United States-
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R03-88/053
September 1988
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
West Virginia Ordnance, WV
-------
~-'.I.-ii;j, of;" 1J\J'Li
REPORT DOCUMENTATION .'11;-REPOAT NOEPA/ROD/R03-88/053
PAGE I
4. s~~~~cr5'tfBtl~ECORD OF DECISION
West Virginia Ordanance, WV
Second Remedial Actlon - Final
, 2.
3; Recipient's Accession No, .
5.Re~/ 9TJ~ 8 8
I.
Author(s)
8. Performin. Orcanization 'Rept, No.
9. Performin. O...nization Name and Address
10. Proiect/Task/Work Unit No,
- -.- .---
..-1
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No,
(C)
(G)
_._- ----.------- ---
12. SlIOnsorin. Or.anization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Agency
13. Type 0# Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
II. Abstract (~imit: '200 words) , , , ,
The WestV~rg~n~a Ordnance (WVO) s~te covers approx~mately 8,323 acres ~n Mason
County, West Virginia. It is located on the east bank of the Ohio River. Almost one
third of ,the site is occupied by a 2,788-acre wildlife station containing more than 30
shallow ponds created to promote a wetland/terrestrial habitat for various wildlife
species. Established in 1942, the WVO plant manufactured explosives, specifically TNT,
from toluene. General Chemical Defense Corporation of New York operated the plant until
1945. Red'and yellow water (liquid wastes) were produced during the TNT manufacturing
Jrocess. Yellow water was discharged to the Mill CreeK drainage system, which
eventually drains into the Ohio River; red water was discharged directly' to the Ohio
River through a pipe located about one foot offshore. Retention ponds were constructed
to regulate the discharge of red and yellow water to the river. TNT and associat.ed
by-products were burned onsite. In May 1981, ranger officials observed a seep of red
water adjacent ,to a pond located on the wildlife station. Upon examination, ground
water discharging to this pond was found to be contaminated by di- and trinitrotoluenes
and phenol. Localized contamination of the shallow ground water and discharge to
surface water have been documented in the vicinity of the TNT manufacturing area, the
burning grounds, sediments of surface water receiving contamination, and former,
(See Attached Sheet)
17'R~oC~~~t ~'1:-I~i~c f-slltfff'ptors
West Virginia Ordnance, WV
Second Remedial Action - Final
. Contaminated Media: gw, sediments,
Key Contaminants: lead
soil
b. Identifiers/Open.Ended Terms
c. CQSATI Field/Group
,vailability Statement
, 19. Security Class (This Report)
None
120. Security Class (This Pace)
None
21. No, 01 Pales
57
- -.--.-- --.
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Rftve".
OPTIONAL FOR'" 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department 0' Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R03-88/053
est Virginia Ordnance, WV
~econd Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
wastewater storage lagoons. Evidence also indicates that soils of the industrial area,
process facilities, and industrial wastewater facilities are contaminated by TNT and
associated by-products (nitroaromatics). Based on the hydrogeologic setting of WVO,
there is potential for contamination to migrate via surface water and/or ground water
pathways to deeper layers of an underlying potable aquifer or to the Ohio River.--
Contaminant migration is possible toward the City of Point Pleasant and Camp Conlay
community potable water supplies. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil, sediments, and ground water are nitroaromatics and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site addresses three distinct areas of
contamination. These remedies include: Area 1 - purchase of contaminated land and
control of land use, placing a soil cover over the contaminated area, and incorporating
the area into the existing wildlife preserve; ground water pump and treatment to
nitroaromatics criteria with discharge to surface water; monitoring discharge from the
ground water treatment system to ensure compliance with the. stream standards; and
periodically inspecting and maintaining the soil cover in a stable condition. Area 2 -
rel?cating ponds 1 and 2, filling them with clean mate~ial and covering them with a soil
andlclay cap; ground water pump and treatment to nitroaromatics criteria with discharge
to ~urface water; and monitoring effluent from the treatment system to ensure compliance
with surface water criteria. Area 3 - installing a soil cover over the West Well Area
nd the seep area; ground water pump and treatment to nitroaromatics criteria with.
jischarge to surface water; monitoring effluent from the treatment system to ensure
compliance with surface water criteria; and periodically inspecting and. maintaining the
soil cover in a stable condition. The estimated present worth for this remedial action
is $3,365,000, with estimated O&M cost of $216,500. .
-------
REX:ORD OF DECISIrn
REMEDIAL AL'I'ERNATIVE SELECTIrn FOR
SECCND OPERABLE UNIT
SITE:
west Virginia Ordnance 1M:>rks, Mason County, West Virginia
STATEMENr-OF BASIS AND PURrosE:
'!his decision doct.mlent represents the selected renedial action for the
West Virginia Ordnance 1M:>rks Site, in Mason County, West Virginia,
developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Re5p:)nse,
Compensation and Liability Plan Act of 1980 (CERCIA), as amended by the
SUperfUnd Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (~), 42 D.S.C.
section 9601 et ~. and the National Contingency Plan (0Cf» 40 C.F.R. Part
300. '!his decision is documented in the contents of the i terns which
comprise the administrative record up:>n which the selection of the remedial
action is based. '!he State of West Virginia has concurred on the
ranedy .
DESCRIPrICN OF 'mE SEI:.ErI'ED REMEDY
'!he selected ranedy will provide protection of human health and the
envirornnent by containing soil/sediment contamination and eliminating
further contamination of the groundwater aquifer. 'Ihe grOtrnd water
extraction systan will renove contaminants from the groundwater and will
improve .groundwater quality. .
'!here are three (3) distinct areas of contamination (Acids Area/yellow
Water Reservoir Area, Red Water Reservoir Area, and Pond 13/Wet Well Area)
and the preferred rem=dy for each one is as follows:
1.
Acids Area/Yellow Water Reservoir:
Alternative 4A
- Purchase of lands wi thin the industrial ~k encompass ing
the contamination,' placing a soil cover over the contaminated
area, incorp:>rating the area into the existing wildlife
preserve.
- Extracting and treating the ground water until ,the criteria
for nitroaranatics are attained. .
- Discharge fran the ground water treatment systan will achieve
the stream standard and will be ronitored to assure compliance.
- SOil cover will be periodicallY inspected and maintained in
a stable condition.
-------
... -
II.
Red Water Reservoir:
Alternative 4A
- Relocation of Ponds 1 and 2.
- Extracting and treating the ground water lll1ti 1 the
criteria for nitroaramatics are attained.
- Effluent from the treatment system will meet the
surface water criteria and will be monitored to
maintain compliance. . .
- Ponds 1 and 2 will be filled will clean fill (soil
and clay cover).
III.
Pond l3/Wet Well Area:
Alternative 4A
- SOil cover will be installed over the Wet Well Area
and i:he seep area.
- Extracting and treating the ground water lll1til the
criteria for nitroaramatics area attained.
- Effluent from the treatment system will meet
the surface water criteria and will. be monitored
to maintain compliance.
- SOil cover will be periodiCally inspected and maintained
in a stable condition. .
DFXIARATICN
This selected. remedy is prot~ive of human health and the
envirorunent, attains Federal and State requirements that are
applicable or relevant and appropriate for this remedial action, and
is cost effective. 'Ibis raredy satisfies the statutory preference
for remedies that anploy treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility,
or voltmte as a principal ele:te1t and utilizes permanent solutions and
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Because this raredy will result in hazardOus substances
remaining onsi te above health-based levels, a review wi 11 be conducted
wi thin five years after camencanent of remedial action to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide ad~te protection of human
health and the enviIOIlIOOI1t.
1-" )t:? -~
Date'
~!fi~~L.
ey L. k1,
l>ct.ing Regional Mninistrator
EPA Region III
-------
. --
I
SUnm3rv of Remedial Alternative selection
for second Operable Unit at
West Virqinia Ordnance WOrks
1\.
Site DescriPtion
'Ihe West Virginia Ordnance WOrks' (WVCW) site covers approxirrately
8,323 acres in Mason COlIDty, West Virginia. It is approxirrately 58 miles
northwest of Olarleston, 41 miles northeast of Huntington, and 6 miles
north of Point Pleasant on the east bank of the Ohio River. Approxirrately
-- one third of the area is currently occupied by the Clifton F. lVt:Clintic
State Wildlife Station (MCClintic Wildlife Station), which is 2,788 acres
in size and operated by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
(I:NR) (Figure 1). '
West Virginia I:NR's rnanaganent practices are primarily designed to
promote a wetland/terrestrial habitat for populations of resident and mig-
ratory water fowl. Consistent with this objective, ITOre than 30 shallow
ponds have been constructed since cessation of military activities on the
si te in 1945. M::>st of the ponds are stocked with bass and catfish, and
the area is open for plblic hunting and fishing. Smaller portions of the
.non-industrial areas of the site were declared excess by the Government,
have been sold, and are now owned by Mason county or by private OYJIlers.
In May 1981, a seepage of red water was observed by ranger officials
adjacent to Pond 13, located on the M:Clintic Wildlife'Station. This incident
was investigated by West Virginia I:NR and the U. S. Envirornnental Protection
Agency (EPA.). 'Ihe shallow ground water discharging to Pond 13 was found to be
contaminated by 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-INl') (up to 7,100 micrograms per liter
'(ug/L», 2,6 dinitrotoluene (2,6-INl') (1,300 ug/L), 2,4,6-Trinitrotoltme (1NI')
(166 ug/L in one sample), and J;X1enol (31 ug/L), all hazardous substances pur-
suant to CERcrA.
Based on these and other studies conducted by West Virginia I:NR and
EPA. in 198'1 and 1982, VM:W was ranked as the 84th site on the National
PrioritieS List, (NPL) under the Comprehensive Envirornnental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERcrA) 42 U.S.C. section 9601 et
~m., as amended by the SUperfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (~), PUb. L. NO. 99-499,100 Stat. 1613.
B.
SITE HISJXRY
W\,U
-------
2
From 1942 to 1945, WVOd operated to produce 'INr, an explosive for
the war effort. Production of this material during WOrld War II (WdII)
resulted in contamination of the soils of the industrial area, process
facilities, and industrial wastewater disposal facilities by TNT and
associated by-products. '1Nl' was shipped. to various Government in-
stallations to be loaded into mtmitions or for other uses. r\b loading of
rmmi tions or testing of ordnance was conducted at WVtJ-l.
Red and yellow water are liquid wastes produced during the '1Nl'
manU£acturing process. Yellow water was discharged to the Mill Creek
drainage system, which eventually drains into the Ohio River; red water was
discharged directly to the Ohio River through a pipe located atx:>ut 1 foot
offshore. Retention ronds, shown as the Red Water Reservoirs and Yellow
Water Reservoir in Fig. 2, were constructed to regulate the discharge of
red and yellow water to the river. Off-specification 'JNI' was taken to the
Burning Grounds (see Fig. 2) for destruction by burning. surface and
subsurface soils and groundwater in areas of WVCJi1 are still contaminated
with nitroaromatic residues. In addition, a rotential exists for contamina-
tion of other areas due to fCst-operation contaminant migration.
At the close of operations in 1945, ~ was decontaminated, and was.
subsequently declared surplus and the facilities salvaged or disp:>sed. r\b
records currently exist regarding the general extent of this decontamination
effort. 'The inc;1ustrial pJrtion of the site was deeded to the State of West
virginia, with the .stipllation that the site be used for wildlife managarent.
If the land were to be used for any other p.lI"p:>se, or in the event of national
emergency, the ownership of the land would revert to the Federal government.
In May 1984, after the site was listed on the NPL, EPA concurred wi th
the Army's request to assume responsibility for resp)nse actions at WVCW.
In cx:tober of that year, Environmental SCience and Engineering, under contract
to the Army, ,began work on a Remedial Investigation. In January, 1985 it
was decided by EPA and IXX> that the RIfFS should be conducted in two phases
or operable tmi ts. The first operable unit addressed the sources of contam-
ination, while the second/operable unit concerned grotI11d'water. The Phase I
RIfFS was canpleted in July 1988. The raredial action for the first phase
Operable Unit was plblished in a Record of Decision (ROD) in March 1987.
That ROD required:
1. In situ flaming of reactive 'JNI' residue qn the surface of the
Burning Grourns Area follOlNed by the installation of a 2 ft. soil cover
over areas with greater than 50 ppn total ni troaranatics.
2. Installation of a 2 ft. soil cover over areas in the 'INr
.Manufacturing Area with greater than 50 ppn total ,ni troaranatics.
-------
NORTH
wiu
PlilO
i
I' V..
I*
>
N
^^Ti
rStf^,
-"••••-
><^x \
\\\\y-v\
| V\ MAGAZ1NC A Ml A '.
: v\ A v N .^ esO
MeCUINTlC\
WILDLIFE •
^lZ2« <*"•»/ «H<;A«iA
»S!Bh'"^'l2f / •(
- --• XSSTA. \ ,- ^ _ .i ,s
\" *Sf /
.Lfe'cftS
\ Mil-/'
^••••" ^?""f Q j£ I
\'Wiiili,£%\
\ -jiif*yf.? i
.^""':
*cio _
DOCK .
SOUTH -,-
WILL />
KEY
SCALE
1500 ' 0
^M
_M^
500
1500 3000 FEET
=3M*lMi
=>••••
500* 1000 METERS
— RESERVATION BOUNDARY
~-- McCLINTIC WILDLIFE STATION BOUNDARY
NOTE: Ponds and wetlands maintained by
Wast Virginia ONR ar* designated numencilly.
SOUMCtSt USATMAM*. 1M4.
Wir 0«*«nm«nt, O.C.I. Caottruen«« OM*l«n. 1ISO.
SIM* •! WtM Vlroim*. ONN. 1M4.
ISI. 1SS7*.
Figure 1
WVOW5UE LAYOUT
WEST VIRGINIA
ORDNANCE WORKS
Feasibility Study
-------
WATER RESERVOIRS
k
KEY TO CONTAMINATED MATRICES
GROUND WATER
(ARROW DENOTES MIGRATION)
EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION IS
UNCERTAIN
SOILS
SURFACE
Illllll SUBSURFACE/SEWER
SURFACE WATER
SEDIMENT
YELLOW WATER
TCLLUW wMicn
RESERVOIR
STUDY AREA
. POND 1?
AREA
Figurt 2
CONTAWrfiATION SUMMARY AT SECOND
OPERABLE UNIT
WEST VIRGINIA
ORDNANCE WORKS
Feasibility Study
-------
3
3. Disp:>sal of asbestos from the Burning Grounds Area at an approved
of-site facility.
4. Excavation of reactive sewer lines , flashing,. and backfilling of
trenches from which they were' reroved. All contaminated soil exceeding 50
ppn at the surface was to be covered to achieve a 106 cancer risk level.
5.
vities.
Perfonnance of a wetlands assessment prior to construction acti-
An Interagency Agreanent between EPA and the Army for the Army's
implenentation of the above acti vi ties was signed in September 1987. To
date, all of the aforenentioned actiVities have been completed.
'TI1is ROD addresses the second operable unit, or the grol.II1£:ll..later, at
the wvc:w site. I~ August 1987, the final RI and E1\ for the second' operable
unit was received by EPA, was received in EPA on OCtober 1987.
Based on the hydrogeologic setting of WVC:W, the FOtential exists for
contamination at wvc:w to migrate via surface water and/or grOtmd water.
pathways to the deeper layers of the aquifer or to the Ohio River.
Contaminant migration is pJssible toward the city of Point Pleasant and
camp Conley ccmm.mi ty pJtable water supplies.
Contaminants ITDst likely to migrate beyond the former installation
boundaries and/or to present the ITDst serious threat of envfrornnental
degradation and threat to human health are nitroarc:matic residues [2,4 ,6-'INI',
2,4 dinitrotoluene (2,4-rnr), 2,6-dinitrotoluene (2,6-rnr), and other 'INr
manufacturing by-products] renaining as a result of v.M:W explosives pro-
duction. Many of these canpJ1..D1ds are toxic and/or suspected human carcinogens
and are persistent in the envirornneI1t. Localized contamination of the
shallow ground water and discharge to surface waters have been documented
in the vicinity of the 'IN!' Manufacturing Area, the burning gro1..D1ds, the
sediments of the surface waters receiving contamination, and the former
wastewater storage lagoons. Table 1 and Figure 2 provide a SUI11T\i3.I'Y of
contaminants and concentrations for the three source areas evaluated in
this operable unit.
For the p.1I1X)se of clarification, when genera1 reference is ITEd.e' to
the explosive ~ . such as in Fig. 2, which describes the 'IN!' Manufacturing
Area, it is referred to as 'IN!', the cOIITll)n acronym. In this document,
specific refererx:es to the Chanical caYlpJund which is actually 2,4, 6-trini t-
rotoluene, aIXi its environmental concentration, use the acronym 2,4,6-'INI'.
References to ccn::entrations of lD1SpeCified chanical mixtures of byproducts
of 2,4, 6-'INI' manufacture are tenned ni troarcmatic comp:n.mds.
~
-------
4
Table 1.
S1.Inm3.ry of Contamination Status for tile second
Operable unit
Envirornnental
Medium
contaminant
Max:i1rn..nn
Concentration
Detected*
Acids Area/Yellow Water Reservoir'
SOils
2,4,6-'INI'
1 rercent (isolcated area
approximately 100 ft.)
Lead
100 ug/g
Ground Water
Nitroaromatics
60 ug/L
Red Water Reservoirs
Sediments
Ground Water
Nitroaromatics
Nitroaromatics
2,210 ug/g
100 ug/L
Pond 13/Wet Well Area
surface Water
Sediments
Ground Water
Nitroaromatics
Nitroaromatics
Nitroaromatics
68 ug/L
4,240 ug/g
50,000 ug/L
* In each area, sampling strategy in tile RI was designed to identi fy and
sample the roost contaminated areas, so tilemax:i1rn..nn concentrations are not
neceSsarily representative of tile typiCal concentration in each source
area. In virtually all source areas, several samples were collected that
were uncontaminated t1'n.1s realistically defining the extent of contamination.
Note:
ug/g = micrograms per gram.
-------
5
C.
SITE aIARN:TE1UsrICS
1.
surface Hvdroloqy
Duiing the period of operation in the 1940s, 1tJV(N1 was drained by two
major streams, .their tributaries, aooa number of intennittent streams (see
Fig. 3). The northern half of the installation, including the magazine
area and the acids area, was drained by Mill Creek and a small, unnamed
tributary. Mill Creek is a tributary to the Ohio River and enters the
river along the western boundary of the installation. 'Ihe Ohio River is
located adjacent to the installation, along the western boundary near the
administration area and along the north and south well fields. As shown in
Fig. 3, the southern and eastern sections of the installation were drained
by Oldtown Creek. 'Ihis stream and a mm1ber of smaller tributaries drained
the 'IN!' Manufacturing Area. Oldtown Creek is also a tributary to the Ohio
River and contributes to the river south of the installation.
'Ihree surface iInpJundments, called the Red Water Reservoirs, were
located in the northwest section of the installation. These reservoirs had
a total capacity of 30 million gallons (M:;). A small reservoir, called the
Yellow Water Reservoir, was located c3djacent to the k:ids Area. 'Ihis .
reservoir had a capacity of 5 M:;. A smaller water recovery reservoir was
located in the 'INI' production area; the capacity of this reservoir is
unknown.
A number of rna.rlm3de surface water features were constructed subsequent
to closure of the installation in 1945. 'D1irty-nine IX>nds are currently'
located at the M::Clintic Wildlife Station (see Fig. 4). MJst of these
IX>nCs were created between 1953 and 1975 by the construction of iInpJundments
and water control structures (e.g., dams and weirs) along the various drainage
ways. 'Ihe IX>nds were .constructed to provide wetland habitats for various
wildlife species. currently, two of the three Red Water Reservoirs contain
standing water; the northern rrost reservoir is empty and has revegetated.
'Ihe Yellow Water Reservoir that was present in 1945 was filled shortly
after the installation closed in the mid 1940s, and the small water recovery
reservoir located in the 'INI' Marnlfacturing Area was rem:>ved prior to 1975.
Natural drainage by Mill Creek and Oldtown Creek has rEmained similar to
the drainage during the 1940s, except. for alteration of a number of
tributaries due to IXJ11d construction. .
. .
2.
Site Geology
W\Uol is located in the Ohio River basin, YJhich consists of Pennsylvanian-
age rocks overlain by quaternary alluvium. 'Ihe rocks underlying the in-
stallation are part of the Parkersburg syncline. 'Ihesynclinal axis is
located approximately 20 miles southeast of WVCW and has a northeast-
southwest orientation. 'R1e oldest exp:>sed rocks .are Pennsylvanian in age
and crop out aiong stream valleys. Fig. 5 shows a generalized geologic
cross section across W\Uol as developed by WilIroth (1966). Crystalline
basenent occurs between 9,000 ft. and 11,000 ft. below the Mississippian
age rocks. . .
-------
' V.'.XV.V.
TIU.OW WATVI
MfSOIVOUl
SOUNCIS: USATHAMA.1
Flgura 3.;"
SURFACE HYDROLOGY AT WVOW (1942J
WEST VIRGINIA
ORDNANCE WORKS
R«m«dial Investigation
-------
6
The Mississippian Systen includes the Pocono and MacCrady Formations
overlain by the Greenbrier and Mauch Oltmk Groups. The Pocono Formation
consists of ITCstly coarse,--grained sandstone and sandy shale, with a thick-
ness of between 480 ft. and 580 ft. The MacCrady Formation is a shale
unit, with an approximate thickness of 50 ft. The Greenbrier Group primari-
ly consists of. limestone, with some thin units of shale and sandstone.
This group has a thickness of between 100 'ft. and 215 ft.; wells sCreened
in this Lmi t produce a non-J;X>table saline. The Mauch O1tmk Group
consists of sandstone and shale Lmi ts, with a thickness of up to 80 ft.
Wells in this unit also produce a saline water, with a yield of around 1
gallon per minute (gpn).
The Pennsylvanian Systen includes the Pottsville, Allegheny, Conemaugh,
and M::>!109ahela GroU};:S. These \IDi ts have a combined thickness of between
260 ft. and 955 ft. and were deJ;X>sited in a freshwater environment; all the
groU};:S contain carbonaceous deFQsits. The Pottsville Group is the baSal
Lmit of the Pennsylvanian System. The tmit consists of coarse-grained
sandstone, with thin beds of coal, shale, and clay. The formation is between
185 ft. and 250 ft. thick in the vicinity of W\lGl. The Allegheny Group
does not crop' out in Mason CO\IDty and is enco\IDtered only in subsurface
torings. The Conaraugh Group overlies the Allegheny Group and has a thickness
of between 480 ft. and 600 ft. The group consists of alternating sandstones,
shales, and limestones, with some coal and clay Lmits. The yotmgest Pennsyl-
vanian Lmit is the M::>nogahela Group; this group also contains alternating
shales, sandstones, and coal. The cross section (see Fig. 5) from Wi lIroth 's
( 1966) grO\md .water study shows the bedrock to be part of the ConEm3.ugl.1
Group; however, the geologic map fran ~e same study indicates tl1at rocks'
of the M::>nogahela Group underly the area. Rocks from toth of these groups .
are primarilY clastic with minor am:nmts of limestone and coal. The Conanaugh
Group contains a larger percentage of sandstone than the M::>nogahela Group,
and both groups contain siltstones and shales. Thickness ranges from 230
ft. to 320 ft; these units fonn the upland areas on the eastern side of
WVCJd .
Overlying the Palezoic rocks at WVCJd is an alluvial \IDit that reaches
thicknesses of up to 185 ft. The alluvium is found as river floodplain
deFQsits, and elevated terraces along the Ohio River were deFQsited as '
glacial outwash to the south of the Wisconsin continental ice sheet. The
alluvial d€FCsits overlying bedrock to the east and northeast of WVCW were
deFQsited in the charmel of a preglacial river that flowed southward from
Ohio through northern Mason CO\IDty and then westward back into ohio. The
alluvium consists of a basal gravel-sand tmit and increases in coarseness'
fran top to. bottan, with a clay and silt floodplain near land surface.
(Fig. 7), sl'XJws a generalized cross section of theSe upper geologic units.
-------
SOUTH
WfU.
SCALI
1500 0
500
500 1000 MITIRS
Figure 4, • *
•URFACE HYDROLOGY AT THE
SITE (1985)
WEST VIRGINIA
ORDNANCE WORKS
Rtm«di«J
-------
KEY
PLEISTOCENE AND RECENT ALLUVIUM
PENM.SVLVANIAN IIONONOAHELA GROUP
PEHJtSVLVANIAN CONEMAUGH GROUP
PENNSYLVANIA!! fllUjMJH.YOROUP
PENNSYLVANIA!!
UlfifilSfilP
COUNTY AIRPORT
WftT VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
EXPCJMMENTAL STATION
WATER TANKS
LOCATION, OF
CROSS SfcCIIOt
SOUTH END TNT AREA
STATE ROAD U
\\\s*\*»\\\\<\\\%»%*\*%*%%%*%*%\%»^**yi<%*%*>%\\%>>>%>%<>s>
>MMMM»i»»»»»
ANOTTOSCAlE
SOURCES: Wllinolh
fcSfc.
Flgur* ft.
QENERAUZEP QEOLOQIC CROSS SECTION
' .,'_.-_!;j-.-s'- 'j,.:-..Lu'\:' .b-j'^L'-l."-1!-''' '"'* '• -'"-"{•''••'.''<.• ::'r,'-'" '-;!':'* :-/''-' ' "•"" '' >JC
WEST VIRGINIA
ORONANCF WORKS
-------
7
'TIle 1966 WilnDth study was produced from a limited databaSe ad-
dressing the inmediate vicinity of WVOtl and was directed primarily toward
defining and delineating pJtable ground water supplies in Mason COlITlty.
'TIle major aquifer of concern was the produCtive glacial outwash sediments
imnediately overlying the bedrock.. 'TIle shallow alluvial aquifer at WVOtJ
would not have been considered an :i.rnp:>rtant pJtable water supply aquifer
and may not have been detected or adequately defined in the 1966 study.
'TIle water table shown in Fig. 7 represents the interpreted pJtentiometric
surface of the aquifer, which was asSlmled to be in hydraulic cOIT1T1lIDication
wi th the Ohio River.
3.
Site SOils
'TIle U. S. SOil conservation service (UsseS) (1961) ~ and identified
the soils at WVOtl. 'I\.Jo regional soil associations are present on the in-
stallation along the Ohio River bottomlands and terraces; the Aston, Wheeling,
and Lakin Associations are predOminant. IDe upland areas can be grouped
into the M..1Skingum, Upshur, and Vandalia Associations. The bOttomlands and
river terrace dep::>sits consist of alluvial soil, with a thin veneer of
recent river silt and clays. 'TIle upland soils consist' of ITE.terial weathered
from the underlying bedrock, rrostly sandstone, shales, and siltstone. A
third major soil type consists of mixed anclITlts of alluvium and sediment
disintegrated from the underlying bedrock. These mixed soils are located
on upland terraces, and consist of the Wheeling soi 1 type on well-illained
areas and. the SCiotoville, Ginat, and 01.i10 soil types on the pJOrly drained
areas .
Detailed soil locations, drainage characteristics, and penneabilities
were detennined by USSCS (1961) and are presented in Fig. 8 and Table 2.
4.
Site Groundwater
Generally, M::mogahela and Conenaugh Groups form the deep pJtable
Pennsylvania aquifer system underlying WVCJtl. 'TIle M:>nogahela Group yields
enough water for danestic supply fran a number of pJrous sandstone tmi ts .
Well yields range from 1 to 25 gpn, with an average of 9 gpn. IDe M:mogahela
contains less sandstone than the Conanaugh and is situated tOpJgraphically
higher. 'TIlese factors make the conanaugh aquifer the better water-bearing
formation. 'IDe COI1anaugh is the principal aquifer to the south of WVOtl in
the Kanawha River Valley. r-bst wells, that draw fran this aquifer are for
danestic aIXl farm SUWlies, although a feN industrial arx1 p.Iblic supplies
tap this fonnation. Well Yields for this aquifer range from less than 1
gpn to 102 gpn arxl average about 9 gpn. Transmissivity and stor-age coefficients
. ~J
"
-------
B
SECTION ar*" ' ~, ~
OHIO VALLEY EXKMUIiNT STATION 11
.«—SB—^-^TJ
a
3
?. • % * »••• •*••• 'f« •••••• • • » . • . . »
f f ••••»•••••*••• f f *'.* 4 * * •• *
*
JaI^*:*^VT.-^-.
CONtMAucM taour
*."--» -~ » ••
LOCATION Of CHUM
KEY
l CUV AND SILT
I SAND
ItANOANOQJUVEL
SCALE
•00 0 MO 1.200 FEEI
200 0 200 400 METERS
SOURCES: Wilmuili
LSI.
WEST VIRGINIA
ORDNANCE WC S
Remedial Invesll j
-------
SIT LOAM
LAMM LOAMT MM SAM0
MAMMIM) VkTT OAT LOAM
MO.VM *WT OAT LOAM
LTLOAM
IMTUOAM
IMLTLOAM*
SOOTQWUIMT LOAM
I OAT LOAM
I OAT LOAMS
k OAT LOAM
NOfttl
, TO TACLI1S4 PON PVIITHffl OCTAIL1 ON SOILS.
OJ
1 MltfS
0.9
0.3 1 KfLOMfTlHS
SOUMCSSi USSCS. 1ff1.
ISI.1!
Flgurt a-.-,-.
SOILS M'AH OF THE
WVOW SITE
WEST VIRGINIA
ORDNANCE WORKS
R«ni«di*i Investigation
-------
":'3,le
_1 :.-
2. "
.
,
5011 Iv~es Wlchl~ ~h~ ~vow Si~~
Soil Tvpe"
P~rmeahillcy
Soil Descrip~io~
Dr~i:1alle
As
ChA
Du
G<;.\
Ha
Hu
La
"fa
Me
M~
Mo"
Mu
Se
Se
So
Ue
UI1l
Va ,
Wn
AshL:on Sili: loam
Chilo S~:1:iy LQam
nU'c~"on ~11c Loam
l~i"1ai: Sile Loam
Hac\{ero; Si li: Loam
Hun~i"~el)l1 Si lc Loam
Lakin loamy Fi,e Sand
~arkland S11<:y Cla! Loam
Melvin Slley Clay Loam
Monon~ahelaSilt Loam
Moshannon Silt Loam
Muskin~um-Upshur SUt Loam
Selocoville Silt Loam
Seneeaville Silt Loam
Slopin. Land
Upshur Clay Loam
- .
Upshur-Maak1qua Cla, La...
VandeUe CIa, Lo-
Wh..l1i18 'iDe SaDei Loa
~ "-.
,.
;.Jell Dr.1l:1ed
Poorly Drali1ed
Well Ora bed
Poorly Drai:1~d
tJell Drabed
'..1e 11 :)ral,ed
Excessively Drained
~oci~racely Poorly Dral,ed
Poorly Drained
Moderately Well Drained
Well Drained
Moderately Well Drained
Moderately well Drained
Well Drained
Well Drained
Well Drained
Mode race-Rap id
Slow
Moderaee
Very Slow
Moderaee
Moderat.e
Rapirl .
Slow-Very Slow
Moderate Slow-Very
Slow
Slow
Moderate
Moderace
Moderace-Slow
Moderate-Slow
Slav-Very Slav
Moderate-Slav
MOderate-Rapid
-------
8
coefficients calculated from aquifer tests show a wide range of values,
depE!l1ding an the zone ot:"iproduction and lithology encountered. '!he lower
lD1i ts of the aquifer yieid saline water in same sections and are not sui table
for domestic or plblic usage. l>q:uifer tests in the Permsylvanian rocks,
, where overlain by alluvium, COITmJnly show same indication of hydraulic
connections between the bedrock and the alluvium and/or the river. Water
levels recorded in the alluvial and Pennsylvanian aquifers have shown variable
head differences between the p:>tentiaretric surfaces of the two aquifers.
Vertical gradients developed in the vicinity of wva-.l sho'w head differences
as great as 30 ft. Much of the ground water encOlD1tered in the deep:!r
aquifer system is presumed to occur in joint-openings, along bedding planes,
and in the rock's :fX)re space.
Si te-specifiCally, a number of distinct hydrogeologic flow systens
were characterized at, VM:Jal. In the Acids Area/yellow Water Reservoir, the
shallow aquifer consists of a rrediumto-coarse-grained sand containing
approxinately 5 to 10 percent gravel. This sand is overlain by a silty
clay layer varying in same areas to clay and ranging in thickness from
approxinately 10 to 15 feet. '!he sand aquifer is uniform in texture and
gradation throughout the area. 'IWo apparently discontinuous clay and silty
clay layers were observed in rronitoring wells screened in the shallow '
aquifer beneath the' Acids Area/yellow Water Reservoir area. '!he clay
layers do not form a continuous confining layer, and the sand aquifer
exists in an unconfined or sani-confined state. In deep rronitoring wells
drilled at the adjacent north and south lX'Werhouses, a gray clay with ,
textural and Iilysical characteristics similar to the gray clay confining
layer observed in the first operable unit 'IN!' Manufacturing Area and
Burning GrotI11Cs Area was encOlD1tered.
At the Red Water Reservoirs, surface sediment consists prinarily of
silty clay extending to a 10 to 15 ft. depth. At t'w'O of the rronitoring
wells, the clay is overlain by a rredium-grained sand. A second seqUence of
clays and silty clays is present and varies in thickness from 2 feet to 20
feet. As shown in the geologic cross section for the Red Water Reservoirs,
a high degree of lithologic variation (00th areally and vertically) is
present at this area of concern. 5and and clay units are both generally
discontinuous over this area of concern with the exception of one continuous
water-bearing sam unit (the shallow alluvial aquifer) at elevation 580 '
feet above mean sea level ( ft-r-5L) .
..
-------
9
In am arOlIIXl the Pond l3jWet Well Area, two markedly different hydro-
geologic envirorments exist. At Pond 13, near-surface sediments consist of
a thin veneer (5 to 10 ft.) of sandy, silty clay underlain by a thin clay
layer, the areal extent of which is lIDknown. A second sand layer occurs
below this clay layer; below this second sand layer, interbedded fine-
grained sediIrents are present. In contrast, the sediI'rents encOl.mtered at
nearby wells indicate a markedly different hydrogeologic envirornnent. At
these wells, the first permeable zone was not encountered lD1ti 1 526 ft-MSL,
approximately 60 ft. below ground surface. The gray clay confining layer
is present beginning at 560-ft MSL and extending 25 ft. in thickness. 'Ihe
distance between the two IOOni toring wells is approximately 300 ft. The
actual ooundary between these two lithologic and hydrogeologic environments
is not known.
In the deep ITOnitoring wells drilled t.hroughout the site, the rrejority.6f
wells were screened in sedllnEmts of alluvial origin. several wells en-
countered g,lacial outwash rreterial, and according to plblished information
(Wi lITOth, 1966), the glacial outwash aquifer represents a single, continuous
aquifer system. However, given the limited number of wells which penetrated
the glacial outwash aquifer throughout the site during the Phase I investi-
gation, it was not p:>ssible to verify this information.
5.
Ground Water/surface Water Interation
TI1e interaction of ground water flow systens with surface water flow
throughout the site was assessed in the initial RI survey by the use of a
stream gaging program coupled with information obtained frem selected
IOOni toring wells installed adjacent to surface water drainage flow systems.
For those areas on the site with adjacent surface water gaging statioT)S and
IOOni tor ing wells, comparison was made between surface water station elevations
(frem staff gage data) and the first penneahle layer encolD1tered during
IOOni toring well drilling. These data that were developed indicate that the
range of surface water elevations varies less than 3 ft. t.hrougrout the
study.
TI1e hydrologic interconnection present frem the intersection of surface
drainage with the perneable strata at these p:>rtions of the site suggests
that, as gro\ID:i water elevation increases, a significant grotmd .water
cOll1p)nent slnlld be present in flows observed in Mill Creek. In ITOst p:>nds
at the site, grouoo. water discharge into ~e p:>nds or recharge by the p:>nds
into the groorXi water is substantially minimized by the presence of
extensive clay dep:>si ts in the p:>n::l bottans. Sediment grab samples
(approx:i1nab!ly 6 to 8 in::hes in depth) and sediment core samples (l to 3
feet in depth) in the p:nis consisted pri.rrerily of stiff clay with a thin,
overlying layer of decarp:>sed, organic, detrital material. In many cases,
field observatiOns in:licated that the bottan p:>rtian of even the shallow (6
-------
10
to 8-inch) core ranged in rroisture content from dry to slightly rroist,
whereas sed:insrts in the top 1 to 2 inches of the core were wet. During
the C£tober 1984 gaging, no surface water outflow was occurring from any of
the p:>nds. Because of the lack of interconnect~on with the ground water,
the p:>tential for inplt to or.outp.lt from the p:>nds is generally srrall.
However, rising ground water levels and surface runoff during a wet season
greatly increase the p:>tential for ground water discharge to the northern
p:>nis .
In the northern p:>rtions of WVGl, the Mi 11 Creek flow system receives
ground water discharged during high-flow conditions. The Mi 11 Creek stations
are downstream from both a treatment plant and Pond 16. Pond 16 is located
imnediately l1p3radient of the Red Water Reservoirs. The results of the
PhaSe I RI study indicate that Pond 16, through leakage, recharges the
shallow aquifer at the Red Water Reservoirs.
The gravel and sand lenses in the glacial alluvium constitute"the
principal aquifer at~. These dep:>sits are the rrost productive ground
water lD'lits, with a high hydraulic conductivity and fairly high well yields.
The water table in Mason C0tmty was rep:>rted to range from about 10 to 90
ft. below land surface. At the WVGl site, the level at which ground water
way be encO\.D1tered was expected to range from 5 to 45 ft. below land surface.
Recharge to the alltwial aquifer consists of infiltration of precipation,
rrovanent of ground water from the bedrock to the alluvium, seepage from
srrall streams flowing across the terrace dep:>sits, and recharge from the
Ohio River during periods of high stage or flooding. Industrial and pmlic-
supply wells in the area have an average yield of 200 gallons per minute
)gpn) according to Willroth (1966). WVGl radial collectors located adjacent
to the Ohio River ranged from 1,245 to 1,918 gpn, with a 1,565~ average.
. Aquifer tests on a number of mmricipal well fields in the alluvium indicated
rnJderately good transmissivity and watertable storage. Based on historical
well construction information and water level data available prior to the
RI, a ground water divide appeared to exist, roost likely in the area of the
'INI' production lines. Because of the lack of well location and water level
data from the northeastern p:>rtion of WVGl, the exact location of the
probable divide could not be determined. However, due to the locali zed
nature of the contamination this does not appear to present a problem.
Ground water in the alluvial aquifer appeared to rrove to the northwest from
the 'IN!' Marn1.facturing Area to the Mill Creek drainage and to the southwest
along the Oldtown Creek drainage after rroving eastward' to Oldtown Cr~.
Ground water recharging the alluvial aquifer in the relatively high elevations
along the eastern edge of VM:W probably rroves directly west to the Ohio
River via Oldtown Creek. Recharged ground water iI:l the high elevations
west of th& 'IN!' Mamlfacturing Area nay rrove directly west to the Ohio River.
,.
. .
-------
11
D.
SlJM'v1ARY OF SITE CW\RACTERISTICS
'!he following conclusions are based on the analyses performed during the
remedial investigation and is. organized by area of concern within this second
operable lD1it. . Details of .the contaminant distribution in each source area
are presented' in the RIffS.
a.
b.
Acids ArealYellow Water Reservoir
1.
Contaminant sources were identified and include the sediments of
the Yellow Water Reservoir and contaminated soil in the vicinity
of the neutralization chamber.
2.
Nitroaromatic contamination exists in the shallow aquifer.
contamination is limited in areal extent.
The
3.
'!he gray clay con£ining layer is present at the Yellow Water
Reservoir and acts as an effective barrier to vertical contaminant
migration.
4.
'!he contamination detected in the deep aquifer in April
1986 was attributed to shallow aquifer contamination
being carried into the deep aquifer during drilling.
5.
Ground water flow direction in the shallow aquifer is
to the west; ground water flow in the deep aquifer
is to the north.
Red Water Reservoirs
1.
'!he source strength of the sediments of Pond 1 and Pond 2 was
defined through the sampling' and analysis of deep sediment
cores. Low levels of ni troaromatics were detected in several
of the deeper sedinEnt samples.
Ni troaromatic contamination was detected in the shallow ground
water but. is present for the IIDst part, at very low levels,
(0.2 ugjL 2,4,6'INI'); the downgradient limit of contamination
is projected to occur at or :imnediately west of the reservoir
area.
2.
3.
'!he gray clay confining layer present, at the Red Water Re-
servoirs acts as an effective barrier to vertical contaminant
, migration.
~
-------
c.
12
4.
The apparent low-level contamination detected in the deep
aquifer in 1986 - is attributed to shallow contari1.ination being
carried into the deep aquifer during drilling.
5.
GrOtmd water flow direction in the shallow aquifer is to the
northwest; ground water flow in the deep aquifer is exPected
to have a northerly cOlt1pJnent.
Pond 13/Wet Well Area
1.
The highest levels of nitroaromatics (principally 2, 4,6-TNT)
occur in the shallow aquifer downgradient of me Wet Well Area
and Red/Yellow -water tn.mk sewer line.
2.
The contaminant pluxre appears to be confined to the :i.m:nediate
vicini ty of the two wet wells at the Pond 13 area.
3.
The shallow sand aquifer appears to be areally lirniteq and is
rounded by clay-daninant sediments observed irnnediateiy to the
north and to the east of the site.
4.
The gray clay COnfining layer present at Pond 13
acts as an effective barrier to vertiCal migration.
5.
Based on the water levels ITEaSUred in the RI (ESE,
1986d) and supplemental RI (ESE, 1986a) essentially
no direction of grotmd water flow can be established
for the shallow aquifer.
The hydraulic head observed in the deep rroni toring wells
ip higher than those observed in the shallow aquifer
further substantiating the conclusion that vertical
contaminant migration at Pond 13 is tmlikely.
6.
7.
Although the substantial clay dep::>sits below the con-
taminated shallow aquifer should constitute an effec-
ti ve barrier to downward contaminant migration, low
levels of ni troaromatics were observed in the deep
aquifer, 1'v.iever, that incidental contamination appears to be
an isolated, lOCalized occurrence.
-------
13
E.
~y OF SITE RISKS
Potential expJsure pathways are as follows: at the Acids Area/yellow
Water Reservoir Area, the only significant pathway at present is direct
contact with surficial soils. If the area is developed for industrial use
in the future, it can be assumed that workers could be expJsoo to contaminat-
ed soils/sediIrents. on-site construction or landscaping activities could
expJse contaminated subsoils. At Pond 13, the ~sure pathway of concern
results from leachate generation by contaminated sediments in the wet wells,
ground water traI1.Sp)rt in the shallow sand aquifer, and discharge via a
small seep to Pond 13, where aquatic biota are ~sed. Since Pond 13 is
currently closed to fishing, aquatic biota are the only p:>p.llation ~sed
after bioaccumulation of contaminants from water or sedirrents.
Ground water resources that may hiive become contaminated are not now
used for p:>table supply. The area is served by a municipal supply, and
any new residents can be connected to this supply. However, they are not
required to connect, and the ground water r~source is a "usable" aquifer.
The institutional constraints that currently exist on site militates
against the use of ground water on the M:Clintic Wildlife station as a
p:>table supply. The State of West Virginia has inCentive, intent, and
authority (barring a national emergency, in which case the Army could take
control of the property) to maintain the land in this use.
Health and envirornnental risks associated with expJsure .to site
contamination have been evaluated, and in general, no p:>p.llation is currently
being expJsed to tmaCceptable levels of contamination. However, future
p:>p.llations might be at risk if land or water use changed and no renedial
actions were taken. In consideration of this, the .Ne-Action Alternative is
not viable in any area included in the second. operable \mit. In the Acids
Area/yellow Water Reservoir, the carcinogenic risk resulting from occasional
expJsure to contaminated surficial goilS under the existing land use is
esti.Inq.ted to be less than 1. 8 x 10-. If the area were developed industrially,
the ITOSt probable future land use~ workers could be exp:>sed to I:NI' concen-
trations resulting in a 2.8 x 10- individual cancer risk. Furthenrore,
expJsure to 2,4, 6-'INI', I¥>ncarcinogenic contaminant, would exceed recOl1T!'leIlded
expJsure levels by a factor of 2.7. sur~ficial soil contamination in this
area. has resulted in adverse envirornnental ilT1pacts on vegetation as indicated
by the lack of vegetation in a contaminated hot sp:>t.
-------
14
Levels of contamination in the surficial water table aquifer in the
Acids Area;Yellow Water Reservoir exceed acceptable levels for drinking
water. 'Iheshallow water table aquifer is not used as a p:>table Supply
anywhere in the vicinity of WVCW since the preferred ground water supply is
the deeper sand and gravel aquifer. Contamination of the shallow aquifer
theoretically represents an endangerment since there are no prohibitions or
feasibility constraints against its use. As a practical matter, however,
this contamination p:>ses no risk to public health since there is no reason
to believe that it would be used in the fure, given the tradional use
of the deeper aquifer. The contaminated p:>rtion of the surficial aquifer
is in an area developed for institutional and industrial use, which is
unattractive for residential developnent. In the Red Water Reservoir Area,
ground water used as a source of domestic supply is contaminated. Existing
wells exhibit acceptable levels of contamination, and the ground water
quali ty has apparently reached a steady-state (max:irm.Irn) concentration, so
existing water users are not at risk now or in the future. If new wells
wer9 installed in areas outside but near M:Clintic Wildlife Station, these
new wells might be contaminated to unacceptable levels. The carcinogenic
risk associated with exp:>sure to the INl's for a hyp:>thetical new domestic
well in the center of the pl~ at the M:Clintic Wildlife Station boundary
could be as great as 4.8 x 10- , which is outside the acCeptable risk
range for CERCI:A resp:>nse actions. R~sks due to noncarcinogenic contaminants
and risks to nonhuman biota associated with the Red Water Reservoir Area
are negligible.
Existing p:>pliations are not exp:>sed to unacceptable levels of
contamination in the Pond 13;Wet Well Area because Rmd 13 is closed to
fishing. If no ranedial action were taken and Pond 13 were reopened for
fishing, bass fishermen and Others with wham Shey shared their catch could
experience a cancer risk as high as 1. 7 x 10- due to exp:>sure to the rNI's.
ExJ;x:>sure to noncarcinogenic contaminants and risks to aquatic biota are
within acceptable limits in this area.
F.
REMEDIAL AL~ ~
The major objectives of remedial action to be taken at the West Virginia
Ordnance WOrks Site include the raooval of soil contaminants to protective
levels; the minimization of the aItDtmt of hazardous SUbstances leaching into
the grournwater and the trea1:ne1t Of groundwater to protective levels.
The levels that. were developed ar~ based on standards that were available
for the specific chenical, or deVeloped with respect to the 10-6 cancer
risk, that is one person in one million adversely affected.
Based on the aJ:Jove objectives, numerous source control technologies
were screened. to provide a limited rn.nnber of tecl1nologies applicable for
ranedial action at the site.
,.
-------
15
Table 4.
Renedial Obje<..."ti ves for Second Operable Uni t
Comp:>l.1l1d
'IN!'
GrOtmd Water Used
as Drinking Water
SUpply
(ugjL )
50
INS
14
'INS
200
2,4-INI'
10-6 Risk
10-5 Risk
0.11*
1.1
2,6-INI'
10-6 Risk
10-5 Risk
0.022*
0.22*
Total Nitroaromatics
10-6 Risk NA
10-5 RISK
*Below detection limit
G.
DESCRIPrICN OF AL'I'ERNATIVES
1.
Technolocdes Available
Soils, Industrial SUrface Water,
Land Use M:Clintic
(nq!kg) (ugjL)
4,000 60
1,200 160
18,000 80
10 3.4
100 34
2 0.67*
20. 6.7
200 NA
2,000
Each technology was evaluated not only in teI1llS of theoretical
feasibility, but also in teI1llS of whether the technology is applicable to
the site-specific conditions. The technologies for each of the three
ar~ can be grouped into the following four categories: .
1.
Excavation and Incineration
2.
Excavation and Lanifilling
Contairnrent and Institutional Controls
3.
4.
~ 1d:ion
!nan effort to provide a degree of flexibility in the final selection
of a remedial action, a set of. alternatives covering a range of renedial
actions, based on tl1e above technologies, has been developed: As sp:!Cified
by EPA !X)licy and interim guidance on canpliance with the N:P and CERcrA,
as amended by ~, remedial action alternatives were developed rangihg
fran an alternative that eliminates the need for long-tenn managarent and
rronitoring to alternatives involving treatment to r~ce toxicity, rrobility,
or volt.II'OO. In addition to the range of treatment alternatives, a containrrent
option involving little or no treatment and a no-action alternative were'
developed.
-------
Table 4. Re.meclial Objectives for Second Operable Unit
Groun:l Water Used
as Drinking Water
SUpply
(ug/L)
Soils, Irdustrial
ram Use
(ng/kg)
SUrface Water,
McClintic
(ugjL)
Canpound
'IN!' 50 4,000 60
I:NB 14 1,200 160
'INB. . 200 18,000 80
2,4-I:NI'
10-6 Risk 0.11* 10 3.4
10-5 Risk 1.1 100 34
2,6-I:NI'
10-6 Risk . 0.022* 2 0.67*
10-5 Risk 0.22* 20 6.7
Total Nitroaramatics
10-6 Risk NA 200 NA
10-5 RISK 2,000
*8elow detection limit
,
,.
-------
I~
16
Available reredial technologies identified and developed into alter-
natives for each area of concern, the source of the contamination in that
area was initially addressed. Selection of the remedial technology for the
source was based on the type, concentration, and extent of contamination in' .
the source rredium; knowledge of previous applications and perfonnance of
the remedial technologies; and knowledge. gained fram pilot-scale of field
studies. Three broad categories were used for the evaluation: effectiveness,
implementability and cost. 'TIle following is a sunmary of the evaluation
for each area. 'TIle alternatives are fully sumnarized in Appendix A.
2.
PRESENrATICN OF ALTERNATIVES
I. Acids Area/Yellow Water Reservoir Alternatives
. ~
Alternative lA (incineration and treatrneri.t> involves exc;~vation of
contaminated soil for off-site incineration and treatment by carton adsorption
of grouridwater raroved by extraction wells, followed by direct Qlscharge to
Mill Creek. 'TIle objective of this alternative with regard to soils is
rerroval of contaminated soilS that contain nitroaromatics with c,oncentrations
above acceptable levels. Groundwater will be treated to levels :$pecified by
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. :!
, "
Alternative 2A (incineration and treatment) is identicaiito al~ernative
lA, except that incineration would be accomplished on site. A nPbile incin-
erator would be transferred to the site and the ash by-product Would be
used for backfill. Groundwater would be treated to levels specified
by appliCable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
Alternative ]A (rerroval and diSpJsal) involves the excavation of
contaminated soils/sediments for diSpJsal in an off-site landfill. Remedial
action for contaminated grm.D1dwater involves p..mlping and treating, by
by carbon adsorption to appropriate levels and direct discharge of the
treated water to Mill Creek.
Alternative 4A (contairnnent) involves pJrchasing the industrial
park, which encompasses the area of contamination, adding 2 feet of soil
cover over areas of contaminated soi Is, incorp:>rating the area into the
existing wildlife station and extracting and treating the groundwater in
the marmer previously described. '!he. objective of this alternative is .to
eliminate the direct E!XI;X)sure pathway to contaminated soils.
Alternative SA is the ''tb Action" renedial.alternative included to
establish present baseline site conditions. 'TI1is alternative would not
improve site an:titions nor would it mitigate the migration of site contami-
nants.
~
..
-------
17
II. Red Water Reservoir AlteIT1atives
AlteIT1ative 2A (incineration and treatment) involves excavation ,,df
contaminated soil for on-site' incineration and treatment by carbon adsorJPtion
of grOtmdwater 'reroved by extraction wells, followed by direct discharge to
Mill Creek. The objective of this alternative with regard to sediments is
canplete reroval of all contaminated sediments that contain ni troarooatics
concentrations in excess of designated levels.
AlteIT1ative 3B (rem:>va.l and disp:>sal) involves the excavation of
contaminated sediments for dispJsal in an on-site landfill. Remedial action
for contaminated groUI1dwater to specified levels is the same as previously
described (p.mlping groUI1dwater, treating by carbon adsorption and direct
discharge). The objective of this alternative is canplete reroval of all
contaminated sediments that contain. ni troarorratics concentrations' in excess
of designated levels.
AlteIT1ative 4A (containment) would involve relocation of existing
p::>nds, leveling and backfilling of the areas and cawing with a clay layer
to preclude infiltration into the groundwater of the shallow aquifer.
GroUI1dwater would then be extracted and treated to specified levels in the
manner previously described. The ' objective of containment of sediment
'contamination is to eliminate further migration of contaminants into the
groUI1dwater.
AlteIT1ative 5A is the "No Action" remedial alteIT1ative included to
establish present baseline site conditions. This alteIT1ative would not
improve site conditions nor would it mitigate the migration of site contami-
nants. .
III. Pond. 13Met Well Area AlteIT1atives
AlteIT1ative IB (incineration and treatIlent) involves excavation of
contaminated soil for off-site incineration and treatment by carbon adsorption
of groundwater reroved by extraction wells, followed by discharge to Mi 11
Creek. The objective of this alteIT1ative with regard to soils i? canplete
raroval of all contaminated soils that contain nitroaranatics concentrations
arove acceptable levels. '
Alternative 2C includes excavation of contaminated soils and sediments
with ~ disposal at an on-site landfill. Groundwater treatment
would involve using an in situ activated carbon bed in the soil adjacent to
Pond. 13.
"
-------
18
Alternative 3A (reroval and dispJsal) involves excavatidn of contami-
nated soils/sediments for diSpJsal in an on-site landfill and treatment of
groundwater by use of extraction well plIDlping, carbOn adsorptior treatment
and direct discharge into Pond 13. "
Alternative 3B (reroval and diSpJsal) involves excavation of con-
taminated soils/sediments for dispJsal in an off-site landfill and treatment
of groundwater by use of extraction well plIDlping, carbon adsorption treatment
and direct discharge into Pond 13.
Alternative 4A (containment) would involve covering the wet wells
wi th soi 1 and treating gro1.D1dwater in the marmer previously described. The
objective of this alternative is to eliminate all direct expJsure pathways
to htm\3I1S and aquatic biota. . .
Alternative 4B would involve relocating Pond 13, and groundwater
treatment through well extraction, carbon adsorption and direct discharge
to a new Pond 13. The objective of this alternative is to eliminate all
expJsure pathways to humans and aquatic biota.
Alternative SA i.s the "rb OCtion" renedial alternative included to
establish present baseline site conditions. '!his alternat;.ive would not
improve site conditions nor would it mitigate the migration of site contami-
nants.
H.
SITE SPEX:IFIC APPLI~ OR RELEVANI' AND APPROPRIATE
REDUIREMENI'S
section 12l(d) (2) (A) of CERCLA, as anended by SZ\RA, discusses cleanup
standards applicable to any hazardous substance, pJllutant, or contaminant
that will ranain on site. The selected raredial action must at least attain
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, requiranents,
criteria, or limitations (ARARg). These ARARs include Federal environmental
laws including, but not limited to, the Toxic SUbstances Control Act (T~),
the sa£e Drinking Water OCt (SJ:WA), the Clean Air ~ (CAA), the Clean
Water ~ (CWA), the Marine Protection, Research and sanctuaries Act (MPRS\),
and the solid Waste Disp:>sal 1d: (goJDA). In addition, any pronulgated .
state standard, requireIS1t, criterion, or limitation that is rrore stringent
than Federal requirE!1B1tS is applicable if such a state requirenent is part
of a Federally delegated program and has been identified to the President.
by the State in a ti.nely marmer. Pursuant to EPA guidance, a pranulgated
state starxiard is a starmrd that is generally applicable (Le., not specific
to a single targeted site or activity) and enforceable by the State (EPA,
1987) . ~arulgated starx:1ards. may be determined in considering the
necessary level of clearnJp. l>.ccordingly, the major ARARs to be considered
inc lude: .
-------
19
Federal
Clean Water Act
- Wetlands Impacts
- Differential Groundwater Policy
- - Ambient Water Quality Criteria
- Pretreatment Standards for explosives
Manufacturing Point Source Category
- EPA National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systan requiranents
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
- Groundwater Protection Standards
,
,
"
"
.,
"
, I;
West Virginia HazardoUs
Waste Managanent,,'
Regulations; !
,r
State
,.
; I
-.Closure and Post Closure Standards
Standards for ONners and OF€rators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage
and Disposal ~acilities
;".\
,.
"
;1'
,:1 J - Groundwater protection standards
I . .
The ARARs identified for reriooial actions are those selected from .
Federal and State environmental laws and standards that are appliCable or
relevant and appropriate to the site-specific rem:dial act ins under
consideration~ These ARARs are contaminant-specific, location-specific and action-
specific and are rrore fully addressed on the RI/FS.
Performance Standards for Inc inerators
a.
~SPEX::IFIC ARMS
A contaminant-specific ARM is a chanical-specific concentration
limit established by either Federal or State environmental laws for a given
environmental rreclitnn. Examples may include M:Ls and maxim..nn contaminant
level goals (M:::U;s) established pursuant to SI:WA, ambient water quality
criteria (AW:;C) established p.lrsuant to CWA, and national ambient air
quality standards (~) established pursuant to c::M..
No rn.nneriCal concentration limits for lead and nitroarornatics in
soils and sediments currently exist in either Federal or West Virginia
envirornueutal regulations. However, West Virginia Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Regulations (Olapter 20-5E, series XV) requiring closure of regulated
tmits and the recent prQIX>sed RCRA amendments for landfill, surface
~, and waste ptle closure (52 Fed. Reg. 8712) are relevant and
appropriate. Both regulations were prOITUllgated, in part, to protect
-------
20
h\JITla11 health and the environment from contaminated soi Is and sediments
upon facility closure.
surface water contamination by nitroaromatics was identified in Pond
13. Numerical <:oncentration limits. for contaminants in surface water are
found in NtQ::.s established pursuant to section 304(a) of CWA. 'll1ese criteria
provide guidance on acceptable levels of contaminants in surface water for
the protection of h\JITla11 health and aquatic life. NtQ::.s are not applicable,
but they may be determined to be relevant and appropriate. NtQ::.s for
contaminants of concern at WVCW serving as criteria for protection of
h\JITla11 health include: lead, 50 ug/L; and 2,4-INI', zero. 'll1e value for,
lead is also the M:L which is applicable to drinking water. It is not
relevant and apprqpriate to surface waters at t.t"1is site insofar as surface
waters are not used as a source of drinking water. 'll1e Nt1;J:. for 2, 4-INl' is
not appropriate sihce it is not measurable and, thus, could not be
enforced, nor is it technically feasible to achieve.
, . .
An NtQ::. has also been promulgated to protect aquatic life from
expJsure to lead. '! 'll1e criterion is hardness-based and may be relevant and
appropriate. No nUrrerical concentration limits for nitroaranatic cornp:>unds
are included in West Virginia Water Quality Standards (West Virginia
Administrative R~atior1S, State Water Resources Board, 01. 20, Article
5) . 'II I .
, I
'J t
For ground water contamination, p:>tential contaminant-specific ARARs
include M:Ls, M:LGs, RCRA SUbpart F regulations, West Virginia Hazardous
Waste Regulations, West Virginia Water Quality Standards, Nt1;J:.s adjusted
for drinking water, and Health Advisories released by EPA's Office of
Drinking Water. 'Ib date, neither M:Ls nor M:LGs have been promulgated
for nitroaranatics.
RCRA ground water protection standards (40 C.F.R. section 264.92
gt ~.) were promulgated for the protection of p:>tential drinking water
sources from contamination released from hazardous waste facilities. 'll1ese
same standards are codified as West Virginia Mninistrative Regulations,
Department of Natural Resources, 01. 20-5E, serieS' 'RJ, see 8.
West Virginia ground water protection standards identify three cate-
gories of ground water concentration limits: (1) M:Ls. (2) backgrmmd
levels, and (3) alternate concentration limits (ACLs). As noted earlier,
M:Ls do not exist for ni troaromatics. AI though background ground water
quality data are available for VM:W, ACLs are permitted in lieu of back-
ground levels if these levels will not p:>se a substantial present or
p:>tential hazard to tn.Iman health or the environment.
Contami.na1?t-specific concentration limits and criteria baSed on the
ARARs considered are presented in Table 12.
-------
21
b.
I.O:ATICN-SPEX:IFIC ARARs
Location-specific ARARs are , ,'thOse requirements that establish
restrictions on renedial acti vi ties, .lor limitations on contaminant levels on
the basis of site characteristics O~ the physical characteristics of the
surrotmding area. State locational requirements are to be followed only
when they are of general applicability and are based on hydrogeological
considerations. 'Ihese requirements should not be intended to restrict land
disp:>sal for reasons other than protection of human health or the environ-
ment. Examples of such ARARs include siting laws for hazardous waste faci-
lities, laws regarding developnent or other activities in wetlands and
floodplains, historic preservation laws, and laws for the protection of '
endangered species.
'Ihere are several site characteristics that may require compliance witll
location-specific ARARs. A {X)rtion of the site is located in the
floodplain of the Ohio River. Also, the site is a State wildlife
management area.
Table 12 - Concentration Limits and Criteria Based on contaminant-
Specific ARARs for WVOW
Contaminant
Acids Area/yellow Water
Reservoir and Red Water
Reservoirs GrOlmd Water
(rrg/L)
'lNl'
50
I:NB
14
'lliB
'200
2,4-INI'
10-~ Risk
10- Risk
0.,11*
1.1
2.6.INI'
10-6 Risk
10-5 Risk
0.022*
0.22*,
*Below analytical detection limit.
r-bte:
I:NB = dini trobenzene.
-------
22
Taking site conditiozjs into accOtmt, location-specific ARARs for 'WVCNJ
include West Virginia Ha..zaYdous Waste Managenent Regulations, Section
12, Location Standards of/Hazardous Waste Management Faci li ties; Executive
Orders 11988 (flllutants. These requirenents are, triggered
by the particular remedial activities as op{x>sed to the specific chEmicals
present at a site. Examples of aCtion-specific ARARs include closure regula-
tions, incineration standards, and pretreatment standards for diSCharges to
pJbliCly owned treatment works (FOIWs).
Because several different alternative aCtions are to be evaluated
for WVCNl, different action-specific ARARs will apply to the various
alternatives. These action-specific ARARs do not in thenselves determine
the appropriate reneclial alteITlati ve, but indicate the perfonnance levels
to be achieved by the alternative.
Although action-specific ARARs cannot be' finnly established prior
to identification of 'remedial alternatives, alternatives developed for the
first operable lll1it provide an indication of action-specific ARARs that
would 'apply. Preliminary action-specific ARARs are listed in Table 13,
and criteria based on these ARARs are listed in Table 14.
Table 13 - Action-Specific ARARs for WVCNl
Closure and Fost-Closure Standards (West Virginia Hazardous Waste
Managanent Regulations, 01. 20.5E, Series lW, Sec. 8.6).
Standards for Ckmers and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage and DiSJ;X>sal Facilities (West Virginia Hazardous Waste
Managanent Regulations, 01. 20. 5E, Seri~ lW, Sec. 8. 10 Waste Pi les and
Sec. 8.11 Landfills). '
Perfonnance Stan:1a.rds for, Incinerators (West Virginia Air Pollution
Control Camdssian Mninistrative Regulations, 01. 16-20, Regulation lOW,
Sec. 6).
Petreatment Stan:1a.rds for explosives Manufacturing Point SOurce Category
(40 C.F.R Part 457).
EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systen (NPDES) requirenents.
-------
23
Table 14 - Criteria Based on Action-Specific ARARs
Remedial Activity
Criterion
Incineration
99. 99 percent
Destruction efficiency
Effluent Discharge
'1NI'
mE
'lliB
60 ug!L
160 ug/L
80 ug/L
I.
CCl1PARATIVE ANALYSIS
1.
Acids ArealYellow Water Reservoir
Alternative lA
'!he objective of this alternative with regard to soils. is complete
raroval of al~ contaminated soils that contain nitroarcrnatic concentrations
above the 10- risk levels (200 rng/kg) for off-site incineration.
The estimated quantity of contaminated (>20Orrg/kg) soil is approximately
1,800 CUbic yards (cy). 'lllis action would eliminate the expJsure pat,hway
of direct contact.
Ground water would be extracted and treated on site using a tran-
sIXJrtable carbon lmit. The estimated volune of 450 million gallons of
ground water would have to be p.mlpE!d and treated. The estimated time to
complete ground water treatment (at 150,000 gp:l) would be 10 years.
Treated ground water would be discharged to Mill Creek via the drainage
feature which rt.mS adjacent to the area. The caroon adsorption system is
capable of reducing the nitroaromatic concentrations in the grotrnd water
from the maxim.1m. of 6ug/l detected beneath the Acids AreajYellow Water
Reservoir area to below both the drinking water limits' and surface water
cri teria. When the concentration in the influent decreases below the
ground water action level for all contaminants, o};:erations would be con-
ducted durim ani after ranediation to ensure that plblic health would not
be threatened. .
-------
.
24
Five year reviews would not be required after closure for
this permanent remedy, as there would be a full reduction of toxicity,
rrobility and volurre of contamination. The present worth of this
alternative is $7.73 million. .
Alternative 2A
Alternative 2A is identical to Alternative lA except incineration
takes place on-site instead of off-site. This alternative includes excava-
tion of contaminated soils for onsite incineration and treatment by carron
adsorption of ground water rerroved by extraction wells, followed by direct
discharge of treated water to the drainage feature adjacent to the north
side of the site which flows into Mill Creek.
Implenentation of this alternative is the same as that described for
Alternative lA except that contaminated soils would be incinerated on-site
. . and the ash would be used for backfill. All necessary rronitoring actions
will be made of the entire incineration process. Ash would be stored
taT1[X>rarily until analysis for contaminants could be completed to determine
if sufficient treatment has been provided. Ash that passes analysis would
be replaced in the completed excavation, and ash that fails analysis would
be reincinerated. Up)n completion of incineration operations, the
incinerator would be decontaminated and raroved. Wastes generated during
decontamination would be collected and tran.sp:>rted to a licensed treatment
facility for diSFQsal. Five year reviews would not be required after
closure for this pennanent remedy, as there would be a full reduction of
toxicity, nobility and volume of contamination. The present worth of
this alternative is $1.927 million.
Alternati ve 3A
Alternative 3A involves excavation of contaminated soils/sediments and
disp:>sal in an off-site landfill. The landfill selected based on cost is
Cecos International-, located near Williamsburg, CE. Renedial action for
contaminated. ground water is the same as for previously described
alternatives (p.m1ping ground water, treating by carbon adsorption, and
. direct discharge).
ImplateItation for this alternative is the senre as alternative lA
except that coiItaminated soil would be tran.sp:>rted to an off-site,
secure, RCRA-licensed larxifill.
Five-year reviews would not be required after closure for this pennanent
remedy, as there wuuld be a full reduction of toxicity, rrobility and volurre
of contarninatiQn. '!he present worth of this alternative is $1.142
mi llion. . . .
-------
25
Alternati ve 4A
Alternative 4A involves purchasing the industrial park, which
encompasses the area of contamination, adding a 22 ft. impermeable c lay cap
over areas of contaminated soils, incorp:>rating the area into the existing
wildlife station, and extracting and. treating ground water in the same
marmer as described for Alternative lA. '!he land to be purchased consists
of Parcels A through G as shown in Fig. 10. Applicable action-specific
ARARs are the same as those for Alternative lA.
Incorp:>ration of the land into the wildlife station and addition ofa
clay cap would create an impermeable barrier to water, thereby eliminating
water infiltration and production of contaminated leachate and eliminating
the direct contactexp:>sure pathway to contaminated soils.
M:>bilization for this alternative is similar to Alternative lA except
that contaminated surficial soils/sediments would not be excavated but --
would be covered. SOil for cover from a local off-site comnercial source
or from an area within M:Clintic Wildlife Station would be hauled to the
site.
Implementation of this alternative differs from previously described
alternatives in that following clearing and gradding, the surface of the
site would be recont,oured to prc:xoote surface water nmoff. '!he soil would
be placed in layers of 1 ft. or less and have a mip:im.Im total thickness of
2 ft. '!he top I ft. of soil would consist of loosely placed topsoil, which
would be seeded and mulched as described previously.
Fi ve year reviews would be required for the covered areas of the si te ,
despite the full.containment of contamination. '!he present worth of
this alternative is $1. 4 million.
No Action (Alternative 5)
No remedial actions would be' implemented under Alternative 5 at the
Acids Area/yellow Water Reservoir. '!his alternative would not improve site
conditions nor would it mitigate the migration of site contaminants. This
alternative has been included to establish present baseline site conditions.
Alternative 5 is not classified in the M:P. as either a source control renedy
or a manageiment. of migration raredy. . .
Alternative 5 YJOUld include a long-term rronitoring program to provide
infonnation on the extent of contamination migration as a function of time.
'!he nom toring program 1NOUid include sampling and analysis of ground water.
Existing an-site nonitoring wells could cQntinue to be used to rronitor any
future migration past the installation bOundary toward fX)tential hurran or
envirormattal receptors.
-------
26
'!his alternative does not address public health or environmental
considerations, but it would provide a means to identify future problens.
It could be implanented easily, and no capital costs and low 0 & M costs
would be required. Five year review's of rronitoring data and site conditions
would be required. The present worth of this alternative is $55,000.
2. .
RED WATER RES:E:R\DIRS AL'I'ERNi\TIVES
Alternative 2A
Alternative 2A involves the excavation of contmainated soil for on-
site incineration and treatment by carton adsorption of groundwater reroved
by extraction wells, followed by direct discharge to Mill Creek.
'!he objective of this alternative with regard to sediments is complete
rerrcval of all contaminated sediments that contain total nitroaromatic. .
concentrations in excess of the criteria presented in Table 12. '!he est~ted
quantity of contaminated sediments is approximately 25,000 ey. --Assuming a
25-percent swell factor UpJn excavation, approx~tely 31,250 ey of sediment
would be incinerated on-site. This action would eliminate the source of
contamination of the shallow aquifer and wol,lld limit the duration of ground
water treatment. Ground water would be extracted and treated on-site using
a transp:>rtable carton .uni t.
Fi ve year rreviews would not be required for this pemanent remedy,' as
there would be a full reduction of toxicity, IrObility and volume of cont-
amination. '!he present worth of this alternative $18.318 million.
Table 12
Criteria for sedi1rents of the Red Water Reservoirs
COIt1fXJund
PPLV (rcg/kg)
'IN!'
0.4
. aJB
0.02*
'INB
1.7
2,4-INl'
10-6 Risk
10-5 Risk
2,6-INl'
10-6- Risk
10-5 Risk
0.0003*
0.003*
0.00006*
0.0006*
Total Nitroarc:ma.tics
10-6 Risk.
10-5 Risk
0.006*
0.06*
*.Be1ow detection limit.
-------
27
Alternative 3A
Alternative 3A involves excavation of contaminated sediments and disfX)sal .
in an on-site landfill. REmedial action for contaminated ground water is
the same as previously described (pumping, treating by caroon adsorption and
direct discharge). f!lction-specific ARARs for this alternative are the same
as Alternative 2A except that West Virginia Performance Standards for Incin-
erators do not apply. 'TIle objectives and rEmediation criteria for this
alternative would be the same as Alternative 2A and would involve the
same vollnres and level of treatment.
Implementation of this alternative would be the same as described for
Alternative '2A except that contaminated sediment would be transI=Orted to an
on-site, RCRA-permitted landfill. Additional oorrow material would be
required to return. the ~nds to their original elevation.
Closure would include the removal of all temporary facilities, post-
closure sampling and analysis of grmrnd wat.er, and ~stclosure landfill
cover maintenance. 'TIle landfill site ITUlSt e registered as a hazardous
waste disposal facility with permanent land use restrictions. 'TIle soil
would be seeded with native grasses for stabi li ty . All wastes from
decontamination of equipren.t and personnel. would be transI=Orted to a RCRA-
. permitted disposal facility.
. ,
Five-year reviews would be required for this alternative to evaluate
the perfonnance of the on-site landfill. No permits would be required for
this onsite CERCI.A rEmedial action in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 300,
Vol. 50, No. 224, Nov. 20, 1985; however, the substantive requirements of
ARARs would be met. 'lhe present worth of this alternative is $11.001
million.
Alternative 4A
'TIle objective of containment of sediment contamination is to eliminate
further migration of these contaminants into the ground water of the shallow
aquifer. Although the sediments would not be removed to the levels presented
in Table 12, the goal of eliminating source of contamination of the
shallow aquifer and limiting the duration of ground water treatment would
be achieved. Ground water extraction and treatment wOuld satisfy the refX)nse
objective that gtouoo. water at the M::Clintic Wildlife Station oo\.Il1da.rY and
off-site be safe to drink. v
"
-------
28
Implerentation of this action would involve excavation of a nearby.
area, awroved by the wildlife managenent personnel, and spreading a clay
layer on the OOttan and sides as a liner. 'The water from Ponds I and 2,
which have been doctmtented as not being contaminated, would be not p.lITlpE!d
into the new p:md area. Additional StJIface water sampling would be conducted
to ensure that 'contaminated water is p.1IT1ped to new lX'nds. 'The devJatered
lX'I1ds would be leveled with local, compacted fill and graded to conform to
. the surrOt.ll'1ding ground surface to prorrote nmoff. A 2-ft layer of clay
would be aoded in layers of 1 ft or less to the compacted and graded surface.
'The clay would be placed with suffiCient rroisture content to ensure that
infiltration would be minimized. The compacted clay would be covered with
1 ft of topsoil, which would be seeded and mulched as described previously.
Five-year reviews would be required for the covered area of the site.
NO permits would be required for this on-site CERCIA remedial action in
accordance with 40 C.F .R. Part 300 ~ Vol. 50, NO. 224, Nov. 20, 1985;
howev.@r, the substantive requirements of ARARs would be met. The present
worth of this alternative is $1. 4 milion.
Alternative 5
,Under Alternative 5, no remedial actions would be implenented at the
Red Water Reservoirs. This alternative would not improve site conditiohs
nor would it mitigate the migration of site contaminants. This alternative
has been included to establish present baseline site conditions. Alternative
5 is not classified in the M:P as either a source-control remedy or a managenent
of migration remedy.
. Alternative 5 would include a long-term ITDnitoring program to provide
information on the extent of contamination migration as a function of time.
The ITDnitoring program would include sampling and analysis of ground water.
Existing on-site ITDnitoring wells could continue to be used to ITDnitor any
pJssible future migration of contamination past the installation oot.mdary
toward pJtential human or environmental receptors. '!he present worth of .
this alternative 1s.$55,000.
II.
FCND 13ME1' WEIL ~ ALTrnNATIVES
Alternative lB
Alternative lB VOlld include excavation of contaminated soils and
sediments for on-site incineration and treatment by carron adsorption of
groUD:j water raroved via extraction wells, followed by direct discharge to .
Pond 13. .
. '
-------
MAIN ENTRANCE
NOT TO SCALE
KEY
CONTAMINATED GROUND
WATtft PLUM!
SOWMCft ISC 1M7«.
Figure »f3^
ESTIMATED AREA OF CONTAMINATED
GROUND WATER — POND 13/WET WELL
AREA
WEST VIRGINIA
ORDNANCE WORKS
Feasibility Study
-------
29
The objective of this alternative with regard to soils and sediments
is complete raroval of all contaminated naterial that contains total
nitroaranatic concentrations exceeding the criteria for 10-6 risk
level, and in accordance with Table 13. This action would eliminate the
source of contaminated ground water which provides the conduit for contami-
nation to reach Pond 13 and would limit the duration of grOtmd water treat-
ment. .
Ground water would be extracted and treated on-site using a tran-
sp:>rtable carron unit in accordance with the standards developed and listed
in Table 14. Assuming an extraction/treatment rate of 150,000 gallons per
day (gp:U, the estimated time to complete ground water treatment Ii/ould be
at least 1 year. Treated ground water would be discharged to Pond 13.
Ground water rroni toring would be conducted during and after temedia-
tion to ensure that plblic health would not be threatened. This action
would eliminate the source of contamination for Pond 13 by satisfying the
- cri teria presented in Table 14, which are a guide to achieving acceptable
surface water quality in the FOnd. 'rhe present worth cost for this
alternative is $4.62 million.
Alternative 2A
,
A)..ternative 2A on-site incineration and:excacation and treatment of
ground water. Ground water treatIrent involves using an in situ activated
carron bed in .the soil adjacent to Pond 13 and would achieve levels in
Table 14.
Ground water in the shallow aquifer would be treated in situ through
the use of a bed of activated carron. The ni troci.rornatic contaminants
entering the bed of a would be raroved by adsorption to the carron, thereby
preventing the continued deterioration of Pond 13.
. .
Closure would include the raroval of all tanpJrary facilities, FOst-
closure sampling and anaIysis of ground water, and FOst closure landfill
cover naintenance. The landfill site ITU.1St be registered as a hazardous
waste disp:>sal facility with permanent land use restrictions. The soils
would be seeded with native grasses for stability. All wastes from
decontamination of equipnen.t and personnel would be transp:>rted to a
RCRA-pennitted disp:>sal facility.
Fi ve-year reviews tNOuld be required to evaluate the performance of
the lanjfill and activated carron bed. The present worth cost is
$1.3 rndllion. .
-------
Table 13
Criteria for Pond 13;Wet Well Area sediments
Corrp:>Ul1D.
. PPLV for Wet Well
sediments (ITQlkq)
- 'INI'
15
IEB
8.0
'INS
20
2,4-INI'
10-6 Risk
10-5 Risk
0.28
2.8"
2,6-INI'
. 10-6- Risk
10-5 Risk
0.056*
, 0.56
TOtal Nitroaramatics
10-6 Risk
10-5 Risk
5.6
11
*Below detection limit.
N:>te:
PPLV = preliminary pJllutant limit value.
'"
-------
Table 14.
Grourxi Water Criteria for Pond 13/Wet Well Area
COITp)und PPLV (ug/L)
'1NI' 4,600
mB 12,000
'1NB 6,200
. 2, 4-~ 260
10- Risk
10-5 Risk 2,600
2 6-~
'10- Risk' 52
10-5 Risk 520
~
-------
30
Al ternati ve 3A
Alternative 3A involves excavation of contaminated SoilS/Sediments
. for disp:)sal in an on-site landfill and treat:IDent of ground water by the
use of extraction well p.nnping, carron adsorption treatment, and direct
discharge into .Pond 13. Action-specific ARARs for 'this alternative include:
The objectives and ranediation criteria for this alternative are the
same as for Alternative lB, and ranediation would involve the same volumes
and level of treatment.
Five-year reviews would be required for this alternative to evaluate
the perfonPaIlce of the on-site landfill. N:> permits would be required for
this o~ite ~ actionin'accor~e with 40 C.F.R. Part 300 Vol. 50,
No. 224, Nov. 20, 1985. The present ,;Worth cost is $3.36 million.
, '~ ';
Alternative 3B
" \
'I
~ I
Alternative 3B includes soil exciivation with diSIX>sal in an off-site
landfill and ground water treatment through well extraction, carron adsorp-
tion, and direct discharge'to Pond 13:.)'
I,
. ~ " I
,. 1
The: objectives and renediation ctiiteria for this alternative are the
same as for Alternative lB and would inVOlve the same VOlurres' and
level of treatment. ! I
This alternative is identical to Alternative 3A for the Acids Area/
Yellow Water Reservoir. . Five-year reviews would not be required for this
permanent action, as there YlOUld be a full reduction of toxicity, ITObi Ii ty
and volurre of contamination. '!he present worth of this alternative is
$402,000.
Alternative 4A
. Alternative 4A. for the Pond 13/Wet Well Area would involve covering
the wet wells with soil and treating the ground water through well extrac-
tion, carron adsorption, an:i direct discharge to Pond 13.
The objective of this alternative is to 'eliminate all direct expJsure
pathways to humans an:i aquatic biota. The direct exp:>sure pathways can
be eliminated by covering the wet wells with 2 ft of soil and plmping and
treating cattaminated grOtJl)j water before it enters. Pond 13.
-------
31
Five-year reviews would be required for this alternative to
eValuate the perfonnance of the covered site. '!he present worth cost is
$565,000.
Alternative 4B
Alternative 4B for the Pond 13/Wet Well Area would involve relocating
Pond 13 and ground water treatment through well extraction, carron adsorp-
tion, and direct discharge to Pond 13.
TIle objective of this altemati ve is to eliminate all direct exp:>sure
pathways to humans and aquatic biota. The soil and ground water contamination
is located below the ground surface; therefore, the ground water seep into
Pond 13 represents the only direct contact expJsure pathway. By relocating
the p:>nd, the elimination of existing expJsure pathways is accomplished. A
new p:>nd would be excavated at M:Clintic Wildlife Station to rraintain the
current inventory of p:>nds at the refuge. Extraction and treatment of
ground water would ensure that contamination WOUld not affect Pond 14.
Five-year reviews would be required for the site. rb permits would
be required for this onsite CERCIA remedial action in accordance with 40
C.F.R. Part 300, Vol. 50, rb. 224, rbv. 20,1985; however, the substantive
requirements of ARARs will be achieved. 'll1e present worth cost is
$553,000. .
Alternative 5
under Alternative 5, no ranedial actions would be implanented at the .
Pond 13jWet Well Area. 'Ihis alternative would not improve site conditions,
nor would it mitigate the migration of site contaminants. 'Ihis alternative
has been included to establish present (baseline) site conditions. Alter-
native 5 is not classified in the N:P as either a source-control remedy .
or a management of migration raredy.
Alternati ve 5A would include a long-tenn rroni tor~ng program to provide
infonnation on the extent of contamination migration as a function of time.
'Ihe IrOnitoring program would include sampling and analysis of ground water,
surface water, and seep3. Existing onsite IrOni toring wells could continue
to be used to rroni tor any p:>ssible future migration of contamination past.
the installation bOl.Irx:la.Iy toward potential human or envirornnental receptors.
'!his alternative 1NOUld not address the pJblic health and environmental
considerations, b.rt it v.uuld provide a means to identify future problems;
it can be inplerented easily, and no capital costs and low 0 & M costs are
required. Present 'WOrth cost is $77,000.
-------
'--
32
1.
rx:x:uMENrATICN OF SIGNIFICANT QW-l;ES
No changes to the preferred alternative presented in the prop)sed
plan have occured. .
J.
SEI.H.TED REMEDIAL PREFERRED AL'I'ERNl\TIVE
1.
Evaluation Criteria
section 121 of as amended by Si\RA, and the current version of the
NCP (50 Fed. Egg. 47912, NOvember 20, 1985) establish a variety of require-
ments pertaining to renedial actions under CERCIA. The fOllowiTIg nine
criteria were USed in the evaluation of the remedial action alternatives at
WVUol. .
- Overall protection of human. health and the environment addresses
whether or not a raredy provides adequate protection and describes how
risks p)sed through each pathway are eliroinated I reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or. institutional controls.
- COI11Pliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all
of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other Federal
and State environmental statutes and/or provides grotmds for invoking a waiver.
- IDnq-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a
raredy to maintain reliable protection of hunan health and the environment
over time once cleanup goals have been met.
- Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of tirne needed to
achieVe protection, and any adverse impacts on hUItEIl health and the
environment that may be p)sed during the construction and implementation
period tmtil cleanup goals are achieved.
IrnDlementabilitv is the technical and administrative feasibility of
a remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed to
implement a particular option.
- Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs
and net present worth costs. . .
- State k:cectance iniicates whether, base on its review of RI/FS and
prop)sed Plan, the State concurs on, opp:>ses, or has no cc:mnent on the
preferred alternative at the present time.
-------
33
- Camunitv Acceptance will be assessed in the Record of Decision
following a review of the public conrnents received on the Mninistravite
Record am Prop:>sed Plan.
2.
Detenninatian of Preferred Reneclial Alternative
EPA has made a preliminary determination that the preferred
alternative provides the best balance of trade off with respect to the nine
criteria. The preferred alternative is alticip.3.ted to meet the fOllOwing
statutory requirements to:
- Protect human health and the envirornnent
- Attain ARARs
- Be tost-effective
- Utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or
resource recovery) technologies to the maxi1m.1rn extent
practicable
In sumnary, at this time, the preferred alternatives are believed to
provide the best balance of trade-offs azrong alternatives 'with resJ;:€Ct to
;'tile criteria used to evaluate reneclies. Based on the information avai lable
,at thi? time, therefore, EPA believes the preferred effective, and would
\ltilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
'resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
'~cor~IY, we recc:mtend that the following alternatives be implemented.
i
a.
Acids ArealYellow Water Area
The preferred alternative for the Acids Area/yellOlN Water Reservoir is
Alternative 4A. This alternative consists of the plrchase of lands within
the area encompassing the contamination, placing I 2-ft soil cover over the
contaminated area, incorp:>rating the area into the existing wildlife preserve,
and extracting and treating the ground water.
This alternative provides protection of human health and the environment
by containing the nitroaranatic contaminants in soils therefore protecting
, against e>qx:>sure. 'Altl1ough residual contamination will renain in the soils,
as long as the soi 1 cover renains intact, exp:>sure to humans via the inhala-
tion, skin contact, and ingestion p.3.thways will be mitigated. Further
protection is provided through the p..lrchase of the land and the control of
the use of the lards by incorp:>rating it as p.3.rt of the wildlife preserve.
-------
34
'D1rough these institutional actions, developnent of the lands for
industrial or residential use will be prohibited, and the contaminants will
ranain urmsturbed. ,
'll1e extraction and treatment of the ground water wi 11 mitigate this
migration pathway and reduce the contamination in the aquifer. Potable
water supplies wi 11 be protected through this action, and the local ground
water will eventually be restored.
'll1is alternative meets the contaminant, site, and action specific
ARARs. Although contaminants are left in place, the redesignation of land
use and the soil cover will meet the healthbased criteria developed for
nitroarOJt1atics in soils. The grOtmd water will be' treated lUltil the criteria
for ni troarOJt1atics are attained. Discharge from the ground water treatment
system will achieve the stream standard and will be rronitored to assure
compliance. , . .
'll1is ,alternative is cost-effective in comparison to the other
alternatives evaluated. 'll1e capital cost of the alternative is about
two-thirds of the cost of the next least costly acceptable alternative and
has about the same annaual O&M cost.
'll1is al ternati ve, however, does not provide pennanent reroval or
destruction of the contaminants that rena.in in the soils. Although, through
the institutioIial. controls and the soil cover, protection against a release
which could be an endangerment is provided. '!he ground water treatment
system, however, will provide pennanent raooval of the contaminant and
restore the ground water resource over tine.
b.
Red Water Reservoirs
'll1e alternative selected for the Red Water Reservoirs is the relocation
of Ponds 1 and 2 and the extraction and treatment of ground water (Alternative
4A) .
'!his alternative will provide protection of human health and the
envirornnent by containing secllioont contamination and eliminating further
contamination of the ground water aquifer via the sediments in the J:Onds.
~t only will the grOtn'X1 water contamination pathway be mitigated, but
exp;sure to the sediments will also be prevented once the p:mds are filled
with clean fill. 'D1e extraction system will rarove contaminants fran the
ground water and act to inprove the quality of the aquifer. 'll1is alternative'
is also beneficial as new J:OOOs will be created to provide recreation and
wildlife activities. '
~
-------
35
'll1is alternative will achieve the contaminant-specific ARARs by
mitigating the contamination pathway and treating the grOlrnd water until
the standard is achieved. The effluent from the treatment system will meet
the surface water criteria and will be operated and rronitored to maintain
compliance. The site-specific ARARs will be achieved through the replacenent
of the p:>nds and the eventual use of the p:>nds for recreation and the
prarotion of wildlife. .
This alternative is cost-effective in that it meets the ARARs and
resp:>nse objectives for about one-siXth the capital cost of the next least
costly acceptable alternative. The longterm O&M cost is simil?I to that
for the other alternatives. .
Although this alternative does not provide destruction or raroval of
the contaminants in the sediments, it does provide protection and the reduc-
tion of further aquifer contamination. The extraction and treatment of the
grOtmd water is a permment treatment remedy and wi 11 eventually act to
restore the grot.II1d water.
c.
Pond 13/Wet Well Area
Alternative 4A, the covering of the wet weIls with soil and treating
the ground water with disp:>sal in Pond 13, is the preferred alternative for
the I\:>nd l3/Wet Well area. '
This alternative will provide prptection of ht.m1aI1 health and the
envirornnent by cutting off the contamination pathway to the tX)nd. this
will prevent further contamination pathway to the p:>nd. This will prevent
further contamination Of the tX)nd arx:l the extX)sure to humans and biota from
contaminated water and sediment. Although contaminated materials will
renain in the wet wells, the cover will protect against direct contact and
the inflow of contaminated grot.II1d water. The extraction and treatment
system will rarove the contaminants fran the gr:otmd water as well as control
the migration pathway.
.
The ARARs associated with this site will be attained including the
action-specific ARARs associated with the discharge .of the treated effluent
into the tX)nd.
'Ihe capital and. operating cost of this alternative is in the same
range of other alternatives evaluated, but is at least as effective or rrore
effective- in protecting against extX)sure and in restoring the rx>nd and the
aquifer. .
-------
36
Although this alternative does not provide pennanent destruction or
remJval of the contaminants in the wet wells, it does provide control of
the release and does prevent exp:>sure to the contaminants. 'TIle p:>nd and
the ground water resources will be protected and restored through this
alternative. Because this remedy will result in hazardous SUbstances
renaining on-site, the five year facility review, p.lrsuant to CERCIA
Section 121(c) will irnplarented.
J.
'mE SIroUroRY D~CNS
1.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
'TIle selected remedy will reduce and control the nitroaromatic
contamination at the: Site which will ensure adequate protection of hUllBIl health
and the environment. .
2.
Attainment of ARARs
'TIle selected remedy will effectively attain the applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirenents as set forth in Section H.
3.
Cost-effectiveness
~e selected remedy provides overall effectiveness corrrnensurate
to its costs such that it represents a reasonable value for the IrOney.
Utilization of pennanent solutions ernplovinq alternative
technolocJies to the maximum extent practicable.
'TIle selected remedy is the IrOSt appropriate solution for this operable
tmi t and represents the maxiurrum extent to which permanent solutions and
treatment can be practicably utilized.
4.
5.
Preference for treatment as a principal element
'TIle preference is satisfied since treatment of the principal threats
w~re found to be practicable.
-------
APPmDIX A
...
-------
Talt I e 15 Summy of ~taiJecl AA'11ysis of .he AII:t!n."tl~s for the )\clds I\n.../\'cllvw IL.Wl- Resel"VOir
Effectlveress Inolementsbllltv (hst ($1,«0))
Redaction TechUcal AdaInlstrathe
1\1 tem,tlve Protectlveress MMs of H1V ItellliJll fty Feasibility Feaslbilltv Avnfltbflttv Caoltal 05H Reol acenI!Ilt
lA
~tlon . Pnwldes short - cd.plles Ellmlnat Ion I'roum tb tedmcal Approvals In: meraton. 7,247 72,1
Offslte tem an:I l~- of .sollsf. effective 11..ltatiom; easily ~pwent,
Jreineratlon tem protection sedlments: easy to mta1ned: 101 aperatDrs
Elttractlon slf11lffcant invlement, well readily
lreabrent redJctlm In ID\l tor, 101 I'1!Ce lved by available
gro.n:I water maintain can.nlty
2A
excavation ProvIdes smrt- CarpUes Elindnatlm Pn:M!n tb techUcal AftmMtls In:lnerators, 1,444 72.1
(he; I te tem SRI l~- of 901151 effective llJaltatfom: easlly «p.d pII!nt,
In::lneration tem protection sedJnt!nts: easy to mta1ned: 101 operators
extraction sll7'iflcant ""'lml!nt, well readily
Treatment ndJctlon In ID\l tor , ... I'1!Celwd by availsble
gn:ud water maintain COIIIU1i ty
]A
fXcavat Ion ProvIdes short- Carplles EliJalmtlm !ttertalntles tb tec.hUcal Approvals Unlfll18 , 929 72.1
Offslte tem SRI l~- of 5011sl associated liaitatlom: 88511y ecp.pEnt,
Imdflll tem protection sedJncnts; with 1101 easy to ~;. ..s operators
extractlm slfJ'l flcant dJ sposal invlmEnt. well rudily
Treabrent r~t1on in ..ntor, 101 reoelwd by 8V811li>le
grnn:I water. maintain OCIIIUdty
4A
Institutional Provides sOOrt - Carplles RedJction In I'roum tb techUcal. /4Jprovala &,.ta-mt, 665 72.9
. Controls tem aRi l~- mcblllty of effective UJdtatlom; eaSily ... operatDn
So 11 Cover tem protection 5011sl easy to mta1ned; ndl,~.
Elttractlm ResldJals rennin sedJJlfttts: ~lement, well I II ......... I.
Treatment s If'11I flcant Imnltor, 101 I'1!Celwd by ""'.u
r8(h~tion In tmlntaln COIIIU1i ty
grOlnJ water .
S .
No /v::tlon No protection Does rot No cP.tUctlon ~Jt effective Easy to Approvals &f.rlf'llB1t, 15 6(,"j-7, 241
COlfJ I Y in KIV Inp1eret1t, diHlcu1t spare parts.
IIDnl toc. l1I1lI to oI>t.lin; md operatol-s
I~,intatll: Hu)(! n'.Kit 1 y
ac:kJtl:ioml cnlll..,i ty . ffifa I t.Jle for
nctifJns !;In)(J.ot IInnllo"'''~
n'f,1I i n-ci I
-------
T, ,h' (! 15., SIIII"llY of l~r.1i1ed Analysis of the AllNnltlvcs for rJIt! Nt..>cl '''atcl' Itcservulrs
. Effectlveress Jnpl~lUtv
, Redx:tlorr Techdca1 AdaI.n1stratlve tectlW!D$S ARMs ofKlV Relili>illty Feasibility feasibility Availability Capital aIM Replaceaent
']A
EKcavatlon ProYIdes smrt- Cmplies EUmlnation Proven He. ted-nlcal Approuals ~ncl.neratDn. 17 .586 h.o
ens lte tem am lq- of sedJJEnts; effective limitations; easily erf II p-qt:.
1 n~ lneratlon tem protection slwUfI~ easy to obtained; ... operat:Dnl
kt lvated red..K:tlm In Inplment. _11 readily
Carbon bed gJUrd vater ..mtor...t received by 8V8llBble
nuintaln COIIU'dty
]8
FXcavatlon ProYIdes smrt - Cmplies Ellmlnatlm tkertaintles . No technical Approua1s IsnIfUb. 3,488 8~.0
(he; I te tem am l~- of sedJJII!Ots; associated Uattatlons; easily ~II.,.-,t.
Utrdf 111 tem protection sl"uflcant with lard - easy to obtained; 8¥1 operators
EXtraction redJctlm in disposal 1np18ll!nt. _11 readily
TreatJrent grOlRl water nndtor...t received by avaIlBble
nulntaln con.nI.ty
itA.
Relocate ProYIdes smrt- Cmplles Redx:tlon in Proven No technical Approuals Eqlltp-qt:. 681 71.0
Pards tem am 1~- nD}lllty of effective I iJIl tatlons; easily operatDn.
f)(tractlon tem protection; sedJJII!Ots; easy to obtab81; ... IpU8
Tre.111JCnt resldJals rmnin slflllficant ...., lencnt, _11 pu:t8 for' aIM
rcc:ktlon In nmltor. ad recelwd by re.nly
grond water nnintaln con..nIty 8V8lbble
5 --
tb ktlm No protection ~smt No red~tlon Not effective Easy to AwrUvaU I .."~:. " 15 -- 528-11,586
cmvly In KJV Inp leJl81t, difficult ::-~::~
nrnl tor,..t to obtain; ~,
'''llntaln; little reod11y
lkklltlond cann.nlty -avallli>le for ..
"
ncttOll5 SlfllOrt nrxUtor1~
l'(!(Il,1 n~
-------
T.,lile 15. SUIIMI)' of ~tnilt'd Amlysis of UIC AI tematlves for lhe I\Jrd 13,1\kt \leI I Area
, Effcctl~ress JlIPlenentsbU itv
Recb:tion Tedwdcal AdUnisttative (bst (S1.(O))
Alternative Protectiveness NWts of KlV ReUli>iUty Feasibility Feasibility Availability Qlpital (8t Rep1-..a~8t
18
' 358
~)(cavatlon Provides short- Co1t>Ues Elba1nation PrtM!n No tectn1cal Approvals. Irelnerat0r8. 70.2
(\151 te tem ant lq- of soils/ effective lba1tatiOl19: eas11y equlp-wt.
Ir.:ineration tem protection; sediments: easy to obtab1ed: ..t operaton
F.xtractlon u-certainties slwdflcant intJlement, well readily
TreatnEnt with lardfill redJction in nnUtor,..t received by . available
gn:ud wa~r lIIIIintain c:onuUty
2C
~tion ProITldes short- Co1t>Ues Elimination ~-tem No tectn1cal ApproY8ls Fqdpvent, 422 0.7
ens i te tem protection: of solls/ tn::ertaintles ItmtAtiOl19: rot easily . operatora.
L-roc ill lq-tem sediments; with lardfill easy to obtained: 8d spar8 parts
Activated u-certalnties siwdflcant ard caIbon bed intJlement, well for .wtorq
Carbon bed with lardfill retlJction in . ...utor,..t received by . reai11y
ard carbon bed . gn:ud water maintain camuUty svailable
]A
F.xcavat ion ProITldes short-. CaJ1>Ues Redtct ion th:ertainties No techdcal Apprvvabl &p"~. 216 70.9
fuslte tem protection; of so11s/ associated UmitAtiOl19: rot easily aperat0r8,
I illd ill lq-tem sedlnents; with lard easy to obtab1ed: ... .... p8ItII
F.xtraction u-certalnties nDbiUty ard disposal intJlenent, well' f« 811ni~
Treaurent with lardfill slwdflcant IIDlitor. srd received by P8d11,
redxtion In nnlntaln canJUdty.. 8Y8i1lbt8 .f
.f- t.
goud water ' ,:
3B ...triM.
F.xcavat ion ProITldes short - Co1t>I ies Re
-------
'J:,"'e 15.
SIIIIIIiIlY of l~r....iI~1 Amlysis of .he Allel1lillivcs for Ihe I'",.. lJj\kt \leU Area (lUlthu_'d, I'.age 2. of 2)
Al tematlve
,
Protectiveness
Effectlverr.ss
RedJCtion
of HIV
Reliability
Tednica1
Feasibility
InPle111!OO1bUttv
Ada1n1stratiw
~lbl'lty Avallabllt~
Cost ISt.CO))
Qlpt~l O\H Replactaetlt
ARMs
4A
SoU Cover Pravldes short- CaapUes Undted PnM!n No tedn1cal ~ . f4.dpII!Jnt, 250 70~6
~tractlon term ard 1~- red.Jctlon of effect!w lfaltatlms; eesUy operatDn,
TreatJJe1t term protection; 5011 ndJUity; easy to d>talned; 8d 8p8I'8
resid.aal.s remain slfld flcant: Inplenent, well parts for O\H "'.
red.Jctlon In IIIJI1itor, 8d rece!wd by re8I11y
gro.rd water maintain camm1ty svaUable
i '~8
Relocate Pravldes srort- Cmplles' Uai ted Pruum No tedn1cal AftmMds f4dpEnt, '219 70.2
Poro tem ani larg- red.Jctlon of effective 1 ind tat Ions; easily operaton,
fXtTaction . tem protection; soU ndJUity; easy to d»talned; .m spare
Tl'Ca~nt resid.aals rennin sl"u flcsnt fntJlement, well parts for O\H
redJCtlon In rmnltor, 8d received by nadlly
gro.rd water mlntaln camm1ty svallable
5
No Actl~ No protection (bes rot No rec:lI::t Ion Not effective Euyto /ftJt1MIb Scprl .,..-,t, 17.3 141-1,214
'cooply In HIV faplt'llB1t, difficult ...... p81't8,
nonltor, 8d to ,obtain; ... opentDl'll
nulntaln; Uttle naill,
-
- additional c:mnudty 8Y8Ibbte fur '
,. ,.
actions SlWOrt 'I, IDdtDdJw
re
------- |