Milwaukee Roundhouse

www.oscreadiness.org

15th Annual OSC Readiness Training Program

Milwaukee RoundhouseCraig Myers, OSC

Region 8

15th Annual OSC Readiness Training Program www.oscreadiness.org 2

Milwaukee Roundhouse Case Study


Facility overview - 1923

Elevated TankBunker Oil Tank


Site Background

Sources Historic 500,000 gallon abandoned Bunker C tank

Steam equipment was switched to oil fire prior to diesel equipment coming on-line in the ’40-’50s.

Drain line from roundhouse to oil/water separator


Site Background

SourcesDiesel fueling operations for yard engines in later years

Small AST (not shown) Large tank was buried by the FD to snuff a fire using soil/debris on site.


Brownfields Referral Across the river from the roundhouse at the

former passenger refueling area, not the roundhouse - initially.

12+ inches of LNAPL in one well Passenger area still being evaluated

ERU involvement at the former roundhouse OSC: “Is there much oil on the site?” BF staff reply: “I don’t think so.” OSC elected to stay in his lane. Until…


Communication – always the #1 lesson learned…

OSC, ERT, NPFC case officer and State RPM meeting with the Mayor about the refueling area

OSC mentions something about the old bunker oil tank at the roundhouse State RPM looks shocked and says “it’s never

been removed.” NPFC case officer issues a verbal ceiling of

50k for assessment, with the caveat that, if the tank is there, an approved ceiling of $250k.


Side Note: PRPs under OPA OPA amended in 2007

Included CERCLA-like language re: involuntary acquisition for state/local governments

No liability if the property is acquired through tax liens or other sovereign acts

Powell County purchased this property in hopes of establishing a business park. Are they an RP? CERCLA attorneys had determined the county to

be exempt from liability. Yes, according to the NPFC, Powell County is

the only viable PRP.


The tank is, indeed, still present.

START, ERT and an EM 31 in town for the other site. ERT conducted Geophysical investigation to locate the tank/piping.


Initial Assessment MT DEQ installed monitoring wells in 1990

Product identified on the ground water around the tank.

Additional work ~ 2008 by County consultant under Brownfields grant.

Severely under estimated the threat posed by the former tank and associated contamination.Assumed Bunker C not mobile in the sub-surface, and thus low priority.


Where did the BF project derail?

BF program model – use state VCUP County consultant failed to develop an

acceptable plan EPA BF rep instructed that some cleanup is

better than none, had to spend the stimulus funds BF program did not have the expertise to

directly oversee the process/cleanup Resulted in lack of proper

prioritization/perspective.


The Problem(s)Top half high in Lead and Arsenic – highest XRF reading was ~ 8,000 for lead – but low in petroleumBottom half very high in extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (C40 and shorter) ~ 30-45,000+ ppm.Tank contained ~15,000 gallons of oily water from surface infiltration.


What to do?

The Problem: 10,000+ yds petroleum contaminated soil, some

with elevated lead levels 15,000 – 20,000 gallons oily water

Logistics: Nearest landfill – 40 miles away, TEPH limit Nearest oily waste facility – 80 miles away Nearest refinery – 300 miles away


Tank Excavation and Dewatering


OSC Authorities (or lack of) under CWA…

Excavation (in a flood plain) and dewatering, and waiting on analytical was not be possible for dewatering.

Did I need a 404 permit to dig? What about discharging the water? NPDES

permit? Permit waiver is in 300.400(e)

Specifically applies to actions under CERCLA Sections104, 106, 120, 121, and 122.

Does not apply to CWA 311(c) actions.


Permits by Rule – CWA 404 Work is in the Clark Fork flood plain. The excavation needs a 404 permit. Nationwide Permit 20

State/District riders exist for each USACE District, and usually exist for each state.

May require RRT concurrence of OSC action(s). Does not apply on “Wild and Scenic Rivers” Does not exempt EPA/OSCs from other state

requirements• NPDES and other water quality regulations


Discharge AuthorityDe-watering the

tank to effect removal:

Oil water separator

Activated Carbon filtration bed State had

concerns over low levels of Vinyl Chloride in the area


Roundtable Discussion:

Can the OSC discharge? Do they need a permit?

If so, from who? Do they have to sample first? Why or why not?


Discharge Authority – Argument 1

Yes, the OSC can discharge. Sampling is neither here nor there. It’s better

than it started out, even if not perfect. Clean Water Act definition of a discharge –

311(a)(2)(d) …excludes discharges incidental to mechanical

removal authorized by the President (delegated to the OSCs)….

Intent is that the action is making the situation better.

States will counter with: CWA is a federal law, this exclusion does not apply to state laws.


Discharge Authority – Argument 2

Yes, the OSC can discharge. They decide what sampling is necessary. 40 CFR 122.3(d) exempts any discharge under

the direction of an FOSC from requiring a permit. But, the State program can be more stringent.

Not in this case. 40 CFR 123.1(g)(1) reinforces this. Specifically

excepts the 122.3(d) exclusions w/r to states prohibiting all point source discharges.

Unless states have their own independent discharge permitting separate from NPDES rules, the buck stops at the OSC.


Permit waivers are a CERCLA invention.

Montana Air Program permits Do not allow this material to be burned in a kiln,

or really burned period within the State of Montana.

Extend to what paving companies can have in their pit and use in their process• Can’t use it as road-base under a new paved road.• Can’t use it as aggregate for a new paved road.


Permits, Permits, Permits Land-farming in Montana requires a permit

Not eligible if <25 feet to groundwater• Groundwater at the site was ~12 feet

Treating over 2,000 cubic yards is a permanent facility• Requires more robust liner, quarterly monitoring, etc.• Did I mention we had 10,000+ yards?

Sending the waste to a fuel blender was cost prohibitive started at $65 per yard to transport via rail, plus

disposal fees at the fuel blender


Disposal Options Best viable option was re-use as road

base… Disposal concerns:

T&D costs ~ $54/yard due to distance Potential TCLP failure for lead Montana DEQ limit for TEPH at the landfill at

30,000 ppm. Solution: did not try to separate the lead and

petroleum soils during excavation. Average truckload: 2,000 ppm Lead, <10,000

ppm TEPH, no TCLP failure


Removing the tank

Bedding material saturated w/ diesel.


Beyond the tank removal

Discovery of diesel plume under the tank

Believe it to be the plume identified by the County contractor

Explains the excessive mobility of the bunker C oil.


A whole new ballgame… Recovered ~9,600

gallons of waste oil out of the excavation before backfilling and suspending the removal in late July 2011

Groundwater study done August 2011

Cut-off/Recovery system being designed, planned installation Spring 2012

NPFC Ceiling to date: $1,900,000


Questions?

Bueller?......Bueller?

Craig [email protected] 303.312.7067

Milwaukee Roundhouse

Documents

Transcript of Milwaukee Roundhouse