The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutIR 7372 1 M � f0 C it COUNgIL lGI EMBERS " ; . NO. 7' P:1 „ ri�t Mayor agc, Members of the City,,Ceouncil � A pzfl 11��"� 19$9 3 1473 Subfett: PESSES CHEMICAL COMPANY In l"at~a January, Mr. Charles Reavis acting on behalf of Representative Garfield Thompson requested that the . City perform environmental as�es,aments of the Pesses Clhemical site witli� emphasis on the following Kg areas: 1� The anticipated long-range health effects from incinera`t'ion of material at this ssite when the facility was in operation: w `a) on°`the°resiglents of the area, and; I) on , -individuals who might have consumed grain stored near the site. The rem.edia..tion plan selected by the Environmental 4'rotectioh Agency for the site. In an c. of for t to address Item 1, staff reviewed in detail all available data $rom the Center for Disease Control , Environmental c' Protection, , Agency, Texas Air Control Board, and local and private in s�tj§ations. From the information gathered, "�it is the opinion of -stalk 'that there have been no adverse health effects to the `, citizens, of the -community from exposure to cadmium fumes, nor. from , .ca4miup,,, coAtaminated grain. This conclusion has been reached thr*ugh identifying the amount of time and concentration one would have. been exposed to cadmium fumes during the operation of the Pesses' site. There has been no biological sampling to date, nor x Have any of-the" above agencies recommended biological sampling. a ; Item i2 wasp addressed in Informal Report No. 7334 presented to * !: Council on November 10, 1988 (attached) , Staff also testified at a public meeting held by the Environmental Protection Agency on November 16, 1989. At this meeting, the City of Fort Worth favored the plan calling for excavation, on-site stabilization with consolidation in the south field and capping. However, this was ^114 Apt tyre fuel recommendation of the Environmental Protection AQ cy��. They corieliided in their` Record of Decision that this afterna ive 'would . 'allow unrestricted future development of the northern" pa �tion of the site; however, land development is not a consideration" in selection of a remedy for a Superfund site. Therefore, EPA's selected remedy is In Situ Stabilization and capping. Staff is still not in full agreement with this alternative due to the limited future of the land development on this site. ISSUER BY THE CITY MANAGER PORT WORTH, TEXAS. = IhlPORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7372 p.2 dECawry To the Mayor and Members of the City Council April 11 , 1989 Subject: PESSES CHEMICAL COMPANY Is 7? With Council concurrence, staff will forward their findings and all supporting documentation to Representative Garfield Thompson. Further information will be provided upon request. c ev Douglas Harman City Manager DH/sf ncr:4/7/48 Attachment ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TE � t INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No 7334• November 10. 1988 To the mayor and Members of the City Council 10 Subject: UPDATE ON PESSES CHEMICAL COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE to 7 1 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI announced November 2. 1988, they had completed their remedial investigation and feasibility study of the Pesses Chemical Company Superfund Site. They will be conducting a public hearing at 7p.m. , November 16, 1988 to receive comments on this study and will discuss their perferred remedy for the site. The Pesses Chemical Company (PCC) Superfund Site is an abandoned metals recycling facility located at 2301 South Main Street. A drug rehabilitation center with outdoor facilities adjoins the Pesses Site to the north. There are two hospitals and five schools located within one mile of the site. This facility opened in December, 1978 to - recover cadmium and nickel from batteries and sludge. a process which produced high level cadmium emissions. The plant closed in January of 1981 due to financial problems. They left behind several hundred 55-gallon drums of process material in an unprotected storage area in the southern portion of the four-acre site. Most of the drums were opened and/or deteriorating, exposing contents to the weather, and some were leaking contents on the ground. In March of 1983 a grass fire occurred at this site where several of the responding firemen were overcome by noxious cadmium fumes. This resulted in the Environmental Protection Agency conducting a prelimary assessment to determine the potential threat the site posed to human health and the environment. The result of this study recommended an immediate removal of drums and soil . Pesses ultimately agreed to remove these materials but failed to complete the entire removal . With the abandonment by the company the Environmental Protection Agency assumed responsibility of the site and began the clean-up process in April , 1983. Analysis of the site revealed heavy metals (Cadmium, Nickel , Lead, Copper) contamination onsite. The Environmental Protection Agency - removed 3400 cubic yards of contaminated soil along with drums. wastes and debris. A two to six inch cap of clean fill material was installed over the southern fenced portion of the site and seeded with grass. This action was completed in July, 1983 for a total cost to the Environmental Protection Agency of $337.876. This particular. process alleviated many of the short term problems associated with this site. However, potential long term risks from the site were unknown and remained to be addressed. In October, 1984 the Pesses Chemical Site was placed on the National Priorities List. The List comprises the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites requiring long term attention to protect the public health and environment. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, commonly known as Superfund, the Envionmental Protection Agency began an extensive remedial investigation study in 1987 thru most of 1988. This investigation determined the extent of the contamination remaining at the site and the risk associated with the contamination, along with potential remedies. The Environmental I rp , Protection Agency has proposed several alternatives to cleaning the Pesses Site. They have also identified their preferred remedy from those proposed. -ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No 7334 Page 2 fok? To the Mayor and Members of the City Councii November 10. 1988 Subject: UPDATE ON PESSES CHEMICAL COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE A brief description of those alternatives are as follows: 1 ) NO ACTION: Under the Superfund Law this alternative must be evaluated and serves as a base line for other alternatives. This would involve fencing the entire site and restricting future land use. This alternative provides no long term protection from the risks posed from this site. Cost estimated at $60,000. 2) IN-SITU CAPPING: This would provide a clay cap to be constructed in the south area and a concrete cap installed in the operating area near the warehouse. This alternative prevent$ contact with the contaminants. Site restriction would be imposed. Cost estimated at $940,000. 3) IN-SITU VITRIFICATION WITH CAPPING: This is a technique which requires melting the soil in place by the use of electricity. The contaminated soil would be turned into a block in place and capped as in #2. Site restriction would be imposed. Cost estimated at $3.8 million. 4) IN-SITU STABILIZATION WITH CAPPING: The wastes would be stabilized in place by the use of concrete and then capped as in alternative #2 & $3. Site restriction would be imposed. Cost estimated at $1 .2 million. 5) EXCAVATION. ONSITE STABILIZATION WITH CONSOLIDATION IN SOUTH FIELD AND CAPPED: This alternative includes stabilizing waste and consolidating this waste in the south field and capping with a clay cap. The north portion of the site would not have restrictions while the south area would have restrictions. Estimated cost is from $1 .4 million to $6.3 million depending on stabilization technique. 6) ONSITE STABILIZATION WITH OFFSITE REMOVAL: Soils would be stabilized and disposed at an approved hazardous waste (RCRA) landfill . Total clean up of site is accomplished with no land use restrictions. Estimated cost $3.5 - $8.2 million depending on stabilization technique. 7) IN-SITU CAPPING WITH BUILDING DEMOLITION: This is the same as alternative P with the addition of demolishing the building and removing the building to an off-site area landfill . Site restrictions would be imposed. Estimated cost $1.1 million. Staff has reviewed these alternatives and while alternative #6 is the ultimate recommended outcome for usage of the site the process does not satisfy the preference in the Superfund Law for onsite remedies and the projected costs are unreasonable to support such an alternative. Staff however does support alternative #5 which will allow the north portion of the site to have no restriction placed on building and will consolidate all the contaminated material on the south portion of the site which currently has no buildings nor does it appear large enough to support future development. -ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS 6 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No 7334 Page 3 k ia.j S OZP. To the Mayor and Members of the City Council November 10. 1988 rcxfy Subiect: UPDATE ON PESSES CHEMICAL COMPANY SUPERFUND SITE Staff does not agree with EPA's preferred remedy which is alternative #4. This may limit future development of this site due to site restriction requirements. Should Council concur with staff's recommendations, we will present this as the City's position on clean-up of the Pesses Site at the Public Hearing scheduled on November 16. 1988 at 7p.m. Sincerely, RH:lmt //�' Douqlas Harman City Manager ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS ............. m ` m Li D JESSAMINE OFFICE Z j❑� RAMSEY � x a 2 a PAGE cv tic r°n K t't'1 I �AN1NCa$ID Ic