TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCREENING OF REMEDIAL … · This technical memorandum (TM) identifies and screens candidate remedial altematives for the feasibility study (FS) of the Davis

SITE: ^ ^ v / i S "l(^b<_v^. BREAK: 3 B __, OTHER: —

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Davis Timber Site Hattiesburg, Lamar County, Mississippi

Work Assignment No. 348-RIRI-A4P6 Black and Veatch Project No. 048348.0110

Prepared by Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation

Alpharetta, Georgia

Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV

Atlanta, Georgia

June 30, 2006 Revision 0

10655914

Davis Timber Site (DT) Revision No.O Remedial Altematives Screening - Technical Memorandum Page ii

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1-1

1.1 Scope and Objectives 1-1

1.2 Site Information 1-2

1.3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 1-3 1.3.1 Chemical Specific Requirements 1-4 1.3.2 Location Specific Requirements 1-5 1.3.3 Action Specific Requirements 1-5

2.0 Development of Remedial Options 2-1

2.1 Remedial Action Objectives and General Response Actions 2-2 2.1.1 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives 2-2 2.1.2 General Response Actions 2-3

2.2 Remedial Technologies and Process Options 2-4 2.2.1 Impoundment Area 2-4 2.2.2 Surface Soil and Diy Sediment 2-4 2.2.3 Subsurface Soil 2-5 2.2.4 Surface Water 2-5 2.2.5 Sediment 2-5 2.2.6 Groundwater 2-6

2.3 Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options 2-6 2.3.1 Impoundment Area Material 2-7 2.3.2 Surface Soil and Dry Sediment 2-7 2.3.3 Subsurface Soil 2-8 2.3.4 Surface Water 2-8 2.3.5 Sediment ; 2-8 2.3.6 Groundwater 2-9

2.4 Development of Medium-Specific Remedial Altematives 2-9 2.4.1 Impoundment Area Material 2-10 2.4.2 Surface Soil and Dry Sediment 2-11 2.4.3 Subsurface Soil 2-12 2.4.4 Surface Water 2-12 2.4.5 Sediment 2-13 2.4.6 Groundwater 2-14

Davis Timber Site (DT) Revision No.O Remedial Altematives Screening - Technical Memorandum Page iii

3.0 Development and Screening of Site-Wide Altematives 3-1

3.1 Screening Criteria 3-1

3.2 Descriptionof Site-Wide Altematives 3-2 3.2.1 SWA-1 - No Action 3-2 3.2.2 SWA-2 - Isolate and Wait 3-2 3.2.3 SWA-3 - Physical Contairmient and Disruption of Exposure 3-2 3.2.4 SWA-4 - Remove, Stabilize and Dispose 3-3 3.2.5 SWA-5 - On-site Treatment and Restoration 3-4

3.3 Screening of Site-Wide Altematives 3-4 3.3.1 SWA-1 (No Action/No Further Action) 3-4 3.3.2 SWA-2 (Isolate and Wait) 3-5 3.3.3 SWA-3 (Physical Contaitmient of Sources and Contaminated Media) 3-6 3.3.4 SWA-4 (Remove, Stabilize and Dispose) 3-7 3.3.5 SWA-5 (On-site Decontamination and Restoration) 3-8

3.4 Summary of Altemative Screening 3-9 3.4.1 Availability ofClean Cover Material 3-10 3.4.2 Need for Treated Media Disposal Options 3-10

4.0 References 4-1

Davis Timber Site (DT) Remedial Altematives Screening - Technical Memorandum

Revision No.O Page iv

TABLES

Table 1-1 Potential Sources of Chemical-specific ARARs

Table 1-2 Potential Sources of Location-specific ARARs

Table 2-1 Remedial Action Objectives Summary

Table 2-2 Identification of General Response Actions

Table 2-3 Media Dimensions to be addressed by General Response Actions

Table 2-4 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options -

Impoundment Area

Table 2-5 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Surface

Soil and Dry Sediment


Subsurface Soil

Table 2-7 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Surface

Water

Table 2-8 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Sediment


Groundwater

Table 2-10 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options - Impotmdment Area

Table 2-11 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options - Surface Soil and

Dry Sediment

Table 2-12 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options - Subsurface Soil

Table 2-13 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options - Surface Water

Table 2-14 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options-Sediment

Table 2-15 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options - Groimdwater

Table 3-1 Description of Site-Wide Altematives

Table 3-2 Summary of Cost Estimates for Site-Wide Altematives


Revision No.O Page V

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Site Location and Vicinity Map

Figure 2-1 Media-Specific Remedial Options for the Impoundment Area

Figure 2-2 Media-Specific Remedial Options for Surface Soil and Dry Sediment

Figure 2-3 Media-Specific Remedial Options for Subsurface Soil

Figure 2-4 Media-Specific Remedial Options for Surface Water

Figure 2-5 Media-Specific Remedial Options for Sediment

Figure 2-6 Media-Specific Remedial Options for Groundwater

APPENDIX

Appendix A Screening-Level Remedial Cost Estimates

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ARAR ' Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

Black & Veatch Black and Veatch Special Projects Corporation

CAA

CERCLA

CFR

COC

CWA

DT

EPA

FS

GRA

MCL

MDEQ

Clean Air Act

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com]

Act

Code of Federal Regulations

Contaminant of concem

Clean Water Act

Davis Timber

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Feasibility Study

General Response Action

Maximum Contaminant Level

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality


Revision No.O Page vi

MNA

MSRA

NCP

OSWER

PCP

PP

PRG

RAO

RCRA

RI

ROD

RTPO

SDWA

SWA

TM

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (continued)

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Medium-Specific Remedial Altemative

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Pentachlorophenol

Proposed Plan

Preliminary Remediation Goal

Remedial Action Objective

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Remedial Investigation

Record of Decision

Remedial Technology and/or Process Option

Safe Drinking Water Act

Site-wide Altemative

Technical Memorandum

Davis Timber Site (DT) Revision No.O Remedial Altematives Screening - Technical Memorandum Page 1 -1

1.0 Introduction

This technical memorandum (TM) identifies and screens candidate remedial altematives

for the feasibility study (FS) of the Davis Timber (DT) site (or the Site). The FS

represents one step in the remedy selection process under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). These candidate

altematives are described and are subjected to a screening-level evaluation of

effectiveness, implementability, and cost consistent with U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) guidance (EPA, 1988). The screening process will reduce the large

number of candidate altematives to a smaller, more manageable set to be analyzed more

fully in the detailed analysis phase of the FS. The altematives that have been developed

are comprehensive, site-wide altematives, consistent with EPA guidance. Altematives

that pass this screening phase are recommended for detailed analysis in the FS, and key

issues to be addressed for the detailed analysis of these altematives are identified.

1.1 Scope and Objectives

The primary objective of this phase of the FS is to develop an appropriate range of

remedial altematives for waste management that will protect human health and the

environment and meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for

the Site. Presenting the development and screening of candidate remedial altematives in

this TM allows stakeholders (a) to provide early input into the identification of remedial

altemative components (such as objectives, technologies, and ARARS) and (b) to review

the process of identifying and screening potential altematives for the Site.

Based on stakeholder input. Section 2 (Development of Candidate Remedial

Altematives) and Section 3 (Screening of Candidate Remedial Altematives) of this TM

may be revised before being incorporated into the Draft FS document for this site.

Updates and revisions may include appropriate modifications to the altematives; the

altematives are not "locked in" by this current document. Following completion and

acceptance of the FS, a Proposed Plan (PP) will be prepared that identifies the preferred

altemative. The PP will be distributed for public review and comment. Following the

public comment period on the PP (and after implementing any related revisions or

refinements to the preferred altemative based on public comments), a Record of Decision

(ROD) will be prepared that identifies the final selected remedy.

Davis Timber Site (DT) Revision No.O Remedial Altematives Screening - Technical Memorandum Page 1-2

The altematives identified in this memorandtim represent a work in progress that will

continue to evolve and be refined based on reviewer feedback. Please note that the

altematives are not mutually exclusive, choices and do not limit the choice of a remedy,

which is not formalized until the ROD. Thus, a preferred altemative (as developed in the

PP) or the selected remedy (as developed in the ROD) can mix the elements of the

various altematives developed in the FS, refine or modify those elements, or add to them.

While the FS supplies information for helping select a remedy, information

supplementing the FS may be incorporated into the remedy selection process at any time.

The altematives presented in this TM are developed to a level of detail adequate for

supporting the altemative screening evaluation. Following the altematives screening,

additional detail will be developed as needed to support the detailed analysis in the FS,

development of the preferred altemative in the PP, and remedy selection in the ROD.

The altematives will not be developed in the FS to a level of detail adequate to support

remedial design or remedial action necessary to implement the remedy selected in the

ROD. Both remedial design and remedial action are post-ROD activities.

1.2 Site information

The Site location is shown in Figure 1-1. Davis Timber Company is located on Jackson

Road, approximately 6 miles northwest of Hattiesburg, in Lamar County, Mississippi.

The geographic coordinates ofthe Site are 31°20'42.69" North latitude and 89°24'16.06

West longitude (EPA, 1999). The Site (EPA ID No. MSDO46497012) is approximately

30 acres iri size and consists of a scragg mill, a pole peeler and debarker, a closed holding

pond, an office, a treating cylinder, a closed cooling pond, an oil separator, two

abovegrotmd oil storage tanks, two aboveground pentachlorophenol solution storage

tanks, and a storage yard. The area surrounding the DT Company is very mral. No other

industries or companies are located in the vicinity of DT Company that could have

contributed to the pentachlorophenol (PCP)/dioxin contamination in West Mineral

Creek, East Mineral Creek, or Country Club Estates Lake (as determined in the Revised

Draft Remedial Investigation [RI] report for this site; Black & Veatch Special Projects

Corporation [Black & Veatch], 2006).

Davis Timber Company conducted timber processing and wood preserving operations at

the facility from 1972 until 1987, when the Mississippi Department of Environmental

Quality (MDEQ) ordered Davis Timber Company to discontinue treatment operations.

According to MDEQ, DT Company declared bankruptcy in 1990. The property was then

Davis Timber Site (DT) Revision No.O Remedial Altematives Screening - Technical Memorandum . Page 1-3

operated by Lamar Indtistries, which conducted debarking operations. The site is

currently not in operation (EPA, 1999).

Davis Timber Company produced treated pine poles, pilings, and timber. Facility

operations have included bark removal, treatment of wood with PCP, and product

storage. In addition, a skagg mill was operated at the facility to salvage timber imsuitable

for poles or piling. The facility received raw wood by tmck. The materials were then

weighed and stocked in the open yard for debarking. Logs were cut to length and prepared

for treatment, Poles or piles then were pulled into a treating cylinder for pressure

processing. The timber was conditioned with steam. After sap fluids, steam condensate,

and residual oil were removed from the cylinder walls, the timber was treated with a five

percent PCP solution and diesei oil or a light-cycle oil. Following treatment, excess

preservative solution was removed from the treating cyhnder by a vacuum process. Steam

was then introduced to clean the poles. Treated materials were removed from the cylinder

for drying and storage on the open yard prior to shipment.

The process wastewater containing PCP was discharged into an on-site storage pond

comprising approximately 2 acres. Other-waste products produced by the facility include

bark and wood fiber from the debarker and peeler; oil, steam condensate, and wood sap

extract from steam seasoning; and preservative containing PCP that was spilled in the

vicinity of the tanks and freating cylinder. In 1980, the on-site holding pond was

reportedly closed, backfilled, and capped with approximately 6 to 8 inches of clay.

Between December 1974 and January 1987, MDEQ documented numerous fish kills in

Country Club Estates Lake, a 66-acre lake located approximately 1 mile downsfream of

the facility. Several of the fish kills were attributed to releases of PCP from the Davis

Timber Company facility.

1.3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

Section 121(d)(2)(A) of CERCLA incorporates into law the CERCLA Compliance Policy

that specifies that Superfund remedial actions must meet any federal standards,

requirements, criteria, or limitations that are determined to be legally applicable or

relevant and appropriate requirements. In addition, any promulgated state regulation,

standard, criteria, or limitation that is more stringent than the corresponding federal

regulation, standard, criteria, or limitation must be adhered to during the remedial action

for the Site.

Davis Timber site (DT) Revision No.O Remedial Alternatives Screening - Technical Memorandum Page 1 -4

Some Federal statutes potentially applicable to the Site include the Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Examples of potentially applicable state

statues for the site include the Mississippi Water Quality Standards, Mississippi Air

Pollution Confrol Regulations, and the MDEQ Groimdwater Protection Sfrategy.

ARARs can be chemical specific, location specific, or action specific.

• Chemical specific ARARs are usually health or risk based numerical values

limiting the amotint or concenfration of a chemical that may be found in, or

discharged to, the environment. The Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of

the SDWA, the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria of the CWA, the

Mississippi Water Quality Standards, and the MDEQ Groimdwater Protection

Sfrategy are examples of chemical-specific ARARs.

• Location specific ARARs include restrictions on certain types of activities based

on site characteristics. These include restrictions in wetlands, floodplains, and

historic sites. Examples of location specific ARARs are the Endangered Species

Act, Fish and Wildlife Conseryation Act, and the Mississippi Scenic Rivers Act.

• Action specific ARARs are usually technology or activity based directions or

limitations that confrol actions taken at hazardous waste sites. Action specific

ARARs are triggered by the types of remedial action altematives tmder

consideration. The CWA, the Mississippi Clean Streams Law, and the MDEQ

Groundwater Protection Sfrategy contain numerous potential action specific

ARARs.

ARARs for the Site have been reviewed and updated as part of the RI/FS process.

Chemical specific ARARs mandate that contamination levels found in site media meet

certain criteria to protect human health and the environment. Several probable sources of

chemical- and location-specific ARARs that can be identified from available information

are presented in Tables 1-1 and 1-2. Action specific ARARs will continue to be

identified as remedial action altematives are developed, screened, and designed.

1.3.1 Chemical Specific Requirements

Identified federal and state chemical-specific ARARs may not be all inclusive. All of the

ARARs provide some specific guidance on "acceptable" or "permissible" concenfrations


of contaminants in water. Table 1-1 Usts potential sources of chemical-specific ARARs

for the Site.

1.3.2 Location Specific Requirements

Potential location-specific ARARs for the Site consist of regulations and rules associated

with the Davis Timber site and area that may (indirectly and inadvertently) restrict one or

more remedial options from being implemented at the Site. Table 1-2 lists potential

sources of location-specific ARARs for the Site.

1.3.3 Action Specific Requirements

Potential action-specific ARARs for the Site consist of regulations and mles associated

with specific remedial processes or technologies that may (indirectly and inadvertently)

restrict one or more of them from being implemented at the Site. Listed below are

examples of action-specific ARARs that might apply to the Site and will be considered

during the detailed analysis of remedial altematives for the Site.

Resource Conservation and Recoverv Act (RCRA) - Subtitle C regulates the freatment,

storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. In general, RCRA Subtitle C requirements for

the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste will be applicable if a combination

of the following conditions is met:

• The waste is a listed, or characteristic, waste under RCRA.

•

•

The waste was treated, stored, or disposed (as defined in 40 Code of Federal

Regulation [CFR] 260.10) after the effective date of the RCRA requirements

under consideration.

The activity at the CERCLA site constitutes freatment, storage, or disposal as

defined by RCRA.

The Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 CFR Parts 1904, 1910, and 1926)

provides occupational safety and health requirements applicable to workers

engaged in onsite field activities. The regulations are applicable to onsite work

performed during implementation of a remedial action. . They are applicable to

nearly all remedial action options.


The EPA Groundwater Protection Sfrategy provides non-enforceable policy to protect

groundwater for its highest present or potential beneficial use. This policy is referenced

in the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

(50 CFR 47974, revised November 20, 1985). Revised Section 300.68(e) (2) addresses

scoping of response actions during remedial investigations and includes an assessment of

"current and potential groundwater use (e.g., the appropriate groundwater classes under

the system established in the EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy)." This sfrategy

designates three categories of groimdwater:

• Class I: Special Groundwater - This class includes waters of usually high value.

The groundwater is highly vulnerable to contamination and is (1) an irreplaceable

source of drinking water and/or (2) ecologically vital.

• Class II: Current and Potential Sources of Drinking Water and Water Haying

Other Beneficial Uses - All non-Class I groimdwater currently used, or potentially

available, for drinking water and other beneficial use are included in Class II,

whether or not it is particularly vulnerable to contamination. This class is divided

into two subclasses: 1) Subclass IIA - current sources of drinking water and 2)

Subclass IIB - potential sources of drinking water.

• Class III: Groundwater not a Potential Source of Drinking Water and of Limited

Beneficial Use - Groundwater that is saline, or otherwise contaminated beyond

levels that would allow use for drinking or other beneficial purposes, are included

in this class. This class is also divided into two subclasses: 1) Subclass IIIA -

groundwater units that are highly to intermediately inter-coimected to adjacent

groimdwater units of a higher class and/or surface waters and 2) Subclass IIIB -

groundwater characterized by a low degree of interconnection to adjacent surface

waters or other groundwater units of higher class.

The shallow groundwater at the Site is classified as a Class III groundwater aquifer.

Nonetheless, the Groundwater Protection Sfrategy that use treatment standards based on

MCLs, MCLGs, or Mississippi Background Policy may be considered as part of the

decision on whether groundwater recovery and treatment is needed.

The Department Of Transportation Rules for Hazardous Materials Transport (49 CFR

Parts 107 and 171-173) regulate the transport of hazardous materials including

packaging, shipping, and placarding. These mles are considered applicable to hazardous

and non-hazardous wastes shipped offsite for laboratory analysis, treatment, or disposal.

Davis Timber Site (DT) Revision No.O Remedial Altematives Screening - Technical Memorandum Page 1 -7

The Revised Procedures for Planning and Implementing Offsite Response Actions

(Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9834.11) require

that the substantial requirements of RCRA apply to cleanup of CERCLA facilities. The

RCRA requirements apply to onsite releases, transportation, and offsite fransfer of

CERCLA wastes.


2.0 Development of Remedial Options

The process for developing candidate remedial options for the Site consists of six steps

(EPA, 1988):

1) Development of site-specific Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs)

2) Development of site-specific General Response Actions (GRAs)

3) Determination of media dimensions (e.g., volumes, areas, etc.) to which GRAs

might be applied

4) Identification and screening of general technology types which might effectively

address RAOs and GRAs

5) Identification and evaluation of applicable remedial technologies or process

options (RTPOs) that might effectively address RAOs and GRAs

6) Compilation of RTPOs (retained after screening evaluation) into media-specific

remedial altematives designed to address and achieve the identified RAOs for

each impacted medium

The first three steps of this process are presented in Section 2.1 of this TM. Step 4,

identification of general remedial technology types and process options, was based on the

feasibility for each technology type or process option to be implemented at the Site. Step

4 is presented in Section 2.2. Step 5, identification of media-specific RTPOs, took the

general technology types and process options that were technically feasible and evaluated

them for effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Step 5 evaluation is presented in

Section 2.3. The final step ofthis process, compilation of retained RTPOs, resulted in the

creation of media-specific remedial options by combining selected RTPOs for each

appropriate medium at the Site. This step is presented in Section 2.4.

Due to the complex nature of this site, remedial options for specific media and locations

within the Site were identified first. Many of the identified media-specific remedial

options may be redundant across one or more media types, or they may be compatible

with (and therefore combined with) remedial options across one or more media types.

Media-specific remedial altematives defined in Section 2.4 were combined into

comprehensive site-wide altematives in Section 3.0 ofthis TM.


2.1 Remedial Action Objectives and General Response Actions

Preliminary RAOs and GRAs were developed for the following media types:

• The material associated with the Impoundment Area

• Surface soil and dry sediment

• Subsurface soil

• Surface water

• Sediment

• Groundwater

• Biota

The following sections describe the RAOs and GRAs for these media. Although listed as

a medium of focus for this remedial altemative screening process, biota is not expUcitly

addressed in this remedial altemative screening TM. It is expected that remedial

objectives for this medium will be met when remedial objectives for other media are met.

2.1.1 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives

Preliminary RAOs for the Site are derived from the conclusions of the Draft RI report

(Black and Veatch, 2006a). The RAOs are presented in both narrative and numeric

format; numerical RAOs for specific media are defined by the risk-based preliminary

remediation goals (PRGs) developed as a result of the Baseline Risk Assessment for the

Site, and are presented in the Draft Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Report (EPA,

2006) and/or Final Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment Report (Black and Veatch,

2006b). Calculated PRG values can be incorporated, as needed, into the candidate

altematives presented in this TM. The preliminary RAOs for the Site are summarized in

Table 2-1.

The RI report (Section 6.0; Black and Veatch, 2006a) makes recommendations for

addressing contamination associated with (1) bark, wood chips and soil overlying the

fonner impoundment area; (2) surface soil from grids 7 and 8; and (3) sediment

associated with prominent aquatic features downgradient of the Site (e.g., the Beaver


Pond and perhaps Countiy Club Estates Lake). In addition, the RI recommends that

additional media samples be collected during remedial activities to more clearly and

definitively delineate the horizontal and/or vertical extent of contamination in media at

the site. The media to be sampled or investigated are soil, surface water, and sediment

(to evaluate mobility of contaminated sediment during resuspension events and during

sedimentation or settling conditions). These recommendations are the basis for the RAOs

identified in this TM.

)

2.1.2 General Response Actions

Many GRAs are capable of meeting RAOs at many CERCLA sites. Examples of GRAs

include institutional confrols, containment of contaminated media (to prevent migration

to other locations), isolation of contaminated media from clean media (to prevent

additional contaminant migration), removal/fransport/disposal of contaminated media to a

new (presumably confrolled) location, freatment of contaminated media (to chemically

degrade or physically stabilize the contaminants), and processing or recycling of

contaminated media (thereby freating the waste material as reusable material for other

purposes). Included in the list of more common freatment GRAs are biological

freatments such as ph)1;oremediation and riparian buffer zone enhancement.

Not all GRAs apply to all media; therefore, GRAs are matched to specific media. For

example, pump and freat technologies do not apply to soil media and fraditional

phytoremediation (using macrophytes) does not apply to deep subsurface soil. Another

factor to consider in deciding what GRAs apply to a site is the volume of contaminated

media to be remediated. Some GRAs (e.g., containment and access limits) are more

suited to large volumes or areas of media (e.g., large mounds of contaminated material)

whereas other GRAs (e.g., excavation, treatment or processing) typically are best suited

(in terms of cost, for example) to smaller, localized areas or volumes of contaminated

media. The assignment of GRAs to media at the Site is shown in Table 2-2.

To help evaluate GRAs for the Site, volume estimates for contaminated media are

presented in Table 2-3. These estimates will require quantitative confirmation or

refinement in the form of sampling and analysis during remedial design or remedial

action activities. The estimates shown in Table 2-3 are based on concenfration data and

grid dimensions shown in figures included in the Revised Draft RI report (Black and

Veatch, 2006a). Dimensions of the Impoundrtient Area were estimated based on the

spacing ofthe temporary monitoring wells and the depth ofthe deepest monitoring well.


2.2 Remedial Technologies and Process Options

Remedial technologies and process options were identified for the six media types listed

in Section 2.1, based on the selected RAOs and GRAs. It was assumed that impacts to

biota will be addressed indirectly by addressing the other contaminated media. In all

cases, the No Action option was carried through as a stand-alone option for further

evaluation as required by statute.

2.2.1 Impoundment Area

RTPOs for the Impotmdment Area material were identified separately from soil media at

the site because ofthis unique area's role as a source for site-related contamination. The

RTPO identification and initial feasibility screening for that medium is presented in Table

2-4. For each GRA for this medium, a number of applicable generic technology types

were identified: three for institutional confrols, two for containment (covers and barriers),

. two for excavation and disposal (off-site disposal and on-site disposal), four for treatment

(ex-situ physical/chemical treatment, in-situ physical/chemical freatment, thermal, and

biological), and one for processing and recycle (resource recovery). Several specific

technology options appropriate to this Site then were selected to represent each generic

technology type; these are selected and described in Table 2-4. The identified RTPOs

were then evaluated as to feasibility of implementation at the Site. The last column in

Table 2-4 indicates whether the identified technology type was retained for further

consideration in the next stage of the screening RTPO process or if it was eliminated

from further consideration for reasons shown.

2.2.2 Surface Soil and Dry Sediment

RTPOs for surface soil and dry sediment were identified together because of the

similarities between soil and desiccated sediment. The RTPO identification and initial

feasibility screening for that medium is presented in Table 2-5. For each GRA for this

medium, a number of applicable generic technology types were identified: three for

institutional controls, two for containment (covers and barriers), two for excavation and

disposal (off-site disposal and on-site disposal), and four for treatment (ex-situ

physical/chemical treatment, in-situ physical/chemical treatment, thermal, and

biological). Several specific technology options appropriate to this Site were selected to

represent each generic technology type; these are selected and described in Table 2-5.

The identified RTPOs were then evaluated as to feasibility of implementation at the Site.


The last column in Table 2-5 indicates whether the identified RTPO was retained for, or

eliminated from, further consideration in the next stage ofthe screening RTPO process.

2.2.3 Subsurface Soil

RTPOs for the subsurface were identified separately from surface soil media because of

the added difficulty in reaching contaminants below ground. The, RTPO identification

and initial feasibility screening for that medium is presented in Table 2-6. For each GRA

for this medium, a number of applicable generic technology types were identified: two

for excavation and disposal (off-site disposal and on-site disposal) and four for freatment

(ex-situ physical/chemical treatment, in-situ physical/chemical treatment, thermal, and

biological). Several specific technology options appropriate to this Site were selected to

represent each generic technology type; these are selected and described in Table 2-6.

The identified RTPOs were then evaluated as to feasibility of implementation at the Site;

the results of that evaluation are shown in the last column in Table 2-6.

2.2.4 Surface Water

RTPOs for surface water at the Site were identified and screened; the results of that

screening are presented in Table 2-7. For each GRA for this medium, a number of

applicable generic technology types were identified: three for institutional confrols, one

for monitoring, two for containment (input confrols and physical barriers), six for

freatment (ex-situ physicaVchemical, precipitation-based ex-situ, separation-based ex-

situ, adsorption-based ex-situ, in-situ physical/chemical, and biological), one for

exfraction, and two for disposal of freated water (on-site disposal and off-site disposal).

Several specific technology options appropriate to this Site were selected to represent

each generic technology type; these are selected and described in Table 2-7. The

identified RTPOs were then evaluated as to feasibility of implementation at the Site. The

last column in Table 2-7 indicates whether the identified RTPO was retained for, or

eliminated from, further consideration in the next stage of the screening RTPO process.

2.2.5 Sediment

RTPOs for sediment at the Site were identified and screened; the results are presented in

Table 2-8. For each GRA for this medium, a number of applicable generic technology

types were identified: three for institutional confrols, one for monitoring, one for

containment (barriers/source controls), four for excavation/transport and disposal

Davis Timber Site (DT) . Revision No.O Remedial Altematives Screening - Technical Memorandum Page 2-6

(removal, fransport, off-site disposal and on-site disposal), and two for freatment

(physical/chemical and biological). Several specific technology options appropriate to

this Site then were selected to represent each generic technology type; these are selected

and described in Table 2-8. The identified RTPOs were then evaluated as to feasibility of

implementation at the Site; the results of that evaluation are shown in the last column in

Table 2-8.

2.2.6 Groundwater

RTPOs for groundwater at the Site were identified and screened; the results are presented

in Table 2-9. For each GRA for this medium, a number of applicable generic technology

types were identified: three for institutional confrols, one for monitoring, two for

containment (hydraulic barriers and physical barriers), two for excavation and disposal

(off-site disposal and on-site disposal), six for treatment (ex-situ physical/chemical,

precipitation-based ex-situ, separation-based ex-situ, adsorption-based ex-situ, in-situ

physical/chemical, and biological), and two for disposal of freated water (on-site disposal

and off-site disposal). Several specific technology options appropriate to this Site then

were selected to represent each generic technology type; these are selected and described

in Table 2-9. The identified RTPOs were then evaluated as to feasibility of

implementation at the Site. The last column in Table 2-9 indicates whether the identified

RTPO was retained for, or eliminated from, further consideration in the next stage of the

screening RTPO process.

2.3 Screening of Remedial Technologies and Process Options

The RTPOs identified in Section 2.2 were further evaluated to (1) specify one or two of

the most viable RTPO to represent each generic remedial technology and (2) to eliminate

RTPOs that would not be as viable or effective at this Site. For example, monitoring as a

RTPO for the Impoundment Area material was eliminated in the identification stage

because it is not a natural matrix that could exist in a pristine, non-hazardous state.

Instead, monitoring was reserved as a viable option for natural media (i.e., sediment,

surface water, and groundwater). The criteria for screening each RTPO were:

• Effectiveness: the efficacy ofthe RTPO to address contaminant-based risks;

• Implementability: the ease with which the RTPO may be implemented at the Site;

and

Davis Timber Site (DT) Remedial Alternatives Screening - Technical Memorandum

Revision No.O Page 2-7

• Cost: direct and indirect costs associated with implementing the RTPO at the Site.

The RTPO screening process is presented in the following sections. If two or more

RTPOs were applicable to meeting remedial goals but were substantially different in their

technologies, both were retained for medium-specific altemative development stage in

Section 2.4. In all cases, the No Action RTPO was carried forward as required by statute.

2.3.1 Impoundment Area Material Initial RTPOs for Impoundment Area material that passed the feasibility screen were

further evaluated; the results are presented in Table 2-10. In addition to the No Action

RTPO, the following RTPOs were selected to represent the identified generic technology

types:

Generic Technology

Access Restrictions

Community Awareness

Covers

Off-site Disposal

Thermal Treatment

Selected Remedial Technology or Process Option

Physical Barriers

Information and Educational Programs

Grading, Vegetative Cover, Compact Soil/Clay Cover, Geosynthetic Clay

Liner (GCL) Cover

Excavation and Disposal at an Existing Off-site Landfill or Disposal Site

Plasma Arc Vitrification, In-situ Vitrification

2.3.2 Surface Soil and Dry Sediment Initial RTPOs for surface soil and dry sediment that passed the feasibility screen were

further evaluated; the resuhs are shown in Table 2-11. In addition to the No Action

RTPO, the following RTPOs were selected to represent the identified generic technology

types:

Generic Technology

Access Restrictions

Covers

Off-site Disposal

Treatment


Physical Barriers

Grading, Vegetative Cover, Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) Cover, Flexible

Membrane Liner (FML) Cover


Ex-situ Stabilization (Physical/Chemical); Incineration (Thermal)

Davis Timber Site (DT) Remedial Altematives Screening- Technical Memorandum


2.3.3 Subsurface Soil Initial RTPOs for subsiu-face soil that passed the feasibility screen were further evaluated

(Table 2-12). In addition to the No Action RTPO, the following RTPOs were selected to

represent the identified generic technology types:

Generic Technology

Off-site Disposal

Ex-situ Physical/Chemical

Thermal Treatment



Ex-situ Solidification and Stabilization

Incineration

2.3.4 Surface Water Initial RTPOs for surface water that passed the feasibility screen were further evaluated;

the results of that evaluation are presented in Table 2-13. The following RTPOs (in

addition to the No Action RTPO) were selected to represent the identified generic

technology types:

Generic Technology

Access Restrictions

Monitoring

Input Controls

Ex-situ Physical/Chemical

In-situ Physical/Chemical

Disposal of Treated Water


Physical Barriers


Relocation of Stream Channel

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Adsorption

Passive Reactive Barriers

On-site disposal of treated surface water into downgradient water body

2.3.5 Sediment Initial RTPOs for sediment that passed the feasibility screen were further evaluated; the

results are presented in Table 2-14. In addition to the No Action RTPO, the following

RTPOs were selected to represent the identified generic technology types:

Davis Timber Site (DT) Remedial Altematives Screening- Technical Memorandum


Generic Technology

Access Restrictions

Community Awareness

Monitoring

Input/Source Controls

Removal

Transport

Off-site Disposal

Physical/Chemical


Physical Barriers



In-situ Sediment Cap

Suction Dredging

Slurry Pumping

Dispose of Dredge Material to an Existing Off-site Disposal Facility (Landfill)

Ex-situ Stabilization or Solidification of Dredge Material

2.3.6 Groundwater Initial RTPOs for groundwater that passed the feasibility screen were further evaluated

for effectiveness, implementability, and cost; the results of that evaluation are presented

in Table 2-15. Based on the characteristics ofthe Site, the contaminants in this meditun,

and the potential exposure pathways and receptors, the following RTPOs were selected to

represent the identified generic technology types:

Generic Technology

Access Restrictions

Land-Use Controls

Monitoring

Hydraulic Barriers

Ex-situ Physical/

Chemical Treatment



Physical Barriers

Deed/Zoning Restrictions to prevent use of local for potable use


Extraction Wells


On-site disposal of treated surface water into downgradient water body

2.4 Development of Medium-Specific Remedial Alternatives

The identification and screening of RTPOs (Sections 2.2 and 2.3) yielded at least one,

specific RTPOs to represent each generic remedial technology type. These specific

RTPOs were used to create medium-specific remedial altematives (MSRAs), defined by

either a single RTPO implemented by itself, or by a combination of RTPOs forming a

composite MSRA. Although not all RTPOs identified in Tables 2-10 through 2-15


(Section 2.3) were used to defme MSRAs in this section, RTPOs eliminated from further

consideration at this screening stage of the FS process could be re-evaluated and

reconsidered by stakeholders or risk managers at any stage ofthe FS (e.g., after the ROD

or during remedial design) to be included as part of a remedy for the Site. In all cases,

the first MSRA for each medium is the No Action MSRA. Other MSRAs are described

in the following sections.

2.4.1 Impoundment Area Material

The MSRAs for the Impotmdment Area are depicted in Figure 2-1. The representative

RTPOs selected for Impoundment Area material (listed in Section 2.3.1) were combined

into five MSRAs plus the "No Action" MSRA (which is carried forward as a stand-alone

altemative as required by statute). The five MSRAs are defined from the RTPOs as

follows.

2.4.1.1 MSRA-lb. This altemative combines community awareness through

information and education, and site access restriction through physical barriers (e.g.,

fencing), into an overall institutional confrol altemative for this medium.

2.4.1.2 MSRA-lc. This altemative combines material grading, a compacted soil/clay

cap, and a vegetative cover into an overall containment altemative for this medium. This

option is designed only to dismpt the exposure pathways between contaminants and

receptors; contaminants remain in-place.

2.4.1.3 MSRA-ld. This altemative is similar to MSRA-lc. It combines grading and a

vegetative cover with a geo-synthetic clay liner (GCL) cap into an overall contamment

altemative for this medium. This option is designed only to dismpt the exposure

pathways between contaminants and receptors; contaminants remain in-place.

2.4.1.4 MSRA-le. This altemative consists of the excavation and off-site disposal

RTPO as a stand-alone removal MSRA for this medium. This option is the only one that

completely removes contaminated media from the site.

2.4.1.5 MSRA'If. This altemative consists of either plasma arc vitrification (ex-situ,

post excavation) or in-situ vitrification as a stand-alone thermal treatment MSRA. The

treated material would remain in-place but would be resistant to contaminant mobility

(e.g., leaching).


2.4.2 Surface Soil and Dry Sediment

The development of MSRAs for the surface soil (and desiccated sediment of ephemeral

drainage pathways) is depicted in Figure 2-2. The representative RTPOs selected for

surface soil and dry sediment (listed in Section 2.3.2) were combined into five MSRAs

plus the No Action RTPO (which is carried forward as a stand-alone altemative as

required by statute). The five MSRAs are defined from the RTPOs as follows.

2.4.2.1 MSRA-2b. This altemative combines site access restriction through physical

barriers (e.g., fencing) and soil grading (to confrol storm-water drainage pattens and

thereby minimize erosion of contaminated media) into a weak containment option that

serves only to isolate contaminated soil from potential human receptors. This does

nothing to address exposure of ecological receptors to soil contaminants.

2.4.2.2 MSRA'2c. This altemative combines grading and a vegetative cover with a

geo-synthetic clay liner (GCL) cap into an overall contaitmient altemative for surface

soil. This option is designed only to dismpt the exposure pathways between

contaminants and receptors; contaminants remain in-place.

2.4.2.3 MSRA-2d. This altemative consists of the excavation and off-site disposal

RTPO as a stand-alone removal MSRA for this medium. This option completely

removes contaminated media from the site.

2.4.2.4 MSRA-2e. This altemative calls for excavation of contaminated surface soil,

treatment of the excavated material with some form of stabilization or solidification

technology, and off-site disposal of the stabilized contaminated material into a confrolled

landfill or similar disposal site. This option completely removes contaminated media

from the site and also stabilizes contaminants in a form that may be more acceptable to

some disposal facilities.

2.4.2.5 MSRA-2f. This altemative calls for excavating contaminated surface soil and

incinerating the material to destroy organic contaminants. The resulting soil-residue may

be disposed of off-site (e.g., in a controlled landfill facility) or may be retumed to its

original location on-site, depending on future land-use plans for the location.


2.4.3 Subsurface Soii

The MSRAs for the subsurface soil are shown in Figure 2-3. The representative RTPOs

selected for this medium (listed in Section 2.3.3) were combined into three MSRAs plus

the No Action RTPO (which is carried forward as a stand-alone altemative as required by

statute). The three MSRAs are defined from the RTPOs as follows.

2.4.3.1 MSRA-3b. This altemative consists of the excavation and off-site disposal

RTPO as a stand-alone removal MSRA for this medium. This option completely

removes contaminated soil from the site.

2.4.3.2 MSRA-3C. This altemative calls for excavation of contaminated soil, treatment

of the excavated material with some form of stabilization or solidification technology,

and off-site disposal of the stabilized contaminated material into a confrolled landfill or

similar disposal site. This option completely removes contaminated media from the site

and also stabilizes contaminants in a form that may be more acceptable to some disposal

facilities.

2.4.3.3 l\/ISRA-3d. This altemative calls for excavating contaminated surface soil and

incinerating the material to desfroy organic contaminants. The resulting soil-residue may

be disposed of off-site (e.g., in a controlled landfill facility) or may be retumed to its

original location on-site, depending on future land-use plans for the location.

2.4.4 Surface Water

The development of surface water MSRAs is depicted in Figure 2-4. The representative

RTPOs selected for surface water (listed in Section 2.3.4) were combined into three

MSRAs plus the No Action RTPO (which is carried forward as a stand-alone altemative

as required by statute). The three MSRAs are defined from the RTPOs as follows.

2.4.4.1 MSRA-4b. This altemative combines physical access barriers (e.g., fencing)

and some form of in-situ (continuous) water treatment such as passive reactive barriers to

isolate human receptors from potential exposure and to remove contaminants over time.

The progress ofthe in-situ treatment would be tracked over time by periodic monitoring.


2.4.4.2 MSRA-4C. This altemative is a more aggressive freatment-based option in

which siu-face water is pumped to an on-site granular activated carbon (GAC) freatment

facility to remove contaminants prior to the freated water being retumed to an on-site

surface waterbody downgradient of its original location.

2.4.4.3 MSRA-4d. This altemative represents the most aggressive option for isolating

surface water from potential source material by physically altering the stream or creek

channel pathway and relocating the channel to a different configuration. The old stream

channel bed would be addressed by the "surface soil/dry sediment" MSRAs (see Section

2.4.2).

2.4.5 Sediment

The development of MSRAs for the sediment is depicted in Figure 2-5. The

representative RTPOs selected for sediment (listed in Section 2.3.5) were combined into

three MSRAs plus the No Action RTPO (which is carried forward as a stand-alone

altemative as required by statute). The three MSRAs are defined from the RTPOs as

follows.

2.4.5.1 MSRA-5b. This altemative combines community awareness through

information and educational programs isolate contaminated sediment from potential

human receptors. This does nothing to address exposure of ecological receptors to soil

contaminants. Natural processes acting on in-place contaminants would be tracked over

time through monitored natural attenuation.

2.4.5.2 MSRA-5C. This altemative is intended to semi-permanently isolate

contaminated sediment from human and ecological receptors by placing a submerged

engineered cover over the contaminated sediment. The clean "cap" material would serve

as the basis for new benthic habitat for benthic populations and communities. This

option is designed only to dismpt the exposure pathways between contaminants and

receptors; contaminants remain in-place. Natural processes acting on in-place

contaminants would be tracked over time through monitored natural attenuation.

2.4.5.3 MSRA'5d. This altemative calls for removal of contaminated sediment by

suction- or vacuum-based excavation technologies, freatinent of the removed material

with some form of stabilization or solidification technology, and off-site disposal of the

stabilized contaminated material into a controlled landfill or similar disposal site. This


option completely removes contaminated media from the site and also stabilizes

contaminants in a form that may be more acceptable to some disposal facilities.

2.4.6 Groundwater

The development of MSRAs for the groundwater is depicted in Figure 2-6. The

representative RTPOs selected for shallow groundwater under the Site (listed in Section

2.3.6) were combined into two MSRAs plus the No Action RTPO (which is carried

forward as a stand-alone altemative as required by statute). The two MSRAs are defined

from the RTPOs as follows.

2.4.6.1 MSRA-Sb. This altemative combines deed and zoning restrictions on use ofthe

groundwater as potable water. This option is designed only to dismpt the exposure

pathways between contaminants and receptors; contaminants remain in-place. Natural

processes acting on in-place contaminants would be fracked over time through monitored

natural attenuation. Addressing source areas and source media would prevent future

contamination of groundwater.

2.4.6.2 MSRA-6C. This altemative is a more aggressive treatment-based option in

which groundwater is pumped via exfraction wells to an on-site granular activated carbon

(GAC) freatment facility to remove contaminants prior to the freated water being retumed

to an on-site surface water body downgradient ofthe site. The exfraction wells also serve

as an hydraulic barrier against fiirther migration of contaminated groundwater.


3.0 Development and Screening of Site-Wide Alternatives

Mj^/i The most viable or appropriate RTPOs were compiled into initial MHS/As for six

different media (Impoundment Area material, surface soil and dry sediment, subsurface

soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater) impacted by former activities at the Site.

The results of the initial screening revealed consistencies and compatibilities among the

various MSRAs; i.e., several were found to apply to more than one medium. The

MSRAs were combined into five comprehensive, site-wide altematives (SWA) described

in Section 3.2 and screened in Section 3.3.

3.1 Screening Criteria

Under the effectiveness evaluation, each altemative is evaluated for its effectiveness in

providing protection of human health and the environment and the reductions in toxicity,

mobility, or volume it will achieve. Both short- and long-term components of

effectiveness are evaluated. Short-term effectiveness refers to the constmction and

implementation period, and long-term effectiveness refers to the period after the remedial

action is complete.

Under the implementability evaluation, the technical and adminisfrative feasibility of

constmcting, operating, and maintaining each altemative is evaluated. Technical

feasibility refers to the ability to constmct and reliably operate the remedial process, and

the ability to meet technology-specific regulations during its implementation until the

Remedial Action is complete. It also includes 0«&;M, replacement, and monitoring of

technical components of an altemative after the remedial action is complete.

Adminisfrative feasibility refers to the ability to obtain approvals from other offices and

agencies and the availability of services, capacity, equipment, and technical specialists.

Cost evaluations are intended to quantitatively compare relative costs of altematives.

Costs are typically not defined with the level of accuracy desired for the detailed analysis

(i.e., +50 to -30 percent); however, the relative accuracy of the estimates should be

consistent so that cost decisions among altematives will be sustained as the accuracy of

cost estimates improves beyond the screening process. In the detailed analysis, the

operations and maintenance costs will be evaluated as present-worth costs, using a 7

percent discount rate and 30-year performance period, consistent with EPA guidance

(EPA, 2000). For this screening TM, costs were evaluated quantitatively with consistent

assumptions among the site-wide altematives.


3.2 Description of Site-Wide Alternatives

This section describes the five SWA compiled from MSRAs for this site. The SWA

descriptions are summarized in Table 3-1.

3.2.1 SWA-1 - No Action

All media have as one of their MSRAs the No Action altemative. This altemative is

required by the NCP to be included as a baseline altemative throughout the FS process.

The intent is to provide a benchmark scenario (i.e., maintain current conditions) against

which other altematives are compared and evaluated. This altemative will be carried

forward as a stand alone SWA for this site.

3.2.2 SWA-2 - Isolate and Wait

All media MSRAs (except subsurface soil) include some form of isolation option

designed to isolate contaminated media; i.e., to dismpt exposure pathways between

receptors and contaminants. This is done using either physical barriers (e.g., fencing) or

institutional/legal restrictions on the use of the medium (e.g., land-use restrictions on

surface media like soil or ordinance restrictions for groundwater). In addition, monitored

natural attenuation (MNA) was an appropriate option for surface water, sediment, and

groundwater. These media can be monitored for changes in contaminant concenfrations

over time while being isolated from potential receptors.

If implemented, all media and source material would be maintained in current conditions

and the only action taken to minimize exposure are institutional confrols such as physical

barriers (e.g., fencing) and waming signage around the perimeter of contaminated media

(e.g., the Impoundment Area, Grids 7 and 8, and the Beaver Pond and/or Country Club

Estates Lake), or institutional/legal restrictions on use of media. Access road

constmction could be required to access locations for monitoring and security. Media

located downgradient of the source areas and presumably impacted by releases from the

Site (i.e., surface soil, surface water and sediment) would be monitored.

3.2.3 SWA-3 - Physical Containment and Disruption of Exposure

Containment MSRAs were identified as appropriate for several media at the Site. The

containment options physically encapsulate the contaminated media providing resistance

to migration and dismption of exposure pathways between receptors and contaminants.


This is done using engineered cap designs appropriate to the meditim being covered. For

surface soil and dry sediment, the cap material can consist of low-permeability clay soil

in combination with synthetic lining material and appropriate contouring and grading.

This prevents infilfration of storm-water into the contaminant material. For contaminated

sediment, submerged cap material can consist of fine sand or other denser-than-water

material. Ideally, the new subsfrate should provide adequate barrier to vertical diffusion

of contaminants through the pore spacing into the overlying water, and it should serve as

a new benthic habitat for communities of benthic species. This option in the sediment

medium does not address vertical contaminant mobility from and to the subsurface below

the sediment layer. Since "encapsulation" is not an appropriate option for the liquid

media at the Site, MNA was selected as the complementary option for surface water and

groundwater, as well as sediment. These media can be monitored for changes in

contaminant concentrations over time while being isolated from potential receptors.

If implemented. Impoundment Area material, contaminated soil in Grids 7 and 8, and

sediment underlying creeks and lakes would be covered by appropriate engineered covers

to minimize infiltration of precipitation, to divert storm-water away from the source

material, and to minimize further migration of contaminated media. Further limits to

exposure include institutional confrols such as physical barriers (e.g., fencing) and

waming signage around the perimeter of contaminated media. Media located

downgradient ofthe source areas and presumably impacted by releases from the Site (i.e.,

surface water, sediment, and groundwater) would be left to recover naturally.

3.2.4 SWA-4 - Remove, Stabilize and Dispose

Removal MSRAs were identified as appropriate for all media at the Site. These options

physically remove the contaminated media providing complete elimination of hazard and

toxicity to potential receptors. This is done using different technology for each medium:

surface and subsurface soil is mechanically excavated, submerged sediment can be

removed with suction or vacuum techniques, surface water can be removed using similar

pumping technology, and groundwater can be removed via extraction wells. In all cases,

the removed contaminated material is freated or stabilized prior to disposal. Solid media

can be disposed of off-site in a confrolled disposal facility; freated liquid media passing

adequate clean-up criteria may be retumed to aquatic features downgradient of the site

with appropriate permitting. For this SWA, no contaminants would remain in-place,

therefore no isolation or monitoring would be necessary after completion ofthe Remedial

Action.

Davis Timber Site (DT) Revision No.O Remedial Alternatives Screening-Technical Memorandum Page 3-4

3.2.5 SWA-5 - On-site Treatment and Restoration

Treatment MSRAs were identified as appropriate for contaminated media at the Site.

These options physically treat the contaminated media on-site providing complete

elimination of hazard and toxicity to potential receptors. This is done using different

technology for each medium: surface and subsurface soil is mechanically excavated,

submerged sediment can be removed with suction or vacuum techniques, surface water

can be removed using similar pumping technology, and groundwater can be removed via

exfraction wells. In all cases, the removed contaminated material is treated or stabilized.

However, unlike SWA-4, all freated media is returned to appropriate locations on-site in

a confrolled manner. Treated solid media passing appropriate clean-up criteria are

reburied in their original location (soil on land; sediment to lakes and sfreams on-site) and

liquid media passing adequate clean-up criteria may be retumed to aquatic features

downgradient of the site with appropriate permitting. For this SWA, no contaminants

would remain in-place, therefore no isolation or monitoring would be necessary after

completion of the Remedial Action.

3.3 Screening of Site-Wide Alternatives

The screening evaluation is intended to reduce the number of altematives that will

undergo a more thorough and extensive analysis. Therefore, the evaluation of SWAs in

this section is more general in nature than for the detailed analysis performed later but

sufficiently detailed to allow distinctions among altematives to be identified and

assessed. The cost evaluation results are presented for each individual SWA in Appendix

A and are summarized for all SWAs in Table 3-2.

3.3.1 SWA-1 (No Action/No Further Action)

As required by NCP, this altemative does nothing at the site. No actions would be

initiated at all source locations and downgradient locations.

3.3.1.1 Effectiveness. Altemative 1 includes no actions to limit exposures of human

or ecological receptors to COCs in source materials, sediments, surface water,

groundwater, air, and plants. Altemative 1 would attain none of the RAOs in the

foreseeable future.

3.3.1.2 Implementability. Implementability was not evaluated for within the Site

because this altemative requires no action.


3.3.1.3 Cost. Implementing the No Action altemative would incur a minimal operation

and maintenance (O&M) cost estimated to be $78,000 (Appendix A; Table A-1)

3.3.1.4 Screening Assessment . Consideration ofthe no action altemative is required

by the NCP. Consequently, SWA-1 is retained for detailed analysis in the FS.

3.3.2 SWA-2 (Isolate and Wait)

This SWA is one ofthe least intmsive alternatives developed for this site. The isolation

options in this SWA do not reliably dismpt exposure pathways between contaminants and

ecological receptors at this site. Unfortunately, this SWA does nothing to physically

remove contamination from the site nor does it effectively reduce toxicity or hazard of

the contaminants identified at the site. This SWA is strictly an altemative to protect

human receptors from exposure and to allow natural attenuation processes to induce

recovery of environmental conditions.

3.3.2.1 Effectiveness. Altemative 2 includes no actions to eliminate potential

exposure of human or ecological receptors other than institutional controls targeting

human receptors. All contaminated media and COCs would remain in-place and would

only be reduced or eliminated by natural attenuation processes. In the foreseeable fiiture,

Altemative 2 would not attain RAOs addressing removal of contamination or complete

elimination of exposure pathways; human exposure pathways involving contact and

ingestion would be only partially reduced by the institutional confrols.

3.3.2.2 Implementability. This minimally intmsive altemative is relatively simple to

implement. Institutional confrols would require agreements and local ordinances to be

instituted; monitoring access and would require confractual agreements for technical

support to sample and analyze samples of media downgradient of the source areas. This

altemative is readily implementable throughout the site.

3.3.2.3 Cost. Costs associated with Altemative 2 involve time for developing

agreements and instituting local ordinances for the institutional confrols, minimal costs

for access barriers (e.g., fencing and signage), and relatively long-term, on-going costs

associated with sampling and analysis of samples of media downgradient of the source

areas. There would be laboratory charges on a per-sample basis; these are difficult to

quantify without a specific sampling and analysis plan. Overall, costs associated with

this altemative are relatively low; the calculated total estimate for SWA-2 is $821,000

(Appendix A; Table A-2).


3.3.2.4 Screening Assessment . SWA-2 is an example of a minimally intmsive

altemative. It serves as a "minimal action" option among the developed SWAs. It is

retained for detailed analysis in the FS.

3.3.3 SWA-3 (Physical Containment of Sources and Contaminated Media)

This SWA is more intmsive than the previous two altematives.

3.3.3.1 Effectiveness. Altemative 3 includes two components designed to reduce

potential exposure of human or ecological receptors: engineered caps (targeting the three

pathways to human and ecological receptors: ingestion, contact, and inhalation of dust)

and institutional confrols (targeting the ingestion and contact pathways to human

receptors). All contaminated media and COCs would remain in-place; therefore, RAOs

to eliminate contamination are not addressed. Exposure to contamination would be

greatly reduced, however, because the source material essentially would be isolated from

potential receptors. Reduction or elimination of COC concentrations would occur only

by natural attenuation processes. Altemative 3 would attain many of the RAOs for the

source material; direct contact with the material and reduction in fransport in the form of

erosion, leaching, and dust generation would be greatly reduced or eliminated.

3.3.3.2 Implementability. The institutional confrols and monitoring components of

this altemative are relatively simple to implement. Institutional confrols would require

agreements and local ordinances to be instituted; monitoring would require confractual

agreements for access and technical support to sample and analyze samples of media

downgradient of the source areas.

Constmction of engineered caps over the source material piles poses a few challenges,

but is readily implementable at all locations. The most critical task for constmcting caps

is identifying borrow areas for obtaining clean soil or clay. Grading the material would

create additional dust-generation issues in the short-term; dust suppression techniques

would be needed during cap constmction. Once the soil or clay cap was in-place,

initiating the growth of short-rooted vegetation on the fertile soil or clay cap would

require some time, but that is readily implementable at this site, as well.

3.3.3.3 Cost. Costs associated with the institutional confrols and monitoring

components of Altemative 3 involve time for developing agreements and instituting local

ordinances for the institutional controls, minimal costs for access barriers (e.g., fencing

and signage), and relatively long-term, on-going costs associated with sampling and


analysis of samples of media downgradient of the source areas. There would be

laboratory charges on a per-sample basis; these are difficult to quantify without a specific

sampling and analysis plan. Overall costs associated with SWA-3 are $1,309,000


Constmction of caps on the source area material would require earth-moving equipment,

dust-suppressing equipment and media, borrow soil or clay, top-soil, and vegetation.

Also included in costing the cap constmction are design costs for developing the specific

topography ofthe caps at the source piles.

3.3.3.4 Screening Assessment . SWA-3 is a moderately intmsive altemative. It

serves to reduce exposure potential to source material (through capping) and reduce

potential migration of contaminants (by reducing infiltration and stabilizing the material's

erosion potential). It is retained for detailed analysis in the FS.

3.3.4 SWA-4 (Remove, Stabilize and Dispose)

SWA 4 is one of the more effective altematives developed for this site. If implemented,

all Impoundment Area material and contaminated soil and sediment would be completely

removed from the site and all exposure scenarios at the source areas would be eliminated.

3.3.4.1 Effectiveness. Altermiive 4 relies on removal and stabilization of source

material to eliminate potential exposure of human or ecological receptors. Once

implemented and completed. Impoundment Area material and contaminated soil in the

Grid 7 and 8 areas, and sediment in the creeks, sfreams, and lakes would not exist on-site;

there would be no direct risk from exposure to this material once it has been-removed and

freated. Existing contamination in natural media downgradient of the source areas would

not be removed; however, it is assumed that removal of additional source material would

provide favorable conditions for natural flushing and attenuation ofthis contamination to

occur. The concenfrations of COCs in these downgradient media are expected to decline

by natural attenuation processes over time, and any potential risk from exposure to them

also is expected to decline as a consequence. Altemative 4 would attain RAOs

addressing source contamination elimination; downgradient contamination in natural

media would not be eliminated in the near future.

3.3.4.2 ImplementabiUty. This highly dismptive altemative may be a challenge to

implement. Removing approximately 16,667 cubic yards of Impoundment Area material,

2,963 cubic yards of surface and shallow subsurface soil (at Grids 7 and 8) and 1,111


cubic yards of sediment from the site may result in a substantial dismption of existing

habitats and aesthetic conditions. The movement of that amount of material would

require excavation equipment and dust-confrol techniques, and the stabilization of that

amount of material would require constmction of a staging area for freatment,

stabilization, and loading of stabilized material onto tmcks for fransport to the disposal

location. Identification of a disposal location would be a critical task for this altemative,

a distant location would create logistical challenges to minimize potential spreading of

contamination along the transportation route, and a facility large enough to accept the

entire volume of treated material may be difficult to find.

3.3.4.3 Cost. Costs associated with SWA-4 are substantial. They involve time for

excavation and freatment, stabilization chemical costs, equipment for excavation and

freatment, hauling charges, transportation (e.g., fuel) costs, disposal site/landfill fees, and

costs associated with restoring the site post-excavation. Overall, costs associated with

this altemative are relatively high; the calculated total estimate for SWA-4 is $3,953,000


3.3.4.4 Screening Assessment . SWA-4 is an example of a highly intmsive but

maximally effective altemative. It serves as an altemative on the "maximum action" end

of the spectmm of potential site-wide altematives. It is retained for detailed analysis in

theFS.

3.3.5 SWA-5 (On-site Decontamination and Restoration)

This SWA-5 is as comprehensive as the previous altemative (SWA-4). If implemented.

Impoundment Area material would be removed and freated on-site but would be retumed

to the local area in a decontaminated or stabilized condition. This would protect

downgradient surface media from future contamination. Further limits to exposure

include institutional confrols such as physical barriers (e.g., fencing) and waming signage

around the perimeter of contaminated media (primarily the Impoundment Area).

3.3.5. t Effectiveness. Altemative 5 relies on removal and stabilization of source

material to eliminate potential exposure of human or ecological receptors. Once

implemented and completed. Impoundment Area material and contaminated soil in the

Grid 7 and 8 areas, and sediment in the creeks, sfreams, and lakes would not exist in an

hazardous state; there would be no direct risk from exposure to contaminants in the

original material once it has been removed and treated. Existing contamination in natural

media downgradient of the source areas would not be removed; however, it is assumed


that removal of additional source material would provide favorable conditions for natural

flushing and attenuation of this contamination to occur.

3.3.5.2 Implementability. Implementing this highly dismptive altemative may conflict

with potential fiiture land-uses that currently are being developed for the Site. Removing

approximately 16,667 cubic yards of Impoundment Area material, 2,963 cubic yards of

surface and shallow subsurface soil (at Grids 7 and 8) and 1,111 cubic yards of sediment

from the site may result in a substantial dismption of existing habitats and aesthetic

conditions. The movement of that amoimt of material would require excavation

equipment and dust-control techniques, and the stabilization of that amount of material

would require constmction of a staging area for freatment and stabilization. Returning

freated media to their original locations would eliminate the need for off-site fransport

and disposal coordination.

3.3.5.3 Cost. Costs associated with SWA-5 are less than SWA-4 because ofthe absence

of off-site disposal costs. They involve time for excavation and freatment, stabilization

chemical costs, equipment for excavation and treatment, and costs associated with

restoring the site post-excavation. Overall, costs associated with this altemative are

relatively high; the calculated total estimate for SWA-5 is $2,465,000 (Appendix A;

Table A-5).

3.3.5.4 Screening Assessment . SWA-5 is a moderately intmsive altemative. It

serves to eliminate exposure pathways between receptors and source material and to

reduce potential migration of contaminants (through removal and stabihzation of

contaminated material). It is retained for detailed analysis in the FS.

3.4 Summary of Alternative Screening

Alternatives 1 through 5 (Table 3-1) have been retained at this time for detailed analysis

in the FS. The rationale for retaining these altematives and screening out the remaining

altematives has been presented in Section 3.3. These include the "No Action" altemative

which will be evaluated for the Site, as well. Costs for the SWAs are summarized in

Table 3-2.

As discussed in this report, the remedial altematives being developed for the FS represent

work in progress. In particular, the altematives will be refined technically and/or

economically based on reviewer feedback. It is also emphasized that the altematives

developed in the FS are not mutually exclusive choices and do not limit the choice of a


remedy. That is, a preferred altemative, as developed in the PP, or, subsequentiy, the

selected remedy, as developed in the ROD, can mix the elements of the various

altematives developed in the FS, refine or modify those elements, or add to them.

Moreover, although the FS supplies information for helping select a remedy, information

supplementing the FS may be incorporated into the remedy selection process at any time.

Two key issues have been identified for the detailed analysis of site-wide altematives in

the draft FS:

• Availability of clean engineered cap material, and

• Need for freated solids disposal options.

3.4.1 Availability of Clean Cover Material

Large quantities of clean material may be required for constmction of protective covers at

the site. Stripping soil from large land areas to provide large quantities of capping

material could create adverse environmental impacts at the borrow sites. As a result,

obtaining pennits for offsite borrow sources may be difficult, and reclamation of

impacted borrow areas may be required. If local cover material sources carmot be

located, hauling material from relatively long distances could significantly increase the

cost ofthe remedy and the amoimt of tmck fraffic on roads within the haul route. Further

evaluation of cover designs will be conducted during the detailed analysis in the FS. A

focus of this evaluation will be to develop conceptual cover designs that minimize

imported material costs and impacts. Final cover designs, if covers are included as part

ofthe selected remedy, will be developed during remedial design.

3.4.2 Need for Treated Media Disposal Options

Several proposed remediation options would create a waste solid requiring disposal in a

permitted form; one example could be a landfill or other disposal site. Onsite disposal

would have lower disposal costs and would eliminate the potential for offsite releases of

slag/sludge/residue during fransport, but would require long-term management of the

disposal area, including land use restrictions. The materials associated with this scenario

include:

• Impoundment Area material from the DT site;


• Chemically stabilized Impoundment Area material;

• Surface water in-situ reactive bags; and

• Groundwater treatment by ion-exchange, granular activated carbon, or other

similar method.

All of these materials could create a solid-phase sludge waste consisting of metals and

other contaminants removed from the medium. The loads of metals that would migrate

to other media from the Slag and Sludge Piles would be reduced if additional source

confrol measures are implemented.


4.0 References

Black and Veatch Special Projects Corporation (Black & Veatch). 2006a. Revised Draft

Remedial Investigation (RI) report for Davis Timber. Originally prepared by U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science and Ecosystems Support Division

(SESD) in Athens, Georgia and revised by Black and Veatch in Alpharetta, Georgia.

May 31, 2006.

Black and Veatch Special Projects Corporation (Black & Veatch). 2006b. Final Baseline

Human Health Risk Assessment for Davis Timber. Prepared by Black and Veatch

Special Projects Corporation; Alpharetta, Georgia. May, 2006.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 300.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976. Quality Criteria for Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial

frivestigations and Feasibility Stiidies under CERCLA. hiterim Final. EPAy540/G-89/004.

October 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Prepared for the United States

Environmental Protection Agency by TetraTech EM; Preliminary Scoring Sfrategy for

Davis Timber Company, Hattiesburg, Lamar County, Mississippi, Revision 1. EPA ID

No. MSD04697012. June, 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. A Guide to Developing and

Documenting Cost Estimates during the Feasibility Study. EPA 540-R-00-002. July

2000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Step 7 Draft Risk Characterization,

Davis Timber Superfimd Site, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Prepared by Science and

Ecosystems Support Division (SESD) and Integrated Laboratory Systems (ILS),

Incorporated, Athens, Georgia; April 2006.

Tables

Table 1-1 Potential Sources of Location-Specific ARARs


Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations Citation Description

FEDERAL

Federal Groundwater Classification

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) National Primary Drinking Water Standards

Clean Water Act Ambient Water Quality Criteria

Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

National Pretreatment Standards

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

RCRA Groundwater Protection

RCRA Solid Waste Disposal Facility Requirements

55 Federal Register (FR) Part 8733

Federal classification system to establish groundwater usage categories for aquifers as part of a groundwater protection strategy.

Comments

The aquifer beneath the site carries a federal classification of Class L This classification means that the surficial aquifer is a sole-source aquifer that is an irreplaceable groundwater resource and warrants a high degree of protection.

40 United States Code (USC) ^300 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 141, Subpart B and G

Established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) which are health-based standards for public water systems.

The MCLs for organic and morganic constituents are relevant and appropriate to the groundwater contamination in a sole source aquifer.

33 USC Sect. 1251-1376 40 CFR Part 131

40 CFR Part 129

40 CFR Parts 122, 125

40 CFR Part 403

Requires the states to set ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) criteria for water quality based on use classifications and the criteria developed under Section 304(a) ofthe Clean Water Act. Establishes effluent standards or prohibitions for certain toxic pollutants: aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, endrin, toxaphene, benzidine, PCBs. Determines maximum concentrations for the discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters ofthe United States. Sets standards to control pollutants that pass through or interfere with treatment processes in publicly owned treatment works or that may contaminate sewage sludge.

AWQCs for some inorganic and organic constituents in the groundwater at the site have been developed and may be relevant and appropriate.

Would not be applicable because this regulation does not cover contamtoants detected onsite that are site-attributable or COCs. Discharge limits would be established for effluent if discharged to surface water body on site.

If an altemative involved discharge to publicly ovmed treatment works, these standards would be applicable if discharged on site.

40 USC 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925

40 CFR Part 264

40 CFR Part 257.3-4

Provides for groundwater protection standards, general monitoring requirements and technical requirements. Provides for protection of groundwater at solid waste disposal facility.

The RCRA standards could be relevant and appropriate for groundwater at the site if an onsite landfill is constructed.

May be applicable if remedial action includes provisions for an onsite landfill.

Page 1 of 2



Standards, Requirements, Criteria, or Limitations

Clean Air Act National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

Citation Description Comments 42 USC Sect. 7401-7642 40 CFR Part 50

40 CFR Part 61

^121(d)(2)(B)(ii)

Establishes standards for ambient air quality to protect public health and welfare.

Provides emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for which no ambient air quality standard exists. Provides altemative groundwater concentration limits for groundwater that discharges to a siu-face waterbody.

May be applicable if contaminants are discharged to the air during a treatment process.

May be relevant or appropriate if onsite treatment units with emissions are part of remedial actions.

There are suspected discharges of groundwater to surface water near the site.



Standard , Requirement , Criteria, or Limitation Citation Description

FEDERAL

National Historic Preservation Act

Archaeological and Historic Preservation

Historic Site, Buildings, and . Antiquities Act

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

Endangered Species Act

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Clean Water Act

Dredge or Fill Requirements (Section 404)

16 United States Code (USC) § 470 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 6.301 (b) 36 CFR Part 800

16 USC Sect. 469 40 CFR Sect. 6.301(c)

16 USC Sect. 461-467 40 CFR Sect. 6.301(a)

16 USC Sect. 661-666

16 USC 1531 50 CFR Parts 200 and 402

16 USC 703 etseq.

Requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of any federally-assisted undertaking or licensmg on any district, site, buildmg, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.

Establishes procedures to provide for preservation of historical and archaeological data which might be destroyed through alteration of tertain as a result of a Federal constmction project or a Federally licensed activity or program. Requires Federal agencies to consider the existence and location of landmarks on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks to avoid undesirable impacts on such landmarks. Requires consultation when Federal department or agency proposes or authorizes any modification of any stream or other water body and adequate provision for protection of fish and wildlife resources. Requires action to conserve endangered species within critical habits upon which endangered species depend, includes consultation with Department of Interior. No federal action may jeopardize the habitat of birds with migratory pathways through the area.

Comment

No current district site, building, stmcture, or object listed on or eligible for the National Register is on or adjacent to the site.

/ •

No current historical or archeological data is on or adjacent to the site.

No current National Landmark is on or adjacent to the site.

Unlikely that an altemative would cause damage or loss of wildlife by modifying a stream or body of water.

No threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are identified at the site.

Unlikely that an altemative would effect any migratory pathways.

33 USC Sect. 125 let . seg.

40 CFR Parts 230 and 231

Requires permits for discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters.

Unlikely that an altemative would require discharge of dredge material into navigable waters

....

Page 1 of2



Standard , Requirement , Cri ter ia , or Limitation

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

Section 10 Permit

Executive Order on Flood Plain Management

Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands

Wildemess Act

National Wildlife Refuge System

Scenic River Act

Coastal Zone Management Act

Citation Description Comment

33 USC Sect. 403

33 CFR Parts 320-330

Executive Order No. 11,988

Executive Order No. 11,990 40 CFR 6.302(a) and Appendix A

16 USC 1311 50 CFR 35.1 16 USC 668 50 CFR 27 16 USC 1271 40 CFR 6.302(e)

16 USC 1451

Requires permit for stmctures of work in or affecting navigable waters. Requires Federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of actions they may take in a flood plain to avoid, to the extent possible, the adverse impacts associated with direct and indirect development of a flood plain. Requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the adverse impacts associated with the destmction or loss of wetlands and to avoid support of new constmction in wetlands if a practicable altemative exists. Administer facility ovmed wUdemess area to leave it unimpacted. Restricts activities within a National Wildlife Refiige.

Prohibits adverse effects on scenic river.

Conduct activities in accordance with State approved management program.

It is unlikely that an alternative would effect a navigable waterway. Site activities will be located outside the 500-year flood plain.

-Unlikely an altemative would have a negative impact on area wetlands.

No wildemess areas exist on site or adjacent to the site. No wildlife refiige areas exist on site or adjacent to the site. No scenic river is in the area ofthe site.

The site is not located near the coastal zone.

Page 2 of2



Medium of Interest

Applicable Location(s)

Chemical(s) of Concern

Receptor(s) at Risk Exposure Patbway(s) PRG(s) (Narrative or Numeric)

Impotmdment Area bark, wood chips, and soil

Impoundment Pentachloro- Human Direct exposure (contact, ingestion); Area phenol (PCP) (workers) migration of COCs (to surface water,

sedunent, subsurface soil and groimdwater)

Reduce to acceptable levels the human health risk from exposure to COCs by: • Removing material currently retaining

contaminated water over the Impoundment Area; • Restricting human access to Impoundment Area; • Eluninate surface nmoff into the Impotmdment

Area to eliminate further migration of COCs to groundwater.

Surface Soil Grids 7 and 8 primarily; also other surface soil areas; dry (desiccated) sediment beds of ephemeral drainage channels.

PCP and dioxin/furans

Human (workers, trespassers); Ecological (terresfrial insectivores)

Direct exposure (contact, ingestion, dust inhalation); raigration of COCs (to surface water, sediment, surface or subsurface soil, and groimdwater)

Reduce to acceptable levels the human health and ecological risk from exposure to COCs by: • Reducing COC concenfrations in surface soil to

calculated PRGs (see below); • Eliminating exposure pathways between

receptors and contaminated soil; • Eliminating the potential for migration of

contaminated surface soil or dry sediment.

Ecological PRGs for dioxin/furans range from 0.0000022 to 0.000022 mg/kg for mammalian insectivores and from 0.0000582 to 0.00062 mg/kg for avian insectivores. No ecological PRGs were calculated for PCP in surface soil because remediation to dioxin/fiiran PRGs was assumed to adequately and simultaneously address PCP contamination.

Page 1 of 3



Medium of Interest

Subsurface Soil

Surface water

Sediment


All areas throughout site

Creeks and ponds

Creeks and ponds

Chemical($) of Concern

Dioxin/fiirans and PCP (metals not believed to be site-related)

Dioxin/furans

PCP and dioxin/furans

Receptor(s) at Risk

Human (workers)

Human

Ecological (mammalian and avian piscivores and avian insectivores)

Exposure Pathway(s)

Direct exposure (contact, ingestion, dust inhalation)

Direct exposure (contact and ingestion); ingestion of contaminated fish

Direct ingestion and ingestion of contaminated prey (e.g., fish and benthic invertebrates)

PRG(s) (Narrative or Numeric)

Reduce to acceptable levels the human health risk from exposure to COCs by: • Dismptmg potential exposure pathways between

receptors and COCs; " Reducmg COC concentrations to risk-based

PRGs

Reduce to acceptable levels the human health risk from exposure to COCs by: • Resfricting ingestion of contaminated fish; • Removing contmuing sources of COCs to surface

water bodies; • Taking advantage of potential natural attenuation

Reduce to acceptable levels the ecological risk from exposure to COCs by: • Reducing COC concenfrations in to risk-based

PRGs; " Dismptmg pathways between receptors and

contaminated media; • Taking advantage of potential natural attenuation

Ecological PRGs for dioxin/fiirans range from 0.00002 to 0.01094 mg/kg for piscivores and from 0.0011 to 0.01438 mg/kg for avian insectivores. No ecological PRGs were calculated for PCP in sediment because remediation to dioxin/fiiran PRGs was assumed to adequately and simultaneously address PCP contamination.

Page 2 of3



Medium of Interest

Shallow Groundwater

Terresfrial Biota (general)


Under the Impoundment Area material

Grids 7 and 8

Chemical(s) of Concern

Metals, PCP, 2-methylnaphthalene, pesticides, chloroform

PCP and dioxm/fiirans

Receptor(s) at Risk

Human (workers)

Ecological (consumers)

Exposure Pathway(s)

Direct exposure (contact, ingestion)

Food-chain exposure (ingestion of contaminated food items)

PRG(s) (Narrative or Numeric)

Reduce to acceptable levels the human health risk from exposure to COCs in groundwater by: • Eliminating the Impoundment Area material

currently retaining contaminated water; • Eliminatmg fiuther migration of surface

contaminants to groundwater via storm-water infilfration through the Impoundment Area.

Reduce to acceptable levels risk to human and ecological receptors from exposure to COCs through food-chain exposure to contaminated food items by: • Implementing actions that remove contaminated

media from tertestrial habitats (e.g., surface soil and sedunent);

• Taking advantage of potential natural attenuation, dilution, and dispersion processes that could (over tune) result in lower COC concentrations in down-gradient areas.

Notes: Information derived from Section 6.0 ofthe Draft Remedial Investigation Report for Davis Timber, and from conversations with remedial project managers.

Page 3 of3

Table 2-2 Identification of General Response Actions


Medium/Location

Impoundment Area Material

Surface Soil and Dry Sediment - All Areas

Subsurface Soil

Surface Water

Sediment

Shallow Groimd Water

Ecological Populations

No Action

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

Institutional Confrols

V

/

~

V

V

~

~

Identified Media

Monitor

-

~

~

V

V

V

~

-Specific

Containment

V

V

~.

(V)

V

V

~

General Resp(

Excavation and Disposal

V

V

V

~

V

~

~

[>nse Actions

Treatment

V

V

V

V

V

V

~

Exfraction and Disposal

-

~

~

V

~

V

~

Processing and Recycle

V

-

~

-

~

~

-

\ = Indicates that the General Response Action applies to the indicated medium or location. (V) = Indicates that the General Response Action applies to a related medium or source material, but can address contaminants in the indicated medium or location.

= Indicates that the General Response Action does not apply to the indicated medium or location.

Table 2-3 Media Dimensions to be addressed by General Response Actions


Medium or Location

Impoundment Area Material

Groimdwater

Surface Soil (at Grids 7 and 8)

Surface Soil and Dry Sediment

Substorface Soil

Surface Water

Sediment (in beaver pond)

Dimensions of Media (Linear Feet*)

200'x 125'x 18'

NA

200 'x200 'xl '

NA

NA

NA

lOO'xlOO'xl'

Volume of Media (cubic yards)

16,667

NA

2,963

NA

NA

NA

1,111

* Length x Width x Depth in feet NA - not applicable to this site

Table 2-4 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Impoundment Area


Generic General Technology

Response Action Type

Remedial Technology or

Process Option ' Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO

No Action None None Take no remedial action at the Site. Material would remain in-place and be subject to ambient environmental conditions and processes.

NCP requires that this option be included as a Remedial Action altemative.

Institutional Controls

Land Use Controls

Deed/Zoning Restrictions

Restrict access to, and reuse of, the Site using legally binding requirements on property such as deed and zoning restrictions. Restrictions also would prevent use or transfer of property without notification of limitations on the use ofthe property on-site.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiirther consideration. This option is effective only for dismpting exposure pathways to human receptors. This option does not protect ecological receptors.

Access Restrictions

Physical Resfrictions (e.g., fencing and posted warnings)

Place engineered fences, berms, or other such enclosures around contaminated media to prevent access by potential receptors (human and/or ecological). Place waming signs to communicate to potential human receptors the hazards potentially encountered if entering the area.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. This option is most effective for dismpting exposure pathways to human receptors. This option may not protect ecological receptors from exposure.

Commimity Awareness

Information and Education Programs

Make public aware of potential hazards at, and the need to avoid, the Site through information and educational programs.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. This option is effective only for dismpting exposure pathways to human receptors. This option does not protect ecological receptors.

Containment Covers Grading Grade tbe contaminated media into configurations that are less prone to erosion.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiirther consideration.

Vegetative Cover Establish a cover ofnatural vegetation (e.g., grasses and low-lying shmbs) on existing material with or without the aid of soil amendments.


Page 1 of7




Generic Technology

Type


Process Option ' Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO'

Containment (Continued)

Covers (Continued)

Barriers

Compacted Soil/Clay Cover

Cap the contaminated media with a layer of borrow soil/clay to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to minimize storm-water infilfration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. Option is most effective when used in combination with grading and application of a vegetative cover.

Multi-Layer Soil Cover

Cap the contaminated media with a multi-layer soil cover to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to minimize stormwater infiltration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. Option is most effective when used m combination with grading and application of a vegetative cover.

Asphalt/Concrete Cover

Cap the contaminated media with a single layer asphalt and/or concrete cap to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to eliminate storm-water infilfration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiirther consideration. Long-term effectiveness is suspect due to potential deterioration of asphalt/concrete cap leading to exposure and possible precipitation infiltration.

Geosynthetic Clay Lmer (GCL) Cover

Cap the contaminated media with a GCL cover to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to eliminate stonn-water infilfration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiirther consideration. Option is most effective when used in combination with grading and application of a vegetative cover.

Flexible Membrane Liner (FML) Cover

Cap the contaminated media with an impermeable FML cover to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to eliminate stormwater infiltration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiirther consideration. Option is most effective when used in combination with grading and application of a vegetative cover.

Cryogenic Barrier Insert an array of freeze pipes around the contaminated media, and freeze the niaterial by connections to a refrigeration plant.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is eliminated from further consideration.

Page 2 of7




Generic Technology

Type


Process Option' Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO'

Contaimnent (continued)

Barriers (Continued)

Retaining Stmctures Stabilize the contaminated material using engineered retaining stmctures along the perimeter.

This option is technically feasible but not necessary or optimal for this site. It is eliminated from fiirther consideration.

Excavation, Transport, Disposal

Treatment 3.4

Off-site Disposal

Existing Off-site Landfill or Disposal Site

Physically excavate and relocate the material to an existing off-site landfill permitted to accept waste with characteristics ofthe material.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retauied for fiirther consideration.

Off-site Reuse/ Physically excavate and relocate the material Recyclmg where it can be reused for acceptable purposes.


On-site Disposal

On-site repository disposal area

Physically excavate and relocate the material to a new disposal cell constmcted on-site.

This option is technically feasible at this site, but it is a less effective option. It is eliminated from further consideration.

On-Site Repository built to RCRA Subtitle C standards

Dispose the material at a new on-site repository constmcted to RCRA Subtitle C standards.

This option is not technically feasible at this site, but it is a less effective option. It is eliminated from fiirther consideration.

Segregation Segregate the material based on COCs; designed to reduce the area requiring a cover.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is eliminated from ftirther consideration.

Consolidation Consolidate the material within the site; designed to reduce the area requirmg a cover.


Ex-situ Ex-situ Solidification Physical/ and Stabilization Chemical (S/S)

Contaminants are stabilized by injecting a chemical binding agent into the excavated material. There are many distinct types of S/S processes.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiuther consideration.

Page 3 of 7




Treatment '••* (Continued)

Generic Technology

Type

Ex-situ Physical/ Chemical (Continued)

In-situ Physical/ Chemical


Process Option'

Neutralization

Floatation

Soil Washing

Solvent Exfraction

In-situ Soil Flushing

Electrokinetic Separation

Description of RTPO

Chemically freat the material to bring the pH of the solids and its leachate to a more neufral pH (e.g., pH 6-8).

Separate metals-contaminated material from clean material by suspending material in a liquid mafrix; reduces voltune of material requiring freatment or disposal. COCs bind to the particle causing it to float where it can be skimmed off

COCs sorbed onto fine particles are separated from bulk particles m an aqueous based system on the basis of particle size. The wash water may be augmented with a reagent to help remove COCs.

A solvent is applied to and extracted from the contammated material. Contaminants would be fransferred from material to the solvent and then exfracted from the solvent.

Cfrculate a wash solution through contaminated material in-place via wells or frenches causing mobilization of adsorbed COCs. The (COC-laden) solution is then extracted and treated.

In-situ waste material is electrically charged with direct cmrent and elecfrodes, causmg the fransport/ removal of ions, particles, and water.

Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO ^

This option is not technically feasible at this site. Material pH is neither a concem nor a factor at this site. This option is elunmated from fiirther consideration.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. The characteristics ofthe material make this option ineffective. This option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. The characteristics ofthe material make this option ineffective. This option is eliminated from fiirther consideration.



This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is less effective with material contaminated bv organics. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Page 4 of7




Response Action l^yp^


Process Option ^ Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO

Treatment ' (continued)

In-situ Physical/ Chemical (Continued)

Thermal Treatment

In-situ Stabilization/ Solidification

Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between the stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce thefr mobility (stabilization).


Molten Glass Vitrification

Contaminated material is immobilized ex-situ by using heat generated from a bath of molten glass to incorporate inorganic constituents in a vitrified glass matrix.


Plasma Arc Vitrification

Transfer of electric energy from plasma to waste; contaminants are oxidized or pyrolyzed.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration.

In-Situ Vitrification Pass electric current between elecfrodes inserted into the contaminated material, causing the material to melt. The molten matrix cools into a leach-resistant solid mass that remains in-place.


Incineration Contaminated material is heated to volatilize and oxidize organic contaminants. Consideration must be given to the incinerated ash residue created by the process.


Thermal Desorption Contaminated material is heated to approximately 600 to 1000 F to volatilize water and organic COCs.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. The characteristics ofthe COCs make this option ineffective. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Page 5 of7




Generic Technology

Type



Treatment"' (continued)

Biological Treatment

Processing Resource Recovery

Biodegradation Optunize conditions within the material to induce the growth ofnatural or inoculated microbial populations; microbial respiration uses organic COCs as carbon (i.e., food) source thereby degradmg the COCs into simpler by-products.


Bioventmg Oxygen, organic gas, or reducing gas is delivered into the material by forced afr movement to stimulate biodegradation of COCs.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is less effective on the COCs present m this material. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Microbial Plugging with Ultramicro-bacteria (Biobarrier)

Introduce starved ultramicrobacteria (UMB) mto permeable subsurface zones. Inject nutrients into zones causing microbial growth and producing an in-situ plug contams organic and inorganic COCs.

This option is still in the developmental stage and has not been demonsfrated under field conditions. It is eliminated from fiirther consideration.

Phytoremediation Establish populations ofnatural vegetation (and associated rhizospheric microbial populations) on the material; designed to remove, degrade, or contain contaminants in soil and groundwater.

This option is technically feasible at this site, but is less effective on COCs present in this medium. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Off-site Millmg/ Physical Separation

Excavate and fransport contaminated material to an existing off-site faciUty for miueral recovery. Recovered minerals may have resale value.

This option is technically feasible at this site, but economic value of recovered material likely is minimal. It is elimmated from further consideration.

On-site Milling/ Physical Separation

Process contammated material for mineral recovery on-site or adjacent to the site. Recovered minerals may have resale value.

This option is technically feasible at this site, but economic value of recovered material likely is minimal. It is eluninated from further consideration.

Page 6 of7



NOTES: ^ (1) Multiple remedial technologies or process options (RTPOs) may be combined into medium-specific remedial altematives. (2) Options with underlined feasibility justifications are options that will not be carried forward for additional evaluation. (3) Based on the NCP guidance, it is preferred that sites with large volumes of contaminated media and/or media with low concenfrations of

contaminants be addressed with consolidation/contaiiunent remedial technologies; sites with small volumes of contaminated media and/or high concentrations of contaminants are more suited to treatment technologies.

(4) Remedial technologies requfring freatability testing could be evaluated during the remedial design phase.

Page 7 of7

Table 2-5 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Surface Soil and Dry Sediment



No Action


Containment

Generic Technology

Type

None

Land Use Controls

Access Restrictions

Community Awareness

Covers


Process Option

None

Deed/Zonmg Restrictions

Physical Restrictions (e.g., fencmg and posted wamings)

Infonnation and Education Programs

Grading

Vegetative Cover

Description of RTPO

Take no remedial action at the Site. Soil would remain in-place and be subject to ambient environmental conditions and processes.

Restrict access to, and reuse of, the Site using legally binding requfrements on property such as deed and zoning restrictions. Restrictions also would prevent use or fransfer of property without notification of limitations on the use ofthe property on-site.

Place engineered fences, berms, or other such enclosures around contaminated media to prevent access by potential receptors (human and/or ecological). Place wammg signs to communicate to potential human receptors the hazards potentially encountered if entering the area.

Make public aware of potential hazards at, and the need to avoid, the Site through mformation and educational programs.

Grade the contamiaated media into configurations that are less prone to erosion.

Establish a cover ofnatural vegetation (e.g., grasses and low-lymg shmbs) on existing material with or without the aid of soil amendments.

Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO

NCP reqiures that this option be included as a Remedial Action altemative.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiuther consideration. This option is effective only for dismpting exposure pathways to human receptors. This option does not protect ecological receptors.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiuther consideration. This option is most effective for dismpting exposure pathways to human receptors. This option may not protect ecological receptors from exposure.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. This option is effective only for dismpting exposure pathways to human receptors. This option does not protect ecological receptors.



Page 1 of6




Generic Technology

Type




Covers (Continued)

Barriers


Cap the contaminated media with a layer of borrow soil/clay to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to minimize storm-water infilfration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retamed for fiuther consideration. Option is most effective when used in combination with grading and application of a vegetative cover.


Cap the contaminated media with a multi-layer soil cover to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to minimize stormwater infilfration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. Option is most effective when used m combination with grading and application of a vegetative cover.


Cap the contaminated media with a single layer asphalt and/or concrete cap to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to eliminate storm-water infilfration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiirther consideration. Long-term effectiveness is suspect due to potential deterioration of asphalt/concrete cap leading to exposure and possible precipitation infilfration.

Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) Cover

Cap the contaminated media with a GCL cover to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to eliminate storm-water infiltration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiuther consideration. Option is most effective when used in combination with grading and application of a vegetative cover.


Cap the contaminated media with an impermeable FML cover to dismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to eliminate stormwater infilfration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiuther consideration. Option is most effective when used in combination with grading and application of a vegetative cover.

Cryogenic Bartier Insert an artay of freeze pipes around the contaminated media, and freeze the material by connections to a refrigeration plant.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Page 2 of6




Contamment (continued)


Treatment '•*

Generic Technology

Type

Bartiers (Continued)

Off-site Disposal

On-site Disposal

Ex-situ Physical/ Chemical


Process Option '

Retaining Stmctures

Existmg Off-site Landfill or Disposal Site

Off-site Reuse/ Recyclmg


On-Site Repository built to RCRA Subtitie C standards

Segregation

Consolidation

Ex-situ Solidification and Stabilization (S/S)

Description of RTPO

Stabilize the contammated material using engineered retaining stmctures along the perimeter.


Physically excavate and relocate the material where it can be reused for acceptable purposes.


Dispose the material at a new on-site repository constmcted to RCRA Subtitle C standards.

Segregate the material based on COCs; designed to reduce the area requiring a cover.

Consolidate the material within the site; designed to reduce the area requiring a cover.

Contaminants are stabilized by injecting a chemical binding agent into the excavated material. There are many distinct types of S/S processes.


This option is technically feasible but not necessary or optimal for this site. It is eliminated from fiirther consideration.


This option is technically feasible but not necessary or optimal for this site. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.






Page 3 of6




Generic Technology

Type



Treatment -* (Continued)


Neutralization Chemically freat the material to bring the pH of the solids and its leachate to a more neufral pH (e.g., pH 6-8).

This option is technically feasible at this site, but soil pH is neither a concern nor a factor at this Site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Floatation Separate metals-contaminated material from clean material by suspending material in a liquid mafrbc; reduces volume of material requiring freatment or disposal. COCs bind to the particle causing it to float where it can be skimmed off.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. The characteristics ofthe material make this option ineffective. This option is eliminated from fiirther consideration.

Soil Washmg COCs sorbed onto fme particles are separated from bulk particles in an aqueous based system on the basis of particle size. The wash water may be augmented with a reagent to help remove COCs.


Solvent Extraction A solvent is applied to and exfracted from the contaminated material. Contammants would be transferred from material to the solvent and then exfracted from the solvent.



In-situ Soil Flushing Circulate a wash solution through contaminated material in-place via wells or trenches causing mobilization of adsorbed COCs. The (COC-laden) solution is then extracted and treated.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retamed for further consideration.


In-situ waste material is electrically charged with direct current and elecfrodes, causing the transport/ removal of ions, particles, and water.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is less effective with material contaminated by organics. This option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Page 4 of6




Generic Technology

Type


Process Option' Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO

Treatment ^^ (continued)


Theraial Treatment


Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between the stabilizmg agent and contaminants to reduce thefr mobility (stabilization).



Contaminated material is immobilized ex-situ by using heat generated from a bath of molten glass to mcorporate morganic constituents in a vitrified glass matrix.


Plasma Arc Vifrification

Transfer of elecfric energy from plasma to waste; contaminants are oxidized or pyrolyzed.


In-Situ Vitrification Pass electric current between electrodes inserted into the contaminated material, causing the material to melt. The molten matrix cools mto a leach-resistant solid mass that remains in-place.





This option is not technically feasible at this site. The characteristics ofthe COCs make this option ineffective. This option is eluninated from further consideration.

Page 5 of 6




Generic Technology

Type


Process Option ' Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO '

Treatment '•* (continued)


Biodegradation Optimize conditions within the material to induce the growth ofnatural or inoculated microbial populations; microbial respfration uses organic COCs as carbon (i.e., food) source thereby degrading the COCs into simpler by-products.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. The characteristics ofthe COCs make this option ineffective. This option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Bioventing Oxygen, organic gas, or reduciug gas is delivered into the material by forced afr movement to stimulate biodegradation of COCs.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is not effective on the COCs present m this material. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Microbial Plugging with Ultramicrobacteria (Biobarrier)

Introduce starved ultramicrobacteria (UMB) into permeable subsurface zones. Inject nutrients into zones causing microbial growth and producing an in-situ plug contains organic and inorganic COCs.

This option is still in the developmental stage and has not been demonsfrated under field conditions. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Phytoremediation Establish populations of natiu'al vegetation (and associated rhizospheric microbial populations) on the material; designed to remove, degrade, or contain contaminants in soil and groundwater.

This option is technically feasible at this site, but is less effective on the COCs present in this material. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

NOTES: (1) Multiple remedial technologies or process options (RTPOs) may be combined into medium-specific remedial altematives. (2) Options with underiined feasibility justifications are options that will not be carried forward for additional evaluation. (3) Based on the NCP guidance, it is preferred that sites with large volumes of contamuiated media and/or media with low concenfrations of

contaminants be addressed with consolidation/containment remedial technologies; sites with small volumes of contaminated media and/or high concentrations of contaminants are more suited to freatment technologies.

(4) Remedial technologies requiring freatability testing could be evaluated during the remedial design phase.

Page 6 of 6

Table 2-6 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Subsurface Soil






No Action None None Take no remedial action at the Site. Soil would remain in-place and be subject to ambient envfronmental conditions and processes.

NCP requfres that this option be included as a Remedial Action alternative.


Off-site Disposal


Physically excavate and relocate the material to an existmg off-site landfill permitted to accept waste with characteristics ofthe material.


Off-site Reuse/ Physically excavate and relocate the material Recycling where it can be reused for acceptable purposes.

This option is technically feasible but not necessary or optimal for this site. It is eliminated from further consideration.

On-site Disposal




On-Site Repository buih to RCRA Subtitle C standards

Dispose the material at a new on-site repository constmcted to RCRA Subtitie C standards.


Segregation Segregate the material based on COCs; designed to reduce the area requiring a cover.


Consolidation Consolidate the material within the site; designed to reduce the area requiring a cover.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is eliminated from fiirther consideration.

Treatment" Ex-situ Ex-situ Solidification Physical/ and Stabilization Chemical (S/S)

Contaminants are stabilized by injecting a chemical binding agent mto the excavated material. There are many distinct types of S/S processes.


Page 1 of4




Generic Technology

Type



Treatment'" (Continued)


Neutralization Chemically freat the material to bring the pH of the solids and its leachate to a more neutral pH (e.g., pH 6-8).

This option is technically feasible at this site, but soil pH is neither a concem nor a factor at this Site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Floatation Separate metals-contaminated material from clean material by suspending material m a liquid matrix; reduces volume of material requiring treatment or disposal. COCs bmd to the particle causing it to float where it can be skinuned off.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. The characteristics ofthe material make this option ineffective. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Soil Washmg COCs sorbed onto fine particles are separated from bulk particles in an aqueous based system on the basis of particle size. The wash water may be augmented with a reagent to help remove COCs.


Solvent Exfraction A solvent is applied to and exfracted from the contaminated material. Contaminants would be transferted from material to the solvent and then exfracted from the solvent.



In-situ Soil Flushing Cfrculate a wash solution through contaminated material in-place via wells or frenches causing mobilization of adsorbed COCs. The (COC-laden) solution is then exfracted and treated.


Elecfrokinetic Separation

In-situ waste material is electrically charged with dfrect current and elecfrodes, causing the fransport/ removal of ions, particles, and water.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is less effective with material contaminated bv organics. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Page 2 of4




Generic Technology

Type



Treatment •'' (continued)



Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between the stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce thefr mobility (stabilization).


Thennal Treatment





Transfer of electric energy from plasma to waste; contaminants are oxidized or pyrolyzed.


In-Situ Vitrification Pass elecfric cmrent between electrodes inserted into the contaminated material, causing the material to melt. The molten matrix cools into a leach-resistant solid mass that remains in-place.






Page 3 of4




Generic Technology

Type


Process Option * Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO ^



Biodegradation Optimize conditions within the material to induce the growth ofnatural or inoculated microbial populations; microbial respfration uses organic COCs as carbon (i.e., food) source thereby degrading the COCs into simpler by-products.


Bioventing Oxygen, organic gas, or reducing gas is delivered into the material by forced afr movement to stfrnulate biodegradation of COCs.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is not effective on the COCs present in this material. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Microbial Plugguig Introduce starved ulframicrobacteria (UMB) into with Ultramicro- permeable subsurface zones. Inject nufrients into bacteria (Biobartier) zones causmg microbial growth and producing an

in-situ plug contains organic and inorganic COCs.

This option is still in the developmental stage and has not been demonstrated tmder field conditions. It is eliminated from further consideration.

Phytoremediation Establish populations ofnatural vegetation (and associated rhizospheric microbial populations) on the material; designed to remove, degrade, or contain contammants in soil and groundwater.

This option is technically feasible at this site, but is less effective on the COCs present in this material. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

NOTES: (1) Multiple remedial technologies or process options (RTPOs) may be combined mto medium-specific remedial altematives. (2) Options widi underlined feasibility justifications are options that will not be carried forward for additional evaluation. (3) Based on the NCP guidance, it is preferred that sites with large volumes of contaminated media and/or media with low concenfrations of

contaminants be addressed with consolidation/containment reinedial technologies; sites with small volumes of contaminated media and/or high concentrations of contaminants are more suited to freatment technologies.


Page 4 of4

Table 2-7 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Surface Water



No Action


Monitoring

Generic Technology

Type

None

Land Use Confrols

Access Restrictions

Conununity Awareness

None


Process Option *

None


Physical Restrictions (e.g., fencmg and posted wamings)


Periodically monitor COC concentrations in impacted media


Description of RTPO

Take no remedial action. Contaminated surface water would be subject to natural conditions and processes.

Resfrict access or use of siu-face water through legally binding requfrements on property such as deed and zonkig resfrictions.

Place engmeered fences, berms, or other such enclosures around contaminated areas to prevent access by potential receptors (human and/or ecological). Place waming signs communicating to potential human receptors the potential hazards associated with the surface water.

Make public aware of potential hazards at, and the need to avoid, the unpacted surface water through information and educational programs.

Sample and analyze surface water from impacted locations on-site and off-site. Frequency of sampling and analysis to be determined.

COC concentrations m surface water would decrease through natural in-situ processes such as dilution, biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical reactions. Site modeling would bedone to demonstrate decline in concenfrations over time.

Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO''

NCP requfres that tiiis option be included as a Remedial Action altemative.

This option does not apply to water bodies as it does for land property. It is eliminated from further consideration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiuther consideration. This option is more effective if combmed with other options.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. This option is more effective if combined with other options.



Page l o f 8

Table 2-7 identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Surface Water ^




Containment Input Controls


Process Option ^

Grading

Riparian Vegetative Buffer

Chaimelization

Diversion Ditches

Relocation

Capping (Partial or Complete)

Description of RTPO

Grade the source media into configurations that are less prone to erosion or sloughing to down-gradient surface water locations.

Establish a buffer ofnatural vegetation (e.g., grasses and low-lying shmbs) within a defined riparian buffer zone (with or witiiout the aid of soil amendments).

Surface water flowing through contaminated media ui existmg ditches would be confrolled by constmctmg channels (e.g., lined ditches, riprapped ditches, energy dissipators, etc.)

Surface water run-on would be diverted around and away from contaminated material (e.g., slag material or impacted surface soil).

Physically alter existing surface water pathways (e.g., drainage ditches, ponds, sfreams, and creeks) around and away from contaminated media.

Completely or partially fill open ponds or lakes with clean material to reduce fransport and exposure.

Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO'

This option addresses fiiture inputs of COCs from up-gradient sources, not current contamination in surface water. It may be addressed as a source area process option.

This option is technically feasible, but addresses future inputs of COCs from up-gradient sources, not cmrent contamination in surface water. It is retained for further consideration.

This option is technically feasible, but addresses future inputs of COCs from up-gradient sources, not current contammation in surface water. It is eliminated from further consideration.

This option is technically feasible, but addresses future inputs of COCs from up-eradient sources, not cmrent contamination in surface water. It is eliminated from further consideration.

This option may be technically feasible for limited scenarios. It is retained for further consideration.

This option may be technically feasible for lunited scenarios. It is retained for fiuther consideration.

Page 2 of 8

Table 2-7 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Surface Water ^



Generic Technology

Type


Process Option ^ Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO'

Containment (continued)

Input Controls Bio-Engineering (continued)

Stabilize sfream/river reaches adjacent to contaminated media using rocks, wood debris, and other materials to reduce erosion and sediment fransport to the water body(-ies).

This option is technically feasible, but addresses future inputs of COCs from up-gradient sources, not current contamination in surface water. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Physical Barriers

Hydraulic Isolation Line drainages to reduce surface water contact with contaminated ground water and sediment.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is elLtnmated from fiuther consideration.

Treatment 4,5 Ex-situ Physical/ Chemical

Aeration/ Afr Strippuig

Inject afr into the contaminated water forming bubbles into which moderately to sfrongly volatile COCs phase fransfer.

This option is not applicable to inorganic or nonvolatile organic COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation

Expose contaminated surface water to UV radiation to oxidize organic COCs to presumably less hazardous by-products.

This option is not optimal for the COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Chemical oxidation Expose contaminated surface water to one or more chemical oxidizing agent (e.g., ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorme, or chlorine dioxide) to degrade COCs uito presumably less hazardous by-products.

This option is not optimal for the COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Ion Exchange Pass contaminated surface water through a resin bed where ions are exchanged between the resin and water matrix. Regenerating the COC-loaded resin creates a concentrated brine/waste sfream that reqiures additional freatment and/or disposal.

This option is not optimal for the COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Page 3 of 8




Generic Technology

Type


Process Option Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO'

Treatment (continued)

4,5 Ex-situ Physical/ Chemical (Continued)

Evaporation Increase temperature of contaminated surface water to evaporate water and concenfrate COCs into an inorganic residue requiring freatment and/or disposal.

This option is not optunal for the COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.


Precipitation-based ex-situ treatment

Pass contaminated surface water through a column of granular activated carbon and COCs are adsorbed onto the GAC media. Spent GAC media can be regenerated. Commonly used for organic COCs; some effectiveness for inorganic COCs.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiuther consideration. This technology may requfre treatability study.

Chemical Precipitation/ Coagulation/ Flocculation

Silica Microencapsulation/ KEECO process

Dicalcium Silicate Process (Di-Cal)

Add chemicals (e.g., lime or caustic soda) to raise the pH ofthe contaminated surface water and precipitate metals as insoluble hydroxides and hydrated oxides. Process resuhs in an inorganic residue requiring freatment and/or disposal.

This option is not appropriate for the COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

A process similar to chemical precipitation. Add chemical to contaminated surface water to initiate a precipitation/hydroxyl formation reaction. Silica components form a tight mafrix around metals, yielding a more stable sludge with lower leaching potential and improved settling characteristics.

This option is not appropriate for the COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Neutralization and precipitation process using Ca2Si04 that produces a fast filtering and more stable precipitate sludge.


Page 4 of 8





Generic Technology

Type

Precipitation-based ex-situ treatment (Continued)

Separation-based ex-situ treatment


Process Option

Self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports (SAMMS)

Conventional Filtration

Ultrafiltt-ation/ Microfilfration

Multi-media Filfration

Reverse Osmosis

Ceramic Microfiltration Technology

Description of RTPO

Contact the contaminated surface water with a self-assembled mesoporous ceramic material. The specialized molecules latch onto heavy metal ions and remove them from solution.

Pass the contaminated surface water through a porous filter media to separate solid particles from the liquid matrix.

Force the contammated surface water through a filter medhim with extremely small pore size.

Pass the contaminated surface water through a porous filter media to separate solid particles from the liquid mafrix.

Force the contammated surface water through a semi-permeable membrane at high pressure resulting in clean water on the output side and a, concentrated brine/residue on the input side.

Treat the contaminated surface water with a pH adjustment yielding chemical precipitation of metals followed by hquid/solid separation using advance ceramic micro-filtration membranes.



This option is not applicable to dissolved COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

This option is not applicable to dissolved COCs at this site. This option is eluninated from further consideration.

This option is not applicable to dissolved COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.


This option does not applv to the COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

Page 5 of 8




Treatment "' (contmued)

Generic Technology

Type

Separation-based ex-situ freatment (Continued)

Adsorption-based ex-situ freatment



Process Option ^

Liquid Emulsion Membranes

Electrodialysis


Synthetic Resins

Forage Sponge

Aeration/ Afr Stripping

Description of RTPO

Selectively exfract metals from solution using liquid emulsion membranes. The process consists of fron precipitation with hydrogen peroxide, lune addition to raise the pH, treatment of supernatant through a filter, extraction, and sfripping.

Remove ionic species from contaminated surface water through a membrane-based separation process.

Separate COCs from surface water using a dfrect curtent (DC) electric field by causing water and COCs to flow between elecfrodes. Elecfric charge concentrates ionic COCs for easy removal.

COCs are adsorbed onto special resins; resins can be regenerated using acids, bases, or solvents. Primarily used for dissolved organic COCs.

Selectively remove dissolved inorganic COCs by passmg contaminated surface water through an open-celled cellulose sponge incorporating an amine-containing chelating polymer.

Inject afr into the contaminated water forming bubbles into which moderately to sfrongly volatile COCs phase fransfer.

Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO '

This option does not applv to the COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

This option does not apply to the COCs at this site. This option is eluninated from fiuther consideration.

This option does not apply to the COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. This technology may requfre treatability study.

This option is not applicable to COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

This option is not applicable to COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Page 6 of 8




Treatment "' (contfriued)

Extraction and Disposal

Generic Technology

Type



Dewatering


Process Option

Neutt-alization/ Precipitation

Reactive Bags

Passive Reactive Barrier

Constmcted Wetlands

Bacterial Reduction

Biological Oxidation and Reduction

Complete dewatering

Description of RTPO

Contaminated surface water is pH-adjusted to induce precipitation of insoluble metal hydroxides and hydrated oxides. Typically performed with liming agents or other alkalis.

COCs are passively (by osmosis) removed from the contaminated surface water by submerging bags of reactive material.

Reduce COC concenfrations by fiinneling surface water through chemically or biologically active materials.

Optimize conditions within flood plains or existiag wetlands to mduce aerobic and anaerobic wetland envfronments; dissolved COCs and suspended solids in water are removed.

Infroduce bacteria to promote the immobilization of metals by creatmg reduciug conditions.

Addition of organic matter to water to precipitate some metals. Lunited range of treatable inorganic COCs.

Remove contammated surface water from on-site ponds, drainage ditches, and creeks.


This option is not aoDlicable to COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. This option is eluninated from further consideration.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. Innovative and proprietary technology requfring treatability study.


This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is not effective on aerated water mafrix. This option is eluninated from fiuther consideration.


This option is not technically feasible at this site because ofthe extensive volume of surface water requfring remediation. It is eliminated from further consideration.

Page 7 of8

Table 2-7 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Surface Water ^



Extraction and Disposal (Continued)

Disposal of Treated Surface Water

Generic Technology

Type

Dewatering (Continued)

On-site disposal of treated water

Off-site disposal of freated water


Process Option ^

Partial dewatering

Discharge to Surface Water

Aquifer Recharge

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Description of RTPO

Actively exttact water to maintain water level at or near bottom of on-site creeks and off-site lakes.

Discharge freated water to on-site drainage ditches or ponds. Water ultunately would travel into the shallow groundwater or to local ponds or lakes.

Dispose of freated surface water by allowing it to percolate through shallow and/or deep mjection wells, infilfration galleries, or siu-face irrigation.

Contaminated surface water could be fransported to an entry point of a local POTW for freatment.

Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO '

This option is not technically feasible at this site because ofthe extensive volume of surface water requfrmg remediation. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.



This option is not technically feasible or appropriate for this site. It is eliminated from further consideration.

NOTES: (1) Surface water (as defined in this Technical Memorandum) includes ponds, wateruig holes, seeps, springs, drainage ditches, wedands, fributaries,

streiuns, and rivers. (2) Multiple remedial technologies or process options (RTPOs) may be combined into medium-specific remedial altematives. (3) Options with underlined feasibility justifications are options that will not be carried forward for additional evaluation. (4) Based on the NCP guidance, it is preferred that sites with large volumes of contaminated media and/or media with low concenfr-ations of

contaminants be addressed with consolidation/contauunent remedial technologies; sites with small volumes of contaminated media and/or high concentrations of contaminants are more suited to treatment technologies.

(5) Remedial technologies requfring treatability testing could be evaluated during the remedial design phase.

Page 8 of8




Response Action Typc



No Action None None Take no remedial action. Contaminated sediment would be subject to natural conditions and processes.

NCP requfres that this option be included as a Remedial Action alternative.


Land Use Controls


Restrict access to, or use of, sediment through legally binding requfrements on property such as deed and zoning resfrictions. Restrictions would be used to prevent use or transfer of property without notification of limitations on the use of the property.

This option does not apply to sediment as well as it does to soil (i.e.. land property). The option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Access Restrictions

Physical Restrictions (e.g., fencmg and posted warnings)

Place engineered fences, berms, or other such enclosiu-es around contamuiated areas to prevent access by potential receptors (human and/or ecological). Place warning signs communicating to potential human receptors the potential hazards associated with the sediment.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. This option is not effective by itself; only when combined with other options.

Community Awareness


Make public aware of potential hazards at, and the need to avoid, the impacted sediment through information and educational programs.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. This option is more effective when combined with other options.

Monitoring None Periodically monitor COC concentrations in unpacted media

Sample and analyze sediment from impacted locations on-site and off-site. Frequency of sampling and analysis to be determined.



COC concenfrations iu sediment would decrease through natural physical/chemical processes such as adsorption. Site modeling would be done to demonstrate decline in concentrations overtime.


Page 1 of4




Containment


Generic Technology

Type

Barrier/Source Controls

Removal

Transport


Process Option '

In-situ Cap

Rock Armoring

Sedimentation Dams/Traps

Channalization

Biostabilization

Mechanical Dredging or Excavation

Suction Dredging

Slurrying

Tmck Hauling

Description of RTPO

Cover contaminated sediment with clean material to prevent fransport and reduce exposure.

Cover contaminated sediment uiert natural rock materials and riprap to reduce erosion and down-gradient fransport of contaminated sediment.

Constmct sedimentation dams/traps to capture and contain contaminated sediment in runoff and thereby confrol down-gradient fransport.

Isolate contaminated sediment within existing surface water feahu-e by lining the channel with inert material.

Use vegetation and other natural materials to reduce exposure to contaminated sediment and to minimize erosion of sedunent to down-gradient locations.

Remove contaminated sediment using mechanical excavation methods.

Remove contaminated sedunent using suction dredging methods.

Transport removed sediment through pipes in slurry form.

Transport removed sediment by track to off-site disposal site.




This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiuther consideration. Possible application in creeks and lakes.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. Reconfiguration ofthe surface water feature is not likely. It is eliminated from further consideration.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. High-flow events could compromise the integrity ofthe stabilization material. It is eliminated from further consideration.

This option is technically feasible and tiierefore is retained for further consideration.




Page 2 of4




Excavation, Transport, Disposal (contmued)

Treatment '•"

Generic Technology

Type

Off-site Disposal

On-site Disposal

Physical/ Chemical


Process Option '


Off-site Reuse/ Recyclmg



Disposal m Open Pits

Segregation

Consolidation

Soil Washing

Description of RTPO

Physically excavate and relocate contaminated sediment to an existing off-site landfill permitted to accept waste with characteristics ofthe contaminated sediment.

Physically excavate and relocate the contaminated sediment to sites where the material can be reused for safe and legally acceptable purposes.

Physically excavate and relocate sedunent to a new disposal cell constmcted on-site.

Physically excavate and dispose contaminated sediment at a new on-site repository constmcted to RCRA Subtitie C standards.

Relocate contaminated sediment to disposal cells created within die ponds currently existing on-site.

Segregate the sediment based on COCs; designed to reduce the area requfring treatment.

Consolidate the sedunent within the site; designed to reduce the area requfring freatment.

Separate fine (contaminated) sediment from bulk (clean?) sediment based on particle size and settling rates in aqueous slurry. The wash water may be augmented with reagent(s) to aid process.



This option is not technically feasible at this site. The material extracted from the contaminated sediment would not have economic value. It is eliminated from further consideration.


This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is eluninated from fiuther consideration.


This option is not technically feasible at tiiis site. It is eliminated from further consideration.


This option is not applicable to this medium or to the particular mixtiue of COCs at this site. This option is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Page 3 of4






Process Option ' Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO '

Treatment ' (Continued)

Physical/ Chemical (Continued)

In-situ Stabilization Treat contaminated sediment with a reactive chemical to stabilize or reduce bioavailability of COCs through chemical binding.


Ex-situ Stabilization Excavate and chemically stabilize contamuiated sediment on-site.


Solvent Extraction Apply a solvent to excavated sediment to fransfer COCs from sediment to solvent. Remove COC-laden solvent for further treatment or disposal.

This option is not technically feasible for the some COCs present at the site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.


Aerobic Treatment Create an oxygen-rich envfronment by which native microorganism populations can degrade in-place COCs.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. It is not effective on COCs at the ste. This option is eliminated from fiirther consideration.

Ex-situ Anaerobic Use biological reactions to create reducing conditions in an oxygen-free envfronment thereby converting COCs to low solubility forms.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. This option is eliminated from further consideration.

In-situ Enhance COC biodegradation by optimumizing bioremediation conditions for naturally occurring or inoculated

microbial populations to flourish in-situ.

This option is not technically feasible at this site. This option is eliminated from fiirther consideration.

NOTES: (1) Multiple remedial technologies or process options (RTPOs) may be combuied uito medium-specific remedial altematives. (2) Options with underiined feasibility justifications are options that will not be carried forward for additional evaluation. (3) Based on the NCP guidance, it is preferred that sites with large volumes of contaminated media and/or media with low concentrations of

contaminants be addressed with consolidation/containment remedial technologies; sites with small volumes of contaminated media and/or high concentrations of contaminants are more suited to treatment technologies.


Page 4 of4

Table 2-9 Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Groundwater






No Action None None Take no remedial action. Groundwater would be subject to natural conditions and processes.

NCP requfres that this option be included as a Remedial Action altemative.


Land Use Controls

Deed/Zoning Restiictions

Resfrict access to, or use of, water through legally binding requfrements. Restrictions would prevent use without notification of limitations or hazards.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiirther consideration. This option is more effective if combined with other options.

Access Resfrictions

Physical Restrictions (e.g., well security and posted wamings)

Place engineered fences, berms, or other such enclosures around contaminated areas to prevent access by potential receptors (human and/or ecological). Place waming signs communicating to potential human receptors tiie potential hazards associated with the groundwater.

This option does not apply as well to groundwater as it does to surface land property. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Community Awareness


Make, pubhc aware of potential hazards at, and the need to avoid, the impacted groundwater through information and educational programs.

This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for further consideration. This option is more effective if combined with otiier options.

Monitoring None Periodically monitor COC concenfrations in impacted media

Sample and analyze groundwater from impacted locations. Frequency of sampling and analysis to be determined.



COC concenfrations in groundwater would recover through natural in-situ processes such as dilution, biodegradation, adsorption, and chemical reactions with subsurface aquifer materials. Site modeling would be done to demonsfrate decline in COC concenfrations over time.


Page 1 of 7





Containment Hydraulic Barriers

Physical Barriers


Process Option'

Interceptor Trenches

Extraction Wells

Injection Wells

Sluny Walls

Grout Curtains

Sheet Pile Walls

Shallow Diversion

Compacted Soil/Clay Bartier

Description of RTPO

Install frenches across the flow path and extract water to limit contaminant migration.

Install and pump extraction wells to create groundwater capture zone to reduce COC migration.

Install injection wells and inject clean water into the aquifer to create a hydraulic barrier and to alter dfrection of groundwater flow; this would reduce off-site contaminant migration.

Consbiict a subsurface slurry wall between surface and bedrock to reduce groundwater flow.

Inject a vertical, low permeability grout barrier into subsurface^edrock to reduce COC migration.

Constmct a sheet pile wall to divert groundwater around/away from contaminated media.

Constmct a shallow physical barrier to isolate contaminated groundwater from shallow zone media (e.g., sediment and surface water)

fristall a layer of low-permeability compacted fill to divert groundwater around/away from contaminated media.


This option is not technically feasible at this site. Difficult to implement for large areas or volumes. It is eliminated from further consideration.







This option is not technically feasible at this site. Difficult to implement for large areas or volumes. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.

Page 2 of?

Table 2-9 , Identification of Remedial Technologies and Process Options - Groundwater



Generic Technology

Type


Process Option ^ Description of RTPO Technical Feasibility of Implementing RTPO

Treatment' Ex-situ Physical/ Chemical

Aeration/ Afr Sfripping

Inject afr into the contaminated water forming bubbles into which moderately to strongly volatile COCs phase transfer.

This option is not applicable to COCs at this site. It is eliminated from further consideration.

Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation

Expose contaminated groundwater to UV radiation to oxidize organic COCs to presumably less hazardous by-products.


Chemical oxidation Expose contaminated groundwater to one or more chemical oxidizing agent (e.g., ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorites, chlorine, or chlorine dioxide) to degrade COCs into presumably less hazardous by-products.


Ion Exchange Pass contaminated groundwater through a resin bed where ions are exchanged between the resin and water matrix. Regenerating the COC-loaded resin creates a concenfrated brine/waste sfream that requfres additional treatinent and/or disposal.


Evaporation Increase temperature of contaminated groundwater to evaporate water and concentrate COCs into an morganic residue or sludge that requfres additional treatment and/or disposal.



Pass contaminated groundwater through a eolunm of GAC and COCs are adsorbed onto the GAC media. Spent GAC media can be regenerated. More commonly used for organic COCs; some effectiveness for inorganic COCs.


Page 3 of7




Treatment •*' (continued)

Generic Technology

Type

Precipitation-based ex-situ treatment

Separation-based ex-situ tteatment


Process Option '

Chemical Precipitation/ Coagulation/ Flocculation

Silica Microencapsulation/ KEECO process

Dicalcium Silicate Process (Di-Cal)

Self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports (SAMMS)

Conventional Filfration

Ulfrafilfration/ Microfilfration

Description of RTPO

Add chemicals (e.g., lime or caustic soda) to raise tiie pH of tiie contaminated groundwater and precipitate metals as insoluble hydroxides and hydrated oxides. Process results in an inorganic residue or sludge that requfres additional freatment and/or disposal.

A process similar to chemical precipitation. Add chemical to contammated groundwater to initiate a precipitation/hydroxyl formation reaction. Silica components form a tight matrix around metals, yielding a more stable sludge with lower leachmg potential and improved settling characteristics.

Neufralization and precipitation process using Ca2Si04 that produces a fast filtering and more stable precipitate sludge.

Contact tiie contaminated groundwater with a self-assembled mesoporous ceramic material. The specialized molecules latch onto heavy metal ions and remove them from solution.

Pass the contaminated groundwater through a porous filter media to separate solid particles from the liquid matrix.

Force the contaminated groundwater through a filter medium with exfremely small pore size.


This option is not aoDlicable to COCs at this site. It is eliminated from further consideration.

This option is not applicable to COCs at this site. It is eliminated from fiuther consideration.


Tills option is not applicable to COCs at this site. It is eliminated from further consideration.

This option is not applicable to COCs at tiiis site. It is eliminated from further consideration.


Page 4 of7




Generic Technology

Type



Treatment '' (continued)

Separation-based ex-situ freatment (Continued)

Multi-media Filtration

Reverse Osmosis

Liquid Emulsion Membranes

Pass the contaminated groimdwater through a porous filter media to separate solid particles from the liquid mafrix.


Force the contaminated groundwater through a semipermeable membrane at high pressure resultmg in clean water on the output side and a concentrated brine/residue on the input side.


Ceramic Treat the contaminated groundwater with a pH Microfilfration adjustment yielding chemical precipitation of Technology metals followed by liquid/solid separation using

advance ceramic microfilfration membranes.


Selectively extract metals from solution using liquid emulsion membranes. The process consists of fron precipitation with hydrogen peroxide, lime addition to raise the pH, freatment of supematant through a filter, extraction, and sfripping.


Electrodialysis Remove ionic species from contaminated groundwater through a membrane-based separation process.


Elecfrokinetic Separate COCs from groundwater usuig a dfrect Separation cmrent (DC) elecfric field by causing water and

COCs to flow between elecfrodes. Electric charge separation causes migration and concentration of COCs for easy removal.


Page 5 of 7





Treatment •*•' Adsorption-(contuiued) based ex-situ

freatment




Process Option'

Synthetic Resms

Forage Sponge

Passive Reactive Bartier

Aerobic Treatment

Anaerobic Bioreactors (SRB)

Bacterial Reduction

Biosulfide Process

Description of RTPO

COCs are adsorbed onto special resuis; resins can be regenerated using acids, bases, or solvents. Prunarily used for dissolved organic COCs.

Selectively remove dissolved morganic COCs by passing contaminated groundwater through an open-celled cellulose sponge incorporating an amme-containing chelatmg polymer.

Reduce COC concenfrations by tunneling groundwater tiirough chemically or biologically active materials.

Use microorganisms to remove COCs from water m an oxygen-rich envfronment.

Biological reactions are used to create conditions whereby bacterial reduction of sulfate/fron occurs witil concurtent precipitation of metal COCs.

Introduce bacteria to promote reducing conditions tiiereby immobilizing metal COCs.

An mtegrated two-stage biological (SRB) and chemical (sulfide precipitation) process which concurtently recovers metal and by-products.


This option is technically feasible and therefore is retained for fiuther consideration. Iimovative and proprietary technology requiring freatability study.




This option is not technically feasible. Process is not robust; different metal sulfides have varying solubilities; organic COCs not treated. It is eliminated from further consideration

This option is not technically feasible. Process is not robust; different compounds are degraded at varying efficiencies; inorganic COCs are not freated. It is eliminated from fiirther consideration

This option is not technically feasible. Process is not robust; different metal sulfides have varying solubilities; organic COCs not freated. It is eliminated from further consideration

Page 6 of 7




Disposal of Treated Groundwater

Generic Technology

Type


Off-site disposal of freated water


Process Option'


Aquifer Recharge

Publicly Owned Treatment Works

Description of RTPO

Discharge freated water to existing surface drainage ditches or ponds. Water would ultunately fravel to tiie Shenango River.

Dispose of freated groundwater by allowing it to percolate through shallow and/or deep injection wells, infilfration galleries, or ground irrigation.

Contaminated groundwater could be transported to an entry point to a local POTW for treatment.


This option is technically feasible but is not appropriate for COCs at this site. It is eliminated from further consideration.



NOTES: (1) Multiple remedial technologies or process options (RTPOs) may be combined into medium-specific remedial alternatives. (2) Options with underlined feasibility justifications are options that will not be carried forward for additional evaluation. (3) Based on the NCP guidance, it is preferred that sites with large volumes of contaminated media and/or media with low concenfrations of

contaminants be addressed with consolidation/containment remedial technologies; sites with small volumes of contaminated media and/or high concenfrations of contaminants are more suited to freatment technologies.


Page 7 of 7

Table 2-10 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options - Impoundment Area



No Action


Containment

Generic Technology Type

None

Land Use Conuols

Access Restrictions

Community Awareness

Covers

Remedial Technology or Process Option

None

Deed/Zoning ResU-ictions

Physical Barriers (e.g., fencing and posted wamings)


Grading

Description of RTPO

Take no remedial action at the Site. Material would remain in-place and be subject to ambient environmental conditions and processes.

Restrict access to, and reuse of, the site using legally binding requirements on property such as deed and zoning restrictions. Restrictions also would prevent use or transfer of property without notification of limitations on the use ofthe property on-site.

Place engineered fences, berms. or other such enclosures around contaminated material to prevent access by potential receptors. Use signage to warn potential human receptors of potential hazards of contacting material.

Make public aware of potential hazards at, and the need to avoid. the material through information and educational programs.

Grade the contaminated media into configurations that are less prone to erosion.

Effectiveness'

Rank=5

Rank = 3 This option is most effective if combined with other options.



Rank = 2 Provides some control of COC transport

Implementability'

Rank=l

Rank = 2 Substantial effort in local political action.

Rank = 2

Rank=l

Rank=l

Cost^

Low cost; No O&M

Low cost; Low G&M

Low cost. Low O&M

Moderate cost; low O&M

Moderate cost; Low O&M

Screening Conclusion *

NCP requires this option be included as a remedial action altemative.

Not considered a viable oDtion at this Site.

Retained for use in remedial altemative development.



Page 1 of 5






Covers (Continued)


Vegetative Cover





Description of RTPO

Establish a cover ofnatural vegetation (e.g., grasses and low-lying shrubs) on existing matenal with or without the aid of soil amendments.

Cap the contaminated media with a layer of borrow soil/clay to disrupt exposure pathways between receptors and material. and to minimize storm-water infiltration.

Cap the contaminated media with a multi-layer soil cover to disrupt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to mmimize storm-water infiltration.

Cap the contanunated media with a single layer asphalt and/or concrete cap to disrupt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to eliminate stormwater infiltration.

Cap the contaminated media with a GCL cover to disrupt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to elimmate stormwater infilUaUon.

Effectiveness ^

Rank =2 Provides some barrier to exposure.

Rank = 2 This option is most effective if combined with grading and a vegetative cover.


Rank = 4 Suspect long-term effectiveness; cap material may degrade over time.


Implementability ^

Rank=l

Rank=l Large coverage area requires substantial amount borrow soil or clay.

Rank = 2

/

Rank = 3 May interfere with future land use at the Site.

Rank = 2

Cost '




Moderate to high cost Moderate O&M




Retained for use in remedial alternative development.

Eliminated fi-om further consideration: other options were selected.

Not considered a viable option at this Site.

Retained for use iri remedial . altemative development..

Page 2 of 5






Treatment^


Covers (Continued)

Off-site Disposal





Off-site Reuse/ Recycling


Solvent Extraction

Description of RTPO

Cap the contaminated media with an impermeable FML cover to disrupt exposure pathways between receptors and material. and to eliminate storm-water infiltration.


Physically excavate and relocate the material where it can be reused for acceptable purposes.

Contaminants are stabilized by injecting a cheinical binding agent into the excavated material. There are many distinct types of S/S processes.

A solvent is applied to and extracted from the contaminated material. Contaminants would be transferred from material to the solvent and then extracted from the solvent

Effectiveness'


Rank=l Removes impacted media from she; eliminates all exposure scenarios.

Rank=l Removes impacted media from site; eliminates all exposure scenarios.

Rank = 4 Chenucal treatment is more effective on inorganic COCs than on organic COCs.

Rank=3 Depends on complete removal of COC-laden extract solution.

Implementability

Rank = 2

Rank=l

Rank = 4 Reuse of site material is not economically viable.

Rank = 2

Rank = 3 Disposhion of treated material could be a complicating factor.

Cost '


Moderate cost; No O&M

Low to Moderate cost; No O&M

High cost; Moderate O&M

Moderate cost and O&M


Eliminated from further consideration; other oDtions were selected.

Retained for use in remedial altemative development

Eliminated from further consideration; other options were selected.



Page 3 of 5




Treatment' (Continued)



Thermal Treatment


Iri-sim Soil Flushing

In-situ Stabilization Solidification

Molten Glass Viu-ification


In-situ Vitrification

• Description of RTPO

Circulate a wash solution through contaminated material via wells or trenches causing mobilization of adsorbed COCs. The (COC-laden) solution is then extracted and Ueated.

Contanunants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between the stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce their mobility (stabilization).


Transfer of electric energy from plasma to waste; contaminants are pyrolyzed or melted in-situ.

Pass electric current between electrodes inserted into the contaminated material, causing the material to melt The molten maUix cools into a leach-resistant solid mass that remains in-place.

Effectiveness *

Rank = 3 Depends on complete removal of COC- . laden extract solution.

Rank = 4 Chemical treatment is more effective on inorganic COCs than on organic COCs.

Rank=l Organic COCs are completely destroyed by this process.



Implementability ^

Rank = 3 Disposition of freated material could be a complicating factor.

Rank = 2

Rank = 3 High energy requirements; disposition of glass matrix could be a complicating factor..

Rank = 2 High energy requirements.

Rank = 2 High energy requirements

Cost '

Moderate cost and O&M

Moderate cost; low O&M

High cost; low to moderate O&M



Screening Conclusion^

Eliminated from fiirther consideration; other options were selected.


Eliminated from fiirther consideration: other options were selected.



Page 4 of 5



Generat Response Action

Treatment^ (Continued)


Thermal Treatment (Continued)


Incineration

Description of RTPO

Contaminated material is heated to volatilize and oxidize organic contaminants. Consideration must be given to the incinerated ash residue from the process.

Effectiveness'

Rank = 3

Implementability'

Rank = 2

Cost '

Moderate Cost and O&M


Eliminated from ftirther consideration; other options were selected.

NOTES: (1) Effectiveness of each technology process option was ranked on a semi-quantitative, subjective scale of 1 (most effective) to 5 (entirely ineffective). (2) Implementability of each technology process option was ranked on a semi-quantitative, subjective scale of 1 (very easily implemented) to 5

(impossible to implement). (3) Cost of each technology process option was evaluated either by quantitative, order-of-magnitude cost estimates (when available) or by subjective

ranking (low, medium, high) of estimated costs for implementing the option. (4) Options with underlined screening conclusions will not be carried forward for detailed analysis. (5) Based on the NCP guidance, it is preferred that sites with large volumes of contaminated media and/or media with low concentrations of


Page 5 of5

Table 2-11 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options - Surface Soil and Dry Sediment


-

.^


No Action



None

Land Use Confrols

Access Resfrictions

Community Awareness


None

Deed/Zoning Resfrictions



Description of RTPO

Take no remedial action at the Site. Soil would remain in-place and be subject to ambient environmental conditions and processes.

Restrict access to, and reuse of, the Site using legally binding requirements on property such as deed and zoning resfrictions. Resfrictions also would prevent use or fransfer of property without notification of limitations on the use ofthe property on-site.

Place engineered fences, berms, or other such enclosures around contaminated media to prevent access by potential receptors (human and/or ecological). Place waming signs to communicate to potential human receptors the hazards potentially encountered if entering the area.

Make public aware of potential hazards at, and the need to avoid. the Site through information and educational programs.

Effectiveness'

Rank=5

Rank=3 This option addresses protection of human receptors if combined with other options. It does not protect ecological receptors.

Rank = 2 This option can protect human and ecological receptors if combined with other options.

Rank = 3 This option addresses protection of human receptors if combmed with other options. It does not protect ecological receptors.

Implementability'

Rank=l

Rank=l

Rank=l

Rank = 2 Some coordination efforts required.

Cost '

No cost; No O&M

Low cost. No O&M

Low cost. Low O&M

Moderate cost and No O&M


NCP requires that this option be included as a RA altemative.

Eliminated from fiirther consideration.



Page 1 of 6




Containment

Remedial Generic Technology or

Technology Type Process Option

Covers Grading

Vegetative Cover




Description of RTPO

Grade the contaminated media into configurations that are less prone to erosion.

Establish a cover ofnatural vegetation (e.g., grasses and low-lying shrubs) on existing material with or without the aid of soil amendments.

Cap the contanunated media with a layer of borrow soil/clay to disrupt exposure pathways between receptors and material. and to minimize storm-water infilfration.

Cap the contaminated media with a multi-layer soil cover to disrupt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to minimize storm-water infilfration.

Cap the contaminated media with a single layer asphalt and/or concrete cap to disrupt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to eliminate storni-water infilfration.

Effectiveness *

Rank = 5 This option does nothing to eliminate exposure by itself.

Rank = 3 This option only creates a barrier between receptor and media exposure.



Rank = 4 This option only creates a barrier between receptor and media exposure. Long-term integrity ofthis material is questionable.

Implementability'

Rank=l

Rank=l

Rank = 2

Rank = 2

Rank = 3 Future land-use plans may not allow this material to be used for capping.

Cos t '

Low to moderate cost No O&M

Moderate cost Low O&M

Moderate to high cost Low O&M




Retained for use in remedial altemative development


Eliminated from further consideration.



Page 2 of6







Covers (Continued)

Off-site Disposal

On-site Disposal







Description of RTPO

Cap the contaminated media with a GCL cover to disrupt exposure pathways between receptors and material, and to eliminate stormwater mfilfration.

Cap the contaminated media with an impermeable FML cover to diismpt exposure pathways between receptors and material. and to eliminate storm-water infilfration.



Dispose the material at a new on-site repository consfructed to RCRA Subtitie C standards.

Effectiveness'



Rank=l Option removes all contaminants from tiie site.

Rank = 2 This option only moves contaminants from unconfrolled location to a more confrolled location.

Rank = 2 This option only inoves contaminants from unconfrolled location to a more confrolled location.

Implementability ^

Rank=l Good option for future land-use options at the site.

Rank= 1 Good option for fiiture land-use options at the site.

Rank=l Good option for future land-use options at the site.

Rank = 4 Future land-use options may not support creation of a permanent, on-site repository.


Cost '

Low to moderate cost. Low O&M

Low to moderate cost Low O&M



Moderate to high cost. Moderate O&M



Eliminated from further consideration because another option was selected.


Eli.minated from fiirther consideration because another option was selected.


Page 3 of 6



General Generic Response Action Technology Type

Treatment' Ex-situ Physical/ Chemical




Soil Washing

Solvent Exfraction


Description of RTPO

Contanunants are stabilized by injecting a chemical binding agent into the excavated material. There are many distinct types of S/S processes.

COCs sorbed onto fine particles are separated from bulk particles in an aqueous based system on the basis of particle size. The wash water may be augmented with a reagent to help remove COCs.

A solvent is applied to and extracted from the contaminated material. Contaminants would be fransferred from material to tiie solvent and then extracted from the solvent.

Circulate a wash solution through contaminated material in-place via wells or frenches causing mobilization of adsorbed COCs. The (COC-laden) solution is then exfracted and freated.

Effectiveness '

Rank=l This option removes contaminants from site and stabilizes the contaminated media prior to disposal.

Rank = 2 This option removes contaminants from media and retums clean soil to its original location.

Rank = 2 This option removes contaminants from media and xetaros clean soil to its original location.

Rank = 2 This option removes contaminants from media in-place.

Implementability ^

Rank = 2

Rank = 4 Washing solution or COCs may remain in soil.

Rank = 4 Solvent or COCs may remain in soil.

Rank = 4 Washing solution or COCs may remain in soil.

Cost '







Eliminated from fiirther consideration because another option was selected.



Page 4 of6



General Generic Response Action Technology Type

Treatment' In-situ Physical/ (Continued) Chemical

(Continued)

Thermal Treatment



Molten Glass Vifrification


.

In-Situ Vifrification

Description of RTPO

Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical reactions are induced between the stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce their mobility (stabilization).

Contaminated material'is immobilized ex-situ by using heat generated from a bath of molten glass to incorporate inorganic constituents in a vifrified glass mafrix.

Transfer of electric energy from plasma to waste; contanunants are oxidized or pyrolyzed.

Pass elecfric current between elecfrodes inserted into the contaminated material, causing the material to melt. The molten mafruc cools into a leach-resistant solid mass that remains in-place.

Effectiveness'

Rank = 2 This option stabilizes contaminant in-place. Although they are not removed from the site, migration is greatly hindered.

Rank = 2 This option stabilizes contaminant ui-place. Although they are not removed from the site, migration is greatly hindered.

Rank = 2 This option stabilizes contaminant m-place. Although they are not removed from the site, migration is greatiy hindered.

Rank = 2 This option stabilizes contammant in-place. Although they are not removed from the site, migration is greatiy hindered.

Implementability'

Rank = 2 Stabilizing matrix and reagents need to be selected to match tiie COCs present.

Rank = 3 High energy required to implement this opUon.

Rank = 3 High energy required to unplement this option.

RaDk = 3 High energy required to implement this option.

Cost '










Page 5 of 6




Treaunent' (Continued)


Thermal Treatment (Continued)


Incineration

V

Description of RTPO

Contaminated material is heated to volatilize and oxidize organic contaminants. Consideration must be given to tiie incinerated ash residue created by the process.

Effectiveness'

Rank=l This option removes contaminants from media and retums clean material to its original location.

Implementability'

Rank = 4 High energy required to implement this option.

Cost '








Page 6 of6




No Action


Treatment'


None

Off-site Disposal

On-site Disposal



None

Existing Off-she Landfill or Disposal

~ Site




Description of RTPO

Take no remedial action at tiie Site. Soil would remain in-place and be subject to ambient enviromnental conditions and processes.



Dispose the material at a new on-site repository constructed to RCRA Subtitie C standards.

Contaminants are stabilized by injecting a chemical binding agent mto tiie excavated material. There are many distinct types of S/S processes.

Effectiveness'

Rank = 5

Rank = l Option removes all contaminants from tiie site.



Rank=l This option removes containinants from site and stabilizes the contaminated media prior to disposal.

Implementability ^

Rank=l

Rank = 2 Fair option for future land-use options at the site, assuming adequate backfill.


Rank = 4 Fufru-e land-use options may not support creation of a permanent, on-site repository.

Rank = 2

Cost '

No cost; No O&M






NCP requires tiiat this option be included as a RA altemative.


Eliminated from further consideration because anotiier option was selected.



Page 1 of4




Treatment * (Continued)





Soil Washing

Solvent Exfraction



Description of RTPO

COCs sorbed onto fme particles are separated from bulk particles in an aqueous based system on the basis of particle size. The wash water may be augmented with a reagent to help remove COCs.

A solvent is applied to and exfracted from the contaminated material. Contaminants would be fransferred from material to tiie solvent and then exfracted from the solvent.

Circulate a wash solution through contaminated material ui-place via wells or frenches causing mobilization of adsorbed COCs. The (COC-laden) solution is then exfracted and freated.

Contaminants are physically bound or enclosed within a stabilized mass (solidification), or chemical reactions are mduced between tiie stabilizing agent and contaminants to reduce theh mobility (stabilization).

Effectiveness'



Rank = 2 This option removes containinants from media. Washing solution or COCs may remain m soil.

Rank = 2 This option stabilizes contaminant in-place. Although they are not removed from the site, migration is greatly hindered.

Implementability'

Rank = 3 Complete mixing or adequate contact to all contaminated soil may be difficult.

Rank = 3 Complete mixing or adequate contact to all contaminated soil may be difficult.

Rank = 4 Complete mixing or adequate contact to all contaminated soil may be difficuh.

Rank = 2 Stabilizing mafrix and reagents need to be selected to match tiie COCs present.

Cost '






Eliminated from fiuther consideration because another option was selected.


Eliminated from further consideration because another ODtion was selected.


Page 2 of4




Treatment (Continued)


Thermal Treatment


Molten Glass Vifrification


In-Situ Vitrification

Incineration

Description of RTPO

Contaminated material is immobilized ex-situ by using heat generated from a batii of molten glass to incorporate inorganic constituents in a vitrified glass matrix.

Transfer of elecfric energy from plasma to waste; contaminants are oxidized or pyrolyzed.

Pass electric cunent between elecfrodes mserted into the contaminated material, causing ttie material to melt. The molten matrix cools into a leach-resistant solid mass that remains in-place.

Contaminated material is heated to volatilize and oxidize organic contaminants. Consideration must be given to tiie incinerated ash residue created by the process.

Effectiveness'

Rank = 2 This option stabilizes contaminant ui-place. Altiiough tiiey are not removed from the site, migration is greatly hindered.

Rank = 2 This option stabilizes contaminant in-place. Altiiough tiiey are not removed from the site, migration is greatiy hindered.

Rank = 2 This option stabilizes contammant m-place. Although ttiey are not removed from the she, migration is greatiy hindered.

Rank=l This option removes containinants from media and retums clean material to its original location.

Implementability'

Rank = 3 High energy to implement option.

Rank = 3 High energy to implement option.

Rflnk=3 High energy to unplement option.

Rank = 4 High energy to unplemen option.

required tills

required tills

required tiiis

required tills

Cost '







: Eliminated from further consideration because another option was selected.

Eliminated from fiirther consideration because anotiier option was selected.


Page 3 of4







Page 4 of4




No Action


Monitoring


None

Access Resfrictions

Community Awareness

None

None


None



Periodically monitor COC concenfrations in impacted media


Description of RTPO

Take no remedial action. Contanunated flood plain soil would be subject to natural condhions and processes.

Place engineered fences, berms. or other such enclosures around contaminated areas to prevent access by potential human receptors. Place waming signs communicating potential hazards associated witii water.

Make public aware of potential hazards associated witii water at the site through information and educational programs.

Sample and analyze surface water from impacted locations on-site and off-site. Frequency of sampling and analysis to be determined.

COC concentrations in surface water would recover through natural in-situ processes such as dilution, biodegradation. adsorption, and chemical reactions. Site modeling would be done to demonsfrate decline in concentrations over time.

Effectiveness'

Rank = 5

Rank = 3 This option can protect human receptors if combined withotheroptions.lt does not address ecological receptors.

Rank = 3 This option is most effective if combmed with other options.

Rank=5 This option does not eliminate exposure. Must be combined with other options.

Rank = 3 Effectiveness is dependent on source elunination. Current contaminants would need to be flushed out of tiie system(s).

Implementability'

Rank=l

Rank=l

Rank = 2 Coordination and cooperation required.

Rank=l

Rank = 2

Cost '

No cost; No O&M

Low cost. Low O&M

Moderate cost and Low O&M






Eliminated front fiirther consideration.



Page 1 of4

http://withotheroptions.lt


Davis Timber Site «• Hattiesburg, Lamar County, Mississippi


Containment

Treatment ^


Input Controls


Separation-based ex-situ freatment


Riparian Vegetative Buffer

Relocation of Sfream Channel

Capping (partial or complete)

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

Reverse Osmosis

Description of RTPO

Establish a buffer ofnatural vegetation (e.g., grasses and low-lying shmbs) within a defmed riparian buffer zone (with or without aid of soil amendments).

Physically alter existing surface water pathways (e.g., drainage ditches, sfreams, or creeks) around contaminated media.

Completely or partially fill open ponds or lakes with clean material to reduce uiputs of contaminants from sediment.

Pass contaminated surface water through a bed of GAC where organic (and some inorganic) contaminants adsorb onto GAC particles. COC-loaded GAC is a waste sfream requiring disposal.

Force the contaminated surface water through a semi-permeable membrane at high pressure results in clean water on the output side and concenfrated brine on the input side.

Effectiveness'

Rank = 4 This option addresses future inputs but not current contaminants.

Rank = 2 This option addresses future inputs and in-place COCs. Viable option for small water bodies.

Rank = 4 This option addresses fiiture inputs but not current containinants.

Rank=l Removes organic COC and some morganic COCs.

Rank=l Removes all COCs from water.

Implementability'

Rank = 4 Long lead-tune for vegetation to become established

Rank = 4 Destruction of habitat is a major concem; selecting new water route(s) could be a major issue.

Rank = 4 Long lead-time for vegetation to become established

Rank=l Known technology.

Rank = 4 Low through-put process and high energy requirements.

Cost '




Low to moderate cost Moderate O&M



Not considered a viable option. EliminaLed from fiirther consideration.



Retamed for use in remedial altemative development.

Elimmated from fiirther consideration.

Page 2 of4




Treatment' (Continued)



In-Situ Physical/ Chemical


On-site disposal of freated water


Passive Reactive Barrier

Constmcted Wetiands


Aquifer Recharge

Description of RTPO

Reduce COC concenfrations by fimneluig surface water tiuou^ chemically or biologically active materials.

Optimize conditions within local flood plains to create wetiand environments; dissolved inorganic COCs and suspended solids in water are removed.

Discharge freated water to on-site drainage ditches or ponds.

Dispose of freated water by allowing it to percolate through shallow and/or deep injection wells, infilfration galleries, or surface irrigation.

Effectiveness'

Rank=l Removes all cmrent, in-place COCs.

Rank=l

Rank=l Addresses only freated surface water

Rank=l Addresses only freated surface water

Implementability ^

Rank = 2

Rank = 4 Artificial wetiands built m topographic low; native wetiands not useable.

Rank=l

Rank = 3 Needs a hydraulic connection to at least one shallow aquifer.

Cost '

Moderate cost Moderate O&M


Low cost No O&M





Retained for use in remedial alternative development.




ranking (low, medium, high) of estimated costs for implementing the option. (4) Options with underlined screening conclusions will not be carried forward for detailed analysis.

Page 3 of4



(5) Based on the NCP guidance, it is preferred that sites with large volumes of contaminated media and/or media with low concentrations of contaminants be addressed with consolidation/containment remedial technologies; sites with small volumes of contaminated media and/or high concentrations of contaminants are more suited to treatment technologies.

Page 4 of4

Table 2-14 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options - Sediment



No Action


Monitoring


None

Access Resfrictions

Community Awareness

None


None

Physical Barriers (e.g., fencmg and posted wamuigs)




Description of RTPO

Take no remedial action at the site. Contaminated sediment would be subject to natural conditions and processes.

Place engineered fences, berms, or other such enclosures around contaminated areas to prevent access by potential receptors (human and/or ecological). Place wammg signs communicating hazards of contacting media.

Make public aware of potential hazards at, and the need to avoid. the SSFW through information and educational programs.

Sample and analyze sediment at unpacted locations. Sampling and analysis frequency to be determined.

COC concenfrations in sediment would decrease through natural processes such as biodegradation. Site modeling would demonsfrate decline in concenfrations over time.

Effectiveness '

Rank = 5

Rank = 4 This option does not remove contanunants from site. Ineffective for ecological receptors.

Rank = 3 This option effective for human receptors. Not effective fbr ecological receptors.

Rank = 4 This option does not eliminate exposure.

Rank = 3 Effectiveness is dependent on source elimination and COC characteristics.

Implementability '

Rank=l

Rank = 4 Physical barriers for sediment are not common.

Rank=l Coordination and cooperation efforts required.

Rank=l

Rank = 2

Cost '

Low cost; No O&M

Moderate cost; Moderate O&M








Elinunated from fiirther consideration.


Page 1 of3




Containment



Input/Source Controls

Removal


In-situ Sediment Cap

Rock Armoring

Sedimentation Dams/Traps

Mechanical Dredguig or Excavation

Suction Dredging

Description of RTPO

Cover contaminated sediment with clean material to prevent fransport and to reduce exposure. In addition, clean material will serve as a new benthic habitat for recstablishment of benthic flora and fauna.

Cover contaminated sedunent inert natural rock materials and riprap to reduce erosion and down-gradient fransport of contaminated sediment.

Constmct sedimentation dams/ traps to capture and contain contaminated sediment m runoff to confrol down-gradient transport

Remove contanunated sediment using mechanical excavation metiiods.

Remove contaminated sediment using suction dredgmg metiiods.

Effectiveness'

Rank=2 This option does not remove contaminants from the site. It adds an exposure barrier between receptors and media.

Rank=4 This option does not eluninate exposure.




Implementability ^

Rank=l Selection and tiie availability of cap material could be a critical factor in unplementing this option.

Rank=l

Rank=l

Rank = 3 Results Ul severe dismption of m-place habitats.

Rank = 2 Less dismption of site than mechanical dredging option.

Cost '








Elimmated from fiirflier consideration.

Eliminated from fiulher consideration.

Viable option but not selected over altemative option.


Page 2 of 3




Excavation, Transport, Disposal (Continued)

Treatment *


Transport

Off-site Disposal

Physical/Chemical


Slurry Pumping


Ex-situ Stabilization

In-situ Stabilization

Description of RTPO

Transport removed sediment through pipes in slurry form.

Physically relocate contaminated sedunent to an existmg off-site landfill permitted to accept waste with its characteristics.

Excavate and chemically stabilize contaminated sediment on-site prior to disposal.

Treat contaminated sediment with a suitable chemical agent to stabilize and reduce hazard of COCs after chenucal binding.

Effectiveness ^

Rank=l Removes impacted media from site.

Rank=l Removes unpacted media from site.

Rank = 2 Eliminates exposure pathways. Long-term stability unknown.

Rank = 2 Eliminates exposure pathways. Long-term stability of matrix unknown.

Implementability ^

Rank = 2 Mechanical energy required based on density of material.

Rank=l Common technology

Rank = 3 Substantial amount of chemical required.

Rank = 4 Substantial amount of chemical required. Mixing efficiency is a critical factor.

Cost '


Moderate to high cost; Low O&M






Retauied for use in remedial altemative development.

Eliminated from fiirtiier consideration.

NOTES: (1) Effectiveness of each technology process option was ranked on a semi-quantitative, subjective scale of 1 (most effective) to 5 (entirely ineffective). (2) Implementability of each technology process option was ranked on a semi-quantitative, subjective scale of 1 (veiy easily implemented) to 5



contaminants be addressed with consolidation/contaiimient remedial technologies; sites with small volimies of contaminated media and/or high concentrations of contaminants are more suited to treatment technologies.

Page 3 of3

Table 2-15 Screening of Remedial Technology Process Options - Groundwater



No Action


Monitoring


None

Land Use Controls

Community Awareness

None

-


None




Monitored Natural -Attenuation

Description of RTPO

Take no remedial action. COCs Ul ground water would be subject to natural conditions and processes.

Resfrict use of groundwater as a potable source through legally bmding codes. Resfrictions would prevent use without notification of limitations or ha/^rds.

Make public aware of potential hazards at, and the need to avoid. the impacted ground water through Information and educational programs.

Sample and anilyze ground water from unpacted locations. Frequency of sampling and analysis to be detennined.

COC concenfrations in groundwater would decrease by natural processes such as dilution, biodegradation, and chemical processes with aquifer materials. She modeling would demonsfrate decline in COC concenfrations over tune.

Effectiveness'

Rank = 5

Rank = 2 Effective if enforced.



Rank = 2 This option is most effective if source areas are eliminated. Current COCs need to be flushed out of the system(s).

Implementability *

.Rank=l

Rank=l

Rank = 2 Coordination and cooperation required.

Rank=l

Rank = 2 -

Cost '

No cost; No O&M

Low cost. No O&M

Moderate cost and Low O&M


Moderate cost No O&M

Screening Conclusion *-

NCP requues that this option be included as a RA altemative.

Retained for use m remedial altemative development

Elimmated from further consideration.

Eliminated from fiuther consideration:


Page 1 of3




Containment

Treatment'


Hydraulic Barriers

Physical Barriers

-



Exfraction Wells

Grout Curtains

Sheet Pile Walls

Ulfraviolet (UV) oxidation

Chemical oxidation


Description of RTPO

Install and pump exfraction wells to create ground water capture zone to reduce COC migration.

Inject a vertical, low permeability grout barrier into subsurface soil and bedrock to reduce migration of contanunated ground water.

Constmct a sheet pile wall to divert ground water around/away from contaminated media

Expose contaminated groundwater to UV radiation to oxidize organic COCs to presumably less hazardous byproducts.

Contaminated groundwater is exposed to one or more chemical oxidizing agent to convert COCs into less hazardous by-products.

Pass contaminated ground water through a column of GAC to remove contaminants. Most effective on organic COCs; less effective on morganic COCs.

Effectiveness'

Rank=l This option slows fransport and removes COCs.

Rank = 3 This option mtermpts migration, but it does not remove COCs.

Rank = 3 This option intermpts migration, but it does not remove COCs.

Rank = 3 Moderately effective on most organic contaminants.

Rank = 3 Moderately effective on most organic contammants.

Rank=l Effective on a variety organic COCs; tiie effectiveness varies for morganic COCs.

Implementability ^

Rank = 2

Rank = 3 Extent of site area could make grout curtain footprints large and intmsive.

Rank = 3 Extent of site area could make grout curtain footprints large and mtmsive.

Rank = 3 Special UV light sources and contact equipment needed.

Rank = 3 Special UV light sources and contact equipment needed.

Rank=l Proven technology

Cost '

Moderate cost; Moderate O&M







Retauied for use m remedial altemative development.

Elimmated from further consideration.




Retauied for use Ul remedial altemative development.

Page 2 of3




Treatment' (continued)

Disposal of Treated Groundwater


Separation-based ex-siUi freafrnent

Adsorption-based ex-situ freaUnent

On-site disposal of freated water


Reverse Osmosis

Synthetic Resins


Aquifer Recharge

Description of RTPO

Force contaminated groundwater through a serai-permeable membrane at high pressure resultmg in clean water on the output side and concenfrated brine/residue on tiie input side.

COCs are adsorbed onto special resuis; resins can be regenerated using acids, bases, or solvents. Primarily used for organic COCs.

Discharge freated water to on-site drainage ditches or ponds.

Dispose of freated water by allowmg it to percolate through shallow and/or deep injection wells, infilfration galleries, or surface irrigation.

Effectiveness'

Rank=l Addresses all COCs in contaminated ground water

Rank=l Organic COCs are completely removed by this option.

Rank=l COCs are removed by other technology.

Rank=l Recharge location needs to be down-gradient of site.

Implementability'

Rank = 3 Substantial energy needed to force groundwater through RO membranes.

Rank = 2 Similar to tiie GAC freatment option.

Rank=l

Rank = 3 Location of appropriate recharge location could pose some difficuUies.

Cost '



Low cost Low O&M

Low cost Low O&M

Screening Conclusion


Viable option for this site but other options are preferred.

Retained to use in altemative development.


NOTES: (1) Effectiveness of each technology process option was ranked on a semi-quantitative, subjective scale of 1 (most effective) to 5 (entirely ineffective). (2) Implementability of each technology process option was ranked on a scale of 1 (very easily implemented) to 5 (impossible to implement). (3) Cost of each technology process option was evaluated either by quantitative, order-of-magnitude cost estimates (when available) or by subjective

ranking (low, mediimi, high) of estimated costs for implementing the option. (4) Options witil underlined screening conclusions will not be carried forward for detailed analysis. (5) Based on the NCP guidance, it is preferred that sites with large volumes of contaminated media and/or media with low concentrations of

contaminants be addressed with consolidation/containment remedial technologies; sites with small volimies of contaminated media and/or high concentrations of contaminants are more suited to treatment technologies.

Page 3 of 3

Table 3-1 Description of Site-Wide Alternatives


SWA Title Description of Remedial Option Elements Included in the Remedial Alternative

SWA-1: No Action Conditions at the site remain in their current state.

SWA-2: Isolate and Wait Isolate contaminated media; i.e., disrupt exposure patliways between receptors and contaminants. Use either physical barriers (e.g., fencing) or institutional/legal restrictions on the use ofthe medium (e.g., land-use restrictions on surface media like soil or ordinance restrictions for groundwater). In addition, monitored natural attenuation (MNA) was an appropriate option for surface water, sediment, and groundwater. These media can be monitored for changes in contaminant concentrations over time while being isolated from potential receptors.

SWA-3: Physical Containment and Disruption of Exposure

Physically encapsulate the contaminated media using engineered cap designs appropriate to the medium being covered. For surface soil and dry sediment, the cap material can consist of low-permeability clay soil in combination with synthetic lining material and appropriate contouring and grading. For contaminated sediment, submerged cap material can consist of fine sand or other denser-than-water material. Since "encapsulation" is not appropriate for liquid media, MNA was selected as the complementary option for surface water and groundwater, as well as sediment.

SWA-4: Remove, Stabilize and Dispose

SWA-5; Remove, On-site Treatment and Restoration

Physically remove the contaminated media providing complete elimination of hazard and toxicity to potential receptors. Soil is mechanically excavated, submerged sediment can be removed with suction or vacuum techniques, surface water can be removed using similar pumping technology, and groundwater can be removed via extraction wells. In all cases, the removed contaminated material is treated or stabilized prior to disposal. Solid media can be disposed of off-site in a controlled disposal faciiity; treated liquid media passing adequate clean-up criteria may be returned to aquatic features downgradient of the site with appropriate permitting. Physically treat contaminated media on-site after removal (i.e., ex-situ). Unlike SWA-4, all treated media is retumed to appropriate locations on-site in a controlled manner. Treated solid media passing appropriate clean-up criteria are returned to their original location (soii on land; sediment to lakes and streams on-site) and liquid media passing adequate clean-up criteria may be retumed to aquatic features downgradient of the site with appropriate permitting. ^ _ ^

Table 3-2 Summary of Cost Estimates for Site-Wide Alternatives (SWA)


Site-Wwide Altemative (SWA) Component

Capital Costs (Engineering)

Operation & Maintenance

Total Costs:

Costs for SWA-1

$0

$78,000

$78,000

Costs for SWA-2

$795,000

$26,000

$821,000

Costs for SWA-3

$1,283,000

$26,000

$1,309,000

Costs for SWA-4

$3,927,000

$26,000

$3,953,000

Costs for SWA-5

$2,197,000

$268,000

$2,465,000

SWA = site-wide alternative

Costs are rounded to the nearest $1,000.00 value.

Page 1 of 1

Figures

v?

X Usp Balow

-y. h V-

4«<narui 0«.ain*ra»oUSA U C O S W M m l t

J

3

FIGURE 1-1 SITE LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP DAVIS TIMBER SITE

HATTIESBURG, LAMAR COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

^ ^ ^ "

Rgmedial Action

Objecfive

•RBmoving material currently retaining contaminated water over the impoundment Area.

'Restricting human access to Impoundment Area

'Eliminating surface runoff into the Impoundment Area to eliminate further migration of COCs to groundwater.

G eng rai Response

Action

IMO Action


Containment

Excavation

1 r<insport Disposal

Tredtrneril

Generic Technology

Type

r> r - l . - . •

AccGSS Hestnctions

lUavtii'si

ufi-site Uisooaai

-T-1 1 - r .

(Representative TBchnology or Process Option

r L

nfomnation and Educatio

Phvsical Barriers to ACCE

^ JU

!SS

H

Compacted Soil/Clay Ca ,71 m

/ Gradinq and Veqetative Caak^

Geo-Synthelic Clay Liner (GCL) Cap

\

Existing Olf-sitB Landfill or Disposal Site

y


lr»-Situ Vitrification K

. ^ ^ ^

^

Media-Specific Remedial Altemative (MSRA)

MSRArl a: Required by Statute

MSRA-1b; Use Fencing and Information to Limit Access to Impoundment Area material

MSRA-1c: Cover area with an engineered cap consisting of compacted soil/clay, and vegetation over the cover.

MSRA-ld: Cover area vi ith an engineered cap consisting of a GCL cap and vegetation over the cap.

MSRA-1 e: Excavate material and transport to an off-site, controlled landfill or disposal site. '

MSRA-1 f: Stabilize in-situ by applying thermal energy to melt the contaminated material or by thermal destruction of organic COCs. Solidified matrix remains in place.

DAVIS TIMBER SITE HATTIESBURG, LAMAR COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

MEDIA-SPECIFIC REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES IMPOUNDMENT AREA MATERIALS

FIGURE 2 -1

Remedial Action

Objective

General Response

Action

Generic Technology

Type

Representative Technology or Process Option

Media-Specific Remedial Alternative (tVlSRA)

'Reduce to acceptable levels the human health and ecological risk from exposure to COCs by:

-Reducing COC concentrations in surface soii to calculated PRGs (see below);

•Eliminating Gxposure pathways between receptors and contaminated soil;

•Eliminating the potential for migration of contaminated surface soil or dry sediment.

Ecological PRGs for dioxin/furans range from Q.0DDD022 to 0.000022 mg/kg for mammalian insectivores and from 0.00DQ5B2lo0.D0DG2 mg/kg for avian insBctivores. No ecological PRGs were calculated for PCP in surface sail because remediation to dioHin/furan PRGs was assumed to adequately and simultaneously address PCP contamination.

Na Action


Containment

Excavation Transport Disposal

Treatment

Off-site Disposal |

Ex-Situ Physical/ Chemical

IThermal Treatment

Geo-Synthetic Clay Liner (GCL) Cap

Existing Of-site Landfill or Disposal Site

Ex-Situ Solidification and Stabilization

Incineration

MSRA-2a; Required by Statute

M3RA-2b: Isolate soil frcm potential human receptors by physical barriers and stormwater drainage control.

MSRA-2c: Isolate soil from potential receptors and contain contaminated media with an engineered cap.

MSRA-2d: Excavate material and transport to an off-site, controlled landfill or disposal site.

MSRA-2e: Excavate material and treat soil ex-situ to fix the contaminants in an inert matrix prior to disposal.

MSRA-2f Excavate material and incinerate soil to oxidize organic contaminants prior to disposal or re-burial on-site.


MEDIA-SPECIFIC REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES SURFACE SOIL AND DRY SEDIMENT

FIGURE 2 - 2

Remedial Action

Objective

Reduce to acceptable levels the human health risk from exposure to COCs by:

•Disrupting potential exposure pathways between receptors and COCs;

•Reducing COC concentrations to risk-based PRGs

General Response

Action

No Action


Generic Technology

Type

-JQff-site Disposal [

Treatment E«-Situ Physical/ Chemical




Thermal Treatment Incineration

Media-Specific Remedial Alternative (MSRA)

MSRA-3a: Required by Statute

MSR/V3b: Excavate material and transp ort to an ofF-site, contralled landfill or disposal site.

MSRA-3c: Excavate material and treat soil ex-situ to fix the contaminants in an inert matrix priorto disposal.

MSRA-3d: Excavate material and incinerate soii to oxidize organic contaminants priorto disposal or burial on-site.


MEDIA-SPECIFIC REMDIAL ALTERNATIVES SUBSURFACE SOIL

FIGURE 2 - 3

Remedial Action

Objective

General Response

Action

Generic Technology

Type


Media-Specific Remedial Alternative (MSRA)

Reduce to acceptable levels the human health risk from exposure to COCs by;

-Restricting ingestion of contaminated fish;

-Removing continuing sources of COCs to surface waier bodies;

-Taking advantage of potential natural attenuation

No Action


Monitoring

Treatme nt

Disposal of Surface Water

In-Situ Physical/ Chemical

Ex-Silu Physical/ Chemical

On-site disposal of treated-water

]Access Restrictions! 1Physical Barriers to Acc"ess


-| Passive Reactive Barrier


Discharge to Surface Water Body


MSRA4b: Isolate water from potential human receptors. Allow natural attenuation and in-situ treatment to remove COCs overtime.

MSRA-4c: Remove (by pump) contaminated water and treat to remove contaminants priorto discharge to surface water

Containment -[input Controls! Relocate Stream Channel

MSRA-4d: Re-route the stream channel to separate surface water from the contaminated sediment. Only applies to creeks and streams, not to lakes or ponds.


MEDIA-SPECIFIC REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES SURFACE WATER

FIGURE 2 - 4

Remedial Action

Objective

Reduce to acceptable levels the ecological risk from exposure to COCs by:

•Reducing COC concentrations in to risk-based PRGs;

•Disrupting pathways between receptors and contaminated media;

•Taking advantage of potential natural attenuation

Ecological PRGs for dioxin/furans range from 0.0000210 0.01094 mg/kg for piscivores and fram 0.0011 toD.0143B mg/kg for avian insectivores. No ecological PRGs were calculated for PCP in sediment because remediation to dioxin/furan PRGs was assumed to adequately and simultaneously address PCP contamination.

Gerjeral Response

Action

No Action


Monitoring

Containment

r-


Trgatment

Gene ric Technology

Type


Community AwareriBss

Inpul/SourcB Control

iFiemoval

-[Transport

^Off site Disposal



Monitored Natura Attenuation

lln-silu cap

Suction Dredging

[Suction Dredging

Existing Off-site Landfill or Disposal Bite


Media-Sp9cific Remedial Altemative (MSRA)


MSRA-5b: Isolate sediment from human receptors. Allow natural attenuation to degrade sediment contaminants.

MSRAr5c: Isolate contaminated sediment by capping in-place & create new sediment habitat for benthic communities. Allow natural attenuation to degrade underlying contaminants.

MSRA-5d; Remove sediment (by suction or vacuum), treat ex-situ, and dispose stabilized material in a secure landfill.


MEDIA-SPECIFIC REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES SEDIMENT

FIGURE 2 - 5

Remedial Action

Objective

Reduce to acceptable levels the human health risk from exposure to COCs in groundwater under 1he site by:

-Eliminating the Impoundment Area material currently retaining contaminated water;

General Response

Action

No Action


•Eliminating further migration of surface contaminants to groundwater via stormwater infiltration through the Impoundment Area.

Monitoring

Containment

Treatment


Generic Technology

Type


Land-Use Controls

Hydraulic Barriers





Extraction Wells


Discharge to Surface Water Body

Media-Specific Remedial Altemative (MSRA)

M5RA-Ga: Required by Statute

MSR/^Gb: Restrict access and exposure to groundwater by legal restrictions. Allow natural attenuation to degrade COCs in-situ overtime.

MSRA-Bc: Extract contaminated water (by pump) and freat to remove contaminants priorto discharge to surface water.


MEDIA-SPECIFIC REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES GROUNDWATER

FIGURE 2 - 6

Alternative 1 - No Action

Site Name: Davis Timber Site cation: Hattiesburg, Lamar County, Mississippi

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS

No Action (5-Year Review)

Subtotal - Capital Cost

Contractor Fee (10% of Capital Cost)

Leaal Fees, Licenses & Permits (5% of Capital Cost)

EngineerinR & Administrative (15% of Capital Cost)

Subtotal

Contingency (25% of Subtotal)

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

PRESENT WORTH O&M COST

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST

Table A-1

PRESENT WORTH COST

Discount Rate: 7%

OUANTITY UNIT PRICE DOLLARS

TOTAL COST DOLLARS

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$78,424

$78,424

Alternative 1 - No Action

Site Name: Davis Timber Site Site Location: Hattiesburg, Lamar County, Mississippi

ITEM DESCRIPTION

J REVIEWS .jicl (2-man crew @ 2 12-hour days)

Supplies/ Travel Soil/Groimdwatcr Sampling and Lab Testing

Report Preparation

O&M SUBTOTAL

Contractor Fee (10% of O&M cost)

Legal Fees, Licenses & Permits (5% of 0&.M Cost) •

CONTINGENCY (25% of Subtotal)

SlfflTOTAL

UNITS

hours days sample lump sum

QUANTITY

48 3

20 1

UNIT PRICE DOLLARS

$50 $3,000

$500 $5,000

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS

Discount Rate: 7%

TOTAL ANNUAL COST, DOLLARS

$480 $1,800 $2,000 $1,000

$5,280

$528

$26

$1,320

$6,600

OPERATION TIME, YEARS

30 30 30 6

PRESENT WORTH

$5,956 $22,336 $24,818

$4,767

$57,877

$5,788

$289

$14,469

1 $78,424

Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

F' "'ime: Davis Timber Site ;ation: Hattiesburg, Lamar County, Mississippi

ITEM DESCRIPTION

MOBa.IZATION/DEMOBE.IZATION Transport Equipment & Staff Temporaiy Facilities

INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Fencing Signage Conununity Information

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORJNG Sampling (8 samples quarterly for 30 years) Laboratory Analysis

EQUIPMENT &MA'lhklALS Health & Safety Equipment

Subtotal - Capital Cost

Contractor Fee (10% of Capital Cost)

Legal Fees, Licenses & Permits (5% of Capital Cost)

Engineering & Administrative (15% of Capital Cost)

Subtotal

Cr -ney (25% of Subtotal)

TC ^ CONSTRUCTION COST


PRESENT WORTH COST

Discount Rate: 7%

UNTTS

each each

If each

lumpsum

each each

each

QUANnry

1 1

1,450 16 1

960 960

1

UNIT PRICE DOLLARS

$100,000 $75,000

$50 $100

$20,000

$25 $100

$100,000

TOTAL COST DOLLARS

$100,000 $75,000

$72,500 $1,600

$20,000

$24,000 $96,000

$100,000

$489,100

$48,910

$24,455

$73,365

$635,830

$158,958

$794,788

$26,243

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST $821,031

Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Site Name: Davis Timber Site Site Location: Hattiesburg. Lamar County. Mississippi

ITEM DESCRIFITON

Monitoring & Maintenance of Fenced Areas

SUBTOTAL


TOTAL


Discount Rate: 7%

UNITS

Quarterly

QUANTrrV

4

UNIT PRICE DOLLARS

$2,000

TOTAL ANNUAL COST. DOLLARS

$8,000

OPERATION TIME. YEARS

3

$8,000

$2,000 .

$10,000

PRESENT WORTH

$20,995

$20,995

$5,249

$26,243

Altemative 3 - Capping, Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

me: Davis Timber Site nation: Hattiesburg. Lamar County, Mississippi

PRESENT WORTH COST

Discount Rate: 7%

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNTT PRICE DOLLARS

TOTAL COST DOLLARS

MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION Transport Equipment & Staff Temporary Facihties

CAPPING (CONTAINMENT) FiU Soil/Clay (2 fl. depth) Topsoil (6 inch depth) Polymeric/Geotextile Liner/Fabric Vegetative Cover

INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Fencing Signage Community Informatian

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Sampling (8 samples quarterly for 30 years) Laboratory Analysis

EQUIPMENT & MATERIALS Health & Safety Equipment

each each

cy cy sf sf

If each

lumpsum

each each

each

4,815 1,204

65,000 65,000

1,450 16

1

960 960

$100,000 $75,000

$11 $31

$0.48 $2.75

$50 $100

$20,000

$25 $100

$100,000

$100,000 $75,000

$52,965 $37,324 $31,200

$178,750

$72,500 $1,600

$20,000

$24,000 $96,000

$100,000

Subtotal - Capital Cost $789,339

Contractor Fee (10% of Capital Cost) $78,934

',s. Licenses & Permits (5% of Capital Cost) $39,467

EnRu.,-ering & Administrative (15% of Capital Cost) $118,401

Subtotal $1.026.141

Contingency (25% of Subtotal) $256,535

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $1.282.676

PRESENT WORTH O&M COST $26,243

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST $1,308.919

Alternative 3 ~ Capping. Institutional Controls and Monitored Natural Attenuation

Site Name: Davis Timber Site Site Location: Hattiesburg, Lamar County, Mississippi

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Monitoring & Maintenance of Fenced Areas

SUBTOTAL


TC

UNITS

Quarterly

QUANITIY

4


Discount Rate: 7%

UNIT PRICE DOLLARS

$2,000

TOTAL ANNUAL COST, DOLLARS

$8,000

OPERATION TIME, YEARS

3

$8,000

$2,000

$10,000

PRESENT WORTH

$20,995

$20,995

$5,249

$26,243

A l t e r n a t i v e 4 - E x c a v a t i o n , O n s i t e T r c i t m e o t w / S o l i d i n c a t i o a / S l a b l i z a t i o n ,

a n d OfTiite Disposa l

,c: D a v i s T imbe r S i te

.al ion: Hat t iesburg, Lamar Coun ty . Mississ ippi

P R E S E N T W O R T H C O S T

Discount Rate: 7 %

I T E M D E S C R I P T I O N U N I T S Q U A N T I T Y

U N I T P R I C E

D O L L A R S

T O T A L C O S T

D O L L A R S

M O B I L I Z A T I O N / D E M O B I L I Z A T I O N

Transpor t E q u i p m e n t & Staff

Tempora ry Facil i t ies

E X C A V A T I O N

Excava t ion - Con tamina ted Soil and I m p o u n d m e n t Area Material

Excava t ion - Con tamina ted Sediment

Excava t ion Conf imia t ion Tes t ing (1 test per IOO ft*)

Dus t Cont ro l & Air Moni to r ing

Backfil l Excava ted Areas with Clean Fill

P l ace 6 inch top soil layer over excavated areas

Grad ing & C o m p a c t i n g

S e e d & M u l c h

O N S I T E T R E A T M E N T

Treatabi l i ty Study

Sol idif icat ion/Stabi l izat ion

O F F S I T E D I S P O S A L

Truck Transpor t

Disposa l at Subti t le D Landfil l

E Q U I P M E N T & M A T E R I A L S

Hea id i & Safety E q u i p m e n t

each

each

cy

cy

test

cy

cy

cy

acre

acre

lump sum

ton

ton ton

each

19.630

1.111

1.089

19 .630

19 .630

4 ,908

4 .06

4.06

6,380

2S.838

2 5 , 8 3 8

JIOO.OQO

$75 ,000

$10

SIU

SlOO

$10

$5

$20

$5 ,000

$ 2 , 0 0 0

$50 ,000

$30

$ 1 3

$30

$100 ,000

$100 ,000

$75 ,000

$196 ,300

$11 ,110

$108 ,900

$196 ,300

$98 ,130

$98 ,150

$20 ,300

$ 8 , 1 2 0

$50 ,000

$191 ,393

$387 ,570

$775 ,140

$100,000

Subto ta l - CapiUil Cos t $2 ,416 ,432

Con t rac to r F e e ( 1 0 % of Capi ta l Cos t ) $241 ,643

L r s, L icenses & Permi t s ( 3 % of Capital Cos t ) $120 ,822

Enfc .ng & Adminis t ra t ive ( 1 5 % of Capital Cos t )

Subtotal

Con t ingency (25 ' / i o f Subto ta l )

T O T A L C O N S T R U C T I O N C O S T

P R E S E N T W O R T H O & M C O S T

T O T A L P R E S E N T W O R T H C O S T

$362,465

$3,141,362

$785 ,340

$3,926,702

$26,243

$3 ,952,945

Al t ema t ive 4 - Excavat ion , Ons i t e Trea tment w / Solidif icat ion/Stablizal ion

and Offsite Disposal

Si te N a m e : Dav i s T i m b e r Si te

Si te Loca t ion : Hat t iesburg . L a m a r County . Mississippi

I T E M D E S C R I P T I O N

Moni to r ing & Main tenance of Re-Vege ta ted Area

S U B T O T A L

C O N T I N G E N C Y ( 2 5 % o f Subtota l )

T O T A L

O P E R A T I O N & M A I N T E N A N C E C O S T S

Discount Rale: T A

U N I T S

Quarter ly

Q U A N I T I Y

4

U N I T P R I C E

D O L L A R S

• $2 ,000

T O T A L A N N U A L

C O S T . D O L L A R S

$8 ,000

O P E R A T I O N

T I M E . Y E A R S

3

$8 ,000

$2 ,000

$10,000

P R E S E N T

W O R T H

$20,993

$20 ,993

$5 ,249

$26,243

Treata^. . . iy study and solidification/stabil ization t rea tment cos ts are from EPA, guidance , vendor - supp l i ed information, and similar type w o r k at other sites.

1 c y = 1.3 tons

Cos ts a s sume a 1 -year t rea tment t ime frame.

A s s u m e s a S*/iincrease in v o l u m e of soil treated v ia solidification/stabilization

Transpor ta t ion and disposal costs developed from R.S . M e a n s 1999

Table A-S

Alternative S - Eicavation, Onsite Treatment w/ Solidirication/Stablization, aod Q u i t e Disposal

•' -ne: Davis Timber Site

ation: Hattiesburg, Lamar Coimty, Mississippi

ITEM DESCRIPTION

MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION Transport Equipment & Staff Temporary Facilities

EXCAVATION

Excavation - Contaminated Soil and Impoundment Area Material

Excavation - Contaminated Sediment

Excavation Confirmation Testing (1 test per ICO tf)

Dust Control & Air Monitoring

Backfdl Excavated Areas with Clean Fill/Treated Soil Place 1 foot thick layer clean fill over disposal site

Place 6 inchtop soil layer over excavated areas

Grading & Compacting

Seed & Mulch

ONSITE TREATMENT

Treatability Study

Solidification/Stabilization

EQUIPMENT & M A T E ' R I A L S

Health & Safety Equipment

UNITS

each each

cy cy

test

cy

cy cy

cy acre

acre

lump sum

ton

each

QUANrrrv

1 1

19.630 I . I l l

1.089

19.630

19.630 9.815

4,908

4.06

4.06

1 6,380

1

PRESENT WORTH COST

Discount Rate: 7%

UNIT PRICE

DOLLARS

$100,000 $75,000

$10

$10

$100

SIO

$5

$10

$20

$5,000

$2,000

$50,000 $30

$100,000

TOTAL COST

DOLLARS

$100,000 $75,000

$196,300

$11,110

$108,900

$196,300 $98,150

$98,150

$98,150

$20,300 $8,120

$50,000 $191,393

$100,000

Subtotal - Capital Cost $1.351.873

Contractor Fee (10% of Capital Cost) $135.187

Legal Fees. Licenses & Petmita (5% of Capital Cost) $67.594

Er • -ing& Administrative (15% of Capital Cost)

St.

Contingency (25% of Subtotal)

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST


TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST

$202,781

$1,757,434

$439,359

$2,196,793

$268,035

$2,464,828

Altemative 5 - Excavation, Onsite Treatment w/ Solidification/Stablization.

and Onsite Disposal

SiU Name: Davis Timber Site Site Location: Hattiesburg, Lamar County. Mississippi

FFEM DESCRIPTION

Remedy Monitoring & Five Year Review/Report

Soil Cap and Lawn Maintenance

SUBTOTAL


TO

UNITS

year

month

QUANIMY

I

12

UNIT PRICE

DOLLARS

$5,280

$1,000


Discount Rate: 7%

TOTAL ANNUAL

COST, DOLLARS

$3,280

$12,000

OPERATION

TIME, YEARS

30

30

$17,280

$4,320

$21,600

PRESENT

WORTH

$65,520

$148,908

$214,428

$53,607

$268,035

TrcataDiiity study and solidification/stabilization treatment costs are from EPA guidance . vendor-supplied information, and similar type work at other sites.

1 cy= 1.3 tons

Costs assume a 1-year treatment time frame.

Assumes a SVoincrease in volume of soil treated via solidification/stabilization

Transportation and disposal costs developed from R-S. Means 1999

Documents

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM SCREENING OF REMEDIAL … · This technical memorandum (TM) identifies and screens candidate remedial altematives for the feasibility study (FS) of the Davis