Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
Post on 04-Jun-2018
222 Views
Preview:
Transcript
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
1/59
CIE 449 Environmental Engineering DesignTask 4: Feasibility Study
Submitted to:
Martin Doster207 Jarvis Hall
University at Buffalo
Prepared By:
Michael DietrichMubeccel Begum Ilya
Zhen Hau Sing
April 23, 2013
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
2/59
- This Page Intentionally Left Blank
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
3/59
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
4/59
2-3
5.3.4 Implementability of Phytoremediation and Cost Estimatation ........................... ........ 5-8
5.3.5 Issues of Phytoremediation ....................... .......................... ......................... ........... 5-10
5.3.6 Phytoremediation Remarks........................ .......................... ......................... ........... 5-10
5.4 Permeable Reactive Barrier ........................... ......................... .......................... ............... 5-10
5.4.1 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 5-10
5.4.2 Performance ......................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 5-11
5.4.3 Cost Analysis ......................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 5-12
5.4.4 Removal Efficiencies of Materials............................ .......................... ....................... 5-12
5.4.5 Important Installation Guidelines ....................... .......................... .......................... .. 5-14
5.5 River Sediment Dredging .......................... .......................... ......................... .................... 5-14
5.5.1 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 5-14
5.5.2 Cost Estimation................................ ........................... ......................... .................... 5-15
5.5.3 Preventing the environmental impacts ....................... ......................... .................... 5-16
6 Effectiveness, Implementability, and Cost .......................... .......................... ......................... 6-1
7 Possible Remedial Combinations ........................... .......................... ......................... ............. 7-1
7.1 On Site ........................... .......................... .......................... ......................... ...................... 7-1
7.1.1 ISCO, Cap, Pump and treat ......................... .......................... ......................... ............. 7-1
7.2 River Sedimentation ........................ .......................... ......................... ........................... .... 7-3
7.2.1 Hydraulic Lock with material such as organoclay .......................... .......................... .... 7-3
7.2.2 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ......... 7-3
7.2.3 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation Criteria ......................... .......................... .... 7-3
8 Proposed Remedies ......................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ......... 8-4
8.1 Remedy 1: No Action ....................... .......................... ......................... ........................... .... 8-2
8.1.1 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ......... 8-2
8.1.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation Criteria ......................... .......................... .... 8-2
8.2 Remedy 2: Combination ........................... .......................... ......................... ...................... 8-5
8.2.1 Description ........................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ......... 8-5
8.2.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation Criteria ......................... .......................... .... 8-6
9 Ecological Habitat............................. ......................... .......................... ......................... ....... 9-10
9.1 Buffalo Color Company Site ........................... ......................... .......................... ............... 9-10
9.2 Buffalo River........................ .......................... ......................... .......................... ............... 9-10
Corruptions that have been identified:.......................... .......................... .......................... ........ 9-2
10 Community Relations Before, During, and After Treatment .......................... ....................... 10-3
11 Credits ....................... ......................... .......................... ......................... ........................... .. 11-1
12 References ......................... .......................... .......................... ......................... .................... 12-2
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
5/59
2-4
1.1 List of FiguresFigure 1: Area of concern, including flow directions ................................................................................................. 3-2Figure 2: Buffalo River Contamination near Site C and E. ....................................................................................... 4-2Figure 3: Discovered Contamination Locations ........................................................................................................ 4-2Figure 4: Buffalo Color Site C and E, with contamination target zones. Contour lines shown are distance to clay
layer under ground surface in feet. ................................................................................................................................... 5-1Figure 5: Plan view of implementation of phytoremediation on site C and E. Plant species were selected based
on COCs within that area (labeled pink or red). ............................................................................................................... 5-9Figure 6: Post PRB installation Capture Zone ........................................................................................................ 5-13Figure 7: Cost Estimation for the dredging ............................................................................................................. 5-16Figure 8: Scheme showing that the steps of the environmental impact assessment ........................................... 5-17Figure 9: Excavation Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 8-6
Figure 10: Phytoremediation and PRB installation locations ................................................................................... 8-6Figure 11: Observed disorders .................................................................................................................................. 9-2Figure 12: Example Citizen Guidances (EPA, 2012) ............................................................................................. 10-5
1.2 List of TablesTable 1: Primary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC ................................................. 4-4Table 2: Secondary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC ............................................ 4-5Table 3: Factors That Affect Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation. Source: www.clu-in.org/bioremediation/ ........... 5-4Table 5: Summary of results from bench scale and treatability tests. Note : A) removal result was similar to the
control without the plant, proving that plant was not responsible for contaminant removal. ......................................... 5-7Table 6: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Groundwater at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E................ 6-1
Table 7: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Soil at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E. .............................. 6-2Table 8:Screening of Remedial Technologies for Vapor at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E. ........................... 6-3Table 9: Screening of Remedial Technologies for River Sediments in the Buffalo River. ..................................... 6-4
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
6/59
2-5
1.3 List of AcronymsARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BCCBuffalo Color Corporation
COCContaminants of Concern
DNAPLDense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
EISB Enhanced in-situ Bioremediation
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency
ISCOIn-Situ Chemical Oxidation
NYSDECNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PIDPhoto-Ionization DetectorPRB Permeable Reactive Barrier
RACER Remedial Action Cost Engineering Requirements
SCGStandard, Criteria and Guidance
SVOC- Semi Volatile Organic Compound
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit
TCETri-ChloroEthylene
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
7/59
2-6
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis Feasibility study report provides a detailed analysis of two remedial alternatives for the
BCC site; the no action alternative and the combined remedy. Both alternatives were evaluated with
the nine feasibility criteria set forth by EPA.
The no action alternative was essentially used to evaluate the overall adverse human health and
the environmental effects of the contamination. By taking no action, the COCs will potentially be
exposed to humans and animals through ingestion and inhalation routes. Contaminated
groundwater will also migrate and transport the COCs to the Buffalo River, harming the benthic
community in the sediments and the quality of water.
The combined remedy consist of treatments for each media; excavation for highly contaminated
soil, a PRB for groundwater, phytoremediation for moderately contaminated soil and groundwater
and a passive and active mitigation for vapor intrusion into buildings upon future
industrial/commercial development.
The total cost of the remediation (excluding vapor installation in buildings) was projected to be
$7.5 million. This cost includes the technology preparations and O&M of the whole site. The remedy
has a proposed reduction efficiency of over 99% for groundwater leaving the site and river
sediment remediation. After removal of concentrations on site over ten times the limit, expected
efficiency of phytoremediation is 70-80%.
The combined remedy was developed upon preliminary screening of technologies by media and
also various combinations of technologies. All of these technologies were evaluated using the nine
feasibility criteria mentioned. It is important to note that chemical oxidation and in-situ
bioremediation technologies were analyzed with more detail in the treatability studies but were not
chosen. The high organic content of the BCC site greatly increases the cost of chemical oxidation
while bio-remediation was not compatible with the PRB that was more effective in treating
groundwater.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
8/59
3-1
3 Site Background3.1 Main site:
The main area of concern is a 23 Acre area in Buffalo, NY south of Elk Street
between the rail road tracks and west of Orlando St. The site is broken two parts, site C to
the west of Lee St, and site E to the east.
Based on the Sandborn maps, the site began in the late 19 thcentury when Genesee
oil works created an oil processing plant in the southeast portion of site E. By the 20 th
century nearly the entire area was used as a lumber storage yard. This use has contributed
to the high organic content of the soils due to waste sawdust mixing into the soil as part of
the fill. In the early 1900s, an aniline plant was built on site C, and then during the 1940s
the dye manufacturing plant was built on the west half of site E. These tw o plants are
where hazardous compounds, such as acids, heavy metals, and benzene derivatives were
used (Baptista, 2009).
In this production, the wastes were typically stored in two ways: barrels in the
central part of site E,and dumped into lagoons in the eastern part of site E. These lagoons
themselves have been previously remediated and are no longer a concern. The barrel
storage area is where significant heavy metal and PAH contamination has been found.
Chemicals for production analine and various chlorinated organics used for dye
production were stored in tanks on the south western section of site E, and it is here that
significant chlorobenzene concentrations have been found.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
9/59
3-2
Today, all of the buildings in site E have been demolished except for a small
warehouse, and the only remaining buildings on site C is the original boiler and ice plants
which did not process the chemicals themselves.
3.2 Surrounding Area:To the north there is a Honeywell research laboratory that was built in 1955 and
deals primarily in fluorine based chemicals (Honeywell International, 2011). To the south
is site B of Buffalo Color, and to the southeast is a PVS Chemical plant that has produced
nitric and sulfuric acids, which also involved use of some heavy metals from 1930-1977
(Engineering-Science, 1986). To the southeast is an Exxon-Mobile petroleum plant.
As for a residential area, there were houses on the eastern portion of site E through
the 1940s when they were demolished. Now the residential are exists to the northwest of
site E. The current map of the area is shown inFigure 1.
Figure 1: Area of concern, including flow directions
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
10/59
4-3
4 Remedial Objectives4.1 The Problem
The issues being addressed at sites C and E is contamination that exists in the soil,
groundwater, vapor and also sediments in the Buffalo River to allow the site to be used for
commercial or industrial purposes.
Based on Triodis analysis, metals arsenic and mercury, VOCs chlorobenzene and
dichlorobenzene, SVOCs benzo(A)anthracene, benzo(A)pyrene and benzo(B)fluorentine
(PAHs) are of most concern at this site. Their existence in the soil and groundwater pose
severe potential health hazards that include carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicities,
making it necessary to remove them. Details of these affects are listed in the Chemical of
Concern chapter.
Site workers or people in general who come in contact with the ground face potential
ingestion of the contaminated soil. The volatilization of VOCs will contaminate the
atmosphere around the site, which is potentially hazardous to people exposed on site and
also neighboring residential areas if blown by wind. For groundwater, the flow into the
sewers and the Buffalo River will carry contaminants that eventually settle into the
sediments. This affects the water quality and pose potential health issues for the marine
wildlife in the river.
Groundwater has a specific problem of several sewer lines throughout the site creating
very high conductivity pathways of contaminates to the Buffalo River. These pipelines may
also be damaged allowing leakage in/out of the aquifer. Figure 2 shows the mercury and
PAH (as shown by a specific compound, Benzo(a)Anthracene) contamination.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
11/59
4-2
Contamination spikes immediately at the Buffalo Color outfall, and continues to be an issue
for 0.7 miles, at which indications of another contamination source other than sites C and
E is evident.Mercury is a particular concern in the river due to bioaccumulation.
Figure 2: Buffalo River Contamination near Site C and E.
Figure 3: Discovered Contamination Locations
Ideally, the contaminant concentrations should be decreased to the target levels set by
NYSDEC, which is covered in the Remedial Action Objectives chapter. However, if
treatability studies suggest a steep cost for remediation, containment and immobilization
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
12/59
4-3
of the chemicals are viable options as well. The ultimate goal is to either remove the
chemicals or avoid them from being exposed and have contact with humans and animals.
The viable options will be proposed after a treatability study of the site is done.
4.2 Remedial Action Objectives4.2.1 Soil:
For Human Health:
Preventing the ingestion/direct contact with soil having non-carcinogens in excessof reference doses.
Preventing the direct contact/ingestion with soil having 10-4 to 10-7 excess cancerrisk from carcinogens.
Preventing the inhalation of carcinogens posing excess risk levels of 10-4 to 10-7.For Environment Protection:
Preventing the migration of contaminants that would result in groundwatercontamination in excess concentrations for contaminants.
4.2.2 Groundwater:For Human Health:
Preventing the ingestion of water having carcinogens in excess of MCLs and a totalexcess cancer risk for all contaminants of greater than 10-4 to 10-7.
Preventing the ingestion of water having non-carcinogens in excess of MCLs orreference doses.
For Environment Protection:
Restoring the ground water aquifer to concentrations for contaminants.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
13/59
4-4
4.2.3 Sediments:For Human Health:
Prevent direct contact with sediment having carcinogens in excess of 10 -4 to 10-7excess cancer risk.
For Environmental Protection:
Prevent releases of contaminants from sediments that would result in surfacewater levels in excess of ambient water quality criteria.
4.2.4 Air:For Human Health:
Prevent inhalation of carcinogens in excess of 10 -4 to 10-7 excess cancer risk.Chemicals Of Concern: (NYSDEC, 2013)Primarily Concern Chemicals
Category ofContaminant Type of Contaminant Location
Mean detectedconcentration
Limit forcommercial set
by NYSDEC
HeavyMetal
Arsenic Soil 98.4mg/kg
16 mg/kg
Groundwater 352 g/L 25 g/L
Mercury Soil 9.6mg/kg
2.8 mg/kg
Groundwater 4 g/L 0.7 g/L
SVOC Benzo(A)Anthracene Soil 155mg/kg
5.6 mg/kg
Benzo(A)Pyrene Soil 66.2mg/kg 1.0 mg/kg
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene Soil 111.6mg/kg
5.6 mg/kg
VOC Chlorobenzene Groundwater 6913g/L
5 g/L
Dichlorobenzene Groundwater 39.7 g/L 3 g/L
Table 1: Primary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
14/59
4-5
Other Detected ChemicalsType of contaminant Location Mean
DetectedConcentration
Limit forcommercial set byNYSDEC
Naphthalene Groundwater 65g/La 10 g/L1,1,2-
TrichlorotrifluoroethaneGroundwater 9.3 g/La 5g/L
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Groundwater 440 g/La 5 g/L
Benzene Groundwater 600 g/La 1 g/L
Lead Soil 500mg/kg
1000 mg/kg
Chrysene Soil 73 mg/kg 56 mg/kg
Fluoranthene Soil 142mg/kg
500 mg/kg
Naphthalene Soil 53 mg/kg 500 mg/kg
Phenantrene Soil 232mg/kg
500 mg/kg
Pyrene Soil 120mg/kg
500 mg/kg
a- These mean values are from 1 data point, and are not indicative of contamination over the whole area of concern.Table 2: Secondary chemicals of concern detections and limits based on NYSDEC
4.3 The Expected OutcomePrimary Objectives:
Prevent any further contamination from reaching the Buffalo River.
Prevent human and wildlife contact to contamination above limits.
Secondary Objective
Remove as much mass as possible. It is cost prohibitive to reduce all contaminant
mass to below standards.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
15/59
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
16/59
5-1
5 Treatability studies summary
.Figure 4: Buffalo Color Site C and E, with contamination target zones. Contour lines shown are distance to
clay layer under ground surface in feet.
In the following sections, three remedial technologies will be covered, In-Situ Chemical
Oxidation, Enhanced bioremediation, and phytoremediation. Figure 1 shows the
approximate areas that are in need of remediation giving approximate depth of concern.
5.1 In-Situ Chemical Oxidation:5.1.1 Description
Chemical Oxidation is a remediation technique which involves adding a chemical
into the ground that promotes oxidation. This oxidation can transform harmful chemicals
into something that is either not harmful or less harmful (Huling, 2006). The bench scale
and pilot testing on the site covered two chemicals, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and
persulfate (S2O82-). Additional chemicals that can also be used are (MnO4-), activated
persulfate (SO4-), calcium peroxideozone, ozone (O3), and ozone/peroxide combination.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
17/59
5-2
Of the chemicals found to be a problem on our site, this technology will treat the
following: Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzene, PAHs Benzo(A)Anthracene, Benzo(A)Pyrene,
and Benzo(B)Fluoranthene which are our VOC and SVOC chemicals of concern. In addition,
it also treats Fluoranthene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Benzene and Trichlorobenzene which
are also present at the site. It does not treat metals, so another treatment option would be
required for them (Huling, 2006).
5.1.2 Performance
In the treatability studies, performance when compared to the control (using no
chemical) produced little difference. This is due to the extremely high organic content of
the soil as a result of the prior use as a lumber yard. While performance at many sites
proved promising, the specific conditions at the Buffalo Color site proved poor
performance due to high organic content, and extremely variable soil debris throughout.
5.1.3 Removal Efficiencies of Oxidants
In most situations, typical removal efficiencies ranged from 95-99%, however in all
cases and studies shown that high organic content significantly reduced these efficiencies,
creating the need to use significantly more oxidant due to the sorbtion present. Also, in
nearly all oxidents except for persulfate, the oxidants would go after the organic content
before the contaminant, making the treatment extremely cost ineffective.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
18/59
5-3
5.1.4 In-situ chemical oxidation remarks
ISCO was not chosen for any remedies due to the negatives affecting efficiency and
increasing cost beyond recommendation.
5.2 In-Situ Enhanced Bioremediation:5.2.1 DESCRIPTION
Organic contaminants in soil, groundwater, sludge, and solids can be degraded by
microorganism using the bioremediation. The microorganisms break down contaminants
by using them as an energy source for themselves. More detailed, bioremediation involves
the production of energy in a redox reaction within microbial cells. These reactions include
respiration and other biological functions needed for cell maintenance and reproduction
(EPA 2000).
The objective of the bioremediation is to withdraw from the circulation
contaminants or to turn them into chemical products not hazardous anymore to the nature
and humans. (GWRTAC,1998).
5.2.2 EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICABILITY OF THE ENHANCED IN-SITUBIOREMEDIATION
Enhanced In-situ bioremediation can treat 95% of the VOCs, SVOCs and organic
contaminants in the Buffalo Color Company site.
5.2.2.1 Chemicals of Concerns that can be applicable for the EISBThe leading contaminants are:
Chlorinated SVOCs and VOCs Non-chlorinated SVOCs and VOCs PAHs
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
19/59
5-4
Organic pesticides and herbicides Organic solvents Wood preservatives
5.2.2.2 Site ConditionsConditions slow down or stop the biodegradation CONDITIONS IDEAL FOR THE
BIOREMEDIATIONX Concentration of the chemical can be toxic Homogeneous and permeable aquiferX Concentration of the gradient can be too steep for
acclimation Single sourced contaminant
X Number of the microorganism can be inadequate Low groundwater gradientX Conditions may be too acid or too alkaline No soil contaminationX Nutrients or enzymes can be lack Easily degraded or immobilized
contaminantX Permeability can be low
X Moisture can be too wet or too dry
X Energy sources such as oxygen ,nitrogen or sulfatecan be lack
5.2.3 Factors That Affect Enhanced In-Situ BioremediationTable 3: Factors That Affect Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation. Source: www.clu-in.org/bioremediation/
Contaminant Concentrations. Contaminant Bioavailability Redox Potential and Oxygen Content Nutrients Temperature
5.2.4 COST OF THE TECHNOLOGYThere are too many variables in design and operational needs to give accurate
ranges of costs. As spoken generally, typical costs for in situ bioremediation range from $30
to $100 per cubic meter of soil (Roote, 1998). In Buffalo Color Company site, soil type and
the organic content of the soil is improving the efficiency of the treatment, typical cost for
our sites treatment is going to be $60 per cubic meter of soil.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
20/59
5-5
Contaminated groundwater and soil can be treated at the same time, providing cost
advantages. When hydrogen peroxide is used to enhance bioremediation, typical costs are
$10 to $20 per 1,000 liters of groundwater treated.
It can be assumed that the half of the soil is saturated, 15,287,000 liters is
groundwater amount that is going to be treated. According to the statement written above,
additional cost for the enhanced treatment (addition of the hydrogen peroxide) is going to
be $152,870.
Operation and maintenance costs can be significant because a continuous source of
hydrogen peroxide must be delivered to the contaminated groundwater (Roote, 1998).
Triodis determined the need to install 20 injection wells and additional 10
monitoring wells.
Injection Wells # of wells be installed20
$/well$720
Total $$ 14,400
Monitoring Wells Some of the monitoring wells which are installed before for the feasibility studyare going to be used for this face of the project. Additional 10 wells are going tobe installed to the certain areas with respect to the injection wells locations.
Cost for additional wells is:$7,200
O&M Costs $787,370
GRAND TOTAL $808,9700
5.2.5 Data Need For Implementation Of The Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation
For completing the enhanced in-situ bioremediation treatability study in the Buffalo
Color Company Sites CE, following data must be provided (Roote, 1998);
The biodegradability of the contaminants; Distribution of contaminant into soil, water, NAPL, and vapor phases; The leaching potential of the contaminants (e.g., water solubility and soil
sorption coefficient);
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
21/59
5-6
The chemical reactivity of the contaminants (e.g., tendencies toward non-biological reactions, such as hydrolysis, oxidation and polymerization);
Depth and areal extent of the contaminants; Soil type and properties (e.g., organic carbon content, mineral content, pH,
porosity, permeability, bulk density, moisture content, nutrient level, water-
holding capacity); The competition for oxygen (e.g., redox potential, ambient oxygen levels); The presence or absence of substances that are toxic to microorganisms; and, The ability of microorganisms in the soil to degrade contaminants.
5.2.6 Supportive Enhanced In-Situ Bioremediation Technologies Bioventing Air Sparging /Biosparging Liquid Delivery Systems Alternate Electron Acceptors - Anaerobic Bioremediation Phytoremediation
5.2.7 Enhance In-Situ Bioremediation RemarksEIBR was not chosen as a technology for any remediation. A PRB was chosen to be
used to prevent contaminated groundwater from leaving the site, and bioremediation is
incompatible due to the fact the organism growth will interfere with the PRB operation.
5.3 Phytoremediation5.3.1 Description
Phytoremediation is a remedial method that utilizes plants alone in treating or
stabilizing contamination in both sediment and groundwater media. On top of requiring
low cost investments, this method is known today as the greenest and most
environmentally natural way to treat contaminated sites. There are six different plant
mechanisms that allow them to either remove, destroy, transfer, stabilize or contain
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
22/59
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
23/59
5-8
5.3.4 Implementability of Phytoremediation and Cost Estimatation
Hybrid willows Mercury 42% No data Soil Laboratory/Pot
size
Pteris vittata
Chinese brake fern
Arsenic 5-13% A 42 days Soil
Groundwater
Laboratory/Pot
size
Bare root white
willow tree
BTEX 90% 4 years Groundwater No Data.
Full scale/On-site
Combinations of
hybrid poplar,
Eastern cottonwood
and willows trees
PCE,
chlorinated
solvents
75% Results
measured in 2
days, Actual
project was 4
years
Groundwater 3 acres
Cucurbita pepo ssp.
pepo
Zuchinni
Pyrene, PAHs 60.38% 56 days Soil Laboratory/Pot
size
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
24/59
5-9
Figure 5: Plan view of implementation of phytoremediation on site C and E. Plant species were selected basedon COCs within that area (labeled pink or red).
Species Unit Price No .Required Shipping Installation Total Price
Hybrid Poplar $12.75/pot 93 $790.5 $1976.25 (ex. install.)
Willows $16.75/pot 179 $2953.5 $25,000 $5951.75 (ex. install)
White lupin $13.98 for
1500 seeds
1500 seeds Free $13.98 (ex. install)
Tall fescue $45/pallet 1600 $14,702 $35/pallet $142,702
O&M $300,000 (20 years)
TOTAL $475,663.98 (incl. install)
$23 per m2
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
25/59
5-10
5.3.5 Issues of Phytoremediation
Issues related to phytoremediation obtained from the treatability studies were the
potential invasion of species. Besides that, plant species will need to be tested to see if it
will successfully grow in this region given extreme weather conditions. Proper O&M have
to done in order to maintain effectiveness as well as plants that have fully absorbed
contaminants will need to be removed and replaced to maintain effectiveness.
5.3.6 Phytoremediation Remarks
Phytoremediation was chosen for our combined remedy due to the fact it is a low cost
option to continuously reduce contamination, and will provide a pleasant looking
landscape that will be enjoyed by the community.
5.4 Permeable Reactive Barrier5.4.1 Description
A permeable reactive barrier is a wall installed directly into the soil, deep and wide enough to
prevent contaminated groundwater from bypassing, and forcing the groundwater to pass directly
through the barrier, which treats it.
A trench will be dug with a backhoe due to the fact that the soil contains various fill material
that would interrupt the operation of more efficient trench digging operations. The total length of
the PRB would be 450m long, 1m wide, and 2m (on average) deep, ensuring 0.3m extension into
clay layer. Installation diagram is shown in green onFigure 6.One potential modification is to allow
the SE section to follow the property line to the SE corner instead of angling NE. This would allow
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
26/59
5-11
greater flexibility in building, but could potentially create a larger groundwater plume due to the
longer distance to reach the PRB.
5.4.2 PerformanceDepending on the type of barrier, and the type of contaminant it is designed to treat, different
materials can be used. Of the different types of material, the following were chosen and studied in
depth:
Organoclay
Extremely effective against a wide range of organics and chlorinated organics. Has a tendancy
to swell with contaminate absorption, lowing conductivity as a result until flow ceases. It was
noted in one study, when PAH and chlorobenzene are involved (as is the case here), as the material
becomes saturated to the maximum it can hold, chlorobenzene will replace PAH, allowing the PAH
to bypass the PRB. Otherwise there is no evidence of re-mobilization of any contaminants sorbed
into organoclay (Reible, 2005). Reible also notes that if sand is mixed into organoclay, its effective
surface area actually increases, allowing for a decreased PRB thickness as the sand reduces
preferential channeling. In addition, as the media absorbs chlorobenzene it will swell, reducing
conductivity and redirecting flow to less saturated media.
Green Sand
An industrial metal works waste sand that contains metal by-products which react with
heavy metals in passing groundwater, locking them in sand. As sand is needed to be used
with the organoclay to both increase hydraulic conductivity and increase effective surface
area, green sand is a good candidate. An advantage of green sand is that it is free and has
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
27/59
5-12
remediation effects. The foundries it comes from typically have to pay to dispose of it, and
will even transport it to the site at no cost. The added remediation effects is it will absorb
arsenic and mercury that is on site, and to a limited effect PAH.
Disadvantages of green sand is that it may contain unwanted chemical wastes that
could enter the ground water. Typical wastes such as chlorinated ethanes and other
organics would be immediately absorbed by the organoclays, making them a non-issue in
this case. Some other waste metals may be avoided by choosing foundries that do not
process them.
One important matter when installing the PRB, is any sewer lines that pass through the
PRB must be removed, disabled, or otherwise checked to ensure no groundwater will be
flowing through them, as this will cause contaminated water to bypass the PRB.
5.4.3 Cost AnalysisA typical installation of organoclay ranges from $300 - $1000 per m3. The backhoe
use will be more expensive than some other ways of trench digging, but this will be
balance by the fact green sand is free, and disposal of waste material in this specific case
will be neglected as it will be used as fill material for excavation. Also, another factor in
cost is the fill material, in this case is green sand that will be procured at no cost.
Because of these factors, the expected cost for installation of an organoclay-green sand
PRB will be $450 per m3, for a total of $350,000.
5.4.4 Removal Efficiencies of MaterialsOrganoclay
Organoclay is quick to absorb many contaminants, including four of the six CoC at
the Buffalo Color site, Chlorobenzene, Di-chlorobenze, and both PAHs.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
28/59
5-13
Main issue with organoclay is, by its name, it is clay and therefore has a very low
hydraulic conductivity. This fact tends organoclay to be used as a barrier method which
also absorbs potential contamination leakage, which will reduce groundwater flow to a
point it would be ineffective in containing groundwater contamination at the Buffalo Color
site. If organoclay was installed alone, groundwater would either go around or over. This
would make it very useful as a containment media, which is not desired here. This is why it
will be mixed with the greensand.
Groundwater flow was modeled in Visual AEM, with initial conditions tested to
match recorded groundwater levels. Figure 6 shows the capture zone in the worst case
scenario of 2.5 cm/day conductivity of the entire PRB with a hydraulic lock near the DNAPL
zone. In this case potentially contaminated groundwater will continue to flow through the
barrier and not bypass. One alternative is to
Figure 6: Post PRB installation Capture Zone
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
29/59
5-14
5.4.5 Important Installation GuidelinesWhen installing the organoclay/greensand PRB, careful attention to the hydraulic
conductivity of the material must be heeded. If conductivity is allowed to be less that
2.5cm/day, the entire groundwater contamination plume may not be collected by the PRB.
Sewers:
Any sewer line from the Buffalo Color site going through the PRB must be checked to
ensure no leakage of groundwater is possible, or the sewer line blocked/removed. A leaky
sewer or other piping system will bypass the PRB allowing contaminates to the Buffalo
River.
5.5 River Sediment Dredging
5.5.1 Description
Contaminated sediments in aquatic environments can pose health risks to many types
of organisms, including humans. Exposure to the contaminants occurs by several routes,
including direct contact and consumption of organisms that have accumulated
contaminants from the sediments. The potential adverse effects on human health and the
environment are compelling reasons to seek to reduce exposure. Contaminated sediments
can occur in small, localized areas or in vast areas, covering miles of river or harbor
bottoms and associated floodplains (The National Academies Press, 2007).
Underwater excavation for excavating the contaminated sediment is called dredging.
After the initial excavation needed to establish a channel, the periodic dredging that must
be done to keep it clear and safe for navigation is called maintenance dredging. Once
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
30/59
5-15
sediments are dredged from the waterway, they are called dredged material. (The National
Academies Press, 2007)
A dredge is a machine that scoops or suctions sediment from the bottom of waterways
or is used to mine materials underwater.
The chemicals of concern in contaminated sediment sites vary; polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) are the most common, followed by metals, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (EPA 2005). The widely varied physical and chemical properties of
contaminants markedly affect their distribution in the environment and their behavior
(including transport, bioavailability, and toxicity) during and after remediation. The degree
of contamination can be severe in some areas with nearly unadulterated original products,
such as PCB-containing oils, pesticides, or coal-tar residues. In other areas, contaminants
occur at low concentrations in sediments among functioning ecosystems of fish, plants, and
benthic invertebrates. The thickness of the contaminated sediment is highly variable and
often poorly characterized but can range from a few inches to many feet thick with marked
differences over small spatial scales. (The National Academies Press, 2007)
5.5.2 Cost EstimationEstimating the costs of dredging operations is provided in this section.
Virtually all costs associated with the removal component of a sediment remediation
project are capital costs (direct and indirect). The elements of environmental dredging
costs include (EPA, 1994):
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
31/59
5-16
Mobilization/demobilization Dredge operation Contaminant barriers Monitoring Health and safety Equipment decontamination
Backhoes will be used for the dredging operation. Excavated sediment is going to send
to the confined disposal facility with the truck.
Approximate cost estimation is shown below in the table.
ITEM COST RIVERSTATISTICS
TOTAL COST
Mobilization/Demobilization ofthe dredging equipment to theriver
$37,500/100 km100 km
assumed forthe distance of
$ 37,500
Dredging operation $50/m325,118 m3
$ 1,255,900
Containment Barrier$28/m2
16,482 m2 $ 461,496
Sediment excavation withbackhoe
$10/m3 25,118 m3 $ 251,118
Transportation to thefacility(USACE, 2007)
$50/toncontaminated sediment
2837 $ 3,562,988
Health and safety, equipmentdecontamination
$500/day 10 days $ 5,000
TOTAL $ 5,574,002
Figure 7: Cost Estimation for the dredging
5.5.3 Preventing the environmental impacts
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
32/59
5-17
Figure 8: Scheme showing that the steps of the environmental impact assessment
5.5.3.1 Noise preventing
Objective:To ensure that no noise nuisance results from the dredging.
Suggested measures
Liaise with the local community to identify noise issues. Select quiet equipment. Alter or enclose equipment to reduce noise at the source. Use sound-absorbing materials to prevent the spread of noise by isolating the source. Limit times of operation.
5.5.3.2 Odor preventing
Objective:To ensure that small odor problems do not alarm nearby residents.
Suggested measures
Inform residents of temporary nature of any odors and of grey sediment. Assess odor risk if contaminated.
5.5.3.3 Minimize Effects on Water Quality increase monitoring for turbidity (this will identify but not minimize turbidity);
incorporate or re orientate silt screen;
reduce overflow of barges or bunds;
increase travel path of fluid within bunds to increase sedimentation;
decrease rate of dredging;
select appropriate dredge for material being dredged
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
33/59
5-18
relocate dredge to an alternative location.
Use silt screens where practical and sediments are fine.
When necessary, monitor water quality including turbidity, as well as sea grass and
other sensitive species.
5.5.3.4 Minimize Effects of Contaminated Sediments Monitor water quality near dredging operations removing highly contaminated
sediments.
Dredge contaminated sediments first and dispose to land or place on spoil grounds
first and cover with clean sediments.
Use silt screens to contain contaminated sediment
5.5.3.5 Sensitive Biological Communities Map location of sensitive communities.
Prevent Noise Nuisance in Residential Areas
Liaise with the local community to identify areas and times sensitive to noise.
Alter or enclose equipment to reduce noise at the source.
Use sound-absorbing materials to prevent the spread of noise by isolating the source.
Monitor noise levels.
5.5.3.6 Ensure that Small Odor Problems Inform residents of temporary nature of any odors and grey sediment.
Cease dredging on very hot days (greater than 35C) or times of high public use. Inform public of works using on-site signs.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
34/59
6-1
6 Effectiveness, Implementability, and CostTable 5: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Groundwater at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E.
RESPONSEACTION
TECHNOLOGYTYPE
TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY RELATIVE COSTNote : Above
average being higher cost
RETAINED ORNOT RETAINED
FOR FURTHER ANALYSISNo Action None None Not effective unless contaminants
remove/breakdown naturally.
Readily implementable. The site is
to be left as is.
None Retained (used to compare
the effects of no action.)Containment Barrier Walls Slurry Wall
Surface Capping
Effective in preventing contaminatedgroundwater to enter river.
Effective in preventing direct contactof living beings with contamination.
Implementable. The site is currentlyan open land.
Implementable. The site is currentlyan open land.
Average
Average
Not retained (hinders futurerenovation plans)
Not retained (hinders futurebuilding plans)
Treatment Physical /Chemical Permeable ReactiveBarrier (PRB)
Activated Carbon
Chemical Oxidation
Effective at reducing contaminantlevels prior to exiting site. Dependshighly on materials used and type ofcontamination.
Effective at removing chlorobenzeneand dichlorobenzene over largeareas.
Effective at removing chlorobenzeneand other chlorinated compounds.
Implementable. Backhoe excavationcan be done at boundary of siteupon determining direction ofcontaminant migration. Removes all.
Implementable. Can be used as partof material in PRB.
Implementable. Proper injectionwells will need to be installed before
execution.
Average
Average. Cost does notinclude installation.
Above average. Highvolume of material
required.
Retained
Not retained (does notremove other contaminants)
Not retained (site is highlyorganic)
Treatment(Continued)
Filtration
Biological
Membrane Filtration
PrecipitationFiltration
Adsorption Filtration
In-Situ BiochemicalOxidation
Effective at removing metalsmercury and arsenic.
Effective at removing metalsmercury and arsenic.
Effective at removing metalsmercury and arsenic.
Effective at removing mercury.
Implementable.
Implementable
Implementable
Implementable.
Below average
Below average
Below average
Average
Not retained (studies showhigher performance in PRB)
Not retained (studies showhigher performance in PRB)
Not retained (studies showhigher performance in PRB)
Not retained (lowcompatibility with othertechnologies )
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
35/59
6-2
Technologies Retained for Remediation in Groundwater for Detailed Analysis.
PREVENTION CONTAINMENT SOURCE REMOVAL TREATMENT DISPOSAL(None retained) (None retained) (None Retained) Physical/Chemical
-Permeable Reactive Barrier(None retained)
Table 6: Screening of Remedial Technologies for Soil at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E.
RESPONSEACTION
TECHNOLOGYTYPE
TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY RELATIVE COST RETAINED ORNOT RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
No Action None None Not effective unless contaminantsremove/breakdown naturally.
Readily implementable. The site is left asis.
None Retained (used to compare theffects of no action)
Containment Chemical
Immobilization/Media Migration
Solidification/Stabilization
Vitrification
Effective in immobilizing contaminants toprevent migration, provided that actualcontamination location is known.
Effective in immobilizing metals andvolatilizing to remove them from soil.
Implementable.
Implementable
Average
Above average
Not retained (does not removecontaminant and pinpointlocation of contamination is noknown)
Not retained (potential vaporcontamination is not f avorable
SourceRemoval
Excavation
Post excavation
Mechanical Excavation
Soil Washing/Acid Extraction
Effective. Contamination of highconcentrations can be removed from thesite.
Effective. Contamination is removed andresults in remediated soil.
Readily Implementable. Ideal as locationsof contamination is isolated and depth toclay layer is shallow.
Implementable. Soil can be excavated andcontaminates can be washed/extracted.
Average. Cost does notinclude cost of treatingsoil.
Average
Retained
Not retained (cost for transporand space required for washinis not feasible)
Disposal OffsiteDischarge
Permitted TreatmentFacility
Effective. Contaminated soil will betreated and good for future usage.
Implementable. This is provided that thereare soil/contamination that needs disposal.
Above average Retained (technology used foexcavation analysis)
Treatment Biological Phytoremediation
Bioremediation
Effective in removing COCs of l ower
concentration depending on plant species.Process is long term however.Effective in removing organics and PAHs.
Implementable.
Implementable.
Below Average
Average
Retained
Not retained (low compatibilitywith other technologies)
Technologies Retained for Remediation in Soil for Detailed Analysis.
PREVENTION CONTAINMENT SOURCE REMOVAL TREATMENT DISPOSAL(None retained) (None retained) Excavation
-Mechanical excavationBiological-Phytoremediation
Offsite discharge-Permitted Treatment Facility
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
36/59
6-3
Table 7:Screening of Remedial Technologies for Vapor at Buffalo Color Corp. Sites C and E.
RESPONSEACTION
TECHNOLOGYTYPE
TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY RELATIVECOST
RETAINED ORNOT RETAINEDFOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
No Action None None Not effective unless contaminantsremove/breakdown naturally.
Implementable. The site is to be left asis.
None Retained (used to compare theeffects of no action)
Mass removal Volatization/Media Migration
Soil VaporExtraction
Air Sparging
Effective in removing VOCs from soil to vaporand removal of vapor through vacuums.
Effective in removing VOCs from soil andgroundwater and removal of vapor through
ventilation.
Implementable provided that vapor isproduced through technologies used.
Implementable provided ventilation isinstalled.
Average
Average
Not retained (potential vaporcontamination is not favorable)
Not retained (potential vaporcontamination is not f avorable)
Prevention(applicable onlyto buildingsdeveloped inthe long run)
PassiveMitigation
Active Mitigation
Passive Barriers/Passive Venting
Depressurization
Effective in preventing intrusion of vaporthrough cracks in building basement. Directsvapor to the edge of buildings.
Effective in reducing the driving force forvapor intrusion into building.
Implementable if buildings were to bebuilt on the site.
Implementable after buildings are built.
Below average
Below average
Retained
Retained
Technologies Retained for Remediation in Vapor for Detailed Analysis.
PREVENTION CONTAINMENT SOURCE REMOVAL TREATMENT DISPOSALPassive Mitigation-Passive Barriers/Venting
Active Mitigation-Depressurization
(None retained) (None retained) (None retained) (None retained)
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
37/59
6-4
Table 8: Screening of Remedial Technologies for River Sediments in the Buffalo River.
RESPONSEACTION
TECHNOLOGYTYPE
TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS IMPLEMENTABILITY RELATIVE COST RETAINED ORNOT RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
No Action None None Not effective unless contaminantsremove/breakdown naturally.
Implementable. The site is to be left as is. None Retained (used to compare theeffects of no action)
SourceRemoval
Dredging Mechanical Dredging Effective at removing contaminatedsediment.
Implementable. Sediment in soil wil l beremoved.
Above average Retained (issues of resurfacingwill be discussed)
Disposal Offsite Disposal Confined DisposalFacility
Effective. Contaminated sediments will beremoved from river.
Implementable Below average Retained (technology retained forfull dredging analysis)
Containment Capping Impermeable Cap Effective at preventing contact of
contamination with river water andbenthic community
Implementable. Preparation for materials
should be done prior to installation.
Average Not retained (affects habitat of
benthic community,contamination is not removed)Treatment Physical/
Chemical
Thermal
Sediment washing
Low thermaldesorption
Effective at removing PCBs andchlorobenzene.
Effective at detaching contaminants formsediments and volatizing it.
Implementable. However, sediments wouldneed to be removed prior to treatment.
Implementable
Above average
Above average
Not retained (potential sedimentresurfacing from replacing soil)
Not retained (potentialcontamination escaping into riverwaters)
Technologies Retained for Remediation in River Sediments for Detailed Analysis.
PREVENTION CONTAINMENT SOURCE REMOVAL TREATMENT DISPOSAL(None retained) (None retained) Dredging
-Mechanical Dredging(None retained) (None retained)
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
38/59
7-1
7 Possible Remedial CombinationsTalk about different combinations, even discussing ones that will not work(such as bioremed
and PRB)
7.1 On Site7.1.1 ISCO, Cap, Pump and treat7.1.1.1 Description
This remedy would consist of using ISCO to treat the chlorobenzene contaminated
areas. As the treatment studies indicate, this would result in a removal efficiency of less
than 95%, which would result in residual contamination significantly above limits. In
addition, a cap would be put on areas of metal contamination to prevent exposure.
Lastly, to prevent contaminated groundwater from reaching the Buffalo River, a pump
and treat barrier method would be introduced.
7.1.1.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation CriteriaThe following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study
Evaluation Criteria:
7.1.1.3 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentThe reduction in chlorobenzene mass and capping remaining contamination would prevent
personal contact with contamination. The pump and treat barrier would prevent further spread
of contamination to the river.
7.1.1.4 Compliance with ARARs
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
39/59
7-2
As chemical oxidation will not remove enough mass to reduce chlorobenze to limits, and
capping remaining CoC will not remove any mass, the soil and on-site groundwater will not
meet any ARARs for CoC. Groundwater leaving the site will meet ARARs as the pump and treat
system will prevent contaminated water from leaving the site.
7.1.1.5 Long-Term EffectivenessThe barrier would prevent contact immediately and maintain its control for the long-term.
Pump and treat would be continuously operating providing a barrier, and the ISCO will have
completed its chlorobenzene mass reduction.
7.1.1.6
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or VolumeVolume reduction will only happen for chlorobenzene. The mobility of the CoC will be
negated by the cap and the pump and treat system, and while toxicity will not be reduced, exposure
will be.
7.1.1.7 Short-Term EffectivenessThe cap and pump and treat system will immediately prevent spread/contact of
contamination. ISCO of the chlorobenzene will be fairly quick providing mass reduction in weeks.
7.1.1.8 ImplementabilityThe implementability of ISCO is questionable as the negative effects of the soil on site. The
cap and pump and treat will be easily implemented.
7.1.1.9 CostThe total cost for the treatment would be moderate, but due to the questionable ISCO costs
could increase greatly if it proves to not react well. In addition, high O&M requirements of the pump
and treat.
7.1.1.10State and Community Acceptance
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
40/59
7-3
State acceptance would be good for no further river contamination and prevention of
personal contact to CoC. Any business wishing to build on the site would be severely restricted by
the cap in where they could build.
7.2 River Sedimentation
7.2.1 Hydraulic Lock with material such as organoclay7.2.2 Description
A material, such as organoclay, would be put into the river to cover, and lock the
contamination in place.
7.2.3 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation CriteriaThe following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study
Evaluation Criteria:
7.2.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentThis would potentially prevent contamination spread into the river column and by
the benthic community into fish and other wildlife. This would however, adversely affect
the ecology of the riverbed by preventing a thriving benthic community as the cap would
not be an ideal environment.
7.2.3.2 Compliance with ARARsAs no mass would be removed, there would be no compliance with ARARs in buried
sediment. The river column would be clear of contamination.
7.2.3.3 Long-Term Effectiveness
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
41/59
8-4
Long-term effectiveness would be questionable as natural river currents and other
factors could erode the cover and allow contamination to surface and/or allow the benthic
community to reach the contamination.
7.2.3.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or VolumeToxicity and volume would not be reduced, but the cover would limit mobility.
7.2.3.5 Short-Term EffectivenessIt should be effective in the short term, assuming the cap was completely installed
correctly.
7.2.3.6 ImplementabilityThe steep river banks, coupled with the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers
regularly dredge the channel will provide severe impacts on the ability of a stable cap to be
installed on the contaminated portions of the Buffalo River.
7.2.3.7 CostInitial costs of placing a cap would be significantly lower than dredging, but O&M
costs over the years due to erosion and dredging operations would add up quickly.
7.2.3.8 State and Community AcceptanceThe Buffalo River Keepers would object to the modification of the sedment, as it would
adversely affect growth and stability of the benthic community of the area. The Army Corps
of Engineers would continuously dredge due to requirements to maintain the channel open
would cause concern of future failure of containment which the state would object to.
8 Proposed Remedies
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
42/59
8-2
8.1 Remedy 1: No Action
8.1.1 DescriptionThe final alternative, the no action leave the site untreated. Contaminations will not be
removed or monitored. The site will continue to be used as is.
8.1.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation CriteriaThe following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study Evaluation
Criteria:
8.1.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentBy taking no remedial action on the BCC site, all the environmental mediums
(groundwater soil, sediment and vapor) will remain contaminated and eventually spread to
neighboring media. This is due to the nature of the COCs that are present. On site, citizens
or animals that come in contact with the soil will be exposed to the contaminants by means
of ingestion. VOCs within the soil will volatilize and contaminate the vapor/atmosphere
which will potentially be inhaled by living beings on the site and then spread to residential
areas around the site
As for off-site areas, this alternative poses a huge treat to the Buffalo River.
Contaminated groundwater will follow its regional flow into the Buffalo River. Existing
sewer lines will also transport contaminated groundwater into the river. The
contamination of the river will harm the benthic community and also parties that use and
rely on the water of the Buffalo River for drinking or other purposes.
Due to the reasons above, the alternative fails to meet this criterion.
8.1.2.2 Compliance with ARARs
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
43/59
8-3
Groundwater standards within the site would not be met. It is not expected to be an
issue as groundwater is not used in the City of Buffalo. Groundwater standards outside of
the site will also not be met since contamination from the site would be allowed to leave
the site as is and transport the contamination outside the site.
Soil concentrations would also fail to meet the standards. Contaminants that are
absorbed to the soil will potential enter groundwater as well.
8.1.2.3 Long-Term EffectivenessThis alternative is not effective in the long-run. On top of not providing any removal,
leaving the site as is would lead to very steep cost if the site were to be used. This is the
result of the spread of the contaminated area with the Buffalo River being one the main
concerns. Plumes may also increase potentially as more and more contaminants absorbed
and combine.
8.1.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or VolumeNo toxicity will be removed. There will be potential mobility of the contaminants
especially from groundwater to sediment and groundwater or soil to vapor. Volume of
contaminants may decrease due to the migration from on to off-site like the Buffalo River.
Volume of the contaminants may also stay constant but change in terms of its physical
property. Bigger plumes of DNAPL may form through the years.
.
8.1.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
44/59
8-4
This alternative is not effective short term. This would mean that it is not possible
for immediate planning and construction of a new commercial and industrial area on the
site. The alternative fails to meet this criterion.
8.1.2.6 ImplementabilityAs all no action alternatives, this option is implementable on the site. The alternative
fulfills this criterion.
8.1.2.7 CostThere is no cost involved in taking no action. Hence the alternative fulfills this
criterion. .
8.1.2.8 State and Community AcceptanceThis alternative would have various acceptance results. In terms of cost, the state
and the community would accept this alternative. As remediation projects generally have
high costs, the state and community would to be able to use the investment to develop
other sectors of the state/city if this alternative was chosen.
However, there are also reasons that the state and community will not accept this
alternative. For the state, leaving the site contaminated will prohibit commercial or
industrial development at the location. The lost in amount of usable land will hinder the
potential economic growth the usage may bring for the state/city. As for the community,
leaving the site contaminated will mean that neighboring areas are at a high risk of being
exposed to the contamination. On top of that, the Buffalo River will be at risk of being
polluted. Fishing activities for example, would have to be forbidden to avoid consumption
of fish affected by the contamination.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
45/59
8-5
8.2 Remedy 2: Combination
8.2.1 DescriptionThree technologies will be employed. First areas of highest concentration will be
excavated significantly reducing contamination mass. Second, a permeable reactive barrier
containing a combination of organoclay and green sand will be placed south of all
contaminated soil, preventing groundwater contamination from reaching the Buffalo River.
Third, phytoremediation will consist of different plants being planted on the remaining
contaminated areas to a) reduce mass over time and b) act as a barrier to prevent civilian
contact with the ground. Also, a deed restriction will be placed on the property for any
building in the area of VOC contamination that a foundation venting system must be
installed to prevent the build-up of vapor intrusion contamination in buildings.
Lastly, the Buffalo River will be dredged down 6 feet along the banks.
This remedy will accomplish our goals as follows:
- Primary goal 1: Prevent further contamination of the Buffalo River. Removal of significant mass and then having the PRB barrier will prevent
any contamination from reaching the river. Goal will be met.
- Primary goal 2: Prevent Human contact with contamination above limits Removal of significant mass, blocking off areas of continued
contamination, and institution of deed. Goal will be met.
- Secondary goal: Reduce all contamination to below set limits Removal of significant mass will approach limits, but will not meet them.
Cost and environmental impact to meet this goal is prohibitive.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
46/59
8-6
Figure 9: Excavation Areas
Figure 10: Phytoremediation and PRB installation locations
8.2.2 Comparison of Alternative to Evaluation CriteriaThe following nine criteria have been evaluated IAW the USEPA Feasibility Study
Evaluation Criteria:
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
47/59
8-7
8.2.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the EnvironmentSignificant reduction of mass in the soil will assist in protecting human health, along
with preventing access to the remaining contamination. The groundwater will not be
remediated on site, but it is not used as drinking water at this location, therefor will not be
an issue. The combination of the PRB preventing contaminated groundwater from entering
the Buffalo River and dredging of contaminated sediments will protect the river wildlife.
Use of a containment barrier in the river during dredging will prevent high turbidity from
affecting the rest of the river.
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 70-
80% removal efficiency over 10-20 years, it is not expected to reach required levels in that
time. The deed restriction of installation of foundation vent systems will prevent air quality
inside buildings from exceeding limits.
8.2.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
48/59
8-8
The combination of technologies will provide a long-term control. The excavation
will have removed majority of the mass, and the phytoremediation will continuously
reduce mass over the next two decades. The PRB will continuously maintain clean effluent
groundwater of any remaining contamination.
8.2.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Excavation will immediately reduce mass. Phytoremediation will slowly reduce
mass over time. The PRB will prevent mobility of contaminants outside the site, and
implementation of a deed restriction to add foundation sealing or venting into any
buildings near chlorobenzene contamination will prevent mobility of vapors into buildings.
8.2.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness
The excavation will immediately reduce the problem, but will not eliminate it.
Phytoremediation takes time, in the order of 5-8 years before it will begin to reduce
remaining levels to acceptable limits. The PRB will immediately prevent further
groundwater contamination from exiting the Buffalo Color Site upon installation, and
dredging of the river sediment will remove contamination. Initial benthic communities will
be impacted by the dredging, but will be expected to return to normal in the near future.
8.2.2.6 Implementability
The Buffalo Color site is adjacent to city roads with full access to the interstate
system. This allows for ease of truck traffic for any materials required for the remedy. In
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
49/59
8-9
addition, having railroads right next to the site provides an easy access for shipping of
materials needed for PRB installation and replacing soil from excavation.
For excavation, the nature of the soil being primarily mixed fill will prove to be
difficult at times due to old building material and piping systems buried throughout the site.
In addition, groundwater will be encountered at all excavation areas and will have to be
dealt with.
For the phytoremediation, buried materials may require additional excavation as
required to allow plant growth. The high organic content and high water table will allow
for fairly quick plant growth, and initial excavation of high contamination will prevent
excessive toxicity.
8.2.2.7 Cost
To save costs, it is recommended to use any soil removed in creation of the PRB
trench as the fill soil for excavated sections. This will also significantly reduce required
truck traffic to 80 truckloads. Costs could be reduced even more if railroads were utilized
for material transportation, as they are adjacent to the site.
- The cost of this initial excavation and removal of material to an off-site processingfacility is expected to be $1.1 Million.
- The expected cost of the installation of the PRB is expected to be 0.35 Million.- The expected cost of the installation of the Phytoremediation is expected to be 0.4
Million, which accounts for O&M costs for 20 years.
- O&M costs are expected to be $12,000 per year to account for regular groundwatersamples to ensure PRB efficiency. This will be $60,000 over the next 5 years.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
50/59
9-10
- River Sediment Dredging will cost $5.6 million to remediate.- Current accrued costs from investigation have totaled $72,000.
This brings the total estimated costs to $7.5 Million.
8.2.2.8 State and Community Acceptance
The limited amount of truck traffic required, along with the green appearance of the
phytoremediation will be positive on community acceptance. Due to the fact this has been
an industrial area, the community will accept the visual improvement. The Buffalo River
Keepers, and other state and private organizations will be satisfied by the remediation
preventing further contamination of the Buffalo River. Future developers may not like the
requirement to not build in the phytoremediation areas.
9 Ecological Habitat
9.1 Buffalo Color Company SiteBy implementing the trees for the phytoremediation, ecological habitat will be restored. Birds,
reptiles and the other species can be in their nature with the help of trees which are planted during the
phytoremediation.
9.2 Buffalo RiverThe Buffalo River has played a vital role in the regions economy for more than a century. However,
industrialization and the pressures of growing river communities have taken a toll on the river
ecosystem. Although discharges from the oil refineries, steel mills, and chemical plants that occupy its
shores have declined over the last several decades, the impacts of pollution and degraded habitats
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
51/59
9-2
remain. The primary issues affecting the Buffalo River today are impaired water quality, contaminated
bottom sediments, inactive hazardous waste sites, point and nonpoint source pollution, combined
sewer overflows, and fish and wildlife habitat loss and degradation.(Riverkeepers,2006)
Ecological restoration is defined by EPA as the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that
has been degraded, damaged or destroyed. To identify, prioritize, and facilitate opportunities to
restore, protect and enhance habitat within the Buffalo River Habitat Corridor and its tributaries for a
healthy and sustainable ecosystem that will benefit habitat, wildlife, corridor communities, and future
generations are Triodis missions during the treatment operations.(Riverkeepers,2006)
Corruptions that have been identified:
1. Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption2. Fish tumors or other deformities3. Degradation of aesthetics4. Degradation of benthos5. Restriction on dredging activities6. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat7. Eutrophication or undesirable algae8. Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor9. Degradation of fish and wildlife populations10.Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems11.Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton
populations
Figure 11: Observed disorders
Fish and wildlife habitat have been degraded by dredging of the river. Fish tumors have
been observed in the Buffalo River and are believed to be caused by PAHs in the sediments.
Research and analysis of fish health and population completed in August 2005 indicate that
fish diversity and health has not improved over the last decade based on the data obtained
in 2003-04, and compared to data available from fish surveys of the early 1990s (ENVIRON ,
2009).
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
52/59
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
53/59
10-4
conducting bench or pilot tests, disposal of residuals, uncertainties pertaining to innovative
technologies, and the degree of development of the technology being tested (EPA, 1988).
Additional community relations implementation activities applied in the assessment
and included a public meeting to explain the proposed excavation, phytoremediation,
dredging and organic-clay PRB and fact sheets describing the technology and technical
details, a briefing to public officials about the river dredging, organic PRB and the
phytoremediation, and small group consultations with members of the community
concerned about EPAs actions at the site and the river (EPA, 1988).
Site-specific community relations activities identified in the community relations
plan prepared previously. While appropriate modifications of activities are made to the
community relations plan as the project progresses, the plan is generally implemented as
written to ensure that the community is informed of the alternatives being evaluated and is
provided a reasonable opportunity to provide input to the decision-making process (EPA,
1988).
Fact sheets are prepared that summarizes the alternatives being evaluated. As
appropriate, small group consultations or public meetings are held to discuss community
concerns and explained alternatives under consideration. Public officials are briefed and
press releases prepared describing the alternatives.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
54/59
10-5
Figure 12: Example Citizen Guidances (EPA, 2012)
The objective of community relations during application of the alternatives is to assist the
community in understanding the alternatives and the specific considerations took into
account in implementing an alternative. In this way, the community is prepared to provide
meaningful input during the upcoming public comment period.
Control of Invasive Species from Phytoremediation
The introduction of new plant species in the phytoremediation process brings about
potential species invasion. The fact that the plants are being imported into the site means
that there will be species that are not native to the site. Asides from Festuca arundinacea
(tall fescue grass), the species Lupinus albus (White Lupin), Sapix spp. (Willow trees) and
Poplar spp. (Hybrid Poplars) are potentially invasive to the local ecosystem. By definition
this phytoremediation step is facilitating invasive species.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
55/59
10-6
More studies, experiments and discussions with ecologist and biologists would need to
be carried out to better understand the potential species invasion by the plant species
mentioned. As there are no current studies that discuss or yield the results of these species
being invasive, it is impossible to draw a conclusion on the possibility of invasion by the
phytoremediation plants. However, if the selected plant species are deemed invasive, other
plant alternatives will be chosen. This would be a constant monitoring and maintenance
process to prevent species invasion.
Discussion on the Effective Construction Procedure
The processes of excavation and PRB construction will be carried out simultaneously.
This process is estimated to last for about one week. The reason why excavation and PRB
construction were done at the same time is for soil cost management. In the excavation
step, highly contaminated soil are removed and a disposed off-site. This would result in pits
that need to be filled again. In installing the PRB, less contaminated or even clean soil (by
majority) are removed and replaced with organoclay and green sand mixture. Instead of
removing these dug soil off-site, they will be used to re-fill the pits that resulted from
excavation. By carrying out this procedure, cost for obtaining new soil can be greatly
decrease or eliminated. As phytoremediation serves as a long-term solution, it will be
installed last. Time frame of this installation is variable depending on weather conditions
and amount of labor available. Finishing the construction with phytoremediation will also
ensure proper landscaping for the environmental aesthetics of the site.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
56/59
10-7
The off-site dredging process on the Buffalo River will take up to 10 days. The barge
would first be brought in and situated at a location ideal for the dredged materials to be
rested. The backhoe is next brought in to begin the dredging process. Once completed, the
materials on the barge are transported to the confined disposal facility for proper
treatment.
Vapor Remediation Discussion and Proper Transportation/Trucking.
It is important to note that in the remedy, there were no technologies selected for on-
site vapor remediation. This is due to the fact that technologies used will not produce or
expose vapor contamination to the atmosphere. The reduction of chlorobenzene through
excavation immediately reduced the potential vapor contamination.
During excavation however, proper anti-contamination clothing would need to be worn
by workers and engineers at all times. This is to prevent potential inhalation of the DNAPL
that will be potentially dug up. PID monitors would also need to be installed on site and
engineers/technicians would be required to carry PID readers at all times.
The excavated soil would also need to be transported in tightly/properly sealed trucks
to avoid exposure to the residential area as it moves towards the treatment facility. The
trucks and other construction equipment would also need to washed down on-site before
entering other community areas.
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
57/59
10-8
In the long run, vapor remediation will be taken into account. As in the preliminary
technology screening, remedies that prevented vapor instruction in buildings were
retained. This would be the vapor remedial solution if the BCC site were to be used as a
commercial or industrial area with new buildings. Passive barriers/vents will hinder and
deviate the routes of contaminated vapor from entering the cracks of foundations.
Depressurization systems in the basements will reduce pressure build up in the sub-slab of
the buildings. This will reduce or eliminate the driving force that facilitates vapor intrusion
(CLU-IN, 2011)
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
58/59
11-1
11 CreditsWORK PERSON
Executive summary Zhen Hau Sing and Micheal
Dietrich
Scope of the Problem Zhen Hau Sing
Background Michael Dietrich
RAOs Mubeccel Begum Ilya
Treatability Summary ISCO-Michael
EIBR-Mubeccel
Phyto-Zhen
PRBMichael
Dredge- MubeccelAlternative Review Group work
Effectiveness and Implementability Zhen Hau Sing
No Action Remedy Zhen Hau Sing
Combined Remedy Michael Dietrich
Community Relations Mubeccel Begum Ilya
Ecological Habitat Mubeccel Begum Ilya
Final Editing and Direction Michael Dietrich
8/13/2019 Zhen Hau Sing - Feasibility & Treatability Study
59/59
12 ReferencesPhytotechnologies. (2012, November 7). Retrieved March 12,
2013, from http://clu-in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Phytotechnologies/cat/Overview/
Hybrid Poplar. (2013). Retrieved March 20, 2013, from Arborday:
http://www.arborday.org/treeguide/treeDetail.cfm?id=31Outside Price. (2013). Retrieved March 21, 2013, from Lupine
Seeds-Noble Maiden:http://www.outsidepride.com/seed/flower-seed/lupine/lupine-noble-maiden.html
Weeping Willow. (2013). Retrieved March 20, 2013, fromArborday:
Baptista, R. J. (2009). National Aniline and Chemical CompanyBuffalo, New York. Retrieved from Colorants History.
Brown, C. E. (2006). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in theSoil. Sources, Health Effects, Clean-Up Techniques and
PAHs at Alameda Point.CLU-IN. (2011, August 26). Contaminant Focus. Retrieved from
Clean Up Information (CLU-IN.org): http://www.clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/
Cummings, J. (2013). Soil Vapor Extraction. Retrieved from Clu-in: http://www.clu-in.org/techfocus/default.focus/sec/Soil_Vapor_Extraction/cat/Overview/
Engineering-Science. (1986). Engineering Investigations atInactive Hazardous Waste Sites.Liverpool: Engineering-Science.
EPA. (1988). Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigationand Feasibility Studies under CERCLA.Washington DC:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.EPA. (1993). Selecting Remediation Techniques forContaminated Sediment.Cincinnati, OH: Office of Water.
EPA. (1995). How To Evaluate Alternative CleanupTechnologies For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A GuideFor Corrective Action Plan Reviewers, In-Situ GroundwaterBioremediation.
EPA. (2002).Arsenic Treatment Technologies for Soil, Waste,and Water.Washington, DC: clu-in.org.
EPA. (2002). Enhanced In-situ Bioremediation of Solvents inGroundwater.Interstate Technology and regulatory Council.
EPA. (2007). Treatment TechnologiesFor Mercury in Soil,Waste,and Water.Washington DC: clu-in.org.
EPA. (2012).A Citizen's Guide to Bioremediation, ChemicalOxidation, and Phytoremediation.
EPA. (2013). Basic Information about Regulated Drinking WaterContaminants and Indicators. Retrieved fromhttp://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/
ESTCP. (2005). Bioaugmentation for Remediation of ChlorinatedSolvents: Technology Development Status and Research
Needs.Environmental Security Technology CertificationProgram.
Fayiga, A. O. (2005). Phytoremediation of Arsenic ContaminatedSoil and Groundwater.University of Florida.
Henry, J. (2000).An Overview of the Phytoremediation of Leadand Mercury.National Network of EnvironmentalManagement Studies.
Honeywell International. (2011). History - Buffalo Research Lab.Retrieved Febuary 2013, from Honeywell:http://www.honeywell-buffalo.com/history.php
Huling, S. B. (2006). In-Situ Chemical Oxidation.Cincinnati, OH:EPA.
ICSS. (2006). Manual for Biological Remediation Techniques.
International Centre for Soil and Contaminated Sites.Licht, L. (1990). Deep-Rooted Poplar Tree Buffers for Biomass
Production and Nitrate Removal.US Department ofAgriculture.
Mactec. (2010). Treatability Studies for Buffalo Color sites C andE excepts.
Mandalinsk, K. (2008). In Situ Technologies for the Remediationof Contaminated Solvents.Washington DC: EPA .
NYSDEC. (1999). Technical Guidance for ScreeningContaminated Sediments.Albany: New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation.
NYSDEC. (2013). 2. INDEX OF STANDARDS, CRITERIA ANDGUIDANCE (SCGs) USED FOR APPLYING THE CRITERIA.
Retrieved from New York State of EnvironmentalConservation.: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/61794.htmlNYSDEC. (2013). Chemical and Pollution Control. Retrieved from
http://www.dec.ny.gov/25.htmlNzengung, V. A. (2005). Case Studies of Phytoremediation of
Petrochemicals and Chlorinated Solvents in Soil andGroundwater.University of Georgia.
Osgerby, I. (2008). Persulfate to Chlorobenzenes in Glacial Tilland Bedrock.
Parsons. (2004). Principles and Practices of Enhanced AnaerobicBioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents.AFCEE.
Roote, C. a. (1998). Technology Overview Report,( In SituBioremediation, Cauwenberghe and Roote, Ground-WaterRemediation).GWRTAC.
Shin, D. G. (2001). Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for SiteCleanup.Continuing Education and Development Inc.
top related