United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-88/041
September 1988
Superfiand
Record of Decision
Flowood, MS
-------
50272. 101
REPORT ~~MENTATION r1.-REpORT ;;'A/ROD/R04-88/041
, 2.
3. Recipient"s Accession No.
.. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Flowood, MS
First Remedial Action - Final
7. AuthorCs)
5. Repart Date
09/30/88
6.
8. Performina Oraanization Rept. No.
12. Spanso,ina Orsanization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. . 20460
Agency
I
_J
i
I
----I
I
,
CG) \'
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
,
\
- -- ---
9. Performina Oraanization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. ContractCC) or GrantCG) No.
CC)
800/000
1..
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (limit: 200 words)
The Flowood site consists of 225 acres of mostly wetlands and lowlands, is located in
the Town of Flowood, Rankin County, Mississippi, on the east side of the Pearl River.
The site includes wastewater discharge areas and downstream areas adjacent to two.
industrial manufacturing facilities. The immediate area of the site includes a
borrow-pit, a slough or canal used as a discharge area, a flood levee, and a cow pasture
with an area of ponded water. The site is bordered to the north and east by various
industrial and commerical operations, while forested areas are located west of the
site. The nearest residence is more than 0.5 mile south of the site. Two manufacturing
facilities have been owned and operated by a series of companies at the Flowood site
since the 19505. The northernmost facility manufactured corrugated boxes, and the
southernmost facility produced ceramic tiles through the 1970s and stoneware cooking
pots from the mid-1970s to the present. A routine industrial wastewater inspection
conducted by the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in the fall of 1982
revealed the unpermitted discharge of hazardous substances to the onsite can31.
Subsequent sampling detected lead contamination in water and sediments from the canal.
The MDNR began an emergency treatment and removal process to address the contaminated
wastewater, but discontinued the process when higher levels of lead were found in the
(See Attached Sheet)
17 Rg~8't'~t ~ralffi!c ts P5WrlptOA
Flowood, MS
First Remedial Action - Final
contaminated Media: soil, sediments
Key Contaminants: lead
b. Identlfie,,/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
21. No. of Pases
45
------ --
I
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
20. Security Class (This Pase)
None
22. Price
See Instructions on Raverse
OPTIONAL fORM 272" (4-77\
(formerly NTI5-3SJ
Department 0' Commerce.
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-88/041
Flowood, MS
First Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
canal adjacent to one of the manufacturing sites. In 1983, EPA investigations
high lead levels in onsite sludges, sediments, and surface soil. The primary
contaminant affecting the soil and sediments is lead.
revealed
The selected remedial action for this site includes: excavation and
stabilization/solidification through chemical fixation of approximately 6,000 yd3 of
soil and sediments from all contaminated areas, followed" by placement of the treated
material in the excavated slough/lagoon area, capping with clean top soil and seeding to
provide a vegetative cover; and ground water monitoring. The estimated present worth
cost of this remedial action is $2,000,000 with a first year O&M cost of $25,000.
-------
DECLARATION-FOR THE RECORD
OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Flowood
Flowood, Rankin County, Mississippi
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document represents the selected remedial action for the
. Flowood site in Flowood, Mississippi, developed in accordance with the
comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the SUperfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act Of 1986 (SARA) 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 ~ ~., and to the extent
practiCable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 CFR Part 300.
STATEMENT OF BASIS.
This decision is based upon documents which make up the site
administrative record. The attached index identifies items which comprise
the administrative record.
The State of Mississippi has concurred on the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
I
'!he selected remedy involves gro\IDdwater monitoring and the excavation and
stabilization/solidification o"f contaminated soils from the following
contiguous areas:
- hot spot in Lake Marie
- sediments from wash area
- cow pasture ponded area
- slough/lagoon area
and drainage ditches
The treated soil will be backfilled into the slough/lagoon area and capped
as necessary with clean fill. The selected remedy is the final remedial.
action for the site.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attains federal and state requirements. that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate, and is cost-effective. This remedy satisfies the preference
for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element. Finally, it is detennined that this remedy utilizes a permanent
solution and alternative treatment technology to the maximum extent
practicable. .
Q~fn --rJtw '
h GREER C. TIDWELL, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
9- 30 -ff"
DATE
~ . h' - -. --
- --- - -.
-------
DECLARATION" FOR THE RECORD
OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Flowood
Flowood, Rankin County, Mississippi
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
This decision document represents the selected remedial action for the
. Flowocx:i site in Flowood, Mississippi, developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa.tion and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the SUperfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act Of 1986 (SARA). 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 gt ~.; and to the extent
practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 CFR Part 300.
STATEMENT OF BASIS
This decision is based upon documents which make up the site
adminiStrative record. The attached index ideniliies items which comprise
the administrative record. .
The State of Mississippi has concurred on the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
I
'n1e selected remedy involves groundwater monitoring and the excavation and
stabilization/solidification Of contaminated soils from .the following
contiguous areas:
- hot spot in Lake Marie
- sediments from wash area
- cow pasture ponded area
- slough/lagoon area
and drainage ditches
The treated soil will be backfilled into the slough/lagoon area and. capped
as necessary with clean fill. The selected remedy is the final remedial
action for the site.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attains federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate, and is cOSt-effective. This remedy satisfies the preference
for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element. Finally, it is detennined that this remedy utilizes a permanent
solution and alternative treatment technology to the maximum extent
practicable.
Q~m~
~ GREER C. TIDWELL, REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
9-!'O-ff
DATE
-------
SUMMARY. OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
FLOWOOD SITE
FLOWOOD, RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.
PREPARED BY:
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION. IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
-~. ~
~. --~----,-.- -
--.-. ---.- ---
-------
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 'Site Location And Description. . . . .
1. 2 Site History. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .1
. . . . . .1
. . . . . .2
. . . . .
2.0
Enforcement Analysis.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
3.0
Current Site Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
3.1 Hydrogeolic Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
3.2 Site Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
3.2.1 Soil Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
3.2.2 Sediment Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
3.2.3 Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
3.2.4 Ground Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
3.2.5 Biota Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
4.0
Summary of Site Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
4. 1 Exposure Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
4.2 Toxcity Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
4.3 Summary of Risk Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Summary of Environmental Risks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Clean-up Criteria. . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
5.1 Soil/sediment Remediation. . . . . . . .
5.2 Surface Water Remediation. . . . . . .
5.3 Ground Water Remediation. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .8
. . . . . . . . . .8
. . . . . . . .8
. . . . . . . . . .8
Alternati ves Evaluation. . . . . .
6.1 Alternatives........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Recommended Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
7.1 Description of Recommended Remedy. . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
7.2 Operation and Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
7.3 Cost of Recommended Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
7.4 preliminary Schedule of Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . .13
7.5 Ccnsistency with other Environmental Laws. . . . . . . . . .13
-
Community Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.1 Community and State Acceptance. . . . .
. . . . . . .14
. . . . . . . . . .15
Appendix A - Responsiveness Summary
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 - Site Location Map.
Figure 1. 2 - Site Area Map
Figure 1. 3 - Property Boundarie$
Figure 3.1 - Waste Deposit Locations
Figure 3.2 - Total Lead Values Shallow Soils
Figure 3.3 - Total Lead Values Intermediate So i Is
Figure 3.4 - Total Lead Values Deep Soils
Figure 3.5 - Lead Concentration In Sediments
Figure 3.6 - Site Drainage Patterns
Figure 3.7 - Lead Concentration In Surface Water
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 -Surface Water Analytical Results
Table 2 -Ground- Water Analytical Results
Table 3 -List Of Potential Applicable Or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARS) .
Table 4 -prelirninary Screening of Treatment and Disposal TechnOlogies
Table 5 -Screening of Remedial Action Alternatives
-". ~ .
- .
-------
ENFORCEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
FLOWOOD SITE
FLOWOOD, RANKIN COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
1.0 Introduction
The Flow()()Q site was proposed for inclusion on the National priorities
List (NPL) in June, 1983 and fonnaUy added to the NPL in September 1984.
The site is listed as No. 97 on the NPL in group two and is the highest
priority site for the state of Mississippi. The Flowood site has been
the subject of a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS)
performed by one of the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP), Marmon
Group, Inc., under an administrative order by consent dated January 3,
1986.. The RI report which examines sediments, soil, surface water and
groundwater contamination at the site was delivered in draft in November
1986. FOllowing review of the results, a determination was made by the
Agency of the need for additional field investigation in order to more
fully characterize the site. The RI was completed (including a addendum
report) in August 1987. The FS which develops and examines alternatives
for remediation of the site was issued in draft form to the public on May
16, 1988.
I
This Record of Decision has been prepared to
"alternative selection process' and to present
alternative.
summarize the remedial
the selected remedial
1.1
Site Location and DescriPtion
The Flowood site is located in the town of F lowood, Rankin County,
Mississippi along Highway 468 on the east side of the Pearl River, east of
Jackson, Mississippi (figure 1.1). The site encompasses approximately 225
acres and consists of mostly wetlands and lowlands of the alluvial plain
of the Pearl River. It is separated from the river by one or both of two
levees, the inner levee immediately adjacent to the manufacturing facility
area and the ring levee to the west.
The site consist of wastewater discharge areas and downstream areas
adjacent to two industrial manufacturing facilities. The immediate area
of the site includes a borrow-pit (Lake Marie), a slough ,or canal used as
a discharge area and other land areas contiguous to the plant sites, and
the cow pasture ponded area (figure 1.2).
Flowood .is an incorporated town with a population of 943 in the 1980
census and an area of approximatelY nineteen square miles within the city
limits. The nearest single residence is more than a half mile south of
-1-
. . - - - ,.
-------
FLOWOOD SITE
AREA LOCATION
FLOWOOD, MISSISSIPPI
ALLEN
THOMPSON
AIRPORT
1-A
-------
FLOWOOD SITE
AREA
SLOUGH/CANAL
AREA
Genarai Location Of
Waste Sediments
l-l
-------
the site, and the closest group of residence is on the opposite side of
Highway 468, almost a mile south of the site. The site is surrounded on
its northern and eastern boundaries by various industrial and commercial
uses while forested areas are located west of the site. Cattle' grazing
areas and automobile scrap yards are alSo located within one mile of the
southern site boundary.
1.2 Site Historv
Two manU£acturing facilities have existed at the Flowood site since at
least the 1940's. The northernmost facility has been operated as a
corrugated box company from the 1950's to present (figure 1.3 area 1).
The Continental Forest Company owned the property from 1956 to 1983 when
the facility was purchased by the present owner, the Stone Container
Corporation. The facility to the south, currently the Rival Manufacturing
Company, (figure 1.3, area 2) was operated for the manu"facturing of
ceramic tiles from the 1950's through the early 1970's. The past owner
was The Marmon Group (figure 1.3, area 2) followed by the manufacture of
stoneware cooking pots from the mid 1970's to the present.
In late 1955, an easement was granted by United Gas Pipe Line Company to
discharg~ wastewater through the inner levee to the canal on the west
side. The United Gas Pipe Line Company are property owners of Area 3
(figure 1.3)
State officials first became aware of the presence of hazardous substances
in the canal during a routine industrial wastewater inspection in the fall
of 1982. At that time, Mississippi Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Industrial Wastewater Section discovered an unpermitted .discharge leading
from a pumping station operated by Continental Forest Products to the
canal. Subsequent sampling of .water and sediment from the canal 'revealed
high levels of Lead contamination, prompting (MDNR) to issue an emergency
permit for treatment and eventual removal of the contaminated wastewater
from the canal in November 1982. This treatment and removal process was
discontinued by MDNR when higher levels of Lead were found in the canal
near the Rival facility.
In January 1983, the site was reported to the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) by the State of Mississippi as being a
hazardous waste site that might require federal assistance. A preliminary
site visit was conducted by a US EPA contractor (NUS) early in 1983
followed by a geophysical survey and borehole sampling study in mid to
late 1983. Lead was found in sludges located in the lagoon or canal to
the west of the inner levee, in the slough south of the lagoon and at
locations within the inner levee west of the Rival facility. Lead was
subsequently found in Lake Marie's water, and in sediments and surface
soils outside and. south of the inner levee. The total Lead content of the
samples taken varied from 94,231 mg/kg in the canal adjacent to the
industry's point of discharge to 14 and 23 mg/kg in the downstream Neely
Creek.
-2-
-------
~----
FLOWOOD STUDY AREA
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
LEGEND
....---~
Approximate Boundary
Cenotes Section of
Ownership
6
4
"
"
It
II
II
I,
I,
/1
." I I
1 I
I'
1
().
~ ,
~ II
J 1
II
II
I
I
I
I , I'
I , I I
I " ","'...'
"I l____- ;,"
I ...
I - ,,"
I / , /
I ~/ ,- ~
'~I ~~
I~- I .~
,/ T 1 ~
,/ Qtt:' 1 ~
I 1 ~
I ~ I ~
I tJ 1 ~
\ 1 ~'" 1 ~
, ,/ ~ \ 5 ~
~ ~ ' ~
\ ' ~
\' *
" ~
,\ :..
,\ " II.
,\ "~
" '\ ~
\ \ ~
\ \
, \
" '
,
,
\
,
,
4
/
WOOOED
AREA
ItASTUft. ""EA
~
. -N-
~
o
sc.....a '
.00
! lien
2-A
8
.~!
o
'.. \....
" \
, "
" ,
, \
, ,
, ,
~
~
-------
.
The site was evaluated using the CERCLA Hazard Ranking System (Mitre
Model), and received a score of 8.27. This site was added as a
"SuperfW1d" project pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 at the request of the
State of Mississippi. EPA and the Marmon Group signed a RI/FS Consent
Agreement on January 1986. The final RI report was issued August 1987 and
the draft FS was released to the pUblic May 1988.
The objective of the site investigation was to further characterize the
site features and contaminants present in order to evaluate potential
impacts to the environment or public health and provide a ba~is for
determination of remedial alternatives under the feasibility study.
The purpose of the feasibility study was to develop and examine remedial
alternatives for the site and to screen these alternatives on the basis of
protection of human health and the environment, cost effectiveness and
technical implementability. In accordance with CERC!,A, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), alternatives
in which treatment would permanently and significantly reduce the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances of the site were
preferred over those alternatives not involving such treatment.
2.0 Enforcement Analvsis
The Flowood site was added to the NFL in September 1984 at the request of
the State of Mississippi, and EPA assumed lead responsibility for the site
at that time. Previous investigations conducted by the. State had
identified the PRPs: Continent,.al Group, Rival Manufacturing and The
Marmon Group, therefore a PRP search was not conducted: Notice Letters
were issued to the PRP's in OCtober 1984 to conduct the RI/FS. United Gas
Pipeline Company was added as a PRP and notified in June 1985 after
receipt of information requested by a Section. 104 CERCLA Information
Request letter. It was. determined that the United Gas Pipeline Company
owned a large portion of the surrounding contaminated property.
Negotiations for the RIIFS Consent Agreement were concluded with the
signing of the document by EPA and The Marmon Group (one of the PRPs) on
January 3, 1986.
3.0 Current Site Status
3.1
HvdroQeoloqic Settinq
The Pearl River alluvial sand, silts and clays are directly beneath the
Flowood site and have a thickness of about 35 feet, followed by the
Cockfield Formation (Eocene). The Cockfield Formation has a total
thickness of about 200 feet and is generally a dark gray, sandy to silty,
lignite and micaceous clay.
-3-
.---.- _. -. _.
'.- ~~ ~- - . -
-------
I -
The shallowest water-bearing zone present at the Flowood site is composed
of al.luvial sands, fotUld at depths from 5 to 10 feet below ground surface.
The gradient is estimated to be 3.4 X 10-3 ft/ft with a groundwater flow
direction to the southwest.
Lake Marie is believed to be a mostly perched water body. It is situated
partially in clayey or silty soils that may serve to confine much of the
lake boundaries. Portions of the lake bottom, however, appear to be in
direct communication with the course grained, sandy soils of the alluvial
aquifer.
. .
Neely Creek to the south of the site is in direct communication with the
alluvial aqulier. Stream flow measurements taken at locations along the
creek and its tributaries averages 1.2 cubic feet per second.
3.2 Site Contamination
The irninediate area of the site includes a borrow pit, called Lake Marie,
various surface drainages, a flood levee (inner levee) and cow pasture
(figure 3.1). Soil, groundwater, surface-water and sediment samples have
been collected in and around each area and analyzed. All samples were
analyzed for inorganic compounds with a selected number of samples
analyzed for organic compounds.
The results of the investigation show that waste sediments containing Lead
are deposited at four areas around the site. While some of these
sediments exhibit Lead extractability under the EP Toxicity test,
analytical results from soil saJnples obtained below. the deposited
materials indicated little Lead migration in the soil.
3.2.1 Soil Data'
Soil sample cOmposites were obtained at various depths at each of the
boring locations around the Flowood site. The primary analyses run on
each of the soil composites were total Lead, EP toxicity Lead and pH.
Selected samples were analyzed for additional inorganic as well as organic
pollutant parameters, including volatile and semivolatile organics,
extractable organics, and pesticides. Samples were collected at three
different intervals, two feet. below ground surface (sediment surface), two
to six feet below ground surface and six. to ten feet below ground
surface. Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4, depict the total Lead concentrations
in the soil. .
3.2.2 Sediment Data
Wastes are Jmown to have. been discharged to the slough or canal on the
west side of the inner levee to Lake Marie, and to the wash area behind
the Rival Manufacturing Company facility (figure 3.5).
In the slough, the waste material itself is underlain by clay or silty
clay. In the southern end of the discharge lagoon, which is north of the
-4-
-------
FIGURE 3. 1
WASTE DEPOSIT
LOCATIONS
SLOUGH/CANAL
AREA
*2000CY
ORAINA_
ITCH/ LMK
ARE
sfiOOOY
4-A
-------
FIGUR: 3.2
TOTAL LEAD VALUES
SHALLOW SOILS
(Composits 0-2')
L-CONTAINfRl—
h _\ \
/ ,' . -
/ / IV''
12 - TOTAt LIAO
(mg/kg)
4-B
-------
FIGURE 3.3
TOTAL LEAD VALUES
INTERMEDIATE SOILS
(Composite 2'-6')
MI-i S.
I'Jtf,... I ._
ji!4« in
/ ''i-—
/ / •••
12-TOTAt LEAC
(mg/kg)
A-C
-------
TOTAL LEAD VALUES
DEEP SOILS
(Composite 6'-10')
I'
/ II
. "
/ \\~
'I
~Y "
~. /,
~ f 1;:/
~V/'I / I
7~ , I II
I , I /
, , / I
/' "" I'
\ -, /'
, ,
/ '::' ,~)
I ' / ,.
I I " ~f
'" '-----,./
I ..a....'
J -,.
I / I /
, ee, I '-
, 0,
J~"'/
,. ~ ,
,. Q~ J
, I
lee,-
I (,j"
J It.~ I
.!\
" "
,
,
\
'.2'
\
,
/
/
~""
...,,,,,,
""":~:"oo
',..
...~
"
"
~
~
4$.~
~
~
\\
~
~~$.O
~
"
WOODED
AREA
I
,
,
\
\
\
\
\
.....
PASTURE AREA
".1
~
-N-
~
o
SC4LI. .
,-.-. ,--- -, .,......_~- ------- ----. ,. --.- ._-
FI Gt: u:
3.4
l
1.1
I'
"
...
.~
7.1
.....
...1
LEGENQ
12-TOT~ L.E"C
(rng/kgl
.00
. 'tn
4-D
.--' .-.'
-------
FIGl'RE 3,5
LEAD CONCENTRATION
.IN SEDIMENTS "
// \1: t ,/~~~:~:,.,~~~ .~~z)(
I' " " --..
#' II \. lie
.l,,~ I, !" ,,=
~- II n , : '..J
I " J." CI
" OI'CHAItGI~' '
~ I, LAGOON ,I
~ ,.. " I
~ 1\" I ,
7 :,' /1 ,... I::
, I I , II .,...
/'_~' '/ ~-
/ ~ ,I, ,., --I ..
I '/~ -;r'i :
/ I' I I -...:I.. \
I , I I '--or .
I ' /..-! I I
/ ,'.. _.....~ ~.
;' ---," --,r.
I - ".J" "
/ ' I , " .. ,.1
I ~/ I, ~ ' II', 0
l"rl ~. ~.
/ ' ~ I oC!'~ I' j I
/"rl ~ .aqo
" "it' I ~ 8LOUG~ I
, """ ~
I I lei / " Of '-r'j
, ,eJl ~ .
,\ I~~I ~ II'
... ...I ~ \ ~ , .l!.'
I ~- , ~ woooeo ". '-.
',8j , "AlilEA. .
\' ~ '. .
", " ..,~
' . . ~
, .... . .\,\:
, ., ~ .. .
" ~.. .,~ ',,< -. - - - --
, \ ,----------------~'~--.----......_-_.. "'..-
, \ I ~AaTUlill AIIII" I "
\ '\ \, \, '....,
\ \, , , \
""', \ \ / ~ \tNa'"
, \ \ \ ...~
\ \ ' ~ ,
, I "... " '"
~ --,~ ~
...... ,
.. I
" I
--- ,
, ,
, ,'1.
... .
'------'
~
-fl-
~
.
ICA&.a .
...
, ,..-r
t.o
LEGEND
Tt7', UNJ ,...,~
4-E
J
-------
ceramic wastewater discharge point, the waste deposit thins out rapidly
and is overlain by layers of black sludge. It is estimated that 2,000
cubic yards of waste sediments are deposited in the slough.
The slough drains into the cow pasture ponded area before reaching Neely
Creek. Samples taken from the ponded area and Neely Creek show Lead
contamination only in the ponded area.
Another area of waste disPosal was by a drainage ditch to the northwest
comer of Lake Marie. In the ditch, waste sediments are evident to a
depth of about two feet. In the lake, the waste sediments are observed to
fan out from the northwest comer of the lake, a distance of approximately
250 feet thinning rapidly from a thickness of about two feet to two tenths
of a foot. It is estimated that 400 cubic yards of waste material is
deposited in and around the ditch leading to the lake and 800 cubic yards.
of waste material is located in the northwest corner of Lake Marie.
The area located on the west side of the back property line of the Rival
facility is less defined in area but is estimated to range in thickness
from one to two feet in the north end down to one feet or less in the
south end of this surface wash area. It is estimated that the volume of
waste material in this area is 700 cubic yards.
3.2.3
Surface Water
The FlowOOd site includes three surface water bodies (figure 3.6) The
first, Lake Marie, and the second, the discharge lagoon, are located
within the immediate site area. The third, Neely Creek, is a receiving
stream for drainage from the/site.
Lake Marie is a borrow pit., approximately nine acres in surface area and
about eight feet deep.. Thi.s water body receives local runoff and has, in
the past, received direct discharge of process waste water.
The discharge lagoon was formed from part of a canal that ran along the
inner levee. It is approximately I - 2 feet deep and extends 700 feet
northward from a point approximately even with the northern boundary of
the Rival facility.
Neely Creek flows from east. to west across the southern portion of the
site and empties into a Pearl River basin segment. The cutoff river
segments have been created from the construction of a large ring levee and
straightening of the Pearl River channel in the 1960's. Surface water at
thirty-six st:r~ and drainage locations and thirteen locations on Lake
Marie were sampled for analysis of total and soluble Lead, and
measurements were made of pH and specific conductivity. The results of
these analyses are presented in table 1. Figure 3.7 depicts the levels of
total Lead determined at surface water sampling locations around the site
area.
Lake Marie surface water samples show elevated levels of total Lead in the
northwest corner. Surface water quality in the slough and lagoon followed
-5-
-------
SITE DRAINAGE
PATTERNS
/"
/ II
II
II
/ . .,
JI
~."V J/
"y- I'
;:'" '"
",
~ "
.f ;, 1/
7 " ",
,',' /1
/' ,,"
-,
, , I,
/ I, ,',
I , , J
r \ / ,
/ ,',': .,,,~,,
,,1 .-,.
--- "
1 .,'
, -,
I , I ,
/ I !It, I,
a, .
,~~, .....
/ I ~ I .~
"~~, ~~
1"0,' ~~
I I !It.. .q.
, ICJI '"
,,, ''''~ I ~
~ ,~*\ .
I J , ~
',"" , .
I' .
I ,'\ ~
" \' /~.
,\ .
" '. .
, ,
, ,
\ \
... ,
" \
, ,
, ,
, I
,
11.0UOH
WOO DID
AIilIA
~A'TV'" AIIIU
.
ICAL.& '
!
-If'
1
...
. ,..,.
LEGEND
~ CAAlNNJE DIRECTION
STRUM FLOW
~S" hotEASUREIo,4EN7
LOCATION
11//////11
PONCE 01 hotAAS~Y
.REAS
5-A
-------
TABLE 1
SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
To t& 1 Soluble Specific
Lead Lead Hardness Cond1Jctivi ty Telllp.
~cation Date (1119/1) (1119/1) (1119/1 AS CoICo3) pH (Wllhos/cm) .C
A2 7/19/86 0.051 0.026 6.7 122 22
A4 7/19/86 0.12 0.042 5.8 58 22
A5 7/13/86 0.14 0.020 26.5 7.4 450 26
A6 7/13/86 0.035 0.127 29.6 6.5 510 2S
A7 7/13/86 "0.044 0.038 -- 6.9 250 25
A8 7/13/86 0.024 0.026 28.6 6.8 525 26
A9 7/13/86 0.027 0.020 6.6 400
A10 7/13/86 0.007 0.033 6.4 120
A11 7/13/86 0.023 0.012 24.5 6.6 110
A12 7/13/86 0.037 0.024 . 7.5 540
A13 7/13/86 0.124 0.065 26.1 7.3 525
A14 7/13/86 0.021 0.052 25.9 7.4 400 30
A15 7/20/86 0.58 0.14 7.3 325
1.16 7/10/86 0.35 0.019 6.8 380 31
A17 7/20/86 0.055 0.036 7.3 315
A18 7/13/86 0.61 0.19 7.5 290 28
A19 7/13/86 O. 1 08 0.031 7.2 310 26
A20 7/13/86 0.28 I 0.027 7.3 330 26
1.21 7/13/86 0.17 0.006 7.3 420 28
1.22 7/13/86 1.80 0.37 7.8 470 30
1.23 7/13/86 2.50 1.50 8.2 620 28
1.24 7/13/86 3.00 1.10 9."4 730 27
1.26 7/20/86 0.21 0.028 8.6 760
A27 7/20/86 0.14 0.051 8.2 650
1.28 7/20/86 0.039 0.016 7.5 610
1.29 7/24/86 0.064 0.065 6.2 SSO 32
A31 7/24/86 0.01 3 0.010 6.8 675 34
A32 7/24/86 0.036 0.039 7.8 475 35
A33 7/24/86 0.024 0.027 7.3 330 35
1.34 7/20/86 0.71 0.12 7.1 350
1.35 7/14/86 0.083 0.009 7.1 270 28
A36 7/20/86 0.027 0.158 7.1 300
A37 7/20/86 0.098 0.032 7.3 300
A38 8/7/86 0.063 0.016 6.4 450 22
.\39- 8/7/86 0.063 0.048 6.6 250 22
.\40 8/7/86 - 0.063 0.028 6.8 300 20
L1 7/15/86 0.15 o. 9 29,6 8.5 310
L2 7/18/86 0.17 0.014 8.0 300
L3 7/17/86 0.32 0.Ot5 8.3 300
L4 7/18/86 0.051 0.0;:: 8.1 290
L5 7/18/86 0.049 0.011 8.2 300
L6 7/16/86 0.091 0.011 8.4 300
L7 7117/86 0.069 0.006 8. 1 310
La 7/18/86 0.041 0.027 8.3 280
S-B
-------
TABLE 1
SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESUl.TS
(continued)
Total Soluble Specific
Lead Z.ad Hardness Conductivity Temp.
Location Date (1119/1) {mq/l) (mq/1 u CaCo3) pH (umhos/em) .C
L9 7/1'/86 0.052 0.045 29.6 8.1 310
L10 7/16/86 0.095 0.023 8.3 310
L 11 7/1'/86 0.058 0.007 7.9 310
L12 7/16/86 0.033 0.013 8.4 310
L13 7/17/86 0.200 0.397 28.6 8.2 310
J
5-C
-------
FIGL'RE 3.7
LEAD CONCENTRATION
IN SURFACE WATER
,
/"
/ "
"
/ \')
"
~ . I~I
-;4. /~I
+r:I/ !': I,
" " II
i' 1 I II
I , /,
"
J:' " I'
/~ ~' ~'
/ I '. ,I,
I , I I
I ' I' /
I " .:n~
/ ,,' I -,,"'II'
--- '"
I ,,"
,_,
/ I It",' I''''
I () I ~
1 ~, ~.
/ '4', ...~
, ~~ , ~~
/'0,' '~
I ' 11" ~
, ,CJ, ~
,'- '!<.~, ~
~ ... ~/ {l' \ ~
. ~ i ' ~,
, " \'
\' I \'
\' ~
, ~
, ~
.~HO ~
" ~
I
,
\
\
\
,
,
\
\
,
~
...
,
,
,
... 0.'.0
WOOOIO
A"IA
'ASTU". A"IA
o
'CAU '
!
-N-
~
.00
, 'lIT
3-D
-------
the general trends of sediment Lead levels in these areas. To the south
of the slough the drainage passes through a low ponded area in the cow
pasture. Surface water samples obtained also showed elevated levels of
total Lead.
3.2.4
Groundwater
An assessment of the water quality in the alluvial aquifer was made with
the four monitoring wells installed. Results from the monitoring wells
show limited impact from waste disposal operations on the site.
Additional wells were added in the shallow aquifer and were analyzed for
total Barium, Cadmium, Lead, Manganese, and Zinc. These parameters were
chosen for analysis based on the levels of these metalS found in some soil
and sediment samples during the remedial investigation. Field
measurements were also made of pH, specific conductivity and temperature.
Maximum contaminant levels for metals were generally not ex.ceeded in the
shallow ground water at this site (table 2). Only one well exhibited
concentration of Lead slightly above the drinking water standard. This
well is located in the immediate vicinity of Lake Marie and the water
disposal areas. Impacts to the ground water are li~ited. to the immediate
vicinity of. the disposal areas. .
3.2.5 - Biota Data
The Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control collected fish samples from
Crystal Lake. The drainage from the Flowood site enters into Neely Creek
and continues to Crystal Lake. . Bass and catfish were collected and
sampled for Lead and PCB's.' - .
A composite sample of five Largemouth bass was analyzed. The mean length
was 433 rnm and the mean weight was 1390 grams. The bass contained 0.07
mg/kg of Lead which is considered to be at background levels. PCB's were
not detected.
The catfish were collected in trammel nets and a two fish composite of
d1annel and blue catfish was analyzed. The mean length was 562 rnm and the
mean weight was 2324 grams. The Lead content was slightly elevated at .37
mg/kg, however, there are no known health risks associated with this
level. PCB's were not detected.
4.0
Summary of Site Risks
Based on the analysis of samples from soil, surface water and ground water
at the Flowood site, lead has been identified as the chemical of concern.
The risk to human health and the envirorunent has been assessed based on
current and potential exposure to lead at this site.
-6-
-------
TAUI.I': 2
GllOlflln-WATF.R ANALYTICAL RESIIt.TS fOR I.F.AU ANAI.YSIS
Well OeocriptlonClI Tv"e121 --Oate
First Sallpllng
Soluble Lead
III
-------
--_._~~-~~._-
4.1
Exposure Ass~ssment
An assessment of current and potential routes of exposure at this site
identified the following exposure pathways:
Ingestion of contaminated soil by humans;
Ingestion of contaminated fish by humans;
Ingestion of contaminated groundwater by humans; and
Ingestion of contaminated surface waters by cattle.
CERCLA directs the Agency to consider both current and potential risks
from exposure to Superf\ll1d sites. The potential risks for this site have
been developed using a ffia){imum reasonable exposure scenario as discussed
in the Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual (October 1986). The
scenario considered for this site is potential residential land use.
Thus, cleanup levels :set for this site must be protective" of both adults
and children. Potential risks from these exposure scenarios are assessed
and discussed in section 4.3 below.
4.2
Toxicity Assessment
Lead has been Classi£ied as a B2 probable human carcinogen; however,
the available data are inadequate to d€termine a cancer potency factor.
For this reason, cancer risks for this site hav.e not been estimated. Lead
has also been shown to have non-carcinogenic effects, particularly via the
ingestion route for children.
In addition to lead, the Agency has set protective Maximum Contaffiinant
Level Goals (MCLGs) for barium 'and cadmium at 1.5 mg/l and 0.005 rng/l,
respectively. Concentrations of these substances "in groundwater and
surface water were below these levels; therefore, these substances are not
likely to present a risk to human health.
4.3 Summary of Risk Characterization
Based on the risks associated with exposure to soil in the pathways
ideniliied in section 4.1, a protective level of 500 mg/kg of Lead has
been set for ingestion of soil. This level has been set based on the
document "Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children" (CDC, Janurary
1985). "
In addition, the Agency has set a protective Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) for lead based on non-carcinogenic effects as" 50 ug/L However, the
Agency has recently reviewed new data and is currently proposing a level
of 5 ug/l of lead as the more appropriate protective MCL.
-7-
-------
The average daily intake of lead for adults is estimated to be 178-274
ug/day. using the standard daily fish consumption rate of 6.5 g/day, the
average contribution from fish to the adult diet would be 2.4 ug/day.
This value is well below concentration levels of fish found in nearby
streams; therefore, consumption of contaminated fish does not present a
human health risk. .
Beef cattle grazing on site often drink from low ponded areas south of the
slough and from Neely Creek. Lead concentrations in Neely Creek are as
high as 150 ug/l. Lead absorption in the gut of animals has been
demonstrated to range from 1 to 15 percent of the total ingested dose.
The remaining portion of lead accumulates in the animal bones, not in
fleshy portions. For this reason, the ingestion of meat from cattle that
drink water contaminated at levelS seen in Neely Creek are not of concern
for human health.
4.4
Summarv of Environmental Risks
Protective : levels for freshwater biota are set by the Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) for lead. The chronic exposure level for
freshwater biota set in the A WQC is 3.2 ug/l.
5.0
Cleanup Criteria
5.1
Soil/Sediment Remediation
The remedial action selected must, by statute, be protective of human
health and the environment. Based on the risk assessment as described in
section 4.0. above, the cleanup level for contamfnated soil and
contaminated sediments (including Lake Marie hot spots) has been set at
500 mg/kg. .
5.2
Surface Water Remediation
Sampling of the surface water has shown that these waters are below the
Ambient Water Quality Criterion for chronic freshwater biota exposure (3.2
ug/l). This is due to the fact that surface waters showed minimal impacts
from site runoff. However, if the waste sediments are disturbed and
resuspension of contaminated sediments is enhanced, the ambient water
qualtiy in Neely Creek could be affected. The remediation of the
contaminated soil and contaminated sediments (hot spots) to 500 mg/kg
would alleviate any future impacts to the surface water.
5.3
GroundWater Remediation
Groundwater sampling did not show impacts to groundwater from the waste
material; therefore, cleanup goalS for the groundwater have not . been set.
Remediation of contaminated soils and contaminated sediment (hot spots)
will eliminate future potential contamination of the groundwater.
-8-
-------
6.0
Alternatives Evaluation
The purpose of the remedial action at the Flowood site is to mitigate and
minimize contamination in the soils and sediments, and to reduce current
and future potential risks to human health and the environment. The
fOllowing cleanup objectives were determined based on regulatory
requirements and the risk assessment at the site:
*
To protect the public health and environment from exposure to
contaminated soils through inhalation, direct contact, and
surface run-off.
*
To prevent the spread of contaminants to other soils.
*
To prevent contamination of groundwater.
*
Cleanup goals ~ere developed for the contaminated soil at the
Flowood site based on applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARMs) of federal and state Statutes (table 3), and
after consideration. of potential guidelines.
An initial screening of possible technologies was performed to identify
those which best meet the criteria of Section 300.68 of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) (table 4). Following the initial screening of
technologies, potential remedial action alternatives were identified and
analyzed. These alternatives were screened and those which best satisfied
the cleanup objectives, whtle also being cost effective and technically
feasible were developed further. .
Table 5 summarizes the results of the screening process. Each of the
remaining alternatives for soi~ and sediment remediation were evaluated
based upon cost, technical feasibility, permanence, a preference for
treatment, and protection of human health and the environment.
6.1
Alternati ves
Alternative 1:
No Action
The risk assessment conducted as part of the remedial investigation showed
that no action' is not protective to human hea1tl1 from the site conditions
presently existing. Contaminant toxicity is not reduced in the absence of
treatment. No action does not provide permanent source control, and does
not satisfy a preference for treatment.
. Alternative 2:
Excavation, solidification
(if necessary for landfilling)
BaCkfill/regrade with clean soil
Landfill (off-site permitted)
This alternative involves excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated
materials from the following areas:
-9-
-------
TABLE 3
LIST OF POTENTIAL APPLICABLE OF RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS (ARARS) FOR THE FLOWOOD SITE
ARAR Category
Criteria/ Comments
Chemical Specific
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL)
(40 CFR 141)
Potentially relevant and
appropriate for following
criteria:
-Barium
-Cadmium
-Lead
Federal Water Quality
Cri teria (FWQC) (freshwater)
-Cadium
-Lead
1,000 ug/L
10 ug/L
50.ug/L
0.4 ug/L
0.6 ug/L
Action Specific
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
(40 CFR 264)
Potentially relevant and
appropriate:
-Cap design and on-site
landfill design for RCRA
hazardous wastes.
J
-Ground-water
post c~osure
alternatives
on-site.
monitoring and
care for all
leaving wastes
-Chemical fixation technologies
(BDAT) with regard to de-
characterization of wastes.
-Disposal of the hazardous
wastes at an off site RCRA
landfill.
Mississippi Pollution Control
Permit Board Regulation on
Landfills .
-Potentially relevant and
appropriate for siting of
landfill under Alternative
Nos. 4. and 5.
Pretreatment of Discharges to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(Clean Water Act)
-Potentially applicable to.
wastewater discharges from
dredging and decontamination
activities.
Location Specific
RCRA
Flood plain Critera
[44 CFR Parts 59-77 and
40 CFR 264.18 (b)]
-Potentially relevant and
appropriate for consideration
in on-site landfill and capping
alternatives.
9:..A
-------
TABLE 5 cont.
REMEDIAL ACTI()-I AL'I'ERNATIVES AND COST .
AJ. ternatl ve
No.
Descnption
C:?st Ran<;e
(:"~susa!'!d s;
Short-term Impacts to EnvIronment,
Publlc Healt.'1
Long-term Impact to Environment
Public Health
6
ExcavatIon (cow pasture,
wash area & drainage ditches
to Lake Marie & behind Stone
Container). Relocate excavated
sediments to slough. Capping
(Lagoon & slough, Lake Marie
corner) Backfill/regrade as
necessary. Flow Diversion!
Run-on Control. Si te Monitoring.
7
Excavation (sediments/soils from
all impacted areas). Chemical
fixation. Backfill with fixed
sediments (into slough/lagoon
area) . Cap as ne-::essary wi th
clean soils. Site Monitoring.
SOme dlsruptlon for access as for
AJ.ternative 2. Minimal disruption
to the area for placement of cap.
will require redirection of dralnage
patterns for run-on/run-off control
No impacts to public health.
Same as for Alterntive 2.
I
9-1
Isolates potentlal source of
contamInated surface runoff
and reduces potential for
leachate generation from
disposal areas. This alter-
native is protective.
Reduces toxicity and mobility of
hazardous waste sediments and
consti tuents. Protects ground-
water from further contamination
This alternative is protective.
500-1 loDe
2,000-4,000
-------
-hot spot in Lake Marie
-wash area, drainage ditches
-cow pasture
The volume of material to excavate from each area was estimated using
aerial photographs, ground observations and measurements and sampling
results from the Remedial Investigation and from other investigations
previously conducted at the site. The criteria used to estimate the soil
and sediments to be removed was a total Lead concentration of 500 ppm or
greater. The volume of material to be removed is approximately 6,000
cubic yards.
The excavated areas would be backfilled with clean soil. The filled areas
will be graded to control drainage. The drainage west of the inner levee
will be redirected around the slough and lagoon as part of the dewatering
controls for excavation.
Offsite disposal will be conducted through transport to a secure landfill.
Alternative 3:
Excavation (except hot spot in Lake Marie sediments)
of areas in Alternative 2
Cap hot spot in Lake Marie
Backfill/regrade all areas excavated with clean soil
Landfill (off-site permitted)
Groundwater, Surface water Monitoring
\
This alternative incorporates the same excavation and disposal
considerations discussed for altenlative 2, except for contaminated
sediments (hot 5!X't) in Lake Mari~. The contaminated sediments ir. Lake
Marie will be left in place and. capped. The surface water and ground.water
will be monitored to assure that the surface water meets ambient water
quality criteria (e.g. that there is no migration from capped sediments).
Initially, monitoring will be conducted quarterly. After four or more
quarterly samples show consistent results, subject to EPA's approval,
monitoring will be reduced to semiannual sampling until the point of
reevaluation in five years (SARA requires a five-year review of sites
where there are residual contaminants above health-based levels).
Alternative 4:
Excavation of areas as in Alternative 2
Solidification (if necessary for landfilling)
Backfill/regrade excavated areas with clean soil
Landfill (on-site)
Monitor groundwater
.Landfill maintenance
This alternative will require all of the actions in alternative 2 with the
exception of transport for disposal offsite. In this alternative, an
on-site landfill will be constructed for disposal of the wastes.
-10-
-------
.
The on-site landfill will be constructed mostly above ground because of the
relatively shallow water table. Construction will include relatively
impermeable layers of clay and synthetic liners. Leachate will be pumped to
the nearest sewer line from a collection sump.
This alternative will require long term maintenance of the landfill and g rcund
water monitoring.
Alternative 5:
Excavation (except hot spot in Lake Marie sediments)
of areas as in Alternative 2
Backfill/regrade with clean soil
Landfill (on-site)
Cap hot spot in Lake Marie sediments
Monitor Landfill and Groundwater, monitor Surface water
around Lake Marie
This alternative will require the same actions as alternative 4 except the
contaminated sediments In Lake Marie will be left in place and capped. Site
monitoring for the capped sediments would be conducted as described in
Alternative 3.
Alternative 6:
Excavation (cow pasture, wash area and drainage ditches to
Lake Marie and behind Stone Container)
Consolidate excavated sediments in slough
Capping (Lagoon and slough, hot spot in Lake Marie
sediments)
Backfill/regrade excavated areas
Flow Diversion/Run on Control-
Cap Maintenance'
Groundwater, Surfacewater Monitoring
This alternative' would provide source control through a combination of
excavation, on-site consolidation of wastes, and capping.
The slough and lagoon waste materials are situated in a fairly stable
environment. These materials do not show evidence of leaching contaminants to
ground water. The slough and lagoon area containing consolidated soils would
be covered by a cap Gomposed of a synthetic membrane, clay layer, and sandy
soil top soil layer.
The contaminated sediments remaining in the hot spot in Lake Marie will be
covered by placement of two to three feet of clayey soils on top of the
sediments. Centrol of run on into that corner of the lake will be effected by
grading. th&" backfill in the ditch and surrounding area.
Groundwater will be monitored in the vicinity of the capped Slough and lake
comer and surface water will be monitored in drainages from Lake Marie and
Neely Creek.
-11-
-------
Alternative 7:
Exc~vation of areas as in Alternative 2
Chemical Fixation of contaminated materials
Backfill with fixed sediments (into slough/lagoon area)
Backfill/regrade excavated areas with clean soil
Cap disposal area with clean soil
Groundwater Monitoring
Materials from the various locations will be excavated as described. in
alternative 2 and subjected to a solidification and stabilization process.
This process has the ability to stabilize materials containing high
concentrations of heavy metals. Most processes use two inorganic chemical
agents which react with polyvalent metal ions to form a chemically and
mechanically stable solid. The process is based on reations between soluble
silicates and silicate setting agents under controUed conditions to produce a
solid matrix. Reagents commonly used include Sodium 3ilicate, Fly ash, Kiln
dust and Portland cement (as the setting agent:).
,
The resulting solid will be redeposited in the slough/lagoon area, covered
with a clean soil cap, and drainage will be redirected to prevent run on and
erosion. .
7.0 Recommended Alternative
7.1 Description of Recommended Remedv
The recommended alternative for remediation of soil and sediment contamination
at the Flowood site includes solidification/stabilization and backfilling of
stabilized material on the site (alternative 7.).
) -
Contaminated soil will undergo a stabili.zation/solidification process.
FOllowing stabilization, the soil/sediment will be placed into the excavated
slough area, be covered with clean top soil, and be seeded to provide
vegetative cover. At selected intervalS during excavation, soil samples will
be collected and analyzed to determine the limits of excavation based. on the
clean-up level in section 5.1.
This recommended alternative meets the requirements of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
-------
,.
,-
TABLE 4 Continued
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL T~IINOLOGIES
Technology
De.crlptlon
Re.arks
Poulbly
Applicable
Not
Applicable
x
AI r Strl ppJ nC)
stea.. StrlpplnC)
Reverse 0980sls
Electrodl a lysis
r,IIrfare
I mpoun.lmen t
Re80ve. yolatlle organic and
I e0818 Inorganic conta.lnante
'fl'08 an aqueoue was te etrea..
Dlesolved C)ases are trans-
fel'red to all' atrea8S and
al'e then typically treated by
carbon adsorption or ther.al
oxidation.
81.llar to all' strlpplnq
except atea. ia used as the
stripping g88.
Concentrate. IQorqanlc salts
and e088 organics by forcing
the solvent through a ee.l-
peraeable .e.brane which acte
a8 a filter to re80ve T08.
An electrophoreRls .ethod
of eeparatlng charqed lon9
fr08 an aqueous solution
under action of an electric
field.
Waete liquids and aludq~a
are disposed of in a lagoon
type facility desIgned to
receive hazardous waate.
Not appllcahle to non-volatile
Inorqanlc conta.lnants.
Not applicable to non-
volatile Inorqanlc
conta.lnants.
x
prl.ary usee have been a
pretreataent step prior to
lon-exchanqe or In recovery
of reusable I.purltles. No
advantaqes over sediMenta-
tiOn/filtration for large
volu.. application.
x
Can effect re.oval of
.etals but Is energy
Intensive and doee not
produce waste strea.s with
very low concentrations.
x
Requires long-tel'. 8anaqe-
.ent, .onltorlnq, liability
and hlqh coat. Generally,
~ long-tel'. solu~lon.
x
-------
TABLE 4
Conti nued
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TEClmOLOGIES
Technology
De8criptlon
Relllc1rks
Posaibly
Applicable
Not
Applicable
, ,
Flow Diversion
Typically. channel, dike,
I bel'. etc. to intercept run-
'off, reduce elope length, and
ieolate wasteo froM surface
water i.pacts.
Ai.s at eli.inating run-on
and .axi.1z1ng runoff to
avoid leachate generation
and .igration. Could be
i.ple8ented for control of
erostonal 1nduced conta.inant
transport.
x
"
-------
TABLE 5
REMEDIAL ACiION ALTI:RNATIVES M'DCOST
Al ternan ve
\ 0"; .J~sa7"1:: :3;
No
Descnf'tlon
Short-term Impacts to EnVIronment,
PublIC Health
Long-term Impa~t to
PublIC Health
~i1\llr0:ij'1'\ent
::5: RCi.9€"
No act10n except long term
mom toring.
2
Excavation (sediments/soils
from all impacted areas).
SOlidif1cation (if necessary
for landfilling). Backfill/
regrade with clean 5011.
,
3
Excavation (except Lake Marie
sed1ments). Cap Corner of
Lake Marie. Backfill/regrade
with clean soil. Landfi~l (off-
site permitted). Site Monitoring.
4
Excavation (sediments/soils
from all impacted areas)
SOlidification (if necessary
for landfillingJ. Backfill/
regrade with clean soil.
LandfIll (on-site, designed).
Monitor landfill and Surface/
Ground Water around Lake Marie.
5
Excavation (except Lake Marie
sediments). Cap corner of Lake
Marie. Backfill/regrade with
clean soil. Landfill (on-site.
designed). Monitor landfill and
Surface/Ground W~ter around Lake
Marie.
R1Sk ident1f1ed 1n the r1sk
assessment for th1S baseline
condi Hon. Moni tonng ;..Quld be
implemented to ensure future
variaitons ;..QuId be detected.
Some disruption of biota in
v1cin1ty of excavation due to
access clear1ng and transpor-
tation of materials. Clearing
of about 2 acres of forested
area for excavation of slough.
Additional disruption for
redirection of dra1nage (about
3,000 to 5,000. feet). Temporary
resuspens10n of contaminated
sediments from dredging in Lake
Marie may occur but will be
m1tigated by silt curtains or sheet
piling. No impacts to public health.
Same as for Alternati~e 2 without
potential impacts to Lake. Marie.
Same general impacts as for
Alternative 2. Would have
additional impacts from
clearing of area for landfill
construction. No impacts to
public health.
Same as for Alternative 4 without
potential impacts to Lake Marie.
9-H
Based on remed!al InvestIgation
nsk assessment, potenu:Jl "'OIi'
exist for impacts to ~~blent water
quaE ty .
Removes potential for off-sIte
impacts from contam1nated surface
runoff and leachate generat1on.
This alternat1ve is protective.
This alternative is protectIve.
Same protectiveness as
Ai ternat1 ve 2.
Same protectiveness as
Al ternati ve 2.
n:
3,000-6,000
2,000-4,000
2,000-4,000
2,000-4,000
-------
I :
\:
! :
Technoloqy
Excavat ion
Capping
Fixation
- Resin
Encapsulation
- Chemical
Encapsulation
I '
TABLE 4
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TEClmOLOGIES
De8Cription
Physical UlIOval
, of conta.lnated aaterlals
'for disposal or treat8ent.
Barrier
exposed
Usua 11 y
placed on top of
'waste aaterials.
constructed of clay.
The waste 18 Incorporated In
solid for. by realn coating
to reduce leachate generation
and to aake It More suitable
for landfliling or long-tera
storage.
Process to alx che.lcal
wastes with Inert materials
(e.g., ll.e and fly ash or
ceaent sodiu. silicate) to
fix the waste soluhllty and
leachability In a dry aqgre-
gate or solid material (or
landfliling.
Reaarks
Possibly
Applicable
May create teMporary
disturbance to the area.
Proven technology for
source control
x
Requires llaltatlon on land
us~qe. Generally requires
flow control. Provides for
separation of contaalnated
aaterial fro. contact with
transport aechanlsMs.
Requires lon9 ter.. MOnitoring
and aalntenance.
x
Most practical for s88ll
quantities of highly toxic
waste due to cost. The charac-
teristics of the site vaste
sediaents and environMental
setting do not justify this
approach.
Prlaarily applicable to
.acld-typp wastes, scrubber
sludges, and Inorqanlc wastes.
x
q~p
Hot
Applicable
x
-------
I .
TARLE 4 'Continued
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
Technology
Deecription
Waste Piles
Re.arks
Possibly
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Inc 1 ner-atlon
I:
Insit.1I
Vi t d ficatlon
Solvent Flushing
Surface storage of waste
I -tertals.
Co.bustlon/oxidation of
conta.lnated .aterials at
very high te.peratures.
Method of aelting waste
aol18 to for. a glass
_terial in 8itu by using
inductive heating with
high energy electrodes
Percolation of 801vent
through conta.lnated soils
which can achieve two pur--
pose81 waate recovery for
surface treataent or solubil-
ization of adsorbed cOMpounds
to enhance in-situ treatMent.
Recovery of solvent 1s accolI-
plished through a well point
syatell.
Requires aonitortng and lI.tn-
tenance. Generally not a
long-terM solution. No areas
'. on-site co.patible for storage
of large volullea wtth adequate
source control.
x
Not applicable to these
inorganic wastes. Waste
destruction applicable .ostly to
organic co.pounds.
x
Technology unproven In fteld
applications. Vitrified
.aterial has significantly
reduced toxicity. Coats
would be high for widespread
conta.ination and high .oisture/
shallow groundwater level.
x
"May work 'for re.oval of
organic contaalnation but
consideration Must be given to
potential pollution fro. the
solvent. Not applicable to
inorganic wastes.
x
-------
i
, I
TABLE 4
Conti nued
PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TF.CIINOLOGIES
\
I
Technology
x
Soil Wash
Biodegradation
La nd ri II
Chemical Treatment
Coaqulation/
flocculation
Description
Stripping of Metals
I fro. 80il8 by use of
'acid' or cOIIplexatlon
801vents.
nl trlc
In-situ treat.ent using
biological .ethods (e.g.,
.lcroorganis8s) for
ally 81udges and SOde
organic waste8.
Wa8te .aterials are buried
in an area designed to receive
hazardous waste. Materials
, IlaY be dru._d or dhposed
of in bulk.
Represents various oxidation,
reduction or pit adjustllent
aethods to effect the reAOval
of soluble .etals fro. water
through precipitation.
Used to bring 8Mall In801-
uble suspended particles
together and allow agglo~er-
atlon for enhanced settling.
Usually requires the use of
coagulant and/or flocculant
aids.
Re.ark8
Possibly
Applicable
Not
Applicable
. I
possible reduction In waste
sedl.ent volume or reduction
tn toxicity. Require8 treat-
.ent and disposal of washing
. fluid.
,-
Hot applicable to inoTganlc
waste8.
x
prillarily for dl8posal of
solid .aterials such as
conta.lnated so118. Requires
long-ter. aanageuent,
8Onitorlng and liability. May
be on-site or off-site.
x
Ef~ective for reaoval of soae
801uble !letals. Bench scale/
pilot testing required. May
be used in conjunction with
disposal of remediation
generated waste water.
.
x
Useful for reaoval of sus-
pended solids, such a9 fine
colloidal clay particles,
from water. Hay be useful
for removal of suspended
components fro. generated
wastewater.
x
-------
Continued
PRELIHINARY SCREENING OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECIINOLOGIES
TABLE 4
Technology
Description
Sedimentation
Rellarks
Possibly
Applicable
Not
Applicable
Fi I traUon
Activated Carbon
Adsorption
Dissolved Air
Flotation
Ion Exchange
Re~val of suspended
I c08lponent8 froll aqueous
.solution by gravity settling.
Typically follows precipi-
tation or coagulation and
flocculation.
Used to re80ve suspended
80lids froM 80lutlon by
forcing the liquid through
a porous 8edia (filter).
Process where contaMinants
accU8ulate on an adsorbent
8urface due to physical or
cheMical force8.
Utlllze8 one of various
8ethods to introduce Minute
bubble8 which aid In flota-
tion of Insoluble contaMin-
ant8. Floating waste 18 then
relloved froM the surface and
dispo8ed.
Proce8s to rep.lace unwant~11
Ions (priMarily inorganlcs)
with innocuous resin ion9.
Applicable to waste streams
with suspended 8011d9.
x
..'
Hay be used following
sediMentation, in conjunc-
tlon with coagulation and
flocculation or used alone.
x
U8ed priMarily to rellove
organic cOMpounds froM
aqueous waste. Not
applicable to 80luble Metalp.
x
Generally provides little
advantage over pretreatMent
and sediMentation for sus-
pended Inorganic solids.
x
Host comMonly usel1 for
rellova} of lIetals fro.
aqueous solutions. No
siqnificant advantage over
fiitration/sediMentation
in larqe volume application
~91derin9 cost.
x
-------
7.2
Operation and Maintenance
No long-tenn operation and maintenance requirements are expected for this
alternati ve.
Groundwater monitoring will occur quarterly for the first year. EPA will
review the data and a: decision will be made on the frequency of monitoring
required.
Air monitoring during construction would be necessary to ensure that a safe
working environment is maintained and that no threat to the pUblic health or
the environment is created by air emissions during construction.
7.3
Cost of Recommended Alternative
Solidification/stabilization is expected to have a total present worth cost of
approximately 2,000,000. This estimate assumes a cost of $80 per cubic yard
for solidification/stabilization bringing the total cost to approximately
1,975,000. Monitoring cost of 25,000 will be incurred for the first year.
7.4
preliminarv Schedule of Activities
The schedule of this alternative must provide for the immediate vegetation of
the topsoil. Seeding is usually most successful in the late summer or early
fall. Also it is preferable for excavation to be performed during a time of
year when the groundwater table is low: Allowing six months for design and
contractor selection, it. is anticipated that this alternative could be
completed in approximately thirteen months. Two months would be required to
prepare the site (excavation of c
-------
*
Flood Plan Management Executive Order 11988
The CERCLA area lies within the Pearl River flood plain and the
stabilization process will be designed to meet the requirements of E. O.
11988.
*
Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act were found to be relevant and appropriate. Although
contamination was not found in the groundwater The site will be monitored
to assure compliance during the remedial action.
*
Endangered Species Act
The recommended remedial alternative is protective of species listed as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Requirements
of the Interagency Section 7 Consultation Process, 50 CFR, Part 402, will
be meet. The Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, will
be consulted during remedial design to assure that any endangered or
threatened species, if identified, are not adversely impacted by
implementation of this remedy.
8.0
Community Relations
The following community relations activities were performed at the Flowood
site.
*Community Relations Plan finalized June 1985.
*An information repository was established in
Pearl PUblic Library (601) 932-2562
3470 Highway 80 Easv .
pearl, Mississippi 39208
June at:
Contact:
Ms. Janice Byrd, Librarian
*A press release providing an opportunity for a public meeting and
information on the opening of the public comment period was issued May 11,
1988.
*Public notice providing the same information ran in the May 18, 1988 and
the June 22, 1988 edition of the Rankin County News, a weekly newspaper.
*Information on the opening of the public comment period
for a public meeting was also sent to the interested
mailing list.
and opportunity
parties on the
8.1
Key Community Concerns
The primary concern expressed by the local environmental interest groups
during the development of the Flowood site Community Relations Plan was the
possibility of contamination of the area groundwater.
-14-
-------
The public did not show an interest in a public meeting. Opposition from the
public is not expected if the recommended remedial alteITlative is implemented.
A Resp:nsiv81ess summary has been prepared to sununarize corrummity concerns and
EPA's community relations activities.
l
. -15-
-------
FLOWOOD SITE, FLOWOOD, MISSISSIPPI
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
This community relations responsiveness summary is divided into the
following sections:
Section I.
Overview. This section discusses EPA's preferred
alternative for remedial action and likely public reaction
to this alternative.
Section II.
Backqround on community Involvement and Concerns. This
section provides a brief history of community interest. and
concerns raised during remedial planning activities at the
Flowood site.
Section III. SUrnrrary of Mabr Comments Received Durinq the Public Comment
Period and the EPA Responses to the Comments. Both the
comment and EPA's response are provided.
I.
Overview
At the beginning of the public comment period, EPA announced its
preferred alternative to the public. This alternative addresses the
soil/sediment contamination problem at the site. the preferred
alternative specified in the Record of Decision (ROD) is the
sOlidification/stabilizatioh of the Lead contaminated areas.
.
The community favors remediation at the site.
II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
Key Issues and Potential Community Concerns
The nearest single residence to the Flowood site is more than a half
mile south of the site, and the closest group of residences is on the
opposite side of Highway 468, almost a mile south of the site. State
officials have concluded that because the Flowood site is somewhat
isolated from the public, greater citizen involvement is not likely
without a major catalyst for increased community concern. Continued
coverage of site activities in the Jackson press, however, could
provide the impetus for citizen involvement, particularly if
significant contamination is discovered beyond the immediate site
area. Moreover, the proximity of the site to Jackson and the presence
of a second Superfund site in Flowood raises the possibility that
regional environmental groups and/or area residents may become more
concerned about hazardous waste problems in the Rankin County area.
These issues and other specific concerns regarding the Flowood site
are discussed in detail below.
-16-
-------
a) SOil and surface water contamination. Even though there are no
residential properties adjacent to the FlowoOd site, the discovery of
significant additional soil contamination at the site could create
significant community concern. This concern is particularly likely
because the Flowcxxl site is in an area that floods frequently, increasing
the possibility that contaminants may have been carried a significant
distance off-site. Similarly, any findings affecting area surface water,
especiallY the Pearl River, are likely to be a major
concern to area residents. MDNR officials contacted during development of
this community relations plan stated that any contamination of the Pearl
River because of activities at the FlDwcxxl site would create only limited
. concern because the site is downstream of Jackson. Nevertheless,
environmental groups in the area would probably be greatly concerned
because the Pearl River is heavily used for recreational purposes, even in
marshy areas like those surrounding the Flowood site.
b) Ground water cxntam:inat..i. No ground water contamination has been
discovered at the Flowood site at present. EPA and MDNR officials,
however, are concerned that leaching of contaminants may affect area
ground water, particularly given that the disposal activities at the site
responsible for the soil contamination have occurred for such a long time
CUrrently, EPA plans to sample private industrial and residential wells
within a one mile radius of the site during the remedial investigation.
My sampling results revealing that ground water contamination has
occurred would be a cause of concern to area residents and local
officials, suggesting that the contamination problem at the Flowood site
may be more extensive than originally was thought. Area environmental
groups have already expressed particular concern about the human health
threats of ground water contamination due to activities at the Flowood
site.
,
c) Ha..zarda1.s waste problems in F1DWood.. The Flowood site is one of two
hazardous waste sites in the town of Flowood currently undergoing
Superfund response activities. While no connection exists between
activities at the two sites, it is possible that overall community concern
regarding hazardous waste problems in the area will increase because of
this situation. In particular, area environmental groups may choose to
monitor activities more closely at the Flowood and Sonford sites, thus
increasing EPA's visibility at both sites. These conditions increase the
importance of EPA providing accurate and timely information to the local
community throughout the remedial investigation and feasibility study at .
the Flowcxxl site. In additions, efforts to maintain the credibility the
Agency currently enpys in the Flowood community will. be important to the
success of the community relations program.
1.
SUmmary of Public Comments Received During Public Comment Period
and Agency Responses.
COmments raised during the Flowood public comment periOd are
sununarized briefly below. The comment period was held from May
18 to June 29, 1988 to receive comments from the public on the
III.
-17-
~. .+ .~- -" - '-.'-- -- . . -- -- -,--,-.-. .--
-------
feasibility sttidy. Tt_~ only set Of comments received, were from
the Potential Responsible Party.
A.
Alternative 7 in the Feasibility Study does not represent the
recommended alternative presented by Region IV personnel or the
language in the Public Notice.
EPA Response: EPA followed up this concern by telephone
explaining the presentation was to give them a visual idea of
what was invOlved and the exact mixture would be decided on a
site by site basis. Alternative 7 in the Feasibility Study
states a process similar to a Chemfix process will be used in
which the materials are chemically bonded in a cement and
silicate type matrix. It was never suggested that a mixture of
cement alone was the only method accepted.
B.
The alternative selected must be protective of public health and
. cost effective. In that regard, the Feasibility Study included
Risk Assessment of each alternative studied, was approved and
accepted by the USEPA. The results showed no public health risk
for any alternative, including No Action.
EPA RESPOnse: The Feasibility Study and Risk Assessment showed a
potential Environmental threat based on the high concentrations
of Lead contaminated soil/sediment areas.
2.
Remaining Public Concerns
No remaining concerns have been identi£ied. The local public did
not submit comments, or~ or written, nor did-they request a
pUblic meeting.
3.
Community Relations activities to date are listed in the ROD.
-18-
-------
,t,.t"~1fis"'-,-- MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
,\I'~~~"~-.~~!,~"\ Bureau 01 Pollution Control '
f~,."~,~~\o...\ . P. O. Box 10385
~5~ ~\\\II~W~l1j;iJ ~!~ Jackson. Mississippi 39209
\~\.~'~.!..\-~~"~i (601) 961-5171
~..;."-..- ~ "" "" '
-:"-..~.t ."",1 III'
"""'''' . ,.:.1
"",mutt August 26, 1988
Ms. Gena Townsend
51 te Project Manager, SUperfund Branch
U.5. Environm=ntal Protection Agency
Region TV
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Townsend:
Re:
Record of Decision (roD)
Flowood, Mississippi NFL 5i te
¥&)980710941
'!he Hiss1ssippi Bureau has reviewed the above referenced docuIrent.
The Bureau approves of the rem:dy set forth in the ROD, which is
Alternative 7. Hov,1ever, since solidification is a developing
technolog-j and since the resulting degree of permanent contaminant
:imrobilization at this site is uncertain, the Bureau requests that:
1.
Adequate bench-scale testing and evaluation be made on
solidified sediments prior to field application at the:
FlO'M:)Od site. The Bureau requests that be able to review
any testing protocol" prior to its i.n;>lem:mtcition, and that
the testing be prioritized for early in the rerredial design
proce~s. .
A long-term groundwater nonitoring program should b: carried.
out at the site to ensure that no up.-;rard. trend in lead in
the groundwater occurs. It is implied in Sections 7.2. and
7.3 ot the roD that this is not the present intent.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Ire at
(601) 961-5171. .
2.
Sincerely,
~/., I:t£~
. ;~I ')
Trey Fleming
. Hazardous Waste Division
TF:lr
'\
------- |