CIE 449 Environmental Engineering Design Task 4: Feasibility Study

Submitted to: Martin Doster 207 Jarvis Hall University at Buffalo

Prepared By: Michael Dietrich Mubeccel Begum Ilya Zhen Hau Sing

April 23, 2013

- This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table of Contents
1.1 1.2 1.3 2 3 3.1 3.2 4 4.1 4.2 List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 2-4 List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 2-4 List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 2-5 EXEC UTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 2-6 Site Background .................................................................................................................... 3-1 Main site: .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 Surrounding Area: ............................................................................................................. 3-2 Remedial Objectives .............................................................................................................. 4-3 The Problem ...................................................................................................................... 4-3 Remedial Action Objectives ............................................................................................... 4-3 Soil: ........................................................................................................................... 4-3 Groundwater: ............................................................................................................ 4-3 Sediments:................................................................................................................. 4-4 Air: ............................................................................................................................ 4-4

4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 5 5.1

Chemicals Of Concern ................................................................................................................ 4-4 The Expected Outcome ..................................................................................................... 4-5 Treatability studies summary ................................................................................................ 5-1 In-Situ Chemical Oxidation:................................................................................................ 5-1 Description ................................................................................................................ 5-1 Performance.............................................................................................................. 5-2 Removal Efficiencies of Oxidants................................................................................ 5-2 In-situ chemical oxidation remarks ............................................................................ 5-3 DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. 5-3 EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICABILITY OF THE ENHANCED IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION ... 5-3 Factors That Affect Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation................................................. 5-4 COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................... 5-4 Data Need For Implementation Of The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation .................. 5-5 Supportive Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Technologies ........................................ 5-6 Enhance In-Situ Bioremediation Remarks .................................................................. 5-6 Description ................................................................................................................ 5-6 Applicability of Phytoremediation to BCCs Site ......................................................... 5-7 Existing Case/Treatability Studies in Estimating Removal Efficiencies ......................... 5-7 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.2.7 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 2-2

In-Situ Enhanced Bioremediation: ...................................................................................... 5-3

Phytoremediation .............................................................................................................. 5-6

5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 6 7 7.1 7.2

Implementability of Phytoremediation and Cost Estimatation ................................... 5-8 Issues of Phytoremediation ..................................................................................... 5-10 Phytoremediation Remarks ...................................................................................... 5-10 Description .............................................................................................................. 5-10 Performance............................................................................................................ 5-11 Cost Analysis............................................................................................................ 5-12 Removal Efficiencies of Materials............................................................................. 5-12 Important Installation Guidelines............................................................................. 5-14 Description .............................................................................................................. 5-14 Cost Estimation........................................................................................................ 5-15 Preventing the environmental impacts .................................................................... 5-16

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

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

Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost ............................................................................. 6-1 Possible Remedial Combinations ........................................................................................... 7-1 On Site .............................................................................................................................. 7-1 ISCO, Cap, Pump and treat ......................................................................................... 7-1 Hydraulic Lock with material such as organoclay ........................................................ 7-3 Description ................................................................................................................ 7-3 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation Criteria ....................................................... 7-3 River Sedimentation .......................................................................................................... 7-3 7.1.1 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3

8 8.1

Proposed Remedies .............................................................................................................. 8-4 Remedy 1: No Action ......................................................................................................... 8-2 Description ................................................................................................................ 8-2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation Criteria ....................................................... 8-2 Description ................................................................................................................ 8-5 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation Criteria ....................................................... 8-6 8.1.1 8.1.2 8.2 8.2.1 8.2.2

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

9 9.1 9.2 10 11 12

Ecological Habitat................................................................................................................ 9-10 Buffalo Color Company Site ............................................................................................. 9-10 Buffalo River.................................................................................................................... 9-10 Community Relations Before, During, and After Treatment ................................................. 10-3 Credits ................................................................................................................................ 11-1 References .......................................................................................................................... 12-2 2-3

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

1.1

List of Figures

Figure 1: Area of concern, including flow directions ................................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 2: Buffalo River Contamination near Site C and E. ....................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 3: Discovered Contamination Locations ........................................................................................................ 4-2 Figure 4: Buffalo Color Site C and E, with contamination target zones. Contour lines shown are distance to clay layer under ground surface in feet. ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Figure 5: Plan view of implementation of phytoremediation on site C and E. Plant species were selected based on COCs within that area (labeled pink or red). ............................................................................................................... 5-9 Figure 6: Post PRB installation Capture Zone ........................................................................................................ 5-13 Figure 7: Cost Estimation for the dredging ............................................................................................................. 5-16 Figure 8: Scheme showing that the steps of the environmental impact assessment ........................................... 5-17 Figure 9: Excavation Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 8-6 Figure 10: Phytoremediation and PRB installation locations ................................................................................... 8-6 Figure 11: Observed disorders .................................................................................................................................. 9-2 Figure 12: Example Citizen Guidances (EPA, 2012) ............................................................................................. 10-5

1.2

List of Tables

Table 1: Primary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC ................................................. 4-4 Table 2: Secondary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC ............................................ 4-5 Table 3: Factors That Affect Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation. Source: www.clu-in.org/bioremediation/ ........... 5-4 Table 5: Summary of results from bench scale and treatability tests. Note : A) removal result was similar to the control without the plant, proving that plant was not responsible for contaminant removal. ......................................... 5-7 Table 6: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Groundwater at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E................ 6-1 Table 7: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Soil at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E. .............................. 6-2 Table 8:Screening of Remedial Technologies for Vapor at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E. ........................... 6-3 Table 9: Screening of Remedial Technologies for River Sediments in the Buffalo River. ..................................... 6-4

2-4

1.3

List of Acronyms ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements BCC Buffalo Color Corporation COC Contaminants of Concern DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid EISB Enhanced in-situ Bioremediation EPA Environmental Protection Agency ISCO In-Situ Chemical Oxidation NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PID Photo-Ionization Detector PRB Permeable Reactive Barrier RACER Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements SCG Standard, Criteria and Guidance SVOC - Semi Volatile Organic Compound SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit TCE Tri-ChloroEthylene VOC Volatile Organic Compound

2-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Feasibility study report provides a detailed analysis of two remedial alternatives for the

BCC site; the no action alternative and the combined remedy. Both alternatives were evaluated with the nine feasibility criteria set forth by EPA. The no action alternative was essentially used to evaluate the overall adverse human health and the environmental effects of the contamination. By taking no action, the COCs will potentially be exposed to humans and animals through ingestion and inhalation routes. Contaminated groundwater will also migrate and transport the COCs to the Buffalo River, harming the benthic community in the sediments and the quality of water. The combined remedy consist of treatments for each media; excavation for highly contaminated soil, a PRB for groundwater, phytoremediation for moderately contaminated soil and groundwater and a passive and active mitigation for vapor intrusion into buildings upon future industrial/commercial development. The total cost of the remediation (excluding vapor installation in buildings) was projected to be $7.5 million. This cost includes the technology preparations and O&M of the whole site. The remedy has a proposed reduction efficiency of over 99% for groundwater leaving the site and river sediment remediation. After removal of concentrations on site over ten times the limit, expected efficiency of phytoremediation is 70-80%. The combined remedy was developed upon preliminary screening of technologies by media and also various combinations of technologies. All of these technologies were evaluated using the nine feasibility criteria mentioned. It is important to note that chemical oxidation and in-situ bioremediation technologies were analyzed with more detail in the treatability studies but were not chosen. The high organic content of the BCC site greatly increases the cost of chemical oxidation while bio-remediation was not compatible with the PRB that was more effective in treating groundwater.

2-6

3 3.1

Site Background Main site: The main area of concern is a 23 Acre area in Buffalo, NY south of Elk Street

between the rail road tracks and west of Orlando St. The site is broken two parts, site C to the west of Lee St, and site E to the east. Based on the Sandborn maps, the site began in the late 19th century when Genesee oil works created an oil processing plant in the southeast portion of site E. By the 20 th century nearly the entire area was used as a lumber storage yard. This use has contributed to the high organic content of the soils due to waste sawdust mixing into the soil as part of the fill. In the early 1900s, an aniline plant was built on site C, and then during the 1940s the dye manufacturing plant was built on the west half of site E. These tw o plants are where hazardous compounds, such as acids, heavy metals, and benzene derivatives were used (Baptista, 2009). In this production, the wastes were typically stored in two ways: barrels in the central part of site E, and dumped into lagoons in the eastern part of site E. These lagoons themselves have been previously remediated and are no longer a concern. The barrel storage area is where significant heavy metal and PAH contamination has been found. Chemicals for production analine and various chlorinated organics used for dye production were stored in tanks on the south western section of site E, and it is here that significant chlorobenzene concentrations have been found.

3-1

Today, all of the buildings in site E have been demolished except for a small warehouse, and the only remaining buildings on site C is the original boiler and ice plants which did not process the chemicals themselves. 3.2 Surrounding Area: To the north there is a Honeywell research laboratory that was built in 1955 and deals primarily in fluorine based chemicals (Honeywell International, 2011). To the south is site B of Buffalo Color, and to the southeast is a PVS Chemical plant that has produced nitric and sulfuric acids, which also involved use of some heavy metals from 1930-1977 (Engineering-Science, 1986). To the southeast is an Exxon-Mobile petroleum plant. As for a residential area, there were houses on the eastern portion of site E through the 1940s when they were demolished. Now the residential are exists to the northwest of site E. The current map of the area is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Area of concern, including flow directions

3-2

4 4.1

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

groundwater, vapor and also sediments in the Buffalo River to allow the site to be used for commercial or industrial purposes. Based on Triodis analysis, metals arsenic and mercury, VOCs chlorobenzene and dichlorobenzene, SVOCs benzo(A)anthracene, benzo(A)pyrene and benzo(B)fluorentine (PAHs) are of most concern at this site. Their existence in the soil and groundwater pose severe potential health hazards that include carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicities, making it necessary to remove them. Details of these affects are listed in the Chemical of Concern chapter. Site workers or people in general who come in contact with the ground face potential ingestion of the contaminated soil. The volatilization of VOCs will contaminate the atmosphere around the site, which is potentially hazardous to people exposed on site and also neighboring residential areas if blown by wind. For groundwater, the flow into the sewers and the Buffalo River will carry contaminants that eventually settle into the sediments. This affects the water quality and pose potential health issues for the marine wildlife in the river. Groundwater has a specific problem of several sewer lines throughout the site creating very high conductivity pathways of contaminates to the Buffalo River. These pipelines may also be damaged allowing leakage in/out of the aquifer. Figure 2 shows the mercury and PAH (as shown by a specific compound, Benzo(a)Anthracene) contamination.
4-3

Contamination spikes immediately at the Buffalo Color outfall, and continues to be an issue for 0.7 miles, at which indications of another contamination source other than sites C and E is evident. Mercury is a particular concern in the river due to bioaccumulation.

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

Figure 3: Discovered Contamination Locations

Ideally, the contaminant concentrations should be decreased to the target levels set by NYSDEC, which is covered in the Remedial Action Objectives chapter. However, if treatability studies suggest a steep cost for remediation, containment and immobilization
4-2

of the chemicals are viable options as well. The ultimate goal is to either remove the chemicals or avoid them from being exposed and have contact with humans and animals. The viable options will be proposed after a treatability study of the site is done. 4.2 Remedial Action Objectives

4.2.1 Soil: For Human Health: Preventing the ingestion/direct contact with soil having non-carcinogens in excess of reference doses. Preventing the direct contact/ingestion with soil having 10-4 to 10-7 excess cancer risk from carcinogens. Preventing the inhalation of carcinogens posing excess risk levels of 10-4 to 10-7. For Environment Protection: Preventing the migration of contaminants that would result in groundwater contamination in excess concentrations for contaminants. 4.2.2 Groundwater: For Human Health: Preventing the ingestion of water having carcinogens in excess of MCLs and a total excess cancer risk for all contaminants of greater than 10 -4 to 10-7. Preventing the ingestion of water having non-carcinogens in excess of MCLs or reference doses. For Environment Protection: Restoring the ground water aquifer to concentrations for contaminants.

4-3

4.2.3 Sediments: For Human Health: Prevent direct contact with sediment having carcinogens in excess of 10-4 to 10-7 excess cancer risk. For Environmental Protection: Prevent releases of contaminants from sediments that would result in surface water levels in excess of ambient water quality criteria. 4.2.4 Air: For Human Health: Prevent inhalation of carcinogens in excess of 10-4 to 10-7 excess cancer risk.

Contaminant

Chemicals Of Concern: (NYSDEC, 2013) Primarily Concern Chemicals Category of Type of Contaminant Arsenic

Location Soil

Mean detected concentration

Limit for commercial set by NYSDEC

Heavy Metal

98.4 16 mg/kg mg/kg Groundwater 352 g/L 25 g/L Mercury Soil 9.6 2.8 mg/kg mg/kg Groundwater 4 g/L 0.7 g/L SVOC Benzo(A)Anthracene Soil 155 5.6 mg/kg mg/kg Benzo(A)Pyrene Soil 66.2 1.0 mg/kg mg/kg Benzo(B)Fluoranthene Soil 111.6 5.6 mg/kg mg/kg VOC Chlorobenzene Groundwater 6913 5 g/L g/L Dichlorobenzene Groundwater 39.7 g/L 3 g/L Table 1: Primary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC
4-4

Other Detected Chemicals Type of contaminant Naphthalene 1,1,2Trichlorotrifluoroethane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Benzene Lead Chrysene Fluoranthene Naphthalene Phenantrene Pyrene
a-

Location Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil

Mean Limit for Detected commercial set by Concentration NYSDEC 65 g/La 10 g/L a 9.3 g/L 5 g/L 440 g/La 600 g/La 500 mg/kg 73 mg/kg 142 mg/kg 53 mg/kg 232 mg/kg 120 mg/kg 5 g/L 1 g/L 1000 mg/kg 56 mg/kg 500 mg/kg 500 mg/kg 500 mg/kg 500 mg/kg

These mean values are from 1 data point, and are not indicative of contamination over the whole area of concern.

Table 2: Secondary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC

4.3

The Expected Outcome Primary Objectives: Prevent any further contamination from reaching the Buffalo River. Prevent human and wildlife contact to contamination above limits. Secondary Objective Remove as much mass as possible. It is cost prohibitive to reduce all contaminant

mass to below standards.

4-5

Treatability studies summary

Figure 4: Buffalo Color Site C and E, with contamination target zones. Contour lines shown are distance to clay layer under ground surface in feet.

In the following sections, three remedial technologies will be covered, In-Situ Chemical Oxidation, Enhanced bioremediation, and phytoremediation. Figure 1 shows the approximate areas that are in need of remediation giving approximate depth of concern. 5.1 In-Situ Chemical Oxidation:

5.1.1 Description Chemical Oxidation is a remediation technique which involves adding a chemical into the ground that promotes oxidation. This oxidation can transform harmful chemicals into something that is either not harmful or less harmful (Huling, 2006). The bench scale and pilot testing on the site covered two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and persulfate (S2O82-). Additional chemicals that can also be used are (MnO4-), activated persulfate (SO4-), calcium peroxideozone, ozone (O3), and ozone/peroxide combination.

5-1

Of the chemicals found to be a problem on our site, this technology will treat the following: Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzene, PAHs Benzo(A)Anthracene, Benzo(A)Pyrene, and Benzo(B)Fluoranthene which are our VOC and SVOC chemicals of concern. In addition, it also treats Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Benzene and Trichlorobenzene which are also present at the site. It does not treat metals, so another treatment option would be required for them (Huling, 2006). 5.1.2 Performance

In the treatability studies, performance when compared to the control (using no chemical) produced little difference. This is due to the extremely high organic content of the soil as a result of the prior use as a lumber yard. While performance at many sites proved promising, the specific conditions at the Buffalo Color site proved poor performance due to high organic content, and extremely variable soil debris throughout. 5.1.3 Removal Efficiencies of Oxidants

In most situations, typical removal efficiencies ranged from 95-99%, however in all cases and studies shown that high organic content significantly reduced these efficiencies, creating the need to use significantly more oxidant due to the sorbtion present. Also, in nearly all oxidents except for persulfate, the oxidants would go after the organic content before the contaminant, making the treatment extremely cost ineffective.

5-2

5.1.4 In-situ chemical oxidation remarks

ISCO was not chosen for any remedies due to the negatives affecting efficiency and increasing cost beyond recommendation. 5.2 In-Situ Enhanced Bioremediation:

5.2.1 DESCRIPTION Organic contaminants in soil, groundwater, sludge, and solids can be degraded by microorganism using the bioremediation. The microorganisms break down contaminants by using them as an energy source for themselves. More detailed, bioremediation involves the production of energy in a redox reaction within microbial cells. These reactions include respiration and other biological functions needed for cell maintenance and reproduction (EPA 2000). The objective of the bioremediation is to withdraw from the circulation contaminants or to turn them into chemical products not hazardous anymore to the nature and humans. (GWRTAC,1998). 5.2.2 EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICABILITY OF THE ENHANCED IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION

Enhanced In-situ bioremediation can treat 95% of the VOCs, SVOCs and organic contaminants in the Buffalo Color Company site. 5.2.2.1 Chemicals of Concerns that can be applicable for the EISB The leading contaminants are: Chlorinated SVOCs and VOCs Non-chlorinated SVOCs and VOCs PAHs
5-3

Organic pesticides and herbicides Organic solvents Wood preservatives

5.2.2.2 Site Conditions

Conditions slow down or stop the biodegradation X Concentration of the chemical can be toxic X Concentration of the gradient can be too steep for acclimation X Number of the microorganism can be inadequate X Conditions may be too acid or too alkaline X Nutrients or enzymes can be lack X Permeability can be low X Moisture can be too wet or too dry X Energy sources such as oxygen ,nitrogen or sulfate can be lack CONDITIONS IDEAL FOR THE BIOREMEDIATION Homogeneous and permeable aquifer Single sourced contaminant Low groundwater gradient No soil contamination Easily degraded contaminant or immobilized

5.2.3 Factors That Affect Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation

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

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

5.2.4 COST OF THE TECHNOLOGY There are too many variables in design and operational needs to give accurate ranges of costs. As spoken generally, typical costs for in situ bioremediation range from $30 to $100 per cubic meter of soil (Roote, 1998). In Buffalo Color Company site, soil type and the organic content of the soil is improving the efficiency of the treatment, typical cost for our sites treatment is going to be $60 per cubic meter of soil.
5-4

Contaminated groundwater and soil can be treated at the same time, providing cost advantages. When hydrogen peroxide is used to enhance bioremediation, typical costs are $10 to $20 per 1,000 liters of groundwater treated. It can be assumed that the half of the soil is saturated, 15,287,000 liters is groundwater amount that is going to be treated. According to the statement written above, additional cost for the enhanced treatment (addition of the hydrogen peroxide) is going to be $152,870. Operation and maintenance costs can be significant because a continuous source of hydrogen peroxide must be delivered to the contaminated groundwater (Roote, 1998). Triodis determined the need to install 20 injection wells and additional 10 monitoring wells.
Injection Wells Monitoring Wells # of wells be installed 20 $/well $720 Total $ $ 14,400

O&M Costs GRAND TOTAL

Some of the monitoring wells which are installed before for the feasibility study are going to be used for this face of the project. Additional 10 wells are going to be installed to the certain areas with respect to the injection wells locations. Cost for additional wells is: $7,200 $787,370 $808,9700

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

For completing the enhanced in-situ bioremediation treatability study in the Buffalo Color Company Sites CE, following data must be provided (Roote, 1998); The biodegradability of the contaminants; Distribution of contaminant into soil, water, NAPL, and vapor phases; The leaching potential of the contaminants (e.g., water solubility and soil sorption coefficient);
5-5

The chemical reactivity of the contaminants (e.g., tendencies toward nonbiological reactions, such as hydrolysis, oxidation and polymerization); Depth and areal extent of the contaminants; Soil type and properties (e.g., organic carbon content, mineral content, pH, porosity, permeability, bulk density, moisture content, nutrient level, waterholding capacity); The competition for oxygen (e.g., redox potential, ambient oxygen levels); The presence or absence of substances that are toxic to microorganisms; and, The ability of microorganisms in the soil to degrade contaminants.

5.2.6 Supportive Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Technologies

Bioventing Air Sparging /Biosparging Liquid Delivery Systems Alternate Electron Acceptors - Anaerobic Bioremediation Phytoremediation

5.2.7 Enhance In-Situ Bioremediation Remarks EIBR was not chosen as a technology for any remediation. A PRB was chosen to be used to prevent contaminated groundwater from leaving the site, and bioremediation is incompatible due to the fact the organism growth will interfere with the PRB operation.

5.3

Phytoremediation

5.3.1 Description

Phytoremediation is a remedial method that utilizes plants alone in treating or stabilizing contamination in both sediment and groundwater media. On top of requiring low cost investments, this method is known today as the greenest and most environmentally natural way to treat contaminated sites. There are six different plant mechanisms that allow them to either remove, destroy, transfer, stabilize or contain

5-6

contaminants.

They

are

phytoextraction,

phytodegradation,

phytovolatization,

rhizodegradation, phytosequestration and phytohydraulics (Phytotechnologies, 2012). 5.3.2 Applicability of Phytoremediation to BCCs Site

Based on the list of plant species and their contaminant removals, phytoremediation is an ideal remedial technology for sites C and E. The high levels or organic content and contamination of hazardous metals within the area are both types of contamination that phytoremediation will remove. The geology and hydrologic conditions of the site also makes phytoremediation feasible. As the water table at the sites is 2 feet deep on average, it is shallow enough for plant roots to extend and come in contact with groundwater. Poplar spp. for example, are able to grow roots up to 5 feet deep (Licht, 1990). The clay layer of the site is also shallow at 5 feet. This depth would also put the roots in close proximity with DNAPL plumes that are on top of the clay layers.

5.3.3 Existing Case/Treatability Studies in Estimating Removal Efficiencies The removal efficiencies are summarized in the table below. These efficiencies are a result of existing bench, pilot and case studies. Each studies were selected based on the chemical of concern in order to gauge its effectiveness on the BCC site.

Table 4: Summary of results from bench scale and treatability tests. Note : A) removal result was similar to the control without the plant, proving that plant was not responsible for contaminant removal.

Species/Common Name

Contaminant

Removal Efficiency

Time taken/studied

Media

Area size tested

5-7

Hybrid willows Pteris vittata Chinese brake fern Bare root white willow tree Combinations of hybrid poplar, Eastern cottonwood and willows trees Cucurbita pepo ssp. pepo Zuchinni

Mercury Arsenic BTEX PCE, chlorinated solvents

42% 5-13% A 90% 75%

No data 42 days 4 years Results measured in 2 days, Actual project was 4 years 56 days

Soil Soil Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater

Laboratory/Pot size Laboratory/Pot size No Data. Full scale/On-site 3 acres

Pyrene, PAHs

60.38%

Soil

Laboratory/Pot size

5.3.4 Implementability of Phytoremediation and Cost Estimatation

5-8

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

Species Hybrid Poplar Willows White lupin

Unit Price $12.75/pot $16.75/pot $13.98 for 1500 seeds

No .Required 93 179 1500 seeds

Shipping $790.5 $2953.5 Free

Installation

Total Price $1976.25 (ex. install.)

$25,000

$5951.75 (ex. install) $13.98 (ex. install)

Tall fescue

$45/pallet

1600

$14,702

$35/pallet O&M TOTAL

$142,702 $300,000 (20 years) $475,663.98 (incl. install) $23 per m2

5-9

5.3.5 Issues of Phytoremediation

Issues related to phytoremediation obtained from the treatability studies were the potential invasion of species. Besides that, plant species will need to be tested to see if it will successfully grow in this region given extreme weather conditions. Proper O&M have to done in order to maintain effectiveness as well as plants that have fully absorbed contaminants will need to be removed and replaced to maintain effectiveness.

5.3.6

Phytoremediation Remarks

Phytoremediation was chosen for our combined remedy due to the fact it is a low cost option to continuously reduce contamination, and will provide a pleasant looking landscape that will be enjoyed by the community. 5.4 Permeable Reactive Barrier

5.4.1 Description
A permeable reactive barrier is a wall installed directly into the soil, deep and wide enough to prevent contaminated groundwater from bypassing, and forcing the groundwater to pass directly through the barrier, which treats it. A trench will be dug with a backhoe due to the fact that the soil contains various fill material that would interrupt the operation of more efficient trench digging operations. The total length of the PRB would be 450m long, 1m wide, and 2m (on average) deep, ensuring 0.3m extension into clay layer. Installation diagram is shown in green on Figure 6. One potential modification is to allow the SE section to follow the property line to the SE corner instead of angling NE. This would allow

5-10

greater flexibility in building, but could potentially create a larger groundwater plume due to the longer distance to reach the PRB.

5.4.2 Performance
Depending on the type of barrier, and the type of contaminant it is designed to treat, different materials can be used. Of the different types of material, the following were chosen and studied in depth:

Organoclay

Extremely effective against a wide range of organics and chlorinated organics. Has a tendancy to swell with contaminate absorption, lowing conductivity as a result until flow ceases. It was noted in one study, when PAH and chlorobenzene are involved (as is the case here), as the material becomes saturated to the maximum it can hold, chlorobenzene will replace PAH, allowing the PAH to bypass the PRB. Otherwise there is no evidence of re-mobilization of any contaminants sorbed into organoclay (Reible, 2005). Reible also notes that if sand is mixed into organoclay, its effective surface area actually increases, allowing for a decreased PRB thickness as the sand reduces preferential channeling. In addition, as the media absorbs chlorobenzene it will swell, reducing conductivity and redirecting flow to less saturated media.

Green Sand

An industrial metal works waste sand that contains metal by-products which react with heavy metals in passing groundwater, locking them in sand. As sand is needed to be used with the organoclay to both increase hydraulic conductivity and increase effective surface area, green sand is a good candidate. An advantage of green sand is that it is free and has
5-11

remediation effects. The foundries it comes from typically have to pay to dispose of it, and will even transport it to the site at no cost. The added remediation effects is it will absorb arsenic and mercury that is on site, and to a limited effect PAH. Disadvantages of green sand is that it may contain unwanted chemical wastes that could enter the ground water. Typical wastes such as chlorinated ethanes and other organics would be immediately absorbed by the organoclays, making them a non-issue in this case. Some other waste metals may be avoided by choosing foundries that do not process them. One important matter when installing the PRB, is any sewer lines that pass through the PRB must be removed, disabled, or otherwise checked to ensure no groundwater will be flowing through them, as this will cause contaminated water to bypass the PRB. 5.4.3 Cost Analysis A typical installation of organoclay ranges from $300 - $1000 per m3. The backhoe use will be more expensive than some other ways of trench digging, but this will be balance by the fact green sand is free, and disposal of waste material in this specific case will be neglected as it will be used as fill material for excavation. Also, another factor in cost is the fill material, in this case is green sand that will be procured at no cost. Because of these factors, the expected cost for installation of an organoclay-green sand PRB will be $450 per m3, for a total of $350,000. 5.4.4 Removal Efficiencies of Materials Organoclay Organoclay is quick to absorb many contaminants, including four of the six CoC at the Buffalo Color site, Chlorobenzene, Di-chlorobenze, and both PAHs.
5-12

Main issue with organoclay is, by its name, it is clay and therefore has a very low hydraulic conductivity. This fact tends organoclay to be used as a barrier method which also absorbs potential contamination leakage, which will reduce groundwater flow to a point it would be ineffective in containing groundwater contamination at the Buffalo Color site. If organoclay was installed alone, groundwater would either go around or over. This would make it very useful as a containment media, which is not desired here. This is why it will be mixed with the greensand. Groundwater flow was modeled in Visual AEM, with initial conditions tested to match recorded groundwater levels. Figure 6 shows the capture zone in the worst case scenario of 2.5 cm/day conductivity of the entire PRB with a hydraulic lock near the DNAPL zone. In this case potentially contaminated groundwater will continue to flow through the barrier and not bypass. One alternative is to

Figure 6: Post PRB installation Capture Zone

5-13

5.4.5 Important Installation Guidelines When installing the organoclay/greensand PRB, careful attention to the hydraulic conductivity of the material must be heeded. If conductivity is allowed to be less that 2.5cm/day, the entire groundwater contamination plume may not be collected by the PRB. Sewers: Any sewer line from the Buffalo Color site going through the PRB must be checked to ensure no leakage of groundwater is possible, or the sewer line blocked/removed. A leaky sewer or other piping system will bypass the PRB allowing contaminates to the Buffalo River. 5.5 River Sediment Dredging

5.5.1 Description Contaminated sediments in aquatic environments can pose health risks to many types of organisms, including humans. Exposure to the contaminants occurs by several routes, including direct contact and consumption of organisms that have accumulated contaminants from the sediments. The potential adverse effects on human health and the environment are compelling reasons to seek to reduce exposure. Contaminated sediments can occur in small, localized areas or in vast areas, covering miles of river or harbor bottoms and associated floodplains (The National Academies Press, 2007). Underwater excavation for excavating the contaminated sediment is called dredging. After the initial excavation needed to establish a channel, the periodic dredging that must be done to keep it clear and safe for navigation is called maintenance dredging. Once
5-14

sediments are dredged from the waterway, they are called dredged material. (The National Academies Press, 2007) A dredge is a machine that scoops or suctions sediment from the bottom of waterways or is used to mine materials underwater. The chemicals of concern in contaminated sediment sites vary; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are the most common, followed by metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (EPA 2005). The widely varied physical and chemical properties of contaminants markedly affect their distribution in the environment and their behavior (including transport, bioavailability, and toxicity) during and after remediation. The degree of contamination can be severe in some areas with nearly unadulterated original products, such as PCB-containing oils, pesticides, or coal-tar residues. In other areas, contaminants occur at low concentrations in sediments among functioning ecosystems of fish, plants, and benthic invertebrates. The thickness of the contaminated sediment is highly variable and often poorly characterized but can range from a few inches to many feet thick with marked differences over small spatial scales. (The National Academies Press, 2007) 5.5.2 Cost Estimation Estimating the costs of dredging operations is provided in this section. Virtually all costs associated with the removal component of a sediment remediation project are capital costs (direct and indirect). The elements of environmental dredging costs include (EPA, 1994):

5-15

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

Backhoes will be used for the dredging operation. Excavated sediment is going to send to the confined disposal facility with the truck. Approximate cost estimation is shown below in the table.
ITEM Mobilization/Demobilization of the dredging equipment to the river Dredging operation Containment Barrier Sediment excavation with backhoe Transportation to the facility(USACE, 2007) Health and safety, equipment decontamination COST RIVER STATISTICS 100 km assumed for the distance of 25,118 m3 transportation 16,482 m2 25,118 m3 2837 10 days TOTAL TOTAL COST

$37,500/100 km $50/m3 $28/m2 $10/m3 $50/ton contaminated sediment $500/day

$ 37,500 $ 1,255,900 $ 461,496 $ 251,118 $ 3,562,988 $ 5,000 $ 5,574,002

Figure 7: Cost Estimation for the dredging

5.5.3 Preventing the environmental impacts

5-16

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

5.5.3.1 Noise preventing

Objective: To ensure that no noise nuisance results from the dredging. Suggested measures Liaise with the local community to identify noise issues. Select quiet equipment. Alter or enclose equipment to reduce noise at the source. Use sound-absorbing materials to prevent the spread of noise by isolating the source. Limit times of operation. 5.5.3.2 Odor preventing

Objective: To ensure that small odor problems do not alarm nearby residents. Suggested measures Inform residents of temporary nature of any odors and of grey sediment. Assess odor risk if contaminated. 5.5.3.3 Minimize Effects on Water Quality increase monitoring for turbidity (this will identify but not minimize turbidity); incorporate or re orientate silt screen; reduce overflow of barges or bunds; increase travel path of fluid within bunds to increase sedimentation; decrease rate of dredging; select appropriate dredge for material being dredged
5-17

 relocate dredge to an alternative location. Use silt screens where practical and sediments are fine. When necessary, monitor water quality including turbidity, as well as sea grass and other sensitive species. 5.5.3.4 Minimize Effects of Contaminated Sediments
Monitor water quality near dredging operations removing highly contaminated

sediments. Dredge contaminated sediments first and dispose to land or place on spoil grounds first and cover with clean sediments. Use silt screens to contain contaminated sediment 5.5.3.5 Sensitive Biological Communities Map location of sensitive communities. Prevent Noise Nuisance in Residential Areas Liaise with the local community to identify areas and times sensitive to noise. Alter or enclose equipment to reduce noise at the source. Use sound-absorbing materials to prevent the spread of noise by isolating the source. Monitor noise levels. 5.5.3.6 Ensure that Small Odor Problems
Inform residents of temporary nature of any odors and grey sediment.

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

5-18

Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost

Table 5: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Groundwater at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E. TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY TYPE None Barrier Walls None Slurry Wall Not effective unless contaminants remove/breakdown naturally. Effective in preventing contaminated groundwater to enter river. Effective in preventing direct contact of living beings with contamination. Effective at reducing contaminant levels prior to exiting site. Depends highly on materials used and type of contamination. Effective at removing chlorobenzene and dichlorobenzene over large areas. Effective at removing chlorobenzene and other chlorinated compounds. Effective at removing metals mercury and arsenic. Effective at removing metals mercury and arsenic. Effective at removing metals mercury and arsenic. Effective at removing mercury. Readily implementable. The site is to be left as is. Implementable. The site is currently an open land.

RESPONSE ACTION No Action Containment

RELATIVE COST Note : Above average being higher cost None Average

RETAINED OR NOT RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Retained (used to compare the effects of no action.) Not retained (hinders future renovation plans)

Surface Capping Treatment Physical /Chemical Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB)

Implementable. The site is currently an open land. Implementable. Backhoe excavation can be done at boundary of site upon determining direction of contaminant migration. Removes all. Implementable. Can be used as part of material in PRB. Implementable. Proper injection wells will need to be installed before execution. Implementable. Implementable Implementable Implementable.

Average Average

Not retained (hinders future building plans) Retained

Activated Carbon

Average. Cost does not include installation. Above average. High volume of material required. Below average Below average Below average Average

Not retained (does not remove other contaminants) Not retained (site is highly organic) Not retained (studies show higher performance in PRB) Not retained (studies show higher performance in PRB) Not retained (studies show higher performance in PRB) Not retained (low compatibility with other technologies )

Chemical Oxidation Treatment (Continued) Filtration Membrane Filtration Precipitation Filtration Adsorption Filtration Biological In-Situ Biochemical Oxidation

6-1

Technologies Retained for Remediation in Groundwater for Detailed Analysis.

PREVENTION (None retained) CONTAINMENT (None retained) SOURCE REMOVAL (None Retained) TREATMENT Physical/Chemical -Permeable Reactive Barrier DISPOSAL (None retained)

RESPONSE ACTION No Action Containment

Table 6: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Soil at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E. TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY TYPE None Chemical None Solidification/ Stabilization Vitrification Mechanical Excavation Soil Washing/ Acid Extraction Permitted Treatment Facility Phytoremediation Bioremediation Not effective unless contaminants remove/breakdown naturally. Effective in immobilizing contaminants to prevent migration, provided that actual contamination location is known. Effective in immobilizing metals and volatilizing to remove them from soil. Effective. Contamination of high concentrations can be removed from the site. Effective. Contamination is removed and results in remediated soil. Effective. Contaminated soil will be treated and good for future usage. Effective in removing COCs of lower concentration depending on plant species. Process is long term however. Effective in removing organics and PAHs. Readily implementable. The site is left as is. Implementable.

RELATIVE COST None Average

Immobilization/ Media Migration Source Removal Excavation

Implementable Readily Implementable. Ideal as locations of contamination is isolated and depth to clay layer is shallow. Implementable. Soil can be excavated and contaminates can be washed/extracted. Implementable. This is provided that there are soil/contamination that needs disposal. Implementable. Implementable.

Above average Average. Cost does not include cost of treating soil. Average Above average Below Average Average

RETAINED OR NOT RETAINED F OR FURTHER ANALYSIS Retained (used to compare the effects of no action) Not retained (does not remove contaminant and pinpoint location of contamination is not known) Not retained (potential vapor contamination is not favorable) Retained

Post excavation Disposal Treatment Offsite Discharge Biological

Not retained (cost for transport and space required for washing is not feasible) Retained (technology used for excavation analysis) Retained Not retained (low compatibility with other technologies)

Technologies Retained for Remediation in Soil for Detailed Analysis. PREVENTION (None retained) CONTAINMENT (None retained) SOURCE REMOVAL Excavation -Mechanical excavation TREATMENT Biological -Phytoremediation DISPOSAL Offsite discharge -Permitted Treatment Facility

6-2

RESPONSE ACTION No Action Mass removal

Table 7:Screening of Remedial Technologies for Vapor at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E. TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY TYPE None Volatization/ Media Migration None Soil Vapor Extraction Air Sparging Not effective unless contaminants remove/breakdown naturally. Effective in removing VOCs from soil to vapor and removal of vapor through vacuums. Effective in removing VOCs from soil and groundwater and removal of vapor through ventilation. Effective in preventing intrusion of vapor through cracks in building basement. Directs vapor to the edge of buildings. Implementable. The site is to be left as is. Implementable provided that vapor is produced through technologies used. Implementable provided ventilation is installed. Implementable if buildings were to be built on the site. Implementable after buildings are built.

RELATIVE COST None Average Average Below average

RETAINED OR NOT RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS Retained (used to compare the effects of no action) Not retained (potential vapor contamination is not favorable) Not retained (potential vapor contamination is not favorable) Retained

Prevention (applicable only to buildings developed in the long run)

Passive Mitigation Active Mitigation

Passive Barriers/ Passive Venting Depressurization

Effective in reducing the driving force for vapor intrusion into building. Technologies Retained for Remediation in Vapor for Detailed Analysis. PREVENTION Passive Mitigation -Passive Barriers/Venting Active Mitigation -Depressurization CONTAINMENT (None retained)

Below average

Retained

SOURCE REMOVAL (None retained)

TREATMENT (None retained)

DISPOSAL (None retained)

6-3

RESPONSE ACTION No Action Source Removal Disposal Containment Treatment

Table 8: Screening of Remedial Technologies for River Sediments in the Buffalo River. TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY TYPE None Dredging Offsite Disposal Capping Physical/ Chemical Thermal None Mechanical Dredging Confined Disposal Facility Impermeable Cap Sediment washing Low thermal desorption Not effective unless contaminants remove/breakdown naturally. Effective at removing contaminated sediment. Effective. Contaminated sediments will be removed from river. Effective at preventing contact of contamination with river water and benthic community Effective at removing PCBs and chlorobenzene. Effective at detaching contaminants form sediments and volatizing it. Implementable. The site is to be left as is. Implementable. Sediment in soil will be removed. Implementable Implementable. Preparation for materials should be done prior to installation. Implementable. However, sediments would need to be removed prior to treatment. Implementable

RELATIVE COST None Above average Below average Average Above average Above average

RETAINED OR NOT RETAINED F OR FURTHER ANALYSIS Retained (used to compare the effects of no action) Retained (issues of resurfacing will be discussed) Retained (technology retained for full dredging analysis) Not retained (affects habitat of benthic community, contamination is not removed) Not retained (potential sediment resurfacing from replacing soil) Not retained (potential contamination escaping into river waters)

Technologies Retained for Remediation in River Sediments for Detailed Analysis. PREVENTION (None retained) CONTAINMENT (None retained) SOURCE REMOVAL Dredging -Mechanical Dredging TREATMENT (None retained) DISPOSAL (None retained)

6-4

Possible Remedial Combinations

Talk about different combinations, even discussing ones that will not work(such as bioremed and PRB)

7.1

On Site

7.1.1 ISCO, Cap, Pump and treat 7.1.1.1 Description This remedy would consist of using ISCO to treat the chlorobenzene contaminated areas. As the treatment studies indicate, this would result in a removal efficiency of less than 95%, which would result in residual contamination significantly above limits. In addition, a cap would be put on areas of metal contamination to prevent exposure. Lastly, to prevent contaminated groundwater from reaching the Buffalo River, a pump and treat barrier method would be introduced.

7.1.1.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation Criteria The following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria: 7.1.1.3 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The reduction in chlorobenzene mass and capping remaining contamination would prevent personal contact with contamination. The pump and treat barrier would prevent further spread of contamination to the river.

7.1.1.4 Compliance with ARARs

7-1

As chemical oxidation will not remove enough mass to reduce chlorobenze to limits, and capping remaining CoC will not remove any mass, the soil and on-site groundwater will not meet any ARARs for CoC. Groundwater leaving the site will meet ARARs as the pump and treat system will prevent contaminated water from leaving the site.

7.1.1.5 Long-Term Effectiveness

The barrier would prevent contact immediately and maintain its control for the long-term. Pump and treat would be continuously operating providing a barrier, and the ISCO will have completed its chlorobenzene mass reduction.

7.1.1.6 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume

Volume reduction will only happen for chlorobenzene. The mobility of the CoC will be negated by the cap and the pump and treat system, and while toxicity will not be reduced, exposure will be.

7.1.1.7 Short-Term Effectiveness

The cap and pump and treat system will immediately prevent spread/contact of contamination. ISCO of the chlorobenzene will be fairly quick providing mass reduction in weeks.

7.1.1.8 Implementability
The implementability of ISCO is questionable as the negative effects of the soil on site. The cap and pump and treat will be easily implemented.

7.1.1.9 Cost
The total cost for the treatment would be moderate, but due to the questionable ISCO costs could increase greatly if it proves to not react well. In addition, high O&M requirements of the pump and treat.

7.1.1.10 State and Community Acceptance

7-2

State acceptance would be good for no further river contamination and prevention of personal contact to CoC. Any business wishing to build on the site would be severely restricted by the cap in where they could build.

7.2

River Sedimentation

7.2.1 Hydraulic Lock with material such as organoclay 7.2.2 Description A material, such as organoclay, would be put into the river to cover, and lock the contamination in place.

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

7.2.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment This would potentially prevent contamination spread into the river column and by the benthic community into fish and other wildlife. This would however, adversely affect the ecology of the riverbed by preventing a thriving benthic community as the cap would not be an ideal environment. 7.2.3.2 Compliance with ARARs As no mass would be removed, there would be no compliance with ARARs in buried sediment. The river column would be clear of contamination. 7.2.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness

7-3

Long-term effectiveness would be questionable as natural river currents and other factors could erode the cover and allow contamination to surface and/or allow the benthic community to reach the contamination. 7.2.3.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Toxicity and volume would not be reduced, but the cover would limit mobility. 7.2.3.5 Short-Term Effectiveness It should be effective in the short term, assuming the cap was completely installed correctly. 7.2.3.6 Implementability The steep river banks, coupled with the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers regularly dredge the channel will provide severe impacts on the ability of a stable cap to be installed on the contaminated portions of the Buffalo River. 7.2.3.7 Cost Initial costs of placing a cap would be significantly lower than dredging, but O&M costs over the years due to erosion and dredging operations would add up quickly . 7.2.3.8 State and Community Acceptance The Buffalo River Keepers would object to the modification of the sedment, as it would adversely affect growth and stability of the benthic community of the area. The Army Corps of Engineers would continuously dredge due to requirements to maintain the channel open would cause concern of future failure of containment which the state would object to.

Proposed Remedies

8-4

8.1

Remedy 1: No Action

8.1.1 Description
The final alternative, the no action leave the site untreated. Contaminations will not be removed or monitored. The site will continue to be used as is.

8.1.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation Criteria

The following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study Evaluation Criteria:

8.1.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment By taking no remedial action on the BCC site, all the environmental mediums (groundwater soil, sediment and vapor) will remain contaminated and eventually spread to neighboring media. This is due to the nature of the COCs that are present. On site, citizens or animals that come in contact with the soil will be exposed to the contaminants by means of ingestion. VOCs within the soil will volatilize and contaminate the vapor/atmosphere which will potentially be inhaled by living beings on the site and then spread to residential areas around the site As for off-site areas, this alternative poses a huge treat to the Buffalo River. Contaminated groundwater will follow its regional flow into the Buffalo River. Existing sewer lines will also transport contaminated groundwater into the river. The contamination of the river will harm the benthic community and also parties that use and rely on the water of the Buffalo River for drinking or other purposes. Due to the reasons above, the alternative fails to meet this criterion. 8.1.2.2 Compliance with ARARs

8-2

Groundwater standards within the site would not be met. It is not expected to be an issue as groundwater is not used in the City of Buffalo. Groundwater standards outside of the site will also not be met since contamination from the site would be allowed to leave the site as is and transport the contamination outside the site. Soil concentrations would also fail to meet the standards. Contaminants that are absorbed to the soil will potential enter groundwater as well. 8.1.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness This alternative is not effective in the long-run. On top of not providing any removal, leaving the site as is would lead to very steep cost if the site were to be used. This is the result of the spread of the contaminated area with the Buffalo River being one the main concerns. Plumes may also increase potentially as more and more contaminants absorbed and combine.

8.1.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume No toxicity will be removed. There will be potential mobility of the contaminants especially from groundwater to sediment and groundwater or soil to vapor. Volume of contaminants may decrease due to the migration from on to off-site like the Buffalo River. Volume of the contaminants may also stay constant but change in terms of its physical property. Bigger plumes of DNAPL may form through the years.
.

8.1.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

8-3

This alternative is not effective short term. This would mean that it is not possible for immediate planning and construction of a new commercial and industrial area on the site. The alternative fails to meet this criterion. 8.1.2.6 Implementability As all no action alternatives, this option is implementable on the site. The alternative fulfills this criterion. 8.1.2.7 Cost There is no cost involved in taking no action. Hence the alternative fulfills this criterion. . 8.1.2.8 State and Community Acceptance This alternative would have various acceptance results. In terms of cost, the state and the community would accept this alternative. As remediation projects generally have high costs, the state and community would to be able to use the investment to develop other sectors of the state/city if this alternative was chosen.

However, there are also reasons that the state and community will not accept this alternative. For the state, leaving the site contaminated will prohibit commercial or industrial development at the location. The lost in amount of usable land will hinder the potential economic growth the usage may bring for the state/city. As for the community, leaving the site contaminated will mean that neighboring areas are at a high risk of being exposed to the contamination. On top of that, the Buffalo River will be at risk of being polluted. Fishing activities for example, would have to be forbidden to avoid consumption of fish affected by the contamination.
8-4

8.2

Remedy 2: Combination

8.2.1 Description Three technologies will be employed. First areas of highest concentration will be excavated significantly reducing contamination mass. Second, a permeable reactive barrier containing a combination of organoclay and green sand will be placed south of all contaminated soil, preventing groundwater contamination from reaching the Buffalo River. Third, phytoremediation will consist of different plants being planted on the remaining contaminated areas to a) reduce mass over time and b) act as a barrier to prevent civilian contact with the ground. Also, a deed restriction will be placed on the property for any building in the area of VOC contamination that a foundation venting system must be installed to prevent the build-up of vapor intrusion contamination in buildings. Lastly, the Buffalo River will be dredged down 6 feet along the banks. This remedy will accomplish our goals as follows: Primary goal 1: Prevent further contamination of the Buffalo River. Removal of significant mass and then having the PRB barrier will prevent any contamination from reaching the river. Goal will be met. Primary goal 2: Prevent Human contact with contamination above limits Removal of significant mass, blocking off areas of continued contamination, and institution of deed. Goal will be met. Secondary goal: Reduce all contamination to below set limits Removal of significant mass will approach limits, but will not meet them. Cost and environmental impact to meet this goal is prohibitive.

8-5

Figure 9: Excavation Areas

Figure 10: Phytoremediation and PRB installation locations

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

8-6

8.2.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Significant reduction of mass in the soil will assist in protecting human health, along with preventing access to the remaining contamination. The groundwater will not be remediated on site, but it is not used as drinking water at this location, therefor will not be an issue. The combination of the PRB preventing contaminated groundwater from entering the Buffalo River and dredging of contaminated sediments will protect the river wildlife. Use of a containment barrier in the river during dredging will prevent high turbidity from affecting the rest of the river. 8.2.2.2 Compliance with ARARs

IAW NYSDEC 375-1.8, full source removal is preferred. To approach satisfaction of this, all contamination above 10x the limit will be excavated. The remaining contamination will be contained by use of controlled phytoremediation (for soil) and installation of a PRB (groundwater). Exposure to any residual vapor intrusion will be prevented by a deed restriction to install a barrier or vent system to prevent intrusion. Groundwater standards within the site would not be met. It is not expected to be an issue as groundwater is not used in the City of Buffalo. Soil concentrations would be reduced immediately, but will not meet standards for any of the CoC. Phytoremediation will continuously reduce levels over time, but at a 7080% removal efficiency over 10-20 years, it is not expected to reach required levels in that time. The deed restriction of installation of foundation vent systems will prevent air quality inside buildings from exceeding limits. 8.2.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness
8-7

The combination of technologies will provide a long-term control. The excavation will have removed majority of the mass, and the phytoremediation will continuously reduce mass over the next two decades. The PRB will continuously maintain clean effluent groundwater of any remaining contamination. 8.2.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume

Excavation will immediately reduce mass. Phytoremediation will slowly reduce mass over time. The PRB will prevent mobility of contaminants outside the site, and implementation of a deed restriction to add foundation sealing or venting into any buildings near chlorobenzene contamination will prevent mobility of vapors into buildings. 8.2.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

The excavation will immediately reduce the problem, but will not eliminate it. Phytoremediation takes time, in the order of 5-8 years before it will begin to reduce remaining levels to acceptable limits. The PRB will immediately prevent further groundwater contamination from exiting the Buffalo Color Site upon installation, and dredging of the river sediment will remove contamination. Initial benthic communities will be impacted by the dredging, but will be expected to return to normal in the near future. 8.2.2.6 Implementability

The Buffalo Color site is adjacent to city roads with full access to the interstate system. This allows for ease of truck traffic for any materials required for the remedy. In
8-8

addition, having railroads right next to the site provides an easy access for shipping of materials needed for PRB installation and replacing soil from excavation. For excavation, the nature of the soil being primarily mixed fill will prove to be difficult at times due to old building material and piping systems buried throughout the site. In addition, groundwater will be encountered at all excavation areas and will have to be dealt with. For the phytoremediation, buried materials may require additional excavation as required to allow plant growth. The high organic content and high water table will allow for fairly quick plant growth, and initial excavation of high contamination will prevent excessive toxicity. 8.2.2.7 Cost

To save costs, it is recommended to use any soil removed in creation of the PRB trench as the fill soil for excavated sections. This will also significantly reduce required truck traffic to 80 truckloads. Costs could be reduced even more if railroads were utilized for material transportation, as they are adjacent to the site. The cost of this initial excavation and removal of material to an off-site processing facility is expected to be $1.1 Million. The expected cost of the installation of the PRB is expected to be 0.35 Million. The expected cost of the installation of the Phytoremediation is expected to be 0.4 Million, which accounts for O&M costs for 20 years. O&M costs are expected to be $12,000 per year to account for regular groundwater samples to ensure PRB efficiency. This will be $60,000 over the next 5 years.
8-9

River Sediment Dredging will cost $5.6 million to remediate. Current accrued costs from investigation have totaled $72,000. This brings the total estimated costs to $7.5 Million.

8.2.2.8 State and Community Acceptance

The limited amount of truck traffic required, along with the green appearance of the phytoremediation will be positive on community acceptance. Due to the fact this has been an industrial area, the community will accept the visual improvement. The Buffalo River Keepers, and other state and private organizations will be satisfied by the remediation preventing further contamination of the Buffalo River. Future developers may not like the requirement to not build in the phytoremediation areas.

9 9.1

Ecological Habitat Buffalo Color Company Site

By implementing the trees for the phytoremediation, ecological habitat will be restored. Birds,

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

9.2

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

industrialization and the pressures of growing river communities have taken a toll on the river ecosystem. Although discharges from the oil refineries, steel mills, and chemical plants that occupy its shores have declined over the last several decades, the impacts of pollution and degraded habitats 9-10

remain. The primary issues affecting the Buffalo River today are impaired water quality, contaminated bottom sediments, inactive hazardous waste sites, point and nonpoint source pollution, combined sewer overflows, and fish and wildlife habitat loss and degradation. (Riverkeepers,2006)

Ecological restoration is defined by EPA as the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed. To identify, prioritize, and facilitate opportunities to restore, protect and enhance habitat within the Buffalo River Habitat Corridor and its tributaries for a healthy and sustainable ecosystem that will benefit habitat, wildlife, corridor communities, and future generations are Triodis missions during the treatment operations. (Riverkeepers,2006)

Corruptions that have been identified: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption Fish tumors or other deformities Degradation of aesthetics Degradation of benthos Restriction on dredging activities Loss of fish and wildlife habitat Eutrophication or undesirable algae Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor Degradation of fish and wildlife populations Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
Figure 11: Observed disorders

Fish and wildlife habitat have been degraded by dredging of the river. Fish tumors have been observed in the Buffalo River and are believed to be caused by PAHs in the sediments. Research and analysis of fish health and population completed in August 2005 indicate that fish diversity and health has not improved over the last decade based on the data obtained in 2003-04, and compared to data available from fish surveys of the early 1990s (ENVIRON , 2009).
9-2

Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption are primarily due to PCBs. Based on measurements of benthic macro invertebrates and toxicity tests conducted in a study in 1982 and on the presence of contaminated sediment in selected areas, certain sediments were evaluated as causing degradation of benthos use impairment in the AOC. Research of benthic macro-invertebrates completed in August 2005 indicates that much of the Buffalo River continues to have low diversity and be dominated by pollution-tolerant species. These results indicate that there has been no improvement in the health or populations of the benthos since the last benthic studies conducted in 1992-93 (ENVIRON, 2009).

10 Community Relations Before, During, and After Treatment Community acceptance is the process of engaging in dialogue and collaboration with community members. The goal of Superfund community acceptance is to advocate and strengthen early and meaningful community participation during Superfund cleanups. In the project, requisite residents were contacted, and obtained an approval for the project (EPA, 1988).
Treatability testing is potentially controversial within a community and, therefore, additional community relations activities may be required. In this manner, Triodis connected with the community living near the site and inform them with using flyer, EPA presented factsheets and informational brochures. The assessment enhanced the previously prepared community relations plan and included a discussion of any issues unique to the proposed procedures such as enhanced organic-clay PRB, excavation, transporting needed chemicals, schedule changes resulting from

10-3

conducting bench or pilot tests, disposal of residuals, uncertainties pertaining to innovative technologies, and the degree of development of the technology being tested (EPA, 1988).

Additional community relations implementation activities applied in the assessment and included a public meeting to explain the proposed excavation, phytoremediation, dredging and organic-clay PRB and fact sheets describing the technology and technical details, a briefing to public officials about the river dredging, organic PRB and the phytoremediation, and small group consultations with members of the community concerned about EPAs actions at the site and the river (EPA, 1988). Site-specific community relations activities identified in the community relations plan prepared previously. While appropriate modifications of activities are made to the community relations plan as the project progresses, the plan is generally implemented as written to ensure that the community is informed of the alternatives being evaluated and is provided a reasonable opportunity to provide input to the decision-making process (EPA, 1988). Fact sheets are prepared that summarizes the alternatives being evaluated. As appropriate, small group consultations or public meetings are held to discuss community concerns and explained alternatives under consideration. Public officials are briefed and press releases prepared describing the alternatives.

10-4

Figure 12: Example Citizen Guidances (EPA, 2012)

The objective of community relations during application of the alternatives is to assist the community in understanding the alternatives and the specific considerations took into account in implementing an alternative. In this way, the community is prepared to provide meaningful input during the upcoming public comment period.

Control of Invasive Species from Phytoremediation The introduction of new plant species in the phytoremediation process brings about potential species invasion. The fact that the plants are being imported into the site means that there will be species that are not native to the site. Asides from Festuca arundinacea (tall fescue grass), the species Lupinus albus (White Lupin), Sapix spp. (Willow trees) and Poplar spp. (Hybrid Poplars) are potentially invasive to the local ecosystem. By definition this phytoremediation step is facilitating invasive species.

10-5

More studies, experiments and discussions with ecologist and biologists would need to be carried out to better understand the potential species invasion by the plant species mentioned. As there are no current studies that discuss or yield the results of these species being invasive, it is impossible to draw a conclusion on the possibility of invasion by the phytoremediation plants. However, if the selected plant species are deemed invasive, other plant alternatives will be chosen. This would be a constant monitoring and maintenance process to prevent species invasion.

Discussion on the Effective Construction Procedure The processes of excavation and PRB construction will be carried out simultaneously. This process is estimated to last for about one week. The reason why excavation and PRB construction were done at the same time is for soil cost management. In the excavation step, highly contaminated soil are removed and a disposed off-site. This would result in pits that need to be filled again. In installing the PRB, less contaminated or even clean soil (by majority) are removed and replaced with organoclay and green sand mixture. Instead of removing these dug soil off-site, they will be used to re-fill the pits that resulted from excavation. By carrying out this procedure, cost for obtaining new soil can be greatly decrease or eliminated. As phytoremediation serves as a long-term solution, it will be installed last. Time frame of this installation is variable depending on weather conditions and amount of labor available. Finishing the construction with phytoremediation will also ensure proper landscaping for the environmental aesthetics of the site.

10-6

The off-site dredging process on the Buffalo River will take up to 10 days. The barge would first be brought in and situated at a location ideal for the dredged materials to be rested. The backhoe is next brought in to begin the dredging process. Once completed, the materials on the barge are transported to the confined disposal facility for proper treatment.

Vapor Remediation Discussion and Proper Transportation/Trucking.

It is important to note that in the remedy, there were no technologies selected for onsite vapor remediation. This is due to the fact that technologies used will not produce or expose vapor contamination to the atmosphere. The reduction of chlorobenzene through excavation immediately reduced the potential vapor contamination.

During excavation however, proper anti-contamination clothing would need to be worn by workers and engineers at all times. This is to prevent potential inhalation of the DNAPL that will be potentially dug up. PID monitors would also need to be installed on site and engineers/technicians would be required to carry PID readers at all times.

The excavated soil would also need to be transported in tightly/properly sealed trucks to avoid exposure to the residential area as it moves towards the treatment facility. The trucks and other construction equipment would also need to washed down on-site before entering other community areas.

10-7

In the long run, vapor remediation will be taken into account. As in the preliminary technology screening, remedies that prevented vapor instruction in buildings were retained. This would be the vapor remedial solution if the BCC site were to be used as a commercial or industrial area with new buildings. Passive barriers/vents will hinder and deviate the routes of contaminated vapor from entering the cracks of foundations. Depressurization systems in the basements will reduce pressure build up in the sub-slab of the buildings. This will reduce or eliminate the driving force that facilitates vapor intrusion (CLU-IN, 2011)

10-8

11 Credits
WORK Executive summary Scope of the Problem Background RAOs Treatability Summary PERSON Zhen Hau Sing and Micheal Dietrich Zhen Hau Sing Michael Dietrich Mubeccel Begum Ilya ISCO-Michael EIBR-Mubeccel Phyto-Zhen PRB Michael Dredge- Mubeccel Group work Zhen Hau Sing Zhen Hau Sing Michael Dietrich Mubeccel Begum Ilya Mubeccel Begum Ilya Michael Dietrich

Alternative Review Effectiveness and Implementability No Action Remedy Combined Remedy Community Relations Ecological Habitat Final Editing and Direction

11-1

12 References
Phytotechnologies. (2012, November 7). Retrieved March 12, 2013, from http://cluin.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Phytotechnologies/cat/Over view/ Hybrid Poplar. (2013). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from Arborday: http://www.arborday.org/treeguide/treeDetail.cfm?id=31 Outside Price. (2013). Retrieved March 21, 2013, from Lupine Seeds-Noble Maiden: http://www.outsidepride.com/seed/flower-seed/lupine/lupinenoble-maiden.html Weeping Willow. (2013). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from Arborday: <http://www.arborday.org/shopping/trees/treedetail.cfm?ID=3 0> Baptista, R. J. (2009). National Aniline and Chemical Company Buffalo, New York. Retrieved from Colorants History. Brown, C. E. (2006). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Soil. Sources, Health Effects, Clean-Up Techniques and PAHs at Alameda Point. CLU-IN. (2011, August 26). Contaminant Focus. Retrieved from Clean Up Information (CLU-IN.org): http://www.cluin.org/contaminantfocus/ Cummings, J. (2013). Soil Vapor Extraction. Retrieved from Cluin: http://www.cluin.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Soil_Vapor_Extraction/cat/ Overview/ Engineering-Science. (1986). Engineering Investigations at Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites. Liverpool: EngineeringScience. EPA. (1988). Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. Washington DC: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA. (1993). Selecting Remediation Techniques for Contaminated Sediment. Cincinnati, OH: Office of Water. EPA. (1995). How To Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide For Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, In-Situ Groundwater Bioremediation. EPA. (2002). Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste, and Water. Washington, DC: clu-in.org. EPA. (2002). Enhanced In-situ Bioremediation of Solvents in Groundwater. Interstate Technology and regulatory Council. EPA. (2007). Treatment TechnologiesFor Mercury in Soil,Waste, and Water. Washington DC: clu-in.org. EPA. (2012). A Citizen's Guide to Bioremediation, Chemical Oxidation, and Phytoremediation. EPA. (2013). Basic Information about Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants and Indicators. Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/ ESTCP. (2005). Bioaugmentation for Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents: Technology Development Status and Research Needs. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program. Fayiga, A. O. (2005). Phytoremediation of Arsenic Contaminated Soil and Groundwater. University of Florida. Henry, J. (2000). An Overview of the Phytoremediation of Lead and Mercury. National Network of Environmental Management Studies. Honeywell International. (2011). History - Buffalo Research Lab. Retrieved Febuary 2013, from Honeywell: http://www.honeywell-buffalo.com/history.php Huling, S. B. (2006). In-Situ Chemical Oxidation. Cincinnati, OH: EPA. ICSS. (2006). Manual for Biological Remediation Techniques. International Centre for Soil and Contaminated Sites. Licht, L. (1990). Deep-Rooted Poplar Tree Buffers for Biomass Production and Nitrate Removal. US Department of Agriculture. Mactec. (2010). Treatability Studies for Buffalo Color sites C and E excepts. Mandalinsk, K. (2008). In Situ Technologies for the Remediation of Contaminated Solvents. Washington DC: EPA . NYSDEC. (1999). Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments. Albany: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. NYSDEC. (2013). 2. INDEX OF STANDARDS, CRITERIA AND GUIDANCE (SCGs) USED FOR APPLYING THE CRITERIA. Retrieved from New York State of Environmental Conservation.: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/61794.html NYSDEC. (2013). Chemical and Pollution Control. Retrieved from http://www.dec.ny.gov/25.html Nzengung, V. A. (2005). Case Studies of Phytoremediation of Petrochemicals and Chlorinated Solvents in Soil and Groundwater. University of Georgia. Osgerby, I. (2008). Persulfate to Chlorobenzenes in Glacial Till and Bedrock. Parsons. (2004). Principles and Practices of Enhanced Anaerobic Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents. AFCEE. Roote, C. a. (1998). Technology Overview Report,( In Situ Bioremediation, Cauwenberghe and Roote, Ground-Water Remediation). GWRTAC. Shin, D. G. (2001). Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup. Continuing Education and Development Inc.

12-2