediments would not be valid. Instead results from the modifiedANS Method 16 1 setup for unsolidified and solidified sediments were used for comparison.Except for inorganic compounds present in portland cement, most constituents decreased inteachability upon solidification by as much as two orders of magnitude. Other inorganics such asarsenic, chromium, lead and mercury were not detected in any of the leachates therebypreventing a comparison between unsolidified and solidified sediments for these particular metals.

3.5 FACILITY SITING DESIGN INVESTIGATION

3.5.1 Objective and Scope of Work

This Facility Siting Design Investigation (FSDI) Report was prepared for the Fields BrookPotentially Responsible Panics Organization (FBPRPO) to address requirements in the UnilateralAdministrative Order (USEPA 1989) for the Fields Brook Superfund Site. Included in this reportis a summary of data collected and evaluated during the coarse of the FSDI. In addition,preliminary design criteria are presented and discussed. These data and preliminary designcriteria will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate, in subsequent stages of the RemedialDesign.

The principal objective of the FSDI, as stated in Section 7 of the SOW, was to identify potentialsites within the investigation area for siting remedial facilities for sediment dewatering,solidification, thermal treatment, landfilling, and temporary storage. Other objectives identifiedin the SOW include the following:

• Establishing and documenting the rationale behind the siting criteria used (includingidentification of location-specific ARARs);

• Collection of data necessary to perform the siting evaluation;

• Identification of technical requirements and public and environmental issues associated withthe remedial facilities;

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 3~16

• Outlining the requirements for potential property acquisition (addressed separately by theFBPRPO); and

• Outlining contingencies for accommodating unanticipated volumes of material to be stored andlandfilled.

Previously submitted FSDI documents and the contents of this FSDI Report provide the requiredinformation to address the SOW objectives. Following completion of the site screeningevaluations and subsequent review by the Agencies, the FSDI objectives were further developedand refined, and specific data quality objectives were established. The general objectivesaddressed in this FSDI document are to:

• Further investigate the suitability of the Acme Scrap and Metal Co. property (Acme) for sitingof the centralized remedial management facilities (CRF); and

• Collect data to support siting and conceptual design and construction of the CRF andtemporary appurtenant remedial facilities (TAP) located offsite from the CRF. The TAPinclude remedial management facilities along Fields Brook and adjunct facilities includingstormwater diversion alternatives and the Conrail railroad embankment near Reach 13 ofFields Brook.

The scope of work developed for the FSDI was presented in the final revision of the FSDI WorkPlan (WCC 1993). As part of the work scope, data were collected during a SupplementaryInvestigation which involved drilling and soil sampling for geotechnical analysis, monitoring wellinstallation, groundwater sampling and analysis, water level monitoring, in situ permeabilitytesting, meteorological monitoring, environmental siting studies, and a structural evaluation ofexisting on-site buildings. The work scope also included development of conclusions on final siteselection for the remedial facilities, a conceptual facility development plan, and preliminarydesign criteria for subsequent phases of remedial design.

Several modifications were made to the scope of work outlined in the FSDI Work Plan (WCC1993) during the Supplementary Investigation. These modifications and the rationale andcircumstances driving them are summarized below:

• all capital cost estimates were referred to Bechtel for performance in the project remedialdesign activities;

• a topographic survey of the site as originally planned was not essential and not performed. Itwas determined that existing site maps along with location specific surveys would provideadequate reference to complete the field studies and present findings from the FSDI work;

• the investigations associated with the TAFs along the reaches of Fields Brook (i.e., temporarymaterial handling facilities, check dams, and access corridors) have been postponed until theremedial areas have been fully identified and agreed upon by the USEPA and FBPRPOs. The

A9112/20/95 3:10pm

TAP investigations along the reaches are scheduled for completion prior to submittal of the60% Remedial Design;

• the FSDI Work Plan contained provisions for both on-site and off-site borrow investigations.After further consideration, the FBPRPO decided to eliminate the on-site investigations andfocus efforts on the identification of potential off-site borrow sources only. The identificationof off-site borrow areas will be conducted between the 30% and 60% Remedial Designactivities; and

• the evaluation of potential socioeconomic impacts associated with development of Acme wasoriginally intended to be part of the Environmental Siting Studies. This study will now beperformed during the Construction Impact Assessment to be performed for the SQDI Phase IIprogram.


The Supplementary Investigation consisted of both intrusive and nonintrusive activities including:

• Subsurface Investigation Program;- Drilling and soil sampling- Groundwater monitoring well installation- Groundwater sampling and water level monitoring- In-situ hydraulic conductivity testing

• Meteorological monitoring;• Environmental siting studies; and• Assessment of the structural integrity of existing buildings.

Data were collected at the Acme site and surrounding areas during the SCRI and the other SOUDIs. Where applicable, data from these other investigations were used to avoid redundancy indata collection efforts for the FSDI.

Intrusive Investigations and Testing

Soil borings were drilled and monitoring wells installed at locations prescribed in the FSDI WorkPlan. These locations take into account the conceptual CRF layout, and the locations of Phase 0and Phase I SCRI soil borings and monitoring wells. Intrusive investigations at TAF wereperformed during the Supplementary Investigation for the evaluation of proposed storm waterdiversion alternatives and railroad embankment stability. A total of 18 soil borings were drilledat the Acme property. Twelve borings were converted into monitoring wells. A total of 11 soilborings were drilled for the TAF, 3 adjacent to the Conrail railroad embankment and 8 locatedalong tentatively identified alignments for stormwater diversion alternatives.

GeotechnicaJ testing was performed on representative soil samples from Acme and TAF boringsTesting included index property and grainsize analysis, triaxial shear strength tests, andconsolidation tests. In addition, hydraulic conductivity tests were performed on both undisturbed

A9112/3VW 3:10pm 3~18

and recompacted soils from the borings performed at Acme. Field testing included slug tests onall wells on Acme property. Groundwater quality samples collected from FSDI wells at Acmewere analyzed for the full suite of TCL/TAL chemicals.

Meteorological Monitoring

Data were collected during the FSDI Supplementary Investigation to characterize prevalent localwind speed and direction at Acme. The acquisition and evaluation of typical meteorologicalconditions is intended to aid in the understanding of the potential effect of remedial activities onthe surrounding area. Baseline meteorological monitoring was initiated at the start ofSupplementary Investigation field activities and was continued for approximately one year (periodending January, 1995).

Environmental Siting Studies

An environmental siting study was performed at Acme during the Supplementary Investigation toidentify and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating the CRF.The Environmental Siting Study addressed the following tasks:

• Characterization of the ecology of the Acme property;• Identification of sensitive environmental areas; and• Evaluation of the loss of wildlife habitat.

Assessment of the Structural Integrity of Existing Acme Buildings

An inspection, supported with photo documentation, was performed by a registered civil engineerlicensed in the State of Ohio to assess the overall condition and structural integrity of the existingbuildings within the areas of the proposed CRF at Acme. The evaluation included an assessmentof the suitability of the structures to accommodate any pan of the proposed CRF, and the cost ofrenovating these buildings or the associated amount of demolition required for any structuredetermined to be unsafe or unusable.


Acceptance of the Acme Property for Siting the CRF

No fatal flaws were identified in acceptance criteria to cause the Acme site to be rejected. TheAcme site was concluded to be suitable for locating the CRF. The results of the site acceptanceevaluation in the FSDI report are to be used to obtain Agency approval for use of the Acmeproperty as the site for the CRF. Following solicitation of public approval of Acme, the Agencywill then be in the position to issue a final acceptance of the Acme property for siting the CRF,and design of the SOU facilities will be initiated. If at any stage of the acceptance process thesite is rejected, the evaluation of an alternative site will be required in accordance with the FSDIWork Plan.

A9112/2CV9S 3:10pin 3~19

The two main categories of acceptance criteria used to evaluate Jie Acme site include:

• General Siting Requirements - ARARs related to specific site characteristics that are requiredfor siting a RCRA type landfill or TSD facility; and

• Design/Construction Requirements - ARARs specifically related to design and construction,economic issues related to developing the site, and environmental requirements for the site(e.g. remediation of existing site conditions).

The key issues supporting the acceptance of Acme based on Generrl Siting Requirements are asfollows;

1) Geologic and Hydrogeologic Conditions

Subsurface conditions at Acme are favorable for siting a TSD facility in that no significantgroundwater resources underlie the site. Furthermore, neither the overburden or bedrock atthe Acme property constitute an "aquifer". The potential to impact outlying groundwaterresources is very low due to the low permeability of the native materials and slow rate ofgroundwater movement (estimated to range from approximately 7 ft/yr to as low as 0.01ft/yr).

2) Surface Water and Ecology

There is a low potential to impact surface water resources via surface runoff or groundwaterdischarge. There is also a low potential to impact human populations or ecologicalenvironments due to the site's location in an industrialized area.

3) Public Acceptance

No public objections have been given to the siting of the CRF at Acme to date. Furtherpublic involvement issues will be addressed by OEPA in accordance with the project PublicInvolvement Plan (PIP).

4) General Buffer Requirement

The site meets appropriate buffer requirements for the CRF in its proximity to adjacentproperties, residences and other public facilities surface water bodies, and recreational areas.

The key issues supporting the acceptance of Acme based on Design, Construction and RemedialManagement Requirements are as follows:

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 3-20

1) Geotechnical

The Acme facility is geotechnically suitable to support the CRF. Allowable bearing capacityof soils, allowable settlement under building and landfill loads, and global stability of theproposed landfill are all within industry standards for the Acme property.

2) Construction

- Acme has adequate space to accommodate a 60,000 cy RCRA-type landfill, which canreasonably be expanded up to about 180,000 cy as needed. Furthermore, the site canaccommodate either an above or partial below grade landfill design, as neither theoverburden or bedrock beneath Acme constitute an aquifer. The below grade design allowsfor potential balancing of soil use at the facility.

Acme's site topography will allow for stormwater management through localized sitegrading and limited detention.

3) Environmental/Remedial Management

- The costs of building demolition and/or upgrades are minor in comparison with total projectcosts. This issue does not appear to prevent acceptance of Acme.

- It is assumed that existing on-site scrap in the area of the temporary CRF components willbe managed during SCOU activities at the Acme facility. The cost associated withconsolidation and/or removal of scrap within the footprint of the permanent landfill is minorin comparison with total project costs. Therefore this issue does not impact acceptance ofAcme.

- Remedial management of a portion of the soils excavated for the permanent landfill andother CRF construction may be required. However, due to the relatively small area ofaffected soil, the cost of management of the affected soils is expected to be limited and doesnot warrant rejection of the site.

- The volume of groundwater associated with construction dewatering is expected to berelatively small due to low permeability soils at Acme. Therefore, the cost for remedialmanagement (i.e., treatment and/or disposal) of groundwater during construction of the CRFis expected to be limited and does not warrant rejection of the site.

Preliminary Design Recommendations - CRF

The following is a summary of preliminary recommendations presented in FSDI Report regardingdesign, construction, monitoring, and further investigation for the CRF at Acme:

1) The Acme landfill can be constructed either above or partially below existing grade. Assuggested in this report, a below grade landfill would generate potentially significant volumes

A9U2/20/95 3:10pm 3'21

of soil that can be used in construction of the landfill perimeter berm and cover and linersystems. Laboratory tests performed during the FSDI indicate that the lacustrine and till soilscan be used for 10"7 cm/sec clay liners. Preliminary estimates indicate that excavated vciumesfor a below grade landfill can be balanced with the volume of material needed to construct thelandfill. Bulk sampling and analysis is suggested to further evaluate reuse opportunities forsite soils in subsequent phases of the Remedial Design.

2) Preliminary geotechnical analysis shows that spread footings bearing on lacustrine soils wouldbe suitable for supporting approximately 1 to 1.5 tons per square foot (tsf). This would likelybe compatible with loads associated with CRF components. A lack of information presentlyavailable on design loads and exact locations for the CRF limits the current level ofgeotechnical analysis. Detailed bearing capacity and settlement evaluations should beperformed in final RD activities for the CRF.

3) The final remedial design documents should consider provisions for site dewatering during theconstruction of .the CRF. It is anticipated that localized sumping and perimeter trenchesshould adequately dewater the construction areas.

4) The RCRA groundwater monitoring program for the landfill should be suitable for the lowpermeability saturated soils at the Acme property. Emphasis should be placed on usingprofessional judgement to assess the potential for releases from the landfill.

5) Sampling of selected wells should be performed to better establish baseline groundwaterquality conditions prior to constructing the CRF. This sampling should be scheduled tocoincide with ongoing monitoring associated with Source Control activities.

6) An air monitoring program should be considered in the final design activities to satisfy OhioEPA air quality requirements. The program should incorporate collection of baseline airquality data prior to construction of the CRF.

Evaluation and Preliminary Design Recommendations - TAF

TAFs investigated during FSDI included the Conrail railroad embankment and four stormwaterdiversion alternatives. The purpose of the railroad embankment investigation was to evaluate itssuitability to act as a containment levee for the proposed stormwater retention basin along itssouth side while supporting normal rail traffic. Four stormwater diversion alternatives designedto redirect storm flows away from Fields Brook dur ing remedial activities were also evaluated todetermine which alternative was the most favorable

Railroad Embankment Evaluation

An evaluation was conducted to assess the ability of the Conrail railroad embankment to maintainstability under several feasible loading scenarios summarized by the following critical situations:

• end of construction (Le.9 excavation of the basin along the headwater side);

A9112/20/95 3:10pm

• rapid drawdown following a full-stage flood;• intermediate or "critical" flood stage which saturates the embankment;• full-flood stage with steady seepage; and• earthquake loading if liquefiable soils are present.

Conventional slope stability analysis were performed for each of the 5 cases listed above. In allcases, minimum calculated factors of safety against instability were greater than those suggestedby the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USCOE). Therefore, the embankment is expectedto perform effectively as both a stormwater retention levee and a load carrying embankment overthe anticipated life of the project.

Stormwater Diversion Alternatives

Four conceptual stormwater diversion alternatives were presented in the Phase I SQDI Report(WCC 1992). The purpose of these diversions is to redirect storm flows from Fields Brook toeither the Ashtabula River or Lake Erie during remediation activities. The four alternativesconsist of combination pipe and/or channel flow networks.

A simplified evaluation of the diversion alternatives was performed in the FSDI based on fourevaluation criteria. The criteria include: (1) ease of construction, (2) ease of access, (3) capitaland operating costs, and (4) maintainability of the diversion alternative. Engineering judgementwas used to rank the options based on the criteria, and ultimately select the preferred alternativebased on the available information. The result of the evaluation indicated that the diversionalternative which conveys stormwater north from the confluence of Reaches 13-1 and 8-11through undeveloped land to Lake Erie (Alternative 3) was the preferred option. Consequently,it is recommended that Alternative No. 3 along with any other viable alternatives (i.e. localizeddiversions for excavation or pump arounds) be further evaluated for design and construction insubsequent stages of design. Issues regarding discharge and related permitting were beyond thescope of this evaluation, and should be addressed in the subsequent remedial design activities.

A9U2/20/93 3:10pm 3~23

4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR SEDIMENT EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING

The excavation and removal of contaminated sediment from the designated reaches of FieldsBrook are the principal SOU remedial actions. This section describes the selected processes(excavation and dewatering) and discusses the design criteria for that portion of the remedy. Nocontingent design processes were identified to replace sediment excavation and dewatering.Subsequent processes (sediment treatment, water treatment, and disposal in a landfill) for theactivities associated with the sediment removal action are described in Sections 5 through 8.

4.1 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY

This section discusses the engineering studies, mass balance and flow diagram, major processes

and equipment, contingency plans, and operation and maintenance plan associated with thesediment excavation and dewatering design. The remedy selected for the SOU involves removingsediment from the specific reaches of Fields Brook that exhibit contaminant concentrations higherthan the cleanup goals, which are listed in Table 2-1. The limit for the sediment removal isdefined as material below the normal water line of the brook that has been determined to exceedthese goals.

4.1.1 Engineering Studies

Previous engineering studies performed by others that are relevant to the sediment excavation anddewatering design include the following:

• Sediment volume estimates for each treatment phase• Exposure unit/reach characterization• Excavation and dewatering methods• Hydro logical data

A9112/20/93 3:10pm 4-1

Sediment Volume Estimates for Each Treatment Phase

The SQDI report (WCC 1995a) identifies the specific chemicals detected in the various reachesof Fields Brook that exceed the EPA cleanup goals. The locations of the stream reaches and theexposure unit boundaries are depicted in Figures 2-3 and 2-4, respectively. Based on the SQDI,the horizontal and vertical extents of the chemicals of concern were determined for each exposureunit and reach. Corresponding estimates were made of the volumes of sediment that must beexcavated to achieve the cleanup goals. In addition to the sediment to be processed, materialsassociated with construction are expected to require handling. The volume estimates forconstruction-related materials are summarized in Table 2-2, which also identifies volumes forwhich further treatment is required by the ROD before the sediment can be disposed of in alandfill.

Exposure Unit/Reach Characterization

The FBPRPO made an extensive effort to characterize each stream reach because of the uniquenature of the Fields Brook watershed. Nine reaches were identified for remediation; thesereaches represent a wide array of physical, hydrological, ecological, and land use characteristics.These characteristics have been defined in other documents, as stated in Section 2. Tables 4-1,4-2, and 4-3 summarize the attributes of each reach, including the physical, hydrological, andadjoining property descriptions. Based on these attributes, the water control and sedimentexcavation methods were selected and are presented in Table 4-4.

Excavation and Dewatering Methods

No specific engineering studies were performed on the excavation methods other than to list thetypes of excavations. The FBPRPO performed an SDWTDI (WCC 1995b) to determine themoisture content of the sediments and volume of free water. The typical moisture content of thesediments ranges from approximately 30 percent to nearly 55 percent after removal of free-draining liquids. The average volume of free liquids recovered from sediment samples was

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 4-2

0.4007 gal per gallon of excavated sediment. These values are based on samples that were hand-excavated from a small, dewatered segment of the stream.

Hydrological Data

The FBPRPO made an extensive effort to characterize the baseflow and stormflow of FieldsBrook. The average baseflow at the outlet of the watershed was 15 cfs. Storm events result in asignificant increase in the total stream discharge, as reflected by the estimated stormflows from a2-year, 24-hour storm event (Table 4-2). WCC calculated the peak flow from a 1-year, 6-hourstorm event to be 250 cfs in reach 1-1, 170 cfs at State Highway 11, and 110 cfs in reach 7-1(WCC 1992). These data are presented in Table 4-2. The remedial design processes for theexcavation and dewatering of the sediments are based on these engineering studies. Severalexcavation and water control options were considered and are addressed in the following sections.

4.1.2 Mass Balance and Flow Diagram

An overall process flow diagram for handling contaminated sediments and related waste streamsis provided in Figure 2-15.

4.1.3 Major Processes and Equipment

Sediment excavation and dewatering will involve several construction activities, ranging from theinstallation of cofferdams or sandbags to the transport of sediment to the Central RemediationFacility (CRF). These activities will involve both temporary and permanent construction and willinclude support operations such as loading and transport. A performance-based approach will beused to the maximum extent practical, and many of the actual details will be left to the remedialaction contractor to define or adjust based on field conditions and the special knowledge of thecontractor. A description of each major step or activity follows.

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 4~3

Excavation Methods

Sediment will be excavated to the predetermined lines and grades defined in the SQDI. Toprevent recontaminating any section of the brook that had been remediated, the excavation willbegin at the uppermost reach and proceed downstream. Potential methods and equipment forexcavation are listed in Figure 4-1.

The primary dry excavation machine will be a backhoe or excavator. The backhoe will typicallybe rubber-tired, with a loader bucket on the front and an articulating bucket on the rear boom.The excavator will be tracked, with articulating bucket and boom. For some on-bank

excavations, a Gradall unit might be appropriate. Only a small amount of free-draining water isexpected from sediments excavated using dry methods.

The only wet excavation technique considered to be applicable to Fields Brook is the use of avacuum truck, which can be used when it is necessary to remove loose silt from an area that isdifficult to dewater, such as eddy pools near culverts or bridge abutments. The disadvantages ofthe vacuum truck are that it can pick up only loose material, that it also picks up a large volumeof water with the solids, and that determining whether sediment has been removed to the requiredcut limits can be difficult. The vacuum truck also requires a solids drainage bed to dewater theslurry before any subsequent treatment.

Special procedures for VOCs. VOC emissions from excavated sediment will be of concernonly when sediment removal and handling operations are performed on reach(es) that have VOCcontamination. The approach for sediment handling in reach 6 and other reaches with VOCs willcomply with Section 9.

Equipment decontamination and control of the unintentional spread of contaminated materials willbe the responsibility of the remedial action contractor The site-specific safety and health planwill establish the procedures and responsibilities for decontamination. Procedures will beprovided for the following:

A9112/20/95 3:10pm

• Contamination control zones and access limitations• Transport vehicle loading and unloading• Equipment decontamination• Management of solids and liquids from decontamination• Inspections of equipment and work areas

Water Diversion Methods and Controls

Because of the geographic and hydrologic settings of Fields Brook, a major issue in the remedialdesign is the method of controlling water in the brook during sediment removal. Figure 4-2illustrates the approach to water flow control during excavation. Flow control methods arecategorized based on two major flow conditions: baseflow with limited precipitation events, and

storm events.

Three water control strategies will be used for the baseflow condition: temporary pumpeddiversion, isolation of small areas of contamination, and construction of alternate channels andsilt curtains (see Table 4-4), which are described as follows:

• Temporary pumped diversion systems for limited precipitation (a 1-year, 6-hour storm) willconsist of mobile, centrifugal slurry pumps, or the water can be diverted by gravity drains.

Where cost-effective, temporary pumped diversion systems may discharge into pipe laid abovegrade to create a temporary gravity storm drain. Once installed, the temporary pumpeddiversion systems will operate continuously during all excavation activities to keep stream flowout of the active excavation area.

• Small areas of contamination will be isolated with dikes. Dikes to be used for diversion ofbaseflow will include earthen dams, portable barriers (Water Structures*), timber cribs, orsheet piles. Smaller areas of contamination will be isolated from the flow by sandbags.

A9I12/20/95 3:10pm 4-5

• Construction of alternate channels will be required in the braided areas. Silt curtains mayhave some limited applicability near the end of reach 1-1.

During storm events that exceed the 1-year, 6-hour storm, excessive peak flows will necessitateshutdown of sediment removal operations.

Previous engineering studies examined other water diversion alternatives, which are discussedbelow but are not cost-effective or viable options for this type of remediation.

Diversion to a POTW. The f SDI and SQDI proposed two possible options for baseflowcontrol: to divert all industrial discharges to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or topump or route the flow in the brook around the active excavation areas. The diversion of flow toa POTW is not considered a viable option because of the following considerations:

• The City of Ashtabula does not have treatment facilities that can accept nearly 12 mgd oflow-organic-strength industrial wastewater.

• Wastewater collection, treatment, and pumping system modifications would have to be madeby ten industrial dischargers to Fields Brook.

• The water in each reach being remediated can be pumped or diverted by gravity around activeexcavation zones.

Therefore, there is no significant advantage in rerouting the industrial flow contributions to aPOTW.

Diversion out of the watershed. Another option that was considered is the temporary diversionof stormwater runoff out of the Fields Brook watershed. Several concepts for this diversion wereaddressed in the SQDI report, but this option is not considered further because of the followingfactors;

A91t2/20/95 3:10pm 4-6

• The total volume of stormwater to be diverted is large (150 to 200 cfs).

• Storm sewer systems, including pumping equipment, would also be relatively large (i.e.,60-in.-diameter storm sewers for flows of 150 to 200 cfs).

• Storm sewer runoff would have to be routed in developed industrial and residential areas.

• The diversion option does not eliminate the need to pump baseflow from the active excavationareas.

• The cost and time to implement any out-of-watershed diversion would be excessive. It wouldbe impractical to direct the brook to another location outside the watershed. Right-of-wayswould have to be obtained by others for underground pipes.

• The impact on the schedule would add years to the project.

• Diverting water out of the watershed would have an adverse impact on the ecological systemand wetlands.

Retention ponds. The use of in-channel stormwater retention ponds was also proposed as amethod of minimizing stormwater impacts on the active excavation areas. Although thisapproach is technically feasible to implement, its benefit is estimated to be marginal in reducingstormflow impacts. To provide a reasonable stormwater storage volume, these ponds wouldrequire large areas (25 to 70 acres), which would infringe on property owners and possibly resultin property damages. Also, two of the proposed locations are in wetland areas where periodicinundation could result in displacement of certain wetland species and other adverse impacts.

The benefit that could be derived from the retention ponds is the ability to continue excavatingoperations during dry periods or minor storm events. As the precipitation intensity or durationincreases, though, the stormwater storage capacity would be depleted rapidly, and excavation

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 4-7

activities would have to stop. This method would be feasible in the upper reaches of the brookand tributaries to control minor flows during minor storm events.

Selected methods. Storm events—even a 1-year, 6-hour rainfall—would add such a largevolume of stormwater to the middle and lower reaches of Fields Brook that complete diversion orpumping of the flow would be impractical. All reaches downstream of 7-1 would receive a peak

stormflow of approximately 50,000 gpm from the 1-year, 6-hour storm. This volume, inconjunction with the 15-cfs (6,735-gpm) baseflow, would exceed the stormflows that canreasonably be handled with temporary pumping systems commonly available for dewateringapplications.

Therefore, the stream diversion systems to be used in the lower reaches will be either diversionchannels or sandbags to protect the excavation of the slopes of the brook. Section 4.1.4,Contingency Plans, addresses actions to be taken to minimize any negative impacts on theenvironment from the stormflow passing through the excavation area. The SQDI concluded thatmost sediments with chemical concentrations above the cleanup goals are located in well-definedareas within each reach (i.e., banks, eddy pools, sandbars). Where access is not restricted, thepreferred flow control method will be to install barriers such as sandbags to isolate and allowdewatering of the work area. This approach is not only the lowest-cost method but will alsominimize impacts on both water quality and the stream ecosystem. Table 4-4 summarizes thewater control method for each reach.

Dewatering Methods

Four methods (i.e., on-bank drainage, use of container filters, use of temporary drainage beds,and use of admixtures to adsorb free moisture) will be used to dewater sediments from FieldsBrook. These methods are addressed in Table 4-4.

For sediments that will not require thermal treatment, on-bank drainage will be used where thebanks are not too steep or vegetated with large hardwoods. Suitable locations will have only

A91t2/20/95 3:10pm 4~8

brush or grass (which can easily be removed), have slopes of less than 20 percent, and provide astable foundation for stockpiling sediment. Water will drain by gravity from the stockpile backinto Fields Brook. However, this method actually generates an additional volume ofcontaminated material because the area where the sediments are dewatered will becomecontaminated, which will necessitate the removal of surface soils.

A portable container filter can be used to drain the free water from *he sediments at the point ofexcavation, allowing the water to flow back into the brook. A container filter is a refusecontainer that has been modified using a false bottom constructed of a perforated basket coveredwith a filter element. These rugged, self-dumping container filters are available in a variety ofcapacities up to 5 yd3 and have two or more drainage outlets. Their standard design allows themto be handled by a construction-style fork truck. Their relatively small size and transportabilityallow them to be used in excavation areas where access is limited. The filtering capability adds aunique benefit in that it provides immediate dewatering of the sediment/water mixture as themixture is loaded into the container. In addition, this method will not generate additionalvolumes of sediment.

Sediments to be thermally treated can be excavated and transported directly to the CRF fordewatering in a drainage bed, which is a contained system. Drainage beds are temporaryfacilities constructed with a composite drainage medium consisting of flexible membrane liner,geotextile, high-drainage-coefficient sand, and pea gravel. The sediments will be excavated in awet condition to control the emission of VOCs and then will be hauled in self-dumpingcontainers. Precautions will be taken to prevent leakage of water onto roads. After beingdewatered on a drainage bed, the sediments will be covered with a flexible membrane so thatpossible emissions from contaminated sediments will not be dispersed in air.

To adsorb free water, admixtures such as lime kiln dust, fly ash, or Portland cement can be usedon the sediments that will not require thermal treatment Methods of mixing the adsorbent withthe sediment are specific to the type of excavating equipment used, and the remedial actioncontractor may use customized methods.

A9112/20/95 3:10pm

Transportation and Material Handling Methods

In the context of this section, transportation refers to the equipment used to handle materialbetween the excavation area and the CRF. Material for thermal treatment and solidification willbe excavated and transported in separated streams. In general, conventional methods are plannedfor moving bulk quantities of sediment, including the use of dump trucks and vacuum trucks.

Dump trucks will have sealed beds and tailgates or bed liners. Precautions will he taken tominimize the area of disturbance and the potential for contamination around any material handlingoperation.

Brook Restoration Methods

Restoration activities—including redressing disturbed areas, revegetation with appropriate grassor other plant species, channel protection and rehabilitation in Fields Brook, wetlands restoration,and other actions as appropriate—will promote the ecological recovery of Fields Brook and itsfloodplain area. Also, erosion protection media will be placed over the stream sediment/soils in

areas where scour potential is high. Graded riprap will be used as backfill to provide a stable,erosion-resistant layer over underlying sediment in high-scour areas. The gradation of the riprapwill based on the streamflow in each reach.

4.1.4 Contingency Plans

Contingency planning for sediment excavation and dewatering will identify those elements of theremedial design or the operating procedures for the remedial action that would pose a risk to

human health or the environment if an accident, upset condition, failure, or similar emergencyepisode occurs. Once identified, each element will have a predetermined response action tominimize any health or environmental impacts from the emergency event.

Sediment excavation and dewatering will involve several operations that could experiencefailures, inclement weather, or emergency episodes. There is also the danger of workers or

* ̂ 20/95 3:10pm 4-10

equipment being exposed to hazardous chemicals that might be spilled by any of the industrieswith storm drains or industrial outfalls discharging into Fields Brook. Table 4-5 summarizes the

contingency plans for sediment excavation and dewatering.

4*1.5 Operation and Maintenance Plan

The contractor will prepare an operation and maintenance plan for the same group of remedia1

actions as for the contingency plan. This plan will be prepared in accordance with the guidelinesprovided in the contract scope of work. At a minimum, the plan must address operatingprocedures for baseflow control, sediment excavation, sediment dewatering and transport,environmental monitoring, and stream/floodplains restoration. Specific operating procedures areto be prepared for pumped diversion of baseflow, dewatering by gravity drainage beds, use ofadmixtures for free moisture control, and water quality monitoring.

4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA

The following sections present the specific design criteria for the excavation and dewatering ofsediments from the contaminated reaches of Fields Brook. The sections include a summary ofapplicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), permits required forimplementation of the remedial action, specific performance requirements for systems orequipment to be provided by the contractor, and criteria for performing the remedial action andfor restoring the brook and adjacent areas disturbed during the remedial action.

4.2.1 ARARs

The nonbinding ARARs for the design were determined in the ROD, which was issued before theSuperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) was enacted. Without waiving anyrights or defenses, the FBPRPO believes that certain subsequent federal and state regulationsoutline the appropriate technical requirements for certain aspects of the remedial action. Forexample, the RCRA and PCB incineration regulations generally provide the appropriate

A9I12/20/95 3:10pm 4-11

requirements for onsite incineration. Therefore, the potential ARARs identified in this report for

general consideration in the design process include regulations promulgated since the issuance ofthe ROD.

The potential ARARs considered for the siting, design, construction, and operation of thesediment dewatering units and for excavation are summarized as follows.

Occupational Safety and Health Regulations [29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910and 1926]

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has promulgated a comprehensiveset of occupational safety and health standards. These regulations take a two-pronged approachto worker safety by establishing safe working practices and safe levels of exposure to a variety ofmaterials. These regulations will apply during the remedial activities.

Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (40 CFR 122,125, 129, and 133)

These regulations control point-source discharges to waters of the United States. Theseregulations require the use of the best available technology that is economically achievable tocontrol toxic and nonconventional pollutants and the use of the best conventional pollutant controltechnology to control conventional pollutants. Technology-based limitations may be determinedon a case-by-case basis. Water-quality-based effluent limitations are based on state narrative andnumeric water quality criteria, which depend on the type of stream and type of pollutantsdischarged to the stream. Best management practices to control toxic discharges must also beconsidered.

These regulations are potentially applicable if treated wastewater is discharged from the site toFields Brook or the Ashtabula River.

A9112/30/95 4:22pm 4-12

Clean Water Act, EPA Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR 403) (40 CFR 122, 125, 129, 133)

These requirements regulate the industrial discharges to a POTW. They prohibit introduction ofpollutants to a POTW that "pass-through" (i.e., exit the POTW in quantities or concentrationsthat violate the POTW's NPDES permit) or cause "interference" (i.e., inhibit or disrupt thePOTW, or its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use, or disposal, therebycausing a violation of the NPDES permit). These standards also prohibit the following fromentering a POTW:

• Pollutants that create a fire or explosion hazard including, but not limited to, waste streamswith a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140°F or 60°C using the test methods specified in40 CFR 261.21

• Pollutants that will cause corrosive structural damage

• Solid or viscous pollutants that will obstruct flow, that are discharged at a flow rate and/orconcentration that will cause interference, and/or that will harm sanitation workers

• Heat that will inhibit biological activity

• Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts thatwill cause interference or pass through

• Pollutants that will result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in

a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems

• Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW

These regulations would be applicable if treated wastewater from the site is discharged to thelocal POTW.

AMI2/3WS 5:05pn 4'13

These regulations would be applicable if treated wastewater from the site is discharged to thelocal POTW.

Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR 141 and 143)

The Safe Drinking Water Act establishes primary drinking water quality standards to protecthuman health and secondary water quality standards to ensure the aesthetic quality of drinkingwater. These standards are referred to as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). For water thatis to be used for drinking, the MCLs are generally ARARs. MCLs are applicable where thewater will be provided directly to 25 or more people or will be supplied to 15 or more serviceconnections. If MCLs are applicable, they are applied at the tap. In addition, MCLs arerelevant and appropriate as in situ cleanup standards where either surface water or groundwater isor may be used for drinking water.

If the treated wastewater from the site is discharged to Fields Brook or the Ashtabula River andeither of those bodies of water is used for drinking water, MCLs will be considered relevant andappropriate for site remediation.

Ohio NPDES Program [Ohio Administrative Code (OAQ 3745-33-01]

These rules regulate point-source discharges to state waters. These discharges must comply withapplicable water quality standards and applicable effluent limitations (i.e., national effluentlimitations, national standards for new sources, and national toxic and pretreatment effluentlimitations).

Ohio Water Quality Standards [Ohio Regulatory Code (ORQ Chapter 3745-1]

These regulations define ambient surface water quality criteria. Fields Brook must meet thenarrative and numerical water quality standards. Fields Brook is designated as a limitedwarm-water aquatic habitat, agricultural and industrial water supply, and primary contact for

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 4- 1 4

recreation (3654-1-14). Warm-water criteria are used for limited warm-water streams.However, individual criteria for limited warm-water streams may vary and may supersede thecriteria for warm-water habitat.

These regulations will be applicable if wastewater from the site is discharged to Fields Brook.

Ohio Drinking Water Regulations (OAC Title 3745, Chapters 81 and 82)

The Ohio primary and secondary drinking water standards are the same as the national drinkingwater standards, except that the pH is set at 7.0 to 10.5.

If the treated wastewater from the site is discharged to Fields Brook or the Ashtabula River andeither of those bodies of water is used for drinking water, the Ohio primary or secondarydrinking water standards will be considered relevant and appropriate for site remediation.

Ohio Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (OAC Title 3745, Chapter 52)

These regulations specify standards for owners/operators of facilities where hazardous waste isgenerated. These requirements include standards for the storage of hazardous waste, the need tomanifest waste shipped offsite, and pretransport requirements.

Ohio Hazardous Waste Management (OAC Title 3745, Chapter 55)

These regulations regulate the treatment and storage of hazardous waste. If hazardous waste isstored onsite, it must be stored in compliance with the regulations for containers, tanks, surfaceimpoundments, or waste piles. These regulations also specify the design and operating standardsthat must be met for the treatment of hazardous waste.

A9112/20/95 3:10pm 4-15

RCHA Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (40 CFR 262)

These regulations stipulate requirements for owners/operators who generate hazardous waste.Requirements include procedures for identifying/classifying hazardous waste, design andoperating standards for the storage of hazardous waste, and manifest procedures for offsiteshipment of waste.

RCRA Storage Requirements (40 CFR 264)

These regulations define the design and operating standards for units that are used to store ortreat hazardous waste. If hazardous wastes are to be stored onsite, the storage area must complywith the regulations for containers (Subpart I) or tanks (Subpart J). Design and operatingstandards for treatment of hazardous waste in a unit are as follows: tanks (40 CFR 264.190-192), surface impoundments (40 CFR 264.221), incinerators (40 CFR 264.343-345), andmiscellaneous units (40 CFR 264.601).

Local and County Regulations

Local and county statutes, regulations, and ordinances are preempted for onsite remedial activitiesconducted in accordance with CERCLA. However, because many of these statutes, regulations,and ordinances reflect sound approaches to technical problems, they will be reviewed and, to theextent reasonable and consistent with the requirements of CERCLA and the ROD, they will beaddressed in the design. The design will meet the substantive requirements of the regulations andwill comply with all local and county statutes, regulations, and ordinances for offsite remedialactivities.

A9112/20/«3:10pm 4-16

4.2.2 Permit Strategy

No permits have been identified as being mandatory for the actions associated with sediment

excavation and dewatering. Because the Fields Brook SOU is a National Priorities List site beingremediated under a Unilateral Administrative Order (EPA 1989b), potentially applicable permits,such as Corps of Engineers Section 404 (dredge and fill) permits, are not required. EPA hasfurther indicated that permits will not be required for onsite activities; however, EPA does expectthe remedial design to essentially meet the requirements of current environmental regulations tobe protective.

4.2.3 Performance Criteria

Specific performance criteria for the following activities will be provided as pan of the remedialdesign:

• Excavation- Excavation sequence will be from upstream to downstream.- Sediment for each treatment type will be excavated to the predetermined lines and grades.- VOC emissions will be controlled in accordance with Section 9.- Transportation will be confined to the predetermined routes.

• Water diversion and controls- The section of the brook being excavated will be isolated,- Normal flow will be controlled.- Controls will be provided for a 1-year, 6-hour storm event.

• Dewatering- Free water will be removed from the sediments within the excavation area.- Sediments will be dewatered at the CRF as required for the treatment process.- Water collected at the CRF will be treated and discharged to the brook.

A91!2/20/95 3:10pm 4-17

• Transportation and material handling- Material will be transported from the brook to the CRF.- Material for each treatment type will be kept separated.- Air emissions will be controlled during transportation and material handling.- Controls will be provided to prevent water from leaking from trucks used to haul the

sediments.

• Brook and site restoration- Restoration will include final grading and preparation of areas to be re vegetated.- Disturbed areas will be revegetated to establish suitable cover and promote diverse wildlife

habitat.- Wetland areas will be reestablished.- Erosion protection will be provided for floodplain areas.- Scour protection (in-channel mitigative measures) will be provided.- Haul roads and similar facilities will be maintained.- Only specified haul roads will be removed.

4.3 CONTINGENT DESIGN

No contingent design processes were identified to replace sediment excavation and dewatering.

4.3.1 Description of Design

Although other contingent design processes differ from the processes specified in the ROD, allexcavation and dewatering processes specified in the ROD and presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2are applicable to the contingent design.

A9112/20/93 3:10pm 4*18

4.3.2 Design Criteria

The performance criteria defined in Section 4.2.3 will be used during excavation, waterdiversion, dewatering, transportation and material handling, and brook and site restorationactivities.

A911WOWS 3:10pm 4- 1 9

FIGURES AND TABLES FOR SECTION 4

A9U in2/2V95 3:10p« 4-20

DRY

IN STREAMBED

BACKHOE

EXCAVATOR

—— LOADER(TRACKED)

LOADER(RUBBER TIRE)

EXCAVATION METHOD

WETi —— —— i ,

ON BANK DREDGING SOLIDS RESUSPENSION

BACKHOE MECHANICAL VACUUM TRUCK

EXCAVATOR ' —— HYDRAULIC ' —— HYDRAULIC MININGWITH SLURRY PUMPS

ORADALL

Figure 4-1Potential Excavation Methods

A9112/20/95 4:36pm

FLOW CONTROL METHOD

BASEFLOW & LIMITEDPRECIPITATION EVENTS

PUMPED DIVERSION

COFFERDAMS

PORTABLE LIFTPUMPS

STORM EVENTS

IMPLEMENTCONTINGENCYPLAN

ISOLATION OFCONTAMINATED AREAS

SANDBAGS

SILTCURTAINS

SHEET PILES

ALTERNATE CHANNEL

CHANNELEXCAVATION

STREAMBEDRECONSTRUCTION

Figure 4-2Potential Flow Control Methods

A9112/20/95 4:36pm

Table 4-1Physical Descriptions of Exposure Units and Reaches*

Exposure Stream Exposure1* Reach Channel Channelunit reach class length type width X depth

(ft) (ft)(«vg.)

EU1 ) R 1,966 Straight, 22.5 X 1.0*swift moving

EU2 2-1 R 2,352 Slightly meandering, 20 x 1.2one short braidedsection, swift current

EU2 2-2 R 508 Straight downstream. 28x1 .4braided upstream, swiftcurrent

EU3 3 R 2.241 Meandering 23.7 x 1.2

EU4 4 R 1.633 Slightly meandering 16.9 x 1.6

EU6 ' 5-1 R 621 Meandering 14.9 x 1.3downstream, braidedupstream

EU6 52 R 901 Braided 24.6 x 0.9

EU7 11 -A O 500 Ponded diuS, slow 5.3 x 0.7flow

EU8 6 0 1,124 Slightly meandering to 17.1 X 1.2braided

Channel Bankbase description

Much bedrock, 5 to 25 ft high, steep, someloose shale exposed bedrock.

Much bedrock Higher in upper end.Mostly flat or gentlysloping. One steep,exposed bedrock sectionnear lower end.

Bedrock in some Gently sloping at lower endsections to steep at upper. Mostly

steep on south bank.

Much bedrock Gentle slopes in outsidebends.

Little bedrock Steep 1- to 3-ft banks,some undercutting.

Soil Steep 1- to 3-ft banks,some undercutting-

Soil 1- to 2-ft banks.

Firm sill, soil Gently sloping.

Soil Deep undercut banks.

Sedimentlocation

Along banks. Bedrock andboulders in some sections.Sediments near bottom -gravel and clay.

Bottom clays in lower end.Along banks, eddy pools,sandbars in upper end.

Sandbars throughout.

Both banks along insidebends. Eddy pools.

Along banks, channelbottom, downstream ofnatural debris.

Throughout channel, alongbanks, sandbar.

Throughout channel.

Throughout channel becauseof slow flow.

Throughout channel.

Sediment Estimated'type sediment volume

(yd*)Gray coarse gravel, brownclay, some bedrock andboulders.

Gray silty clay, brown coarsematerial, many sandbars,some shale bedrock andfragments.

Coarse material and sandbars,gray silt in deposition areas,some bedrock.

Oray clayey silt and silty clayin deposition areas withthinning to shale bedrock inplaces.

Gray silty clay with smallamounts of gray coarsematerial.

Gray/brown silty clay withsome coarse material .

Soft gray /brown silty clay.

Light brown-dark gray clayand brown silty clay.

Gray clayey silt and coarsematerial including gravel.

S64

2,630

844

435

676

286

1.223

585

438

'Except as noted, all dnln arc token from the Phase 1 SQDI report (WCC 1992).hR - rcsidenlinlO - occupational

'Preliminary dntn from draft Phase II SQDI report (WCC 1994a).dThe chnnnel widens significantly 100 ft from its confluence with the Ashtabula River.

WOW 3:10pm

4-23

Table 4-2Hydrologic Characteristics of Exposure Units and Reaches"

Exposureunit

EU1

EU2

EU2

EU3

EU4

EU6

EU6

EU7

EU8

Streamreach

1

2-1

2-2

3

4

5-1

5-2

11-4

6

Reachlength

(ft)

1,966

2,352

508

2,241

1.633

621

901

500

1,124

Hydraulicgradient

0.0103

0.0103

0.0103

0.0103

0.0261

0.0261

0.0261

Unknown

0.0120

Average1

bascflow(cfs)

22

21

21

20

12

8

8

Unknown

4

Estimated norm flow*

2-yr, 24-hr* 100-yr, 24-hr(cfs) » (cfi)

987

935

939

928

932

742

673

Unknown

577

Floodplainarea

75 to 100 ft wide near 15th and 16th Streetbridges, narrow in low end of reach. Garbage/debris in upper end. Approximately 50-ftmaximum relief.

Wide noodplains (75 to 100 ft) on both sidesthroughout reach. Approximately 40-ftmaximum relief.

Floodplain on north side. Wide floodplains(74 to 100 ft) on both tides near ColumbusStreet. Approximately 40-ft maximum relief.

Present throughout, wider on north itde.

Present throughout, both tides.

Present throughout, both sides.

Present throughout, both sides, low relief.

None.

Present throughout, low relief.

'Except as noted, all data are taken from the Phase I SQDI report (WCC 1992).

""Flow rate estimated at outlet of the reach.

'From Ihe SQDI field sampling plan (WCC 1994g).

dData to be provided by WCC.

4-24

Table 4-3Descriptions or Areas Adjoining Exposure Units and Reaches*

Exposure Stream"nil reach Accessibility

EU1 1 Limited, via Conrailiwiichysrd

EU2 2-1 Goodsccess to lower half offE. I7ih St., poor access loupper half

EU2 2-2 Good access off ColumbusAve.

EU3 3 Poor, may require ±600-ftextension of E. 19th Si.

EU4 4 Probable access from SCMpropeny lo the north

EUn VI Fair access from State Rd,,requires long haul roadextension

EU6 5-2 Good access from Stale Rd.

EU7 11-4 Easy access from CEI Co.power line right-of-way

EU8 6 Good access from Del rexproperty (north) or fromStale Rd.

Flood plains

Potentially at mouth andbetween ISlh and 16lh Si.bridges

Locaied on both sidesthroughout most of reach

Potential floodplain on northside of bank

Present throughout, mostly onnorth side of channel

Present throughout reach



No flood pis ins


Vegetal ion

Thick brush

Mixed grasses, brush, andlowland trees

Mixed grasses, brush, andhardwoods

Oak, elm, brush, vines

Mixed brush andhardwood, lowland habitat

Mixed brush, grass, andtrees

Lowland grasses, bru*h.K altered trees

Nonwoody reeds, smalltrees

Grasses at lower end,hardwoods at upper end,some wetland species

Comments

Excavation from railroadirack is probable

Hillsides are denselyvegetated

Hillsides are sleep andheavily vegetated

Culverts under roads atboth ends of reach

Beaver dam has impoundedwater near reach outlet(Dam reportedly washedout in spring 1994)

Small tributary enters aistatt of reach

Deposit ions 1 area, soilsmay be very soft

Reach has no confirmeddrainage outlet

SCMTiCL. Plant, settlingponds south of reach

Land use

Residential and Conrailproperties, linle maintenance ofbank areas, private marina atmouth

Residential properties, littlemaintenance of bank art**

Residential properties, littlemaintenance of bank areas

Residential properties, onecleared and moved tract,otherwise similar lo reaches2-1, 2-2

Slate Hwy 11 right-of-way, RMIextrusion to south, SCM tonorth

Industrial park area. RMIextrusion lo south. SCM i<>north

Industrial park area, RMIextrusion to south, SCM tonorth

Railroad right-of-way, industrialpark area, overhead power lines,Elkem Metals propeny

Industrial park area, SCM TiCl,Plain lo south, Dctrex Corp. 10north

TAPsiting

Two temporary facility sites andone alternate site, new accessramp off E. ISlh St., sites onConrail property.

One temporary facility site nearaccess road extension off E. 17thSt., siles on west or south bankon private property.

One temporary facility site onsouth bank, new ramp and accessroad . Due west of ColumbusAve., site on private property.

One temporary facility she onnorth bank, long access roadextension to southeast off E. 19thSt., sites on private properly.

Will share temporary facility sitewith reach 5*1, probably accessfrom SCM property lo north andfrom reach V 1

n»rth hint "1 r»», h <•> *X M

n.ens.onln.mrt.vh S !

Will use temporary facility tilenorth of reach 5- 1 , access to wealoff Stale Rd., SCM property tonorth, RMI extrusion lo soulh.

No temporary facility sitesproposed, access via CEI Co.power line righl-of-wsy.

One temporary facility site northof reach, access via haul road onDetrex property to north.

Constructionimpacts

Will tie up Conrail 's easternmostrail spur, will upgradeunimproved portions ofE. ISlh St. as required.

No special impacts for this longreach through residential areas.Typical impacts from streamdiversion, road construction,TAFs, etc.

Same as reach 2-1.

Long access road extensionthrough residential area, proposedsteam channel relocation entirelength of reach.

Will result in complete removal ofbeaver dam and draining ofimpounded wstrr . pnifHtaed

*•"* " '*" '

Encivaiion f tw> «. .' • - • • • rmarshy area with weiliml h*i..i«proposed short stream channelrelocation.

No major impacts on this shortreach of water impounded in adrainage swale .

Excavation to occur in soft,marsh-like area, may have soilstability problems, proposedstream channel relocation.

•All dnin ute from the Phanc I SQDl report (WCC 1992) or from review of Fields Brook reconnaissance video tapes.

AOll2ITttm 3: 10pm

4-25

Table 4-4Summary of Water Control, Excavation, and Dewatenng Methods

Exposureunit

EU1

EU2

EU2

EU3

EU4

EU6

EU6

EU7

EU8

Reach

1

2-1

2-2

3

4

5-1

5-2

11-4

6

Water control

Sandbags parallel to banks

Earth dam/sand bagsparallel to banks



Diversion channel

Diversion channel

Diversion channel

Earth and dam

Diversion channel

Excavation

Excavator/located on bank

Excavator/vacuum truck



Excavator

Excavator

Excavator

Excavator

Excavator

Dewatering

Pumping of sandbagged areas only

Pumping around diversion channel

Pump around diversion channel

Pump around diversion channel

Diversion channel

Diversion channel

Diversion channel

Pump around

Diversion channel

A9U2/3V95 6:15pm

Table 4-5Contingency Plan for Sediment Excavation and Dewatering

System/Component Failure/Emergency Response Action

Temporary check dams

Water pumping system

Water diversion barriers

Excavating equipment

Erosion or washout of dam

Excessive amount of seepagethrough dam

Pump intake lines clogged

Pump failure

Break or failure of pumpdischarge line

Inadequate pumping capacityto divert streamflow aroundexcavation area

Fuel leak or spill from pumpunit

Excessive noise from pumps inresidential areas

Fire in pumping system

Sandbag failure

Sediment too wet for "dry11

excavation

Repair minor erosion damage byreplacement with clean fill. If checkdam is structurally unstable, removethe dam and rebuild. Erosion-proneareas may require riprap or othersurface protection.

Evaluate/estimate rate of seepage andprobable flow path. Determinewhether dam is structurally adequate.If structurally sound, drain seepageinto a small sump and pump out. Ifnot, remove check dam andreconstruct.

Inspect and clean pump strainers;drain and flush suction line. Enlargepump intake sump and add baffles ifrequired. Modify strainers ifrequired.

Check pump driver (engine ormotor), check rotation on pumpshaft, check pump start/stop controls.Repair if possible without disruptingexcavation; otherwise, replace pumpwith backup unit.

Replace pump with backup line.

Add an additional pump.

Clean up the spill and send the fuelto Iand611.

Pump around residential areas.

Extinguish fire.

Replace sandbags.

Continue to dewater or addadsorbent.

Equipment stuck in streambed Winch the equipment.

A9112/2OT5 4-27

Table 4-5(continued)


Excavating equipment(continued)

Dewatering operations

Fields Brook watershed

Selected equipment causingoverexcavation

Excavation damages temporarydam or other water diversionbarrier

Fuel oil or hydraulic fluid leakor spill from excavatingequipment

Fire on excavating equipment

Mechanical breakdown

Excessive precipitation andrun-on into working area

Sediment sloughs off bankwhen it is placed there forgravity drainage

Spillage in transport ofsediment to drainage bed

Damage to drainage bedduring loading or unloadingoperations

Excessive precipitation ontodrainage beds

Freezing of drainage bed filtermedia

Excessive fugitive emissionsfrom absorbent mixingequipment

Storm events, excessive peakflows, flooding conditions

Excavation into highconcentrations of hazardouschemicals, although notanticipated

High localized groundwaterrecharge zones

Elevate.

Repair barriers.

Contain and clean up spill.

Extinguish fire.

Repair or replace equipment.

Delay operation.

Re-excavate and place materialfurther from bank.

Stop excavation and transport andreview the procedure to prevent anyspillage.

Repair and restore.

Delay operation and cover with tarp.

Delay operation until the weatherconditions improve.

Review procedures.

Delay operations.

Stop operation and evaluateconditions in accordance with thesafety and health plan.

Pump the water around theexcavation.

A9114-28

5.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR WATER TREATMENT

Water treatment will be performed to support dewatering and process activities for the SOUremedial action. This section describes the selected processes for water treatment and discussesthe design criteria for that portion of the remedy.

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDY

This section addresses the engineering studies, mass balance and flow diagrams, major processesand equipment, contingency plan, and operation and maintenance plan for the water treatmentfacility. The facility will be located in the area of the thermal treatment, solidification, andlandfill facilities and will treat the wastewaler generated during the treatment of sediments andstormwater runoff. The water treatment facility will be designed to control and treat the waterfrom a 2-year, 24-hour storm event. No water treatment equipment will be at the excavation siteitself. Stream water and stormwater will be diverted around the work area.

5.1.1 ENGINEERING STUDIES

This section discusses the engineering studies completed to provide data for the conceptual designof the sediment dewatering and water treatment facility. The design investigations and conceptualdesign were directed toward meeting the following operating and performance requirements:

• Adequately dewatering the sediment to meet the feed requirements of the solidificationand thermal treatment facilities

• Treating the wastewater associated with the dewatering process, decontaminationactivities, and process operations

• Treating stormwater runoff and groundwater seepage

A9112/20/95 6:13pm

To meet these objectives, the following engineering studies were completed during the designinvestigation:

• Evaluation of effluent disposal alternatives• Characterization of waste streams• Evaluation of dewaterability• Determination of wastewater treatment technologies• Evaluation of wastewater treatability

Evaluation of Effluent Disposal Alternatives

Three alternatives are available for disposal of effluent from the wastewater treatment facility:discharge to Fields Brook, discharge to the local POTW, and reuse as process water.

Discharging the effluent to Fields Brook will require a treatment facility to remove contaminantsso that the effluent will meet the negotiated discharge criteria. This option is the most feasiblealternative for the Fields Brook cleanup because no pumping substations will be required and theflow will not be restricted to meet local POTW requirements.

Discharge to the local POTW was considered and rejected as a viable alternative because of thepumping distances and the potential of exceeding the capacity of the POTW.

Reuse of the treated wastewater is a viable alternative, but the makeup demands of thesolidification system are not great enough to use all of the effluent. Treated effluent will be usedwhere possible, for decontamination and solidification operations. Any excess treated water willbe discharged to Fields Brook.

*• -»2/20/95 6:15pm 5~2

Characterization of Waste Streams

The purpose of the waste stream characterization was to evaluate the chemical properties ofpotential aqueous waste streams requiring treatment and/or disposal (i.e., free liquids; surfacewater, precipitation, and stormwater; groundwater inflows; and other aqueous streams). The datacollection and characterization efforts focused on obtaining information sufficient to:

• Obtain and/or generate representative samples of aqueous waste streams

• Select analytical parameters that would provide data to support the design of the watertreatment system and the selection of appropriate methods for materials handling andexcavation

• Establish treatment goals and system performance requirements based on selected dischargeoptions

Results from the waste stream characterization were used to supplement the design of otherremedial actions including sediment excavation, material handling processes, thermal andsolidification systems, and transport/conveying systems.

Characterization data for free liquids are contained in Tables 3-1A through 3-6A of the SDWTDI(WCC 1995b) for the following chemical groupings: PCBs and pesticides, VOCs, base/neutraland acid extractable compounds (SVOCs), total and dissolved metals, and conventionalparameters.

During site preparation before the sediment excavation process, surface waters will collect withinthe active work areas. A large portion of the flow will be diverted or otherwise allowed to flowout of the work sites. Some pooled water will collect in low spots within the active work areas,requiring treatment; the quantity of this water is estimated to be approximately 0.1 percent of thetotal baseline flow, or 1 gpm. Current estimates of the average baseline flow in the main channel

A911

are 15 cfs or 6,735 gpm, which will be diverted arouno the excavation area. The estimate ofsurface water requiring treatment is approximately 1 gpm. The actual seepage may varydepending on the quality of the constructed diversion structures.

Surface water was characterized as part of the design investigation, and analytical results arecontained in Tables 3-1B through 3-6B of the SDWTDI. Precipitation and stormwater were notcharacterized as part of the design investigation, but any precipitation and stormwater that contactopen excavations will be collected and treated as necessary. Using an excavation width of 25 ftand length of 100 ft, the surface area that will be exposed to precipitation was calculated to beapproximately 2,500 ft2. Using the Rainfall Frequency Adas of the United States(Hershfield 1961), a 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event generating 2.25 in. of precipitation was usedto calculate the amount of rainfall that will collect in the open excavations along the section ofwaterways that stretch from reach 1 to reach 8-4. Results of the calculation total approximately470 ft3 or 3,500 gpd of water. Assuming that the site will be dewatered in a 12-hour period, theflow rate to the wastewater treatment system will be approximately 5 gpm.

Using the method advanced by Morel-Seytoux and Zhang (1990), the groundwater inflow into anopen excavation during remedial activities was estimated. The method assumes that an aquifer ispartially penetrated during excavation and that both vertical and horizontal migration ofgroundwater occurs into the open excavation. A typical excavation was given the followingdimensions: a width of 25 ft centered along the streambed, a depth of 3 ft, and a length of100 ft parallel to the streambed. Using a typical excavation and the hydraulic properties of theindividual reaches, the groundwater discharge into the excavation was estimated. The averageflow into an open excavation is estimated to be 0.36 gpm.

Characterization data for groundwater are presented in Tables 3-1C through 3-6C of theSDWTDI for the following chemical groupings: PCBs and pesticides, VOCs, base/neutral andacid extractable compounds (SVOCs), total and dissolved metals, and conventional parameters.

A91I2/20/93 fi:I3pm 5-4

Using gravity drainage as the basic method for removal of excess moisture from the excavatedmaterials, the results from the gravity drainage dewatering test will be used to estimate thequantity of filtrate/decant water recovered during remedial activities. The quantity of filtrategenerated during the gravity drainage tests ranged from 0.19 to 0.97 gal, depending on thespecific reach and quantity of sediment collected from each location. A ratio of filtrate collectedper sample weight of wet sediment was calculated for each reach. The filtrate specific gravitywas assumed to be 1 (water) at 25 °C. The average ratio for all gravity drainage tests wascalculated and found to be 4.53 x 10'1 gal of filtrate per gallon of wet sediment.

Characterization of the filtrate/decant water was limited to performance of total solids testing ofthe resulting effluent. Results for the effluent from each of the reaches indicate total solidsconcentrations of less than 1 percent.

Other aqueous waste streams that may be encountered during the onsite remedial activitiesinclude decontamination and wash waters. The quantity and quality of these waters generateddepend on the types of heavy equipment used, the number of pieces of equipment employed, thefrequency of decontamination, and the staging, mobilization, and demobilization of theequipment. The quantity of these waters can be estimated after more detailed material handlingand excavation plans have been developed.

Evaluation of Dewaterability

The results of the dewaterability evaluations for each of the test procedures are as follows.

Gravity drainage tests. Gravity drainage tests were performed on sediment samples from eachreach sampled; Table 4-2 of the SDWTDI provides the results. The final solids content of thedewatered materials from the gravity drainage tests ranged from 34.7 percent for reach 6, crosssection 1, to 62.0 percent for reach 2-2, cross section 3. The sediments in reach 2-2, crosssection 3, are gravelly sands and more readily facilitate the drainage of water. The sediments inreach 6, cross section 1, are silty, have a high fines content, and are less likely to allow free

AMI2/3V9S 6:15pm 5~5

drainage of water. The overall reduction in the moisture content of the sediment ranged from 10to 56 percent.

Capillary suction time tests. The capillary suction time tests were performed on sedimentscollected from each sampling location; results are presented in Table 4-3 of the SDWTDI. Thecapillary suction times ranged from 197 seconds for reach 5-1, cross section 2, to 1,210 secondsfor reach 11-4, cross section 2. Decreasing capillary suction times indicate that sediments aremore easily dewatered via capillary suction.

Buchner funnel tests. The Buchner funnel tests were performed on sediment samples both with

and without the addition of conditioning agents; results are provided in Table 4-4 of theSDWTDI. The highest reduction in moisture content, 22 percent, was achieved with the additionof ferric chloride. The lowest reduction in the sediment moisture content occurred with theaddition of diatomaceous earth. Moisture content reductions without the addition of conditionerranged from 8 to 19 percent. These results indicate that there was no significant advantage fromusing conditioning agents to reduce sediment moisture content.

Filter leaf tests. Filter leaf testing was conducted on sediment collected from each of the sixreaches; results are presented in Table 4-5 of the SDWTDI. The moisture reductions in thesediment materials in each test ranged from 1 to 5 percent.

Filter press tests. The filter press tests were performed both with and without the addition ofconditioning agents; results are listed in Table 4-6 of the SDWTDI. A 17 percent reduction inthe sediment moisture content was achieved in the treatabiliry sample without the addition ofconditioners. Treatability samples with added conditioners demonstrated reductions in moisturecontent in the range of 13 to 19 percent. The highest moisture reduction of 23 percent wasachieved with the addition of ferric chloride at 4.0 percent by weight.

Conclusions. For effectively dewatering sediments during excavation, staging, transportation,and storage, several techniques were investigated, and tests were performed to evaluate the

A9112/3V95 6:15pm 5'6

behavior of site sediments. Several of these test methods resulted in the effective removal andrecovery of free liquids from the sediments.

For the treatment and removal of free liquids, both assisted and unassisted methods of dewateringwere effective for the sediment materials collected during the field activities. Gravity drainagetests were able to achieve dewatered materials with solids contents from 34.7 to 62.0 percent.Results from the Buchner funnel tests resulted in filter cakes of solids contents that ranged from56.7 to 81.5 percent for unconditioned material and from 56.8 to 82.4 percent for conditionedmaterial.

Evaluation of Wastewater Treatability

The results of the wastewater treatability evaluation are presented below for each test procedure.

Metals precipitation tests. The metals precipitation tests were conducted in five phases:(1) preliminary testing, (2) reagent screening, (3) reagent optimization, (4) conformationaltesting, and (5) sludge analysis. Each phase was designed to build on information and data fromprevious phases to optimize performance of subsequent tests.

During the preliminary testing, titration curves were generated for several titrating solutions.The titration curves for the 1 percent by weight lime solution and 1 N sodium hydroxide solutionshowed distinctive deflection points at pHs of approximately 11 to 12 for both solutions. Thesedeflection points indicate that continued addition of the titrating solutions above the pH of 11 to12 results in only slight effects in the overall solution pH. The titration curve for the 0.1 Nsodium hydroxide solution showed a more linear response to the continued addition of titratingsolution over a pH range of approximately 7 to 10. Preliminary test results indicate that theaddition of titrating solutions above approximately 12 will have little effect on the alkalinity ofthe treatability samples. The titration curve for the sodium hydroxide solution had a steeperascent to the point of deflection using approximately 5 mL to reach the point, while the limesolution required approximately 20 mL to reach the deflection point.

A9n2/30/99 6:15pm

The reagent screening showed both the caustic and lime titrating solutions to be equally effectivein removing metals at pHs above 10. Additional significant reductions in the concentrations ofaluminum, magnesium, manganese, and iron were accomplished at an approximate pH of 12 forboth solutions. Effluent metals were analyzed with the caustic and lime solutions, and theconcentrations were found to be at or below the estimated discharge limits provided in Table 6-1of the SDWTDI. The solution of sodium sulfide was less effective than either caustic or lime formetals removal. Likewise, the use of the caustic and polymer TMT-15 solution was no moreeffective for the removal of metals than the caustic solution by itself. The use of TMT-15 waseliminated from further consideration.

Reagent optimization was used to evaluate metals removal over time. Caustic, lime, and sodiumsulfide were demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of metals to levels below estimateddischarge limits. In each test, the metal concentrations in the supernatant did not changeappreciably after 10 minutes of settling. The caustic test sample showed a slightly improvedmetals treatment over the other samples, and the resulting supernatant was lower in turbidity andtotal suspended solids.

Conformational testing of the additional treatability samples TS-01, TS-03, TS-04, TS-05, andTS-06 was performed using the selected titrating solutions at the determined dosages. Resultsindicate that treatment with the caustic and lime solutions to a pH of approximately 10 was

effective in reducing metal concentrations to levels below the estimated discharge limits. Resultsof the conformational sampling are provided in Tables 5-8A and 5-8B of the SDWTDI forsolutions of caustic and lime, respectively. Sludge generation for the two titrating solutions issummarized in Table 5-8C of the SDWTDI.

During the sludge analysis, a large volume of the treatability sample TS-02 was treated withcaustic to a pH of 10 to produce a volume of sludge for sampling. Testing of the sludgeindicated that the dewatered sludge material passed the regulatory limits for the toxicitycharacteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) for metals and organics. Results are presented in Table6-3 of the SDWTDI.

A9112/20*5 frlJpa 5-8

Suspended solids tests. The suspended solids tests were conducted in three phases: (1) polymerscreening, (2) polymer testing, and (3) final testing. Each phase was designed to build off ofinformation and data from previous phases to optimize performance of subsequent tests.

During the suspended solids testing, nine polymers were added to the treatabiiity solutions andobserved for sludge volume and turbidity of supernatant. Polymer additions demonstrating lowsludge volume generation and low supernatant turbidity were considered desirable and were usedin subsequent tests. The four polymers that performed the best were Entec 616, Entec 962,Entec 963, and Entec 625.

Polymer testing was used to evaluate the polymer performance at several different dosages.Performance was evaluated by measuring the turbidity of the supernatant. Four polymer dosageswere found to result in the generation of supernatant with turbidity measurements at or below 110nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). These polymer/dosage combinations were Entec 616 at5.0 ppm, Entec 962 at 0.5 ppm, Entec 963 at 0.5 ppm, and Entec 625 at 0.5 ppm.

The final testing was performed using the treatabiiity sample TS-02 at the selectedpolymer/dosage combinations. The resulting sludges and supernatant were tested and evaluatedfor their chemical and physical properties; results are provided in Table 5-9 of the SDWTDI. Ineach of the four samples, the metals removal was found to be equally effective. Likewise, theorganic concentrations of the four samples were reduced during the final testing. Solids settledwithin the first 5 minutes of settling, except with the polymer Entec 625.

Settling velocity tests. The settling velocity tests were performed in conjunction with the metalsprecipitation tests. The optimum dosage and titrating solution developed during the metalsprecipitation testing, caustic soda to a pH of 10, were used to treat the treatabiiity sample TS-02The settling of the supernatant was observed over time. Results indicate that approximately88 percent of the solids settled within the first 4 minutes.

A9112/3CV93 6:1>B 5~9

Granular activated carbon tests. The granular activated carbon test (ACT) for the treatabilitysample TS-01 was operated for 36.6 simulated days and treated a simulated volume ofwastewater, 1,320 thousand gallons, at a rate of 25 gpm before breakthrough of both vinylchloride and methylene chloride in the Model 7.5 test absorber equipped with 3,000 Ib of servicecarbon. At the time of breakthrough, the carbon utilization rate was estimated at 2.3 Ib ofcarbon per 1,000 gallons of wastewater. Additional constituents of concern demonstratedbreakthrough concentrations from the test column before the test period was completed. Thesecompounds included cis- and trans-l,2-dichloroethylene at 45.5 simulated days and 1,639thousand gallons of wastewater treated. The corresponding carbon utilization rate at the time ofbreakthrough for the cis- and trans-l,2-dichloroethylene was determined to be 1.83 Ib of carbonper 1,000 gallons of water treated. The initial testing and analysis of the column effluentsresulted in higher than normal concentrations of both tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene, 9and 8 ppb, respectively. This anomaly is thought to be the result of column contamination or ananalytical aberration. At the termination of the testing period, 1,1,2-trichloroethane and1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane had not demonstrated breakthrough concentrations in the columneffluent from the test. The ACT results for treatability sample TS-01 are contained in Table 5-10of the SDWTDL

The ACT for treatability sample TS-03 was operated for 89.69 simulated days and treated asimulated volume of wastewater, 3,232 thousand gallons, at a rate of 25 gpm in the Model 7.5test absorber equipped with 2,000 Ib of service carbon. Breakthrough occurred almostimmediately for cis-l,2-dichloroethene; trichloroethene; tetrachloroethene; and1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene at 1.71 days of operation following treatment of approximately61.6 thousand simulated gallons of wastewater. At the time of breakthrough, the carbonutilization rate was estimated at 32.5 Ib of carbon per 1,000 gallons of wastewater. The ACTresults for TS-03 are in Table 5-11 of the SDWTDL

The ACT for treatability sample TS-04 was operated for 99.3 simulated days and treated asimulated volume of wastewater, 3,578 thousand gallons, at a rate of 25 gpm in the Model 7.5test absorber equipped with 3,000 Ib of service carbon. Breakthrough occurred immediately for

A9112/20/95 6:15pm 5-10

trichloroethene; tetrachloroethene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachIoroethane at 1.2days of operation following treatment of approximately 43.5 thousand simulated gallons ofwastewater. At the time of breakthrough, the carbon utilization rate was estimated at 68.9 Ib ofcarbon per 1,000 gallons of wastewater. The ACT results for TS-04 are in Table 5-12 of theSDWTDI.

The ACT for treatability sample TS-05 was operated for 21.6 simulated days and treated asimulated volume of wastewater, 779.3 thousand gallons, at a rate of 25 gpm beforebreakthrough of methylene chloride in the Model 7.5 test absorber equipped with 3,000 Ib ofservice carbon. At the time of breakthrough, the carbon utilization rate was estimated ai 3.8 Ibof carbon per 1,000 gallons of wastewater. At the termination of the testing period, no othermonitored constituents of concern demonstrated breakthrough concentrations from the testcolumn. The ACT results for TS-06 are in Table 5-14 of the SDWTDI.

Compounds evaluated in the ACTs represent VOCs found in detectable concentrations in thetreatability samples. Among these chemical constituents of concern, vinyl chloride andmethylene chloride were most likely to break through the test column in detectable concentrationsbecause of their low molecular weight and other properties. Initial breakthrough occurred forthe chemicals of concern including trichloroethene; tetrachloroethene; 1,1,2-trichloroethane;cis-l,2-dichloroethene; and 1,1,2,2-tetrachIoroethane at least once in treatability sample TS-01,TS-03, or TS-04. For treatability samples TS-05 and TS-06, vinyl chloride and methylenechloride were first to experience breakthrough concentrations from the test columns. Theseresults (confirmed in analytical sampling performed independently by Kiber) are in Tables 5-15through 5-19 of the SDWTDI.

Conclusions. For the treatment and removal of metals, chemical precipitation using eithercaustic soda or lime to a pH of 10 was demonstrated to be an effective wastewater treatmenttechnology in the treatment of representative aqueous waste streams. In addition, the sludgesgenerated settled almost completely within 10 minutes, with no sludge blanket observed.

A9U2/20/95 6:13pm

Suspended solids removal was effectively accomplished through the addition of polymers. Thetreatability samples were treated with the polymers to suspended solids levels that are within theacceptable estimated discharge limits. Removing metals by adding polymers was found to bealmost equally as effective as the metals removal achieved during the metals precipitation testing.As the results of the suspended solids removal tests demonstrate, solids removal technologies,including a combination of sedimentation and flocculation/coagulation methods, have beeneffective on representative aqueous waste streams.

Settling velocity tests performed on treatability samples indicated that 88 percent of the suspendedsolids were removed within the first 4 minutes and 95 percent of the suspended solids wereremoved within the first 18 minutes of settling.

Granular activated service carbon adsorption was effective in the removal of the selected organiccompounds. The immediate breakthrough of certain organic compounds during testing oftreatability samples TS-03 and TS-04 was possibly caused by the short bed depths associated withthe test columns. This immediate breakthrough can be prevented by using larger carbon beds(i.e., longer bed depths) or by using several carbon beds in series.

5.1.2 Mass Balance and Flow Diagrams

An overall process flow diagram for the water treatment requirements is shown in Figure 2-15.Figure 5-1 presents the flow diagram and mass balance for the dewatering and water treatmentsystems. This option uses a bag filter to remove suspended solids and an activated carbon filterto remove PCBs and organics (the final step). Figure 5-2 presents a flow diagram and massbalance for an optional system that replaces the bag filters with a multimedia filtration unit. Thisunit would require backwashing but would not require frequent bag changeouts. The suspendedsolids load on the activated carbon filter would be reduced using this option.

A9n2/20/W 6:13pm 5*12

5.1.3 Major Processes and Equipment

The chemical data for the waste streams show that no chemicals are present in sufficientquantities to create a serious corrosion concern. Therefore, construction materials will be carbonsteel or the manufacturers* standard for the process units being constructed. A performance-based approach will be used to the maximum extent practical, and technology-specific details willbe left to the remedial action contractor to define or adjust based on field conditions and thespecial knowledge of the contractor. A discussion of each process unit follows.

Collection Basin

The collection basin will be sized to hold the treatment and storage area runoff from a 2-year,24-hour storm event plus 2 days of normal wastewater flow. This basin will be approximately100 ft in diameter with an average depth of 4.5 ft and will hold approximately 250,000 gal. Thebasin will be clay lined to prevent loss of water before treatment.

Process Feed Pumps

Three process feed pumps will be used to pump water from the collection basin to the bag filter.These pumps will be sized for 50 percent capacity to allow continued operation in the event of apump failure. The pumps will be horizontal or vertical, in-line, centrifugal pumps and will havea rated capacity of 50 gpm at 200 ft of head. These pumps will be located on a pad near thebasin.

Bag Filters

Two bag filters in a parallel arrangement will be used to remove suspended solids from thestormwater runoff. Approximately 200,000 gal of stormwater will be processed based on a2-year, 24-hour storm event and a 3-acre site. Assuming suspended solids concentrations of150 ppm for influent and 10 ppm for effluent, approximately 235 Ib of suspended solids will be

A9112TXV95 6:l>n

removed and disposed of in the filter bags. Each filter bag will remove approximately 2 Ib ofsuspended solids greater than 200 mesh and will be rated for 50 gpm. The bags will be changedwhen the pressure drop across the filter is 30 psig. Reduced flow rate will also indicate blindingof the filter.

Multimedia Filter (Optional)

A multimedia filter may be used instead of bag filters. This filter would be sized to remove thesuspended solids and would require backwashing approximately once per 8-hour shift. Thebackwash water would be pumped to a backwash tank where the solids would be allowed tosettle, and the water would be returned to the collection basin for treatment before beingreleased. A multimedia filter for this application would be about 5 ft in diameter by 6 ft straightside height and would use a backwash flow rate of about 300 gpm for 10 minutes.

Carbon Absorbers

Carbon absorbers will be provided to remove trace quantities of organic chemicals from thewastewater stream before it is discharged back into the brook. Two carbon beds operating inseries will be used. The carbon beds will be designed to remove anticipated contaminantconcentrations from an assumed volume of water to estimate an approximate breakthrough time.When breakthrough is detected in the leading carbon bed, the flow will be valved so that thesecond bed becomes the leading bed and the fresh carbon bed is the polishing unit. The bedswill be 5 ft in diameter and 4 ft deep. Fifty percent freeboard will be provided to allowbackwashing of the beds. The backwash water will be sent to a backwash tank where the solidswill be allowed to settle out, and the effluent will be pumped back to the collection basin. Spentcarbon will be regenerated or replaced; it will be sent off site for disposal or regeneration.

13rn 5-14

Backwash Decant Tank

A 4,000-gal backwash decant tank will be provided to receive backwash from the multimediafilter and the activated carbon adsorption unit. The tank will have a conical bottom with a sludgedrawoff at the bottom and decant nozzles on the side. The decant water will flow by gravity tothe collection basin where it will be processed again with other process water. The decant isexpected to have 100 to 150 ppm of suspended solids. The underflow from the backwash tankwill contain most of the solids from the backwash operations. These solids will be pumped to thesolidification system for processing. The solids concentration is expected to be from 8 to 10percent.

Sludge Pump

The underflow from the backwash tank will be pumped to the solidification system with a 1-gpm,positive-displacement pump. For the optional system using multimedia filtration, this operationwould take place an average of once per day and twice per day when the carbon system isbackwashed. Sludge will be manually removed for the system configuration using bag filters andwill not be pumped.

Backwash Storage Tank

A 4,000-gal backwash storage tank will be provided to store treated water for use in backwashingthe activated carbon filter and optional multimedia filter. Treated water from the discharge of theactivated carbon system will be valved to the storage tank until the tank is filled. After it isfilled, the discharge will be valved to discharge the water directly to the brook.

A9112/2*95 6:l>m 5-15

Backwash Pump

It is anticipated that a backwash pump rated for 300 gpm at 40 psig will be provided to backwashthe filters. The pumps may be horizontal centrifugal pumps and will be skid mounted andlocated at the backwash tank.

5.1.4 Contingency Plan

A sufficient spare parts inventory will be provided for critical components of the water treatmentsystem. In the event of a filter failure, the effluent would be recycled back to the equalizationtank, which will be sized to hold 2 days of normal wastewater flow plus runoff from a 2-year,24-hour storm. The carbon absorbers will be run in series, but a single unit will be capable ofproviding discharge quality effluent. This design allows one unit to be taken off-line forbackwashing or chemical cleaning to remove potential bacterial growth. Table 5-1 presentscontingency items for various components of the water treatment system.

5.1.5 Operation and Maintenance Plan

The contractor will prepare an operation and maintenance plan for the water treatment system.At a minimum, the plan must address operating procedures, environmental monitoring, samplingprocedures, and maintenance procedures for the equipment. Specific operating procedures are tobe prepared for startup and normal operation of the equipment and for failure response andupset/abnormal conditions.

5.2 DESIGN CRITERIA

5.2.1 ARARs

The nonbinding ARARs for the design were determined in the ROD, which was issued beforeSARA was enacted. Without waiving any rights or defenses, the FBPRPO believes that certain

A9112/20/W 6:l5fin 5-16

subsequent federal and state regulations outline the appropriate technical requirements for certainaspects of the remedial action. For example, the RCRA and PCB incineration regulationsgenerally provide the appropriate requirements for onsite incineration. Therefore, the potentialARARs identified in this report for general consideration in the design process includeregulations promulgated since the issuance of the ROD.

Identified potential ARARs for the discharge of treated wastewaters from the water treatmentsystem include the Ohio NPDES program (OAC 3745-33-01) and the Ohio Water QualityStandards (ORC Chapter 3745-1). Additional potential ARARs considered for the siting, design,construction, and operation of the water treatment units are summarized below.

Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (29 CFR 1910 and 1926)

OSHA has promulgated a comprehensive set of occupational safety and health standards. Theseregulations take a two-pronged approach to worker safety by establishing safe working practicesand safe levels of exposure to a variety of materials. These regulations will apply during theremedial activities.

Clean Water Act, NPDES (40 CFR 122, 125, 129, and 133)

These regulations control point-source discharges to waters of the United States. Theseregulations require the use of the best available technology that is economically achievable tocontrol toxic and nonconventional pollutants and the use of the best conventional pollutant controltechnology to control conventional pollutants. Technology-based limitations may be determinedon a case-by-case basis. Water-quality-based effluent limitations are based on state narrative andnumerical water quality criteria, which depend on type of stream and type of pollutantsdischarged to the stream. Best management practices to control toxic discharges must also beconsidered.

2/20/95 6:1

These regulations are potentially applicable if treated wastewater is discharged from the site to

Fields Brook or the Ashtabula River.

Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR 141 and 143)

The Safe Drinking Water Act establishes primary drinking water quality standards to protecthuman health and secondary water quality standards to ensure the aesthetic quality of drinkingwater. These standards are referred to as MCLs. For water that is to be used for drinking, theMCLs are generally ARARs. MCLs are applicable where the water will be provided directly to25 or more people or will be supplied to 15 or more service connections. If MCLs areapplicable, they are applied at the tap. In addition, MCLs are relevant and appropriate as in situcleanup standards where either surface water or groundwater is or may be used for drinkingwater.

If the treated wastewater from the site is discharged to Fields Brook or the Ashtabula River andeither of those bodies of water is used for drinking water, MCLs will be considered relevant andappropriate for site remediation.

Ohio NPDES Program (OAC 3745-33-01)

These rules regulate point-source discharges to state waters. These discharges must comply withapplicable water quality standards and applicable effluent limitations (i.e., national effluentlimitations, national standards for new sources, and national toxic and pretreatment effluentlimitations).

Ohio Water Quality Standards (ORC Chapter 3745-1)

These regulations define ambient surface water quality criteria. Fields Brook must meet thenarrative and numeric water quality standards. Fields Brook is designated as a limitedwarm-water aquatic habitat, agricultural and industrial water supply, and primary contact for

A9112/2tV9S6:15p»

recreation (3654-1-14). Warm-watei criteria are used for limited warm-water streams.However, individual criteria for limited warm-water streams may vary and may supersede thecriteria for warm-water habitat.

These regulations will be applicable if wastewater from the site is discharged to Fields Brook.

Ohio Drinking Water Regulations (O\C Title 3745, Chapters 81 and 82)

The Ohio primary and secondary drinking water standards are the same as the national drinkingwater standards, except that the pH is set at 7.0 to 10.5.

If the treated wastewater from the site is discharged to Fields Brook or the Ashtabula River andeither of those bodies of water is used for drinking water, the Ohio primary or secondarydrinking water standards will be considered relevant and appropriate for site remediation.

Ohio Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (OAC Title 3745, Chapter 52)

These regulations specify standards for owners/operators of facilities where hazardous waste isgenerated. These requirements include standards for the storage of hazardous waste, the need tomanifest waste shipped offsite, and pretransport requirements.

Ohio Hazardous Waste Management (OAC Title 3745, Chapter 55)

These regulations regulate the treatment and storage of hazardous waste. If hazardous waste isstored onsite, it must be stored in compliance with the regulations for containers, tanks, surfaceimpoundments, or waste piles. These regulations also specify the design and operating standardsthat must be met for the treatment of hazardous waste.

AMI2/20/93 6:1 Jpm 5~19

RCRA Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (40 CFR 262)

These regulations stipulate requirements for owners/operators who generate hazardous waste.Requirements include procedures for identifying/classifying hazardous waste, design andoperating standards for the storage of hazardous waste, and manifest procedures for offsiteshipment of waste.

RCRA Storage Requirements (40 CFR 264)

These regulations define the design and operating standards for units that are used to store ortreat hazardous waste. If hazardous wastes are to be stored onsite, the storage area must complywith the regulations for containers (Subpart I) or tanks (Subpart J). Design and operatingstandards for treatment of hazardous waste in a unit are as follows: tanks (40 CFR 264.190-192), surface impoundments (40 CFR 264.221), incinerators (40 CFR 264.343-345), andmiscellaneous units (40 CFR 264.601).

Local and County Regulations

Local and county statutes, regulations, and ordinances are preempted for onsite remedial activitiesconducted in accordance with CERCLA. However, because many of these statutes, regulations,and ordinances reflect sound approaches to technical problems, they will be reviewed and, to theextent reasonable and consistent with the requirements of CERCLA and the ROD, they will beaddressed in the design. The design will meet the substantive requirements of the regulations andcomply with all local and county statutes, regulations, and ordinances for offsite remedialactivities.

A9I12/20/93 6: IV J-20

5.2.2 Performance Criteria

Specific performance criteria for the following activities associated with water treatment will beprovided as part of the remedial design:

• Operations- Normal flow: 50 gpm, 24 hr/day with 80 percent availability- Upset flow: 100 gpm, 24 hr/day with 80 percent availability- Recycle to other operations

• Discharge criteria- pH: 6.0 to 9.0- Total suspended solids: less than or equal to 45 mg/L (daily maximum), with a 30-mg/L,

30-day average- VOCs: less than or equal to the MCLs for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethene,

trichloroethene, and vinyl chloride- PCBs: below detection limit

• Discharge locations: pipe to Fields Brook at State Road

• Monitoring- Continuous measurement of temperature, pH, turbidity, and conductivity- Collection of grab samples for suspended solids, VOCs, and PCBs

5.2.3 Sediment Volumes

The water treatment system design is based on processing the sediment volumes presented inFigure 2-15. Major increases or decreases in these volumes would result in changes in theprocessing areas, treatment rates, laydown areas, and landfill areas, which would increase ordecrease the wastewater flows into the system. The treatment system is based on standard

A9112/2W95 6:13pm 5~2l

wastewater treatment operations, and the size can be modified with no impact on the overallperformance of the system.

5.2.4 Demobilization Criteria

Before demobilization begins, the equipment will be decontaminated to prevent contamination ofthe area where the equipment is located. Soil samples will be taken in the aroa surrounding thetreatment area and analyzed for PCBs and organics to ensure that the water treatment area isclean. Any contamination found will be removed before demobilization. The equipment willthen be removed, the area will be graded, and the site will be re vegetated.

5.3 CONTINGENT DESIGN

The water treatment system is based on standard wastewater treatment practices, and no problemsare anticipated in treating the waste streams using the proposed system.

The contingent design proposed for the water treatment system will use similar technology butwill be sized for smaller holding capacities and throughput rates. The design is based oncollection of stormwater from a transportation transfer site that is smaller than the processingfacility proposed in the ROD. The following subsection describes the systems to be provided.

5.3.1 Description of Design

Figure 5-3 presents the flow diagram and mass balance for the dewatering and water treatmentsystems. This option uses a bag filter to remove suspended solids and an activated carbon filterto remove PCBs and organics (the final step).

The chemical data for the waste streams show that no chemicals are present in sufficientquantities to create a serious corrosion concern. Therefore, construction materials will be carbonsteel or the manufacturers1 standard for the process units being constructed. A performance-

A9112/3CV95 6:15pm 5-22

based approach will be used to the maximum extent practical, and many of thetechnology-specific details will be left to the remedial action contractor to define or adjust basedon field conditions and the special knowledge of the contractor. A discussion of each processunit follows.

The collection basin will be sized to hold the excavated area runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour stormevent plus 2 days of normal wastewater flow. This basin will be approximately 45 ft in diameterwith an average depth of 4.5 ft and will hold approximately 50,000 gal. The basin will be claylined to prevent loss of water before treatment.

Three process feed pumps will be used to pump water from the collection basin to the bag filter.These pumps will be sized for 50 percent capacity to allow continued operation in the event of apump failure. The pumps will be horizontal or vertical, in-line, centrifugal pumps and will havea rated capacity of 10 gpm at 200 ft of head. These pumps will be located on a pad near thebasin.

Two bag filters in a parallel arrangement will be used to remove suspended solids from thestormwater runoff. Approximately 50 Ib of suspended solids will be removed and disposed of inthe filter bags. Each filter bag will remove approximately 2 Ib of suspended solids greater than200 mesh and will be rated for 10 gpm. The bags will be changed when the pressure dropacross the filter is 30 psig. Reduced flow rate will also indicate blinding of the filter.

Carbon adsorbers will be provided to remove trace quantities of organic chemicals from thewastewater stream before it is discharged back into the brook. Two carbon beds operating inseries will be used. The carbon beds will be designed to remove anticipated contaminantconcentrations from an assumed volume of water to estimate an approximate breakthrough time.When breakthrough is detected in the leading carbon bed, the flow will be valved so that thesecond bed becomes the leading bed and the fresh carbon bed is the polishing unit. The bedswill be 2 ft in diameter and 4 ft deep. Spent carbon wil l be regenerated or replaced; it will besent offsite for disposal or regeneration.

A9112/30/9$ 6:13pm

5.3.2 Design Criteria

The performance criteria defined in Section 5.2.2 will be used, except that the normal flow willbe 15 gpm and the upset flow will be 35 gpm.

A9n2/20W3 6:15pm 5~24

FIGURES AND TABLE FOR SECTION 5

2/2X93 6:15pm

StorageFrom Pile

Backwash Decon Leachate StormwaterTank Water Collection Run Off

\A '4^AV\________Collection Basin________/

Backwash Storage

4000 Gal

Dischargeto Stream

11064711.2

Figure 5-1, Sheet 1 of 2Water Treatment System Flow Diagram (Base)

KJ

STREAM CHARACTERIZATION A^ /& /fa± /ft± xA X& X& xA /A X& X& xA ,

Flow, GPM

Pressure, PSIG

Temperature. °F

Gallons/Batch

Batches/Day

Total Suspended Solids, ppm

pH

Varies

Gravity

Ambient

2«10B

1

150

6-8

1

N/A

Amb.

N/A

N/A

150

6-8

10

N/A

Amb.

100

5

<1000

M

20

40

Amb.

2382

0.1 •

100

6-8

507100

85

Amb.

N/A

N/A

-150

0-8

50/100

55

Amb.

N/A

N/A

20

6-6

50/100

45

Amb.

N/A

N/A

10

8-8

50/100

45

Amb.

3000

0.1

10

84

300

40

Amb.

3000

0.1

10

0-8

300

20

Amb.

3000

0.1

1800

8-8

1

30"

Amb.

40

0.1

100.000

0-8

* Backwash rate el 1/1 Odiyt

* * Positive displacement sludge pumpPressure as required to move slud|o

11054711.3

Figure 5-1, Sheet 2 of 2Mass Balance for Wastewater Treatment

\\

A, A, A,Collection Basin

Sludge Pump

ProcessFeed Pumps

Sludge toSolidification

Backwash Storage

4000 Gal

A

APolymer ^

MumMediaFilter

*=?-&

Dischargeto Stream

11084711.1

Figure 5-2, Sheet 1 of 2Water Treatment System Flow Diagram (Optional)

K)

STREAM CHARACTERIZATION ^A //^ /& XA /A /A /A y^A /A /A X/ftl XA XA X

Flow, GPM

Pressure, PSIG

Temperature, °F

Gallons/Batch

Batches/Day


PH

NA

Gravity

Ambient

i\vf

1

150

6-8

1

N/A

Amb.

N/A

N/A

150

6-8

10

N/A

Amb.

100

5

<1000

6-8

20

40

Amb.

2947

1.1*

100

6-8

50/100

85

Amb.

N/A

N/A

-150

6-8

50/100

55

Amb.

N/A

N/A

10

6-8

50/100

45

Amb.

N/A

N/A

5

6-8

50/100

45

Amb.

3000

1.1

5

6-8

300

40

Amb.

3000

1.1

5

6-8

300

20

Amb.

3000

0.1

800

6-8

300

40

Amb.

3000

1.0

5

6-8

300

20

Amb.

3000

1.0

2240

6-8

1

30

Amb.

52.7

1.1

100,000

6-8

* Basail on multlmadla backwash rata ol 1/day andacthratad carbon backwash rata ol 1/10 days

1 1054711 4


DeconWater

StoragePile

LaachateCollection

Storm waterRun Off

\ Collection Basin

AProcess

Feed Pumps

BagFilters

A.Activated

CarbonFilter

A x^ Dischargeto Stream

110J 4711.1

Figure 5-3, Sheet 1 of 2Water Treatment System Flow Diagram (Contingent Design)

STREAM CHARACTERIZATION

Flow. 6PM

Pressure, PSIG

Temperature, °F

Gallons/Batch

Batches/Day


PH

NA

Gravity

Ambient

4x104

1

150

64

1

N/A

Amb.

N/A

N/A

150

6-8

10

N/A

Amb.

100

5

<1000

6-8

10/20

85

Amb.

N/A

N/A

-150

6-8

10/20

55

Amb.

N/A

N/A

20

6-8

10/20

45

Amb.

N/A

N/A

10

6-8

11054718 JA


Table 5-1Contingency Plan for Water Treatment


Bag filters

Activated carbon filter

Backwash storage tank

Backwash decant tank

Process feed pump

Backwash pump

Sludge pump

Multimedia filter (optional)

Filter bag ruptures

Organic s break through

Underdrain cracks or rupturesand allows carbon to escape inthe effluent

Connecting hoses and/or pipingleak or rupture

Fittings leak

Fittings leak

Seals leak

Impeller breaks or comes loose

Motor fails

Same as process feed pump

Same as process feed pump

Hoses and/or piping rupture orleak

Underdrain system fails andallows media to enter the effluentstream

Temporarily shut down treatment system andchange filter bags

Change out canister or carbon

Change out carbon canister

Shut down water treatment and repair orreplace as necessary

Tighten fittings

Repair or tighten fittings

Repair or replace seals

Repair or replace impeller

Replace motor

Same

Same

Repair as required

Shut down treatment system and repair asnecessary

A91I2/3IV95 6:15pm 5-32

bechtel inc - preliminary (30%) design report for … · bechtel associates professional...

Documents