Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study

8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study

1/59

CIE 449 Environmental Engineering DesignTask 4: Feasibility Study

Submitted to:

Martin Doster207 Jarvis Hall

University at Buffalo

Prepared By:

Michael DietrichMubeccel Begum Ilya

Zhen Hau Sing

April 23, 2013


2/59

- This Page Intentionally Left Blank


3/59


4/59

2-3

5.3.4 Implementability of Phytoremediation and Cost Estimatation ........................... ........ 5-8

5.3.5 Issues of Phytoremediation ....................... .......................... ......................... ........... 5-10

5.3.6 Phytoremediation Remarks........................ .......................... ......................... ........... 5-10

5.4 Permeable Reactive Barrier ........................... ......................... .......................... ............... 5-10

5.4.1 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 5-10

5.4.2 Performance ......................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 5-11

5.4.3 Cost Analysis ......................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 5-12

5.4.4 Removal Efficiencies of Materials............................ .......................... ....................... 5-12

5.4.5 Important Installation Guidelines ....................... .......................... .......................... .. 5-14

5.5 River Sediment Dredging .......................... .......................... ......................... .................... 5-14

5.5.1 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 5-14

5.5.2 Cost Estimation................................ ........................... ......................... .................... 5-15

5.5.3 Preventing the environmental impacts ....................... ......................... .................... 5-16

6 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost .......................... .......................... ......................... 6-1

7 Possible Remedial Combinations ........................... .......................... ......................... ............. 7-1

7.1 On Site ........................... .......................... .......................... ......................... ...................... 7-1

7.1.1 ISCO, Cap, Pump and treat ......................... .......................... ......................... ............. 7-1

7.2 River Sedimentation ........................ .......................... ......................... ........................... .... 7-3

7.2.1 Hydraulic Lock with material such as organoclay .......................... .......................... .... 7-3

7.2.2 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ......... 7-3

7.2.3 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation Criteria ......................... .......................... .... 7-3

8 Proposed Remedies ......................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ......... 8-4

8.1 Remedy 1: No Action ....................... .......................... ......................... ........................... .... 8-2

8.1.1 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ......... 8-2


8.2 Remedy 2: Combination ........................... .......................... ......................... ...................... 8-5

8.2.1 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ......... 8-5


9 Ecological Habitat............................. ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 9-10

9.1 Buffalo Color Company Site ........................... ......................... .......................... ............... 9-10

9.2 Buffalo River........................ .......................... ......................... .......................... ............... 9-10

Corruptions that have been identified:.......................... .......................... .......................... ........ 9-2

10 Community Relations Before, During, and After Treatment .......................... ....................... 10-3

11 Credits ....................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ........................... .. 11-1

12 References ......................... .......................... .......................... ......................... .................... 12-2


5/59

2-4

1.1 List of FiguresFigure 1: Area of concern, including flow directions ................................................................................................. 3-2Figure 2: Buffalo River Contamination near Site C and E. ....................................................................................... 4-2Figure 3: Discovered Contamination Locations ........................................................................................................ 4-2Figure 4: Buffalo Color Site C and E, with contamination target zones. Contour lines shown are distance to clay

layer under ground surface in feet. ................................................................................................................................... 5-1Figure 5: Plan view of implementation of phytoremediation on site C and E. Plant species were selected based

on COCs within that area (labeled pink or red). ............................................................................................................... 5-9Figure 6: Post PRB installation Capture Zone ........................................................................................................ 5-13Figure 7: Cost Estimation for the dredging ............................................................................................................. 5-16Figure 8: Scheme showing that the steps of the environmental impact assessment ........................................... 5-17Figure 9: Excavation Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 8-6

Figure 10: Phytoremediation and PRB installation locations ................................................................................... 8-6Figure 11: Observed disorders .................................................................................................................................. 9-2Figure 12: Example Citizen Guidances (EPA, 2012) ............................................................................................. 10-5

1.2 List of TablesTable 1: Primary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC ................................................. 4-4Table 2: Secondary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC ............................................ 4-5Table 3: Factors That Affect Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation. Source: www.clu-in.org/bioremediation/ ........... 5-4Table 5: Summary of results from bench scale and treatability tests. Note : A) removal result was similar to the

control without the plant, proving that plant was not responsible for contaminant removal. ......................................... 5-7Table 6: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Groundwater at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E................ 6-1

Table 7: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Soil at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E. .............................. 6-2Table 8:Screening of Remedial Technologies for Vapor at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E. ........................... 6-3Table 9: Screening of Remedial Technologies for River Sediments in the Buffalo River. ..................................... 6-4


6/59

2-5

1.3 List of AcronymsARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

BCCBuffalo Color Corporation

COCContaminants of Concern

DNAPLDense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid

EISB Enhanced in-situ Bioremediation

EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency

ISCOIn-Situ Chemical Oxidation

NYSDECNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon

PIDPhoto-Ionization DetectorPRB Permeable Reactive Barrier

RACER Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements

SCGStandard, Criteria and Guidance

SVOC- Semi Volatile Organic Compound

SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit

TCETri-ChloroEthylene

VOC Volatile Organic Compound


7/59

2-6

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis Feasibility study report provides a detailed analysis of two remedial alternatives for the

BCC site; the no action alternative and the combined remedy. Both alternatives were evaluated with

the nine feasibility criteria set forth by EPA.

The no action alternative was essentially used to evaluate the overall adverse human health and

the environmental effects of the contamination. By taking no action, the COCs will potentially be

exposed to humans and animals through ingestion and inhalation routes. Contaminated

groundwater will also migrate and transport the COCs to the Buffalo River, harming the benthic

community in the sediments and the quality of water.

The combined remedy consist of treatments for each media; excavation for highly contaminated

soil, a PRB for groundwater, phytoremediation for moderately contaminated soil and groundwater

and a passive and active mitigation for vapor intrusion into buildings upon future

industrial/commercial development.

The total cost of the remediation (excluding vapor installation in buildings) was projected to be

$7.5 million. This cost includes the technology preparations and O&M of the whole site. The remedy

has a proposed reduction efficiency of over 99% for groundwater leaving the site and river

sediment remediation. After removal of concentrations on site over ten times the limit, expected

efficiency of phytoremediation is 70-80%.

The combined remedy was developed upon preliminary screening of technologies by media and

also various combinations of technologies. All of these technologies were evaluated using the nine

feasibility criteria mentioned. It is important to note that chemical oxidation and in-situ

bioremediation technologies were analyzed with more detail in the treatability studies but were not

chosen. The high organic content of the BCC site greatly increases the cost of chemical oxidation

while bio-remediation was not compatible with the PRB that was more effective in treating

groundwater.


8/59

3-1

3 Site Background3.1 Main site:

The main area of concern is a 23 Acre area in Buffalo, NY south of Elk Street

between the rail road tracks and west of Orlando St. The site is broken two parts, site C to

the west of Lee St, and site E to the east.

Based on the Sandborn maps, the site began in the late 19 thcentury when Genesee

oil works created an oil processing plant in the southeast portion of site E. By the 20 th

century nearly the entire area was used as a lumber storage yard. This use has contributed

to the high organic content of the soils due to waste sawdust mixing into the soil as part of

the fill. In the early 1900s, an aniline plant was built on site C, and then during the 1940s

the dye manufacturing plant was built on the west half of site E. These tw o plants are

where hazardous compounds, such as acids, heavy metals, and benzene derivatives were

used (Baptista, 2009).

In this production, the wastes were typically stored in two ways: barrels in the

central part of site E,and dumped into lagoons in the eastern part of site E. These lagoons

themselves have been previously remediated and are no longer a concern. The barrel

storage area is where significant heavy metal and PAH contamination has been found.

Chemicals for production analine and various chlorinated organics used for dye

production were stored in tanks on the south western section of site E, and it is here that

significant chlorobenzene concentrations have been found.


9/59

3-2

Today, all of the buildings in site E have been demolished except for a small

warehouse, and the only remaining buildings on site C is the original boiler and ice plants

which did not process the chemicals themselves.

3.2 Surrounding Area:To the north there is a Honeywell research laboratory that was built in 1955 and

deals primarily in fluorine based chemicals (Honeywell International, 2011). To the south

is site B of Buffalo Color, and to the southeast is a PVS Chemical plant that has produced

nitric and sulfuric acids, which also involved use of some heavy metals from 1930-1977

(Engineering-Science, 1986). To the southeast is an Exxon-Mobile petroleum plant.

As for a residential area, there were houses on the eastern portion of site E through

the 1940s when they were demolished. Now the residential are exists to the northwest of

site E. The current map of the area is shown inFigure 1.

Figure 1: Area of concern, including flow directions


10/59

4-3

4 Remedial Objectives4.1 The Problem

The issues being addressed at sites C and E is contamination that exists in the soil,

groundwater, vapor and also sediments in the Buffalo River to allow the site to be used for

commercial or industrial purposes.

Based on Triodis analysis, metals arsenic and mercury, VOCs chlorobenzene and

dichlorobenzene, SVOCs benzo(A)anthracene, benzo(A)pyrene and benzo(B)fluorentine

(PAHs) are of most concern at this site. Their existence in the soil and groundwater pose

severe potential health hazards that include carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicities,

making it necessary to remove them. Details of these affects are listed in the Chemical of

Concern chapter.

Site workers or people in general who come in contact with the ground face potential

ingestion of the contaminated soil. The volatilization of VOCs will contaminate the

atmosphere around the site, which is potentially hazardous to people exposed on site and

also neighboring residential areas if blown by wind. For groundwater, the flow into the

sewers and the Buffalo River will carry contaminants that eventually settle into the

sediments. This affects the water quality and pose potential health issues for the marine

wildlife in the river.

Groundwater has a specific problem of several sewer lines throughout the site creating

very high conductivity pathways of contaminates to the Buffalo River. These pipelines may

also be damaged allowing leakage in/out of the aquifer. Figure 2 shows the mercury and

PAH (as shown by a specific compound, Benzo(a)Anthracene) contamination.


11/59

4-2

Contamination spikes immediately at the Buffalo Color outfall, and continues to be an issue

for 0.7 miles, at which indications of another contamination source other than sites C and

E is evident.Mercury is a particular concern in the river due to bioaccumulation.

Figure 2: Buffalo River Contamination near Site C and E.

Figure 3: Discovered Contamination Locations

Ideally, the contaminant concentrations should be decreased to the target levels set by

NYSDEC, which is covered in the Remedial Action Objectives chapter. However, if

treatability studies suggest a steep cost for remediation, containment and immobilization


12/59

4-3

of the chemicals are viable options as well. The ultimate goal is to either remove the

chemicals or avoid them from being exposed and have contact with humans and animals.

The viable options will be proposed after a treatability study of the site is done.

4.2 Remedial Action Objectives4.2.1 Soil:

For Human Health:

Preventing the ingestion/direct contact with soil having non-carcinogens in excessof reference doses.

Preventing the direct contact/ingestion with soil having 10-4 to 10-7 excess cancerrisk from carcinogens.

Preventing the inhalation of carcinogens posing excess risk levels of 10-4 to 10-7.For Environment Protection:

Preventing the migration of contaminants that would result in groundwatercontamination in excess concentrations for contaminants.

4.2.2 Groundwater:For Human Health:

Preventing the ingestion of water having carcinogens in excess of MCLs and a totalexcess cancer risk for all contaminants of greater than 10-4 to 10-7.

Preventing the ingestion of water having non-carcinogens in excess of MCLs orreference doses.

For Environment Protection:

Restoring the ground water aquifer to concentrations for contaminants.


13/59

4-4

4.2.3 Sediments:For Human Health:

Prevent direct contact with sediment having carcinogens in excess of 10 -4 to 10-7excess cancer risk.

For Environmental Protection:

Prevent releases of contaminants from sediments that would result in surfacewater levels in excess of ambient water quality criteria.

4.2.4 Air:For Human Health:

Prevent inhalation of carcinogens in excess of 10 -4 to 10-7 excess cancer risk.Chemicals Of Concern: (NYSDEC, 2013)Primarily Concern Chemicals

Category ofContaminant Type of Contaminant Location

Mean detectedconcentration

Limit forcommercial set

by NYSDEC

HeavyMetal

Arsenic Soil 98.4mg/kg

16 mg/kg

Groundwater 352 g/L 25 g/L

Mercury Soil 9.6mg/kg

2.8 mg/kg

Groundwater 4 g/L 0.7 g/L

SVOC Benzo(A)Anthracene Soil 155mg/kg

5.6 mg/kg

Benzo(A)Pyrene Soil 66.2mg/kg 1.0 mg/kg

Benzo(B)Fluoranthene Soil 111.6mg/kg

5.6 mg/kg

VOC Chlorobenzene Groundwater 6913g/L

5 g/L

Dichlorobenzene Groundwater 39.7 g/L 3 g/L

Table 1: Primary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC


14/59

4-5

Other Detected ChemicalsType of contaminant Location Mean

DetectedConcentration

Limit forcommercial set byNYSDEC

Naphthalene Groundwater 65g/La 10 g/L1,1,2-

TrichlorotrifluoroethaneGroundwater 9.3 g/La 5g/L

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Groundwater 440 g/La 5 g/L

Benzene Groundwater 600 g/La 1 g/L

Lead Soil 500mg/kg

1000 mg/kg

Chrysene Soil 73 mg/kg 56 mg/kg

Fluoranthene Soil 142mg/kg

500 mg/kg

Naphthalene Soil 53 mg/kg 500 mg/kg

Phenantrene Soil 232mg/kg

500 mg/kg

Pyrene Soil 120mg/kg

500 mg/kg

a- These mean values are from 1 data point, and are not indicative of contamination over the whole area of concern.Table 2: Secondary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC

4.3 The Expected OutcomePrimary Objectives:

Prevent any further contamination from reaching the Buffalo River.

Prevent human and wildlife contact to contamination above limits.

Secondary Objective

Remove as much mass as possible. It is cost prohibitive to reduce all contaminant

mass to below standards.


15/59


16/59

5-1

5 Treatability studies summary

.Figure 4: Buffalo Color Site C and E, with contamination target zones. Contour lines shown are distance to

clay layer under ground surface in feet.

In the following sections, three remedial technologies will be covered, In-Situ Chemical

Oxidation, Enhanced bioremediation, and phytoremediation. Figure 1 shows the

approximate areas that are in need of remediation giving approximate depth of concern.

5.1 In-Situ Chemical Oxidation:5.1.1 Description

Chemical Oxidation is a remediation technique which involves adding a chemical

into the ground that promotes oxidation. This oxidation can transform harmful chemicals

into something that is either not harmful or less harmful (Huling, 2006). The bench scale

and pilot testing on the site covered two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and

persulfate (S2O82-). Additional chemicals that can also be used are (MnO4-), activated

persulfate (SO4-), calcium peroxideozone, ozone (O3), and ozone/peroxide combination.


17/59

5-2

Of the chemicals found to be a problem on our site, this technology will treat the

following: Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzene, PAHs Benzo(A)Anthracene, Benzo(A)Pyrene,

and Benzo(B)Fluoranthene which are our VOC and SVOC chemicals of concern. In addition,

it also treats Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Benzene and Trichlorobenzene which

are also present at the site. It does not treat metals, so another treatment option would be

required for them (Huling, 2006).

5.1.2 Performance

In the treatability studies, performance when compared to the control (using no

chemical) produced little difference. This is due to the extremely high organic content of

the soil as a result of the prior use as a lumber yard. While performance at many sites

proved promising, the specific conditions at the Buffalo Color site proved poor

performance due to high organic content, and extremely variable soil debris throughout.

5.1.3 Removal Efficiencies of Oxidants

In most situations, typical removal efficiencies ranged from 95-99%, however in all

cases and studies shown that high organic content significantly reduced these efficiencies,

creating the need to use significantly more oxidant due to the sorbtion present. Also, in

nearly all oxidents except for persulfate, the oxidants would go after the organic content

before the contaminant, making the treatment extremely cost ineffective.


18/59

5-3

5.1.4 In-situ chemical oxidation remarks

ISCO was not chosen for any remedies due to the negatives affecting efficiency and

increasing cost beyond recommendation.

5.2 In-Situ Enhanced Bioremediation:5.2.1 DESCRIPTION

Organic contaminants in soil, groundwater, sludge, and solids can be degraded by

microorganism using the bioremediation. The microorganisms break down contaminants

by using them as an energy source for themselves. More detailed, bioremediation involves

the production of energy in a redox reaction within microbial cells. These reactions include

respiration and other biological functions needed for cell maintenance and reproduction

(EPA 2000).

The objective of the bioremediation is to withdraw from the circulation

contaminants or to turn them into chemical products not hazardous anymore to the nature

and humans. (GWRTAC,1998).

5.2.2 EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICABILITY OF THE ENHANCED IN-SITUBIOREMEDIATION

Enhanced In-situ bioremediation can treat 95% of the VOCs, SVOCs and organic

contaminants in the Buffalo Color Company site.

5.2.2.1 Chemicals of Concerns that can be applicable for the EISBThe leading contaminants are:

Chlorinated SVOCs and VOCs Non-chlorinated SVOCs and VOCs PAHs


19/59

5-4

Organic pesticides and herbicides Organic solvents Wood preservatives

5.2.2.2 Site ConditionsConditions slow down or stop the biodegradation CONDITIONS IDEAL FOR THE

BIOREMEDIATIONX Concentration of the chemical can be toxic Homogeneous and permeable aquiferX Concentration of the gradient can be too steep for

acclimation Single sourced contaminant

X Number of the microorganism can be inadequate Low groundwater gradientX Conditions may be too acid or too alkaline No soil contaminationX Nutrients or enzymes can be lack Easily degraded or immobilized

contaminantX Permeability can be low

X Moisture can be too wet or too dry

X Energy sources such as oxygen ,nitrogen or sulfatecan be lack

5.2.3 Factors That Affect Enhanced In-Situ BioremediationTable 3: Factors That Affect Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation. Source: www.clu-in.org/bioremediation/

Contaminant Concentrations. Contaminant Bioavailability Redox Potential and Oxygen Content Nutrients Temperature

5.2.4 COST OF THE TECHNOLOGYThere are too many variables in design and operational needs to give accurate

ranges of costs. As spoken generally, typical costs for in situ bioremediation range from $30

to $100 per cubic meter of soil (Roote, 1998). In Buffalo Color Company site, soil type and

the organic content of the soil is improving the efficiency of the treatment, typical cost for

our sites treatment is going to be $60 per cubic meter of soil.


20/59

5-5

Contaminated groundwater and soil can be treated at the same time, providing cost

advantages. When hydrogen peroxide is used to enhance bioremediation, typical costs are

$10 to $20 per 1,000 liters of groundwater treated.

It can be assumed that the half of the soil is saturated, 15,287,000 liters is

groundwater amount that is going to be treated. According to the statement written above,

additional cost for the enhanced treatment (addition of the hydrogen peroxide) is going to

be $152,870.

Operation and maintenance costs can be significant because a continuous source of

hydrogen peroxide must be delivered to the contaminated groundwater (Roote, 1998).

Triodis determined the need to install 20 injection wells and additional 10

monitoring wells.

Injection Wells # of wells be installed20

$/well$720

Total $$ 14,400

Monitoring Wells Some of the monitoring wells which are installed before for the feasibility studyare going to be used for this face of the project. Additional 10 wells are going tobe installed to the certain areas with respect to the injection wells locations.

Cost for additional wells is:$7,200

O&M Costs $787,370

GRAND TOTAL $808,9700

5.2.5 Data Need For Implementation Of The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation

For completing the enhanced in-situ bioremediation treatability study in the Buffalo

Color Company Sites CE, following data must be provided (Roote, 1998);

The biodegradability of the contaminants; Distribution of contaminant into soil, water, NAPL, and vapor phases; The leaching potential of the contaminants (e.g., water solubility and soil

sorption coefficient);


21/59

5-6

The chemical reactivity of the contaminants (e.g., tendencies toward non-biological reactions, such as hydrolysis, oxidation and polymerization);

Depth and areal extent of the contaminants; Soil type and properties (e.g., organic carbon content, mineral content, pH,

porosity, permeability, bulk density, moisture content, nutrient level, water-

holding capacity); The competition for oxygen (e.g., redox potential, ambient oxygen levels); The presence or absence of substances that are toxic to microorganisms; and, The ability of microorganisms in the soil to degrade contaminants.

5.2.6 Supportive Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Technologies Bioventing Air Sparging /Biosparging Liquid Delivery Systems Alternate Electron Acceptors - Anaerobic Bioremediation Phytoremediation

5.2.7 Enhance In-Situ Bioremediation RemarksEIBR was not chosen as a technology for any remediation. A PRB was chosen to be

used to prevent contaminated groundwater from leaving the site, and bioremediation is

incompatible due to the fact the organism growth will interfere with the PRB operation.

5.3 Phytoremediation5.3.1 Description

Phytoremediation is a remedial method that utilizes plants alone in treating or

stabilizing contamination in both sediment and groundwater media. On top of requiring

low cost investments, this method is known today as the greenest and most

environmentally natural way to treat contaminated sites. There are six different plant

mechanisms that allow them to either remove, destroy, transfer, stabilize or contain


22/59


23/59

5-8

5.3.4 Implementability of Phytoremediation and Cost Estimatation

Hybrid willows Mercury 42% No data Soil Laboratory/Pot

size

Pteris vittata

Chinese brake fern

Arsenic 5-13% A 42 days Soil

Groundwater

Laboratory/Pot

size

Bare root white

willow tree

BTEX 90% 4 years Groundwater No Data.

Full scale/On-site

Combinations of

hybrid poplar,

Eastern cottonwood

and willows trees

PCE,

chlorinated

solvents

75% Results

measured in 2

days, Actual

project was 4

years

Groundwater 3 acres

Cucurbita pepo ssp.

pepo

Zuchinni

Pyrene, PAHs 60.38% 56 days Soil Laboratory/Pot

size


24/59

5-9

Figure 5: Plan view of implementation of phytoremediation on site C and E. Plant species were selected basedon COCs within that area (labeled pink or red).

Species Unit Price No .Required Shipping Installation Total Price

Hybrid Poplar $12.75/pot 93 $790.5 $1976.25 (ex. install.)

Willows $16.75/pot 179 $2953.5 $25,000 $5951.75 (ex. install)

White lupin $13.98 for

1500 seeds

1500 seeds Free $13.98 (ex. install)

Tall fescue $45/pallet 1600 $14,702 $35/pallet $142,702

O&M $300,000 (20 years)

TOTAL $475,663.98 (incl. install)

$23 per m2


25/59

5-10

5.3.5 Issues of Phytoremediation

Issues related to phytoremediation obtained from the treatability studies were the

potential invasion of species. Besides that, plant species will need to be tested to see if it

will successfully grow in this region given extreme weather conditions. Proper O&M have

to done in order to maintain effectiveness as well as plants that have fully absorbed

contaminants will need to be removed and replaced to maintain effectiveness.

5.3.6 Phytoremediation Remarks

Phytoremediation was chosen for our combined remedy due to the fact it is a low cost

option to continuously reduce contamination, and will provide a pleasant looking

landscape that will be enjoyed by the community.

5.4 Permeable Reactive Barrier5.4.1 Description

A permeable reactive barrier is a wall installed directly into the soil, deep and wide enough to

prevent contaminated groundwater from bypassing, and forcing the groundwater to pass directly

through the barrier, which treats it.

A trench will be dug with a backhoe due to the fact that the soil contains various fill material

that would interrupt the operation of more efficient trench digging operations. The total length of

the PRB would be 450m long, 1m wide, and 2m (on average) deep, ensuring 0.3m extension into

clay layer. Installation diagram is shown in green onFigure 6.One potential modification is to allow

the SE section to follow the property line to the SE corner instead of angling NE. This would allow


26/59

5-11

greater flexibility in building, but could potentially create a larger groundwater plume due to the

longer distance to reach the PRB.

5.4.2 PerformanceDepending on the type of barrier, and the type of contaminant it is designed to treat, different

materials can be used. Of the different types of material, the following were chosen and studied in

depth:

Organoclay

Extremely effective against a wide range of organics and chlorinated organics. Has a tendancy

to swell with contaminate absorption, lowing conductivity as a result until flow ceases. It was

noted in one study, when PAH and chlorobenzene are involved (as is the case here), as the material

becomes saturated to the maximum it can hold, chlorobenzene will replace PAH, allowing the PAH

to bypass the PRB. Otherwise there is no evidence of re-mobilization of any contaminants sorbed

into organoclay (Reible, 2005). Reible also notes that if sand is mixed into organoclay, its effective

surface area actually increases, allowing for a decreased PRB thickness as the sand reduces

preferential channeling. In addition, as the media absorbs chlorobenzene it will swell, reducing

conductivity and redirecting flow to less saturated media.

Green Sand

An industrial metal works waste sand that contains metal by-products which react with

heavy metals in passing groundwater, locking them in sand. As sand is needed to be used

with the organoclay to both increase hydraulic conductivity and increase effective surface

area, green sand is a good candidate. An advantage of green sand is that it is free and has


27/59

5-12

remediation effects. The foundries it comes from typically have to pay to dispose of it, and

will even transport it to the site at no cost. The added remediation effects is it will absorb

arsenic and mercury that is on site, and to a limited effect PAH.

Disadvantages of green sand is that it may contain unwanted chemical wastes that

could enter the ground water. Typical wastes such as chlorinated ethanes and other

organics would be immediately absorbed by the organoclays, making them a non-issue in

this case. Some other waste metals may be avoided by choosing foundries that do not

process them.

One important matter when installing the PRB, is any sewer lines that pass through the

PRB must be removed, disabled, or otherwise checked to ensure no groundwater will be

flowing through them, as this will cause contaminated water to bypass the PRB.

5.4.3 Cost AnalysisA typical installation of organoclay ranges from $300 - $1000 per m3. The backhoe

use will be more expensive than some other ways of trench digging, but this will be

balance by the fact green sand is free, and disposal of waste material in this specific case

will be neglected as it will be used as fill material for excavation. Also, another factor in

cost is the fill material, in this case is green sand that will be procured at no cost.

Because of these factors, the expected cost for installation of an organoclay-green sand

PRB will be $450 per m3, for a total of $350,000.

5.4.4 Removal Efficiencies of MaterialsOrganoclay

Organoclay is quick to absorb many contaminants, including four of the six CoC at

the Buffalo Color site, Chlorobenzene, Di-chlorobenze, and both PAHs.


28/59

5-13

Main issue with organoclay is, by its name, it is clay and therefore has a very low

hydraulic conductivity. This fact tends organoclay to be used as a barrier method which

also absorbs potential contamination leakage, which will reduce groundwater flow to a

point it would be ineffective in containing groundwater contamination at the Buffalo Color

site. If organoclay was installed alone, groundwater would either go around or over. This

would make it very useful as a containment media, which is not desired here. This is why it

will be mixed with the greensand.

Groundwater flow was modeled in Visual AEM, with initial conditions tested to

match recorded groundwater levels. Figure 6 shows the capture zone in the worst case

scenario of 2.5 cm/day conductivity of the entire PRB with a hydraulic lock near the DNAPL

zone. In this case potentially contaminated groundwater will continue to flow through the

barrier and not bypass. One alternative is to

Figure 6: Post PRB installation Capture Zone


29/59

5-14

5.4.5 Important Installation GuidelinesWhen installing the organoclay/greensand PRB, careful attention to the hydraulic

conductivity of the material must be heeded. If conductivity is allowed to be less that

2.5cm/day, the entire groundwater contamination plume may not be collected by the PRB.

Sewers:

Any sewer line from the Buffalo Color site going through the PRB must be checked to

ensure no leakage of groundwater is possible, or the sewer line blocked/removed. A leaky

sewer or other piping system will bypass the PRB allowing contaminates to the Buffalo

River.

5.5 River Sediment Dredging

5.5.1 Description

Contaminated sediments in aquatic environments can pose health risks to many types

of organisms, including humans. Exposure to the contaminants occurs by several routes,

including direct contact and consumption of organisms that have accumulated

contaminants from the sediments. The potential adverse effects on human health and the

environment are compelling reasons to seek to reduce exposure. Contaminated sediments

can occur in small, localized areas or in vast areas, covering miles of river or harbor

bottoms and associated floodplains (The National Academies Press, 2007).

Underwater excavation for excavating the contaminated sediment is called dredging.

After the initial excavation needed to establish a channel, the periodic dredging that must

be done to keep it clear and safe for navigation is called maintenance dredging. Once


30/59

5-15

sediments are dredged from the waterway, they are called dredged material. (The National

Academies Press, 2007)

A dredge is a machine that scoops or suctions sediment from the bottom of waterways

or is used to mine materials underwater.

The chemicals of concern in contaminated sediment sites vary; polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs) are the most common, followed by metals, and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (EPA 2005). The widely varied physical and chemical properties of

contaminants markedly affect their distribution in the environment and their behavior

(including transport, bioavailability, and toxicity) during and after remediation. The degree

of contamination can be severe in some areas with nearly unadulterated original products,

such as PCB-containing oils, pesticides, or coal-tar residues. In other areas, contaminants

occur at low concentrations in sediments among functioning ecosystems of fish, plants, and

benthic invertebrates. The thickness of the contaminated sediment is highly variable and

often poorly characterized but can range from a few inches to many feet thick with marked

differences over small spatial scales. (The National Academies Press, 2007)

5.5.2 Cost EstimationEstimating the costs of dredging operations is provided in this section.

Virtually all costs associated with the removal component of a sediment remediation

project are capital costs (direct and indirect). The elements of environmental dredging

costs include (EPA, 1994):


31/59

5-16

Mobilization/demobilization Dredge operation Contaminant barriers Monitoring Health and safety Equipment decontamination

Backhoes will be used for the dredging operation. Excavated sediment is going to send

to the confined disposal facility with the truck.

Approximate cost estimation is shown below in the table.

ITEM COST RIVERSTATISTICS

TOTAL COST

Mobilization/Demobilization ofthe dredging equipment to theriver

$37,500/100 km100 km

assumed forthe distance of

$ 37,500

Dredging operation $50/m325,118 m3

$ 1,255,900

Containment Barrier$28/m2

16,482 m2 $ 461,496

Sediment excavation withbackhoe

$10/m3 25,118 m3 $ 251,118

Transportation to thefacility(USACE, 2007)

$50/toncontaminated sediment

2837 $ 3,562,988

Health and safety, equipmentdecontamination

$500/day 10 days $ 5,000

TOTAL $ 5,574,002

Figure 7: Cost Estimation for the dredging

5.5.3 Preventing the environmental impacts


32/59

5-17

Figure 8: Scheme showing that the steps of the environmental impact assessment

5.5.3.1 Noise preventing

Objective:To ensure that no noise nuisance results from the dredging.

Suggested measures

Liaise with the local community to identify noise issues. Select quiet equipment. Alter or enclose equipment to reduce noise at the source. Use sound-absorbing materials to prevent the spread of noise by isolating the source. Limit times of operation.

5.5.3.2 Odor preventing

Objective:To ensure that small odor problems do not alarm nearby residents.

Suggested measures

Inform residents of temporary nature of any odors and of grey sediment. Assess odor risk if contaminated.

5.5.3.3 Minimize Effects on Water Quality increase monitoring for turbidity (this will identify but not minimize turbidity);

incorporate or re orientate silt screen;

reduce overflow of barges or bunds;

increase travel path of fluid within bunds to increase sedimentation;

decrease rate of dredging;

select appropriate dredge for material being dredged


33/59

5-18

relocate dredge to an alternative location.

Use silt screens where practical and sediments are fine.

When necessary, monitor water quality including turbidity, as well as sea grass and

other sensitive species.

5.5.3.4 Minimize Effects of Contaminated Sediments Monitor water quality near dredging operations removing highly contaminated

sediments.

Dredge contaminated sediments first and dispose to land or place on spoil grounds

first and cover with clean sediments.

Use silt screens to contain contaminated sediment

5.5.3.5 Sensitive Biological Communities Map location of sensitive communities.

Prevent Noise Nuisance in Residential Areas

Liaise with the local community to identify areas and times sensitive to noise.

Alter or enclose equipment to reduce noise at the source.

Use sound-absorbing materials to prevent the spread of noise by isolating the source.

Monitor noise levels.

5.5.3.6 Ensure that Small Odor Problems Inform residents of temporary nature of any odors and grey sediment.

Cease dredging on very hot days (greater than 35C) or times of high public use. Inform public of works using on-site signs.


34/59

6-1

6 Effectiveness, Implementability, and CostTable 5: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Groundwater at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E.

RESPONSEACTION

TECHNOLOGYTYPE

TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY RELATIVE COSTNote : Above

average being higher cost

RETAINED ORNOT RETAINED

FOR FURTHER ANALYSISNo Action None None Not effective unless contaminants

remove/breakdown naturally.

Readily implementable. The site is

to be left as is.

None Retained (used to compare

the effects of no action.)Containment Barrier Walls Slurry Wall

Surface Capping

Effective in preventing contaminatedgroundwater to enter river.

Effective in preventing direct contactof living beings with contamination.

Implementable. The site is currentlyan open land.

Implementable. The site is currentlyan open land.

Average

Average

Not retained (hinders futurerenovation plans)

Not retained (hinders futurebuilding plans)

Treatment Physical /Chemical Permeable ReactiveBarrier (PRB)

Activated Carbon

Chemical Oxidation

Effective at reducing contaminantlevels prior to exiting site. Dependshighly on materials used and type ofcontamination.

Effective at removing chlorobenzeneand dichlorobenzene over largeareas.

Effective at removing chlorobenzeneand other chlorinated compounds.

Implementable. Backhoe excavationcan be done at boundary of siteupon determining direction ofcontaminant migration. Removes all.

Implementable. Can be used as partof material in PRB.

Implementable. Proper injectionwells will need to be installed before

execution.

Average

Average. Cost does notinclude installation.

Above average. Highvolume of material

required.

Retained

Not retained (does notremove other contaminants)

Not retained (site is highlyorganic)

Treatment(Continued)

Filtration

Biological

Membrane Filtration

PrecipitationFiltration

Adsorption Filtration

In-Situ BiochemicalOxidation

Effective at removing metalsmercury and arsenic.



Effective at removing mercury.

Implementable.

Implementable

Implementable

Implementable.

Below average

Below average

Below average

Average

Not retained (studies showhigher performance in PRB)



Not retained (lowcompatibility with othertechnologies )


35/59

6-2

Technologies Retained for Remediation in Groundwater for Detailed Analysis.

PREVENTION CONTAINMENT SOURCE REMOVAL TREATMENT DISPOSAL(None retained) (None retained) (None Retained) Physical/Chemical

-Permeable Reactive Barrier(None retained)

Table 6: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Soil at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E.

RESPONSEACTION

TECHNOLOGYTYPE

TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY RELATIVE COST RETAINED ORNOT RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS

No Action None None Not effective unless contaminantsremove/breakdown naturally.

Readily implementable. The site is left asis.

None Retained (used to compare theffects of no action)

Containment Chemical

Immobilization/Media Migration

Solidification/Stabilization

Vitrification

Effective in immobilizing contaminants toprevent migration, provided that actualcontamination location is known.

Effective in immobilizing metals andvolatilizing to remove them from soil.

Implementable.

Implementable

Average

Above average

Not retained (does not removecontaminant and pinpointlocation of contamination is noknown)

Not retained (potential vaporcontamination is not f avorable

SourceRemoval

Excavation

Post excavation

Mechanical Excavation

Soil Washing/Acid Extraction

Effective. Contamination of highconcentrations can be removed from thesite.

Effective. Contamination is removed andresults in remediated soil.

Readily Implementable. Ideal as locationsof contamination is isolated and depth toclay layer is shallow.

Implementable. Soil can be excavated andcontaminates can be washed/extracted.

Average. Cost does notinclude cost of treatingsoil.

Average

Retained

Not retained (cost for transporand space required for washinis not feasible)

Disposal OffsiteDischarge

Permitted TreatmentFacility

Effective. Contaminated soil will betreated and good for future usage.

Implementable. This is provided that thereare soil/contamination that needs disposal.

Above average Retained (technology used foexcavation analysis)

Treatment Biological Phytoremediation

Bioremediation

Effective in removing COCs of l ower

concentration depending on plant species.Process is long term however.Effective in removing organics and PAHs.

Implementable.

Implementable.

Below Average

Average

Retained

Not retained (low compatibilitywith other technologies)

Technologies Retained for Remediation in Soil for Detailed Analysis.

PREVENTION CONTAINMENT SOURCE REMOVAL TREATMENT DISPOSAL(None retained) (None retained) Excavation

-Mechanical excavationBiological-Phytoremediation

Offsite discharge-Permitted Treatment Facility


36/59

6-3

Table 7:Screening of Remedial Technologies for Vapor at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E.

RESPONSEACTION

TECHNOLOGYTYPE

TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY RELATIVECOST

RETAINED ORNOT RETAINEDFOR FURTHER ANALYSIS


Implementable. The site is to be left asis.

None Retained (used to compare theeffects of no action)

Mass removal Volatization/Media Migration

Soil VaporExtraction

Air Sparging

Effective in removing VOCs from soil to vaporand removal of vapor through vacuums.

Effective in removing VOCs from soil andgroundwater and removal of vapor through

ventilation.

Implementable provided that vapor isproduced through technologies used.

Implementable provided ventilation isinstalled.

Average

Average

Not retained (potential vaporcontamination is not favorable)

Not retained (potential vaporcontamination is not f avorable)

Prevention(applicable onlyto buildingsdeveloped inthe long run)

PassiveMitigation

Active Mitigation

Passive Barriers/Passive Venting

Depressurization

Effective in preventing intrusion of vaporthrough cracks in building basement. Directsvapor to the edge of buildings.

Effective in reducing the driving force forvapor intrusion into building.

Implementable if buildings were to bebuilt on the site.

Implementable after buildings are built.

Below average

Below average

Retained

Retained

Technologies Retained for Remediation in Vapor for Detailed Analysis.

PREVENTION CONTAINMENT SOURCE REMOVAL TREATMENT DISPOSALPassive Mitigation-Passive Barriers/Venting

Active Mitigation-Depressurization

(None retained) (None retained) (None retained) (None retained)


37/59

6-4

Table 8: Screening of Remedial Technologies for River Sediments in the Buffalo River.

RESPONSEACTION

TECHNOLOGYTYPE

TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY RELATIVE COST RETAINED ORNOT RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS


Implementable. The site is to be left as is. None Retained (used to compare theeffects of no action)

SourceRemoval

Dredging Mechanical Dredging Effective at removing contaminatedsediment.

Implementable. Sediment in soil wil l beremoved.

Above average Retained (issues of resurfacingwill be discussed)

Disposal Offsite Disposal Confined DisposalFacility

Effective. Contaminated sediments will beremoved from river.

Implementable Below average Retained (technology retained forfull dredging analysis)

Containment Capping Impermeable Cap Effective at preventing contact of

contamination with river water andbenthic community

Implementable. Preparation for materials

should be done prior to installation.

Average Not retained (affects habitat of

benthic community,contamination is not removed)Treatment Physical/

Chemical

Thermal

Sediment washing

Low thermaldesorption

Effective at removing PCBs andchlorobenzene.

Effective at detaching contaminants formsediments and volatizing it.

Implementable. However, sediments wouldneed to be removed prior to treatment.

Implementable

Above average

Above average

Not retained (potential sedimentresurfacing from replacing soil)

Not retained (potentialcontamination escaping into riverwaters)

Technologies Retained for Remediation in River Sediments for Detailed Analysis.

PREVENTION CONTAINMENT SOURCE REMOVAL TREATMENT DISPOSAL(None retained) (None retained) Dredging

-Mechanical Dredging(None retained) (None retained)


38/59

7-1

7 Possible Remedial CombinationsTalk about different combinations, even discussing ones that will not work(such as bioremed

and PRB)

7.1 On Site7.1.1 ISCO, Cap, Pump and treat7.1.1.1 Description

This remedy would consist of using ISCO to treat the chlorobenzene contaminated

areas. As the treatment studies indicate, this would result in a removal efficiency of less

than 95%, which would result in residual contamination significantly above limits. In

addition, a cap would be put on areas of metal contamination to prevent exposure.

Lastly, to prevent contaminated groundwater from reaching the Buffalo River, a pump

and treat barrier method would be introduced.

7.1.1.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation CriteriaThe following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study

Evaluation Criteria:

7.1.1.3 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentThe reduction in chlorobenzene mass and capping remaining contamination would prevent

personal contact with contamination. The pump and treat barrier would prevent further spread

of contamination to the river.

7.1.1.4 Compliance with ARARs


39/59

7-2

As chemical oxidation will not remove enough mass to reduce chlorobenze to limits, and

capping remaining CoC will not remove any mass, the soil and on-site groundwater will not

meet any ARARs for CoC. Groundwater leaving the site will meet ARARs as the pump and treat

system will prevent contaminated water from leaving the site.

7.1.1.5 Long-Term EffectivenessThe barrier would prevent contact immediately and maintain its control for the long-term.

Pump and treat would be continuously operating providing a barrier, and the ISCO will have

completed its chlorobenzene mass reduction.

7.1.1.6

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or VolumeVolume reduction will only happen for chlorobenzene. The mobility of the CoC will be

negated by the cap and the pump and treat system, and while toxicity will not be reduced, exposure

will be.

7.1.1.7 Short-Term EffectivenessThe cap and pump and treat system will immediately prevent spread/contact of

contamination. ISCO of the chlorobenzene will be fairly quick providing mass reduction in weeks.

7.1.1.8 ImplementabilityThe implementability of ISCO is questionable as the negative effects of the soil on site. The

cap and pump and treat will be easily implemented.

7.1.1.9 CostThe total cost for the treatment would be moderate, but due to the questionable ISCO costs

could increase greatly if it proves to not react well. In addition, high O&M requirements of the pump

and treat.

7.1.1.10State and Community Acceptance


40/59

7-3

State acceptance would be good for no further river contamination and prevention of

personal contact to CoC. Any business wishing to build on the site would be severely restricted by

the cap in where they could build.

7.2 River Sedimentation

7.2.1 Hydraulic Lock with material such as organoclay7.2.2 Description

A material, such as organoclay, would be put into the river to cover, and lock the

contamination in place.

7.2.3 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation CriteriaThe following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study


7.2.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentThis would potentially prevent contamination spread into the river column and by

the benthic community into fish and other wildlife. This would however, adversely affect

the ecology of the riverbed by preventing a thriving benthic community as the cap would

not be an ideal environment.

7.2.3.2 Compliance with ARARsAs no mass would be removed, there would be no compliance with ARARs in buried

sediment. The river column would be clear of contamination.

7.2.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness


41/59

8-4

Long-term effectiveness would be questionable as natural river currents and other

factors could erode the cover and allow contamination to surface and/or allow the benthic

community to reach the contamination.

7.2.3.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or VolumeToxicity and volume would not be reduced, but the cover would limit mobility.

7.2.3.5 Short-Term EffectivenessIt should be effective in the short term, assuming the cap was completely installed

correctly.

7.2.3.6 ImplementabilityThe steep river banks, coupled with the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers

regularly dredge the channel will provide severe impacts on the ability of a stable cap to be

installed on the contaminated portions of the Buffalo River.

7.2.3.7 CostInitial costs of placing a cap would be significantly lower than dredging, but O&M

costs over the years due to erosion and dredging operations would add up quickly.

7.2.3.8 State and Community AcceptanceThe Buffalo River Keepers would object to the modification of the sedment, as it would

adversely affect growth and stability of the benthic community of the area. The Army Corps

of Engineers would continuously dredge due to requirements to maintain the channel open

would cause concern of future failure of containment which the state would object to.

8 Proposed Remedies


42/59

8-2

8.1 Remedy 1: No Action

8.1.1 DescriptionThe final alternative, the no action leave the site untreated. Contaminations will not be

removed or monitored. The site will continue to be used as is.

8.1.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation CriteriaThe following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study Evaluation

Criteria:

8.1.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentBy taking no remedial action on the BCC site, all the environmental mediums

(groundwater soil, sediment and vapor) will remain contaminated and eventually spread to

neighboring media. This is due to the nature of the COCs that are present. On site, citizens

or animals that come in contact with the soil will be exposed to the contaminants by means

of ingestion. VOCs within the soil will volatilize and contaminate the vapor/atmosphere

which will potentially be inhaled by living beings on the site and then spread to residential

areas around the site

As for off-site areas, this alternative poses a huge treat to the Buffalo River.

Contaminated groundwater will follow its regional flow into the Buffalo River. Existing

sewer lines will also transport contaminated groundwater into the river. The

contamination of the river will harm the benthic community and also parties that use and

rely on the water of the Buffalo River for drinking or other purposes.

Due to the reasons above, the alternative fails to meet this criterion.



43/59

8-3

Groundwater standards within the site would not be met. It is not expected to be an

issue as groundwater is not used in the City of Buffalo. Groundwater standards outside of

the site will also not be met since contamination from the site would be allowed to leave

the site as is and transport the contamination outside the site.

Soil concentrations would also fail to meet the standards. Contaminants that are

absorbed to the soil will potential enter groundwater as well.

8.1.2.3 Long-Term EffectivenessThis alternative is not effective in the long-run. On top of not providing any removal,

leaving the site as is would lead to very steep cost if the site were to be used. This is the

result of the spread of the contaminated area with the Buffalo River being one the main

concerns. Plumes may also increase potentially as more and more contaminants absorbed

and combine.

8.1.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or VolumeNo toxicity will be removed. There will be potential mobility of the contaminants

especially from groundwater to sediment and groundwater or soil to vapor. Volume of

contaminants may decrease due to the migration from on to off-site like the Buffalo River.

Volume of the contaminants may also stay constant but change in terms of its physical

property. Bigger plumes of DNAPL may form through the years.

.

8.1.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness


44/59

8-4

This alternative is not effective short term. This would mean that it is not possible

for immediate planning and construction of a new commercial and industrial area on the

site. The alternative fails to meet this criterion.

8.1.2.6 ImplementabilityAs all no action alternatives, this option is implementable on the site. The alternative

fulfills this criterion.

8.1.2.7 CostThere is no cost involved in taking no action. Hence the alternative fulfills this

criterion. .

8.1.2.8 State and Community AcceptanceThis alternative would have various acceptance results. In terms of cost, the state

and the community would accept this alternative. As remediation projects generally have

high costs, the state and community would to be able to use the investment to develop

other sectors of the state/city if this alternative was chosen.

However, there are also reasons that the state and community will not accept this

alternative. For the state, leaving the site contaminated will prohibit commercial or

industrial development at the location. The lost in amount of usable land will hinder the

potential economic growth the usage may bring for the state/city. As for the community,

leaving the site contaminated will mean that neighboring areas are at a high risk of being

exposed to the contamination. On top of that, the Buffalo River will be at risk of being

polluted. Fishing activities for example, would have to be forbidden to avoid consumption

of fish affected by the contamination.


45/59

8-5

8.2 Remedy 2: Combination

8.2.1 DescriptionThree technologies will be employed. First areas of highest concentration will be

excavated significantly reducing contamination mass. Second, a permeable reactive barrier

containing a combination of organoclay and green sand will be placed south of all

contaminated soil, preventing groundwater contamination from reaching the Buffalo River.

Third, phytoremediation will consist of different plants being planted on the remaining

contaminated areas to a) reduce mass over time and b) act as a barrier to prevent civilian

contact with the ground. Also, a deed restriction will be placed on the property for any

building in the area of VOC contamination that a foundation venting system must be

installed to prevent the build-up of vapor intrusion contamination in buildings.

Lastly, the Buffalo River will be dredged down 6 feet along the banks.

This remedy will accomplish our goals as follows:

- Primary goal 1: Prevent further contamination of the Buffalo River. Removal of significant mass and then having the PRB barrier will prevent

any contamination from reaching the river. Goal will be met.

- Primary goal 2: Prevent Human contact with contamination above limits Removal of significant mass, blocking off areas of continued

contamination, and institution of deed. Goal will be met.

- Secondary goal: Reduce all contamination to below set limits Removal of significant mass will approach limits, but will not meet them.

Cost and environmental impact to meet this goal is prohibitive.


46/59

8-6

Figure 9: Excavation Areas

Figure 10: Phytoremediation and PRB installation locations

8.2.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation CriteriaThe following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study



47/59

8-7

8.2.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentSignificant reduction of mass in the soil will assist in protecting human health, along

with preventing access to the remaining contamination. The groundwater will not be

remediated on site, but it is not used as drinking water at this location, therefor will not be

an issue. The combination of the PRB preventing contaminated groundwater from entering

the Buffalo River and dredging of contaminated sediments will protect the river wildlife.

Use of a containment barrier in the river during dredging will prevent high turbidity from

affecting the rest of the river.


IAW NYSDEC 375-1.8, full source removal is preferred. To approach satisfaction of

this, all contamination above 10x the limit will be excavated. The remaining contamination

will be contained by use of controlled phytoremediation (for soil) and installation of a PRB

(groundwater). Exposure to any residual vapor intrusion will be prevented by a deed

restriction to install a barrier or vent system to prevent intrusion.

Groundwater standards within the site would not be met. It is not expected to be an

issue as groundwater is not used in the City of Buffalo.

Soil concentrations would be reduced immediately, but will not meet standards for

any of the CoC. Phytoremediation will continuously reduce levels over time, but at a 70-

80% removal efficiency over 10-20 years, it is not expected to reach required levels in that

time. The deed restriction of installation of foundation vent systems will prevent air quality

inside buildings from exceeding limits.

8.2.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness


48/59

8-8

The combination of technologies will provide a long-term control. The excavation

will have removed majority of the mass, and the phytoremediation will continuously

reduce mass over the next two decades. The PRB will continuously maintain clean effluent

groundwater of any remaining contamination.

8.2.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume

Excavation will immediately reduce mass. Phytoremediation will slowly reduce

mass over time. The PRB will prevent mobility of contaminants outside the site, and

implementation of a deed restriction to add foundation sealing or venting into any

buildings near chlorobenzene contamination will prevent mobility of vapors into buildings.

8.2.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

The excavation will immediately reduce the problem, but will not eliminate it.

Phytoremediation takes time, in the order of 5-8 years before it will begin to reduce

remaining levels to acceptable limits. The PRB will immediately prevent further

groundwater contamination from exiting the Buffalo Color Site upon installation, and

dredging of the river sediment will remove contamination. Initial benthic communities will

be impacted by the dredging, but will be expected to return to normal in the near future.

8.2.2.6 Implementability

The Buffalo Color site is adjacent to city roads with full access to the interstate

system. This allows for ease of truck traffic for any materials required for the remedy. In


49/59

8-9

addition, having railroads right next to the site provides an easy access for shipping of

materials needed for PRB installation and replacing soil from excavation.

For excavation, the nature of the soil being primarily mixed fill will prove to be

difficult at times due to old building material and piping systems buried throughout the site.

In addition, groundwater will be encountered at all excavation areas and will have to be

dealt with.

For the phytoremediation, buried materials may require additional excavation as

required to allow plant growth. The high organic content and high water table will allow

for fairly quick plant growth, and initial excavation of high contamination will prevent

excessive toxicity.

8.2.2.7 Cost

To save costs, it is recommended to use any soil removed in creation of the PRB

trench as the fill soil for excavated sections. This will also significantly reduce required

truck traffic to 80 truckloads. Costs could be reduced even more if railroads were utilized

for material transportation, as they are adjacent to the site.

- The cost of this initial excavation and removal of material to an off-site processingfacility is expected to be $1.1 Million.

- The expected cost of the installation of the PRB is expected to be 0.35 Million.- The expected cost of the installation of the Phytoremediation is expected to be 0.4

Million, which accounts for O&M costs for 20 years.

- O&M costs are expected to be $12,000 per year to account for regular groundwatersamples to ensure PRB efficiency. This will be $60,000 over the next 5 years.


50/59

9-10

- River Sediment Dredging will cost $5.6 million to remediate.- Current accrued costs from investigation have totaled $72,000.

This brings the total estimated costs to $7.5 Million.

8.2.2.8 State and Community Acceptance

The limited amount of truck traffic required, along with the green appearance of the

phytoremediation will be positive on community acceptance. Due to the fact this has been

an industrial area, the community will accept the visual improvement. The Buffalo River

Keepers, and other state and private organizations will be satisfied by the remediation

preventing further contamination of the Buffalo River. Future developers may not like the

requirement to not build in the phytoremediation areas.

9 Ecological Habitat

9.1 Buffalo Color Company SiteBy implementing the trees for the phytoremediation, ecological habitat will be restored. Birds,

reptiles and the other species can be in their nature with the help of trees which are planted during the

phytoremediation.

9.2 Buffalo RiverThe Buffalo River has played a vital role in the regions economy for more than a century. However,

industrialization and the pressures of growing river communities have taken a toll on the river

ecosystem. Although discharges from the oil refineries, steel mills, and chemical plants that occupy its

shores have declined over the last several decades, the impacts of pollution and degraded habitats


51/59

9-2

remain. The primary issues affecting the Buffalo River today are impaired water quality, contaminated

bottom sediments, inactive hazardous waste sites, point and nonpoint source pollution, combined

sewer overflows, and fish and wildlife habitat loss and degradation.(Riverkeepers,2006)

Ecological restoration is defined by EPA as the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that

has been degraded, damaged or destroyed. To identify, prioritize, and facilitate opportunities to

restore, protect and enhance habitat within the Buffalo River Habitat Corridor and its tributaries for a

healthy and sustainable ecosystem that will benefit habitat, wildlife, corridor communities, and future

generations are Triodis missions during the treatment operations.(Riverkeepers,2006)

Corruptions that have been identified:

1. Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption2. Fish tumors or other deformities3. Degradation of aesthetics4. Degradation of benthos5. Restriction on dredging activities6. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat7. Eutrophication or undesirable algae8. Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor9. Degradation of fish and wildlife populations10.Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems11.Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton

populations

Figure 11: Observed disorders

Fish and wildlife habitat have been degraded by dredging of the river. Fish tumors have

been observed in the Buffalo River and are believed to be caused by PAHs in the sediments.

Research and analysis of fish health and population completed in August 2005 indicate that

fish diversity and health has not improved over the last decade based on the data obtained

in 2003-04, and compared to data available from fish surveys of the early 1990s (ENVIRON ,

2009).


52/59


53/59

10-4

conducting bench or pilot tests, disposal of residuals, uncertainties pertaining to innovative

technologies, and the degree of development of the technology being tested (EPA, 1988).

Additional community relations implementation activities applied in the assessment

and included a public meeting to explain the proposed excavation, phytoremediation,

dredging and organic-clay PRB and fact sheets describing the technology and technical

details, a briefing to public officials about the river dredging, organic PRB and the

phytoremediation, and small group consultations with members of the community

concerned about EPAs actions at the site and the river (EPA, 1988).

Site-specific community relations activities identified in the community relations

plan prepared previously. While appropriate modifications of activities are made to the

community relations plan as the project progresses, the plan is generally implemented as

written to ensure that the community is informed of the alternatives being evaluated and is

provided a reasonable opportunity to provide input to the decision-making process (EPA,

1988).

Fact sheets are prepared that summarizes the alternatives being evaluated. As

appropriate, small group consultations or public meetings are held to discuss community

concerns and explained alternatives under consideration. Public officials are briefed and

press releases prepared describing the alternatives.


54/59

10-5

Figure 12: Example Citizen Guidances (EPA, 2012)

The objective of community relations during application of the alternatives is to assist the

community in understanding the alternatives and the specific considerations took into

account in implementing an alternative. In this way, the community is prepared to provide

meaningful input during the upcoming public comment period.

Control of Invasive Species from Phytoremediation

The introduction of new plant species in the phytoremediation process brings about

potential species invasion. The fact that the plants are being imported into the site means

that there will be species that are not native to the site. Asides from Festuca arundinacea

(tall fescue grass), the species Lupinus albus (White Lupin), Sapix spp. (Willow trees) and

Poplar spp. (Hybrid Poplars) are potentially invasive to the local ecosystem. By definition

this phytoremediation step is facilitating invasive species.


55/59

10-6

More studies, experiments and discussions with ecologist and biologists would need to

be carried out to better understand the potential species invasion by the plant species

mentioned. As there are no current studies that discuss or yield the results of these species

being invasive, it is impossible to draw a conclusion on the possibility of invasion by the

phytoremediation plants. However, if the selected plant species are deemed invasive, other

plant alternatives will be chosen. This would be a constant monitoring and maintenance

process to prevent species invasion.

Discussion on the Effective Construction Procedure

The processes of excavation and PRB construction will be carried out simultaneously.

This process is estimated to last for about one week. The reason why excavation and PRB

construction were done at the same time is for soil cost management. In the excavation

step, highly contaminated soil are removed and a disposed off-site. This would result in pits

that need to be filled again. In installing the PRB, less contaminated or even clean soil (by

majority) are removed and replaced with organoclay and green sand mixture. Instead of

removing these dug soil off-site, they will be used to re-fill the pits that resulted from

excavation. By carrying out this procedure, cost for obtaining new soil can be greatly

decrease or eliminated. As phytoremediation serves as a long-term solution, it will be

installed last. Time frame of this installation is variable depending on weather conditions

and amount of labor available. Finishing the construction with phytoremediation will also

ensure proper landscaping for the environmental aesthetics of the site.


56/59

10-7

The off-site dredging process on the Buffalo River will take up to 10 days. The barge

would first be brought in and situated at a location ideal for the dredged materials to be

rested. The backhoe is next brought in to begin the dredging process. Once completed, the

materials on the barge are transported to the confined disposal facility for proper

treatment.

Vapor Remediation Discussion and Proper Transportation/Trucking.

It is important to note that in the remedy, there were no technologies selected for on-

site vapor remediation. This is due to the fact that technologies used will not produce or

expose vapor contamination to the atmosphere. The reduction of chlorobenzene through

excavation immediately reduced the potential vapor contamination.

During excavation however, proper anti-contamination clothing would need to be worn

by workers and engineers at all times. This is to prevent potential inhalation of the DNAPL

that will be potentially dug up. PID monitors would also need to be installed on site and

engineers/technicians would be required to carry PID readers at all times.

The excavated soil would also need to be transported in tightly/properly sealed trucks

to avoid exposure to the residential area as it moves towards the treatment facility. The

trucks and other construction equipment would also need to washed down on-site before

entering other community areas.


57/59

10-8

In the long run, vapor remediation will be taken into account. As in the preliminary

technology screening, remedies that prevented vapor instruction in buildings were

retained. This would be the vapor remedial solution if the BCC site were to be used as a

commercial or industrial area with new buildings. Passive barriers/vents will hinder and

deviate the routes of contaminated vapor from entering the cracks of foundations.

Depressurization systems in the basements will reduce pressure build up in the sub-slab of

the buildings. This will reduce or eliminate the driving force that facilitates vapor intrusion

(CLU-IN, 2011)


58/59

11-1

11 CreditsWORK PERSON

Executive summary Zhen Hau Sing and Micheal

Dietrich

Scope of the Problem Zhen Hau Sing

Background Michael Dietrich

RAOs Mubeccel Begum Ilya

Treatability Summary ISCO-Michael

EIBR-Mubeccel

Phyto-Zhen

PRBMichael

Dredge- MubeccelAlternative Review Group work

Effectiveness and Implementability Zhen Hau Sing

No Action Remedy Zhen Hau Sing

Combined Remedy Michael Dietrich

Community Relations Mubeccel Begum Ilya

Ecological Habitat Mubeccel Begum Ilya

Final Editing and Direction Michael Dietrich


59/59

12 ReferencesPhytotechnologies. (2012, November 7). Retrieved March 12,

2013, from http://clu-in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Phytotechnologies/cat/Overview/

Hybrid Poplar. (2013). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from Arborday:

http://www.arborday.org/treeguide/treeDetail.cfm?id=31Outside Price. (2013). Retrieved March 21, 2013, from Lupine

Seeds-Noble Maiden:http://www.outsidepride.com/seed/flower-seed/lupine/lupine-noble-maiden.html

Weeping Willow. (2013). Retrieved March 20, 2013, fromArborday:

Baptista, R. J. (2009). National Aniline and Chemical CompanyBuffalo, New York. Retrieved from Colorants History.

Brown, C. E. (2006). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in theSoil. Sources, Health Effects, Clean-Up Techniques and

PAHs at Alameda Point.CLU-IN. (2011, August 26). Contaminant Focus. Retrieved from

Clean Up Information (CLU-IN.org): http://www.clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/

Cummings, J. (2013). Soil Vapor Extraction. Retrieved from Clu-in: http://www.clu-in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Soil_Vapor_Extraction/cat/Overview/

Engineering-Science. (1986). Engineering Investigations atInactive Hazardous Waste Sites.Liverpool: Engineering-Science.

EPA. (1988). Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigationand Feasibility Studies under CERCLA.Washington DC:

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.EPA. (1993). Selecting Remediation Techniques forContaminated Sediment.Cincinnati, OH: Office of Water.

EPA. (1995). How To Evaluate Alternative CleanupTechnologies For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A GuideFor Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, In-Situ GroundwaterBioremediation.

EPA. (2002).Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste,and Water.Washington, DC: clu-in.org.

EPA. (2002). Enhanced In-situ Bioremediation of Solvents inGroundwater.Interstate Technology and regulatory Council.

EPA. (2007). Treatment TechnologiesFor Mercury in Soil,Waste,and Water.Washington DC: clu-in.org.

EPA. (2012).A Citizen's Guide to Bioremediation, ChemicalOxidation, and Phytoremediation.

EPA. (2013). Basic Information about Regulated Drinking WaterContaminants and Indicators. Retrieved fromhttp://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/

ESTCP. (2005). Bioaugmentation for Remediation of ChlorinatedSolvents: Technology Development Status and Research

Needs.Environmental Security Technology CertificationProgram.

Fayiga, A. O. (2005). Phytoremediation of Arsenic ContaminatedSoil and Groundwater.University of Florida.

Henry, J. (2000).An Overview of the Phytoremediation of Leadand Mercury.National Network of EnvironmentalManagement Studies.

Honeywell International. (2011). History - Buffalo Research Lab.Retrieved Febuary 2013, from Honeywell:http://www.honeywell-buffalo.com/history.php

Huling, S. B. (2006). In-Situ Chemical Oxidation.Cincinnati, OH:EPA.

ICSS. (2006). Manual for Biological Remediation Techniques.

International Centre for Soil and Contaminated Sites.Licht, L. (1990). Deep-Rooted Poplar Tree Buffers for Biomass

Production and Nitrate Removal.US Department ofAgriculture.

Mactec. (2010). Treatability Studies for Buffalo Color sites C andE excepts.

Mandalinsk, K. (2008). In Situ Technologies for the Remediationof Contaminated Solvents.Washington DC: EPA .

NYSDEC. (1999). Technical Guidance for ScreeningContaminated Sediments.Albany: New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation.

NYSDEC. (2013). 2. INDEX OF STANDARDS, CRITERIA ANDGUIDANCE (SCGs) USED FOR APPLYING THE CRITERIA.

Retrieved from New York State of EnvironmentalConservation.: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/61794.htmlNYSDEC. (2013). Chemical and Pollution Control. Retrieved from

http://www.dec.ny.gov/25.htmlNzengung, V. A. (2005). Case Studies of Phytoremediation of

Petrochemicals and Chlorinated Solvents in Soil andGroundwater.University of Georgia.

Osgerby, I. (2008). Persulfate to Chlorobenzenes in Glacial Tilland Bedrock.

Parsons. (2004). Principles and Practices of Enhanced AnaerobicBioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents.AFCEE.

Roote, C. a. (1998). Technology Overview Report,( In SituBioremediation, Cauwenberghe and Roote, Ground-WaterRemediation).GWRTAC.

Shin, D. G. (2001). Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for SiteCleanup.Continuing Education and Development Inc.

Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study

Documents

Transcript of Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study