Oil spill debris disposal a management plan for coastal New Hampshire

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

oil Spill
Debris Disposal
A MANAGEMENT'PLAN FOR COASTAL NEW HAMPSHIRE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............

--A ft

TD February 1982
427.
P4 CENTER FOR NATURAL AREAS
T4
1982
South Gardiner, ME.; Washington, D.C.

Oil Spill Debris Disposal:

A Management Plan
for Coastal New Hampshire

Property of CSC Library

STEPHEN W. TIBBETTS
Center for Natural Areas, S. Gardiner, Maine
MARC GUERIN
Jet Line Pollution Control, S. Portland, Maine

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

prepared for:
Office of State Planning
State of New Hampshire
21/2 Beacon Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-2155

February 1982

This report was financed with federal funds under'Section 308(b) of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Coastal Zone
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

preface

In the last decade., planning efforts to deal with the occurrences
and impacts of oil spills in coastal and inland waters have
focused on the development of area-specific contingency plans.
The emphasis of these plans has generally been on the identific'a-
tion of personnel, equipment, and methods required to,effectively
0 contain, collect and stockpile the spilled oil and associated
debri s. Insufficient attention has been placed on the ultimate
disposal of oily debris which, if undertaken improperly, has the
capability,of releasing the collected oil into the nation's ground
and surface waters. This lack. of pre-planning for ultimate
disposal , coupled with the emergency nature of oil spill cleanup
efforts, has resulted in less-than-adequate disposal practices in
the past throughout the country'.

The recently prepared Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution
Contingency Plan for the State of New Hampshire, prepared by the
Water Supply- and Pollution Control Commission, briefly addresses
4 the subject of ul ti mate di sposal i n Secti on 1803 of the pl an. As
this section indicates, there are presently no approved methods of
disposal available to the state and no overall plan for the
management of spill debris. In order to remedy this situation,
the New Hampshire Office of State Planning contracted with the
Center for Natural Areas of South Gardiner, Maine to develop an
0 oily waste disposal program for coastal New Hampshire.

The ensuing report reflects the results of this eight-month study
and provides the State of New Hampshire with.an implementable
disposal plan that reflects state-of-the-art approaches to final
disposal of oil spill debris and is designed to meet the particu-
0 lar needs of the State's coastal zone region.

Incorporati on of thi s proposed program i nto the State's conti n-
gency plan will complete the pre-planning process for oil spill
emergencies and help ensure that future contamination of precious.
surface and ground waters is prevented.
This report represents the recommendations of the@consultant after
eight months of research into the subject of oil spill debris
disposal. Many of the.recommendations may change during implemen-
tation. Therefore, the user of this report should check with the
applicable state agencies (Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, and Office of State
Planning) to establish the status of the plan.

Stephen Tibbetts
Project Engi neer
Center for Natural Areas

table of contents

Page

Preface i
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
Acknowledgements ix

Executive Summary I

1. Introduction 7
Oil Spills in the Coastal Region 7
Defining Oil Spill Debris 10
Past Disposal Practices 14
The Need for a Management Plan 16

2. Disposal of Oil Spill Debris: An Overview 19
A Management Strategy 19
Cleanup Strategies 19
A Debris Storage Site 23
Choosing A Disposal Method 23
Storage/Stockpiling Concepts 26
Emergency Sites 26
A Long-Term Site 28
Final Disposal 36
Disposal of Contaminated Liquids 36
In-cineration 37
Landspreadi ng 38
Landfilling 40
Landfilling with Refuse 42
Assessment of Disposal Methods 42

3. Meeting New Hampshire's Needs 45
How Much Debris: The Target Volume 46
What is Required? 48
Contaminated Li quids 48
Oil /Water Separation 48
Solids Storage 49
Incineration 49
Landfi 11 i ng 49
Handling the Target Volume In-State 50
Li quid Waste Storage 50
Oil /Water Separation 51
Emergency Storage Sites 52
Long-Term Storage Sites 56
Incinerati-on 60
Landf i 1.1 i ng 63

00,

Out-of -State Disposal 65
New England State Policies 65
Available Facilities 66

4. What Does It Cost? 69
Stockpiling Sites 70 40
Emergency Stockpiling Sites 70
Long-Term Storage/Stockpiling Sites 71
In-State Disposal 74
Contami nated Liquids 74
Inci nerati on 75
Landfilling 75
Out-of -State Disposal Costs 76
Comparati ve Cost Analysi s 78
A Combined Disposal Program 80
Reducing Costs 82

5. The Recommended Management Plan 85
-Summary of the Recommended Plan 86
El ements of the PI an 88
Discussion 90
Legal Constraints and Considerations 90
The Political Climate 91
Environmental Constraints and
Consi derati ons 91
The Economics 92

6. Implementing the Plan 93
A Debris Disposal Strategy for New Hampshire 94
Implementation Responsibilities 98
Existing State Agency Responsibilities 98
The Role of the Municipalities 99
Recommendations 100
Implementing the Recommendations 102
Long-Term Storage/Stockpiling Site 104
Incineration at Lamprey 106
Incineration Out-of-State 109
Landfilling of Non-Combustibles 110
In-State Oil/Water Separation 112
Where Does the Money Come From? 113
Cost of Implementation 113
Oil Pollution Control Fund 114
Coastal Energy Impact Fund 115

References and Appendices
References , 117
Appendix A: Oily Waste Storage/Stockpiling 119
Area Site Criteria

Appendix B: Oily Wastes Storage/Stockpiling 123
Site Selection Procedure
Appendix C: Guidelines for the Location of 125
Emergency Stockpiling Sites
Appendix D@ Treatment, Storage, and Disposal 129
Facilities (TSDF) Available to
Connecticut Industries, 1981
Appendix E: Agreement Between the State of Maine 137
and the City of Auburn, Maine
Appendix F: Survey of Spill Debris Disposal 151
Strategies in New England
Appendix G: Correspondence Between the State of 161
New Hampshire and the Lamprey Regional
Solid Waste Cooperative

list of tables

Page

1 Number and Volume of Oil Spills in the New 9
Hampshire Coastal Zone
2. Range, Number of Spills, and Volume of Oil 10
Spilled in the New Hampshire Coastal Zone
3. Historical 5-year Estimate of Spill Debris 11
in New Hampshire Coastal Zone
4. Expected Oil Spill Debris Type in New Hampshire'-s 12
Coastal Zone
5. Classification and Properties of Various Oil Types 13
6. Ship Transfers of Oil in New Hampshire's Coastal 14
Zone
7. Applicability of Disposal Methods to Different 24
Types of Oil Debris
8. Summary of Data on Membrane Liners Potentially 27
Usable for Oil Spill Debris Stockpile Areas
9. Summary of Oil'Spill Debris Disposal Methods 43
10. Estimated Oil Spill Debris Scenarios in'New Hampshire 47
11.' Summary of Facility-Site Requirements for Oily Wastes 47
Disposal of the Target Volumes in New Hampshire
12. Municipal Waste Disposal Facilities in Rockingham 57
and Stafford Counties
13. Location of Incinerators in New Hampshire. 61
14. Summary of In-State and Out-of-State Disposal 67
Facilities
15. Cost Estimate for an Emergency Storage Cell 71
16. Cost Estimate for a,Three-Acre, Bentonite Clay-lined 72
Storage/Stockpiling Site (1979.dollars)
17. Cost Estimate for a Three-Acre, Native, Clay-lined 73
Storage/Stockpiling Site
18. Cost Estimate for Support Facilities for a Long-Term 73
Storage Site
19. Cost Estimate for In-State Oil/Water Separation 75
20. Cost Estimate for an Oil Spill Debris Landfilling 76
Si te
21. Out-of*-State Disposal Facilities Used to Develop 77
Comparative Costs
22. Cost Estima -te for Transportation and Disposal of 79
Oil Spill Debris
23. Comparison of Disposal Costs for the Proposed 84
Management Options

24. Cost Estimate for a Two-Acre Storage/Stockpiling 84
Site
25. Cost Estimate for Developing C. H. Sprague's Diked 84
Area in Newington, New Hampshire
26. Summary of Recommended Debris Management Plan @91
Elements for Coastal New Hampshire

vii

list of figures

Page

1 Location/Volume/No. of Spills 8
2. Cross-Section of Emergency Stockpiling Site 27
3. Basic Clay-lined, Stockpiling/Storage Site Concept 31
4* API Oil Recovery Unit for Storage/Stockpiling Site 33
5* Fully Developed Clay-lined Storage/St-ockpiling Site 35
6 Cross-Section of Typical Landfilling Site 41
7: Location of Emergency Stockpiling Sites .53
8. Spill Disposal Strategy Flow Chart 95
9. Emergency Oil/Water Separator 95

viii

acknowledgements

The conduct of this study involved personal contact and assistance
from a--broad spectrum of people in State and local government, and
private industry throughout New England.

The guidance and assistance of Mark Chittum, Principal Planner,
New Hampshire Office-of State Planning, is gratefully acknow-
ledged. Important assistance throughout the study was also
provided by personnel from the New Hampshire Bureau of Solid Waste
Management and the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission.

The authors wish to acknowledge the important assistance provided
by John Dewyea and Richard Rugg of the Lamprey Regional Solid
Waste Cooperati ve. Future use of this facility for incineration
of combustibles is an important component of the Center's plan.

Finally, this report would not be possible without the assistance
of the Center's support staff. Lauren Stockwell and Priscilla
Slack provided the much needed editorial review to the authors.
Betsy Kehoe developed the graphics, and Carmen Belanger was
responsible for the extensive word processing necessary to com-
plete this report.

EXEC UTIVE SUMMARY

'Execut.ive.Su ary

The coastal region of New Hampshire experiences oil spills each
year. During the five-year period from 1975 through 1979, a total
of 103 spills were recorded resulting..in the release of 68,651
gallons of petroleum products into coastal waters. The State I s
response to these spills resulted in the recovery of 17,017
gallons, leaving a balance of 50,138 gallons in the ground, as
debris, or in the ocean.

Whereas the recovered oil is easily handled as waste oil and is
usually reintroduced into the marketplace for reuse, the remaining
oil usually moves ashore, contaminating beaches, plant and animal
life, and private property. The resultant oil-soaked debris and
oil/water emulsions require special handling and disposal to keep
the oil from reaching precious surface and ground waters of the
State.

In-the past, the State of New Hampshire has focused its resources
on containing and removing the oil and oil-soaked debris with
little attention being paid to ultimate disposal. Fi nal debri s
disposal has taken place on a case-by-case basis resulting in
disposal at local sanitary landfills,', through on-site incineration
of debris, and by removal for treatment out-of-state.

The responsibility for overseeing the response, cleanup, and
disposal of oil resulting from oil spills,is the responsibility of
the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC) under
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated 146-A (Supp.). To meet
their legislated objectives, the WSPCC has developed an Oil and
Hazardous Materials Pollution Contingency Plan.

Section 1803 of the plan briefly addresses the ultimate disposal
of recovered oil and oil-soaked debris. Disposal guidelines are
presented but there is no description of disposal methodologies or
an overall debris disposal management strategy. Also, there are
no currently approved sites for debris disposal in the State.

In recognition of the need for an overall management plan for the
disposal of oil spill debris in the coastal zone, the Office of
State Planning.contracted with the Center for Natural Areas, South
Gardiner, Maine to (1) conduct a study of disposal methodologies
currently available for oil spill debris disposal; (2) assess.the
existing disposal capabilities within and outside the State; and
(3) develop an implementable management plan to meet the State's
di sposal needs. The results of this study are presented in the
ensuing chapters of this report and are highlighted in the Execu-
tive Summary that follows.

Disposal Methods

The technology for disposal of oil spill debris currently exists.
It is based on the past experiences of the oil industry in handl-
ing refinery wastes and in their past experience with oil spills.
A detailed assessment of this technology is presented in Chapter
2.

Briefly, debris disposal is approached as part of an overall
strategy that begins at the cleanup site. Here, emphasis is
placed on recovering as much usable oil as poss@ible, by minimizing
the volume of debris accumulated, and through on-site sorting of
debris into combustibles and non-combustibles.

Once all oil-recovery efforts have been exhausted, the next step
is to incinerate the combustibles at an approved incinerator.
Approximately 80 percent of all debris is combustible. Thus,
incineration reduces the volume of debris requiring land disposal.

The remaining debris will consist mainly of non-combustible
solids. This debris will have to be disposed through one of a
number of land disposal techniques. These are: -landspreading
(aerobic biodegradation), landfilling (burial ), and landfilling
with refuse.

Of the three methods, controlled landspreading is the most advis-
able since complete biodegradation of the oil takes place within
three growing seasons. However, this method requires more land
area than'the other methods, and has received a less than accept-
able public response. Because of these factors, landspreading was
not investigated further in this study.

The other two methods essentially result in long-term storage of
oil, since no breakdown will take place. Landfilli*ng in a secure
landfil.1--one that incorporates clay liners, monitoring wells, and
a leachate collection system--is an accepted practice and is the
method chosen for application to the New Hampshire situation.

A cornerstone to the whole disposal strategy is a storage/stock-
piling site. This site is located following some very strict site
criteria and is made secure through the installation of a clay
liner, protective dikes, and a runoff collection system. Its
.purpose is to provide a secure area for storage of debris follow-
ing cleanup operations, and to allow for further debris separation
and later staging for disposal. Its presence will insure that
disposal will take place through the best method by providing the
time necessary to choose an appropriate disposal method.

Design Volume

In order to design a program for the State of New Hampshire, a
design volume is necessary that reflects a compromise between the
estimated annual debris volume and that which could be expected
from a catastropic spill event. This volume is called the "target
volume." For the coastal region, this is estimated as:

Contaminated Water 75,000 gallons
Combustible Debris 12,000 cubic yards
Non-combustible Debris 3,000 cubic yards

It is this volume for which the Center has assessed the capabili-
ties, both in and out-of-state, to handle debris disposal, and has
designed a recommended management plan. Chapter 3 of thi s study
presents a detailed assessment of the technical requirements for
disposal of this debris volume. A detailed cost analysis of the
various options to manage debris disposal is presented in Chapter
4.

Summary of the Recommended Plan

As this study progressed, it became apparent that the New England*
States were gradually closing their doors to land disposal of oily
wastes from adjoining states. The philosophy is rapidly approach-
ing one of in-state disposal responsibility. The exceptions to
this are incineration and oil/water separation. Massachusetts has
licensed oil/water separators which are currently handling out-of-
state wastes. The City of Auburn, Maine has a municipal incinera-
.tor currently accepting oil-soaked combustibles and is licensed by

the State for this purpose. The Center discussed use of the
facility for disposal of New Hampshire's wastes with the Auburn
Director of Public Works, and there is a good possibility that
their incinerator could be used for this purpose, pending future
negotiations between New Hampshire, the City of Auburn, and the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

There are exi'sting facilities in the State of New Hampshire that
could, with modification, be utilized for in-state disposal
through incineration and landfilling. There is also the possibi-
lity of in-state oil/water separation at C. H. Sprague's terminal
in Newington. However, use of the Massachusetts facilities for
this purpose will probably remain the best approach.for the short
term.

It is therefore recommended that a combined program of out-of-
state disposal of contaminated liquids and in-state disposal of
combustibles and non-combustibles solids be pursued as the manage-
ment plan for the State of New Hampshire.

The recommended plan will follow the basic strategy summarized
below:

(1) develop a two- to three-acre, long-term storage site at
a central location within the coastal zone;

(2) identify and approve three to five locations within the
coastal zone where emergency stockpiling can take place
during cleanup operations;

(3) send contaminated liquids out-of-state for treatment and
disposal;

(4) incinerate combustibles at the Lamprey Regional Solid
Waste Cooperative facility in Durham;

(5) landfill non-combustibles at a secure landfill
site: Turnkey Landfill of Rochester, Inc. 'has been
identified as the best candidate site for this program.

The responsibility of ensuring implementation of this plan should
be the responsibility of the Water Supply and Pollution Control-
Commission working in conjunction with the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management and the Air Resources Agency. The Office of State
Planning can aid in developing public acceptance of the plan and
work as an intermediary in the event of interagency disputes.

At the writing of this report, it appears that the capital costs
necessary- for implementation of the plan are approximately
$150,000, mainly for development of a long-term storage site and
purchase of materials- to store for the emergency stockpiling
sites. This estimate is tenuous, since cost-sharing arrangements
with the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative are in their
infancy and may result in some capital investment on the part of
the State.

.It is also assumed that Turnkey Landfill' will become a secure site
through its adherence to the State's Solid Waste Guidelines,
developing the necessary clay liner, leachate collection, and
ground-water monitoring on its own.

The detailed plan and recommendations for its implementation are
presented in Chapters 5 and 6 of this report.

ji ag;

INTRODUCTION

L
Introduction

OIL SPILLS IN THE COASTAL REGION'

Oil Spi I I . The words irivoke images of contaminated beaches, oil-
soaked bird life, massive fish kills, and other disturbing damages
to the coastal environment. In 1979, oil spilled on the seas of
this planet reached an all time high of 328 million gallons. Yet,
this amount only represented a small percentage of the total 1.8
billion gallons of petroleum discharged annually into the ocean.'
Whenever oil is transported, handled, stored, refined, or removed
from reservoirs deep inside the earth's crust, the potential for
oil spills results and New Hampshire is no exception.

In the-period from 1975 through 1979, a total of 103 spills were
recorded in the New Hampshire coastal zone resulting in the
release of 68,651 gallons into the State's waters. Table I
summarizes these spills and Figure 1 shows their location. These
data coincide with national spill information: spills tend to
occur in greater number and volume in those areas of concentrated
petroleum activity. Six major oil terminals are located along the
Pi scataqua Ri ver. Accordi ng to stati sti cs from .- the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, these terminals transfer approximately 20
million barrels of petroleum products a year. It is understand-
able, therefore, that these terminals should account for approxi-
mately 50 percent of the total volume of oil spilled duringthis
period of record.

While these five-year statistics are not overwhelming (the release
of oi I f rom the Tamano i n Casco Bay, Mai ne i n 1972 resul ted i n a
spill of 100,000 gallons), they are, however, sizable enough to
pose serious cleanup and disposal problems. Any rel ease of oi 1
will result in some contamination, especially if containment
efforts are unsuccessful.

KEY

0-100 gal s.

R L NSFOR 101-500 gals.

0 0 -V 501-1,000 gals.

1,001-10,000 gals.
M A 0 8 U R.Y
Ni >10,000 gals.

ib
? Amount

No. of spills
u H At (7) 4D
3
4Lr w I
(4)
(3)
3
T 9)
14

N E W A A E P 0 111 M
N lo,
<

Lr w F L a 3 a it A
a..fw,6
f

3 T N A T A 1A

9 X 9 T 9
0 R T \ . .....

H M P 0 It

6L ".ow.

IS
SLES OF
HOALS

A M AT 0 M

M A M T
F A

3 E A a it a K

FIGURE Location/Volume/No. of SPills (Strafford-Rockingham Regional Council,
1981). 8

The coastal zone has experienced a complete range and variety of
petroleum spills as shown in Table 2. From the numerous small
spills of less than 100 gallons (which account for 83 percent of
the total number of spills but only 1.4 percent of the total
volume) up to the catastrophic spill of the New Concord in 1979
which released 25,000 gallons of heavy oil into Great Bay, the
coastal region, has had its share of spills deposited upon its
f ragi 1 e envi ronment.

TABLE 1. Number and Volume of Oil Spills in the New Hampshire
Coastal Zone.

Location Number of spills Volume (Gallons)*
Ab
Piscataqua River
Termi nals-Portsmouth 8 25,065+
Termi nal s-Newi ngton 10 8,881+
Portsmouth 11 1,016+
Newington 4 36+
Portsmouth Harbor 35 390+
Off-Shore 1 10,000+
Dover 12 12,390+
Newmarket 14 1,030+
.Stratham 2 9,800+
Seabrook 1 3+
Exeter I unknown
Hampton 1 40+
Durham 1 unknown

TOTAL 103 68,651+

*These are known minimum amounts. The exact vol ume is often
unknown.

Source: Strafford Rockingham Regional Council. 1981.

TABLE 2. Range, Number of Spills and Volume of Oil Spilled
in the New Hampshire Coastal Zone.

Range Number of % of Total Volume % of
Spills Total (gallons) Total

Unknown Volumes 38 36.9 + -
?100 gallons 47 45.6 961 1.4
101-500 gallons 9 08.7 2,190 3.2
501-1,000 gals. 1 01.0 900 1.3
1,001-10,000.gals. 6 05.8 29,600 43.1
?10,000 gals. 2 01.9 .35,000 50.9

TOTAL 103 99.9 68,651 99.9

Source: Strafford Rockingham Regional Council, 1981.

While the New Concord did release enough oil to cause damage to
Great Bay, it was a small spill in comparison to the 1969 spill of
the Robert L. Poling on the Piscataqua River. This spill resulted
in the release of 200,000 gall.ons of No. 2 oil into the surround-
i ng envi ronment. Yet, even this spill is small in compari -son to
the potential that is present during tanker operations* in the
river. If a 35,000-DWT vessel were to release its cargo,
10,300,000 gallons of oil would be spilled into the river. This
represents a volume 50 times larger than the Robert L. Poling.

One hopes that a truly catastrophic spill will not occur in the
coastal zone. However, as history has shown, the spillage of
petroleum products has, and will continue to occur and with it the
recurring task of containing, cleaning up, and disposing of the
oil and oil-soaked debris.

DEFINING OIL SPILL DEBRIS

As the tides, currents, waves, and other riverine and coastal 4F
processes work on the spilled oil, it can be carried great dis-
tances from the spill source and deposit itself over a vast area.
Cleanup operations attempt, where possible, to keep the dispersed
oil from moving on-shore. This has proven to be a difficult, if
not impossible task, resulting in the contamination of all mate-
rials, organic and inorganic, that come in contact with the oil.

During cleanup operations, every attempt i s made to recover as
much of the liquid as possible. However, the'solids that eventu-
ally are contaminated by the oil will remain, requiring removal,
transportation and final disposal. These solids comprise the key
management problem currently facing the State of New 'Hampshire.
This "oi 1 -spi 11 debris" can be composed of floating organic
material; such as seaweed, driftwood, logs and other lumber as
well as any of these materials stranded on shore; and contaminated
vegetation on land, shore, or the intertidal zone (marsh grasses,
for example) that are harvested during cleanup. It can include
miscellaneous beach and waterfront litter and other associated
inorganics. It will usually.contain a high percentage of inor-
ganic sands, gravel, cobbles, rocks, mud and other non-biodegrad-
ables. Debris may also include the carcasses of dead animals,
such as birds and fish, and many contaminated fresh and salt water
organisms. Finally, there will definitely be,a large amount of
sorbents, both natural and man-made, that were utilized to soak up
much of the spilled oil.

Dur ing the period 1975 through 1979, attempts were made to clean
up 36 of the spills in New Hamsphire's coastal zone. Although
these were only 35 percent of the total number of spills, they did
represent 98 percent of the total volume spilled. However, only
17,1017 gallons of oil were recovered, leaving a balance of 50,138
gallons of oil in the ground, as debris, or out. to sea.

While records have been kept of the volume and number of spills
that occurred, very little data exist on the resultant volumes of
debris removed and ultimately disposed. The only relevant infor-
mation available is for the New Concord spill in 1979. Records
show that 18,500 gallons of liquid were recovered (7500 recy-
clable, 11,000 non-recyclable) along with 2080. cubic yards of
solid debris.

If one was to apply this ratio of oil spill'ed to that recovered as
debris to the spill statistics for the 5-year period of record
(assuming the ratio remains constant), then the total debris
picture for that period would be as shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3. Historical 5-year Estimate of Spill Debris in New
Hampshire Coastal Zone.

Item Volume

Recovered oil 20,600 gallons
Contaminated water 30,200 gallons
go Oi I -soaked'debri s:
combustible 5,500 cubic'yards
non -combu sti bl e 200 cubi-c yards

It is important to note the breakdown of the debris into combus-
tible and non-combustible characteristics. Understandi ng this
relationship is important to the decision for ultimate disposal.
The combustible properties of debris are strongly affected by the
amount of water contained in the debris after cleanup. Most
attached seaweeds and marsh grasses as well as sorbents have high
water content. This must be take-n into consideration when review-
ing disposal alternatives. Table 4 lists the various debris types
to be expected in the coastal zone.

TABLE 4. Expected Oil Spill-Debris Type in New Hampshire's
Coastal Zone

Combustibles

A. Oil-soaked Solids B. Liquids

Marsh grasses Wood Recovered oil
Seaweeds Litter
Most sorhents Flotsam

Non-combusti bl es

C. Oil-soaked Solids 0. Liquids

Sand Ice & snow Contaminated fresh &
Rocks Some sorbents saltwater
Boulders (hi ghly saturated) (Oi 1 /water 6mul si ons)

Combustibles normally make up 80 percent of the debris collected
following a spill. This relationship is important in view of
di sposal options. Proper separation of the debris will allow for
an 80 percent volume reduction through incineration, reducingthe
amount of debris requiring ultimate land disposal. This disposal
strategy is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

Aside from this combustibility aspect of oil-spill debris, there
are a number of other characteristics that affect cleanup and
disposal. The oil type has a strong influence on resultant
debris. Because of differences in viscosity and color in particu-
lar, certain types of oil pose special problems to the personnel
involved in cleanup. Heavier oils can be readily seen because of
their color and tendency to adhere to the materials with which
they come in contact. Lighter oils are harder to see because,
they tend to blend in when they float on water. The viscosity of
lighter oils allows them to penetrate most sediments rapidly,
where they may become hidden from view. Because of these proper-

ties, the lighter oils are oftentimes harder to locate resulting
in a lowered recoverability. Some of the more relevant properties
of the different oils are shown in Table 5.

TABLE S. Classification and properties of Various Oil Types.

Class Designation Typic a] Oil Types Diagnostic Properties Response Properties

A Light oils Distillate fuel ana Hiqhly fluid, usually May be flammable, high eva-
light crude oils transparent or opaque, porative loss of toxic com-
(all types) strong-odor, rapid ponents, assume to be highly
spreading, can be rinsed toxic when fresh, tend to
from plant sample by form unstable emulsions, may
simple agitation penetrate substrates, responds
well to most control techniques.

B Heavy sticky Residual fuel oils; 'Typicall-y opaque brown or High viscosity, hard to remove
oils medium to heavy black, sticky or tarry, from surfaces, tend to form
asphaltic and nixed viscous, cannot be rinsed stable emulsions, high S.G. and
base crudes from plant sample by agita- potential for sinking after wea-
iion thering, low substrate penetration,
low toxicity-biological effects
due primarily to smothering, will
interfere with many types of re-
covery equipment

C Waxy oils Medium to heavy Moderate to high viscosity, Generally removable from surfaces,
paraffin base waxy feel soil penetration variable, toxi-
crudes city variable -- may be high in
fresh oils, decreased tendency to
form stable emulsion

D Nonfluid oils Residual and heavy Tarry or waxy lumps Nonspreading, cannot be recovered
(at ambient crude oils (all with most equipment, cannot be
temperature) types) pumped without heating or slurrying,
relatively nontoxic, may melt and
flow when stranded in sun

New Hampshire annually receives an almost equal volume of heavy
and light oils as shown in Table 6. During the period of 1975 to
1979, 50 percent of the oil spilled in the coastal zone was
residual fuel oil, the rest were lighter oils such as diesel and
gasoline. As these statistics indicate, the coastal zone can
expect the complete range of oil types and resultant debris that
will warrant a diversity of cleanup and disposal procedures.

TABLE 6. Ship Transfers of Oil in New Hampshire's Coastal Zone.

Oil Type Volume (BBLS)*
1977 Total 1978 % Total

L,rude.oil 3,561,677 18.0 2,434,152 13-.9
Residual fuel 8,020,247 40.7 7,180,745 41.1
Gasoline 1,075,760 5.4 1,482,789 8.5
Jet fuel 657,454 3.3 319,564 1.8
Kerosene 520,363 2.6 302,832 1.7
Distillate fuel- 5,657,634 28.7 5,271,732 30.1
Naptha & Petro-
leum solvents 234,861 1.3 501,091 2.9

TOTAL 19,727,995 17,492,905

*From U.S.A.C.E. statistics - changed from short tons to BBLS
using average figure of 6.35 BBLS/short ton.

PAST DISPOSAL PRACTICES

Oil spills on the scale of the New Concord are emotional events.
They are emergency in nature and strain the response personnel to
the maximum as they attempt to face the seemingly insurmountable
task of cleanup. The local population is usually in shock at the
vision of an oil contaminated landscape. This shock gradually
turns to outrage towards the spiller, as people start facing the
aesthetic, physical, biological, and financial.losses that result.

This* heightened emotional state has typically forced the cleanup
crews to place primary emphasis on removing all traces of spilled
oil from the water, land and private and public property, as well
as the injured wildlife that may be involved. As a result, little
thought has been given to the ultimate disposal of debris, often-
times resulting in less-than-adequate disposal practices as
debris-laden trucks rush to local landfills to get rid of their 4P
loads and return to the scene. Typically, debris i -sbagged and/or
loaded into trucks and hauled to a local landfill or dump to await
approval for ultimate disposal at a more secure site by State and
local officials.

Under New Hampshire's -Revised Statutes annotated 146-A (Supp), the
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC) has the
responsibility for the cleanup of all oil spills in state waters.
In the,.Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution Control Contingency

Plan (Section 2023), it is recognized that the role of the WSPCC
during a spill incident is:

"to provide that the recovered pollutant and all contaminated
debris are disposed of in a manner acceptable to the state."

Final disposal of all debris is the responsibility of the Bureau
of Solid Waste Management (BSWM) under the State's Solid Waste
Regulations.

The responsibility for oil- spill debris disposal is thus shared
between WSPCC and BSWM. To date, however, no pre-planning for
debris disposal has been accomplished.

The State has generally relied on the case-by-case approach,
deciding on a method and location for disposal after cleanup
operations are completed.

Due to this case-by-case approach, records have not been adequate-
ly maintained on disposal unless approval was necessary from the
State of New Hampshire Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Records
for oil spills maintained by State and Federal agencies do not
i ndi cate the types of debri s . accumul -ated and whexe di sposal took
place.

The recent study on oil spills in the coastal zone, conducted by
the Strafford Rockingham Regional Council, provides an overall
picture of the State's past disposal practices. This discussion
is presented below:

The oil spill inventory shows that Dover experienced
several spills to which the Dover Department of Public
Works responded. The Director of Public Works stated
that on these occasions, oil debris was disposed of in
the ol d town dump of f Ri ver Road. Approval i n each
i nstance was gi ven by the state i nvesti gator f rom the
N.H. Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission.
(In actuality, approval was given by BSWM through the
WSPCC i nvesti gator. ) While the amount of oil debris
that was landfilled was not known, it was thought to
be smal 1 . * Records were not avai I abl e f rom the Bureau
of Solid Waste Management indicating formal approval
for disposal.

In two Newmarket oil spills, approval was obtained
from the New Hampshire Air Resources Agency to -burn
oil debris at the local landfill. On one occasion
during the winter, approval was granted to burn oil
trapped by ice on the Lamp@ey River and oil debris
(absorbants) in place.

Oi I debri s f rom the New Concord was fi nal ly di sposed
of at the Coakley landfill in Greenland after being
stored there temporarily for nearly a year while
alternative means to landfilling were explored. A
small amount of oil debris was taken to the Durham
incinerator and incinerated as an experiment. Thi s
proved to be a costly means of disposal and it was
finally decided to dispose of the debris permanently
in the Coakley landfill, a p ri vatel y-ope rated facil-
i ty. The Greenland selectmen were notified by the
N.H. Bureau of Solid Waste Management of its inten-
tions to permanently dispose of the material. Whi 1 e
not considered a hazardous waste by the N.H. BSWM,
precautions were taken and the material was sealed in.
a clay liner to prevent oil from leaching into the
groundwater.

The fact that the debris from the New Concord spill was stored
almost a year before the decision was made to permanently dispose
of it at the Coakley pit is worth noting. This is understandable,
since New Hampshire has no pre-approved sites for ultimate dispo-
sal . However, this typical, long-term storage, while awaiting
approval f or ul ti mate di sposal , has the potenti al f or oi I mi gra-
tion into adjoining ground and surface waters. After spending a
great deal of time and money cleaning up an oil spill, it makes no
sense to reintroduce the spilled oil back into the environment.
This possible contamination is more threatening than the oil spill
itself since it could result in contamination of subsurface
drinking water suppli-es upon which a majority of the coastal
region population relies.

THE NEED FOR
A MANAGEMENT PLAN

Secondary pollution from oil-soaked debris is a serious considera-
tion in'the overall management process for oil.spill response. It
has received insufficient attention in the past. Yet, the possi-
bility for pollution and the intense emotions associated with a
spill warrant pre-planning so that an appropriate disposal method
and a suitable site are available before a spill occurs. (These
conditions can be met either in- or-o-ut-of-state.)

Development of an implementable management plan for the disposal
of oil spill debris will fill the void currently existing in
contingency plans at the local, State and Federal levels. The
need for a rational plan is obvious based on the presence of major
oil terminals in the coastal zone, the past history of oil spills,

and the present lack of approved storage and disposal facilities
in the State.

To meet.this objective, the Center for Natural Areas has conducted
an eight-month study under contract to the Office oUState Plan-
ning into the problem of oil spill debris disposal. Emphasis has
been placed on assessing those methods of disposal currently in
use that could be utilized by the State in the most cost effec-
tive, yet'environmentally acceptable manner.

The resultant plan and its recommended implementation are present-
ed in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report. The results of CNA's
state-of-the-art review of disposal methods are included in
Chapter 2 with.an assessment of their application to the New
Hampshire. situation discussed in Chapter 3. Other i nf ormati on
relevant to the study, yet unnecessary for the text are in the
appendices.

This plan is a simple and logical one. It offers no "high tech"
solutions, only utilization of existing "best available technolo-
gies" and a basic management philosophy that will prove adequate
for the future disposal needs of the State.

410-

4o;

DISPOSAL OF OIL
SPILL DEBRIS,

AN OVERVIEW

20
Disposal of 0*11 Spill
Debris: An Overview

A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
4b

The management of oil spill debris disposal follows a basic
strategy that consists of a series of interrelated steps and
deci'sions. The beginning of the process starts before a spill
takes pl ace and i nvol ves t'he i denti fi cati on and approyal . of key
sites and facilities necessary for debris storage, recycling of
recovered oil, and final disposal of -debris. This can be accom-
plished through the use of and/or modifications to existing
facilities, construction of new facilities either by the public or
private sector or reliance on out-of-state disposal facilities, if
available.

The results of this pre-planning phase can then be incorporated
into the overall contingency plan so that when a spill occurs, the
disposal options are clearly laid out, leaving only the decision
of which methodology to use and where to accomplish it to be made
by those responsible for cleanup and disposal operations.

Cleanup Strategies

The ultimate disposal of debris can be minimized as a result of
correct on-site cleanup operations. It is at this stage that much
can be done to reduce the overall volume of debris requiring
disposal. This can be accomplished through (a)- utilization of
appropri ate debri s harvesti ng . techni ques and (b) re coveri ng as
much of the usable oil as possible.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a series of publications
which addeess in detail the vari@ous cleanup strategies that should
be followed. These are:

Maiero, D.J., R.W. Castle, O.L. Crain. 1978. Protection
.cleanup and restoration of- salt marshes endangered by oil
spills: A Procedureal Manual. EPA-600/7-78-220, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency., Cincinnati, Ohio.

Schrier, E., C.R. Foget, M. Cramer, and R. Castle. 1979.
Manual of practices for protection and cleanup of shorelines.
Volumes I and II, EPA-600/7-79-187 a and b, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Edison, New Jersey.

The more important aspects of the strategies are summarized below.

recovering the oil

Following a spill, 'oil is removed from the water by skimmers of
various sizes, pumps, vacuum trucks, or sorbents. Without going
into detail about specific machines or sorbents, it can be stated
that both oil and water will be recovered when using these de-
vices. The key points to remember are that oil recovered in
liquid form is easier to recycle and that recovered oil with low
water content retains a higher value. Skimmer's that sort out
debris and limit the amount of water that is collected are the
preferred method for recovering free floating oil. Vacuum trucks
and pumps without skimmer heads will have a tendency to collect
much more water than other methods of recovery because they have
no way of discriminating between the oil/water interface. Sor-
bents that collect oil and resist water penetration should be used
on spills as a way to reduce the amount of contaminated water that
must be disposed.

The other source of recoverable Oil is in the harvested debris
itself. If the weather i s warm (above 50 degrees) and the oi I
content of the debris very high, then oil can be separated from
debris by placing it on a grid platform over a pit with a 12"
layer of water. The oil will tend to flow off the debris and into
the pit where it can be removed by a vacuum truck and reprocessed.
The pit can either be built on-site, or be constructed at a
storage or disposal site (further information regarding this
separator is.found in the section on storage sites in Chapter 3).

The emphasis here is oil recovery: the more oil recovered, the
less liquid that will require further separation and treatment
later on.

debris harvesting

Although plants are usually harvested during oil spill cleanup,
harvesting is very detrimental to plant populations and must be
done with caution. Oil, especially of light fractions or freshly
spilled, may be deposited on intertidal plants at low tide and
then lifted off with subsequent high tides (as observed during the
Amoco Cadiz spill). In such cases, oil may be pumped or skimmed
at high tide without disturbing the plants. It is best to get the
46 advice of a trained biologist, but as a rule oil-soaked plants
should only be harvested if very heavily oiled and.then to prevent
remobilization of the oil and further contamination. When har-
vesting seaweed, large, mature plants should be left on the shore
every few meters (approximately 1-2 percent of the population) to
expedi te recol oni zati on. This is especially critical for the
recolonization of Ascophyllum nodosum, a dominant species in the
New Hampshire coast-aT zone. Sa-Ft 7marsh vegetation should be cvt
at the sediment surface. Marsh sediments.shoula not be disturbed
as the sediment height in respect to sea.level is critical for the
establishment and survival of marsh plants. The effect of har-
vesting on intertidal plants probably varies with the timing, but
there has been little studied to date (Topinka, personal communi-
cation 1981).

Plants should always be removed manually and should never be mixed
with non@-combustible wastes. Manual harvesting can be done with
any type of grass cutting device. 'Sickles and sythes are effec-
tive on marsh grass. Knives and scissors are effective on attach-
ed seaweeds. In the past few years, gasoline or electrically-
operated "string" type, upright rotary trimmers have been used
with a great deal of success in situations where there has been
extensive contamination.-

When the cuttings are raked, care should be taken to keep rocks
out of the material . Whenever possible, cuttings _should be
transported in plastic bags so the operator can readily see
whether or not the material is compatible with the disposal
method.

When the volume of combustible waste is compared to that of non-
combustible waste, it is apparent thAt much more combustibl.e waste
is recovered annually. In fact, using the New Concord as an
example, we find that 25 times more combustible waste was recover-
ed than non-combustible.

From this, it can be readily u nderstood that' the key to reducing
the problems of disposal of most spill debris is to keep the waste
homogenous so the best and qui,ckest disposal technique'of incine-
ration remains open. If combustible wastes are always kept free
of non-combustible wastes, disposal is much simpler.

Sediment can be recovered manually using hand tools to dig, rake
or grade. The rul e of thumb f or use of these tool s i s to take as
much oil and as little sediment as possible. In large spills, use
of these tools is effective only when there is a large work force
available. This technique is preferable to the use of heavy
machinery in most areas of the intertidal zone and especially in
areas of fine-grained sediments, mud, or other areas with low
weight bearing surfaces.

The key is to keep combustible materials out of the debris collec-
tion containers during harvest of sediments so that removal of
these items at a later date can be avoided. Also, sediments of
similar grain size should be isolated from dissimi lar sediments as
they are gathered and when they are stored. It is relatively easy
to keep sediments Qf similar size isolated when sediment is
gathered by hand.

In large spills, some pieces of heavy construction machinery; such
as tractors, backhoes, beach graders, gradalls; can be used to
excavate oil -contaminated sediments. They are basically used to
remove the layers of oil-soaked earth down to the deepest penetra-
'tion and have the advantage of being able to recover as much
material as can be recovered manually. Thus, they can be used to
speed up sediment or ice and snow removal. This machinery has
three big disadvantages, however. First, the operator cannot
always discriminate as well as a person on foot where the beach
penetration depth changes. Therefore there is a tendency to ireat
each geological area similarly which could result in taking too
much material in one place and, perhaps, not enough in another.
Second, large pieces of excavation equipment are very heavy and
can bury top sediments contaminated with oil deep into the beach
where it will not be recovered during cleanup. Thi rd, this
equipment removes sediment in bulk which makes it more di*fficult
to recycle and reuse without extensive processing.

A Debris Storage Site

A cornerstone to the overall management strategy is the establish-
ment of a storage/stockpiling site that is available to.the on-
scene coordi nator. This storage site (or sites) can either be
emergency in nature -- the site is made secure through establish-
ment of a liner and some sort of protection dike -- or a sophisti-
cated, long-term storage site desi*gned to protect against outward
oil migration.

The purpose of the site(s) would be as a staging area during
cleanup operations, where debris that requires further separation
into combustibles and non-combustibles could be stored for later
40 separation, and/or previously separated solids could be stored if
existing disposal facilities were unavailable at the time of the
spill or the spi-11 debris exceeded their immediate ability to
process the waste. Thi s'is especially necessary in the case of
incineration when most facilities would be unable to handle the
combustibles from a large spill. The storage area would allow for
delay of delivery of combustibles over the period of time neces-
sary to complete incineration.

The presence of this site-would allow for a smoother cleanup
operation providing a secure location for the trucks to quickly
unload and return to the cleanup site. Debris separation at the
site would greatly aid in reducing the debris which would require
land disposal, thus providing a higher degree of environmental
protection. -The technical requirements for both the emergency and
long-term sites are presented in ensuing sections of this chapter.

Choosing A Disposal Method

There will come a point when all possible material has been
reclaimed and/or sorted, and a choice of ultimate disposal is
required. Assuming all *technical requirements are met and all
local, State and Federal permits received, the managing State
agency has a number of options available for ultimate disposal.
These are summarized in Table 7.

TABLE 7. Applicability of disposal methods to different types of oil spill debris.

Disposal Method Size of Solid Matter Biodegradability of Debris Oil Content

Incineration No general limitation; Not applicable Hiqh oil content solids
some municipal incine- may require special
rators may have hand- handling and mixing with
ling limitation; may other materials due to
require bagging of high BTUs
material to ease
handling

Landspreading Debris should be rela- Predominantly oils and Landspreading best suited
tively small in size, soils are best; non- for heavily oiled debris
less than 15 cm (six degradable sorbents or
inches), e.g., oiled inorganic trash should
soils; some larger not be present
vegetation may be
acceptable, such as
seaweed or brush.
Bulky matter may be
separated for land-
fil.1 disposal

Landfilling No limitation on size No limitation on materials In general, no limitation on
with refuse debris oil content; regula-
tory aqencies may object to
disposal of heavily oiled or
hiah water content debris in
a newer landfill where rela-
tivel; little refuse is pre-
sent to absorb the liquids
Burial (above In gene@al, no size No limitation on materials No limitation on oil content
ground). limitation; bulky as long as site conditions
debris, such as poles, 'are acceptable
may pose operational
problems; disposal
trenches may require
widening to accommo-
date bulky items

Source: Farlow, 1977.

There is a definite priority in choosing a disposal method. Every
attempt shoLil d be made to rely on buri al as a 1 ast resort after
all other options are exhausted. Th e order olf-priority is as
f ol 1 ows:

1. Incinerate Combustibles. Since 80 percent or greater of
all solids are combustTble and are assumed to have been
sorted either at the cleanup site or at the storage
site, incineration will take care of the major portion
of di sposal . Complete combustion has the advantage of

converting the oil to carbon dioxide and water, leaving
no aromatics to get into the ground water or complex
organi cs to be taken up by pl ants at any 1 and di sposal
sites.

2. Landspread materials less than 6 inches in diameter.
Natural occurring organisms exist 16 -the s6i-1 m-antle.in
New Hampshire that can utilize the hydrocarbon in oil as
an energy source. Experience so far with this method
indicates that aerobic decomposition can be completed in
three growing seasons. The advantage of this method is
that after decomposition, water pollution potential
becomes non-existent. The process has been widely used
to dispose of oi I refinery tank bottoms and API separa-
tor sludge wastes for decades. Bulky materials, espe-
cially sorbents, cannot be disposed of by this method.

3. Landfill with refuse or employ above ground burial for
the remaining debris. From an environmental protection
standpoint, anaeroFT-c burial -should be the last choice
for disposal. However, from a cost, praCtical, and
political standpoint, it is the method most often
utilized for final disposal ("out-of-sight, out-of-
mi nd"). Anaerobic decomposition is negligible; there-
fore the oily debris remains in place essentially
undecomposed for centuries with the constant potential
of contaminating ground-water supplies. Consequently,
ground-water protection and monitoring is an essential
component of this method.

One final note: Due to possible health risks, vegeta-
ti on for direct or indirect human use should not be
grown on any land disposal site. Research in this area
is, as yet, inconclusive. However, following the
conservative path is the'recommended option.

This, then, is the recommended disposal strategy upon which this
study has based its research and recommendations. It shows up in
its basic form in the recommended management and implementation
plans presented in Chapters 4 and 5. These methodologies repre-
sent the current thinking in oil spill debris disposal. Research
continues to refine these methods and identify new technologies.
For now, the recommended approach is the "best available techno-
logy" that can guarantee environmentally-sound disposal.

STORAGE/STOCKPILING CONCEPTS

Th e need for a storage/stockpiling site has previously been
defi ned. The ideal situation would provide for one long-term
storage site to handle the bulk of storage requirements; and a
series of pre-designated sites where emergency storage could be
developed. The emergency sites would provide on-scene staging as
well as extra capacity in the event of a catastrophi.c spill event.
These sites could also serve the State as interim storage areas
until a long-term site is developed at a suitable location.

Emergency Sites

Figure 2 shows a proposed emergency stockpiling cell. The cell is
20 feet by 100 feet with a working capacity of 60 cubic yards.
This is based on the utilization of two 20-foot by 100-foot rolls
of synthetic liner material. One roll is utilized as a bottom
li'ner, and is placed over hay bales as shown in Figure 2 to
provide for containment of the debris. The other roll is a 6 mil
polyethylene and is utilized as a final cover to prevent infiltra-
tion of precipitation. To prevent pun-cturing, it is recommended
that 2 to 6 inches of sawdust and wood chips be placed underneath
and on top of the bottom 1 i ner. This will help maintain the
integrity of the sheet while providing an absorbent if a leak were
to occur.

For the bottom liner, there are a number of options which are
summarized in Table 8. One possibility that is not included in
this table is 8 mil woven/laminated polyethylene. Thi s materi al
has a high tear resistance and is relatively inexpensive.

A better alternative to the polyethylene liner is the use of 30-
mil polychloroprene or 30 mil polyvinyl chloride (PVC) material.
As Table 8 shows, polyethylene has an expected longevity of less
than one month when in cont-act with petroleum products. The use
of the PVC liner would be the recommended option since it offers
an estimated- T-ongivity of about a yearand is one-fourth the cost
of the polychloroprene. Liner technology research is in its early
stages with new materials under development. It i s advi sabl e to
check with the Environmental Protection Agency about availability
and status of any of the newer materials if they are used.

TABLE 8. . Summary of Data on Membrane Liners Potentially Usable for Oil Spill Debris Stockpile Areas

Precautions
Membrane type/material Thickness avail. Estimated in talled
(mils) Placement* Expected Lonqevity+ cost ranoe, $/sq. yd.
Polychloroprene (rein- 30 Exposable >1 yr 6.75-8.55
forced with polyester) to sun
Thermoplastic polyester 7 Expos-able <1 yr Experimental
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 10-30 Unexposable <1 yr 1.17-2.16

Coal tar pitch and PVC 100 Unexposable <1 yr 1.50-3.50
PVC reinforced with nylon 10-30 Unexposable <1 yr 1.50-3.50

Ch)orosulfonated poly- 20-45 Exposable <1 mo 2.88-3.37
ethylene

Polyethylene 10-20 Unexposable <1 MO 0.90-1.56

All liners require subgrade preparation by removal of sharp objects and rocks and may require a coarse
soil -base. Unexposable liners must be covered with soil to prevent damage by ultraviolet sunlight and
atmospheric contaminants.

+ Longevity data from Haxo, H.E., Evaluation of Selected Liners Wh.9n Exposed to Hazardous Wastes. In:
Proceedings of the Hazardous Waste Research Symposium, Residual Management by Land Disposal. EPA-
60019-76-015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. 102 p.

Source: Stearns, 1977.

6 mil polyethylene cover

Ti res

Hay Bales

DEBRIS

Ell
All =@-IN
2-6" sawdust and chips
Pavement

30 mil polyvinylchloride liner
(or 8 mil reinforced polyethylene)

FIGURE 2. Cross-section of emergency stockpiling site
7
11 t LEE
Z-f-i

Duri ng cl eanup, materi al woul d be dumped into the cells from
trucks. A second sheet of 6-mil polyethylene would be placed on
the top to keep precipitation off the area. Removal of the debris
would have to be done extremely carefully either by hand or by
starting at one end of the cell and gradually removing the ma-
terial with a front-end loader, rolling up the polyethylene as one
progressed towards the end of the cell taking care to avoid any
spi 11 age. Any accumulated oil would have to be removed by use of
sorbents or by forcing the oil into a corner of the cell and
ski mmi ng i t i nto a vacuum truck.

These emergency sites would preferably be located on a paved
parking lot. In lieu of the parking lot, an open area such as a
public baseball or football field could be utilized, or a gravel
parking area. Location of the sites would have to adhere to some
very basic guidelines so as not to endanger existing environmental
quality. These recommended siting guidelines are presented in
Appendix C.

The best approach to the use of emergency sites is to predesignate
three to five locations within the coastal zone that meet the site
criteri a. These sites would have pre-approval so that they could
be utilized immediately by' establishing the recommended liner
system. Predesignation would prevent random site location and
free the On-Scene Coordinator from the involved task of searching
for a suitable site.

The Center has incorporated this approach into the management
plan. Specific sites and implementation recommendations appear in
the ensuing chapters.

A Long-Term Site

The purpose of a storage/stockpiling area is to provide a single
facility that has been located, designed and constructed for
envi ronmental ' protecti on and where the oi I -soaked debri s f roM a
spill event can be stockpiled for eventual separation and dispo-
sal. Reclaiming and recycling material-would be a major componerft-
of the area. The presence of this site would provide the long-
term, temporary storage necessary to allow for a timely choice of
an ultimate disposal technique. Whereas the emergency sites are
useful in- the short-term, long-term storage (greater than two
months) would be necessary to process combustibles, since most
existing municipal incinerators do not have the capacity to handle
the volume generated during large spills.

technical req*uirements

A storage/stockpiling site necessitates certain technical require-
ments to meet its stated objectives. These' requirements hold
regardless of the configuration chosen. Summarized below are the
key requirements that the Center feels- are critical to site
design:

a. The site must be able to handle the variety of oil-
soaked debris expected from any spill. This requires
sufficient area for separation into combustibles and
non-combustibles and for storage based on the estimated
maximum volume of debris expected from a major spill
event for the area in question. There also should be a
separate staging area for sorting incoming debris.

b. The site must be designed to safely store the wastes for
between one and five years. This would necessitate
construction of a containment dike.

C. The site must be resistant -to climatic a,nd seasonal
variations.

d. There must be enough area for maneuverability of debris
handl i ng equi pment.

e. Maxi mum hei ght of debri s storage shoul d not exceed 4 1/2
feet to allow for unloading by dump trucks.

f. There should be adequate drainage facilities to inter-
cept internal runoff.

g. There must be equipment and facilities- to handle treat-
ment of contaminated runoff from the site.

h. The storage area must be abl e to be constructed usi ng
available technology and materials.

i. The site must conform to all applicable local, State and
Federal laws and regulations.

j. The site location must satisfy all site selection
criteria (see Appendix A).

k. A monitoring program to determine leachate movement
should be installed.

liner systems

Liner systems for storage and burial of oil spill debris fall into
the f ol 1 owi ng categori es:

asphal ti c 1 i ners
soil cements
synthetic liners
soil sealants
clay liners

Liners underlie the site area that will be utilized for storage
and stockpiling. They are the key to preventing outward migration
of any oil that may leach from the debris. Asphaltic and soil
cement liners, although used in water-related application, will
not stand up to petroleum storage usage.. This is also true of the
various synthetic liners currently available as well as the soil
sealants. As a result, these liner systems are not considered
applicable for the long-term site.

Bentonite-Clay Liner Systems

The most acceptable liner system to date is one of bentonite clay.
This clay is a natural, polymeric mineral that will swell to 10
times its original volume when in contact with water. This
property of the clay creates a virtually impermeable seal to water
and oil-water emulsions when the clay is incorporated as a liner
and M xed with soil according to its specifications. Bentonite is
a currently available homogenous mixture that, while expensive,
ensures maintenance of the required physical and chemical liner
characteri sti cs.

Fi gure 3 shows a typical conf i gurati on of a bentoni te 1 i ner
system. - A layer of compacted sand and gravel is 'placed on top of
the clay to maintain the necessary moist conditions which ensure
proper hydration of the clay. This layer will also protect the
clay from freezing and damage by heavy equipment.

The system has an outer earthen berm constructed with a bentonite
liner as shown. The berm prevents lateral migrati.on of oil/water
emulsions and helps maintain a static water level which is neces-
sary to hydrate the clay.

Typi ca 1
Drainage
Pattern

Storage Area
f with
Runoff Trench Clay Liner
Sloped >1%

Divided into Cells for
Or-ganic/Inorganic Materials
as nee edd

Manually
Controlled
Water Valve To Water Access Road
Treatment

PLAN VIEW

6 Oil Spill
Debris

2
3 Control 1 ed
Water Level
Berm 2 Sand el 2

Bentonite or Native
Clay Liner

SECTION A-Al

FIGURE 3. Basic clay-lined, stodkpiling/storage site concept (Source:
Engineers, 1979).
3

Gray

Bentonite clay liner systems offer a simple design for a spill
debris storage site and, if properly sited, will ensure adequate
environmental protection.

Native Clay Liners

Native marine clay is an acceptable option for a liner system.
Soil surveys of the coastal region show large areas of these
glacial, marine-lacustrine deposits. Native clay woul-d offer an
inexpensive option to the more expensive, bentonite-clay liner
that is currently being proposed as the state-of-the-art for oil
spill debris storage and disposal. Site development would be
similar to the bentonite clay site, except for the substitution of
native clay as a liner.

additional site requirements

There are other support facilities that would either be required
or needed to maintain an environmentally sound site. Proposed
regulations under Section 3004 of the Resource Recovery Act will
require storage for runoff from a 25-year storm of four hour
duration at facilities handling oily wastes. This will eventually
necessitate construction of a clay-lined storage lagoon to handle
the anticipated runoff volume. The oil can be, skimmed from the
surface of the lagoon and the water retained for fire purposes.

If discharge to a stream were necessary, then a coalescing type
oil/water separator would be required to meet the probable dis-
charge requirement of 15 mg/l of oil. Installation of a separator
would also provide a place to separate contaminated liquids from a
spill event, a deficiency that currently exists in New Hampshire.

Another suggested site facility is an oil-recovery unit to sepa-
rate oil from oil-soaked debris. -The unit, shown in Figure4,
consists of a concrete box covered by a steel grate. An access
ramp allows trucks to dump debris onto the screen. One foot of
water is maintained at the bottom of the box as a separating
medium. Separated oi I can be ski mmed f rom the surf ace by a waste
oil contractor.

32
40

Skimmed Drums
Oil to Up e n d e d
Recovered Steel @@,,@OilY Debris
Oil Tank Grid

Wat Slu

.. !,.- ..
concrete " ': &*-' -'**:,i- - - -'- -
-401

ELEVATION

Trucks up Ramp
to Discharge

Steam
Co i 1 \-,e .77
- 10

CROSS-SECTION

FIGURE 4, API Oil Recovery Unit for Storage/Stockpiling Site
(Source: SCS Engineers', 1979).
Ramp

To further protect the ground water, installation of a secondary
diking system is suggested. The 1 i ner of the outer di ke i s keyed
into the underlying impermeable soils. This creates a perched
water table condition within the site, which keeps the clay
hydrated.

Figure 5 shows a concept-ual plan of a fully d eveloped, clay-lined,
storage/stockpiling site. This site represents the current
thinking relative to debris storage. A proposed site for the
South Portland region in Maine has been designed by SCS Engineers.
To date, however, public resi-stance has blocked its construction.
The Center is of the opinion that the simpler site shown in Figure
3 would be effective if well engineered and if adequate monitoring
wells were installed. Also, some runoff collection and treatment
would be necessary to meet future Federal requirements.

site location

Location of a.long-term storage site requires strict adherence to
a set of criteria that reflect the various physical, biological,
sociological and other environmental criteria. These criteria are
presented In detail in Appendix A.

There are two approaches to the location process. One approach'is
to attempt to 'locate. available public or private land that is
currently in industrial use. Existing sanitary landfill sites are
a logical first choice, with oil-terminal sites a close second.
In this approach, the land is identified first and then the
criteria are applied to see if the site is acceptable. Utiliza-
tion of an existing landfill provides a site that is already in
use for disposal of municipal waste. It wi I I al so 1 ower the
overall site development cost& significantly.

The other, more involved approach, is to run through a screening
system as outlined in Appendix B. This overlay method reveals
where areas are located that are not constrained by the more
critical site criteria. Hopefully, the existing landfills, or
other available lands will fall withi-n the screened areas. if
not then a search for unused land would be necessary.

The Center feels that the first approach will provide a less
expensive solution to site selection. This approach was followed
during the study resulting in identification of some candidate
sites. These are presented in Chapter 3.

-Buf"f er Zon*e-

Ditch to Control
Water Level and
Runoff for
Primary Containment

-Outer Ditch for
Secondary Containment

-Inner Dike

Run-off Park ing
Lagoon
erat on@
Oil/Water Separator Buildi g
and Storage =21rj 1:API Oil Recovery
On, I _-,, $Z *@@
ccess
Road

Bentonite or Oily
Native Clay Debris@@
Monitoring
Well Water
Bentonite or
Native Clay Level

Water
Level z"Sand and Gravel

tural Marine Sand

A:z (I i@U(W(Mfll at @_Ml it IM
I- ffli( 11 11 - U R
Key
31 If Natural Marine Clay and Silt LI III
Ground W T

Partial Elevated View
(Not to Scale)

FIGURE. 5. Fully developed clay-lined storage/stockpiling site (Source: SCS
Engineers, 1979).

FINAL DISPOSAL

The f ol 1 owi ng techni cal di scussi on of the vari ous di sposal opti ons
available for New Hampshire is intended to be informative, yet
bri ef . Enough information is presented to follow the development
of the recommended plan. If specific facilities are developed
during implementation, further engineering studies will be requir-
ed.

The reader is directed to the following reports for a more detail-
ed technical discussion of the various methodologies:

SCS Engineers. 1979. Oily wastes manangement, an investiga-
tion of alternatives for the State of Maine, prepared for the
State of Maine, Department of Environmental Protection,
Augusta, Maine.

Stearns, R.P., D.E. Ross and R. Morrison. 1977. Oil spill
decisions for debris disposal. Volume I, Procedures Manual.
EPA-600/2-77-153a. U,S. Environmental Protecti on Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. 100 P.

Stearns, R.P. , D.E. Ross and R. Morrison. 1977. Oi 1 spi 11
Decision for debris disposal. Volume II, Literature Review
and Case Study Reports. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 165 p.

Disposal of Contaminated Liquids

The liquid oily wastes encountered in oil spill cl eanup are
typically in one of three forms: directly recoverable oil (sedi-
ment and water less than 10 percent), contaminated oil-water
mixtures, and oil-water emulsions.

Oil with bottom sediments and water less than eight to ten percent
can usually be sold as off-specification waste oil. Most of the
recovered oil, however, will need some processing. The recovery
process can involve gravity separation, using heat to speed up the
process of breaking oil-water emulsions; centrifuging; or, in some'
cases, re-refini.ng or chemical separation.

The usual method of handling contaminated liquids during a spill
is to bring them to a tank storage facility specifically ear-
marked for waste oils. Liquids are generally put in settling
'tanks where the heavier solids and water settle to the bottom of
the tank and the oil and lighter solids float to the top. This is
usually undertaken by the spill cleanup contractor.

API specification gravity oil-water separators are generally
suitable for treating oily water that has been picked up during
oil-spill cleanup operations. As long as there are-not extensive
oil-water emulsions and as long as the rated capacity of the
individual unit is not exceeded, a gravity separator can normally
achieve the 15 mgl discharge criteria required by the EPA and the
State of New Hampshire for simple oil-water mixtures. An accept-
able oil-water separator is generally the best, quickest and most
realistic way to recover oil a-nd dispose of water collected during
cl eanup operati ons. A 400-gpm vertical @coalescing unit, has been-
recognized as the most viable separator for this purpose.

The longer the oil- has been in the water, however, the more likely
that an oil-water emulsion has formed. When this happens or when
emulsions occur from vacuuming or pumping, one of the more diffi-
cult and expensive techniques for recovering usabl.efoil will have
to be employed.

Incineration

Incineration has been a traditional method of disposal for combus-
tible oily wastes. Since combustibles represent up to 80 percent
of the total spill debris volume, incineration offers significant
debris volume reduction and should be a key component of any
management pl an.

The Environmental Protection Agency has investigated the various
incineration methods currently available for oil debris disposal.
Research has focused on three methods: fluidized bed, air curtain
pit burner, and rotary kiln. The EPA has chosen the rotary kiln
method for its mobile incinerator project due to its ease of
operation and ability to meet current emission standards.

Utilization of a rotary kiln incinerator in New Hampshire would
require the purchase of a new unit, since there are no existing
units in the state. There is, however, an alternative to the
40 rotary kiln and that is incineration at an existing municipal
facility. This has been successfully accomplished in the past,
and can be utilized in the future as long as a facility can handle

the types of wastes generated during spill cleanup operations and
meet emission standards. The State of Maine is successfully
utilizing this approach at the City of Auburn incinerator. This
is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Of the vari ous municipal incinerators in place in New Hampshire,
Consummat units appear to have the basic characteristics required
to handle oily debris (see Chapter 3 for their location in New
Hampshire). These units are dual chamber types. Debri s is
introduced into one end of the lower,"primary chamber where it is
slowly moved via reciprocating rams to the far end. This process
takes around 8 hours. While moving through the lower chamber, the
debris is "cooked" at a temperature around 12000 F. Very little
air is introduced in the lower chamber creating oxygen starvation
and incomplete combustion of gases.. These gases ri se to the
upper, oxygen-rich chamber where the temperature is around 17000F,
and final combustion takes place.

The Consummat units are highly successful at burning off particu-
late matter and could be utilized for combustion of' oil-soaked
debris if the debris were mixed with municipal refuse. This would
help lower the overall BTU of the waste stream, ensuring satisfac-
tory usage of the units.

Landspreading

Landspreading of oily wastes is an acceptable and proven method of
disposal. It has been uti-lized mainly in the Southern United
States, but has also been successful in colder. regions of the
country. It involves the application of the wastes (liquid and
solid) directly to the soil in amounts determined through past.
research. The wastes are then dissipated by biodegradation and
evaporation. The aerobic microbes present in the upper soil
horizons utilize the hydrocarbons as a carbon source to produce
new cells, thus breaking down the oil present in the wastes.
Aeration of the upper soil layer through continual cultivation
enhances biodegradation as does the addition of nutrients through
the use of fertilizers. The end products of this natural process
are carbon dioxide, water and increased humus content.

New Hampshire's climate and rainfall conditions would limit
landfarming to a five-month period from May through September.
This would decrease the volume of debris that could be disposed in
a warmer climate, thus n-ecessitating a larger area.

Landf armi ng i s appl i cabl e to both sol i d debri s and contami nated
1 i qui ds. It i s I i mi ted- to materi al 1 ess th an f i ve to si x i nches
in diameter in order to adequately mix it with the topsoil during
cultivation. Larger pieces of material would either have to be
reduced in size or disposed in a secure landfill site.

The land area required for disposal by landspreading depends on
the volume of debris. and its concentration of oil. About 23
square f eet of 1 and per -gal I on of oi 1 i s requi red f or I andspread-
ing. Since oil-soaked debris usually accounts for up to 20
percent of the oil spilled, about two to four acres of landwill
handle the saturated debris for a spill the size of the New
Concord.

Preparation of a site for landfarming involves assuring proper
access f or cultivation equipment and transport vehicles. At the
site all rock, logs and other hard materials larger than 6 inches
in diameter and any brush should be removed. The soil is scari-
fi ed to a depth of 2 to 4 i nches. It is usually necessary to
construct a berm, and/or develop diversionary drainage around the
site.

Disposal of oil-soaked debris by landspreading involves five basic
steps: site cleanup; receipt of debris; spreading; drying and
mixing with soil; periodic recultivation; and return of the land
to its original use.

Once the debris is received, it is preferable to spread it immedi-
ately to avoid double handling. If this is not possible, then
stockpiling near the disposal site using a bermed and impermeable
area to prevent runoff or infiltration of the oil will be neces-
sary.

Spreading and mixing of the debris with soil will expose the oil
to oxygen and microorganisms in the soil. The debris will be
spread i n thi n 1 ayers and al 1 owed to weather unti 1 the soi I i s no
1 onger moi st or sti cky. Mixing of the oil-soaked debris to a
depth of 2 to 4 i nches i s done uti 1 i zi ng I ocal 1 y avai 1 abl e equi p-
ment such as a rototiller or a tracked vehicle. Proper mixing is
accomplished when the oil dispersed in the soil is no longer
visible and there is no ponding of oil or water.

Subsequent remixing of the site is done periodically until the oil
i s degraded. This can be done by visual inspection. In cold
climates this process may take up to three growing seasons. Once
the mixing is completed, the site should look like recently plowed
farmland with evidence of the disposal removed. After usi ng a
plot for disposal of oil-soaked debris by landspreading, it can be
revegetated with rye grass, etc. and converted to other uses o,r
kept available for further oil spill contingency use. One problem

is that vegetation grown on a landfarming site should not be used
for animal or human consumption because of potential trace metal
contamination.

Another problem with this methodology at the present time is the
lack of empirical data pertaining to site operations in colder
climates. In the state of Vermont, the municipal sani-tary land-
fill in Bristol has been designated as an acceptable landfarming
site for oil saturated debris. Other sites may be developed in
the state for landspreading within the near future. This site is
not available for disposal by other states. However, the success
of this program should be of interest to the State of New Hamp-
shire for future possible landspreading in-state. Contact with
Vermont can be made through:

Mr. Richard Valentinetti
Air and Solid Waste Division
.Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
828-3395.

Landfilling

In the landfilling disposal process, oily wastes are placed on
land, usually above ground to ensure ground-water protection and
allow for detection of any leakage. The technique is anaerobic in
nature and does not result in biodegradation of the wastes. The
wastes are best applied in a solid form to eliminate hydraulic
pressure effects.

Landfilling is conducted on a natural clay or silty clay liner
,,with provisions for a leachate collection system. The clay should
be of sufficient dep@h to inhibit migration with a permeability no
greater than 1x1O- cm/sec. Separation from the water table
should be at least five feet.

A perimeter runoff diversion ditch is constructed to intercept
surface runoff and prevent it from flowing onto the landfill area.
To protect the ground water, a leachate under-drain and collection
system is installed, which would include a storage/monitoring
lagoon constructed of clay berms and a liner. Further protection
is provided by a series of monitoring wells located at various
points. Figure 6 shows a typical cross-section' of a landfill
site.

Oil Spill Debris Layer Intermediate Soil Cover
(2' to 4' Typ.) (6' to 12" Typ.)
Final Clay Soil
Surface Sloped Cover (12" to 36")
(2% to 3%)

Berm Constructed 2-ft. Clay or Mem-
of Fine-Grained Soil
brane Liner

Locate on fine-grained, Underdrains to Leachate
poorly-drained native Collection System
soils with a minimum of
10 ft. of overburden

FIGURE 6. Cross-section of typical landfilling site.

Landfilling could take place at a local or regional sanitary
landfill site, providing the clay and ground-water conditions
could be met. It is the least costly disposal method currently
available, yet it presents the greatest possibility for environ-
mental degradation due to the longterm nature of the presence of
hydrocarbons at the site.

The final location of any landfilling site should adhere to the
guidelines presented in Appendix A for the stockpiling sites, and
in Section 1803.5-1 of the State of New Hamsphire's Oil and
Hazardous Material Pollution Contingency Plan (1980).

Landfilling with Refuse

This process follows the same technical and site guidelines of
above-ground landfilling except that it takes place at a secure
landfill site where the oily debris is mixed in with the daily
refuse. The literature indicates that the refuse acts. as an
absorptive agent, further preventing downward migration of the oil
assuming an adequate impermeable cover is in place.

There are a number of potential problems that may arise if this
method is utilized. First, if the landfill operator does not keep
the general area covered daily with fine-grained material, the
chances of downward oil migration increase.

Another problem is the possibility of refuse/oil ignition. This
potential decreases over time but still remains. Any equi pment
operating - in the ref use/debri s area would need proper spark
arrestors or exhaust pipes.

This method offers a minimum of site development costs if the
other site criteria are presently being met at the site.. Typical-
ly, however, this is not the case, since the majority of landfills
are not constructed in very satisfactory soil/water table condi-
tions. Also, the State of New Hamsphire/EPA guidelines for land
disposal of oily wastes recommend not mixing refuse with debris.

ASSESSMENT OF
DISPOSAL METHODS

Table 9 summarizes the basic characteristics,, as well, as a rough
unit cost, for the various disposal methods. No disposal manage-
ment program can rely on just one method due to the variability of
oil spill debris. Purposefully left out of this table and ensuing
discussion is the disposal of contaminated liquids. This is
because there are no options to assess for this element of a
di sposal program. Li qui ds need separati on. Separators currently
exist. The only issue warranting consideration is whether this
can be accomplished in or out-of-state. This subject is addressed
in Chapter 3.

TABLE 9. Summary of oil spill debris disposal methods.

Operational Factors
Method Physical Site Needs Equipment Needs Flexibility Environmental Factors Estimated Costs

Incineration --Loading area --Front-end --Stockpiling is --Air emission controls S15-S30 per ton
loader necessary necessary to meet
--Can use exist- standards
ing facilities --Removes over 80% of
debris from waste
stream thereby reduc-
inc overall environ-
mental threat.

Landspread- --Runoff collection --Tractor --Adaptable to --Minimal hazards if run- $8415 per c.y.
ing system --Rototiller, many areas off controlled ' (not incTuding
--Monitoring wells disc, harrow, --Requires no --No danaer to ground cost to construct
--Possible li@uid or plow special skills water access roads, if
storaue tanks --Access road --No spontaneous com- any)
may be req'd. bustion problems
--Land may be tied up
for disposal only
temporarily (2-3 yrs.)

Landfilling --Leachate collection -Use equipment --For relatively --Improper landfill loca- 53-S6 per cu. yd.
with refuse and treatment available at small volumes tion may cause undue
--Protective clay landfill;gene- of debris most threat of oil,pollution
liner rally a 0-6 landfills can --Refuse can act as sor-
--Perimeter runoff track dozer readily accept bent to impede flow of
systern or.larger --Many landfills oil and contaminated
--Runoff collection available water from site
system --Stockpil.inct --Possibility of spon-
--Monitoring wells usually un- taneous combustion
necessary --Continuous long-term
dedication of land to
waste disposal

Landfilling --Impervious dikes D-8 sized --Stockpiling may --Oil --.qill reamin unde- $3-$10 per cu.yd.
(above- --Clay liner tractor or be necessary graded at site.for (not-including cost
ground --Leachate collection larger. --Access road may more than 100 years to construct access
burial) and treatment --I backhoe may be required --A plot of land, here- road, if any)
--Monitoring be necessary tofore unused for
waste disposal, will
be dedicated for such
long-term usage

An effective disposal management program would deal with oil spill
debris based on its different disposal characteristics. This
means that a disposal method would be made available depending on
whether the material was liquid, solid combustibles or solid non-
combustibles.

The key to this approach is the presence of a stora
.,ge/stockpi 1 i ng
area where the debris can be separated into the different waste
streams. Once separation has taken place, the choice of disposal
becomes more apparent.

Combustible debris should be -disposed of through incineration.
Non-combusti bl es requi re use of an acceptable land-disposal
method: landfarming, 1 andf i 11 i ng with refuse, and burial.
Landfarming offers the most complete disposal for debris less than
6 inches in diameter. However, due to the 1 ack of concrete data
for New Hampshire's climate, the Center feels that this method
should be shelved in the short term. The most acceptable method
for land disposal of non-combustible solids then becomes above-
ground landfilling (not with refuse). To meet these objectives,
the Center has based their recommended disposal plan presented in
Chapter 5 on the following program approach-

1. During cleanup operations:

(a) minimize the volume of debris through adher-
ence to sound harvesting techniques;

(b) recover as much oil on site through the use of
skimmers and skimmer attachments on vacuum
trucks; and

2. Provide for storage of oil-soaked solids at an engineer-
ed, single-purpose, debris stockpiling site.

3. Provide for contaminated liquid storage.
4. Dispose of contaminated 1 i qui ds through oil/water lit
separation.

5. Incinerate combustibles.

6. Dispose of non-combustible solids by landfilling at a
secure landfill site.

MEETING
NEW HAMPSHIRE"S
NEEDS

30
Meeting
New Ha Pshire's
Needs

Designing a management program to meet the oil spill debris
disposal needs for New Hampshire is a function of a number of
vari abl es. These are: development of an estimated volume around
which specific facilities can then be designed; defi nition of the
technical and facilitative requirements necessary to meet the need
of the design volume; and finally, assessment of the adequacy of
both in-state and out-of-state facilities, where they exist, to
handle the disposal requirements in a manner which reflects the
current recommended methods of oil spill debris disposal as
outlined in Chapter 2.

The establishment of these basic facts lays the ground work from
which final program design begins. Since one of the financial
goals of a program of this type is to utilize existing facilities
.wherever possible as a means of lowering costs, the assessment
portion is a critical one. Once the available resources are
determined, costs for adapting existing facilities and/or develop-
ing completely new facilities can be developed.

This chapter, then, lays this essential ground work. Included are
a discussion of the design volume, a description of the facilita-
tive requirements, an assessment of in- and out-of-state capabili-
ties to handle debris disposal, and, in conclusion, an assessment
of the ability of the State to meet its disposal needs within its
borders.

HOW MUCH DEBRIS:
THETARGETVOLUME

There are two distinct types of oily debris disposal situations
that the state of New Hampshire has to address through its manage-
ment program. The first is the chronic, small spill that occurs
every year i n the state. These spills, if cleaned up, require
little, if any, storage and handling and can be successfully
hauled out of state for disposal or buried at a nearby secure
landfill site.

The second, more complicated situation is the large, single event
spill like the New Concord. Spills of this size severely tax the
existing cleanup mechanisms available in the State and present an
entirely different scenario to-the cleanup coordinator responsible
for spill management. The large volumes of contaminated iI i qui ds
and oil-soaked debris require a degree of labor, equipment, and
available storage and disposal sites that dwarf the requirements
of the chronic, small spill.

During this study, the Center estimated the minimum amount of oil
debris per year that can be expected to be generated in the state.
An estimate was also made of the debris that could be expected
from the total loss of a 35,000 DWT ship loaded with heavy oil
(see Chapter 1). It is obvious that planning for a spill event of
this size would be unrealistic due to the capital investment that
would be required to develop the necessary storage and disposal
facilities and the low frequency of occurrence of this scale of
event. There is, however, a more realistic volume that lies
somewhere between the average annual debris estimate and the large
spill event. The Center has called this the "target volume." It
reflects our best estimate of a workable figure around which the
state should develop its management program. This volume provides
the capacity for the expected yearly volumes as well as a spill
the si ze of the New Concord. The respective volumes of these
three scenari os are summari zed bel ow i n Tabl e 10.

In developing a program to manage these spill scenarios one must
be aware of their inherent differences relative to storage and
disposal. Whereas there may be enough existing capacity to handle
storage and disposal of the smaller spills, the larger spill will
require either: (a) total reliance on out-of-state disposal; (b)
development of new or retrofitted storage and disposal facilities
in-state; or (c) a mix of in-state and out-of-state disposal.

TABLE 10. Estimated Oil Spill Debris Scenarios in New Hampshire.

Annual Large Spill Target
Item Minimum Event Volume

Contaminated water 6,041 gal. 4,620,000 gal. 75,000 gal.
Combustible debris 1,098,cu.yd. 840,000 cu.yd. 12,000 cu.yd.
Non-combustible
debris 40 cu.yd. 33,600 cu.yd. 3,000 cu.yd.

TABLE 11. Summary of Facility-Site Requirements for Oily Wastes
Di sposal of the Target Vol umes i n New Hampshi re.

Di sposal Methodol ogy Faci I i ty/Si te Requi rements

Storage of contaminated liquids 75,000 gallons (one tank)

Oil/water separation 400 gpm vertical tube
coal esci ng separator
1/2 acre site
Storage tanks (100,000 gals.)

Solids stockpiling site 2 to 2 1/2 acre site
Primary containment
Clay lined
Surface runoff collection and
treatment
API oil recovery unit

Incineration 30 to 50 ton/day unit modified
to handle oily waste
1/2 acre site

Landfilling 1 to 2 acre site
Clay berms
Leachate collection and treat-
ment
Runof f di versi on

The choice between these three debris management options will be
based on a combination of economics, technical feasibility, and
applicability to the average and target volumes.

WHAT IS REQUIRED?

Table 11 summarizes the facility/site requiremen ts necessary to
handle the target volume. This summary assumes no existing
facilities; it is just a theoretical estimate on what is needed
for disposal. In the ideal scenario, one site would be developed
that would incorporate all these storage/disposal methodologies,
be centrally located to the coastal area and accessible by both
highway and railroad. Due to economi c, 1 egal , si te, and pol i ti cal
constraints, however, this "ideal" scenario is practi6lly un-
attainable. A more scaled-down approach would locate each metho-
dology at existing facilities within the State and, when otherwise
not feasible, transport wastes out of state to an approved oily
wastes disposal facility.

Contaminated Liquids

This is a straightforward situation. The target volume estimate
is for 75,000 gallons of contaminated liquids. This could easily
be handled by a standard tank similar to those used at any oil
termi nal . There would be a need for space for vehicle entrance
and movement, piping, a buffer zone, and fencing. A one-half acre
site could easily handle these requirements.

Oil/Water Separation

In order to meet the Federal discharge requirement of 1 5 mg/l of
oil, a coalescing type oil/water separator would be required. A
uni t wi th a capaci ty of 400 gpm woul d be capabl e of handl i ng the
75,000 gallons of contaminated liquids. Storage tanks would be
required to hold the liquids for gradual release into the separa-
tor. A total of one-half acre of land would technically be
required for access of vehicles, a buffer strip, operations
building and fencing.

Solids Storage

Assuming a 4 1/2-foot depth of solid s stockpiling, the 15,000 yd3
of estimated oiled solids would require 2.0 acres. In order to
allow for the movement and access of vehicles and the construction
.of the other required elements, a total of 2.5 to 3 acres would be
required.

The ideal site for this 'activity would include a primary and
secondary clay containment system, facility runoff lagoon,
oil/water separator, API oil-recovery unit, operations structures,
and monitoring wells.

incineration

Environmentally safe incineration of oily wastes can be handled at
some existing municipal incinerators if mixed with the municipal
waste to allow for proper feeding of the was 'te stream as well as
the lowering of the high BTUs associated with straight burning of
oily combustibles. This procedure i's being followed at the
Auburn, Maine incinerator in the disposal of spill debris in that
state.

One 30- to 50-ton/day incinerator (such as a Consummat) could
handle the combustibles from the estimated spill volume. It would
take at least two weeks to handle all the burnables associated
with such a spill, which is where the storage of solids plays an
important role.

A half-acre site would be required for the incinerator, access
road, handling area and a small amount of lined storage.

Landfilling

There will necessarily be some oily solids as well as the ash by-
products from incineration that cannot be disposed through incine-
ration or landfarming. These wastes will require burial, prefer-
ably above ground where monitoring can easily be undertaken, in a
secure landfill site that meets the site criteria presented in
Chapter 2.

It is estimated that a 1- to 2-acre site would be adequate for the
buri al of the non-combusti bl es and ash as estimated i n the target
volume. It could also handle the average annual volume for a long
period of time until a larger spill is experienced. It is assumed
that 1 andf i 11 i ng woul d take pl ace at an exi sti ng 1 andf i I I , whi ch
would not require the necessary access roads and buffer strips.
HANDLING THE TARGET,
VOLUME IN-STATE

Liquid Waste Storage

There are currently five locations in New Hampshire where contami -
nated oil could be stored following spill cleanup operations.
These are:

C. H. Sprague Company (formerly ATC)
Old Dover Road
Newington, New Hampshire

Atlantic Termi nal has a 5,000-barrel product tank (200,000
gallons) that might be available for storage pending
corporate approval. There is also a 12,000-barrel
(500,000 gallons) tank, previously. designated for waste
oil storage, that is currently mothballed. The tank might
be useable in an emergency spill operation pending inves-
tigation of the tank's structural integrity.

Mobil Oil Corporation
Newington, New Hampshire

-- 5,000-gallon storage available

Jackson Waste Oil Company
Piermont, New Hampshire

Jackson has approximately 50,000-gallon storage in their
existing tanks and access to 40,000 gallons for a total
storage capacity of 90,000 gallons. The , storage is
currently utilized for Jackson's own products but it could
be made available during a spill event depending on the
utilization of the tanks at the time. An approximate cost
for storage at this facility would be five cents per
gallon if stored over six months.

Beede Waste Oil Corporation
Kelley Road
Plaistow, New Hampshire

Beede Corporation has storage for waste oil. However,
i niti al contact with company representatives did not
reveal the total amount.

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

-- The shipyard has a 1,386,000-barrel capacity for recovered
Ab oil .

There i s obvi ously a consi derabl e vol ume of storage i n the exi st-
i ng oi I terMi nal s I ocated wi thi n the study regi on. However, this
storage volume is dedicated totally to day-to-day storage and
transfer of products at these terminals, making this volume
unavailable for storage of contaminated liquids.

Oil/Water Separation

There are no licensed oil/water separators in New Hampshire that
are approved to dispose of the contaminated liquids from an oi,l
spill. There are, however, three separators currently in use at
C.H. Sprague's terminal in Newington (formerly ATC). One, a Wemco
0 unit, has a 200 gpm through-volume capacity and, according to
George Pennock, Sprague's Environmental Engineer, might be able to
handle separation of certain contaminated spill waters. Use of
the separators would require:

a. Further negotiations between C.H. Sprague and the State
of New Hampshire.

b. Alteration of C.H. Sprague's NPOES permit.

C. Lab tests of the spill water to see if they are accept-
able to the unit.

Use of this separator is a future possibility for certain spills,
but could not be relied upon for an in-state program due to the
uncertai nti es i nvol ved.-

Emergency Storage Sites

This is a new concept proposed for this study. Therefore, emer-
gency sites as discussed in Chapter 2 would require locatio In and
subsequent review and approval by the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management. When applicable, approvals by relevant municipal
boards and officials will be required.

The Center did conduct a short site location study to prelimi-
narily establish some sites within the coastal zone. Three sites
were identified after careful review of soils and ground-water
data for the area. Contact was made with the persons responsible
for the land to request their ' tentative approval for use of the
site(s). These sites are shown in Figure 7 and discussed below.
Their use is included in the Recommended Plan (Chapter 5).
Recommended site location methods to secure their use are present-
ed in Chapter 6.

Site 1: C.H. Sprague diked area, Newington.

Site 1 is approximately 1.5 acres in size. It has a I arge peri -
meter dike and a smaller intermediate dike and is located at C.H.
Sprague's Newington storage facility on the Piscataqua River, near
the General Sullivan Bridge. The soils in this area are Buxton
silt loams; marine soils that are moderately well-drained and
consist of an upper layer of silt loam over a silty clay. Depth
to bedrock is typically greater than six feet and seasonal high.
water table is between 1.5 and 2 feet. The site is not near any
public water supply and is a long distance from the closest
identified aquifer at Pease Air Force Base.

The site is presently unused and, according to Wesley Hallowell,
C.H. Sprague representative, it has no near-term proposed usage
and could be utilized for an emergency site as long as local
approval occurs. The contact for this site is:

Wesl ey Hal 1 owel 1
Terminal Division
C.H. Sprague Company
290 Gosling Road
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
436-4120

R L NSF'

D 0 -V

M A D 9 U R Y

Emergency Storage Site 1

P U H A
Emergency Storage Site 2
k
a w 1

J
T'

N E W M A R P 0 A
N,

E w F L 0 3 G R E\,F PI N 0. A

3 T 0 A T M A M
WC. CO

E x C T I
0 R T N

ft P 0

ISLES OF
SHOALS

A N P T 0 N

I A V T
F A 3 Emergency Storage Site 3

9 It A 0 0 K

FIGURE 7. Location of Emergency Stockpiling Sites.
53
0

This' site is ideally situated for its intended use, since it
satisfies all the recommended siting criteria. Use of the area
for emergency purposes will require some partial hay-bale diking
to prevent oil from migrating into the unused portions of the
site.

Site 2: Public Service Company diked area, Portsmouth.

*Site 2 is located within the diked area for No. 1 tank of Public
Service Company's storage tanks for their Newington Station power
plant.

The area adjoins the Schiller Station. It has an area of approxi-
mately 0.5+ acre adjoining the tanks that can be utilized for
emergency storage. The contact person at Public Service Company
is:

Warren Harvey, Vice President
Production and Power Supply
Public Service Company of New Hampshire
Manchester, New Hampshire
669-4000

Mr. Harvey indicated that he would inform his personnel of the
potential use of this site. In the event of a spill , the State
OSC would call the above number and ask for the Dispatcher to find
out the status of the site and gain entry.

There are no soils information for this site available from the
Soil Conservation Service. A check should be made with Public
Service to see if they have any available soils information.
There are four monitoring wells above the area and four water
supply wells used for makeup water at the Schiller Station plant.
Hydraulically, these sites probably are not connected. The
monitoring wells would provide a warning if necessary. In all
other respects, the site satisfies the siting criteria. It is
easily accessible by heavy equipment and is already diked. It is
close to the Piscataqua River, but use of a liner should easily
protect it.

Site 3: Public Service Company'-, Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.

This site is also under Mr. Harvey's jurisdiction. He indicated
that the construction parking lot could be made available for an
emergency site as well as other unused land at the facility. The
actual amount of land available is unknown. The soils in this
area are typically fine sandy loams overlying more coarse sands
and gravels. There are, however, a number of pockets of Elmwood
soils which are less well-drained and overlie silts and clays.
Any soils information available at Public Service should be
checked. If at all possible, any storage site should be located
on the poorly drained Elmwood soils, since any break in the
integrity of -the liner could cause rapid migration of oil in the
highly permeable soils that predominate. There are no major
aquifers at this site and no public wells close by.

Alternative Sites

V
There are five other possible sites that have been field-checked
and -offer the possibility for emergency storage during a large
spill event if the above-mentioned site@ are not available.; The
following three sites are under ownership of the New Hampshire
Department of Resource and Economic Development.

(a) Fort Stark, New Castle

There is a 0.5+ acre flat area at the entrance to the facility
that could be utilized. The access road is through a private road
and would require local approval.

(b) Wallis Sands Beach State Park, Rye

The parking lot is large and could easily be utilized if needed,
especially during the 9-month offseason.

(c)--Hampton Beach State Park, Hampton

The parking lot is in excess of 30 acres and would offer an
important storage site in the event that oil was spilled or spread
this far south.

(d) Pierce Island

The fourth site is Pierce Island in the Piscataqua River and is
owned by the City of Portsmouth. There are two small locations on
the i sl and: the parking lot for Four Tree Island, and a small
0.25 acre site on the right before the treatment plant. Use of
this facility would require negotiations with the City of Ports-
mouth through Cal Canney, the City Manager.

(e) Near Hilton Park

The fifth site is the area on the south side of Hilton Park which
is under the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire Department of
Public Works and Highways. This site has been used for similar
oil cleanup purposes in the' past. The soils are silt loams. The
site offers an accessible location and should be considered as a
strong al ternati ve.

Other Possibilities

The list of proposed sites is by no means exhaustive. The sites
are the best that could be identified and visited within the time
and budget constraints of this study. There are numerous other
public-owned (State and local) areas throughout the coastal region
that could be utilized as well. Any of the existing sanitary
landfills identified in the section could be used for emergency
storage. These sites are listed in Table 12. Also, the Rights-
of-Way Division of the Department of Public Works and Highways is
developing a list of rights-of-way and maintenance yards that
might warrant consideration as emergency stockpiling sites. The
sites proposed should suffice as long as all the approval and
agreements can be worked out and the site criteria are met. The
emergency storage site location guidelines in Appendix D should be
followed in the location of other sites if necessary:

Long-Term Storage Sites

Because of its relative newness in the field of oil spill debris
management, long-term storage sites have not been developed in the
State of New Hampshire. The Center investigated a number of sites
during this study that offer strong possibilities for use as
storage sites. The investigations were brief consisting of a

TABLE 12. Municipal Waste Disposal Facilities in Rockingham and Stafford Counties.

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY

Tons/Yr
Owner- Oper. Type of Facility Estimated
City/Town ship By SLF 00 TP BD RR INC Waste Gen. Remarks

Atkinson Private Private X 2,270 Uses Pvt SLF in Hampstead
Auburn Public Public X X 1,810 INC Bldg up. INC in place
Brentwood 1,280 Uses Kingston Landfill
Candia Public Public X X 1,850 OD not closed
Chester Public Public X X 1,370
Danville 840 Uses Kingston Landfill
Deerfield Public Publ I c X X 1,170
Derry Public Public X X 18,400 Brush dump approval 12/31/79
E. Kingston 710 Uses Kingston Landfill
Epping Public Public X X 1,850 Going w/Lamprey River Regional
Exeter Private Private X X 11,630 Under orders
Fremont Public Public 910 Uses Kingston Landfill
Greenland Public Public X 1,470 Durham-UNH Project
Hampstead Public Public X X 2,560 Uses Pvt SLF In Hampstead
Hampton Public Public X X 10,300 Under orders
Hampton Falls Public Public X X 1,030
Kensington Public Public X X 2,860
Londonderry Private Private X X 13,050
New Castle 640 Uses New Hampton Landfill
Newfields 610 Uses Newmarket Facilities
Newington 450 Uses North Hampton Landfill
Ah Newmarket Public- Public X X 2,530 Brush dump approval. 12/31/79
Going w/Lamprey River Regional
A Newton Public Public X 2,150 Uses Kingston Landfill
N. Hampton Pri-jate Private X X 2,520 Coakley Pit (Newington)
Northwood Public Public X 1,350 TP being built
iottingham Public Public X X X 1,010 Durham-UNH Project
Plaistow Public Public X X 6,200
Portsmouth 24,350 Uses N. Hampton Landfill
Raymond Public Public X 3,350
Rye Public Public X X X 3,200
Salem Public Public X X 28,400 Under orders
Sandown Public Public X X 1,090
Seabrook Public Public X 6,000 TP to SCA Serviceti Amesbury
S. Hampton 480 Uses Newton
Stratham Public Public X X 1,500 Durham-UNH Project
Windham Public Public X X 3,470

STRAFFORD COUNTY

Barrington Public Public X 2,560 Durham-UNH Project
Dover Public Public X X X 25,200 Voluntary Recycling
Going to Turnkey LF, Rochester
Durham Public Public X X X 3,420 Refuse to Energy Project w/UNH
and 12 towns
Farmington Public Public X X 2,900
Lee Public Public X X X 1,350 Uses Kingston Landfill
Durham-UNH Project eventually
Madbury 600 Durham-UNH Project
Middleton 430 Uses Wakefield Facilities
Milton Public Public X X 1,620 00 not closed
New Durham Public Public X X X 760
Rochester Public Public X X 22,300 Under order
Going to Turnkey LF, Rochester
Rollinsford Public Public X X 1,630 OD not closed
Somersworth Public Public X X 11,400 TP authorized 5/10/78
Strafford Public Public X X 1,000 - Durham-UNH Project

KEY:

SLF = Sanitary Landfill; 00 = Open Dump; INC =.Ificinerator; BD = Brush Dump; RR = Resource Recovery
TP = Transfer Point

Source: New Hampshire Bureau of Solid Waste Management.

review of existing soils and ground-water data for each site and a
site visit. In order to develop these sites, more detailed
studies would be required and local and State approval would have
to be sought. The sites are described below: -

(a) C.H. Sprague's diked area in Newington (Emergency
Storage Site 1). Though smaller than the recommended
size, this site is a good candidate due to its ease of
access, soil and ground-water conditions, present land
use, and the fact that it is about the right size and
already diked, which would substantially lower develop-
ment costs (a clay liner would still be required). Wes
Hallowell indicated that C.H. Sprague might consider
leasing-the site for use as a storage/ stockpi 1 i ng site
as long as they maintain ownership for posstble future
uses. He suggested that a proposal for its use be made
to the company by the State to start discussions on the
subject. Some preliminary site investigation consisting
of soil borings and a site overview would be necessary
to ascertain if the site is worth further study.

(b) Turnkey Landfill of Rochester. Discussion with Pat
Banfield of Turnkey revealed that he would make a small
site available for storage/stockpiling in the existing
site or the proposed new site that is presently under
engineering stuides. Mr. Banfield would lease the site
to the state or the oil companies, who would be respon-
sible for site development costs and permit approval
from the Bureau of Solid Waste Management and the City
of Rochester.

This site 'has clay available which would lower the
devel opment costs. It is relatively accessible, but
slightly out of the project area, and would require
longer transportation to and from the site than a more
centrally located one such as the Sprague site. It is a
strong candidate due to its location on a site presently
in use for disposal purposes.

(c) New Hampshire Urban Forestry Center,. Portsmouth. Th e
Urban Forestry Center is a large piece of land (160
acres) bordered by Route 1 and Elwyn Road in Portsmouth 9
and under ownership of the Department of Resource and
Economic Development. It'is centrally accessible to the
major areas of concern and could be developed in such a
way that it would be out of view from local traffic. A
major portion of the site is underlain by @and and
gravel deposits which are not the preferred soils.
However, there are areas of fine sandy loams and some
silty clays indicated on the old Soil Conservation

Service soil maps. These areas may be suitable for site
location. The site development costs w 'ould be signifi-
cant here because of the clearing, site preparation, and
road development that would be necessary. Also, public
and State response to such a proposal may be negative.
It should not be discounted as a possibi-lity, however.

There are obviously other candidate sites that could be consider-
ed. The Bureau of Solid Waste Management feels that there are
four other landfill sites that might qualify. These are:

1. Madbury: town special-purpose landfill (possible
ai-q-F-fer recharge area)

2. Newmarket: town special-purpose landfill (former
T
sani 'tary @ andf i I I

3. North Hampton: Coakl ey pi t (pri vate I andf i 11

4.. Exeter: town sanitary landfill (secure landfill with
groundwater monitoring in possible aquifer recharge
area)

0 Other, options are the small State-owned rights-of-ways that are
the property of the Highway Dept. The Rights-of-Way Division is
presently developing a list of all parcels greater than two acres
that may be available for this purpose.

One possibility for site location that was investigated was Pease
Air Force Base in Newington. Correspondence was sent to the Base
Commander, Colonel Lloyd A. Brown, describing the project and the
storage/stockpiling concept,. Colonel Brown responded that:

"Unfortubately, this base does not have any facilities
that could be used for this purpose. Our defense
mission requirements are such that we already are
using all available resources on this base that would
be suitable for the purposes you propose. Even if
this were not the case, it is doubtful we could assist
you. Present guidance restricts use of our base
property for storage of waste to that generated by th -e
installation itself. I am sure you can understand'
this restriction when you examine the sensitive nature
of our mission and the large number of military
families that reside on Pease."

if none of these candidate sites are suitable, then further site
10 cation studies would be necessary. A review of the soil types
in the study region shows that there are a number of soil groups
that satisfy the surficial geology criteria for the location of
59

stockpiling, landfarming, or burial sites. These soil types are:

Bi ddef ord si 1 ty cl ay 1 oam
Bel grade si 1 t 1 oam
Buxton silt loam
Elmwood fine sandy loam
Raynham silt loam
Scitico silt loam
Suffield silt loam
Swanton fine sandy loam
Whatley fine sandy loam

These soil types are typically underlain by deep marine and
lacustrine deposits scattered throughout the study region and
would provide the required natural barrier to outward oil migra-
tion.

Incineration

Table 13 lists the location and type of existing public and
private municipal incinerators in the State. Due to the high BTUs
associated with combustible oily wastes, most municipal incinera-
tors would not be able to handle their combustion. An exception
to this are the Consumat Units. These incinerators could handle
oily waste through minor modificaion of the units, specifically by
mixing the oily waste into the municipal waste stream. The units
are heavier duty than other commercial units currently in use
throughout the State.

TABLE 13. Location of Incinerators in New Hampshire.

No. of Owner- Suitable for
Town Incinerators Type ship Oily Waste?

Meredith 2 Kelley Public No
Wolfeboro 2, Kelley Public with Mod.
Northumberland 1 Env. Con- Private No
trol Prod.
Bridgewater 1 Kelley Public No
Plymouth 1 Combus- Publ i c No
tion Eng.
Litchfield 1 Consumat Public with Mod.
Pelham 2 Comtro. Publ i c No
Wilton 1 Consumat Public with Mod.
Canterbury 1@ Kelley Public No
Pittsfield 1 Kelley Public No
Sutton 1 Kelley Public No
Auburn 1 Kelley, Public No
Candia 1 Kelley Public No
Hampton Falls 1 Keewanee Public No
Nottingham 1 Kelley Public No
Windham 1 Comp..Eng. Public No
Du rh.am 3 Consumat Regional Yes
(Lamprey)
Portsmouth* 4 Consumat Yes

*Under planning and construction

Source: Personal Communication with New Hampshire Air Resources
Agency, 1981.

The two most promising Consumat installations that are centrally
located are the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative at the
University of New Hamshire and the City of Portsmouth units
46 currently under construction at Pease Air Force Base. A discus-
sion of these installations is presented below.

(a) Lamprey Regional Units

The Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative currently has three,
36 tons per day, Consumat, bi-level type units installed adjoining
the power plant at the University of New Hampshire in Durham.' Two
units are currently being used with the third on stand-by. At the
present time, the capacity is being utilized by the existing waste
stream from the surrounding communities.

There is a tipping floor that measures 110 feet by 40 feet by 36
feet high with a central drain that goes to the municipal treat-
ment pl ant. There is no storage area other than the tipping
floor. A front-end loader is on hand to load the solid waste.

The Lamprey units recently incinerated spill debris from a spill
off the Massachusetts coast. Subsequent testing. indicated that
the units could handle future incineration of oily-debris at a
rate of approximately 12 tons/day.

The hydraulic loading capacity for the system is designed for two
units and one boiler. Lamprey is planning to add additional
hydraulic capacity, however, which would allow for use of all
three units. The steam is sold to the University of New Hampshire
whose heating plant adjoins the facility. Use of all three units
to handle oily debris would probably result in excess steam
generation which would have to be wasted.

The Lamprey facility appears to h.ave sufficient capacity to handle
the anticipated combustible waste stream in New Hampshire. Its
use will necessitate further negotiations between the State and
the Operations Committee, modification of their existing air
quality permit, adherence to certain technical requirements and
some form of cost-sharing. These issues are presented in Chapter
6 of this report.

City of Portsmouth Units

The City of Portsmouth is presently constructing four 50-ton/day
Consumat Units at Pease Air Force Base. The scheduled completion
date for the facility is July 1982. Discussion with Mr. Jack
Harrison of Global Development Engineering, Inc., Salem, Massachu-
setts, the designer of the project, indicated that these units

could handle oil spill debris. The only problem would b e storage,
since there is no available land at the site for the storage of
oil spill debris awaiting incineration. An incineration schedule
would have to be developed after spill debris has been stockpiled
at an appropriate site. Debris would then be loaded onto trucks
at the storage site and transferred to Pease for incineration when
scheduling allowed.
Contact was also made with Cal Canney, Portsmouth City Manager, to
discuss possible cooperation between the State and the City in the
development of oil spill debris incineration capabilities through
41 use of the City's new facility. Mr. Canney felt that an agreement
could be worked out if the State was willing to contribute to the
construction of their fo -urth unit. This would involve approxi-
mately $500,000 in State funds.

Landfilling

There are no approved sites for the landfilling of oil spill
debris in 'New Hampshire. Chapter 1 pointed out that disposal has
taken place at various landfills on a case-by-case basis and after
approval by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Guidelines for
debris disposal have been prepared by EPA in conjunction with the
BSWM and are included in the State's oil sp.ill contingency plan.

Two of the landfill sites where debris disposal has taken place ih
the past, and that offer the possibility for future utilization
are Turnkey Landfill of Rochester, Inc., and the Coakley landfill
site in Greenland. Both sites are also candidates for long-term
storage.

Turnkey Landfill of Rochester, Inc.: Thi s private landfill
currently operates a 65-acre si Tor-the disposal of municipal
solid wastes. They have handled oil spill debris in the past on a
case-by-case basis after receiving documentation of the components
of the spill material and a permit from the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management.

The soils at the site are Hinckley 1 oamy sands and Podunk fine
sandy loams. A three foot clay liner is being constructed and
ground-water monitoring is in place. These precautions should
allow for safe disposal of oil spill debris in the future, provid-
ing the clay layer remains intact and monitoring is continually
undertaken. Also, a leachate collection'system is being developed
to further secure the site.

However, there is one critical aspect of this site's location: it
is located within a ffajor aquifer identified in the Corps of
Engineers Southeastern New Hampshire Water Resources Study (March
1�81). The study estimated that the aquifer had a sustained yield
of 0.31 mgd and that it could be developed as a public water
supply if further testing revealed that: ta) the aquifer is
hydraulically connected to the Cocheco River, and (b) the Turnkey
site has not, and will not in the future, seriously impact the
water quality.

Further test borings would be necessary to determine these charac-
teristics of the aquifer. Before the State proceeded to use the
facility in the future, the site's hydraulic connection, if any,
to the underlying aquifer should be determined as well as the
existing water quality. If further study reveals that the site
does not pose a threat to the aquifer, or that the existing water
quality is not adequate for a public water supply, then use of the
Turnkey site for burial of oily wastes could be pursued.

Mr. Pat Banfield, owner of Turnkey, indicated that the site could
accept documented, solid oil-spill debris material in the future.
Turnkey is investigating the development of a large clay site and
is currently undertaking engineering studies. This type of site
would be more acceptable for oil spill debris disposal. Mr.
Banfield indicated that Turnkey might consider incorporating a
stockpiling site at the new clay site if the market for de 'bris
disposal.were there and/or an agreement could be worked out with
the State.

Coakley Landfill: The Coakley pit is owned by Ron Coakley and
located in the town of Greenland. As with Turnkey, this site is
located in a gravel pit; soils which are not usually considered
acceptable for spill debris disposal. With proper engineering,
however, they may be utilized.

Ron Coakley indicated that he has handled oil spill debris at his
site in the past. Spill debris from the New Concord spill intended
for temporary storage at the site was eventually covered and
buried, a practice often utilized in the case-by-case debris
disposal approach. Mr. Coakley indicated that he could set aside
the necessary 2 acres on this property in an area of 20 to 30 feet
of sandy loam overburden. He has clay available for a liner. 0

The Coakley pit is located approximately 3/4 mile and 1 1/2 miles
south of two identified aquifers. Recharge to both aquifers
appears to be a combination of precipitation and lateral ground-
water movement f rom the north. It appears that the site poses a
minimal threat to the water quality of these aquifers, especially
if ground-water flow through the pit is in a north to south
direction towards Hampton River. Use of this pit for storage

and/or ultimate. disposal would require further detailed site
investigation.

Aside from these two sites are the other areas suggested in the
preceding section on long-term storage. Since both landfilling
and storage require similar site investigations, one study could
identify a site or 'sites that are suitable for development if the
suggested areas prove unsuitable.

OUT-OF-STATE DISPOSAL

One apparently obvious solution to the disposal problem facing New
Hampshire is to utilize out@of-state resources. This has been
done quite frequently in the past. From a capital investment
standpoint it offers a low-cost alternative to the development of
-new facilities or modification of existing ones. However, there
are a number of constraints to this approach.

First, adjoining state's policies on the transportation and
disposal of oil spill debris may hinder utilization. Second,
transportation costs to out-of-state facilities may cancel any
benefits accrued from their utilization. Finally, the sheer
volume of debris involved in a large spill would make the logis-
tics of out-of-state disposal of solids highly improbable.
Therefore, planning for out-of-state disposal for the smaller.
spill volumes may leave the State unable to handle a larger spill
event in the future.

New England State Policies

Interviews were conducted with each New England State Is represen-
tatives responsible for managing oil and hazardous wastes. The
results of this survey are described in detail in Appendix F.

In general, all the states except for Maine were interested in a-
regional program for the disposal of oil spill debris since none
of them presently have complete in-state capabilities. No state
has an approved landfill site and follows the practice that has
been New Hampshire's mainstay: case-by-case disposal at municipal
and private landfill sites.

Massachusetts is the onTy state that has licensed oil/water
separation facilities that are approved to handle oil-contaminated
liquids. Maine and Connecticut are actively undertaking in-state
incineration; the others send their combustibles out-of-state.

Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island consider oily wastes as
hazardous. Massachusetts, through which transportation often
occurs, requires that oily wastes be hauled by a licensed hazar-
dous-waste dealer and have to be manifested. This significantly
increases the costs of out-of-state disposal to approved hazardous
waste facilities in New York and New Jersey.

The feeling of most states at the present*time is that they will
handle their own wastes in-state wherever possible with the
remaining wastes trucked out-of-state to licensed disposal facili-
ties.

An exception to this has occurred at the Capuano Brothers landfill
in Rhode Island. The state has authorized debris disposal from
Massachusetts on a case-by-case basis, and might consider similar
arrangements with the State of New Hampshire. This would require
negotiations between the New Hampshire and Rhode Island officials.
Again, transportation costs would be high due to the distance
involved and the requirements of Massachusetts. Further contact
gn use of this facility should be made with:

Department of Environmental Man-agement
Steve Fougere, Chief
Division of Enforcement
83 Park Street
Providence, Rhode Island
(401) 277-2284

Available Facilities

There are secure disposal options for contaminated liquids at any
of the licensed facilities in Massachusetts. Inci nerati on can 0
probably take place at the Auburn, Maine municipal incinerator,
assuming the necessary agreements between the State of New Hamp-
shire, City of Auburn, and State of Maine are established and a
storage site is -constructed in New Hampshire. There is a slight
possibility of utilizing the Capuano Brothers landfill in Crans-
ton, Rhode Island for ul ti mate di sposal . The, only other secure
landfill options are i n New Jersey or New York. Appendi x G
provides a more complete list of available hazardous waste facili-
ti es out-of -state.

One fi nal note. IT Corporation has proposed a multi-faceted
hazardous waste facility (with a secure landfill) for development
in Massachusetts. If constructed, the site would accept hazardous
waste from out-of-state. At the present time, local approval of a
site is being sought throughout the state. Massachusetts is a
home rule state, and approval of such a facility may be next to
impossible.

evaluation of existing disposal options

Table 14 summarizes the most obvious disposal options, both in-
and out-of-state, that have come to light. during the study.
Treatment of contaminated liquids and incineration of combustibles
are the best uses of out-of-state facilities. Both can be accom-
plished within a realistic transportation distance, and the
facilities are approved for oily debris disposal in their respec-
tive states.

TABLE 14. Summary of in-state and out-of-state disposal facilities.

Disposal Method In-State Facilities Out-of-State Facilities
oil/water separation --Some possibility.for --Recyling Industries
case-by-case at C.H. Braintree, Mass. 02184
Sprague's terminal (617)848-0612
in Nbwiftgton (former-
ly ATC)
--Jet Line Pollution
Control , Stoughton,
Mass. 02072
(617)843-2829

incineration --Lamprey Regional Solid --Auburn, Maine municipal
Waste Cooperative, incinerator
Durham

landfilling --Turnkey.Landfill of --Slight possibility at
Rochester Capuano Brothers in
Rhode Island (contact
--Coakley Pit, Green- Rhode Island Dept. of
land. Health).

--CECOS International, Inc.
P. 0. Box 619, Niagra
Falls, N.Y. 14302
(716)731-3238

--SCA Services
P. 0. Box 200
Model City, N.Y. 14107
67 (716)754-8231
0

Landfilling Out-of-state is the major roadblock. The New York
facilities are over 500 miles away, and use of the Rhode Island
facility is possible, yet questionable.

There are some definite options for a complete in-state program
that have become apparent through this study: i nci nerati on at
Lamprey, landfilling at Turnkey Landfill (or Coakley) , and a
possible use of the C.H. Sprague separator in Newington. Except
for this separator, the other options have adequate capacity to
handle the anticipated spill debris in New Hampshire with only
minor modifications. Fortunately, the oil/water separation is not
a problem due to the presence of licensed facilities close by in
Massachusetts.

Chapter 4 presents a cost comparison-of these two disposal manage-
ment options to better portray the differences between them. This
process is the basis upon which the recommended plan is founded.

WHAT DOES IT COSTP?

40
What Does It Cost?

No matter how technically feasible a debris management option may
be, the cost of utilizing that option may prove prohibitive. On
the other hand, an option may be cost-effective, but be unavail-
abl e'due to local pressures and/or the restrictions placed by
hazardous waste laws in adjoining states.

Chapter 3 established that disposal of oi I spi 1. 1debris can
theoretically take place either in-state -or out-of-state. Thi s
depends, however, on the modification of existing facilities in
some cases, attainment of local and state approvals for most
options, and in the case of in-state oil/water separation, devel-
opment of a new facility.

Still, a key consideration in choosing a management approach is
cost. The Center has developed estimated costs for the three
management options that are available to the state: complete in-
state program, out-of-state disposal or a combination of Jn and
out-of-state disposal. Costs have been developed for transporta-
tion and disposal of the various waste streams, as well as for
modification measures when necessary.

A word is necessary here about land costs. This is a highly
Yariable figure and is left out of this assessment. The assump-
tion is that land will be available for-a-minimal lease cost from
public or private land. A check with local realtors in the
coastal region revealed that land prices could range from
$20,000/acre in the Portsmouth/Newington and coastal areas to as
little as $500-$1000/acre in the surrounding rural towns. If low
cost leasing is unavailable, then land costs could conceivably
change the choice of management options.

S,TOCK PILING SITES

The necessity for some form of environmentally safe site to store
and handle oil spill debris has been a constant theme of this
study. A storage/stockpiling site allows for separation of wastes
so that further volume reductions can occur. Since approximately
80 percent of the solids that result from spill cleanup activities
are combustible, separation of debris results in a significant
reduction in the volume that has to be disposed of in a secure
landfill.

Even if out-of-state disposal is the management option chosen,
storage availability will be necessary. This may be accomplished,
for smaller spills, through reliance on the emergency sites. For
a larger spill, the logistics of emergency sites becomes unmanage-
able due to the volume of debris involved, and a larger, mo-re
secure site becomes necessary.

Yet, the emergency concept does offer a solution to the problem of
storage in the near term until a long-term site can be developed.
In vi ew of thi s, the Center has devel oped a cost. estimate for the
materials required for utilization of the emergency cells. Thi s
estimate is presented below and is followed by an evaluation of
the long-term site.

Emergency Stockpiling Sites

Table 15 summarizes the estimated costs for materials, transporta-
tion and labor for one 20 ft. by 100 ft. emergency cell. Because
of its resistance to hydrocarbon breakdown, use of the 30-mil PVC
liner is recommended. These materials would have to be stockpiled
in the Portsmouth area for ease of access and use.

TABLE 15. Cost Estimate for an Emergency Storage Cell

Item Amount Required Unit Cost Total Cost

Hay bales 120 $1.50 $180.00
Sawdust bags 10 2.00 20.00
30-mil PVC
liner 2000 sq. ft. .20 400.00
6-mil poly-
ethylene 1 rol 1
cover (20'xlOO') 50.00 50.00
Labor and
trans-
portation
(estimated) 150.00 150.00

TOTAL CELL COST $800.00

Long-Term Storage/Stockpiling Sites

The emergency sites will provide the State with interim storage
and stockpiling. For the long term, however, it is recommended
that some sort of permanent siterbe developed within the coastal
region. This can be accomplished through a number of different
methodologies which.will be explored in detail in Chapter 6.

For purposes of cost analysis, an estimated br eakdown of site
development costs has been prepared for a 3-acre site. Thi s
estimate does not include land costs as this value is highly
variable depending on where the land is purchased, and whether it
is to be developed at an existing landfill or other industrial
site in conjunction with cost participation by the private sector.

This site would have a useful storage area of 400 feet by 190 feet
(1.75 acres). The overall site would be approximately 480 feet by
290 feet to allow room for dikes, perimeter runoff, a-buffer,
access road, and future development of an API separator (Figure 5
in Chapter.2) and a 30 foot"by 200 foot by-10 foot deep lagoon for
runoff collection and storage. The lagoon could be sized for
long-term storage so that the lagoon could act like a gravity type
separator with oil being skimmed off the surface.

TABLE 16.. Cost estimate for a three-acre, bentonite clay-lined st-orage/
stockpiling site.(1979 dollars).

Item Amount Required Unit Cost* Total Cost

Site clearing and prepa- 3 acres $4,000.00 $ 12,000
ration
Perimeter drainage 1400 ft. 2.00 2,800
Bentonite-clay liner 95000 sq.ft. 1.10 104,500
Sand and gravel base 5700 cu.yd. 4.00 22,800
course (two feet)
Dike construction 1180 ft. 20.00 23,600
Monitoring wells 6 200.00 1,200
Gravel access road .100 ft. 8.00 800
Engineering and contingencies 15% 25,155

TOTAL COST $192,855

*Source: SCS Engineers, 1979.

If the surface water criteria could not be met from the discharge,
then a coalescing separator would have to be installed. The
lagoon /separator could theoretically be utilized for oil/water
separation purposes for contaminated liquids depending on the
water level of the lagoon. This would warrant further feasibility
studies if this option were chosen. The following tables list the
estimated costs associated with development of a storage/stockpil-
ing site. Table 16 lists the costs for a bentonite-clay lined
site; Table 17, a marine-clay lined site. Tabl e 18 1 i sts the
costs for the associated support facilities.

TABLE 17. Cost Estimate for a Three-Acre, Native, Clay-lined Storage
Stockpiling Site

Item Amount Required Unit Cost* Total Cost

Site Clearing
and Prepara-
tion 3 acres $4,000 $12,000
Perimeter
drainage 1,400 ft. 2.00 2,800
Clay liner 95,000 sq. ft. .15 14,250
Sand and
gravel
base
course 5,700 cu. yd. 4 22,800
Dike con-
struction 1,180 ft. 2.0 23,600
.Monitoring
wells 6 200 1,200
Gravel access
road 100 ft. 8 800
Engineering
and con-
tingencies 15% 11,620

TOTAL COST $89,070

*Source: SCS Engineers, 1979.

TABLE 18. Cost Estimate for Support Facilities for a Long-term
Storage Site

Item Amount Required Unit Cost* Total Cost

Runoff Lagoon
excavation 1000 cu. yd. $1.50 $1500
clay liner 11000 sq. ft. .15 1650
dike con-
struction 460 ft. 20.00 9200

API Oil Re-
covery Unit 1 15,000 15,000
Engineering
and con-
tingencies 15% 4,000
400 gpm ver-
tical coal-
escing
separator 1 34,000 34,000

TOTAL COST $65,350
*Source: SCS Engineers, 1979. 73
40

These costs are rough estimates at best. A detailed engineering
and clost study would be necessary once a site was located. Al so,
other options may be possible that could lower the cost of the
site. The C.H. Sprague site in Newington would reduce costs since'.
it is already prepared and has dikes in place. This, and other
options are discussed at the-end of this chapter.

IN-STATE DISPOSAL

There is currently adequate capacity in the state to handle
disposal of the estimated debris volume through above-ground
burial (landfilling) of non-combustibles and incineration of
combustibles. Contaminated liquid storage is available at five
locations in the state, although the exact volume is highly
variable depending on tank usage at the time of the spill.
Adequate oil/water separation may not be available at present
which would require construction of a new facility.

The landfill and incineration sites identified in Chapter 3 are
not approved by either the State of New Hampshire or EPA for the
purpose of handling oil spill debris. It i s the opi ni on of the
Center that these sites could be utilized through modification
that would bring the sites in compliance with existing local,
State and Federal guidelines. This assumption forms the basis of
the ensuing cost estimate.

Contaminated Liquids

Use of the* Wemco separator at C.H. Sprague's Newington facility
for oil/water separation is a possibility. However, there are
some obvious hurdles to overcome before its use coul d become a
reality. Therefore, development of a new separator is assumed for
purposes of the cost assessment.

The separator is assumed installed at the long-term storage/stock-
piling site. This would require installation of a 75,000 gallon
storage tank to store the waste for future separation. The costs
for this method are summarized in Table 19.

TABLE 19. Cost Estimate for In-state Oil/Water Separation

Item Capital Cost

400 gpm oil/water separator $34,000
75,000 gallon storage tank 26,000
Engineering and Contingencies (15%) 9,000

TOTAL COST $69,000

Source: SCS Engineers,, 1979.

If it is assumed that the separator will handle the target volume
and the estimated annual spill volume for the next 20 years, then
the per gallon disposal cost can be assumed to be 35 cents. Thi s
figure is utilized in the comparative analysis.

Incineration

In-state incineration is a definite possi 'bility at Lamprey Region@
al Solid Waste Cooperative in Durham. Certain technical require-
ments will have to'be met and agreements reached between the state
and Lamprey concerning cost-sharing, tipping fees, and handling.
Also, air quality permits will require revision to handle oily
debri s i nci nerati on. These implementation measures are discussed
in detail in Chapter 6.
For purposes of the cost assessment, a tipping fee' of $30/ton has
been assumed. This reflects one of the cost agreements suggested
by the Operations Committee. If a I ump sum payment by the state
becomes part of the cost-sharing, then the tipping fee would be
lowered resulting in a long-term fee close to the assumed $30/ton.

Landfilling

The Center'has discussed with Pat Banfield of Turnkey Landfill of
Rochester, Inc. the possibility of future landfilling of oily
debris at his approved landfill. Disposal has been conducted in
the past and could continue in the future if site conditions met
the recommended guidelines for above-ground burial of oil-soaked
debris.

It is estimated that future disposal costs would be tentatively
based on a figure of $5/cubic yard. This figure is based on the
fact that Turnkey is currently bringing their landfill up to
standards through the incorporation of a clay liner and leachate
col 1 ecti on system. Thus, capital costs associated with modifica-
tion of Turnkey do not have to be included.in this assessment.
If an existing site were to be modified by the private sector to
meet current standards, then the per yard cost would hold, albeit
variable as future costs increase in the industry. However, there
needs to be an estimate of the costs associated with the develop-
ment of a,n entirely new capacity, exclusive of land costs. This
will form a basis for cost assessment if either a new site is
developed or an existing landfill site is retrofitted. The site
selection procedure and location guidelines are the same as those
developed for the storage/stockpiling site in Chapter 2. The
estimated costs to develop a new landfill site are summarized in
Table 20.

OCIT-OF-STATE DISPOSAL COSTS

Out-of-state disposal has provided an acceptable outlet in the
past for management of oil spill debris. There are faciliti.es
within a day's drive that can handle incineration, landfilling and
recovery of oil from contami nated liquids.

TABLE 20. Cost estimate for an oil spill debris landfilling site.

Item Amount Required Unit Cost Total Cost

Clearing and site pre- 2 acres $ 4,000 $ 8,000
paration 1300 ft. 2 2,600
Perimeter drainage
Underdrains 6,000 6,000
Leachate collection and 20,000 20,000
treatment
Dike construction 1300 ft. 10 13,oob
Native clay liner 43000 sq. ft. $0.15 6,450
Access road 100 ft. 8 800
Sand and gravel cover 3200 cu. yd. 4 12,800
Silt clay final cover 3200 cu.yd. 4 12,800
Engineering and contingencies 15% 13,000
TOTAL COST .$96,550

It should be pointed out that there is no approved site for the
sole purpose of burial of oil-soaked debris in New England. Th e
Capuano Brothers site in Rhode Island has state approval to handle
the debris on a case-by-case basis. It is probable that this site
coul d not handl e debri s di sposal f rom a 1 arge spi 11 , i n whi ch case
disposal would have to occur at a designated location within the
State of New Hampshire. For the purpose of the ensuing cost
analysis, however, it is assumed that this site will be able to
handle the anticipated spill debris volumes.

Shipping oil debris through Massachusetts to Rhode Island would
require manifest documentation that would need approval from the
State of Massachusetts, since the State considers oily debris a
hazardous waste.

Tabl e 21 1'ists the disposal facilities utilized for the compara-
tive cost assessment. There are other locations in Massachusetts
for contaminated liquid disposal than shown in Table 21. Thi s
facility was chosen for locational purposes only, not because of
any evaluation of its particular operations.

TABLE 21. Out-of-State Disposal Facilities Used to Dev elop
Comparative Costs

Facility Disposal Method Unit Cost for Disposal*

Recycling Industries Oil/water $.20/gallon
Braintree, Mass. Separation and $92/drum
Reclamation (55 gallon)

City of Auburn Incineration $20/ton
Municipal Incinerator (assumed)
Auburn, Maine

Capuano Brothers Secure landfill $10/cu.,yd.
Crawston, R.I. (assumed)

*Exclusive of transportation costs

COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS@

Tabl e 22 summari zes the transportati on and di sposal costs f or the
'in'-state and out -of -state - disposal management options. Costs are
presented for the average annual and target volume for. each
assumed disposal method.

Transportation costs are based on the utilization of private
contractors for all phases--pickup, handling and disposal. The
assumption is made that the debris is either hauled directly from
the spill site or. from the storage sites at a later time. Th e
costs of movi ng debri s f rom the cl eanup area to the storage si tes
are not included--it is an assumed cleanup cost, separate from
final disposal costs.

Transportation costs for out-of-state disposal are higher than
disposal costs for both incineratio -n and.landfilling. Only in the
case of contami nated 1 i qui ds, whi ch requi re 1 ess tri ps due to the
large volume of the vacuum trucks, are transportation costs less
th.an disposal.

I'n the case of incineration, it is less expensive to utilize the
Lamprey facility for both the target volume and the estimated
average annual volumes, even though dispo.sal costs may be 50
percent higher at Lamprey.

Out-of-state disposal of solids is where the economics of trans-
portation become excessive. The disposal costs at Capuano
Brothers are four times that of Turnkey for the target volume due
to the estimated $61,250 transportation costs required to haul the
volume of debris 90 miles.

It shoul d be noted that i f the Rhode Isl and si te i s unusabl e f or
New Hampshire, then the only other options are to haul debris to
New York, which is unreasonable at the very least, or to work out
an agreement with another New England state--an option that is
highly improbable at the present time.

TABLE 22. Cost estimate for transportation and disposal of oil spill debris.

1. IN-STATE PROGRAM:
Disposal Method Oil-Water Separation Incineration Landfilling
(at new facility) (at Lamprey) (at Turnkey)
Debris Volumel 6,000 gal. 75,000 gal. 1,100 cu.yd. 12,000 cu.yd. 40 cu.yd. 3,000 cu.yd.3
(440 tons) (6,500 tons)

TRANSPORTATION
Volume of Truck 4,500 gals. 4,500 gals. 12 cu.yd. 12 cu.yd. 12 cu.yd. 12 cu.yd.
No. of Trips Required 2 17 92 1,000 4 250
Assumed Round Trip
Distance (miles) 20 20 20 20 20 20
Time Required Per Trip
(hours) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Operation Cost Per
Hour2 $ so $ 50 $ 35 $ 35 $ 35 $ 35
TOTAL Transportation
Cost $ 100 $ 850 $ 3,220 $35,000 $140 8,750

DISPOSAL
Unft Cost $.35/gal. .$.35/gal. $30/ton $30/ton $5/cu.yd. $5/cu.yd.
TOTAL Disposal Cost $2,100 $26,250 $13,200 $195,000 $200 $15,000

TOTAL COST for Transpor-
tation and Disposal $2,200 $27,100 $16,420 $230,000 $340 $23,750

2. OUT-OF-STATE PROGRAM:

Oil-Water Separation Incineration Landfilling
Disposal Method (in Massachusetts) (Auburn, Maine) (Rhode Island)
I
Debris Voiume 6,000 gal. 75,000 gal. 1,100 cu.yd. 12,000 cu.yd. 40 cu.yd. 3,000 cu.yd.3
(440 tons) (6,500 tons)

TRANSPORTATION
Volume of Truck 4,500 gal. 4,500 gal.. 12 cu.yd. 12 cu.yd. 12 cu.yd. 12 cu.yd.
No. of Trips Required 2 17 92 1,000 4 250
Assumed Round Trip
Distance (miles) 160 160 .180 180 300 300
Time Required Per Trip
(hours) 4 4 5 5 7 7
Operat on Cost Per
Houri so 50 35 35 35 35
TOTAL Transportation
Cost $ 400 $ 3,400 $16,100 $175,000 $ 980 $61,250

DISPOSAL
Unit Cost $.20/gal. $.20/gal. $201ton $20/ton $10/cu.yd. $10/cu.yd.
TOTAL Disposal Cost $1,200 $15,000 $ 8,800 $130,000 $ 400 $30,000

TOTAL COST for Transpor-
tation and Disposal $1,600 $18,400 $24,900 $305,000 $1,380 $91,250
1The lower figure is the estimated average annual debris volume; the higher figure is the design "target volume.11
20perational costs are from Jet Line Pollution Control Stoughton,.Mass. The price is for the vehicle and driver.
3
This assumes that this site could handle this volume and state approval were given, an unlikely scenario, but necessary
for cost comparisons.

A COMBINED DISPOSAL PROGRAM

In reviewing the various costs associated with each disposal
option, it is obvious that some balanced approach which involves a
combination of in-state and out-of-state disposal is warranted.
At the current rate f or di sposal of contami nated 1 i qui ds, and the
small volume annually generated in the State of New Hampshire,
out-of-state disposal appears to be the least costly option. For
solids disposal, however, out-of-state disposal is always more
expensive due to the high transportation costs involved.

The combined program therefore consists of out-of-state disposal
of contaminated liquids and in-state disposal of oil-soaked
solids, both combustible and non-combustible. This program, as
well as the in-state program, assumes no State cost-sharing in the
modi,fication or development of a new landfill or incineration 0
site. In the event that these costs are unavoidable, then the
economics presented in this section will...obviously change, depend-
ing on the level of costs that the State would be required to
allocate for these purposes. The costs could range anywhere from
partial cost-sharing with a private or municipal landfill to
complete funding of a new site location design and construction. 40
Since there is existing incinerator capacity within state, how-
ever, it is apparent that only the 1-andfill costs would ever be
incurred.

Table 23 summarizes the estimated disposal costs for the three
debris management options. These costs involve some basic assump- 0
tions which if changed, would alter the totals for the various
programs. However, the costs, as developed, do offer a basis by
which' the relative benefits and costs of the three options can be
assessed and which will lead to the recommended program presented
in Chapter 5.

One conclusion is readily apparent from Table 23; high transporta-
tion costs result in greater costs for disposal of solids out-of-
state for both combustible and non-combustible debris. This is
true for the estimated average annual debris volume as well as the
target vol ume. Added to this is the uncertainty of the landfill
site's future use for out -of -state- -wastes. It i s therefore a
sound management option to develop in-state capabilities for
disposal of oil-soaked solids, assuming that environmental,
technical, economic, and political constraints can 'be overcome.
In-state facilities result in low transportation and handling
costs, no interstate transportation problems, and ease of storage
and disposal.

TABLE 23. Comparison of disposal costs for-the proposed management options.
In-State Disposal Out-of-State Disposal Combined Program2
Average Target Average Target Average Target
Item Annual Volume Annual Volume Annual Volume

1. Stora?e/stockpiling
sites
(a) emergency site3 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000
(b) long-term site $154,4205 $120,4204 $120,420
2. Contaminated liquid 2,200 27,100 1,600 18,400 1,600 18,400
disposal
3. Incineration 16.420 230,000 24,900 305,000 16,420 230,000
4. Landfilling 340 23,750 1,380 91,250 340 23,750
TOTALS OF 2, 3, and 4 $18,960 t280,850 $27,880 $414,650 $18,360 $272,150
TOTALS OF 1 and 5 $34,960 $400,270 $43,880 $535,070 $34,360 $357,570
lThese sites are an assumed component of all programs.
2The combined program assumes out-of-state disposal of contaminated liquids and in-sta te disposal of all
solids.

3
This cost is assuming that emergency sites are used in the near term for storage until the long-term
site is developed.
4Assumes site has a runoff lagoon and API o il recovery unit.
5Assumes oil/water separator in place for purposes of treating contaminated liquids in-state.

It is worth noting that the cost difference between in-state and
out-of-state disposal of non-combustible solids is significant
enough to justify the economics of developing a new disposal site
within the state or cost-sharing in the modification of an exist-
ing landfill. Once developed, disposal fees would offset the
annual operating costs and amortization costs. The private sector
could be encouraged to develop a site once the economics of the
project could be justified and the market place warranted its
involvement.

The economic ramifications relative to the storage/stoc-kpiling
site, of a large spill the size of the target volume can be assess-
ed. If it is assumed that reliance on a complete out-of-state
program would eliminate the development of a long-term storage
site, then a large number of emergency sites would have'to be
developed to handle the debris generated from cleanup operati ons.
Since no facility or contractor could handle immediate disposal.,

storage sites would be necessary to help process the wastes over
time. If we assume use of the emergency site concept, then 250 of
these cells would be required in lieu of an approved location at a
previously developed site. This is an unrealistic approach. Most
likely the debris would be piled higher in a smaller number of
cells which could cut the cost in hal-f. However, locating these -
many sites in the coastal region would be extremely- difficult, if
not impossible.

Therefore, over the long-term, development of an adequate stor-
age/stockpiling site would be economically justifiable and provide
the State with a monitored, environmentally sound location for the
processing of spill debris.

This comparative analysis provides an insight into the relative
merits of the three disposal options and establishes the necessary
foundation for development of the recommended disposal management
program that the Center feels is best suited to the particular
needs and conditions of the State of New Hammpshire. Chapter 5
presents these recommendations that have come together as a result
of the research conducted during this study.

REDUCING COSTS

The major economic factor that has aris@n during this cost analy-
sis is the development of a long-term storage site. If the
Turnkey Landfill completes its program to make the site a secure
facility,' then capital costs for a landfill site will have been
accomplished by the private sector, unless other site requirements
related to oil spill debris disposal are required. Any site
modification required specifically for landfilling of oily debris
may require some form of State cost-sharing.

If a tipping fee arrangement can be agreed upon between the state
and the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative, then capital
costs for this component of the in-state program will be unneces-
sary.

The storage sites--both emergency and long-term--are a different
story. It is unlikely that the private sector would undertake
construction of a long-term storage site--the economics are not.
viable. Therefore, development of the site would be the responsi-
bility of the State of New Hampshire.

The cost of the long-term site is high: $154,420 if the 3-acre
site is developed with -all ancillary facilities, $89,070 for a
basi c site. However, there are two other options for development
of the long-term site that would lower the cost. The size could
be reduced to two acres with a working storage area of 1 acre
(8100 cubic yards). The extra storage volume required in a large
spill event would be handled with 'a number of emergency cells.
The smaller site would be able to handle the average annual vo 'lume
and larger spills up to 40,000 gallons. Considering the past
spill history, this may be a viable solution.

The costs for the 2-acre, marine-clay'lined site would be reduced
approximately 30 percent: to $61 !731-for a basic site and $119,731
for a fully developed site. This is a savings of between $30,000
to $44,000 over the 3-acre site. Table 24 summarizes the costs
for the 2-acre site.

The other option is leasing and modifying the CA * Sprague diked
area in Newington, which has been recommended for an emergency
storage site. The working area of this site is less 'than 1 1/2
acres and would have to be supplemented with emergency sites
during a large spill event. If engineering studies show that this
site is suitable, it would offer the least costly storage option:
$44,860 for basic modification, $102,850 for a fully developed
site. The costs for this option are summarized in Table 25.

TABLE 24. Cost estimate for a two-acre storage/stockpiling site.

Item Amount Required Unit Cost* Total Cost

Site preparation 2 acres $4,000.00 $ 8,000
Perimeter drains 1,020 ft. 2.00 $ 2,040
Clay liner 55,900 sq.ft. 0.15 $ 8,385
Sand and gravel base 3,226 cu.yd. 4.00 $12,906
(two feet)
Dike construction 1,020 ft. 20.00 $20,400
Access road 100 ft. 8.00 $ 800
Monitoring wells 6 200.00 $ 1,200
Engineering and contin 15% $ 8,000
gencies
SUBTOTAL $61,731

--Runoff lagoon 1 $9,000 $ 91000
--API oil recovery unit 1 15,000 $15,000
-400 gpm oil/water 1 34,000 $34,000
separator

TOTAL COST $119,731

*Source: SCS Engineers, 1979

TABLE 25. Cost estimate for developing C. H. Sprague's diked area in Newington,
New Hampshire.

Item Required Amount Unit Cost* Total Cost

Site preparation 1.5 acres $ 1,500.00 $ 3,450
Clay liner 65340 sq. ft. 0.15 14,250
Sand and gravel 4840 cu. yd. 4.00 19,360
base course
Monitoring wells 6 200.00 1,200
Access road 100 ft. 8.00 800
Engineering and contin- 15% -5,800
gencies

SUBTOTAL $44,860

--Runoff lagoon 1 9,000.00 9,000
__API oil recovery unit 1 15,000.00 15,000
-400 gpm oil/water separator 1 34,000 -34,000

TOTAL COST $102,850

*Source: SCS Engineers, 1979 8ZI

THE RECOMMENDED
MANAGEMENT PLAN

50
The Reco ended'
Manage ent Plan

As this study has progressed it has become evident th-at the
available management options for'oil spill debris disposal are
becoming limited with the implementation of State and Federal
hazardous waste laws and regulations throughout New England. In-
state storage and disposal are rapidly becoming the accepted
40 method for' spill cleanup operations as more and more states close
their doors to disposal from outside their border. The exception
to this would be the future development of a regional disposal
site. The New England states are apparently interested in such a
concept. It should be investigated as a future option.

Faced with this general trend, the State of New Hampshire must
look, towards developing the in-state capacity 'to manage its oil
spill debris. It is the responsibility of the State to pursue
this objective and to create an awareness on the part of industry
and the general public of the need for this management approach.
The plan that has evolved during the past eight months is present-
ed in this chapter. It relies on the existing facilities in the
State to provide the majority of the disposal capacity required to
satisfy the current, accepted criteria for oil spill debris
disposal.

It is the opinion of the Center that this debris management plan
represents a simple, implementable approach for the State of New
Hampshire that is economically justifiable over the long term. It
places a strong emphasis on maintaining environmental quality,
through adherence to the best practical standards. Si nce the
prevailing source of potable water in the coastal regi on is
ground-water, a major concern in the development of this plan has
been the protection of the State's sensitive, subsurface water
supply.

SUMMARY OF
THE RECOMMENDED PLAN

The plan proposed for the State of New Hampshire emphasizes in-
state storage of contaminated liquids and oil-soaked solids, out-
of-state disposal of contaminated liquids, and in-state disposal
of solids through incineration and landfilling. The key to this
disposal program is environmentally sound storage. The storage of
liquids and solids following an oil spill eases cleanup operations
and allows for the sorting of debris into combustible and non-
combustible solids. Since approximately 80 percent of debris'is
combustible, sorting significantly reduces the volume that re-
.quires final landfilling. Storage has usually been overlooked in
the heat of the cleanup operation following a spill event, often-
times resulting in less.-than-adequate disposal conditions andthe
release.of oil into the surrounding environment.

Table 26 summarizes the major components of the Center's proposed
plan. These pl.an elements are the foundation for the future
management of oil debris disposal in the State. The various
facilities identified are by no means binding. They are, nonthe-
less, the most obvious options available to the state at the
present time which offer in-state capacity and the ability to
satisfy applicable site criteria.

It should be noted that some of these recommendations are tenuous
at the present time. Use of the Lamprey incinerator will require
modification of their air quality permit. Discussion on cost-
sharing agreements have been instituted by the Center and remain
to be formulated.

The Turnkey Landfill in Rochester needs approval by the State
Bureau of Solid Waste Management (BSWM) to handle oily debris
disposal. Also, local approval from the City Council will be
required due to the change in use of this facility.

The,emergency storage sites will require pre-approval by the State
BSWM and local officials so that they can be utilized during an
emergency situation without having to wait for approval.

Ftnally, the long-term storage site has a number of hurdles to
cross. First is money. The estimated $100,000 plus cost of the
site will probably have to be taken care of through State funding.
Further engineering studies will be necessary to determine the
suitability of the recommended locations, and approvals at the
local and State level are necessary before site development can
proceed.

TABLE 26. Summary of recommended debris management plan elements for coastal New Hampshire.

Disposal Costs
Recommended Type of Debris Capital Costs Aver. Annual Target
Management Approach Location Handled Required Volume Volume

1. In-state storage Approved waste oil Contaminated None not applicable
of contam.liquids dealers in N. H. liquids
2. Storage/stock- --C.H. Sprague diked Oil-soaked $2400 for
piling sites area, Newington, solids three sites
(a) Emergency N. H.
Sites --Public Service Co.,
No. 1 tank diked
area, Portsmouth,@
N.H.
--Public Service Co.,
Seabrook Plant
--Other sites as
needed
(b) Long-term --C.H. Sprague diked Oil-soaked $102,850
Sites area, Newington, solids
46 N.H.
--Turnkey Landfill or $120,000
other approach site

3. Out-of-state. Any Massachusetts Contaminated None $1,600 $18,400
oil/water separa- licensed facility liquid
tion
4. In-state incine- Lamprey*Regional Combustible To be determined $16,420 $230,000
ration Solid Waste Coop- solids through further
erative, Durham, negotiations
N. H.

5. In-state land- Turnkey Landfill of Non-combus- None (assumed) $340 $23,750
fill Rochester, Inc., tible solids
Rochester, N.H.
(if approved)

TOTAL COSTS $105 250- $18,360 $272,150
122:4002
1
Assumes development of a facility with runoff collection, treatment, and an API oil recovery unit.-
2Depends on final site location.

None of these limitations are insurmountable. They will require
attention to implementation by the State of New Hampshire over the
course of time. This implementation aspect of the plan is pre-
sented in Chapter 6.

The capital costs associated with the plan are keyed to the long-
term storage site. If the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste'Coopera-
tive requires a substantial lump sump payment for use of its
facility as they originally proposed then this could alter the
capital cost requirements considerably.

At this point the assumption is made that the total capital cost'
to get this program underway is between $100,000 and $125,000.
This is based on the premise that Turnkey's site wil,l be. suitable
with no costs necessary from the State, and that Lamprey will
agree to a higher tipping fee charged for oily wastes to help
defray the extra handling involved and recoup some of the.sizable
capital investment.

ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN

The storage and disposal components of the recommended plan
presented in Table 25 are part of an overall plan that is neces-
sary to effectively manage the debris situation in New Hampshire.
The individual recommendations that the Center has developed to
create -a comprehensive management program are presented below.
Recommendations for implementing these measures, the final key
step in the plan, are proposed in the next.chapter.

(a) The State of New Hampshire should proceed with obtaining
pre-approval for the three sites recommended for emer-
gency storage in Table 26. If these sites cannot be
utilized, then new sites should be located and approved
utilizing the emergency storage site guidelines sum-
marized in Appendix C.

(b) In conjunction with the designation of emergency sites,
the state should purchase and store the necessary
materials to secure three sites (see Table 15 for a
materi al s 1 i st) .This will cost $2400 and provide
emergency short-term storage for future spill cleanup.
Sources of these materials should be included in the
State Contingency Plan for future reference.

(c) The State should undertake an engineering study, either
in-house or through a consultant, for the location of a
long-term storage site. C.H. Sprague's site should be
investigated first. This will require negotiation with
C.H. Sprague Company to work out any necessary arrange-
ments for use of its site. The goal of this element is
the establishment of a suitable site for development of

a long-term storage/stockpiling area.

(d) The State should undertake negotiations with Pat Ban-
field of Turnkey Landfill of Rochester, Inc. The
purpose of the negotiation would be to establish an
agreement on future use of the facility for the disposal
of oil-soaked solids,.develop operational guidelines for
the site, agree on future disposal costs, and work
towards local and State permit approval of the site.

(e) Because of its cost advantage at present, the State
should continue to utilize out-of-state disposal faci-
lities for contaminated liquids.

M Negotiations with C.H. Sprague should be undertaken to
determine if its separator could be utilized for in-
state treatment of contaminated liquids.

(g) The State should proceed with negotiations with the
Waste Cooperative to develop in-
Lamprey Regional Soll
state incineration capacity at its-facility.

(h) The State should make arrangements with the City of
Auburn for use of its incinerator for the short term
until arrangements can be made with Lamprey RSWC. Th e
Auburn facility could then be utilized in the future as
a backup or as an alternative to the Lamprey site.

(i The State should attempt to utilize oil-soaked i nor-
ganics for road construction material whenever possible.
Incorporation into highway foundation use is applicable
to inorganics such as sand and gravel that have been
contaminated with light oils such as gasoline, kerosene,
and heating oil. These inorganics could be mixed with
hot asphalt by passing them through a mixing plant
enabl i ng a col d patch to be produced whi ch coul d be used
in paving application. The feasibility of this approach
would require a determi nation of the amount of petroleum
product contained in the debris before a local asphalt
pl ant coul d uti 1 i ze i t. This would require time and a
laboratory analysis.

Landspreading of oil spill debris is a sound technology
that results in decomposition of oily debris. This
technology has not been utilized in the plan due to the
large area required and uncertainty of public accep-
tance. It should, however, be investigated as a future
di sposal - opti on. The State of Vermont is conducting an
experimental landspreading program for oily debris. The
State should communicate with the Vermont Agency of

Environmental Conservation relative to its success with
this program and its possible application to New Hamp-
shire's situation.

(k) A major consideration in any management plan is the
prevention of spills. This can best be accomplished
through a conti nue.d public awareness program that
focuses on recycling of waste oil by industry as well as
the general public. The State should supplement its
Used Oil Recovery Program with a booklet similar to
Maine's program that provides detailed information on
recycling methods, recycling depots, and spill reporting
procedures.

(1 The State should undertake, at part of its overall
public- awareness program, a public information campaign
that will educate the general public, local and State,
officials, and private industry on this recommended
plan.

(m) Over the long term, the State should investigate -a
regional disposal program with the other New England
.states through a regional interstate agency.

DISCUSSION

Legal Constraints and Considerations

Since most oil debris is not considered a hazardous waste within
the State of New Hampshire, its storage and disposal in-state, as
recommended in the previous section, does not present any legal
complications at the present time. Due to the nature of oil-
soaked debris and the state-of-the-art in storage and disposal,
the program elements can meet existing local, State and Federal
regulations through modification of existing facilities- and
disposal methodologies.*
40
There are no specific local regulations relative to the transpor-
tation, storage, and disposal of oil-soaked debris within the
State. The proposed use of existing facilities will necessitate a
zoning board approval since present use will be changed. In the
case of storage sites, they would be new facilities and require
non-residential site review and approval. In the implementation
discussion in Chapter 6 these regulations are discussed relative
to each plan element.

Interstate transportation -of contam nated liquids to Massachusetts
would require adherence to that State's regulations on manifesting
hazardous waste. This should be the responsibility of the cleanup
contractor and spiller, however.

The Political Climate

It is in the political arena where the major roadblock to imple-
mentation of the recommended plan could occur. The State of
Maine's experience during its recent site location study for a 10-
acre stockpile/transfer facility revealed the strong "not in my
back yard" philosophy held by the general public. The plan was
eventually dropped due to economic constraints, but the public's
negative reaction, as well as that of local officials, played a
significant role in the project's demise.

A precedent for adverse public reacti'on has previously been set in
the State of New Hampshire. A.major corporation attempted to.site
a chemical landfill 'in the State and received enough local politi-
cal resistance to stop the project.

The Maine experience is particularly interesting since a consider-
able effort was made to produce an environment of supportive
publicity. In this age of recurrent, hazardous waste well-con-
tamination discoveries, such as in New York and Maine, the jour-
nalistic environment is far from favorable. Lacki ng journal i sti c
support, and facing negative local reaction, the approval of oil
spill debris-storage and disposal sites could be a difficult
uphill battle.

A good public awareness program would be necessary to create the
political climate necessary for local acceptance of this plan.

Environmental Constraints and Considerations

There is no guarantee that any of the recommended storage and
disposal options will not cause some form of environmental degra-
dation. The current state-of-the-art for disposal of oil-soaked
solids relies on the physical properties-of oil to prevent it from
causing surface and ground water contamination.. The philosophy is
to place debris in such a way that it will either float to the
surface,when in contact with water (holding ponds.- gravity separa-

tors) or be prevented from downward movement through the use of
protective clay liners.

The technical assumption is that through proper monitoring and
adequate prevention-design measures, migration of oil into surface
and ground-waters can be prevented. If the recommended guidelines
presented in this study are not adhered to, then the *re is a strong
possibility that oil migration will occur. From an environmental
standpoint, following the past practice of case-by-case landfill-
ing at less-than-adequate sites, poses a greater environmental
constraint than adhering to the recommended site development
guidelines presented in this study.

Existing water quality standards for most streams are obtainable
in a coalescing oil/water separator. Certain streams would
restrict construction of an oil/water separator due to stricter
standards. This will not pose a problem at an existing licensed
facility.

Air quali.ty standards are being met by the City of Auburn which
utilizes units similar to those at Lamprey RSWC. The Lamprey
facility has undertaken some test burning of oily debris and feels
that it can meet all State and Federal air quality criteria.

The Economics

This plan is based on the premise that all capital costs will be
defrayed through utilization of existing facilities except for the
development of a long-term storage site and purchase of materials
for three emergency sites. This capital cost is estimated at
$125,000. This is not an unrealistic amount, and the figure can
be reduced substantially depending on the level of sophistication
of the site (see Chapter 4; Reducing Costs). A number of funding
sources are available at the State level for these sites. These
sources are discussed in the next chapter.

If Lamprey RSWC stands by their initial request for a $200,000
cost-share, and/or monies are required for modification to T-urn-
key, then the overall costs of this program could place it out of
reach i n the near term. If this becomes the case, then the State
should rely on the City of Auburn for incineration and reduce the
scope -of the long-term storage site to make funds available for
landfilling.

IMPLEMENTING
THE PLAN

60
ple enting
the Plan

Successful implementation of the Center's recommended oil tpil-l
debris management plan is the final key step in the overall
development of a disposal strategy for the State of New Hampshire.
The diverse activities involved in the disposal process require
in-state agency coordination due to some overlapping of regulatory
powers of the various State agencies. Also involved and playing a
key role in the acceptance of this plan, are the local governments
and the citizens of the affected towns.

Satisfactory regulatory authority currently exists at the State
level to effectively implement this plan without the creation of a
new bureaucracy or the formulation of new legislation. However,
to ensure the effectivenss of the program, the needs of all the
elements must be coordinated. Specifically, appropriate regula-
tions must be adhered to, the necessary funding must be earmarked
for site development and local approval must be solicited. To
this end, the Center has studied the complexities of implementa-
tion and has developed recommendations relative to the overall
plan and individual plan elements which it feels will ensure its
viability over the long term. Where limitations pose constraints
tosome elements, notably the long-term storage/stockpiling site,
an approach has been developed for pursuing the issue beyond the
scope of this particular study so that it will be incorporated
into future plans.

The emphasis of this plan is on in-state disposal wherever possi-
ble. In reviewing the regulations and policies of the adjoining
New England states, it is becoming obvious that out-of-state
disposal of oil-soaked debris other than recoverable oil and
contaminated liquids will become practically impossible in the
future as states implement more restrictive hazardous waste
management programs. The feeling has become that each state

should be responsible for the wastes generated within its borders. 0
It is, therefore, imperative for the State of New Hampshire to
respond to this pressing need and develop in-statei capacity as,
proposed by this study.
A DEBRIS DISPOSAL STRATEGY
FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE

The individual components of the recommended plan are strongly
interrelated and comprise an overall' disposal strategy which
should be followed. Figure 8 graphically portrays these interre-
lationships from cleanup operations to final disposal. Throughout
the disposal process, there are a number of critical decision
points that direct the spill debris to the recommended disposal
options. This is the responsibility of the State's On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC) currently Russell A. Nylander, Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC), or his alternate. These
decisions will be-clarifiedin the following discussion.
At the outset of the cleanup, the State OSC should:

(a) determine the exact nature of the oil spilled and
expected debris makeup;

(b) contact the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative to
ascertain its burn capacity; and

(c) contact the Turnkey Landfill in Rochester to have its
engi.neer visit the spill site to determine the accept-
ability of the debris for their landfill. (This should
not be a problem in most cases.)

These steps will establish the availability of sites and methods
for debri s disposal. If incineration and/or landfilling cannot
immediately take place, then the debris will have to be brought to
either the long-term storage site or an emergency site. By
determining disposal availability at the outset, the OSC can
decide where debris is to be taken and whether or not-emergency
sites needto be secured.
0
During cleanup operations following a spill, the State OSC should
make every effort to direct cleanup personnel to separate combus-
tible and non-combustible solids. Hand harvesting of combus-
tibles, oil-soaked sorbents and other burnables can be accomplish-
.ed in such a manner as to reduce the need for further sorting.

SPILL
CLEANUP STORAGE

IJASTE OIL DEALER

ON-SITE
SEPARATION
RECOVERABLE
- r)IL-- I OUT-OF-STATE PROCESSING
LIQUIDS CO NTAM I NATE D-_1__
LIOUIDS

Volume can be accepted at the facility

COMBUSTIBLES
SOLIDS
STORAGE/STOCKPILING SITE
NON-COMBUSTIBLES (EMERGENCY OR LONG-TERFI) TURNKEY LANDFILL --W-

MIXED SOLIDS
SOLIDS
SEPARATION

LAMPREY REGIONAL
COMBUSTIBLES. INCINERATOR.

mnm-rnMBUSTIBLES

FIGURE 8. Spill Disposal Strategy Flow Chart.

Water drain valve
55-gal. drum oil/water separator
NKE
FE:YLAI
LEER

@k_

FIGURE 9. Emergency oil/water separator.

Recovery of useful oil should also be a major focus. Usi ng
skimmers and skimmer attachments on vacuum hoses helps recover a
greater percentage of usable oil from the water's surface. Use of
emergency separators on-site such as the one shown in Figure 9,
will aid in oil.recovery.
If there is available capacity at the Lamprey Regi onal f aci 1 i ty 0
then burnables can be sent directly to the incinerator. If there
is no available capacity, then debris will have to be sent to the
storage/stockpiling site until it can be processed over time.

If Turnkey Landfill of Rochester can handle the non-combustible
waste stream, it should be directed immediately to the landfill
for final disposal. Any debris that has been harvested but needs
further separation should be sent to the stockpiling site where it
can be attended to later. Excess combustibles and non-combus-
tibles that cannot be accepted at the incinerator or landfill will
also be directed to the site for storage until disposal can be
undertaken.

In the near future, ..before a long-term site has been developed,
the OSC will have to prepare one or more of the designated emer-
gency sites with the sawdust/hay-bale, plastic-liner system as
shown in Figure 2 (Chapter 2) before materials can be moved.
These emergency sites are needed to help protect ground and.
surface waters from any oil migration. The identified personnel
will have to be contacted for each site used. (This will not be
necessary for a small spill where all materials can be handled
immediately at their respective disposal locations.)

The emphasis of this approach is volume reduction of the debris
through incineration, so that the amount requiring landfilling
will be small (around 20, percent of the total ). Incineration
provides a dual benefit; (a) it greatly reduces the possibility
for ground and surface-water contamination; and (b) provides
energy for steam production that is sold to the University.
Without constant attention to debris separation, this goal becomes
severely reduced with a resultant increase in the landfilled
portion of disposal.

After every effort has been exhausted to recover as much usable
oil as possible, there will be an oil/water mixture remaining to
be collected, stored and treated. Separation is required before
oil can be recovered from this mixture. This can be accomplished
following three different options:

(1) the cleanup contractor takes the liquid to storage
tank(s), either his own or at an in-state available
tank. After a period of time, recoverable oil is
skimmed off the top and reprocessed and the remaining

liquid taken to an approved oil-water separator for
final clarification.

(2) the State OCS contacts C.H. Sprague Company to see if
their separator can handle the liquid. The liquid will
either be turned down by Sprague and will have to be
handled by options (1) or (3), or it will be run through
separators with the recovered oil being reprocessed.
(3). an out-of-state contractor (Recycling 'Industries,
Braintree, Massachusetts; Jet-Line Pollution Control,
Stoughton, Massachusetts) accepts the liquid either from
the cleanup contractor or through use of.their own
trucks and takes care of the storage/separation process..

The choice of a particular option is the responsibility of the OSC
and will depend upon spill size, cleanup contractor utilized,
status of in-state storage and the nature of the oil/water mix-
ture.

Generally, the storage/stockpiling site will . have to be used,
since- the volume of debris will oftentimes exceed the capacity of
Lamprey or Turnkey. Laborers and a front-end loader will need to
be employed to place the debris in separate cells of combustible,
non-combustible and mixed solids. After cleanup has ceased, a 6-
mil polyethylene cover should be placed over the site and weighted
down with rubber tires to prevent infiltration. Over the ensuing
weeks, the OSC will be responsible for staging further separation
of the solids and removal -to the incinerator and/or landfill.
This will require continued communication and coordination with
the designated representative at the Lamprey and Turnkey facili-
ties. At a developed, long-term.site, more oil separation will be
able to be conducted if an inexpensive oil-water separator is
constructed as shown in Figure 5; Chapter 2). Recovered oil can
be picked up by any New Hampshire Waste Oil Dealer.

If an emergency site is utilized, careful attention to debris
removal will be required to protect the liner from puncturing.
After all the' debris is removed, the site can be returned to its
ori gi nal use. The materials used to construct the emergency site
may require incineration if they have become oil-soaked or dam-
aged.

If the C.H. Sprague site is approved for emergency use, then part
of the existing diking system can be used along with the hay bales
inside to prevent any oil migration out of the stockpiling area
into the unused portion of the site.

IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
Existing State Agency Responsibilities

The disposal of oil-soaked debris is a hybrid situation when it
comes to regulatory requirements, since there are no existing
statutes that specifically focus on oily debris. At the present
time, oily wastes are considered a "special waste" under the
State's Solid Waste Regulations. The Bureau of Solid Waste
Management has developed guidelines for the disposal of oily
debris (Section 1803 of the "Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution
Control Contingency Plan") but there are no specific regulations
concerning oily debris.

The spilling of oil and subsequent cleanup is overseen by the
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC) under the
provision of New Hampshire's Revised Statutes Annotated 146-A
(Supp.). Recovery of cleanup and disposal costs are the responsi-
bility of the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office.

While the WSPCC has responsibility for ensuring cleanup of spill
debris, the agency does not have the regulatory power to authorize
disposal of oil-soaked debris. Approval for disposal itself
involves the authority of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management or
the Air Resources Agency, if burned or incinerated.

Incineration of oil-soaked combustibles proposed for the Lamprey
Regional Solid Waste Cooperative falls under the overall jurisdic-
tion of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management since it is a solid
waste facility. However, the air emissions from the facility fall
under the regulations of the Air Resources Agency. Joint juris-
diction presents no overall problem since the incinerator is
currently functioning under such a regulatory process.

As pointed out, landfilling of oil-soaked solids falls under the
regulatory authority of the BSWM (RSA 149-L). However, WSPCC is
responsible for the protection of the State's surface and ground
waters and, therefore, is involved in the review and permitting of
solid-waste sites. A memorandum of understanding between the two
agencies currently exists to enable both agencies to better
coordinate their respective activities. It is anticipated that
this memorandum will apply to the joint responsibilities involved
in the storage/stockpiling site and secure landfill aspects of oil
debris disposal.

If oi 1 /water separati on f aci 1 i ti es were to be devel oped i n-state,
or if the C.H. Sprague licensed separator were to be utilized for
oil/water separation, then the WSPCC and EPA would be responsible
for review and approval of the required discharge permits.

The Office of State Planning is involved in the integration of the
overall solid waste management plan and the oil spill debris
management plan into the general State planning process. That
office is also a possible source of funding through the Coastal
Energy Impact Program.

Finally, the other key agencies that become involved in the plan
are the Department of Resource and Economic Development and the
.Department of Public Works and Highways. Some of the recommended
emergency storage sites are located on their property and will
require their approval before final implementation is possible.

The Role of the Municipalities

This plan affects all the towns in the New Hampshire seacoast and
Great Bay areas. Implementation of all aspects of the plan will
require their joint coordination, especially in those towns where
disposal actually takes place (Durham and Rochester). As eiperi-
ence has shown, it is at the local level where many well-engi-
neered proposals for oil spill debris disposal in other states
have been stopped. Involvement of the local governments in the
implementation phase will thus be an important component of the
plan.

A review of all local regulations revealed that there are no
existing ordinances in the coastal region that specifically govern
the transportation, storage and disposal of oil spill debris. The
Center discussed the local issue with Tom Cooney of the Strafford
Regional Planning Commission and he indicated that local approval
may be needed for any changes to uses of an existing facility as
well as the constructfon of a new facility.,

Development of a long-term storage/stockpiling site would most
likely fall under the non-residential site review and require
approval by the local planning board of appeals where site devel-
opment was proposed.

Any modifications to existing industrial uses, such as the incine-
rator at Lamprey and Turnkey in Rochester, may fall under a non-
listed-use for that site and may require approval from-the local
zoning board.

Finally, local officials are usually responsible for landfill
operations in their respective towns. If Turnkey or another
landfill site is utilized for an emergency stockpiling site, long-
term storage/stockpiling site, and/or ultimate disposal, then the
appropriate officials may have to review and approve the proposed
modifications to the landfill to accommodate debris disposal.

Recommendations

The recent study by the Strafford Rockingham Regional Council of
oil spills in the coastal zone states that:

"The party responsible for a spill, or his agent; must
obtain state approval for final disposal. State 0
statutes are unclear as to which state agency has the
authority to grant this approval."

This report recommends that absolute authority for the entire
disposal process be granted to.one lead agency. Since the Water
Supply and Pollution Control Commission presently assumes the 0
basic oversight role for oil spills, the study recommends that the
WSPCC take on this lead agency role.

The Center agrees with this position and recommends that the Water
Supply and Pollution Control Commission undertake implementation
of the recommended management plan. However, new legislation is 0
unnecessary since the various components of disposal fall under
existing State statutes. What is needed is coordination between
the WSPCC, Bureau of Solid Waste Management and the Air Resources
Agency to ensure that all recommended plan elements meet the
regul atory requi rements under thei r juri sdi cti ons.

The Office of State Planning could provide overall support acting
as an intermediary if any interagency disputes were to arise and
as a potential source of funding through the Coastal Energy Impact
Fund.

To this end, the Center proposes the following recommendations
that will aid in the overall implementation process. They are
somewhat general in scope, focusing on specific agency responsi-
bilities. More detailed discussions on certain critical plan
elements are presented in the next section along with technical
requirements and contact people.

100

(a) The Water Supply Pol 1 uti on Control Commi ssi on wi 11 be
responsi bl e, as sti pul ated i n RSA 146-A, f or overal 1.
coordination of the spill debris management strategy
outlined in this chapter.

(b) The Office of State Planning (OSP) should submit the
draft plan to all responsible State agencies for their
review and comment. Local government officials should
be made aware of the specific recommendations presented
in this chapter and their comments sought.

(c) The WSPCC should meet with the Department of Resource
and Economic Development and the Department of Public
Works and Highways and work out an agreement for future
use of their respective properties for emergency storage
sites.

(d) The WSPCC should work with the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management to develop permits for the sites identified
for emergency storage.

(e) The Bureau of Solid Waste Management should undertake an
assessment of Turnkey Landfill in Rochester relative to
its existing and/or planned future ability to safely
handle the secure landfi.11 of non-combustible oily
debris. This is not anticipated to be a problem since.
the site development requirement of the new Solid Waste
Guidelines (July 1981) closely follow those that are
recommended (by the Environmental Protection Agency and
this study) for landfilling of oily.debris either with
refuse or as a "special waste." The Bureau should
recommend any necessary facility or operational changes
through modification of Turnkey's permit. Any capital
costs required by these changes, if they go beyond the
normal solid waste regulations, will be the responsi-
bility of the State.

M The WSPCC should undertake further negotiations with the
Lamprey Regional Operations Committee to develop an
agreement on cost-sharing and use of the facility for
incineration of oily debris.

(g) The Air Resources Agency, working with WSPCC, the BSWM
and Lamprey representatives, should develop a modi.fied
permit for the change in emissions that are likely to.
occur from utilization of the Lamprey facility for
debris disposal.

101

(h The WSPCC should pursue discussions with C.H. Sprague
for possible future use of their separators at the
Newington facility for oil/water separation.

(i The OSP in conjunction with the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management and WSPCC should conduct a study for location
and construction of a two-acre, long-term storage/stock-
piling facility in the study area. This can either be
done in-house or by letting out a contract to a quali-
fied firm. The Oil Pollution Control Fund allocates 10
percent for research and could possibly be a source of
funding.

(j) The OSP should conduct a public information campaign to
educate the local population about the plan and solicit
thei r comments.

(k) Th e WSPCC should integrate the recommendations and other
relevant aspects of this plan into their Contingency
PI an as part of Section 1803.

IMPLEMENTING
THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Center has identified and received "over-the-phone" commit-
ments of three sites for emergency storage sites. Also, five
other locations have been investigated for possible usage if a
spill were to strike the coastline at or near these locations.

The committed sites are located in:

C.H. Sprague diked area, Newington terminal
Public Service Companys' diked area for their #1 tank in
Portsmouth
%.onstruction parking lot of Public Service Company's Sea-
brook plant

The other possible sites are:

Fort Stark, New Castle--parking area
Wallis Sands Beach State Park, Rye parking area
Hampton Beach State Park, Hampton--parking area

102

0 Pierce Island, Portsmouth--parking area
Hilton Park, Dover--parking area

These sites are described in detail in Chapter 3. Usage of these
sites will require a number of implementation steps. The follow-
0 ing steps apply to each site:
(1) the three State park sites are under the ownership of
the New Hampshire Department of Resource and Economic
Devel opment. The WSPCC should submit the report to that
department for its review and consensus on use of its
0 facilities as emergency sites. This will have to take
place before any other approvals are sought.

If approval of these sites does got occur, then it will
be up to the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commis-
sion in conjunction with the Bureau of Solid 'Waste
Management to undertake a site location study for three
more sites.

(2) For each si te, the WSPCC shoul d contact. the respecti ve
local boards or officials and request local approval for
use of the site as an emergency, oil spill debris
stockpiling site. The use of all these sites for this
purpose will -be a change.in the existing approved use at
the five back-up sites and the Seabrook site. The C.H.
Sprague site and the Public Service sites are.currently
utilized for oil storage. However, storage of oily
debris is a different use and will require a change in
the existing use approval. This approval process will
also require close cooperation with the various person-
nel responsible for each site. These contact people are
listed in Chapter 3.

(3) The BSWM will need to develop some sort of pre-approval
0 document for each site under authority of the State
Solid Waste Law. This is an unusual concept but a
necessary one so that the sites can be utilized at a
moment's notice. The WSPCC will be responsible for the
.applications to BSWM for each site.
0 (4) The WSPCC__Will need to purchase 3 rolls of 20 ft. by 100
ft. 6-mil polyethylene and 3 rolls of 20 ft. by 100 ft.
30-mil PVC liner and store them for later use. In
conjunction with this material purchase,. should be the
location of sources of hay bales and wood chips for
0 inclusion in the State Contingency Plan. When a spill
occurs, the responsible party or the OSC can purchase
the necessary bales and sawdust for use at the emergency
sites.

103

(5) once local and State approval have been accomplished the
WSPCC should list each site, its location, and the
contact person, in the State Contingency Plan. Also
included in the plan shou-Id be the recommended guide-
lines for emergency site location (Appendix C). This
will provide guidance to the OSC should the need arise
to locate more sites during a catastrophic spill event.

Long-Term Storage/Stockpiling Site

There are a number of approaches to implementing the recommended
long-term, storage/stockpiling site. The site can be located on
existing State or other public land, located at an existing public
or private landfill, or located on privately-owned land, either
industrial or agricultural. In all cases,.there will be a cost of
making the site physically suitable through the use of a clay
liner, dikes, and a leachate collection system.

The site development costs can be approached in three ways:

(a) The State utilizes in-house funds and develops the site
on its own, on public or private land, recovering monies
through future user fees.

(b) The oil indust 'ry cost shares with the State or under-
takes development of its own site on public or pri-
vately-owned lands.

Alternative (a) seems the most feasible given the existing politi-
cal climate and the fact that the State is already collecting fees
from the oil industry that are earmarked for spill cleanup and
di sposal purposes. However..' the other alternatives still bear
further investigation.

It can be argued, however, that the State has accepted the full
responsibility of spill debris management under the provisions of
RSA 146-A and within the umbrella of the Oil Pollution Control
Fund; so a State role in the development of a site is necessary.

104

Ch apter 3 i denti f i ed th ree - possi bi e si tes f or the 1 ocati on of the
storage/stockpiling area. They are:

(a) C.H. Sprague diked area; Newington
Contact: Wesley Hallowell
C.H. Sprague Company
Portsmouth, N.H.
436-4120
(b) Turnkey Landfill of Rochester, Inc.
Rochester, New Hampshire
Contact: Pat Banfield, Owner
41 271-3556
(c) New Hampshire Urban Forestry Center
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Contact: Department of Resource
and Economi c Development

These sites are described in detail in Chapter 3. They are all
strong candidates for consideration for this purpose. In order to
proceed with the development of one of these sites the following
will be necessary:

(1) The WSPCC will need to contact th e representatives for
each site to further discuss the possibility of their
use. Discussion will have. to focus on leasing arrange-
ments, cost responsibilities, operati-onal requirements
and possible future uses of the site.

(2) If agreement can be reached, then the WSPCC will be
responsible for conducting an engineering study of each
site to determine surface and subsurface geologic and
hydro-geologic conditions. This study Will ascertain if
the sites in question satisfy all the recommended site
criteria. If the study has to be conducted through an
outside contractor, then funding will be required,
probably from the Oil Pollution Control Fund or a CEIP
grant.

(3) Once a site has been chosen, perants will be required
from the Bureau of Solid Waste Management at the State
level, and the local zoning board at the local level.
If a discharge to. surface waters i-s- necessary due to
installation of an oil/water separator, then a permit
from the WSPCC and EPA will be necessary. These permits
and future maintenance of the site will be the responsi-
bility of the WSPCC.

105

it is recommended that the C.H. Sprague site in Newington be
studi ed f i rst. It is already partially developed and offers a
central location for cleanup operations and is close to the
Lamprey incinerator..

Incineration at Lamprey

The Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative's incinerator at the
University of New Hampshire in Durham is the key element of the
proposed pl an. Discussions have. been ongoing with John Dewyea,
Project Manager, and the Operations Committee. There is a serious
interest in use of the incinerator units for the disposal of oil-
soaked combustibles if all the cost-sharing, handling, and permit
arrangements can be made.

A meeting was held with the Operations Committee to discuss cost-
sharing possibilities. The general feeling of the committee was
that incineration of spill debris is a compatible use for the
facility, but due to the special handling and other requirements,
cost-sharing would be necessary. The meeting resulted in four
alternative cost-sharing proposals that the State will have to
negotiate after this study ends. They are:

(1) The original proposal to the Office of State Planning by
Malcolm Chase in 1980 consisted of the State investing
$200,000 for the purchase of a third unit plus a normal
tipping fee of $15-$20 per ton. This is similar to the
arrangement worked out between the State of Maine and
the City of Auburn for use of its incinerator.

(2) Based on the average annual volume of combustibles
debris estimated by the Center at 400 tons/year, the
State guarantees this volume at a tipping fee of $30-
$50/ton each year as an incentive (an annual cost of
$12,000-$20,000). This fee would decrease for volume in
excess of the annual estimate.

(3) State guarantees an annual retainer fee and - pays a 4P
higher tipping fee (this is almost the same as (1)).

(4) The State guarantees that an annual percentage of the
contingency fund goes to Lamprey. A tipping fee between
that proposed in (1) and (2).would be worked out.

106

The Operations Committee also suggested as an idea for considera-
tion that-the Cooperative take care of picking up and transporting
the debris from the storage site and charging the state for this
plus disposal.

The Operations Committee appeared flexible on the funding issue.
Although option-1 with its initial capital investment of $200,000
would be ' preferred, the Committee is willing to continue discus-:
sions on the other options as well as on any other ideas that the
State may have.

This type of cooperative effort has recently been accomplished
0 between the State of Maine and the City of Auburn for use of the
city's municipal incinerator for disposal of oil-soaked combus-
tibles. The complete text of the final agreement is presented in
Appendix E and should be utilized by the State of New Hampshire as
a model for the Lamprey situation.

The basic provisions covered in this type of agreement are:
period of contract, types of wastes handled, disposal fees, cost-
sharing, rules and procedures for use of the facility, idemnity,
vehicle requirements, insurance requirements and other detailed
liability responsibilities.
The bottom line for this a'greement was'the ability of the State of
Maine to pay for the purchase of one of the facility's units--a
capital cost of $500,000--there'by guaranteeing the State's use.of
the facility at a low tippingfee. Maine has a strong oil pollu-
tion control program and a $6,000,000 fund upon which it can draw
for expenses of this nature.

This' i s not the case in New Hampshi re. The Lamprey representa-
tives understand this and appear willing 'to approach the cost-
sharing on a more reasonable level. If, however, negotiations do
not achieve any agreements, the State has the option of turning to
Auburn for use of their facility. Thi s i s di scussed i n the next
section.

Discussions with John Dewyea, Project Engineer, and Richard Rugg,
Administrator, resulted in a number of technical and handling
requirements that would be necessary to utilize their facility for
incineration of oil-soaked combustibles. They are:

(a) The facility must meet EPA and State emission standards
for units of less than 50 tons/day. This will require
test burnings of various wastes and coordination between
the Air Resources Agency and Lamprey so that a modified
permi t can be issued.

107

(b) The tipping floor drain would need to be plugged and
filled with water to prevent oil from entering the
sewer. After disposal, the contaminated liquid could be
picked up by the cleanup contractor or waste oil dealer
for separation.

(c) Approximately one quarter of the tipping floor could be
made available for stockpiling wastes being burned
depending on the presence of municipal wastes. This
would allow for stockpiling of between 100 and 200 cubic
yards at a time.

(d) The best time to process oil-soaked combustibles would
be between Friday afternoon and Monday. Monday through
Thursday the facility is usually handling the municipal
waste stream.

(e) There is a possibility that the standby unit could be
fired up to handle the debris during the week in an
emergency situation. This wi.11 require more investiga-
tion by Lamprey.

(f) Due to the scheduling problems, a storage/stockpiling
site becomes necessary so that incineration can take
place as time allows. Since Lamprey's first priority is
municipal waste incineration, this means' that the State
OSC will be responsible for continued contact with
Lamprey to adequately stagger delivery of debris to meet
thei r handl i ng requi rements.

None of the requirements for use of this facility are insurmount-
able. They will, however, require careful coordination between
the Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, Lamprey Region-
al Solid Waste Cooperative, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, and
the Air Resources Agency to develop an agreement that is to
everybody's satisfaction.

Future contact should be made with the following people:

Malcolm Chase, P.E
Lamprey Regional S@lid Waste Cooperative
c/o Kimball Chase Co., Inc.
40 Bridge Street
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
431-2520

108

John Dewyea, Project Engineer
Richard Rugg, Administrator
Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative
One Lamprey Way
Durham, New Hampshire
868-1068

Incineration Out-of-State

Di scussi ons have been hel d wi th Robert Bel 1 , Ci ty of Auburn,
Maine, Public Works Director, and a letter of intent has been sent
to the City Manager, Charles Morrison, relative to New Hampshire's
possible use of the Auburn incinerator. Mr. Bell saw no apparent
problems with the concept as long as the following requirments are
met:

(a) The debris meets Maine Department of Environmental
Protection approval for incineration at 6e facility;

(b) The material is bagged in plastic;
(c) Their schedule can handle.,the volume of debris proposed
f or i nci nerati on.

In general , the facility could handle roughly 10 tons of bagged
debris at a time which is about 20 cubic yards or'the.contents of
two 12-yard trucks. The tipping fee would be between $15 and $20
per ton as opposed to the $8.50/ton charged the State of Maine.
The lower fee reflects an initial capital investment of $500,000.
These fees, as well as other necessary agreements, would have to
be arranged by the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission in conjunction with the City of Auburn and the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

Future contact should be made with:

Charles Morrison
City Manager
City of Auburn-
45 Spring Street
Auburn, Maine 04210
(207) 786-2421

109

Richard Baker
Department of Environmental Protection
Oil and Hazardous Materials Bureau
State House
Augusta, Maine 04333

(207) 289-2251..

It should be noted that transportation costs are considerable for
out-of-state disposal. A 12-yard truck costs approximately
$35/hour including the driver (this is for a low bid). Transpor-
tation and handling time from New Hampshire to Auburn and back
would be about five hours. Disposal of debris, assuming there are
six tons in the truck would be $90-$120. Add in transportation,
and the total cost would run between $255-$285 or $42-$48 per ton.
Therefore, use of Lamprey will be more economical, especially in
the long run, and will decrease any chance of oil contamination
out-of-state during transportation.

The facility should not be discounted, however, since it could be
used as an interim site until arrangements are completed with
Lamprey, as backup i n the e 'vent of an extremely large spill event
or as a substitute for the Lamprey facility if arrangements cannot
be made to utilize their incinerator. Therefore, the State should
continue to negotiate with the City of Auburn and the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection.

Landfilling of Non-combustibles

The Center has pursued the out-of-state disposal of non-combus-
tibles consulting with the responsible officials in adjoining
states. It is apparent that no state is accepting out-of-state
wastes at their secure landfills, at least intentionally. The
only secure landfills that currently accept out-of-state solids
are SCA Services and CECOS, Inc., both of Model City New York, and
Rollins Environmental Services in Bridgeport, New Jersey. Trans-
portation costs to these areas would be prohibitive for solids.
Therefore, it is in the State of New Hampshire's best interests to
pursue in-state disposal of non-combustible solids.

The Center has discussed this possibility with Pat Banfield, owner
of Turnkey Landfill of Rochester, Inc. Turnkey has an existing
site of about 65 acres located in-sandy loam soils. The facility
has handled oily debris in the past, co-disposing with municipal
refuse. The materials were soaked with #6 and #2 oils. The
facility is in the process of constructing a three-foot clay liner
and monitoring wells are in place. A leachate collection system

110

-is being developed to comply with the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management's requirements.

Turnkey is presently conducting engineering studies of a 65-acre
clay area for future expansion. Subsurface investigations are
being conducted.

From initial contact, it appears that the Turnkey facility has the
necessary setup to effectively handle landfilling of oily debris.
When the clay site is developed, an even more secure facility will
result.
416 The Bureau of Solid Waste Management should pursue the approval of
this site for secure landfilling of non-combustible s6l i ds. A
modified permit would be needed, since the landfill is not author-
ized to handle oil debris, which is classified as a "special
waste" under the State Solid Waste Laws.

Mark Gallup, formerly with the New Hampshire Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, suggested that Turnkey and the State could approach
the.approval process in two ways:

(a) Turnkey could wait until a sizeable spill to prepare the
site to handle the debris according to state require-
ments. This could be written into a permit ahead.of
time. Preparation time could. take up to two months
which would require storage for that period. Turnkey
could recover expenses through disposal charges to the
responsi bl e parti es;

(b) The state could pursue a full permit with Turnkey
requiring site preparation upon permit approval. Such a
process would require state financial assistance to
defray capital costs, since the requirement would be the
result of implementation of the state plan.

In reviewing the Solid Waste Guidelines, July 1981, prepared by
Wehran Engineering Corporation for Gordian Associates, Inc., it is
worth notingthat the soil, leachate, cover, and drainage guide-
lines for landfill design are closely related to the design
requirements for landfilling of oily debris. The only important
guidelines not in the State's are: (a) overburden soils of clay or
clay-silt mixtures; (b) a minimum of 10 feet of overburden soils
underlie the site; and (c) the overburden soils be saturated to
prevent cracking of the underlying clay/silt soils.

The Turnkey existing site does not meet these guidelines, but the
proposed new site will as long as the 3-foot clay liner and a
leachate collection system are installed. The Bureau of Solid
Waste Management should proceed to study the site further working

towards full approval as a secure landfill of "special wastes":
oil-soaked, non-combustible solids.

Use of this site for oil spill debris will also require local
approval from the City of Rochester since the landfill at present
is not approved for this purpose by the city. The WSPCC will have
to contact the City for their approval of this site.

Future contact should be made with:

Pat Banfield
Turnkey Landfill of Rochester, Inc.
Rochester, New Hampshire
1-271-3556

In-State Oil/Water Separation

Use of facilities'in Massachusetts for oil/water separation will-
be available for the forseeable future. It i s, however, an
interim solution and the state should investigate the recommended 0
methods,for developing in-state capabilities. These are:

(a) Installation of storage tanks and a 400 gpm separator at
the long-term Istorage site;

(b) Use of C.H. Sprague's existing separator at their
Newi ngton termi nal

C.H. Sprague Company's Newington facility has one Wemco separator
with a capacity of 200 gallons per minute that might be able to
handle oil/water separation after a spill event. Contact was made
with George Pennock, C.H. Sprague Environmental Engi neer, to
discuss this possibility. Mr. Pennock indicated that the company
could provide theoretical and technical assistance to the state on
the possible use of their separator. He briefly listed some of
the technical and other requirements that would need to be met
before any use could take place. These are:

(a) The liquid cannot be:
--polar organic in nature
--water soluble oils
--oil that has had dispersants applied

112

(b) Lab tests would have to be run on the liquids to deter-
mine if they are acceptable. Costs woul d be the re-
sponsibility of the State or spiller.

(c) Modification of the existing NPDES permit would be
necessary if the separators were used for this purpose.
Mr. Pennock felt that this-was possible.

Future contact should be made with:

George Pennock
Environmental Engineer
C. H. Sprague Company
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
1-431-5131

46 WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM ?
Cost of Implementation.

Determining the overall cost of this plan and subsequent monetary
needs is difficult due to the immense number of variables in-
volved. If the State had to develop all the facilities on their
own, it would never develop as a program. Fortunately, most, if
not al 1 the recommendations may be able to be implemented with no
sizable capital outlay. This would depend upon agreements
reached between the State of New Hampshire, Lamprey Regional, and
Turnkey Landfill. The pivot point, therefore, probably rests on
the long-term storage site. The Center's estimate for development
of a basic 2-acre site that utilizes a native clay liner is
$89,000. If a runoff lagoon, oil/water separator, and oil recov-
ery unit are included, the costs would be around $154,000, not
including the price of land. A check with realtors in the aFe-a
revealed that land prices could range from $20,000/acre in the
Port smouth/Newi.ngt on area to as little as $500-$1000/acre in the
surrounding rural towns. It is the assumption of this study,
however, that land will be available at no cost either at Turnkey
or some other public/industry-owned parcel.

If a reasonable cost-sharing arrangement can be worked out with
Lamprey, such as alternative (b) as previously mentioned, then the
total program capital cost might run around $91,400. However,
site development costs for Turnkey may be necessary as well as
higher cost-sharing for Lamprey, and a higher cost for the storage
site concept (the estimates were based on 1979 dollars). it
should be noted that all costs will be recoverable over time from
user charges.
113

The estimates provided throughout this study will obviously need
more refinement as 'implementation proceeds and various agreements,
permits, etc., are finalized. The costs do provide a guide,
however, an implementation bench mark from which to proceed.

Oil Pollution Control Fund

This fund, which is administered by WSPCC and based on a $0.015
per barrel -oil import charge, is for-the costs associated with
implementing RSA 146-A including administrative salaries and
expenses. Since the WSPCC is responsible for seeing that oil
spill debris is disposed of "in a manner acceptable to the state,"
the funds could be utilized for implementation costs associated
with the recommended debris disposal management plan.

At the present time, the fund has approximately $200,000 available
above administrative expenses. Since there are other needs for
this fund at present, it cannot be used for the $91,400 estimated
for basic implementation costs. As the fund builds, however,
monies could be directed from the fund for.use in plan implementa-
tion. The WSPCC woul d have to go to the Governor and the Execu-
tive Council to request this allotment of funds.

If the implementation was staggered- -f i rst a site location study
is conducted; then basic development is undertaken (site prepara-
tion and construction of dikes and a liner); finally, over time,
other recommended support facilities could be added--then perhaps
this fund could be used, since it is anticipated that monies will
accumulate in the fund over the next decade.

This staggered implementation would break down as follows:

(a) First year:
--purchase of emergency stockpiling materials $2,400
--site location study $15,000
(b) Second and third year:
--site preparation, dike construction and
liner $40,000
(c) Fourth year or later:
--reemaining support facilities (API oil
recovery unit runoff lagoo n, oil/water
separator) $54,000

114

Coastal Energy Impact Fund

The Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) is a federally assisted
program designed to minimize or eliminate the impacts of coastal
energy activities. The Office of State Planning is the state
agency designated to administer the Fund which is made available
to the State under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended.

416 With respect to the report recommendations, the CEIP Funds can be
used for specific design or construction activities, including
development of the storage site and purchase of materials for the
emergency storage sites.

Due to Federal restrictions, the CE-IP Funds cannot be used out of
the designated coastal zone. This. precludes the use of CEIP
monies for any activities at Turnkey in Rochester. The use of
CEIP monies for Lamprey is less clear. The Fund cannot be used
for cost incentives. It can, however, be used for any required
facility changes.

115

gK
g, -4,
;t Vl@t-,:

REFERENCES
APPENDICES

References

Anderson-Nichols and Co., Inc 1981. Ground-water assessment, main
report. Southeastern New H;mpshire WaterResources Study, U.S.
0 Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Bradley, E. 1964. Geology and ground-water-resources of south-
eastern New Hampshire, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper
1695, Washington, D.C.

Breeding, C.H., F.D. Richardson, and S.A. Pilgrim. 1974. Soil
survey of New Hampshire tidal marshes, Research Report No. 40.
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Durham, N.H.

Center for Natural Areas. 1977. An oil pollution prevention, abate-
ment and management study for Penobscot Bay, Maine. Volume IV,
State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

Cotton, J.E. 1977. Availability of ground water in the Piscataqua
and other coastal river basins, Southeastern New Hampshire. U.S.
Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation 77-70. Concord,
N.H.

EPA Journal. 1981. Volume 7, Number 3. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. pages 6-7.
Farlow, J.S. 1978. Recommendations for land disposal of oil spill
cleanup debris. Disposal of Oil and Debris Resulting From a Spill
Cleanup Operation. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.

Farlow, J.S., D.E. Ross, and R. Landreth. 1977. Practical recom-
mendations for oil spill debris disposal. Proceedings of the
1975 Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution.
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.

Hansen, W.G., D.E. Ross, and J.R. Sinclair. 1978. Disposal systems
for oil recovered from marine spills. Disposal of Oil and Debris
Resulting From a Spill Cleanup Operation.
AP Knowlton, H.E., J.E. Rucker. 1978. Refining oily waste treatment
and disposal techniques and their potential application to oil
spill debris.

Maiero, D., 0. Crain, and R. Castle. 1978. Protection, cleanup
and restoration of salt marshes endangered by oil spills. EPA-
600/7-78-220, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohi o.

117

No.votny, R.F. 1969. The geology of the seacoast region New
Hampshire. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic
Development, Concord, N.H.

Schrier, E., C.R. Foget, M. Cramer and R. Castle-. 1979. Manual
of practice for protection and cleanup of shorelines. Volumes
I and II, EPA-600/7-79-187a and b, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Edi.son, New Jersey.

SCS Engineers. 1979. Oily wastes management; an investigation of
alternatives for the State of Maine. State of Maine, Department
of Environmental Protection, Augusta, ME.

State of New Hampshire. 1980. Oil and hazardous materials con-
tingency plan. New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, Concord, N.H.

Stearns, R.P., D. Ross, and R. Morrison. 1977. Oil Spill:
Decisions for debris disposal. Volumes I and II, EPA-600/2-77-
153a and b. U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency, Cincinatti,
Ohio.

Strafford Rockingham Regional Council. 1981. Local impact
of oil spills in New Hampshire coastal zone. Exeter, N.H.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Consermation Service. n.d. Pre-
liminary soil survey maps for Rocki-ngham County, New Hampshire.

Vierra, F.J. and R.W. Bond. 1973. Soil Survey of Strafford County,
New Hampshire. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.

118

Appendices
APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A: Oily Waste Storage/Stockpiling Area Site Criteria

The process of locating, designing and constructing an oily waste
stockpiling and storage site requires strict adherence to physical
site criteria to ensure environmental protection. The following
criteria are based on the results of the Center's 1978 Penobscot
Bay study for the State of Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Oil Conveyance Services; the 1979 study
conducted for Maine DEP by SCS Engineers entitled, "Oily Wastes
Management, an Investigation of Alternatives for the State -of
Maine"; EPA criteria outlined in their oil spill technical manuals
(see References); and the professional experience of the staff.
These criteria reflect the state-of-the-art. They are presented
here for consideration by the State of New Hampshire for future
storage/stockpiling site selection. Anyone intending to utilize
these criteria should check with the New Hampshire Bureau of Solid
Waste Management for the latest regulations in this area.

The most important criteria for site selection are those that
protect surface and ground waters. Contamination of surface and
ground water by poorly engineered chemical disposal sites and
sanitary landfills@has raised considerable concern about protec-
tion of these valuable resources. In order to devel op a stor-
age/stockpiling site that is politically and publicly acceptable,
site planning and location must be undertaken in such a way that
strict adher ence to the following criteria are obtained.

119

Surficial and Bedrock Geology Site Criteria

Geologic site criteria are the basis of site selection. They-have
been developed to ensure protection- of the fragile ground-water
systems and maintain the integrity of aquifers and surface-water
resources. The criteria are presented below:

Surficial and Bedrock Geology Criteria for Storage/Stockpiling Site
Selection (Source: SCS Engineers)

a. Overburden (soils) will satisfy characteristics of CL,
CH, or OH soils as per the Unified Soi.1 Classification
System. These soils are clay or clay/silt mixtures
-which will inhibit migration of fluids.
b. The permeability of the overburden i s as near jx '10-7
cm/sec as possible. This permeability is characteristic.
of clays and clay/silt mixtures.

C. A mi ni mum of 10 f t. of sui tabl e overburden will underlie
the site. This gives a minimum of 100 years of contain-
ment by the overburden.

d. The overburden should be saturated, i.e., the water
table fairly close to the surface. Although this
contradicts present practices, the concept is workable.
Consider the nature of clay-rich soils. When dry they
crack, increasing the permeability to unacceptable
levels.

Therefore, if the overburden is wet, fracture dbvel-op-
ment will be minimal. Another consideration is the
interpretation of a water table in clay and silt depo-
sits. These materials give up very little water to
wells and consequently cannot be exploited for that
purpose. Slow migration rates further support this
decision.

e. The site should not overlie an identified sand and/or
gravel aquifer and preferably be no closer than 1,000
ft. laterally from the boundaries of any sand and gravel
aquifers.

120

f. The site will not be located in.a regional ground-water
recharge area.

g. If possible, it is desirable to locate a site in a
regional ground-water discharge area. A ground-water
di.scharge area is characterized *by converging ground
Water flow, i.e., ground water flows to this area from
all directions. This effectively isolates the site with
respect to ground water contamination. These areas are
likely to be underlain by wet soils-another criterion
previously discussed.

h. A minimum separation of 500 ft from domestic wells and
1,000 ft for municipal wells from the site will be
maintained. Thi s deci si on i s based on the extremely
sl ow rate of 7migration of ground water in clays and
silts (P= 10- cm/sec). It would take a drop of water,
flowing at 0.1 ft per yr, 4,800 yr to -travel the 500 ft
to the well.

i. A site will not be I ocated 'on zones of hi gh yi el d
bedrock wells as mapped by the New Hampshire and United
States Geological Surveys. The inference here is that
these zones represent bedrock which has abnormally high
permeability due to fracture development or faulting.

j. The site will maintain a minimum setback of 300 feet
from the 100-year floodplain of any classified stream,
and a M nimum setback of 300 feet from any pond or lake.

k. The exception to Letter'j, above, is in the case of a.
body of water which is used as a source of potable
water, in which case a minimum setback of 1,000 ft will
be establ i shed.

1. The original slope of the land where the site is to be
located will range from three to seven percent. Thi s
range is selected for stability (clay and silt are too
unstable above seven percent to allow economic site
development) and also to avoid potential surface runoff
problems.

Aquatic Ecosystem Criteria

The geologic site criteria are designed to protect surface waters.
Adherance to these criteria will guarantee protection of aquatic
ecosystems. Engineering of the site to protect against sedimenta-
tion and erosion and to offer treatment of any discharge are

121

further methods to protect aquatic ecosystems, but they are part
of the design rather than site selection process.

Terrestrial Ecosystem Criteria

The storage/stockpiling site should not be located at or adjoining
designated critical natural areas. The heavy equipment activities
associated with construction and use of the site could seriously
disrupt these areas. Where acceptable, the site shoul-d be located
in areas already developed for industrial or urban use.

Air Quality Criteria

The storage/stockpiling site should be developed such that state
and Federal emission standards -for hydrocarbons are not exceeded.
Existing data from- EPA indicates that very little air pollution
would be expected from- oil evaporation at a storage or land
disposal site. For example, a large (24,000 gallon) oil spill
would increase the total hydrocarbon air pollution in Los Angeles
by only 0.01 percent over a 100-day period, based on 1973 emission
rates and a six percent assumed evaporation rate from a landfarm-
ing site. Landfarming would have a higher evaporation rate then
would occur at a storage' site. Therefore, it can be assumed that
air quality standards can be met by an engineered storage/st.ock-
pile area.

Land Use Criteria

The site should be compatible with surrounding land uses. Local
land-use plans,- zoning ordinances, etc. as well as state guide-
lines will provide the necessary guidelines for site selection.

Site Accessibility Criteria

Existing access roads into a.proposed site should have all-weather
construction. If none exist, the site should be accessible
through easily constructed emergency roads.

The site should be as close as possible to the areas of expected
debris generation to minimize costs and the amount of oil spilled
in transit.

122

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B: Oily Wastes Storage/Stockpiling Site Selection
Procedure

Proper site selection involves a sequence of steps that- reflect
the established site criteria, extent of existing physical,
cultural and biological data, and the areal needs of the site.
The following steps represent a comprehensive methodology that
will identify suitable sites. They are not hard and fast rules,
and some steps may occur in a sequence other than suggested. It
is important that, whatever method is followed, the site chosen
should reflect the goals and needs,of the oil debris management
program.

a. Using best available mapping, establish a base map of
the study region. The base map should show the location
of existing public and private waste disposal sites,
public lands, oil storage facilities, airports, incine-
rators, railroad rights-of-way, etc.

b. Develop initial screening, acetate overlays that iden-
tify:

1. High yield bedrock zones, geologic faults,
aquifer recharge areas, unconsolidated surfi-
cial deposits identified as possible aquifers,
public and private wells, surface-water
reservoirs used for public water supply, and
100-year floodplains

2. Areas with less than 10 feet of overburden

3. Location of marine clays

123

c Superimpose the overlays developed in Step 2 to screen
out those areas that definitely do not meet the estab-
lished criteria. The composite map will reveal those
areas that can be -ruled out because they are not under-
lain by marine clay and/or 10 feet of over-burden, are
within 1,000 feet of a mapped fault, are located on or
adjoining recharge areas or high-yield bedrock zones, or
are within 300 feet of the 100-year floodplain.

d. Select at least 10 sites that warrant field reconnais-
sance. These sites can be easily determined through the
.composite overlay and by studying the topography,
geology, and surface water features of the site to see
if they tentatively meet the required site criteria.
Particular. attention should be given, if possible, to
those areas that appear to satisfy the site criteria and
are on publically owned land.

e. Using a qualified team consisting of a geologist, soil
sci enti st, , ci vi Iengineer, and -ecol ogi st/botani st,
conduct a field reconnaissance of the preliminary sites
to verify the mapped data and to collect field informa-
tion at the site. In the case of private land, prior
permission must be obtained in writing.

Information that needs to be gathered for each site
includes: access, vegetation screening, surface drain-
age conditions, and proximity to nearby surface waters,
soil types, location of seasonal high water, surrounding
land use, proximity to nearby wells, and proximity to
wetlands and other natural features that warrant con-
sideration in the assessment of environmenal impact.

f. Review the field data and recent aerial photographs that
show the regional setting for each site, screen out any
sites that are not suitable. This step should narrow
down the available sites.

g. Hold a public meeting to inform citizens in the area of
the site location and the purpose of a storage/stockpil-
ing site.

h. Conduct a detailed site investigation of the preliminary
sites. This investigation will establish the subsurface
geology of the site, through boring samples which
identify any geologic constraints that would render a
site unsuitable. This step should narrow the available
sites down to a number which can then be purchased or
leased depending upon public acceptance, land avail-
ability and cost.

124

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C: Guidelines for the Location of Emergency Stock-
pili ng Sites

In recognition of the fact that there is a need to develop the
capability of locating emergency sites for the stockpiling of oil-
soaked debris, the Center has developed a set of guidelines toaid
in site location. It is anticipated that these sites will be
predesignated and approved by the state so that they can be made
readily available in a spill emergency. These-guidelines can also
be used to locate an emergency site during a spill event. They
provide basic considerations of a site that will minimize any
possible environmental contamination. These guidelines are the
re,commendations of the Center. Anyone who intends to utilize
these guidelines should check with the New Hampshire 'Bureau of
Solid Waste Management to determine the latest regulations and
guidelines.

Site Location Guidelines

(a) Sites should be located in -area s with a minimum of 10 feet of
overburden soils that are clay, silty clay or fine sandy
loams. These soils inhibit migration of fluids. To locate
these soils refer to the Soil Conservation Service soil
surveys for Rockingham and Strafford Counties. The soil
types most acceptable for locating storage sites are:

Be--Biddeford silty clay loam
Bg--Belgarde silt loam
Bz--Buxton silt loam

125

Ea--Elmwood fine sandy loam
Sc--Scantic silt loam
Su--Suffield silt loam
Sw--Swanton fine sandy loam
Wm--Whately fine sandy loam

(b) Avoid location of sites in a ground water recharge or dis-
charge area. Check the following sources for information
concerning ground water resources:

Ground Water Assessment, Maine Report -Southeastern New
Hampshire Water Resources Study., U.S. Army Corps of 0
Engineers, March 1981.

Availability of Ground Water in the Piscataqua and other
Coastal River Basins of Southeastern New Hampshire.
U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation 77-
.70.

New Hampshire Coastal Zone Study map entitled: Areas of
Parti cul ar Concern.

(c) Do not locate the site in an obvious coastal or riverine
flo6-dplain zone. Check local HUD Flood Insurance studies for
location of. major floodways and/or consult with a competent
hydrologist when locating sites. Wetlands (tidal and coast-
al ) are to be avoi ded as well .

(d) Make sure that a site does not adjoin or drain into the
watershed of a waterfowl conservation, wildlife management ', 0
and/or critical resource -area as defined in the State Oil
Spill Contingency Plan (308, Pages 66-74). Define watersheds
on U.S. Geological Quad Sheets for the Coastal Region.

(e) Sites should be located by 500 feet from domestic wells and
1000 feet from municipal wells. 0

M Choose sites on topography with a slope of between zero and
seven percent.

(g) The site should be compatible with surrounding land use.
0
(h) The site should preferably be located on a paved parking lot
in industrial areas, when the proceeding guidelines can be
met. The pavement adds a secondary protection beyond the
polyethylene liner utilized in constructing the site.
Another choice would be an existing diked area located at one
of the terminals.

126

(i The site should be at least 1000 feet from any public water
supply (refer to State Contingency Plan, 306.1,2 pages 47-61
for location of public water supplies).

(j) Do not locate the site adjacent to ravines, gullies, sides of
hills or other areas where surface runoff could be a problem.

W Locate sites within the areas of potential spill cleanup
operations and near access to major primary and secondary
road systems.

Site Construction and Operation

(a) The site should be constructed following Figure 2.

(b) Temporary oil/water separators can be constructed from 55-
gall6n drums to aid in further volume reduction at the site.
Figure 9 shows a typical drum. Oil/water mixtures are
entered at the top and allowed to settle. The water can then
be drained off through the bottom drain valve and the oil
removed for reuse by a waste oil dealer.

.(c) All debris should be carefully dumped into the site to avoid
puncturing the liner.

M Debris removal can be undertaken by hand or by using a front-
end loader. The loader. would remove debris from one end,
rolling up the liner as it proceeded and resetting the hay
bale dikes.

127

APPENDIX D

TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES (TSDF) AVAILABLE TO
CONNECTICUT INDUSTRIES, 1981.

Source: State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, Hartford, Connecticut.

129

1) The appearance of a facility on this list is not a recommendation to use,
or an approval of, the facility. This list is subject to change without
notification.

2) The descriptions given under the headings "TYPE OF TREATMENT" and "TYPE
OF WASTE ACCEPTED".are general and bri ef. Therefore, we s'uggest that you
contact a facility directly for more detailed information about the ser-
vices they offer and the wastes they will accept, if you are considering
"disposal" of a particular waste.

3) Under the heading "CONNECTICUT LICENSED HAULER":

a) No = Not licensed by the State of Connecticut to transport hazardous
wastes within Connecticut during the current licensing period. 0

b) Yes = Licensed by the State of Connecticut to transport hazardous
wastes within Connecticut during the current licensing period.

c) The current licensing period ends

4) The current permit status of a facility should be ascertained by contact-
ing the appropriate State Authority prior to using a facility. See
attached sheet for State Authorities.

f,:@n

r co n n t-cC

130

STATE AUTHORITIES

CONNECTICUT: Hazardous Materials Management Unit
Dept. Qf Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
(203) 566-4869

NEW JERSEY: Dept. of Environmental Protection
32 East Hanover Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-6847

NEW YORK:. Hazardous Waste Bureau
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Room 401
50.Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-3254

MASSACHUSETTS: Water Resources Commission

Div. of Water Pollution Control
110 Tremont Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-3855

PENNSYLVANIA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Dept. of Environmental Sdrvices
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-8184

131

TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES (TSDF)
AVAILABLE TO CONNECTICUT INDUSTRIES

-FACILITY TYPE OF TREATMENT TYPE OF WASTE ACCEPTED CONNECTICUT
LICENSED
HAULER

CONNECTICUT

Environmental Waste Demu]-s-ification of Soluble Waste Oils, Soluble Oils Yes
Removal, Inc. Oils, Acid and Caustic Spent Acids and Caustics,
130 Freight Street Neutralization, Heavy Various Plating Wastes,
Waterbury'. CT 06702 Metal Precipitation, Cyanides
(203) 755-2283 Cyanide Destruction

Liqwacon Acid and Caustic Acids, Caustics, Cyanides, Yes
Old Waterbury Road Neutralization, Cyanide Heavy Metals in Solution,
Thomaston, CT 06787 Destruction, Liquid- Sludges with Heavy Metals
(203) 283-8235 Solid Separation

Solvents Recovery Distillation and Waste Solvents Yes
Service of New England, Fractionation
Inc.
Lazy Lane 0
Southington, CT 06489
(203) 621-6791

Hitchcock Gas Engine Co. Heat Treatment, Ultra- Water Soluble Oil, Yes
40 California Street filtration, Disposal Waste Fuel, Crankcase
Bridgeport, CT 06608 and Lubricating Oil 0
(203) 334-2161

Safety - Kleen Recovery and Reuse Degreasing Solvents Yes
24 Brixton Street
West Hartford, CT 06110
(203) 522-4222 0

Wyatt, Inc. Recovery and Disposal Fuel Oil and Fuel Oil Yes
900 Chapel Street Sludqe
New Haven, CT 06507
(203) 787-2175

City of Torrington Fi-Itzation and Waste Fuel, Crankcase Yes
Box 1277 Disposal and Lubricating Oil
Torrington, CT 06790
(203) 489-2277

Connecticut Treatment Corp. Recovery of water Soluble Oils,Spent Acids Yes .0
51 Broderick Road soluble oils, Acid and and Caustics, Various
Bristol, CT'06010 Caustic Neutralization, Plating Wastes, Cyanides
583-8917 Heavy Metal Precipitation,
Cyanide Destruction

132

-2-

FACILITY TYPE OF TPFATMENT TYPE OF WASTE ACCEPTED CONNECTICUT
LICENSED
HAULER

NEW JERSEY

Advanced Environmental Transfer, Storage Packed Laboratory Yes
Technology Corp. Chemicals, Solvents,
The Dayton Building Pesticides, Acids,
520 Speedwell Avenue Alkalis, Dyes, Pigment
Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Solutions, Oils
(201) 539-7111

Browning-Ferris Transfer, Storaqe Flammable Solids, Yes
Industries, Inc. Paints, Pigment,
714 Division Street Oil, Solvents,
Elizabeth, NJ 07207 Flammable Liquids
Ak (201) 352-2222
Earthline Co. Organic-Reclamation, Organic Aqueous Waste, Yes
Div. of SCA Services Neutralization, Detoxi- Solvents, Acids, Alkalis,
100 Lister Avenue fication-(reduction- Cyanides, Heavy Metal
Newark, NJ 07105 oxidation) Waste
4b (201) 465-9100
Inland Chemical Co. Reclamation, Recovery Solvents, Organic Liquids, No
.600 Doremus Avenue Aqueous-Organic Emulsions,
Newark, NJ 07102 Lacquer, Paint, Pigment
(201) 589-4085 Residues
'*Marisol, Inc. Transfer, Blendina, Oils, Emulsions, Solvents,. No
125 Factory Lane Reprocessor, Reclama- Paint, Pigment Residues
Middlesex, NJ 08346 tion, Recovery Flammable and Non-flammable
(201) 469-5100 Liquids, Flammable Organic
Liquids

Perk Chemical Co., Inc. Transfer, Storage, Repro- nils, Solvents, Acids, Yes
217 South First Street cessor, Reclamation, Alkalis, Flammable and
Elizabeth, NJ 07206 Recovery Non-flammable Orqanic
(203) 355-5800 Liquids

Rollins Environmental Incineration, Chemical Sludges, Contaminated Yes
Services treatment, Recovery,. Residues, Soill Dphris,
P.O. Box 331 Reclamation, Transfer, Slurries, Semi-Solids
Bridgeport, NJ 08014 Storage, Disposal Heavy Metal Slurries
(609) 467-3100

Solvents Recovery Service Transfer, Storace, Oils, Emulsions, Solvents, *(see Solvents
of New Jersey, Inc. Reprocessor, Reclamation Acid and Alkali Solutions, Recovery of
1200 Sylvan Street Flammable and Non-flammable New England,
Linden, NJ 07036 Liquids, Paint, Pigment Inc. in
(201) 925-8600 Residues Connecticut)

Modern Transportation Co. Neutralization and Acids, Caustics Industrial Yes
0 75 Jacobs Avenue Reprocessing' Waste Water, Waste Oil
South Kearny, NJ 07032
(201) 589-0277

133

FACILITY TYPE OF TREATMENT TYPE OF WASTE ACCEPTED CONNECTICUT
.LICENSED
HAULER
NEW YORK

CECOS International, Inc. Reclamation, Detoxifica- All Wastes, except Shock Yes
(formerly Newco tion, Secure Landfill Sensitive and Radioactive
Chemical Waste Systems, Neutralization Wastes, includina DDT
Inc.) Powder, Lab Wastes, PCB
P.O. Box 619 Solids (including Capa-
Niagara Falls, NY 14302 citors, and Drained Trans-
(716) 731-3281 formers), Pesticides,
Paint Sludaes

Chemical Waste Disposal Reclamation, Transfer, Laboratory Chemicals, Yes
Corporation Neutralization Acids and Caustics,
42-19 19th Avenue Solvents
Astoria, NY 11105
L
(212) 274-3339

Frontier Chemical Waste Oxidation-Reduction, Organic and Inorganic Yes
Process, Inc. Neutralization, Physical Chemical Aqueous Liquids,
4626 Royal Avenue Separation, Distillation Cyanide, Plating Wastes
Niaaara Falls, NY 14303 and Sludqes, Oils, Solvents,
(71@) 285-8208 Lacquers

Howard & Bowen Reclamation Waste Film, Sludges No
631 Colfax Street Containing Silver
Rochester, NY 14606
(716) 254-6210

Leo-Ronel, Inc. Neutralization Liquids with Heavy No
272 Buffalo Avenue Metals, Acids and
Freeport, NY 11520 Alkalis
(516) 868-8800

SCA Services Neutralization, Detoxi- Acids and Caustics, Yes
P.O. Box 200 fication, Recovery, Cyanide, Heavy Metals
1135 Balmer Road Secure Landfill in Solution, Solvents,
Model City, NY 14107 Paint Sludges, Pesticides,
(716) 754-8231 Oils, Waste Lab Chemicals

Radiac Research Corp. Transfer, Storage All Classes of Hazardous Yes
261 Kent Avenue Materials ', including
Brooklyn, NY 11211 Radioactive*and Explo-
(212) 963-2233 sive Wastes

PENNSYLVANIA

IU CONVERSION SYSTEMS, Stabilization, Sludge No
INC. Microencapsulation
115 Gibraltar Road
Horsham, PA 19044
(215) 441-5924

134

-4-

FACILITY TYPE OF TREATMENT TYPE OF WASTE ACCEPTED CONNECTICUT
LICENSED
MASSACHUSETTS HAULER

Lewis Cbemical Corp. Transfer, Storage Organic and Inorganic No
12 Fairmont Court Chemicals, Cyanide and
Hyde Park, MA 02136, Plating Waste, Solids
(61-7) 361-3410 and Sludges

Recycling Industries, Reclamation, Neutra- Pils, Solvents, Organic Yes
Inc. lization, Transfer, and Inorganic Chemicals,
385 Quincy Avenue Storage Cyanide, Plating Wastes
Braintree, MA 02184 Solids and Sludges,
(617) 848-0612 Pesticides

Re-Solve, Inc. Transfer, Storage, Oils, Solvents, Organic Yet
P.O. Box 1842 Reclamation. and Inorganic Chemicals,
47 Slade Street Cyanide and Plating Wastes,
Fall River, MA 01752 Solids and Sludges
(617) 995-9811
4b Suffolk Servi'ces, Inc. Transfer, Storage Aqueous Organics and In- Yes
98 Ta--]or Street organics, Pesticides,
Boston, MA 02122 Solids, Outdated Labora-
(617) 325-9044 tory Chemicals, Acids, and
Alkalis
Cyn Oil Corporation Filtration and Water Soluble Oil Yes
1771 Washington Street Disposal Crankcase,and Lubricatina
Stoughton, MA 02072 Oil
(617) 344-0265
Cannons Engineering Corp. Transfer, Storage Oil, Solvents, Lacquer, Yes
350 Main Street Organic Chemical Liquids
West Yarmouth, MA 02673
(617) 697-3344
Eastern Chemical Transfer, Storage, Oils, Solvents No
Specialties, Inc. Reclamation
P.O. Box 643
Worchester, MA 01613
(617) 752-2891
Geochem, Inc. Transfer, Storage,, Oils, Solvents, Organic and No
263 Howard Street Reclamation Inorganic Chemicals, Cyanide
Lowell, MA 01852 and Plating Wastes, Solvents
(617) 459-9302
Interex Corporation Transfer, Storage Organic and Inorganic Yes
3 Struthmore Road Chemicals, Cyanide and
Natick, MA 01760 Plating Waste,.Solids and
(617) 237-6650 Sludges, Reactive Materials,
Pesticides, PCB Solids

135

APPEND.IX E

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF MAINE AND THE CITY OF AUBURN, MAINE

137

.This contract is made as of this 11thday of March 19 80,

by and between the City of Auburn, Maine, a municipal corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine (here-

inafter called "Auburn"), and the Board of Environmental Protection

(hereinafter called "Board").

The parties to this contract, in consideration.of the mutual

covenants and'stipulations set out herein, agree as follows:

1. Disposal of Oily Waste:

A. Auburn shall maintain in good operating condition a solid

waste disposal facility to dispose of combustible oily waste, however

and wherever generated,
be

ginning from the date of final acceptance of the Auburn Solid Waste

Energy Recovery Facility by the City of Auburn. Such combustible

oily waste shall be disposed of as provided for in the rules and

procedures to'be enacted by Auburn in accordance with the provisions

of this contract.

B. The parties agree to discuss the feasibility of the dis-.

posal of other types of combustible materials at the Facility. Such

di-scussions will include, among other things, the compatability of

the Facility's combustion equipment to the combustible materials and

the disposal fee for such materials. Provided, however, that nothing

herein contained shall create an obligation on the part of either

party to enter into any agreement for the disposal of such other types

of combustible materials.

138

2. Definitions:

A. Combustible oily wastes means oil; petroleum products and

their by-products of any kind and in any form including but not limited

to petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, oil mixed with other wastes,

crude oils and all other liquid hydrocarbons regardless of specific
gravity; oil spill debris including' floating organic materials such

as seaweed, driftwood or flotsam; land vegetation; naturally occurring

non-biodegradable'materials; manufactured products used to clean up

or contain oil spills. Except as- defined in the previous sentence,
ncombus@ible oily wastes" does not include'hazardous wastes-las' -Ill
listed by name by the Board), or other types of materials,

which would cause damage to the Facility or its personnel and pre-

vent Auburn from fulfilling its obligations under this contract.

B. Facility means the Auburn Waste Energy Recovery Facility

and bypass/ash residue landfill.
C. To.n means 2,000' pounds.

D. State means the State of Maine, its officers, agents,

and employees.

E. Board means the Board of Environmental Protection, in-

cluding its successors.

F. Auburn means City of Auburn, its officers, agents,

e.-p-16yees, and includes the Facility's operator and operator's offi-

cers, agents, and employees.

3. Weighing; Costs:
A. @oard agrees to pay Auburn a dis posal fee of no more than

eight dollars per ton for the disposal of combustible oily wastes.
B. All combustible oily waste shall be weighed at the FAcilit@

to determine the amount of the disposal fee.
139

77
Payment-of said money shall

be as follows: (1) within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement,

Board shall pay Auburn 90% of the total amount due, or a total of

$507,000.00; and (2) within 60 days of the acceptance of the completed

Facility by Auburn, Board shall pay Auburn the remaining 10% of the

total amount due, or a total of $56,400.00.

4. Rules and Procedures for Facility:
A. The. Auburn Facility shall be governed, controlied and

administered solely by the Auburn City Council and the City Manager

of Auburn in accordance with the terms of this contract and all rules

and procedures enacted by the Auburn.

B.. Auburn shall promulgate reasonable rules and procedures

for the use'and.operation of the Facility. No later than thirty days

prior to the enactment of said rules and procedures, and any amend-

ments thereto, Auburn shall submit to Board a written copy of any

proposed rules and procedures for the purpose of enabling Board to

submit written comments on said rules and procedures.

C.. The parties agree to be bound by said'rules and procedures,

together with any amendments therefor, as if they were originally made

.part of this Contract, provided however that all such rules and pro-

cedures shall be reasonable and shall not prevent either party from

fulfilling its obligations under this contract.
140

D. A certified copy of said rules and procedures together

with any amendments thereto shall be on, file and available for

public inspection at the office of the.City Clerk for the City of

Auburn. Also, a certifed copy of said rules and procedures together

with any amendments thereto shall be sent by registered or certified

Mail, with restricted delivery and return receipt requested, to the

Chairman of the Board.

E. Such rules shall ensure a delivery schedule and rate
of disposal for all*of the State Is combustible oily waste within

365 days from the date the State has custody of said combustible

oily waste.

5. Indemnity: -Auburn-agrees to indemnifyop defend and save

harmless the State, its officers,.agents, and employees from any and

all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm, or
corporation who may be injured or damaged-by Auburn in the @erformance

of this contract.

Board agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless Auburn, its

dficers, agents and employees from any and all claims and losses

accruing or resulting to any person, firm or corporation who may be

injured or damaged by the'Board in performance of this contract-

6. Vehicles; Insurance: Vehicles used by collectors and haulers

.sha'-! be standard 6- to 10-wheeled dump trucks of 10-yard-maximum

capacity- dump body.

Board shall also require all collectors and haulers which it

may license or engage to collect the State's combustible oily waste,

141

except those collectors and haulers who are State employees, to

obtain and maintain property damage and personal liability insurance

in an amount of no less than $300,000.00 and to promptly provide

Auburn with-a certificate of such insurance with a thirty day can-

cellatio'n notice to the City of Auburn.

7.- Expenses of Facility: All decisions and determinations as

to operating budgets, wages and salaries, equipment and supply pur-

chases and any and all other operating expenses of the Auburn Facility

not otherwise covered by this contract shall be solely within the

discretion of the Auburn City Council and City Manager.

8. Property of Auburn: All land, buildings and equipment and

any and all other property before, now or hereafter acquired by

Auburn to establish, operate and maintain the Auburn Facility shall

be solely the property of Auburn, and Board shall not by virtue of

this contract have or acquire any proprietary rights, title cr in-

terests therein. Board shall not, by virtue of this contract, ob-

tain, acquire, or succeed to any rights or entitlements other than

those expressly set out and provided for herein.

9. Meeting of Parties: During the calendar year of 1999,

representatives of Auburn and Board shall meet to determine the fea--

sibility of continuing this contract beyond its expiration date. If

it is mutually determined at that time that theAuburn facility is

still a feasible system for the disposal of combustible oily wastes,

Board shall have the option to renew this contract for an additional

ten vears on terms to be negotiated by the parties. Should it be

determined that a different system is more feasible at the end of

142

this contract, then Board shall be given the right to participate

in the new system upon terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the

parties.

10. Assignment: Neither party shall sublet, sell, transfer,

assign, or otherwise dispose of any portion thereof, or of its right.,

title, or interest therein, without written consent of the other

party; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall pro-

hibit or,restrict Auburn from employing the person, firm or corpor-..

ation-of its choice to operate the facility ("operator"). Such em-

ployment by Auburn of.its operator shall not release either party

of its liability under this contract.

11. Applicable Law: The parties agree to comply with all

applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations which are

either now in effect or hereafter enacted and, if necessary, to exe-

cute and deliver any amendment to this contract in order to meet any

sucl@ new law or regulation.

12. Contingency: This contract is contingent upon the comple-

tion and acceptance by Auburn of theAuburn Solid Waste Energy Recovery

Facility as more particularly described in the City of' Auburn's request

for proposal for the Auburn Solid Waste Energy Recovery Project, dated

December lst, 1977. In the event that said Facility is not completed

and accepted by the City of Auburnt this contract shall be void and

9 of no effect, and Auburn shall-refund all money paid by the Board

pursuant to paragraph 3 of this contract, together with interest at

the legal rate from the date Auburn gives notice to Consumat Systems,

0 Inc. or Global Development Engineering, Inc. that Auburn does not

accept the Facility.
143

Auburn shall submit to the Board written progress reports on

or-before January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year
P
until completion and acceptance of said Facility by Auburn. In the

event that Auburn has a cause of action alleging negligence or

breach of contract against any contractor, subcontractor, architect,
engineer, or maaufacturer of any equipment for recovery of any funds'

advanced to Auburn by the Board, the Board shall be permitted by

Auburn to the extent legally possible to intervene in said cause of

action on behalf of the Board and on behalf of Auburn to recover.any

amounts which may be awarded as actual damages; said recovery shall

reduce.any amount which Auburn is obligated to refund the Board pur-

suant to the first paragraph of paragraph 12 of this contract.

13. Equal Employment Opportunity: During the performance of

this contract, Auburn agrees as follows:

A. Auburn will not discriminate against any employee or

applicant for employment relating to this agreement because of race,

color, religious creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, age or phy-

sical handi'Cap, unless related to a bona fide occupational qualifi-

ca,_-ion. Auburn will take affirmative action to insure that applicants

are employed and employees are treated during employment without

regard to their race, color, religion, sex, age or national origin.

Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: employ-

ment, upgradinq, demotions, or transfers; recruitment or recruitment 9

advertising; layoffs or terminations; rates of pay or other forms of

compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship.

Auburn agrees to postin conspicuous places, available to employees

and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions

of this nondiscrimination clause.
144

B. Auburn will, in all solicitations or advertising for

employees placed by or on behalf of Auburn relating to this agreement,

state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for

employment without regard to race, color, religious creed, sex,

national origin, ancestry, age, or physical handicap.

C. Auburn will send to each labor union or representative
7
of the workers with which he has a collective or bargaining agreement,.

or other contract or understanding, whereby he is furnished with

labor for the performance of this contract, a notice, to be provided
by the contracting department or agency', advis.i.ng the said labor union

or workers' representative of Auburn's commitment under this section

and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to

employees and to applicaints for.employment.

D. Auburn will cause the foregoing provisions-to be inserted

in any subcontracts for any work covered by-this agreement so that

such provisions shall be binding upon each subcontractor, provided

that the foregoing provisions shall not apply to contracts or subcon-

traQts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. Auburn,

or any subcontractor holding a contract directly under Auburn, shall

to the maximum'feasible, list all suitable employment openings with

the Maine Employment Security Commission. This provision-shall not

apply to employment.openings which Auburn, or any subc.ontractor holding

a contract under Auburn, propo ses to fill from within its own organiza-

tion. Listing of such openings with the Employment Service Division

of the Ma.ine Employment Security Commission shall involve only the

normal obligations which attach to such listings.

145

14. Employment and Personnel: Auburn shall not engage on a full-

time, part-time or other basis during the period of this contract,

any professional of technical personnel who are or have been at any

time during the period of this Pontract in the employ of any State-

@Department or Agency, except regularly retired employees, without

written consent of the public employer of such person. Further,

Auburn shall not engage on this project on a full-time, part-time

or other basis during the period of this contract any retired

emrloyee of the Department who has not been retired for at least

one year, without the written consent of the Contract Review Committee.

15. State Employees Not to Benefit: No individual employed by 41

the State at the time this contract is executed or any time thereafter

shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract or to any
benefit that may arise therefrom directly or indirectly due. to his W

employment,by or financial interest in Auburn or any affiliate of

Auburn. Th.is provision shall not be construed to extend to this

contract if made with a corporation for its general benefit.

16. Warranty: Auburn warrants that it has not employed or writ-

ten any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working

solely for Auburn to solic it or secure this contract, and that it

.has not paid, or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a

-bona fide employee working solely for Auburn any fee, commission,

percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration, contin-

gent upon, or resulting from the award for making this contract. For

breach or violation of this warranty, the Board shall have the

right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion

to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise re-

cover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage
fee, gifts, or contingent fee...-

17. Interpretation and Performance: This contract shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Maine as to interpretation and

performance.
18. Invoices and Payments: Payment of any disposal fees incurred
by the hoard shall be made by the Board within 30.days after receipt

of an approved itemize'd invoice submitted by Auburn upon its usual

billing forms or business letterhead.
46
19. Independent Capacity: The parties hereto agree that Auburn,

and any agents and employees of Auburn, in the performance of this

contract shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers

or employees or agents of the State or Board.

20. Contract Administrator: 'All invoices, progress- reports,

correspondence, and related submissions from Auburn shall be directed

to:

Name: Marc*Guerin
Title: Director, Division of oil Conveyance Services
Address; Bureau of Water Quality Control
Augusta, Maine;

who is designated as the Contract Administrator on behalf of the

Board for this contract. The Board may designate another person as

Contract Administrator after reasonable notice to Auburn.

21. Department's Representative: The Contract Administrator

shall be the Department's representative during the period of this*

contract. He has authority to stop the work if necessary to ensure

its proper execution. He shall certify to the Board when pay-

ments under the contract are due and the amounts to be paid. He shall

make decisions on all claims-of the Contractor, subject to the approval

of the Head of the Department.

147

22. Access to Records: Auburn shall maintain all books, docu-

mehts, plansl working papers, payrolls, paperst accounting records,

and all other evidence pertaining to costs incurred under this con-

tract and to make such materials available at its offices at all

reasonable times during.the period of this contract and for three

years from the date of the expiration of this contract, for inspec-

tion by the Board or any authorized representative of the State of

Maine and copies thereof shall be furnished, if requested, to the.

Board at the expense of the Board.

23. Termiration: The performance of work under the contract

may be terminated by the Department in whole, or, from time to time,

in part whenever for any reason the Contract Administrator shall

determine that such termination is in the best interest of the Board.

Any such termination shall be effected.by.delivery to Auburn of 6

Notice of Termination specifying the extent to which performance of

the work under the contract is terminated and the date on which such

termination becomes effective. The contract shall beequitably

adjusted to compensate for such termination and the contract modified

accordingly.

24. This contract is subject to the approval of the Maine Attar-

ney General's office, the Contract Review Committee and the State

Controller before it can be considered as a valid document which can

be executed.

25. Entire Agreement: This contract contains the entire agree-

ment of the parties, and neither party shall be bound by any state-

ment or represcntation not contained herein.
148

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Auburn has caused this instru-
ment to be signed, sealed, acknowledged and delivered by Charles A. Morri
Manager
its City/ thereunto duly authorized; and Board of Environmental

Protection has caused this instrument to be signed, sealed, acknow-

ledged and delivered by Henry Warren, its Chairman

thereunto duly authorized; this day and year first above written.

CITY OF AUBURN

Its

BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BY:

Its

STATE OF MAINE,

Androscoggin, ss:

Personally appeared the above-named

and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his free act and

deed in his said capacity and the free act and deed of said City of

Auburn.
Approved as to Form: Before me,

1980
-Justice-of-the_RZZ@otary Public/
At-torney:at Law

Assistant Attor4ey General
149

912947

State of Maine,
,ss: March 11 19 80
Personally appeared the above-named Henry E. Warren
and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his free act and deed
in his said capacity and the free act and deed of said Board of Environ-
mental Protection.

Before me,

Justice of the Peace/Notary Public/
Attorney at Law

APPROVED
CONTRACT REVIEW COMMITTEE

DATE: 4-29-80

CHAIRMAN

150

APPENDIX F

Appendix F: Survey of Spill Debris Disposal Strategies in
New England

Connecticut

Waste oil or oil spill debris is not presently considered a
hazardous waste in.Connecticut, but the state's definition of
hazardous waste is currently being revised (there is an attempt to
have the 140OF flash point adopted as a criteria). The state also
does not have a policy on the concentration of heavy metals in
oily waste debris which determines if it is hazardous. Whether
Federal RCRA regulations will be adopted was not known. The
transport and disposal of oily wastes in Connecticut does require
manifests even though oily wastes are not,considered as hazardous.

All spills must be reported to the state and must be cleaned up by
the spiller or representative. If the spiller does not clean up,
the state can, by using money from a designated general fund
account. The state can then proceed, in court, to recover any
monies expended for clean up.

Connecticut takes an integrated approach to spills of oil and
chemicals by using a common state authority for response and
disposal. The state has a designated six-man emergency cleanup
unit to respond to the 750 to 1200 spill s that are reported each
year. The volume spilled in Connecticut each year averages in
excess of several hundred thousand gallons. There have been no
major oil spills in Connecticut in recent history.

151

The state policy for spills is rapid containment. Most oi I i s
recovered by vacuuming and then recycled. Oil -recovered from
small volume spills is sometimes landfilled. There is no specific
licensing system for landfills that handle spill debris. However,
there is a list of sites which can accept small amounts of oily
wastes by permit. Permits must be obtained on a case-by-case
basis. The state also has incinerator facilities, all of-which
are run by municipalities. Incinerators are not specially licen-
sed for spill debris. Any unit capable of burning bulky wastes
can be used. Wet wastes, such as seaweed and grasses, are dried
and then mixed with dry trash to incre'ase the BTU content before
being burned in a bulky waste incinerator. The state DEP is now
preparing regulations on the burning of recovered oil to prevent
pollution, especially from heavy metals. There are no regulations
specifically prohibiting municipalities from accepting spill
debris from out-of-state. Therefore, New Hampshire could conceiv-
ably use these facilities.

Connecticut does not currently have the ability to dispose of
large amounts of spill wastes. There are no facilities which
recycle oil in Connecticut so wastes are sent to other states for
treatment. Their positi on is to encourage private industry to
develop the necessary facilities.

Summary of Connecticut

Connecticut has some incinerators owned by municipalities that
could possibly be used by New Hampshire for burning spill debris.
Also, small amounts of spill debris could possibly be landfilled
in Connecticut on a case-by-case basis. However, it is unlikely,
due to financial and practical considerations, that Connecticut
will help New Hampshire's strategy to any great degree. Also, as
will be discussed later, oil spill debris is considered hazardous
in Massachusetts. Thus, travel through Massachusetts which
necessitates manifest and licensed hazardous waste transporters,
would make the cost of transporting wastes to Connecticut very
expensive.

Rhode Island

In Rhode Island.all spills must be reported to the state and be
cleaned up by the spiller or a representative. If the spiller
does not clean up, a contractor is hired using monies from a state
fund and the spiller is billed. If the spiller is not known or
does not reimburse the state, the state then relies on the EPA 311
fund.

152

In Rhode Island, oily wastes are considered hazardous unless
proven otherwise, i.e., do not fall under RCRA definition of
hazardous by having flash points lower than 140OF or high heavy
metal contents. The burden of proof is on the spiller.

Landfills within the state cannot accept hazardous oily wastes.
However, if it is demonstrated that the wastes-do not fall under
RCRA criteria, oily wastes may be disposed of at separate areas
within landfills. A state landfill was approved for spill debris
disposal, but it has recently been designated for industrial
development precluding it from this use. A private landfill in
Cranston, Rhode Island, owned by the Capuano Brothers, can accept
non-hazardous oily wastes if approved by the state. This landfill
is the only site in Rhode Island presently accepting oily wastes.

The Solid Waste Bureau is involved with debris disposal when it is
not hazardous. This Bureau has authorized disposal of debris from
Massachusetts on a case-by-case basis 'at the Capuano site and
might make similar arrangements with New Hampshire should there be
a spill.

There are no waste oil recovery facilities or refineries in Rhode
Island so most liquids go to the New York-New Jersey area. There
are also no licensed incinerators in Rhode Island for spill debris
disposal. There are several waste oil dealers which operate in
Rhode Island which could possibly temporarily store liquid oily
wastes should New Hampshire have a spill..

Summary of Rhode Island

The best possibility for cooperation between New Hampshire and
Rhode Island appears to be limited to disposal of non-hazardous
debris on a case-by-case basis at licensed landfills such as the
one in Cranston. There is no possibility of assistance from Rhode
Island on treatment of waste liquids or combustibles (other than
landfilling). There is some possibility that waste oil dealers
could assist with temporary storage of oily liquids. Again, since
Massachusetts currently defines oily wastes as hazardous, wastes
transported through the state must be manifested and transported
by licensed carriers. This will have a tendency to keep the costs
of transporting wastes to Rhode Island high.

Rhode Island realizes that they do not have the capability to deal
with a large quantity of wastes and seems interested in solving
the probl em. In recognition of their lack of facilities, Rhode
Island has designated several beach areas as temporary storage
areas. The Department of Health has authority to dike or cover
these temporary storage areas to prevent further contamination

153

while making arrangements for the final disposal of oily wastes.

Vermont

Unlike the other five New England states, Vermont has no coastal
zone but is concerhed with the possibility of large spills in Lake
Champlain as well as in its numerous smaller lakes and rivers.

All spills must be reported to the state and must be cleaned up by
the spiller or a representative. If the spiller does not clean
up, the state has a small contingency fund. It also relies on the
Coast Guard or EPA 311 Fund to provide necessary clean-up monies.

Waste oil and spill debris are considered to be hazardous waste in
Vermont. Therefore, these materials must be disposed of at a
fully licensed hazardous waste facility either in or out-of-state.
There are no licensed facilities, incinerators or water treatment
plants, in Vermont. Very smal-1 quantities of spill debris (less
than a few cubic yards at a time) have been landfilled on a case-
by-case basi s. Al 1 other debris is presently being stored or
stockpiled pending an approved disposal option.

The New England Marine Company of Burlington has a site designated
for landfarming which is pending approval.. Public sentiment is
against the operation primarily since oily wastes are defined as
hazardous in Vermont and the town voted against it last year. Ne'w
England Marine is still attempting to obtain approval.

The state Office of Environmental Engineering/Hazardous Wastes
Section is proposing that the state consider a new landfarming
technique to solve its oily waste management problem. Thi s
technique involves using calcium hydroxide and a proprietary
ingredient to speed up the landfarming process. It can be used at
existing landfills, yields a reusable material (for example, it
can be used as sub-base material in roadbeds), and appears to be
cost effective.

Vermont expressed interest in the possibility of using a New
Hampshire site should New Hampshire take steps to seek approval of
one.

154

Summary of Vermont

Si nce al 1 spi 11 debri s i s consi dered hazardous and there are no
@approved spill debris disposal sites or facilities in Vermont, the
possibility of a viable relationship with New Hampshire is remote.

It wouTd appear that Vermont would favor the regional concept for
large. volume debris disposal. But, in light of the fact that
spill debris is considered a hazardous waste in Vermont, the
persons with whom we spoke led us to believe that it would be
easier to accomplish the goal in a state where spill debris is not
considered-to be a hazardous waste.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts all spills must be reported to the state and must
be cleaned up by the spiller or a representative. Many of the
large oil companies have the money and capability to respond to
their spills. If the spiller cannot or does not clean up, the
Coast Guard will respond' to-. the spill using monies from the
Federal 311 K fund. The spiller is expected to reimburse the
Coast Guard, -but non-payment is often the case. The state also
has a fund for cleanup, but it is not often used. The state may
agree to have a more active role in cleanup operations.

Massachusetts relies heavily on the Coast Guard to oversee cl ean
up of coastal spifls. Massachusetts generally attends to inland
spills and has a small general fund account from which "mystery"
spills can be cleaned up until @PA arrives on the scene. The
responsible party, when known, is liable to the state for all
costs incurred by the state for the investigation and those
incurred during containment and removal operations. Al 1 damaged
areas must be restored to their original condition. Damages to
natural and recreational resources are the responsibility of the
spiller as well as damages to persons and personal property.

Waste oils, contaminated water, and solid spill debris are consi-,
dered to be hazardous wastes in Massachusetts. These-wastes must
therefore be disposed of at licensed hazardous waste facilities.
Any materials coming into the state of Massachusetts must be fully
manifested and transported by a licensed hauler which increases
the cost.

There are several licensed oil-water separators owned by private
companies in Massachusetts. There are also several waste oil
dealers operating in Massachusetts which may assist in temporary
liquid storage. . There are no licensed 'incinerators for burning
spill debris or any licensed landfills for debris disposal in
Massachusetts. However, there are many communities located

155

primarily on Cape Cod, that have small approved temporary storage
sites for spill debris.

There are a few private companies seeking approval of hazardous
waste disposal facilities. One company, SRS, Inc., wants to build
a hazardous waste recycling plant in Haverhill, Massachusetts.
The plant is designed primarily to accept solvents, but would also
accept oil. It is in the preliminary stages of approval. Another
company, IT Corporation, is looking for a location for a 100
million dollar, incineration, recycling, landfilling facility.
The project has received preliminary approval (feasible and
deserving decision). The approval process will take a minimum of
12 months and, if approved, construction will take several years.
These proposed facilities are designed primarily to handle wastes
generated in Massachusetts but may accept out-of-state wastes as
well . New Hampshire should look in.to this possibility if the
facility is approved.

Summary of Massachusetts

Massachusetts has 'the capabilities for the reprocessing and
recycling of some oily liquids that might be generated in New
Hampshire. There ' are no restri cti ons on bri ngi ng out-of -state
spill liquids to approved, licensed separators in Massachusetts.
Aside from Tiquids, there does not appear to.be much capability in
Massachusetts for disposal of spill wastes since there are no
landfills or rotary incinerators now accepting oily wastes.

Some new development of facilities in Massachusetts is planned at
this time but none of the projects have reached a stage where they
are likely to be approved within the next three or four years.
New Hampshire should keep in contact with the Bureau of Solid
Waste on a routi-ne basis to keep up with the progress being made
by private companies in Massachusetts. There are no pl ans being
made by the state at this time to develop their own capability for
debris disposal.

Maine

Maine operates its spill control program under a law enacted in
1970 entitled the Coastal Conveyance Act. The law requires that
all spills be reported to the state and that the spiller or a
representative be responsible for cleanup and restoration of
damages. Maine has a six million dollar oil spill contingency
fund for responding to spills. This is collected through as
assessment on oil transferred from ships on a per barrel basis at

156

the larger Maine terminals. Maine has an aggressive spill control
program entirely financed from this fund. Oil spill and chemical
spill response is integrated into the same agency. Maine experi-
ences between 300 to 400 spills annually and normally several
hundred thousand gallons are spilled each year.

Waste oils and spill debris are not considered hazardous wastes in
Maine. These materials are. not considered solid wastes either
and, instead, fall into a broad category called "special" wastes.
The term "special" connotes a waste that is rather innocuous but
needing proper management * Persons engaged in transporting these
wastes need no special ii censes or permits.

Small amounts of non-combustible debris may be disposed of on a
case-by-case basis with the approval of the state solid waste
officials, usually by the landspreading technique on dirt parking
lots or at sanitary landfills.

Combustible debris can be handled by either the Town of Windham
municipal incinerator or the City of Auburn incinerator. Both
these facilities are specifically licensed to burn spill -,debris.
Windham can take relatively small amounts on a case-by-case basis
with written approval of the DEP staff., This insures that the
source of the debris is documented so that unknown wastes are not
involved.

The City of Auburn has a new facility with four units capable of
burning 200 tons of combustible bulky waste's each day. This
facility encourages the burning of spill debris and has virtually
eliminated the problem of combustible spill debris disposal in
Maine. To date, out-of-state wastes are not prohibited at either
of these facilities.

Currently, there are no licensed oil-water separators in Maine for
spill liquids even though there have been several attempts in the
private sector to obtain approval for separators. Most attempts
to obtain permits to treat and discharge this water have failed
due to local opposition, inaccessibility to properly classified
water bodies and/or financial limitations. Therefore, oil and
water wastes are sent to Massachusetts for processing. Again,
since oily wastes are considered hazardous in Massachusetts,
wastes transported to Massachusetts must be manifested and carried
by licensed vehicles. There are several waste oil dealers in
Maine which could help with the temporary storage of liquid
wastes.

Over the past three years, Maine has been attempting to devglop
and implement a statewide strategy to dispose-of spill debris
using a staging area, processing and/or recycling strategy. This
three-year project has been quite expensive thus far but has

1.57

sol ved some of the probl ems and coul d sol ve al 1 the probl ems
shoul d local opposition give way to approval of the state's
stra'tegy. To date, the entire project has been financed entirely
from the state fund. If the multi-million dollar facilities are
ultimately approved and constructed, at least $500,000 will have
to be granted to the project from the Federal government through a
Coastal Energy Impact Program Grant.

The basic concept behind the Maine strategy is as follows: Pre-
site staging areas or temporary storage sites for spill debris are
needed and should be designed to handle wastes from the largest
expected event. In areas away from large size tanker traffic, it
is estimated that disposal sites would have to handle 5,000 cubic
yards of solids. In areas with high tanker traffic, disposal
sites should be designed to handle an estimated 25,000 cubic yards
of solid wastes. Liquid storage facilities are not needed due to,
the avail ability..of existing tank storage either in mobile mode
(tank trucks) or waste oil dealers.

In Maine, one small site, designed for the temporary storage of
5,000 cubic yards and to be located at the Bangor International
Airport on the property of the City of Bangor, is in the final
approval process. Three such sites were originally envisioned to
serve the less populated areas of the state. Two have been
dropped at this time due to unavailability of 'land. They may be
pursued later depending upon the outcome of the Bangor project.

Another larger facility, to be located on land in the City of
South Portland, is also proposed. This site would also be de-
signed not only for temporary stoeage but also for sorting spill
debris.

In conjunction, these four facilities would safel-y store spill
debris in an emergency until it could later be taken to the
sorting area. Activities such as mixing small amounts of heavily
saturated soil with large amounts of dry uncontaminated earth can
easily be accomplished given such a sorting/staging area. At the
sorting area, combusti bl es would be separated from non-
combustibles and non-combustibles would be "sized" for recycling
as asphalt production items, roadbed -fill, or sanitary landfill
cover. Once combustibles are sorted out, they can be incinerated
by the Windham or Auburn facilities. Si nce the City of Auburn
received a grant of $500,000 from the State Oil Pollution Fund,
access Vo the incinerator by the state is guaranteed for at least
the next 30 years regardless of the volume involved.
The best feature of the Sout*h Portiand facility, aside from being
an area where waste materials can be sorted into useful items, is
that it is always ready *for temporary storage of a relatviely
large volume of debris. Maine has experienced large spills three
times in the past 25 years.
158

Technical considerations and some of the problems i n obtai ni ng
local approval associated with the search for sites in Maine are
given in a report entitled "Oily Wastes Management, an Investi-
gation of Alternatives for the State of Maine" prepared for the
State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection by SCS
Engineers, Augusta, Maine (1979-1980).

The question of whether the Maine site can be used for disposal or
management of out-of-state wastes is open at this time. The South
Portland project has been shelved for the near future. If Federal
money is to be used on the project, then it would appear to be
unconstitutional to deny access to the facility to any state.
However, this issue -is a well-debated subject and has not been
entirely resolved at this time. Most likely it will remain
unresolved until a vote on the permit at the local level is
finalized.

Summary of Maine

Maine is attempting to implement a statewide strategy for debris
disposal, relying heavily on temporary storage with incineration
and landspreading foe ultimate disposal.

It is the Center's opinion and recommendation at this time not to
officially approach the Maine DEP with questions regarding the
availability to New Hampshire of the proposed sorting facility in
South Portland out of fear that this could jeopardize its chance
for approval. It would be better to wait and see how the question
i.s dealt with by the communities involved. If it is obvious that
out-of-state wastes will be allowed, on a limited basis, than New
Hampshire could openly seek use of the site with some financial
assistance to secure the deal. This would not be a deceitful
approach as it would insure that people at the local level would
be aware of New,Hampshire's intent. A financial offering would
lessen the cost burden for Maine and the community. It would also
have the advantage of being perceived as a political move toward
more regional solutions of the disposal problems faced by New
England. The other option is to use the facility with the appro-
val of officials on a case-by-case basis.

New Hampshire could consider contacting the Town of Windham and/or
the City of Auburn at this time about burning cdmbustible waste
from New Hampshire.

159

OBSERVATION

From the above discussions of the various state approaches, it can
be seen that regional solutions appear to be the most feasible
although virtually no attempts have been made to do so. Most
states feel. that it is mainly the industries' responsibility to
solve the problem. The complexity of the approval process,
however, discourages proposal of new disposal projects.

If every state cooperates, there is definitely the capability
within New England to manage a great deal of debris. With state
approval, Rhode Island could handle some solids at a private
landfill. Maine has incinerators which could accept combustible
wastes and Massachusetts has the ability to process oily water.
Therefore, facilities are available to deal with oily wastes.
With cooperation, New Hampshire might be able to solve its oily
waste problem without much financial investment.

160

APPENDIX G

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE LAMPREY
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE COOPERATIVE
4b

161

RECEIVED AUG 1 3 1981
Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Ceoperative
c/o Town Offices 13-15 Newmarket Road Durham, N.H. 03824
Coopera.tins Towns: 603-868-1068
Barrington
Durham - UNH
Epping
Greenland
Lee
Madbury
Ne.fields
Newingion
Ne markel
Nowrih.ood August 11, 1981
Uollinsford
Stratharn

Mr. Steve Tibbetts
c*/o Center for Natural Areas
P.O. Box 98
South Gardiner, ME 04359

Dear Steve,

To follow up our telephone conversation yesterday, I am enclosing the following
letters for your review and use:

1/25/80 Malcolm Chase to Ronald Poltak
1/28/80 Malcolm Chase to Tom Sweeney
5/5/80 Malcolm Chase to Ronald Poltak
-5/12/80 Ronald Poltak to Malcolm Chase

Since the dialogue of these letters, the construction of our facility has been com-
pleted as summarized in Mr. Chase's letter of January 25, 1980 with the exception
of the additional 30' x 40' storage area. The facility operates with two inciner-
ators and one boiler on full time and one incinerator and boiler on stand-by.

On one occasion last fall, we accepted some oil spill waste on a trial basis. Al-
though some additional and special handling was needed, the acutal burning of the
was-te seemed to have no adverse affect on our plant.

Although the Durham Point facility is listed as a possible storage site, the Coop-
erative includes a total of 13 towns in the seacoast area (see map enclosed), and
there may well be other sites within our bounds entirely suitable and with ample
area to facilitate interim storage.

As you can see, Mr. Chase has done much of the groundwork for setting up the Lamprey
Cooperative as a feasible alternative for the disposal of New Hampshire's oil spill
waste. The Lamprey Cooperative is still very much interested in pursuing this effort
so if we may be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call either myself
at 868-1068 or Mr. Chase at his Portsmouth office; 431-2520.

Ver@ Trull Yours
//y
6 -7

/John H. Dewyea
Project Engineer
JHD:psm 162
Enclosures
cc: Malcolm J. Chase
Rnnolti PnIf-1,

---,-, /I -/I I - T A .-iv-o R r-H 14, " - - - - -I
ISANDWICH - Ke@.'_C/ -71101
R U M N E Y 11 C A Ad P T 0 N I
-1r/ FREEDOM

DORCHESTER

GROTON HOLOERNESS t-
/,PILYmourm @', /\
"'p, MOULTONBOROUGH f F F I N 6 H A M
OSSIPEE
EBRON

TUFTON
,-,'L BORO
ORANGE GIL4
S

ALEXANDRIA 'N q ID r
BRISTOL
6 R A FTOII < WOLFEBORO
I LACONIA \j
% - % / %
\I /- G I L FO R 0 I'l) -- - I
DANBURY S AN 8 0 R III T 0 N /. -0
N I L L
E N
If,
BELMONT
r AIt 0 0 V E R 1 11 AL T ONI NEW
4 1OUR 'A
k_
0N,:O J V. 0
H A

G I L M A N T 0 N
I NORTHFIELO'N, //MILTON

S A L I S a U R

S U T 1 0 N
CANTERBURY BA R N S TEA 0 FARMINGTON
LOUDON

If A R N E A R. STRAFFORD ROCHESTER
:RADFORD
C 0 N C 0 R 0 SOUERSWORTH

HOPKINTON E P s 0 m
NO NTH WOOD BARRINGTON ROLLdmsFORO
WENNIKER
HILLSBOROU6m
PEMBROKE R
4o DOVE 6
'k a o W I- AALLENSTOWN DEERFIELD
OUNGARTO"N'\', NOTTINGHAM a.
DURHAM
DEERING W E A R E
OR I It HOOKSETT %
CA N D I A LIARKET
r
-r, L E P P I N 6 r-_ NEW CASTLE
GOFFSTOW
FA 'IFRANCESTOWNI N /RAYMOND NEWFIELOS
0 CK A, C.(D- /
L NEW BOSTON k
Rt AUSU ONT k E R Y E
U L NORTMe
(D MANCHESTE RN FREU 4. , N@ ......
-Ty, I lb I . HAMPTON-\ %
C H ESTER ETER
4 -' r @S - C.
BEDFORD _rL ISLES
OF
MONT SANDOWN1 4*1 -1cp HAMPTON SHOALS
ETERBOROUGNI
VERNON
i-r n-1 - -I - - j
r' AM
-1 HERST I 6NOORDERRY! DERRY IHAMPSTEAD 01A 48 Do
NE TON
I MERRIMACK\ -I /, <,.\\
SHARON 1 TEMPLE WILTON
IMILFORDt ATKINSOmt

WINDHAM
r f 11
@.j - N I SALEM
NEW IPSWICN MASON I NASHUA HUDSON
HOLLIS

PELMAM

oc,

163

Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative
c/o Town Offices 13-15 Newmarket Road Durham N.H. 03824
603-868-1068

Cooperatine Towns:
Harrington
- UNH
pping
Greenland
Lee
Madbury
Newfields
Newington
Newmarket
Nor wood
Rollinsford
Stratron
January 25, 1980

Mr. Ronald F. Poltak
Director
OFFICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
21/2 Beacon Street
Concord, N.H. 03301

Dear Mr. Poltak:

This letter, written as a follow-up to my meeting with Mr.
Chittum of your staff on Tuesday, January 22, is intended to
express the interest of the Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooper-
ative in undertaking a cooperative effort with the State of New
Hampshire in the disposal of oil spill waste. As discussed with-
Mr. Chittum, it is our belief that we have all the requirements
to handle on a long range basis, the storage and incineration
of waste and other contaminated materials resulting from acci-
dental oil spills. In order for you and your staff to understand,
the scope of our project, and its status, it would seem appropri-
ate to develop some of the history of our refuse disposal program
in Durham.

The University of New Hampshire and the Town of Durham have
jointly owned and operated a solid waste incinerator for nearly
ten years. While the unit is definiteiy a portotype of a good
incinerator facility and has worked well, we were only able to
construct and install one two-ton-per-hour burning unit when it
was initially constructed rather than two such units which were
designed and proposed for the initial installation. This second
unit would have provided the backup needed to maintain positive
operation at all times.

Because of its concern for lack of backup, the joint Town-UNH
Incinerator Committee, which sets the policy for the operation of
our incinerator, felt that it was necessary to make long-range
plans for our future operations. To this end, the Committee
engaged a consultant in 1976 to evaluate our present operation
and develop alternate plans for the future to include consideration
of the construction of a second plant at the University, where
heat recovery would be possible and, further, to give consideratin
to permitting those adjoining towns who had indicated an interest
in utilizing our present incinerator to join with us in a limited
regional cooperative program of solid wate disposal. Their inter-
est in joining with us had been engendered in part by the State
moratorium which has been placed on many of them to cease certain
types of landfills and burning.
164

Mr. Ronald F. Poltak Page 2
January 25, 1980

The report produced by our consultants indicted quite clearly,
at least in the preliminary investigations, that a second plant
could be utilized at the University to produce steam, and could
reduce by almost half the University and Town's cost for solid
waste disposal. A requisite of this program was the inclusion of
the solid waste from our neighboring towns to attain a total
solid waste fuel of approximately 20,000 tons per year.

Because of the apparent benefits to be derived from the foregoing
programs, the nine cooperating towns, at their 1977 Town Meetings,
with two additional towns joining in 1978, authorized their Selec-
ment to enter into cooperative agreements with the Town of Durham
and the University, and further, appropriated a proportionate share
of the estimated $20,000 required to proceed with a detailed
feasibility study for the construction and operation of a joint
solid waste and heat recovery unit. This detailed study confirmed
that the construction of three, 36-ton-per-day units adjacent to
the UNH steam plant offers the very best cost benefits in reducing
the cost of a portion of the heating requirements of the University
and in the definite halving of the cost of our present solid waste
disposal program. All cooperating towns, through the Policy Com-
mittee which has been established to oversee the program, unani-
mously endorsed this proposal at their 1978 Town Meetings, and
approved their proportionate share of the estimated cost of the
project.
The Cooperative, through its Operations Committee, engaged an
engineering firm to design the incinerator system in August of
1978. The plans and specifications for this incinerator facility
provided for the above noted three 36-ton-per-day refuse fired
modular incinerator units to include primary chambers, incinerator
secondary chambers, auxiliary fuel system, heat recovery boilers,
breechings and stacks for each incinerator, control panels, boiler
controls, boiler soot blowers, equipment structures, refuse feed
system, automatic wet residue system, and all accessories and ap-
purtenances required for a complete and operating system. Our
specifications include the requirements that each incinerator meet
all federal and state emissions standards. A complete set of
these documents was furnished to Mr. Lunderville, Director of the
New Hampshire Air Pollution Division of the New Hampshire Department-
of Health on April 5, 1979.

Our designs incorporated sufficient capacity based on estimated
waste presently generated by the twelve cooperating communitites
(see letterhead) and in the foreseeable future, such that one
thirty-six-ton incinerator and one boiler would give us a complete
backup system for use in normal maintenance operation and for
emergencies. Although we felt, when the construction estimates
were made in late '77 and early '78, that sufficient funds would be
available, the increased capacity of the systems, the larger
building recuired to house them, coupled with, unanticipated

165

Mr. Ronald F. Poltak
January 25, 1980 Page 3

foundation problems at the site, and the universal increased
cost due to inflation and other causes encountered at the time
of bidding, has resulted in total planned project costs in ex-
cess of available funds. This has necessitatied, with the co-
operation of the two major contractors, Consumat Systems of
Richmond, Virginia (Energy Systems), and Griffin Construction
Company of Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Site Development), the
staging of the construction by delaying, in general the backup
elements, until additional funds are made available. With the
initial break-in period for the incinerators scheduled for late
May and early June, and regular operations for July, it is essen-
tial for efficient full completion of the project, to secure
additional funding at the earliest possible date. All of the
foundation work is presently nearing completion. The setting
of the major incinerator components began yesterday, and the
building erection will follow shortly early in February. We are
essentially on the schedule we set for ourselves two years
ago.

It is our hope, therefore, that through funds available through
your agency, that we can work out a joint program, whereby the
Cooperative will store, incinerate, and dispose of residue of
oil spill waste materials. For preliminary consideration, I
have outlined the following tentative procedures for handling
and disposal of the wastes:

1. Emergency Storaqe. Once the new facility on the campus
is in operation, the existing UNH/Durham incinerator
will be mothballed. This will release the present
covered storage building, with a capacity of 100 tons,
to accommodate the oil spill waste. There is unlimited
space at our present location for safe storage of waste
materials, until they can be moved either under cover
or to the incinerator p1ant.

2. Transitional Storage. Waste material will be moved by
appropriate vehicles from the present incinerator storage
site to the tipping floor of the new plant in programmed
quantities determined for efficient incineration with
normal waste stream. Should additional storage space be
required, a long range plan building addition, approximately
30' x 40', can be added to the new building.

3. Incinerator Capacity. We will have available, unde present
estimates, for the handling of additional waste generated
one stand-by 36-ton-per-day incinerator, which we feel can
adequately handle the additional waste resulting from oil
spill clean-ups. Our incinerators are so designed that
waste fuel moves very slowly through the length of the
chamber, (8 to 12 hours), such that appropriate heat and
time of burning required for oil wastes, can be met, and
with the sophisticated afterburner system, will meet
emission control requirements.
166

Mr. Ronald F. Poltak Page 4
January 25, 1980

4. Energy System. The plant is so designed that effi-
cient operation is best obtained in the production
of energy (steam), that when three incinerators are
in operation, the second boiler is almost essential,
and should be installed concurrently with all other
planned elements of the refuse-to-energy system.

5. Scale System. Our plan calls for the installation of
a scale system with print-out records for all deliveries
of waste. This has been delaved until additional funds
are made available. The weighing at the site is one of
the key elements in maintaining accurate records of
material delivered and processed for budgeting and re-
imbursement to the Cooperative by the towns and the
sale of steam to the University.

The costs of the items which we envision would accommodate the I
additional tonnage from oil spill wastes are included in our bi
as follows:

1. Energy System - One complete energy system, consisting
of a boiler, cyclone blower, gas manifold, and appurten-
ances, manufactured and installed $193,531.00

2. Incinerator - One complete, 36-ton-per-day inciner-
ator, manufactured and installed $218,440.00

3. Scale System - One complete truck scale system,
with automatic recording and read-out devices $ 30,000.00

4. Additional Storage - If required, an extension
for additional interim storage at the plant;
30' x 40', (1,200 sq. ft.) can be added, estim-
ated cost (not in bid) $36,000.00
For discussion purposes, we would be willing to consider an agree-
ment with the State of New Hampshire whereby the Cooperative, over
the entire life of the projec (15 years, with extendable clauses)
or any portion thereof, would contract for the storage and disposal
of oil spill wastes. Based on an agreed-on reasonable allocation
of capital costs towards the project construction and a per-ton.
charge for storage, transportation and disposal of the wastes, it
would seem that a safe, efficient, and economical plan for such
waste disposal could be jointly developed.

I would be more than pleased to meet with you and your staff at the
earliest possible moment to review the possiblility of an agreement
for waste disposal. Your favorble consideration will be most
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
167

MJC/amk Malcolm J. Chase, P.E.
CC: Makr Chittum Chairman

LAMPERY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE COOPERATIVE
C/O TOWN OFFICE 13-15 NEWMARKET ROAD DURHAM N.H. 03824

603-868-1068

January 28, 1980

Mr. Thomas Sweeney
Department of Health
State of New Hampshire
Hazen Drive
Concord, N.H. 03301

Dear Mr. Sweeney:

I am enclosing a copy of my letter to Mr. Poltak relative to making
funds available for the handling of oil spills wastes. The letter is
a follow-up to an earilerconversation between Mr. Cooney of the
Strafford Regional Planning Commission, George Olson and Mark Chittum.

I would apperciate anything you might do in your planning to assist the
Cooperative in gaining additional funding. As you know, the twelve
towns have committed themselves with their own money and their own time
and effort to make a program work and, as yet, we have had no assistance
from anyone, despite the fact the communities all around us seem to be
getting federal grants or other funds to encourage them to go ahead with
mandated programs.

Please let me know if there is anything I should do in expediting the
allocation of funds which, we understand, are presently available.

Very truly yours,

Malcolm J. Chase, P.E.
Chairman

MJC/amk
Encl

Lamprey Regional Solid Waste Cooperative
uoTownOffices 13-15 NewmarketRoad Durham N.H. 03824
603-868-1068
CCX-TItT6IinE Towns:

UNH
-PP-9
Creenland
Lee
Madbury May 5, 1980
)@ewfields
NewInElon
Newmarket
No-th,00d
Rollinsford
Straviam Mr. Ronald F. Poltak Director
Office of Comprehensive Planning
2@ Beacon St.
Concord, N. H. 03301

Dear Mr. Poltak;

As you may know, our new plant construction is proceeding essentially
on schedule toward an operating date of July of this year.' Simultaneously
with the actual construction work we are developing our operating schedule
to include personnel, transportation equipment and collection and delivery
of refuse and removal and disposal of the ash residue. With this
necessary planning going. on, it would be extremely helpful to us to know
if there's serious consideration given to your utilization of our plant
to handle and dispose of oil spill waste.

'As discussed in our letter of January 25, 1980, we feel quite
comfortable 'in our ability to assimilate this special type of incineration
as a.cooperative effort with the.State of New Hampshire. As of this past
week we have successfully incinerated the most recent oil spill debris at,
our plant and all of our operating personnnel and administrative-people
who will be involved in the new plant feel that we can-dispose of oil
0 spill waste economically and efficiently.

The Directors of the Cooperative are co *ncerned that we have not
beard from your office as to the possibility of working out an agreement
with the State for oil spill waste disposal. We would hope that the
State plan would include incineration at our plant which would be the
first of its kind placed in operation in the State of New Hampshire, possibly
the only one which wou Id be associated with a State funded facility
such as the University of New Hampshire.

As a point of clarification, the listing of costs in our January 25
letter was simply for informational purposes and to enable you to
evaluate some reasonable allocation of capital costs toward a long range
program for.waste disposal.

We would like very much to have the opportunity to work with your
office and the office of the Division of Solid Waste toward a favorable
consideration of our suggested program.

Very Truly Your-s.

169.
Malcolm J. Chase, P.E.
M.JC/ajm'
cc: Tom Sweeney

I'll AY 151980

OfTICE ()F STAIT PLA N\'I.\

May, 12, 1980

Mr. Malcolm J. Chase
Chairman
Lamprey Regional Solid Waste
Cooperative
c/o Town Offices
13-15 Newmarket Road
Durham, New Hampshire 03824

Dear Mr. Chase:.

This is with reference to the offer you presented some time ago for the
use of the Lamprey Cooperative's incinerator forthe disposal of combustible
oily material. The Cooperative was particularly in 'terested in receiving a
capital grant under the CEIP program in return for the provision of the facil-
ities.

Following your request, we contacted the Federal authorities and deter-
mined that such a request wou*ld not be funded because the facilities had
previously been installed. Since that initial determination, we have con-
tinued to press this issue and have reached a more favorable position.

We have proposed that the New Hampshire Bureau of Solid Waste Management
review the options for the disposal oil oily debris on the coast. This fea-
sibility study would look at the facilities available both in Maine and at
Durham, as well as any other equally reasonable option. Should this effort
indicate that the Durham facility is the most feasible, both economically and
environmentally, it would be identified as thedisposal facility within New
Hampshire's plan.

On this biasis, we probably would be able to provide capital grant funds
to the Cooperative under an agreement for disposal of oily debris.

This looks like a step closer to a reasonable solution.

Sincerely,

/z
Ronald Poltak
Director

RP:am
170

DATE DUE

GAYLORD No. 2333 PAVED IN USA

l(l @lllfl Iil(