Draft Feasibility Study for Sinclair Landfill Site, Wellsville, New York
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SINCLAIR LANDFILL SITE WELLSVILLE, NEW YORK DRAFT VOLUME 1 Of 2: REPORT Prepared for: Bureau of Western Remedial Action Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233-0001 Prepared by: SMC Martin Inc. 900 W. Valley Forge Road P. O. Box 859 Valley Forge, PA 19482 August 1985 400001 LIST OF TABLES Table Page E-l Summary of Available Remedial Techniques E-4 E-2 Technologies Surviving Initial Screening E-5 E-3 Remedial Action Alternatives E-7 E-4 Matrix Summary of Landfill Site Remedial Alternatives E-9 1-1 Types of Wastes Deposited in the Sinclair Refinery Landfill 1-9 1-2 Contaminants Chosen for Analysis 1-21 1-3 Volatile Organic Compounds in the Waste and Surrounding Area 1-24 1-4 Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds in the Waste and Surrounding Area 1-26 1-5 Metals in the Waste and Surrounding Area 1-28 1-6 Pesticides, PCBs, Cyanide, and Phenolics in the Landfilled Waste and Surrounding Area 1-30 1-7 Drum Waste Sample Descriptions and Drum Condition Notes 1-32 1-8 Chemical Analyses - Landfill Drum Waste Samples 1-35 1-9 Estimates of Average Annual Leachate Generation 1-42 1-10 Remedial Criteria for Ground Water and Surface Water . 1-49 1-11 Remedial Criteria for Soils 1-53 2-1 Summary of Available Remedial Technologies 2-9 2-2 Summary of Initial Screening of Remedial Technologies 2-62 2-3 Technologies Surviving Initial Screening 2-69 8764:SLRCP 400002 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-l 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Site Background and Investigative History 1-1 1.2 Site Description 1-5 1.3 History of Operations 1-7 1.4 General Geology and Hydrology 1-11 1.4.1 Introduction 1-11 1.4.2 Topographic Setting 1-11 1.4.3 Geology 1-13 1.4.4 Hydrology 1-16 1.4.5 Aquifer Characteristics 1-19 1.5 Nature and Extent of Problem 1-20 1.5.1 Types and Concentrations of Contaminants 1-20 1.5.2 Quantification of Landfilled Waste 1-38 1.5.3 Leachate Generation 1-40 1.5.4 Changes to River Bank Conditions 1-43 1.5.5 Pathways of Contamination from the Landfill Site 1-45 1.6 Environmental Criteria and Standards 1-47 1.6.1 Ground Water and Surface Water 1-48 1.6.2 Soils and Subsurface Soils 1-52 2.0 SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES 2-1 2.1 Screening Criteria 2-1 2.1.1 Technical Criteria 2-2 2.1.2 Environmental and Public Health Criteria 2-4 2.1.3 Cost Criteria 2-6 2.2 Technology Screening 2-7 2.2.1 General 2-7 2.2.2 Screening of Specific Alternative Technologies 2-12 2.3 Summary 2-61 3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Alternative No. I - No Action 3-6 3.3 Alternative No. II - Slurry Walls, RCRA Cap, Full River Channelization 3-7 3.4 Alternative No. Ill - Surface Grading, Slurry Walls, Partial River Channelization 3-14 8764:SLRCP 400003 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page 3.5 Alternative No. IV - RCRA Cap, Full River Channelization 3-21 3.6 Alternative No. V - Surface Grading, Bank Stabilization 3-25 3.7 Alternative No. VI - Surface Grading, Partial River Channelization 3-31 3.8 Summary 3-34 4.0 ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 4-1 4.1 Non-Cost Analysis 4-1 4.1.1 Introduction and Methodology 4-1 4.1.2 Technical Criteria Analysis 4-1 4.1.3 Environmental and Public Health Criteria Analysis 4-7 4.1.4 Non-Cost Analysis Summary 4-11 4.2 Cost Analysis 4-11 4.2.1 Cost Estimating Methodology 4-11 4.2.2 Cost Estimates and Present Worth Analysis 4-14 4.3 Summary of Alternatives 4-22 APPENDIX A TECHNOLOGY SCREENING COST DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX B EROSION AND FLOODING INFORMATION FOR THE GENESEE RIVER APPENDIX C REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES RELATED TO THE GENESEE RIVER APPENDIX D ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS COST DOCUMENTATION 8764:SLRCP ,400004 LIST OF TABLES - Continued Table Page 3-1 Remedial Action Alternatives 3-3 4-1 Summary of Non-Cost Criteria 4-2 4-2 Non-Cost Decision Matrix for Landfill Site Remedial Alternatives 4-12 4-3 Cost Estimates, Alternative I - No Action 4-15 4-4 Cost Estimates, Alternative II - Slurry Walls, RCRA Cap, Full River Channelization 4-16 4-5 Cost Estimates, Alternative III - Surface Grading with Clay Cap, Slurry Walls, Partial River Channelization 4-17 4-6 Cost Estimates, Alternative IV - RCRA Cap, Full River Channelization 4-18 4-7 Cost Estimates, Alternative V - Surface Grading with Clay Cap, Bank Stabilization 4-19 4-8 Cost Estimates, Alternative VI - Surface Grading with Clay Cap, Partial River Channelization 4-20 4-9 Summary of Estimated Total Project Costs 4-21 4-10 Matrix Summary of Landfill Site Remedial Alternatives 4-23 8764:SLRCP 100005 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page 3.5 Alternative No. IV - RCRA Cap, Full River Channelization 3-21 3.6 Alternative No. V - Surface Grading, Bank Stabilization 3-25 3.7 Alternative No. VI - Surface Grading, Partial River Channelization 3-31 3.8 Summary 3-34 4.0 ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 4-1 4.1 Non-Cost Analysis 4-1 4.1.1 Introduction and Methodology 4-1 4.1.2 Technical Criteria Analysis 4-1 4.1.3 Environmental and Public Health Criteria Analysis 4-7 4.1.4 Non-Cost Analysis Summary 4-11 4.2 Cost Analysis 4-11 4.2.1 Cost Estimating Methodology 4-11 4.2.2 Cost Estimates and Present Worth Analysis 4-14 4.3 Summary of Alternatives 4-22 APPENDIX A TECHNOLOGY SCREENING COST DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX B EROSION AND FLOODING INFORMATION FOR THE GENESEE RIVER APPENDIX C REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES RELATED TO THE GENESEE RIVER APPENDIX D ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS COST DOCUMENTATION 8764:SLRCP 400006 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Site Location 1-2 1-2 Landfill Site Plan 1-6 1-3 Sampling Locations 1-12 1-4 Depth-to-Clay Isopach Map 1-15 1-5 Water Level Elevation Map (Upper Aquifer-5/1/85) 1-18 1-6 Sampled Waste Drum Location Map 1-31 1-7 Waste Thickness and Areal Extent Map 1-39 3-1 Alternative No. II Concept Plan 3-8 3-2 Typical Cross Section of RCRA Cap with Slurry Wall 3-10 3-3 Typical Details and Channel Profile 3-12 3-4 Alternative No. Ill Concept Plan 3-15 3-5 Typical Cross Section of Clay Cap with Slurry Wall 3-17 3-6 Typical Details and Channel Profile 3-20 3-7 Alternative No. IV Concept Plan 3-23 3-8 Typical Cross Section of RCRA Cap without Slurry Wall 3-24 3-9 Alternative No. V Concept Plan 3-27 3-10 Typical Cross Section of Clay Cap without Slurry Wall 3-28 3-11 Typical Details and Channel Profile 3-30 3-12 Alternative No. VI Concept Plan 3-32 8764:SLRCP 400007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sinclair Landfill Site is part of the former Sinclair Oil Company refinery in Wellsville, New York. The Landfill Site includes two waste disposal areas—a 9.2-acre Central Elevated Landfill Area (CELA) and a 2.3-acre South Landfill Area (SLA). It is located along the Genesee River, approximately one and one-quarter mile upstream from the Village of Wellsville's raw water supply intake. In 1983, the Landfill Site and the adjacent refinery grounds were added to the National Priorities List, thereby gaining "Superfund" status. In 1984 and 1985, a Remedial Investigation was conducted by SMC Martin Inc., in accordance with National Contingency Plan guidelines, in order to determine the nature and extent of the environmental contamination. A Draft Remedial Investigation Report was published in March 1985. Additional investigative work continued in 1985. In 1985, SMC Martin conducted a Fast Track Feasibility Study of initial remedial measures for the Wellsville drinking water supply. The Remedial Investigation identified several factors of importance to the consideration of remedial measures: 1. A clay unit, 35 to 60 feet thick, underlies the Landfill Site at a depth generally less than 25 feet from the ground surface. 8764:SLRES E-l 400008 2. Contaminants present in the greatest quantities in the landfill areas include priority and non-priority volatile organics, base/neutral extractable organics and metals. 3. Although wastes and soils show significant quantities of specific contaminants, ground and surface waters beneath the Landfill Site remain relatively uncon- taminated. A pathway of contaminant migration between the waste/soil and the ground water does not appear to exist. 4. Contamination in river sediments downstream (north) of the Landfill Site is comparable to contamination at a sampling location upstream. 5. A potential pathway of contaminant migration exists between flood-induced landfill bank erosion and overland storm runoff and contaminant discharges to the Genesee River. 6. Approximately 300 drums of waste material lie in various stages of decomposition on the surface of the Landfill Site. 7. The CELA was calculated to contain approximately 206,500 cubic yards (CY) (248,000 tons) of waste and the SLA was calculated to contain approximately 22,500 CY (27,000 tons). Maximum waste thicknesses measured were 20 feet in the CELA and 18 feet in the SLA. 400009 8. A leachate generation model predicted that leachate migrating from the CELA (vertical and lateral) would be negligible and leachate migrating from the SLA would total approximately 1,700 gallons/day.