Home >News & Politics >EPA Superfund Proposed Plan Cabot / Koppers Superfund Site

EPA Superfund Proposed Plan Cabot / Koppers Superfund Site

Date post:12-May-2015
Category:
View:2,001 times
Download:6 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Proposed plan for the cleanup of the Koppers portion of the Cabot/Koppers Superfund site.
Transcript:
  • 1.go U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYSUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN CABOT CARBON/KOPPERS SUPERFUND SITEGainesville, Alachua County, Florida July 2010 This document has been prepared to provide the general public with an understanding of the activities that have been occurring at the Cabot Carbon/Koppers Site. For technical information, please review the documents in the Administrative Record located at the information repositories.Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing this Proposed Plan (Plan) for Public Comment Period the environmental cleanup at the Koppers July 15, 2010 to August 15, 2010 portion of the Cabot Carbon/Koppers Superfund Site in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. Public Meeting This Proposed Plan identifies the preferred Date: August 5, 2010 alternative for cleaning up the Koppers Site andTime: 6:00-8:00 p.m. provides rationale for this preference. It includes summaries of other remedial alternatives Location: Stephen Foster Elementary School evaluated and the findings in the Remedial3800 Northwest 6th Street Investigation (RI), Baseline Risk Assessments, aGainesville, Florida 32609 new (2010) Feasibility Study (FS), and other The community is invited to a public meeting documents included in the Administrativewhere EPA will present its understanding of Site Record. EPA is issuing this Plan as part of its conditions, alternatives evaluated in the Feasibility public participation responsibilities under Study, and provide its rationale for the preferred Section 300.430(f)(2), of the National Oil andalternative presented in this Plan. In addition, this Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingencymeeting provides the community with an Plan (NCP). opportunity to ask EPA questions about the preferred alternative or Site activities and finding. This document is issued by EPA, the lead agency The Administrative Record file for the for Site activities. EPA, with support from theCabot Carbon/Koppers Site is available at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection following location: (FDEP), will select a final remedy for the Site after reviewing and considering all information Alachua County Library submitted during the 30-day public comment401 E. University Ave.Gainesville, FL 32601 period.(352) 334-3900www.aclib.us/locations/headquarters Public participation is an important part of the Site cleanup decision process. Based on public comments, EPA, along with FDEP, may modifyTherefore, the public is encouraged to review the preferred alternative or select another and comment on the cleanup alternatives alternative presented in this Plan. presented in this Plan.1

2. What is a Proposed Plan? The public comment period for this Plan starts A Proposed Plan presents EPAs preferred on July 15, 2010 and ends August 15, 2010. alternative to address contamination at a Site, presents other alternatives that were evaluated, During this 30-day period, the public is and provides the rationale for EPAs preferred encouraged to review the findings of the RI and alternative. In addition, the Plan solicits public the details of the alternatives presented in the involvement and comment on the Sites remedy final FS. These and other documents are selection process. Issuance of this Plan is part ofavailable at the information repository listed on the Superfund process depicted below.page 34 of this document. Citizens areencouraged to submit written comments to EPA. What are the next steps in the Superfund process? Following the public comment period, EPA will EPA will hold a public meeting on Thursday,carefully consider all public comments before August 5, 2010, 6:00 p.m. at Stephen Fosterselecting the remedy for the Site. All comments Elementary School. The purpose of the meetingsubmitted in writing by August 15, 2010, will be is to present the Proposed Plan for cleaning up theaddressed in the Responsiveness Summary, as Koppers Site. This meeting will provide an will the questions and answers discussed at the opportunity for citizens to ask questions of EPA public meeting. If you are not on the Site representatives. Questions and answers will be mailing list and would like to be, please contact recorded to assist EPA in the final selection of the Ms. LaTonya Spencer at 404-562-8463 or 1-800- remedy and in preparation of a Record of Decision435-9234. (ROD). All comments received during the public comment period and corresponding responses willA ROD, which summarizes the remedy decision be documented in the Responsiveness Summaryprocess and announces the remedy will be of the ROD.prepared and signed by EPA. Once the ROD is2 3. issued, the design of the remedy will beother areas in Alachua County. The Murphree scheduled and conducted, followed by theWell Field withdraws water from the Upper implementation of the remedy. Floridan Aquifer (UFA). Under the Koppers Site, the UFA is overlain by the Hawthorn Group Site History(HG) and by the Surficial Aquifer (Figure 3). In The Cabot Carbon/Koppers Superfund Site documents for this Site, the two water-bearing encompasses approximately 170 acres, bridging zones in the UFA have been designated the two properties in a commercial and residentialupper and lower transmissive zones of the UFA, area of the northern part of the Gainesville city and the two zones in the HG with moderate limits, Alachua County, Florida. This Site waspermeability have been designated the Upper originally two Sites; Cabot Carbon in the Hawthorn and the Lower Hawthorn. southeast portion of the Site, and Koppers on the western portion of the Site (Figure 1). Cabot Former wood-treatment facilities are located Carbon, is currently inactive, is now in use as within the southeastern portion of the Koppers commercial property. Koppers was an activeSite (Figure 2). This includes a recently-active facility until December 2009. On March 31,process building and adjacent drip tracks where 2010, Beazer East, Inc. purchased the propertychromated copper arsenate (CCA) was used to from Koppers in order to facilitate remediation.preserve wood. The central and northern portions of the Site were recently used for wood The Cabot Carbon portion of the Site wasstorage, staging, and debarking. The Koppers operated as a pine tar and charcoal generationSite was serviced by railroad sidings that entered facility from 1911 until 1967. Processat the facilitys northeast corner. These sidings wastewater containing residual pine tar was connected to a rail spur of the CSX railroad that discharged to three unlined lagoons as early as still exists along the eastern boundary of the 1937. Koppers Site.The Koppers Site operated as a wood-treatingWood treating processes at the Koppers Site facility from 1916 to late 2009 and coversbegan with a creosote impregnation process in approximately 86 acres (Figure 1 and Figure 2). 1916. The treatment processes were modified Portions of the area east of the Koppers Site and over the years to include two additional north of the former Cabot Carbon property are processes: one using CCA, beginning in the now commercial properties; other portions 1960s, and another using pentachlorophenol remain undeveloped. The areas to the west and (penta), beginning in 1969. The use of creosote north are single-family and multi-familydecreased in the 1970s and creosote use was residences. A Gainesville Public Works facility,completely phased out at the Site by 1992. small businesses, and a mobile home community Pentachlorophenol use was discontinued by are located to the north/northwest of the Site. A 1990. Koppers used only CCA to treat wood at small drainage ditch that currently runs throughthe Site from 1990 through 2009. the Koppers Site collects storm water from the property and directs it north. The drainage exits The Former North Lagoon and Former South the property at a point along the northernLagoon (Figure 2) at the Koppers Site were used boundary and discharges into Hogtown Creek, to manage process wastewater. Based on which then flows into Springstead Creek.historical aerial photographs, the Former North Lagoon was active from approximately 1956 The Murphree Well Field is locateduntil the 1970s, and the Former South Lagoon approximately 2 miles northeast of the Site was active from 1943 or earlier through 1975 or (Figure 1). This 26 million-gallon-per-day1976. Both former lagoons have been closed, (mgd) well field is operated by the Gainesville covered, and graded. The CCA wood-treating Regional Utilities (GRU) and provides public water supply for the City of Gainesville and3 4. 4 5. 5 6. process used most recently at the Site did not In March 1991, the EPA issued a Unilateral generate wastewater. Administrative Order (UAO) to Beazer Eastdirecting development of a remedial design for The Cabot Carbon/Koppers Site was proposed the Site. However, further investigation for the National Priorities List (NPL) inrevealed Site conditions that were not September 1983, and listed as final on the NPL contemplated by the ROD or UAO. in September 1984. Remedial investigations atSpecifically, groundwater impacts below the the Site began in 1983. An initial groundwater water table were greater than expected and the interceptor trench was installed on the Cabotamount of dense non-aqueous phase liquid Carbon portion of the Site in 1985, and a(DNAPL) below the water table was greater permanent subsurface collection system was than expected. These discoveries called into installed in 1995, with the groundwaterquestion the potential effectiveness and discharging to the principally-owned treatment practicality of the ROD-specified removal works (POTW). A POTW is a wastewater actions. A Surficial Aquifer groundwater treatment facility that is owned by a state or extraction system was designed to prevent off- municipality. The Cabot portion of the Site hasSite migration of contamination in shallow been redeveloped and currently contains agroundwater, and operation began in 1995. In commercial shopping mall, a car dealership, and2009, this Surficial Aquifer groundwater a series of small stores and businesses. extraction system was upgraded to increase Therefore, in this Plan, the word Site refers to pumping capacity and capture contaminated the Koppers portion of the Cabot groundwater through placement of recovery Carbon/Koppers Superfund Site, unlesstrenches next to the 4 principal source areas. otherwise specified. Currently, fourteen groundwater extractionwells operate along the northern and eastern The remedial investigation (RI) was completedproperty boundaries, and groundwater recovery in 1987, and a Supplemental RI was completed drains operate near each of the four principal in 1989. A Baseline Risk Assessment and FS source areas. were completed in 1990. A remediation plan was selected and a ROD for the Cabot Based on post-ROD Site data and concerns Carbon/Koppers Site was signed in1990. For regarding the technical practicability of the the Koppers property, the ROD specified (1)selected remedy, the UAO was amended in excavation of soils in the Former North andApril 1994, This amendment required South Lagoons to a depth of 4 feet, (2)additional Site characterization and bioremediation of soils in the Former Processdevelopment of a Supplemental FS that included area and Former Drip Track Area by remedial alternatives appropriate for the recirculating groundwater with nutrientexpanded extent of Site impacts. Subsequently, amendment, (3) installation of a groundwater studies were conducted to identify a revised extraction system in the Surficial Aquifer, andremediation strategy based on an updated (4) long-term institutional controls on Site use.understanding of the Site. At the time the ROD was prepared and signed, it was concluded that, based upon then-currentA Supplemental FS was prepared in 1997 based information, (a) the HG was a single thick clayon the existing and updated data and an layer that provided an effective vertical barrierimproved understanding of flow and transport for groundwater flow and transport and (b) the mechanisms at the Site. A Revised potential source zones were primarily in the Supplemental FS was issued in 1999 to address shallow unsaturated zone with a small volume comments from both EPA and FDEP. The of impacted soil below the water table in theRevised Supplemental FS recognized that the Surficial Aquifer. potential impacts from source areas were deeperthan contemplated by the 1990 ROD; however, 6 7. the potential impacts within and below the HG Environmental Investigation Results were still considered negligible at that time.Numerous remedial and environmental investigations have been performed at the Site. More recent investigations (2003, 2004, and These include: 2006) that form the basis for this cleanup plan have indicated that dense non-aqueous phase Hydrogeologic investigation; liquids (DNAPL) from former wood-treating Initial and supplemental RIs; substances such as creosote is present in the HG Site characterization for soil and and that Site contaminants are present in groundwater remedies; groundwater in the Upper Floridan Aquifer (See Field investigations of the HG and UFA; Figure 3). Ongoing and planned monitoring is Source delineation study for former source being used to better characterize potential areas; impacts in the Surficial Aquifer, HG, and UFA. Data summary report for soil and sediment; and Since the 1990 ROD, as investigations have Surficial Aquifer well redevelopment and improved the conceptual understanding of the sampling. Site, pilot remedial actions and focused studies have been conducted to assist with the selection Site soil and groundwater have been sampled to and evaluation of a final comprehensive characterize the nature and extent of Site-related remedial strategy for the Site. These activities contamination. Over 350 soil borings and 1,000 have included: soil samples have been collected and analyzed across the Site since 1984. Groundwater - Pilot testing active DNAPL recovery in the monitoring has been routinely performed since Surficial Aquifer at PW-1 in 1994 and 2004; 1984. Over 150 wells have been installed (and - Studying vertical groundwater circulation at sampled) at the Site in the three main the Former North Lagoon in 1995; hydrogeologic units (Surficial Aquifer, HG, and - Recovering DNAPL Manually by periodic UFA) (See Figure 3). Periodic groundwater bailing in HG monitor wells since 2004; monitoring reports are prepared for the EPA. - Evaluating soil excavation feasibility; - Evaluating in-situ thermal treatment Potential impacts to off-Site areas have been feasibility; investigated and continue to be investigated - Evaluating surfactant flushing feasibility; west of the Site. An additional off-Site soil - Pilot testing active DNAPL recovery in the investigation is currently being conducted to HG beneath the Former North Lagoon; and completely delineate the extent of impact in - Bench testing and pilot field testing in-situ other areas surrounding the Site. Some biogeochemical stabilization (ISBS) of information and analytical data has been DNAPL using modified permanganate generated from sediment and surface water in solutions. Hogtown and Springstead Creeks to evaluate impacts to aquatic habitats and species. Two five-year reviews for the Site were conduced by EPA and finalized in 2001 and The contaminants of concern (COCs) identified 2006. The 2006 Five-Year Review Report for soil and groundwater in the 1990 ROD recommended additional studies to support the include phenols (such as penta), polycyclic selection of a new remedial strategy to address aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), arsenic, and the full extent of impacts at the Site. Such chromium. Creosote, the predominant chemical studies have been undertaken through the material historically used for wood treatment at collaborative FS process to fulfill the specific the Site, consists mainly of PAHs and includes recommendations of the Five-Year Review. both potentially carcinogenic (pcPAH) and non- carcinogenic (ncPAH) compounds. The EPA A revised FS was finalized in May 2010. and FDEP also required sampling and testing 7 8. for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and Source areas defined in these figures correspond polychlorinated dibenzo furans (dioxins/furans) with the areas in the Surficial Aquifer in soils. Based on the results of this sampling,containing the greatest concentrations of dioxins/furans have also been identified as contaminants associated with wood-treatment COCs for Site soil. Relatively low benzene, materials. The wood-treating products that toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) remain in the environment (e.g., creosote concentrations also have been observed in soils DNAPL, free-product PCP, etc.) are defined as and groundwater under the four identified the principal threat waste at this Site. Based on source areas. the physical and chemical properties of DNAPL and its variable distribution throughout the Conceptual Site Model various aquifer zones under the Site, it is A conceptual Site model (CSM) was formulatedimpracticable to distinguish heavily- as part of the revised FS using environmental contaminated soil from principal threat waste. investigation data collected over the past 26 Based on this uncertainty, it is prudent to years. The CSM describes current Site address the entire soil volume in the four Source conditions and how Site-related contaminantsAreas as principal threat waste. This approach move in the environment and the potential for will ensure that the vast majority of DNAPL and contaminants to reach environmental receptors.heavily-contaminated soil can be treated and Figure 3 is a conceptual block diagram that isolated from the surrounding environment. depicts migration of contaminants in the subsurface. Analytical data for source area soil borings indicate that DNAPL has migrated down into Groundwater Flowthe Lower HG, but the extent to which this has Hydrogeologic layers beneath the Site are occurred is uncertain and difficult to determine illustrated on Figure 3. The layers vary in their definitively. Remedial actions proposed as a ability to transmit groundwater (transmissivity). part of this Plan are intended to address DNAPL Zones 1, 7, and 9 are the most transmissive.(i.e., principal threat waste) impacts, regardless Zones 3, 5, 8, and 10 are moderatelyof its location or source origination on the transmissive. Zones 2, 4, and 6 have very low Koppers Site. capacities to transmit water, and limit vertical flow between transmissive layers. Groundwater Other smaller isolated surface soil areas flow within the transmissive layers that have throughout the property show high shown the highest COC concentrations (Zones 1 concentrations of various contaminants that are and 3) is to the north-northeast. not associated with any particular process area on the property. These minor locations of Source Areaselevated contaminant concentrations are not The origin of contaminants at the Site is linkedidentified as source areas, but as locations of directly to facility operations and historicalcontaminants that either migrated from source waste management methods. Releases occurred areas (i.e., by surface runoff, soil dust when wood-treatment chemicals dripped ontodeposition, or other surface transport the soil or were deposited in unlined lagoons.mechanism), or are isolated residuals from Site investigations have identified four main historic wood treating operations. contaminant source areas related to former operations and facilities (the Former Process Soil Contamination Area, the Former South Lagoon, the Former Soils above the water table contaminated with North Lagoon, and the Former Drip Track). contaminants of concern (COCs) are a result of These are labeled [a] through [d] in Figure 3,residual DNAPL in unsaturated pore space or and are illustrated in Figure 2.contaminants that are adsorbed onto soil particles. Asenic, pcPAHs (expressed as benzo(a)pyrene toxic equivalents [BaP-TEQ]), 8 9. 9 10. and dioxins/furans (expressed as 2,3,7,8-bodies. Since inputs to both Springstead and tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalentsHogtown Creek are attributable to releases from [TCDD-TEQ]) are COCs that drive theboth the Koppers facility and the Cabot Carbon evaluation of human-health risk for direct soilfacility, cleanup will be performed jointly. exposure at the Site under current Site use.Groundwater Contamination The highest arsenic concentrations wereGroundwater impacts have resulted from: (a) detected in the vicinity of the Former South percolation of contaminants in process water Lagoon, two sample locations had average down to the water table; (b) dissolution of surface soil concentrations above 1,000contaminants from DNAPL in the subsurface; milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for arsenic. and (c) leaching from soils as rainwaterpercolates through the unsaturated zone in areas Elevated PAH concentrations were detected in with high concentrations of COCs. surface soils at all four DNAPL source areas. Dioxins/furans were detected over a significantSurficial Aquifer Groundwater portion of the Site at levels above the FloridaThe predominant PAH compound detected in default commercial/industrial soil cleanup targetgroundwater at the Site is naphthalene. level (SCTL) (0.03 micrograms per kilogram Naphthalene is used as the primary indicator [g/kg]).compound to represent the presence and extentof COCs in Site groundwater due to its Concentrations of pentachlorophenol in surface prevalence and very high mobility. As part of soil were below the Florida default SCTL for the effectiveness monitoring for the existing commercial/industrial direct exposure (28groundwater extraction system, groundwater mg/kg) over most of the Site. There were fivequality is measured periodically at extraction exceptions: three in the Former Process Area,wells and monitor wells. Groundwater samples one at the Former Drip Track Area, and one atare analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene the Former North Lagoon. and xylenes (BTEX), PAHs, phenols, arsenic,and chromium. Several of the wells near the A multi-phase Site-boundary and off-Site soilsource areas and near the eastern Site boundary sampling and analysis program is presently have naphthalene concentrations greater than being conducted. Initial results from this the Florida default groundwater cleanup target program show that surface soil immediately level (GCTL) of 14 g/L. In all locations where adjacent to the western Site boundary hasboth a water-table and deeper Surficial Aquifer elevated concentrations of PAHs, arsenic,well were sampled, the water-table well had a and/or dioxins/furans above Florida defaultsignificantly lower naphthalene concentration. SCTLs for residential direct exposure. PastConcentrations of some other COCs (PCP, transport of COCs via dust likely caused the arsenic, benzene, carbazole, dibenzofuran) also detections of Site COCs in off-Site surface soil exceeded their default GCTLs and/or federal west of the Site. Further off-Site soilmaximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in certain characterizations are under way to the north,wells. south, east, and west of the Site and will continue after remedy selection to facilitateHawthorn Group Groundwater expedited cleanup of off-Site residential areas. Naphthalene and other COCs have beendetected at monitor wells near source areas and Off-Site Creek Contamination near the eastern property boundary at Investigative work has been done in Hogtownconcentrations exceeding default GCTLs. and Springstead Creeks, north of the Koppers Site. These studies were done to support Upper Floridan Aquifer Groundwater evaluation of possible impacts to ecological Water quality in the UFA beneath and habitats and species in these surface waterimmediately downgradient (in the direction of 10 11. groundwater flow) of the Site is measured on a Site Risk Assessment quarterly basis. Risk assessments were conducted to determinethe current and future effects of contaminants on Monitor wells within the top 30 feet of the UFA. human health and the environment. What Is Only one of these wells (a source-area Risk and How Is It Calculated provides general monitoring well near the Former North Lagoon)information on assessing risk. A human-health currently has organic concentrations above staterisk assessment (HHRA) for on-Site soils and or federal drinking water standards. Naphthalene concentrations at this well have sediment was submitted in 2009 and updated in decreased substantially since July 2004. May 2010 to take into account a change in landuse and to incorporate comments received on There are 15 multiport, quadruple-cased wellsthe earlier version. The estimates of potential quadruple-cased wells completed within the risk presented in the August 2009 HHRA upper 100 feet of the UFA (the Upper assume that the use of the Site is for wood- Transmissive Zone). At two of the four sourcetreatment in the foreseeable future because areas (Former Process Area and Former Southwood-treatment operations have ceased, this Lagoon), inorganic and organic contaminantsassumption is no longer valid. The HHRA was are consistently below state or federal drinking updated to take into account a change in land water standards in the UFA monitor wells.use not previously contemplated under the 2009 Seven organic contaminants are above state orsubmittal. federal drinking water standards in the UFA north of the Former North Lagoon and FormerThe 2009 HHRA includes both a deterministic Drip Track at a few locations.(traditional) evaluation of potential risks and a Organic COCs have never been detected in the more quantitative probabilistic model for four Lower Transmissive Zone wells at thepotential risk evaluation. The assessment shows northern property boundary.that pcPAHs, arsenic, and dioxins/furans are theCOCs that make the largest contribution to the In some sampling events, arsenic concentrationsoverall potential excess lifetime cancer risk above the Florida default GCTL (10 g/L) haveassociated with the Site. Potential exposure to been identified in groundwater collected from apentachlorophenol makes a small contribution few of the UFA monitor wells. These lowto the total potential excess lifetime cancer risk. observed concentrations likely result from dissolution of naturally occurring minerals in EPA has evaluated the 2009 HHRA and its the UFA that occurs when oxygenated water is accompanying revisions and has determined that introduced to the formation during well drilling.the probabilistic risk assessment does not This is consistent with the absence of inorganic provide an adequate basis to define the required COCs in overlying aquifers.cleanup goals. Therefore, EPA will baseselection of cleanup goals on a more Scope and Role of Proposed Remedyconservative cleanup goal derived from The proposed remedy is intended to be the finaldeterministic risk calculations. cleanup for the Cabot Carbon/Koppers Site. The preferred alternative identified in this Potential ecological risks associated with Proposed Plan, or one of the other activesediment were also evaluated in 2009. The measures considered in this plan, will protect Agency has evaluated the 2010 ecological public health, welfare, and the environmentscreening level risk assessment and its from actual or threatened releases of hazardousaccompanying revisions and does not believe substances into the environment. that it provides an adequate basis to selectremedial goals for the Site. This is because thisassessment was based on assumptions used in 11 12. What Is Risk And How Is It Calculated? A Superfund human health risk assessment estimates the baseline risk. This is an estimate of the likelihood of potential health problems occurring if no cleanup action were taken at a Site. To estimate the baseline risk at a Superfund Site, EPA undertakes a four-step process:Step 1: Analyze Contamination. Step 2: Estimate Exposure. Sept 3: Assess Potential Health Dangers. Step 4: Characterize Site Risk.In Step 1, EPA looks at the concentrations of contaminants found at a Site as well as past scientific studies on the effects these contaminants have had on people (or animals, when human studies are unavailable). Comparisons between Site-specific concentrations and concentrations reported in past studies help EPA to determine which contaminants are most likely to pose a potential threat to human health.In Step 2, EPA considers the different ways that people might be exposed to contaminants, and the potential frequency and duration of the exposure. Using the information, EPA calculates a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) scenario, which portrays the highest level of human exposure that could reasonably be expected to occur.In Step 3, EPA uses the information from Step 2 combined with information on the toxicity of each chemical to assess potential health risks. EPA considers two types of risk: cancer risk and non-cancer risk. The likelihood of any kind of cancer resulting from a Superfund Site is generally expressed as an upper bound of probability; for example a 1 in 10,000 chance. In other words, the exposed individual would have an excess cancer risk of one in 10,000 due to Site contaminants. This excess risk would be over and above the existing cancer risk for the individual. For non-cancer health effects, EPA calculates a hazard index (HI). The key concept here is that a threshold level (measured usually as a HI of less than 1) exists below which non-cancer health effects are not expected.In Step 4, EPA determines whether Site risks are excessive for people at or near the Superfund Site. The results of the three previous steps are combined, evaluated, and summarized. EPA adds up the potential Risks for each receptor. the screening level risk assessment that have not Groundwater in the Surficial Aquifer, yet obtained acceptance by EPA and Florida Upper HG, Lower HG, and Upper DEP. Therefore, the Agency will utilizeFloridan Aquifer; conservative default ecological endpoints in Subsurface soils; identification and selection of cleanup goals for Sediment; and remedial goal selection. Surface water.Mitigate further migration of impacted Remedial Action Objectives and groundwater. Cleanup Levels Restore quality of groundwater outside of Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the Site source areas to beneficial use having COC are based on potential migration or exposure concentrations no greater than Federal pathways for Site COCs and applicable or MCLs or Florida GCTLs. relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)Reduce the mobility, volume, and toxicity of identified in the 2010 FS. The RAOs provide DNAPL to the extent practicable. media-specific and action-specific requirements to protect human health and the environment. Cleanup goals for COCs are listed in Table 1. The RAOs identified for the Site include:The selected cleanup goals are the Floridacommercial/industrial SCTLs for on-Site Mitigate risks to potential receptors exposedsoils/sediments and either the residential SCTLs to Site-related contaminants in: or commercial/industrial SCTLs for off-Site Surface soils; soils/sediments based on the current land use.The selected goals for groundwater are the 12 13. Table 1 Cleanup Goals for COCsTable 1 Cleanup Goals for COCs (Continued)Groundwater (g/L)Off-Site Soil/Sediment (mg/kg) naphthalene14 Listed compoundspcPAHs (BaP-TEQ)* 0.1 Florida default acenaphthalene210 exceed the federalSCTLs residential dioxins (TCDD-TEQ) 0.000007 2-methylnaphthalene28 MCL and/or Floridaland-use Default GCTL arsenic 2.1 pentachlorophenol 1 (based on values in pentachlorophenol 7.2 arsenic10 effect on the datepcPAHs (BaP-TEQ)* 0.7 Florida default carbazole1.8that the Proposed dioxins (TCDD-TEQ) 0.000003 SCTLs for commercial/ dibenzofuran 28 Plan was issued). arsenic 12industrial land use 1,1 biphenyl 0.5(depends on * Primary standardpentachlorophenol28 phenol 10 specific land-use of as defined by off-Site location) 2-phenol* Florida Department 2-methylphenol 35 of Environmentalpentachlorophenol 0.03Florida default 2,4-dimethylphenol140 Protection in F.A.C.leachability SCTLs 3/4-methylphenol7 62-777. for CW protection pentachlorophenol0.2Florida default acenaphthene210 leachability SCTLs benzo(a)anthracene0.05for protection of benzo(a)pyrene 0.2ecological benzo(b)fluoranthene0.05organisms in surface water benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.5 chrysene 4.8 bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate * federal MCLs or Florida GCTLs, if the latter are fluoranthene280 more stringent. In addition, Florida leachability fluorene280 criteria for soil are relevant and appropriate for n-nitrosodiphenylamine 7.1protection of groundwater. phenanthrene210 benzene 1 benzene 5 Federal MCL Considerable uncertainty surrounds the derivation of clean-up goals for dioxins and On-Site Soil (0-2 feet bls)/Sediment (mg/kg)furans, including the development of site- pcPAHs (BaP-TEQ)*0.7 Florida default SCTLs forspecific risk-based goals, and Floridas default dioxins (TCDD-TEQ) 0.00003 commercial/industrialresidential SCTL of 0.007 g/kg. At present antimony 27land use and Floridadefault leachability there is significant ongoing debate between and arsenic2.1 SCTLs unless Site- chromium (total) 470 among researchers, different regulatoryspecific leachability data copper 89000 are developed during agencies, and the regulated community lead1400 remedial design. regarding the toxicity of dioxins/furans and pentachlorophenol28 whether meaningful human-health risks are acenaphthene2400 * Site concentrations forposed by low concentrations of thesecarcinogenic polycyclic naphthalene300contaminants, particularly with respect toaromatic hydrocarbons 2-methylnaphthalene 2100 (pcPAHs) are converted concentrations in soils. Evidence of this fluoranthene 59000 to Benzo(a)pyrene fluorine 33000 equivalents (BaP-TEQ)ongoing debate can be observed in the phenanthrene 36000 before comparison with numerous comments submitted to EPA in 1,1 biphenyl 34000 the cooresponding direct response to publication of the agencys Dioxinexposure SCTL for carbazole240Benzo(a)pyrene (see the Science Plan, the proposed interim preliminary dibenzofuran6300 February 2005 Final remediation goals (PRG) for dioxins, and the benzene1.2 Technical Report draft response to the National Academy of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 130,000 Development of Cleanup18000 Target Levels (CTLs) for Sciences review of the Dioxin Reassessment. 2,4-dimethylphenol 3/4-methylphenol 31000 Chapter 62-777 F.A.C. Clean-up goals for dioxins/furans used by various state regulatory agencies and EPA vary13 14. over several orders of magnitude, with FloridasOn-Site Remedies default SCTL being at the low end of the range. The on-Site remedial alternatives focus Floridas SCTLs will be used as the cleanup primarily on addressing impacted groundwater goal for dioxin-contaminated soil at the Site.and sources of contaminants in the surface soil, Surficial Aquifer and Upper Hawthorn zones. Remedial Alternatives Contaminant sources include residual DNAPL Remedial alternatives were defined andor contaminants adsorbed to soil particles. evaluated separately for three major environmental media units of the Site (on-SiteRemedy Components Common to media [excluding UFA groundwater], off-Site Multiple On-Site Alternatives surface soil, and UFA groundwater). The final Many of the on-Site remedial alternatives Site remedial alternative will consist of a set ofcontain remedy components that are common to three remedies: one for the on-Site media, onemultiple alternatives. A description of the for the UFA, and one for the off-Site surface common components is provided below. soil unit.Surface grading and covers - This remedialcomponent consists of re-grading much of As part of the remedial design process which the Site and using one or more types of follows remedy selection, additional surface covers to prevent potential direct characterization of Site aquifers will beexposure to surface soils. The covers will conducted to address remaining uncertainties be designed to be impermeable where related to DNAPL migration and, more leachability and/or infiltration are a concern. importantly, refine its vertical and horizontalThe final surface cover design will be boundaries for effective remedyconsistent with the expected future land use implementation. Off-Site soil characterization of the property. continues to the north, south, east, and west ofStorm water rerouting and detention This the Site to completely delineate Site-relatedremedy component will be implemented in impacts and to expedite cleanup of off-Siteconcert with the designed surface grading areas. During the remedial design, an ambientand covers. Storm water controls will air monitoring network will be installed at theconsist of: (a) grading and contouring the Site. Since the Koppers Facility closure, Beazer Site to direct runoff toward collection East has begun interim measures to reduce dust points; (b) installation of one or more including planting of vegetation over former detention/retention ponds; and (c) possible operation areas. As part of Site buildingreplacement of the existing Site storm water demolition activities, Beazer East isditch with another ditch or with an implementing dust control of continuous waterengineered conveyance such as an application to suppress dust.underground concrete pipe (culvert). Soil consolidation area with low- The following alternatives, developed andpermeability cap/cover - This remedy documented in the 2010 FS, must meet the component consists of placing select soils in threshold statutory requirements of protection ofa designated on-Site consolidation area human health and the environment to addresswithin the area encircled by a subsurface chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-barrier wall. The soil placed within the specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriateconsolidation area includes surface soil that Requirements (ARARs).is removed during Site grading and soil thatis derived from construction of other remedycomponents. A low-permeability cap/coverwill be constructed over the consolidation14 15. area beneath the designed final surfaceconsists of injecting a buffered solution of cover. sodium permanganate and catalysts into the On-Site ex-situ soil treatment - This remedy target zone in order to: (1) chemically component includes on-Site treatment ofoxidize organic COCs; (2) form a soils from source area excavation and/or geochemical solid through the action of the resulting from ex-situ solidification/ reagent and the organic COCs; and (3) stabilization implementation. It is assumedreduce the flux of COCs from residual that soil will be treated by DNAPL into the aqueous phase by reducing solidification/stabilization, although other aquifer transmissivity. Inclusion of ISBS as treatment options (e.g., chemical oxidation, a remedy component includes one or more thermal treatment, biological treatment) may pilot studies with performance criteria be evaluated during final design.designed to demonstrate and optimize Barrier wall - This remedy component effectiveness as a remedy component. If consists of installing a cement/bentonitethis technology does not meet its designated slurry wall to encircle all four primary performance criteria, ISS/S would be source areas. The slurry wall will beimplemented instead. approximately 5,000 feet in length and will Manual DNAPL recovery - This remedy extend vertically from land surface to the component involves continuation of the top of the HG middle clay, approximately 65current program of bi-weekly DNAPL feet deep. Other types of vertical barriersbailing from Upper Hawthorn monitor wells (e.g., sheet pile, in-situ solidified soil HG-11S, HG-15S, HG-12S, HG-10S, and columns, or injected grout) may be HG-16S. This activity will continue as long considered during final design based onas DNAPL is recoverable in these wells. geotechnical testing. Chemical Oxidation (ChemOx)/ISBS using Surficial Aquifer hydraulic containment andexisting HG wells - This remedy component groundwater monitoring - This remedy involves use of existing HG monitor wells component consists of operating the existing as treatment-injection points for either hydraulic containment system including the ChemOx or ISBS based on contaminant perimeter wells and the horizontal concentrations and pilot study results. groundwater collection drains at the base of HG groundwater monitoring - This remedy the Surficial Aquifer near the four source component includes monitoring of Upper areas. Periodic adjustments to operationsHawthorn and Lower Hawthorn will be made as necessary to optimizegroundwater using existing and new wells. containment and treatment reliability. The monitoring will be used to demonstrate In-situ solidification/stabilization (ISS/S) ofremedy performance and provide sentinel source areas This remedy component monitoring locations for contingent actions. consists of applying additives, such as Contingent actions in the HG - This remedy cement, lime, fly ash, or polymers, to bindcomponent includes contingent remedial with the soil particles to reduce the mobility actions for groundwater in the HG if of the contaminants. S/S agents can be monitoring results indicate that contaminant applied in-situ with auger drilling/mixing concentrations are either above GCTLs and equipment. Inclusion of ISS/S as a remedyincreasing (at sentinel wells where Site component includes one or more pilot contaminants have been detected) or begin studies with performance criteria to provide to be detected above GCTLs at previously an effective mix designclean sentinel wells. The expected In-situ biogeochemical stabilization (ISBS)contingent action for organic contaminants of source areas This remedy componentis ChemOx using a permanganate solution. 15 16. ChemOx is used to chemically transform does not meet the threshold criteria necessary organic COCs into non-toxic or immobilefor a viable alternative. substances. Monitored natural attenuation (MNA) - This OnR-2: Continue Current Actions with remedy component relies on naturally Surface Grading/Covers occurring geophysical and geochemicalEstimated Capital Cost: $6.2M processes that act on COCs to make themApproximate Annual OM&M: $ 300,000 less toxic/hazardous or less mobile. Total Net Present Value: $ 11.1M Monitoring results are used to demonstrate Estimated Construction Timeframe: < 1 year that these processes are occurring in theEstimated Time to Achieve RAOs: many years subsurface at the Site. Inclusion of MNA asARARs: action-specific and location-specific a remedy component requires that additionalARARs are met with this alternative. The evaluation will be performed to demonstrateremedy may not attain all chemical-specific active natural attenuation. This evaluationARARs within a reasonable time. will be coordinated with any other groundwater remedy components (e.g., This alternative includes continuing the current hydraulic containment) to distinguish theinterim remedial measures: Surficial Aquifer effects of MNA from other groundwatergroundwater extraction/treatment, groundwater remedy technologies. monitoring and Manual DNAPL recovery. The Institutional controls - This on-Site remedy remedy also includes regrading and covering component consists of deed restrictions andmost of the Site. As a contingency action, other administrative actions to limit andChemOx would be injected if necessary to control potential exposure to media with remediate groundwater impacted principal threat elevated contaminant concentrations and to materials in the HG. MNA and institutional ensure the effectiveness of engineeringcontrols are also part of this alternative. controls.This alternative includes the following primary OnR-1: No Action components: Total Net Present Value: $ minimal Grading of Site soil and installation of soil Estimated Construction Timeframe: Nonecovers and storm water controls; Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: > 100 yearsContinued operation of the Surficial Aquifer ARARs: Does not attain. extraction and treatment system;Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HG Regulations governing the Superfund program monitoring network for: (1) establishment of require the No Action alternative to be monitoring points; (2) demonstration of considered. The No Action alternative is used active natural attenuation processes; and (3) as a baseline to compare with other alternatives. establishment of trigger locations for Under the No Action alternative, all active and contingency measures; Manual Site activities, including groundwaterContinuation of Manual DNAPL recovery in extraction, DNAPL collection and groundwaterthe Upper Hawthorn; and monitoring, would cease. Furthermore, thereInstitutional controls to mitigate risks from would be no deed restrictions or Site securityexposure to Site soil, sediment, surface controls to prevent use of Site groundwater,water, or groundwater. limit exposures to Site soil, or restrict certain kinds of future development. This alternative is retained as a basis for comparison of risk reduction using remediation technologies and 16 17. OnR-3A: Removal Surficial Aquifer On-Site treatment of excavated soil Excavation (solidification/stabilization or alternate Estimated Capital Cost: $ 64.1Mmaterial management options); Approximate Annual OM&M: $ 165,000 Return of treated soil to the excavated areas Total Net Present Value: $ 67.8M with use of excess treated soil as a base Estimated Construction Timeframe: 2 yearslayer in cover design; Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several years Surface grading and covering for most of the ARARs: Chemical-specific, action-specific andSite with installation of storm water location-specific ARARs are all met with thiscontrols; alternative Continued operation of the Surficial Aquiferextraction and treatment system to verify This alternative includes excavating the remedy effectiveness in reducing Surficial Aquifer material in the four sourcecontaminant flux, then shutdown of this areas (to approximately 25 feet below surface),system; treating the excavated soil by ex-situ Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HG solidification/stabilization, returning most ofmonitoring network for: (1) establishment of this material to the excavations, andsentinel locations; (2) demonstration of incorporating excess solidified material intoactive natural attenuation processes; and (3) covers for the excavated areas. Vertical establishment of trigger locations for retaining/barrier walls will be installed to the contingency measures; and top of the middle clay unit of the HG to provide Institutional controls to mitigate risks from shoring for the excavations and to contain exposure to Site soil, sediment, surface groundwater impacts in the Upper Hawthorn. water or groundwater. ChemOx or ISBS (catalyzed sodium permanganate) treatment will be applied at OnR-3B: Removal Excavation to Middle existing Upper and Lower HG wells in sourceClay areas. As a contingency, ChemOx will beEstimated Capital Cost: $ 190M injected if necessary to remediate potential Approximate Annual OM&M: $ 165,000 groundwater impacts in the HG. The ChemOxTotal Net Present Value: $ 193.7M and ISBS components of this remedy will be Estimated Construction Timeframe: 3.5 years implemented only if treatability studies Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several years demonstrate successful contaminant treatment ARARs: Chemical-specific, action-specific and and containment. location-specific ARARs are all met with thisalternative This alternative includes the following components:This alternative includes excavating the Excavation of source areas to the HG upperSurficial Aquifer material in the four sourceclay; areas and in the Upper HG above the middle Installation of an encircling verticalclay unit (approximately 65 feet below surface),retaining/barrier wall around each source treating the excavated soil by ex-situarea to the HG middle clay; solidification/stabilization, returning most of ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied at this material to the excavations, andexisting Upper and Lower Hawthorn wells incorporating excess solidified material intoin source areas (based on acceptablecovers for the excavated areas. ChemOx orperformance during pilot tests or treatabilityISBS treatment will be applied at existingstudies); Lower HG wells in source areas. As acontingency, ChemOx will be injected if 17 18. necessary to remediate groundwater impacts inThis alternative includes in-situ solidification/ the HG.stabilization (ISS/S) of impacted soil from theground surface to the top of the middle clay unit This alternative includes the followingof the HG (approximately 65 feet below ground components:surface) in the four source areas. Excess soil Excavation of source areas to the HG middle will be treated by ex-situ solidification/clay with 2:1 side-slopes and verticalstabilization and used as a base layer for surfaceshoring where necessary;covers. ChemOx or ISBS treatment will be On-Site treatment of excavated soil applied at existing Lower HG wells in source(solidification/stabilization or alternateareas. As a contingency, ChemOx will bematerial management options); injected if necessary to remediate groundwater Return of treated soil to the excavated areas impacts in the HG.with use of excess treated soil as a baselayer in cover design;This alternative includes the following Surface grading and covering for most of thecomponents:Site with installation of storm water ISS/S to the middle clay unit of the HG incontrols;the four source areas; Continued operation of the Surficial AquiferChemOx or ISBS treatment applied atextraction and treatment system for a period existing Lower HG wells in source areasof time, then shutdown of this system(based on performance during pilot tests or(source area horizontal collection drains aretreatability studies);abandoned); Ex-situ S/S of excess soil for use as a base ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied atlayer in cover design;existing Lower HG wells in source areas Surface grading and covering for most of the(based on performance during pilot tests orSite with installation of storm watertreatability studies); controls; Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HG Continued operation of the Surficial Aquifermonitoring network for: (1) establishment of extraction and treatment system until suchsentinel locations; (2) demonstration of time as cleanup goals are consistently andactive natural attenuation processes, and; (3) continually met, then shutdown of thisestablishment of trigger locations for system;contingency measures; and Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HG Institutional controls to mitigate risks frommonitoring network for: (1) establishment ofexposure to Site soil, sediment, surface sentinel locations, (2) demonstration ofwater or groundwater.active natural attenuation processes; and (3) establishment of trigger locations for OnR-4A: In-Situ Treatment Solidification/ contingency measures; and Stabilization to Middle Clay Institutional controls to mitigate risks from Estimated Capital Cost: $ 72.5M exposure to Site soil, sediment, surface Approximate Annual OM&M: $ 165,000water or groundwater. Total Net Present Value: $ 78.9M Estimated Construction Timeframe: 3 yearsOnR-4B: In-Situ Treatment - Solidification/ Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several yearsStabilization and Biogeochemical ARARs: Chemical-specific, action-specific andStabilization location-specific ARARs met with thisEstimated Capital Cost: $ 38.1M alternative. Approximate Annual OM&M: $ 165,000Total Net Present Value: $ 41.8M 18 19. Estimated Construction Timeframe: 2.5 years establishment of trigger locations for Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several years contingency measures; and ARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific and Institutional controls to mitigate risks from location-specific ARARs met with this exposure to Site soil, sediment, surface alternative.water or groundwater.This alternative includes ISS/S of impacted soilOnR-5A: Containment/Treatment Barrier from ground surface to the top of the upper clayWall unit of the HG (approximately 25 feet below Estimated Capital Cost: $ 12.8M ground surface) in the four source areas. ExcessApproximate Annual OM&M: $ 181,000 soil will be treated by ex-situ solidification/ Total Net Present Value: $ 16.0M stabilization and used as a base layer for surfaceEstimated Construction Timeframe: 1 year covers. ISBS will be injected in Upper HG inEstimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several years source areas. ChemOx or ISBS treatment will ARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific and be applied at existing Lower HG wells in source location-specific ARARs met with this areas. As a contingency, ChemOx will be alternative. injected if necessary to remediate groundwater impacts in the HG. This remedy is similar toThis alternative is a combination of containment remedy OnR-4A except that ISBS replaces and treatment remedies and includes installing a ISS/S in the Upper Hawthorn.barrier wall around the DNAPL source areas to the top of the middle clay unit of the HG. Soil This alternative includes the following removed during the slurry wall installation will components: be used as fill in the soil consolidation area. ISS/S to the upper clay unit of the HG in theChemOx or ISBS treatment will be applied atfour source areas; existing Lower Hawthorn wells in source areas. ISBS in the Upper HG below the ISS/Streatment zones (subject to acceptable The barrier wall will limit groundwater inflowperformance during pilot tests or treatability to, and outflow from, DNAPL-impacted areas.studies);A capped soil-consolidation area will be ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied atestablished inside the barrier-wall for soilexisting Lower HG wells in source areasexcavated during on- or off-Site remedy(based on performance during pilot tests orconstruction and/or regrading. Outside thetreatability studies); barrier wall, surface regrading and covers will Ex-situ S/S of excess soil for use as a base eliminate potential exposure to soil withlayer in cover design; contaminant concentrations exceeding cleanup Surface grading and covering for most of the goals. Manual DNAPL recovery will continueSite with installation of storm waterat five source area wells in the Upper Hawthorncontrols;and operation of a modified version of the Continued operation of the Surficial Aquifer Surficial Aquifer groundwater extraction systemextraction and treatment system until such will continue until it is no longer needed.time as cleanup goals are consistently andcontinually met, then shutdown of this This alternative includes the followingsystem;components: Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HGA single encircling vertical barrier wallmonitoring network for: (1) establishment ofaround all four source areas to the HGsentinel locations, (2) demonstration ofmiddle clay;active natural attenuation processes; and (3)19 20. ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied atISBS treatment at the base of the Upper HG. existing Lower HG wells in source areasExcess soil will be used as fill in the soil (based on performance during pilot tests orconsolidation area. ChemOx or ISBS treatment treatability studies); will be applied at existing Lower HG wells in Establishment of a capped soil-consolidation source areas. As a contingency, ChemOx will area;be injected if necessary to remediate Surface grading and covering for most of the groundwater impacts in the HG. . Site with installation of storm water controls;The barrier wall will limit groundwater inflow Continued operation of the northernto (and outflow from) DNAPL-impacted areas. perimeter wells of the Surficial Aquifer A capped soil-consolidation area will be extraction and treatment system until such established inside the barrier-wall for excavated time as cleanup goals are consistently and soil. Outside the barrier wall, surface regrading continually met, then shutdown of theseand covers will eliminate potential exposure to wells; soil above cleanup goals. ISBS injections will Continued operation of the horizontalbe placed into the Upper HG (subject to collection drains of the Surficial Aquifer acceptable performance during pilot tests or extraction and treatment system as neededtreatability studies) to treat DNAPL and reduce for hydraulic control; COC mobility. Operation of a modified version Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HGof the Surficial Aquifer groundwater extraction monitoring network to: (1) establish sentinelsystem will continue until it is no longer needed. locations; (2) demonstrate active natural attenuation, and (3) establish trigger This alternative includes the following locations for contingency measures;components: Continued Manual DNAPL recovery at A single encircling vertical barrier wall wells HG-16S, HG-10S, HG-12S, HG-15S, around all four source areas to the HG and HG-11S; and middle clay; Institutional controls to mitigate risks fromEstablishment of a capped soil-consolidation exposure to Site soil, sediment, surfacearea; water or groundwater.ISBS in the Upper HG at each source area (subject to acceptable performance during OnR-5B: Containment/Treatment Barrierpilot tests or treatability studies); Wall plus In Situ Biogeochemical ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied at Stabilization in the Upper Hawthorn existing Lower HG wells in source areas Estimated Capital Cost: $ 18.0M (based on acceptable performance during Approximate Annual OM&M: $ 165,000pilot tests or treatability studies); Total Net Present Value: $ 20.9M Surface grading and covering for most of the Estimated Construction Timeframe: 16 months Site with installation of storm water Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several years controls; ARAR: chemical-specific, action-specific and Continued operation of the northern location-specific ARARs met with this perimeter wells of the Surficial Aquifer alternative.extraction and treatment system until such time as cleanup goals are consistently and This alternative is a combination of containmentcontinually met, then shutdown of these and treatment remedies and includes installing awells; barrier wall around the DNAPL source areas toContinued operation of the horizontal the top of the middle clay unit of the HG and collection drains of the Surficial Aquifer 20 21. extraction and treatment system as needed DNAPL and reduce COC mobility. Operation for hydraulic control;of a modified version of the Surficial Aquifer Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HG groundwater extraction system will continue monitoring network for (1) establishment of until it is no longer needed. Note that the only sentinel locations, (2) demonstration ofdifference between Alternatives OnR-5B and active natural attenuation, and (3) OnR-5C is the depth of the ISBS treatment. establishment of trigger locations forThis alternative includes the following contingency measures; components: Institutional controls to mitigate risks from A single encircling vertical barrier wall exposure to Site soil, sediment, surfacearound all four source areas to the HG water or groundwater. middle clay; Establishment of a capped soil-consolidation OnR-5C: Containment/Treatment Barrier area; Wall plus In Situ Biogeochemical ISBS in the Surficial Aquifer at each source Stabilization in the Surficial Aquiferarea (subject to acceptable performance Capital Cost and Contingency: $ 18.1M during pilot tests or treatability studies); Annual O&M: $ 181,000 ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied at Total Present Worth: $ 21.3Mexisting Lower HG wells in source areas Estimated Construction Timeframe: 16 months (based on acceptable performance during Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several years pilot tests or treatability studies); ARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific and Surface grading and covering for most of the location-specific ARARs met with this Site with installation of storm water alternative.controls; Continued operation of the northern This alternative is a combination of containmentperimeter wells of the Surficial Aquifer and treatment remedies and includes installing aextraction and treatment system until such barrier wall around the DNAPL source areas to time as cleanup goals are consistently and the top of the middle clay unit of the HG and continually met, then shutdown of these ISBS treatment of the Surficial Aquifer inwells; source areas. The excess soil will be used as fill Continued operation of the horizontal in the soil consolidation area. ChemOx or ISBScollection drains of the Surficial Aquifer treatment will be applied at existing Lower HGextraction and treatment system as needed wells in source areas. As a contingency,for hydraulic control; ChemOx will be injected if necessary to Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HG remediate groundwater impacts in the HG.monitoring network for: (1) establishment of sentinel locations; (2) demonstration of The barrier wall will limit groundwater inflowactive natural attenuation processes; and (3) to, and outflow from, DNAPL-impacted areas. establishment of trigger locations for A capped soil-consolidation area will becontingency measures; established inside the barrier-wall extents for Continued Manual DNAPL recovery at excavated soil. Outside the barrier wall, surface wells HG-16S, HG-10S, HG-12S, HG-15S, regrading and covers will eliminate potential and HG-11S; and exposure to soil with contaminant Institutional controls to mitigate risks from concentrations above cleanup goals. ISBSexposure to Site soil, sediment, surface injections will be placed into the Surficialwater or groundwater. Aquifer (based on acceptable performance during pilot tests or treatability studies) to treat21 22. OnR-5D: Containment/Treatment Barrier ISS/S to the upper clay unit of the HG in the Wall plus In Situ Solidification/ Stabilization four source areas; in the Surficial Aquifer ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied at Capital Cost and Contingency: $ 35.7M existing Upper and Lower HG wells in Annual O&M: $ 165,000 source areas; Total Present Worth: $ 38.7M Establishment of a capped soil-consolidation Estimated Construction Timeframe: 2.5 years area; Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several years Surface grading and covering for most of the ARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific and Site with installation of storm water location-specific ARARs met with this controls; alternative. Continued operation of the northern perimeter wells of the Surficial Aquifer This alternative is a combination of containmentextraction and treatment system until such and treatment technologies and includes time as cleanup goals are consistently and installing a barrier wall around the DNAPLcontinually met, then shutdown of these source areas to the top of the middle clay unit ofwells; the HG and ISS/S treatment of the Surficial Continued operation of the horizontal Aquifer. Excess soil will be used as fill in thecollection drains of the Surficial Aquifer soil consolidation area. ChemOx or ISBS extraction and treatment system as needed treatment will be applied at existing Upper and for hydraulic control; Lower HG wells in source areas. As a Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HG contingency, ChemOx will be injected if monitoring network for: (1) establishment of necessary to remediate groundwater impacts in sentinel locations,;(2) demonstration of the HG. active natural attenuation processes; and (3) establishment of trigger locations for The barrier wall will limit groundwater inflowcontingency measures; and to, and outflow from, DNAPL-impacted areas. Institutional controls to mitigate risks from A capped soil-consolidation area will beexposure to Site soil, sediment, surface established inside the barrier-wall extents for water or groundwater. excavated soil and excess soil from ISS/S implementation. Outside the barrier wall, OnR-5E: Containment/Treatment Barrier surface regrading and covers will eliminate Wall plus In Situ Biogeochemical potential exposure to soil with contaminant Stabilization in the Surficial Aquifer and concentrations that result in estimated potential Upper Hawthorn risks that exceed applicable risk limits. ISS/S Capital Cost and Contingency: $ 26.1M mixing will take place in the Surficial Aquifer toAnnual O&M: $ 165,000 treat DNAPL and reduce COC mobility.Total Present Worth: $ 29.1M Operation of a modified version of the SurficialEstimated Construction Timeframe: 2 years Aquifer groundwater extraction system willEstimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several years continue until it is no longer needed.ARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific and location-specific ARARs met with this This alternative includes the following alternative. components: A single encircling vertical barrier wallThis alternative is a combination of containmentaround all four source areas to the HG and treatment technologies and includesmiddle clay; installing a barrier wall around the DNAPL source areas to the top of the middle clay unit of22 23. the HG and ISBS treatment of the Surficial extraction and treatment system until such Aquifer and Upper Hawthorn in source areas.time as cleanup goals are consistently and Excess soil will be used as fill in the soil continually met, then shutdown of these consolidation area. ChemOx or ISBS treatment wells; will be applied at existing Lower Hawthorn Continued operation of the horizontal wells in source areas. As a contingency, collection drains of the Surficial Aquifer ChemOx will be injected if necessary toextraction and treatment system as needed remediate groundwater impacts in the HG. for hydraulic control; Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HG The barrier wall will limit groundwater inflow monitoring network for: (1) establishment of to, and outflow from, DNAPL-impacted areas.sentinel locations; (2) demonstration of A capped soil-consolidation area will be active natural attenuation processes; and (3) established inside the barrier-wall for excavatedestablishment of trigger locations for soil. Outside the barrier wall, surface regradingcontingency measures; and covers will eliminate potential exposure to Institutional controls to mitigate risks from soil with contaminant concentrations above exposure to Site soil, sediment, surface cleanup goals. ISBS injections will be placedwater or groundwater. into the Surficial Aquifer and Upper HG (subject to acceptable performance during pilotOnR-5F: Containment/Treatment Barrier tests or treatability studies) to treat DNAPL andWall plus In Situ Solidification/Stabilization reduce COC mobility. Operation of a modified in the Surficial Aquifer and Upper Hawthorn version of the Surficial Aquifer groundwater Capital Cost and Contingency: $ 71.8M extraction system will continue until it is no Annual O&M: $ 165,000 longer needed. Note that the only difference Total Present Worth: $ 74.8M between OnR-5E and remedies OnR-5B and Estimated Construction Timeframe: 3 years OnR-5C is the depth of the ISBS treatment. Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several yearsARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific and This alternative includes the followinglocation-specific ARARs met with this components:alternative. A single encircling vertical barrier wallaround all four source areas to the HGThis alternative is a combination of containmentmiddle clay;and treatment technologies and includes Establishment of a capped soil-consolidationinstalling a barrier wall around the DNAPLarea; source areas to the top of the middle clay unit of ISBS in the Surficial Aquifer and Upper the HG and ISS/S treatment of the SurficialHawthorn at each source area (based onAquifer and Upper Hawthorn. Excess soil willperformance during pilot tests or treatabilitybe used as fill in the soil consolidation area.studies); ChemOx or ISBS treatment will be applied at ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied at existing Lower Hawthorn wells in source areas.existing Lower Hawthorn wells in source As a contingency, ChemOx will be injected ifareas (based on acceptable performancenecessary to remediate groundwater impacts induring pilot tests or treatability studies);the HG. Surface grading and covering for most of theSite with installation of storm water The barrier wall will limit groundwater inflowcontrols; to, and outflow from, DNAPL-impacted areas. Continued operation of the northern A capped soil-consolidation area will beperimeter wells of the Surficial Aquiferestablished inside the barrier-wall for excavated 23 24. soil and excess soil from ISS/S implementation. OnR-5G: Containment/Treatment Barrier Outside the barrier wall, surface regrading and Wall plus In Situ Solidification/Stabilization covers will eliminate potential exposure to soilin the Surficial Aquifer and In Situ with contaminant concentrations above cleanup Biogeochemical Stabilization in the Upper goals. ISS/S mixing will take place in theHawthorn Surficial Aquifer and Upper HG to treat Capital Cost and Contingency: $ 40.7M DNAPL and reduce COC mobility. OperationAnnual O&M: $ 165,000 of a modified version of the Surficial AquiferTotal Present Worth: $ 43.6M groundwater extraction system will continue Estimated Construction Timeframe: 3 years until it is no longer needed. Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: several years ARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific and This alternative includes the following location-specific ARARs met with this components: alternative. A single encircling vertical barrier wallaround all four source areas to the HG This alternative is a combination of containmentmiddle clay; and treatment technologies and includes ISS/S to the middle clay unit of the HG in installing a barrier wall around the DNAPLthe four source areas; source areas to the top of the middle clay unit of ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied atthe HG, ISS/S treatment of the Surficialexisting Lower Hawthorn wells in sourceAquifer, and ISBS treatment of the Upperareas (based on performance during pilot Hawthorn. Excess soil will be used as fill in thetests or treatability studies);soil consolidation area. ChemOx or ISBS Establishment of a capped soil-consolidation treatment will be applied at existing Lowerarea;Hawthorn wells in source areas. As a Surface grading and covering for most of the contingency, ChemOx will be injected ifSite with installation of storm waternecessary to remediate groundwater impacts incontrols;the HG. Continued operation of the northernperimeter wells of the Surficial Aquifer The barrier wall will limit groundwater inflowextraction and treatment system until such to, and outflow from, DNAPL-impacted areas.time as cleanup goals are consistently and A capped soil-consolidation area will becontinually met, then shutdown of theseestablished inside the barrier-wall extents forwells; excavated soil and excess soil from ISS/S Continued operation of the horizontalimplementation. Outside the barrier wall,collection drains of the Surficial Aquifer surface regrading and covers will eliminateextraction and treatment system as neededpotential exposure to soil with contaminantfor hydraulic control; concentrations that result in estimated potential Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HGrisks that exceed applicable risk limits. ISS/Smonitoring network for: (1) establishment of mixing will take place in the Surficial Aquifer tosentinel locations; (2) demonstration of treat DNAPL and reduce COC mobility. ISBSactive natural attenuation processes; and (3)injections will be placed into the Upper HGestablishment of trigger locations for (subject to acceptable performance during pilotcontingency measures; andtests or treatability studies) in source areas to Institutional controls to mitigate risks fromtreat mass in that unit and create a barrier toexposure to Site soil, sediment, surface vertical flow. The combination of ISS/S andwater or groundwater.ISBS is similar to alternative OnR-4B. 24 25. Operation of a modified version of the Surficialthe three elements eliminates the potential Aquifer groundwater extraction system willexposure pathway and achieves the goal of continue until it is no longer needed.mitigating the environmental hazard. The other goal required by CERCLA is restoration of the This alternative includes the following resource to the maximum extent practicable components: within a reasonable timeframe. Two viable A single encircling vertical barrier wallapproaches meet these goals:around all four source areas to the HGmiddle clay; Treating UFA groundwater in-situ or ex- ISS/S to the upper clay unit of the HG in thesitu.four source areas; Removing the groundwater migration ISBS in the Upper HG in the four sourcepathway. Currently, the potential migrationareas (below the treated ISS/S soil) (subjectpathways from the Surficial Aquifer to theto acceptable performance during pilot tests UFA are not known definitively.or treatability studies); ChemOx or ISBS treatment applied atThe most viable strategy for addressing theexisting Lower HG wells in source areasUFA groundwater impacts is in-situ treatment(subject to acceptable performance during(including natural attenuation processes) or ex-pilot tests or treatability studies);situ treatment of groundwater with elevated Establishment of a capped soil-consolidation levels of contaminants.area; Surface grading and covering for most of the Sentinel wells will be established in the UFA toSite with installation of storm waterensure that groundwater concentrations do notcontrols;exceed Federal drinking-water standards at Continued operation of the northernpoints outside of areas where waste is managedperimeter wells of the Surficial Aquifer in place (e.g. outside the vertical barrierextraction and treatment system for a period containment zone).of time, then shutdown of these wells; Continued operation of the horizontalUFA-1: No Actioncollection drains of the Surficial Aquifer Total Net Present Value: $ minimalextraction and treatment system as neededEstimated Construction Timeframe: Nonefor hydraulic control; Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: > 100 years Expansion of the Surficial Aquifer and HGARARs: None.monitoring network for (1) establishment ofsentinel locations, (2) demonstration of Regulations governing the Superfund programactive natural attenuation processes, and (3)generally require the No Action alternative beestablishment of trigger locations for considered. The No Action alternative is usedcontingency measures; andas a baseline to compare other alternatives. Institutional controls to mitigate risks fromUnder the No Action alternative, the existingexposure to Site soil, sediment, surface groundwater monitoring in the UFA wouldwater or groundwater.cease. There would be no restrictions on groundwater use, and no monitoring would be Upper Floridan Aquifer Remedies performed to evaluate whether contaminant The potential risk associated with impacted concentrations above the cleanup goals were UFA groundwater is addressed by disrupting themigrating beyond the containment area. This linkage between contaminant, transportalternative is retained as a basis for comparison pathway, and receptor. Removing any one of25 26. of risk reduction using remediation Evaluation and demonstration of natural technologies. attenuation processes occurring in the UF aquifer, in support of active remedial action. UFA-2: Hydraulic Containment Additional in situ remedial actions if the supplemented by Institutional Controls andprimary remedy components (i.e., hydraulic Monitored Natural Attenuation containment, institutional controls, and Annual O&M: $ 100,000 supplemental MNA) do not adequately Total Present Worth: $ 1.5M address contamination in the UF aquifer. Estimated Construction Timeframe: < 1 year Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: many yearsOff-Site Remedies ARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific and Off-Site Soils posing an unacceptable risk will location-specific ARARs met with this be addressed by removing potentially complete alternative.exposure pathways. Removing one of the links in the exposure pathway chain mitigates the This remedy consists of a combination of twoenvironmental hazard. To achieve the remedial technologies: (1) targeted groundwateraction objectives, any of the following could be extraction for groundwater containing higherdone to disrupt the potential exposure pathway: and more persistent contaminant concentrations; and (2) institutional controls and natural1. Treating contaminants in surface soil in-situ attenuation (for relatively low and isolated or ex-situ. concentrations exceeding GCTLs or the MCL 2. Covering impacted soil in place with an [benzene only]). Furthermore, if contaminant engineered cover or preventing activities concentrations in UFA groundwater reachthat may result in exposure through an pertinent action levels, additional in situ remedy engineered control, such as a fence. actions will be initiated.3. Change land use to prevent contact withimpacted soil. This alternative includes the following components: All of these possible strategies are potentially Continuation of quarterly collection ofpractical approaches for certain off-Site areas,groundwater samples from monitor wells,depending on land use, property-ownerand analysis of samples for Site-related preferences, and estimated potential risks. Landorganic contaminants;use surrounding the Site consists of both Continuation/expansion of the UFAresidential and commercial properties. Floridagroundwater extraction/ex-situ treatment risk-based corrective action (RBCA) standardssystem, initially using existing wells FW-6allow for a combination of approaches forand FW-21B, along with the recently- eliminating potential exposures to contaminantsinstalled extraction well FW-31BE (nearin off-Site soils.FW-22B); As needed, installation of additional high The total area and volume of off-Site surfacecapacity groundwater extraction wells forsoil requiring remediation is still beinginclusion in the UFA groundwater determined through ongoing sampling.extraction/ex-situ treatment system to Therefore, the descriptions of off-Site remediesestablish/maintain containment; andare conceptual in nature, allowing flexibility in Institutional controls to prevent UFAthe actual extent of properties to be remediated.groundwater extraction for potable use at theSite or anywhere where cleanup goals for For areas identified requiring remediation, eachSite-related contaminants are exceeded.affected private property owner will be26 27. contacted by the PRP to discuss the best OfR-3: Institutional and Engineering approaches to address the soil impacts on theirControls private property.Cost and Timeframe: Since soil volume and theOfR-1: No Actionspecific approach chosen by property owners Total Net Present Value: $ minimal are unknown at this time, cost and remediation Estimated Construction Timeframe: None timeframe for this alternative are unknown. This Estimated Time to Achieve RAOs: > 100 yearsportion of the overall Site remedy is being ARAR: None.expedited.ARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific, and Regulations governing the Superfund programlocation-specific ARARs are met with this generally require the No Action alternative be alternative. considered. The No Action alternative is used as a baseline to compare other alternatives. This remedy includes administrative and/or Under the No Action alternative, there would beengineering actions intended to prevent no restrictions on land-use in the residential areaexposure to impacted soil. Both institutional west of the facility, and no actions would beand engineering controls would be applied in a implemented to mitigate contaminantway that reduces or eliminates exposure to concentrations in the soil. This alternative issurface soil in the affected area. included as a baseline to evaluate other alternatives. Since the alternative does not The components of this remedy are (1) address the risks posed by the soil, it is not a institutional controls designed to prevent people viable option. from using or disturbing soil posing potentiallyunacceptable risk and (2) engineering controls OfR-2: Remove Impacted Soilto prevent receptors from potentially contacting Cost and Timeframe: Since soil volume and theimpacted soil. specific approach chosen by property owners are unknown at this time, cost and remediation OfR-4: Removal, Institutional Controls, timeframe for this alternative are unknown.and/or Engineering Controls (Hybrid) This portion of the overall Site remedy is being Cost and Timeframe: Since soil volume and the expedited. specific approach chosen by property owners ARARs: chemical-specific and location-specific are unknown at this time, cost and remediation ARARs are met with this alternative. timeframe for this alternative are unknown. Thisportion of the overall Site remedy is being This remedy consists of excavating the surface expedited. soil in areas surrounding the Site determined to ARARs: chemical-specific, action-specific, and exceed Floridas allowable risk limit or the location-specific ARARs are met with this default SCTLs and replacement with clean fill; alternative. and revegetation.This remedy consists of a combination of Excavated soil may be addressed in one of threetargeted soil excavation and application of ways: (1) excavated soil may be transported off- engineering and administrative controls. The Site to a permitted disposal facility; (2) distinction between soil to be excavated and soil excavated soil may be consolidated with on-Siteto be addressed by institutional and engineering soil and covered under the engineered covercontrols will be based on contaminant within the facility property; and (3) excavatedconcentration(s), and parcel land use (present soil may be used as raw material for and future). This strategy allows maximum constructing the on-Site engineered surface cap. flexibility in applying excavation or controls to 27 28. soils that do not meet Floridas allowable risk mobility, or volume; and (4) short-term (1X10-6) or default SCTLs.effectiveness. The fifth primary balancing criterion, cost, is evaluated based on cost The components of this remedy include (1) estimates excavation of surface soil, (2) institutional controls on properties and areas not excavated, 3. Long-Term Effectiveness and/or (3) engineering controls that act as A remedial action will be effective in the long physical barriers to contacting impacted soil.term if it results in permanent reductions of potential risk to acceptable levels. Potential risk Alternative Evaluationreduction may occur by eliminating potential Superfunds nine criteria are used to evaluateexposure to impacted media, preventing different remediation alternatives individually potential migration of COCs in groundwater, and against one another in order to select aand eliminating principle threat sources (e.g. remedy. This section of the Plan profiles the DNAPL) downward movement. relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria, noting how it compares toIn comparing on-Site remedies for effectiveness other options under consideration. The nine in the long-term, the most protective alternatives evaluation criteria are discussed below. To becombine containment and treatment retained as a viable alternative, the two components: OnR-5B, OnR-5C, OnR-5D, OnR- threshold criteria must be met. Alternatives5E, OnR-5F, and OnR-5G. Alternatives with were evaluated by the degree and certainty to single remedy components such as removal, which the criteria are met through assessment oftreatment, or containment are rated as less specific objectives for each of the first fourprotective in the long-term: OnR-3A, OnR-3B, balancing criteria. Finally, the two modifyingOnR-4A, OnR-4B, and OnR-5A. Alternative criteria of State and community acceptance areOnR-2 is protective with limitations, and the No being evaluated through the public involvementAction alternative is not effective. of this Proposed Plan. A detailed analysis of alternatives, as well as information about the4. Implementability evaluation process can be found in the FS.Implementing remedial alternatives involves design, planning, construction or installation, On-Site Alternative Evaluationand operation of the various components of 1 and 2. Protection of Human Health and the remedial actions. The efficiency with which an Environment and Compliance with Statutory alternative can be installed and operated affects Requirementshow well an alternative achieves its level of The two threshold CERCLA criteria are:protection (the first threshold criterion) and Protection of Human Health and theattains ARARs (the second threshold criterion). Environment and Compliance with ARARs.In some cases, implementation of the alternative could be technically difficult or impossible Nine of the ten on-Site alternatives are expected given Site-specific limitations. to meet the two threshold CERCLA criteria. Only the No-Action Alternative (Alternative A remedial alternative is judged to be SWA-1) would fail to meet these mandatory implementable if it ranks highly for the criteria. The other nine alternatives (Alternativefollowing seven objectives: SWA-2 through Alternative SWA-5D) are Constructability; compared using four of the five primary Ease of operation and maintenance; balancing criteria: (1) long-term effectiveness; Reliability of technologies; (2) implementability; (3) reduction of toxicity,28 29. Ease of undertaking additional remedial actions if necessary; Alternatives that result in removal of the largest Ability to monitor remediationmass of contaminated media achieve the effectiveness;greatest reduction in TMV. Alternative OnR- Ability to obtain technology-implementation 3B would result in nearly all on-Site approvals (e.g., confirmation thatcontaminant mass being treated. A great substantive permit requirements have been majority of contaminated mass would be treated met) from regulatory agencies as necessary; with alternatives OnR-4A, OnR-4B, OnR-5E, and OnR-5F, and OnR-5G. A lesser volume of Availability of services and materials. contaminated mass would be treated with alternatives OnR-3A, OnR-5C, and OnR-5D. The most implementable alternatives are OnR-2,Only some of the contaminant mass would be OnR-5A, OnR-5B, OnR-5C, and OnR-5E. treated with OnR-5B, and minor amounts would These are primarily the most easily be reduced through natural processes with OnR- implemented alternatives because they are in- 2 and OnR-5A. situ technologies and because ISBS is more easily implemented than ISS/S. The following6. Short-Term Effectiveness in-situ alternatives are rated the next mostShort-term effectiveness of remedial alternatives implementable: OnR-4A, OnR-4B, OnR-5D,relates to how well an alternative achieves a OnR-5F, and OnR-5G. Alternatives requiringlevel of protection of human health and the soil removal are more challenging: OnR-3A and environment (the first threshold criterion) and OnR-3B. attains ARARs (the second threshold criterion) during implementation or installation of the 5. Reduce Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume remedial alternative. Alternatives that reduce mobility, toxicity, and volume (TMV) in some way must (a) slow theShort-term effectiveness is evaluated by migration of contaminants by lowering considering the following four objectives: concentration gradients within the media, or Protection of the community during increase the strength of attachment to someremediation; solid substrate; (b) chemically alter the toxicity Protection of remediation workers during characteristics of the original contaminant or remediation; prevent receptors from being exposed to toxic Protection against short-term environmental doses of the contaminant; and (c) reduce the impacts; and mass of contaminant(s) or the volume of Minimization of time to complete remedy environmental media associated with theconstruction. contaminant(s). Continuing current actions (OnR-2) with soil Three objectives are used to evaluate eachregarding/cover would be implemented the most alternative with respect to reduction of TMVquickly. Alternative OnR-5A would be through treatment:effective the next most quickly and alternatives Volume of potential source material treated onR-5B and OnR-5C would be effective within or destroyed (and degree of TMV months. Alternatives OnR-3A, OnR-4B, OnR- reduction); 5D, and OnR-5G would require a lengthy Irreversibility of treatment; and implementation time before being effective. Minimization of treatment residuals posingAlternatives OnR-3B, OnR-4A, OnR-5E, and potential risks.OnR-5F require the longest implementation times before they are effective.29 30. 7. Cost supplemented by institutional controls and Cost is an important factor; the added benefits MNA, meets the two threshold CERCLA of alternatives with higher costs should be criteria. It is assumed that Alternative UFA-2 is weighed carefully to determine whether theselected as the remedial alternative for the UFA. benefits are worth the cost. 3. Long-Term Effectiveness The No Action alternative is not included in this The more effective of the two UF alternatives analysis because, although it represents the(in the long-term) is UFA-2. It consists of lowest cost alternative, it provides no protectionhydraulic containment (to prevent expansion of to receptors and achieves no RAOs. The lowest the plume of dissolved contaminants) and cost alternative is OnR-2 (continue with currenttreatment (of recovered groundwater to meet actions with soil regrading/cover). Althoughdisposal requirements). Hydraulic containment this alternative cost is the lowest, it is not as and treatment will be evaluated for effect

Popular Tags:
of 36/36
go 1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN CABOT CARBON/KOPPERS SUPERFUND SITE Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida July 2010 This document has been prepared to provide the general public with an understanding of the activities that have been occurring at the Cabot Carbon/Koppers Site. For technical information, please review the documents in the Administrative Record located at the information repositories. Introduction The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing this Proposed Plan (Plan) for the environmental cleanup at the Koppers portion of the Cabot Carbon/Koppers Superfund Site in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. This Proposed Plan identifies the preferred alternative for cleaning up the Koppers Site and provides rationale for this preference. It includes summaries of other remedial alternatives evaluated and the findings in the Remedial Investigation (RI), Baseline Risk Assessments, a new (2010) Feasibility Study (FS), and other documents included in the Administrative Record. EPA is issuing this Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 300.430(f)(2), of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This document is issued by EPA, the lead agency for Site activities. EPA, with support from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), will select a final remedy for the Site after reviewing and considering all information submitted during the 30-day public comment period. Public participation is an important part of the Site cleanup decision process. Based on public comments, EPA, along with FDEP, may modify the preferred alternative or select another alternative presented in this Plan. Public Comment Period July 15, 2010 to August 15, 2010 Public Meeting Date: August 5, 2010 Time: 6:00-8:00 p.m. Location: Stephen Foster Elementary School 3800 Northwest 6 th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 The community is invited to a public meeting where EPA will present its understanding of Site conditions, alternatives evaluated in the Feasibility Study, and provide its rationale for the preferred alternative presented in this Plan. In addition, this meeting provides the community with an opportunity to ask EPA questions about the preferred alternative or Site activities and finding. The Administrative Record file for the Cabot Carbon/Koppers Site is available at the following location: Alachua County Library 401 E. University Ave. Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 334-3900 www.aclib.us/locations/headquarters Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and comment on the cleanup alternatives presented in this Plan.
Embed Size (px)
Recommended