UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OCT 261967

O F F I C E OFSOLIO WASTE AND E M E R G E N C Y RESPONSE

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Love Canal Record of Decision

7V^^^A)|/1 Response J/.^> f

FROM; Henry L. Longest I I , Director ^uWhUfl V ^ ^ ^ y l A ^O f f i c e of Emergency and Remedial Response .f^\ f ^T|

TO: J. Winston Porter V ^Assistant Adminis t ra tor Q

My staff and Region 2 have prepared the ROD for the Love Canalcreek and sewer sediments. I have concurred on the ROD and amforwarding it for your signature.

The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) and theOffice of General Counsel (OGC) have reviewed the ROD. Allapplicable comments have been incorporated into the ROD.

In addition, the Office of Enforcement and ComplianceMonitoring (OECM) has reviewed the ROD and all applicablecomments have been incorporated.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation( D E C ) has also reviewed the ROD. Their concurrence letter isattached.Attachment

80647

/

• ,^<-'.i>h' ^.'•'•'.'SW'iaWWys, •• .s--*-.-.»,.*«••• . •-'-'^i^-'f^'-ys--^-

2 G ; 13 iB/SS/ 'O i f S I S H d 3 • 5 • n HOaj

STATE or New YOBK 'De^A^TMCNT or

ENVI^ONMCNTAI. CON 5eft'VAT!ON

^LOANY. NCW YOFIK 1 2 2 3 3 - I Q I O^QMAfl C, JOK^O

C««MIKKl6kE4

D»ar Or. Porter;

'he Kew Yor^ State ;53irtfi]»nt erf £n'/1ronmenti1 Cornsrvatior f'lYSCE;), SheNew York Statt 3»partmeft!; of Health ('»SB3:i;i and t16 ri»y ''ar'< St»taDgptftmen'. of Liw (NYSDOL) have boen provided with dri-fts of tds United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency Record of OecUion (ROD) for tte LOVB ianalsits. City af N'igara Fans, ; M york, for thsir review.

The MySDEC tfi0 NYSCOH hav* rev1»wi tht ROD »nd ;in aectpt th« seltcttdreffltdy "Alternative 2, on-tl te thBT"na1 aBStructlcn/on-slle disposil," «sdttcrlbtd In th* draft 903, The HYSDOL; has own contultsd r»s»rd1rg thisi1t(rn«t1v and raises 10 objection. TUB St»t« of Hew Ycrk iccepti thtse1»ct»d iltarnttlvt, provided the sectlan rtgirdlns Stai* tectpttnet Isiiiocin«d to r«fl»ct N»w Yorl! State's position that th< residual from .theth»nn>l destruction praceis should bt dtHsird,- not nsrely <t11»t8Slt, ina ctnb* dUpofd of 41 a clean W\. Also'l'tht Decltrf.lon far the n»cord of3ee1»1on iiiust elearly state th»t ths tr»n)portahl« ther'n»l dsstructfort uni twin be dtmoblHnd and rec.BVtd from the Love C»n»1 ilte at tht completion ofth1» project.

If you have »ny auestloni r*a»rfl1ng thMe flontstnts. pitiie conttetMr, ttBnn»n ti, f(o»anchuc!t, P.E., Director, Olvlslon of Solid Wtite, at(518) AS7.MO}.

Sincertlyi .

Thornai C, Jarling

J, fclnsiBn Porter, Ph.D.An1»ttnt Adnilnlitrttor for Solid Wnte

ind Eiterjency Response (MH56SA)United Stitel EnvlronmtnttT

Protection Agency431 M Street, S.M,Hashl-icton, D.C. 20160 0. Axtlroli - .iy500H

R. Ail-i-a - 1!/530Le. Mtrtln-Le-'f, :,'.'SCOLC , Cdgci'.: • US;?*, ,^5'ei :S . i.ii'"?-; - JiifS.. ^ig'tin I:

DECLARATION FOB THE RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATIONLove Canal, City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New YorkSTATEMENT OF PURPOSEThis decision document represents the selected remedialaction for the final destruction/disposal of Love Canal -. , ,dioxin-contaminated sewer and creek sediments, developed in accord- ,_(ance with the comorehensive Environmental Response, Compensation ^and Liability Act of 1980, 42 CISC S9601, et sea., as amended by the ^Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1 9 8 6 , and to the ^extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollu- Qtion Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.STATEMENT OF BASISThis decision is based on the administrative record for theLove Canal site. The attached index identifies the itemsthat comprise the administrative record, upon which theselection of a remedial action is based. A copy of theadministrative record is located at the Hew York Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NYDEC) Love Canal Public InformationOffice (9820 Colvin Boulevard, Niagara Falls, NY) and at the Re-gional office ( 2 6 Federal Plaza, New York, New Y o r k ) .DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDYThis Record of Decision for the Love Canal site calls for thefollowing actions that address the destruction/disposal ofdioxin-contaminated sewer and creek sediments. The followingactions represent only a portion of the remediation that ison-going or proposed for the Love Canal site.0 The sewer and creek sediments will be thermally treated at the

Love Canal site. The wastes will be treated with a transportablethermal destruction unit (TTDO), so that mobilization anddemobilization can be readily accomplished. Six nines ( 9 9 . 9 9 9 9 % )destruction and removal efficiency will be the performancestandard.

o The TTDO will treat all creek and sewer sediments placedin the dewaterinq/containment facility ( D C F ) (to beconstructed), as well as residuals stored on-site from the

-2-

operation of the on-site leachate treatment facility,and other associated material qenerated as a result ofremediation ( e . q . , haul r o a d s . )Materials not reauirinq thermal treatment ( e . g . , uncon-taminated debris from excavated Ring II homes) will be placedin a separate construction/demolition debris facility ( C D D F ) ,which will be a compartment within the DC".After determination that the residuals from the thermal ,^_destruction process are non-hazardous, they will be ^disposed on site in selective areas, so as not to impinqe c?ion the integrity of the existinq cap over Love Canal. ^Upon completion of thermal treatment, the dewaterinq/ Qcontainment facility ( D C F ) will be scaled down to accommodatethe construction/demolition debris only.

DECLARATIONS

The selected remedy is protective of human health and theenvironment, attains Federal and State recruirements that areapplicable, or relevant and appropriate, and is cost-effective.This remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remediesthat employ treatment which permanently and sionificantlyreduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substancesas their principal element. Finally, this remedy utilizespermanent solutions and alternative treatment technoloqiesto the maximum extent practicable.The State of New York has been consulted and agrees with theapproved remedy.

Date_J?. Z fa^ /(^y

ijC^winston Porter,Assistant AdministratorOffice of Solid Waste andEmerqency Response

Love Canal SiteNiagara Falls, New York

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Love Canal site is located in the southeast corner of theCity of Niagara Falls and is approximately one-quarter milenorth of the Niagara River. It was one of two initial excavationsin what was to be a canal to provide inexpensive hydroelectricpower for industrial development around the turn of the 20th .y,century. The abandoned excavation, partially filled with —^water, was used largely for recreational purposes. The Canal ^was approximately 9,750 feet long and ranged in depth from ^10-25 feet. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (now Occidental -|Chemical Corporation) disposed of over 21,000 tons of various Qchemicals, including dioxin tainted trichlorophenols intoLove Canal between 1942 and 1953.Families residing in the Emergency Declaration Area (EDA)and Rings I & II, a residential area completely surroundingCanal (see Figure 1 ) , were eligible to voluntarily relocateor sell their residence to State or Federal government agencies.According to Love Canal Area Revitilization Agency (LCARA),approximately 750 of the 850 homeowners sold their propertyand relocated. In addition, approximately 270 of the 300families residing in the LaSalle senior citizen, and Griffen ManorApartments decided to relocate. All but two homes withinthe areas designated as Pings I & II (homes on streetsimmediately bordering the Canal) have been demolished, ashas the school built adjacent to the Canal. Most of thedebris from the demolition was buried in place on-site. Inaddition, other homes within the EDA have been or are scheduledto be demolished due to deteriorating conditions.Black Creek and Bergholtz Creek pass through the northernportion of the EDA and flow into Cayuga Creek which in turnflows to the Niagara River. Backyards of occupied homes abutthese creeks. Signs have been posted advising against fishingin these creeks; however fishing may still occur in the creeks.Niagara River water, after treatment, is used for drinkingwater. A small area of ths EDA north of Love Canal proper andadjacent to Bergholtz Creek is within the 100 year floodplainGround water in the area is not used as a source ofdrinking watar. The around water is being addressed througha long term monitoring/perimeter study program and is notincluded in this remedial action operable unit.SITE HISTORYHooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (Hooker) disposed of over21,000 tons of chemical wastes in the Canal between 1942 and1953. The Love Canal property was deeded by Hooker in April1953 to the City of Niagara Palls Board of Education. During

LOVE CANAL

DECLARATfON AREA MAP

-2-

the mid-1950's home construction accelerated in the area. In1954, a public elementary school was built adjacent to themiddle portion of the Canal. By 1972, area lots were almostcompletely developed including lots with backyards directlyabutting the landfill.In the mid-late 197 0 ' s , continued periods of high precipitationcontributed to the rising water table elevations. Materaccumulated in the landfill and carried chemically-contaminated 0leachate to the surface and into contact with basement foundations. >-'?As documented in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) C<l!report entitled Love Canal Sewers and Creeks Remedial Alternatives T-Iand Risk Assessment March, 19P5, dioxin and other contaminants T-Imigratedfrom Love Canal to sewers in the EDA which have outfalls 0to nearby Black and Bergholtz Creeks. In response to complaintsfrom residents of homes abutting the Canal, the New York State De-partment of Environmental Conservation ( D E C ) , with the assistanceof the EPA, conducted studies on ground water pollution, and basementair and sump water contamination in late 1977.Additional monitoring studies were conducted by DEC, EPA andthe New York State Department of Health (DOH) early in 1978.The results of these studies indicated contamination in someRing I homes. This led the DOH Commissioner to declare astate of emergency at Love Canal on August 1, 1978. PresidentCarter declared an Environmental Emergency at Love Canal onAugust 7, 1978, enabling the Federal government to providefinancial assistance to the State for the initiation ofremedial measures, and for relocation of residents.On May 22, 1980, President Carter declared a second FederalEmergency which made funds available to additional residentsto enable them to voluntarily relocate from the area. Residentswere moved from the area under an authorization by Congressi-nat appropriated $15 million. This action was carried outunder a Memorandum of Understanding between the State of NewYork and the Federal Emergency Management Agency through thenewly-formed Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency.

HISTORY OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES

The remedial program at Love Canal has been extensive and hasoccurred in two distinct phases. The first phase consistedof measures aimed at site containment. The second phase wasdirected at remediating contaminated drainage tracts.In October 1978, site containment measures were instituted byDEC that included the construction of a tile drain and leachatecollection system; placement of clay cover (cap) over theCanal; the erection of an on-site leachate treatment facility;

-3-

and the installation of a fence around the Love Canal (proper).On July 12, 1982, a cooperative agreement was entered intobetween the DEC and EPA. Under this agreement several addi-tional remedial tasks were undertaken. In the fall of 1982sewers leaving the Canal were severed to deter future contaminantflow via these pathways. In 1994, the installation of anexpanded cap (from 16 to 40 acres), including a synthetic 'T—*liner and clay cover, was completed. Subsequently, a long term ^monitoring/perimeter study program was implemented. This ^program is evaluating the effectiveness of the leachate ^collection system and also is assessing the extent of contaminant —

migration in the soil and ground water and the depth of fillin Love Canal proper.

0

CURRENT SITE STATUSStudies evaluating alternatives for remediating contaminateddrainage tracts ( i . e . , sewers, creeks, and 102nd StreetOutfall delta area) were completed in 1983 and 1985. TheMarch, 1985 CH2MHill report, and the Malcolm Pirnie Inc.report. Environmental Information Document (EID? "SiteInvestigations and Remedial ActioH Alternatives, Love Canal"of October 1983 provided the basis for approval of the firstRecord of Decision (ROD) for the site, which was signed May6 , 1985. For purposes of the administrative record, the May6 , 1985 ROD is incorporated into this ROD.The first ROD called fors the removal of dioxin-contaminatedsediments from specific stretches of Black and Bergholtz creeks andstorm and sanitary sewers, and interim storage of the sedimentsin a containment facility; the construction of a temporary berm atthe 102nd Street outfall delta area (to be coordinated with remedi-ation of the 102nd Street Landfill Superfund with s i t e ) ; and theinstallation of a permanent administration building on-site(completed in 1 9 8 6 ) .The ROD determined that the sediments should be placed in aninterim containment facility I/ for several reasons, including:a viable option for destruction/disposal of the sediments didnot exist at that time; the creek material would reguiredewatering, sizing, shredding e t c . , prior to implementationOf any treatment alternative; and the rate of sediment removalwould be much greater than the rate at which the wastes wouldbe treated and therefore, a temporary dewatering and stagingfacility was needed ( e . g . , the creek excavation would becompleted in approximately 18 - 24 weeks, whereas thermaldestruction of the sediment would require at least one year tocomplete).

I/ As discussed infra, the interim containment facility is nowtermed a dewatering/containment facility ( D C F ) .

-4-

The design of the creek remedy ( i . e . , sediment excavation andconstruction of the dewatering/containment facility) is currentlyat the 95% completion stage. The original design called forthe construction of a containment facility approximately 900feet long, 300 feet wide and 25 feet above grade (at crest).As such, the facility would be approximately 12 feet abovethe crest of Love Canal proper (which is approximately 13feet above grade), but below the roof of the on-site LeachateTreatment Facility. The containment facility would be con-structed in the southwest corner of the Love Canal proper.Due to the required size of the containment facility and sitelimitations, the facility would have to be constructed overapproximately 24 of the demolished Ring II homes (see Figure1 ) . The old basement foundations and house debris would haveto be removed in order to provide a stable foundation for thecontainment facility. The facility has been designed andsited to minimize the number of demolished homes that requireexcavation. A change in the lateral dimensions of the facilitywould require the removal of Ring I basement debris and wouldfurther encroach on the Love Canal cap, therefore potentiallyimpacting the integrity of the cap. As designed, the contain-ment facility is scheduled for construction in 1988, so thatit could receive creek sediments scheduled for removal in1989.Sediments in Bergholtz Creek will be removed from approximately150 feet above its confluence with Black Creek to its confluencewith Cayuga Creek. Sediments will be removed from BlackCreek from the 98th Street culverts to its confluence withBergholtz Creek.Approximately fifteen thousand cubic yards (cy ) of sedimentis scheduled to be removed from Black and Bergholtz Creeks in1989. Additionally, an approximate nine to nineteen thousandcy may be generated as a result of the creek cleaning effort( i . e . , haul roads placed in the creek during remediation) andfrom approximately a.400 drums containing spent activated carbon,and miscellaneous remedial wastes currently stored on-site. Ap-proximately 5500 cy of house debris and soil from the area wherewhere Ring II homes once stood will be stored in a Construction/Demolition Debris Facility ( C D D F ) . The house debris and soil needto be removed in order to build the dewatering/containiient facility.The contaminant of concern in the creek and sewer sedimentsis 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ( " d i o x i n " ) . Thecreeks and sewers have been sampled for dioxin on severaldifferent occasions. Results of the creek samplingindicate dioxin concentrations in the range of non-detectable(generally less than 1 ppb) to 46 ppb in the top 12 inchesof creek sediments (See 1985 EPA report). No dioxin has beendetected above the detection limit in the sediment/bed below theone foot mark.

-5-

In addition, dioxin has been detected in fish and otheraouatic organisms from these creeks. The levels of. thedioxin in the fish were above the New York State Department ofHealth and the U . S . Food and Pruq Administration Guidelines fordioxin in fish.Current plans call for removal of the contaminated sediments '^in the creek sediment/bed. The removal of the sediments from t0the creeks is necessary to eliminate the potential for direct CQcontact with the sediments/soils above 1 oob and also to -r-1reduce the potential for further bioaccumulation of dioxin T-\in the creek biota. As recommended in the 19R5 POP and 198S 0EPA report, approximately 18 inches of creek sediments will be re-moved in order to eliminate the contaminant pathways mentionedabove. This represents a permanent solution for potentialrisks to public health and the environment.In addition to the 24,000-34,000 cv of creek sediment andassociated material (excludina house d e b r i s ) , approximately1,000 cy of sewer sediment would be stored in the dewatering/containment facility. The concentration ranoe found in thesewers was from non-detectable to 650 oob. Therefore, thetotal amount of material which would be stored in the facilitywould be 30,000-41,OOn cv. Table 1 provides a breakdown ofQuantities and sources of material to be Generated from thecreek reniediation.During the time when the interim containment facility wasbeinq designed, EPA and the State were evaluatinq finaltreatment and disoosal options for the creek and sewer sediments.EPA prepared a Draft Addendum Feasibility Study (AddendumPS) that examined final remedies for the sediments. TheAddendum FS, entitled Alterrutives for Pestruction/nisposalof Love Canal Creek and sewer Sediments, was released forpublic review on June 24, 1987.As a consequence, EPA and the State have revisited the desian ofthe dewaterinor/containment facility to assure that it is able tomeet the qoals and objectives outlined in the Addendum PS. Speci-fically the review included re-estimatina the Quantity Of materialqenerated durina the remediation which could reauire thermal treat-ment. The review focused on several pertinent factors: ( 1 )sediments needina to be dewatered; ( 2 ) a storaoe area neededfor staqinq material prior to thermal treatment; and ( 3 ) thefeasibility of separatinq those materials containinq an averaqedioxin concentration above 1 ppb from those below 1 pob. TheCenters for Disease Control ( C D C ) has qenerallv applied alevel of concern for dioxin in residential soils at 1 opbfor other areas in the country. Tn addition, criteria forrehabitatinq the EDA call for dioxin levels in surface soilto be below 1 ppb.

Taole 1Quantities of Soil/Sediment/Debris

Requiring Thermal Treatment

ActivityCreek Remediation

DCF/CDDF

DDSF*

On-site Storage

Total Volume

Waste StreamGeneratedCreek sedimentsCreek Haul roads,access and stagingareas

ExcavationHaul road fillBasement debrisDaily coverDCF drainageblanketExcavation andbasement debrisDrumsSewer sediment

Quantity(cubic yards) Remarks

15,0002 , G O O - 6 , 5 0 0 3

2,400800

4,00020-6,OOO 1

2,500

1,5002

1,2001,000

30,400-40,900

•'-P10Oi1-1T-1

0CDDF to beconstructedas a compartmentof the DCF.

1--Range as specified in TAMS Conceptual Design Report(August, 1 9 8 7 )

2--To be stored permanently in the CDDF

* Decontamination/Drum Storage Facility. The DDSF wouldbe constructed to provide appropriate drum storage/ anddecontamination facilities, to comply with RCRA storageregulations.

Source; TAMS I n c . , "Black and Bergholtz Creeks RemediationConceptual Design Report" (August, 1987)

-6-

Based upon this review, the interim containment facility isnow termed a dewatering/containment facility ( D C F ) and wouldcontain a separate storage area for the Ring II house debris.This storage area would be termed a Construction Demolition/Debris Facility ( C D D F ) .A report on the results of this review can be found in theAugust, 1987 TAMS, Inc "Black S Bergholtz Creek ConceptualDesign Report."The construction cost for the creek remedy selected in 1985 ^'is approximately $ ] 3 million. Of this 513 million, approximately$4 million will Re spent on construction of the DCF. Constructionof the facility is scheduled to begin in the 1988 constructionseason. The remaining $9 million will be allocated for theactual excavation of the creek sediments and constructionof decontamination/drum storage facility in 1 9 8 9 . In addition,$750,000 has already been spent on the design of the creekremedy, which is 95% completed.Several remedial activities are ongoing. Sampling is beingperformed at the 102nd Street outfall under the ]02nd StreetLandfill Superfund site remedial investigation; a remedial inves-tigation/feasibility study is being conducted at the 93rd StreetSchool.In addition, approximately 16,000 gallons of Leacnate TreatmentFacility ( L T P ) sludge are stored on-site. The viability ofthermally treating the LTF sludge with a plasma arc unit is cur-rently being evaluated under the Superfund Innovative TechnologyEvaluation Program. Operation of the Love Canal LTF will continueto generate sludge and activated carbon.The majority of sewer cleaning work required under the 1985ROD was completed in August 1986 while the remainder wascleaned in the fall of 1987. Work entailed the removal ofdioxin-contaminated sewer sediments by hydraulic cleaning,followed by remote television camera inspection to assure thatsediments had been completely removed. Approximately 68,000linear feet of sewer was cleaned. These sewer sediments havebeen dewatered in a sewer sediment dewater-ing facility andare currently being stored on-site. The sewer sedimentdewatering facility could not be used to dewater the creeksediments since it is not nearly large enough, nor is itdesigned to treat wastes that have the physical characteristicsof the creek sediment. This facility will be decontaminatedonce the sewer sediments have been removed.

A comparison study to examine the suitability of the EDA forhuman habitation is underway. A ter-hnical review committee( T R C ) , composed of senior officials of the FPA, DEC, DOH, andCDC was formed to oversee this work and other activitiespertaining to the habitability of the EDA. Criteria for thehabitability study have been developed by the TRC and a group ofexpert scientists. The criteria were peer reviewed by an in- -Qdependent scientific panel and revised accordingly. Criteria call ^for a measurement of the presence of a set of chemicals specific ^to Love Canal (Love Canal Indicator Chemicals (LC I C s ) ) in the EDA yjsoil and air, as well as dioxin in soil. The EDA soil LCIC con- ^—|centrations will be compared to soil LCIC concentrations in the 0samples taken from other Buffalo/ Niagara Falls communities. Apilot study was conducted in 1986, and used to design thefull-scale study. The results and recommendations from thepilot study were also peer reviewed. Field sampling began inJuly 1987. A draft report detailing the results of the study isscheduled to be prepared in the winter of 1987/1988. Thefinal report will be made available to the DOH Commissionerwho will determine whether or not the EDA should be rehabitated.

ENFORCEMENT

On December 20, 1979, the U . S . Department of Justice on behalf ofEPA, filed a federal law suit against Hooker Chemicals and PlasticsCorp. pursuant to numerous environmental statutes, allegingan imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and theenvironment. New York State filed a lawsuit in state court inApril, 1980, against Hooker for damages sustained at Love Canal.This action was stayed on August 8, 1980. On September 11, 1980,New York State was realigned as a plaintiff in the federal case,and on September 18, 1980, the State filed its claims in federalcourt.On April 1 6 , 1982, The Department of Justice on behalf of EPA sentHooker a CERCLA notice letter. On July 2 6 , 1982, EPA and the Statemet with Hooker to explain the remediation activites which would betaken under Superfund. Hooker has refused to assume responsibilityfor remedial action at Love Canal. On January 17, 1984, the UnitedStates filed its second amended complaint against Hooker to includeclaims under Sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Hooker has filedcounter Claims against the United States and the State and crossand cross claims against the City of Niagara Falls, theNiagara Falls Board of Education, and Niagara County.COMMUNITY RELATIONS

The governmental effort to ensure significant communityinvolvement at Love Canal has been extensive. A comprehensivepublic relations strategy has been developed by DEC to keep

-8-

concerned parties cognizant of CERCLA activities at the site.The DEC maintains a Love Canal public information office atwhich Love Canal documents are made availaole for publicreview as they are produced. The office is located in theEDA at 9820 Colvin Boulevard. In addition to this office,the EPA has a public information office in the City of NiagaraFalls. The public is also kept informed through frequentpublic meetings. ->.

l-OA public meeting and a workshop were held respectively on (^QMarch 5 , 1 9 8 5 , and March 1 2 , 1985 to discuss the cleaning of —^contaminated sewer and creek sediments and interim storage of i—fthe sediments. A more detailed discussion of the outcome of othese public meetings can be found in the March 28, 1985 Re-sponsiveness Summary.The Draft Addendum FS identifying three remedial optionswas released for public comment on June 24 , 1 9 8 7 . The ProposedPlan For Destruction/Disposal of Love Canal Sewer and CreekSed iments was released for public comment on August 5 , ] 9 8 7 .EPA and DEC held a technical workshop to discuss thermal destructiontechnology and the implementation of the Proposed Plan onAugust 1 2 , ] 9 8 7 . In addition, EPA and DEC held a public meetingon August 2 5 , 1987 to discuss the addendum FS and proposedplan. The October 2 6 , 1987 Responsiveness Summary addressesguestions and concerns raised by the public during the publiccomment period which closed October 9 , ] 9 8 7 .

-9-

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

The alternatives identification and screenina process wasconducted as required by the National Contingency Plan ( N C P ) .The effectiveness, impiementabiiity and cost of each of the UQremedial alternatives were summarized in the Draft FS Addendum l0and Proposed Plan. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 03Act of 1986 (SARA) requires that permanent solutions and -r-lalternative treatment technologies or resource recovery T-Ioptions be utilized to the maximum extent practicable. In 0addition, under SARA, treatment alternatives which signi-ficantly reduce the mobility, toxicity, or volume of thewaste are preferred over remedial actions which do not involvetreatment. These factors have been fully considered in theevaluation of the alternatives that is discussed below.Alternatives for final destruction/disposal of the dioxin-contaminated sediments are evaluated in the Draft AddendumFS. Treatment alternatives evaluated include biological( e . g . microbial degradation), physical ( e . g . in-situ vitrificationand thermal destruction), and chemical ( e . g . polyethyleneglycol dechlorination) methods. Disposal alternatives evaluatedinclude transport to an off-site facility and on-site disposal.All but three alternatives which underwent initial screeningwere eliminated. Table 2 lists the technologies/disposaloptions which were evaluated and summarizes reasons forretaining or rejecting specific technologies/disposal options.A more detailed discussion of the rejected technologies/disposalis provided in Appendix A of the Draft Addendum FS. Severalof these technologies could be applied to the treatment ofdioxin-contaminated soils. However, none has demonstratedthe desired destruction and removal efficiencies (DREs) forinitial dioxin concentrations in the concentration rangeswhich exist in the creek sediments. In addition, none haveresulted in a non-hazardous residual which would not pose athreat to human health or the environment through any exposurepathway. In summary, the technologies which were rejectedhave not achieved the preferred stage of development forutilization at Love Canal.

TABLE 2SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES/DISPOSAL

OPTIONS EVALUATED IN INITIAL SCREENING

Location/Remedial Action1. DISPOSAL

On-site:BeneathExisting Cap

Beneath Ex-panded Cap

Final Disposalin CurrentlyDesignedDewatering/ContainmentFacilityOff-siteDisposal

2. TREATMENT

Off-siteThermalDestructionBiologicalTreatmentChemicalTreatment

PhysicalTreatment

On-siteThermalDestruction

Status

Rejected

Rejected

Retained

Rejected

Rejected

RejectedRejected

Rejected

Retained

Reason for Rejection

OT)No volume available l1

in cap below liner? (^would require excavation "r^of more contaminated "~^material. Integrity of < 1existing cap and containmentsystem could be compromised.Integrity of existingcap and containmentsystem could be compromised,Public is extremely opposed toexpanded cap disposal.

No disposal facilities currentlypermitted to receive dioxin-contaninated wastes.

No thermal destruction facilitiespermitted or certified to treatdioxin-contaminated waste.Not demonstrated to be effec-tive on dioxin in sediments.Not demonstrated to be effective onsediments with initial con-centration in the low ppb range.

Not demonstrated to be effec-tive on dioxin in soils/sediments

-10-

Three remedial alternatives were developed from the twotechnologies that passed the initial screening. Thealternatives are as follow:

1. On-site land disposal; 0C»>

2. On-site disposal of untreated sediment containing an C\iaverage dioxin concentration less than 1 ppb; T-IOn-site thermal destruction of untreated sediment •'"•<containing an average dioxin concentration greater than 01 ppb; On-site disposal of non-hazardous residuals fromthe thermal destruction process

3. On-site disposal of untreated sediment with an averagedioxin concentration less than 1 ppb; On—site thermaldestruction of untreated sediment containing an averagedioxin concentration of greater than 1 ppb; Off-sitedisposal of non-hazardous thermal treatment residuals.

The three alternatives were evaluated in light of the 1985ROD, which called for the removal of the creek and sewer sedimentsand interim storage of the sediment. The alternatives analyzedhere deal with final treatment/disposal of the sediments asremoved and stored in the dewatering/containraent facility.DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVESThis section provides a brief description of the threealternatives. A more detailed description of the alternativescan be found in the Draft Addendum FS.

Alternative 1 - On-Site Land DisposalThis alternative would use the recently designed on-sitedewatering/containment facility required for implementationof the 1985 creek remedy. It would be designed to meet allthe Federal and State requirements for a dewatering/containmentfacility. The facility would contain leak detection and leachatecollection systems as well as a double liner, cap and groundwater monitoring system.To implement this alternative, the sediments would be removedfrom the creeks and sewers, placed in the containment facility,and dewatered. Subsequent to dewatering, the facility would becapped. Ground water monitoring and post-closure maintenancewould continue indefinitely.

-] ] -

Alternative 2 - On-Site Thermal Destruction/On-Sits DisposalThis alternative would use both an on-site dewatering/containmentfacility and an on-site thermal destruction unit. To implementthis option, the sediments would C>e removed from the creeksand sewers and placed in the DCF. After dewatering, sediments Jwould be treated in a transportable thermal destruction unit ywhere a 9 9 . 9 9 9 9 % destruction and removal efficiency (s i x 9 ' s <DRE) for dioxin would be the performance standard, -r-j

-i-lThere are two major considerations involved with this alternative: o( 1 ) which sediments to thermally treat; and ( 2 ) the optionsfor disposal of the residuals of thermal destruction.As originally conceived, a sampling program would distinguishbetween those sediments containing dioxin above the previouslyprescribed level of concern of ] PPD of dioxin in residentialsoils. Under this approach, those sediment testing above 1ppb would be thermally treated. Those testing below 2 ppbwould remain in the DCF untreated. However, due to thepotential difficulty of effectively separating greater than] ppb material from less than ] ppb material and the timeand implementation issues associated with assuring separation,the thermal destruction of all excavated sediments was alsoconsidered as a possibility under this alternative.TAMS was tasked to examine the implementability of effectivelyseparating the sediments above the 1 ppb level from thosebelow, as compared to the option of thermally creating allexcavated sediments and associated material. The feasibilityof implementing a segregation program is discussed under theimplementability section of the alternatives evaluation( p g . 1 8 ) .Secondly, regarding the final disposal of the thermally-treatedsediments, there are also two options. The first optionwould be to dispose of the treated residuals in the DCF.The second option would be to place the non-hazardous residualsin selective areas of the site in such a way chat the integrityof the existing cap would not be threatened. For examplethe sediments can be placed in the northeast and southeastcorners of the site. This would result in less than a 3foot increase in elevation in these areas.

-]2-

If the residuals ^ere disposed of on the site, the DCF wouldbe altered prior to closure to account for the reduced volumeof material.Alternative 3 - On-Site Thermal Destruction/Off-Site Disposalof ResidualsThis alternative is identical to Alternative 2 except withregard to disposal of residuals. Alternative 3 makes twoassumptions. The first assumption is that the thermally treatedsediment residuals would be non-hazardous. The second assumptionis that a Subtitle D landfill would accept the residual materialsfor disposal. If an appreciable quantity of residuals weredisposed of off-site, the DCF would be alteredp^ior to closure to account for the reduced volume of material.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The above three alternatives were evaluated using evaluationcriteria derived from the National Contingency Plan ( N C P ) andthe Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ( S A R A ) .These criteria relate directly to factors mandated by SARA inSection ] 2 ] including Section J 2 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A - G ) and EPA's InterimGuidance on Selection of Remedy (December 24 , 1986 and July 24,1 9 8 7 ) . The criteria are as follow:

° Compliance with legally applicable or relevantand appropriate reauirementsReduction of toxicity, mobility or volumeShort-term effectivenessLong-term effectiveness and permanenceImp 1 ernentabilityCostCommunity acceptanceState acceptanceProtection of human health and the environment

-13-

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

A comparative discussion of the three alternatives usina theevaluation criteria is provided below.

Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and AppropriateRequirementsSection l ? l ( d ) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, recruices that Qremedial actions comply with all applicable or relevant andappropriate Federal and State recmirenents for the hazardoussubstances, pollutants, or contaminants that are presenton-site.?ach of the three Alternatives would comply with applicableor relevant and appropriate reauirements ( A R A R s ) . The on-siteDCF will comply with all the reoruirements of Part 264 SubpartN of RCRA (design recruirenients for facilities such as the DCF)and Title 6 , Part 373 of the Mew York Compilation of Rulesand Reaulations (desiqn reauirements for secondary containment,leachate collection and detection systems). The construction/demolition debris facility would comply with Part 2'i7 of RCRA(Subtitle D non-hazardous waste facility) and Title 6 , Part360 of the Mew York Compilation of Rules and Regulations.Consistent with SARA, the continued effectiveness of the DCFwould be evaluated every five years to assure continuedprotection of human health and the environment.Land Disposal restrictions under Subtitle C of RCRA andimplementing requlations qoverninq the disposal of dioxin-contaminated wastes are expected to ao into effect in November19S8. Because the creek sediments will not be excavateduntil 1 9 8 9 , final disposal of these sediments in the DCF( i . e . . Alternative 1 ) would have to comply with the RCRA landdisposal restrictions. The proposed land disposal restrictionsstate that dioxin-contaminated materials may be land disposedonly if they pass the proposed Toxicity CharacteristicLeachina Procedure (TCLP) (see Appendix A of the 1987 DraftAddendum FS for a more detailed discussion). Based upon resultsof the dioxin analyses of the creek sediment (see data tablesprovided in EPA, 1985 report), the Aoency expects that the excavatedsediment would pass the existing proposed TCLP test. Under Alter-natives 2 and 3 , the DCF will be used as an interaral component ofthe waste treatment method. The placement of the creek sedimentsand associated materials in the DCF is considered a necessary com-ponent of the thermal destruction process. The Aqency expects thatthe treated sediment residuals will also pass the TCLP.

-14-

while permits are not reouired for on-site remedial actionsat Superfund sites, any action must meet the substantivetechnical requirements of the permit process. The thermaldestruction process would comoly with all the applicablerequirements of Part 264 ^ubpart 0 of RCRA (desiqn and operating .-preauirements for hazardous waste incinerators). < Q

OtOperation of an on-site thermal destruction unit would require ,_jthat the transportable unit underqo waste specific trial or ^demonstration burns to demonstrate satisfactory destruction oof the toxic components of the waste. The trial or demonstrationburn must show that the unit achieves 9 9 . 9 9 9 ° % destructionand removal efficiency (six 9s D P E ) , and controls'air emissionso£ products of incomolete combustion, acid qases and oarticulatesto specified levels. Specific operating reouirements for a thermaldestruction unit would be established based upon results of trialor demonstration burns. Under alternative 3 , off-site disposal ofresiduals would reouire that the residuals be certified as non-hazardous. Similarly, if it was determined under Alternative 2 thatthe residuals should not be placed in the DCF, but rather disposedof on-site in some other fashion, the material must also benon-hazardous.Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or VolumeThis evaluation criterion relates to the performance of atechnoloqy or remedial alternative in terms of eliminatinq orcontrolling risks posed bv the toxicity, mobility or volumeof hazardous substances.Under Alternative 1, in addition to dewaterinq the sediments,the DCP would contain the contaminants on a lona-term basisand prevent their miqration out of the facility. Leavinq thesediments in the creeps and sewers creates a high potentialfor miqration and bioaccumulation. Dioxin, the contaminantof concern, has limited solubility in water, is not volatile,and binds tightly to sediments. Therefore, the DCP shouldeffectively prevent the miqration of dioxin ( i . e . , it reducesmobility). Alternative 1 does not provide a reduction inthe toxicity or volume of sediments since it does not involvetreatment.In contrast to Alternative 1, the thermal destruction under Alter-native 2 and 3 would virtually eliminate the toxicity of the creekand sewer sediments. They would also reduce the volume of thematerial, but only to the extent the creek sediments containorqanic matter. Only the volume of orqanic veqetative material

-15-

overlving the creek bed and the sewer sediment, which is not exoec-ted to be greater than 20% of the total quantity of material, wouldbe substantially reduced. The lona-term mobility of. the contamina-ted sediments would be reduced by thermal destruction, since thecontaminants would be destroyed, but there would be a limitedincrease in the mobility of contaminants over the short-term due toair releases of products of incomplete combustion and increasedmaterials handling. This would be controlled through careful '•°handling and operational procedures for the thermal treatment ^orocess (such as scrubbers). The only difference between the two ("thermal destruction alternatives is that alternative 3 would result ' ' ,in a smaller volume of material being disposed on-site. T ]

Short-Term EffectivenessThe short-term effectiveness criterion measures how well analternative is expected to perform, the time to achieveperformance, and the potential adverse impacts of its implementation.Alternative 1 , final on-site land disposal of creek and sewersediments in the DCF, provides a greater dearee of protectionover the short-term, since the on-site thermal destructionunder alternatives 2 and 3 would reguire additional materialshandling on-site, such as pretreatment ( e . g . , shreddina,crushina) of the contaminated sediments prior to feeding tothe thermal destruction unit. The thermal destruction alterna-tives mav result in air emissions from operation of thethermal destruction unit. As noted above, strict measureswould be implemented to ensure that such emissions would nothe harmful to human health or the environment.Alternative 3 would reauire off-site disposal of residuals.This would reauire the loading of the residuals onto trucksfor off-site transport. If the material below 1 opbcannot feasibly be separated fron that above 1 Ppb, then atotal of 25,000-35,000 cy won]'-' he thermally treated. If itis assumed that 1 cv of untreated sediment would result in 1cy of treated residual, then more than 1500 - 2000truckloads (17 cy per truckload) would be needed for transportof residuals to an off-site facility. This would result in aqreat deal of truck traffic throuoh the community and othercommunities enroute to an off-site disposal site.The time reoruired to implement and complete action called forin the alternatives varies widely. Pxcavation of the creekswill occur during 1 9 8 9 . Sediments may not be sufficientlydewatered until 1 9 9 0 , at which time under Alternative 1 thefacility would be capped and closed. Alternative 1 , therefore,would not req-uire anv additional time or action to implement.

-16-

On-sifce thermal destruction (Alternatives 2 and 3 ) wouldrequire similar steps and timeframes leadina uo to full-scaleoperation. Figure 2 outlines those steos and estimatedtime-frames. The reauired time rqnaes from 32 to 60 months.The first element, orocurement of a rtosiqn contractor forpreparation of bid specifications for treatment of the wastes,could beqin immediately. The Drocurement of a contractor totreat the wastes could be carried out upon the comoletion ofthe desiqn chase.It is not likely that trial burns would beain until after thesummer of 1989 . At best, the initiation of full-scale ooerationmay occur in the Spring of 1 9 9 0 . After full-scale operationis initiated, the treatment of the wastes (assume 25,000 -15,000 cy) under alternative ? could be conducted in about 12to 16 months if a unit with a caoscity of ? . n tons per hour(capacity based on 7';% ooerational efficiency) were operated24 hours a day. This would out the completion date fortreatment at 1991 to 1 9 9 3 . Under Alternative 2 , the residualscould be disposed of by spreading over selective sections ofthe site. This action could be accomplished bv 1992 to 1 9 9 4 .If the DCP was used for residual disposal, the closure of theDCP would place the final completion date at 1992 to 1 9 9 4 .The timeframe for cappino and closina the DCF under Alternative3 would be about the same as for Alternative 2.Long-Term Effectiveness and PermanenceLono-term effectiveness and permanence addresses the lono-termprotection and reliability of an alternative.Over the long-term, on-site thermal destruction Alternatives2 and 3 provide essentially ecruivalent protection to thelocal community. As mentioned earlier, the residuals fromthermal destruction are expected to be non-hazardous. Thiswill be determined at the appropriate time (most likely atthe trial burn staae. Assuming the residuals are non-hazardous,whether the residuals are disposed off-site or on-site is ofno concern from a health perspective. Both of the on-sitedestruction alternatives provide greater protection thanAlternative 1 , on-site land disposal, since Alternative 1does not eliminate the toxicitv threat posed by contaminatedsediments.The final disposal in the DCF under Alternative 1 preventsexposure to the sediments. Oioxin has a very limited solubilityin water, is not volatile, and binds tiahtiv to sedimentsoil. Therefore, exposure to the sediments, not the leachategenerated from dewaterina durina storage, is of most concern.Because the OCF is designed to meet all aoolicable or relevantand appropriate recruirements for a PCRA facility, human

Figure 2

Transportable Thermal Destruction Unit - Estimated Time Framesfor Events Leading to Start-Up Full-Scale Operation

State procurementof design con-tractor*6 months - 10 months

Performance of RD9 months - 1 year

State procurementof a vendor for RA6 months - ] year

Permitting/Approvalto trial burn ( T B )or demonstrationburn4 months - 1 year

Mobilization2-3 months

Trial burn/demonstration burn1-4 months

Review TB/demonstra-tion burn resultsCertify residues asnon-hazardous.Issue full approvalor permit to operate4-7 months

Start-upFull-ScaleOperation

*Design contractor will perform necessary studies/tests toadequately define waste characteristics and prepare performancebased bid specifications used for the selection of a vendor,as well as establishing criteria for evaluating different vendortechnologies.

-17-

exposure to the sediments during containment would not belikelv.Under Alternative 1 , the stored sediments would continue tocontain dioxin (some at concentrations greater than 1 opb)a n d , therefore, would not be as "clean" as material oeneratedfrom thermal destruction of the sediments. Alternative 1,therefore, does not provide a oermanent reduction in toxicityoE the waste, and would reauire long-term waste management, suchas general maintenance or potential replacement of the facility.In addition, the disposal remedy would have to be revisited everyfive years (as part of revisiting the wastes contained in LoveCanal proper) to ensure the continued effectiveness of thefacility.ImplementabilityImplementability addresses how easy or difficult, feasible orinfeasible it would be to carry out a oiven alternative.This covers implementation from desion throuah constructionand operation and maintenance.The impleinentabilitv of the alternatives is evaluated in termsof technical and administrative feasibility, and availabilityof needed goods and services. Ml three alternatives evaluatedhere are all technically feasible. However, some implementationproblems are inherent in each of the alternatives.As noted above, interim storage of the sediments in the DCFis necessary prior to the implementation of any treatmentalternative so that the sediments could be further dewatered,characterized, crushed, etc. Routine maintenance and monitoringof the DCF during dewatering and orocessina would ensurereliability and minimize the potential for failure. It'monitorina indicates a problem with the DCF, maintenance orrepairs would be made. It should be noted that with theselection of Alternative 1 , the DCP may need major repair orreplacement over the lona-term. such short-term or long-termrepairs are clearly feasible, but may result in a limitedshort-term increase in risk from human exposure to thesediments.As noted above, under Alternatives 2 and 3 , there are substantialimplementation problems in segregation of sediments above 1ppb from those below 1 oob.

-1R-

The first step in seqreaatina the sediments would be to desiana olan to determine which sediments are below the action leveland which are above. Since existing creek sa^nolinq data is notadeauate for makinq this determination, additional testing wouldbe reauired. The sediments could be sampled at any one of three .-idifferent staqes of the remediation process in order to seareaate ~ithose rearuirina treatment, namely: ^

T"!T-l1 ) Ttecharacteriainq the sediment in-situ orior to o

excavation.2 ) Characterizinq the sediment as it is beina excavated

from the creeks but orior to placement in the DCF.3 ) Characterizinq the sediment after it has been

removed and placed in the DCF.The objective of recharacterization of creek sediments in-situ would be to isolate zones of contamination above andbelow 1 ppb prior to removal. A samplinq effort to delineatethese zones would need to be developed, implemented andevaluated in accordance with protocols. It is hard todefine the scope of the samplinq proaram without doinq adetailed statistical desiqn. If it is assumed that 10 randomsamples per 100 cubic yards of in-situ sediment is reouired foranalytical testinq, for a total of 1000 samples), then itwould take approximately 9 months to evaluate, report anddecide on material excavation recmirements based on these samples.Full implementation of a program of this type could cost 0 . 5 toto 1 . 0 million dollars.Mthouqh the samplinq aspects of option 1 are feasible,siqnificant difficulties would arise durinq the implementationof an excavation proqram based uoon in-situ. samolinq. Thecreek material would have to be removed in a controlledmanner ( e . q . 6 " lifts or discrete areal removal) that wouldslow excavation production rates and increase the complexityof the proqram. Slower excavation could hinder the completionof excavation in one season, and therefore impact the overallremediation schedule. Furthermore, fillinq of the DCF withsediments would need to be controlled so that sediments aboveand below the action level could be seqreqated. Specialmeasures would need to be taken to minimize cross-contamination.Such measures would include construction of additional bermswithin the DCF, thereby potentially increasinq the dimensionsof the DCF. Since modifications to the existinq desiqn wouldbe required, the remediation schedule would be adverselyimpacted to a substantial dearee.

-19-

Site characteristics sianificantly restrict characterizationof the sediments after excavation but before placement in theDCF. Characterization durina excavation would be carried outbv placing the excavated creek sediments in temporary storaaecontainers and staainq the inaterial. Each storaae containerwould be sampled and tested to determine its contaminationlevel. Based on the results of this testina the materialswould be deposited in seareaated compartments of the DCF. ^C,Because of the laroe temporary staainq area required (limited ^by site characteristics), and the inability to predict size ^and desion of the various components of the DCF which might ,_)be reauired, this method is not Feasible. 0A program that involves samolina after the sediments areexcavated and placed in the DCF also has substantial implementationproblems. The sediments to be excavated from the creeks anddeposited within the DCP will be "soft and runny" even aftergravity separation of free water. It would be infeasible toseparate this soft and runny creek bottom material withinthe DCF, until the results of analytical tests are evaluated,to determine whether removal and thermal treatment is reauired.Furthermore, there remains the possibility of cross-contaminationfollowing sampling due to settlino out of potentially contaminatedsuspended solids from an aorueous level which may be aeneratedduring filling operations. Therefore, sampling after placementin the DCF, is not likely to be impleinentable from a technicalstandpoint.In summary, significant problems exist in either institutinoan effective sampling program once the sediments are excavatedor implementing an excavation and storaae program based uoonin-situ samplinq of the creeks. Physical site limitations,the "soft and runny" nature of the sediments, scheduleconstraints, technical considerations e t c . , are such thatsearegation of the sediments is not deemed practical orimplementable. The feasible alternative to sampling andsegregation is the treatment of all sediments and associatedmaterials. Although thermal treatment of all materialsappears to be the most costly alternative, it is an implementablealternative, free of additional technical complexity, modificationsto the existina design, and schedule delays. Thus, thermaltreatment of all sediments remains an implementable andcost-effective approach.Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to be completed between1992 to 1914 (assuming 25,000 - 35,000 cv require treatmentand using a 5 ton/hr. u n i t ) . The time reauired for actualon-site thermal destruction could potentially be decreasedby using two or more transportable units; however, due toon-site space limitations, it is unlikely that two or moreunits could be used at the site.

-20-

Routine maintenance and monitorina of the thermal destructionunit are also clearlv feasible and would ensure reliabilityand minimize the potential for failure. If monikorinq indicatesthe potential for failure of the thermal destruction u n i t ,the unit would be shut down until corrective measures aretaken, r-1r-Ooeration of thermal destruction units has shown that they CQare capable of successfully destroyinq dioxin-contaminated T-Imaterials and are able to meet applicable or relevant and '»~iappropriate reauirements- In addition, operation of the EPA 0mobile incinerator system elsewhere has demonstrated thatthe residues from the treatment of dioxin-contaminated materialscan be determined to be non-hazardous. 9aqed on this experience,the residues from Love Canal sediments should also be ableto be determined non-hazardous, "rocess wastewater from theon-site thermal destruction could be treated at the LoveCanal Leachate Treatment Facility, neoendinq upon the sizeof the thermal destruction unit and the eoruipinent reouiredfor pretreatment of materials, the fenceline at Love Canalmay have to be expanded to site the unit and accessories.The TAMS report evaluated the use of rotary kiln incineratoras a baseline and determined that such a unit could be sitedwithin the fenceline -just north of the DCF and the AdministrationBuilding (west side ofCa n a l ) .Pull-scale operation of transportable units at hazardouswaste sites has been limited. Units have experienced extendedperiods of downtime (beyond that taken into account in the75» operational efficiency previously n o t e d ) . It is likelythat operation of a unit at Love canal would also result insome extended downtime periods. Downtime periods would delaythe completion of thermal destruction of wastes and ultimatelyclosure of the DCF. However, in all situations, transportableunits have been repairable and have been brought back up tofull-scale operation.As stated above, transportable thermal destruction units arecurrently available for use at hazardous waste sites and couldbe used at Love Canal. Sufficient disposal capacity existson-site in the DCF for final disposal of the treated creekand sewer sediments.The residuals from the thermal destruction process are expectedto be non-hazardous; however, it is unlikely that an off-sitefacility would accept Love Canal materials. It is difficult topredict whether a facility will accept these Love Canal residualsat the time the residuals reoruire disposal. Tf off-site facilitiesare not willing to accept the residuals, residual materials wouldhave to be returned to the DCF or disposed of in selective areas

-1'! -

on-site, so as not to imoinae on the intearity of the cap.If an off-site subtitle D facility aareed to acceot thedelisted material, the DCP may still be needed to containthe house debris. The size of the facility could be alteredif a substantial Quantity of material were treated and disposedof off-site or disposed on-site in some fashion other than ,in the DCF. Therefore, some degree of aesthetic impacts of ,^the DCF may continue under any of the three alternatives. ^

CostCosts are evaluated in ternis of capital and ooeration andmaintenance costs. As noted above, the baseline cost for thecreek remedy selected under the 19R5 ROD ( i . e . , constructionof the DC? and creek sediment excavation) is estimated to beS13 million (S4M for construction of DCF and ? ' ' M for creekexcavation). This S13 million is included in the anticipatedcosts for Alternatives 1-3.The on-site land disposal under Alternative 1 has the lowestcost over the short-term since it does not reofuire any additionalaction above that called for in the 19R5 ROD. Therefore,the total cost for this alternative would be the baselinecost of $13 million. As noted, this alternative does notprovide a permanent reduction in the toxicity of those sedimentswhich pose the threat to human health and the environment.As noted in Figure ? , following excavation and storaae of thesediments, several additional tasks "lust be completed priorto initiation of thermal destruction of the sediments underAlternatives 2 and 3. Table 3 provides a summary of componentcosts for Alternatives 2 and 3 as well as Alternative 1. Thedesiqn of the thermal destruction plan and preparation of bidspecification is estimated to be 3500,000. Trial burn expensesare also estimated to be 3500,000.Table 4 provides cost/ton estimates for on-site thermal destructionof the sediments (Alternatives 2 and 3 ) . The estimates wereprovided by vendors of transportable thermal destructionunits. The estimates cover introduction of the waste to theunit ind removal of ash residue from the unit. Site preparationand materials pretreatrnent (sizinq, shredding, crushinq) isestimated to add approximately 10% to the thermal destructionprocessing costs.

T-<0

Table 3Summary of Es t imated Costs for Al te rna t ives 1-3

(Assume all mater ia ls require t r ea tmen t )

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Cons t ruc t ion $4M $4M"1" $4M4 ' ^p.of DCF , .(1985 ROD) ^

f-{Creek ^-)Excavat ion $9M $9M $9M Q

Desion/Preparat ion ofBid Specs. -— $0.5M $0.5M

Trial Burns —— $0.5M $0 .5M

Waste Handl ing / -— $ 1 . 1 M - $ J . 6 M $1.]M-$1.6MPretreatment

Thermal Treatment —- $J1 .3M-15 .8M $11.3M-15.8M

Off - s i t e Transportof Ash —- —- $0.51M-$0.74M

Off-s i te Disposalof Ash —- --- $1.0M-$1.4M

TotalEstimatedCost $13M $ 2 6 . 4 M - S 3 1 . 4 M * $ 2 7 . 9 M - $ 3 3 . 4 M

* Additional costs of approx. S0.4M would be incurred if thematerial were spread on-site.Cost incurred to alter the DCF would be roughly equivalentto costs which would have been incurred had the residualsbeen returned to the OCF and a RCRA cap placed over thefacility. These costs are approx. $0.4M and are included in$4M.

TABLE 4TRANSPORTABLE THERMAL DESTRUCTION UNIT

TOTAL COST/TON ($/TON)

T-JIBased on a Total of 25,000 - 40,000 Cubic Yards of Sediment _

03T-I% Moisture •r-\02 0 ( 1 ) Ranqe $150-450

Median 200Mean 230

5 0 ( 2 ) Range $150-400Median 260Mean 260

7 0 ( 3 ) Range $170-350Median/Mean 260

( ] ) Costs at 2tl% moisture were obtained from responsesto questionaires received from five thermal destructionunit designers and/or manufacturers.

( 2 ) Costs at 50% moisture were obtained from six designersand/or manufacturers.

( 3 ) Costs at 70% moisture were obtained from two designersand/or manufacturers.

-22-

An estimated cost of 5450/cv for on-site thermal destructionwas used. This estimate was based noon: ( 1 ) an estimate forsediment moisture content of 50% (as used in 1 9 S ? R O D ) ; ( 2 )the median value provided in Table 4 ; and ( 3 ) a bulk densityrepresentative of moisture free sediments eaual to 1.33 ."( q . / m l ) . These assumptions result in a conversion factor of -1 . 6 8 tons of sediment per cy sediment and therefore, a costof S450/cy (versus S260/ton) to treat the sediment. S11.3 -S15.8 million would be required to treat 25,000 - 35,000 cyof sediment and associated material. 0

Usina the median value, total costs for treating 25,000 cv( 1 6 , 0 0 0 cv of contaminated creek and sewer sediments, 9,0 0 0cy of associated material) of the waste (including trialburns and oretreatment) is estimated to be S l ? . 9 million.Therefore, the complete remedial cost for excavation of thecreeks (pe r the l^S^ ROD) and associated material and treat-ment of 25,000 cv of sediments would be approximately $ 2 6 . 4million. Assuminq 35,000 cv ( 1 6 , 0 0 0 cy of contaminated creekand sewers sediments, 19,000 cv of associated material) ofmaterial reauire treatment and makina the same assumptions asabove, the cost for i.molementinq Alternative 2 would be S31.4million.The cost for the treatment portion of Alternative 3 isidentical to that provided under Alternative 2. Additionalcosts would be incurred for transportation of residual materialto the off-site disposal facility and disposal of the residuals.Assuninq 25,000 cy of sediments reoruire treatment and thatthe volume of the residual treated sediment (moisture free)is also about 25,000 cv, then approximately 1500 truck loads(17 cy oer truck) of material would need to be disposed ofoff-site. Assuminq that a disposal facility is locatedwithin 100 -niles of the facility, and cost per loaded mile isS 3 . 5 0 , then transporation costs would total 5525,000. Disposalcosts at a subtitle D facility are estimated to be S980,000(assuming a tippinq fee of S35 per ton and a conversionfactor of 1.12 tons/cy for moisture free residuals).

-23-

Under Alternative 3 , the total estimated cost for thermaldestruction and disposal of 2'5,000 cv or sediment would beS 1 4 . 9 million. Complete remedial action cost for excavationof the creeks ( 1 9 8 5 ROD) and treatment and disposal of thesediments would be approximately $ 2 7 . 9 million. Apolvino the ,Dsame assumptions and basing the estimate on treatment of ]>•35,000 cv of sediments, the estimated cost for implementing GAlternative 3 is $33.4 million, i~i—1Under Alternatives 2 and 3 , if the residuals are not returned 0to the DCF and the DCF is altered or dismantled to accommodatea smaller volume of material, the costs incurred to alterthe DCF' would be rouahlv eauivqlent to costs which would havebeen incurred had the residuals been returned to the DCF anda RCRA cap placed ov;r the facility. These costs are approxi-mately S O . A ^ . Costs for spreading residuals on-site underAlternative ? are estimated to be S 0 . 4 M . Table 3 providesthe cost of the individual components of the three alternatives.All of the alternatives examined here may reauire lona-termoperation and maintenance of the DCF. These costs are expectedto be low since the OCF will be built on land currently beinqmaintained under the remedial prooram ( e . g . , limited incrementallawn maintenance costs) and since the DCP would utilize theexisting Love Canal Leachate Treatment Facility for treatmentof any leachate (generation of leachate is expected to beminimal after the sediments are dewatered and the facility isclosed in 1 9 9 0 ) . In addition, the DCF monitoring wells wouldbe monitored as part of the existing Love Canal perimeterwell monitorina oroaram.The operation and maintenance costs for a 20,000 cy containmentfacility were estimated by CH21 Hill (1985 FS report) to beS3000/yr. It would cost approximately $5000/vr for operationof a DCF (assuming 4 0 , C " i 0 cv capacity). Replacement or majorrepair costs may be necessary over the lona-kerm ( i . e . 20-40y r s . ) . Both on-site thermal destruction ootions would alsorequire similar expenses for operation and maintenance if theDCF was not dismantled.Studies to be performed every five years to ensure the continuedeffectiveness of Alternative 1 would be included as part of alarger five year study to ensure the continued effectivenessof the containment of Love Canal proper. The costs associatedwith the review of the DCF as part of a five vear review arenot expected to exceed S100.000 per review.

-24-

Cornmunitv Acceptance1>This evaluation criterion addresses the decree to which members t-<-

of the local conwiunitv support the remedial alternatives beinq (Mevaluated. T-I•r-1The local community has shown a mixed decree of acceptance of 0all alternatives due to various short-term remedial actionimpacts and aesthetic impacts. Any variation of the alternativesis likely to qenerate the same mixed acceptance.In general, the community opposes storaae or final disposalof any sediments or residuals in an on-site containmentfacility. As noted above. Alternative 1 would involve disposalof material in the OCF as well a? disposal of approximately5,500 cv of basement debris in the CDDF. In addition, theon-site treatment Alternatives 2 and 3 reauire interim storageof the contaminated sediments in the OCP so that the materialsmay be further dewatered, characterized, sized, crushed,around, e t c . , prior to treatment.Members of the community have Questioned whether the operationof an on-site thermal destruction unit would delay rehabitationof the Emergency Declaration Area ( E D A ) until 1992-1994.Some members of the community oppose the removal of thesediments from the creeks (reauired under 1985 P O D ) .Based upon the Responsiveness Summary and the unavailabilityof offsite disposal/destruction, public acceptance can becharacterized as follows:

1 . Acceptance of on-site c'-;struction of all creek materialsnot just those containing dioxin above 1 ppb.

2. Better acceptance for leavina open the option ofoff-site disposal of residuals in case it becomes apossibility in the future; otherwise dispose ofthe residuals outside the DCF.

3. Better acceptance for dismantling or scaling downthe DCF as much as possible following destruction ofall creek materials.

Detailed responses to the community concerns are contained inthe responsiveness sum"iarv ( A t t a c h m e n t ) .State Acceptance UO

1>MThe State acceptance criterion addresses the concern and

deqree of support that the State government has expressedreqardinq the remedial alternative beinq evaluated. _jThe State suoports the thermal destruction of excavated creek andsewer sediments and the thermal destruction or all existing wastematerial stored in the Love Canal site, with all residuals becom-inq delistable waste.The State has pro-iected that the schedule for remediation will belonger than the current schedule ( 1 9 9 2 - 1 9 9 4 ) .Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentProtection of human health and the environment is the centralmandate of CERCLA as amended by PARA. Protection is achievedprimarily by reducing health and environmental threats toacceptable levels and takino appropriate action to ensurethat there will be no unacceptable risks to human health andthe environment through any exposure pathways.All of the alternatives evaluated here are protective ofhuman health and the environment under the standards mandatedby CERCLA as amended bv SAT!A. On-site thermal destructionunder Alternatives 2 and 3 provide the greatest deqree ofprotection because both virtually eliminate the toxicity ofthe dioxin-contaminated sediments. Because thermal treatmentof the sediment would destroy the dioxin in the sediment, thepotential mobility of dioxin in those sediments would also beeliminated.Appropriate measures would need to be taken during creekexcavation work and construction of the DCF (applicable toall three options) to protect workers and the community. Inaddition, prior to implementing treatment under Alternatives 2and 3 , measures would have to be taken to assure that implementa-tion of the thermal destruction process does not pose athreat to human health or the environment. A few of thepotential problems are outlined below.Workers and the residents would be protected through measures out-lined in project specific health and safety plans and throughcontractor adherence to Occupational safety and Health Act ( O S H A )regulations.

0

-26-

An on-site transportable thermal destruction unit (TTDU)and/or associated air oollution control eauipment, materialshandling equipment, or materials pretreatment ecruiprient maygenerate noise during routine operation. Any such noisewould probably not be noticeable except during night-timeooeration ( i f night-time operation is acceptable to thecommunity). Proprietors of TTDUs have indicated a willingnessto house or insulate any noisy pieces of ecruioment or takeany other measures necessary to eliminate the generation of

Dust and particulate matter could be generated during materialshandling and oretreatnent. The potential for air releases ofproducts of incomplete combustion also exists. Measures wouldbe taken to ensure that all these potential hazards arecontrolled prior to full-scale operation.Under Alternative 1 , the DCF would remain as a permanentstructure and would, therefore, continue to impact the communityaesthetically. If the residuals are disposed off-site as inAlternative 3 , or spread on-site as in Alternative 2, then theaesthetic imoact of the DCF could be lessened since the sizeof the DCF could be reduced upon completion of thermal treatment.For thermal treatment/off-site disoosal under Alternative 3 ,a ma-jor potential safety and noise impact would be the needto transport approximately 1500 - 2000 (assuming all creekand sewer material (25,000-35,000 cy) is treated) truckloadsof the treated residuals to an off-site disposal facility. Theon-site containment option would have the least problemsduring the remedial action implementation phase. However, inthe long term, the thermal destruction alternatives wouldprovide the greatest deoree of protection since the coxicityof the waste will be virtually eliminated.

SELECTED REMEDY

Based upon CERCLA as amended by SARA and detailed evaluationof the alternatives, the Agency has determined that Alternative2 , on-site thermal destruction/on-site disposal is theselected remedy.As a result of public comment on the Proposed Plan and concernthat effective seoaration of materials containing less than 1opb is not practical, a technical review was conducted by EPAand the State to determine the feasibility of separation ofthese materials. Based upon this review (refer to implementa-bility discussion Pg. 1 8 ) , separation and consolidation of

-27-

the dioxin-contaminated sedinients above 1 opb from those below1 ppb is not imolementable and will lead to unacceptableproject delays. In addition, the community is opposed toany option which does not call for thermal destruction of all the Qcontaminated creek and sewer sediments. »iS a conseauence of the }^.above factors, all materials (excluding 5,500 cy of house <debris to be placed in the CDDF) will be thermally treated. ^~\

T-fThe entire Quantity of sewer sediment (approximately 1000 cy) wouldOreouire treatment. The majority of the 2400 drums of waste storedon-site (activated carbon from the leachate treatment facility,inner sewer sediments, and miscellaneous solid waste from remedialefforts) would also be expected to require treatment. Based uponthis review, the total Quantity of material that would requiretreatment is estimated to be 25,000 - 35,000 cv (see Table 1 ) .These materials would be treated in a transportable thermaldestruction unit operated at Love Canal. On-site thermaltreatment of the sediments will involve transporting andsettinq up a transportable unit on the site to treat thesediments. The sediments will have to be dewatered prior totreatment. In addition, the sediment will require somedeqree of pretreatmenfc such as screeninq, shreddino or crushingto be suitable for feedina to the thermal destruction unit.Storaqe systems for waste blending and material feedinq willalso be necessary. Included with this technoloqy will be theneed to have laboratory facilities present at the site toassure compliance with all requlatorv emission or discharqestandards. These components are necessary to ensure theprotectiveness and effectiveness of the selected remedy.The steps involved in establishinq a TTDU are outlined in figure 2.The time reauired to procure, mobilize and beqin full-scaleoperation of a unit could be between 32 months and 60 months.It is possible that some of these steos could be performedin parallel. However, it is unlikely that full-scale operationcould beqin in less than 32 months. Once full-scale operationbegins, the 25,000-35,000 cy of material could be treatedin 12 to 16 months if a 5 ton per hour unit (assuming 75%operational capacity) was operated 24 hours a day. Operationof the TTDU 24 hours a day has not received any neaativecommunity reaction. The overall schedule for the remediationof the creek and sewer sediments is provided inTable 5.Following the thermal destruction process, the DCF would bescaled down to accommodate only the construction/demolitiondebris material.

Table 5OVERALL REMEDIAL SCHEDULE

] 9 8 7 1988 1 9 8 9 1990 J 9 9 ]

] . Record of Decision X

2. Construct ion of X XDCF

3 . Excavate Creeds/Fill XDCF

4. Thermal, treatment X Xprocurementpackage

5. Installation ofthermal treatmentunit/test burn

X X6 . Treat dioxin-contaminatedsediments

-28-

Statutory FindingsThe selected remedy satisfies the nine evaluation criteria tothe greatest degree o£ any of the alternatives examined.The thermal destruction process would comply with all action- ,—(specific ARARs as specified in RCRA, (see 40 C . F . R . Section QO26 4 , Subpart 0 ) . The thermal destruction process would be (^required to demonstrate six 9s DRE. In addition, the residuals -lfrom the thermal destruction would be determined non-hazardous -r-1and would not pose a threat through any exposure pathway to 0human health or the environment.The Agency has been explicitly directed by Congress in CERCLA§ 1 2 1 ( b ) to select remedial actions which utilize permanentsolutions and alternative treatment technologies or resourcerecovery options to the maximum extent practicable. Inaddition, the Agency is to prefer remedial actions thatpermanently and significantly reduce the mobility, toxicityor volume of site wastes. Applying this statuatory preferencehere. Alternative 2 provides the greatest degree of long-termeffectiveness and permanence by utilizing a treatment technologythat will virtually destroy the dioxin. In addition, excavationto approximately 18 inches will also fulfill the preference forpermanent elimination or reduction of the public health andenvironmental risk. Because of the potential mobility of thesediments and the bioaccumulation in fish, this permanentsolution is appropriate. There would be virtually no residualrisk associated with this alternative since the contaminantof concern, dioxin, would be virtually eliminated through thethermal destruction process and the excavation plan. Inaddition, there would be no need for eventual replacement ofthe remedy since the residuals from the treatment processwill be nonhazardous. Finally, this remedy is reliable andwould avoid the long-term uncertainties associated with landdisposal of untreated wastes. Hence protection of humanhealth and the environment on a long-term permanent basis isbest assured by Alternative 2.The Agency believes that the thermal destruction technologyis available and reliable for the treatment of dioxin-contaminatedwaste. The land area is available for the siting of theTTDU and disposal of the residuals on-site. Trial-burn datawould bs utilized to ensure the operational reliability ofthe thermal destruction process. Although this remedy wouldrequire measures to control possible risks related to constructionand operation ( e . g . , air emissions), the Agency's analysisindicates that all these factors can be adequately controlled.

-29-

Capital cost for the thermal destruction of all the sedimentsis higher than the cost of land disposal of the sediments inthe DCP. However, the fact that the remedy is permanentmeans that future replacement of the DCF and associatedcosts under Alternative 1 (design life of the DCF is twentyyears) would not be incurred.In addition, the costs of five vear reviews, operation and QQmaintenance and major repairs of the I5CF would not be incurred. (^While the selection of remedy involves balancinq costs and ,—(cost-effectiveness aaainst the relative benefits of each ^-\alternative, the Agency is statutorily reouired to favor 0remedies that are permanent and that utilize treatment technologies,which permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity,mobility or volume of the contaminants. Thus, even thoughAlternative 1 is less expensive than Alternative 2 , theAqency finds that the balance is tipped in favor of permanentthermal treatment under Alternative 2.The community prefers that all contaminated sediments bedestroyed and that no final disposal facility be left at LoveCanal. The selected remedy meets public acceptance by virtuallydestroyinq all the contaminated sediments. The selected remedycalls for a scaling down of the DCF to accommodate solely the housedebris. Although the community opposes any final disposal facilityincluding a construction/demolition debris facility, the housedebris is not known to be contaminated and would not pose any threatto human health and the environment. In addition, the communityopposes placing the non-hazardous residuals on-site. Similar to thehouse debris, the residuals do not pose a threat to human healthand the environmental. Thus, the selected remedy has consideredcommunity acceptance to the maximum degree possible in light of theother factors to be weighed.The selected remedy would be protective of human health and theenvironment by: 1 ) utilizing treatment to reduce toxicity and mo-bility of the waste; 2 ) being the most effective and permanentremedy in the long-term; 3 ) being the easiest to implement and 4 )assuring short-term effectiveness.in summary, EPA has selected Alternative 2 because it is protectiveof human health and the environment, will attain all applicable orrelevant and appropriate requirements, is cost-effective, andutilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technolooiesor resource recovery options to the maximum extent practicable.Additionally, since this alternative employs thermal destruction toeliminate the principal threat at the site, this option would alsosatisfy SARA'S preference for remedies which employ treatment astheir principal element to permanently and significantly reducetoxicity, mobility or volume of the contaminants.

United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency

Responsiveness Summary forProposed Plan for Destruction/Disposal of Love CanalCreek and Sewer Sediments

1. INTRODUCTION

In August 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA ) released a document entitled "Proposed Plan for Destruction/Disposal of Love Canal Creek and Sewer Sediments." The present docu-ment serves as a companion document to the June 1987 draft feasibilitystudy entitled "Alternatives for Destruction/Disposal of Love CanalCreek and Sewer Sediments". Copies of the Proposed Plan are availableat the EPA Public Information Office, Carborundum Center, Suite 530,345 Third Street, Niagara Falls, New York, and the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Love Canal PublicInformation Office, Colvin Boulevard, Niagara Falls.

As called for in Section 117 of the Superfund Amendments andReauthorization Act of 1986 ( S A R A ) , EPA has presented the ProposedPlan for public review. EPA accepted written comments on both docu-ments until October 9 , 1987, A public meeting was held on August 25,1987, at the Frontier Avenue Fireball, Wheatfield, New York, to dis-cuss the proposed remedial action directed toward the final destruc-tion/disposal of the dioxin-contaminated sediments from specificstretches of sewers and creeks at the Love Canal hazardous waste site.In addition, a workshop was held in Niagara Falls on August 12, 1987to discuss the thermal destruction of dioxin-contaminated wastes fromLove Canal.

BackgroundThe Love Canal site is located in the southeast corner of the

City of Niagara Falls and is approximately one-quarter mile north of

the Niagara River. Hooker Chemical & Plast ics Corp. (now OccidentalChemical Corporation) disposed of over 21,000 tons of various chemi-cals (including dioxin-tainted trichlorophenols) into Love Canalbetween 1942 and 1953. Over the course of the next two and one halfdecades, contaminated leachate migrated to the surface of the Canaland to the basements of nearby residences which have since been demol-ished. Contaminants also migrated through area sewers that have out-falls in nearby Black and Bergholtz creeks.

NYSDEC and EPA entered into an initial assistance agreement forremediation at the site in 1978; in July 1982, EPA and DEC enteredinto a cooperative agreement under the Federal Superfund program tocontinue the remedial activities at the site. Contamination at thesite itself has been contained through the implementation of variousremedial measures including the installation of a barrier drain leach-ate collection system; a leachate treatment facility; and a clay capover the original 16-acre site; and in 1984, an expanded 40-acre capwith synthetic liner. Following containment, studies were undertakento address the remediation of contaminated drainage tracts (i.e., sew-ers and creeks). The studies led to the May 6, 1985, Record of Deci-sion (ROD) that called for the removal of contaminated sediments fromspecific stretches of the sewers and creeks. It was determined thatthe excavated sediments should be placed in an interim containmentfacility. There were several reasons for this decision, including: aviable option for destruction/disposal of the sediments did not existat that time; the creek material would require dewatenng, sizing,shredding, etc., prior to implementation of any treatment alternative;the rate of sad^.nent removal would be much greater than the rate atwhich the wastes could be treated (i.e., the creek excavation would becompleted in approximately 24 weeks, whereas thermal destruction ofthe sediment would require at least one year of operation).

Approximately 95!6 of the sewers which required remediation werecleaned in 1986. The creek excavation is planned for 1989. Approxi-mately 25,000 - 35,000 cy of creek and sewer sediment and miscella-neous remedial wastes will require destruction/disposal. The draftfeasibility study recommended that three alternatives for destruction/disposal of these wastes be considered.

The three alternatives, as provided in the draf t f e a s i b i l i t ystudy are: On-Site Land Disposa l ; On-Site Thermal Destruction/On-SiteDisposal ; and, On-Site Thermal Destruct ion/Off-Si te D i sposa l . TheProposed Plan evaluates these three al ternatives u s i n g cr i ter ia der-ived from the N a t i o n a l Cont ingency P lan ( N C P ) and SARA. These criter-ia are; Protection of human heal th and the environment; Compliancewith legal ly appl icab le or relevant and appropriate requirements;Reduction of toxicity, mob i l i t y , or volume; Short-term effectiveness;Long-term effectiveness and permanence; Implementabi l i ty ; Cost; Com-m u n i t y acceptance; and State acceptance.

At th is time, based on a l l ava i l ab le information, the selectedoption is Alternative 2, On-Site Thermal Destruction/On-^ite Dis-posal. The objective of Al te rna t ive 2 is to thermally treat ( v i atransportable thermal destruction un i t ) the material contaminated withd i o x i n . By thermally treating the d iox in , the toxicity and m o b i l i t yof the threat posed by the d iox in would be v i r t ua l l y e l iminated .

The design of the May 1985 ROD Creek Remedy (i .e. , sediment exca-vation and construction of the inter im containment faci l i ty) is cur-rently at the 951! completion stage. The design calls for the con-struction of a containment fac i l i ty , which would be approximately 900feet long, 300 feet wide, and 25 feet above grade (at crest).

EPA and the State have revisited the project design to assurethat it meets the goals and objectives outlined in the Proposed P l an .Spec i f ica l ly , the review included re-estimating the quantity of asso-ciated material requir ing thermal treatment and focused on the factthat the sediments need dewatering, and that a storage area is neededfor staging material prior to thermal treatment. The scale of thecontainment faci l i ty has not changed s ign i f i can t ly , since it woulds t i l l receive approximately the same quant i ty of material as plannedearlier for interim storage. The f a c i l i t y is now referred to as thedewatering/containment f ac i l i t y ( O C F ) .

As o r i g i n a l l y conceived under the selected alternative, sedimentscontaminated wi th an average dioxin concentration greater than 1 ppbwould be thermally treated, w h i l e those contaminated wi th less than1 ppb of d iox in would remain in the OCF untreated.

As a result of p u b l i c comment on the Proposed P l a n and concernthat effective separation of mater ia ls con ta in ing less than 1 ppb isnot practical, a technical review was conducted by EPA and the State.As a result of th is review, EPA has determined that it is in feas ib leto separate these mate r i a l s , that separation w i l l lead to projectdelay, and that separation is generally a non-impleinentable op t ion .As a consequence, a11 material ( e x c l u d i n g 5,500 cy of house debris tobe placed in the Construction/Demoli t ion Debris Fac i l i ty [CDDF]) w i l l ^be treated. JO

There were two options ava i l ab le for treated res iduals from the "thermal destruction process. The first would be to dispose of the •v~0res idua l s in the DCF. The second would be to place the res iduals onthe site rather than returning them to the DCF. Implementation of thesecond option may a l low the scale of the DCF to be reduced f o l l o w i n gthermal treatment. Based upon analysis of the two options and onpub l i c comment, EPA has determined that the r e s idua l s should be spreadon-site, adjacent to the existing cap.

Prior to approving fu l l - sca le operation of a thermal treatmentuni t at the site, trial burns would be required to demonstrate thatthe uni t is capable of successfully and safely treating the dioxin-contaminated waste. Specif ical ly, 99.9999< destruction and removaleff iciency for thermal treatment of d iox in would have to be achievedand the treated waste residuals would have to be non-hazardous.

This Proposed Plan would make use of the DCF, a CDDF for thebasement debris (for the debris to be removed from R i n g II basementsso that a stable foundation can be piovided for the D C F ) , and anon-site thermal destruction uni t . The estimated total cost rangesfrom $26.4 to 31.1 m i l l i o n .

This Responsiveness Summary detai ls the comments received fromresidents of the Love Canal Emergency Declarat ion Area, c i t i z e n groupsfrom Niaga ra Fal ls and surrounding communities, the scient i f ic expertswho reviewed the document, and other interested parties. The discus-sions answer the most prevalent concerns expressed by ci t izens, aswell as addressing i n d i v i d u a l comments. Verbat im transcripts of pub-l i c meetings, written comments, meeting notes, telephone memoranda,newspaper accounts, and notes made fo l lowing conversations were usedwhen compi l ing the comments.

2 . CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS

Question: W i l l R i n g II basement debris be placed in the dewatering/containment f ac i l i t y ( D C F ) ? W i l l th is mater ia l be permanently storedor thermally destroyed?

Response: Excavated R i n g II basements w i l l be placed in one sectionof the OCF, known as the construction/demolition debris fac i l i ty( C D O F ) . No contact w i l l occur with excavated creek sediments. R i n gII basement debris w i l l not be thermally throated. It w i l l bepermanently stored.

Question: What w i l l happen to material contaminated dur ing the creekremediation—haul road material , for example7

Response: Contaminated construction debris from *'ie actual creekremediation w i l l be placed in the DCF with contaminated creek sedimentand w i l l be thermally treated. Material which is not contaminatedw i l l not be stored with the sediments ir the OCF; however, it may bestored with the basement debris in the CODF.

3. DEWATERING

Question: Is dewatering of sediments necessary?

Response: Some dewatering of sediments is necessary for any thermaltreatment process q u a l i f y i n g as implement able at the Love Canal site.

Question: What is involved in sediment dewatering?

Response: Several steps w i l l be taken to dewater the sediments, in-c luding dewater-Ing in the OCF. Ini t ia l dewatering of the sedimentsw i l l occur at creekside. This w i l l include drainage of free l i q u i d sduring excavation, followed by further drainage at a hold ing/s tagingarea at creekside. This i n i t i a l dewatering is anticipated to takeapproximately 1 week. A schedule w i l l be f i n a l i z e d dur ing the designphase. The material w i l l be transferred to the OCF where it •mundergo further dewatering unt i l a thermal destruction un i t is avai l -able to treat the sediments. The sediments may be further dewateredor dried as part of the thermal treatment process in order to promoteef f ic ien t and cost effective thermal treatment. At creekside and atthe DCF, measures w i l l be taken to avoid odors and other nuisances.

4. SEGREGATION OF OIOXIN-CONTAMINATEO MATERIALS

Question: Is it possible to segregate waste contaminated wi th morethan 1 part per b i l l i o n (ppb) of d iox in from material contaminatedwith less than 1 ppb? How much would it cost to provide th is separa-t ion? How much would it cost to burn a11 the waste? W i l l excavationand the m i x i n g of the wastes which may occur d i l u t e the d i o x i n so thatal l the material ends up below 1 ppb?

Response: The feas ib i l i ty of segregating wastes contaminated wi thgreater than 1 ppb from waste with less than 1 ppb is an importantconsideration in the formulat ion of the remedial plan. Based uponth is concern, EPA and NYSOEC directed TAMS consultants to evaluatemeasures to segregate the materials. The alternatives examined forsampling were:

- Re-characterize the sediments in -s i tu prior to excavation sothat segregation du r ing excavation could occur;

- Characterize the sediments at creekside f o l l o w i n g excavationbut prior to placement in the OCF to a l low segregation at th i spoint ; or

- Characterize the sediments after placement in the DCF but priorto thermal treatment.

For reasons discussed in detail in the ROD, EPA concludes that signif-icant problems exist with regard to either i n s t i t u t ing an effect ives a m p l i n g program once the sediments are excavated, or imp lemen t ing anexcavation and storage program based upon i n - s i t u sampl ing of thecreeks. Phys ica l site l im i t a t i ons , the "soft and runny" nature of thesediments, schedule constraints, technical considerat ions, etc., aresuch that segregation of the sediments is not deemed feasible orimplementable. The only implenientable alternative to sampling andsegregation is the treatment of a l l sediments and associated mate-r ia ls . Al though treatment of a11 mater ia ls appears to be the morecostly a l ternat ive, it is an al ternat ive that is free of add i t iona ltechnical complexity, m o d i f i c a t i o n s to the exis t ing des ign , and sched-u l e delays. These factors make the non- separation approach the mostimplementable and cost-effective approach.

5. RESIDUAL DISPOSAL

Question: Where will the residuals be disposed of on-site?

Response: The residuals will be spread on-site within the fence lineat Love Canal, adjacent to the existing cap. The residuals would beplaced in such a manner that they would not compromise the integrityof the existing cap. Potential areas for placement of the residualson-site include the northeast and southeast corners. This wouldresult in less than a 3-foot increase in elevation in these areas.

Question: Wil l the residuals be disposed of above or below the exist-ing cap?

Response: The possibility of disposing of creek sediments on the cap-ped area of the Canal is not considered technically feasible. Dis-posing of the sediments above the synthetic membrane liner and belowthe liner were considered and rejected for several reasons: theeffects of the weight of the material on the Canal contents cannot befully evaluated; and the integrity of the cap and barrier drain systemmay be compromised. Therefore, residuals will be disposed of in areasadjacent to the cap. Under no circumstances would the residuals beplaced on the cap or under the cap.

Question: Could the residuals from thermal destruction be placed backin the creeks?

Response: This could occur under the f o l l o w i n g set of circumstances:if thermal destruction of the sediments could be conducted at the samerate as excavation of the sediments; if a l l work cou ld be conducted inone construction season; and if no flood event impaired the remedia-tion process. However, this set of circumstances is not possible.The creek sediment w i l l be excavated in 18 to 24 weeks, w h i l e thermaltreatment w i l l take 12 to 16 months. Placement of the sediments backin the creeks over more than one construction season would requirefurther berming and dewatering of the creeks to remove sediments whichwould have been deposited d u r i n g that t ime. This would resul t inaddi t ional construction costs and impacts on residents whose proper-ties abut the creeks.

Question: What off-s i te disposal options are being considered fordisposal of res idua ls?

Response: A 1984 marketplace study conducted by EPA found that com-mercial waste disposal facilities are not interested in acceptingtreated wastes from Love Canal, even if they are non-hazardous.Although this could change, the further impacts of more than 1,500truckloads of waste and associated traffic on the community have ledEPA to conclude that at this time off-site disposal of the residualsfrom thermal destruction of creek and sewer sediments is not animplementable alternative.

10

6 . THERMAL DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Question: Is destruction of dioxin by thermal treatment proven, or isthis just an experiment?

Response: Destruction of dioxin-contaminated materials by thermaldestruction has been proven effective. Destruction of dioxin in con-taminated soils has been used successfully by EPA to remediate otherhazardous waste sites. At this time, several manufacturers as well asEPA operate thermal destruction units proven to be capable of destroy-ing the dioxin in Black and Bergholtz Creek sediments.

Question: What is emitted into the air from Incineration? Do we haveto worry about the air we are breathing?

Response: Operation of the thermal destruction unit will comply witha11 applicable or relevent and appropriate state and federal emissionsrequirements in addition to the six 9s ( 9 9 . 9 9 9 9 % ) thermal destructionefficiency. Compliance with these emissions requirements will beassured through use of air pollution control equipment, through con-tinuous monitoring of stack emissions, and through the use of specificparameters for operation of the thermal destruction unit. Theserequirements are designed to assure the protection of public healthand the environment. Operation of the thermal destruction unit wouldnot be approved unless trial burns indicate that the unit could beoperated in such a manner.

11

Question: Will thermal destruction capacity increase as time goes on,or will the unit start at full capacity?

Response: Following successful completion of trial burns, the unitwould be operated at full design capacity.

Question: Where will the trial burns be done?

Response: The trial burns will be conducted on-site at Love Canal.

Question: Will the public be notified before burning begins?

Response: NYSDEC's public participation program wi11 keep the publicinformed of activities related to thermal destruction.

12

7. OTHER/NON-CATEGORICAL

Question: Is 93rd Street covered under Super-fund?

Response: A Remedial Inves t iga t ion /Feas ib i l i t y Study is currentlybeing conducted at the 93rd Street School, w h i c h is an operable u n i tof the Love Canal Site. A record of decision selecting an appropriateremedy for the school is expected to be signed in the spring of 1988.

Question: Did you give us 24 hours notice of the pub l i c meeting?

Response: Dur ing the weeks leading up to the August 25, 1987, p u b l i cmeeting, there was an extensive effort made by EPA to assure that allconcerned i n d i v i d u a l s knew of the meeting. Two weeks before the meet-ing, a Legal Notice was printed in the Niagara Gazette announcing thep u b l i c "ieeting. The Niagara Gazette printed two front page articles,and the Buf fa lo News printed three articles announcing the date, time,and location of the meeting dur ing the 2 weeks preceding the meeting.One week before the meeting, a press release was sent to a l l localnewspapers, and radio and television stations. Add i t i ona l l y , a m a i l -ing was sent to more than 1,000 areas residents, p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s , andother concerned i n d i v i d u a l s to assure that they were aware of theupcoming pub l i c meeting.

Question: Has Hooker been consulted regarding the locating of thethermal destruction un i t at Love C a n a l ?

13

Response: Hooker, now Occidental Chemical Corporation, has been keptaware of remedial ac t iv i t i e s at Love Canal through p u b l i c notice andthrough direct correspondence. Their continents on the proposed planw i l l be considered with a11 others.

Quest ion: Wou ld you recommend a containment fac i l i ty be placed infront of the Jefferson Memorial if there was contamination in thePotomac Basin?

Response: Selection of appropriate remedies depends upon site-speci-f i c condit ions which dictate whether treatment or non-treatmentoptions w i l l be pursued.

Question: Fo l lowing the release of the proposed plan for destruction/disposal of Love Canal creek and sewer sediments, a vendor of environ-mental c lean-up technology submitted an alternative p lan . This p lancalled for the use of an essential ly closed system for the hydraul icremoval, and hydraulic transport of creek sediments with concurrentdewatering and thermal destruction of the d i o x i n in the sediments,fol lowed by off-site disposal of the residuals of thermal destruction.The advantages suggested in connection with this alternative includedthe e l i m i n a t i o n of the OCF, the e l imina t ion of t raff ic caused by thetrucking of sediments from creekside to the OCF, lower cost, thecompletion of the project in two construction seasons, and shortertime required for implementation.

Response: The proposed alternative ca l l s for the thermal destructionof creek sediment without interim storage in a DCF. The advantage ofus ing the DCF is that sediments can be removed from the creeks priorto the approval of the operation of a thermal destruction f ac i l i t y .E P A ' s t imetable for meeting the requirements of the contracting andpermitt ing process would require three to four years before the opera-tion of a thermal destruction f ac i l i t y could be approved. As such,the d iox in-contaminated sediments would remain in the creeks unti l atleast 1992, w h i l e under the remedy selected by EPA the sediments wouldbe removed d u r i n g 1989. It is clear that by removing the contaminatedsediments from the environment a min imum of three years sooner, the

14

remedy selected by EPA provides better protection of human health andthe environment over the short term than does the proposed alterna-tive.

The proposed a l te rna t ive ca l l s for h y d r a u l i c dredging of contaminatedsediments from the creeks. H y d r a u l i c dredging was considered andel iminated during the pre l iminary design phase of the project. It wase l imina ted both on the basis of its i nab i l i t y to insure completeremoval of the contaminated zone of mater ia l , and on its adaptabi l i tyto project site condi t ions . The Black Creek portion of the projectand the banks of the creeks along the entire project do not havesuf f i c i en t water du r ing most of the construction season to permithydrau l ic dredging using "standard equipment. Add i t iona l ly , the largeamount of debris in the creeks (branches, br icks , wheels, etc.) makesthe use of mechanical excavation equipment, as is current ly planned,more appropriate for this project.

Under the proposed alternative, the hydraul ical ly excavated materialwould be transported by p ip ing to a temporary dewatering f a c i l i t ylocated near the thermal destruction un i t . A separation tank capableof ho ld ing 200,000 gal lons would also be required at th is locationaccording to the proposed alternative. In order to accomplish thiswithout p ip ing across city streets, an area adjacent to the creekswould be required. The only area adjacent to the creeks suff ic ient toaccommodate these faci l i t ies is the area adjacent to the 93rd StreetSchool. However, the u t i l i za t ion of th is area is l imi ted due to theongoing RI/FS at the school, and the poss ib i l i ty of interfering wi thfuture remedial action at th is site. As such, the dewatering andthermal destruction activities of the project would have to be per-formed away from the creeks, probably w i t h i n the same area proposedfor the DCF, therefore requir ing the t ransportat ion of the dredgedmaterial by truck.

L i n k i n g the removal of the sediments from the creeks wi th the thermaldestruction process is unacceptable to EPA. Under the proposed alter-native, the rate of sediment removal would be controlled by the rateat which the thermal destruction fac i l i ty can process the ma te r i a l .

15

Should any mechanical problems occur with the thermal destructionfacility requiring a delay in the processing of the wastes, creekexcavation would be halted. The failure of any of the other compo-nents of this complex materials processing system (i.e., pumps, filterpresses, settling tanks) could also cause a delay in the excavation ofthe creeks. Under the selected remedy, a 1 1 sediments to be excavatedwould be removed during one construction season, stored and staged inthe OCF, and then processed by the thermal destruction unit when it ^was available. ^

CM

Based upon these problems with the proposed alternative, EPA considersit to be less easily implemented, potentially more costly, and lessprotective of human health and the environment than the selectedalternative.

16

0

8. OUTSIDE WASTES

Question: What w i l l prevent the site from being expanded from theor ig inal purpose to a permanent l a n d f i l l which w i l l u l t ima te ly take onres iduals which CECOS can ' t handle?

Response: This Record of Dec i s ion (ROD) document gives EPA authori tyto thermally treat the Love Canal creek and sewer sediments andassociated remedial waste mate r ia l . EPA could not a l low wastes fromother Superfund sites to be brought to Love Canal without first goingthrough the same procedure which was followed before f i n a l i z i n g thisROD. This procedure included the release of a proposed plan and theconsideration of p u b l i c comment. EPA is not consider ing accepting ortreating any wastes other than those which are specif ied in th is ROD.

Question. Are you going to be h a n d l i n g wastes from 93rd Street or102nd Street at Love Canal?

Response: W h i l e 93rd Street is an operable uni t of the Love CanalSite, it is not part of th i s ROD. The 102nd Street L a n d f i l l is aseparate Superfund Site current ly under inves t iga t ion by theresponsible parties.

17

9 . POINT OF ORIGIN

Question: Doesn't Super-fund say all waste must be returned to itspoint or origin? Why not send it back to Hooker?

Response: For the purpose of remediating a hazardous waste site,Super-fund policy states that any waste emanating from a Superfund sitemay be stored or treated at that site. A source of contamination doesnot necessarily refer to the place of manufacture; rather, it refersto the place where contamination has come to be located. For example,the contaminants in the creeks were determined to have emanated fromLove Canal. Therefore, they are being brought back to Love Canal,their source, and will be thermally treated at the Love Canal Site.

la

10. POLICY

Question: If thermally treated wastes are non-hazardous, why needthey be stored at Love Canal? Why not somewhere else?

Response: See Section 5.

Question: Who is responsible for setting up the six 9s criteria forthermal destruction of dioxin?

Response: EPA's six 9s ( 9 9 . 9 9 9 9 % ) destruction and removal efficiency(ORE) was published in the January 14, 1985, Federal Register, Part11, 40 CFR Parts 261, 264, 265, 250, and 775, Dioxin Containing WastesRule (Section IV, B . 2 ( a ) ) . These regulations were promulgated follow-ing standard procedures. The regulations were first proposed for com-ments, comnents were addressed, and the regulations were finalized.More specific details regarding these regulations are provided in theabove reference. Six 9s DRE is required of incinerators that burnpolychlorinated biphenyls ( P C B s ) ; compounds that are less toxic thandioxin. Since dioxin is one of the most toxic compounds known, thebest achievable ORE should be required. The Six 9s ORE will result inthe lowest achievable emission rate and thereby minimize any short-tenn impacts to human health and the environment.

Question: Is contamination in Cayuga Creek being addressed?

19

Response: Cayuga Creek was most recently sampled in 1986. At thattime, further monitoring of Cayuga Creek was recommended to helpdetermine the impact of the Black and Bergnoltz creeks cleanup on theCayuga Creek fish and the potential for secondary hunan contact withdioxin through ingestion of fish.

Question: Is EPA going towards containment on-site as a policy?

Response: As specified in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthoriza-tion Act (SARA), EPA is mandated to utilize permanent solutions andtreatment technologies to the maximmi extent practicable.

Question: Are you going to consider our feelings, or are you going toforget about us after this public meeting?

Response: EPA and NYSDEC consider public comment throughout thedecision-making process. This Responsiveness Summary is a formalresponse to those questions and comments received at the August 25,1987, Public Meeting, as well as those received in writing. Communityacceptance is one factor considered in selecting a remedy. Manycomments and concerns have been incorporated into this Record ofDecision.

Question: If it is decided to contain wastes on-site, does it meanthat the Department of Health does not have to make a habitabilitydecision?

Response: For the Commissioner of Health to make a decision abouthabitability, an acceptable plan for the remediation of the creeksmust be in place. The Commissioner has stated that the choice of onealternative or another would not affect his ability to make a decisionabout habitability.

Question: Can the public be part of the process of selecting a treat-ment technology?

20

Response: DEC has a public participation program in place to keep thepublic informed of all remedial activites taking place at the site.The criteria for the selection of the thermal treatment technologyhave been presented to the public for comment, in order to adequatelyaddress their concerns. In addition, the public win be an integralpart of the design and construction process.

Question: Can you define a "permanent remedy?"

Response: A permanent remedy is one which eliminates or controls therisks posed by the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous sub-stances, over the long-term.

Question: Does EPA make this decision alone, or does the decision getmade with DEC?

Response: Although the EPA Assistant Administrator selects the remedyfor the site, the State actively participated in the decision process,and formally concurs with the selected remedy. State comments andconcerns are addressed in a section of the Record of Decision devotedto State acceptance of the selected remedy.

Question: What incentive is EPA giving to industry to develop incin-erators?

Response: Operation of the EPA mobile incinerator at the Denny Farm,Missouri, Superfund site demonstrated the ability of rotary kilnincinerators to treat dioxin wastes. EPA Office of Research anddevelopment also operates an incinerator in Pine Bluff, Arkansas,which performs test burns on Superfund wastes. In addition, EPA'sSuperfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program provides theopportunity for proprietors of innovative technologies to demonstratetheir technologies. This includes the demonstration of thermaldestruction processes.

Question: Is your mind made up on having the dewatering containmentfacility (DCF) at Love Canal?

21

Response: The DCF is an integral part of the Black and BergholtzCreek remedial ion. The DCF is needed to dewater and store sediments,as wen as for the staging of sediments prior to thermal treatment.

Question: Why not burn all the dioxin?

Response: See Section 4. '.-'">0O?

Question: What wil l happen to a 1 1 the unoccupied homes if EPA is not T-1

going to start thermal destruction until after 1990? 0

Response: The operation of a thermal destruction facility at LoveCanal should not affect the decision as to when the area should berehabitated. In the meantime, EPA and DEC have implemented a programfor maintaining the unoccupied homes owned by the Love Canal AreaRevitalization Agency (LCARA). The Commissioner of Health is expectedto make a decision on habitabllity in 1988.

22

11. RISK

Question: What is the risk for each alternative?

Response: The three alternatives evaluated for destruction/disposalof dioxin-contaroinated creek and sewer sediments at Love Canal havedifferent risks associated with them. The ROD and the underlyingstudies detail the nature of these risks. The on-site containment ofwastes, with no treatment, while posing the smallest short-term risk,does not reduce the toxicity or volume of the dioxin over the long-term. The thermal destruction alternatives, by destroying the dioxin,reduce the long-term risk posed by the contaminated sediments. EPAconsiders that the long-term benefits that would be gained by destroy-ing the dioxin would outweigh the short-term risk potentially posed bythe operation of the thermal destruction unit.

23

12. TRAFFIC

Quest ion: W i 1 1 the roads of Niagara F a l l s be backed up wi th truck-loads of contaminated sediments?

Response: Trucks win only be permitted to travel on designated haulroutes, as shown in the August, 1987, conceptual design report.

Question: How much truck traffic will be generated by the creek exca-vation?

Response: The number and size of trucks transporting sediments w i l lbe dependent upon the contractor's approved operations p l an . It isanticipated that loaded trucks transporting sediments from the creekto the OCF would make no more than 25 trips in a given day.

Question: How many truckloads could be handled in 1 day?

Response: Twenty-five t ruckloads of sediments can easily be disposedof in the DCF da i ly . Thermal destruction would occur at a much slowerrate. This is one of the primary reasons why a DCF is needed. Off-site truck t ra f f ic w i l l not be required for the transfer of sedimentfrom the DCF to the thermal destruction unit .

24

1 3 . Response to Occidental Chemical Corporation's Commentson the Proposed Plan for Destruction/Disposal of Love CanalCreek and Sewer Sediments Submitted October 8 , 1987.

Ths comments presented by Occidental Chemical Corporation( O C C ) address the adequacy of the remedial investigations andfeasibility studies as they concern the risks posed to publichealth and the environment prior to remediation and health (JQconsiderations in the selection of an adequate remedial oalternative. CO

i-lIn the Record oE Decision that was signed on May 5 , 1985, -r-i

EPA fully considered the need to remediate the creeks because 0of TCDD contamination, and found it necessary to remediate tothe level of 1 ppb. The proposed plan under considerationaddresses the destruction and disposal of the creek sedimentsfollowing their excavation as called for in the May 5 , 1985ROD. Therefore most of OCC's comments address issues thathave been previously decided. Nonetheless, the Agency willrespond to OCC's comments, especially to the extent thatadditional information has been provided in the currentrecord which supplements the 1985 ROD.

a . Consistency With Agency ProceduresOCC states that the USEPA Superfund Public Health

Evaluation Manual (SPHEM) requires that a proper publichealth evaluation consists of; 1 ) a baseline health evaluation,and 2 ) development of performance goals for remedial alternatives.OCC then contends that the RI/FS (for the 1985 ROD) does notinclude an adequate public health evaluation, and that aperformance goal for creek remediation was only set or suggestedby a document in the current record.

Response: In October 1 9 8 6 , EPA published SPHEH as aguiria^e document to supplement earlier guidance on conductingevaluations of potential public health impacts at Superfundsites. The May 1985 decision to remediate the creeks predatesthe publication of the SPHEM by more than a year; therefore,the SPHEM is not directly applicable to the May 1985 decision.Nonetheless, the 1985 decision is consistent with the principlesin SPHEM, as shown by the RI/FS contained in the MalcolmPirnie and CH^M Hill reports, and by the two ResponsivenessSummaries and the 1985 Decision Document.

SPHEM provides that a public health evaluation shouldcontain two key elements as part of a feasibility study:

" 1 ) a baseline public health evaluation and 2 ) publichealth analysis of remedial alternatives." SPHEM at 4.

-2-

A baseline public health evaluation is an analysis of siteconditions prior to remedial action. The 1985 ROD (includingthe above mentioned documents) provides such an evaluationof site conditions. The 1985 ROD selected TCDD as the indicatorchemical because of its high toxicity at concentrations lowerthan any other contaminant. Also, the 1985 ROD consideredexposure of TCDD in the streams in the residential area andconsidered the routes of exposure. EPA has found the remediationof Black and Berghoitz creeks to be necessary because thepotential exists and will continue to exist for human exposure y}to the TCDD in these creeks. 0

COExposure to TCDD in a residential area presents a serious ,—jhealth concern, particularly because EPA generally considers .r-1carcinogenesis to be a non-threshold effect. Exposure at othe Love Canal site, which may occur during recreationalactivity or through ingestion o£ fish, presents a significantconcern for the health and welfare of residents of the EDAas well as the Niagara Falls area. EPA applied the CDClevel of concern of 1 ppb of TCDD to the situation at LoveCanal, considered remedial alternatives, and selected excavationof approximately 18 inches of sediment for specific portionsof the streams. This represents a permanent solution to therisks to public health and the environment.

The 1985 ROD provided a public health analysis of remedialalternatives and developed performance goals. The remedialalternatives included no action, in-situ stabilization andexcavation. Each of these was evaluated in terms of publichealth and environmental impact. EPA used the principles ofrisk assessment in arriving at the 1 ppb level for TCDD inBlack and Berghoitz creeks consistent with the guidanceprovided in SPHEM. The SPHEM is flexible and recognizesthat there are differences among sites to be assessed.While SPHEH provides one approach for analyzing risk, itadvises that in performing risk assessment: ( 1 ) other approachesmay be equall" valid; ( 2 ) the evaluation should be limitedto the complexity and level of detail necessary to adequatelyassess the risk; and ( 3 ) the applicability and level ofdetail of the process is dependent upon professional judgment.SPHEM at 4-6. EPA's assessment of risk currently in therecord is consistent with the SPHEM.

-3-Although the SPHEM states that the purpose of the performance

goal procedure is to use techniques of risk analysis to assistin setting target levels of contaminants at exposure points,and that a risk-based approach can be used to determine theextent of removal where soil removal is part of the remediation,the SPHEM clearly allows flexibility of approach on a case-by-case basis. In the 1985 ROD, EPA decided on the amountof sediment to remove -- approximately 18 inches -- basedon engineering judgment and design requirements neededto effectuate a permanent and protective remedy. CT0

^ '1OCC also states without being specific that the risk "

assessments and risk management documents for Love Canal do ,_)not use a risk-based approach like that performed for TimesBeach and other Superfund sites. EPA has not selected aremedy for Times Beach, and there is no record of decisionfor that site; therei-ore, OCC is incorrect in asserting thatEPA is acting inconsistently with decisions for Times Beach.Because OCC has not supplied any specific comments as toalleged differences between EPA's decision at Love Canal andits decisions at other Superfund sites, the Agency is unableto provide any further response.

0

b . Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)OCC comments that CDC did not establish 1 ppb of TCDD

as the automatic level of concern for s^il regardless oflocation and potential exposure, and therefore 1 ppb is not an"applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement" (ARAR)which EPA must observe in selecting a remedy.

Response: CDC has established 1 ppb of TCDD as the"level of concern" for residential soils. Since "ARARS"involve duly promulgated statutory or regulatory requirements,standards, limitations, and criteria, the CDC level of concernis not strictly an ARAR. EPA has not treated it as an ARARin making its decision. In both the 1985 ROD and the currentrecord, EPA did not decide to remediate the creeks to 1 ppb"automatically;" rather, it considered the specific circumstancesof the Love Canal site. Among these are: the location ofthe contaminated creeks, which flow through residentialyards on both banks; the fact that these residential yardsare subject to flooding from the creeks; the nature of theaquatic organisms inhabiting the creeks; the recreationaluses the residents make of the crseks; and the bioaccumulationof TCDD in the food chain. In light of these factors, EPAdetermined that the 1 ppb level of concern recommended byCDC for residential soils is appropriate for this site.

-4-

The propriety of applying a 1 ppb cleanup level toBlack and Bergholtz creeks is further supported by the studycurrently underway to assess the habitability of the LoveCanal Emergency Declaration Area ( E D A ) . Habitability criteriawere established by New York State Department of Health ( N Y S D O H ) ,the CDC, EPA and the New York Department of EnvironmentalConservation ( D E C ) . The previously established level of T-(concern for dioxin in residential soils of 1 ppb was used as T-)a starting point in establishing habitability criteria for CYSthe EDA. Based on a concern for public health the decision ^was made that if TCDD was found in concentrations above1 ppb in the EDA or a portion of the EDA, which includesBlack and Bergholtz creeks, then that area would be consideredhabitable only if remediation could be accomplished andother circumstances do not cause it to be declared uninhabitable.These criteria were subjected to peer review and publiccomment and have been accepted by all the above agencies.

0

c . Comparative Risk Assessment Methodologiesfor Direct Ingestion

OCC's comments include its own public health evaluationostensibly based on the same methodology as CDC used atTimes Beach, on the basis of which OCC asserts that remediationo£ the creeks is not justified.

Response: The methodology used by OCC departs fromthat actually used by CDC for Times Beach in two key respects:first, it ignores adult exposures (from ages 18-70), and second,it omits pathways of exposure other than direct ingestion(such as inhalation and dermal absorption). The second omissionis minor since these two pathways account for only a smallportion of the total lifetime intake in CDC's model.

Adult exposures, however, should not be ignored. Byassuming adult exposures to be zero, OCC significantly understatesthe resultant TCDD level of concern. Although OCC assertsthat soil ingestion rates for ages 18 to 70 years were "notascertainable from ( t h e ] CDC article," the value provided inKimbrough et_ aJ_. ( 1 9 8 4 ) in Table 5 ( p . 7 4) for five-year oldsapplies for all older ages as well. The contribution tototal lifetime intake of dioxin during this age period aswell as from other exposure routes is part of the basis forCDC's 1 ppb level.

Because of these problems, as well as problems withOCC's exposure assumptions described below, OCC's analysis isflawed and not appropriately conservative.

-5-d . Exposure Assumptions

OCC's comments contain numerous statements and assumptionsrelated to the Agency's assessment of potential exposuresand recreational uses of the creeks.

Response: The Agency's assessment of potential exposuresis appropriate for this site. OCC's information does notclearly call into question the Agency's assessment for severalreasons. Many of the exposure assumptions and site descriptionsare provided without references or supporting documentation,and are insufficiently conservative for the purposes of riskassessment. For example, OCC offers no support for statementssuch as "children of young age are not routinely allowed toplay in these creeks regularly" (page 1 ) . OCC has apparentlyignored contrary documented evidence provided in the administraterecord which demonstrates that the creeks have in fact beenused as primary sources of recreation (wading, swimming, ^fishing, and ice skating) ^and that edible fish as well as other food-chain organisms ^( e . g . , crayfish) have been caught in these creeks. "r^

*T""1

OCC states that the physical configuration of the creeks ^(steep banks with muddy slopes and bottoms), is such that itis unlikely that children under 5 years old would ever beallowed to play in the creeks, even under supervision. Thisstatement implies that steep banks and muddy slopes arefound at all points along the creeks. This is not an accuratedepiction of conditions at the site. (See "Site Investigationsand Remedial Action Alternatives Love C a n a l , " Malcolm Pirnie,I n c . , October 1 9 8 3 ) . Stretches of the banks are gentlysloped, and directly abut unfenced backyards of homes.Hence, it is not reasonable to assume that children underfive years old would never be allowed to play in portions ofthe creeks, even if supervised and that when unsupervised,would not venture into the creeks on their own.

The Agency's approach is to ensure adequate protectionof human health and the environment. In part, this isaccomplished by making conservative exposure assessments,which necessarily ensure that adequate protection will beachieved. OCC's comments are based on some exposure assumptionsthat are not appropriately conservative. OCC's assumptionsthat no adults will come in contact with creek sediments,and that children will come in contact with creek sedimentsonly 52 days per year, are examples. Since the creeks runthrough residential areas, more extensive contact with creeksediments than OCC has postulated is reasonable and shouldbe assumed in developing a conservative risk assessment. Inthe absence of empirical data regarding activities of exposedpopulations, conservative assumptions should be made.

-6-

OCC claims that the documents cited in EPA's risk managementassessment document show that the exposure assumptions employedby OCC "conservatively overstate the actual exposure." OCCdoes not provide any specifics in footnote 8 of its commentsto support its statement. EPA has reviewed the documentsreferred to and has found nothing to support OCC's view.EPA's September 1987 memo does not question the exposureassumptions used by Kimbrough at. al. ( 1 9 8 4 ) in arriving atthe 1 ppb level for dioxin. Therefore, the EPA's memo doesnot show that " O C C ' s analysis of exposure to sediments conservative;overstates the actual exposure scenario along the creeks."

e . Exposure to TCDD-Contaminated FishIn estimating exposure to TCDD-contaminated fishr OCC

makes a number of assumptions which it claims to be "conservative."Response; The assumptions upon which OCC's scenarios are rr^

based are not conservative and at least one calculation is yerroneous. Examples are: y^

•r-11 ) OCC's Exposure Scenarios are Based Only on Children. ^—(Both of OCC's scenarios assume only children fish in Cayuga oand Bergholtz creeks and that only children consume fish caughtfrom the creeks.

This assumption, and the next assumption discussed, arebased upon OCC's assumption that adults would seldom, if ever,fish these streams and that the fish that children wouldcatch would be rough fish, not likely to be consumed. OCC'sassumptions ignore these facts: a ) dioxin levels above Federaland State guidelines have been found in fish, such as northernpike and rock bass caught in Cayuga Creek (9/28/87 Sterling toGarbarini memorandum); b ) fish migrate from these creeks to theNiagara River, so that fishermen who fish in the 511 igara Rivernear the confluence with Cayuga may be catching fish thatlived i n , and were exposed to sediments i n , the creeks; andc ) adults and children who live near the creeks may fish theremore often than elsewhere simply because of convenience.

Because of this assumption, OCC used an abbreviated exposureperiod of only 10 years. This assumption is not appropriatelyconservative. Adults should also be included. If adults lettheir children eat fish they catch, it is likely that theadults will also eat the fish, as well as children youngerthan eight. It is reasonable to expect that adults and childrenyounger than eight will also fish in the creeks.

-7-

2) OCC Improperly Assumes that Only a Small Fraction ofFish Consumed are from the Creeks. OCC's assumption that onlyIt to 10% of total fish ingested are from the creeks is certainlynot conservative. A realistic worst case assumption is that75% of fish eaten by local residents are from these creeks.

3 ) OCC Uses An Improper Assumption for Body Weight.OCC assumes an average body weight of 70 kg. Although 70 kg isan appropriate weight to use for adult risk assessments, OCCbases its risk calculations only on children ages 8 to 18.Thus, the body weight for its calculations is approximatelytwo times too high.

4 ) OCC Improperly Uses Geometric Means. As discussedbelow, it is more appropriate to use arithmetic mean values -yirather than geometric mean values in determining the level of ^—(risk. CQ

T-(5 ) OCC Has Erred In Calculating API. OCC converted i~lPDA's fish advisory level to an ADI using typical assumptions 0of body weight and fish consumption. As described later, OCCincorrectly stated the ADI units ( a t least for the PDA number).It should read 13 pg/day, not 13 pg/kg/day, for the FDA ADI.This error means that the calculations on page 9 overestimate"allowable levels" and "safety margins" by a factor of 70because OCC erroneously double counted human body weight inarriving at an allowable daily intake in Table 2.

6 ) OCC Uses an Improper API Approach. OCC uses the"allowable daily intake" approach in calculating an appropriatesafety factor. However, ADI is commonly used for non-carcinogens,not for carcinogens such as dioxin.

7 ) OCC used the FDA's advisory level of 25 ppt TCDD as itsbasis for calculating a margin of safety. However, using therisk assessment methodology accepted in the Hyde Park case,25 ppt of TCDD in fish corresponds to a 7 . 8 x 10~4 risk.(Affidavit of Joseph V. Rodericks, P h . D . , In Support of Stipulationand Judgment Approving Settlement Agreement, December 1 1 ,1 9 8 5 , United States v . Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. ( C . A .79-989 W . D . N . Y . ) ) .

Using OCC's unorthodox methodology and making different,but reasonable, assumptions and correcting OCC's errors, thecalculated safety margin would be much lower than suggested byOCC; in fact, these may be no safety rnargin at all.

-8-» f . Position of New York DEC re Need to Remediate Creek Banks

OCC comments that the risk from direct exposure to thecreek or bank sediments is not a basis for remediation. OCCquotes from a January 23, 1987 letter from DEC to EPA thatexcavation or other measures relative to the banks is notwarranted.

Response: This letter from DEC was only one part of the ^correspondence and communications between the relevant agencies. 'T-The January 23 , 1987 statement had been made without reviewing ^the pertinent sampling data. On February 1 3 , 1987, DOH T

wrote the DEC to suggest that the banks be considered forinclusion in the remedial excavation to the extent warrantedby sampling results. In March 1987, the representatives ofthe above agencies met and reviewed the composite samplingdata results from May 1 9 8 6 . This review resulted in -a determinationthat the data indicated TCDD probably above 1 ppb on thecreek banks. Consequently, on Hay 2 9 , 1987, John J. Willsonof DEC again wrote to George Pavlou of EPA, this time tostate that DEC believes "that the current plan to remediatethe creek beds and banks complies with the intent of the( 1 9 8 5 ) R O D . "

0

g . Position of New York DOH re Posting of CreeksOCC quotes a letter from J. Hawley, P h . D . , to J . J .

Willson, dated March 3 , 1987 to the effect that DEC hasconcluded that the posting of the areas of Black and BergholtzCreeks and Cayuga Creek to advise that no species of fish beconsumed are "protective of the public hea l t h . "

Response: Actually, the statement was made by DOH inits letter to DEC. Dr. Hawley in his statement referredonly to Cayuga Creek, not to Black or Bergholtz Creeks.His statement was preceded by the important qualificationthat " ( i ) f followed" these measures would be protective.Dr. Hawley also wrote that " ( t ) h e levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDDfound in Bergholtz Creek are considerably in excess of thelevels in Cayuga Creek" in the context of discussing theneed for the dredging of Bergholtz Creek between Love Canaland Cayuga Creek.

h . Remedial AlternativesOCC proposes three alternative remedial actions in its

comments; 1 ) removal of fish from the creeks, 2 ) removal ofthe fish plus covering the stream beds with coarse aggregate,and 3 ) the first two options plus excavating six inches frorn

-9-

the stream beds, and placing the sediment under the expandedclay cap. OCC also recommends delaying taking any actionuntil performing further risk assessment.

Response: OCC's proposals are similar to those consideredand rejected during the process of selecting a remedy for thecreeks because they do not adequately protect human healthand the environment on a permanent basis.

As a general matter, delaying remediation does not adequatelyprotect human health because delays in remediation wouldallow sediments to travel farther downstream, or in the (XSevent of severe storms, to be washed into yards along creek •<~^banks. Fencing and posting of the creeks would not eliminate COthe potential for human exposure and would do nothing to 'rprevent further contamination of downstream creek and river T-!reaches. °

Clearing all fish from Black and Bergholtz creeks andpreventing fish of "consumable size" from returning by installinga weir would not prevent the further downstream migration ofcontaminants. Nor would it reduce the possibility of humanexposure to the contaminants, or reduce the possibility offish coming in contact with dioxin contaminated sedimentsdownstream from such a weir. The fish weir proposal wouldresult in a further disturbance of the ecosystem, and wouldfurther degrade the quality of life in the area. In addition,fish weirs are inherently unreliable in the long term, asfish may be inadvertently or deliberately re-introduced tothe cleared creeks by fishermen or other humans or by naturalmeans such as deposition by birds of fish eggs originatingfrom other near-by waters. This solution is contrary to thepreference expressed in CERCLA § 1 2 1 ( b ) for permanent remediesthat significantly reduce or eliminate the toxicity, mobility,or volume of the hazardous substances.

Installing filter fabric and/or gravel fill over the creekbeds could reduce sediment transport to the Niagara Riverafter installation. However, during installation the sedimentwould be disturbed, resulting in increased downstream migration.After the filter or gravel is installed, leaching of thecontaminants into the water column could still occur. Thus,this remedy is not considered adequately protective of humanhealth or the environment, and does not satisfy the SARAmandate for remedies which reduce the mobility as well asthe toxicity and volume of contaminants.

Excavating six inches of sediment from the creeks andplacing it under the clay cap at Love Canal is not an

-10-

implementable alternative. After considering the limitationson construction/excavation techniques within the constraintsof the Love Canal site, EPA has determined that to assure anadequate margin of safety on a permanent basis, approximatelyeighteen inches of sediment should be removed from the creeks.Furthermore, in its January 5 , 1984 letter commenting on theremedial action alternatives for sewer and creek sediments,OCC recommended the excavation of 18 inches of sediment.

Even following dewatering, the effects of the weight of i\'the sediments on the Canal contents, if placed under the TCanal cap, could not be fully understood. Therefore, it is ^not appropriate to implement OCC's proposal to dispose of the T " 1sediments there. . 'm

T-l

To assure adequate protection of human health and theenvironment, and to satisfy the SARA mandate to select apermanent remedy which significantly reduces the toxicity,mobility, or volume of contaminants, Black and Bergholtzcreeks must be remediated.

i. Use of Means In Evaluating DataOCC's comments on pages 7 and 8 shows the geometric mean,

concentrations of TCDD in sediment, and uses these geometricmeans to argue that the existing level of TCDD contaminationin the creeks is acceptable. Use of geometric mean valuesin this context is misleading and underestimates the averageexposure to TCDD, based on the available data. Arithmeticmean values would be more appropriate for OCC's exposurescenarios. Risk is a function of total lifetime exposure,which is the sum of each exposure event. Since total exposureis an arithmetic sum, an arithmetic mean is the most meaningfulrepresentation of the average exposure concentration.

The arithmetic mean of the twenty positive TCDD sedimentsmeasurements is 12.7 ppb of TCDD. If the 24 "non-detect"samples are included at OCC's assigned value of 0.20 ppb,the arithmetic mean of the 44 samples is 5 . 4 ppb of TCDD.These two arithmetic means are 3 . 3 and 7.0 times higher thanthe geometric means, respectively.

j . Department of Health Sampling ResultsOCC's comments on page 7 , footnote 9 , question the

accuracy of the sampling results reported by DOH in a memorandumdated June 23, 1984. OCC comments that these results may be

-11-overstated by about one-third. OCC had previously madecomments on these sample results in its March 28, 1985letter. This letter was responded to as part of the 1985 ROD,by letter of April 4, 1985 by CH^M Hill because OCC's letterwas submitted after the close of the comment period. CH^M Hillstated that the Malcolm Pirnie report served as the basis forthe Remedial Alternative Evaluation and Risk Assessment andthat the data gathered by Malcolm Pirnie were subjected to qualityassurance audit and clearly showed the presence of Love Canalrelated contaminants in the creeks.

-^1 JIf the DOH results reported in the June 28, 1984 memorandums-are divided by two or even three, the result would still be * ~levels of TCDD above 1 ppb. Additionally, OCC provides no T 'information to form a basis for stating that the DOH laboratory ,—,did not meet generally acceptable standards of quality. Thisis the first time OCC has claimed that the DOH data packagesare incomplete even though OCC has been receiving this informationon a regular basis.

LOVE CM1AL EESSIBILnY STUDY/PROPOSED ELAN

RESPCNSIVBNESS SUM4ARY

INDIVIDUALS SUBMITTING COMMENTS INCLUDE:

Albond, Mr. HarveyBugman, Ms. RoseCar-done, Ms. BarbaraCook, Mr. Richard J.Crafts, Ms. Susan D.Dane, Mr. ThomasDe Darie, Ms. LindaDevantier, Mr. EdwardDonovan, Mr. Gerald F.Eldridge, Mr. Frank F.Eldridges, Ms. AudreyGiarrizzo, Mr. SamHale, Ms. JoannHardcastle, Mr. GlennHense, Mr. PaulHoffman, Ms. S. Margeenladicicoo, Ms. VioletLaFalee, Hon. Rep. John G.Lentine, Ms. RobertaLewis, Ms. LouiseLoVerid, Mr. DonLubick, Ms. SusanMendola, Ms. MargeMoynihan, Hon. Sen. PatrickNia -a County Legislature, TheOccidental Chemical CorporationO'Connor, Mr. LloydPi^literre, Mr. Joseph T.Pirkle, Mr. FranchonRhoney, Mr. Earl M.Sanoin, Mr. CorySobel, Mr. EdSoda, Mr. Frank A.Volte, Mr. BrunoWestinghouse Electric Corporation (Mr. Charles W. Mallory)