PR0535342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ds&ept bac __ � .w.. ........ Page 18 in an average passenger tire, the site could potentially contain up to four million pounds of steel . The following remedial alternatives were considered by the FOSC: o Bury the waste materials in-place by caving in the slopes of the canyon. This would have significantly changed the existing topography of the area by lowering the surrounding surface grade on the hilltop and creating a more shallow and narrow canyon. o Consolidate and bury the waste materials in a landfill cell . The landfill cell would be constructed below, and adjacent to, the existing landfill area in the upper portion of the canyon. Scraping the debris and waste materials off steep and unstable slopes would be difficult and a safety hazard to the equipment operators . o Treat the waste materials using a solidification and stabilization process such as cement fixation. This would probably be infeasible due to the high cost of separating large volumes of metal debris from the soil and ash material . In addition, petroleum waste could interfere with the metal fixation process . o Remove and transport the waste materials to a recycler. Potential recyclers included scrap metal dealers, cement kilns and smelters . The local and out-of-state recyclers that were contacted during the removal action had no interest in these materials . o Remove and transport the waste materials to an off-site hazardous waste disposal facility. This was considered to be infeasible due to the high cost of separating large volumes of non-hazardous waste (metal debris) from the hazardous waste (ash and soil) . In addition, the transportation and disposal costs for such a high volume of waste material was prohibitive . The estimated cost for off-site transportation and disposal was over $2 million. o A potential remedial option was to do nothing. The local and State stakeholders might have decided that, based on the type, level and location of the contamination, a cleanup action would not be warranted at this time . Under this scenario, the site would be monitored to determine what impacts, if any, would result from storm water runoff . The do nothing option was deemed too risky due to the potential for extreme environmental damage resulting in a very costly cleanup action. The EPA, CIWMB and other involved agencies were in general agreement that the second option, consolidate and cover, was the most appropriate remediation for this site based on technical, time and cost considerations .