PB98-964022
EPA 541-R98-102
November 1998
EPA Supei fund
Record of Decision:
Koppers Co. Inc. (Charleston Plant)
Charleston, SC
4/29/1998
-------
RECORD OF DECISION DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL Site
Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina
STATEMENT AND BASIS OF PURPOSE
This decision document presents the Final selected remedial action for the Koppers Co.,
Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL Site in Charleston, South Carolina. EPA's selected remedial action
was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative
Record for the Site. 6
The State of South Carolina does not concur with EPA's Final selected remedial action.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangermem to public health or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The remedy selected in this ROD is the Final response action selected for the Site. EPA
issued an Interim Action ROD in March 1995 to address potential short-term human health risks
associated with exposure to surface water and sediments of the Hagood Avenue and Milford
Street Drainage Ditches. This ROD selects a site-wide, multi-media response action to address
surface/subsurface soil, sediments of drainage ditches, groundwater and NAPL, surface water,
contaminant transport pathways, and sediments of the Ashley River, Barge Canal, and
North/South/Northwest Tidal Marshes. The major components of EPA's selected remedy
include:
• Excavation of an estimated 12,000 tons of the most heavily impacted soil with subsequent
off-site disposal in an approved hazardous waste landfill;
• Installation of an estimated 29.7 acre cap over lead impacted soil and relatively less
impacted soil to provide additional risk reduction;
9
• Reconstruction of an estimated 3,600 linear feet of on-site surface water drainage ditches;
-------
5 9 0192
• Recovery of groundwater/NAPL via extraction wells at three source areas to remove/treat
N APL to the maximum extent practicable, contain non-restorable source areas, and
contain/restore aqueous contaminant plumes;
• Enhanced sedimentation in the Ashley River,
• Placement of a protective cap over sediments of the 3.2 acre Barge Canal;
• Excavation of an estimated 0.25 and 1.50 acres of acutely toxic tidal marsh sediments in
the North and South Tidal Marshes, respectively, followed by restoration/revegetation and
off-site disposal in an approved hazardous waste landfill; and
• In-situ bioremediation for sediments in the Northwest Tidal Marsh and portions of the
South Tidal Marsh which did not demonstrate significant toxiciry.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 6
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. The remedy for this site utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The preference for
treatment as a principal element is fulfilled through the recovery and treatment of impacted
groundwater and NAPL, as well as in-situ bioremediation for the reduction of sediment
concentrations in the Northwest and South Tidal Marshes.
Because the selected remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above
health-based levels, a review will be conducted to ensure the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment within five years after commencement
of the remedial action.
Richard D. Green, Director Date
Waste Management Division
US EPA - Region 4
-------
^ 9 0193
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Site Name, Location and Description. 1
2.0 Site History and Enforcement Activities 1
2.1 Wood-Treating Operations ; 1
2.2 Subsequent Site Operations. 6
2.3 Previous Removal Actions and Investigations. 7
3.0 Highlights of Community Participation 8
4.0 Scope and Role of Response Action 9
5.0 Summary of Site Characteristics „ 11
5.1 Physical Characteristics 12
5.1.1 Demography 12
5.1.2 Meteorology. 12
5.1.3 Topography. 13
5.1.4 Surface Water Hydrology 13
5.1.5 Geology/Hydrogeology 14
5.1.6 Ecology 18
5.2 Surface/Subsurface Soils 18
5.3 Groundwater/NAPL 22
5.4 Sediments 24
5.5 Surface Water , 25
5.6 Fate and Transport 25
5.6.1 Former Treatment Area/Milford Street Ditch/Hagood Avenue Ditch/
North Tidal Marsh Area 26
5.6.2 Western Area/Central Drainage Ditch/Ashley River/
Northwest Tidal Marsh Area 26
5.6.3 South Braswell Drainage Ditch/Old Impoundment Area/Barge Canal
Ashley River 27
5.6.4 South Tidal Marsh 27
5.7 Dioxin 28
6.0 Summary of Site Risks 31
6.1 Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment 31
6.1.1 Lead Assessment 33
6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 34
7.t) Description of Alternatives 36
7.1 Development of Cleanup Levels 36
7.1.1 Soil and Drainage Ditch Sediments 36
-------
0
9
7.1.2 Groundwater/NAPL [[[ 40
7. 1 .3 Ashley River, Barge Canal and North/South/Northwest
Tidal Marsh Sediments [[[ 40
7.2 Soil and Drainage Ditch Sediments Alternatives .................................................. 45
7.3 Groundwater/NAPL Alternatives [[[ 47
7.4 Ashley River, Barge Canal, and North/South/Northwest Tidal Marsh
Sediments Alternatives [[[ 48
7.5 Lead Impacted Material [[[ 50
8.0 Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives [[[ 51
8.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment .................................. 52
8.1.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material ................... 52
8.1.2 Groundwater/NAPL .............. . [[[ 52
8.1 .3 Ashley River, Barge Canal, and Tidal Marsh Sediments ........................... 52
8.2 Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ............ 53
8.2.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material ................... 53
8.2.2 Groundwater/NAPL [[[ 54
8.2.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal, and Tidal Marsh Sediments ........................... 54
8.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence [[[ 55
8.3.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material ................... 55
8.3.2 Groundwater/NAPL [[[ 55
8.3.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal, and Tidal Marsh Sediments ........................... 56
8.4 Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume [[[ 56
8.4.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material ................... 56
8.4.2 Groundwater/NAPL [[[ 56
8.4.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal, and Tidal Marsh Sediments ........................... 57
8.5 Short-Term Effectiveness [[[ 57
8.5.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material ................... 57
8.5.2 Groundwater/NAPL [[[ 58
8.5.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal, and Tidal Marsh Sediments ........................... 58
8.6 Implementability .............................. . [[[ 58
8.6.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material ................... 58
8.6.2 Groundwater/NAPL [[[ 59
8.6.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal, and Tidal Marsh Sediments ........................... 59
-------
I> 9 0195
9.1.3 Drainage Ditch Reconstruction 71
9.2 Groundwater/NAPL 73
9.2.1 NAPL Source Areas 73
9.2.2 Northwest Comer of Deep Water-Bearing Unit 76
9.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal and Tidal Marsh Sediments 76
9.3.1 Ashley River. 76
9.3.2 Barge Canal 79
9.3.3 North, South, and Northwest Tidal Marshes 81
9.3.3.1 Dredging, Capping and Off-Site Disposal 81
9.3.3.2 In-Situ Bioremediation 85
9.4 Cost Summary 86
10.0 Statutory Determinations 87
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 87
10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 88
10.3 Cost Effectiveness h 88
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternate Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable 89
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 89
11.0 Documentation of Significant Changes 90
11.1 Lead Impacted Material 90
11.2 Barge Canal 91
Appendix A: State of South Carolina Non-Concurrence Letter; December 11,1997
US EPA - Region 4 Response Letter, March 18, 1998
Appendix B: Responsiveness Summary
• Attachment 1: Verbatim Transcript of April 15, 1997 Public Meeting
• Attachment 2: Written Comments Received During Formal Comment
Period
Appendix C: Superfund Proposed Plan Fact Sheet, Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL
Site, Charleston, Charleston County, South Carolina, March 1997.
-------
C 9 0196
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 1 - Site Area Map 2
Figure 2 - Site Base Map 3
Figure 3 - Site Base Map 5
Figure 4 -East/West Geologic Cross Section of Site 15
Figures - North/South Geologic Cross Section of Site. 16
Figure 6 - North/South Geologic Cross Section East End of Site 17
Figure 7 - Water Table Map of Shallow and Intermediate Wells. ^ 19
Figure 8 - Piezometric Map of Deep Wells 20
Figure 9 - Potential NAPL Source Areas 23
Figure 10 - Dioxin TEQ Sampling Stations :. 29
Figure 11 - Dioxin TEQ Reference Sampling Locations 30
. Figure 12 - Value Engineering Results 38
Figure 13 - Sediment Toxicity Locations North Tidal Marsh 42
Figure 14 - Sediment Toxicity Locations South Tidal Marsh, 43
Figure 15 - Sediment Toxicity Locations Ashley River, Northwest Tidal Marsh, Barge Canal 44
Figure 16 - Area of Soil Remediation 68
Figure 17 - Surface Water Drainage Ditches 72
Figure 18 - Groundwater/NAPL Remedy 75
Figure 19-Ashley River Remediation Enhanced Sedimentation 78
Figure 20 - Ashley River, Northwest Tidal Marsh, and Barge Canal Remediation ,.80
Figure 21 - South Tidal Marsh Remediation 82
Figure 22 - North Tidal Marsh Remediation 84
-------
l> 9 0197
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE/TITLE PAGE
Table 1 Lifetime Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Risks Future Industrial/
Current Off-Site Resident Scenarios 32
Table 2 Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Ecological Risk Assessment 34
Table 3 Determination of Soil Excavation Level 37
Table 4 Total Present Worth of Soil and Lead Impacted Material Alternatives 60
Table 5 Total Present Worth of Groundwater/NAPL Alternatives 61
Table 6 Total Present Worth of Ashley River, Barge Canal, and Tidal Marsh Sediments ..62
Table 7 Soil Excavation Levels : 67
TableS Soil Capping Levels 70
-------
l> 9 0190
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Pagel
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) Superfund site (hereinafter referred to as "the
site") is located in the neck area of northern Charleston, South Carolina on the west side of the
peninsula formed by the Ashley and Cooper Rivers. The general location of the site is depicted in
Figure 1. The site is approximately 102 acres in size and consists of a number of parcels of
property that currently contain a variety of commercial operations. The present use of the area
surrounding the site to the north, south, and east consists of a mixture of industrial, commercial
and residential properties. The Ashley River borders the site to the west. The total resident,
student, and worker population within a 4-mile radius of the site is approximately 150,000.
The specific boundaries of the site are illustrated on Figure 2. The parcel of property
bound to the north by Milford Street, to the south by Braswell Street, to the east by Interstate 26,
and to the west by the Ashley River represents an approximate 45 acre parcel. This 45 acre parcel
was previously owned by the Koppers Company from 1940 to 1978 and was used during their
wood-treating operations. In 1988, BNS Acquisitions, Inc. acquired the outstanding common
stock of Koppers Co., Inc. In 1989, BNS Acquisitions merged into Koppers Company, Inc., with
Koppers Company, Inc. being the surviving corporation. The company underwent a name change
to Beazer Materials and Services, Inc. and in 1990, that name was changed to Beazer East, Inc.
(Beazer).
The remaining portion of the site, which comprises approximately 57 acres located south
and adjacent to the former Koppers property, was never owned by Koppers. These 57 acres were
pan of a larger tract of land (the entire area south of Braswell Street) owned by the Ashepoo
Phosphate/Fertilizer Works. This property was used for phosphate and fertilizer production by a
series of owners from the turn of the century until 1978. In November 1984, a barge canal was
dredged on this property eastward from the Ashley River. This dredging operation resulted in an
observed fish kill in the immediate vicinity of the Ashley River. EPA incorporated these 57 acres
into the site boundaries to determine the environmental impact that the dredging operations had
on the Ashley River and neighboring tidal marsh.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.1 Wood-Treating Operations
Wood-treating operations at the site began in the early 1900's, when a wood-treating
facility was built in the eastern portion of the site. Koppers acquired the property (north of
Braswell Street, south of Milford Street, and adjacent to the Ashley River) in 1940 and continued
to operate it as a wood-treating facility until 1977 when wood-treating operations ceased. In
1978, the property was sold to Braswell Shipyards, Inc. (now known as Braswell Services Group,
Inc.) which subdivided the property into a number of parcels and sold all but two. Braswell
Shipyards later re-acquired one of die parcels and, since 1978, has operated'a military ship
cleaning, repair, and refurbishing business on two parcels in the northwest corner of the site. In
1994, Beazer acquired the three parcels from Braswell Shipyards, Inc.
-------
9
0:99
Koppers
RGURE 1
SITE AREA MAP
Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) Site
Source: B«azer East, Inc.. Pittsburgh. PA
-------
45E01A
700
41 IHttUf t 4W-W-W
II TM Wf f «M-«0-00
(222
PCftTY RM0I.T OOP BT KUMUU COMPMTT
700
SCALE IN FEET
1400
O
.v )
C")
SOURCE: 8CAZCR CAST, INC. PITTSBURC, PA 199S
FIGURE 2
SITE BASE MAP
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON. SC
-------
S 9 020:
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 4
Koppers' wood-treating operations consisted primarily of treating raw lumber and utility
poles with creosote. For short periods of time, pentachlorophenol (penta) and copper chromium
arsenate (CCA) were also used as preservatives in the wood-treating process. The plant
processed poles for utilities such as the power company and the telephone company, foundation
pilings for construction of buildings, docks and wharfs, and railroad ties, cross ties, switch ties,
bridge timbers, and other railroad materials. The volume of wood treated at the site was
approximately 200,000 cubic feet per month.
The majority of wood-treating operations were conducted in the eastern portion of the
site, now identified as the former Treatment Area (See Figure 3). In the former Treatment Area,
Koppers maintained numerous above-ground storage tanks for the storage of wood-preservatives.
The tank farm area in the northeastern corner of the former Treatment Area contained six above-
ground storage tanks ranging in size from 50,000 to 650,000 gallons. Koppers also maintained
six above-ground working tanks, four of which were on an elevated platform, located east of the
treatment building. When penta and CCA were in use, separate working tanks contained these
preservatives. When needed, the creosote was pumped through a pipeline from the storage tanks
in the tank farm to the working tanks. The wood-preservatives were then cycled between the
working tanks and the treatment cylinders during the treatment process.
Once the virgin lumber was sized, seasoned, or otherwise made ready for treatment, it was
pressure treated in one of four pressure treating cylinders. One pressure treating cylinder was
dedicated to treating with both penta and CCA, and the remaining three were used exclusively for
creosote. All treating cylinders were cylindrical vessels 133 feet long and 8 feet in diameter with a
door at one end. Generally, the wood was loaded onto tram cars which were pushed into the
cylinders. The cylinder was sealed, a vacuum was applied to remove most of the air from the
cylinder and wood cells, and the wood was impregnated with the wood-preservative. At the end
of the treatment process, the excess wood-preservative was pumped from the cylinder to the
working tanks for re-use. A final vacuum was then placed on the treatment cylinder and any
additional wood-preservative drawn out of the wood. The cylinder door was then opened and the
trams, loaded with treated wood, were pulled from the cylinder onto the drip tracks.
The Drip Track Area (Figure 3) extended from the Treatment Area in the eastern portion
of the site to approximately two thirds of the way to the Ashley River and parallel to the southern
Koppers property boundary. The drip tracks were elevated above the rest of the site by 5 to 6
feet. These tracks were constructed at this elevation when the facility was built to facilitate
manual movement of treated wood during offloading to a vehicle for transport from the site.
Treated wood was either shipped directly to the customer or stored on-site.
During the treatment process, wastewater was generated when steam was used to remove
moisture from the wood and from the boiler system. The wastewater from the treatment process
contained oils, creosote, and other solids. The wastewater was recovered in a sump pit located
adjacent to the treatment cylinders and pumped to a series of six Separation Tanks located near
the Treatment Area just south of Braswell Street. Creosote, which has a density greater than
water, would settle to the bottom of the sump pit and Separation Tanks. This creosote was
-------
J. 9
. BOUNDARY
SCALE IN FEET
I' « 600'-0"
s
51
• ooc
RGURE 3
SITE BASE MAP
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
-------
o 9 020
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 6
recovered, pumped to a debydrator to remove excess moisture, and then to the working tanks for
re-use. Water from the Separation Tanks was discharged to a ditch, now known as the South
Braswell Street Drainage Ditch, which flowed eastward to the Ashley River. On occasion, the
volume of the Separation Tanks was not sufficient to handle all the material coming from the
sump pit and creosote would overflow into the South Braswell Street Drainage Ditch. Historical
aerial photographs and sampling conducted during the RI indicate that creosote constituents were
transported with wastewater and surface water run-off along the South Braswell Street Drainage
Ditch into the Old Impoundment Area (Figure 3). After the mid 1960's, wastewater from the
Separation Tanks was discharged to the publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
Residues that settled to the bottom of the treatment cylinders were removed periodically
when accumulations interfered with the treatment processes. Most of the material removed was
sand and bark which were coated with creosote. The creosote residue was transported by rail and
deposited in the northwestern comer of the site in an area now referred to as the Creosote
Treating Cylinder Residue Area (Figure 3). This practice was discontinued in tne mid 1960's
when residue materials were hauled off-site by a private waste hauler. In addition, a four-acre
tract of land in the northwest comer of the former Ashepoo Phosphate Works property (south of
Braswell Street) was leased by Koppers from 1953 to 1968 for the stated purpose of depositing
sawdust, bark, and other wood waste materials resulting from stripping operations.
2.2 Subsequent Site Operations
Subsequent to Koppers1 operations, the Former Treatment Area was used by several
industries leasing the properties. The creosote storage tanks in the Tank Farm Area were used by
Fed-Serv Industries in the early 1980's to store waste oil. From 1978-1982, Pepper Industries
utilized the working tanks to store ship bilge and tank wastes.
As discussed above, Braswell Shipyards has operated a commercial and military ship
cleaning, repair, and refurbishing business on the northwest corner of the site since 1978. In
operating this shipyard, Braswell has been required to pump bilges and to handle solvents and
paint. Braswell operations also include ship paint removal using "Black Beauty" or "Black
Diamond" carbon blasting. The parcel of property just south of Braswell Shipyards is used by
Parker Marine, Inc. for prefabrication of marine structures.
The 57 acre parcel south and adjacent to the former Koppers property was used by a
series of owners to produce fertilizers and phosphates from around the turn of the century to
1978. In November 1984, after obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Southern Dredging dredged a barge canal approximately 1000 feet inward from the Ashley River
(Figure 3). Slurry material from the canal dredging was pumped approximately 700 feet east of
the barge canal and deposited in a bermed spoils area. Water was allowed to flow over a culvert
into the South Tidal Marsh while solids settled out and were deposited in the bermed spoils area.
As a result of this dredging operation, South Carolina regulatory personnel responded to the
presence of exposed creosoted poles, highly turbid water and an oily sheen on die Ashley River
adjacent to the canal. Approximately 100 dead fish were observed in the Ashley River within %
mile downstream of the canal. It is believed that this barge canal was dredged in the area formerly
-------
j 9 020-'
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
leased by Koppers for the disposal of wood waste materials resulting from their stripping
operations.
2.3 Previous Removal Actions and Investigations
The first area to be investigated on-site was the Pepper Industries facility which utilized
the former working tanks and wood treatment building. After Pepper Industries abandoned the
property in November 1982, Braswell Shipyards notified the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) that the tanks were leaking their contents.
Sampling and analysis indicated that the tanks contained various oils, contaminated water, and
oily sludges. Under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) issued by SCDHEC in August
1983, Pepper Industries began a cleanup operation in the working tank area, but later declared
bankruptcy and ceased all cleanup activities. Braswell Shipyards performed a cleanup operation
of the Pepper Industries property in January 1987, during which they removed all the tanks and
containers on the property and arranged for proper disposal of the wastes. Koppers financed half
the expense of this cleanup operation.
Historical investigations conducted from 1983-1985 by SCDHEC and EPA-Region IV
revealed numerous releases of waste oil from the storage tanks in the Tank Farm Area leased by
Fed Serv Industries. Under an AOC issued by EPA in March 1985, Fed Serv, Koppers and a
suite of other entities initiated emergency response actions at the former Tank Farm Area. The
activities conducted at this time included proper disposal of material in the tanks, dismantling of
the tanks, and excavation and disposal of soils.
As a follow-up to Site Inspections conducted by EPA and SCDHEC regarding activities
conducted by Pepper Industries, Fed Serv, and Southern Dredging, EPA initiated a Site
Inspection in 1988 on the former Koppers Wood Treating Plant to gather the necessary
information required to prepare the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package. Based upon the
results of this investigation, the Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) Site received a HRS score of
50 due to the release of wood-treating constituents via the surface water pathway. The site was
proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in February 1992 and became Final in
December 1994.
In January 1993, Beazer entered into an AOC with EPA for the performance of a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. Beazer retained ENSR Consulting &
Engineering (ENSR) of Acton, MA to conduct the work required to complete the RI/FS process.
EPA and SCDHEC provided oversight of all work conducted during the RI/FS. A complete
listing of the documents generated during the comprehensive RI/FS process can be found in the
Index to the Administrative Record for this site. This Final ROD is intended to summarize key
information from the Administrative Record and provide the rationale for the selected response
action specified in Section 9.0. The reader is referred to the site Administrative Record for a
more detailed account of the information presented in this document.
-------
L 9 0205
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
PageS
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
In late April 1993, EPA conducted community interviews to determine the public's
concerns related to the Koppers site. In May 1993, EPA issued a fact sheet to local citizens and
public officials announcing the initiation of RI/FS activities at the site. Concurrent with the
release of this fact sheet, the Final RI/FS Work Plan documents were submitted for public review
to the information repositories located at EPA's office in Atlanta, GA and the Charleston County
Main Library in Charleston, SC. On May 25,1993, EPA held an RI Kick-Off Public Meeting at
the Charleston Public Works Building in Charleston, SC to provide a description of the Superfund
process, the work to be performed, and to answer any questions regarding the site.
In January 1995, EPA released a summary publication titled, "Superfund Remedial
Investigation Findings and Proposed Interim Remedial Action Fact Sheet" to local citizens and
public officials. The stated purpose of this fact sheet was to provide the reader with a description
of the site and a brief history, summarize the findings of the RI and the human health Baseline
Risk Assessment, and outline EPA's proposed approach for Interim Remedial Action at the site.
The Final RI Report, Final Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA), Technical
Memorandum for Interim Remedial Measures and other site related documents were assembled in
an Administrative Record (AR) and submitted to the information repositories above for public
review and information concurrent with the release of the fact sheet.
A notice to area citizens regarding the availability of the site AR, EPA's proposed
approach for interim remedial measures, and initiation of the 30-day public comment period was
published in Charleston's daily newspaper, The Post and Courier, on January 19,1995. A formal
public comment period was held from January 20 through February 21,1995. EPA held a public
meeting on January 26, 1995 at the Charleston Public Works Building to present the results of the
RI, BRA, and rationale behind the proposed interim remedial action. This meeting was attended
by approximately 50 people. A response to comments received during the January 26,1995
meeting and 30-day public comment period was included in the Responsiveness Summary
attached to the Interim Action ROD.
In March 1997, EPA released a summary publication titled, "Superfund Proposed Plan
Fact Sheet" to individuals on the site-specific mailing list. This fact sheet is attached to this
document as Appendix C. The stated purpose of this fact sheet was to explain the risks posed by
the site, describe the cleanup options that were evaluated in the Feasibility Study (FS) Report to
mitigate the risks posed, and to describe EPA's preferred cleanup option. The Final FS Report
and other supporting documentation were compiled in the AR and submitted to the local
information repository for public review concurrent with release of the fact sheet. On March 17,
1997, EPA sponsored a special meeting with residents of the Rosemont subdivision at the
Rosemont community center. This meeting was scheduled in an effort to facilitate greater
community involvement in the remedy selection process and to hear any concerns the local
neighborhoods may have on EPA's proposed cleanup plan.
A notice to area citizens regarding the availability of EPA's Proposed Plan and initiation
of the 30-day public comment period was published in The Post and Courier on April 6,1997.
-------
FinarWcord of
April 1998
Page 9
The 30-day public comment period was held from April 3 to May 2,1997. EPA sponsored an
open house on April 14,1997 for the public to tour die site and view the progress of the Interim
Remedial Action. A public meeting followed on April 15,1997 at the Charleston Public Works
Building to discuss the remedial alternatives evaluated and the specifics of EPA's preferred
cleanup alternative. In the May 2,1997 edition of The Post and Courier, EPA extended the
formal comment period an additional 30-days through June 2,1997.
EPA's response to comments received during the 60-day public comment period is
included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is attached as Appendix B. A verbatim transcript
of the April 15, 1997 public meeting and a copy of all comments received during the 60-day
public comment period are attached in Appendix B. This decision document presents the Final
Remedial Action for the Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL site, chosen in accordance
with CERCLA, amended by SARA, and in accordance with the National Contingency Plan. The
decision for this site is based on the materials in the AR and comments received/during the public
comment period. •
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
In March 1995, EPA proceeded with an Interim Action to reduce the potential human
health risks associated with exposure to the surface water and sediments of the Hagood Avenue
and Milford Street drainage ditches, while a Final site-wide cleanup plan was developed. The
Performance Standards for this interim response action, as specified in EPA's March 1995
Interim Action ROD are:
• Eliminate off-site migration of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) to the Milford Street
drainage ditch;
• Mitigate the drainage system as a conduit for potential NAPL and constituent migration to
the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch;
• Eliminate potential exposure to sediments of the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch; and
• Mitigate off-site migration of NAPL in the intermediate water-bearing unit underlying the
former Treatment Area.
Implementation of the Interim Action was performed by Beazer under a Unilateral
Administrative Order with EPA-Region 4, dated May 22,1995. Remedial Design documents
necessary to implement the Interim Action were approved by EPA and SCDHEC in April 1996.
The following text provides a general chronological summary of the remediation activities
that were conducted to achieve the above Performance Standards:
• A groundwater and NAPL recovery pilot system was conducted in the former Treatment
Area over a 12-week period from June 4 through August 24,1996. The results of mis
small scale operation will be utilized to optimize full scale recovery and treatment in this
area.
-------
LJ 9 020
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 10
In June 1996, a chain link fence was installed around the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch
to mitigate potential exposures to sediment and surface water. This activity was
considered temporary until the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch is permanently
reconstructed.
Reconstruction of the Milford Street drainage ditch began in August 1996 and was
completed in early October 1996. Impacted sediments along an approximate 350 foot
stretch of the eastern end of the Milford Street drainage ditch were excavated and
disposed of off-site. The open drainage ditch was replaced with a closed system
consisting of 22 inch diameter pipe and catch basins to convey storm water.
Six extraction wells and associated piping were installed along the newly constructed
Milford Street drainage ditch. These wells were spaced approximately 40 feet apart with
an average depth of 15 feet below ground surface. These wells are designed to collect
NAPL and groundwater in the shallow water-bearing unit to eliminate off-site migration in
the former Treatment Area. A seventh extraction well was installed to a depth of 35 feet
below ground surface near the former location of the pressure treatment vessels.
In October 1996, the storm drain system between Milford Street and Hagood Avenue was
investigated for cracks and joint problems that may facilitate constituent transport. This
effort included clean out of all drain lines followed by video inspection.
In October 1996, approximately 10,000 gallons of water and 100 tons of sludge was
removed from the former sump pit that was utilized to collect waste water and residues
from the pressure treatment vessels. The water was treated on-site and discharged to the
local POTW and the sludge was transported off-site for disposal at a hazardous waste
landfill.
Full scale operation of the six NAPL/groundwater extraction wells installed along Milford
Street began in mid-January 1997 and is on-going. Monitoring data has demonstrated
steady recovery of NAPL from the shallow water-bearing unit underlying this area. All
recovered groundwater has been successfully treated to discharge limits established by the
North Charleston POTW. An evaluation of the performance of this system from January
15 to August 31,1997 is presented in a technical memorandum titled, Evaluation of
Shallow Water-Bearing Zone Interim Remedial Action (KEY/ENSR September 24, 1997).
Rehabilitation of the subsurface storm drain between Milford Street and Hagood Avenue
began in late March 1997 and was completed in May 1997. This effort included
installation of a cured in place crack/joint sealant, catch basic rehabilitation, and line
replacement where necessary, to eliminate potential transport of constituents to the
Hagood Avenue drainage ditch.
Reconstruction of the existing Hagood Avenue drainage ditch began in April 1997 and
was completed in August 1997. This effort involved the removal of impacted sediments
and replacement with an open, 3-sided trapezoidal concrete lined drain system to convey
storm water.
-------
[j 9 0203
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 11
• N APL recovery and related aquifer testing of the intermediate aquifer underlying the
Former Treatment Area was initiated in April 1997 and is on-going. This included
refurbishment of the intermediate extraction well to permit conventional and innovative
recovery of groundwater/NAPL, baseline NAPL/groundwater recovery to evaluate
capture zones, and NAPL recovery with groundwater recirculation. Results of these
activities will be utilized to optimize the performance of the site-wide groundwater/NAPL
remedy specified in this decision document.
The response action specified in this ROD is the Final action in EPA's overall strategy for
remediating the site. This site-wide, multi-media response action will address surface/subsurface
soil, sediments of drainage ditches, groundwater and NAPL, surface water, constituent transport
pathways, and sediments of the Ashley River, Barge Canal, and North/South/Northwest Tidal
Marshes.
EPA has executed a separate enforcement action to address the former Ashepoo
Phosphate/Fertilizer Works. All future investigations and response actions on the former
Ashepoo property will be conducted under the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
process utilizing Non-Time Critical Removal Action authority. EPA finalized an Administrative
Order on Consent and EE/CA Work Plan on September 30,1997 with successors of this facility
to characterize potential impacts associated with historical operations and implement appropriate
measures to provide for adequate protection of human health and the environment. The primary
focus of this EE/CA will be a surface water drainage ditch leading from the former Acid
Chambers to the headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh. Samples collected from this drainage
ditch during the Koppers RI field program indicated acidic pH levels and elevated levels of
inorganics, particularly lead, in sediments. Performance of an EE/CA on the Ashepoo property is
imperative to eliminate the on-going transport of constituents into the headwaters of the South
Tidal Marsh, prior to initiating response actions specified in this decision document for the South
Tidal Marsh. Field work, as specified in the EE/CA Work Plan, is scheduled for initiation in
October 1997.
5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section provides a brief and concise overview of the site characteristics as assessed
during the site RI. The field component of the RI was conducted in three major phases. Phase I
was conducted from June-August 1993. Phase n was performed from February-May 1994.
Phase in was conducted during a two-week period in March 1995. In addition, supplemental
ecological field investigations were conducted in May 1995 and February 19% for further
ecological characterization. Moreover, a supplemental groundwater investigation of the deep
water-bearing unit in the western corner of tile site was also conducted in May 1996.
The above field investigations generated a voluminous data base. The results of these field
programs and appropriate conclusions have been presented in the following technical reports that
are incorporated into the site AR:
-------
b 9 0209
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 12
• Remedial Investigation Report, Volumes I-IV, ENSR (January 1995)
• Phase III Investigation Report, ENSR (September 1995)
• Technical Memorandum Phase M Ecological Sampling, ENSR (December 19%)
• Feasibility Study Report, Volumes I-ffl, ENSR (December 1996)
In the interest of brevity, the information presented in the above reports is not re-iterated
in this decision document. Rather, the conclusions of the RI are presented in a more qualitative
summary format to provide the reader with an overview. Specific human health and ecological
risks posed by the site constituents are summarized in Sections 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. Cleanup
goals for all media addressed by this response action are delineated in Section 7.1. The reader is
referred to the site AR for a more detailed account of this subject matter.
5.1 Physical Characteristics
ii
This section provides a summary of information regarding the physical characteristics of
the site including demography, meteorology, topography, surface water hydrology,
geology/hydrogeology and ecology.
5.1.1 Demography
The site is located in an industrial section of Charleston County known as the "Neck"
area. Current land use on site consists of a mixture of commercial and light industrial operations.
Pockets of residential development exist within a 0.5 mile radius of the site the north, south and
east. These neighborhoods include Silver Hill south of the site and west of 1-26, Four Mile
Hibernian directly east of 1-26, and Rosemont north of the site and west of 1-26. Rosemont is the
largest of these neighborhoods, with primary access provided by Doscher Street offHagood
Avenue. The site lies within the 1990 Census tract 44 with three other census tracts (45,15, and
16) within 0.5 mile of the site. Census tract 44 has a population of 1,141 in 491 households. The
population is approximately 90% Black, has a median age of 38 and a median household income
of $10,841. The City of Charleston developed future land use plans for the area in a planning
blueprint titled Charleston 2000. According to this document, the Neck area along the Ashley
River has been recommended for heavy industrial uses. The Rosemont subdivision has been
recommended for high density (9+ units/acre) residential use.
5.1.2 Meteorology
The climate in Charleston, SC is temperate and modified considerably by the proximity to
the Atlantic Ocean. The marine influence is noticeable during winter when the low temperatures
are sometimes 10-15°F higher on the peninsula than at the inland airport weather station.
Likewise, summer high temperatures are generally a few degrees lower man inland areas. The
average daily maximum temperature ranges from 90.2 °Y in July to 57.8 °F in January. The '
average daily minimum temperature ranges from 72.7 °F in July to 37.7 °F in January.
Prevailing winds are northerly in the fall and winter, and southerly in the spring and summer.
Summer is warm and humid and is the rainiest season with 41 percent of the annual total. The
average precipitation ranges from 7.2 inches in August to 2.5 inches in November. During the fall
-------
9
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
_ Page 13
season from September to mid November, the weather is mostly sunny and temperature extremes
are rare. Late summer and early fall is the period of maximum threat to the South Carolina coast
from hurricanes. The winter months of December through February are mild with periods of rain.
Temperatures of 20 °F or less on the peninsula and along the coast are very unusual.
5.1.3 Topography
Charleston is a peninsula city bounded by the west and south by the Ashley River, on the
east by the Cooper River, and on the southeast by a large harbor. The terrain is generally level,
ranging in elevation from sea level to 20 feet on the peninsula. The topographic relief of the site
ranges from approximately 15 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the
eastern site boundary to 0 feet above NGVD at the Ashley River on the western boundary. The
site is very fiat having a slope of 0.004. The one noted anomaly to this terrain is a rather large
debris pile created by the City of Charleston in the central portion of the site which extends a
maximum of 20 feet above the surrounding area. •
5.1.4 Surface Water Hydrology
Charleston Harbor has been created by the confluence of the Ashley, Cooper, and Wando
Rivers. The harbor is tidally influenced and has a mean tidal range of 5.25 feet, a spring tidal
range of 6.25 feet, and a maximum tidal range of 6.9 feet. The Ashley River borders the site to
the west. The Ashley flows approximately 31 miles from its headwaters in the Cypress Swamp in
Berkeley County to Charleston Harbor and drains an estimated 350 square miles of marsh and
lowlands. The depth of natural channel ranges from 5.9 to 36 feet. The river is tidally influenced
throughout its length and saline waters extend from the harbor to 23 miles upstream. Mapping of
the Ashley in the site area indicate the river is 150 feet wide and has a depth ranging to 18 feet in
the center channel. Soundings of the river taken during the RI indicate the river is as deep as 35
feet near the Braswell Shipyards dry dock.
Drainage at this site occurs as either overland flow or through anthropogenic drainage
ditches. Drainage occurs as overland flow in the western portion of the site bordering the Ashley
River. The eastern portion of the site is drained through a series of anthropogenic drainage
ditches. The locations of these surface water ditches are illustrated on Figure 3. Generally, these
ditches are referred to as the Milford Street drainage ditch, the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch,
the Central drainage ditch, and the Braswell Street drainage ditch. A separate ditch, not
illustrated on Figure 3, collects run-off from the former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer site into the
headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh. As discussed in Section 4.0 above, this surface water
drainage ditch will be addressed by a separate response action via the EE/CA process.
The western segment of the Milford Street drainage ditch directs run-off to die Northwest
Tidal Marsh. The eastern segment of the Milford Street drainage ditch was permanently
reconstructed as part of the Interim Action as described in Section 4.0 above. Surface water from
this eastern segment flows into a storm drain which then flows north discharging into the Hagood
Avenue drainage ditch. The Hagood Avenue drainage ditch discharges into the North Tidal
Marsh located north of Hagood Avenue. The Hagood Avenue drainage ditch was also
-------
f Q fl') '\ '
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 14
permanently reconstructed as a component of the Interim Action. The Central drainage ditch
drains approximately the western third of the site directly into the Ashley River. In areas where
this ditch is well-defined, it is lined with a wooden flume. Currently, the Central drainage ditch
terminates approximately 940 feet east of the Ashley River. However, historical aerial
photography indicates that the Central ditch once drained a much larger portion of the site,
extending an estimated 2,200 feet eastward from the Ashley River. Surface water run-off along
the South Braswell Street drainage ditch is directed westward and currently discharges into the
Barge Canal. Historical aerial photography indicates that the South Braswell Street drainage
ditch discharged into the Old Impoundment Area. The western portion of this drainage ditch was
lined with a wooden flume similar to that in the Central drainage ditch.
5.1.5 Geology/Hydrogeology
The site is located in the discharge portion of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic
province. The Cooper Marl clay formation, a regional confining unit approximately 260 feet
thick, is encountered at depths on-site ranging from 50 to 67 feet below land surface (BLS).
Therefore, the RI was limited to characterizing the shallow aquifer above the Cooper Marl
confining unit. Within a 1 mile radius of the site, groundwater above the Copper Marl is not used
for residential or industrial supply. Drinking water to this area is supplied by the City of
Charleston.
Three water-bearing units (shallow, intermediate, and deep) and two confining units
(shallow and intermediate) were identified in the shallow aquifer above the Cooper Marl. A
stratigraphic model of the site is presented graphically in Figures 4, 5, and 6. As seen in the
stratigraphic cross-sections, the site is covered with a layer of fill. The fill varies in thickness from
2 feet in the east to 10-15 feet in the west, likely the result of filling of the low lying areas.
Beneath the fill layer is a natural geologic unit which together comprise the shallow-water bearing
unit. Groundwater on-site is typically encountered between 2 to 6 feet BLS. In the central
portion of the site, the shallow water-bearing unit was approximately 25 feet thick.
A shallow clay confining unit is encountered intermittently across the site. In the eastern
portion of the site, the shallow clay unit is present at about 15 feet BLS and is 5 feet thick. The
shallow clay unit is absent in the central portion of the site. In the western portion of the site, the
shallow clay unit is present at about 10 feet BLS. A 10-foot thick intermediate water-bearing unit
serves as the transitional zone between the shallow water-bearing unit and the intermediate clay
unit. The intermediate clay unit is found across the entire site. In the eastern and central portions
of the site, this clay confining unit is consistently present at a depth of 35 feet and is from 5 to 15
feet thick. Adjacent to the Ashley River, the intermediate water-bearing unit is not present In
this area, the shallow clay unit extends uninterrupted to the intermediate clay unit to form a
continuous 20 foot thick confining layer. A deep water-bearing unit is encountered between the
intermediate clay unit and the Cooper Marl formation. The deep water-bearing unit ranges in
thickness from 5 to 20 feet.
The shallow water-bearing unit extends from the water table to a depth of 25 feet BLS
and the intermediate water-bearing unit extends from 25 to 35 BLS. Due to the discontinuity of
-------
M5E12A
A
WEST
40-,
30 •
~ 20 •
9
2 10-1
x_x
fc 0
z -10
o -20
*-30H
-40
-50
-60
CMOSS-KCTCM A-A*
LOCATWN FUW
irena
I
IOCA1MM
* «Min WUMQUMT^
ON 3/9/14
rczncnw SUWACC FCM oaf WATER
KAMtt «MT AS UCASUKD ON 3/1/14
* MOUND NfMOVCD BY CPW AFTW
AERIAL SURVEY OOHFUTCO
DEPTH or ASMCY nvcn
BATHYUCTnC SUHVCYON
MAMH 14-lt. IMS.
L.
0 490
SCALE M FCET
J
RGURE 4
EAST-WEST
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION OT SITE
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON. SC
-------
845E13A
B
NORTHWEST
20-1
TOM.
BVIM OF MMOt CAM*. r«OM
•Anmcmc Mncv CN
MMKN 14-M. IM&
tar moat mtmn wn
U MUJUMD ««/•/•*
SOUMC KAlDt MST. HC.
r*.. ItH
L.
o no
SCAU M rttT
B'
SOUTHWEST
r20
ho
ui
e
I
h-20
h-30
h-40
L- 50
O
nCURE 5
NORTH-SOUTH GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
WEST END OF SITE (B-B*)
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
-------
45E14A
NORTHEAST
20
-10-
I
c!
CLAY * JAW
CKJfY
SAND A
SILT
.-20-
-40-
-50-
-60 J
lEGDfi
KMKt KABM CAST. MC.. mnMNM.
WEU.MMMC
AND SCREEN
LOCATION
•MEN TAKE FOR SMAUOiMMTOMaJUTI
WATER KAMNO UMT AS ME/SJWD ON 3/l/M
MCZOMCHQC 9UMTACC FOK CCCP WATER
8CAMNO UMT AS UCA9MCD ON J/V»4
0 100
SCAUM ftCT
CMOSS-StCTtON C-C
LOCA1KM fLMI
SCALE: r-
c-
VD
nGURE 6
NORTH-SOUTH GtOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
EAST END OF SITE (C-C')
FORMER KOPPCRS SITE
CHARLESTON. SC
-------
^ 9 D 21 "
Final Record of Decision"
April 1998
Page 18
the shallow clay unit, the shallow and intermediate water-bearing units are considered to act as
one hydrologic unit. Figure 7 provides an illustration of groundwater flow direction in
shallow/intermediate water-bearing units based upon representative water-table elevation
measurements. This figure shows that groundwater in this unit generally flows to the nearest
surface water body. Groundwater flow in the eastern portion of the site is to the north toward the
North Tidal Marsh. Groundwater flow in remaining portions of the site is west toward the Ashley
River and/or towards the adjacent tidal marshes. Water-table contours indicate that the South
Braswell Street drainage ditch discharges to groundwater in the eastern portion of the site and
receives groundwater in the western portion of the site. Hydraulic conductivities determined by
slug tests for wells screened in the shallow water-bearing unit had a geometric mean of 1.8 x 10°
cm/sec (0.0035 ft/min). The hydraulic conductivities for wells screened in the intermediate
water-bearing unit had a geometric mean of 1.9 x 10~* cm/sec (0.0004 ft/min). Utilizing site
specific hydraulic conductivities and gradients, groundwater flow rates for this unit were
estimated to be 0.22 ft/day (-80 ft/yr) to the north and 0.18 ft/day (-66 ft/yr) to the west
n
The deep water-bearing unit extends from 45 feet to a range of 56 to 67 feet BLS. The
deep water-bearing unit is considered separate from the shallow/intermediate water-bearing unit
because it is consistently separated from the overlying units by the intermediate clay and because
it has different groundwater flow direction and chemistry. Comparison of water levels in paired
deep and shallow monitoring wells indicate that there is a downward gradient from the shallow to
the deep water-bearing unit. Groundwater flow direction in the deep water-bearing unit is west
toward the Ashley River (Figure 8). Hydraulic conductivities determined by slug tests for wells
screened in the deep water-bearing unit had a geometric mean of 1.2 x 10° cm/sec (0.0024
ft/min). Utilizing site specific hydraulic conductivities and gradients, the groundwater flow rate
for the deep water-bearing unit was calculated to be 0.20 ft/day (-73 ft/yr).
5.1.6 Ecology
The upland area of the site is surrounded by three distinct ecological zones: wetland tidal
marsh, intertidal zone, and the Ashley River tidal system. The wetland tidal marsh habitat consists
of three salt marshes referred to as the North Tidal Marsh, Northwest Tidal Marsh, and South
Tidal Marsh (Figure 3). Each marsh system is drained by un-named tidal creeks which flow into
the Ashley River. The marshes are dominated by extensive growth of the marsh grass Spartina.
Bordering these marshes are narrow areas of riparian habitat which form the boundary between
the marsh and upland habitats, typically residential and/or industrial areas. The transition from the
marshes to the tidal creeks and Ashley River constitutes the intertidal zone, which is delineated by
the five foot tidal range typical of the estuary. The intertidal area may be either vegetated by
Spartina or may be bare mud surface. Beyond the low tide mark is the subtidal areas of the marsh
creeks and Ashley River.
5.2 Surface/Subsurface Soils
Impacts to surface soils (defined as 0 to six inches BLS) and subsurface soils (defined as 6
inches BLS to the observed water table) were characterized by the advancement of soil borings
into the vadose zone on the upland portions of the site. Generally, this effort included the
-------
':';//1/ 3^^v
A
•
o
MMB
J
•
INC PITTS8URC. PA 1995
RCURE 7
, WATER TABLE MAP OF
SHALLOW AND INTERMEDIATE WELLS'
MARCH 9. 1994
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON. SC
-------
9
-—• -3.0 i
SOURCE: BCAZER EAST. INC. PITTSBURG. PA 1995
RGURE 8
PIEZOMETOIC MAP OF DEEP WELLS
MARCH 9. 1994
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
-------
i) 9 0213
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 21
collection of samples from the nodes of a non-biased grid established across the site for risk
assessment purposes and from other areas likely impacted by past operations. These potential
source areas of interest included the former Treatment Area, Drip Track Area, Separation Tank
Area, Bermed Spoils Area, Old Impoundment Area, and Creosote Treating Cylinder Residue
Area. Drainage ditch sediments are also grouped into this section since they are largely present in
upland areas. Sediments of the Ashley River, Barge Canal and neighboring tidal marshes are
addressed in Section 5.4 below. The investigation strategy for on-site drainage ditches employed
transects aligned perpendicular to the center line. Surface and subsurface soil/sediment samples
were collected at established distances along the transects to define the extent of impact off the
center line of the respective drainage ditch.
The results of this surface/subsurface soil sampling program were utilized in the Human
Health Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) to quantify potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
risks associated with both current and future land uses. Potential receptors evakiated included
current/future on-site workers, current/future on-site utility workers, current off-site residents (i.e.
trespasser), future on-site residents, and future marina workers. Bar'"? upon City of Charleston
zoning plans and expected future land-use in the Charleston neck area, EPA has based its
surface/subsurface soil cleanup levels on a future industrial exposure scenario for the future on-
site worker. Please refer to Section 6.0 of this document for a complete summary of the site
risks. Soil cleanup levels are discussed further in Section 7.1.1.
The Human Health BRA concluded that Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs),
pentachlorophenol, dioxin, arsenic, and lead are present in on-site surface/subsurface soils at
concentrations greater than those deemed adequately protective of the future on-site worker. The
areas most impacted by PAHs include the former Treatment Area, Drip Track Area, the Old
Impoundment Area, and Northwest Corner (i.e. Creosote Residual Area). The distribution of
pentachlorophenol and dioxin in soil is limited to the area which formerly contained the penta
storage tank in the Treatment Area. The area most impacted by lead and arsenic is the thin strip
of uplands which separates the Barge Canal from the South Tidal Marsh. This area is part of the
property formerly owned by Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works and is not related to historical
wood-treating operations.
The Human Health BRA followed the identical procedure for drainage ditch sediments as
described above for surface/subsurface soils. Cleanup goals for drainage ditch sediments have
been calculated for the future on-site worker (industrial scenario). The one exception to this is
the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch located north of the site. Given the proximity to the
Rosemont subdivision, EPA quantified the potential risks posed to a current off-site resident The
Human Health BRA concluded that concentrations of PAHs, arsenic, dioxin, and dieldrin are
present in drainage ditch sediments at concentrations greater than those deemed adequately
protective of the future on-site worker and current off-site resident. Section 5.3 below discusses
the occurrence of NAPL in the Hagood Avenue, Milford Street, Central and Braswell Street •
drainage ditches. Sediments of the Hagood Avenue and eastern Milford Street drainage ditches
were addressed under EPA's Interim Action ROD. The RI concluded that surface/subsurface
soil and drainage ditch sediment response actions should be developed and evaluated in the FS
process to provide for adequate protection of human health and the environment.
-------
^9 021:
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 22
5.3 Groundwater/NAPL
NAPLs comprise a broad class of compounds which are immiscible fluids with densities
greater than water (DNAPLs), including creosote, or lighter than water (LNAPLs). Therefore,
EPA adhered to the groundwater/NAPL site characterization strategy presented in EPA OSWER
Directive 9234.2-25, Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impacticability ofGroundwater
Restoration (EPA 1993). This guidance document advocates a strategy which delineates three
areas: 1) the NAPL entry location; 2) the NAPL zone or source area; and 3) the aqueous
contaminant plume. The entry locations are those areas where NAPL may have entered the
environment and, therefore, is likely present in the subsurface. The NAPL zone or source area is
defined by that portion of the subsurface containing tree-phase or residual NAPL. The aqueous
contaminant plume contains dissolved phase constituents down gradient from source areas.
The RI field program focused on likely entry zones by utilizing information gathered on
historical operating procedures for the Koppers plant. NAPL source areas and Dissolved phase
constituent plumes were delineated through the advancement of subsurface borings into the water
table and the installation of monitoring wells. A total of 31 conventional monitoring wells were
installed in the shallow aquifer above the Cooper Marl. This included 6 in the shallow water-
bearing unit, 16 in the intermediate water-bearing unit, and 9 in the deep water-bearing unit In
addition a series of piezometers, drive-point mini wells, and existing monitoring wells installed
during previous investigations were sampled to augment the data base.
The locations where NAPL was observed in the subsurface unsaturated and/or saturated
zones are depicted on Figure 9. For purposes of this discussion, the occurrence of NAPL is
grouped into four general areas: 1) the former Treatment Area/Milford Street and Hagood
Avenue drainage ditches; 2) Northwest Comer, 3) Old Impoundment Area and 4) Braswell
Street, Central and North Milford Street drainage ditches. NAPL has been observed in the
shallow and intermediate water-bearing units north and south of Milford Street in close proximity
to the former Treatment Area. This area is where the bulk of wood-preservation and preservative
storage occurred. As discussed in Section 4.0, EPA proceeded with an Interim Action remedy to
mitigate the risks posed by the presence and migration of NAPL in the former Treatment Area,
and Milford Street/Hagood Avenue drainage ditches. The Northwest Corner of the site is an area
where Koppers placed residue from the creosote treating cylinders. This residue consisted of
sand, bark and other solid materials including creosote that settled to the bottom of the treating
cylinders. NAPL was detected in the shallow water-bearing unit and sediments of the Ashley
River in mis area. NAPL is present in the shallow, low permeability soils of Old Impoundment
Area resulting from run-off from the South Braswell Street drainage ditch. Subsurface soil
borings and ditch transects detected the presence of NAPL in the Braswell, Central and North
Milford Street drainage ditches. In general, the occurrence of NAPL in these drainage ditches
was isolated and at various depths. These drainage ditches are not considered NAPL source areas
to groundwater, but constituent transport into respective surface water bodies is a concern. •
Analytical results from monitoring wells were compared to Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) which have been established to be protective of human health based on the use of site
groundwater as a drinking water source. This comparison is conservative given that the water-
-------
SCALE IN FEET
1" = 600'-0'
8
MAPI SOURCE AREAS «MCH M)C
AS OmUMMATER.
POTDITML NAPL SOURCE AMEAS MCH ARE
-- AS onw ---
SOUWZ. KAZEM CAST. MC^
PA, 1998
RGURE 9
POTENTIAL NAPL SOURCE AREAS
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON. SC
-------
^ 9 022
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 24
bearing units do not have sufficient capacity and that the groundwater near the Ashley River is
either saline or brackish. MCL exceedances were noted in the shallow and intermediate water-
bearing units in three general areas of the site. Two of these areas, the former Treatment Area
and the Old Impoundment Area, are considered NAPL source areas. The third area is located
along the thin strip of uplands which separates the Barge Canal from the South Tidal Marsh
(MW-13S). This well exceeded MCLs for arsenic and lead. Pursuant to South Carolina Water
Classifications and Standards R 61-68, groundwater containing total dissolved solids (TDS)
greater than 10,000 mg/kg may be classified as Class GC after petition and proper administrative
procedures. Class GC groundwaters are not considered potential sources of drinking water and
of limited beneficial use. The TDS in MW-13S, as measured during the Phase III field program in
March 1995, was 17,200 mg/kg. A September 22, 1995 letter from SCDHEC states, "The
Department has determined, based on the surrounding marsh conditions, the salinity values in
MW-I3S, and MW-13S close proximity to the Ashley River, that MW-13S will be considered to
be representative of surface water, rather than groundwater. This area should be addressed in
the upcoming FS as soil/sediments and surface water pathways." Therefore, the RI concluded
that further groundwater remediation at this location will not be required.
MCL exceedances for benzene and thallium were noted in one well screened in the deep
water-bearing unit during the RI. This well, MW-01D, is located in the Northwest Comer of the
site adjacent to the Ashley River. Additional sampling during the Phase m field program
confirmed the MCL exceedance for benzene only. Based upon these results, a supplemental
investigation of the deep water-bearing unit was conducted in May 1996 to further evaluate the
extent of benzene in this unit. The supplemental investigation consisted of the installation and
sampling of two deep monitoring wells at locations approximately 350 feet east and west of MW-
01D. This effort confirmed the geology of the area (i.e. clay encountered at approximately 10
feet BLS and continued to approximately 25 BLS where the deep-water bearing unit was
encountered) and showed that benzene was not detected in these wells. The RI concluded that
this area may meet the criteria of a mixing zone exclusion as outlined in SCDHEC's Groundwater
Mixing Zone Guidance Document. The Selected Remedy section of this document (Section
9.2.2) discusses the future requirements for this area.
5.4 Sediments
The nature and extent of impact to sediments of the Ashley River, Barge Canal and
neighboring tidal marshes was initially determined by collection of sediment samples. This
included the collection of sediment samples from the 0 to 6 inch interval and 6 to 12 inch interval
at all established locations. Selected locations in the tidal marshes were also sampled to a depth
of 3 feet to evaluate historical trends. Selected locations in the Ashley River and Barge Canal
were sampled to depths of 18 feet below the sediment interface with a vibra-corer.
Results of this effort were then compared to relevant ecological screening criteria,
NOAA's Effects Range-Low (ERL)/Effects Range-Median (ERM) and EPA's Sediment Quality
Criteria, to delineate areas that warranted further investigation or potential remediation. These
areas are referred to as Areas of Potential Ecological Concern (APECs). The procedure by which
APECs were defined is outlined in Section 7.1.3. The reader is referred to the discussion in
-------
L 9 Q 2 2 2
Final Record of Decision *~
April 1998
Page 25
Section 7.1.3 and associated figures for a description of the nature/extent of impact in the Ashley
River, Barge Canal, and North/South/Northwest Tidal Marshes.
Additional investigations were conducted to evaluate potential impacts on ecological
receptors. This comprehensive effort included an 8-week caged oyster bioaccumulation study,
sampling and analysis of indigenous mussel populations, acute and chronic whole sediment
toxicity tests, benthic macroinvertebrate community structure studies, and Toxicity Identification
Evaluation (TEE) on elutriates from sediments. The above ecological assessment activities
focused on assessing the potential risks to the benthic invertebrate community and identifying the
locations where such a potential risk may exist. A quantitative Ecological Risk Assessment was
conducted to evaluate the risks posed to the benthic community and to other biota via the food
chain. The results of these efforts are summarized in Section 6.2, Ecological Risk Assessment,
below.
5.5 Surface Water
The surface water investigation included a site drainage survey to map overland run-off
and the collection of surface water samples from locations in the Ashley River, Barge Canal, tidal
marshes, and on-site/off-site drainage ditches. Consistent with the approach described above in
Section 5.2, results of this sampling effort were utilized in the Human Health BRA to quantify
risks potential risks posed by the surface waters in the Hagood Avenue, Milford Street, Central
and Braswell Street drainage ditches. In addition, surface water results were compared to acute
. and chronic marine Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). The surface water results were
considered during the data evaluation phase of the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) discussed
in Section 6.2. Due to the low levels of constituents detected in surface water samples from the
Ashley River, Barge Canal and neighboring tidal marshes, the ERA did not include exposure to
surface water.
Utilizing the applicable exposure scenarios from the Human Health BRA, constituents of
concern were developed for the on-site/off-site drainage ditches. PAHs, arsenic, and
pentachlorophenol are constituents of concern in the Milford Street, Braswell Street and Central
drainage ditches. In the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch, the constituents of concern are PAHs,
dioxin and arsenic. EPA's Interim Action ROD addressed the surface water exposure concerns in
the eastern end of the Milford Street and Hagood Avenue drainage ditches by source control
measures and eliminating exposure to the respective surface waters. While specific cleanup
goals have not been developed for surface water, this decision document does specify response
actions that will eliminate the sources of identified surface water impacts.
5.6 Fate and Transport
A fate and transport analysis was performed to assess the potential for transport of •
constituents beyond the boundary of the site. Sampling conducted during the RJ has indicated
other off-site sources do contribute constituents to the site and surrounding areas. Most notably
these include run-off from adjacent industrial areas and drainage into the headwaters of the South
Tidal Marsh from the former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works. Conclusions regarding fate
and transport have been summarized below for four general areas.
-------
It 9 Q22"
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 26
5.6.1 Former Treatment Area/Milford Street Ditch/Hagood Avenue Ditch/North Tidal
Marsh Area
The former Treatment Area contains potentially recoverable quantities of NAPL and is
considered the source area of site-related constituents detected in sediments and surface waters of
the headwaters of the North Tidal Marsh area. NAPL has been observed in the Hagood Avenue
Drainage Ditch which feeds the North Tidal Marsh. NAPL is introduced into this system via
discharge from the source area into the eastern end of the Milford Street Drainage Ditch. NAPL is
then transported via a subsurface culvert which runs approximately parallel to 1-26 then empties
into the Hagood Avenue Drainage Ditch. The fate and transport evaluation shows that the
concentrations of Site-related COCs in surface water and sediment decrease with distance from
the source area. This is primarily caused by dilution with tidally-transported water and sediment
Secondary attenuation mechanisms include biodegradation and photolysis. Secondary transport
mechanisms in this area consist of: (1) sediment transport, dominated by NAPL transport, in the
upper reaches of the North Tidal Marsh, and (2) partitioning of sediments, dominated by NAPL
transport, into surface water.
Sampling conducted during the RI shows that other sources are contributing COC to the
North Tidal Marsh. These likely sources include runoff from the heavily industrialized Doscher
Street drainage area. In addition, constituents were detected at low levels in the former
production well in the deep regional aquifer below the Cooper Marl confining layer. Given the
competence and vertical thickness of this confining layer, constituents likely reached this unit by a
path associated with the well itself. Dilution within the aquifer prior to reaching other pumping
wells is expected to reduce concentrations of constituents to below levels of concern. This well
has been properly abandoned, thereby removing it as a potential continuing source of constituents.
5.6.2 Western Area/Central Drainage Ditch/Ashley River/Northwestern Marsh Area
NAPL has been observed in Ashley River sediments north of the Braswell dock. Elevated
constituents were detected in the sediments and surface waters of the northwestern marsh area.
The concentration of constituents in 0 to 6-inch sediments in the northwest marsh, however, are
below Effects Range-Median (ER-Ms). Elevated levels of constituents were also detected in
Ashley River sediments immediately surrounding the Central Drainage Ditch. The northwestern
area of the Site near MW-01S represents a possible source of NAPL to the Ashley River and
elevated concentrations of constituents detected in the northwestern marsh area. Other possible
sources include historical discharges via die Central Drainage Ditch and tidal transport from the
Barge Canal area. Secondary transport mechanisms in this area consist of dissolved-phase
groundwater discharge, sediment transport via the Central Drainage Ditch, and to a lesser extent
dissolved surface water flow. During the RI, NAPL was observed in subsurface sediments in the
eastern end of this ditch, but NAPL was not observed migrating through the ditch to the Ashley
River.
Constituents were detected in MW-01D, screened in the water-bearing unit immediately
above the Cooper Marl. NAPL migration through die intermediate clay layer and/or cross-
contamination during well installation were considered the most likely sources of these
-------
•*. Q n •;• o
*J 7 o i. i,
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 27
constituents. Two additional deep water-bearing unit monitoring wells were installed during a
supplemental field program to evaluate the distribution of constituents in this unit. These
constituents were not detected in water samples collected from the two new wells which were
installed approximately 350 feet east and west of MW-01D. These analytical results show that the
constituents were present in a small area of the Site near MW-01D.
5.6.3 South Braswell Drainage Ditch/Old Impoundment Area/Barge Canal/Ashley River
The Old Impoundment area is a source area with potentially recoverable quantities of
NAPL. NAPL has been observed in the South Braswell Street Drainage Ditch, upstream and
downstream of the culvert which runs behind the Southern Dredging office and discharges to the
Barge Canal. Surface water and sediment data verify that the South Braswell Street Drainage
Ditch is an active transport mechanism for NAPL and other related constituents into the Barge
Canal and eventually the Ashley River.
Sediment transport in this area is implied by detected constituents at all sediment sampling
locations in the South Braswell Street Drainage Ditch and Barge Canal. It should be noted that
due to dredging operations in late 1984, the concentrations observed in some of the Barge Canal
sediment samples represent fairly recent deposition of sediments from die Ashley River. Tidal
flows in the canal may provide a potential pathway for constituent-sorbed sediment transport into
the Ashley River.
5.6.4 South Tidal Marsh Area
The South Tidal Marsh area receives surface water run-off from the spoils area, Monrovia
Cemetery, a surface water ditch which runs westerly between the former Ashepoo
Phosphate/Fertilizer Works and Monrovia Cemetery, groundwater discharge from the former
Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works property, and from surface water drainage from east of
Highway 1-26.
No visual observations of NAPL or staining have been observed in the vicinity of the
South Tidal Marsh. Elevated levels of PAHs were detected in sediment samples collected from
the headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh, an area adjacent to the spoils area, and a marsh creek
channel extending south from the spoils area. However, the concentrations of inorganic
constituents detected in the headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh are of greater ecological
concern. These ecological constituents are not a result of past wood-treating activities, but rather
a result of fertilizer operations. Sample station SD-81 contained the highest concentrations of lead
and arsenic detected during the RI in sediment at concentrations of 41,400 cog/kg and 2,410
mg/kg, respectively. A higher lead concentration was found at sediment sample station SD-93
located in the ditch that drains the former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works property into the
South Tidal Marsh.
Sediment and surface water transport are the most dominant transport mechanisms in the
South Tidal Marsh. Source areas for elevated levels of PAHs and inorganics are the surface water
drainage ditch located between the former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works property and the
-------
b 9 0225
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 28
Monrovia Cemetery, the Bermed Spoils area, and releases associated with the former fertilizer
operation located to the south of the former Koppers property. As discussed in Section 4.0
above, EPA will address the former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works via the EE/CA process
under its Non Time-Critical Removal authority to mitigate these contaminant transport pathways
and source areas.
5.7 Dioxin
*
Dioxin can be found as a trace constituent in industrial grade pentachlorophenol. Because
pentachlorophenol was used as a wood preservative at the site for a limited period of time, a
sampling program was developed to determine the nature and extent of impact from this
constituent This included collection and analysis of samples from the surface/subsurface soil,
sediments, surface water and groundwater. Additional analysis was conducted on select biota as
pan of the ecological assessment. Results of this effort are presented graphically on Figure 10.
Figure 11 presents the results from the local reference stations. All results on tfibse figures are
expressed as parts per trillion (ppt) and presented as concentrations of Dioxin Toxicity Equivalent
Quotient (TEQ). Dioxin TEQ is a summary parameter which converts concentrations of dioxin
congeners to an equivalent 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration.
Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected in the former Treatment Area where
the penta storage tank was located. Additionally, subsurface soil samples were collected in the
Old Impoundment Area and Northwest Corner which received run-off from the Treatment Area
and residues from the treatment cylinders, respectively. Results indicate that soils impacted by
dioxin are limited to the immediate area surrounding the former locations of the penta storage
tank and treating cylinders. Concentrations in surface soil in mis area ranged from 738 to
20,123 ppt. Concentrations in subsurface soils in this area ranged from 42 to 26,961 ppt.
Groundwater samples from wells installed in the shallow and intermediate water-bearing units in
the Treatment Area ranged from non-detect to 1,104 ppt. Source control measures have been
implemented under the Interim Action ROD to eliminate off-site migration of impacted
groundwater from this area.
Sediment samples collected in the Ashley River adjacent to the site had concentrations
similar to those of selected reference stations. Therefore, off-site transport via this pathway was
not identified. Concentrations of surface water and sediment samples collected from the Milford
Street/Hagood Avenue drainage ditches and the headwaters of the North Tidal Marsh were
elevated above reference stations. Interim remedial measures included permanent reconstruction
of these drainage ditches and source control measures in the Treatment Area. These efforts will
eliminate potential site-related dioxin contribution to this general area. It is important to note that
the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch receives run-off from the highly industrialized watershed east
of 1-26 and the North Tidal Marsh receives run-off from other areas north of Hagood Avenue.
Sampling conducted under this activity has indicated these areas may be additional sources of •
diexin contribution to the North Tidal Marsh system.
-------
0>
' '- - c-* -• -^ - - -
I * \ * '- —
'- - . - + ^-V / ^ I - f ' / '
SCALE IN FEET
1" « 600'-0"
• muc • IACAW
CAIT.
ncuRC 10
CHOXJN TEQ
SAMPUNG LOCATIONS
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON. SC
-------
D Ml
RGURE 11
Dtoxin TEQ IWItunui SwnpSng LocaBent
Former Koppwm Ste, Chartccton. SC
-------
I I • .• •,
O Z. il
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 31
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The human health and ecological baseline risk assessment process provides the basis for
taking action and identifies contaminants and the exposure pathways that need to be addressed by
the remedial action. It estimates what risks the site poses if no action were taken. This section of
the ROD summarizes the results of the baseline risk assessment for this site.
6.1 Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment
The human health risk assessment process consists of the following major components:
exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. The exposure assessment
involves the identification of potentially exposed populations and pathways, calculation of media-
specific exposure point concentrations from data generated during the Rl, and development of
assumptions regarding exposure frequency and duration. The toxicity assessment utilizes existing
chemical-specific toxicity information to determine the types of adverse health effects associated
with chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure and adverse effects.
Carcinogenic risks are evaluated by factoring the intake of a chemical with the slope factor for
that contaminant. Non-carcinogenic risks are evaluated by comparing the intake of a chemical to
the corresponding reference dose of that compound. Risk characterization combines the exposure
and toxicity assessments to quantiu .ively and qualitatively evaluate the potential risks posed. The
risk assessment process concludes by the calculation of media-specific cleanup levels that are
adequately protective of human health. Cleanup levels are discussed further in Section 7.1 below.
EPA employed a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) approach to estimate the potential
exposures and associated risks at the site. The RME is the highest exposure that is reasonably
expected to occur at the site and is intended to estimate a conservative exposure case that is still
within the range of possible exposures. The exposure pathways evaluated in this assessment
included incidental ingestion and dermal contact with surface/subsurface soils, sediments and
surface water, and groundwater ingestion and inhalation. Based upon City of Charleston zoning
plans and expected future land-use in the Charleston neck area, EPA has based its cleanup levels
on a future industrial exposure scenario for the future on-site worker. However, given the
proximity of the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch to the Rosemont subdivision, potential exposure
risks to surface soils and sediments/surface water of the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch have been
calculated using a current off-site adult and child resident exposure scenario.
Under the future industrial land-use scenario, EPA assumed that an on-site worker would
be exposed to surface soil 250 days/year (5 days a week for 50 working weeks) and the
sediment/surface water of on-site drainage ditches 24 days/year (2 days/month). It was assumed
the future utility worker was exposed to surface soil 24 days/year (2 days/month) and subsurface
soil 12 days/year (1 day/month). The duration of exposure was assumed to be 25 years. Under
the current off-site resident scenario, EPA assumed that an off-site resident would be exposed to
surface soil and sediments/surface water of the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch 24 days/year. The
duration of exposure was assumed to be 6 years for the child and 24 years for the adult.
EPA evaluated the chemicals detected on-site according to their potential to produce
either cancer and/or non-cancer health effects. The carcinogenic risk range EPA has set for
-------
[j 9 022
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 32
Superfund cleanups to be protective of human health is 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"*. For example, a cancer
risk of 1 x 10"6 indicates that an individual has a 1 in 1,000,000 (or 1 in 10,000 for 1 x 10^)
incremental chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over
a 70 year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at the site. EPA generally uses the
cumulative benchmark risk level of 1 x 10"4 for all exposures relating to a particular medium to
trigger action for that medium. In other words, a carcinogenic risk greater than 1x10"* for soil
would indicate that remedial action for soil is necessary. Non-cancer exposure estimates were
developed using EPA reference doses to calculate a Hazard Index (HI). A HI greater that 1
indicates that constituents are present at concentrations that may produce harmful effects.
The resultant carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks for the future on-site worker, future
utility worker and current off-site resident scenario are provided in Table 1.
. . TABLE 1 ;\;.\':::: :-;;;.:,': 4" -' • "
LIFETIME CARCINOGENIC AND NON-CARCINOGENIC RISKS
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL/CURRENT OFF-SITE RESIDENT SCENARIOS
Exposure Pathway
Future On-SUe
Worker
Cancer
Risk
Hazard
index
Future On-SUe
T^:t^utii^:mr^r|-":'-
CGiuiccr ..-•;
Risk
Hazard
Index
Current Off-Site
< Resident
Cancer
Risk
Hazard
Index1
Surface Soil
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
4x10-*
4x10^
• 10
9
Subsurface Soil
Dermal Contact
Incidental Ingestion
NE
NE
NE
NE
9xlO"5
4xlO'5
2
0.9
4xlO'5
4 x 10'5
0.7/NE
0.7/NE
9 x 10s
3xlO-5
1
0.6
NE
NE
NE
NE
Surface Water
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
NE
7 x 10°
NE
0.2
NE
NE
NE
NE
Ixl0u
1 x lO'1
0.06/9
0.4/10000
Sediment
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Total Cancer Risk/Hi
2 x lO'5
9x10-*
8 x lO'3
0.2
0.08
20
NE
NE
3x10-*
NE
NE
5
5 x 10-5
1 x lO'5
1 x 10-'
0.3/1.0
O.l/O.'l
2/10000
Footnotes:
(1) - First value listed is for adult receptor; second value listed is for child receptor.
NE - Not evaluated for this receptor.
-------
o 9 0230
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 33
The future industrial and current off-site resident exposure scenarios resulted in
unacceptable potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks. A potential carcinogenic risk of 8
x 10"J and HI of 20 was calculated for the future on-site worker exposed to surface soils and
sediment/surface water of the on-site drainage ditches. As can be seen by Table 1, risks under this
scenario were largely driven by dermal contact with drainage ditch surface waters. A potential
carcinogenic risk of 3 x 10"* and HI of 5 was calculated for the future on-site utility worker
exposed to surface and subsurface soils. Chemicals of concern for the future industrial exposure
scenario include PAHs, arsenic, dioxin, and pentachlorophenol. A potential carcinogenic risk of 1
x 10"1 was calculated for the current off-site resident. Non-cancer Hi's for the adult and child off-
site resident were 10 and 10,000, respectively. The high risks for the current off-site resident
exposure scenario are primarily driven by dermal contact exposure with surface water of the
Hagood Avenue drainage ditch. Chemicals of concern in the surface water under this exposure
scenario were PAHs, arsenic and dioxin.
6.1.1 Lead Assessment
Historically, land use in the Charleston neck area has been of the commercial and
industrial nature. Future zoning plans indicate the site and surrounding area is to remain an
industrial district. Therefore, EPA has based its cleanup goals on future industrial land use. EPA
has an interim screening level of 400 mg/kg for lead in soil for residential land use. EPA formed a
Technical Review Workgroup (TRW) in January 1996 to develop a methodology for assessing
risks associated with non-residential adult exposures to lead in soil. The recommendations of this
TRW were published in a document titled, "Recommendations of the Technical Review
Workgroup for Lead for an Interim Approach to Assessing Risks Associated with Adult Exposure
to Lead in Soil. (December 1996J". This document is expected to promote consistency in
assessments of adult lead risks. The methodology described in this document is an interim
approach that is recommended for use pending further development and evaluation of integrated
exposure biokinetic models for adults.
This document presents a methodology that relates soil lead intake to blood lead
concentrations in women of child-bearing age. EPA assumed that a pregnant woman may work at
the site under future conditions. In this exposure scenario, the developing fetus would be the
sensitive receptor that EPA wishes to protect. An algorithm was developed that relates soil lead
exposure to fetal blood lead concentration. A set of default parameter values are provided where
site-specific exposure data is not available. In addition, the rationale for each parameter default
value is provided in the appendix to the document
In the absence of site specific exposure data, EPA has employed the default parameter
values listed in Table 1, page 6 of the document. Where recommended ranges for the GSD^,^
and PbB.^^, are provided, EPA has selected reasonable, yet conservative values. A value of 1.9
was selected for GSD^^ which considers that the exposed population has some degree of '
heterogeneity. A conservative value of 2.2/^g/dL was selected for the baseline blood lead
concentration (PbB^^,) which is the value provided in the appendix for non-Hispanic black
women. EPA has calculated and selected a soil lead cleanup goal of 1,150 mg/kg for the site
using these input parameters and algorithms delineated in the above document The reader is
-------
9
025
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
_ Page 34
referred to this document, which is included in the site AR, for further discussion regarding this
matter.
6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
As discussed in Section 5.4 above, a comprehensive ecological investigation of the Ashley
River, Barge Canal, and North/ Northwest/South Tidal Marshes was conducted during the multi-
phased RI. The results of this effort were utilized to define Areas of Potential Ecological Concern
(APECs) as sediments requiring potential remediation or further investigation. Sediments within
APECs that demonstrated significant acute toxicity to Neanthes arenaceodentata and Mysidopsis
bahia have been slated for remediation. Significant toxicity to the selected test species was noted
in the Ashley River near the confluence with the Barge Canal, and the headwaters of the North
and South Tidal Marshes. The APECs and locations of sediment toxicity are illustrated in Section
7.1.3 below.
Because a majority of the ecological investigations focused on the benthic invertebrate
communities, an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) was conducted to evaluate potential risks to
other biota via the food chain. The methodology and results of this effort are presented in a
report titled, "Final Report Ecological Risk Assessment Koppers Woodtreating Charleston, South
Carolina, (EPA, October 1996)". Table 2 shows the assessment and measurement endpoints
examined by EPA in the ERA,
TABLE 2
ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Assessment Endpoint
Protection of benthic invertebrate communities to
maintain species diversity, species abundance, and
trophic structure.
Protection of omnivorous mammals from adverse
responses on growth, survival and/or reproductive
success.
Protection of piscivorous birds from adverse responses
on growth, survival and/or reproductive success.
Protection of insectivorous birds from adverse
responses on growth, survival, and/or reproductive
success.
Protection of omnivorous birds from adverse response
on growth, survival, and/or reproductive success.
Protection offish communities from adverse response
on growth, survival, and/or reproductive success.
Measurement Endpoint
Neanthes arenaceodentata
Ampelisca abdita
Mysidopsis bahia
Raccoon (Procyon lotor)
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris)
Clapper rail (Rallus longirostris)
Killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus)
Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus)
-------
L 9 0232
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 35
For each measurement endpoint listed in Table 2, appropriate prey species were identified
and a contaminant dose was calculated based on the ingestion of contaminated prey and sediment.
The arithmetic average and maximum sediment concentrations were calculated for the following
four general areas: North Tidal Marsh; Northwest Tidal Marsh; South Tidal Marsh; and Ashley
River/Barge Canal. Contaminants of concern (COCs) were identified from the ecological
investigations. EPA's ERA evaluated exposure to arsenic, chromium, copper, dioxin, lead,
pentachlorophenol and PAHs.
A literature search was conducted to determine levels of exposure to contaminants at
which no adverse effect would be expected (i.e. no observed adverse effect level, or NOAEL). If
a NOAEL was not available for a constituent or receptor, a convened lowest observed adverse
effect level (LOAEL), or LDM was used. The hazard quotient method was then utilized to
estimate the potential risk posed to selected receptors at the site using the following equation:
i
Hazard Quotient (HQ) = Exposure Concentration/NOAEL
Exposure concentrations were calculated for each target receptor species based on level of
contaminants detected in site sediments, daily food ingestion rates, incidental sediment ingestion
rates, and body weight reported in the literature. In this ERA, it was concluded that a potential
ecological risk exists if the hazard quotient calculated from the mean area concentration and the
NOAEL equals or exceeds 1, or site related toxicity was observed in the toxicity tests conducted.
Alternate calculations were made utilizing maximum sediment concentrations and LOAEL
toxicity benchmarks to assist in risk management decisions.
Hazard quotients greater than 1 were calculated for all assessment endpoints in all four
site areas for exposure to PAHs, arsenic and lead. Hazard quotients greater than 1 were
calculated for chromium and copper for all assessment endpoints in all four areas, except for
protection of benthic communities. Regarding dioxin exposure, a potential risk was calculated for
all assessment endpoints in the North and Northwest Tidal Marshes, except for protection of the
benthic invertebrate community. In the South Tidal Marsh, dioxin was determined to pose a
potential ecological risk to omnivorous mammals. No potential risk was calculated to the
assessment endpoints for exposure to pentachlorophenol. Some assessment endpoints were not
evaluated due to the lack of toxicity data. Based upon the above discussion, the Ecological Risk
Assessment concluded that potential ecological risks exist at the site and that response actions for
managing these risks should be evaluated.
Moreover, EPA's ERA recommended the utilization of an alternative risk model to further
evaluate potential ecological risks and the effectiveness of remedy options in managing the
potential risk. The alternative ecological risk evaluation was conducted in a document titled,
"Site-Specific Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Former Koppers Site Charleston, South
Carolina, (ENSR/Ogden 1996)". The alternative scenario employed similar assessment endpoints
and constituents than EPA's ERA. However, several deviations from EPA's methodology were
applied. Receptors with potentially large feeding areas (i.e. Great Blue Heron, red drum, and
raccoon) were assumed to be exposed to the area weighted average of sediment concentrations
found in the Ashley River and neighboring tidal marshes. Receptors with relatively small feeding
-------
li 9 0255
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 36
ranges (i.e. marsh wren, clapper rail, and mummichog) were assumed to be potentially exposed to
sediment concentrations at individual locations. The alternative scenario found no potential for
unacceptable risks to herons or red drum from the constituents evaluated. The alternative
scenario found a potential for unacceptable risk to raccoons from arsenic; and to marsh wrens,
clapper rails, and mummichogs with one or more constituents in portions of the marshes and river.
The alternative scenario was conducted to develop a lower bound of the potential ecological risks
posed at the site. When combined with EPA's ERA, the two ecological assessments bound the
range of potential ecological risks in which risk management decisions will be made at the site.
Actual of threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment
7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following section provides a summary of the remedial alternatives for soil/drainage
ditch sediments, groundwater/NAPL, and Ashley River/tidal marsh sediments that were evaluated
in detail in the Feasibility Study Report All alternative cost estimates are expressed in 1996
dollars and are based on conceptual engineering, design and construction. Total present worth
costs include capital costs and operation/maintenance costs to completely finance the remedy over
its planned life.
7.1 Development of Cleanup Levels
A Final Feasibility Study was completed in December 1996 to develop and evaluate
cleanup options (referred to as remedial alternatives) that provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment. This effort required the derivation of cleanup levels for the media of
concern: surface/subsurface soil and drainage ditch sediments; groundwater/NAPL; and sediments
of the Ashley River, Barge Canal and North/South/Northwest Tidal Marshes. Cleanup levels
were not developed for surface water since this ROD will eliminate the sources of identified
surface water impacts. Cleanup levels were necessary to identify areas to be addressed by EPA's
Final response action for the site. The Final cleanup levels are discussed below.
7.1.1 Soil and Drainage Ditch Sediments
EPA has selected soil cleanup levels to be protective of the future on-site worker under a
future industrial land-use scenario. The Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment developed
cleanup levels for soils within EPA's protective risk range of 1 x 10*4 to 1 x 10"*. Traditionally,
EPA has expressed a preference for cleanups to achieve the more protective end of the range (i.e.
1 x 1O"6) pursuant to language in the National Contingency Plan (NCP). However, recent
Superfund Administrative Reforms have directed EPA to promote risk management and cost-
effectiveness strategies in the remedy selection process. Therefore, a value engineering study was
conducted to select an excavation level mat optimized risk reduction while minimizing tons of
soil removed. This was accomplished by first estimating the tons of soil which exceeded the
respective cleanup levels of EPA's protective risk range. Secondly, a resultant residual risk was
-------
o 9 025-^
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 37
then calculated assuming that the tons of soil which exceeded the specific cleanup goal were
removed and replaced with "clean" soil of an assumed "background" concentration. The residual
risk calculations followed the identical approach and assumptions used in the Human Health
Baseline Risk Assessment. The results of the value engineering study are summarized in Table 3.
TABLES
DETERMINATION OF SOIL EXCAVATION LEVEL
EPA's
Protective
Risk Range
1x10^
5xlO'5
1 x ID'5
5x 10*
1x10*
B(ft)P-TESofl
Oean-Up Level (mg/kg)
Surface/Subsurface Sot! (1)
40/550
20/275
4.0/55
2.0/27.5
0.40/5.5
Estimated Tons of Soil
Greater than Clean-Up
Level (2)
5300
12,000
39,000
86,000
160,000
Estimated
Residual
Risk Achieved (3)
1.6x10-'
£. l.OxlO'5
2.4 x 10*
1.1x10*
8.6 x 10-* (4)
Footnotes:
( 1 ) B(a)P-TE, or Benzo(a)Pyrene Toxicity Equivalents, is a summary parameter which
converts all carcinogenic PAHs to an equivalent B(a)P concentration. Concentrations
are listed for surface soils (0 to 6 inches) and subsurface soils (6 inches to water table).
(2) This column represents total tons of soil which exceeds respective soil clean-up level.
B(a)P-TE impacted soil is driving volume estimates.
(3) Estimated residual risk achieved represents the potential risk to future on-site worker
AFTER remediation is completed.
(4) Estimated residual risk is lower (i.e. more protective) than EPA's protective risk range
oflxlO^tolxlO*.
Figure 12 provides a graphical illustration of residual risk achieved versus tons of soil
excavated. Review of this figure demonstrates that the greatest reduction of residual risk
achieved per ton of soil removed occurs at the cleanup levels on the higher end of EPA's
protective risk range (1 x 10"4 and 5 x 10'5). All excavation levels evaluated result in a residual
risk within EPA's protective risk range, except the most protective level (1 x 10"6) which is
outside EPA's protective range. The soil which exceeds the more protective excavation levels of
1 x 103,5 x 10"6, and 1 x 10* contains relatively lower concentrations of constituents, therefore
the incremental increase in volume of soil excavated is substantial when compared to additional
risk reduction achieved. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 12, excavation levels more protective
than the 5 x 105 risk level generally double and triple the tons of soil removed while providing a
relatively smaller incremental benefit in risk reduction. For these reasons, EPA has selected the 5
x 10"5 soil excavation level resulting in the removal of an estimated 12,000 tons of soil and ditch
sediment. Cost estimates for soil remedies described later in this section are based upon this
assumption.
-------
FIGURE 12
VALUE ENGINEERING RESULTS
T3
0)
05
OJ
O
X
HI
O
CO
200,000
•£ 150,000
_ 100,000
50,000
160,000 Tons
86,000 Tons
39,000 Tons
No Action
12,000 Tonr
...,*.*.*...*.*.*.*^.**********.».*.*,...»..w**.***4»««*t***»**.^l mm f* f\f\ ^m
i*«*«**»******«*****« i««**»»*»»»*»»»*.»»«»»»»|i»*»***^»»»«»**»»»»»»**«*^^H ^J m ^J^J \J I ^^ I 11^9 *
i i i 111AI i i i i 11 HE i i i i 111 nl ^^ i i i i ml in
0
1E-8 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1
Residual Risk Achieved
VD
O
KJ
Ol
-------
l> 9 0236
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 39
However, the Feasibility Study did evaluate soil cleanup options that achieve lower levels
of residual risk. Soil remedies which combine excavation at the 5 x 10*s level described above
with capping are presented later in this section. This approach affords the benefit of achieving
lower levels of residual risk without incurring the substantial increases in tons of soil and
associated costs.
The value engineering study discussed above did not include the constituents of lead or
dioxin. Pursuant to discussion in Section 6.1.1, EPA has selected a soil lead cleanup level of
1,150 mg/kg. The majority of lead impacted soil which exceeds the 1,150 mg/kg cleanup level is
located on the thin strip of uplands south of the Barge Canal. This area is part of the property
formerly owned by the Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works and is not related to former wood-
treating operations. Representative samples of this lead impacted soil were collected and
submitted for analysis to determine its disposal characteristics. Results of leaching potential tests
confirm that this lead impacted material is not a characteristic hazardous waste. Therefore,
capping and on-site disposal options have been developed to preclude exposur&to this material
under the future on-site worker scenario.
In regard to the constituent of dioxin, EPA recently issued a policy entitled, "Approach
for Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites, OSWER Directive 9200.2-26, April
13, 1998". This policy recommends that a level within the range of 5 Mg/kg to 20 Mg/kg (TEQ)
generally be used as a preliminary remediation goal (PRO) for dioxin in surface soil at remedial
sites involving a commercial/industrial exposure scenario. As the policy explains, a level within
the range of 5 Mg/kg to 20 Mg/kg for dioxin in commercial/industrial soils is generally protective
of human health and the environment. This policy was not issued until after proposal of the
selected remedy for the Koppers site which selected cleanup levels of 1.5 Mg/kg (TEQs) in surface
soil, and 20 (TEQs) Mg/kg in subsurface soil.
However, if 5 Mg/kg (TEQs) was to be considered as a PRO for surface soils at the
Koppers site as recommended by this policy, a final cleanup level of 1.5 Mg/kg (TEQs) for surface
soil would still be selected, based on the following reasons.
Soils impacted by dioxin are limited to the Former Treatment Area, in close proximity to
former locations of the penta storage tank and treating cylinders. Given this localized distribution,
and the co-mingled nature of soil impacted by dioxin and creosote-related constituents (i.e. B(a)P-
TE), the value engineering study did not evaluate dioxin. In other words, excavation of B(a)P-TE
impacted soil at the performance standard level will also remove soil with dioxin concentrations
greater than the cleanup levels derived from the site-specific Human Health Baseline Risk
Assessment (1.5 Mg/kg surface soil/20 Mg/kg subsurface soil) and the PRGs recommended by the
above policy (within the range of 5 to 20 Mg/kg). Considering the above discussion, EPA has
selected 1.5 Mg/kg (TEQs) in surface soil and 20 Mg/kg (TEQs) in subsurface soil as dioxin
cleanup levels for mis site. Because of the unique nature of the co-mingling of dioxin with the.
primary COC at this site, the resultant cleanup will attain a more protective dioxin cleanup goal
than the recently issued policy range of 5 to 20 Mg/kg (TEQs), without impacting the cost of
remediation. Moreover, the community and SCDHEC have not objected to EPA's selected
dioxin cleanup goal of 1.5 Mg/kg (TEQs) for surface soil.
-------
£ 9 0237
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 40
7.1.2 Groundwater/NAPL
Three source areas of subsurface NAPL and impacted groundwater have been identified at
the site. Potential NAPL source areas that will be addressed as groundwater and as ditch
sediments are illustrated on Figure 9 in Section 5.3. NAPL observed in the sediments of the
Hagood Avenue, Braswell Street, West Milford Street and Central drainage ditches will be
addressed through the soil cleanup alternative. EPA has adopted the long-term remediation
objectives for sites where NAPL is encountered in groundwater as presented in the EPA OSWER
Directive 9234.2-25, "Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Groundwater
Restoration (EPA 1993)". EPA's groundwater/NAPL remediation objectives for the Treatment
Area, Old Impoundment Area, and Northwest Corner are:
• Removal or treatment of NAPL to the maximum extent practicable;
• Containment of potentially non-restorable source areas; and
• Restoration of aqueous contaminant plumes.
The groundwater/NAPL alternatives developed in the FS Report and summarized in this
fact sheet will focus on achieving the above three long-term objectives. Implementation of the
Interim Action in the former Treatment Area is underway and is expected to provide valuable
operational and performance data on the degree of achievement of these three objectives. All
groundwater/NAPL alternatives developed assume that the Interim Action treatment plant will be
used for site-wide remediation. Under the Interim Action, all treated water will be discharged to
the North Charleston Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) via permit Minor upgrades to
the treatment system and modifications to the permit may be needed to handle additional capacity.
Based on information obtained during a supplementary May 1996 groundwater
investigation in close proximity to MW-01D, a mixing zone for the deep water-bearing unit
underlying the Northwest Comer will be applied for during the Remedial Design phase.
Moreover, groundwater remediation will not be required at MW-13S given SCDHEC's
determination that this well is representative of surface water, rather than groundwater.
7.1.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal, and North/South/Northwest Tidal Marsh Sediments
A weight of evidence approach was developed to derive Areas of Potential Ecological
Concern (APECs) for the Ashley River, Barge Canal and three tidal marsh areas neighboring the
site. This protocol utilized the results of sediment samples and whole sediment acute toxicity
testing on Neanthes arenaceodentata and Mysidopsis bahia generated during the RI field
programs. The protocol is outlined below:
-------
^•9 Q253
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 41
• Within each area (Ashley River, Barge Canal, North/South/Northwest Tidal Marsh),
results for sediment samples collected between 0 and 12 inches were compared to
available relevant benchmarks for inorganics and PAHs (ER-M or draft EPA Sediment
Quality Criteria). Inclusion of data from the 6 to 12 inch interval is considered adequately
conservative because the majority of benthic macroinvertebrates are distributed in the
upper 6 inches and thus have minimal potential exposure to lower depths;
• Locations where a constituent concentration exceeded the benchmark were assumed to be
within the APEC;
• Locations where a constituent concentration was less than the benchmark were assumed
to outside the APEC;
• Locations with statistically significant increased mortality of Neanthes and/or Mysidopsis
in acute toxicity tests were assumed to be within the APEC;
• Locations where a constituent concentration exceed the benchmark but a co-located
toxicity test revealed no statistically significant chronic toxicity relative to reference sites
were assumed to be outside the APEC; and
• The edge of the marsh as denoted on the habitat map was used to delineate the extent of
an APEC.
The areas requiring remediation in the North and South Tidal Marsh are illustrated in
Figures 13 and 14, respectively. The areas requiring remediation in the Ashley River, Barge
Canal and Northwest Tidal Marsh are illustrated on Figure 15. Remedial alternatives for
sediments may consist of active, intrusive measures (dredging or excavation) or passive, less
intrusive containment measures (capping, enhanced sedimentation, bioremediation, natural
attenuation). Sediments within those areas illustrated on Figures 13-15 that demonstrated
significant acute toxicity to the selected indicator species were evaluated for potential removal
(i.e. active remediation). Areas which did not demonstrate sediment toxicity, but did contain
sediment concentrations above relevant benchmarks were evaluated for remediation by less
intrusive measures.
This approach to remediation in defined APECs affords the benefits of physically
removing sediments shown to cause toxicity in site-specific studies, while protectively managing
other less impacted sediments in-situ without completely disrupting the function and habitat of
these ecosystems. Furthermore, the alternative ecological risk assessment discussed in Section
6.2 compared the areas shown to cause potential ecological risk to the APECs illustrated on
Figures 13-15. The findings of this effort suggest mat the remediation within APECs to mitigate
direct toxicity to benthic macroinvertebrates also eliminates most of the locations with potential
food chain risks.
-------
345E16A
LUCK
*"*
M - "0 SMMF1CANT TOXKRY. OBSERVED M PHASE I (SEE NOTE 1)
"P - SWMTICANT TOWJTY OBSERVED M PHASE I (SEE NOTE 1)
/y - NO SWNF1CANT TOOdTY OBSERVED M PHASE • (SEE NOTE 2)
f - SKNF1CANT TOJOOTT OBSERVED M PHASE P (SEE NOTE 2)
^ • SEGMENT TOnaTY LOCATION
SOURCE: BEAZER EAST. INC.. PITTSBURGH. PA.. 1996
NOTTS:
t. THE FUST LETTER OF THIS FONT M EACH PAH REPRESENTS
THE RESULTS OT THE MtMTim SP 10-OAV «MOLE
SEGMENT TOXKITY TEST AND THE SECOND LETTER OF THIS FONT
REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF THE HTSmntS BAM A
WHOLE SEGMENT TONCITY TEST.
2. THE FIRST UTTER OF THIS FONT M EACH PAIR REPRESENTS
THE RESULTS OF THE HtAjfTOn SP 2O-OAY WHOLE
SEGMENT TOXKJTY TEST AND THE SECOND LETTER OF THIS FONT
REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF THE AWIUKt
WHOLE SEGMENT TOMdTY TEST.
3. TOAL CHEEK NOT TO SCALE
240
SCALE IN FEET
1" = 240'-0"
480
FIGURE 13
SEDIMENT TOXICITY LOCATIONS
NORTH TIDAL MARSH
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
-------
I45E17A
SCALE IN FEET
I" - 240'-0"
U77A
N
I
- NO
• SKNVKANT
• NO MMTKANT
M fHASE I (SEE NOTE 1)
RttD M fHASE • (SEE MOTE 2)
j • 9GNf1CANT TOMCm OBSERVED M PHASE • (SEE NOTE 2)
•jf - SEDIMENT TO»0)TY LOCATION
SOURCE: BEAZER EAST. INC.. PITTSBURGH. PA., 1996
«P»«tSCNTS TH€ RCSW.TS OF THE HT3IHOPSI3
WHOU SEDMCMT TOXIOTY TEST.
2. THE niWT LETTER OF THIS TOMT M EACH CAW WHtSCHTJ
THE RESULTS OF THE HIUITma SP 20-DAY «MOU
SEOMCNT TOIOOTY TEST AND THE SECOND LJETTEH Of THIS FWT
REPBtSENTS THE RESULTS OF THE AHftUXA 4IDITA
«MOLC SCDMCNT TWOaTY TEST.
FIGURE H
SEDIMENT TOXICITY LOCATIONS
SOUTH TIDAL MARSH
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
vo
CD
-------
u f.
N
2
2
i (in HOIC t)
1)
SCALE IN FEET
- 300'-0"
BFAZE* EAST, we, PITTSBURCK PA..
nCURC 15
SEDIMENT TOXJOTY LOCATIONS I
ASHLEY RIVER. NORTHWEST TOAL MARSH.
AND BARGE CANAL
FORMER KOPPERS 9TE
CHARLESTON, SC
-------
L 9 0242
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 45
7.2 Soil and Drainage Ditch Sediments Alternatives
Alternative I/No Action: As required by CERCLA, a DO further action alternative was
evaluated to serve as die basis for comparison with other active cleanup alternatives. Under this
alternative, no further action would be conducted on soils/drainage ditch sediments which pose an
unacceptable risk to the future on-site worker. Deed restrictions would be established to limit
future land-use. Total Present Worth = $13,000.
Alternative 2/Containment: Under this alternative, all soil with concentrations greater
than the 5 x 105 cleanup level would be covered with a geotextile base and 1 foot of compacted
crushed stone cap. One foot of compacted crushed stone cap was used for costing purposes, but
the actual thickness and other parameters such as dust control will be evaluated in Remedial
Design. The soil cap would encompass an estimated 6.7 acre area. The Braswell Street, West
Milford Street and Central drainage ditches would be reconstructed to achieve the following three
objectives: 1) remove all ditch sediment with concentrations greater than the 5 x 10'5 cleanup
level; 2) remove and/or control the transport of NAPL and/or dissolved phase constituents from
the drainage ditch; and 3) reconstruct the respective drainage ditch to provide for adequate
drainage that is consistent with its future land-use. All impacted ditch sediment will be excavated
and disposed of off-site at an approved hazardous waste landfill. The drainage ditches will be
reconstructed using a concrete lined channel or enclosed pipe to handle a 10-year, 24-hour storm,
which is the design standard for drainage facilities used by the City of Charleston. The estimated
total present worth of the drainage ditch reconstruction effort is $1,200,000. Drainage ditch
reconstruction is included as a component of all the remaining soil alternatives presented below.
Total Present Worth = $1,938,000.
Alternative 3A/OfT-Site Disposal: This alternative consists of the excavation of an
estimated 12,000 tons of soil which exceeds the 5 x 10'5 cleanup level, subsequent off-site
disposal at an approved hazardous waste landfill, and drainage ditch reconstruction as described
under Alternative 2 above. Total Present Worth = $3,313,000.
Alternative 3B/On-Site Disposal: Alternative 3B differs from 3A only in the fact that all
excavated soils would be trucked to an on-site landfill rather than a off-site location.
Conceptually, a hazardous waste landfill with a multi-layer liner, leachate collection system, and
multi-layer cap would be constructed on-site. The proposed location of this landfill is the Spoils
Area (See Figure 3, Section 2). Total Present Worth = $3,077,000.
Alternative 4A7On-Site Thermal Desorption and Off-Site Incineration: Alternative
4A includes the excavation of 12,000 tons of soil which exceeds the 5 x 10*s cleanup level with
subsequent treatment. An estimated 9,000 tons of soil impacted by creosote constituents would
be treated on-site by thermal desorption. Thermal desorption units separate organic constituents
from soil by heating at temperatures typically between 200-1000 °F. Treated soil would be '
returned to the on-site excavations. An estimated 3,000 tons of soil impacted by
pentachlorophenol with trace amounts of dioxin would be excavated and transported off-site for
incineration. Total Present Worth = $8,986,000.
-------
!j 9
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 46
Alternative 4B/On-Site Thermal Desorption and Off-Site Disposal: Under
Alternative 4B, 9,000 tons of soil impacted by creosote would be treated on-site via thermal
desorption. The 3,000 tons of soil impacted by pentachlorophenol would be disposed of off-site
in an approved hazardous waste landfill. Total Present Worth = $6,436,000.
Alternative 4C/Off-Site Incineration: Alternative 4C consists of excavation of the
12,000 tons of soil which exceeds the 5 x 10~5 cleanup level and transportation off-site for
incineration at an approved facility. Total Present Worth = $13,513,000.
Alternatives SA, SB, SC/Capping of Additional Soil to Achieve More Protective
Cleanup Levels: Alternatives SA, SB and SC consist of the excavation of an initial amount of
soil/ditch sediment containing the highest concentrations of constituents followed by capping of
soils containing relatively lower concentrations of constituents. Excavated soil under these
alternatives could be treated and/or disposed utilizing any of the options presented in Alternatives
3 and 4 above. Soil alternatives 2 through 4 address the 12,000 tons of soil which exceed the 5 x
10'5 excavation goal. Alternatives 2 through 4 provide a potential residual risk of 1 x 105 which
is within EPA's protective risk range. Alternatives 5 A, SB, and 5C are supplemental alternatives
developed by EPA to evaluate options to achieve more protective cleanup goals and an
incremental reduction in risk.
Alternative 5A: Alternative SA consists of the excavation of the 12,000 tons of soil/ditch
sediments which exceed the 5 x 10's cleanup level Excavated soil could be disposed and/or
treated using any of the options described under Alternatives 3 and 4 above. All additional soil
which exceeds the 1 x 105 cleanup level would be covered with geotextile base and compacted
crushed stone. This cap would cover an estimated 11 acres of the site. The estimated residual
risk for implementation of Alternative 5 A is 2.4 x 10^, which is near the most protective end of
EPA's acceptable risk range. The additional Total Present Worth for the 11 acre cap is
$ 1,050,000. Total costs for this alternative will depend on the treatment alternative selected for
excavated soil and will range from $4,127,000 to $14,563,000.
Alternative SB: Alternative SB consists of the excavation of the 12,000 tons of soil/ditch
sediment which exceed the 5 x 103 cleanup level. Excavated soil could be disposed and/or
treated using any of the options described under Alternatives 3 and 4 above. All additional soil
which exceeds the 1 x 10"6 cleanup level would be covered with geotextile base and compacted
crushed stone. This cap would cover an estimated 31 acres of the site. The estimated potential
residual risk for implementation of Alternative SB is 8.6 x 10"* which is outside of EPA's
protective risk range (i.e. more protective). The additional Total Present Worth of the 31 acre cap
is $2,673,000. Total costs for mis alternative will depend on the treatment alternative selected for
excavated soil and will range from $5,750,000 to $16,186,000.
Alternative SC: Alternative SC consists of the excavation of the 5300 tons of soil/ditch
sediments which exceed the 1 x 10"* cleanup level Excavated soil could be disposed and/or
treated using any of the options described under Alternatives 3 and 4 above. All additional soil
which exceeds the 1 x 10'} cleanup level would be covered with geotextile base and compacted
crushed stone. This cap would cover an estimated 11 acres of the site. The estimated residual
-------
^ 9 024
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 47
risk for implementation of Alternative 5C is 2.4 x 10*6, which is near the most protective end of
EPA's acceptable risk range. When combined with the treatment/disposal options of Alternatives
3 and 4, the total present worth of Alternative 5C ranges from $2,937,000 to $7,546,000.
7.3 Groundwater/NAPL Alternatives
Alternative I/No Action: The no action alternative does not include active measures to
address groundwater/NAPL at the three identified source areas except for what is planned under
the Interim Action in the former Treatment Area. Restoration of aqueous contaminant plumes
would be achieved by natural degradation. A monitoring program would be implemented to
evaluate the effectiveness of the Interim Action and rate of natural degradation of aqueous
contaminant plumes. Total Present Worth = $102,000.
Alternative 2/Containment by Impermeable Barrier: Alternative 2 consists of the
placement of an impermeable barrier down gradient of areas with recoverable NAPL. The
objective of the impermeable barrier is to gain containment of the NAPL source area.
Groundwater and NAPL recovery wells would be installed and operated up gradient of the barrier
to actively recover NAPL and to maintain appropriate groundwater elevations. All recovered
groundwater would be piped to the Interim Action treatment system with subsequent discharge to
the local POTW. Restoration of aqueous contaminant plumes would be achieved by natural
degradation. Total Present Worth = $2,247,000.
Alternative 3/Containment and Recovery with Extraction Wells: Alternative 3
involves the installation of groundwater and NAPL extraction wells to actively achieve the
established objectives for this media. The conceptual approach for this alternative includes the
installation of 2 groundwater/NAPL recovery wells each in the Northwest Comer (shallow wells)
and Old Impoundment Area (intermediate wells). A total of 10 groundwater/NAPL extraction
wells are planned for the former Treatment Area which includes 6 wells screened in the shallow
water-bearing unit and 4 wells screened in the intermediate water-bearing unit The extraction
wells described above are additional to those installed under the Interim Remedial Action
program. Under this alternative, the total groundwater remedy would incorporate 21 extractions
wells (14 shallow and 7 intermediate). Additional extraction well(s) may be installed pending
review of operation and performance data. All recovered groundwater would be piped to the
Interim Action treatment system with subsequent discharge to the local POTW. A monitoring
program would be established to monitor the effectiveness of this alternative. Total Present
Worth = $3,074,000.
Alternative 4/In-Situ Treatment: Alternative 4 involves the in-situ treatment of organic
constituents in groundwater as well as containment and removal of NAPL. Unlike the
conventional groundwater extraction wells proposed under Alternative 3, the in-situ process does
not require removal of groundwater from the water-bearing units. Tnyfr*"^ the in-situ process
establishes a vertical circulation cell by extracting water from a lower screened interval and
reinjecting water in an upper screened interval. Over time, dissolved phase constituents in
groundwater would be contained in the circulation cell and subject to biodegradation. The in-situ
well could also include a NAPL recovery sump to capture NAPL that would be drawn into the
-------
^ 9 0245
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 48
well. This technology could also be considered a contingency alternative for the above
groundwater/NAPL alternatives should monitoring results indicate that restoration of aqueous
contaminant plumes is not occurring. The cost estimates for this remedy assumed that 2 in-situ
wells would be installed in the Old Impoundment Area, 1 in the Northwest Corner, and 4 in the
former Treatment Area. Total Present Worth = $2,164,000.
7.4 Ashley River, Barge Canal, and North/South/Northwest Tidal Marsh Sediments
Alternatives
Alternative I/No Action: The no action alternative for river and marsh sediments
consists of: 1) mitigation of continuing sources from NAPL in groundwater and ditch sediments;
2) reduction of constituents in river/marsh sediment by natural processes; 3) covering of impacted
river/marsh sediments by natural sedimentation; 4) institutional controls to prevent exposure to
river/marsh sediments and to mitigate disturbances; and 5) monitoring to determine effectiveness
of the passive remediation. Total Present Worth = $275,000.
Alternative 2 A/Enhanced Sedimentation: Alternative 2 A provides capping of impacted
sediments by increasing and accelerating natural sedimentation processes. This alternative is
primarily applicable to the Ashley River, since enhanced sedimentation measures in marsh
channels are not expected to be effective due to erosive action of storm water run-off from major
rainfall events. Enhanced sedimentation of impacted Ashley River bottom sediments can be
achieved most effectively by decreasing water velocities in the area of interest, resulting in an
increased deposition of the river's suspended sediment load. The conceptual approach to this
alternative involves surrounding the area of impacted sediments in the Ashley River with driven
piles that extend from the sediment surface. In theory, this pile barrier would capture sediment in
a similar manner that a snow fence captures blowing snow. A detailed design study would be
necessary to determine the optimal arrangement, spacing of the piles, minimum installation depth
and height of piles, and appropriate construction materials. Monitoring and bathymetric surveys
would be performed to determine actual rate of deposition. Total Present Worth = $541,000.
Alternative IB/Subaqueous Capping: Alternative 2B is primarily applicable to the Ashley
River and the Barge Canal. In order to preserve the existing elevations and hydrology, use of
capping techniques in the North, South and Northwest Tidal Marshes would have to be preceded
by dredging. This approach is discussed as part of Alternatives 3 A, 3B, 3C, and 3D below.
Capping of Ashley River Sediments: A number of capping systems may be feasible to
cover impacted sediments in the area of interest. Key considerations when selecting a cap
material include resistance to erosion from relatively high water velocities and
consolidation of cap material into the soft base sediments. Sand has been selected as the
cap material due to the cost, ease of installation, and ability to re-establish habitat
following remediation. Installation of a geotextile base fabric prior to sand application
would reduce loss to the underlying soft mud. Geotextile tubes filled with sand would be
installed around the cap perimeter to anchor the geotextile base and reduce erosion of the
sand cap. Inspection and maintenance of the above described cap would be necessary to
ensure its effectiveness. Total Present Worth = $680,000.
-------
L 9 0246
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 49
Capping of Barge Canal Sediments: Under this alternative, impacted sediments in the
3.2 acre Barge Canal would be capped with a two foot cover. This cover would
eliminate exposure to the benthic community and preclude further potential risks to upper
trophic level receptors. The cap material would be a prepared mixture with comparable
characteristics of organic content, pH and particle size as local tidal marsh sediments.
During installation activities, engineering controls would be implemented to abate release
of suspended sediments and mitigate adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. A
long-term monitoring and maintenance program would be established to mitigate erosional
impacts and to ensure the installed cap remains effective at eliminating exposure to
underlying sediments. Total Present Worth = $447,000.
As part of the FS process, EPA evaluated the remedial option of combining remediation of
the Barge Canal with the lead impacted material from the thin strip of uplands which
separates the Barge Canal from the South Tidal Marsh. Site specific leaching data using
Ashley River water has confirmed that this material could be used as fill material in the
base layer of this remedial option. Conceptually, an estimated 28,000 cubic yards of lead
impacted material would be placed in a six foot base layer, followed by the two foot cap
discussed in the preceding paragraph. The area would be returned to the appropriate
elevations to ensure successful revegetation and repopulation by desired flora and fauna.
This conceptual approach to remediation would return the Barge Canal area to its pre-
existing condition, prior to the Barge Canal dredging in November 1984. In order to
clearly differentiate between remediation and tidal marsh restoration activities, this
alternative to Barge Canal remediation must also be selected with the Confined Disposal
option for lead impacted material discussed later in this section. Total Present Worth =
$880,000
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D/Dredging, Capping, and Treatment/Disposal: The
common components of these alternatives are dredging of impacted sediments, placement of a cap
in dredged areas, and revegetation. The distinction between these alternatives is the method of
treatment and disposal of dredged sediments. Dredging in the Ashley River was not evaluated
due to the similar effectiveness and risk reduction achieved by other comparable alternatives and
the prohibitively high cost. Due to the absence of sediment toxicity in the Barge Canal and
Northwest Tidal Marsh, active removal of sediment through dredging was not determined
appropriate. Therefore, Alternatives 3 A/3B/3C/3D apply only to the North and South Tidal
Marshes.
Areas of proposed remediation for the North and South Tidal Marsh are illustrated on
Figures 13 and 14, respectively. In the North Tidal Marsh, approximately 1,000 feet of tidal
creek channel encompassing an estimated 0.25 acres would be excavated. In the South Tidal
Marsh, an estimated 1.5 acres would be excavated. The depth of excavation in both tidal marshes
is assumed to be the biologically active zone, or the top 1 foot of sediments. Excavation could be
accomplished with traditional earth moving equipment using a series of interlocking mats installed
over a geotextile layer to provide access. Excavation of sediments saturated with water will
require special material handling techniques. Excavated sediments will be loaded directly into
water tight trucks and transported to an on-site stockpile area for de-watering and stabilization
-------
li 9 024
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 50
prior to ultimate disposal. All disturbed areas will be capped with a topsoil mixture consisting of
70% loam/30% organics and returned to former elevations. All disturbed areas will be
revegetated and restored with native species.
Alternative 3A/Dredging, Capping and On-Site Thermal Desorption: Excavation
would be performed as described above and sediments would be treated via on-site thermal
desorption. This alternative would be combined with soil Alternatives 4 A or 48. Total Present
Worth = $3,903,000.
Alternative 3B/Dredging, Capping and Off-Site Incineration: Excavated sediments
would be treated via off-site incineration. This alternative would be combined with soil
Alternative 4C. Total Present Worth = $8,349,000.
Alternative 3C/Dredging, Capping and Off-Site Disposal: Excavated sediments would
be disposed off-site at an approved hazardous waste landfill. This alternative could be combined
with soil Alternative 3A or be selected as a stand alone cleanup or»»;on. Total Present Worth =
$1,682,000.
Alternative 3D/Dredging, Capping and On-Site Disposal: Excavated sediments would
be disposed in the on-site landfill constructed in the Spoils Area as part of soils Alternative 3B.
Total Present Worth = $ 1 ,444,000.
Alternative 4/In-Situ Bioremediation: Alternative 4 is potentially applicable to tidal
marsh sediments and the Ashley River. The objective of in-situ bioremediation is to increase the
rate of natural biodegradation by introducing bacteria and nutrients to improve the conditions for
bioremediation to occur. This would be accomplished by the use of biocomposites and
microencapsulation. Microencapsulation involves the packaging of select bacteria and nutrients in
degradable capsules. Over time, the capsules release their contents to the impacted sediments.
Biocomposites would be injected into the sediments without disturbing the existing plant and
animal species. Pilot testing of this approach would be needed to select an appropriate mix of
nutrients and bacteria to optimize performance. A sampling program to monitor the effectiveness
of this alternative is also included. Total Present Worth = $149,000.
7.5 Lead Impacted Soil
The thin strip of uplands located immediately south of the Barge Canal was formerly
utilized by the Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works to provide access to the Ashley River. An
estimated 3.25 acres of soil along this general area contains concentrations of lead, and to a lesser
degree arsenic, above EPA's selected cleanup goals. This material is not related to former wood-
treating operations. Under the expected future industrial use exposure scenario, cleanup options
were developed to eliminate potential risks associated with exposure to mis materia1.
Leaching tests, as specified by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
conducted on representative samples of this material confirm that it is not a characteristic
hazardous waste. EPA conducted additional leaching tests on this material which consisted of
-------
o 9 0248
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 51
placing a representative soil sample in ajar with water collected from the Ashley River. This
mixture was vigorously shaken for 18 hours and die resultant water was analyzed for lead and
arsenic. Results clearly indicated that this material does not leach at concentrations that would
cause adverse impacts to surface water or ecological receptors. Therefore, this material does not
require treatment to render it non-hazardous prior to disposal. The following three alternatives
were developed by EPA to eliminate potential human health risks under the future on-site worker
scenario.
Alternative I/No Action: Under this alternative, no further action would be conducted
on the soil which exceeds EPA's selected cleanup goals. Deed restrictions would be established
to limit future land-use. Total Present Worth = $13,000.
Alternative 2/Containment: Alternative 2 involves capping all soils which exceed
cleanup goals for lead and arsenic. For simplicity, the cap system would incorporate the same
components (i.e. geotextile base with crushed stone cover) as described under Alternative 2/Soil
and Drainage Ditch Sediments. Total Present Worth =$621,000.
Alternative 3/Confined Disposal: Under Alternative 3, soil which comprises this thin
strip of uplands would be used as the base layer of fill in the Barge Canal reconstruction
alternative (Sediment Alternative 2B). Fill volume estimates of the Barge Canal indicate that
most of this upland soil could be placed in the base fill layer. Remaining soil with concentrations
above the cleanup levels would be capped, if necessary. The base fill layer in the Barge Canal
would be capped with a 2 foot topsoil/organic layer designed for revegetation. This conceptual
approach to remediation not only eliminates potential human health risks, but also results in a
positive benefit to the Ashley River tidal marsh system by connecting the reconstructed Barge
Canal with the expansive South Tidal Marsh system. For the purposes of this document, the total
present worth for this alternative is $880,000, which includes the remedial alternative costs for
Sediment Alternative 2B- Subaqueous Capping of the Barge Canal Incremental costs for
design/material handling are expected and would have to be estimated if this remedy were
selected. In order to clearly differentiate between remediation and tidal marsh restoration
activities, this remedial option must be combined with subaqueous capping of Barge Canal
sediments (Alternative 2B) presented above.
8.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The objective of this section of the ROD is to evaluate the relative performance of the
alternatives with respect to the nine evaluation criteria, so that the advantages and disadvantages
of each are clearly understood. The Threshold Criteria must be met for an alternative to be
selected. These criteria are presented in Sections 8.1 and 8.2, followed by a discussion presented
in the following media-specific subsections: 1) soil/drainage ditch sediments and lead impacted
material; 2) groundwater/NAPL; and 3) sediments of the Ashley River, Barge Canal and tidal
marshes. Section 8.3 through 8.7 present the Balancing Criteria, which are used to weigh the
major advantages and disadvantages or each remedial alternative. The discussion in these
Sections is organized using the same media-specific subdivisions. Sections 8.8 and 8.9 discuss
State Acceptance and Community Acceptance, respectively.
-------
L 9 0249
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 52
8.1 OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether each
alternative provides adequate protection of human health and the environment and describes how
risks posed through each exposure pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, and/or institutional controls
8.1.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material
All the soil alternatives evaluated, except the no-action alternative, are protective of
human health and the environment by utilizing one or a combination of response actions including
capping, excavation, disposal and/or treatment of soil constituents. Since the no-action
alternatives for Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material do not eliminate,
reduce or control any of the exposure pathways, it is therefore not protective ofnuman health and
the environment and will not be considered further in this analysis as an option for impacted soils.
Soil alternatives 5 A, B, and C provide the most protection of human health and the
environment. These alternatives combine removal of the most heavily impacted soil with the
installation of a cover to achieve more protective cleanup levels than afforded by excavation
alone. Alternatives 2 through 4 provide relatively the same degree of protectiveness since these
alternatives cap, excavate, dispose and/or treat the same quantity of soil. Lead soil alternatives 2
and 3 also provide the same relative degree of protectiveness since both remedial options will
eliminate exposure to lead in soil with concentrations greater than 1,150 mg/kg.
8.1.2 Groundwater/NAPL
The primary component of this evaluation criterion is the ability of a remedial alternative
to achieve the identified Performance Standards for this media. Generally, these include the
removal, treatment and containment of NAPL and the containment and restoration of aqueous
contaminant plumes. Since the no-action alternative does not include active measures to address
groundwater/NAPL except for what is planned under the Interim Remedial Action, this alternative
is not protective and will not be considered further in this analysis.
Alternatives 2 and 3 provide a higher degree of protection than Alternative 4. Alternative
2 achieves containment by the installation of physical barriers and recovery of impacted
groundwater and NAPL via extraction wells. Alternative 3 utilizes extraction wells to actively
achieve the identified Performance Standards in the three noted source areas. Alternative 4
primarily focuses on containment via the use of innovative vertical circulation cell technology.
8.1.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal and Tidal Marsh Sediments
The primary evaluation criteria for sediments of the Ashley River, Barge Canal and tidal
marshes is the long-term protection of ecological resources. Given the demonstrated toxicity to
selected indicator species and potential ecological risks posed, the no-action alternatives
developed for sediments of these areas are not adequately protective and will not be considered
further in this analysis.
-------
$ 9 0250-
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 53
Regarding the Ashley River, Enhanced Sedimentation (Alternative 2A), and Capping
(Alternative 2B) were evaluated as potential remedial alternatives. Both alternatives employ a
protective cover of sediment to eliminate exposure of ecological receptors to underlying impacted
sediments. The estimated time to achieve protectiveness would be less with the installation of an
engineered cap. The shorter time to achieve adequate protection by the capping alternative is
somewhat off-set by the short-term disadvantages resulting from dislocation or mortality of
existing benthic organisms during cap installation activities in the Ashley River APEC. Capping
of the Barge Canal was the only alternative evaluated, given the absence of statistically significant
toxicity to selected benthic test species. A two-foot cap over impacted sediments in the Barge
Canal with an effective monitoring/maintenance program will adequately protect ecological
resources.
Dredging, capping and treatment/disposal of dredged sediments (Alternatives 3 A, 3B, 3C,
and 3D) and in-situ bioremediation (Alternative 4) were evaluated as potential remedial
alternatives in the North, South and Northwest Tidal Marshes. Alternatives 3 A-3D provide the
highest degree of protection to ecological resources since they involve physically removing
sediments shown to cause toxicity to Neanthes and Mysidopsis. Installation of a protective cover
and marsh restoration are integral components of with these alternatives to ensure exposure to
deeper sediments is eliminated. In-situ bioremediation was retained for application to sediments
which did not demonstrate toxicity, but contained concentrations greater than ecological
screening criteria. In-situ bioremediation has a demonstrated potential to reduce constituent
concentrations without destructing tidal marsh habitat
8.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
Section 121 (d) of CERCLA requires that remedial actions at CERCLA sites at least attain
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state requirements, standards, criteria
and limitations which are collectively referred to as ARARs, unless such ARARs are waived under
CERCLA Section 121(dX4). Applicable requirements are those substantive environmental
protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state law that
specifically address hazardous substances, the remedial action to be implemented at the site, the
location of the site, or other circumstances present at the site. Relevant and appropriate
requirements are those substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under federal or state law which, while not applicable to hazardous materials found
at the site, the remedial action itself, the site location or other circumstances at the site,
nevertheless address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the site
that their use is well-suited to the site. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will
meet all of the ARARs of other federal and state environmental statutes or provides a basis for
invoking a waiver.
8.2.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material
All soil alternatives evaluated for mis media will attain identified ARARs. However, the
recent promulgation of Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) has added a degree of
-------
b 9 025
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 54
uncertainty to this analysis. LDR Phase IV states that wood-treating wastes must he treated to
Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) prior to land disposal. A two year capacity variance has
been granted based on the availability of treatment technologies to achieve UTS. Therefore,
wood-treating wastes disposed prior to May 12,1999 will not be required to meet the
promulgated UTS.
Alternatives involving excavation, off-site disposal and supplemental capping activities
(Alternatives 3A, 5A-5C) will meet ARARs provided excavation and off-site disposal activities
can be completed prior to the May 12,1999 deadline. This would require fast-tracking the soil
component of the selected remedy to meet the resultant time constraints. If this cannot be
accomplished due to implementation delays or large volume increases, soil alternatives that either
that incorporate thermal desorption or incineration (Alternatives 4A-4Q, or in-situ capping alone
(Alternative 2A) would be employed to meet ARARs. Alternative 3B, on-site disposal in a
hazardous waste landfill, would involve compliance with the most ARARs giveft a large majority
of the site is located within the 100-year flood plain and coastal zone management area. The lead
impacted material has been classified as non-hazardous waste according to RCRA. Therefore, all
alternatives developed to address this material will meet ARARs.
8.2.2 Groundwater/NAPL
Alternatives 2,3, and 4 all incorporate technologies to contain and/or potentially recover
NAPL and impacted groundwater from the three noted source areas on-site.. While achievement
of MCL-based cleanup levels may be technically impracticable at sites with NAPL contamination,
Alternative 3 incorporates a series of extraction wells that are expected to have a beneficial impact
on the restoration of dissolved-phase aqueous plumes downstream of the source area in the
former Treatment Area. Therefore, Alternative 3 provides the highest degree of compliance with
ARARs. Alternative 2 relies solely on natural degradation or attenuation in areas downstream of
NAPL source areas and therefore receives a negative rating for this criterion. Alternative 4
incorporates vertical circulation cell technology that could be used as a contingency alternative
with Alternative 3, should monitoring results indicate restoration of aqueous contaminant plumes
is not occurring.
8.2.3 Ashley River, Barge 'Canal and Tidal Marsh Sediments
All remedial alternatives evaluated for this media will meet identified ARARs.
Significantly more ARAR compliance issues are presented by the capping and dredging
alternatives compared to other alternatives. ARARs for these alternative include Sections 401
and 402 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act, and the Federal
Coastal Management Act. Alternatives 3A-3D may also be affected by Phase IV LDRs since
these alternatives involve components of disposal (on-site/off-site) and treatment (thermal
desorption/incineration). These alternatives should be closely coordinated with the selected soil
remedy to optimize compliance with ARARs.
-------
li 9 025.'!
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 55
8.3 LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to expected residual risk and the ability of
a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once
Performance Standards have been met. This criterion includes the consideration or residual risk
and the adequacy and reliability of controls.
8.3.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material
Soil and drainage ditch Alternatives 2 through 4 address the 12,000 tons of soil which
exceed EPA's selected cleanup levels. As discussed in Section 7.1.1, the residual risk was
calculated for the future industrial worker after remediation was complete. The residual risk
posed to the future on-site worker after completion of Alternatives 2-4 was 1 x 10's, which is in
the middle of the protective risk range established by EPA. Alternatives 5 A and 5C employ an
additional 11 acre cap to provide a higher degree of protectiveness in a cost-effective manner.
The resultant residual risk for Alternatives 5 A and 5C is 2.4 x 10"6 which is toward the more
protective end of EPA's acceptable risk range. Alternative 5B includes a 31 acre cap which
results in a residual risk of 8.6 x 10"*. This residual risk is outside, or more protective, than EPA's
acceptable risk range.
Alternatives 4A, 4B, and 4C include thermal desorption or incineration prior to disposal.
Long-term maintenance would not be required, and therefore these alternatives rank the highest
for this criterion. Alternatives 2,3 A and 3B do not involve treatment of soil, therefore these
alternatives rank below Alternatives 4A-4C in terms of long-term effectiveness. However,
effective maintenance and monitoring programs would provide Alternatives 2,3 A, and 3B reliable
long-term permanence and protectiveness.
Regarding the lead impacted soil alternatives, Alternative 2 (capping) and Alternative 3
(confined disposal) provide dependable degrees of long-term effectiveness and permanence.
Sediment sampling was conducted in the South Tidal Marsh near the thin strip of uplands which
comprises the majority of lead impacted material. Sediment in this immediate area was not
included in the APECs delineated using the weight of evidence approach described in Section
7.1.3. Moreover, the subject material is not classified as a characteristic hazardous waste per
RCRA regulations. Confined disposal is a proven technology and has been utilized successfully
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, other regulatory agencies, and industry for dealing with
impacted soils and dredged sediments. Modeling would be conducted to determine the quality of
leachate from the base layer. If warranted by the results of the modeling study, engineering
controls could be added to the confined disposal facility to ensure long-term effectiveness and
permanence. A long-term inspection and maintenance program is needed to ensure the installed
cap remains effective in eliminating human exposure for Alternative 2.
8.3.2 Groundwater/NAPL
All three alternatives are expected to provide an equivalent degree of long-term
effectiveness and permanence. Alternative 2 would require routine inspection and maintenance,
-------
b 9 0253
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 56
particularly of the joints of the impermeable barriers. All alternatives would require routine
maintenance of extraction wells and the on-site water treatment system.
8.3.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal and Tidal Marsh Sediments
In regard to the Ashley River, the capping (Alternative 2B) and enhanced sedimentation
(Alternative 2A) alternatives provide the same relative degree of long-term effectiveness and
permanence. The engineered cap envisioned in Alternative 2B is expected to more durable.
However, the enhanced sedimentation alternative may prove more reliable in the long-term due to
natural intertidal revegetation in the accumulated sediment. The long-term success of both Ashley
River alternatives and the Barge Canal capping alternative ultimately depend on a maintenance
program to repair erosional or other damages to the engineered or enhanced caps. Revegetation
and/or restoration would mitigate the adverse impacts of erosional forces on these alternatives.
The long-term effectiveness and permanence of the dredging alternatives in the tidal
marshes would also be primarily dependant on the durability of the cap. Since these areas to be
excavated are focal points for storm water run-off, erosion of the caps can be expected. These
impacts can be mitigated by grading the restored areas to proper elevations and actively replanting
with native vegetation. In-situ bioremediation is considered to be an innovative and emerging
technology for reducing organic and inorganic constituents in sediments. Therefore, the long-
term permanence and effectiveness of this alternative cannot be adequately evaluated.
8.4 REDUCTION IN TOXICITY, MOBILITY OR VOLUME
This criterion evaluates the reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume through the treatment
technology components of the remedial alternatives.
8.4.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material
Alternatives 4A, 4B, and 4C involve thermal desorption or incineration technologies that
would provide irreversible destruction of organic constituents through treatment. These
alternatives receive the highest ranking under this criterion. Alternatives 3A and 3B do not
involve treatment, but would greatly reduce contaminant mobility by confining constituents to an
off-site and on-site landfill, respectively. Alternative 2, containment by capping, would also
reduce the mobility of constituents by the placement of a cap over impacted soils to eliminate
exposure. Drainage ditch reconstruction will also reduce the mobility of constituents by
eliminating transport pathways. The remedial alternatives for lead impacted material do not
involve treatment components, but capping and confined disposal are expected to provide the
same relative degree of reduction in constituent mobility.
8.4.2 Groundwater/NAPL
Alternatives 2,3 and 4 would all have a positive benefit on the reduction of mobility of
NAPL in the three source areas. NAPL recovered under these alternatives would be recovered
and subsequently treated or recycled. Impacted groundwater recovered by these systems would
-------
o 9 025
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 57
also be treated prior to discharge to the selected discharge point. For purposes of this evaluation,
all three alternatives were rated equivalent in the reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume of
NAPL and impacted groundwater.
8,4.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal and Tidal Marsh Sediments
The Ashley River alternatives of capping and enhanced sediment do provide a reduction in
constituent mobility . The engineered cap and accumulation of sediment via enhanced deposition
are also expected to reduce the toxicity to benthic organisms and upper trophic levels. Capping
of the impacted Barge Canal sediments is also expected to have a positive benefit in the reduction
of the mobility of constituents.
The tidal marsh dredging alternatives mat involve thermal desorption (3 A) and
incineration (3B) reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of organic constituents through
treatment and rated the highest in this regard. Dredging alternatives that involve no treatment
(3C and 3D) do reduce the mobility of constituents by the excavation of sediment shown to cause
toxicity with placement in a controlled and monitored on-site/off-site landfill. Technology
performance data on in-situ bioremediation indicates that this technology can be very effective at
reducing low molecular weight PAHs (<4 rings). Phytoremediation, which involves the
absorption of constituents by plant species, has shown promising results for reducing
concentrations of inorganic constituents.
8.5 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Short-term effectiveness refers to the period of time needed to complete the remedy and
any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during construction
and implementation of the remedy until Performance Standards are achieved. The primary factors
influencing ratings for short-term effectiveness are potential adverse impacts to the community
and/or remediation workers during site construction activities, potential environmental impacts
and duration of remedy implementation activities.
8.5.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material
Alternative 2 received the highest ranking since this alternative involves cap installation
only with no excavation required. Excavation and off-site disposal options (Alternatives 3A and
4C) would present some potential hazards during excavation due to the number of trucks entering
and exiting the site. Noise and dust problems could be mitigated by engineering controls.
Alternative 3B, On-Site Disposal, and the remaining on-site treatment alternatives (4A and 4B)
provide the least short-term effectiveness given the length and intensity of construction and
treatment activities necessary to complete the remedial action. Capping of lead impacted material
provides a higher degree of short-term protectiveness than the confined disposal alternative.
-------
b 9 0253
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 58
8.5.2 Groundwater/NAPL
All three groundwater/NAPL alternatives evaluated involve the same relative degree of
construction activities necessary to implement the remedial action. Potential impacts during
construction would be readily controlled by implementation of an erosion control plan and a
health and safety plan for workers. Therefore, all alternatives provide the same degree of short-
term effectiveness.
8.5.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal and Tidal Marsh Sediments
The capping alternatives of the Ashley River and Barge Canal, as well as the enhanced
sedimentation alternative in the Ashley River, will require engineering controls during
construction activities to minimize releases of suspended sediments and associated adverse
impacts to surface waters. Silt curtains, sand blankets or other measures identified during the
Remedial Design phase could be used to mitigate constituent releases during cap placement
and/or pile installation activities. The capping alternatives in the Ashley River and Barge Canal
are rated lower since cap placement will result in the displacement of existing benthic organisms.
Short-term impacts from the dredging alternatives are expected to be fairly significant and
received the lowest rating with respect .to this criterion. The impacts associated with excavation
of the North Tidal Marsh are expected to be greatest given the close proximity to the Rbsemont
subdivision. Alternative dredging techniques, as opposed to the conceptual approach of utilizing
traditional earth moving equipment, would greatly reduce disruptions to the environment and
neighboring communities. A surface water management plan would be developed to divert run-
off during active construction activities. The short-term impacts associated with in-situ
bioremediation would be minimal.
8.6 IMPLEMENTABILrrY
This criterion addresses the relative ease of remedy implementation and die availability of
treatment technologies necessary to meet Performance Standards.
8.6.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material
There are no major impediments to implementation of any of the soil alternatives
evaluated. The alternatives under consideration utilize well developed and proven technologies,
can be readily implemented, can be readily monitored for effectiveness and do not present
problems in terms of off-site treatment or disposal capabilities. Alternatives involving excavation
and off-site disposal without treatment may impacted if these remedies are not fast tracked to beat
the deadline imposed by Phase IV LDRs. Alternatives 3B, On-Site Landfill, rates lower in this
criterion given the significant ARARs associated with siting a hazardous waste landfill -vithin the
100 year flood plain and coastal zone.
-------
I 9 0256
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 59
8.6.2 Groundwater/NAPL
Alternatives 2 and 3 employ field proven technologies that are readily available. These
alternatives rated the highest in this criterion. Performance data for Alternative 4, in-situ
treatment, has been gathered at numerous locations in the United States and Europe. This
technology has been most widely applied to volatile organics. Therefore, in-situ treatment via
vertical circulation cells is rated just below Alternatives 2 and 3.
8.6.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal and Tidal Marsh Sediments
Most alternatives developed for this media utilize technologies and equipment which are
readily available and proven in the field. Capping and dredging alternatives have been widely
applied across the United States with proven success at meeting the Performance Standards
established for this site. Confined disposal of lead impacted material and enhanced sedimentation
in the Ashley River received slightly lower ratings that the others evaluated. Additional studies
during the Remedial Design phase are necessary for these two remedial alternatives to address key
implementation issues. Bench scale tests are required for in-situ bioremediation to develop
optimal formulations of nutrients necessary to reduce constituent concentrations.
8.7 COST EFFECTIVENESS
This criterion evaluates the Total Present Worth of the developed remedial alternatives.
The tables in this section present the Total Present Worth of each alternative while also
considering the risk reduction afforded by each. Table 4 presents the Total Present Worth of the
soil/drainage ditch sediments and lead impacted material alternatives. Table 5 presents the Total
Present Worth of the Groundwater/NAPL alternatives, and Table 6 presents the Total Present
Worth of the Ashley River, Barge Canal and Tidal Marsh sediments alternatives.
8.7.1 Soil/Drainage Ditch Sediments and Lead Impacted Material
Table 4 below presents a description of each alternative, Total Present Worth, and residual
risk posed to the future on-site worker after completion of the respective soil remedy.
Alternatives 2 through 4 address the 12,000 tons of soil which exceed EPA's selected 5 x 10'5 soil
cleanup level. Alternatives 5 A, 5B, and SC evaluated the installation of a supplemental cap over
soil containing relatively lower concentrations to achieve a more protective residual risk level.
The cost estimates for these alternatives depend on the ultimate treatment option selected for
excavated soil.
-------
^ 9 025:
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 60
TABU
Total Present Worth of Soilaad Lead
Alternative/Description
1 - No Action
2 - Containment: 6.7 acre cap only.
3A - Off-Site Disposal: Excavation, off-site
disposal in hazardous waste landfill.
3B - On-Site Disposal: Excavation, on-site
disposal in hazardous waste landfill.
4 A - On-Site Thermal Desorption of 9,000 tons
and Off-Site Incineration of 3,000 tons.
4B - On-Site Thermal Desorption of 9,000 tons
and Off-Site Disposal of 3,000 tons.
4C - Off-Site Incineration
5 A - Excavation of 12,000 tons, plus 1 1 acre
cap.
5B - Excavation of 12,000 tons, plus 31 acre
cap.
5C - Excavation of 5,300 tons, plus 1 1 acre cap.
2 Lead Impacted Material - Cap lead soil with
concentrations > 1,150 rug/kg
3 Lead Impacted Material • Excavation of lead
soil with concentrations > 1,150 mg/kg followed
by confined disposal in Barge Canal
:A
1 Impacted Material Alternatives
Total
Present
Worth
$13,000
$1,938,000
$3,313,000
$3,077,000
$8,986,000
$6,436,000
$13,513,000
$4,127,000-
$14,563,000
$5,750,000-
$16,186,000
$2,937,000-
$7,546,000
$621,000
$880,000
Residual Risk/Comments
8 x 10'3 - Not Adequately
Protective
1 x 10-5
1 x 10'5
a x io-5
1 x 10 5
1 x lO'5
1 x 10's
2.4x10*
8.6xlO-8(1)
2.4 x 10*
Eliminates exposure to
future on-site worker
Combines remediation of
lead soil with Barge Canal
restoration.
Footnote:
(1) 8.6 x 10"* residual risk is outside (i.e. more protective) than EPA's acceptable risk
range.
-------
L 9 025?
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 61
8.7.2 Groundwater/NAPL
TABLES
Total Present Worth of Groandwrnter/NAPL Alternatives
Alternative/Description
1 - No Action
2 - Containment by Impermeable Barrier.
3 - Containment and Recovery with Extraction
Wells.
4 - In-Situ Treatment.
Total
Preseat
Worth
SI 02,000
$2,247,000
$3,074,000
$2,164,000
Residual Ride/Comments
Not Adequately Protective
Utilizes physical barrier and
extraction wells to
contain/recover NAPL.
No active restoration of
aqueous contaminant
plumes.
Utilizes extractions wells to
actively achieve 3 identified
Performance Standards
Utilizes vertical circulation
technology to actively
achieve 3 identified
Performance Standards.
Can also be used as
contingency remedy in
aqueous contaminant
plumes.
-------
1) 9 D '^ ^r-
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 62
8.7.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal and Tidal Marsh Sediments
•'.-•:.^^^A^€.&:.k> •••••.,,.. J'-.-- ••-.•• .
Total Present Worth of Ashley Rfrer, Barge C^iud and Tidal Marsh Sediments
Ahernative/Description
1 - No Action
Total
Present
Worth
$275,000
Residual Risk/Comments
Not Adequately Protective
Ashley River/Barge Canal
2A - Enhanced Sedimentation in
Ashley River using piles to
decrease water velocities
2B - Capping in Ashley River
2B - Capping of Barge Canal
$541,000
$680,000
$447,000
Results in increased accumulation of
sediments thus eliminating exposure to
benthic community and brbta over time.
Installation of engineered cap to eliminate
exposure to benthic community and biota
once completed.
Installation of 2 foot » =ip to eliminate
exposure to benthic community and biota.
Does not incorporate restoration using lead
impacted material as base layer.
North/South/Northwest Tidal Marshes
3A - Dredging, Capping and
Thermal Desorption
3B - Dredging, Capping and
Incineration
3C - Dredging, Capping and Off-
Site Disposal
3D - Dredging, Capping and On-
Site Disposal
4 - In-Situ Bioremediation
$3,903,000
$8,349,000
$1,682,000
$1,444,000
$149,000
Excavation of toxic sediments. Treatment to
be combined with Soil Alternative 4A/4B.
Excavation of toxic sediments. Treatment to
be combined with Soil Alternative 4C.
Excavation of toxic sediments. Disposal to
be combined with Soil Alternative 3 A.
Excavation of toxic sediments. Disposal to
be combined with Soil Alternative 3B.
To be applied to sediments within APECs
which did not demonstrate toxicity.
8.8 STATE ACCEPTANCE
SCDHEC does not concur with EPA's selected remedy described in Section 9.0. The
SCDHEC non-concurrence letter is attached to this ROD as Appendix A. While SCDHEC
believes that EPA's selected remedy will be of benefit in the reduction of risk at the site, it does
not believe that the selected remedy goes far enough in achieving long term protection of human
-------
b 9 026'
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 63
health and the environment The selected remedy appears to represent a departure from EPA's
usual method of selecting remedies at the more protective end of the risk range. SCDHEC's
major reasons for not concurring are outlined in the paragraphs that follow.
EPA's Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment utilized exposure point concentrations
and other exposure assumptions that SCDHEC does not feel were conservative enough.
SCDHEC feels that the human health risks calculated were not based on reasonable maximum
exposures, and therefore may underestimate the potential risks posed by the site. Based on these
points, SCDHEC did not approve the Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment prepared by the
EPA. SCDHEC does not feel that EPA's application of the residual risk methodology at this site
gives an appropriate representation of the actual risks that would remain after the selected
remedial alternative is implemented It appears to SCDHEC that this approach represents a
departure from the way EPA has traditionally calculated cleanup goals.
SCDHEC does not agree with the proposed cleanup goal of 5 x 10'5 (20 mg/kg BAP-TE
in surface soil and 275 mg/kg BAP-TE in subsurface soil) for Soil/Drainage Ditches. As stated in
the NCP, a risk level of 1 x 10"6 shall be used as the point of departure for determining
remediation goals for alternatives when ARARs are not available or are not sufficiently protective
because of the presence of multiple contaminants at CERCLA Sites. The NCP also places a
preference on the long-term permaujnce and the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment in selecting remedial goals and alternatives. Considering these points and the
uncertainties previously mentioned in the calculation of site risks, SCDHEC feels that protecting
to the 1 x 10"6 cleanup goal is warranted at the Koppers Site. To this end, SCDHEC prefers to
excavate an estimated 39,000 tons of soil which exceeds the 1 x 10~J cleanup goal (4 mg/kg
BAP-TE in surface soil and 55 mg/kg BAP-TE in subsurface soil) for Soil/Drainage Ditches with
subsequent off-site disposal. In addition, SCDHEC would prefer to cap all additional areas with
soil above the IxlO"6 remedial goal (0.4 mg/kg BAP-TE in surface soil). This cap would cover an
estimated 31 acres of the site.
Although SCDHEC approves of the methodology developed by EPA for calculating a
cleanup level for lead, SCDHEC does not feel that the exposure assumptions used by EPA to
calculate the selected cleanup level of 1150 mg/kg for lead in soil were conservative enough.
SCDHEC has calculated a preferred future industrial cleanup level of 895 mg/kg for lead in soil.
This cleanup level was calculated using more conservative exposure assumptions.
SCDHEC does not concur with EPA's selected remedy of capping all soils with lead
concentrations exceeding the selected cleanup level of 1150 mg/kg. The main area of concern
for lead impacted soils is a thin strip of uplands soils in the South Marsh mat is surrounded by
wetlands. SCDHEC feels that this area may be one of the sources of the ecological impact
evident in the South Marsh from lead contamination. Given the ecological and human health
concerns, SCDHEC's selected remedy is excavation and off-site disposal of all lead impacted soil
with concentrations exceeding 895 mg/kg.
While SCDHEC agrees with EPA's three stated remediation objectives for
groundwater/NAPL at the three noted source areas on-site, SCDHEC does not concur with the
-------
!> 9 026
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 64
conceptual approach selected by EPA. Based on the preliminary results from the Interim
Remedial Action, the number of extraction wells selected may not provide for the complete
capture and containment of the entire area of groundwater and NAPL contamination. SCDHEC
feels that a more aggressive approach up-front is needed instead of a phased approach that adds
additional wells as performance data indicates the need. Based on information in the FS Report,
SCDHEC is concerned that the proposed groundwater remediation effort may be the basis for an
attempt to demonstrate technical impracticability for groundwater restoration. The more
aggressive approach proposed by SCDHEC is consistent with OSWER Directive 9234.2-25:
Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration.
Based upon the above discussion and SCDHEC's review of the supporting
documentation, the following summarizes SCDHEC's selected remedy:
1) Soil/Drainage Ditches: Excavation and off-site disposal of all soils and drainage ditch
sediments with concentrations exceeding the 1 x 105 risk level (4 mg/kg^BAP-TE in
surface soil and 55 mg/kg BAP-TE in subsurface soil) and capping all remaining areas
with surface soil above the 1 x 10"* risk level (0.4 mg/kg BAP-TE).
2) NAPL/Groundwater. The groundwater/NAPL remedy shall in an aggressive manner
achieve the following Performance Standards:
a) Removal or treatment of NAPL and total fluids to the maximum extent possible;
b) Containment of potentially non-restorable source areas; and
c) Containment and restoration of aqueous contaminant plumes to the maximum extent
possible.
3) Tidal Marsh and Ashley River Sediments:
Ashley River Enhanced Sedimentation with performance standards monitoring that shall
indicate a statistically significant accumulation of sediment at the end of
one year.
Barge Canal: Capping and restoration.
South Marsh: Excavation and offsite disposal followed by restoration of all toxic areas
and bioremediation of the remaining area within the APEC.
North Marsh: Excavation and restoration of the APEC.
Northwest Marsh: Bioremediation.
4) Lead Impacted Soils: Excavation and off-site disposal of all soils exceeding 895 mg/kg.
8.9 COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
A public meeting was held on April 15,1997 to discuss the remedial alternatives under
consideration and EPA's Proposed Plan for cleanup of the Koppers Co., Inc. NPL Site. A 60-day
public comment period on EPA's Proposed Plan was held from April 3 to June 2,1997. A copy
of all comments received, EPA's response to these comments, and a verbatim transcript of the
April 15,1997 meeting are attached to this ROD as Appendix B, The Responsiveness Summary.
-------
^ 9 0262
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 65
A Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) has been awarded to the Four Mile Hibernian
community, Rosemont community and other surrounding neighborhoods. The purpose of this
grant is to allow the communities to consult with an advisor so that they may interpret the
technical documents generated during the RI/FS process and provide well coordinated input into
the remedy selection process. Comments on EPA's Proposed Plan were submitted by the
technical advisor, on behalf of the community associations, in a letter dated May 31,1997. The
following is a summary of the community comments contained in this letter
• Residents are not in favor of cleanup strategies that have not been proven in the field and
request specific documentation of results achieved at other sites. This issue pertains
specifically to enhanced sedimentation in the Ashley River and in-situ bioremediation of
marsh sediments;
• Residents request assurance that no further development, use, or re-use i>f the site is to
take place until cleanup levels in ROD have been achieved. In particular, groundwater and
NAPL objectives must be achieved before cleanup can be considered complete;
• Given the uncertainty of assumptions used to calculated cleanup levels for lead, residents
prefer SCDHEC's more conservative assumption used to calculate soil cleanup goal for
lead;
• Residents object to use of crushed stone as capping material due to dust generation and
long-term maintenance/effectiveness; and
• Future industrial activities on-site may be inherently incompatible with adjacent residential
use. It is in the best interest of all parties to identify opportunities for re-use that do not
adversely impact adjacent neighborhoods.
9.0 THE SELECTED REMEDY
This section of the document provides a description of the components of EPA's Final
selected remedy for the Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL Site in Charleston, South
Carolina. The Performance Standards and other ARARs of EPA's selected remedy are delineated
in the sections that follow. The remedy described has been selected under the authority granted in
CERCLA and is consistent with the requirements of the NCP. EPA's Final selected remedy is
based upon a full consideration of remedial alternatives and all comments received during die 60-
day comment period on the Proposed Plan. Cost details of EPA's selected remedy are delineated
in Section 9.4. Section 11.0 of this document discusses the significant changes made to the
selected remedy from the March 1997 Proposed Plan.
9.1 Soil and Drainage Ditch Sediments
The overall objective of the soil component of EPA's selected remedy is to provide for
adequate protection of the future on-site worker under a future industrial land-use exposure
scenario. As discussed in Section 6.0 of this document, EPA's Human Health Baseline Risk
-------
^ 9 026
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 66
Assessment utilized conservative, yet reasonable exposure pathways and assumptions to estimate
the potential risks posed to the future on-site worker. Under the future industrial exposure
scenario, unacceptable carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks were calculated for the future on-
site worker exposed to surface soils (0 to six inch interval) and the future on-site utility worker
exposed to subsurface soils (six inches to water table). Exposure pathways quantified were
incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with on-site soils.
EPA's Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment developed cleanup levels for surface and
subsurface soils within EPA's protective risk range of 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6. As discussed in Section
7.1.1, a value engineering study was conducted to select a soil excavation level within this
protective range that optimized risk reduction achieved while minimizing tons of soil removed.
This study incorporated risk assessment methodology, traditionally applied only during the
characterization phase, into the remedy selection process by re-calculating soil exposure point
concentrations and subsequent risk posed under post-remediation conditions (i.e. residual risk).
Moreover, EPA evaluated alternatives that involved capping additional soil containing relatively
lower concentrations of constituents to achieve more protective cleanup levels. This approach is
consistent with recent Superfund Administrative Reforms that direct EPA to promote risk
management and cost-effectiveness in the remedy selection process, while also satisfying the NCP
preference for cleanups to achieve the more protective end of the risk range (i.e. 1 x 10"6).
EPA's soil remedy combines the following general components: 1) Excavation of an
estimated 12,000 tons of the most heavily impacted soil with subsequent off-site disposal in an
approved hazardous waste landfill; 2) Installation of an estimated 29.7 acre protective cap over
relatively less impacted soil; and 3) Reconstruction of an estimated 3,600 linear feet of on-site
surface water drainage ditches. EPA's selected soil remedy will eliminate exposure to
unacceptable concentrations of constituents in soil and permit beneficial future use of the property
under the Brownfields paradigm. Property owners are encouraged to consult with nearby
communities, and local/state governments to identify opportunities for re-use that maximize
compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. The estimated residual risk (i.e. post-remediation
risk) achieved by EPA's soil remedy is 1.1 x 10"*. The specific requirements and Performance
Standards of the excavation, capping and drainage ditch reconstruction components are delineated
in Sections 9.1.1, 9.1.2, and 9.1.3, respectively.
9.1.1 Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
EPA's Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment determined that five primary constituents
contribute unacceptable carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks under the future industrial land-
use scenario. These constituents are referred to as constituents of concern (COCs) and include:
arsenic, B(a)P-TE, dioxin, lead, and pentachlorophenol. EPA has selected a 5 x 105 excavation
level for the following COCs: arsenic, B(a)P-TE, dioxin, and pentachlorophenol. The applicable
excavation levels for these constituents are delineated in Table 7 below. The 5 x 10*5 excavation
le'vel is within EPA's protective risk range for the future on-site worker (surface soil) and future
utility worker (subsurface soil). EPA has not specified a soil excavation goal for lead, the
remaining soil COC. Rather, EPA has decided to specify a cap level for lead impacted soil. The
cap level for lead and rationale behind this decision is discussed further in Section 9.1.2 below.
-------
^ 9 026
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 67
TABLE?
SOIL EXCAVATION LEVELS
Constituent
Arsenic
B(a)P - TE3
Dioxin - TEQ4
Pentachlorophenol
Surface Sofl (rag/kg)'
135
20
0.0015
235
Subset-free Sofl (mg/kg)*
1,550
275
0.020
4,300
Footnotes:
(1) Surface soil is defined as observed ground surface to six inches below ground surface.
(2) Subsurface soil is defined as six inches below ground surface to the observed water
table.
(3) A summary parameter which converts concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs to an
equivalent Benzo(a)pyrene concentration. Methodology to calculate B(a)P-TE shall be
conducted in accordance with relevant EPA guidance.
(4) Dioxin Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (TEQ) is a summary parameter which converts
concentrations of dioxin congeners to an equivalent 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Methodology to
calculate Dioxin TEQ shall be conducted in accordance with relevant EPA guidance.
Surface/subsurface soil and drainage ditch sediments with constituent concentrations
greater than the excavation levels listed in Table 7 above shall be excavated and disposed in an
off-site RCRA-permitted hazardous waste landfill. Figure 16 provides a map delineating the areas
of the site where soil will be excavated based upon data obtained during the RI field
investigations. An estimated 12,000 tons of soil exceed the excavation levels listed in Table 7.
Prior to excavation activities, a statistically based sampling program shall be implemented within
the areas slated for removal to further define those soils which exceed the applicable excavation
levels. The one exception to this is the spoils pile area in close proximity to sample locations SB-
16, SG-51, and SB-74. Surface soil concentrations at samples SB-16 and SB-74 were slightly
above the excavation level for B(a)P-TE, while the surface soil concentration at sample SG-51
was above the excavation level for arsenic. Additional sampling shall be conducted in mis general
area to further define the quantity of soil above the excavation levels in Table 7. EPA and
SCDHEC shall have a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the proposed statistical
sampling program prior to implementation. Results of this sampling program shall be reviewed
and approved by EPA, with consultation by SCDHEC, prior to the initiation of excavation
activities.
All excavation activities shall be conducted in a manner which provides adequate short-
term protection of on-site workers, and minimizes disruptions to local businesses and adjacent
neighborhoods. Air monitoring during active excavation shall be implemented for the protection
of on-site workers and to assess potential off-site impacts. As warranted, dust and odor control
measures shall be instituted to mitigate adverse impacts in the active excavation areas, haul roads
and adjacent off-site areas. An excavation confirmation sampling program will be developed to
verify that all soil has been removed to the specified excavation levels. EPA and SCDHEC shall
-------
45E03A
SCALE IN FEET
1" - 400'-0"
•Am CAST, M&. frmewwt fA, in*
FIGURE 16
AREA OF SOIL REMEDIATION
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
!T\
•|
-------
0266
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
_ Page 69
have reasonable opportunity to review the statistical methods employed by this confirmational
sampling program, prior to initiation of excavation activities. The backfill source must be pre-
qualified to document its quality. On-site excavations shall be backfilled and restored to a
condition consistent with the intended future use of the property.
Excavated soil may be stockpiled on-site, or directly loaded onto transportation vehicles
prior to off-site transportation. All excavated soil shall be transported off-site for disposal in an
approved hazardous waste landfill. All transportation and off-site disposal activities shall be
conducted in full accordance with all ARARs, including but not limited to, RCRA and DOT
regulations. The excavated material will be considered listed hazardous wastes and the following
wood-treating waste codes apply: F032 (penta with trace dioxin), F034 (B(a)P-TE) and F035
(arsenic and chromium). On May 12,1997 the Phase IV Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) were
promulgated in 62 Federal Register (FR) pages 25998-26040 for the above listed wood-treating
wastes (CFR Section 268.30(b)). Per the requirements of Phase IV LDRs, the above listed
wood-treating wastes must be treated to Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) prior to land
disposal. A two year national capacity variance has been granted based on the availability of
treatment technologies to achieve UTS. Therefore, the effective date of the national capacity
variance for soil/debris contaminated with F032, F034, and F035 is May 12, 1999.
Listed wood-treating wastes disposed in an off-site, approved hazardous waste landfill
prior to May 12,1999 will not be required to meet the promulgated UTS. Considering this time
critical task, excavation and off-site disposal of all material above the excavation levels specified
in Table 7 shall be the immediate priority in remedy implementation. Remedial activities described
in Section 9.1 (Soil and Drainage Ditch Sediments) and Section 9.3.3.1 (Dredging, Capping, and
Off-Site Disposal in North/South Tidal Marshes) shall be closely coordinated to maximize the
removal and off-site disposal of soil/debris regulated by Phase fv LDRs prior to May 12,1999.
9.1.2 Containment by Capping
The objective of EPA's capping component of the soil remedy is to eliminate exposure to
unacceptable concentrations of COCs in surficial soils. When combined with the excavation and
off-site disposal activities described in Section 9.1.1 above, EPA's additional soil cap remedy will
achieve more protective cleanup levels in a cost-effective manner.
EPA has specified a soil cap level for two COCs under the future industrial land-use
scenario. It is important to note that EPA has extended the cap area under what was envisioned
for soil remedy Alternative 5 A. EPA has selected a 2 mg/kg cap level for B(a)P-TE, which is
equivalent to the 5 x 10"6 risk level. The resultant residual risk, or post-remediation risk posed to
the future on-site industrial worker is 1.1 x 10"6. EPA made this risk management decision to
satisfy the NCP preference to protect to the more protective end of EPA's acceptable risk range.
The value engineering study conducted during the Feasibility Study indicated that B(a)P-TE was
the primary constituent driving soil remediation, particularly at the more protective cleanup levels.
In other words, capping all soil with concentrations greater than 2 mg/kg B(a)P-TE will also
cover soil with unacceptable concentrations of the other COCs. For this reason, EPA has
specified a cap level for B(a)P-TE only and not the remaining soil COCs listed in Table 7 of
Section 9.1.1 above.
-------
^ 9 0267
Final Record of Decision
April! 998
Page 70
As discussed in Section 6.1.1, EPA has selected a soil lead cleanup level of 1,150 mg/kg
to be adequately protective of the developing fetus of a future on-site pregnant woman worker.
In the March 1997 Proposed Plan, EPA's preferred alternative for lead impacted soil was
excavation and confined disposal in the adjacent Barge Canal. However, most commenters
expressed opposition to this conceptual plan stating reasons of uncertainty over. 1) the long-term
permanence; and 2) the adequate protection of aquatic biota and the surrounding environment.
Therefore, EPA has reconsidered its initial preference and selected containment by capping for
lead impacted soil to achieve the stated objectives of this remedy component. The reader is
referred to Section 11.0, Documentation of Significant Changes, for a more detailed discussion
regarding this issue.
After completion of excavation and off-site disposal activities discussed in Section 9.1.1
above, all surface soil with constituent concentrations greater than the capping levels specified in
Table 8 below shall be covered. Figure 16 provides an illustration of the soil that will be covered
based upon the data obtained during the RI field investigations. An estimated 29.7 acres of soil
will be capped under this component of EPA's soil remedy. This Includes an estimated 24.5 acres
of soil which exceeds the 2 mg/kg B(a)P-TE cap level, and an estimated 5.2 acres of soil which
exceeds the 1,150 mg/kg lead cap level. The total cap area may be less than 29.7 acres given the
potential for co-located B(a)P-TE and lead above the respective soil cap levels. Prior to capping
activities, a statistically based sampling program shall be implemented within the areas slated to be
covered to further define those soils which exceed the applicable capping levels. The one
exception to this is the spoils pile area where suface soil concentrations are greater than the
capping levels in Table 8. Additional sampling shall be conducted in the spoils pile area to further
define the areal extent of soil above the capping levels in Table 8. EPA and SCDHEC shall have a
reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the proposed statistical sampling program prior
to cap installation. Results of this sampling program shall be reviewed and approved by EPA,
with consultation by SCDHEC, prior to the initiation of cap installation activities.
TABLES
SOIL CAPPING LEVELS
Constituent
B(a)P - TEJ
Lead
Surface Soil (mg/kg)1
2.0
1,150
Footnotes:
( 1 ) Surface soil is defined as observed ground surface to six inches below ground surface.
(2) A summary parameter which converts concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs to an
equivalent Benzo(a)pyrene concentration. Methodology to calculate B(a)P-TE shall be
conducted in accordance with relevant EPA guidance.
The conceptual design for the cap material consists of a geotextile base and 1 foot of
compacted crushed stone. Cost estimates detailed in Section 9.4 are based upon this assumption.
However, some commenters on EPA's Proposed Plan objected to the use of crushed stone as a
capping material due to concerns over dust generation and the long-term permanence. In
-------
L 9 0268
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 71
response, EPA has developed a list of Performance Standards for the final cover installed under
this component of the soil remedy. A detailed design study shall be conducted to develop and
install a final cap that meets the following Performance Standards:
1) Eliminate exposure for the future on-site worker to surface soil with concentrations
greater than those listed in Table 8 above;
2) Provide a visible demarcation between cap material and underlying soil;
3) Mitigate adverse impacts related to quantity and quality of resultant storm water runoff;
4) Mitigate on-site dust generation during installation and useful life; and
5) Ensure long term permanence and effectiveness of installed cap to meet&bove four
Performance Standards. '
9.1.3 Drainage Ditch Reconstruction
Drainage ditch reconstruction of on-site surface water conveyances is the third and final
component of EPA's selected soil remedy. EPA's March 1995 Interim Action ROD included the
permanent reconstruction of the Milford Street and Hagood Avenue drainage ditches located
north of the former Treatment Area. Work conducted under this component of EPA's Final soil
remedy will be similar in nature to that performed under the Interim Action ROD. Based upon
data obtained during the RI field investigations, it is estimated that 2,250 linear feet of the South
Braswell Street ditch, 480 linear feet of the West Milford Street ditch, and 850 linear feet of the
Central ditch will be reconstructed. Figure 17 shows the locations where drainage ditch
reconstruction will be performed.
The South Braswell, West Milford, and Central drainage ditches shall be permanently
reconstructed to meet the following Performance Standards:
1) Remove all soil and drainage ditch sediments with concentrations of COCs greater than
the excavation levels listed in Table 7 of Section 9.1.1 above;
2) Remove and/or control the transport of NAPL and/or dissolved phase constituents from
the respective drainage ditch; and
3) Reconstruct the respective drainage ditch to: 1) eliminate exposure to sediments of the
respective drainage ditch; and 2) provide for adequate drainage that is consistent with its
future land-use. Reconstruction activities shall be in full accordance with the regulations
delineated in the document titled, South Carolina Stormwater Management and Sediment
Control Handbook for Land Disturbance Activities (February 1997).
All excavation, material handling, transportation and off-site disposal activities conducted
under this section shall be in full accordance with the requirements delineated in Section 9.1.1.
Vertical excavation limits during drainage ditch reconstruction activities shall be the observed
-------
r ., / NORTHKCST
TOAL MARSH
tr
/•* / -
CENTRAL-, >.-, ^
ORAINAGt ! ' ^~
DITCH k
TOPICAL SECTWN or PROPOSED
STORMWATOR OHMHMf. DITCH HECXMSTRUCTION
ircom
WATDt CONOUITS («.».. OITOCS. CULVERTS. UNDERGROUND
STORM WATER MFCS)
WATER OONDUTIS TO BE KCONSTRUCTED
MSTDNC DITCH
crwiprr- PFA7FR PAST. INC.. PlTTSBURCH. PA.. 1996
600
"^
SCALE IN FEET
1" = 600*-0'
1200
FIGURE 17
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE DITCHES
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
-------
0270
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
_ Page 73
water table. Limits to horizontal excavation shall be instituted when visually impacted material in
the vadose zone has been removed, or upon encroachment to subsurface utilities and/or road side.
In the event of encroachment to subsurface utilities and/or road side, best professional efforts shall
be made to remove all visually impacted material in close proximity to open excavations.
Investigations conducted during the RI revealed that the existing South Braswell Street
drainage ditch and the former Koppers ditch generally coincide in the eastern portion of the
property, but the former Koppers ditch is located approximately 10 feet south of the existing ditch
in the western portion of the property. The existing Central drainage ditch terminates
approximately 940 feet east of the Ashley River. However, historical aerial photography indicates
that the Central ditch extended past its current eastern extent to a distance approximately 2,200
feet east of the Ashley River. A sampling program shall be conducted to investigate and verify the
now abandoned portions of the South Braswell and Central drainage ditches. The specific
objective of this program is to define the potential presence of NAPL and soils/sediments which
may exceed the applicable excavation levels. The investigation findings and recommendations for
future action shall be presented in a report for EPA and SCDHEC review. EPA approval, with
consultation by SCDHEC, shall be granted prior to the initiation of drainage ditch reconstruction
activities.
9.2 Groundwater/NAPL
EPA's groundwater/NAPL remediation strategy presented in this section applies to the
shallow and intermediate water-bearing units described in Section 5.1.S, except for the activities
included under Section 9.2.2 below. Implementation of the groundwater/NAPL remedy at this
site shall be consistent with OSWER Directive 9234.2-25, Guidance for Evaluating the Technical
Impracticability of Groundwater Restoration (EPA 1993). This guidance promotes an iterative,
phased approach which includes early actions to remove contaminant sources, control plume
migration, and mitigate risks posed by impacted groundwater. EPA issued an Interim Action
ROD in March 1995 to achieve these short-term remediation objectives in the former Treatment
Area. Information gathered during implementation of the Interim Action shall be utilized to
achieve the site-wide, long-term groundwater/NAPL remediation Performance Standards listed
below.
9.2.1 NAPL Source Areas
Three source areas of subsurface NAPL have been defined on-site, as presented in
Sections 5.3 and 7.1.2. These areas are referred to as the former Treatment Area, Old
Impoundment Area, and Northwest Comer. The goal of EPA's groundwater/NAPL remedy is
the restoration of impacted groundwater at these three source areas to the ARAR-based cleanup
levels, Maximum Contaminant Levels specified by the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, EPA
recognizes that restoration to these levels may be technically impracticable given the
characteristics of NAPL, limitations in remediation technology and/or complex hydrogeology.
Therefore, the groundwater/NAPL remedy in the three NAPL source areas shall, at a minimum,
achieve the following Performance Standards:
1) Removal or treatment of NAPL to the maximum extent practicable;
-------
I 9 027
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 74
2) Containment of potentially non-restorable source areas; and
3) Containment and restoration of aqueous contaminant plumes.
The above Performance Standards shall be achieved by the recovery of NAPL and
impacted groundwater by extraction wells installed in the shallow and intermediate water-bearing
units underlying the three source areas. Figure 18 provides an illustration of the three source
areas and locations of extractions wells. Conceptually, the groundwater/NAPL remedy envisions
the installation of 2 shallow recovery wells in the Northwest Comer, 2 intermediate recovery
wells in the Old Impoundment Area, and 6 shallow and 4 intermediate recovery wells in the
former Treatment Area. These extraction wells are additional to those installed under the Interim
Remedial Action program. Therefore, EPA's total site-wide groundwater/NAPL remedy
incorporates a total of 21 extraction wells, 14 wells screened in the shallow water-bearing unit
and 7 wells screened in the intermediate water-bearing unit.
AH groundwater recovered via this remedy component shall be treated to the meet the
ARARs of the selected discharge option. It is envisioned that all recovered groundwater will be
conveyed to the on-site water treatment system installed as pan of the Interim Action. The water
treatment system shall be properly operated and maintained to meet the discharge requirements
imposed by the North Charleston PoTW. The existing permit with the North Charleston POTW
shall be modified as necessary to allow for continued discharge of treated effluent as required by
this remedy component. The capacity of the existing Interim Action water treatment system will
be upgraded to handle the quantity of recovered groundwater necessary to meet the above
Performance Standards, if necessary. EPA has reserved flexibility regarding the selected
discharge option in the event that discharge to the POTW becomes infeasible in the future due to
insufficient capacity, cost effectiveness or other engineering evaluation criteria, as identified.
EPA, with consultation by SCDHEC, shall approve all discharge options selected to fulfill the
requirements of this section.
The full-scale groundwater/NAPL remedy shall be monitored, modified and/or enhanced
where appropriate to demonstrate that best professional efforts have been made to achieve
ARAR-based cleanup levels and the applicable Performance Standards of this remedy component
A comprehensive monitoring network will be established to delineate the NAPL zone and
aqueous contaminant plume(s). The data generated by this monitoring program will be utilized to
track the effectiveness of the remedy in achieving the established objectives. The conceptual
remedy described herein may be modified and enhanced as warranted based on review and
analysis of monitoring data generated. Recovery and treatment enhancements may include the
installation of additional extraction well(s) and/or in-situ treatment which incorporates vertical
circulation cell technology. EPA considers the full-scale groundwater/NAPL remedy to be an
iterative process which must be conducted for a sufficient period of time before its ability to meet
applicable cleanup levels and long-term Performance Standards can be fully evaluated. All '
decisions regarding the technical impracticability of achieving ARAR-based cleanup levels and the
long-term Performance Standards at the three NAPL source areas shall be made by EPA, with
consultation by SCDHEC.
-------
HAOOOO A«MUC RICH-
FORMER
TREATMENT i
AREA
600
1200
col
ol
uil
in I
i reran
(fa EOTDfflAI. MAPL SOURCE AREAS «MCH ARC
V-X AOOKOSD AS OUUNOVA1DI.
•^- CJOSTMC RA WAOOW «ELL
•0- OOSIMC IU MIDMEDUIE KU.
V PROfOSED SHAIUOV K.
-^- PTOPOSED MTDMEDIAIC w
«•»•*•*•- •TATTK CAST MC. PTTTSBUWK. PA_ IBM
SCALE IN FEET
T = 600'-0"
RGURE 18
GROUNOWATER/NAPL REMEDY
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
-------
r Q n o *"? "
o .7 U /i /
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 76
9.2.2 Northwest Corner Deep Water-Bearing Unit
The presence of benzene above the MCL has been confirmed in MW-01D, as discussed in
Sections 5.3 and 7.1.2. MW-01D is screened in the deep water-bearing unit underlying the
Northwest Corner of the site. Supplemental investigations have concluded the following: 1) The
areal extent of benzene above the MCL is localized near MW-01D; 2) There is not an up-gradient
source of benzene on-site; 3) Groundwater in the deep water-bearing unit is flowing towards the
Ashley River; 4) Groundwater in this area is brackish and therefore is unsuitable for use as a
drinking water source; and 5) The area of MCL exceedance is small and is contained within the
site or bounded by the Ashley River and the Northwestern marsh. Based upon these conclusions
and findings, this area may meet the requirements for a mixing zone exclusion as outlined in
SCDHEC's Ground-Water Mixing Zone Guidance Document. Therefore, a mixing zone permit
for this general area shall be submitted to SCDHEC. Approval of this mixing zone permit by
SCDHEC will meet the requirements of this section.
9.3 Ashley River, Barge Canal and Tidal Marsh Sediments
This section of the document presents EPA's selected remedy for the sediments of the
Ashley River, Barge Canal, and Nprth/South/Northwest Tidal Marshes. Areas of Potential
Ecological Concern (APECs) in these areas were defined utilizing data collected during the RJ
field program and the weight-of-evidence approach, as discussed in Section 5.4 and 7.1.3.
EPA's Final Ecological Risk Assessment (October 1996) for this site concluded that potential
ecological risks exist and that remedial options should be evaluated to mitigate potential risks
posed. The sediment remedies described in the sections that follow have been developed to
provide for adequate protection of ecological receptors.
9.3.1 Ashley River
EPA has selected enhanced sedimentation as the sediment remedy in die Ashley River.
Sediments within the Ashley River APEC were found to be acutely toxic to the selected benthic
invertebrate test species ofNeanthes arenaceodentata and Mysidopsis bahia. The food chain
analyses conducted as part of the Ecological Risk Assessment process concluded potential risks
exist for other ecological receptors that frequent the Ashley River APEC. Therefore, the
objective of EPA's enhanced sedimentation alternative in the Ashley River is to sufficiently cover
the impacted river bottom sediments with clean sediments, thus mitigating the potential risks
posed to the benthic community and upper trophic levels.
EPA's enhanced sedimentation remedy in the Ashley River involves capping of impacted
sediments by increasing and accelerating natural sedimentation processes. Enhanced
sedimentation of impacted Ashley River bottom sediments can be achieved most effectively by
decreasing water velocities in the area of interest, resulting in an increased deposition of the
river's suspended sediment load. The conceptual approach to this remedy includes surrounding
the area of impacted sediments in the Ashley River with driven piles mat extend upwards from the
sediment surface. In theory, this pile barrier will increase interparticle collisions and thereby
enhance sedimentation within the enclosed area. Practically speaking, mis approach will work
similarly to the way that snow fences are utilized to capture blowing snow or in sand dune
refurbishment projects along erosional coast lines.
-------
L 9 027-^
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 77
Figure 19 provides a conceptual illustration of EPA's enhanced sedimentation remedy for
the Ashley River. The pilings shall be installed to adequately cover the defined APEC for the
Ashley River. This includes an approximate 1,500 foot strip adjacent to the site which stretches
from sample point SD-70 north of the site to sample point SD-64 south of the site. The western
edge of the area of enhanced sedimentation shall extend as close to the Ashley River navigation
channel as reasonably possible. The Ashley River navigation project remains active for the
Charleston District Corps of Engineers (COE). The Charleston District COE takes yearly
soundings and surveys which indicate that, at the present time, the channel depth is being
maintained without dredging. The channel continues to support commercial and pleasure traffic.
Therefore, close coordination with the COE District Engineer and Navigation Section shall be
established during design and implementation activities to mitigate adverse impacts on the
navigable waters, commercial/recreation traffic, and future maintenance dredging should it be
required.
The conceptual approach described above involves the installation of 5 v foot, 12 inch
diameter timber pilings spaced on 2 foot centers. The cost estimate for this remedy detailed in
Section 9.4 is based upon this assumption. However, an evaluation will be conducted during the
Remedial Design phase to determine the minimum installation depth and length of piles, and
appropriate construction materials.. Modeling studies shall also be conducted at this time to
determine the arrangement/spacing of piles to optimize sediment deposition, predicted sediment
deposition within the pile barrier, and predicted responses upstream and downstream of the
installed pile barrier. Enhanced sedimentation in the Ashley River shall be designed and
implemented to meet the following Performance Standards:
1) Ensure short-term protectiveness to surrounding environment during construction and
installation activities;
2) Provide sufficient cover to mitigate exposure to benthic organisms and subsequent adverse
impacts to the food chain; and
3) Ensure long-term effectiveness and permanence by mitigating erosional effects.
Engineering controls shall be implemented during pile installation to eliminate potential
contaminant releases that may result in adverse impacts to surface water and sediments. Several
construction projects in this general area have recently installed piles in subtidal and intertidal
areas. These projects have utilized fairly elaborate and costly containment systems consisting of
sand blankets, silt curtains and timber lagging walls to eliminate potential impacts resulting from
pile driving activities. While monitoring data has indicated these systems were effective in
providing short-term protectiveness, other more cost-effective containment systems which
provide adequate protection may be available. Flexibility has been reserved regarding the type of
engineering controls utilized, provided they ensure short-term protectiveness during construction
activities. The engineering controls to be implemented shall be reviewed and approved by EPA,
with consultation by SCDHEC, prior to the initiation of pile installation activities. '
EPA has established a five year evaluation period to monitor the effectiveness of the
enhanced sedimentation remedy in achieving the established Performance Standards. This
evaluation period was selected to coincide with EPA's required 5-year review for remedies
-------
L Q
•">
SEE DETAIL-
'S'
WATER LEVEL
RUNG
ACCUMULATION OF CLEAN
SEDIMENT OVER TIME
ASHLEY
RIVER
CHANNEL
CROSS-SEC
NOT TO SC,
A-A*
12" CONCRETE OR TIMBER PILINGS
50 FEET LONG. STAGGERED SPACING
ON 2' CENTERS
DETAIL "B"
NOT TO SCALE
300
600
CONCEPTUAL APPROACH ONLY
r-
8
SCALE IN FEET
1" = 300'-0"
«- txT-rcoi ior;w P* 1496
FIGURE 19
ASHLEY RIVER REMEDIATION
ENHANCED SEDIMENTATION
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON. SC
-------
^ 9 \jz.
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 79
selected under CERCLA. Prior to construction activities, the baseline conditions in the Ashley
River APEC shall be established This will include a bathymetric survey, or approved alternative
method to document baseline elevations of the sediment interface. In addition, sediment grab
samples will be collected from within the Ashley River APEC to document initial constituent
concentrations in surficial sediments. A minimum of seven transects, spaced on 250 foot centers,
shall be established perpendicular to the shoreline along the length of the APEC. From each
transect, a minimum of 3 sediment grab samples shall be collected with a ponar dredge and
composited for analyses. This sampling protocol will minimise spatial variability associated with
discrete grabs and allow EPA to evaluate average trends in sediment concentrations. All sample
and transect locations shall be established with sufficient accuracy to enable collection of future
samples from same locations. Additional physical parameters, such as current velocities and total
suspended sediment concentrations, may also be collected to verify the modeling conducted to
support the design of the enhanced sedimentation alternative.
Following the completion of construction activities, the bathymetric surveys and sediment
sampling protocol delineated above shall be conducted on a yearly basis for 5 years. At the
completion of the 5-year monitoring period, EPA will evaluate all available data to determine the
degree to which the established Performance Standards have been achieved Evaluation criteria
employed will: 1) Determine if statistically significant accumulations of sediment have been
deposited within the Ashley River APEC to mitigate exposure to the benthic community and
upper trophic levels; 2) Determine constituent concentration trends of the sediments within the
area of enhanced sedimentation; and 3) Determine degree of long-term permanence and
effectiveness of enhanced sedimentation alternative. EPA shall institute contingency remedies if
the established Performance Standards are not achieved by the 5-year evaluation period. These
may include, but are not limited to the installation of a supplemental cap and/or measures to
reduce erosional forces and augment long-term cover stability. EPA will evaluate all feasible
alternatives and issue its final recommendation as part of its five-year review process.
9.3.2 Barge Canal
EPA has selected sub-aqueous capping as the sediment remedy for the Barge Canal.
Sediments within the Barge Canal did not demonstrate significant toxicity to the selected indicator
species. However, EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment did conclude that potential risks exist for
other ecological receptors in this area. Therefore, the objective of EPA's selected remedy for the
Barge Canal is to eliminate potential exposure to ecological receptors by placing a cap over
impacted bottom sediments of the Barge Canal.
A two-foot cap shall be placed over the bottom sediments of the approximate 3.2 acre
Barge Canal to achieve the established objectives of mis remedy component This area is
illustrated in Figure 20. The two-foot thickness shall be measured after placement, to properly
account for expected consolidation. The installed cap shall extend westward past the mouth of
the Barge Canal and into the Ashley River to cover sample station SD-66 where significant acute
sediment toxicity was observed for both indicator test species. The cap material shall be a
prepared mixture with comparable characteristics of organic content, pH and particle size as local
tidal marsh sediments.
-------
0277
o
UJ
«n
SCALE IN FEET
r - 3oof-o-
nouRC 20
ASHLEY RIVER, NORTHWEST TOAL MARSH,
AND BARGE CANAL REMEDIATWN
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
-------
L 9 0273
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 81
Capping of the Barge Canal will likely proceed from the east to west. During cap
installation activities, engineering controls such as silt screens or temporary dams shall be utilized
to abate the release of suspended sediments and mitigate adverse impacts to the surrounding
environment. Following the completion of cap installation, a monitoring program shall be
implemented to ensure the cap remains effective, in the long-term, at eliminating exposure to the
underlying sediments. The cap should be designed and installed to resist deterioration by
reasonable erosional forces. Contingency plans shall be developed to maintain the installed cap to
the required two-foot thickness, in the event that erosional forces adversely impact the integrity of
the cap. Complete restoration of this area to a low, intertidal spartina marsh habitat is not
required by this decision document. However, marsh restoration when combined the EPA's
selected remedy would not only provide a high degree of long-term permanence and protection,
but would also create productive habitat by restoring the Barge Canal area to its pre-existing
condition.
9.3.3 North, South and Northwest Tidal Marshes
EPA has selected a combination of physical removal with off-site disposal and in-situ
bioremediation for the sediments of the tidal marshes neighboring the site. Sampling conducted
during the RI field programs indicated that sediments in the headwaters of the North and South
Tidal Marshes demonstrated significant acute toxicity to Neanthes arenaceodentata and
Mysidopsis bahia. Sediments of the Northwest Tidal Marsh and remaining areas of the South
Tidal Marsh did not demonstrate toxicity to the above test species, but constituents were detected
in sediments of these areas at concentrations that may cause potential risks to ecological
receptors. Given these findings, EPA's objective for this remedy component is two fold: 1)
Physically remove those sediments from the tidal marshes which demonstrated significant acute
toxicity to the selected indicator species; and 2) Manage the remaining sediments which may be a
potential risk to ecological receptors in place via bioremediation. The requirements to achieve
the objectives of this remedy component are delineated in the sections that follow.
9.3.3.1 Dredging, Capping and Off-Site Disposal
EPA has selected dredging, capping and off-site disposal for those sediments in the North
and South Tidal Marshes which demonstrate significant acute toxicity to the aforementioned test
species. Implementation of this remedy component shall be closely coordinated with excavation
and off-site disposal of soils and drainage ditch sediments (Section 9.1.1) to minimize the impacts
that Phase IV LDRs may have on the logistics and cost for off-site disposal of regulated material.
The estimated area of sediment excavation in the South Tidal Marsh is illustrated in Figure
21. Based upon sediment toxicity data collected during the Rl, an estimated 1.5 acres of sediment
will be excavated from the South Tidal Marsh. However, the co-mingled nature of PAHs and
inorganic constituents in the sediments of this area has made it difficult to accurately correlate
what constituents and concentration levels are actually causing the observed toxicity. Moreover,
it has been noted that several sampling stations within the South Tidal Marsh APEC with similar
constituent concentrations shown to cause toxicity are not slated for excavation. Therefore,
asampling program shall be implemented prior to excavation activities to better define those
sediments within the South Tidal Marsh APEC which demonstrate significant toxicity.
-------
45E10A
SCALE \N FEET
1" o 240'-0"
L£CPm
AREA or IN-SIU
AREA OF EXCAVATION
SOURCE: BEAZER EAST. INC.. PITTSBURGH. PA.. 1996
FIGURE 21
SOUTH TIDAL MARSH
REMEDIATION
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON, SC
-------
i o n •""» <~
0 ^ U Z o
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 83
This sampling program shall supplement the data gathered during the RI field efforts by
employing whole sediment acute toxicity tests with Neanthes arenaceodeniata and Mysidopsis
bahia. EPA and SCDHEC shall have a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the
proposed sediment toxicity sampling program prior to implementation. Results of this sampling
program shall be reviewed and approved by EPA, with consultation by SCDHEC, prior to the
initiation of excavation activities. All sediments with demonstrated significant acute toxicity of
the selected benthic invertebrates shall be excavated.
The estimated area of sediment excavation in the North Tidal Marsh is illustrated in Figure
22. Sediments to be excavated from die North Tidal Marsh are relatively confined to the tidal
creek. Approximately 1,000 feet of the tidal creek channel encompassing an estimated 0.25 acres
will be excavated. The downstream extent of excavation shall extend to sample point SD-109,
unless otherwise justified by additional sediment toxicity sampling similar to that presented above
for the South Tidal Marsh.
Vertical excavation limits during tidal marsh restoration activities shall be the biologically
active zone. At a minimum, this shall be interpreted to be the upper 1 foot of the sediment
interface. Conceptually, excavation will be accomplished with traditional earth moving equipment
with access provided by interlocking wood mats installed over a geotextile separation layer.
Practically speaking, the depth to e:. javatipn may be deeper than 1 foot given the technical
limitations associated with the operation of excavation equipment in these areas. In all cases, best
professional efforts shall be made to remove all visually impacted material in close proximity to
open excavations. Engineering controls shall be employed during active excavation activities to
provide short-term protectiveness and to mitigate the potential release of constituents via
suspended sediments, tidal fluctuations and stormwater discharges.
Given the expected lower solids content, special attention shall be dedicated to the
material handling issues of all excavated material. Efforts shall be made to eliminate spills and to
reduce water content prior to transportation to the stabilization area. This issue could be
addressed by the adoption of a newer dredging technique referred to as "dry dredging". This
technology has been tested locally, most recently at the Ripley Light Marina, with reported
success of producing dredged material with favorable solids content All dredged material shall
be transported to an on-site stockpile area for dewatering and stabilization prior to off-site
disposal in an approved hazardous waste landfill. All transportation and off-site disposal activities
shall be conducted in full accordance with all ARARs, including but not limited to, RCRA and
DOT regulations.
Once portions of the proposed excavations have been dredged to the required depth, a
prepared cap shall be placed over the disturbed areas. The cap material shall be similar in
composition to the sediments of the undisturbed portions of the respective marshes. All disturbed
areas shall be returned to pre-excavation elevations, so as not to disrupt the dynamics of the local
tidal marsh ecosystem. All disturbed areas will be revegetated and restored with native species
typical to tidal marshes of the vicinity. A monitoring and contingency plan shall also be adopted
to ensure the restored areas return to functioning and productive habitat.
-------
45E11A
777A
TDM. CREEK NOT TO SCAl£
SOURCF- HFA7ER EAST INC PITTSBURGH PA. 1998
240
BS
SCALE IN FEET
1" - 240'-0"
480
FIGURE 22
NORTH TIDAL MARSH
REMEDIATION
FORMER KOPPERS SITE
CHARLESTON. SC
CD
hO
CO
-------
n •"> ~ o
U /: c /.
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
_ Page 85
9.3.3.2 In-Situ Bioremediation
EPA has selected in-situ bioremediation for portions of the Northwest and South Tidal
Marshes. In-situ bioremediation shall be applied to sediments within the defined APECs which
did not demonstrate significant toxicity to selected indicator test species. The areas for in-situ
bioremediation in the Northwest and SouthTidal Marshes are defined in Figure 20 and Figure 21,
respectively. It is important to note that the area illustrated in the South Tidal Marsh may change,
pending the results of the additional whole sediment toxicity tests discussed above in Section
9.3.3.1.
EPA considers in-situ bioremediation to be an innovative and emerging technology that
warrants further refinement and development at sites with impacted sediments. Technology
performance data indicates that in-situ bioremediation can be very effective at reducing
concentrations of low molecular weight PAHs (< four rings). Moreover, phytoremediation, the
biouptake or absorption of contaminants by plant species, has shown promising results for
reducing the concentrations of inorganic constituents. Due to the evolving nature of this
technology, the extent of constituent concentration reduction at this site is difficult to predict.
Therefore, the Performance Standard for this remedy component is simply the reduction of
sediment constituent concentrations from observed baseline conditions. EPA feels mis general
Performance Standard is appropriate considering that in-situ bioremediation will be implemented
in portions of the South and Northwest Tidal Marshes where sediment toxicity to benthic
organisms was not observed.
EPA's objective for in-situ bioremediation is the reduction of organic and inorganic
constituent concentrations in the sediments of the Northwest and South Tidal Marshes. Organic
constituent reduction will be accomplished by increasing the rate of natural biodegradation.
Inorganic constituent reduction will be accomplished by constituent absorption into either
naturally occurring or introduced plant species. Plants will then be routinely harvested to remove
inorganics from the study areas. Conceptually, this remedy component will be implemented in
three phases. Phase I will involve laboratory bench tests to determine optimal formulations to
achieve the established objectives. Phase I will also incorporate a sampling program to document
baseline constituent concentrations in the study areas and to gather bioremediation profile data for
subject sediments. Phase n will involve field implementation utilizing test plots and control plots.
During Phase II, key bioremediation indicators shall be monitored in both test and control plots
for one year. Results obtained from Phase I and n will be utilized for full-scale application in
Phase III.
A comprehensive monitoring program during all phases of this remedy component is
integral to documenting the results achieved. EPA and SCDHEC shall have reasonable
opportunity to review and comment on the in-situ bioremediation monitoring program prior to
implementation of Phase I.
-------
b 9 0263
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 86
9.4 Cost Summary
This section of the document provides a cost summary for the key elements of EPA's
selected remedy at the Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL Site. The estimated capital
costs for each major remedy component, estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and
total net present worth over a 30-year period are provided below. All cost estimates are
expressed in 1996 dollars and are based upon conceptual engineering, design and construction.
The reader is referred to Appendix D of the Final FS Report for a more detailed breakout of the
cost information summarized below.
Soil and Drainage Ditch Sediments Cost (S)
Excavation of 12,000 tons x $50/ton 600,000
Transportation and off-site disposal of 12,000 tons x $150/ton 1,800,000
24.5 acre cap for B(a)P-TE impacted soil ^ 2,116,000
5.2 acre cap for lead impacted soil 621,000
Drainage ditch reconstruction 945.000
Sub-Total Soil Component 6,082,000
Groundwater/NAPL
Capital costs for recovery wells, line installation and hook up 1,680,000
O&M for recovery wells ! 566,000
O&M for water treatment plant 828.000
Sub-Total Groundwater/NAPL Component 3,074,000
Ashley River and Tidal Marsh Sediments
Enhanced sedimentation for Ashley River
Capital costs for pile installation and baseline surveys 495,000
Monitoring and maintenance for cap integrity 46.000
Sub-Total Ashley River 541,000
Subaqueous capping for Barge Canal
Two feet of cap material; 10,000 yards x $22/yard 220,000
Design, mobilization and engineering controls during construction 152,000
Monitoring and maintenance for cap integrity 75^000
Sub-Total Barge Canal 447,000
Dredging, capping and off-site disposal in North/South Tidal Marshes
Site prep., excavation, stockpiling and restoration 814,000
Material handling, transportation and off-site disposal of 4,935 tons x $176/ton 868.000
Sub-Total Tidal Marsh Excavation and Restoration 1,682,000
In-Situ Bioremediation in South/Northwest Tidal Marshes
Bench test to full scale operation (Phase I - HI) 85,000
Long-term monitoring costs 641000
Sub-Total In-Situ Bioremediation 149,000
Total Estimated Cost of EPA's Selected Remedy 11,975,000
-------
£ 9 02C-
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 87
10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, EPA must select remedies that are protective of human
health and the environment, comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(unless a statutory waiver is justified), are cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that
permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a
principal element. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory
requirements.
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
EPA's selected remedy protects human health and the environment through media-specific
components designed to eliminate or mitigate potential risks posed by the site. 'EPA's remedy
consists of: Excavation and off-site disposal of 12,000 tons of the most heavily impacted soil and
drainage ditch sediment; installation of an estimated 29.7 acre cap over lead impacted soil and
relatively less impacted soil; surface water drainage ditch reconstruction; containment and
recovery of NAPL and groundwater at three source areas; enhanced sedimentation in the Ashley
River, capping of Barge Canal sediments; excavation and off-site disposal of an estimated 1.75
acres of sediments in the North and South Tidal Marshes; and in-situ bioremediation in the
Northwest and South Tidal Marshes.
Excavation of 12,000 tons of the most heavily impacted soil will eliminate potential risks
posed to the future on-site worker and utility worker by exposure to surface/subsurface soils. All
excavated soil will be disposed off-site in a controlled and permitted hazardous waste landfill.
Installation of an estimated 29.7 acre cap over lead impacted soil and relatively less impacted soil
will provide further protection for the future on-site worker. The combination of excavation/off-
site di sposal and capping provides a residual risk (post-remediation risk) of 1.1 x 10"6 which is
near the more protective end of EPA's acceptable risk range. This approach satisfies the NCP
preference for cleanups to use the risk level of 1 x 10"* as a point of departure when determining
cleanup levels when ARARs are not available or are not sufficiently protective because of the
presence of multiple contaminants. Permanent drainage ditch reconstruction will eliminate
exposure to unacceptable concentrations of sediment/surface water and remove constituent
transport pathways to receiving surface water bodies.
The Performance Standards developed for groundwater and NAPL at the three subsurface
source areas will remove and treat NAPL to the maximum extent possible, contain potentially
non-restorable source areas, and contain/restore aqueous contaminant plumes. All recovered
groundwater will be treated to protective levels prior to discharge. Groundwater in the shallow
aquifer is not used for residential or industrial purposes, however, EPA's selected remedy wilt
eliminate risks posed by off-site transport to surface water bodies and drainage ditches.
EPA's selected remedy for sediments in the Ashley River, Barge Canal and neighboring
tidal marshes places a priority on the removal of sediments shown to cause statistically significant
-------
L 9 028
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 88
acute toxicity to Neanthes arenaceodentata and Mysidopsis bahia. An estimated 1.5 acres and
0.25 acres will be excavated in the South and North Tidal Marshes, respectively. All excavated
sediments will be disposed off-site with material excavated under the soil component of EPA's
selected remedy. Impacted sediments of the Ashley River and Barge Canal will be capped, thus
eliminating exposure to ecological receptors. Sediments in the Northwest Tidal Marsh and
portions of the South Tidal Marsh not slated for excavation will be treated in-situ via
bioremediation to reduce observed concentrations. The removal of toxic sediments combined
with less intrusive cleanup measures for non-toxic sediments fully considers the advantages and
disadvantages of disturbing saltmarsh habitat.
10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
EPA's selected response action will meet all ARARs discussed in Section 9.0 of this
document. These include, but are not limited to:
• RCRA Requirements for Identification, Management and Transportation of Hazardous
Waste (40 CFR 261,262 and 26})
• RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR 268)
DOT Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 107 and 171-179)
Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR 141)
Clean Water Act (40 CFR 403 and 404)
• Coastal Zone Management Act (15 CFR 930)
• OSHA Health and Safety Requirements (29 CFR 1910 and 1926)
10.3 Cost Effectiveness
EPA's selected response action will provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment at an estimated cost of $11,975,000. Recent Superfund Administrative Reforms
advocate the adoption of cost-effectiveness techniques in the remedy selection process. As
discussed in Section 7.1.1 of this ROD, EPA conducted a value engineering study to select a soil
excavation level that optimized the residual risk achieved while minimi ring the tons of soil
removed. EPA has selected an excavation level which removes the most heavily impacted
material, while capping soil with relatively lower concentrations. The soil component of EPA's
selected remedy involves the excavation and off-site disposal of 12,000 tons of the most heavily
impacted soil, installation of an estimated 29.7 acre cap over lead impacted soil and relatively less
impacted soil and surface water drainage ditch reconstruction. EPA's selected soil remedy
provides an estimated residual risk, or post-remediation risk of 1.1 x 10*6 at an estimated cost of
$6,082,000 (See Section 9.4).
Excavation goals more protective than EPA's selected levels generally double and triple
the volumes of soil removed and the associated response costs, while providing a relatively
smaller incremental benefit in risk reduction. For example, the soil remedy preferred by
SCDHEC results in the excavation and off-site disposal of 39,000 tons of soil, the installation of a
31 acre cap, and the excavation and off-site disposal of lead impacted soil. To further illustrate
this point, the estimated cost of SCDHEC's preferred soil remedy has been developed using the
-------
f Q 0 •"> 0 /v
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 89
information in Section 8.8 (State Acceptance), and identical assumptions and pricing information
from the Feasibility Study Report and Proposed Plan. The total estimated cost of SCDHEC's
preferred soil remedy is $17,268,000, and the major components are summarized below:
Excavation/Off-Site Disposal of 39,000 tons soil x $200/ton $7,800,000
Drainage Ditch Reconstruction... '. $945,000
Installation of 31 acre cap ; $2,673,000
Excavation/Off-Site Disposal of lead impacted material 39,000 tons x $150/ton $5.850.000
Total Estimated Cost of SCDHEC's Preferred Soil Remedy $17,268,000
The Feasibility Study assumed that 39,000 tons of soil exceeded EPA's selected cleanup
level for lead. It is important to note that SCDHEC has selected a soil lead cleanup goal that is
more conservative. Therefore, the cost estimate indicated above for off-site disposal of lead
impacted material is likely on the low side. Moreover, it is also important to note that
implementation of SCDHEC's preferred soil remedy results in a residual risk of 8.6 x 10"8, which
is more protective than EPA's acceptable risk range.
Based upon the above discussion, EPA has determined that the selected remedy provides
protectiveness that is proportionate to its costs and represents a reasonable value for the money
that will be spent.
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in a practicable manner for the
final response action at the Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL Site. Of those alternatives
that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EPA has
determined that this selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of the five
balancing criteria, while also considering the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element and considering state/community acceptance.
The groundwater/NAPL remedy component involves technologies that recover N APL to
the maximum extent practicable at the three source areas on-site. All recovered groundwater will
be treated to permanently reduce contaminant concentrations to appropriate standards. This
component also selects innovative vertical circulation cell technology as a contingency remedy for
restoration and hydraulic control of the dissolved-phase aqueous contaminant plumes
downgradient of N APL source areas. The Braswell Street, Milford Street and Central drainage
ditches will also be permanently reconstructed to eliminate exposure to sediment/surface water
and to permanently eliminate constituent transport pathways off-site.
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
EPA's selected remedy will fulfill the preference for treatment as a principal element
through the recovery and treatment of impacted groundwater and NAPL. Furthermore, this
-------
L 9 0287
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 90
response action selects in-situ bioremediation as an innovative treatment for the reduction of
sediment concentrations in the Northwest and South Tidal Marshes.
11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 117(b) of CERCLA, this section of the ROD
documents and discusses the significant changes made to the selected remedy from the Proposed
Plan. For reference, the Proposed Plan is attached to this ROD as Appendix C. Specific written
and/or oral comments received during die formal 60-day comment period held from April 3 to
May 2,1997 are included in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix B). EPA's selected remedy
changes two remedy components from the cleanup plan proposed in March 1997. These include
the selected response actions for lead impacted material and the sediments of the Barge Canal.
These are discussed further in the sections that follow.
11.1 Lead Impacted Material
EPA's March 1997 Proposed Plan selected Confined Disposal as the response action to
address soil with lead concentrations greater than 1,150 mg/kg. The large majority of soil on-site
with concentrations exceeding this cleanup level is located on the thin strip of uplands which
separates the Barge Canal from the South Tidal Marsh. Under the proposed strategy of Confined
Disposal, all soil with lead concentrations greater than 1,150 mg/kg would be placed in the
bottom of the adjacent Barge Canal. This base layer of lead-impacted fill would then be capped
with a two-foot topsoil/organic layer, returned to appropriate elevations, and restored to a
functioning saltmarsh habitat. EPA's rationale behind this proposed approach are outlined below:
• Confined Disposal of lead impacted material represents an innovative, cost-effective and
adequately protective solution to a rather complex problem. Confined Disposal resolves
three issues with one response action: 1) Impacted sediments in the Barge Canal would be
capped; 2) Potential human health risks posed to the future on-site worker by exposure to
unacceptable soil lead concentrations would be eliminated; and 3) Additional acreage of
functional, intertidal tidal marsh would be created. Furthermore, confined disposal in near
shore facilities is a well documented and proven management technique for dealing with
dredged spoil material.
• Lead impacted material is classified as a non-hazardous waste per RCRA regulations.
Representative samples of this subject material were collected and submitted for TCLP
analysis. Statistical evaluation of the analytical results, as specified by RCRA regulations,
concluded this material is non-hazardous. Moreover, EPA conducted additional leaching
tests on this material which consisted of placing a representative soil sample in ajar with
water collected from the Ashley River. This mixture was shaken vigorously for 18 hours
and the resultant water was analyzed. Results clearly indicated that mis material does not
leach at concentrations that would cause adverse impacts to surface water or ecological
receptors.
-------
r. Q n ••> o
O 7 U £_. O
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 91
• The thin strip of uplands is not adversely impacting the adjacent South Tidal Marsh,
Ashley River, or Barge Canal. Extensive sediment sampling was conducted in the Barge
Canal, Ashley River and South Tidal Marsh during delineation of APECs as described in
Section 1. \ .3 of this ROD. All sediment samples collected from these areas did not
exhibit concentrations greater than the ecological screening criteria (ER-M) for lead.
Moreover, sediment toxicity testing at Station SD-47 in the South Tidal Marsh, located
immediately south of the subject upland area, did not demonstrate significant toxicity for
the test species evaluated. This data provides convincing evidence that the lead impacted
material from the upland area is not causing ecological impact to the surrounding area.
Notwithstanding the above discussion, opposition to EPA's proposal of Confined Disposal
was expressed during the 60-day public comment period. The most emphatic opposition was
voiced by several Natural Resource Trustee agencies which generally cited concerns over long-
term leaching and unreasonable risks of injury to trust resources. Moreover, asidiscussed in
Section 8.8 and 10.3 of this ROD, SCDHEC prefers excavation and off-site disposal in a non-
hazardous waste landfill for all soil with lead concentrations greater than 895 mg/kg.
After fully considering the written comments included in Appendix B, EPA has decided to
cap all soil with lead concentrations greater than 1,150 mg/kg. The cap shall be installed to meet
the Performance Standards specified in Section 9.1.2. The cap over lead impacted material will
cover approximately 5.2 acres at an estimated cost of $621,000. As discussed in Section 10.3,
SCDHEC's preferred alternative of excavation and off-site disposal of lead impacted material is
estimated to cost in excess of $5.5 Million. Considering the above discussion and site-specific
data, EPA does not believe the exorbitant costs associated with SCDHEC's preferred alternative
are warranted. EPA's selected remedy of capping will provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment in a far more cost-effective manner.
11.2 Barge Canal
EPA's selected response action for the Barge Canal in the March 1997 Proposed Plan was
closely linked with confined disposal of lead impacted material discussed above in Section 11.1.
EPA's proposed cleanup plan for impacted sediments involved subaqueous capping to eliminate
exposure to benthic organisms and potential risks to upper trophic level ecological receptors. The
approach proposed in March 1997 involved the confined disposal of lead impacted material in a
six-foot thick bottom layer of the Barge Canal, followed by placement of a two-foot cap of an
organic supplement mixture. The area would be returned to appropriate elevations and
revegetated to return the area to a functional saltmarsh habitat.
Pursuant to the discussion in Section 11.1, EPA has dropped its proposal for confined
disposal of lead impacted material in the Barge Canal. This decision has also necessitated a
change in the selected remedy for impacted sediments of the Barge Canal. Considering the above,
EPA's selected remedy involves capping the impacted sediments with a two-foot cover only, to
eliminate exposure to ecological receptors. A long-term monitoring and maintenance program
will be established to mitigate erosional impacts and to ensure the installed cap remains protective
over the long-term. Engineering controls will be implemented to abate the release of suspended
-------
ii 9 0269
Final Record of Decision
April 1998
Page 92
sediment and to mitigate adverse impacts to the surrounding environment during cap installation
activities. In order to clearly differentiate between remediation and restoration activities, EPA's
selected remedy does not require that the Barge Canal be restored to a functional low, intertidal
Spartina marsh. However, marsh restoration in this area may be considered to provide a high
degree of long-term permanence and protection, and/or to address issues related to past damages
of natural resources.
-------
D
0 2
Q
>MOTE PROTECT PROSPER
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201-1708
COMMISSIONER:
Douglas E. BrymJ
B«ARI>.
John H. Burrin
William M. Hull Jr,MD
Roger Leaks. Jr.
Secreary
Ricfaad a Jibbour. DOS
Cyndi C Moodier
Brian K. Smith
Rodney L_ Grand?
December 11, 1997
Mr. John H. Hankinson, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region IV
61 Forsythe Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
RE: Koppers NPL Site - Charleston County
Record of Decision
Dear Mr. Hankinson:
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control/the Department) has
reviewed EPA's Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the Koppers NPt Site in Charleston
and does not concur with EPA's selected remedy because the Department has determined
that this remedy is not adequately protective of public health and the environment
Therefore, the Department reserves any right or authority it may have to require the
responsible parties to conduct additional corrective action in accordance with the Pollution
Control Act and the South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Act These rights
include, but are not limited to, the right to insure that all necessary permits are obtained, all
clean-up goals and criteria are met, and to take separate action in the event clean-up goals
and criteria are not met The Department's reasons for not concurring are outlined below.
The Department does not believe that EPA's selected remedy is sufficient in achieving long
term protection of human health and the environment This remedy represents a departure
from EPA's usual method of selecting remedies at the more protective end of the risk range.
In addition, EPA's Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment utilized exposure point
concentrations and other exposure assumptions that the Department does not feel were
conservative enough. The Department believes that the calculated human health risks were
not based on reasonable maximum exposures, and therefore may underestimate the potential
risks posed by the site. Based on these points, the Department did not approve the Human
Health Baseline Risk Assessment prepared by the EPA. Furthermore, the Department does
not feel that EPA's application of the residual risk methodology at this site gives an
appropriate representation of the actual risks that would remain after the selected remedial
alternative is implemented.
The Department does not concur with the proposed cleanup goal of 5xlO~s (20 mg/kg BAP-
TE in surface soil and 275 mg/kg BAP-TE in subsurface soil) for Soil/Drainage Ditches. As
stated in the NCP, a risk level of Ixlfr* shall be used as the point of departure for
determining remediation goals for alternatives when ARARs are not available or are not
sufficiently protective because of the presence of multiple contaminants at CERCLA Sites.
At the Koppers Site, it does not appear that EPA used IxlO"6 as the point of departure for
evaluating alternatives. The NCP also places a preference on the long-term permanence and
the reduction of toxkity, mobility, or volume through treatment in f*krti"g """wffrl goals
and alternatives. The selected remedy does not meet this preference. Considering these
points and the uncertainties previously mentioned in the calculation of site risks, the
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
-------
029;>
John H. Hankinson, Jr.
December 11, 1997
Page 2
Department feels that protecting to the IxlO"6 cleanup goal is warranted at the Koppers Site. To this end, the
DepatftnQpt prefers to excavate an estimated 39,000 tons of soil which exceeds the lx!0~* cleanup goal (4
mg/kg BAP-TE in surface soil and 55 rag/kg BAP-TE in subsurface soil) for Soil/Drainage Ditches with
subsequent off-site disposal. In addition, the Department would prefer to cap all additional areas with soil
above the 1x1 04 remedial goal (0.4 mg/kg BAP-TE in surface soil). This cap would cover an estimated 3 1
acres of the site.
Although the Department approves of the methodology developed by EPA for calculating a cleanup level for
lead in soil, the Department does not feel that the exposure assumptions used by EPA to calculate the selected
cleanup level of 1 ISO mg/kg were conservative enough. Therefore, the Department does not concur with
EPA's selected remedy of capping all soils with lead concentrations exceeding the selected cleanup level of
1 ISO mg/kg. The Department has calculated a preferred industrial use cleanup level of&9S mg/kg for lead in
soil. This cleanup level was calculated using EPA's methodology with more conservative site-specific
exposure assumptions that more accurately reflect the demographics of the surrounding community. Due to
both the ecological and human health concerns, the Department's preferred remedy is excavation and off-site
disposal of all lead impacted soil with concentrations exceeding 895 mg/kg.
While the Department agrees with EPA's three stated remediation objectives for groundwater/NAPL at the
three noted source areas on-site, the Department does not concur with EPA's conceptual approach for
achieving these objectives. Based on performance data already obtained during the operation of the interim
action pump and treat system, the Department believes that a more aggressive initial approach is justified
instead of a phased approach that adds additional wells as future performance data indicates the need. Based
on language approved by EPA in the Feasibility Study Report, the Department is concerned that the purpose
of the proposed groundwater remediation effort is to demonstrate fyJ*fiif*l impracticability for groundwater
restoration rather than actual remediation of impacted groundwater. The more proactive approach proposed
by the Department is consistent with OSWER Directive 9234.2-25: "Guidance for Evaluating the Technical
Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration."
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on EPA's Draft Record of Decision. Based on the above
mentioned concerns, the Derailment respectfully requests that EPA reconsider the selected remedy and select
a remedy which better addresses the concerns of the Department Thank you for your consideration of this
matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (803) 734-5360.
Sincerely.
R. Lewis Shaw, P.E.
Deputy Commissioner
Environmental Quality Control
cc: Hartsill Truesdale
Keith Lindlcr
Gary Stewart
_ Wayne Fanning, Trident EQC
Richard Haynes
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET. SW
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8909
MAR 18 1933
4WD
Mr. R. Lewis Shaw, P.E.
Deputy Commissioner
Environmental Quality Control
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control -
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
SUBJ: Record of Decision for the Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL Site;
Charleston County, South Carolina.
Dear Mr. Shaw:
Thank you for your letter of December 11,1997 regarding the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control's (SCDHEC) position of non-concurrence on EPA-Region
4's Record of Decision (ROD) for the Koppers NPL Site in Charleston, South Carolina.
We have worked closely with SCDHEC in developing this ROD and appreciate all of the
support you have given us in the process. The fact that we disagree on certain technical aspects
of the ROD should not lessen the joint commitment we share to ensuring that this site is properly
cleaned up, that pubk'c health and the environment is protected, and that the desire of the
community for a productive and reusable site is achieved.
In your letter, you noted that SCDHEC does not concur with EPA's selected remedy for
the subject site. As you know, Section 121 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) directs EPA to select remedies that are adequately
protective of human health and the environment, comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements, are cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
We believe that EPA's selected remedy for the Koppers NPL Site meets the statutory
requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA given the site-specific conditions. In particular, this
remedy is consistent with reforms which are being implemented by EPA to enhance Superfund's
effectiveness in protecting human health and die environment These reforms are intended to
address tile recurrent criticisms of the Superfund Program: exorbitantly high cleanup costs;
inequitable enforcement processes; excessive transaction costs; and inadequate involvement of
stakeholders. Specifically, we believe our selected remedy for the Koppers NPL Site addresses
the following Administrative Reforms:
• Ensure all risk assessments are grounded in reality;
• Make smarter cleanup choices that protect the public health at less cost; and
• Control remedy costs and promote cost-effectiveness.
Printtd •»» N%0Mabto Ol BMKJ h*» on 100% FtecycM Papw (40% PMtoonMiMf)
-------
9 029
Your letter expressed concern that EPA's selected remedy represented a departure from
EPA's past practices of selecting remedies. Given the implementation of the above
Administrative Reforms, we agree that some of the cost effectiveness and risk management
techniques applied during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process at this site
are a departure from traditional methodologies of the past However, we believe that the selected
remedy affords a high degree of long-term protection within EPA's acceptable risk range, and
therefore is protective of human health and the environment
My staff has prepared a thorough technical response to SCDHEC's stated reasons for not
concurring on EPA's ROD. The technical response is enclosed and will become pan of the
Administrative Record for this Site. We believe a dialogue on this issue has helped to address
SCDHEC's concerns by modifying certain components of the selected remedy for the Koppers
NPL Site which have brought us closer to agreement, although differences do remain. In our
judgement, this ROD balances the concerns of all stakeholders and ensures consistency with the
Superfund Administrative Reforms in developing a comprehensive, site-wide remedy that is
protective of human health and the environment
We want to continue to work closely with SCDHEC during implementation of the
selected remedy to identify means by which EPA's selected remedy may further address the
concerns of SCDHEC Moreover, EPA is committed to working closely with SCDHEC, adjacent
communities, local governments and the responsible party in identifying opportunities for site re-
development which optimize compatibility with local neighborhoods.
I appreciate your concern and interest in this matter. If you should have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (404) 562-8357, or Craig Teller of my staff at (404) 562-8827.
Sincere!
Enclosure
/John H.
^""Regional Administrator
-------
0295
EPA REGION IV'S TECHNICAL RESPONSE
to
SCDHEC's Position of Non-Concurrence on EPA's Record of Decision
Koppers Co., Inc. NPL She; Charleston, South Carolina
This technical response was developed by EPA Region IV to provide specific responses to
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's (SCDHEQ reasons for
not concurring on EPA's Record of Decision (ROD) for the Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant)
NPL Site in Charleston, South Carolina. SCDHEC's reasons for not concurring on EPA's ROD
were outlined in a letter dated December 11,1997 from Mr. R. Lewis Shaw, Deputy
Commissioner for SCDHEC Environmental Quality Control, to Mr. John R Hankinson, Jr.,
Regional Administrator for EPA Region IV. EPA's technical responses to SCDHEC's reasons
for non-concurrence are presented below in the order they appear in the December 11,1997
letter.
Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment
SCDHEC has stated, u[E]PA's Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment utilized exposure
point concentrations and other exposure assumptions that....[m]ay underestimate the potential
risks posed by this site". EPA believes that the Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment utilized
reasonable marimum exposures to estimate conservative exposure scenarios mat are still within
the range of possible exposures. Soil data was generated during the RI field program from an
unbiased statistical grid established across the site for risk assessment purposes, and from biased
locations in areas suspected to be impacted by past operations. In order to calculate an unbiased
representation of the soil exposure point concentrations at the site, EPA averaged soil
concentrations from biased sample locations in the most heavily impacted areas of me site with
soil concentrations from the nearest unbiased grid sample locations. This strategy eliminated the
bias that would result if one were to assume the future on-site worker was repeatedly exposed
only to the most heavily impacted soil on-site.
Unlike traditional applications of the Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA), EPA employed a
residual risk analysis at this site to estimate potential risks posed by on-site soils to future on-site
workers after remediation is complete. The residual risk analysis incorporates accepted BRA
techniques into the remedy selection process by re-calculating soil exposure point concentrations,
and subsequent risk posed, under post-remediation exposure scenarios. A value engineering
study was conducted to select a soil excavation level that optimized residual risk achieved while
minimizing tons of soil removed. This procedure entailed:
1) Estimate tons of soil which exceed the clean-up levels of EPA's acceptable risk range {i.e.
IxHT'tolxlO'*);
2) Replace the excavated soil with clean soil of an assumed background concentration; and
3) Calculate residual risk achieved by utilizing the identical exposure parameters of the
Human Health BRA and EPA-approved methodology.
-------
n '"> °
v t. ?
The results of this procedure are summarized in Table 1 which is attached to this
document for reference. A graphical illustration of residual risk achieved versus tons of soil
excavated is also attached as Figure 1. This information shows that EPA did evaluate the 1 x 10"*
risk level as the point of departure for determining soil cleanup levels, as stated in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). However, the 1 x 10"6 cleanup goal results in an estimated residual risk
to the future on-site worker of 8.6 x 10"*. This estimated risk is lower (i.e. more protective) than
EPA's protective risk range of 1 x 10~* to 1 x 10~*. In actuality, soil excavated during die remedial
action will be replaced with prequalified backfill. Therefore, EPA believes that the residual risk
methodology is grounded in reality, and provides an accurate representation of the potential risks
posed to the future on-site worker after the remedial action is completed.
Table 1 and Figure 1 also shows that the greatest reduction of residual risk achieved per
ton of soil removed occurs at the cleanup levels on the higher end of EPA's protective risk range
(1 x 10"* and 5 x 10"5). A larger volume of relatively less contaminated soil exceeds the
excavation levels of 1 x 10's, 5x10"*, and 1 x 10"6. Therefore, to achieve any significant
incremental reduction in risk, a very large increase would occur in the volume of soil excavated.
Excavation levels below the 5 x 10'J risk level generally double and triple the tons of soil removed
while providing a relatively smaller incremental benefit in risk reduction.
For example, excavation of 12,000 tons of soil (i.e. the 5 x 10"s cleanup level) provides a
risk reduction of approximately three orders of magnitude when compared to the no-action
alternative. However, SCDHEC's preferred soil excavation goal of 1 x 10'5 more man triples the
volume of soil excavated (39,000 tons of soil), while achieving less than an order of magnitude in
additional risk reduction. Moreover, SCDHEC's preferred soil excavation goal of 1 x 10"s adds
an estimated $5.4 Million to the remedy cost when compared to the 5 x 10~5 cleanup level
(additional 27,000 tons @ $200/ton for off-site disposal). For these reasons, EPA has selected
the 5 x 10'5 soil excavation level resulting in the removal of an estimated 12,000 tons of soils and
ditch sediment
In addition, the soil component of EPA's selected remedy includes placement of a
protective cap over surface soil containing relatively lower concentrations of constituents. This
approach affords the benefit of achieving lower levels of residual risk without incurring the
substantial increases in tons of soil excavated and associated costs. EPA has selected a 2 rug/kg
cap level for Benzo(a)Pyrene Toxicity Equivalents (BAP-TE), which is the main constituent
driving soil remediation at this site. The 2 mg/kg cap level represents EPA's risk management
based decision to potentially resolve the differences between EPA and SCDHEC, and to satisfy
the NCP preference to protect to the more conservative end of EPA's acceptable risk range. The
2 mg/kg BAP-TE cap level corresponds to a resultant residual risk of 1.1 x 10"* posed to the
future on-site worker. EPA has developed performance standards for die final cap which will
ensure its long-term permanence and effectiveness. SCDHEC has stated a preference to cover all
surface soil above the 1 x 10"6 cleanup goal, or 0.4 rcg/kg BAP-TE. While EPA maintains mat
die cap level of 2 mg/kg is adequately protective, die constituent area identification and
methodologies to be utilized in cap design and placement will most likely exceed die goal of 2
mg/kg, thus making die respective differences in die cleanup goals of 2 mg/kg and 0.4 mg/kg
negligible.
-------
0297
Lead Impacted Soil
In regard to the constituent of lead, SCDHEC concurs with EPA's methodology for
calculating a future industrial cleanup level for lead in soil. However, SCDHEC has calculated a
preferred industrial use cleanup level for lead in soil of 895 mg/kg versus EPA's selected cleanup
level of 1,150 mg/kg. SCDHEC has stated, "This cleanup level was calculated using EPA's
methodology with more conservative site-specific exposure assumptions mat more accurately
reflect the demographics of the surrounding community". EPA does not agree with this
statement. SCDHEC has selected more conservative exposure parameters which assume the
exposed population is entirely "Non-Hispanic Black". EPA has selected exposure parameters
which assume the exposed population has a greater degree of heterogeneity. EPA believes its
assumptions are more indicative of the current workforce population and any likely future
industrial populations and land-use practices at the site.
ft
In addition, EPA has a different view from SCDHEC concerning the appropriate remedy
for lead impacted soil. EPA's selected remedy for lead impacted material involves placement of a
protective cap to eliminate human exposure. This decision is based on comprehensive site-
specific data which supports the following conclusions:
• Lead impacted material is classified as "non-hazardous" per RCRA regulations;
• Leaching tests conducted with this material and Ashley River water indicate that the lead
impacted material does not leach at concentrations that would cause adverse impacts to
surface water or ecological receptors;
• Extensive sediment sampling in areas adjacent to the lead-impacted upland soils did not
exhibit concentrations greater than ecological screening criteria, and did not demonstrate
toxicity for the test species evaluated.
EPA's cap over lead impacted material will cover approximately 5.2 acres at an estimated
cost of $62 1 ,000. SCDHEC's preferred alternative of excavation and off-site disposal of lead
impacted material is estimated to cost in excess of $5.5 Million, In light of the above discussion,
EPA does not believe the significant additional costs associated with SCDHEC's preferred
alternative are warranted when compared to the degree of risk protection afforded, EPA's
selected alternative for lead impacted soil will provide adequate protection of human health and
the environment while providing a high degree of cost-effectiveness.
Gro""dwater/NAPL P<**r|f*iifltion Approach
Agreement has been reached between EPA and SCDHEC regarding the remediation
objectives for groundwater and non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) at the three noted source areas
on-site. The established performance standards include: 1) Removal or treatment of NAPL to the
mflTimyrp extent practicable; 2) Containment of potentially non-restorable source areas; and 3)
Containment and restoration of aqueous contaminant plumes. SCDHEC has argued mat EPA's
-------
n •"' c o
U i- S vj
proposed approach is not sufficiently aggressive and that the purpose of the proposed
groundwater remediation effort is to demonstrate technical impracticability for groundwater
restoration rather than actual remediation of impacted groundwater. EPA does not agree.
The goal of EPA's groundwater/NAPL remedy is the restoration of impacted groundwater
to MCL's specified by the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, in recent policy and guidance,
EPA has recognized mat restoration to these levels may be technically impracticable given the
characteristics of NAPL, limitations in remediation technology, and/or complex hydrogeology.
EPA's OSWER Directive 9234.2-25, Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of
Groundwater Restoration (EPA 19931. advocates an iterative approach to remediation at NAPL
sites. This includes early actions to remove contaminant sources, control plume migration, and
mitigate risks posed by impacted groundwater. EPA issued an Interim Action ROD in March
1995 to achieve these short-term objectives in the former Treatment Area. Physical construction
has been completed and active groundwater/NAPL recovery in this area continues.
Information gathered during implementation of the Interim Action will be utilized to
optimize the approach by which the long-term remediation objectives will be achieved. In an
effort to address SCDHEC concerns regarding the initial effort of groundwater/NAPL
remediation, EPA added additional extraction wells to the selected remedy from what was
originally specified in the Feasibility Study. EPA does not support a prescribed groundwater
remediation system which gives little consideration to: 1) whether it could ever achieve the stated
goal of MCL's and; 2) the associated capital expenditures and operation/maintenance costs of
such as system. Rather, EPA remains committed to achievement of the above three performance
standards through a step-wise, performance-based groundwater/NAPL remediation approach.
-------
0299
IxlO-4
40/550
5300
1.6xlO'5
5 x 10'$
20/275
12,000
l.OxlO'5
1 x 10"s
4.0/55
39,000
2.4 x
5x10-*
2.0/27.5
86,000
l.lxKT6
IxlO*
0.40/5.5
160,000
8.6 x 10* (4)
Footnotes:
(1) B(a)P-TE, or Benzo(a)Pyrene Toricity Equivalents, is a summary parameter which
converts all carcinogenic PAHs to an equivalent B(a)P concentration. Concentrations
are listed for surface soils (0 to 6 inches) and subsurface soils (6 inches to water table).
(2) This column represents total tons of soil which exceeds respective soil clean-up level.
B(a)P-TE impacted soil is driving volume estimates.
(3) Estimated residual risk achieved represents me potential risk to future on-site worker
AFTER remediation is completed.
(4) Estimated residual risk is lower (i.e. more protective) than EPA's protective risk range
of 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6.
-------
FIGURE 1
VALUE ENGINEERING RESULTS
OJ
oi
o
X
111
£ 150,000
i: 100,000
"o
CO
50,000
***•**•••
160,000 Tons
>*••*•»•*»*••%**»*. *•**•<
86,000 Tons
. •
39,000 Tons
A 4.
>»»»»i»»A«>*i»»i«»»»«ir>»«»n»r||-ir-i>»r
I J Vl'lPl *_ • • » IIIlK ._ 1
12,000 Tons
zzftn 5,300 Tons
I LJ I III! ^^ j'l I HIM I I I I 111
NO Action
1
0
1E-8 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1
Residual Risk Achieved
VO
o
o
• "~ \
-------
r
9 0.30.?
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Summary of Comments Received During April 15,1997 Public Meeting 1
3.0 Summary of Written Comments Received During Formal Comment Period 5
3.1 Comments from South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC) 6
3.2 Comments from SCDHEC Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management 7
3.3 Comments from Beazer East, Inc 8
3.4 Comments from Four Mile Hibernian Association 15
3.5 Comments from Conoco Inc 18
3.6 Comments from General Engineering Laboratories, Inc 32
3.7 Comments from Natural Resource Trustees 37
Attachment 1 - Verbatim Transcript of April 15,1997 Public Meeting
Attachment 2 - Written Comments Received During Formal Comment Period
-------
0 3 n -
U «J w VJ
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Final Record of Decision (ROD) for the Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL
site consists of three components: Declaration, Decision Summary, and Responsiveness Summary.
The Declaration can be found at the front of the ROD and functions as an abstract for the key
information in the Decision Summary. The Decision Summary is embodied in Sections 1 through
11 of the ROD. This section of the ROD presents the Responsiveness Summary which is the final
step in selection of the site-wide remedy for this site. The Responsiveness Summary provides a
concise written summary of significant comments, criticisms, and new relevant information that
was submitted to EPA during the formal comment period required by CERCLA Section 117. The
Responsiveness Summary allows EPA to reassess its initial determination that the Final ROD
provides the best balance of trade-offs by factoring in any new information or points of view
expressed by the community, local/state officials and potentially responsible parties (PRPs) during
the public comment period. These comments may prompt EPA to modify aspects of the preferred
alternative or decide that another alternative provides a more appropriate balance.
The highlights of community participation during the RI/FS process at this site were
presented in Section 3.0 of the ROD. EPA held a 60-day public comment period on its proposed
cleanup plan (i.e. Proposed Plan) for this site from April 3 to June 2, 1997. A formal public
meeting on the Proposed Plan was held on April 15,1997 at the Charleston Public Works
Building in Charleston, South Carolina. The verbatim transcript of the public meeting is included
as Attachment 1 to the Responsiveness Summary. Section 2.0 of the Responsiveness Summary
presents a synopsis of comments received during the public meeting as well as EPA's response. A
significant volume of written comments were submitted on EPA's Proposed Plan during the
above noted 60-day comment period. A copy of all comments received is included as Attachment
2 to the Responsiveness Summary. Section 3.0 of this document provides a synopsis of written
comments received, followed by EPA's response.
2.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING APRIL 15,1997 PUBLIC
MEETING
While not explicitly stated, the attendees at the meeting seemed generally supportive of
EPA's site-wide proposed cleanup plan for this site. No major opposition to EPA's proposal was
implied or otherwise stated. This section of the Responsiveness Summary provides a synopsis of
the questions and comments received during the Question and Answer (Q&A) session of the April
15, 1997 public meeting. The Q&A session begins on page 58 of the verbatim transcript included
as Attachment 1. Each question or comment is summarized below and followed by EPA's
paraphrased response.
1) Comment/Question: Please comment on the points of dispute between EPA and the State of
South Carolina regarding the Proposed Plan.
EPA Response: There are three major points of dispute between EPA and SCDHEC on EPA's
Proposed Plan for the site. These are summarized below. Further discussion regarding mis issue
is also addressed in Section 3.0 which presents EPA's response to written comments received.
-------
030
1) Groundwater/NAPL Remediation Approach - EPA and SCDHEC generally agree on the
established performance objectives for groundwater/NAPL at the three noted source areas.
SCDHEC has stated that EPA's proposed groundwater/NAPL approach is not aggressive enough
and that additional extraction wells are needed to achieve the performance objectives. EPA
maintains that further aquifer response and groundwater/NAPL recovery data, particularly in the
intermediate water-bearing zone, is necessary to accurately specify the exact number of wells
required to meet the performance data. EPA advocates an iterative process to achieve the
established performance standards, rather than a rigid prescriptive approach. Regardless of the
number of wells employed, the groundwater/NAPL recovery system will be operated properly to
achieve the established performance standards at the three source areas.
2) Soil Cleanup Levels - EPA has selected a soil cleanup level which results in the excavation
of 12,000 tons and the installation of a 24.5 acre cap. SCDHEC favors a more stringent soil
cleanup goal which results in the excavation of 39,000 tons and the installation flf a 31 acre cap.
EPA maintains that SCDHEC's more protective excavation levels triple the volume of soil
removed while having a minimal incremental benefit in risk reduction achieved. Moreover,
SCDHEC's preferred soil cleanup levels results in a residual risk (i.e. risk posed to future on-site
worker after cleanup is complete) which is outside (i.e. more protective) than EPA's acceptable
risk range specified in the applicable environmental statute.
3) Lead Impacted Soil - EPA and SCDHEC disagree over the soil lead cleanup level. Based
upon the recommendations of EPA's workgroup on adult exposures to lead in non-residential
exposure settings, EPA has selected 1,150 mg/kg as a cleanup level for lead in soil. SCDHEC
disagrees with certain model parameters and has selected more conservative values resulting in a
preferred cleanup level for lead in soil of 630 mg/kg.
2) Question/Comment: Where would SCDHEC put more extraction wells?
SCDHEC Response: SCDHEC would increase the number of wells up front in all three source
areas.
3V Question/Comment; Is there Pentachlorophenol or Arsenic contamination in the groundwater?
EPA Response: Groundwater cleanup is being driven by the presence of NAPL (creosote) in
groundwater.
4) Question/Comment: Does pentachlorophenol come from creosote?
EPA Response: Pentachlorophenol was a separate wood preservative which was stored in
separate vessels.
5) Question/Comment: The community was not notified that cleanup work was going on.
-------
0305
EPA Response: Through an EPA grant, a technical advisor has been retained by local
communities to help them get more involved in the remedy selection process. EPA, with the
assistance of the advisor, has attempted to keep local communities updated through mailings and
frequent meetings as needed. Attendance by the local residents at most meetings has been
minimal. What would you suggest or recommend EPA do to notify residents of future activities?
Response: I think mailing would be the best thing. Please give the community advance notice
when specific things are going to be done on the site.
EPA Response: We will target Rosemont, Four Mile and Silver Hill neighborhoods via mail of
upcoming activities.
6) Question/Comment: The community is concerned about the impacted tidal creek and tidal
marsh closest to Rosemont. Could contaminants be transported to nearby gardens?
EPA Response: EPA will evaluate this general area for potential contaminant transport. Initial
efforts will focus on the collection and analysis of soil samples from areas of interest.
7) Question/Comment: Can you elaborate on the bioremediation for lead in the South Tidal
Marsh?
EPA Response: An EPA laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida has developed a bioremediation
process that reduces concentrations of PAHs, as well as inorganic contaminants such as lead. For
lead, plants are utilized to uptake inorganics from the sediment. The plants are then harvested to
reduce observed concentrations in local sediments. EPA considers this technology to be
innovative and one that warrants further field evaluation.
8^ Question/Comment: Would you please explain enhanced sedimentation in the Ashley River?
EPA Response: Enhanced sedimentation in the Ashley River will capture sediment in a similar
way that snow fences are utilized to reduce beach erosion. For instance, if you were to collect a
glass of water from the Ashley River it would be muddy. If you let that glass of water sit for a
few hours, the water velocity would be zero (i.e. decrease water velocity). After a few hours, that
glass of water would have a layer of sediment that settled to the bottom. Enhanced sedimentation
will work in this fashion. Driven piles will be utilized to decrease water velocities in the area of
interest. Thus a clean layer of suspended sediment will be deposited over impacted sediments of
the Ashley River.
91 Question/Comment: Enhanced sedimentation is new and you're not sure that it will work.
Why are you going to try something new instead of something that has worked somewhere else?
EPA Response: To EPA's knowledge, enhanced sedimentation has not been used to cover
contaminated sediments. However, the proposed engineering controls have demonstrated success
-------
03C
in facilitating sediment deposition in high energy, erosional environments. The Corps of
Engineers (COE) have considerable experience in this field. Experts familiar with these
applications from the COE in Vicksburg, Mississippi have been consulted on this proposal and
will be involved during design and implementation. This approach provides EPA an opportunity
to develop a promising technology for use by others in the future. If the proposed approach
proves unsuccessful, EPA will implement contingency remedies. This may include installation of
a supplemental cap. In this case, the installed piles will be used as a containment measure to hold
the cap in place.
10) Question/Comment: What will you monitor to decide if enhanced sedimentation is working?
EPA Response: EPA will primarily rely on bathymetric surveys to monitor sediment
accumulation. Bathymetric surveys measure the vertical distance from an established datum (i.e.
the water level) to the sediment interface. The baseline conditions will be established prior to pile
installation, and monitored yearly after that, at a minimum. If this vertical distance decreases over
time, sediment is accumulating. If this vertical distance increases over time, erosion is occurring.
11) Question/Comment: Do you plan to test deposited sediment for contaminants?
EPA Response: Yes. EPA will establish a program to monitor contaminant trends over time.
EPA expects contaminant concentrations to decrease.
12) Question/Comment: Is there a possibility of implementing enhanced sedimentation on a pilot
scale, prior to driving 800 piles?
EPA Response: Pilot scale projects typically last less than 1 year. Realistically, EPA does not
expect significant or measurable accumulations in time frames that are typical of pilot scale
studies. Therefore, EPA has established a 5-year time frame to evaluate the effectiveness of
enhanced sedimentation. If after 5 years enhanced sedimentation has not met the established
objectives, the piles could be utilized as a containment measure to hold an engineered cap in
place.
13) Question/Comment: What is the depth of water where the piles will be driven?
EPA Response: The actual depth escapes me. However, the Ashley River navigation channel is
approximately 30 feet in depth. The piles will not be installed in the maintained navigation
channel. Therefore, the depth to water is well under 30 feet.
14) Question/Comment; Does the environmental reuse of this site involve dock access?
EPA Response: Yes. EPA considers dock access a key issue for current, as well as future, land
owners adjacent to the Ashley River. The enhanced sedimentation alternative will allow for
current/future dock access, while other alternatives evaluated did not.
-------
030?
15) Question/Comment: On page 15 of your fact sheet, it says that SCDHEC does not feel that
EPA's residual risk methodology gives an appropriate representation of the actual risks that
would remain? What is the remaining risk(s)?
SCDHEC Response: SCDHEC's concerns are that the residual risk looks at 100 acres as a whole.
If the site were broken into smaller parcels, there would he soil with concentrations which
SCDHEC considers significant.
EPA Response: EPA would respond that when the capping component is completed, all soil with
concentrations greater than 2 ppm of benzo(a)pyrene (creosote) would be covered. EPA feels
this goal is adequately protective.
16) Question/Comment: How is capping going to affect land use? Is any of the land going to be
useable, or is that going to be a site than can't be used? ^
EPA Response: EPA's full intention is to return this property to future industrial use. The site is
currently zoned industrial and has been recommended for future industrial use by the City of
Charleston. This is why EPA has based its cleanup goals on a future industrial use exposure
scenario. Specific operations are somewhat for the land owners to decide.
17) Question/Comment: Under the groundwater alternative, how will containment be achieved?
EPA Response: Containment will be achieved by extraction wells.
18) Question/Comment: Could the acidic pH levels coming from the former acid chamber area
mobilize any of the lead that EPA proposes to dispose in the barge canal?
EPA Response: Based upon current data, EPA believes the low pH condition is isolated in close
proximity to this surface water drainage ditch (indicating on map). However, EPA is planning
another investigation to further characterize the low pH groundwater condition in this general
area. Leaching studies to simulate long-term permanence of EPA's proposed confined disposal
alternative will be conducted to ensure the remedy remains protective. Leaching studies will
consider the data generated by this upcoming investigation.
3.0 SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING FORMAL
COMMENT PERIOD
A significant volume of written comments were submitted to EPA-Region 4 during the
60-day public comment period held from April 3 to June 2,1997. Written comments on EPA's
Proposed Plan were received from the following entities:
-------
0303
• South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control - State Acceptance
Section of EPA's Proposed Plan (March 1997), and Section 8.8 (State Acceptance) of
Final ROD;
• South Carolina Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management - April 10,1997;
Beazer East, Inc. - May 30,1997;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - May 30,1997;
• Four Mile Hibernian Community Association - May 31,1997;
• Conoco Inc. - June 2, 1997;
• General Engineering Laboratories, Inc. - June 2,1997;
• South Carolina Department of Natural Resources - June 2,1997;
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - June 2,1997;
Copies of the above written comments are included as part of this Responsiveness
Summary as Attachment 2. This section of the Responsiveness Summary provides a synopsis of
the written comments received from each entity above, followed by EPA's response. Additional
written comments on a variety of issues related to this site were also submitted to EPA after the
formal comment period had ended. The majority of comments received after June 2, 1997 often
reiterated comments or positions that were communicated to EPA during the 60-day comment
period. In this case, this section of the Responsiveness Summary should clearN explain EPA's
rationale and justification for selecting the final remedy described in the ROD. In the interest of
thoroughness, comments received after June 2,1997 are included in the Administrative Record
(AR) for the site. Where necessary, EPA has provided separate responses to these comments in
the Administrative Record.
3.1 Comments from South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC)
As the support agency, SCDHEC has been actively involved in the review and comment
on all technical documents generated during the RI/FS process at this site. This correspondence
can be found in the AR. SCDHEC did not concur with several components of EPA's Proposed
Plan. SCDHEC's major reasons for not concurring on the Proposed Plan were outlined in the
State Acceptance section of the EPA's March 1997 Proposed Plan. Several of SCDHEC's
positions changed from the time EPA's Proposed Plan was issued in March 1997 to finalization of
the ROD.
There continues to be several points of dispute between EPA and SCDHEC regarding
EPA's Final selected remedy for the site. SCDHEC's reasons for not concurring on EPA's
selected remedy are summarized in Section 8.8 (State Acceptance) of the ROD, and in the
December 11,1997 SCDHEC non-concurrence letter from Mr. R. Lewis Shaw, Deputy
Commissioner for SCDHEC Environmental Quality Control, to Mr. John H. Hankmson, Jr.,
Regional Administrator for EPA-Region IV. SCDHEC's non-concurrence letter is attached to
the ROD as Appendix A. EPA formally responded to SCDHEC's non-concurrence letter via a
March 18,1998 letter from Mr. Hankinson to Mr. Shaw. EPA's response letter is also included
as pan of Appendix A of the ROD.
-------
r;
0309
The technical rationale behind EPA's selected remedy is presented in detail throughout the
text of the ROD, and in the March 18,1998 technical response to SCDHECs non-concurrence
letter (Appendix A). In the interest of brevity, these positions are not re-iterated here. Rather,
the reader is referred to Appendix A for EPA's formal response to SCDHEC's reasons for non-
concurrence on the selected remedy for this site.
3.2 Comments from SCDHEC Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
In an April 10,1997 letter, SCDHEC Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM) notified EPA that the Koppers Co., Inc. NPL Site, "fajppears to be a
Federal Activity in the Coastal Zone of South Carolina. Because of the Federally approved
Coastal Zone Management Plan for this area, you will need to comply with the Federal
Consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as found in 15 CFR 930. Your
Statement of Consistency should include a detailed description of the activity, iiLs associated
facilities, and their coastal zone effects, and comprehensive data and information sufficient to
support the Federal agency's consistency statement."
EPA officials from Region 4 have discussed this overall issue with representatives from
OCRM on several occasions via the telephone and during a face-to-face meeting in Charleston,
SC on June 17,1997. It is important to note that EPA and Beazer East coordinated with OCRM
during implementation of the Interim Action ROD. Construction design plans for rehabilitation of
the Milford Street and Hagood Avenue drainage ditches were forwarded to OCRM for review
and approval prior to the initiation of remedial activities. EPA desires to continue this working
relationship with OCRM on applicable components of the site-wide remedy specified in the ROD.
In follow-up correspondence dated July 23,1997 and September 8, 1997, OCRM
expressed an interest in the following items:
• A statement of consistency with the South Carolina Coastal Management Program as
required by the Federal Coastal Management Act;
• Navigation hazards of the enhanced sedimentation area in the Ashley River,
• Permanence of the soil cap; and
• A master stormwater plan and associated permits to address stormwater leaving the
property prior to discharge to the Ashley River.
Following signature and approval of the ROD, EPA will issue a letter to OCRM to
address the substantive technical requirements related to the Federal Consistency Determination.
Details requested by OCRM in regard to the enhanced sedimentation alternative in the Ashley
River, the permanence of the soil cap and master stormwater plan for the site under post-
remediation scenarios are not available at this phase of the project. However, EPA -did develop
-------
o 9 0310
8
several Performance Standards for applicable remedy components in an attempt to address
OCRM concerns at this phase.
For example, Section 9.3.1 of the ROD delineates the requirements of the enhanced
sedimentation alternative in the Ashley River. Language in this section states that the enhanced
sedimentation alternative shall be designed and implemented to "fmjitigate adverse impacts on
the navigable waters, commercial/recreation traffic, and future maintenance dredging should it
be required." Section 9.1.2 of the ROD delineates the requirements for containment by capping
(i.e. soil cap). This section specifies that a detailed design study shall be conducted to develop
and install a final cap that meets a set of five Performance Standards which address, among other
objectives, long-term permanence/effectiveness and resultant quantity/quality of stormwater
runoff. Moreover, Section 9.1.3 (Drainage Ditch Reconstruction) states that "Reconstruction
activities shall be in full accordance with the regulations delineated in the document titled South
Carolina Stormwater Management and Sediment Control Handbook for Land Disturbance
Activities (February J997)."
EPA has adopted provisions in the ROD for the Koppers site which address OCRM
concerns to the maximum extent possible at this stage in the process. As the Remedial Design
(RD) progresses, construction drawings will become available which should address the details
requested by OCRM. EPA will ensure that OCRM remains involved throughout the RD process
and has ample opportunity to review and comment on appropriate construction drawings.
3.3 Comments from Beazer East, Inc.
Beazer East, Inc. (Beazer) is the successor in interest to the former Koppers NPL Site in
Charleston, SC. In 1988, BNS Acquisitions, Inc. acquired the outstanding common stock of
Koppers Co., Inc. In 1989, BNS Acquisitions merged into Koppers Company, Inc., with
Koppers Company, Inc. being the surviving corporation. The company underwent a name change
to Beazer Materials and Services, Inc. and in 1990, that name was changed to Beazer East, Inc.
(Beazer). In January 1993, Beazer entered into an Administration Order by Consent (AOQ with
EPA for the performance of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. Beazer
retained ENSR Consulting & Engineering (ENSR) of Acton, MA to conduct the work required to
complete the RI/FS process. EPA and SCDHEC provided oversight of all work conducted
during the RI/FS. Beazer's obligations under the January 1993 AOC are fulfilled concurrent with
the approval of the ROD for this site. Separate agreements will be negotiated with Beazer for
implementation of the response actions specified in the Final ROD.
Beazer's comments on EPA's Proposed Plan were presented in a May 30,1997 letter
from Ms. Billie Flaherty, Esquire for Beazer. In general, Beazer expressed support for EPA's
Proposed Plan and believes the remedy meets the primary goals of CERCLA. Beazer organized
its_ comments around thirteen major topics related to the RI/FS process and components of the
proposed remedy. In the discussion below, each of Beazer's comments are summarized in the
order they appear in the May 30,1997 letter, and then followed by EPA's response. The reader is
-------
03
referred to Appendix 2 of the Responsiveness Summary for a more detailed account of Beazer's
comments on EPA's Proposed Plan.
Beazer Comment: EPA's use of innovative approaches and remedial methodologies is consistent
with the goals of CERCLA. Beazer supports the selection of enhanced sedimentation in the
Ashley River, and in-situ bioremediation in the Northwest and South Tidal Marshes. Beazer
supports the value engineering approach EPA employed to calculate soil cleanup levels for the
site. In addition, Beazer supports EPA's proposal of combining soil capping with soil excavation
to achieve lower levels of residual risk in a cost-effective manner. Beazer believes the ROD
should provide sufficient flexibility to allow the use of in-situ wells for the groundwater/NAPL
component of the selected remedy. Lastly, Beazer prefers to use the term "Performance Goal"
rather than the term "Performance Standard", as it relates to measuring the performance of the
selected remedy.
6
EPA Response: EPA acknowledges Beazer's support on the noted items. EPA believes the issue
of whether to use the term "performance goal" or "performance standard" for the ROD is really a
matter of semantics. The term Performance Standard is defined and utilized by EPA in most legal
agreements for the performance of Remedial Design/Remedial Action activities at NPL sites.
Therefore, EPA prefers to use the term Performance Standard when referring to cleanup levels or
other substantive requirements of the selected remedy.
Beazer Comment: Beazer supports EPA's use of residual risk in calculating volumes of soil for
excavation and recommends that EPA utilize residual risk methodology in the ROD.
EPA Response: EPA believes the remedy selected at this site is consistent with Superfund
Administrative Reforms, which are being implemented by EPA to enhance the Program's
effectiveness in protecting human health and the environment. The residual risk methodology was
one of several innovative techniques utilized by EPA during the RI/FS process to address the
intent of the reforms that are applicable to this site. EPA has utilized the residual risk
methodology in the ROD.
Beazer Comment: EPA's Human Health Risk Assessment uses unduly conservative assumptions
that result in an overestimation of potential risks posed by the site. Beazer recommends that EPA
re-evaluate a number of the assumptions used in the Baseline Risk Assessment.
EPA Response: EPA developed me Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) to balance
the concerns of all involved stakeholders. In fact, SCDHEC has stated that they believe EPA's
BRA may actually underestimate the potential human health risks posed by the site. EPA
maintains that the Human Health BRA utilized reasonable maximum exposure assumptions to
estimate an upper bound, conservative estimate of site risks that are still within die realm of .
potential current/future exposure scenarios. Beazer has presented detailed discussion on several
issues related to the Human Health BRA in the attached May 30, 1997 letter. On several
occasions, Beazer also submitted extensive comments on the Human Health BRA while the
-------
0312
10
document progressed through the development process. The AR contains a detailed account of
Bearer's positions as well as EPA's responses to these comments. Therefore, it is not necessary
to rehash these issues in the Responsiveness Summary. EPA considers the Human Health
Baseline Risk Assessment documents to be Final.
Beazer Comment: Beazer believes that the EPA Ecological Risk Assessment (October 1996) must
be considered to be a screening level risk assessment, rather than a baseline risk assessment,
because it does not include site-specific information and it utilizes constituent maximum values.
Beazer commends EPA's use of Beazer' s Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment and the available
site-specific information to make its risk management decisions in the Proposed Plan.
EPA Response: EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) was prepared in accordance with
applicable guidance issued by the Agency. EPA's ERA concluded that potential ecological risks
exist at the site and that response actions for managing these risks should be ev&uated. In an
effort to address Beazer's above comment, EPA's ERA also recommended the utilization of an
alternative risk model to further evaluate potential ecological risks and the effectiveness of remedy
options in managing the potential risk. The alternative ecological risk evaluation was conducted
by Beazer in a document titled, "Site-Specific Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment Former
Koppers Site Charleston. South Carolina. (ENSR/Ogden 1996)". The alternative scenario was
conducted to develop a lower bound of the potential ecological risks posed at the site. When
combined with EPA's ERA, the two ecological assessments bound the range of potential
ecological risks in which risk management decisions were made at the site.
Beazer Comment: The drainage ditch reconstruction component of the remedy should not require
design to City of Charleston future flow rates. Beazer requests that EPA, at a minimum, either
reconsider the need to meet City of Charleston design flows or include flexibility in the ROD for
alternate design criteria.
EPA Comment: Pursuant to Section 121(d) of CERCLA, EPA must select remedies that at least
attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and state requirements, standards,
criteria and limitations which are collectively referred to as ARARs, unless such ARARs are
waived under CERCLA Section 121(dX4). EPA has identified South Carolina regulations that
are applicable to the drainage ditch reconstruction activities required by the ROD. These
regulations are delineated in a document titled, South Carolina Storm-water Management and
Sediment Control Handbook for Land Disturbance Activities (February 1997). This document
lists design criteria and minimum standards for construction projects requiring stonnwater
management and sediment control. Section 9.1 .3 of the ROD specifies three Performance
Standards for drainage ditch reconstruction activities, which includes compliance with the
applicable requirements of the aforementioned handbook.
Beazer Comment: The soil component of the selected remedy should include the option for either
on-site or off-site disposal.
-------
11
EPA Response: EPA's Proposed Plan specified that all excavated soil would be transported off-
site for disposal in an approved facility. As such, public comments were solicited on this
proposed strategy. No opposition was noted during the 60-day public comment period.
Therefore, EPA selected the off-site disposal option for all soil/sediment that is excavated during
remedy implementation. EPA considers the on-site disposal option to be a fundamental difference
from off-site disposal. The implementability of on-site disposal is somewhat questionable given
the siting requirements and proximity of the site to the 100-year flood plain. Public acceptance of
on-site disposal is also a factor that warrants further consideration. EPA realizes that the
deadlines imposed by LDRs do represent a significant challenge. In the event that all
soil/sediment above specified excavation goals cannot be removed by May 11,1999, EPA will
consult with SCDHEC and Beazer to evaluate contingency alternatives. On-site disposal will
likely require a P.OD Amendment, which requires a public comment period.
Beazer Comment: The groundwater remedy presented in the FS is protective. Beazer
recommends that the groundwater remedy be implemented in a phased manner and that the ROD
reflect the 14 wells discussed in the FS as the initial phase of the groundwater remedy.
EPA Comment: EPA's groundwater/NAPL remediation strategy was developed to be consistent
with OSWER Directive 9234.2-25, Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of
Groundwater Restoration (EPA 1993). This guidance promotes an iterative, phased approach
which includes early actions to remove contaminant sources, control plume migration, and
mitigate risks posed by impacted groundwater. Therefore, EPA agrees with Beazer that the
groundwater remedy should be implemented in a phased manner.
In January 1997, Beazer submitted a proposal to EPA which included the addition of
several shallow and intermediate extraction wells from what was proposed in the FS Report. This
proposal was submitted by Beazer in the spirit of cooperation and compromise to potentially
resolve SCDHEC's concerns that the groundwater remedy was not sufficiently aggressive up
front. EPA's groundwater/NAPL remedy specified in the ROD is performance based. In other
words, EPA has issued a set of three Performance Standards that the groundwater/NAPL remedy
shall attain, rather than developing a rigid, prescribed approach. Agreement has been reached
between EPA, SCDHEC and Beazer regarding the Performance Standards for the
groundwater/NAPL remedy. Therefore, the exact number of wells ultimately installed is
somewhat irrelevant, provided the Performance Standards are achieved. Based on the above
discussion, EPA's groundwater/NAPL remedy described in the ROD reflects the number of
extraction wells and cost estimates detailed in Beazer's January 1997 proposal.
Beazer Comment: In regard to EPA's selected remedy for the Barge Canal, EPA must clearly
differentiate between "response" work encompassed by Sections 107(4XA) and (4)(B) of
CERCLA and "restoration", which is a form of compensation for natural resource damages which
may be sought by Natural Resource Trustees pursuant to Section 107(4Xc). As specified in the
FS, the habitat enhancements which were included as a component of Barge Canal remediation
were evaluated to partially satisfy CERCLA requirements related to compensation under Section
122(JX2) of CERCLA.
-------
12
EPA Response: EPA agrees with Beazer's position regarding the scope of Barge Canal
remediation. During the months of February/March 1996, EPA mediated a technical agreement in
principle between Beazer and the Natural Resource Trustees for the creation of 5 acres of low,
intertidal Spanina marsh to compensate for injury and loss of services to the environment. This
technical agreement in principle was never finalized by legal counsel for Beazer and/or the Natural
Resource Trustees.
EPA expended significant efforts to develop a Proposed Plan that combined remediation
of the Barge Canal and the former rail road bed, with habitat creation. EPA's Proposed Plan
involved capping impacted Barge Canal sediments with a six foot base layer of soil from the
adjacent thin strip of uplands (i.e. former rail road bed) which contained concentrations of lead
and arsenic above human health cleanup goals. This six foot base layer was to be covered with a
two foot cap, resulting in what the Agency referred to as a Confined Disposal facility (CDF).
Additional leach testing and future monitoring of the CDF was also an integral Component of
EPA's proposal. Since EPA's proposed remedial measures in this area would disturb an
estimated 5 acres, EPA's CDF concept also included restoring the area to proper elevations and
re-vegetating the area with Spanina to ensure a high degree of long-term permanence and
protectiveness.
As discussed in Section 11 of the ROD, EPA's CDF proposal was adamantly opposed by
several of the Natural Resource Trustees which generally cited concerns over long-term leaching
and unreasonable risks of injury to trust resources. Given these concerns, EPA's selected remedy
for the former rail-bed includes placement of a protective cap to preclude exposure to the future
on-site worker. This change has also necessitated a change in the Barge Canal remedy. EPA's
selected remedy for the Barge Canal involves capping the impacted sediments with a two-foot
cover only, to eliminate exposure to ecological receptors. Therefore, in order to clearly
differentiate between remediation and restoration activities, EPA's selected remedy does not
require that the Barge Canal be restored to a functional low, intertidal Spanina marsh. Marsh
restoration may be considered in the 3.2 acre Barge Canal to provide a high degree of long-term
permanence and protection, and/or to address issues related to past damages of natural resources.
Beazer Comment: The placement of lead-impacted soils in the Barge Canal may not be the most
appropriate remedy. Beazer is not responsible for lead impacted soil, and opposes placement of
lead-impacted soil in the Barge Canal absent receipt of a covenant not to sue from EPA and the
Natural Resource Trustees related to potential damages associated with the confined disposal
remedy. Moreover, Beazer believes capping these soils in place provides a similar level of risk
reduction as confined disposal.
EPA Response: The rationale behind the development of EPA's Confined Disposal remedy was
presented in a previous response and is also discussed in Section 11.1 of the ROD. EPA believes
Confined Disposal could be readily implemented, and adequately designed, constructed and
monitored to ensure an appropriate degree of long-term protectiveness. However, given the
opposition to EPA's proposal of Confined Disposal expressed during the 60-day public comment
period, EPA has decided to cap this material in place.
-------
031
13
Beazer Comment: The promulgation of Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for the wood-
treating wastes will increase the costs of the remedy. Beazer recommends that EPA work with
Beazer to resolve the State of South Carolina non-concurrence issues on the ROD and to
facilitate the implementation of the remedy within the time frames imposed by Phase IV Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). As a contingent measure, EPA should designate the Site as an
AOC and include an on-site disposal option in the ROD.
EPA Response: EPA is fully aware of the time constraints imposed by the Phase IV LDRs. In the
event that soil/sediment which exceeds ROD excavation levels cannot be excavated and
transported for appropriate off-site disposal by the capacity variance deadline (May 11, 1999),
potentially significant increases in remedy costs are likely. EPA is fully committed to working
with Beazer, and SCDHEC to facilitate removal of soil/sediment which exceeds excavation levels
specified in the ROD within the capacity variance. As discussed previously, on-site disposal
cannot be listed as a contingency alternative in the ROD, because it was not incjiuded in the
Proposed Plan for public comment. However, the ROD can be amended to select other
appropriate soil disposal options, if necessary.
Beazer Comment: The State of South Carolina non-concurrence with the remedy poses significant
implementation issues.
EPA Response: EPA, SCDHEC, Beazer and other stakeholders worked very closely throughout
the RJ/FS process to develop a remedy for the site which addressed the interests of all involved.
EPA acknowledges Beazer's willingness, on several occasions, to compromise its own interests in
an effort to address the concerns of other entities. Ultimately, EPA had to select a comprehensive
site-wide remedy which: 1) satisfied the statutory requirements of CERCLA; 2) provided the best
balance with regard to the concerns of all stakeholders; and 3) ensured consistency with the
Superfund Administrative Reforms. EPA believes the ROD meets these three objectives. EPA
and SCDHEC have engaged in substantive discussions involving top-level management from both
agencies in an effort to resolve our differences. EPA believes this dialogue has met the intent of
the dispute resolution process in the Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and SCDHEC
and Subpart F of the NCP. While this dialogue has resolved some outstanding issues, differences
do remain which has resulted in SCDHEC's position of non-concurrence on EPA's ROD.
EPA agrees that SCDHEC's position of non-concurrence does create additional remedy
implementation issues and uncertainties. The degree to which SCDHEC's non-concurrence
position will impact remedy implementation cannot be accurately determined at this time. EPA's
responses to SCDHEC's stated reasons for not concurring are included Appendix A of the ROD.
EPA maintains that the selected remedy provides a high degree of long-permanence that is near
the most protective end of EPA's acceptable risk range. EPA is committed to working with
Beazer during implementation of die selected remedy to identify means by which die selected .
remedy may further address the concerns of SCDHEC.
-------
03
14
Beazer Comment: The National Superfund Remedy Review Board (the "Board") was established
in 1995 as a method for controlling remedy costs. Accordingly, all proposed remedies that are
over $30 million, or that are over $10 million and 50% greater than the cost of the least-costly,
protective, ARAR-compliant will be subject to the Board's review. The Agency has selected a
remedy which is protective and ARAR-compliant. However, Beazer believes that Soil Alternative
5C in the FS (excavation of 5,300 tons and a cap of 11 acres) is the least costly ARAR-compliant
remedy and the remedy that Beazer prefers. Therefore, any remedy selected which increases the
cost of Alternative 5C by 50% or more will require Board review.
EPA Comment: Beazer is correct on the criteria which require review by the National Remedy
Review Board. However, these criteria apply to the entire remedy selected in the ROD, not just
media specific components of the overall ROD. Moreover, EPA believes the least costly, ARAR
compliant soil remedy is Alternative 2 (6.7 acre cap only), not Alternative 5C. EPA has evaluated
the remedy costs for all remedial alternatives evaluated in detail in the Final FS Report. An
evaluation has been conducted which compared the remedy costs of: 1) a site-wide remedy
consisting of the least costly, ARAR-compliant alternatives for all appropriate media components;
and 2) EPA's selected remedy in the ROD. Based on this evaluation, EPA has concluded that this
remedy does not require review by the Board.
Beazer Comment: EPA's enforcement action against Conoco/Agrico may impact Beazer's
implementation of the ROD. To avoid inconsistency, adverse impacts on implementation of the
ROD, and the potential that Beazer will not concur with a remedial or removal action that EPA
directs Conoco/Agrico to undertake, Beazer recommends that all proposed work to be
undertaken at the site by Conoco/Agrico or other responsible entities be reviewed and approved
by Beazer.
EPA Response: Pursuant to discussion in Section 4.0 of the ROD, EPA has recognized that on-
going transport pathways from the former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works to the headwaters
of the South Tidal Marsh must be eliminated prior to initiating response actions specified in the
ROD for the sediments of the South Tidal Marsh. Regarding the former Ashepoo facility, future
investigations and response actions will be conducted under the Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis (EE/CA) process utilizing EPA's Non-Time Critical Removal Action authority. The
timeliness of this process should eliminate potential adverse impacts to remedy implementation in
the South Tidal Marsh. EPA will coordinate all future work undertaken by the successors to
Ashepoo, or other responsible parties that may impact implementation of the selected remedy for
the Koppers site. As a courtesy, EPA will forward relevant work plans, EE/CA investigation
reports and other appropriate documents to Beazer for review and comment However, pursuant
to the NCP and CERCLA, EPA shall retain all decision authority regarding die sufficiency of
remedial or removal actions conducted at the site.
-------
09 0317
15
3.4 Comments from Four Mile Hibernian Community Association
A Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) has been awarded to residents in the neighborhoods
adjacent to the Koppers site. The purpose of this grant is to allow the communities to consult
with an advisor so that they may interpret the technical documents generated during the Rl/FS
process and provide well coordinated input into the remedy selection process. In a letter dated
May 31,1997, a set of five comments on the Koppers Proposed Plan were submitted by the TAG
Technical Advisor, Mr. Melvin H. Goodwin, Ph.D., on behalf of the Four Mile Hibernian
Community Association. Each community comment is presented below, followed by EPA's
response.
Community Comment: "7. Residents are not in favor of cleanup strategies that have not been
previously shown to be effective in similar applications. Residents request site-specific
documentation of results achieved at other contaminated sites where these techniques have been
used. Tliis issue is of particular concern with regard to the proposed procedure for remediating
contaminated sediments in the Ashley River and adjacent marsh.""
EPA Response: The challenges posed by reducing the risks posed by hazardous waste sites across
the United States has necessitated a constant evolution in the Superfund Program. This includes
the adoption of innovative solutions to site remediation while also complying with the statutory
remedy evaluation criteria such as overall protection of human health and the environment and
cost-effectiveness. The innovative remedies for the Ashley River and the Northwest Tidal Marsh
provide significant advantages over other alternatives evaluated in detail in die Feasibility Study.
Dredging of Ashley River sediments immediately adjacent to the site was evaluated given
the observed toxicity to selected indicator species. However, this alternative was not selected by
EPA due to the similar effectiveness and risk reduction achieved by other comparable alternatives
and the prohibitively high cost The remaining alternatives EPA evaluated in detail for Ashley
River sediments, enhanced sedimentation and subaqueous capping, rated approximately equal
with regard to the threshold and balancing remedy evaluation criteria. The primary reasons EPA
selected enhanced sedimentation over subaqueous capping involve issues of short-term
effectiveness and long-term operation and maintenance. Subaqueous capping would result in the
displacement of existing benthic organisms, and disrupt access to existing and potential future
dock facilities on the Ashley River. Bom alternatives require a long-term monitoring program to
ensure the alternatives remain protective. From a maintenance perspective, EPA's analysis
determined that enhanced sedimentation would prove more reliable and less troublesome in the
long-term due to the expected natural intertidal revegetation in the accumulated sediment
Notwithstanding the above discussion, EPA has developed a contingency remedy for the
Ashley River should Enhanced Sedimentation not achieve the established Performance Standards.
EPA will monitor sediment accumulation and constituent concentration trends within the area of
Enhanced Sedimentation for a period of five years. Data generated during the five year
monitoring period will be evaluated by EPA to determine if contingency remedies are necessary.
-------
i> 9 031H
16
These may include, but are not limited to the installation of a supplemental cap and/or measures to
reduce erosional forces and augment long-term cover stability.
In regard to the Northwest Tidal Marsh, physical removal of sediments was not evaluated
due to the absence of statistically significant toxicity to selected test species. Rather, EPA has
selected in-situ bioremediation to reduce sediment constituent concentrations from observed
baseline conditions. Technology performance data from an EPA laboratory indicates that in-situ
bioremediation can be very effective at reducing concentrations of low molecular weight PAHs (<
four rings). In-situ bioremediation will be implemented in phases consisting of a combination of
laboratory bench tests and field implementation to optimize technology performance results.
In consideration of the available data, EPA believes enhanced sedimentation and in-situ
bioremediation warrant further development and implementation at sites with impacted sediments.
The science and data generated by these innovative remedies will be utilized by £PA, other
regulatory agencies and the environmental industry to better fulfill our respective missions.
Community Comment: "2. Residents request assurance that no further development, use, or re-
use of the site is to take place until cleanup levels specified in the Final Record of Decision have
been achieved, and all mitigation measures are completed. In particular, remediation objectives
for groundwater/NAPL at source areas on-site must be achieved before cleanup can be
complete."
EPA Response: This request contradicts EPA's Brownfields Initiative which endeavors to return
historical industrial facilities to beneficial uses. EPA has based its cleanup on a future industrial
exposure scenario to protect the future industrial worker. When completed, EPA's remedy will
provide a high degree of protection for the future on-site worker near the most conservative end
of EPA's risk range. It will take many years to achieve the established Performance Standards for
groundwater/NAPL. In addition, ultimate restoration of groundwater to drinking water standards
may be technically impracticable give the presence of NAPL in the shallow and intermediate
water-bearing units underlying the three noted source areas on-site. However, EPA has adopted
some provisions in the ROD to identify opportunities for site re-use that maximize compatibility
with adjacent neighborhoods. Any re-use of the site would restrict use of groundwater until
cleanup standards have been achieved. Please see EPA's response to community comment
number five below.
Community Comment: "3. Given the uncertainly of assumptions used to calculate cleanup levels
for lead, residents would prefer that the more conservative assumptions used by SCDHEC be
used to calculate the final cleanup level."
EPA Response: The reader is referred to Section 6.1.1 of the ROD for a detailed description of
the methodology EPA employed to calculate a lead soil cleanup level for a future industrial
exposure scenario. Based upon the discussion in Section 6.1.1, EPA has selected a lead soil
cleanup level of 1,1 SO mg/kg. At the time of the Proposed Plan, SCDHEC had calculated a lead
-------
'9 0319
17
soil cleanup level of 630 mg/kg utilizing EPA methodology. However, SCDHEC was utilizing
model input parameters, most importantly the absorption fraction, which were not within the
range of values recommended by EPA.
Since that time, SCDHEC has re-evaluated its initial position and calculated a lead soil
cleanup level of 895 mg/kg. The major difference between the EPA (1,150 mg/kg) and SCDHEC
(895 mg/kg) values is a model parameter which considers the exposed population. SCDHEC has
selected a more conservative exposure parameter which assumes the exposed population is
entirely "Non-Hispanic Black". EPA has selected an exposure parameter which assumes the
exposed population has a greater degree of heterogeneity. It is important to note that the other
input parameters selected by both EPA and SCDHEC were conservative in nature. EPA believes
the input parameters selected by SCDHEC unnecessarily layers conservative assumptions
producing an unrealisitic exposure scenario. EPA maintains its assumptions are more indicative
of the current workforce population and any likely future industrial populationsjand land-use
practices at the site.
Community Comment: "4. Insufficient details are provided to adequately evaluate the
ramifications of cleanup Alternative 5A (additional capping) for contaminated soils. Based on
the information presented in the Proposed Plan, residents object to the use of crushed stone as a
capping material because: a) Large amounts of dust are likely to be generated which would
negatively impact the adjacent neighborhoods; and b) There is no mention of means to contain
the capping material in its intended location. Without some sort of retention crushed stone is
likely to be scattered and thinned, particularly if there is heavy vehicle traffic on the site -
reducing the effectiveness of the cap."
EPAResponse: A compacted, crushed stone cap was utilized in the Feasibility Study to generate
plausible cost estimates for the remedial alternatives. EPA understands that adjacent
neighborhoods have experienced problems, notably fugitive dust emissions, with crushed stone
caps at other nearby industrial/commercial facilities. To address the concerns voiced by the
community, EPA has developed a set of Performance Standards for the final cover installed under
EPA's selected remedy. These include:
1) Eliminate exposure for the future on-site worker to surface soils with concentrations
greater than EPA's selected cleanup levels;
2) Provide a visible demarcation between cap material and underlying soil;
3) Mitigate adverse impacts related to quantity and quality of resultant storm water runoff;
4) Mitigate on-site dust generation dunes installation and useful life; and
5) Ensure long term permanence and effectiveness of installed cap to meet above four
Performance Standards.
A detailed design study shall be conducted to develop and install a final cap that meets the
-------
$ 9 0320
18
above Performance Standards.
Community Comment: "5. Residents request details of plans for eventual re-use of the site,
because cleanup objectives are predicated on anticipated use, and many types of industrial
activity are inherently incompatible with adjacent residential uses. It is in the best interest of all
parties to identify opportunities for re-use that do not adversely impact adjacent neighborhoods
and to evaluate ways in which developing these opportunities might contribute to remediation of
the site. For example, a well-designed light manufacturing campus could include a hard cap for
contaminated soils, as well as landscaping to transform the site into a visual amenity. Marsh
restoration included in the Proposed Plan could contribute to this sort of use by making a more
attractive environment for workers on site as well as for residents of the area. This son of re-use
strategy would add value to the site, and provide greater opportunity to recover at least a
portion of the cleanup costs if the site were used for more typical purposes (such as container
storage and/or servicing)."
EPA Response: Specific land-use at the site is determined by private land-owners provided it is
consistent with zoning ordinances established by local governments. The Koppers site is currently
used for industrial/commercial operations and City of Charleston zoning plans indicate the site
will continue to be utilized in this fashion in the future. For these reasons, EPA's soil cleanup
goals were developed to be adequately protective of the future on-site worker under an industrial
exposure scenario. EPA does agree that it is in the best interest of all stakeholders (i.e. property
owners, adjacent neighborhoods, local governments) to identify re-use opportunities for the site
that do not adversely impact the surrounding communities. Therefore, EPA's selected remedy
does include provisions to address this issue. For example, Section 9.1 of the ROD states,
"Property owners are encouraged to consult with nearby communities, and local/state
governments to identify opportunities for re-use that maximize compatibility with adjacent
neighborhoods."
3.5 Comments from Conoco Inc.
Conoco is a successor in interest to the Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Plant located
immediately south of the Koppers NPL site. The Ashepoo facility manufactured phosphate-based
fertilizers by treating phosphate ores with sulfuric acid. The Ashepoo facility operated from the
1880's until the mid-1970's on an approximate 77 acre parcel south of Braswell Street. The
formal boundaries of the Koppers NPL Site include an estimated 57 acres of property formerly
utilized by Ashepoo. The 57 acre parcel is generally comprised of the South Tidal Marsh, Barge
Canal, and uplands including the access road to former docking facilities on the Ashley River.
EPA incorporated these 57 acres into the Koppers NPL site boundary to determine the
environmental impact on the Ashley River and adjacent tidal marsh resulting from the November
1984 Barge Canal dredging event.
In the initial phases of the RI/FS for the Koppers site, sediment samples were collected
from the headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh with the intent of determining die impact that
woodtreating operations had on the sediment quality and function of the marsh system. While
-------
± 9 032'
19
PAH contamination attributed to Koppers' operations was discovered in sediments of this area,
elevated concentrations of lead and arsenic were also detected at 41,400 mg/kg and 2,410 mg/kg,
respectively. Given the nature of Koppers' operations and a thorough understanding of
constituent transport pathways impacting the South Tidal Marsh, the presence of these inorganic
constituents were not attributed to woodtreating activities.
In September 1995, a supplementary investigation was conducted to further characterize
the neighboring uplands and determine the source of lead and arsenic detected in die sediments of
the South Tidal Marsh. The investigation focused on a drainage ditch which leads from the
former location of the Acid Chambers on die Ashepoo property to the tidal marsh headwaters.
Sediment samples collected from this drainage ditch confirmed a completed transport pathway
with a maximum lead concentration of 50,700 mg/kg in the 0-6 inch interval. Shallow
groundwater samples collected from die periphery of the former Acid Chambers, near probable
discharge points into the drainage ditch, exhibited pH levels in the range of 1.7 fp 5 Standard
Units. Moreover, soil samples collected from the upland area near the former Acid Chambers
were shown to have elevated levels of lead with a maximum detected concentration of 45,000
mg/kg.
In September 1997, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with Conoco
and Freeport McMoRan, Inc. (the "Respondents") for the performance of an Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) on those parcels of property of the former Ashepoo facility
which are not formally incorporated into the Koppers NPL site. Field sampling was conducted
during the November/December 1997 time period and the EE/CA report is expected to be
submitted to EPA in Spring 1998. EPA will review the results of the EE/CA report and select an
appropriate response action (i.e. Non-Time Critical Removal Action) that will be documented in
an Action Memorandum. Performance of the Non-Time Critical Removal Action will likely be
conducted via a separate order with the Respondents. The EE/CA and Non-Time Critical
Removal Action at the Ashepoo facility is an integral component of EPA's strategy for cleaning
up the Koppers NPL site. Source control and elimination of constituent transport pathways
leading from the Ashepoo facility are imperative prior to implementing EPA's selected response
actions for the South Tidal Marsh.
Conoco submitted a comprehensive set of comments on EPA's March 1997 Proposed
Plan and supporting information contained in the site AR. Conoco's comments, dated June 2,
1997, were embodied in four volumes containing Appendices A through P. Volume 1 contains
the Executive Summary and presentation of specific comments. Volumes 2 through 4 contain the
various appendices and supporting documentation. In the Executive Summary of Volume 1,
Conoco identifies its major issues regarding the Proposed Plan and AR. These specific issues are
listed below, and followed by EPA's response. The reader is referred to the site AR for a more
detailed account of Conoco's comments.
Conoco Comment: "The Ashepoo Phosphate Fertilizer Works operated a closed loop system
that historically was the only industry on the Ashley River with effective waste control
procedures in operation. The RIprovides no basis for EPA to conclude that the plant
contributed to the contamination that requires remediation at the Koppers Superfund Site."
-------
$ 9 0322
20
EPA Response: Conoco's claim that Ac Ashepoo facility operated a closed loop system
apparently comes from a report prepared by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare titled, Ashley River Pollution Study Charleston. SC., JuneJuly 1965 (August L 1965).
A copy of this report is provided in Appendix O of Conoco's comments. The subject study was
conducted from June 15 - July 28, 1965 to investigate reported fish kills in the Ashley River. In
regard to the Ashepoo facility, then known as the American Agricultural Chemical Co., the report
concludes, "Only one industry, American Agricultural Chemical Co., has effective waste control
procedures in operation. All other industries and municipalities contribute untreated wastes to
the Ashley River", and further states, "fthe Agrico plant] has a reclaiming process for removing
theflourides and sulfidesfrom their waste. Cooling water from the sulfuric acid plant could
contain metals. No sample of this was obtained."
EPA has extensive aerial photography for the Ashepoo facility generally spanning the
years of 1944 through 1989. These photographs do indicate the presence of an ^engineered
holding pond which may be the flouride/sulfide reclaiming process referred to in the subject
report. Outfalls are visible which indicate effluent from Ashepoo did discharge to an
impoundment area on Ashepoo property. This impoundment is the same one which received
effluent from the Koppers1 operations and is currently referred to by EPA as the Old
Impoundment. Response measures to address impacted soil and subsurface NAPL in the Old
Impoundment area are included in EPA's selected remedy for the Koppers sitt:
EPA is more concerned over environmental impacts associated with the production of
sulfuric acid on the Ashepoo facility. The subject report speculates that metals could be present in
acid plant cooling water. It is an uncontested fact that acid was manufactured at the Ashepoo
facility in a series of large lead-lined reaction chambers. Lead is rendered more soluble when
subjected to low pH conditions typical of the acid concentrations produced by Ashepoo. Typical
sulfuric acid manufacturing practices of this time period involved the periodic cleaning of lead-
lined acid chambers with water. It is believed that wash water was allowed to soak into the highly
permeable soils Of the area, therefore creating a potential for impact by lead and acidic pH levels
in adjacent soils, surface waters, groundwaters and tidal marshes. In addition, prior to the 1920's,
phosphate plants used pyrite ores (FeSj) as a sulfur source in the production of sulfuric acid.
Pyrite cinders from the sulfur burners were spread over the site. These ores and cinders are
commonly contaminated with lead and arsenic, and may have contributed to contamination at the
Ashepoo facility.
Over the course of active operations at the Ashepoo facility, several channelized drainage
ditches leading from the acid chambers to what is now referred to as the South Tidal Marsh are
visible on the aerial photography. During the course of the Koppers RI, environmental samples
were collected from the uplands area of the former acid chambers, a drainage ditch which leads
from the former acid chambers to the headwaters of die South Tidal Marsh, and the South Tidal
Marsh itself. Soil samples collected from the upland areas near the former acid chambers
exhibited elevated levels of lead with a maximum detected concentration of 45,000 rag/kg.
Sediment samples collected from die drainage ditch leading from the acid chambers to the South
-------
0323
21
Tidal Marsh were shown to have elevated levels of lead with a maximum lead concentration of
50,700 mg/kg in the 0-6 inch interval. Shallow groundwater samples collected from the periphery
of the acid chambers, near probable discharge points into the drainage ditch, exhibited pH levels in
the range of 1.7 to 5 Standard Units. Moreover, lead and arsenic were detected in sediments of
the South Tidal Marsh at 41,400 mg/kg and 2,410 mg/kg, respectively.
Based upon the above body of evidence, EPA refutes Conoco's claim that "[t]he RI
provides no basis for EPA to conclude that the plant contributed contamination that requires
remediation". EPA maintains that is it fair to conclude from the available data that a completed
contaminant transport pathway has been confirmed and that former operations of the Ashepoo
Phosphate/Fertilizer Works have adversely impacted the environment
Conoco Comment: "Phase III analytical data for wood-treating constituents previously
detected in the South Tidal Marsh (e.g., copper and chromium) are currently riot included in the
Administrative Record and may never have been gathered. Only a partial summary sheet is
provided for some of the sample points; the raw data are unavailable"
EPA Response: The Phase III field investigation in the South Tidal Marsh was generally
conducted to further characterize uV source of lead and arsenic contamination entering the marsh.
Phases I and n of the RI provided sufficient data regarding die extent of contamination related to
wood-treating operations. Therefore, this data has been collected. Phase in field work
conducted in the South Tidal Marsh included the collection of sediment samples for rapid analysis
by EPA's Athens, GA laboratory. These analytical results were considered screening level and
were utilized to conduct more comprehensive and costly toxicity testing and detailed chemical
analyses. Summary sheets for all data collected in the South Tidal Marsh during the Phase m
field investigation are presented in the report titled, Technical Memorandum, Phase III
Ecological Sampling (ENSR, December 1996). The raw data sheets from EPA's Athens, GA
laboratory were inadvertently omitted from the AR when it was last updated in April 1997. The
raw data sheets will be included with the next AR update.
Conoco Comment: "EPA's proposed plan to excavate a portion of the South Tidal Marsh is
based upon flawed characterization of laboratory test results and site conditions, which do not
accurately reflect current conditions in the healthy, thriving South Tidal Marsh.""
EPA Response: EPA cannot agree with this statement. As an initial matter, the characterization
strategy employed for the tidal marshes adjacent to the Koppers Site was developed by a project
team which included representation and active participation by EPA-Regjon 4, SCDHEC, Beazer
East, NOAA, SCDNR and USFWS. Consensus was reached by this group of stakeholders
regarding a "weight of evidence" approach to define Areas of Potential Ecological Concern
(APECs) for sediments of the Ashley River, Barge Canal, and adjacent tidal marshes. This
protocol utilized the results of sediment sample analyses and site-specific, whole sediment acute
toxicity tests on Neanthes arenaceodentata and Mysidopsis bahia. This protocol is defined in
detail in the AR and summarized in Section 7.1.3 of the ROD.
-------
^ 9 032-'
22
Secondly, consensus was reached by the above project team regarding how the results of
the weight-of-evidence approach would be utilized to develop and evaluate appropriate response
actions in the FS process. It was agreed that sediments within the delineated APECs which
demonstrated significant acute toxicity to the selected indicator species would be evaluated for
potential removal (i.e. active remediation). It was further agreed that areas which did not
demonstrate sediment toxicity, but did contain sediment concentrations above relevant
benchmarks would be evaluated for remediation by less intrusive measures (i.e. capping, enhanced
sedimentation, bioremediation, natural attenuation). This approach to remediation in defined
APECs affords the benefits of physically removing sediments shown to cause toxicity in site-
specific studies, while protectively managing other less impacted sediments in-situ without
completely disrupting the function and habitat of these ecosystems.
In regard to the South Tidal Marsh APEC, sample locations SD-75, SD-80 and SD-81
demonstrated significant toxicity to selected indicator species when compared t£ the reference
stations. The area of tidal marsh which incorporates these sample stations is estimated to
encompass 1.5 acres. For the test organism neanthes, percent survival when compared to
selected reference stations was 59% for SD-75, 80% for SD-80, and 12% for SD-81. For the test
species mysidopsis, percent survival when compared to selected reference stations was 0% for
SD-75, 70% for SD-80, and 0% for SD-81. Elevated levels of PAHs attributed to wood-treating
operations were detected in these sediment samples. However, EPA believes the concentrations
of inorganic constituents detected in the headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh are of greater
ecological concern.
For example, sample station SD-81 contained the highest concentrations of lead and
arsenic detected in sediment during the RI. Lead concentrations in sediment from SD-81 ranged
from 4,360 mg/kg in the 0.5 -1.0 foot interval up to 41,400 mg/kg in the 2.0 - 3.0 interval.
Arsenic concentrations in sediment from SD-81 ranged from 79 mg/kg in the 0.5 - 1.0 foot
interval up to 2,410 mg/kg in the 2.0 - 3.0 foot interval. For comparison, NOAA's Effects
Range-Median (ER-M) for lead and arsenic are 218 mg/kg and 70 mg/kg, respectively. ER-Ms
were derived by NOAA from examination of the statistical distribution of constituent
concentrations in sediment and their associated effects. The ER-M is defined as the sediment
concentration of a particular constituent at which adverse impacts were observed in 50 percent of
the studies examined. In the case of lead and arsenic, sediment concentrations detected in the
area of the South Tidal Marsh slated for excavation exceeded the ER-Ms by two orders of
magnitude.
Moreover, lead and arsenic concentrations in SD-81 increased with depth, which indicates
these elevated concentrations are a result of historical deposition. Several channelized drainage
ditches leading from the acid chambers on the Ashepoo facility to the South Tidal Marsh are
visible on historical aerial photography. As established in a response to an earlier Conoco
comment, a completed contaminant transport pathway has beer confirmed leading from the
source area on the uplands near the former acid chambers to the headwaters of the South Tidal
Marsh, via historical and existing surface water drainage ditches.
-------
s Q n 'z ^ "
0 y u 0 ^. ;>
23
EPA is not making the conclusion that observed adverse impacts in the headwaters of the
South Tidal Marsh are solely attributable to past operations of the Ashepoo facility. Rather, EPA
maintains these observed adverse impacts to the South Tidal Marsh ecosystem are more likely a
result of synergistic effects caused by past wood treating operations, phosphate/fertilizer
operations and other factors. In light of the above discussion, EPA believes Conoco's description
of the South Tidal Marsh as "healthy" and "thriving" is without merit and technically deficient.
Conoco Comment: "Excavation of the marsh sediments and/or subsurface soils would have a
greater negative impact on the South Tidal Marsh than no action. No excavation should be
proposed in the South Tidal Marsh."
EPA Response: EPA does not agree with this statement. Please refer to EPA's response to
previous comment. EPA's remediation strategy employed for tidal marsh sediments fully
considers and weighs the advantages of removing sediments shown to cause diiject toxicity to
benthic macroinvertebrate in site-specific studies, and the disadvantages of disturbing functional
saltmarsh habitat.
Conoco Comment: "Tlie only remediation related to the South Tidal Marsh should be to address
the Spoils Pile and Spoils Pile berm which are clearly the responsibility of the current property
owner, Beazer East. Inc., who has also assumed the past environmental liabilities ofBraswell;
Shipyards and Southern Dredging."
EPA Response: The need for response actions on CERCLA sites are driven by the results of
human health and ecological risk assessments. EPA has acknowledged in Section 9.1.1 of the
ROD that three surface soil samples in the spoils pile area exceed excavation goals selected by
EPA. Surface soil concentrations at samples SB-16 and SB-74 were slightly above the selected
excavation level for B(a)P-TE, while the surface soil concentration at sample SG-51 was above
the excavation level for arsenic. Additional sampling will be conducted in this general area to
further define the quantity of soil above the excavation levels selected by EPA.
Conoco Comment: "The major contamination of the South Tidal Marsh appears to be creosote-
related constituents (such as BaP) coupled with high copper levels (or occasionally arsenic).
Creosote is used in wood treating because of the synergistic biocidal properties of its
constituents. Both copper and arsenic are used under other conditions as algaecides and aquatic
herbicides and are well known for their aquatic toxicity. Copper is often used in ship bottom
paint for this reason. All of these pollutants are associated with woodtreating or ship
maintenance wastes which migrated from the former Rappers'property into the Barge Canal
area. Subsequent surface water runoff and sediment transport from the dredged Barge Canal,
Spoils Pile and Spoils Pile Berm have resulted in the deposition of creosote constituents, copper,
lead, and arsenic in the South Tidal Marsh. The area indicated for cleanup corresponds to the
BaP-contaminated areas in the Technical Memorandum Phase HI Ecological Sampling Report.
Other potential sources of contamination include seepage and erosion of filled materials from
the Monrovia Cemetery ditch, wastes from tank cleaning activities, and runoff from the
Charleston Oil Company and other industrial and urban properties east of the site."
-------
J 9 0326
24
EPA Response: Creosote (BaP), CCA (copper chromium arsenate) and pentachloropbenol were
utilized by Koppers as wood preservatives during active operations. In regard to creosote, B(a)P
impacted soils and potentially recoverable quantities of NAPL have been identified in the Old
Impoundment Area. Historical aerial photographs and sampling conducted during the RI indicate
that creosote constituents were transported from the former Koppers treatment area to the Old
Impoundment Area, via the South Braswell Street Drainage Ditch. Identified sources of creosote
constituents in what is now the Barge Canal include historic and current transport from the Old
Impoundment Area and the direct placement of waste materials resulting from Koppers1 stripping
operations. EPA believes the 1984 Barge Canal dredging activity resulted in the placement of
wood-treating constituents in the spoils area with subsequent transport to the headwaters of the
South Tidal Marsh. EPA has acknowledged the presence of elevated levels of B(a)P in sediments
of South Tidal Marsh.
In regard to copper, the Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment did nqj identify copper
as a constituent of concern in surface/subsurface soils across the site. In other words, the
concentration and distribution patterns of copper as delineated during the RI field effort do not
pose unacceptable risks to human health under the future on-site worker exposure scenario. In
addition, the majority of sediment samples collected during the RI did not exhibit copper
concentrations greater than the ER-M value of 270 mg/kg. Most sediment samples collected
from the 0 to 1 foot interval showed concentrations of copper between the ER-L value of 34
mg/kg and the ER-M. In contrast, sediment samples in the headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh
consistently exhibited lead concentrations several times greater, and in some instances several
orders of magnitude greater, than the ER-M.
Conoco has stated that surface water and sediment transport from the spoils pile and
spoils pile berm are the source of lead in the South Tidal Marsh. Data does indicate several
sample locations in this general area with elevated concentrations of lead in soil. However, it is
important to note that prior to construction of the spoils pile berm in 1984, runoff from the
Ashepoo facility was directed to what is now the spoils pile. This fact is clearly established in the
EPA's aerial photographic analysis. Conoco also lists several other potential sources of
contamination in the South Tidal Marsh including fill material from Monrovia Cemetery, and
runoff from the adjacent industrial and urban properties. However, Conoco has not provided site-
specific data to substantiate these claims. EPA maintains that data generated during the RI/FS
process fully supports EPA's conclusion that a completed contaminant pathway has been
identified between the Ashepoo facility and documented environmental impacts in the South Tidal
Marsh.
Conoco Comment: "Beazer's Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) include
numerous self-serving statements that copper, arsenic, and lead are not related to Koppers'
former wood-treating operations which are inconsistent with Koppers' own documents. For .
example, the use of copper chromium and arsenic salts (CCA) did not cease in 1967 as stated in
the RI, but continued to be a significant part of Koppers' operations until the facility was closed
in 1978. CCA salt cylinder sludge as well as creosote sludge was continually placed on Koppers'
-------
0327
25
property north of the Barge Canal from prior to 1967 through 1978. In addition, lead and low
pH waste water have been documented in Koppers tank wastes and waste water discharges to the
Ashley River. The source of the toxicity is important to EPA's selection of an appropriate
remedial approach. For example, assuming any remediation is required, the selection of
excavation or bioremediation should depend on the constituents involved and where they are
located."
EPA Response: Based upon EPA's understanding of historical and current contaminant transport
pathways, Koppers' wood-treating operations, and the distribution of lead impacted soils across
the site, EPA has concluded that lead is not related to wood-treating operations. Rather, EPA
believes the available data substantiates its conclusion that the former operations of the Ashepoo
facility are a source lead, arsenic and pH contamination delineated in on-site surface/subsurface
soil, sediments, surface water, and groundwater. Environmental impacts believed to be associated
with former Ashepoo operations were discussed in a previous response. EPA'sVemedial
alternatives for this site were based on a thorough analysis of the contaminants involved and
distribution across the site.
Conoco Comment: "The Fact Sheet conclusion that marsh sediments exhibit toxicity to lead is
inconsistent with the laboratory elutriate testing discussion in the Rl/FS which concluded that
toxicity present in the South Tidal Marsh sediment is related to anionic compounds and not
metallic cations, such as lead."
EPA Response: EPA's Proposed Plan Fact Sheet does not explicitly state that observed toxicity in
the South Tidal Marsh sediments are due to elevated levels of lead. EPA believes that the
laboratory elutriate testing and Toxicity Identification Evaluation conducted by Beazer during the
RI/FS was inconclusive in determining the source of observed toxicity in the South Tidal Marsh.
As discussed previously, EPA believes that the adverse environmental impacts documented in the
South Tidal Marsh are likely a result of synergistic effects caused by past wood treating
operations, phosphate/fertilizer operations and other factors.
Conoco Comment: uThe Ashley River Railroad bed (currently referenced as the "road to the
radio tower") that is adjacent to the Barge Canal and which crosses the former Ashepoo
Phosphate/Fertilizer Works plant area was constructed in 1877 by the Ashley River Railroad
Company on vacant land prior to acquisition of the property by Ashepoo Phosphate Fertilizer
Works and has had no significant impact on the environment."
EPA Response: Information concerning the Ashley River railroad was presented in Appendix C of
Conoco' s response. Conoco has submitted mis information to apparently build a defense that
Conoco was not the owner of the Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works at the time the railroad
bed was constructed. The subject railroad bed generally crosses the middle of the Ashepoo
property and formerly provided rail access to the Ashley River. EPA has reviewed this
information and believes it to be inconclusive with regard to the veracity of Conoco's claims.
-------
r;
032:;
26
Pbospbate and fertilizer manufacturing was conducted on this parcel of property from
1882 to 1978, or approximately 96 years. EPA believes the railroad bed received fill material, or
was otherwise modified, during the 96 years of operation. In April 1996, EPA conducted a
subsurface soil investigation of the former railroad bed which leads to the Ashley River. The
former railroad bed consists of a thin strip of uplands which separates the Barge Canal from the
South Tidal Marsh. Four trenches, or test pits, were excavated along the length of the former
railroad bed. Each trench was approximately three feet wide, fifteen feet long and extended
approximately 5 feet below land surface. Reddish colored slag material was encountered in all
four test pits.
EPA has gathered information which indicates that the reddish colored slag material is a
by-product of phosphate/fertilizer manufacturing. EPA believes this material is incombustible iron
pyrite cinders (i.e. clinker) from the pyrite burners. Before purer grades of sulfur were available,
iron pyrite (FeS2) was bumed in the presence of oxygen to obtain a sulfur trioxi^e gas. Sulfur
trioxide was interacted with water mist to make sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Historically, Charleston
was a leading producer of phosphate-based fertilizers. Available literature indicates that as many
as twelve former phosphate/fertilizer plants were located on the Charleston peninsula along the
Ashley and Cooper Rivers. EPA has positively identified nine such plants and in February 1998
initiated field investigations to dete; .nine potential environmental impacts associated with this
industry. EPA has encountered the reddish slag material at several other former
phosphate/fertilizer facilities located along the Ashley River. In addition, interviews with former
employees of these facilities have confirmed the reddish slag material to be a waste product of
phosphate-based fertilizer production.
Composite soil samples were collected from the four test pits excavated during the April
1996 investigation. Lead concentrations in these samples ranged from 5,900 mg/kg to 13,000
mg/kg. Arsenic concentrations in these samples ranged from 1,200 mg/kg to 1,800 mg/kg.
These levels are greater than EPA's soil cleanup goals specified in the Koppers ROD. EPA's
selected soil cleanup level for lead is 1,150 mg/kg. For the constituent of arsenic, EPA has
selected a surface soil cleanup level of 135 mg/kg, and 1,550 mg/kg for subsurface soil. TCLP
and other leaching procedures were conducted on this material to determine its leaching potential.
Of the six samples TCLP samples available from the RI and the April 1996 investigation, two
samples marginally failed the TCLP regulatory limit of 5 mg/L for lead. However, pursuant to
RCRA statistical guidance, this material is not classified as "characteristic" hazardous waste.
Leaching tests conducted on this material using Ashley River water, and sediment
sampling in areas adjacent to the former railroad bed, indicate that this material has not adversely
impacted the surrounding ecology. While mis material is not classified as characteristic hazardous
waste, it does pose potential unacceptable human health risks to the future on-site worker.
Therefore, to preclude exposure to the future on-site worker, EPA's selected remedy includes
placing a protective cap over lead and arsenic soil with concentrations greater than the selected
cleanup goals discussed above. This cap is estimated to cover approximately 5.2 acres at an
estimated cost of $621,000.
-------
032?
27
Conoco Comment: "The Railroad bed currently acts as a barrier to migration of creosote
constituents, copper, arsenic and other wood-treating-related constituents from the former
Koppers' operations to the South Tidal Marsh. Such a barrier is of particular importance in light
of the inadequate investigation of large source areas on the Koppers property."
EPA Response: EPA does not view the railroad bed as a barrier which mitigates constituent
migration to the South Tidal Marsh. Rather, EPA views the railroad bed as a thin strip of uplands
containing reddish slag material with unacceptable concentrations of arsenic and lead. EPA
maintains its investigation has adequately determined the nature and extent of potential source
areas on the former Koppers property, and has provided sufficient information to select feasible
remedial alternatives to address unacceptable potential risks posed to human health and the
environment.
Conoco Comment: "Excavation and placement of the Railroad bed into the Bafge Canal would
create a suspended fine silt condition in the South Tidal Marsh and Ashley River which will be
detrimental to aquatic biota."
EPA Response: This comment pertains to EPA's proposed remedial approach for addressing the
unacceptable lead/arsenic concentrations in soil of the railroad bed. EPA's March 1997 Proposed
Plan selected Confined Disposal as the response action to address soil with unacceptable
concentrations of lead and arsenic. Under the proposed strategy of Confined Disposal, all soil
with lead and arsenic concentrations above the selected cleanup goals would be placed in the
bottom of the adjacent Barge Canal. This base layer of impacted fill would then be capped with a
two-foot topsoil/organic layer, returned to appropriate elevations, and restored to a functioning
saltmarsh habitat. Pursuant to comments received during the 60-day public comment period, EPA
has decided to place a protective cap over impacted soil of the former railroad bed, instead of the
Confined Disposal alternative . The rationale behind this change is explained in Section 11 of the
ROD.
If Confined Disposal was implemented at this site, EPA does agree that resuspension of
sediments in the Barge Canal would be an issue. Engineering controls would likely be needed to
ensure short-term effectiveness to the aquatic biota and surrounding ecosystem during
implementation of Confined Disposal in the Barge Canal.
Conoco Comment: "Lowpff has been reported in the ditch adjacent to the Monrovia Cemetery
However, Rl data indicate the surface water and ground water at the entrance to the South
Marsh have returned to an essentially neutralpff. The evidence indicates that lead (such as at
SD-81) is associated with the Spoils Pile berm; berm materials and soil have simply been eroded
and transported as sediment into the adjacent marsh. Conoco has proposed to perform limited
remedial activities in this ditch to neutralizepH.n
EPA Response: EPA believes Conoco's interpretation of the available data is technically flawed.
Shallow groundwater samples collected from the periphery of the former Ashepoo facility acid
-------
0330
28
chambers, near probable discharge points into the drainage ditch, exhibited acidic pH levels. This
data provides credible documentation of a release to the environment from Ashepoo's acid
chambers. Soil samples collected from the upland area near the former acid chambers were
shown to have elevated levels of lead with a maximum detected concentration of 45,000 mg/kg.
As established in an earlier response, sediment samples in the drainage ditch leading from the acid
chambers to the South Tidal Marsh confirmed a completed transport pathway with a maximum
lead concentration of 50,700 mg/kg. EPA believes this data discredits Conoco's claim that the
lead in sediments of the South Tidal Marsh simply migrated from the spoils area.
Conoco Comment: "This lowpH may be related to historic discharges of spent acid from a metal
alloy manufacturing company east of the site or to use of metal containing slag as fill material."
EPA Response: Conoco has not provided any site-specific data to substantiate this hypothetical
theory. Given the simple fact that acidic pH in shallow groundwater has been documented in
close proximity to the former acid chambers, EPA believes that the low pH condition was caused
by former Ashepoo operations, rather than from migration from a far more distant source alleged
by Conoco.
Conoco Comment: "The selected remedy for the site should include 1) maintaining the Railroad
bed in place, 2) containing the Spoils Pile and Spoils Pile berm, and 3) allowing natural
anenuation/sedimenmtion to remediate the South Tidal Marsh. Conoco will continue to work .
toward implementation of a remedial plan to address EPA's concern with potential lowpH
conditions in the ditch that drains the north and west sides of the Monrovia Cemetery."
EPA Response: In regard to items 1 and 2, EPA's selected remedy does includes a placement of
a protective cap over the railroad bed, without disrupting the underlying soils. Additional
sampling will be conducted in the spoils pile area to further define the quantity of soil above the
excavation levels specified in the ROD. All soil greater than the excavation levels will be
transported off-site for proper disposal. Regarding item 3, natural attenuation is not an effective
remediation strategy for inorganic constituents, such as lead, under these site specific
circumstances. Lead has been well established as a constituent of concern in the sediments of the
South Tidal Marsh. The effectiveness of sedimentation in the North and South Tidal Marshes was
evaluated during the Feasibility Study. Due to the erosive action of storm water runoff in
channelized drainage ditches and tidal creeks, EPA determined that sedimentation in the tidal
marshes would not be adequately protective of the ecosystems. Therefore, sedimentation was
eliminated from further consideration and evaluation.
Conoco Comment: "The characterization and remedial plan for the north portion of the
Superfund Site are inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) because of the failure
to define adequately the nature and extent of contamination present at the Site. Consequently,
EPA lacks a basis for selecting a remedy that will be effective in controlling migration into the
Ashley River and to the South Tidal Marsh and will satisfy the NCP."
-------
i
9
29
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with these statements. EPA maintains the RI/FS has accurately
defined the nature and extent of contamination present at the site, and the response action selected
by EPA in the ROD adequately addresses the risks posed to human health and the environment.
The RI/FS has delineated source areas, dominant contaminant transport pathways, and potential
risks posed in a manner that is sufficient to fully support the selection of an adequately protective
remedy. Additional sampling will be conducted as necessary during remedy implementation to
confirm the assumptions EPA has utilized to develop its working model of the site. Where
necessary, EPA will institute refinements to the selected remedy to ensure the implemented
response action remains adequately protective to human health and the environment.
The RI/FS process included a comprehensive fate and transport analysis to assess the
potential for transport of constituents beyond the boundary of the site. Sampling conducted
during the RI has indicated other off-site sources do contribute constituents to the site and
surrounding areas. Most notably these include run-off from adjacent industrial £reas and drainage
into the headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh from the former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer
Works. EPA's selected remedy does include source control measures to eliminate off-site
migration to off-site areas including the adjacent tidal marshes and the Ashley River. This will be
accomplished primarily by drainage ditch reconstruction activities and groundwater/NAPL
recovery at the three noted subsurface source areas on-site (i.e. Treatment Area, Old
Impoundment Area, and NW Comer).
As discussed in Section 4.0 of the ROD, performance of the EE/CA by Conoco on the
former Ashepoo property is an integral component of EPA's overall strategy for remediating the
Koppers NPL site. On-going constituent transport pathways from the former Ashepoo
Phosphate/Fertilizer Works must be eliminated prior to initiating response actions specified in the
ROD for the South Tidal Marsh.
Conoco Comment: "The portion of the FS addressing the South Tidal Marsh is inconsistent with
the NCP because it is based on Beazer's unsubstantiated conclusion that marsh sediments exhibit
lead toxicity which disagrees with the laboratory test results. The failure to recognize that
excavating the marsh is unnecessary based on the field studies and would cause irreparable
damage to the marsh has resulted in mischaracterization of the Site risks and the significance of
the minor amounts of marsh sediment toxicity (less than 1.7% of the Marsh)."
EPA Response: EPA has not concluded that observed toxicity to South Tidal Marsh sediments
was due solely to the presence of lead. As stated in an earlier response, EPA believes observed
toxicity in the South Tidal Marsh sediments are likely the result of synergistic effects associated
with past wood treating operations, phosphate/fertilizer operations and other factors. Therefore,
the South Tidal Marsh section of the FS is not inconsistent with the NCP.
The investigation and remediation strategy employed by EPA for tidal marsh sediments
was discussed in a previous response. Because a majority of the ecological investigations
focused on the benthic invertebrate communities, an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) was
-------
0332
30
conducted to evaluate potential risks to other biota via the food chain. The methodology and
results of this effort are presented in a report titled, "Final Report Ecological Risk Assessment
Koppers Woodtreating Charleston, South Carolina, (EPA, October 1996)". An alternative risk
model was also utilized during the FS process to further evaluate potential ecological risks and the
effectiveness of remedy options in managing the potential risk. The two ecological assessments
bound the range of potential ecological risks in which remedy selection and risk management
decisions were made at the site. With regard to the South Tidal Marsh, EPA's ERA concluded
that a potential unacceptable ecological risk exists for all six assessment endpoints for exposure to
PAHs, arsenic, and lead. EPA's selected remedy for the tidal marshes bordering the site is based
upon the potential ecological risks posed to ecological receptors. EPA maintains that active
remediation within APECs to eliminate direct toxicity to benthic macroinvertebrates also mitigates
a majority of potential food chain risks.
Conoco Comment: "77ie FS is inconsistent with the NCP because it relied on ah incomplete RI
for the North site and a flawed interpretation of toxicity data and human risk assessment. This
has resulted in the development, evaluation, and selection of inappropriate response actions
which are excessive in some cases and non-protective in others. Nonetheless, EPA can develop
and select a remedy that is consistent with the NCP by taking into account the facts presented in
these comments, leaving the Railroad bed in place, eliminating South Tidal Marsh remediation
and providing for an adequate perimeter based remedy to control migration to the Ashley River
from the former Koppers Site."
EPA Response: EPA has previously addressed Conoco's comments related to the adequacy of the
RI/FS process at this site, and the scope of the selected remedy. Conoco does not offer additional
arguments here which warrant further EPA response.
Conoco Comment: "There is no evidence that the lead measured in samples from the southern
portion of the site, including the South Tidal Marsh, is from the Ashepoo Fertilizer operations.
Rather, it is more likely to be from adjacent property owners and fill placed on the site
subsequent to 1978. Potential pollutant sources include: the fill used to create the Spoils Pile
berm, fill used north and west of the Monrovia Cemetery including sand-blasted, lead- and
copper-based paint from Braswell Shipyards and off-site fill containing slag and scrap, runoff
from the Charleston Oil Refinery, lead shot from the Charleston Gun Club, and other urban and
industrial sources east and south of the site. The statement that lead is not associated with the
former Koppers property is incorrect. Lead salts may have been used during the wood-treating
process to break down oil/water emulsions. Lead releases from the former Koppers' storage and
working tanks include l.OOOppm level concentrations in soils and an oily sample from a depth
of 30 feet. Documented post-1978 releases in the area are likely to have run off to the west into
the Barge Canal prior to its dredging and to the south, ultimately into the Cemetery ditch. High
lead concentrations, found in soil and sediment at numerous locations on the north part of the
Site by previous investigations have not been presented in the RI/FS or other Beazer East, Inc.
(ENSR) site reports"
-------
9 033
31
EPA Response: EPA believes the evidence in the AR clearly demonstrates that releases from the
former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works have adversely impacted the environment.
Nonetheless, Conoco continues to allege that environmental impacts documented by EPA are
more likely from adjacent property owners and fill placed on the former Ashepoo property by
others entities. Conoco's conceptual theories of how the activities of other parties may have
adversely impacted the Ashepoo property are largely not corroborated or confirmed by site-
specific data. EPA believes a majority of the fill placed on-site after 1978 is demolition debris
associated with closing down the former Ashepoo facility.
For example, the drainage ditch which currently separates the former Acid Chamber area
from the Monrovia Cemetery trends in a westerly flow direction before transitioning to a
southerly orientation as it runs between the Spoils Pile and the Monrovia Cemetery, ultimately
discharging to the headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh. At this transition zone, an estimated 5-6
vertical feet of the northern bank (Ashepoo side) of the drainage ditch is exposed, providing a
representative cross-section of fill material in this general area. Visual inspection of this cut
section reveals the presence of the reddish slag material (iron pyrite clinker), glover tower packing
media, crystallized sulfur, and old bricks. All these materials are known to be a pan of
phosphate/fertilizer production. EPA believes the practice of using demolition debris as on-site
fill material was common, having witnessed the occurrence of similar materials at several other
abandoned phosphate/fertilizer facilities in the Neck area of Charleston, SC.
Conoco has also taken issue with EPA's statement that lead is not associated with wood-
treating operations. Conoco states that lead concentrations of up to 1,000 mg/kg in soil have
been documented in Koppers' former Treatment Area. Moreover, Conoco states that releases in
the former Treatment Area are likely to have been transported south, via a drainage ditch, into the
Cemetery ditch. Figure 2 in Appendix A of Conoco's response provides an illustration of this
drainage ditch. As illustrated, the "south site drainage ditch" flows approximately 300 feet east
under 1-26, where it turns south for approximately 1,500 feet along the east side of 1-26,
ultimately turning back west (under 1-26 again) for approximately 400 additional feet before
connecting with the Cemetery ditch.
In summary, EPA believes the lead transportation theory offered by Conoco violates the
fundamental principles of environmental science as well as logical perception. EPA's conclusion
regarding lead and its unassociation with wood-treating operations came only after a thorough
analysis of historical/current contaminant transport pathways, Koppers' wood-treating
operations, and the distribution of lead impacted soils across the site. EPA does not contest the
presence of soil in the former Treatment Area with lead concentrations greater than the selected
cleanup level of 1,150 mg/kg. EPA believes this is a result waste oil operations conducted by
Peppers, Fed-Serv and others in the former Treatment Area, subsequent to Koppers' wood-
treating operations. However, the concentration of lead in several soil and sediment samples en
and adjacent to the former Ashepoo property have been detected in the 40,000 - 50,000 mg/kg
range. The "south site drainage ditch" illustrated on Figure 2 of Appendix A is inferred to be
continuous, when in fact several significant discontinuities have been noted by EPA in the field.
-------
S 9 Q33->
32
EPA will not acknowledge a lead transportation theory which involves migration down an
approximate 0.50 mile stretch of fragmented drainage ditch, resulting in downstream deposition of
soil/sediment concentrations 40 to 50 times more than the initial alleged source material.
EPA reasserts its position that the AR contains clear and credible evidence that former
operations conducted at the Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works have resulted in a release of
hazardous substances to the environment.
Conoco Comment: "Ignoring the Spoils Pile, excavating the South Tidal Marsh, and disposing
of the Railroad bed in the Barge Canal would be inconsistent with the NCP. The Spoils Pile is a
source area. Marsh and Railroad bed excavation would be detrimental to the environment, and
the proposed remedial plans for the north portion of the site do not adequately address large
source areas, which were not investigated on the former Koppers property."
fi
EPA Response: EPA has addressed the general intent of the above comment in previous
responses. The reader is referred to the discussion contained in the above section of the
Responsiveness Summary. EPA has determined that die response actions specified in the
Koppers ROD are necessary to protect public health, welfare, or the environment, and are not
inconsistent with the NCP or CERCLA.
3.6 Comments from General Engineering Laboratories, Inc.
General Engineering Laboratories (GEL) is a consulting firm located in the Charleston area which
provides environmental consulting services to local clients. In a letter dated June 2, 1997, Mr. P.
Trapier G. Puckette of GEL expressed concerns regarding the distribution of dioxin
concentrations in sediments of the Ashley River and Charleston Harbor estuary. The following
discussion presents a summary of GEL's major concerns expressed in the June 2, 1997 letter,
followed by EPA's response.
GEL Comment: "Based on our review of the data, we have concerns that the Koppers site may
be a significant source of dioxin/jurans (dioxins) detected at several locations in the Charleston
Harbor estuary and that issues regarding the potential impact of the dioxins have not been
adequately addressed in the proposed remediation."
EPA Response: Regarding the adequacy of EPA's proposed remediation, an extensive Remedial
Investigation (RI) was conducted over a four year period which consisted of three major phases
of field work, and several supplemental field investigations. The purpose of the RI was to gamer
the necessary data to adequately characterize the site for the purpose of developing and evaluating
effective remedial alternatives to address the potential human health and ecological risks posed.
Dioxin can be found as a trace constituent in industrial grade pentachlorophenol (penta). Because
penta was used as a wood preservative at die site for a limited period of time, EPA developed a
sampling program to determine the nature and extent of impact from dioxin. This included
collection and analysis of samples from the surface/subsurface soil, sediments, surface'water and
-------
L 9 033f)
33
groundwater. Specifically, ten Ashley River sediment samples and twenty-three sediment samples
from the marshes and tidal creeks in and around the site were analyzed from dioxin. Additional
analysis was conducted on selected aquatic biota as part of the ecological assessment.
EPA conducted human health and ecological risk assessments utilizing the data generated
by this extensive field program. The human health and ecological risk assessment process
provides the basis for taking remedial action and identifies contaminants and exposure pathways
that need to be addressed by the remedial action. EPA's Proposed Plan and the selected remedy
delineated in the Final Record of Decision (ROD) were developed to properly address the
unacceptable risks posed to human health and the environment by potential exposure to dioxin
and the other constituents of concern. Generally, EPA's selected remedy requires remediation of
impacted soils, groundwater, and sediments of the Ashley River, Barge Canal, and adjacent tidal
marshes and creeks to levels deemed adequately protective by EPA's risk assessment process.
Moreover, EPA's selected remedy includes components to eliminate off-site constituent transport
pathways via reconstruction of on-site surface water drainage ditches and NAPL/groundwater
recovery.
In a follow-up letter dated July 1, 1997, GEL provided dioxin data for sediment samples
collected from various sites in the Charleston Harbor estuary. The data was collected by the
following entities: Charleston District Corps of Engineers (September 1992); Lockwood Marina
(May 1995); Ripley Light Marina (July 1995); Columbus Street Terminal (November 1995);
Charleston Harbor anchorage site (June 1996); Carolina Yacht Club (December 1996); and
Patriots Point Tour Boat Facility (January 1997). The complete set of this data and associated
sample location map can be found in the AR. The dioxin data generated during the Koppers RI
and data made available by the above entities was compiled in table form by Ogden
Environmental, on behalf of Beazer East, in correspondence dated September 22,1997. This
table lists the sample location number, approximate distance from the site and calculated dioxin
toxicity equivalent quotient (TEQ). This information can also be found in the AR.
It is important to note that data made available by the above entities was not subjected to
the rigorous quality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) procedures that are typical of data
generated during Superfund investigations. In most instances, data from other sources was
available in summary sheets only (i.e. laboratory data sheets were not provided), or marked
"Preliminary Results - Final QC Not Yet Performed". Notwithstanding the limitations in data
quality, EPA has conducted a comparison of dioxin sediment results obtained from various
locations in the Charleston Harbor estuary. The table below presents the findings.
-------
9
0
556
34
CHARLESTON HARBOR
Locmtwnof
Sampfes
Site
AriAmetk
Ashley River,
Upstream of
Site
2.3 to 4.7 miles
upstream of site
4.8 to 32.4
12.1
Ashley River,
Adjacent to
Koppers Site
0
12.2 to 55
33.6
Ashley River,
Downstream
of Site
0.3 to 6.0 miles
downstream of
site
0.7 to 54.5
19.0
Charleston
. Harbor
7.6 to 10.5
miles
13
0.8 to 22.6
9.9
Cooper River
11.3 to 20.0
miles
11
3.6 to 11.8
8.5
Wando River
13.1 miles
1
5.5
5.5
While the highest individual concentrations of dioxin in sediments were detected
immediately adjacent to the Koppers site, EPA maintains that reported range of concentrations
are statistically and spatially similar throughout Charleston Harbor area. For example, assuming
the Koppers site was the sole source, or even a significant source of dioxin in the harbor system as
GEL asserts, one would expect decreasing concentrations with increasing distance from the site.
Yet many of the reported concentrations for the harbor, Cooper River and Wando River are
higher, or at the very least similar, to concentrations in the Ashley River system. Moreover, the
spatial analysis of this data must recognize the influences of both tidal and seaward flows in the
Charleston Harbor estuary. Given the sizeable flow rates of the Cooper and Wando Rivers, and
the fact that samples were collected up to 20 miles from the Koppers site, EPA believes it is
unreasonable to assume the Koppers site is a sole source, or even a significant source, of dioxin
impact in the Charleston Harbor system.
EPA does not contest the obvious fact that the Koppers site contributed wood-treating
related constituents to the Ashley River. EPA's selected remedy of enhanced sedimentation will
-------
^ 9 0337
35
effectively cover sediments of the Ashley River immediately adjacent to the Koppers site and
eliminate any future constituent transport pathways from the site to the Ashley River. EPA
believes the data strongly suggests that many diverse sources of dioxin exist in the Charleston
Harbor system. This issue is addressed in the following EPA response.
GEL Comment: "A review of the present and former industries in and around the Ashley River
and Charleston Harbor indicates that a likely source of the dioxins is the wood treating activities
a the former Koppers site located on the Ashley River. [W]e know of no other site in the
Charleston Harbor that is a specific source of dioxins."
EPA Response: The presence of dioxin in industrial harbors such as Charleston is well
documented in the environmental literature. Dioxin-like compounds are released to the
environment in a variety of ways and in varying quantities depending on the source. In a
document titled, Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds, Volume II: Rroperties,
Sources, Occurrence and Background Exposures. EPA/600/6-88/005Cb. (EPA 1994), EPA
identified four major sources of dioxin release into the environment These are:
• Industrial/Municipal Processes: Dioxin-like compounds can be found in paper products
and liquid/solid wastes from the manufacture of bleached pulp and paper; and municipal
wastewater treatment facilities and sewage sludge which receive influent from industrial
facilities and stormwater,
• Chemical Manufacturing/Processing Sources: Dioxin-like compounds can be formed as
by-products from the manufacture of chlorine and chlorinated compounds.
• Combustion/Incineration Sources: Dioxin-like compounds can be generated and released
to the environment from various combustion processes when a chlorine donor is present.
These sources can include incineration of municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, hospital,
and hazardous wastes; metallurgical processes such as high temperature steel production,
smelting operations, and scrap metal recovery furnaces; and the burning of coal, wood,
petroleum products, and used tires for power/energy generation; and
• Reservoir Sources: The persistent and hydrophobic nature of dioxin-like compounds
causes them to accumulate in soils, sediments, and organic matter. Dioxin-like
compounds in these "reservoirs" can be re-distributed by various processes such as dust
and sediment resuspension.
The scope of the RI/FS at the Koppers NPL site did not include a positive identification of
all potential sources of dioxin-like compounds in the industrialized neck area of Charleston.
Rather, EPA's specific objective was to develop a cleanup alternative to address unacceptable
human health and environmental risks posed by the Koppers site. EPA's selected remedy in the
Final ROD fully meets this objective. Given the above information and knowledge of historical
and current industrial operations in the Charleston Harbor estuary, EPA believes one could
-------
36
reasonably conclude that there are numerous point and non-point sources of dioxin-like
compounds in the study area.
GEL Comment: "Several facilities in the Charleston area have recently requested permits from
the Charleston District, Corps of Engineers (COE) to conduct dredging at their facilities located
along the Ashley River and in Charleston Harbor, As pan of this permitting process, the COE
has requested sampling and analyses of the proposed dredged material, including analyses for
dioxins. The results of the sediment testing for each of these facilities has indicated toxicity
equivalent concentrations (TEQs) of dioxins above the 2.5 parts per trillion (ppt) TEQ level of
concern established by the COE and other regulatory agencies in South Carolina. The COE and
the other regulatory agencies have determined that dioxins at levels greater than 2.5 ppt TEQ
pose a potential threat to the environment. Based on the results of sediment testing, the COE is
requiring extensive and costly management procedures for the dredged material as a stipulation
to the dredge pennit. In several instances, the excessive additional cost resulting from the
presence of dioxins in the dredged material has made dredging prohibitively expensive, fljt is
suggested a more extensive investigation be conducted".... "[t]o determine if the Koppers site is
a significant source of the dioxins in the Ashley River and Charleston Harbor. It may be useful
to obtain input from the COE, as well as other stakeholders, in developing an investigation
plan."
EPA Response: Based upon EPA's responses regarding the spatial distribution of dioxin in
sediments and the numerous potential sources of dioxin-like compounds in sediments of the
Charleston Harbor estuary, EPA does not believe additional investigations are warranted at the
Koppers site to enable the Agency to select an adequately protective remedial alternative.
However, EPA fully appreciates the adverse economic impacts on local marinas and businesses
resulting from the lack of feasible, cost-effective and adequately protective disposal options for
dredged sediments containing dioxin concentrations above other regulatory agencies threshold
criteria.
EPA, linked with SCDHEC, the Medical University of South Carolina, and local agencies
and community organizations is focusing resources on human health and environmental issues in
the Charleston/North Charleston area under a Community Based Environmental Protection
(CBEP) initiative. The CBEP initiative, announced in March 1997, endeavors to bring together
the existing authorities of all appropriate levels of government, across all media programs to
develop a more comprehensive workplan to address the community's environmental problems.
Specifically, the community-based effort will characterize the area's environmental problems,
establish environmental goals and indicators, and develop solutions to problems by bringing
members of the community together with the federal, state and local regulatory and resource
agencies.
Based on the currently available information, EPA is unable to determine if the shortage of
approved and cost-effective disposal options for dredged sediment with dioxin concentrations
above other state and federal regulatory agencies "level of concern" is an issue of concern to the
-------
0339
37
local community. If this issue proves to be a significant concern to local businesses and the
Charleston neck area, EPA would commit to leading substantive discussions with all relevant and
appropriate stakeholders to address this particular issue under the auspices of the Charleston
CBEP initiative. In the interim, EPA will initiate discussions with appropriate program leads in
the Charleston District COE and other stakeholders to evaluate if this issue warrants a more
comprehensive problem solving approach under the CBEP initiative.
3.7 Comments from the Natural Resource Trustees (NRTs)
Natural Resource Trustees (NRTs) are federal and/or state officials who act on behalf of
the public as trustees for natural resources. Given the proximity of the Koppers site to both
federal and state natural resources, EPA expended significant efforts to involve the NRTs during
the planning, scoping, and implementation of field investigations and ecological risk assessments
during the RI/FS process. Comments on EPA's Proposed Plan were received in4 correspondence
from the following federal and state NRTs: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), May 30,
1997; South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) - June 2, 1997; and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - June 2,1997.
The above entities generally organized and presented their comments on the major
components of EPA's Proposed Plan (i.e. Ashley River, Barge Canal, Tidal Marsh Sediments,
Groundwater/NAPL). In the interest of consistency, EPA has summarized the NRTs concerns
regarding the major components of EPA's proposed remedy which is followed by EPA's
respective response. The reader is referred to Attachment 2 of the Responsiveness Summary for
the specific concerns of each individual agency listed above.
Summary of NRT Comments on EPA's Proposed Remedy for the Ashley River: The NRTs do
not support EPA's selected remedy of Enhanced Sedimentation in the Ashley River. Rather, the
NRTs have expressed support for the placement of an engineered cap over impacted sediments
within the Ashley River Area of Potential Ecological Concern (APEC). Stated reasons for
favoring capping Ashley River sediments over Enhanced Sedimentation include: 1) Enhanced
Sedimentation is an unproven technology for isolating impacted sediments; 2) Contaminants may
be released to the Ashley River during the installation of piles which are necessary to implement
Enhanced Sedimentation. Therefore, containment measures similar to those applied during
construction of the SC Aquarium and the National Park Service tour boat facility will be required;
and 3) Enhanced Sedimentation would result in continued exposure to ecological receptors prior
to adequate sediment deposition. Placement of an engineered cap is a proven remediation method
that would immediately isolate contaminated sediments of the Ashley River.
EPA Response to NRT Comments Regarding the Ashlev River. The conceptual approach to
enhanced sedimentation in the Ashley River was developed in collaboration with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
The USAGE is tasked with the operation and maintenance of the nation's waterways for
navigation. As such, they have developed a tremendous knowledge and experience base related
-------
^9 0340
38
to characterization, and development/evaluation of management techniques for contaminated
sediments. WES is the premier research facility of the USAGE and employs respected scientists
in the disciplines of numerical modeling (hydraulic/contaminant transport/sediment deposition),
dredging, capping and other disposal/treatment options. While proven remedial technologies and
solutions are preferred in some cases, EPA has ventured with other stakeholders in industry and
academia to develop innovative solutions to site remediation which meet the challenges posed by
reducing risks at hazardous waste sites in the United States.
EPA selected enhanced sedimentation in the Ashley River after considering the convincing
body of evidence generated from discussions with USACE-WES personnel, similar applications in
Charleston Harbor, and the detailed analysis of alternatives in the Feasibility Study. For example,
local marinas in Charleston Harbor have break-waters, floating docks, and other structures which
decrease water velocities similar to the way that driven piles will be utilized in the enhanced
sedimentation remedy. While local marinas apply these barriers and techniques £or different
reasons, the resultant effect is increased sediment deposition. Information has been gathered from
local marinas in Charleston Harbor regarding the frequency 01 dredging sediments that is
necessary to maintain access and normal operations. This data indicates that local marinas must
dredge accumulated sediment on an average of every five years to permit reasonable boat access.
Moreover, EPA believes that enhanced sedimentation provides significant advantages when
considering the remedy evaluation criteria, particularly in long-term effectiveness and permanence,
when compared to installation of an engineered cap.
EPA has established the following Performance Standards for enhanced sedimentation in
the Ashley River:
• Ensure short-term protectiveness to surrounding environment during construction and
installation activities;
• Provide sufficient cover to mitigate exposure to benthic organisms and subsequent adverse
impacts to the food chain; and
• Ensure long-term effectiveness and permanence by mitigating erosional effects.
Based upon the above discussion, EPA believes that the remedy of enhanced
sedimentation can be designed, constructed, and monitored effectively to meet the established
Performance Standards. Nonetheless, EPA will monitor sediment accumulation and constituent
concentration trends within the area of enhanced sedimentation for a period of five years. Data
generated during the five year monitoring period will be evaluated by EPA to determine if
contingency remedies are necessary to meet the established Performance Standards. Contingency
remedies may include, but are not limited to, the installation of a supplemental cap and/or other
measures to reduce erosional forces and augment long-term cover stability.
EPA's selected remedy also addresses the NRTs concerns of short-term effectiveness
during pile installation activities. However, EPA does not concur with the NRTs prescriptive
-------
i; 9 034'
39
solution of sand blankets, silt curtains and timber lagging walls to eliminate potential impacts
resulting from pile driving activities. While monitoring data from similar construction projects in
the area suggests these systems were effective in providing short-term protectiveness, EPA
believes these systems are fairly elaborate and that other more cost-effective containment systems
which provide adequate protection may be available. Therefore, EPA has reserved flexibility
regarding the type of short-term engineering controls utilized, provided they ensure short-term
protectiveness during construction activities.
The NRTs have also expressed concerns that enhanced sedimentation will result in
continued exposure to Trust Resources until such time that sufficient sediment deposition occurs.
For this reason, the NRTs support the placement of an engineered cap given the faster relative
time to achieve adequate protection. EPA believes it is reasonable to assume that subaqueous
capping may provide adequate protection to ecological receptors in a shorter time frame when
compared to die time needed for enhanced sedimentation to meet the established Performance
Standards. However, EPA believes this advantage is a trade-off when one considers that
subaqueous capping would displace existing benthic organisms and disrupt access to existing and
potential future docking facilities on the Ashley River.
Summary of NRT Comments on EPA's Proposed Remedy for the Baree Canal: The NRTs
generally supported EPA's proposed remedy of capping the impacted sediments in the Barge
Canal and restoring the area to intertidal salt marsh. However, the USFWS and SCDNR
expressed emphatic opposition to EPA's proposal to use the Barge Canal as a confined disposal
facility for lead impacted material from the adjacent uplands area. NOAA's opposition was less
assertive, stating that they would like to review criteria and engineering specifications for
containment of lead impacted soils within the Barge Canal, prior to providing further comment on
the use of these soils for base fill in the Barge Canal. The NRTs generally cited concerns of long-
term leaching of lead impacted material to the surrounding ecosystem and unreasonable potential
risks of injury to Trust Resources.
EPA Response to NRT Comments Regarding the Barge Canal: EPA's proposed response action
for the Barge Canal was closely linked with the proposed response action to address lead
impacted soil. EPA's proposed strategy for the Barge Canal included capping impacted sediments
with a confined disposal facility (CDF). The concept of the proposed strategy involved placing all
soil with lead concentrations greater than 1,150 mg/kg in the bottom of the Barge Canal. This
base layer of lead-impacted fill would then be capped with a two-foot topsoil/organic layer,
returned to appropriate elevations, and restored to a functioning saltmarsh habitat.
Confined disposal in near shore facilities is a well documented and proven management
technique for dealing with dredged spoil material. When combined, EPA's proposed response
actions for lead-impacted material and the Barge Canal would provide for adequate protection of
human and ecological receptors with a high degree of cost-effectiveness. Extensive water leach
testing conducted on representative soil with concentrations greater than 1,150 mg/kg of lead
indicated: 1) the lead impacted material is classified as non-hazardous per RCRA regulations; and
-------
40
2) this material does not leach at concentrations that would cause adverse impacts to surface
water or ecological receptors. Extensive sediment sampling was conducted during the RI in the
Ashley River, Barge Canal and South Tidal Marsh, immediately surrounding the upland area
containing elevated levels of lead in soil. All sediment samples collected in this area did not
exhibit concentrations greater than the ER-M for lead, and did not demonstrate significant toxicity
for the test species evaluated. Considering the upland soil with elevated lead concentrations has
been in place for decades, EPA believes it is fair to assume that the subject upland soils have not
adversely impacted the surrounding marsh and river habitat. In light of the site-specific data, EPA
felt confident in its ability to design, construct and monitor a CDF to fulfill the response action
objectives.
An additional advantage of EPA's combined response actions for the Barge Canal and
lead impacted material included the creation of additional acreage of functional, intertidal marsh
habitat. For example, the Barge Canal covers an estimated 3.2 acres adjacent to^the Ashley River.
Implementation of the remedy as proposed in March 1997 would have disrupted an estimated 5
acres of land in the critical coastal zone area along the Ashley River. Following the placement of
lead impacted material in the near shore CDF, the area disturbed by the CERCLA remedy would
have been restored to a intertidal Spartina marsh to ensure the long-term permanance and
effectiveness of the respective response actions.
After fully considering the NRTs comments, EPA has decided to cap impacted sediments
in the Barge Canal to eliminate exposure to potential ecological receptors. The cap material will
consist of a "clean", two-foot layer of material with comparable characteristics as local tidal marsh
sediments. The decision not to utilize the Barge Canal as a CDF for adjacent lead impacted
material required the Agency to evaluate other feasible alternatives for upland soil with
concentrations of lead greater than 1,150 mg/kg. SCDHEC's preferred alternative of excavation
and off-site disposal of soil with concentrations greater man 895 mg/kg is estimated to cost in
excess of $5.5 Million. Considering the site-specific data and recent Superfund Administrative
Reforms, EPA does not believe the significant costs associated with SCDHEC's preferred
alternative are warranted. Rather, EPA's selected remedy specifies that all soil with
concentrations greater than 1,150 mg/kg lead shall be capped sufficiently to meet a set of five
Performance Standards. The cap over lead impacted material will cover approximately 5.2 acres
at an estimated cost of $621,000. EPA believes the selected remedy of capping will provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment in a far more cost-effective manner.
It is important to note that EPA's selected remedy will not result in the disruption of five
acres of land, as the March 1997 proposal did. Therefore, in order to clearly differentiate
between remediation activities required by CERCLA, and restoration/mitigation activities
potentially required by other applicable Sections of CERCLA and/or environmental statutes,
EPA's selected remedy does not require that the Barge Canal be restored to a functional tidal.
marsh habitat Marsh restoration in this area may be considered to provide a high degree of long-
term permanence and protection, and/or to address issues related to past damages of natural
resources.
-------
o 9 0343
41
Summary of NRT Comments on EPA's Proposed Remedy for the North. South and Northwest
Tidal Marshes: The NRTs generally support EPA's proposed, and subsequently selected, remedy
of dredging, capping and off-site disposal in defined APECs of the North and South Tidal
Marshes. However, there remains some misunderstanding and disagreement over how the
"weight-of-evidence" approach was applied to delineate APECs. There is some concern that
sediments falling outside of the areas to be excavated will continue to pose unacceptable risks to
ecological receptors which utilize the habitat. The NRTs have recommended additional sampling
in the South Tidal Marsh APEC to further refine the boundaries of sediment to be removed. The
USFWS has referred to the Agency's in-situ bioremediation proposal for Northwest Tidal Marsh
sediments as "fejxperimental and has no documentation of proven effectiveness". The NRTs
have suggested that a monitoring plan is necessary to track the effectiveness of in-situ
bioremediation in reducing concentrations of constituents.
EPA Response to NRT Comments Regarding the North. South and Northwest Tidal Marshes:
EPA's stated remediation goal for the North and South Tidal Marshes is to physically remove
sediments which demonstrated significant acute toxicity to selected indicator species. EPA
adopted the weight-of-evidence approach to delineate those sediments which warranted physical
removal, versus those sediments which warranted remediation by less intrusive measures. This
strategy affords the benefits of physically removing sediments shown to cause toxicity in site-
specific studies, while protectively managing other less impacted sediments in-situ without
completely disrupting the function and habitat of these ecosystems.
The concept of the weight-of-evidence approach was first suggested by a NOAA Coastal
Resource Coordinator. EPA expended significant efforts and a notable amount of time during the
RI phase of this project to ensure consensus was reached, among all stakeholders, regarding the
procedures and indicator species employed. EPA believes the Administrative Record is clear on
this issue. It was mutually agreed that whole sediment acute toxicity tests would be conducted
on Neanthes arenaceodentata and Mysidopsis bahia utilizing sediment collected from the subject
tidal marshes. It was further agreed that sediments which demonstrated significant acute toxicity
to one (i.e. single toxicity) or both (i.e. double toxicity) of these selected indicator species would
be evaluated for excavation.
SCDNR has suggested that "[ajctive remediation should also be considered for
sediments which exhibited toxicity to only one test species". In fact, the weight of evidence
approach does consider this issue. For example, sediments of the North Tidal Marsh APEC, that
are slated for excavation, include a sample station (SD-58) which did not demonstrate acute
toxicity to neanthes, but did demonstrate toxicity to mysidopsis. In correspondence submitted to
EPA after the comment period, the NRTs have requested that Amphipod toxicity tests using
Ampelisca abdita should be used to further define sediments to be excavated in the North and .
South Tidal Marshes. This issue was discussed at great length during the RI phase of the project
and consensus on using this test species could not be reached between all stakeholders.
Therefore, EPA has decided not to use amphipod toxicity tests, selecting instead the mutually
agreed upon test species of neanthes and mysidopsis.
-------
^ 9 034-;
42
The weight of evidence approach and ecological investigations placed an emphasis on the
benthic invertebrate communities. Therefore, EPA conducted an Ecological Risk Assessment
(ERA) to evaluate potential risks to other biota via the food chain. The NRTs were consulted on
the procedures and assessment/measurement endpoints employed in ERA. An alternative risk
model was also utilized to further evaluate potential ecological risks and the effectiveness of
remedy options in managing the potential risk. The two ecological assessments bound the range of
potential ecological risks in which remedy selection and risk management decisions were made at
the site. EPA's selected remedy for the tidal marshes bordering the site is based upon the
potential ecological risks posed to ecological receptors. EPA maintains that active remediation
within APECs to eliminate direct toxicity to benthic macroinvertebrates mitigates a majority of
potential food chain risks, while also considering the disadvantages of disturbing functional
saltmarsh habitat.
EPA has recognized that additional sampling is necessary in the South Tjijdal Marsh to
ensure that the stated goal of removal of toxic sediments is achieved. The co-mingled nature of
PAHs and inorganic constituents in the sediments of the headwaters of the South Tidal Marsh has
made it difficult to accurately correlate what constituents and concentration levels are actually
causing the observed toxicity. EPA has attempted to address NRT concerns regarding this issue
by incorporating the following text into Section 9.3.3.1 (Dredging, Capping and Off-Site
Disposal) of the ROD, u[i]t has been noted that several sampling stations within the South Tidal
Marsh APEC with similar constituent concentrations shown to cause toxicity are not slated for
excavation. Therefore, a sampling program shall be implemented prior to excavation activities
to better define those sediments within the South Tidal Marsh APEC which demonstrate
significant toxicity."
Regarding in-siru bioremediation of tidal marsh sediments, EPA does not agree with the
statement by USFWS that it has "fnjo documentation of proven effectiveness". EPA does
consider in-situ bioremediation to be an innovative and emerging technology that warrants further
refinement and development at sites with impacted sediments. Available technology performance
data indicates that in-situ bioremediation can be very effective at reducing concentrations of low
molecular weight PAHs (< four rings). Moreover, phytoremediation, the biouptake or
absorption of contaminants by plant species, has shown promising results for reducing the
concentrations of inorganic constituents. Conceptually, in-situ bioremediation will be conducted
in several phases consisting of laboratory bench scale tests, field demonstration, and full-scale
application. EPA recognizes that a comprehensive monitoring program during all phases of in-
situ bioremediation is integral to documenting the results achieved. The NRTs shall have
reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the in-situ bioremediation monitoring program
prior to implementation.
Summary of NRT Comments on EPA's Proposed Remedy for Groundwater/NAPL: The NRTs
concerns regarding EPA's proposed remedy for groundwater/NAPL focus on adequate
containment and cleanup to ensure protection of adjoining aquatic/wetland habitats and trust
resources utilizing such habitats. The NRTs generally support EPA's selection of containment
and recovery with extraction wells, but favor the remediation strategy advocated by SCDHEC.
-------
0345
43
EPA Response to NRT Comments Regarding Groundwater/NAPL: EPA has established the
following Performance Standards for remediation of groundwater/NAPL at the three noted
source areas on site: 1) Removal or treatment of NAPL to the maximum extent practicable; 2)
Containment of potentially non-restorable source areas; and 3) Containment and restoration of
aqueous phase liquid. These Performance Standards were developed in accordance with EPA
guidance regarding groundwater restoration at NAPL sites and directly address the NRTs
concerns of contaminant transport to the Ashley River and adjacent tidal marshes. EPA has
previously responded to the groundwater/NAPL remediation strategy advocated by SCDHEC.
The reader is referred to EPA's response to SCDHEC's non-concurrence letter in Appendix A of
the ROD for a more detailed response to this comment.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF
APRIL 15,1997 PUBLIC MEETING
0347
-------
0343
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN RE: KOPPERS CO., INC.
(CHARLESTON PLANT) NPL SITE
PUBLIC MEETING
DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:
REPORTED BY:
April 15, 1997
7 : 05 PM
Charleston Public Works
103 St. Philip Street
Charleston, SC
LORA L. McDANIEL,
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER
Computer-Aided Transcription By:
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
Charleston, SC
(803) 722-8414
Columbia, SC
(803) 731-5224
Charlotte, NC
(704) 573-3919
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
0349
1 APPEARANCES:
2 EPA - REGION IV
CRAIG R. ZELLER, P.E.
3 Remedial Project Manager
61 Forsyth Street, SW
4 Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-8827 .
5
EPA - REGION IV
6 CYNTHIA PEURIFOY
Community Relations Coordinator
7 61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
8 (404) 562-8798
9 SCDHEC
RICHARD A. HAYNES, P.E.
10 Environmental Engineer
2600 Bull Street
11 Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 896-4070
12
ALSO PRESENT:
13
SHANNON CRAIG, BEAZER EAST, INC.
14 MEL GOODWIN
STANLEY CHISOLM
15 JUNE MIRECKI
MARIKA GESS
16 BERTHA STAFFORD
DELBERT DUBOIS
17 IAN ROGERS
CONCERNED CITIZENS
18
19
(INDEX AT REAR OF TRANSCRIPT)
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
«-> J '::
J. A W T B R ' S NO
Linaj
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR. & ASSOCIATES
-------
I. 9 03: 3
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 MR. ZELLER: Let's go ahead and try to
2 get started. We have a real good case of Murphy's
3 law entering here. Anything that can go wrong, will.
4 We don't have an overhead projector at the present
5 time. It's awful hard to find good contractors these
6 days, but they have not shown up.
7 But we are going to run a few ideas past
8 you-all if we can proceed. Actually, I am a little
6
9 bit better at giving informal presentations than the
10 full dog and pony shows. This might work out even
11 better.
12 X have a contingency plan. I made
13 copies of all the overheads I was going to use
14 anyhow. That's this nice thick quarter-inch, I guess
15 eight-and-a-half-by-11 sheets of paper. If everybody
16 would make sure they have one of those.
17 We do have an overhead machine coming
18 from MUSC, and it's going to be here probably in 15,
19 20 minutes. If it's all right, we can kind of start
20 on the old classroom approach of page by page here,
21 and once the overhead comes, at that point in time we
22 can kind of reshuffle and start, I guess, reorganize
23 and get the presentation going on from there. Is
24 that reasonable to everybody?
25 I apologize. I'm sick to my stomach
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
^ 9 035.? 4
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
l about it, but this is the best we can do at this
2 point in time.
3 My name is Craig Zeller. I am the
4 remedial project manager of Region IV out of
5 Atlanta's EPA. I have been investigating with Beazer
6 East and the State of South Carolina for a period of
7 about four years. This work has now reached the
8 point where we're in the public comment period.
6
9 We have a proposed cleanup plan out for
10 the Koppers NPL site here, and this meeting fulfills
11 one of the requirements in the statute, actually, in
12 the environmental law that we work under, which is
13 Superfund or SARA. We are in the middle of a comment
14 period right now.
15 I want to get out to you-all and talk
16 about the site background, which is on the second
17 page, and talk to you a little bit about what the
18 investigation has found and provide a summary of the
19 risks posed to the human element from the site.
20 I'll talk about the interim remedial
21 action underway and currently being implemented.
22 I'll talk to you about our proposed site widening
23 multi-media plan which addresses soil, groundwater
24 and sediments and aquatic environments near the site.
25 I'll talk about public input, how that is addressed
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
j 9 035T) s
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 and taken into account during EPAs remedy selection
2 on the project.
3 Then Shannon Craig from Beazer East
4 Company, who is responsible for most of the
5 contamination, wanted a few minutes to address and
6 give the company's perspective on things.
7 At that point in time, I'll open it up
8 to questions and answers'. We will stay here as long
6
9 as you-all have questions for us.
10 Proceeding on, let's talk a little bit
11 about page 3 of that handout. Let's talk a little
12 bit about Koppers site. The site is really 102
13 acres. It's bounded to the east by Interstate 26, to
14 the west by the Ashley River, to the north by Milford
15 Street, to the south by Braswell and neighboring
16 tidal marsh.
17 It was used for the greater part of the
18 19th century in the Beazer or Koppers name from 1940
19 to 1978 for the process of treating wood. This is an
20 overhead or aerial photograph of the Koppers site
21 that was taken, I guess, in May of '54. This is the
22 King Street Extension here on the east beside
23 Interstate 26, which came in later, I guess; in the
24 late '60s here. •
25 I want to talk just a little bit about
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
035-
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 how wood flowed through this site and how we, I
2 guess, have taken it upon ourselves to investigate
3 this. The majority of the operation took place here
4 in really the eastern portion of the site. This is
5 what we call now the former treatment area.
6 . I think the fourth page of that handout
7 shows the overall site plan and a lot of these
8 interested features I will continually refer to in
6
9 this presentation.
10 In the eastern portion of the site was
11 where most of the product was stored. What Koppers
12 essentially did was they brought virgin lumber
13 onsite, and it was treated by using three
14 preservatives.
15 A majority of the preservatives used was
16 Creosote, which is a black, kind of smokey substance
17 usually found on utility poles and railroad ties.
18 Most of y'all know what Creosote is. Two other
19 preservatives were CCA or Copper, Chromium Arsenate .
20 That's currently what most wood in the United States
21 is treated with. If you go and buy wood for
22 landscaping, it's kind of that greenish osmosis
23 process. That also is CCA.
24 A third preservative was
25 Pentachlorophenol fungicide and insecticide. All
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
**> 9 035^ 7
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 that stuff was stored in this eastern portion of the
2 site. We had six pretty large treatment tanks that
3 reportedly held over two million gallons. That was
4 mostly all Creosote.
5 We also had another series of areas
6 where they were working all in and around the
7 treatment building. Basically, what they did was
8 rail in virgin lumber into pressure vessels, 133 feet
6
9 in length and about eight feet wide. They were
10 cylindrical. The wood would be railed into that,
11 the doors shut, pressurized to suck the moisture out
12 of the wood and then the wood would be itnpregnanted
13 with the preservative of choice.
14 Following that, after the wood was
15 treated, it was pulled out into a series of drip
16 tracks. The wood would stay there, for what we are
17 guessing, sometimes five minutes maybe as long as
18 five days; probably depending on how busy the plant
19 was.
20 The wood would be allowed to drip for a
21 while and stored. Finish wood was stored onsite.
22 The black areas of the site was where the Creosote
23 wood was treated. You can see generally, where the
24 central portion of the site is, you can see the white
25 area, the virgin lumber could have been treated
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
^ 9 0356 s
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 there. That could also have been treated with CCA.
2 Some interesting features to note here,
3 most of the surface water drainage, a lot of it was
4 directed into a series of drainage ditches located
5 onsite. One particular one here, the Braswell Street
6 ditch, that just ran south of what is currently
7 Braswell Street. It ran the length of the site for a
8 couple thousand feet and emptied into an.old
9 impoundment area here. You can also see that this
10 area has been primarily industrial for the most part
11 of the 1900s.
12 To the north we have the Old Planters
13 Phosphate/Fertilizer Plant; some know it as Columbian
14 Nitrogen; to the south, Koppers or what we call now
15 the Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Plant. We have run
16 into some environmental contaminants at Ashepoo. I
17 will talk to you in a little bit about that separate
18 enforcement action with the responsible parties for
19 that. We are getting around to investigating it.
20 We have done some preliminary
21 investigation with Columbian Nitrogen and found some
22 interesting things and will probably move forward
23 with additional investigation.
24 Back to Koppers. The central drainage
25 ditch started at the western one-third of the site
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
^ 9 G55" 9
COLLOQUY BY MR. 2ELLER
1 and drained into the Ashley River. This is their
2 dock area over on the Ashley where a lot of shipping
3 and receiving, et cetera was conducted.
4 When the EPA really got involved, when
5 everything kind of came to the attention of most
6 regulatory agencies and the EPA and DHEC in November
7 1984, George Dent owned Southern Dredging, which is
8 no longer located there, and received permits from
6
9 the agencies to actually construct and dredge a barge
10 canal. This barge canal was constructed right
11 through here.
12 During that time, no one knew at that
13 time or it probably wouldn't have been permitted if
14 we knew about it, it ended up that Creosote and some
15 other things were dredged and resulted in observed
16 fish kill in the Ashley River.
17 All the spoiled material from that
18 dredging operation was pumped 700 feet east into an
19 area called the spoils area. It was a very primitive
20 burned area. It was culvert constructed. As the
21 water level timbers were added, the water was allowed
22 to skim off into the tidal marsh and the finds from
23 the dredging operation went into the spoils area.
24 That is kind of a general overview of it.
25 Some other things back on that figure 1
WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
> O'-sc-.o 10
U O ,j o
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 page 4 of your handout, you can see the drip track
2 area, former treatment area, some of the marsh area
3 that we are set to do the investigation here.
4 So getting onto the remedial
5 investigation, which was initiated in January of '93
6 with the signing of the administrative order, EPA
7 negotiated with Beazer to conduct a field
8 investigation essentially. The objective of this
9 field investigation was to fully characterize and
10 find the nature of contamination onsite as a result
11 of past operations.
12 In addition to remedial investigation,
13 which is essentially the collection of samples and
14 analysis of soil samples, collection of surface
15 water, all those major medias, in addition to that,
16 risk assessment .
17 Risk assessment was also conducted.
18 That evaluated the risk posed to human health and
19 also the environment from human health pathways,
20 human health concerns. Risk assessments were
21 conducted on that.
22 Two major ones were finalized by EPA
23 January of '95 and January of '96. The pathways
2~4 evaluated were: Ingestions and derma contact with
25 soils onsite, surface water onsite and sediments
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
0359 X
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 onsite.
2 We also looked at the hypothetical
3 possibility of groundwater ingestion or inhalation
4 via the shower. It's important to know the
5 groundwater we are talking about is above the Cooper
6 Formation and is not used for industry or drinking
7 water. Drinking water is supplied by the Commission
8 of Public Works and the City of Charleston.
6
9 The pathways we evaluated: We did look
10 at the actual toxicity observed to the ecological
11 receptors. What that really entailed was taking
12 generally three test species, neanthes, mysidopsis
13 and ampelisca; neanthes is sediment worm; mysidopsis
14 is grass shrimp; ampelisca is basically a water flea;
15 ones that would dwell in sediment.
16 What we are doing there is subjecting
17 these test species to sediments from the site to see
18 if it killed them. There are all kinds of protocols
19 for this to determine if there is significant
20 toxicity.
21 We also did food chain accumulation to
22 look at the potential effect of actually taking
23 sediment and surface water results and creating a
24 hypothetical food chain accumulation; like a food
25 web. The species or the endpoints to be looked at
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
0360 12
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 were raccoon, great blue heron, marsh wren and some
2 fish as well.
3 And what we did was construct a food web
4 such as -- I can't remember actually all the
5 details -- such as the red drum is exposed to
6 sediment inside the northwest tidal marsh, and then
7 the red drum is eaten by the great blue heron. What
8 could the great blue heron be subjected to? We
t!
3 looked at vegetation also.
10 Getting into the human health risk
11 assessment, it's fairly often controversial and even
12 very confusing for us to understand. I will take a
13 crack at the potential risks. We looked at two
14 general categories; one is carcinogenic and the other
15 is non-carcinogenic risk.
16 According to our statute, what the EPA
17 looked at was the carcinogenic risk rate which
18 estimates the potential. You need to realize this
19 is the incremental chance of developing cancer over a
20 lifetime given the exposure at a particular site; in
21 this case, Koppers.
22 The baseline risk in developing cancer
23 by living on God's green earth is one in three people
24 may develop cancer over a lifetime. The risks that
25 we are talking about are on a much smaller fraction.
A WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
-------
0 036;? 14
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 that by a reference dose that is derived from
2 epidemiological studies. If that ratio is greater
3 than one, the conclusion is there may be potential
4 risks posed by the same.
5 What does all this mean? Well, the big
6 conclusion here is that there are unacceptable risks
7 posed to human health from site conditions. The EPA
8 and the state are proposing a future industrial land
• . *
9 use scenario here.
10 Cleanup goals are going to be based on
11 the expected future land use in this area which is
12 future industrial. So the land use scenario that we
13 worked out, the potential exposure was for future
14 onsite workers potentially exposed to surface and
15 subsurface soils. There were unacceptable risks in
16 the minus three to eight times ten minus three range.
17 I think we have the overhead here. Give
18 me a chance to set this up. I apologize.
19 (A recess transpired.)
20 MR. ZELLER: We are back in business.
21 Just to step back, this is that time line I was
22 talking about.. This is the protective range we shoot
23 for. We are looking for incrementals that shall be
24 no greater than one in 10,000 and one in 1 million.
25 If it falls within this range, some cleanup action is
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
0365
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 warranted to provide for human health environment.
2 The human health risk assessment did
3 conclude, based on this industrial scenario, that
4 there was unacceptable risk posed. The risk posed
S falls about in this range, in the minus three range;
6 eight times ten minus three for the future industrial
7 worker exposed to surface soils onsite.
8 It's important to know the assumptions
6
9 that went into this model for there to be a potential
10 unacceptable risk. A future onsite worker must be
11 exposed to surface soils 250 days a year and exposure
12 of 25 years. The unacceptable risk for subsurface
13 soils was 12 days a year. That's much less frequency
14 as opposed to surface soils.
15 We also looked at the off-site residents
16 scenario. We were worried about sediments we found
17 in the Hagood drainage ditch north of the site that
18 tends to migrate off-site and had gotten up there.
19 The exposure we did up there was for off-site
20 residents, possibly Rosemont residents or someone
21 else that would be exposed to sediments and surface
22 water and Hagood Avenue drainage.
23 We also calculated some unacceptable
24 risks based on that potential. The chemicals of
25 concern, the chemicals that are driving the actual
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS. JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
16
OO--
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
0
1 unacceptable risks here are Polynuclear Aromatic
2 Hydrocarbons, which are a family of compounds that
3 make up motor oils and sometimes in this case part of
4 Creosote. They are all over sometimes just as a
5 result of man's activities.
6 We also have some pentachlorophenol,
7 which is a wood treatment preservative onsite as a
8 result of their use. Dioxin is present in trace
9 amount. We also had dioxin on the site, arsenic and
s
10 also lead is causing some unacceptable risk. We have
11 contaminated soil onsite that needs to be addressed.
12 Regarding groundwater contaminants,
13 let's kind of go over a quick summary of what we
14 found in the RI report. Regarding groundwater, we
15 focused on the water-bearing units of the aquifers of
16 the Cooper Formation.
17 What the Cooper Formation is, the Cooper
18 Formation is a 260-foot thick clay layer, widely
19 considered a very good confining unit. It's kind of
20 gray in color, gray-green color, and it's encountered
21 about an average of 60-foot below the site. So we
22 focused all our groundwater testing on the
23 water-bearing units above that. Contamination is not
24 expected to be below that Cooper Formation.
25 We had three water-bearing units in the
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
l eastern portion of the site separated by clay layers
2 and in the western portion of the site. The shallow
3 clay layer disappears, and we are really down to two
4 water-bearing units. I mentioned earlier the
5 groundwater above the Cooper Formation is not used
6 for residential or industrial supply.
7 We did notice and identified three NAPL
8 source areas onsite that may have potential
6
9 recoverable quantities of Creosote. When I mentioned
10 NAPL, it's non-aqv.eous phase liquid. What is that?
11 Well, oil and water don't mix.
12 In this case, Creosote is slightly
13 denser than water. So Creosote, in this case, is
14 going to sink until it hits something that it can't
15 sink through. In this case, most of our NAPL is
16 sitting on top of clay layers with fairly significant
17 permeabilities that are not allowing it to seep
18 through deeper into the aquifer.
19 We also found three or four general
20 areas of contaminant transport concerns,
21 contaminants getting potentially transferred
22 off-site. Here is a graph that I want to show you.
23 I mentioned we have three general areas of NAPL pr
24 Creosote product in the ground. We are going to try
25 to recover those three areas where the former
a WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
9 0366 18
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 treatment tanks were held.
2 We also have a potential to recover
3 quantities of NAPL which is runoff from the Braswell
4 Street ditch. We also have a recoverable quantity of
5 NAPL in the northwest corner, which was possibly some
6 waste that was buried over the years at the disposal
7 area.
8 In addition, we have four general areas
9 of off-site contamination in our transport pathways
10 that we are concerned with. The first was the
11 subject of the interim action and that was the
12 mobilization of the transport of Creosote-related
13 compounds off the site in the former treatment area.
14 That is up in this general area.
15 The second area of concern was also the
16 Braswell Street drainage ditch. We have got some
17 Creosote and some NAPL in this general area getting
i
18 into the old impoundment, and we are concerned with a
19 little bit of potential transport off-site.
20 The third area is in the northwest
21 corner, the central drainage ditch. We got some
22 Creosote also in the ditch, and we are concerned
23 about potential transfer maybe into the Ashley
24 River.
25 The fourth is what we call the southern
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
L 9 0367 19
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 end or Ashley Phosphate Tidal Marsh; in this general
2 area. I mentioned in this overhead or this picture
3 here, Ashepoo Phosphate made fertilizers for
4 agricultural distribution. In the process, they
5 manufactured sulfuric acid, and they applied this in
6 these acid chambers to locally mined phosphate to
7 make superphosphate. That's not necessarily a
8 friendly player in the environment.
6
9 What we have found over the years, the
10 pH in this shallow groundwater is less than two
11 standard units, which is highly acidic. What that
12 has done, we believe, is mobilize some lead in the
13 area, and this lead now is present in the south tidal
14 marsh at concentrations of about 50,000 ppm.
15 We are proposing with DHEC to move
16 forward with a separate investigation with the
17 responsible parties for this facility, and we are
18 moving forward with what we are calling non-time
19 critical removal, which is certainly a RI/SF process.
20 We'll try to do the same thing with the contamination
21 in and around this Ashepoo Phosphate works and
22 develop some cleanup. That pretty much sums up
23 groundwater in a nutshell.
24 Let's talk a little bit about the
25 ecological assessment. We found potential risk to
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
20
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 the ecological receptors. I mentioned earlier about
2 the direct sediment toxicity. Direct sediment
3 toxicity was noted to the test species in three
4 general areas; one was the north tidal marsh by
5 Hagood Avenue; one was in the south tidal marsh near
6 the Ashepoo Phosphate that I mentioned a second ago.
7 We also had demonstrated toxicity in the
8 Ashley River adjacent to the site. We did not have
9 toxicity in the barge canal, but we had predicted
10 unacceptable risks to the receptors in that area.
11 What we have there, the general
12 conclusion at that point, we do have unacceptable
13 risk posed to the human health environment that the
14 EPA must look at and address.
15 So while we are doing that, we proceeded
16 with the interim remedial action. The interim
17 remedial action, it's been called a Band-aid
18 approach. It is really a source control remedy to
19 getting in and minimize and eliminate short-term risk
20 posed by the site while a final comprehensive
21 site-wide cleanup plan was developed. The specific
22 objectives of. it were really four-fold. We wanted to
23 eliminate off-site migration.
24 Let me talk to you a little bit about
25 what we got going here. As I mentioned, we have
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
'J 9 21
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
036P
1 Creosote in the subsurface soil underlying the former
2 treatment plants. Over time, what we believe is
3 happening is that this Creosote in the shallow
4 water-bearing unit got into the Nova Street/Milf ord
5 Street drainage ditch.
6 When this got into the subsurface
7 drainage line, it was transported under this
8 underground conduit, basically, stormwater drainage
6
9 and carried out to the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch.
10 Based on that potential transport and
11 the potential unacceptable risk in the Hagood Avenue
12 drainage ditch due to exposure of the sediments and
13 the surface, we proceeded with interim action that is
14 currently implemented, and we're almost done with it.
15 What that did, that entailed -- the
16 first thing was reconstruction of the Milford Street
17 drainage ditch. We took a 350-foot stretch at one
18 time. If you looked at it, it was in a condition
19 that you could see contaminants real good. You could
20 see Creosote. You could smell it. It was also
21 filled with a lot of trash.
22 We excavated that ditch, dug up that
23 soil, containerized that soil, took that soil
24 off-site for proper disposal. Once we did that, we
25 put in 22-inch high-density polyurethene and enclosed
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 that section. What was once an open drainage is now
2 closed.
3 We put in or inserted four manholes to
4 collect surface water and then the transport of
5 elevated levels go to the Hagood Avenue drainage
6 ditch. That eliminated the potential to the Milford
7 Street ditch.
8 Once that was reconstructed, the second
9 step was to install extraction wells into the shallow
10 clay. It's going to be hard to see, but I will
11 explain it to you a little bit. This is that shallow
12 clay that sits right through here. We have six now,
13 shallow extraction wells, that are pumping water and
14 NAPL and stopping the transport and off-site movement
15 of free product off the site. We are trying to
16 eliminate that northern expansion of any plume or any
17 Creosote moving off-site. That plan has been
18 operating since it's been installed.
19 We put a pilot system in place in the
20 middle of '96. We fired that system up about
21 mid-January of '97. We have been experiencing the
22 normal clogged lines and normal clogged pumps that
23 are going to be pretty normal for any kind of system
2"4 of this nature. We are finally working out a lot of
25 those bugs.
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
037; »
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 In the month of March, we had our very
2 first month of really pretty good success. The last
3 number we recovered, 63 gallons of product in the
4 month of March from that site. We recovered a lot of
5 groundwater that's being treated in an onsite
6 treatment plant right here. All that water is being
7 treated to standards imposed by the North
8 Charleston's sewer district, and then that water is
A
9 discharged for additional treatment by the city.
10 The third step was then eliminating any
11 other potential migration into the existing storm
12 drainage. Some of these storm drains have cracks in
13 them. The actual pipes may be cracked themselves.
14 We didn't want any other additional contaminants
15 moving into that pipe.
16 What was done just in the last couple of
17 weeks, we lined those existing storm drains with what
18 is called in-situ. It's a form of about a
19 quarter-inch thick resin. What this does is
20 basically lines the storm drains with this material
21 on the inside and eliminates or basically seals all
22 the joints and cracks so that no contaminant can get
23 into that system. That was completed again a couple
24 weeks ago.
25 The fourth and final step which is
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
0372 "
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 underway at this present time is the reconstruction
2 of the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch. That system is
3 going to be an open ditch, three-sided, with a flat
4 concrete bottom and sloping concrete sides. We got
5 about half of that drainage ditch excavated.
6 Now we had revisited a few design issues
7 on the line itself. Excavations of that ditch will
8 probably commence -- excavation will commence
ft .
9 probably next week, and we will be done with that I
10 expect in the month of May. Once that is done, the
11 physical construction of the interim system will be
12 completed. We will continue to operate the interim
13 action recovery system to recover free product and
14 impacted groundwater back in this general area.
15 While that was going on, concurrently,
16 we also developed feasibility studies to look at the
17 bigger issues at hand. A feasibility study was
18 completed this year or actually -- excuse me --
19 December of '96. And the objective was to identify
20 alternatives to address and mitigate the risk posed
21 by the site.
22 Per the statute that we work under in
23 the environmental law, it mandates that the EPA and
24 the state look at a wide range of alternatives from
25 doing absolutely nothing to short of digging up the
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
f. Q 25
J 9 0373
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 entire site and carrying it off as an example.
2 What you try to do is develop a range of
3 alternatives that combine some containment
4 alternatives with no treatment but also try and
5 incorporate some treatment alternative that will
6 reduce the toxicity, the mobility or the volume.
7 All these alternatives and cleanup plans
8 are addressed and then are ran through a series of
9 remedy criteria. The first seven range from overall
10 protection of human health and environment and costs
11 are evaluated with respect to each other.
12 At the end of the feasibility study, the
13 state can accept and the community can accept, which
14 is what we are here to do and talk about tonight.
15 The state, we have worked very closely
16 with them in this process. While we have a lot of
17 agreements, the state agrees this EPA proposed remedy
18 does achieve some benefit. We do have disagreement
19 over some general arguments such as cleanup levels
20 and how clean is clean argument.
21 I am not going to go too much into it
22 at least at this present time. I'm happy to address
23 some questions from the public on it. We do have
24 some representatives from the state agency. If there
25 are any questions about that, we will address those.
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
' ° 9 037-: 26
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 And lastly and probably more importantly
2 than all the other previous issues is community
3 acceptance. We want to hear from the community, hear
4 their concerns about the remedy, do they like it, are
5 there portions that concerns them. We want to make
6 sure all their concerns are addressed.
7 This is again what I mentioned is part
8 of this process of why we are here tonight. That is
9 the whole objective of the public comment period; get
10 those comments, get them in writing, and the EPA will
11 formally respond as part of its selection.
12 I need to stress, the plan that is on
13 the table tonight is a proposal. It's not final. We
14 have not made up our mind. We can change our mind
15 and often do based on the comments we've received
16 from the public. We would encourage you, if you are
17 interested, to become involved in that.
18 Let's talk a little bit about -- I have
19 the EPA proposed remedy split into four major parts.
20 I will start first with soil or drainage ditch
21 sediments and then work into groundwater, work into
22 the sediments in the neighboring tidal marsh and also
23 talk a little bit about lead.
2~4 First, soil and drainage ditches. What
25 are our objectives?
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
6 9 0375
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
1 As I mentioned, we have some potential
2 and acceptable risk by contact with the soil onsite.
3 First thing we want to do by this cleanup is
4 eliminate that potential exposure. In addition, we
5 want to eliminate exposure to sediments that are in
6 drainage ditches. Two objectives of that; one is to
7 remove any potential transports in these drainage
8 ditches, to provide enough adequate drainage so the
ft
9 site doesn't flood in a storm. We are using, as a
10 guideline at this point, some of the recommendations
11 which is to provide adequate drainage on what they
12 call ten-year 24-hour storm drains.
13 Before we get into soil, we have to talk
14 a little bit about soil cleanup goals and what area
15 of the site are you going to potentially dig up, what
16 area are you going to potential cap, that type of
17 thing. You need to start focusing on areas.
18 Traditionally, EPA has favored or
19 expressed preference for cleanup that goes to the far
20 and near; the one in l million risk range. Recent
21 Superfund reform, some of you may or may not
22 remember, the Congress of 1995 really came after EPA
23 pretty hard and, as a result of that, we have adopted
24 some reforms that advocate the adoption of risk
25 management and cost effective strategies to reduce
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
28
0376
1 the risk proposed by these sites and not necessarily
2 dig up and treat every last item of contamination of
3 these sites.
4 Please keep in mind these remedies still
5 must be adequately protective of human health and
6 environment. That is EPAs mission. That's what we
7 are intending to do with all these remedies. To meet
8 that challenge, what we did was actually conduct
6
T value engineering studies that the objective of this
10 was to minimize the tons of soil excavated or removed
11 from sites while optimizing the risk reduction
12 achieved by this remedy. It really incorporated some
13 residual risk methodology. It actually looked at
14 digging up soil, taking the soil off-site and looking
15 at what the proposed remedial risk would be on the
16 site.
17 What we did, real quickly, is a fairly
18 involved study. It took a lot of time and is
19 summarized in a nice three-ring binder about six
20 inches thick. What we did here on the left-hand
21 columns over here, this is the EPA protective risk
22 range ranging from the minus six range, which is
23 going to be the most protective cleanup goals, to the
24 still acceptable cleanup goals of one in 10,000.
25 Soil that was above those respective cleanup goals
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
29
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER J " 03?7
1 was then identified on a map. Okay.
2 And we went through an exercise whereby
3 we assumed, for instance -- let's say that the one
4 time risk range is a one in 10,000 risk for
5 developing cancer. We developed a cleanup level for
6 the concentration of soil. Then we identified how
7 much soil onsite was actually greater than that
8 concentration..
9 In this case, using that top line, 5,300
10 tons of soil actually exceeded that cleanup goal.
11 Then we assume that you take that soil out of the
12 equation; take it off-site for this paperwork
13 exercise. We took it out of the equation, and we
14 replaced that dirty soil with clean fill of assumed
15 background concentration for this area.
16 We re-ran the exposure scenario to
17 evaluate the potential to a future onsite worker
18 potentially exposed to soils in the future. That's
19 what we are calling residual risk. We plotted those
20 results to kind of demonstrate what the overall
21 result was and found -- and you can probably guess
22 what we did find.
23 This is a graph. Here on the Y axis,
24 we have tons of soil. And on the X axis we have the
25 actual risk achieved by this excavation. You can see
WTT.T.TAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
30
r p.
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER^ ^ 03/;('<
1 with no action, the soil, as I mentioned, is minus
2 three risk. Okay.
3 The minus four area to the minus six
4 area is EPA protected risk range. Whatever soil
5 remedy we choose at Koppers must fall within this
6 risk range. Okay.
7 You can see this kind of isotonic
8 development trend here. If you excavate 5,300 tons,
6
5 come back in with clean soil, you are left with minus
10 four, minus five range. You get a very big reduction
11 in risk for 5,300 tons of excavation.
12 If you excavate 12,000 tons, you go from
13 eight times ten minus three risk to one times ten
14 minus five risk. That's right in the middle range.
15 The general trend we want to illustrate
16 in this graph is to show, as the tonnage increases,
17 your actual residual risk achieved is miniscule; is
18 small. You can see that in this case.
19 Let's say you go from 12,000 tons to
20 39,000 tons. The volume actually tripled, greater
21 than tripled, but your residual risk -- the
22 additional risk you achieved there was very small in
23 comparison.
24 What this tells us is that you have a
25 certain amount of soil onsite that's pretty heavily
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
31
i> 9
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER "37Q
1 contaminated there or hot spots. A lot of other soil
2 onsite you could call mildly contaminated, and then
3 we have somewhat widespread mild or low level
4 contamination onsite.
5 What we are looking at here -- we've
6 worked a little bit with DHEC. We are proposing to
7 excavate the hot spots and then come back in and cap
8 this other mildly contaminated soil. What we are
6
9 proposing to do is actually dig up* this 12,000 tons
10 and then cap to a level that gives us really the
11 digging up of 86,000 tons down here on this minus six
12 risk range. I will get into that a little bit more
13 in a second. If there is anything confusing, we are
14 going to have a question and answer period.
15 These are the overall remedies that we
16 evaluated for soil. Okay. The range, as I
17 mentioned, is from no action all the way to
18 incorporating some treatment alternatives. We looked
19 at possibly just capping soil, okay, possibly just
20 capping 6.7 acres with actually no excavation and no
21 treatment.
22 And we also looked at the potential of
23 just digging up this soil; digging up 12,000 tons of
24 soil and taking that off-site for disposal. We
25 looked at digging up the soil and potentially
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
32
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER [j O
n
1 constructing a hazardous waste landfill onsite to
2 contain this material.
3 And we also incorporated some treatment
4 alternatives where we looked at various combinations
5 of digging up the soil, thoroughly incinerating some
6 soil. And then you can see the five series of this
7 alternative where we actually looked at the combined
8 excavations of 12,000 tons with some additional
6
9 capping to achieve a greater level of protection.
10 And that's where we are at as far as
11 proposed soil alternative combination of things. We
12 are looking at the excavation of 12,000 tons of soil,
13 the hot spot stuff, and also the sediments and take
14 that off-site for disposal. The location that has
15 been appointed for disposal is the Laidlaw facility
16 for hazardous waste in Pineville, South Carolina. Is
17 that Laidlaw?
18 In addition to that, we are going to go
19 with additional capping. We are talking about 24.5
20 acres capped over soil with greater than two parts
21 per million. BenzoPyrene equivalent will
22 provide residual risk of 1.10 minus six. The
23 present worth of that alternative estimated for the
24 soil is roughly $5.43 million.
25 I want to show you a few figures on the
a WTT.LIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
33
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER [j 9 n 7 r) <•
1 soil remedy. This is a picture of the site. It
2 shows areas that we are going to excavate or are
3 proposed for excavation and shows proposed areas for
4 capping.
5 The cap we've developed is conceptual,
6 for cost purposes. It is a geotextile mat first
7 placed on the soil that we are not going to dig up.
8 That mat or that layer is really for demarcation
9 only. It's not intended for any infiltration barrier
10 or anything. It's intended to say soil below this is
11 mildly contaminated.
12 In addition to that, we are going to put
13 a layer of compacted crushed stone. We estimate
14 12 inches will be sufficient at this point in time.
15 We were going with that at this point in time. It's
16 very consistent with some of the other capping
17 alternatives that have been utilized for container
18 storage.
19 And once this stuff gets wet, and it's
20 compacted, it can be as hard as concrete. We like
21 this conceptual approach probably a little bit better
22 than asphalt or concrete given the drainage
23 considerations.
24 If we end up capping 24.5 acres with
25 asphalt, we are going to have one heck of a quantity
A. WILLIAK ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
34
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLBR S 9 n7Qo
1 of rain to deal with if it rains a half inch. It
2 could end up flooding that area. That gives you a
3 little bit of the basis behind that crushed
4 limestone.
5 The area with double cross hatch are the
6 areas for excavation. Most excavations are around
7 the former treatment area, some of the drip track
8 area. This middle portion site is where the storage
6
9 of the wood was. We're proposing to cap some of
10 that. Some of the excavation is in the old
11 impoundment area. Some of the other suspected sites
12 and some areas of lead on the road and the barge
13 canal we are also dealing with as well.
14 I want to show you real quickly what
15 EPAs proposed remedy does in the range of risk
16 reduction. Here is the time line. There is EPAs
17 protected risk range. EPA. can accept any remedy
18 within this protected risk range.
19 You can see, with no action, we are
20 outside; in the red zone; the remedy not protected;
21 must take some action. By the excavations of only
22 12,000 tons, by the replacements with clean fill back
23 in those areas, we fall right about in the middle of
24 EPAs protected risk range; right about one in
25 100,000.
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
35
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER >%J * 0 3 c ^
l By that additional cap of 24.5 acres,
2 another level on the order of or the magnitude of an
3 additional risk reduction, that takes us right to the
4 end of the actual risk range of 1.1 times ten minus
5 six.
6 I guess our point that I would like to
7 make with this graph is the combination of 12,000
8 tons with off-site excavation disposal and 24 acres
6
9 capped takes us right up to the threshold that we are
10 allowed to under the statute.
11 A quick minute about drainage
12 reconstruction. The three major ditches we are going
13 to dig up soil and reconstruct are the Braswell
14 Street ditch. I believe 2,250 linear feet of that
15 ditch is going to -- actually, sediments are going to
16 be pulled out of that thing and reconstructed. In
17 all likelihood, at this point in time, we are talking
18 about reconstructing those ditches to very similar,
19 if not identical, to the Hagood Street ditch.
20 In the interim action, it will be
21 constructed with tapered sides or three-sided; linear
22 concrete on the bottom and two sloping concrete
23 sides, roughly 800 feet vertical drainage proposed
24 for reconstruction and also about 500 feet of the
25 Milford Street ditch that's proposed.
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
36
r • -^
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER U " 0 5 8 ^
1 And keep in mind that also includes the
2 ditches that have been reconstructed or will be
3 reconstructed under the interim action system.
4 That's pretty much soil in a nutshell.
5 Groundwater; we have three objectives
6 for the groundwater program in the three sources that
7 I mentioned. These objectives plotted those three
8 source areas; one, we are going to go in.. We want
6
9 these groundwater remedies to remove NAPL, remove
10 Creosote to the maximum standard that you practically
11 can.
12 . All of you need to realize that this is
13 a very similar analogy to an oil field type thing.
14 You are exploring for oil. You are trying to recover
15 oil for deposits. There is only so much oil you can
16 get out with the existing technology. Sooner or
17 later you come to a point you turn off the pump. At
18 this point in time, we cannot extract. Cost
19 effective technology does not exist to get one more
20 drop.
21 The same analogy applies to Creosote or
22 non-aqueous phase liquids. We are going to remove
23 the maximum that we can with the technology present.
24 The area that we can no longer remove the Creosote,
25 we want to contain that so we don't have any
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
37
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER (j 9 038"
1 additional migration off the site. That's the second
2 objective, containment of these potentially
3 non-restorable resource areas.
4 Lastly but not least important is the
5 restoration of aqueous contaminant plumes. We are
6 going to go after those as well.
7 We looked at four general alternatives
8 to achieve; one was no action; two, just the
ft
9 containment using placement of intermittent barriers
10 to stop any additional migration and limited pumping.
11 The third alternative was containment and recovery of
12 NAPL. We would achieve these objectives by using
13 conventional extraction wells.
14 And the last one we looked at is
15 innovative in-situ treatment, which actually
16 establishes vertical circulation cells. You actually
17 have two well screens that you extract water from the
18 bottom oil screen and then reinject at the top. You
19 actually get vertical circulation in the aquifer.
20 The advantage with this system, you
21 don't actually have to extract groundwater, but you
22 set up this wall of defenses in the groundwater that
23 you have now insured that no water is moving past
24 this point, and you gain containment that way.
25 We are kind of combining -- what we are
a WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
38
r;
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER [) $ 0 * P »'
1 proposing to do at this stage is kind of combine a
2 little bit of both technologies. We are proposing to
3 go with alternative three, which is containment and
4 recovery with extraction wells in 'these three areas.
5 And in the former treatment area, six shallow feeding
6 wells with interim remedial water barriers. Those
7 are in addition to the wells installed under the
8 interim action system.
ft
9 In the northwest corner near Ashley
10 River, we're proposing to install two shallow wells.
11 In the old impoundment area, we're talking about an
12 additional two intermediate wells.
13 These are conceptual. What our plan is,
14 as we proceed with this plan, if it looks like these
15 wells are not adequate, if we don't have the spacing,
16 don't have the pumping power to achieve these
17 objectives, we can go ahead and put some more wells
18 in.
19 Another potential contingency we are
20 also considering and also proposing, the adopting of
21 in-situ wells to potentially achieve these
22 objectives. The present worth is $3.074 million. I
23 want to talk conceptually about it and show you what
24 this consists of.
25 Here is your three NAPL source areas we
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
39
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER !j 9 D7O-
1 are going after. It shows the proposed location of
2 the extraction wells in the former treatment area.
3 It shows two extraction wells in the impoundment area
4 and also shows two extraction wells in the northwest
5 corner. That's it for groundwater.
6 We have areas of sediment contamination
7 that need to be addressed. These areas are five;
8 Ashley River, the barge canal, and three, tidal marsh
A
9 areas known as north tidal, south tidal and northwest
10 tidal marsh. Our objective for this sediment
11 alternative, we are to remove demonstrated toxicity.
12 In those areas where we had demonstrated toxicity, we
13 want to remove that toxicity and restore those
14 marshes to a functioning system.
15 In the areas where we did not have
16 demonstrated toxicity to the organisms, we want to
17 contain those sediments in those areas to make sure
18 we don't have any additional migration. We're not
19 necessarily proposing to excavate, not proposing to
20 remove soil but to look at some less intrusive
21 measures such as capping, et cetera to take care of
22 that. That's really what we did in developing these
23 sediment alternatives where we had to evaluate the
24 feasibility of physical removal of that sediment.
25 And then in the areas which did not have
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
40
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER ~> 9 03 6 ^
1 toxicity, let's look at some less intrusive methods
2 such as sedimentation to remove that toxicity or
3 remove that potential problem.
4 Here are some other alternatives we
5 looked at for the sediments in those areas; one was
6 no action. No action really looked at just source
7 control and just counting on natural degradation of
8 contaminants. We recognize no action in this case is
6
9 not adequate protection so we really can't select it
10 as an option.
11 We looked at enhanced sedimentation in
12 the Ashley River. The part of the Ashley River we
13 are talking about is surrounding the area of interest
14 with some piles; actually driven piles. The analogy
15 I have used, these driven piles are going to be
16 driven in the Ashley River to surround the area of
17 interest and that these piles are actually going to
18 decrease water velocity to enhance sedimentation, to
19 entice the Ashley River to drop out its sediment
20 load.
21 The people in the midwest use snow
22 fences, and it may be more appropriate in the coastal
23 area to talk about the sand dunes. In very similar
2*4 ways that we install snow fences along sand dunes to
25 capture rolling sand and make sure the dune
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
41
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER il 9
0389
1 environment stays, that's the general idea of
2 enhanced sedimentation. We looked at enhanced
3 sedimentation and placing an engineered cap on those
4 sediments.
5 We looked at subaqueous capping in the
6 barge canal and in the tidal marshes. We actually
7 did not look at capping alone in the tidal marshes.
8 The idea being is that we need to excavate some soils
6
9 from these tidal marshes first. «If we were to place
1C a cap on top, we would start messing with the
11 existing tidal marsh.
12 We have looked at changes in tidal
13 marshes. They are really these three series, which
14 was first, excavation in the toxic area followed by
15 restoration and capping.
16 The fourth thing we looked at was also
17 in-situ bioremediation. That's basically introducing
18 oxygen and other nutrients to facilitate and speed up
19 the natural degradation of these contaminants.
20 The alternative we are proposing to go
21 with -- I have figures for all of these -- in the
22 Ashley River, proposing to go with enhanced
23 sedimentation. We want to surround this potential
24 ecological concern with driven piles.
25 We are going to have to design these
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER L> 9
42
03PO
1 piles to determine optimal arrangement to get the
2 maximum range of deposition; how far should these
3 piles be placed, what's the overall height, how far
4 do these piles need to be installed to make sure they
5 don't bend over in a storm.
6 This is the general area here that we
7 are talking about. It's a roughly 1,500-foot segment
8 of the Ashley River immediately adjacent to the site.
6
9 It's going to go out -- the width of the actual
10 enhanced sedimentation alternative is going to go out
11 to the channel of the Ashley River that is maintained
12 by the Corps of Engineers.
13 The beauty of this alternative is that
14 it works with the existing land use. There are some
15 current docks here, Braswell shipyard and also Tommy
16 Parker of Parker Marine has a dock there as well. By
17 installing these piles and enticing the natural
18 sedimentation, it allows these businesses to
19 continually operate; does not put them out of
20 business. We do not mess up the use of their
21 existing docks.
22 Here is the general idea. This is just
23 a conceptual cross section. These piles will be.
24 driven into the sand or driven into the sediment, and
25 we suspect that these piles may still stick above the
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
43
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER 0 Q
039
1 water level at, say, low tide. We don't have these
2 answers right now. We need to get some hydraulic
3 modeling to find out the optimal spacing and what
4 height to entice and give us the best rate of
5 deposition.
6 Over time, we expect accumulation of
7 clean sediment in that impacted area. We talked with
8 the Charleston Corps of Engineers. This remedy has
6
9 been used locally at a place called Wigley Point; not
10 to recover contaminated sediment. It's used to
11 actually shore up the eroding shoreline, okay,
12 actually keep up that area and enhance that
13 sedimentation.
14 We believe that based on the data we
15 have now, it is going to -- it can be very effective.
16 We do expect a fair amount of sedimentation over
17 time. I will tell you that there is a contingency
18 built in this plan. If I am wrong, if we have made a
19 mistake, if we do not engineer this thing
20 appropriately, if we don't get the accumulation of
21 sediment that we expect, the beauty of this remedy is
22 that we can then say, in a five-year period, if we
23 don't see the accumulation we like, we can come back
24 in and use those installed piles to actually place
25 and contain an engineer cap; that might be a sand
a. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., t ASSOCIATES
-------
44
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER r Q
• P392
l blanket or a foot layer of sand or geotexture fabric
2 and just enhance it if it's not working. But what
3 this gives us is an opportunity to try this, see if
4 it works.
5 We believe, based on our discussions
6 with some of the experts that are developing this,
7 that it will work. If it does, great. If not, we
8 can go back in, like I mentioned, and augment with an
6
3 engineered cap at a later time.
10 The barge canal remedy is the middle
11 here. Barge canal is talking about subaqueous
12 capping. Let me give you that picture. This is the
13 barge canal, this general area. It's 3.2 acres in
14 size.
15 This barge canal was dredged one time
16 into the tidal marsh. Right now it's a barge canal
17 that's filled up. It has impacted sediments at the
18 bottom. These sediments do not demonstrate toxicity.
19 We really didn't evaluate it as far as removal. We
20 do want to cap this.
21 What we are proposing to do is fill this
22 and cap this area. What we want to do is return the
23 barge canal to what its existing or what its former
24 land use or use was, which was a support tidal marsh,
25 which is the grassy marsh that fiddler crabs and
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
45
COLLOQUY BY MR. 2ELLER L> 9 n ? Q -,
1 other nice bugs and bunnies live in. To do so, we
2 need roughly 28,000 cubic yards of fill material.
3 We are looking at the capping of this
4 barge canal in really two different layers. The
5 bottom layer is what we call the base fill layer;
6 roughly six feet thick. We need some sort of fill
7 materials to fill that. On the top two feet is your
8 actual marsh mud organic matrix that will be used to
f!
9 plant new growth, support tidal feedlings and to hold
10 that cap for a lifetime.
11 At the present time, what we are
12 proposing to do is use pnsite fill source for that
13 bottom six-foot layer. As I mentioned, as a result
14 of Ashepoo's Phosphate operation in this area, this
15 thin strip of upland is impacted with lead above our
16 cleanup goal, okay. It has some relatively high
17 levels of lead. We did some leaching testing on this
18 lead to find out is it hazardous waste or is it
19 non-hazardous waste. The leaching testing is
20 specified in the regulations.
21 We also went a little bit beyond this,
22 and we actually took some Ashley River water, all
23 right, and collected a representative sample of that
24 material on this thin strip of upland right here and
25 shook that for 18 hours and then analyzed the
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
46
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER I) 9
1 resultant water to see if this material would leach
2 at concentrations that would potentially impact the
3 surrounding environment; the ecology in this
4 instance .
5 What we found, no, it does not. And it
6 was important to know the test we conducted was for
7 actual open water disposal. The test we conducted,
8 hypothetically , we dig up this material. We take it
6
9 out of Charleston, if you were allowed to do it and
10 dispose of that pile of lead contaminants in the
11 sediments, really soil in this case, and is it going
12 to reach a concentration that is going to impact
13 ecological receptors.
14 We are actually going one step further.
15 We are not talking about open water disposal. We are
16 talking about confined disposal of lead. We are
17 going to dispose of it in there, cap it with two feet
18 of clean marsh mud and then monitor it over a
19 thirty-year period to make sure it does not impact
20 this stuff. We believe that confined disposal is
21 very prudent technology that is utilized in all
22 coastal areas.
23 The Corps of Engineers uses this for
24 dredge disposal of soil material for impact sediments
25 classified as waste. It's very proven technology.
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
47
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER ^ 9 039'"
1 We believe it will work here. That's our proposed
2 remedy for the barge canal.
3 I kind of jumped ahead and got into lead
4 impacted. We are really killing two birds with one
5 stone in this aspect; not only recovering potential
6 impacted sediments, we're also removing potential
7 exposure to lead soils and also dealing with those
8 soils in a manner that buy us some cost
9 effectiveness.
10 The alternative is to take this lead or
11 deal with this lead, take it off-site for $200 a ton,
12 for upwards of $8 million and manage it in a way that
13 does not impact the environment. Again, we really
14 kill two birds with one stone.
15 In the tidal marshes, we are talking
16 about excavation in two tidal marshes followed by
17 capping. In the north tidal marsh up on Hagood
18 Avenue, north of Hagood Avenue, this area of Rosemont
19 subdivision, we have about 1,000 linear feet of that
20 tidal creek that's impacted and has demonstrated
21 toxicity. Roughly, putting it all together, about a
22 quarter of an acre of sediments, 1,000 feet. Dig it
23 up, take it off-site and revegetate, reestablish, it
24 as a functional tidal marsh.
25 In the south tidal marsh, very similar;
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
48
COLLOQUY BY MR. 2ELLER J ^ 039^
1 little bigger on the excavation. This is the south
2 tidal marsh. The contaminants are really comingled.
3 We have some pH that we feel are attributable to
4 Koppers operation. More importantly, we have lead up
5 to 50,000 ppm. That's pretty high.
6 What we are proposing to do is excavate
7 an acre and a half; 1.5 acres. This is this general
8 area here. This is the area of demonstrated
6
9 toxicity. Again, meeting our objective to remove
10 that toxic sediment from the area it's on, after we
11 excavate that material, we are then going to come
12 back in with a foot layer of cap and reestablish it
13 as a functional tidal marsh again.
14 The other general area of this site,
15 some of this other area of the marsh that
16 demonstrated a potential for unacceptable risk posed
17 to the ecological receptors, since we didn't have
18 demonstrated toxicity, we don't necessarily want to
19 remove that material and maybe create a situation
20 where the cure is worse than the disease.
21 He do want to try to enhance that
22 degradation of those contaminates by in-situ or
23 bioremediation. That is going out there with
24 capsules of nutrients, implant them in the tidal
25 marsh. Over time, these capsules release nutrients,
a WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
49
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER L> 9 f) ^ Q ^
l enhance degradation of pH and also for lead as well
2 and take care of those contaminants in that way.
3 I failed to mention while I had this
4 slide up, in-situ bioremediation in the northwest
5 tidal marsh of this section has also been highlighted
6 as an area of potential concern. Again, no potential
7 toxicity. We want to enhance the natural degradation
8 by in-situ bioremediation. This area here shows you
p
9 generally the Ashley River and proposed enhanced
10 sedimentation alternatives.
11 Let me conclude that by the sediment
12 alternatives, we are talking about on the order of
13 $3.25 million. Again, that includes enhanced
14 sedimentation in the Ashley, capping in the barge
15 canal and then dredging and off-site disposal,
16 in-situ bioremediation in the north, south and
17 northwest tidal marshes.
18 I still got ahead of myself and talked
19 to you about the lead impacted soil. I will back up
20 just a quick second. I mentioned that we have some
21 lead onsite. As a result, we believe not as a result
22 of past Koppers operation but as operations by the
23 Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works, we have developed
24 a cleanup goal for that lead of 1,150 parts per
25 million.
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
50
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER LJ
1 It's an interesting dilemma. The EPA
2 has established interim screening levels for
3 residential soil levels of 400 ppm. Right now the
4 EPA does not have an official policy on lead cleanup
5 for expected industry land use. We have tabled that
6 problem at the present time.
7 We've developed an equation that would
8 protect the developing fetus of a. pregnant woman
9 onsite. Say what we assume at this point in time a
10 pregnant woman may be working onsite. In the future,
11 we want to protect the developing fetus which would
12 be a sensitive receptor in this instance.
13 The model that we have calculated, blood
14 lead levels in the developing fetus is not to exceed
15 ten micrograms per decimeter. It looks at potential
16 absorption and what have you. We are proposing any
17 lead contained in soil that is above 1,150 parts per
18 million, we are going to take that material, use that
19 as an onsite fill use in the barge canal
20 reconstruction project. That not only eliminates
21 potential to the future onsite worker, we also get a.
22 very clean and effective onsite fill source for use
23 in the barge site construction.
24 As I mentioned, the test allows us to
25 sample the soil, and it's not classified as hazardous
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
51
f P
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER ° ? 0 3 9 r>
1 waste. The tests we have done suggests it will not
2 leach at levels that impact the environment. That's
3 really the nuts and bolts of that lead soil
4 alternative.
5 Two things here on that lead soil
6 alternative we are proposing for disposal. We're
7 looking at three alternatives. We looked at capping
8 soil concentrates greater than 1,150 and also
6
9 confined disposal.
10 There are two key concerns we need to be
11 keyed into. There is a short-term issue and
12 long-term. Short-term issue, while we construct this
13 barge canal and cap these sediments, we need to make
14 sure that we don't impact the Ashley River or any
15 neighboring tidal marshes during that construction
16 project. We feel that can be handled by engineering
17 control and maybe even sheet pile to help us out in
18 that aspect.
19 And there is also the long-term concerns
20 as far as long-term leachates. We are going to do
21 some additional leachate tests that will not impact:
22 the 2.3 acres on top of the barge canal. If it does,
23 we believe and we will construct a disposal facility
24 that will be adequately protective. That may include
25 additional capping. It may include some clay layers.
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
52
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER i> 9 n ' ^
• U -T U !. I
1 There are some engineering alternatives there to take
2 care of that problem. That is our part of the design
3 issue that we will address appropriately.
4 In conclusion, I have done a lot of
5 talking. I've really scanned over this. I know you
6 have some questions. I hope you do anyhow.
7 This is a table that I just pulled from
8 the proposed plan that kind of summarizes it up.
6
9 What we are talking about doing here, we are looking
10 at about $11.75 million of cleanup split up into four
11 general areas; soil and drainage ditch sediments;
12 talking about the off-site or the excavation of
13 12,000 tons of soil; reconstruction of about three
14 quarters of a mile of drainage ditches and then the
15 additional capping, the replacement of 24.5-acre
16 tract over mildly impacted material.
17 Groundwater and NAPL, we are looking at
18 three objectives in the source areas. The three
19 objectives are removal to maximum practical
20 containment of those source areas and then potential
21 restoration of the containments in those areas via
22 extraction well containment and possibility of
23 additional extraction wells if needed and maybe even
24 in-situ vertical insertion wells; $4 million.
25 With the sediments, we're proposing
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
53
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
b 9 040
1 enhanced sedimentation, $541,000; and barge canal
2 subaqueous capping, 880,000. And then in the tidal
3 marshes, talking about dredging, capping and off-site
4 disposal in the north and south tidal for a total of
5 1.75 acres and then in-situ bioremediation in both
6 shores that had not demonstrated toxicity and also in
7 the northwest tidal marsh.
8 And as far as lead impacted soil,
*<
9 excavation of all soil over 1,140 ppm and disposal of
10 that unit into the barge canal. That is all I have
11 prepared at this point in time.
12 I do want to mention again and what is
13 very important is your comments, and that is why we
14 are here tonight. I really enjoy this part of the
15 process. It's getting out and talking to the public
16 and concerned citizens, consultants, engineering,
17 whatever the case may be and to encourage other
18 comments.
19 We are right in the middle of a 30-day
20 public comment period which started April 3rd and it
21 goes to May 2nd. I will notify all of you now that
22 if somebody needs additional time, there are
23 provisions to extend that comment period by 30 days.
24 If anybody needs an additional 30 days, we will be
25 happy to extend that kind of period if someone needs
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
54
COLLOQUY BY MR. ZELLER
0 9 0402
1 it.
2 What we expect to do after the
3 conclusion is take a good look at all the comments
4 received. If comments are favorable or if there are
5 comments that we feel we can address and talk with
6 individuals and make sure those comments are
7 adequately addressed and remedied, we will sign and
8 document the final remedy selection in what we call a
6
9 record of decision.
10 That record of decision will really
11 outline the performance standard of EPAs selected
12 remedy and will also include a responsive summary to
13 all comments received at this public meeting and any
14 written comments as well. We expect probably to
15 finalize that decision in June or July of this year.
16 It will be this summer or maybe early fall, but it
17 will happen this year.
18 Following that we are going to continue,
19 as I mentioned, with the interim remedial action of
2Q operations of that system. We expect to be finished
21 with construction of the Hagood ditch by the end of
22 May easily. We will continue to operate and
23 eventually tie that system into groundwater
24 remediation.
25 Following that, probably the first thing
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
55
COLLOQUY BY MR. 2ELLER ,' Q
u * 0407,
1 as far as the EPA, you'll probably see excavation of
2 soil begin immediately. We will probably talk about
3 it with Beazer and see. We are kind of up against
4 some pretty tight schedules regarding soil
5 contamination and removal. If the company is
6 willing, we might proceed. It depends how quickly we
7 can get together with Beazer.
8 I will say EPA is going to endeavor to
9 bring in some additional responsible parties as I
10 mentioned, and we have some lead onsite we don't
11 believe Beazer is responsible for. We are talking
12 with that company now.
13 As I mentioned, we are working with them
14 to address the ongoing source in the south tidal
15 marsh, and we are probably going to implement this
16 lead impacted soil remedy.
17 Again, the last note that I am going to
18 make and, again, make one more point, public
19 participation is encouraged. Superfund authorization
20 is coming up. The public's participation is only
21 going to get more involved in any reauthorization of
22 Superfund. I couldn't be more enthused about that.
23 We don't live in Charleston. I would
24 like to live in Charleston. You-all live here, and
25 you-all need to be comfortable with what we are
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
56
COLLOQUY BY MS . CRAIG f.
J 9 040.'
l proposing to do. If it doesn't meet your
2 expectation, I want to see if we can't modify our
3 plans or address your concerns appropriately.
4 With that, I am going to stop talking
5 here for a little bit and get a drink of water. I
6 want .to give Ms. Shannon Craig who is with Beazer and
7 has worked with us for the last four years and give
8 her a minute to share her concerns or support,
6
9 whatever it may be, of this remedy. With that,
10 Shannon.
11 MS. CRAIG: Thanks, Craig. I am only
12 going to take a few minutes. I'm sure you'll be glad
13 to hear that. This was a great presentation and very
14 informative. I just wanted an opportunity to be back
15 with you again.
16 This is the third public meeting I have
17 attended as the environmental manager for Beazer. I
18 work for Beazer. Our offices are in Pittsburgh. I
19 have been coming to Charleston quite a bit, actually
20 since I have been involved with the site since 1990.
21 We are glad to be at this point in the
22 circle of process. We are happy that the
23 investigation and the studies are finished. It's
24 time to move forward with implementing EPA plans and
25 tying it in with the interim remedial actions that
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
57
COLLOQUY BY MS. CRAIG
-------
58
-------
Q&A
59
9 n A n -
l currently proposed will be sufficient to meet those
2 objectives.
3 They're talking about it's not
4 aggressive enough. And we have kind of tabled that
5 dispute to say they may be correct, but what we would
6 like to do is start with the number of wells we have
7 proposed at this time.
8 And if those do not meet the objectives
6
9 based on the period review process with DHEC and
10 everybody else involved, if we are not meeting those
11 objectives with the approach on the table now, we
12 have committed to install additional wells if need be
13 and maybe possibly install or adoption of in-situ
14 technology.
15 It's just kind of a different philosophy
16 really. We would like to start slow. We want to
17 incorporate more of an interim phase and then scale
18 up. That's actually pretty -- again, we agree on the
19 end result. We don't necessarily agree on the
20 tidbits and details in between. We do agree on the
21 end result.
22 The two other issues are fairly more
23 substantive; one is more of an excavation number.and
24 overall protective issue; generally summed up, how
25 clean is clean argument. If I can find the
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
60
Q
Q&A
' 0408
1 appropriate slide. I guess, really, the second issue
2 of dispute is over the excavation number.
3 As I mentioned, EPA is proposing to
4 excavate soil based on concentrations that will give
5 us 12,000 tons of soil. DHEC has proposed a more
6 conservative or more protective cleanup goal of
7 39,000 tons, which triples the tonnage involved. And
8 there is also a disagreement over how I guess the
6
9 overall size of the cap is. We are at 24.5 acres
10 capped. The state would prefer 30 acres.
11 The big difference you might guess is
12 over the actual excavation number. We basically
13 triple the tons involved. And we will be saving a
14 substantial amount of money based on the data that we
15 have. We are adequately being protected with 12,000
16 tons and the cap of 24.5 acres.
17 As I mentioned, the big problem that we
18 have there is really what we believe to be a
19 statutory thing. If you look at the residual risk
20 number and what the potential risk would be posed to
21 a future onsite worker, if you excavate 12,000 tons,
22 you are right smack dab in the middle of our range.
23 We could, by law, select 12,000. We are
24 being adequately protective of the human element in
25 the environment. We want to push that to the more
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
9
61
0409
l protective end of the risk and cap 24.5 acres. It's
2 our contention -- DHEC disputes this. They are
3 preserving their rights -- the excavation of 39,000
4 tons and then the cap of 31 acres actually takes us
5 outside the risk range. DHEC disagrees with that.
6 We respect, that disagreement. That's
7 why we feel a 30-acre cap goes outside the risk
8 range. We don't believe we have the authority to
6
9 require cleanup to that level.
10 The third and last issue really of
11 disagreement is over lead contaminated soil. It's
12 over a cleanup goal issue. Again, how clean is clean
13 argument. The model that I mentioned earlier that
14 assumes a pregnant woman working onsite, and there is
15 absorption, ingestion or absorption on skin,
16 potential impact on the fetus, looks at a bunch of
17 input. It's a model that looks at congestion rate
18 and days exposure and the big number is overall
19 absorption.
20 There are absorption factors that we are
21 proposing; 12 percent absorption. We believe that 12
22 percent is adequate. There's basic disagreement with
23 the model. We are proposing 1,150 ppra. DHEC is.
24 proposing 630.
25 The large disagreement with absorption,
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
62
Q&A ^9 04M
1 we are going with 12 percent and the state is
2 preferring 16 percent. Basically, that difference in
3 number equates end results to about 600 ppm
4 difference. That's it basically. That's the three
5 issues.
6 MR, HAYNES: That's pretty accurate.
7 MR. ZELLER: A side issue; I am using
8 their number of 630. You might imagine the volume of
9 soil is tremendously different; basically doubled for
10 sake of conversation. All of that soil would not be
11 able to be put into the barge confinement. DHEC is
12 looking to put some of the material in the barge
13 canal and the remainder they're proposing off-site
14 disposal for that.
15 MS. MIRECKI: Where would that be if you
16 had wells?
17 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Repeat that.
18 MS. MIRECKI: Where would that be?
19 MR. HAYNES: Let me introduce myself.
20 My name is Richard Haynes. I am the state project
21 manager; counter equivalent to Craig. For additional
22 wells, we would agree on the areas of groundwater
23 remediation. We would increase the number of wells
24 up front in the same three areas.
25 MR. GOODWIN: In all three?
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
^ 9 04;"
QtA
1 MS. MIRECKI: Would these be necessary
2 wells? You probably have it pretty deep in this
3 area.
4 MR. HAYNES: We don't think that we have
5 a lot of NAPL sitting lower than intermittent level.
6 We have intermediate clay across the site fairly
7 consistent. We had two wells on top that are all
8 pretty clean, very clean. Levels are above that.
6
9 It's pretty non-detectable. We feel like the
10 intermediate clay is holding it down presently.
11 There is some disagreement on the extent of what is
12 in the intermediate clay area.
13 MR. ZELLER: It's a long process. We
14 eventually have -- we took about four months, to be
15 honest with you, and had some pretty high level
16 meetings with our state counterparts. We were hoping
17 to get on with this proposal in December, try to beat
18 the Christmas rush. We have closed the gap
19 considerably from where we were at six months ago.
20 We haven't been able to get all the way there. I
21 guess that's all I can say.
22 As far as reiterating what Richard said,
23 intermediate clay layer immediately above the water
24 on top of the Koppers land appears to be very
25 competent, about ten feet thick; have not detected
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
QiA
64
->
1 any NAPL, not any contamination.
2 MS. MIRECKI: How about PCP or arsenic?
3 MR. ZELLER: No. The big issue in
4 groundwater is really Creosote or NAPL, whatever you
5 want.
6 MS. MIRECKI: PCP is going to come from
7 Creosote.
8 MR. ZELLER: Creosote is polynuclear
6
9 aromatic hydrocarbons. PCP is a separate wood
10 preservative, I guess, stored in separate vessels,
11 treated in a separate pressure vessel as well, and it
12 was entirely different than wood preservatives. It's
13 more of an insecticide. And we do have PCPs in the
14 groundwater, but the big problem driving most of this
15 groundwater remediation is presence of Creosote; in
16 this case, Creosote. We have oil in some places. I
17 call it oil. It looks like oil.
18 MR. CHISOLM: I have a community
19 concern. I thought the ditches that you dig, there
20 is notification of the community on both sides.
21 Also, there's a small community on the other side
22 which is Silver Hill.
23 I want to know -- I don't think the.
24 community got involved when Beazer were in there. We
25 were not notified what was going on. Within the
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
65
ii o n »
Q&A U4 i 3
1 community, we don't understand what was going on in
2 the community. We want to know why people not
3 notified and leaving us blind to the situation,
4 getting ourselves exposed to anything.
5 We would like to know how our community
6 can be notified if we need to be decontaminated; kids
7 playing in the dirt and close to the park.
8 And I notice when Beazer wa.s there, they
9 put down some test ditches that they are digging on
10 the other side behind the power company. I want to
11 know whether it's taken care of.
12 MR. ZELLER: Do you live there?
13 MR. CHISOLM: In Rosemont.
14 MR. ZELLER: We are glad you are here.
15 I apologize we haven't been able to get to interested
16 citizens. Mr. Goodwin was hired as technical
17 assistance adviser for the community, tried to reach
18 out and keep your people informed. We've spoken
19 pretty continually with Mel and tried to keep you-all
20 informed. That's a fairly tough task.
21 We talked yesterday particularly when we
22 were actually starting onsite physical construction,
23 for instance, the ditch would be halfway excavated.
24 We can understand your concerns. We, I guess, had
25 been telling people that had been coming to these
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
66
r •
Q&A ^2 04] ;
1 meetings, expect to see some excavation pretty soon.
2 I guess maybe the brutal reality in the
3 digging up, there may be concerns over potential
4 exposure. I can understand. We will do everything
5 we can in the future and make sure y'all are informed
6 of actual physical construction. Glad you are here
7 tonight. You can help me by talking to your
8 neighbors and spreading the word. Hey, the EPA or
.6
9 Beazer construction are digging up this ditch.
10 I hope you now know, in the next wave,
11 we'll probably dig up Hagood Avenue and finish that
12 construction. We've got that orange construction
13 fence up there. I know it's not real desirable with
14 the ditch being open. I know we got to get over that
15 short-term thing. It's been there a long time,
16 longer than anybody wants it.
17 We're trying to make something a little
18 bit better. Everybody has to exercise patience in
19 the next couple of weeks. You will see once that
20 excavation is done we are actually going to place --
21 concrete is going to be poured in place.
22 MR. CHISOLM: I understand that clearly
23 too. There is a small family planting a garden,, just
24 off of that slope. I don't think they know the
25 condition that they are getting themselves involved
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
€7
Q&A !> 9 Q41-
1 in. We need to know what is going on. You can talk
2 to a small group, but you got to get to the master
3 ones. Some of the people that are shut in, really
4 doesn't know. I didn't know what was going on.
5 I understand Beazer was there in 1990 or
6 1992 and was testing the ground and digging holes.
7 We didn't know anything about it.
8 MR. ZELLER: Let me ask you a question.
9 That's a very valid concern. I can definitely see
10 where you are coming from.
11 There is going to be a lot of work in
12 the next couple of years. Regarding Rosemont, the
13 closest it's going to get to you, beside what is
14 going on now, is the excavation of that north side
15 tidal marsh; this area. This is probably a few years
16 away, probably two years, a good year anyhow.
17 As you know, this is Rosemont, the area
18 I think you are talking about, the garden right back
19 in this area. This is Hagood Avenue here. This is
20 going to be very close to citizens.
21 How would you suggest or recommend that
22 we, in the upcoming activities, how do you want to be
23 notified? Door to door? Do you want mailers? We
24 will be glad to do anything that we can. Believe me,
25 one of the frustrating things on our side is to know
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
r 68
Q&A ** ' i;
1 what is effective. We really want to keep you
2 informed. What works?
3 MR. CHISOLM: I think mailing would be
4 the best thing. That way it can get to everyone and
5 still get the information around.
6 MR. ZELLER: Very good. Something very
7 simple like a paragraph or two?
8 MR. CHISOLM: Yes.
9 MR. ZELLER: Very good suggestion.
10 MR. GOODWIN: I want to reiterate the
11 suggestion we were discussing yesterday as much as
12 possible and give the. community advance notice of
13 when specific things are going to be done on the
14 site. If we know that, it's a lot easier to
15 communicate within the four-mile group of people and
16 with the people that are sort of developing some of
17 the out-reach materials.
18 MR. ZELLER: Good. Again, very good
19 point. We'll try to do followup on that. Let me ask
20 you a question. Would it be fair to say that the
21 neighborhood we want to target mailings would be
22 Rosemont, four miles and Silver Hill?
23 MR. CHISOLM: Right.
24 MR. ZELLER: Would that be an inclusive
25 list?
,TR.. & ASSOCIATES
-------
69
Q&A
o 9 Q417
1 MR. CHISOLM: Yes.
2 MR. ZELLER: Easily accomplished. I can
3 see people walking door to door stuffing things in
4 the mail boxes.
5 MS. MIRECKI: I don't see that as being
6 feasible. If you mailed something from a company I
7 never had any dealings with, I throw it in the trash.
8 I don't think mailing is the answer. What he said
9 about the shut-in people or elderly loolcing at
10 something from EPA, even if it has rules on it, they
11 are not going to read it.
12 MR. ZELLER: You wouldn't call it junk
13 mail.
14 MR. GOODWIN: From a neighborhood
15 association.
16 MR. CHISOLM: A combination.
17 MR. DUBOIS: I think if you do your
18 part, mail it, you've done your part. If I throw it
19 away, that's my business. If you do your part and
20 mail it and get to the residents, it's up to me to
21 read it.
22 MS. PEURIFOY: Most of Rosemont is on
23 our mailing list. We went door to door and took all
2"4 the addresses down. The problem we have, we mail
25 things out, so many come back. I got a stack of fact
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
70
QtA ; r
o 9 Q413
1 sheets we got back. Maybe we can work with a tag
2 group and come up with a better way of getting that
3 information.
4 MR. CHISOLM: I didn't receive anything.
5 MR. ZELLER: Did you sign our list today
6 coming in?
7 MR. CHISOLM: Yes .
8 MR. ZELLER: We will definitely continue
9 mailing.
10 MR. CHISQLM: I was watching this
11 operation ever since 1992 when they had data between
12 residents and give us the Superfund EPA. That was
13 the worst site that they found. I called Beazer many
14 years ago trying to get some information. They said
15 they were just in the middle of testing something;
16 never got anything back from Beazer.
17 MR. ZELLER: Never got anything back?
18 MR. CHISOLM: I spoke to one of the
19 technicians onsite and never got anything.
20 MR. ZELLER: Monitoring wells you are
21 talking about?
22 MR. CHISOLM: Right.
23 MR. ZELLER: Those monitoring wells are
2~4 in the corner of the marsh right about here. There
25 are two monitoring wells. The area we are concerned
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
71
Q&A !j 9. Q4"r}
1 with is the area impacted which is the tidal marsh,
2 basic tidal creek.
3 MR. CHISOLM: It had runoff in it.
4 MR. ZELLER: We have heard concerns
5 about that garden. In fact, we looked at it
6 yesterday. And do you know who owns that?
7 MR. CHISOLM: Yes.
8 MR. ZELLER: It's very possible you need
6
y to look at it for there to be a potential exposure.
10 Sure, there needs to be first a potential transport
11 pathway and how are Creosote or how are contaminants
12 in general going to get into that garden.
13 We can take a look at it and possibly,
14 if it looks like there is a potential for concern, we
15 have a field component, we could look with our
16 laboratory and probably pull a couple samples. That
17 way, allay their fears.
18 MR. CHISOLM: I think you might not be
19 aware.
20 'MR. ZELLER: Is that your garden?
21 MR. CHISOLM: No, not my garden.
22 MR. ZELLER: Have they expressed
23 concerns?
24 MR. CHISOLM: If you don't know what you
25 are doing, you continue to do it, apparently they
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS. JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
Q&A
72
0420
1 might not know.
2 MR. GOODWIN: Do you test the things
3 that grow in the garden when they are eventually
4 produced?
5 MR. ZELLER: PAH are not bio-degradable.
6 We would be happy to take a look. I wouldn't mind
7 going and taking a look, see if there is a potential
8 for contaminant transport.
6
9 MR. GOODV7IN: And metPls.
10 MR. ZELLER: First thing before we dig
11 it up, we want to look more at the soil and see if we
12 have something. We need to hear those concerns and
13 do our best to see if we can address it to your
14 satisfaction.
15 MS. MIRECKI: You mentioned a
16 bioremediation for the lead in the south marsh.
17 Are you at liberty to elaborate to say
18 what that remediation amount is?
19 MR. ZELLER: Shannon, you want to
20 address that? There is a firm out of Gulf Bridge,
21 Florida that is working on not only the PAH but also
22 working on some plants that uptake inorganics. Then
23 you harvest the plants. That's generally --
24 MS. MIRECKI: Bioremediation.
25 MR. ZELLER: That's generally what we
T.TTTT.TSM PORERTS. JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
73
^9 04°'
1 are talking about. Admittedly, it's very innovative.
2 A lot of technology is tried and true that works
3 about everytime and gives you guaranteed. Then you
4 got that stuff that shows promise and needs study,
5 needs case study. It needs a Koppers or some other
6 site. We should go out and see if it works.
7 We are not making any rash promises this
8 is going to be the silver bullet that takes care of
*
9 everybody's contamination problem. You need to take
10 some educated risks every now and then.
11 The in-situ vertical circulation cells
12 in the groundwater, I think it's probably emerging
13 past innovative and looking fairly widespread.
14 Beazer used it in quite a few sites. Lots of other
15 companies got some tremendous advantages. Most
16 notable, you don't have to treat groundwater. It's
17 just reinjected; accomplishes the same thing without
18 treatment.
19 It has limitations as far as what
20 contaminants it's going to work for. You need to
21 test it out. That is as far as the lead goes,
22 inorganics; basically, taking it up.
23 MS. STAFFORD: Would you please explain
24 enhanced sedimentation, driving the piles into the
25 edge.
WTT.T.TAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
Q&A
74
0422
1 MR. ZELLER: Sure. Let me see how to
2 explain this differently than I have already. You
3 have seen the marshes. You have seen these snow
4 fences that have slats. And as the sand blows, it
5 actually catches that sand and holds it in place. We
6 are going to try and construct a fence using piles;
7 the same thing.
8 We are going to have probably -- if you
6
9 look at this diagram here, again, the spacing is to
10 be determined, but these things are probably going to
11 be as close as a foot apart. And the water in the
12 Ashley has very fine particles that, if you got a
13 glass of Ashley River and held it up, it would be
14 mud. Engineers and aquatic chemists call that total
15 suspended solids, very fine particles. Okay.
16 If you allow that glass of Ashley River
17 water to sit for, say, a couple hours might do it,
18 and you came back the next day or whatever and
19 looked, I would bet you would have about that much
20 sediment, and on the top you are going to have water
21 that's going to be relatively clear.
22 We are going to do the same thing with
23 this fence. Instead of a long fence that they use in
24 sand dunes, our fence is going to be piles. We are
25 going to do the same thing. These piles are going to
PORERTS . JR., fit ASSOCIATES
-------
75
L 9 042;
1 decrease the water velocity.
2 Very similar to, if you pick up a glass
3 of water, the velocity, if you didn't shake it, is
4 going to be zero. As that velocity drops, the
5 particles fall out. Same theory in this enhanced
6 sedimentation; decrease the water velocity. As the
7 water velocity decreases, the sediment that is
8 actually naturally suspended is going to fall out.
6
9 And based on some of the discussions and
10 evaluation reports that we have looked at locally, as
11 well as some reports from scientists that have helped
12 us in Mississippi, have said that this does work. It
13 has never to our knowledge or to my knowledge been
14 done for covering of contaminated sediments. It has
15 more widespread use, as I mentioned, to stop erosion
16 and to hold on to some upland area that may be
17 falling into a highly erosive river or something.
18 Does that help you?
19 MR. DUBOIS: My mind actually traveled
20 to the same place. You don't know this is going to
21 work, and you are going to try something new. Why
22 are you going to try something new instead of
23 something that has worked somewhere else?
24 MR. ZELLER: Hell, it has worked. All
25 right.
WTT.LIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
76
otA ^ 9 042<;
1 MR. DUBOIS: You said it wasn't used for
2 contaminants.
3 MR. ZELLER: It hasn't been used for
4 contaminants. Its direct correlation is direct
5 application. It has been used where, if you have an
6 erosive environment, sediments very quickly erode
7 away. This is being used to enhance or to stop that
8 erosive nature in a very similar way you would pull
6
9 up a snow fence to stop sand dunes from eroding.
10 Y'all know you need sand dunes to
11 protect from beach or wave erosion. Same theory;
12 except in this case, instead of clean sediments being
13 eroded away in the Ashley River, we actually have
14 impacted that. We would like to contain them in
15 place and not go anywhere. Okay.
16 At Wigley Point, the Corps has used this
17 for reclamation purposes; to reclaim land that was
18 being eroded away. It has worked very quickly in a
19 matter of couple years. They had marsh grass coming
20 up through this stuff. Okay.
21 We are trying to get the best of both
22 worlds, to be honest. We believe it's going to work.
23 Okay. If it does not work and we are wrong and we
24 can't get something, we can't modify the design to
25 get the rate of deposition that we feel we need then,
a WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
77
^9 0425
1 yes, we will go back to the old tried and true method
2 and likely come back in with a sand blanket, if it's
3 necessary. Okay.
4 We don't believe that we are going to
S have to do that sand blanket after the fact. I
6 believe on the data we have, there is enough data to
7 proceed and give this thing a shot.
8 We honestly wouldn't be sitting here
6
9 telling you that this is some magic bullet. We don't
10 know. We do take educated risks. We have to do that
11 to be on the front edge of science, but we try to
12 make educated risks that are not going to end up
13- making a bad situation worse. We don't think that is
14 the case. We honestly believe this is going to work.
15 MR. DUBOIS: What are the signs that you
16 know it's not going to work?
17 MR. ZELLER: Very good question. We
18 are continuing to monitor batch surveys. That's
19 nothing more than take a depth finder, get a
20 presituation, get our piles in place, take a sounding
21 along this 1,500-foot part of the river and determine
22 the elevation.
23 What you would do, survey the water*
24 Say the level is at five feet today. We have
25 sediments at this point that is 15 feet below water
POBERTS . JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
Q&A
78
0426
l surface. You establish elevation of that sediment.
2 Then you come back in and we determine what the
3 period of monitoring will be; monthly, probably not
4 bi-annual; maybe yearly most definitely.
5 We will come back in and say a year
6 later and denote how far below the water table or the
7 surface of water the sediment is. If it's now a foot
8 higher than it once was, we know this thing is
6
9 working; that we are getting sediments.
10 If it's three feet lower than it once
11 was, oh, no, we have recreated an erosion
12 environment; things aren't working. We don't think
13 that is going to happen. I'm just showing you an
14 example.
15 We will be able with surveys to
16 determine if we are getting accumulation, status quo
17 or erosion. There's a proposal to do aerial surveys.
18 We will get something that allows us to, in real
19 time, determine if this thing is adequately covering
20 up that sediment.
21 What we hope to do is get at least a
22 foot cap that we put out there; at least a foot
23 thick, maybe 18 inches thick. We hope over a shprt
24 period of time, and we are told that it does work,
25 that sooner or later what would be to me a very
WTT.T.TAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
79
^9 0427
1 desired feature five years from now, would be that
2 portion of the Ashley River out to the channel has
3 had so much sediment that the dynamics have changed
4 and that now you went from a subtle environment,
5 inundated water to marsh 1,500 feet long.
6 You will be surprised how quickly
7 sediment quickly accumulates in there, how quickly
8 renegades of spot tide end up resurfacing. It has
A
9 promise. We're very hopeful. Again, if we're wrong
10 and we miscalculated, we will fix it. That's going
11 to be guaranteed. That's going to be written.
12 MR. GOODWIN: Two questions. Do you
13 plan to test the deposits of the sediments for
14 contaminants?
15 MR. ZELLER: Sure. We expect that the
16 sediments are going to club.
17 MR. GOODWIN: Since we don't know where
16 the sediment is coming from or if the potential
19 contaminants are going to be arrested, at that point,
20 it might be a prudent thing to do.
21 MR. ZELLER: I agree.
22 MR. GOODWIN: The other question, is
23 there any possibility of doing this on a pilot scale
24 before you drive 800 pilings into it?
25 MR. ZELLER: I think a pilot scale
WTT.MAM ROBERTS. JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
80
I . f^A f\ A f. ^
would be probably having an evaluation of lessons
2 learned from other projects.
3 MR. GOODWIN: The only question I have,
4 those similar projects have to be very similar
5 geologically in terms of profile, water transport,
6 sediment origin. I haven't seen anything. Maybe you
7 know of some things that aren't reported.
8 I don't think we know right now very
9 much about the current sedimentation rates or
10 origins, and I don't know if you know the influence
11 of a river that's not flowing one way.
12 Plus the other thing that
13 counterbalances it is that it's an active shipping
14 area. We have things churning up the water that may
15 affect sediment. That's why it's a little
16 problematic what has happened.
17 MR. ZELLER: I see where you are going.
18 A pilot study is going to take time. This thing is
19 going to take time. This is not going to be a
20 six-month deal, boom, you got sediment. A pilot
21 study is going to take time.
22 I think we'd probably like to jump right
23 in and try this thing as opposed to the alternatives,
24 which are dredging and some very costly material
25 handling dilemmas, which $541,000 sounds like a lot
T.TTTT.T&M POBERTS. JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
81
0-9 042°
1 of money to you, and it is a. lot of money. In
2 relative comparison to what could be $19 million for
3 dredging, $541,000 is a blue light special.
4 And we believe, sure, that cost is
5 important. We predict it's equally as effective if
6 you can take care of the problem more cost
7 effectively, cheaper, same degree of protectiveness.
8 That's an easy one. That's win-win for everybody
ft
9 involved.
10 That's my major concern about the pilot
11 study. If we have to do a pilot study for two years,
12 it might cost us as much. If you are concerned how
13 it would perform in the Ashley, maybe it would be
14 beneficial to look at the pilot plan we had in place
15 for 30 years; this old dilapidated dock of the
16 Ashepoo Phosphate. It might be beneficial to see if
17 those piles worked. They are still sitting there.
18 They are pretty tight. We were out there yesterday.
19 I wonder if we got sedimentation around those.
20 MR. GOODWIN: I wonder.
21 MR. ZELLER: I wonder.
22 MR. GOODWIN: Interesting model.
23 MR. ZELLER: There is your pilot. They
24 have been there. I would hope to see a nice little
25 mound. We can take a look at it. As far as pilot
WTT.T.TAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
82
Q&A ± 9 0430
1 scale, I would rather just get right into it and get
2 the clock ticking, get those piles, get the fence in
3 place and see.
4 What is real slick about this, you can
5 see where the piles are going to extend out. It's
6 going to be a real great transition here. This is
7 going to be reconstructed into tidal marsh; real nice
8 transition.
6
9 We are going to create five additional
10 tidal marshes as a result of remediation that's a
11 functional habitat; more productive than it is
12 currently. Understand what I am saying?
13 MR. GOODWIN: What is the depth where
14 the piles are going to be driven?
15 MR. ZELLER: The profile in that river
16 is amazing. The width varies. I say it's 100
17 feet -- the number escape me. The first 100 feet,
18 the slope is very gentle. It kind of drops off
19 fairly moderately. Then it drops to 30 feet, like
20 that, in a matter of ten feet.
21 That's a formerly dredged channel. It's
22 no longer dredged. They consider it an active
23 project. It's staying open for them is what the. deal
24 is. That channel is not sitting in rapidly enough
25 moving traffic for them to dredge.
WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
83
Q&A ^9 045'
1 Also, we talked about it, and it's not
2 an active shipping channel because of some of the
3 bridges that are there. It is highly used for
4 recreational purposes; .lots of ski boats.
S UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Does the
6 environmental reuse of this site involve dock access?
7 MR. ZELLER: For instance, Tommy Parker
8 has not expressed a desire to leave. He wants me to
6
9 leave. But Parker runs a marine service business
10 right here, and he constructed a new dock just last
11 summer. And he put in a couple hundred piles
12 himself, and so I think Tommy is there for the long
13 run.
14 Beazer now owns what used to be Braswell
15 shipyard, and they have that dry dock. And Beazer, I
16 think, is looking at some subsidiary business and
17 maybe even leasing. Braswell is involved with them
18 in some discussion and legal battles, trying to get
19 to use the old shipyard. Finally, they got approved
20 for the shipyard and use of one of their docks.
21 Braswell has been leasing this property
22 from Beazer on a year by year basis, trying to get
23 that settled. I believe that has been settled. .1
24 believe Braswell is going to leave within a year. At
25 that point in time, it's Beazer's property.
WTT.T.TAM ROBERTS. JR., 6 ASSOCIATES
-------
84
Q&A [j Q
04o^
1 Now, dock access is key. We want to
2 maintain and allow the current owners to have access
3 to the dock. That's another added feature to enhance
4 sedimentation. It doesn't mess with t-he existing
5 land use. Dredging around there would be a technical
6 challenge, to say the least, as you can well imagine.
7 MS. GESS: On page 15 of your fact
8 sheet, it says South Carolina DHEC does not feel that
6
9 EPAs residual risk methodology gives an appropriate
10 representation of the actual risks that would remain.
11 What is the remaining?
12 MR. HAYNES: It's primarily how EPA
13 calculates that approach. That was an unusual method
14 in developing how they calculated those risks. Our
15 concerns are that the residual risk looks at 100
16 acres of the whole, and there are portions of the
17 site under EPAs proposed plan that will have levels
18 of contamination significant for what we would call
19 cleanup. If you break the site down into small
20 portions or parcels, there will be areas still left
21 that have excavation cleanup. That's our concern.
22 MS. GESS: Thank you.
23 MR. ZELLER: I guess we would respond
24 to that and I believe we have, when we are done as
25 far as capping goes, we are going to cap everything
WTT.T.TAM ROBERTS. JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
85
l that is greater than two parts per million which is
2 Creosote, which we feel that's adequate.
3 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: How is that capping
4 going to affect the land use in there? Is any of
5 that going to be useable, or is that going to be a
6 site that can't be used?
7 MR. ZELLER: That's our full intent.
8 That's why we are going with crush stone cap. Our
6
9 full intention is to return this property to future
10 industrial use. There is currently industry
»
11 operating there. They have been operating through
12 the whole investigation.
13 It's going to be a challenge, as you
14 might expect, during excavation on some of these
15 people. It's going to be a short-term disruption for
16 some people. We can work around that. Our intent is
17 to return that to future industrial quickly as
18 possible.
19 And Beazer has pretty much -- they have
20 owned a large chunk of that. They are pretty much in
21 control. What they want to do with it, I think there
22 is a commitment definitely from what I understand to
23 return that to whatever the case may be.
24 As far as future uee, I don't know what
25 they have in mind. It's going to be very consistent
T.TTTT.THM POKP.PTS. JR.. & ASSOCIATES
-------
86
Q&A ^ 9
1 with what the current use is. We don't see condos
2 going in there for instance. It will be future
3 industrial. That's how it's zoned in the Charleston
4 city plans.
5 That's why we have selected this
6 particular scenario. That Braswell property is
7 excellent. As long as you are not out there eating
8 soil and rubbing that stuff all over your hair and
ft
9 skin and everything else, there is no risk.
10 When we are done with this remedy and
11 with the cap installed and excavation of hot spots is
12 completed, it will be protected to anybody's
13 standards. Anybody else?
14 MR. GOODWIN: Just two more. Under the
15 alternative for the groundwater, what containments
16 are involved there?
17 MR. ZELLER: Containment? You mean as
18 far as containment is going to be achieved via
19 extraction wells?
20 MR. GOODWIN: Extraction wells are the
21 containment?
22 MR. ZELLER: Yes, they are the
23 containment.
24 MR. GOODWIN: Last one; do we know
25 anything about the pH of surface or subsurface runoff
-------
87
1 in the area of the contamination? Is that former
2 acid treatment area affecting the pH of the runoff to
3 an extent it would mobilize any of that lead that
4 might end up in the barge canal?
5 MR. ZELLER: We took local water,
6 Ashley water. We took water from the barge canal --
7 MR. GOODWIN: I was thinking more about
8 the water that comes into the barge canal by surface
6
9 water or subsurface runoff.
10 MR. ZELLER: What is coming in the area
11 is -- let me get a map here.
12 The ditch that we are having a problem
13 with where the low pH was, where we are having a
14 problem with this is Ashepoo. The large portion of
15 this, they are bagging and mixing granulation.
16 Everything that is under here is what is from bagging
17 granulation; not real clean; real dusty, not really
18 resulting in decontamination.
19 The nasty part is this acid chamber.
20 They manufactured acid using pretty complex
21 chemistry. They stored that in lead-lined vats.
22 Okay. And I have been told by this company, at the
23 time they had to clean the vats, they cleaned th.e
24 acid in the soil.
25 The pH condition that we are concerned
a WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
88
L 9 04iV
l about that is under two standard units is in this
2 ditch. It's not obvious in this picture. There is
3 drainage that continues to dump in the south tidal
4 marsh. The pH condition we are concerned about
5 moving on right now is in this general area.
6 See this little access road? That's the
7 old Ashley dock. That's where the majority of levels
8 over 1,150 and the pH is in that area. You can see
9 how they are basically two different areas. As far
10 as the pH coming into the barge canal runoff, coming
11 in from this surface ditch and the pH is
12 basic -- not basic -- it's neutral. I want to say
13 it•s 12 .
14 That's a very good concern that we can
15 address in the leaching of this; in looking at the
16 long-term leaching and confined disposal facility.
17 We are going to have to look at what the expected pH
18 and water chemistry of the Ashley and barge canal is,
19 and we will take that into consideration.
20 The last thing, believe me, we want to
21 do is recontaminate or impact marsh that we just
22 spent $1 million to clean.
23 MR. ROGERS: You might want to look-at
24 pH levels to try to solve that.
25 MR. ZELLER: What Ian mentioned, we
T.TTT.T.T&M ROBERTS. JR.. & ASSOCIATES
-------
89
Q&A ^ 9 0437
1 have non-time critical removal, which is a mini
2 cleanup. That action is going to focus on the former
3 acid chamber area. It's going to look at delineating
4 potential impacts in the groundwater, delineating any
5 level of lead and arsenic in the soil itself and also
6 delineating low pH levels in the groundwater and the
7 possible solution of buffering or somehow a basic
8 solution of some sort trying to get that down to
6
9 neutral.
10 I honestly believe that's what is going
11 on. Low acid or low pH are what mobilizes lead.
12 Otherwise, that lead is fairy immobile. When you hit
13 it with doses of acid, it's a completely different
14 situation. Anybody else?
15 Thank you very much for staying around.
16 Please feel free to give me a call if there are any
17 other questions. Appreciate your attendance. Thank
18 you for sticking with us that first 15 minutes when
19 we didn't have an overhead. Thanks for the good
20 questions. Appreciate it.
21 (Thereupon, the meeting was concluded.)
22
23
24
25
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
90
1
2 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
3
4 I, Lora L. McDaniel, Registered
5 Professional Reporter and Notary Public for the State
6 of South Carolina at Large, do hereby certify that
7 the foregoing transcript is a true, accurate and
8 complete record.
6
9 I further certify that I am neither
10 related to nor counsel for any party to the cause
11 pending or interested in the events thereof.
12 • :
13
14
15 APRIL 29, 1997
16
17
• 0
#
19 Lora \L./ McDaniel
Registered Professional Reporter
20 My Commission expires:
November 12, 2006
21
22
23
2 '4
25
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
91
0430
1 INDEX
2
3
4
5 COLLOQUY
6 BY MR . ZELLER ,
7 BY MS . CRAIG
8 QtA.
9 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page
3
56
58
h
,....' 90
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR., & ASSOCIATES
-------
EPA PUBLIC MEETING
Condenselt1
0
$1 -approac
$lp| 88 J2
$11.75(1] 52:10
$19(i] 81:2
$200(1)47:11
$3.074(1] 38:22
$3.25(11 49:13
$4[t] 52:24
$5.43(i| 32:24
$541, 000 ti] 53:1
80:25 81:3
$8(1) 47:12
'54 [i] 5:21
'60S[l] 5:24
'93(1] 10:5
'95(1] 10:23
'96(1] 10:23 22:20
24:19
'97(1) 22:21
.30(1) 13:4
05(1) 1:12
1 (j) 9.25 13:10
13:15 14:24 27:20
1,000 p) 13:18
47-iQ 47-22
^ / . 1 7 ^ 1 .«v*
11 4O f-1 1 ^^'O
• i » v i' i 3 j ,y
1,150(1] 49:24
50:17 51:8 61:23
00.0
OO-O
1,500(1] 79:5
1,500-foot p| 42:7
77:21
1.1(1] 35:4
1.10(1) 32:22
.5(1) 48:7
1.75(1] 53:5
10,000(5] 13:10
13:15 14:24 28:24
29:4
100(1] 82:16 82:17
84:15
00,000(1) 34:25
02(1] 5:12
03(1) 1:14
12(7) 15:13 33:14
61:21 61:21 62:1
88:13 90:20
12,000(11] 30:12
30:19 31:9 31:23
32:8 32:12 34:22
35:7 52:13 60:5
60:15 60:21 60:23
133(1) 7:8
5(5) 1:11 3:18
77:25 84:7 89:18
6 (1) 62:2
18 p) 45:23 78 J3
19008(1) 8:11
940 p) 5:18
978(1)5:19
984(1)9:7
990 p) 56:20 67:5
992 p) 67:6 70:1)
1995(1)27:22
1997 p) 1:11 90:15
19th (I) 5:18
2^50(1] 35:14
2.3 P) 51:22
20 PI 3:19
2006(1)90:20
22-inch (i| 21:25
24 (i) 35:8
24-hourp] 27:12
24.5 («] 32:19 33:24
35:1 605 60:16
61:1
24.5-acre(i] 52:15
25(1] 15:12
250(1) 15:11
26 p] 5:13 5:23
260-foot [1] 16:18
2600(1) 2:10
28,000 p) 45:2
29(1] 90:15
29201(1] 2:11
2nd(i] 53:21
3(2] 5:11 91:6
3.2(i] 44:13
30(5) 53:23 53:24
60:10 81:15 82:19
30-acrep] 61:7
30-day p] 53:19
30303 P) 2:4
2 .-7
. /
31(1) 61:4
350-foOt(l] 21:17
39,000 [I] 30:20
60:7 61:3
3rd (ii 53:20
4p) 10:1
104 p) 2:4 2:8
5,300(1] 295
30:8 30:11
50,000 p) 19:14
48:5
500 (1) 35 J4
56 (I) 91:7
562-8798(1) 2:8
562-8827p] 2:4
•73-391 9 P] 1J3
18 Pl 91:8
6.7 p) 31 JO
60-foot pj 16J1
600pi 62:3
61 p) 2:3 • 2:7
63 pi 23 3
i30p) 61 J4 62:8
7 pi 1:12
700 p) 9:18
704 p] 1J3
722-84 14 pi 1:23
731 -5224 p) 1J5
00 p] 35 J3 79 J4
03 p] 1J5 1J5
2:11
86.000(1] 31:11
880,000(1] 53:2
896-4070(1) 2:11
90p] 915
able (5) 57:4 62:11
63:20 65:15 78:15
above pi ii:S
16:23 17:5 28:25
42:25 45:15 50:17
63:8 63:23
absolutely (i) 24:25
absorption nj 50: 1 6
61:15 61:15 61:19
61:20 61:21 61:25
accept p) 25:13
25:13 34:17
acceptable (5] 13:7
135 13:16 27:2
28:24
acceptance (i] 26:3
access m 83:6
Ml OA 1 OO.£
:1 84:2 88:6
accomplished (ij
69:2
accomplishes pi
73:17
According in 12:16
account p] 5:1
accumulates m 79:7
accumulation m
11:21 11:24 43:6
43:20 43:23 78:16
accurate pi 58:13
62:6 90:7
achieve («i 25:18
325 37:8 37:12
38:16 38:21
achieved (5) 28: 12
29:25 30:17 30:22
86:18
acidp) 19:5 19:6
87:2 87:19 87:20
87 J4 89:3 89:11
89:13
acidic pi 19:1 1
acre P) 47:22 48:7
acres (i«i 5:13
31 JO 32:20 33 J4
35:1 35:8 44:13
48:7 51:22 53:5
605 60:10 60:16
61:1 61:4 84:16
action pj) 4 Jl
8:18 13:18 13:20
14J3 18:11 20:16
20:17 21:13 24:13
30:1 31:17 34:19
34J1 35JO 36:3
37:8 38:8 40:6
40:6 40:8 54:19
R9-2
O7*^
actions p] 56 J5
active p) 80:13
82:22 83:2
activities pi 16 J
67 J2
actual p2] 11:10
15J5 23:13 29J3
30:17 35:4 425
45:8 46:7 60:12
66:6 84:10
added P) 9J1
84:3
addition ni 10-. 12
10:15 18:8 27:4
32:18 33:12 38:7
additional p2) 8:23
235 23:14 30:22
32* 32M9 35:1
35:3 37:1 37:10
38:12 39:18 51:21
51:25 52:15 52J3
53:22 53:24 555
59:12 62:21 825
address pi) 5:5
13-20 20:14 24 JO
25J2 25J5 52:3
54:5 55:14 56:3
72:13 72JO 88:15
addressed (*i 4:25
16:11 25:8 26:6
39:7 54:7 j,
addresses pi 4 J3
69:24
adequate (ci 27:8
27:11 38:15 405
61 J2 85 J
adequately [«) 28 J
51J4 54:7 60:15
60:24 78:19
adjacent PI 20:8
•Hminiictrativr! p j
10:6
Admittedly p) 73:1
adopted (1) 27:23
adopting p) 38:20
adoption pi 27 J4
59:13
advance (i) 68:12
advantage pj 37 JO
57-9
^ i^y
advantages m 73:15
adviser pi 65:17
advocate p) 27 J4
aerial pi 5 JO
78:17
affect p] 80:15
83:4
affecting (i) 87 j
again pi] 23 J3
26:7 47:13 485
48:13 49* 49:13
53:12 55:17 53:18
56-15 57:17 57:22
59:18 61:12 68:18
745 795
against p) 55 3
$9
agency pi 1:1
25J4
aggressive p) 59:4
ago HI 20:6 23J4
63:19 70:14
agree [»] 58:11 58:16
58:17 58:17 59:18
59:19 59 JO 62:22
79J1
agrees (i i 25:17
agricultural pi 19:4
ahead (4) 3.1
38:17 47:3 49:18
allay (i) 71:17
allow p) 74:16
84:2
allowed (4) 7:20
9:21 35:10 46:9
allowing (i) 17:17
allows (1) 42:18
50:24 78:18
almost [l] 21:14
alone (i]4 1:7
along P] 40 24 77:21
alternative [M] 25:5
32:7 32:11 32:23
37:11 38:3 39:11
41:20 42:10 42:13
47:10 51:4 51:6
86:15
alternatives [i«i 24:20
24:24 25:3 25:4
25:7 31:18 32:4
33:17 37:7 39:23
40:4 49:10 49:12
51:7 52:1- 80:23
amazing (i) 82:16
amount (5) 165
30:25 43:16 60.14
72:18
ampeliscapi 11:13
11:14
analogy pi 36:13
36 Jl 40:14
analysis m 10:14
analyzed (i] 45:25
answer pi 31:14
69:8
answers pi 5:8
43:2
anybody 'stn 8612
anyhow pi 3:14
52.-6 67:16
apart (i] 74: n
apologize pi 3:25
14:18 65:15
APPEARANCES pi
2:1
application (i] 76 J
applied pi 19-J
applies pi 36 Jl
appointed p) 32:15
Appreciate pi 89:17
89JO
approach pi 3 JO
20:18 33 Jl 59:11
84:13
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR. & ASSOCIATES
Index Page 1
-------
appropriate - chain
Condenselt1
A PUBLIC MEETING
»pprnr»n ate n\ 4O-22
^wrir **j** u^f^mf i~i -*tf,^f^
60:1 845
•ropriately p)
( JO 52:3 56.3
Tovcdm 83:19
^rilpll:!! 53:20
90:15
aquatic [7] 4:24
74:14
aqueous (21 37:5
58:21
aquifer (3) 17:18
37:19 58:25
aquifers (i) 16:15
area pi) 6:5 7:25
8:9 8:10 9:2
9:19 9:19 9:20
9:23 10:2 10:2
10:2 14:11 18:7
18:13 18:14 18:15
18:17 18:20 19:2
19:13 20:10 24:14
27:14 27:16 29:15
30:3 30:4 34:2
34:5 34:7 34:8
34:11 36.24 38:5
38:11 39:2 39:3
40: J 3 40:16 40:23
41:14 42:6 43:7
43:12 44:13 44:22
45:14 47:18 48:8
48:8 48:10 48:14
'8:15 49:6 49:8
J:19 63:3 63:12
• "»:15 67:17 67:19
25 71:1 75:16
^:14 87:1 87:2
87:10 88:5 88:8
89:3
areas wn 7:5
7:22 17:8 17:20
17:23 17:25 18:8
20:4 27:17 33:2
33:3 34:6 34:12
34:23 36:8 37:3
38:4 38:25 39:6
39:7 39:9 39:12
39:15 39:17 39:25
40:5 46:22 52:11
52:18 52:20 52:21
58:17 58:18 62:22
62:24 84:20 88:9
argument p> 25:20
59:25 61:13
arguments (i) 25:19
aromatic PI 16:1
64:9
arrangement [i] 42:1
•nested in 79:19
Arsenate(i) 6:19
arsenic p) 165
64:2 89:5
AshcpOOm ' 8:15
, 8:16 19:3 19:21
:6 49:23 81*16
:14
AshepOO'S(t) 45:14
Ashley rx») 5:14
9:1 9:2 9:16
18:23 19:1 20:8
385 39:8 40: h
40:12 40:16 40:19
41:22 42:8 42:11
45:22 495 49:14
51:14 74:12 74:13
74:16 76:13 79:2
81:13 87:6 88:7
88:18
aspect pi 47:5
51:18
aspects [ij 57:18
asphalt pi 33:22
33:25
assessment (5] 10:16
10:17 12:11 15:2
19:25
assessments (i) 10:20
assistance ni 65:17
ASSOCIATES in
1:23
association [i j 69: 1 5
assume pi 29:11
50:9
assumed p] 29:3
»-\A
. J^
assumes [i) 61:14
assumptions m 1 5:8
Atlanta pi 2:4
2:7
Atlanta's in 4:5
attendance [i ) 89- 1 7
attended [i] 56:17
attention m 9:5
attributable (i) 48:3
augment m 44:8
authority (i) 61:8
authorization [ij
55:19
vailabledi 58:24
Avenue no] 15:22
20:5 21:9 21:11
22:5 24:2 47:18
47:18 66:11 67:19
veragem 16:21
ware(i) 71:19
way [5] 67:16 69:19
76:7 76:13 76:18
Wfulm 3:5
axisp) 29:23 29:24
>ackgroundp) 4:16
29:15
>adp) 77:13
aggmgp) 87:15
87:16
Sand-aid (i) 20:17
argep*] 95
9:10 205 34:12
39:8 41:6 44:10
44:11 44:13 44:15
44:16 44:13 45:4
47:2 49:14 50:19
50:23 51:13 51:22
53:1 53:10 62:11
62:12 87:4 87:6
87:8 88:10 88:18
bamerni 335
barriers pj 375
38:6
base p) 45:5 57:5
based [ii| M:io
15:3 15:24 21:10
26:15 43:14 44:5
595 60:4 60:14
7<-g
i j^y
baseline pj 12:22
1 1-4
I J.^
basic [5] 6 1:22 71:2
88:12 88:12 89:7
basis p] 34:3 83:22
batch [1)77: 18
battles [i] 83:18
>cach[i] 76:11
>cat|i] 63:17
beauty p) 42.13
43:21
Beazerpz) 2:13
4:5 5:3 5:18
10:7 55:3 55:7
55:11 56:6 56:17
56:18 64:24 65:8
665 67:5 70:13
70:16 73:14 83:14
83:15 83:22 85:19
ieaxer's (i) 83 O5
wcomem 26:17
>egin (1)55:2
>ehalf(i) 58:12
>ebind p) 34:3
65:10
>elow(5] 16:21
16:24 33:10 77:25
78:6
>eod[l| 42:5
wneficialpi 81:14
81:16
Benefit [i] 25:18
BcnzoPyreneni
32:21
lERTHAni 2:16
wsidep) 5:22
67:13
bestp] 4:1 43:4
68:4 72:13 76:21
JCtni 74:19
better [S] 35
3:11 33:21 66:18
70:2
letweenpi 13:10
13:15 58:3 59:20
70:11
wyondni 45:21
n-annnal(i) 78:4
»igm 14:5 30:10
60:11 60:17 61:18
64:3 64:14
iggerp) 24:17
48:1
under m 28:19
io-degradable ni
72:5
41:17 48:23 49:4
49:8 49:16 53 J
72:16 72:24
birds P) 47:4 47:14
bit pi] 35 4:17
5:10 5:12 5:25
8:17 18:19 19:24
20:24 22:11 26:18
26:23 27:14 31:6
31:12 33:21 34:3
38:2 45:21 56:5
56:19 58:3 66:18
black P] 6: 16 7:22
blanket p) 44:1
77:2 77:5
>lind [1)65:3
)lood[i] 50:13
)1OWS[1) 74:4
blue [4] 12:1 12:7
12:8 81:3
X>atS (1) 83:4
x>lts [1)51:3
KX>m [1)80:20
K>ttom[«] 24:4
35:22 37:18 44:18
45:3 45:13
K>unded[i) 5:13
boxes (i) 69:4
Braswell[i2] 5:15
8:5 8:7 18:3
18:16 35:13 42:15
83:14 83:17 83:21
OV54 tLti-H
OJ.A^ Ov.O
>reak (1)84:19
bridge [l] 72:20
>ridges (i) 83:3
>ring[i]5S5
>rougbt[i) 6:12
>nital (1) 66:2
mffering [ij 89:7
mgsp) 22:25 45:1
mildingp) 7:7
>uilt(i] 43:18
Bull(i) 2:10
ralletm 73-8
Ml IV 1 l*J * J*O
775
>unch[i) 61:16
tunnies (i) 45:1
>uriedp) 18:6
raraedni 9:20
rasinesspi 14:20
42:20 69:19 835
83:16
easinesses p] 42:18
tasypi 7:18
bay p] 6:21 4TA
rtlciilitHn) 15-7?
50:13 84:14
calculates m 13:13
84:13
canal p«) 9:10
9:10 205 34:13
39:8 41:6 44:10
44-11 44:13 44:15
44:16 44:23 45:4
47:2 49:15 50:19
51:13 51:22 53:1
53:10 62:13 87:4
87:6 87:8 88:10
88:18
cancer [«) 12:19
12:22 12:24 13:4
13:14 29:5
cannot (i) 36:18
cappsi 27:16 31:7
31:10 33:5 345
35:1 41:3 41:10
43:25 445 44:20
44:22 45:10 46:17
48:12 51:13 60:9
60:16 61:1 61:4
61:7 78:22 84.25
85:8 86:11
capped P) 32:20
355 60:10
capping pj| 31:19
31:20 325 32:19
33:4 33:16 33:24
\ 39:21 41:5 41:7
41:15 44:12 45.3
47:17 49:14 51:7
51:25 52:15 53:2
53:3 84:25 85:3
Capsules p| 48:24
48:25
capture m 40:25
carcinogenic p>
12:14 12:17
carep] 39:21 49:2
52:2 65:11 73:8
81:6
Carolina (5) 4:6
32:16 58:11 84:8
90:6
carried HI 21:9
carrying (i) 25:1
caSC[l«] 3:2 12:21
16:3 17:12 17:13
17:15 295 30.18
4O:8 46:11 53:17
64:16 73:5 76.12
77:14 85:23
Catches (l) 74:5
categories [i| 12:H
causing [i] 16: 10
CCA p] 6:19 6:23
8:1
Cells p] 37:16 73:11
central pj 7:24
8:24 1831
century ni 5:18
certain p) 30:25
certainly ni 19:19
CBRTiiaCATB pi
902 915
certify p) 90:6
905
cetera p) 9:3'
3921
chain pn 1:21 1124
Index Page 2
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS. JR. & ASSOCIATES
-------
EPA PUBLIC MEETING
challenge m 28:8
84:6 85.13
chamber m 87:19
89-3
WJ*J
chambers (ii 19:6
chance pi 12.19
14:18
change (i) 26:14
changed [i] 79:3
changes [) | 41:12
channel [5] 42:11
79:2 82:21 82:24
83:2
characteristics [i|
58:24
characterize (ii 105
Charleston [i j| l :4
1:13 1:14 1:24
11:8 43:8 465
55:23 55:24 56:19
57:5 57:6 86:3
Charleston's pi
23:8
Charlotte in 134
cheape. (i) 81:7
chemicals pi 1534
15:25
chemistry m 8731
88:18
chemists [ii 74:14
CHISOLMpt) 2:14
64:18 65:13 66:22
68:3 68:8 68:23
69:1 69:16 70:4
70:7 70:10 70:18
70:22 71:3 71:7
71:18 7131 71:24
Choice (i) 7:13
choose in 30:5
Christmas [i| 63:18
Chromium pi 6:19
Chunk [i] 85:20
churning (i) 80:14
circle in 5632
circulation pi 37:16
37:19 73:11
citizens [5] 2:17
53:16 57:6 65:16
67:20
city (4) 11:8 235
57:5 86:4
classified PI 4635
classroom (u 3:20
clay [li| 16.18 17:1
17:3 17:16 22:10
22:12 5135 63:6
63:10 63:12 6333
clean ft •] 2530
2530 29:14 305
3432 43:7 46:18
5032 59:25 5935
61:12 61:12 63:8
63:8 76:12 87:17
8733 88:22
cleaned m 87:23
cleanup pri 45
13:5 14:10 1435
1932 2031 25:7
25:19 27:3 27:14
27:19 2833 28:24
28:25 29:5 29:10
45:16 49:24 50:4
52:10 58:4 60:6
615 61:12 84:19
84:21 89:2
clear p| 57:23 7431
clearly [i] 6632
Clock (1)82:2
clogged p) 22:22
22:22
close [3| 65:7 67:20
74:11
closed pi 223
63:18
closely [i] 25:15
Closest (l) 67:13
t 1_ «•«« • f
Club [I) 79:16
CO (U 1:4
coastal pi 4032
4632
Collect [11 22:4
collected (ii 4533
collection pi 10:13
10:14
COLLOQUY [ii
91:5
color pi 16:20 16:20
Columbia pi 1:24
2:11
Columbian (2i 8:13
8:21
columns [i] 2831
combination pi 32: 1 1
35:7 69:16
combinations [i|
32:4
combine pi 25:3
38:1
combined pi 32:7
combining (i) 3735
comfortable (i) 5535
coming pi] 3:17
55:20 56:19 65:25
67:10 70:6 76:19
79:18 87:10 88:10
88:10
comingled m 483
24:8
comment [«i 4:8
4:13 265 5330
5333 583
CUU11UC1II* (ivj 4*Q.JU
26:15 53:13 53:18
54:3 54:4 54:5
54:6 54:13 54:14
Commission pj 1 1 :7
90:20
eatnmitmMit M i RV22
— — m^mmmm^ «*a^wa»w f"J ww»^^
committed pi 59:12
Condauelt™
68:15
JIJLWIIII.LI JLL!LJ 1111 "3 /*
25:13 263 26:3
64:18 64:20 64:21
6434 65:1 65:2
65:5 65:17 68:12
compacted PI 33:13
33:20
companies pi 73:15
company m 5:4
55:5 55:12 57:23
65:10 69:6 87:22
company's (ii 5:6
comparison PI 3033
813
competent pi 6335
complete (i) 90:8
completed (4) 2333
24:12 24:18 86:12
completely pi 1332
89:13
complex (i] 8730
component (i) 71:15
compounds PI 163
18:13
comprehensive m
20:20
Computer- Aided nj
132
concentrates p] 5 1 :8
concentration (4)
29:6 29:8 29:15
46:12
concentrations m
19:14 463 60:4
conceptual [4| 33:5
3331 38:13 42:23
conceptually [ij
3833
concern po) 1535
18:15 41:24 49:6
64:19 675 71:14
81:10 84:21 88:14
concerned (»] 2:17
18:10 18:18 18:22
53:16 70:25 81:12
8735 88:4
concerns ps] 10:20
1730 26.4 26:5
26:6 51:10 51:19
56:3 56:8 6534
66:3 71:4 71:23
72:12 84:15
conclude PI 15:3
4O-I 1
^7*1 i
concluded p i 893 1
conclusion pi 14:3
14:6 20:12 52:4
543
concrete m 24-4
•ii ii •••* M m i*| »-».-»
24:4 33:20 33:22
3532 35:22 6631
concurrently pi
24:15
condition (4] 21:18
6635 8735 88:4
0 9 044° challenge - covering
Conditions (U 14:7
COndoSpl 86:1
conduct pi 10:7
28:8
conducted pi 9:3
10:17 1031 46:6
conduit p] 21:8
confined [4] 46:16
4630 515 88:16
confinement pi 62: 1 1
confining pj 16:19
confusing pi 12:12
31:13
congestion pi 61:17
Congress pi 2732
conservative [ij
60-6
^VtV
consider p) 8232
considerably (n
63:19
consideration p)
88:19 =
considerations pi
3333
consideredm 16:19
considering in 38:20
consistent pi 33:16
63:7 8535
consists [i] 3834
construct (5i 95
12:3 51:12 51:23
74:6
constructed (5) 9:10
9:20 13:2 35:21
83:10
constructing [t] 32:1
construction t»i 24: 1 1
50:23 51:15 54:21
6532 66:6 665
66:12 66:12
consultants [i] 53:16
contact p| 10:24
27:2
contain (5) 323
36:25 39:17 4335
76:14
contained p] 50:17
container p) 33:17
^OnTBl I'l'ffTl^fffl fl 1
1 1 «*>1
21:23
containment p4]
25:3 373 375
37:11 3734 38:3
5230 5233 5830
5831 86:17 86:18
8631 8633
» • -
containments pi
5231 86:15
2332 37:5 72:8
contaminants p?i
8:16 13:15 16:12
1731 21'19 23:14
40:8 41:19 46:10
483 493 71:11
7330 763 76:4
79:14 79:19
••••ml •••«••»• ii»ji rw\
16:11 31:1 313
31:8 33:11 43:10
61:11 75:14
48:22
contamination pi)
5:5 10:10 16.23
185 19:20 28:2
31:4 39:6 55:5
64:1 735 84:18
87:1
contention pi 613
contingency pi 3: 12
38:19 43:17
continually pi 6:8
42:19 65:19
continue [5] 24: 12
54:18 54:22 70:8
71:25
continues m 88:3
continuing [ii 77:18
contractors PI 3:5
control m 20:18
40:7 51:17 85:21
controversial m
12:11
conventional pi
37:13
conversation (ii
62:10
Cooper [«i ii:5
I jc. i jc 1 it- 1 ^ 1 £• 1 *7
loilo lo:I7 lo. l /
1634 17:5
Coordinator pi 2:6
copies pi 3:13
Copper pi 6.19
corner pi 18:5
1831 38:9 39:5
70:24
Corps [4] 42:12
43:8 46:23 76:16
correct pi 59:5
corrective p i 1 3 30
correlation pi 76:4
COSt[T) 2735 33:6
36:18 47:8 81:4
81:6 81:12
COStly [11 80:24
COStS pi 25:10
Counsel (11 90:10
counter pi 6231
counterbalances pi
80:13
parts pi 58: 13
63:16 •
ftQ^ror"^^ p i 4or/
« "* _ „
23:16 2333 66:19
67:12 71:16 74:17
76:19 83:11
covering pi 75:14
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR. & ASSOCIATES
Index Page 3
-------
crabs - enclosed
Condenselt^J 9 04 4 EPA PUBLIC MEETING
78:19
crabs p] 44 J5
f ~kp) 12:13
iedp) 23:13
ksp) 23:12
Craig (ioi 2:2
2:13 4:3 5:3
56:6 56:11 56:11
58:2 62:21 91:7
create (4] 13:11
48:19 57:6 825
creating (i) 11:23
creek pi 47:20 71:2
Creosote [M) 6:16
6:18 7:4 7:22
9:14 16:4 17:9
17:12 17:13 17:24
18:17 18:22 21:1
21:3 21:20 22:17
36:10 36:21 36:24
64:4 64:7 64:8
64:15 64:16 71:11
Creosote-related in
1 O. i *>
18:i2
criteria m 255
critical p] 19:19
89:1
cross p) 34:5 42:23
crush (1)85:8
-tshedp) 33:13
ic [1)45:2
Cuivert [1) 9:20
cure (1) 48:20
current (4) 42:15
805 84:2 86:1
cylindrical (i) 7:io
CYNTHIA pi 2:6
Dp] 91:1
dabp) 60:22
datap] 43:14 58:23
60:14 70:11 77:6
77:6
DATE pi 1:11
days pi 3:6 7:18
15:11 15:13 53J3
53:24 61:18
deal [4) 34:1 47:11
80:20 82:23
dealing p) 34:13
47:7
dealings p) 69:7
63:17
deciiuetci p) 50:15
decision pi 545
54:10 S4:li
^contaminated pj
Contamination p)
decrease pi 40: 18
-75:1 75:6
decreases pi 75:7
deep pi 63 J
deeper p) 17:18
defenses pi 37:22
definitely (4) 675
70:8 78:4 85J2
degradation (5) 40:7
41:19 48:22 49:1
49:7
degree (i) 81:7
DELBERT(i) 2:16
delineating pi 89.3
89:4 89:6
demarcation m 33.8
demonstrate p] 29:20
44:18
demonstrated [»i
20:7 39:11 39:12
39:16 47 JO 48:8
48:16 48:18 53:6
denote pi 78:6
denser [i] ' 17:13
Dentp] 9:7
depending p) 7:18
deposition p) 42:2
43:5 76:25
deposits p) 36.15
79:13
lepthp]77:19 82:13
terived(i) 14:1
lermapi 10:24
design (4) 24.6
41:25 52:2 76:24
lesirablep) ' 66:13
bsire [i] 83:8
bsiredp] 79:1
details p) 12:5
59:20
[elected pj 63:25
determine (() 11:19
42:1 77:21 78:2
78:16 78:19
ieterminedpi 74:10
bvelop(4| 12:24
13:4 19:22 25:2
developed [*p'i •••••'•»* l»J
25:18 58:7 60:8
61:6 61:11 61:22
61:25 63:11
disagrees p) 61:5
disappears pi 17:3
discharged p) 235
discnssinEPi 68-11
•*• • * ^^^^»"« "^ l»J *r*r,» •
discussion pi 83:18
diSCUSSionS P) 44:5
75-0
/ j~y
liseasepi 48:20
lisposalp*] 18:6
21J4 31:24 32:14
32:15 35* 4fc7
46:15 46:16 46:20
46:24 49:15 51:6
515 51:23 53:4
535 62:14 88:16
[isposepi 46:10
46:17
dispute p) 58:3
59:5 60J
lisputesp] 61:2
lisruptionpi 85:15
[istribntion p] 19:4
listrictp) 23:8
litchpi) 8:6
8J5 15:17 18:4
18:16 18.21 18:22
21:5 215 21:12
21:17 21J2 22:6
22:7 24J 24:3
24:5 24:7 26JO
35:14 35:15 35:19
35 J5 52:11 54 Jl
65J3 665 66:14
87:12 88 J 88:11
ditches pat 8:4
26J4 27:6 27:8
35:12 35:18 36J
52:14 64:19 655
ividep) 13J5
ivisionp) 13J4
dOCkm 9J 42:16
81:15 83:6 83:10
83:15 84:1 843
fifi.T
Bo./
docks P) 42.15
42J1 83 JO
document pi 54:8
doesn't (4) 275
56:1 67:4 84:4
dogp) 3:10
done (15]8 JO 19:12
^1*14 ^LIX 14iA
21.14 23.1O 24. "V
24:10 51:1 52:4
57:2 66:20 68:13
69:18 75:14 84:24
86:10
doorp) 67 J3 67:23
69:3 69:3 69:23
69 J3
doon (1)7:11
dose p] 14:1
doses [1)89:13
double [1] 34:5
doubled (i) 625
down m) 7:3 31:11
63:10 655 69J4
84:19 89:8
drainage po| 8:3
8:4 8:24 15:17
15J2 18:16 18J1
21:5 21:7 21:8
21:9 21:12 21:17
22:1 22:5 23:12
24J 24:5 26JO
26J4 27:6 27:7
27:8 27:1 1 33 J2
35:11 35 J3 52:11
52:14 88:3
drained p] 9:1
drains (4) 23:12
23:17 23:20 27:12
dredge P) 95
46:24 82:25
dredged (4) 9.15
44:15 82:21 82:22
dredging m 9:7
9:18 9J3 49:15
53:3 80:24 81:3
84:5
lrinkp)56:5
Irinkmgpi H-.6
11:7
drip (4) 7:15 7 JO
10:1 34:7
trivenp] 40:14
40:15 40:16 41J4
A*lt1A AlftA O*^. t A
42 J4 42 J4 82:14
driving pi 15J5
64:14 73J4
drop pi 36 JO 40:19
IWMB^ *w 74>4
V^^PV [9 J /J.^
82:18 82:19
drum pi 123 12:7
dry pi 83:15
DUBOISp] 2:16
69:17 75:19 76:1
77:15
dueni 21:12
dugp) 21J2
dunep) 40 J5
dunes pi 40 J3
40J4 74J4 765
76:10
during m 5:1
9:12 51:15 85:14
dusty [1)87:17
dwell p) 11:15
dynamics [ii 79:3
E[l) 91:1
early pi 54.16
earth [ij 12J3
easier [i] 68:14
easily p) 54:22
69J
eastm 2:13 4:6
5:3 5:13 5J2
9:18
eastern (4) 6:4
6:10 7:1 17.1
Usyp) 57 J5 585
81:8
eaten p) 12:7
eating p) 86:7
ecological [
-------
_ . -_^TM f , Q H A A Mcmmtend - four-fol
EPA PUBLIC MEET
encountered in 16 JO <
encourage pi 26:16
53:17 *
encouraged [t| 55:19 <
end (13) 19:1 25:12 C
33-24 34:2 35:4
54J1 59:19 59:21 <
61:) 62:3 77:12
79:8 87:4 ,
•ndcavor(i) 55:8 (
sndcdpi 9:14
indpointsp] MJ5 <
»nforcemcnt[i|8:18
Hginecrpi 2:10
43:19 43:25
mgincercd pi 41:3
445
Hgineering (4) 285
51:16 52:1 53:16
Engineers [4i 42:12
43:8 46.23 74:14
Enhance [ti 40:18
43:12 44:2 48:21
*ft.i 4O-7 76*7
4yll *»". / '"• '
84:3
enhanced (io) 40:11
41:2 41:2 41:22
42:10 495 49.13
53:1 73:24 75:5
COJOy [1)53: 14
entailed pi H:H
21:15
entering (i) 3:3
enthused pi 55:22
entice pi 40:19
43:4
enticing pi 42:17
entire m 25:1
entirely [ii 64:12
environment ID)
10:19 15:1 19:8
20:13 25:10 28:6
41:1 46:3 47:13
51:2 57:13 60:25
76:6 78:12 79:4
environmental m
1:1 2:10 4:12
8:16 13.17 24:23
56:17 83:6
environments [ \ j
4J4
EPA [33] 2:2 2:5
4:5 9:4 9:6
10:6 10J2 12:16
13:8 13:19 14:7
20:14 24:23 25:17
26:10 26:19 27:18
27-22 28J1 30:4
34:17 50:1 50:4
55:1 55:8 56-24
58:3 58:11 60:3
66:8 69:10 70:12
84:12
EPAsm 5:1
28:6 34:15 34:16
34:24 54:11 57:11
845 84:17
[NG uanaaucn ^ ^ w ^ ^ ,
•pidemiological(i) e
I4J C
equally P) 81 J c
rqnates [ii 62:3 c
xiuationp) 29:12
29:13 50:7 <
xjuivalcntpi 32:21 <
62:21
srode [1)76:6
Eroded (2) 76:) 3
76:18
eroding pi 43:11
765
erosion (4) 75:15
76:11 78:11 78:17
erosive pi 75:17
76:6 76:8
escape pi 82:17
essentially PI 6:12
10:8 10:13
establish p) 78:1
established (ii 50:2
establishes pi 37:16
estimate PI 13J4
33-13
J J* * ^
estimated p) 13:21
«t »^
32:23
estimates pi 12:18
13:22
etp) 9:3 39:21
evaluate p) 29:17
39:23 44:19
evaluated (5) 1 0:1 8
\f\.")A • I I -O 25*1 1
ju^*' i **y *•*•• *
31:16
evaluation p) 75:10
80:1
events (i) 90:11
eventually PI 54:23
63:14 72:3
everybody [S] 3:15
3:24 59:10 66:18
81-8
O • «w
everybody's p) 735
everytimep) 73:3
example pi 25:1
78:14
excavate (io| 30:8
30:12 31:7 33 J
39:19 41:8 48:6
48:11 60:4 60:21
excavated (4) 21 J2
24:5 28:10 65J3
excavation psi 24:8
29J5 30:11 31 JO
32:12 33:3 34:6
34:10 35:8 41:14
47:16 48:1 52:12
535 55:1 59-23
60J 60:12 61:3
66:1 66:20 67:14
84:21 85:14 86:11
excavations [4i 24:7
32:8 34:6 34-21
exceed pi 50:14
Excellent pi 86-7 f
ixceptpi 76:12 f
sxcuepi 24-.I8 H
sxercisepi 29.2 1
29:13 66:18
jxistp) 36:19 *
adstingpi 23:1 1
23:17 36:16 41:11
42:14 42:21 44:23
84:4
Expansion (i) 22:16 L
txpectpo) 24:10
43-6 43-16 43:21 '
^J.D "i«J.* v •«*• i
54-2 54:14 54:20 1
66:1 79:15 85:14
expectation [i ) 56:2
expected (4) M:ii
16:24 50:5 88:17
experiencing m
22:21
experts in +«:6
expires p i 90:20
explain pi 22: 11
73:23 74.2
exploring p) 36:14
exposed m 12:5
13:25 14:14 15:7
15:11 15:21 29:18
65:4
exposure (15) 12JO
13:12 13:12 13:14
14:13 15:11 15:19
A| •« *>7-A 07-S
21:12 27.4 ^/.j
29:16 47:7 61:18
66:4 71:9
expressed PI 27:19
71:22 83:8
extend pi 53:23
53:25 82:5
Extension (i) 5:22
extent pi 63: 11
87:3
ex tract p) 36:18
37:17 37:21
extraction (in 225
22:13 37:13 38:4
39J 39:3 39:4
52J2 52:23 86:19
86:20
fabric pi **:1
facilitate pi 41:18
facility [4] 19:17
32:15 51:23 88:16
facl[4| 69:25 71:5
__ — jj* 1
77-5 84:7
factors Pl 61 JO
failed PI 493
fairp] 43:16 58 J2
68JO
fairly m 12:11
17:16 28:17 59J2
63:6 65JO 73:13
82:19
fairy pi 89:12
fallpi 30:5 34 J3
ailing p] 75:17
allspi 14J5 15-5 If
amiliarp) 57:17 If
•unilypi 16 J f
66:23
arpT) 27:)9 32:10
*->•-> A") \ 44-19 1
4Z.A ^*.J •^•^. A r i
51:20 53:8 55:1
63-22 73:19 73J1
78:.6 81J5 84:25 1
8SJ4 86:18 885 If
favorable p) 54:4
favored [») 27:18
Fears p)71:17
feasibility [4i 24:16
24:17 25:12 39J4
feasible pi 69.6
feature PI 79:1
84:3
features m 6:8
8:2
feeding m 38:5
feedlingsp) 455
feet pi] 7:8 TO
8:8 9:18 35:14
t-5-23 3SJ4 45:6
JJ^J JJ^^ -w^.w
45:7 46:17 47:19
47 J2 63:25 77 J4
77 J5 78:10 79:5
82-17 82:17 82:19
82JO
fence pi 66: 13 74:6
74:23 74:23 74J4
765 82J
fences pi *0:22
40:24 74:4
fertilizers pi 19:3
fetus [4] 50:8 50:11
50:14 61:16
fewp] 3:7 5:5
24:6 32:25 56:12
*7-lS 73-14
O 1 • I J * •*• *
fiddler p| 44:25
field [4] 10:7 105
36:13 71:15
figure pi 9:25
figures PI 32 J5
41J1
fill (id 29:14 34 J2
44J1 45J 45-5
45-6 45:7 45:12
50:19 50J2
filled p|21Jl 44:17
final w 20 JO 2305
26-13 54:8
mJOfU »^"*
finalize pi 54:15
finalized pi 10-22
finally PI 22J4
83:19
finder PI 77:19
finds p)9J2
fine p| 74:12 74:15
finish pi 7J1
66:11
finished pi 54JO
56S 1
iredpi 22:20 v
irmpi 72-JO
irst(U) 18:10 21:16
23J 255 26JO
26:24 27:3 33:6
415 41:14 54.25
585 71:10 72:10
82:17 89:18
Fishp] 9:16 12:2
fivep] 7:)7 7:18
30:10 30:14 32:6
39:7 77:24 79: 1
825
five-yearp) 43:22
fixpj 79:10
flat (!) 24:3
fleam ll:H
flood [1)275
flooding [1) 34:2
Florida pi 72:11
flowed pi 6.1
flowing p] 80:11
foCUS p) 89:2
focused pi 16:15
1 f *>"^
16:22
fOCUSing [11 2717
followed pi 4i 14
47:16
Following pi 714
54:18 54:25
follownppi 68:19
food [41 11:21 11:24
11J4 12:3
foOt[«] 44:1 48:12
74:11 78:7 78:22
78:22
foregoing pi 90:7
formp] 23:18
formally (i) 26: 11
Formation («i "6
1616 16:17 16:18
16J4 17:5
former(ii) 6:5
10-2 17:25 18.13
21:1 34:7 38.5
39 J 44.23 87:1
89J
formerly PI 8221
Fonyth pi 2:3
2:7
forward i«i 8J2
19:16 19:18 56:24
57:10 57:13
found PD 4:J8,
«-17 8J1 15:16
W*i • O.^" "•
16-14 17:19 195
19-J5 29J1 463
70:13
fOUTpai 4:7 17:19
It* 22J 26:19
30-J 30:10 37:7
«.in
-------
Tor-mile - inside
Condcnselt^ 9 04 4 .EPA PUBLIC MEETING
our-mttepi 68:15
burth (4) 6:6
!*"< 23:25 41:16
1 30 [11 12:25
f 1 22:15 24:13
i 58:14 89:16
"rcquencyni 15:13
'riendly(i) 19:8
"font p| 62:24 77:11
frustrating!!) 6735
fulfills (i) 4:10
full PI 3:10 85:7
855
fully PI 10:9
functional pi 4734
48:13 82:11
functioning (i) 39:14
fungicide til 635
future (i*) 14:8
14:11 14:12 14:13
15:6 15:10 29:17
29:18 50:10 50:21
60:21 66:5 855
85:17 85:24 86:2
GA pi 2:4 2:7
gain (i) 37:24
gallons p] 7:3
H 4
23 J
gapp) 63:18
pjrrdcn pi 66:23
'8 71:5 71:12
ff\ 71-71 77-1
£VJ /1.Z1 /4.J
g al [23| 9:24
1 • 17-19 1723
18:8 18:14 18:17
19:1 20:4 20:11
24:14 25:19 30:15
37:7 41:1 42:6
42:22 44:13 48:7
48:14 52:11 71:12
generally p) 7.23
11:12 49:9 58:7
59:24 72:23 72:25
gentle pi 82:18
geologically p| 80:5
George pi 9:7
geotextile ui 33:6
geotexture pi 44:1
GESSp] 2-15
84:7 84:22
given p) 12:20 3332
giving pi 35
glad[«] 56:12 5631
58:6 65:14 66:6
6734
glass p| 74:13 74:16
75:2
-oalpi 29:10 - 45:16
934 60:6 61:12
f *Sl«113:5 1*10
1 28:23 2834
God's (i] 1233
goes pi 27:19 53:21
61:7 7331 8435
good 0*1 3:2
3:5 16:19 21:19
233 54:3 58:10
67:16 68:6 685
68:18 68:18 77:17
88:14 89:19
Goodwin (if) 2:14
58:2 62:25 65:16
68:10 69:14 72:2
725 79:12 79:17
7932 80:3 81:20
81:22 82:13 86:14
86:20 86:24 87:7
granulation p) 87:15
87:17
graph (4) 17:22
29:23 30:16 35:7
grass p) 11:14 76:19
grassy pi 4435
graypi 1630
gray-green (i) 1630
great m 12:1 12:7
12:8 44:7 56:13
82:6
greater [ii] 5:17
13:3 13:17 14:2
1434 29:7 30:20
32:9 32:20 51:8
85:1
green pi 12:23
reenishpi 632
round P) 17:24
67:6
rroundwater pi]
433 11:3 11:5
16:12 16:14 16:22
17:5 19:10 19:23
23:5 24:14 26:21
36:5 36:6 365
37:21 37:22 39:5
52:17 5433 58:9
58:10 62:22 64:4
64:14 64:15 73:12
73:16 86:15 89:4
89:6
group pi 673
68:15 703
jTOWp] 72:3
rowthp) 455
uaranteedpi 73:3
79:11
gUCSS PS) 3:14
332 5:21 533
63 29:21 35:6
60:1 60.8 60:11
6331 64:10 6534
663 84:23
guessing pi 7:17
nideline p) 27:10
Gtllf p| 7230
im««Ar«» C^."^<
nySpl 57:25
labitatp] 82:11
Hagoodpi] 15:17
1532 20:5 215
21:11 22:5 243
35:19 47:17 47:18
54:21 66:11 67:19
hair pi 86:8
half p| 24 J 34:1
48:7
halfway p] 65:23
hand (i) 24:17
handle pi 57:19
585
bandied m 51:16
handling (i| 8035
handout pi 5:11
6:6 10:1
happening pi 21:3
happy p] 2532
53:25 56:22 57:18
11 f
72:6
bard (4) 3:5 22:10
1*1 H t^.lfl
2733 33:20
iarvest[i) 7233
latch p) 34:5
Haynesp) 25
62:6 62:19 62:20
63:4 84:12
lazardpi 1333
iazardous[4] 32:1
32:16 45:18 50:25
health pi) 10:18
10:19 10:20 12:10
14:7 15:1 15:2
20:13 25:10 28:5
57:12
hear (4) 26:3 26:3
56:13 72:12
ieardp|7i:4
teavily m 3035
Bckp) 3335
height P) 42:3
43:4
held pi 7:3 18:1
74:13
help [4] 51:17 57:7
66:7 75:18
elpedp] 75:11
Kiebypi 90:6
heron p) 12:1
12:7 12:8
leyp) 66:8
higbp) 45:16 48:5
^7 * *
63:15
ligh-density p ] 2 1 35
ligheTp] 78:8
highlighted [i] 49-5
liofll v m 1 0- 1 1
UUUjr |JJ • I JP. 11
75:17 83:3
Lllpj 6432 6832
Umaelfp] 83:12
liredp] 65:16
dtp] 89:12
litsp) 17:14
»ldpl 455 75:16
K>ldmgpl 63:10
lolds [1)74:5
K>ks (i] 67:6
Kmestp] 63:15
7632
honestly p) 77:8
77:14 89:10
hopem 52:6 573
66:10 7831 78:23
8134
hopeful p) 795
hoping p) 57:4
57:6 63:16
hot [4] 31:1 31:7
32:13 86:11
hours pi 45:25 74:17
human pi) 4:19
10:18 10:19 10.20
12:10 14:7 15:1
153 20:13 25:10
28:5 60:24
hundred p) 83:11
hydraulic (i) 433
hydrocarbons p)
163 645
jydrogeological p)
58:24
lypothetical p> 1 1 3
1134
lypotbetically (i)
46:8
lanp) 2:17 8835
idea p| 41:1 41:8
42:22
deas (i) 3:7
dentical m 35:19
dentifiedpi 17:7
29:1 29:6
dentifyp) 24:19
illustrate (i) 30:15
imagine p) 62:8
84:6
immediately pi 42:8
55:2 6333
immobile PI 89:12
impact [to] 463
46:12 46:19 46:24
47:13 513 51:14
5131 61:16 8831
impacted (i9) 24:14
43:7 44:17 45:15
47:4 47:6 4730
49.19 52:16 53:8
55:16 71:1 76:14
mpacts (i) 89:4
mplantp] 4834
UU|»M**a»»ul [IJ JJ.l J
431 21:14
5634
important («] 11:4
15:8 37:4 464
-------
EPA PUBLIC MEETING Condense! t™ 0 9 0 4 4 ;; install - McDamid
install (5i 225
38:10 40:24 59:12
ff* 1 4
59:13
installed (si 22:18
38:7 42:4 43:24
86:11
installing (i| 42:17
instance («) 29:3
46:4 50:12 65:23
83:7 86:2
instead pi 74:23
75:22 76:12
insured m 37:23
intake [ii 13:25
intended pi 33:9
33:10
intending (i] 28:7
intent [7] 85:7
85:16
intention (i) 853
interest pi 40: 13
40:17
interested HI 6:8
26:17 65:15 90:11
interesting tC 41.11 41.1JC
41:5 41:12 4l:lo
51:7 71:5 74:19
75:10
looking [U) 14:23
28:14 31:5 32:12
45 3 51:7 523
52:17 62:12 693
73:13 83:16 88:15
looks PI 38:14 50:15
61:16 61:17 64:17
71:14 84:15
Lorap) 1:16 90:4
90:19
lotsp) 73:14 83:4
10W(«] 313 43:1
87:13 89:6 89:11
89:11
lower pi 63:5
78:10
lumber p) 6:12
7-i 735
/«O / mAJ
m&r-hin^pj 1-17
magic pi 773
8ji||||il» m 1<.^
maOtS) 69:4 69:13
69:18 6930 6934
mailed p) 69:6
mailers p) 6733
mailing (4) 68J
69:8 6933 703
tfi*ilfpmpi «l-31
tnaT^^n^P) •*•!
iinip**^**^^ p ) "-11
major pi 10:15
1032 26:19 35:12
81:10
majority pj 6:3
6:15 88:7
man's p] 16:5
manage p) 47:12
management m 27:25
manager (4) 2:3
4:4 56:17 62:21
mandates pi 24:23
manholes [i| 22:3
manner pi 47:8
57:10
manufactured pj
19:5 87:20
map (2) 29:1 87:11
March pi 23:1
23:4
MARIKA(i) 2:15
marine p] 42:16
833
marsh [37] 5:16
9:22 10:2 12:1
12:6 19:1 19:14
20:4 20:5 26:22
39:8 39:10 41:11
44:16 44:24 44:25
45:8 46:18 47:17
47:24 47:25 48:2
48:13 48:15 48:25
49:5 53:7 55:15
67:15 70:24 71:1
72:16 76:19 79.5
82:7 88:4 8831
marshes (12) 39:14
41:6 41:7 413
41:13 47:15 47:16
AOt IT Cl.lC Cl-^
49:17 51:15 53:3
TA>\ R? in
/^, J O<£. 1 v
master p] 673
mat pi 33:6 33:8
material (14) 9:17
2330 32:2 45:2
45:24 46:1 46:8
46:24 48:11 48:19
50:18 52:16 62:12
8034
materials pi 45:7
68:17
matrix p) 45:8
matter pi 76:19
8230
ma-rfmnm ft] Irt- 1 0
3633 423 52:19
5830
maypj) 531 1234
1335 . 143 17:8
23:13 24:10 273!
2731 4032 4235
50:10 5134 5135
53:17 5331 5432
563 59:5 663
75:16 80:14 8533
McDanielp) 1:16
CVV4 QIVIQ
j*v.~ 7v> 17
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR. & ASSOCIATES
Index Page 1
-------
mean - onsite
Condense!*?
EPA PUBLIC MEETING
mean pi 143 86:17
means p) 13:8
**• •*
it ores (i| 39O1
jr '«S[1| 10:15
n. .[4] 28:7 56:1
59:1 59:8
meeting rn i;i°
4-10 485 54:13
56:16 59:.10 89:21
meetings p) 63:16
66:1
Mclpi 2:14 65:19
mention pi 49:3
53:12
mentioned psi 17:4
17:9 17:23 19:2
20:! 20:6 20:25
26:7 27:1 30:1
31:17 36:7 44:8
45:13 49:20 50:24
54:19 55:10 55:13
60:3 60:17 61:13
72:15 75:15 88:25
mess (2) 42:20 84:4
metals p) 725
method P) 77:1
84:13
methodology m
28:13 845
'bodS(l) 40:1
.rogramspi 50:15
i Tanuary [i|22OI
13:8 22:20 30:14
34:8 34:23 44:10
53:19 60:22 70:15
midwest (i) 40:2 1
might [i4] 3:10
43:25 55:6 60:11
62:8 71:18 72:1
74:17 79:20 81:12
81:16 85:14 87:4
88:23
migrate pi 15:18
migration [J] 20:23
23:11 37:1 37:10
39:18
mildp) 31:3
mildly [4i 310
31:8 33:11 52:16
milep) 52:14
miles [1)68:22
Milford(4] 5:14
21:16 22:6 35O5
million p?) 7:3
13:10 13:16 14:24
2700 32:21 32O4
38:22 47:12 49:13
>05 50:18 52:10
-•'•14 81:2 85:1
n»—«i P) 26:14 26:14
2«:4 36:1 72:6
75:19 85:25
mined pi 19*
minip) 89.1
pnMiiiiiijg.pi 2O- 19
28:10
miniacule pi 30: 1 7
minus (i*) 13:18
14:16 14:16 15:5
15:6 28:22 30:1
30:3 30:3 305
30:10 30:13 30:14
31:11 32:22 35:4
minute pi 35:11
56:8
minutes m 3:19
5:5 7:17 56:12
89:18
MIRECKlm 2:15
62:15 62:18 63:1
64:2 64:6 69:5
72:15 72:24
miscalculated p]
79:10
mission pi 28:6
Mississippi [i] 75:12
misspeak p] 58:14
mistake pi 43:19
mitigate [ii 24:20
mix (ii 17:11
mixing p] 87:15
mobility p) 25:6
mobilization m
18:12
mobilize pi 19: 12
87:3
mobilizes p) ' 89: 1 1
model t«i 1 55
50:13 61:13 61:17
61 03 81:22
modeling pi 43:3
moderately pi 82:19
modify p) 56O
76O4
moisture p) 7:1 1
money p) 60: 14
81:1 81:1
monitor pi 46:18
77:18
monitoring (4) 70:20
7003 70:25 78:3
month [4) 23:1
230 23:4 24:10
monthly p) 78:3
months pi 63:14
63:19
mo*tp4] 5:4
6:11 6:18 6:20
8:3 8:10 93
17:15 28:23 34:6
64:14 69:22 73:15
f O A
78:4
mostly pi 7:4
motor p) 163
mound P) 8105
move [4] 8:22 19:15
56:24 575
movement PI 22:14
moving i«i 19:18
22:17 23:15 37O3
8205 883
Ms [15] 56:6 56:11
62:15 62:18 63:1
64O 64:6 69:5
69O2 72:15 72:24
7303 84:7 84O2
91:7
mudp) 45:8 46:18
74:14
multi-media pi 4:23
Murphy's (i) 3:2
MUSC(i) 3:18
must[«] 13:19 15:10
20:14 28:5 30:5
34:21
mysidopsis P) 11:12
11:13
Npj 91:1
name p) 4:3 5:18
62:20
NAPL[U] 17:7
17:10 17:15 17:23
18:3 18:5 18:17
22:14 365 37:12
38:25 52:17 58:19
63-5 64-1 64-4
VJ*
non-carcinogenic m
12:15
Non-carcinogens m
1301
non-detectable m
635
non-hazardous pi
•45-19
~^* * 7
non-restorable pi
non-time pi 19:18
89:1
norp] 90:10
normal p] 22:22
22:22 2203
north pi) 5:14
8:12 15:17 20:4
23:7 395 47:17
47:18 49:16 53:4
67:14
northern PI 22:16
northwest pi 12:6
18:5 1800 385
39:4 395 49:4
49:17 53:7
notable pi 73:16
Notary pi 90:5
note P) 8:2 55:17
noted (1)20:3
nothing pi 24:25
77-19
* * >17
notice pi 17:7
<<-e fa. i •)
VJ.O OO.l*
notification [i] 64 oo
notified [4] 64:25
65:3 65:6 67:23
notify p) 53O1
4ovap)21:4
November pi 9:6
90OO
nowpo 4:7 4:14
63 8:14 19:13
22:1 22:12 24:6
37O3 43O 43:15
44:16 503 S3O1
55:12 573 57O3
59:11 66:10 67:14
73:10 78:7 79:1
79:4 80:8 83:14
84:1 88:5
NPLpl 1:4 4:10
umber (ii) 233
58OS 59:6 59O3
60O 60:12 60-00
61:18 62:3 62:8
62O3 82:17
nutrients pi 41:18
48O4 48:25
nuts p] 51:3
nutshell pi 19.23
36:4
objective m 10:8
24:19 265 285
37O 39:10 48:9
objectives p«i 2002
26:25 27:6 36:5
36:7 37:12 38:17
38O2 52:18 52:19
58:12 58:16 58:18
59:2 59:8 59:11
observed pi 9:15
11:10
obvious p) 88O
Off(i) 9:22 18.13
22:15 25:1 36:17
37:1 66O4 82:18
Off -Site (21) 15:15
15:18 15:19 17:22
T8-9 18-19 20-23
1 O*7 1 0.* 7 ^W.* J
21:24 22:14 22:17
28:14 29:12 31:24
32:14 35:8 47:11
47:23 49:!5 52:12
53:3 62:13
Offices pi 56:18
official pi 50:4
Often P] 12:11 26:15
Oil(*l 17:11 36:13
36:14 36:15 36:15 ,
37:18 64:16 64:17 '
64:17
Oilsp) 16:3
Old [101 300 8:8
8:12 18:18 34:10
38:11 77:1 81:15
83:19 88:7
Once [10)3:21 21:24
22:1 22:8 24:10
33:19 570 66:19
78:8 78:10
one [47] 3:16 4:11
8:5 8:5 9:12
12:14 12:23 13:3
13:10 13:10 13:15
13:15 13:18 13:25
143 14:24 14.24
20:4 20:5 21:17
27:6 27:20 28:24
29:3 29:4 30:13
33O5 3404 36:8
36:19 37:8 37:14
403 44:15 46:14
47:4 47:14 55:18
58:8 585 S9O3
67O5 70:18 80:11
81:8 83OO 86O4
one-third m 8O5
nonm 10-72 11-15
WWV I'J IV ,+m **•••*
673
ongoing pi 55:14
oniitepj) 6:13
«• M • O C 1/\,1A
7O1 8:5 10:10
Index Page 8
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR. A ASSOCIATES
-------
EPA
iC MEETING
Condenselt™ '. Q
onto - pnxinc
^005^K25 11:1
14:14«3:7 15:10
16:7jK6:ll 17:8
23:5i^27:2 29:7
29: iff 30:25 31 0
31:4^ 32:1 45:12
49:21 505 50:10
50:19 50:21 50:22
55:10 60:21 61:14
65:22 70:19
ontO[t) 10:4
open [il 5:7 22:1
24:3 46:7 46:15
57:23 66:14 82:23
operate pi 24:12
42-19 54-22
~^.17 J^.^A
operating pi 22:18
85:11 85:11
operation pi 6:3
9:18 9:23 45:14
48:4 49:22 70:11
operations (3i IO:M
49:22 5400
opportunity (2] 44:3
56:14
opposed [2] 15:14
80:23
optimal p| 42:1
43:3
optimizing [i| 28:11
Option [i( 40:10
orange tu 66:12
order pi 10:6 350
49:12
organic (ii 45:8
organisms [ii 39:16
Origin [1] 80:6
origins [i] 80:10
osmosis [ii 6O2
Otherwise [ii 89:12
ourselves (21 6.2
65:4
out- reach [i) 68:17
outline (i) 54:11
Outside (3] 34:20
61:5 61:7
Overall [I] 6:7
255 29:20 31:15
42:3 59:24 605
61:18
overhead pi 3:4
3:17 3:21 5OO
14:17 190 89:19
overheads pi 3:13
overview (ii 9:24
ownp) 57:3
owned PI 9:7
8500
owners pi 84O
Owns PI 71:6 83:14
oxygen pi 41:18
P.Ep| 20 25
pager*) 3:20 3:20
4:17 5:11 6'6
10:1 13:2 84:7
913
PAH p| 72:5 72O1
paper pi 3: IS
paperworKp) 29: 12
paragraph (u 68:7
parcels m 84:20
park pi 65:7
Parker (4] 42:16
42:16 83:7 835
part [131 5:17 8:10
16:3 26:7 26:11
40:12 52:2 53:14
69:18 69:18 69:19
77:21 87:19
participation pi
55:19 55:20
particles p) 74:12
74:15 75:5
particular pi 8:5
12-20 86-6
1 *,*V QU«U
particularly pj 65:21
parties pi 8:18
19:17 555
parts (5] 26:19 32:20
49:24 50:17 85:1
party [1)90:10
past [5] 3:7 10:11
37:23 49:22 73:13
pathway (i| 7l:ll
pathways (4) 10:19
10:23 115 185
patience (i) 66:18
pay pi 57:7
PCPpj 64:2 64:6
645
PCPS[1]64:13
pending pi 90:11
pentachloropbenol pi
6-25 16-6
WtA,J IV). U
people pi) 12:23
4001 65:2 65:18
65:25 67:3 68:15
68:16 69:3 695
«5:15 85:16
perm 13:16 24-02
32O1 49:24 50:15
50:17 85:1
percent (4) 61:21
6102 62:1 62O
perform [i| 81:13
performance PI 54:1 1
period pi) 4:6
4:8 4:14 265
31:14 43O2 46:19
"Q Tfl-1 78-54
jy^r ro.J ro**^
permeabilities pi
17-17
1 1 .1 1
permits p) 9:8
permitted p) 9:13
perspective p] 5:6
Msrtainp) 58:8
icrtains pi 58:8
PEURIFOYpj24
69O2
pHru) 19:10 48:3
49:1 86O5 87O
87:13 8705 88:4
88:8 88:10 88:11
88:17 88:24 89:6
89:11
phase p) 17:10
36:22 59:17
Philip pi 1:14
philosophy p ) 59: 1 5
phosphate m 19:1
193 19:6 19:21
20:6 45:14 81:16
Phosphate/Fertilizer
P) 8:13 8:15
49:23
photograph (i) 5:20
physical (4) 24:11
39O4 65:22 66:6
pick (il 750
picture (4) 19:2
33:1 44:12 88O
pilep) 46:10 51:17
piles [U] 40:14
40:14 40:15 40:17
41:24 42:1 42:3
42:4 42:17 42:23
42:25 43:24 73:24
74:6 74:24 74:25
77OO 81:17 82:2
823 82:14 83:11
pilings [1] 79:24
)ilOt (10)22:19 79O3
79O5 80:18 80:20
81:10 81:11 81:14
81:23 81:25
Pinevillepi 32:16
lipep) 23:15
>ipeS(i)23:13
Httsburgb [1] 56: 1 8
place [13] 6:3
22:19 415 435
43:24 6600 66:21
74:5 75:20 76:15
77:20 81:14 82:3
>lacedp) 33:7
423
ilacemcritp) 375
>lacesp) 64:16
ilacingpi 413
»lanp5i3:12 45
4:23 6:7 20O1
22:17 26:12 38:13
38:14 43:18 52:8
573 79:13 81:14
84:17
plans pi 25:7 56:3
56O4 57:11 86:4
lantra 1* 7:18
8:13 8:15 23:6
455
Planters pi 8:12
lantingp] 66O3
lantspi 210
7202 72O3
layer (i) 19:8
playing pi 63:7
plotted p] v 29-. 19
36:7
plume p] 22:16
plumes in 37:5
Plus [i I 80:12
PM(H 1:12
point pj) 3O1
A 1 A O t 1
4:2 4:8 5:7
20:12 27:10 33:14
33:15 35:6 35:17
36:17 36:18 37:24
435 505 53:11
55:18 S6O1 68:19
76:16 77:25 79:19
8305
points p) 58:3
58:7
poks [1] 6:17
policy pi 50:4
polynuclearp) 16:1
64:8
polyurethenepi
21:25 i
ponym 3:10 •
portion pi 6:4
6:10 7:1 7:24
17:1 17:2 34:8
79O 87:14
portions p) 26:5
84:16 84:20
posed (it) 4:19
10:18 14:4 14:7
15:4 15:4 20:13
20:20 24:20 48:16
6000
position [1] 57:16
possibility p) 11:3
52:22 79:23
possible (4) 68:12
71:8 85:18 89:7
pOSSlbly («] 15:20
183 31:19 31:19
59-13 71-13
J7,U / 1 *U
ratential [45] 1102
12:13 12:18 13:11
13:12 13O5 143
14:13 155 15O4
17:8 18:2 18:19
18O3 19O5 21:10
21:11 22:6 23:11
27:1 27:4 27:7
27:16 29:17 31O2
38:19 403 41O3
473 47:6 48:16
494 494 50:15
50O1 5200 60OO
61:16 663 715
71:10 71:14 72:7
79:18 89:4
potentially m 14:14
17O1 27:15 29:18
31O5 37O 38O1
46O
poured pi 66O1
tower p] 38:16
65:10
>pm(«) 19:14 483
503 535 6103
623
practical p) 52:19
5800
practically [i] 36:10
predict pi 8i:5
predicted (ii 205
prefer pi 60: 10
erencepi 27.19
preferring [i] 62O
pregnant pi 50:8
50:10 61:14
preliminary (i) 8.20
prepared (i) S3:ll
presence pi 64:15
present [it] 2:12
3:4 16:8 19:13
24:1 25:22 32:23
36O3 38:22 45:11
ff\ £
50:6
presentation p] 3O3
65 56:13
presentations ni
35
presently p) 63:10
preservative (4) 6:24
7:13 16:7 64:10
preservatives [4]
6:14 6:15 6:19
64:12
preserving pi 61:3
presitnation m 77:20
pressure PI 7:8
64:11
pressurized [i] 7:11
pretty [22i 7O
19O2 22:23 23:2
27:23 30:25 36:4
48:5 55:4 57:17
59:18 62:6 63:2
63:8 63:9 63:15
65:19 66:1 81:18
85:19 85:20 87:20
previous m 26o
primarily pi 8:io
84:12
primitive (i) 9:19
problem [loi 403
50:6 52O 60:17
64:14 69O4 735
814 87:12 87:14
problematic (i) 80: 16
noceed M 3:8
38:14 55:6 77:7
21:13
Proceeding n vin
6O3 19:4 19:19
25:16 26:8 53:15
S6O2 57:16 595
63:13
plOOUCeO pi 72:4
»roduCt(S) 6:11
17O4 22:15 233
24:13
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR. & ASSOCIATES
Index Page 9
-------
productive - results
productive pi 57:4
82:11
P >ssionalpil:16
! 90:19
|' ~lep| 80:5
program [i] 36:6
project (7J 2:3
4:4 5:2 5020
51:16 62:20 82:23
projector [ij 3:4
projects [2] 80:2
80:4
promise PI 73:4
795
promises (i) 73:7
proper [i] 21:24
property pi 57:3
83:21 83:25 855
86:6
proposal [4] 26:13
57:17 63:17 78:17
proposed [zoi 4:9
4:22 25:17 26:19
28: i 28:15 32:11
33:3 33:3 34:15
35:23 35:25 39:1
47:1 495 52:8
59:1 59:7 60:5
84:17
proposing p5i 14:8
^•15 31:6 315
.9 38:1 38:2
0 38:20 39:19
) 41:20 41:22
44:21 45:12 48:6
50:16 51:6 52:25
56:1 60:3 61:21
61:23 61:24 62:13
protect [3] 50:8
50:11 76:11
protected m 30:4
34:17 34:18 34:20
34:24 60:15 86:12
protection [4] 1:1
25:10 325 405
protective cio) 14:22
28:5 28:21 28:23
51:24 57:12 59:24
60:6 60:24 61:1
protect! veness n i
81:7
protocols [i] 11:18
proven nj 46:25
provide m 4:18
15:1 27:8 27:11
32:22
provisions [i] 53:23
prudent pj 46:21
7920
"ublicps] - 1:10
1:13 4:8 4:25
1 25:23 265
.6 53:15 53:20
54:13 55:18 56:16
57:12 90:5
public's ni 55 JO
poll pi 71:16 76:8
polled P) 7:15
35:16 52:7
pompp) 36:17
pumped (1) 9:18
pumping pi 22:13
37:10 38:16
pumps p] 22:22
purposes pi 33:6
76:17 83:4
pushp) 60:25
put p2] 13:4 21:25
22:3 22:19 33:12
38:17 42:19 62:11
62:12 655 78:22
83:11
putting (11 47:21
Q&Ap]91:8
quantities PI 175
18:3
quantity pi 18:4
33:25
quarter (i) 47:22
quarter-inch pi 3:14
23:19
quarters p] 52:14
questions pi] 5:8
55 25:23 25:25
52:6 57:19 57:21
57:24 79:12 89:17
89:20
quick p] 16:13
35:11 49:20
quickly m 28:17
34:14 55:6 76:6
76:18 79:6 79:7
79:7 85:17
quite p] 56:19 73:14
quo p] 78:16
Rpl 2:2
raccoon pi 12:1
railp] 7:8
railed pi 7:10
railroad pi 6:17
rain pi 34:1
rains p) 34:1
ranp) 8:6 8:7
25:8
range p«i 13:7
13:7 135 14:16
14:22 14:25 15:5
15:5 24:24 25:2
255 27:20 28:22
28:22 29:4 30:4
30:6 30:10 30:14
31:12 31:16 34:15
34:17 34:18 34:24
35:4 422 6022
61:5 61:8
ranging p] 2822
rapidlyp] 8224
rash pi 73:7
rate [4] 12:17 43:4
61:17 76:25
rates pi 805
Condenseltt? 9 044 EPA PUBLIC MEETING
rather p] 82:1
ratio pi 142
RE P] 1:4
re-ran pi 29:16
reach pi 46:12 65:17
reached pi 4:7
read pi 69:11 69:21
real (ti) 3:2 21:19
28:17 34:14 66:13
78:18 82:4 82:6
82:7 87:17 87:17
reality pi 66:2
realize pi 12:18
36:12
really rw) 5:12
6:4 9:4 11:11
13:21 17:3 20:18
20:22 23:2 27:22
28:12 31:10 33:8
39:22 40:6 405
41:13 44:19 45:4
46:11 47:4 47:13
48:2 51:3 52:5
53:14 54:10 59:16
60:1 60:18 61:10
64:4 67:3 68:1
87:17
REARpi 2:19
reasonable p i 3:24
reauthorization m
55:21
receive pi 70:4
received (4) 9:8
26:15 54:4 54:13
receiving pi 9:3
Recent p) 27:20
receptor ni 50.12
receptors m il:ii
20:1 20:10 46:13
48:17
recess [i] 14:19
reclaim pi 76:17
reclamation (i i 76:17
recognize m 40:8
27:10
reconstruct ii| 35:13
reconstructed |jj
22:8 35:16 36:2
36:3 82:7
reconstructing pi
35:18
^construction [«i
21:16 24:1 35:12
35:24 5020 52:13
[^contaminate [i|
8821
tecordp) 545
54:10 90:8
recover pi 1725
182 24:13 36:14
43:10
recoverable pi 175
18:4
recovered pj 23 J
23:4
recovering [i i 47 j
recovery pi 24: 13
37:11 38:4
recreated pi 78: 11
recreational (t i 83:4
red pi 12 J 12:7
34:20
reduce pi 25:6
27:25
reduction (4) 28:11
30:10 34:16 35:3
reestablish PI 4723
48:12
refer [ij 6:8
reference pi 14:1
reform pi 2721
reforms [i] 2724
regarding N 16: 12
16:14 55:4 67:12
Region p] 2:2
2:5 4:4
Registered pi 1:16
90:4 90:19
regulations pi 4520
regulatory p] 9:6
reinjectp] 37: 1 8
reinjectedpi 73:17
reiterate pi 68:10
reiterating pi 6322
related pi 90: 10
Delations p i 2:6
relative p) 812
relatively pj 45:16
74:21
released] 4825
remain pi 84:10
remainder [ii 62:13
refraining p) fU 1 1
remedial pi) 2:3
4:4 4:20 10:4
10.12 20:16 20:17
28:15 38:6 54:19
56:25
remediation p) 1320
5424 572 57:8
58:19 6223 64:15
72:18 82:10
remedied pi 54-7
remedies ft) 28-4
28:7 31:15 365
remedy pi] 5:1
20:18 255 25:17
26:4 26:19 28:12
30:5 33:1 34:15
34:17 3420 434
4321 44:10 472
54:8 54:12 55:16
565 86:10
2722
removal m 19:19
3924 44:19 52:19
55:5 58:19 89:1
resoovc pij 27:7
365 365 3622
3624 39:11 39:13
3920 402 40:3
485 48:19
AWMWUA^II] 4/.O
renegades PI 79:8
reorganize PI 3:22
Repeat p] 62:17
replaced pi 29: 1 4
replacement p) 52:15
replacements pi
3422
report p) 16:14
reported pi 1:16
80:7
reportedly ni 7:3
Reporter pi 1:16
902 90:5 90:19
915
reports p] 75:10
75:11
representation ti)
84:10
representative pi
4523
2524 5720 57:22
require pj 615
requirements pi
reshuffle pi 3:22
residential pi 17.6
50:3
residents [5] 15.15
1520 15:20 69:20
70:12
residual m 28:13
29:19 30:17 30:21
3222 60:19 845
84:15
resin pi 23:19
resource pi 37:3
respect pi 25: 11
61:6
respective pj 2825
respond p] 26:11
8423
responsible [5i 5:4
8:18 19:17 555
55:11
c*|xnui w i* j j*. i +
restoration i4j 37 J
41:15 5221 5821
restore pi 39:13
resuhpji ifcio
13:14 16:5 16:8
2723 2921 45:13
4921 4921 59:19
5921 82:10
resultant pi 46:1
resuhedpi * 9-15
resulting p] 87:18
results pi 1123
Index Page 10
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR. & ASSOCIATES
-------
EPA PUBLIC MEETING
2920 623
resurfacing CM 79:8
return pi 4422
57:7 855 85:17
85:23
reuse (1)83:6
levcgetatcni 47:23
review [i j 595
revisited (i) 24:6
RJ[l) 16:14
RI/SFpi I9:J9
Richard [J] 2:9
62:20 63:22
right [27] 3: 19 4:14
9:10 22:12 23:6
30:14 34:23 34:24
35:3 355 43:2
44:16 45:23 45:24
50:3 53:19 60:22
67:18 68:23 70:22
70:24 75:25 80:8
80:22 82:1 83:10
88:5
rights (I) 61:3
risk(«i] 10:16 10:17
10:18 10:20 12:10
12:15 12:17 12:22
13:3 13:3 13:4
13:7 13:9 13:16
15:2 15:4 15:4
15:10 15:12 16:10
19:25 20:13 20:19
21:11 24:20 27:2
27:20 27:24 28:1
28:11 28:13 28:15
28:21 29:4 29:4
29:19 29:25 30:2
30:4 30:6 30:11
30:13 30:14 30:17
30:21 30:22 31:12
32:22 34:15 34:17
34:18 34:24 35:3
35:4 48:16 60:19
60:20 61:1 61:5
61:7 84:9 84:15
865
risks (i4| 4:19
12:13 12:24 14:4
14:6 14:15 15:24
16:1 20:10 73:10
77:10 77:12 84:10
84:14
river [23)5: 14 9:1
9. |£ 1fl.^4 'HVfl
.10 10.4^ ZV.O
38:10 39:8 40:12
40:12 40:16 40:19
41:22 42:8 42:11
45:22 495 51:14
74:13 74:16 75:17
76:13 77:21 79:2
80:11 82:15
road [2] 34:12 88:6
ROBERTS [il 1:23
ROGERS m 2:17
88:23
rolling (i| 40:25
Rosemontpi 15:20
47:18 65:13 67:12
67:17 68:22 69:22
roughly (<] 32:24
35:23 42:7 45:2
45:6 47 31
rubbing [i] 86:8
ruksm 69:10
run p] 3:7 8:15
83:13
runoff [1*« ^nf i mm*
sedimentation [if]
402 40:11 40:18
412 41:3 4123
42:10 42:18 43:13
43:16 49:10 49:14
53:1 7324 75*
805 81:19 84:4
Condeaselt™ -
sediments p«) 424
1025 11:17 K-16
1521 21:12 2621
2622 27:5 32:13
35:15 39:17 40-.5
41:4 44:17 44:18
46:11 46:24 47:6
4722 51:13 52:11
52:25 75:14 76:6
76:12 7725 785
79:13 79:16
SCep»| 7:23 724
85 10:1 11:17
13:1 13:2 21:19
21:20 22:10 29:25
30:7 30:18 32:6
34:19 43:23 44:3
46:1 55:1 55:3
56:2 66:1 66:19
675 69:3 69:5
72:7 72:11 72:13
73:6 74:1 80:17
81:16 81:24 82:3
82:5 86:1 88:6
88:8
seepm 17:17
segment [i] 42:7
select p] 405
6023
selected m 54: n
86-5
vWt— ~.lv
4:16 4:19 422
4:24 5:12 5:12
5:20 6:1 6:4
6:7 6:10 72
7:22 724 8:7
8:25 11:17 1220
14:7 15:17 165
1621 17:1 172
18:13 20:8 2020
22-15 25-4 24-21
**• 1 J * J.~ A^.^ J
25:1 275 27:15
28:16 33:1 34:8
37:1 42:8 48:14
5023 5620 57:18
63:6 68:14 70:13
734 83* 84:17
84:19 85*
site-wide pj 2021
ite«[«] 13* 28:1
283 28:11 34:11
71*14
/J.14
tits pi 22:12
ittingpi 17:16
63:5 77:8 81:17
8224
Situation H) 48:19
653 77:13 89:14
six pi) 72 22:12
28:19 2822 30.3
31:11 3222 35:5
38:5 45:6 63:19
six-foot p) 45:13
six-month p) 8020
Size p) 44.14 605
Skip) 83:4
skimp) 922
skinp) 61:15 865
Slats p] 74:4
Slick p] 82:4
Slide P] 49:4 60:1
Slightly p) 17:12
Slope p] 6624 82:18
Sloping p) 24:4
35:22
Slowp) 59:16
smack p) 6022
small [«] 30: 18 30:22
64:21 66:23 67:2
84:19
smaller [i] 1225
smell ni 21 20
smokeyp) 6:16
SnOW 14) 40.21 4024
74:3 765
soil pi] 423 10:14
16:11 21:1 2123
2123 2123 26:20
26:24 27:2 27:13
27:14 28:10 28:14
28:14 28:25 29:6
29:7 29:10 29:11
29:14 29:24 30:1
30:4 30:9 30:25
31:1 31:8 31:16
31:19 31:23 31:24
31:25 32:5 32:6
32:11 32:12 32:20
32:24 33:1 33:7
33:10 35:13 36:4
3920 46:11 46:24
49:19 50:3 50:17
5025 51:3 51:5
51:8 52:11 52:13
53:8 535 552
55:4 55:16 58:8
60:4 60:5 61:11
625 62:10 72:11
86:8 8724 89:5
soils p«i 1025 14:15
15:7 15:11 15:13
15:14 29:18 41:8
47:7 47:8
SOlids p] 74:15
Solution P) 89:7
89*
solve p) 8824
5325
163 16:4
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR. & ASSOCIATES
Index Page 11
-------
soon -top
Condeaaelt^J
045 EPA PUBLIC MEETING
soon p| 66:1
sooner PI 36:16
, ' "5
.31 45:6 68:16
L jding(i) 77:20
sounds [I] 80:25
source (i2) 17:8
20:18 36:8 38:25
40:6 45:12 50:22
52:18 52:20 55:14
58:17 58:18
sources (i) 36:6
SOUth (It) 4:6
5:15 8:6 8:14
19:13 20:5 32:16
395 47:25 48:1
49:16 53:4 55:14
58:11 72:16 84:8
88:3 90:6
southern m 9:7
18:25
spacing p] 38:15
43:3 745
Speak [2] 58:12
58:14
special (i) 81:3
species (4) 11:12
11:17 11:25 20:3
specific p] 20:21
68:13
xified(i) 45:20
^ed(i) 41:18
J ftm Q
a[lj 57:8
Spent (ij 88:22
split pi 26:19 52:10
spoiled (I) 9:17
Spoils p) 9:19
9:23
Spoke (1) 70:18
spoken (i] 65:18
spotp) 32:13 79:8
Spots [1)31:1 31:7
86:11
spreading [i i 66:8
St(i) 1:14
stack [l |69:25
STAFFORD p| 2: 16
73:23
Stage [11 38:1
standard pi 19:11
36:10 54:11 88:1
standards pi 23:7
86:13
STANLEY [ii 2:14
start pi 3:19 3J2
26 JO 27:17 41:10
59:6 59:16
Carted [4] ~ 3J
*'25 53 JO 57:1
ingpj 65:22
Si*iC[i»]4:6 135
13:19 14:8 24:24
25:13 25:15 25:17
25:24 57JO 57:21
58:4 58:11 58 J2
60:10 62.1 62 JO
63:16 90:5
States p) 1:1
6:20
Status (IJ 78:i6
statute pi 4:ii
12:16 13:17 24:22
IV 10
JJ. Jw
statutory [i ) 60:19
Stay p| 5:8 7:16
Staying p) 82:23
89:15
stays (i) 41:1
Step (5) 14:21 225
23:10 23:25 46:14
Stick [i] 42:25
sticking (i ) 89:18
Still m 28:4 28:24
42:25 49:18 68:5
fit '1*7 ft4*7A
ol . 1 / Q*.*.\J
stomach (i) 3:25
Stone (4) 33: 13 47:5
47:14 85:8
Stop [5] 37:10 56:4
75:15 76:7 76:9
stopping (i) 22:14
toragep) 33:18
34:8
stored (c) 6:ll
7:1 7:21 7:21
64:10 87:21
tormpi 23:11
23:12 23:17 23:20
27:9 27:12 42:5
tormwater(i) 21:8
trategies(i) 27:25
Street [u] 1:14
2-3 2-7 2-10
4fc. J *. / *• *\i
5:15 5:22 8:5
8:7 18:4 18:16
21:5 21:16 22:7
35:14 35:19 35:25
Street/Milford m
tress p] 26:12
tretcb(i) 21:17
Strip pj 45:15 45 J4
Studies [4] 14:2
24:16 285 56J3
Study [?J24:17 25:12
28:18 73:4 73:5
80:18 80:21 81:11
81:11
Stuff [7] 7:1 32:13
33:19 46 JO 73:4
76JO 86:8
stuffing [i] 69 J
subaqueous pi 415
44:11 53 J
subdivision [i] 47:19
ubjectm 18:11
subjected (i] 12:8
subjecting (n 11:16
ubsidiaryni 83:16
substance ni 6:16
substantial (i) 60:14
substantive (i] 59:23
subsurface m 14:15
15:12 21:1 21:6
86J5 875
Subtle (1) 79:4
SUCCeSS [1] 23:2
SUCh [5] 12:4 12:5
25:19 39:21 40:2
SUCk[i] 7:11
sufficient pi 33:14
59:1
Suggest (1) 67:21
suggestion PI 685
68:11
Suggests (1J 51:1
sulfuric(i) 19:5
iTTlflHTHTl •^'^fl f f I ?TT* 1
£iitnmari?*«ert] VM1
summary (4) 4:18
16:13 54:12 58:14
summed [i] 59:24
summer pi 54:16
83:11
snms(ij 19:22
Superfundpi 4:13
13:6 13:7 27:21
55:19 55:22 70:12
superphosphate n j
19:7
supplied [ij 1 1':7
Supply [1} 17:6
Support (4) 44:24
455 56:8 57:11
surface (i«) 8:3
10:14 10:25 11:23
14:14 15:7 15:11
15:14 15:21 21:13
*+^,A TO. 1 ^C*T
**•' 'ol 1 *O. '
86:25 87:8 88:11
surprised (i| 79:6
surround pi 40:16
surrounding pi 40: 13
46:3
survey m 77:23
surveys p] 77:18
7R-M 78-17
IQ.kJ fO. J '
Suspect (I] 42:25
suspected ni 34: u
susnen
SWpj 23 2:7
system [iij 22:19
77-^0 22J3 23J3
24 J 24:11 24:13
36:3 37JO 38:8
39:14 54:20 54J3
table p] 26:13 52:7
57 J3 59:11 78:6
tabled pi 50:5
59:4
tagni 70:1
takes [4] 35:3 355
61:4 73:8
taking («) ii:ii
IIJ2 28:14 31 J4
72:7 73:22
tanks pj 7:2 18:1
tapered [i] 35:21
target (i) 68 Ji
task (I) 65:20
tax (l] 57:5
technical p] 65:16
84:5
technicians (i) 70:19
technologies (i)38:2
technology PI 36:) 6
36:19 36J3 46:21
46:25 59:14 73:2
telling pj 65J5
775
tells [IJ 30:24
teH[») 13:18 14:16
15:6 30:13 30:13
35:4 50:15 63:25
82:20
ten-year (i) 27:12
tends ni 15:18
terms (i)80.5
test (10) 11:12 11:17
20:3 46:6 46:7
50:24 65:9 72:2
73:21 79:13
testing [5] 16:22
45:17 45:19 67:6
70:15
tests P) 51:1 5IJ1
Thank (4) 57: 1 4
84:22 89:15 89:17
Thanks p] 56:11
89:19
themselves pi 23:13
66 J5
theory p] 75:5
thereof ui 90:1 1
Thereupon ni 89 Jl
thick pi 3:14 16:18
23:19 28:20 45:6
63J5 78:23 78J3
thinpj 45:15 45 J4
thinking ni 87:7
third [<) 6:24 18 JO
23:10 37:11 56:16
61:10
thirty-year m 46:19
thoroughly pi 325
thought pj 64:19
hotif snd [ij fl'B
three p«i 6:13
11:12 12J3 13:3
13:18 14:16 14:16
155 154 1635
17:7 17:19 17J3
17J5 20:3 30J
30:13 35:12 365
36:6 36:7 383
38:4 3825 39*
41:13 51:7 52:13
52:18 52:18 58:7
58:16 58:17 58:17
62:4 62J4 62J5
78:10
three-ring fij 28:19
three-sided pi 24:3
35:21
threshold (i) 355
through pj 6:1
9:11 17:15 17:18
22:12 25:8 29:2
76:20 85:11
throw pi 69:7
69:18
ticking [I] 82:2
tidal (42] 5:16 9:22
12:6 19:1 19:13
20:4 205 26:22
39:8 395 395
10- in A\-f, 41-7
Jr.lv * I .v ^J./
415 41:11 41:12
44:16 44:24 45:9
07:15 47:16 47:17
'47:20 47:24 47:25
48:2 48:13 48:24
49:5 49:17 51:15
53:2 53:4 53:7
55:14 67:15 71:1
71J 82:7 82:10
88:3
tidbits [i] 59:20
tide PI 43:1 79:8
tied) 24:23
ties(i) 6:17
tight p) 55:4 81:18
timbers m 9:21
timely u) 57:10
times [«) 13: 18 14:16
15:6 30:13 30:13
35:4
today pi 70:5
77J4
together p) 47:21
55:7
Tommy p) 42:15
83:7 83:12
ton[i) 47:11
tonight m 25:14
26:8 26:13 53:14
66:7
tonnage pi 30: 1 6
60:7
tons p2) 28:10 29:10
29J4 30:8 30:11
30:12 30:19 30JO
315 31:11 31J3
32:8 32:12 34J2
35:8 52:13 605
60:7 60:13 60:16
60J1 61:4
too pi 25 Jl 66 J3
tOOkp«l6J 21:17
21J3 28:18 29:13
45J2 63:14 69J3
875 874
topp) 17:16 295
Index Page 12
A. WILLIAM ROBERTS, JR. & ASSOCIATES
-------
EPA 3
1C MEETING
Condeajelt1
045
~\
total
37:ia»l:10 ' 45:7
5I2«63:7 63 24
74-3^
tntrnnft ^V4 74-14
tWtXAIBJ JJ-^ f^.l^
tOUgn"[l| 65:20
toxic p| 41:14 48:10
toxicityti'l H:10
11:20 202 20:3
20:7 20:9 25:6
39:11 39:12 39:13
39:16 40:1 40:2
44-18 47-21 48-9
^^.iO T / . A 1 ^0.7
48:18 49:7 S3:6
trace (i) 16:8
track p) 10:1 34:7
tracks [1] 7:16
tract II) 52:16
Traditionally (t|*
57-1 ft
* /. 10
traffic (I] 82:23
transcript pi 2:19
90:7
Transcription [tj
1:22
transfer in 18:23
transferred ni 17:21
transition pi 82:6
£2:8
transpired (ii 14:19
transport no) 17:20
185 18:12 18:19
21:10 22:4 22:14
71:10 72:8 80:5
transported (i) 21:7
transports in 27:7
trash [2] 21:21 69:7
traveled (i) 75:19
treat [2| 28:2 73:16
treated m 6:13
6:21 7:15 7:23
T.-)< o.i •}•»•<
' •»«/ O.I 4J.J
23:7 64:11
treating (i) 5:19
treatment pi ) 6:5
7:2 7:7 10:2
16:7 18:1 18:13
21:2 23:6 23:9
25:4 25:5 31:18
31:21 32:3 34:7
37:15 38:5 39:2
73:18 87:2
tremendous ni 73:15
tremendously (i)
62-9
U4.7
trend pj 30:8 30:15
tried [4] 65:17 65:19
73:2 77:1
triple (i) 60:13
tripled pi 30 JO
30 21
triples [i ] 60:7
troep) 732 77:1
90:7
tryu«j 3:1 1724
19:20 252 25:4
443 4821 58:13 J 74:13 752 765
63:17 68:19 74:6
7521 75-22 77:11
8023 8824
trying m 22:15
36:14 66:17 70:14
7621 83:18 8322
89:8
tornpi 36:17 57:3
twops) 6:18 7:3
10:22 12:13 17:3
19:10 27:6 32:20
35:22 37:8 37:17
38:10 38:12 39:3
39:4 45:4 45:7
46:17 47:4 47:14
47:16 51:5 51:10
58:8 59:22 63:7
67:16 68:7 70:25
79:12 81:11 85:1
86:14 88:1 885
tying [i] 56:25
type pi 27:16 36:13
unacceptable (121
14:6 14:15 15:4
15:10 15:12 15:23
16:1. 16:10 20:10
20:12 21:11 48:16
under [io] 4:12
21:7 2422 35:10
36:3 38:7 84:17
86:14 87:16 88:1
underground (i)
21:8
underlying (i) 21 :l
understand m 1 2:1 2
65:1 65:24 66:4
6622 67:5 82:12
8522
underway pi 421
24:1
UNIDENTIFIED p]
62:17 83:5 85:3
unitpj 16:19 21:4
53:10
United pi l:l
6:20
units (<] 16:15 1623
!/>•?< 17-4 10-11
1U.4J • I / .^ 17.11
M-l
»•
unusual (u 84:13
up («5) 3:6 5:7
9:14 14:18 15:18
15:19 16:3 18:14
1922 2122 2220
2425 26:14 27:15
282 28:14 315
31:11 3123 3123
3125 323 * 33:7
3324 342 355
35:13 3722 41:18
4220 43:11 43:12
44- 1 7 4A-B 47-1 1
^^.11 ^O.O ^l.lf
4723 48-4 49*4
^ * f^J ^O»^ ^iff*
49:19 52:8 52:10
55:3 5520 57:10
58:15 59:18 5924
6224 66:3 665
66:11 66:13 6920
702 72:11 7322
7620 77:12 78:20
79:8 80:14 87:4
nffwvM«i*i
-------
045.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING
FORMAL COMMENT PERIOD
-------
^ 9 045;^
— •• South Carolina • Commlaaloner: Douglas E. Bryant Richard E. Jabbour. DOS
T~^ T T"TT^ f~*\ CywSC.Uorteler
• m • • • I • Board: John H. Burriss. Chairman Brian K_ SmMi
• • • • • ' % Wifeam M. Hut. Jr.. MO. Vice Chairman Rodney L Granty
JL-*^ JL -aV. -1 4 ^»X Roger Leaks. Jr.. Secretary
1362 McMRan Avenue. Suite 400 Promoting Health. Protecting the Environment
Charleston. SC 29405
(603)744-5838 Fax (803)744-5847
Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Christopher L. Brooks, Bureau Chief
April 10. 1997
Mr. Craig R. Zeller
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region IV
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta. Ga. 30303
Re: Koppers Superfund Project
Charleston County
Dear Mr. Zeller.
The above referenced project appears to be a Federal Activity in the Coastal
Zone of South Carolina. Because of the Federally approved Coastal Zone
Management Plan for this area, you will need to comply with the Federal Consistency
provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as found in 15 CFR 930. Your
Statement of Consistency should include a detailed description of the activity, its
associated facilities, and their coastal zone effects, and comprehensive data and
information sufficient to support the Federal agency's consistency statement (see 15
CFR 930.39).
Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of 15 CFR 930. If you have any
information that would indicate that CERCLA activities are exempt from the Federal
Consistency Provisions of the CZMA. please contact me.
Sin<
Robert D. Mikell,
Planning and Federal
Certification Manager
cc: Christopher L. Brooks
H. Stephen Snyder
Richard A. Haynes.
-------
^ 9 045:',
' South Carolina ——— Commlaataoer: Douglas E. Bryant Richard E. Jabbour. DOS
D-W- -f * 1 y^"^ CynrJC.Moa«tor
i 1 i J § Beard: John H. Borros, Chairman Brian K. Smdh
§§ • ] m WCam M. Hul. Jr.. MO. Vee Chairman Rodney l_ Grandy
JL JL. .1 J ^^X Roger Leaks. Jr.. Secretary
of HM«h and EnvM»wn*nul ConiRM
1362 McMinan Avenue. Suite 400 Promoting Health. Protecting the Environment
Charleston. SC 29405
(803)7*4-5638 Fax (803)744-5847
Bureau of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Christopher L. Brooks, Bureau Chief
April 10, 1997
Mr. Craig R. Zeller
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region IV
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Ga. 30303
Re: Koppers Superfund Project
Charleston County
Dear Mr. Zeller:
The above referenced project appears to be a Federal Activity in the Coastal
Zone of South Carolina. Because of the Federally approved Coastal-Zone
Management Plan for this area, you will need to comply with the Federal Consistency
provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, as found in 15 CFR 930. Your
Statement of Consistency should include a detailed description of the activity, its
associated facilities, and their coastal zone effects, and comprehensive data and
information sufficient to support the Federal agency's consistency statement (see 15
CFR 930.39).
Enclosed for your convenience is a copy of 15 CFR 930. If you have any
information that would indicate that CERCLA activities are exempt from the Federal
Consistency Provisions of the CZMA, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Mikell,
Planning and Federal
Certification Manager
cc: Christopher L. Brooks
H. Stephen Snyder
Richard A. Haynes
-------
l> 9 0457
15CFR930
Federal Consistency
with Approved Coastal
Management Programs
(1-1-94 edition)
-------
9
045
PI. 930
may request the appellant, and the per-
mit applicant or permittee if other
than the appellant, to submit such ad-
ditional Information and in such form
as will allow action upon the appeal.
Th« Administrator shall decide the ap-
peal using toe criteria set oat in 1929.10
(a), (c) and (d) and any information rel-
ative to the aplication on die. any in-
formation provided by the appellant.
and such other consideration as is
deemed appropriate. The Adminis-
trator shall notify the appellant of the
final decision and the reason(s) there-
for. in writing, normally within 30 days
of the date of the receipt of adequate
information required to make the deci-
sion.
(c) If a bearing is requested or. if the
Administrator determines that one is
appropriate, the Administrator may
grant an informal hearing before a
hearing officer designated for that pur-
pose. after first giving notice of the
time, place, and subject matter of the
hearing in the FIDBUUL RBOXSTBL
Such hearing shall normally be held no
later than SO days following publica-
tion of the notice in the FVDKKAJL Rxo-
IBTER unless the hearing officer extends
the time for reasons deemed equitable.
The appellant, the applicant or permit-
tee If different, and, other interested
persons may appear rtrtfflMlly or by
counsel at the h«»««iy and submit such
material and present such arguments
aa determined appropriate by the hear-
ing officer. Within SO days of the last
day of the hearing, the hearing officer
shall recommend a decision In writing
to tli* *<<'T'
-------
O/
H
Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm.. Commorcw
PI. 9JO
90041 Federal license or permit.
•3042 Applicant.
93043 Mansrement procram license and
permit listing.
•3044 Vnlisted Federal license and permit
activities.
I 90045 Availability of mediation for license
> or permit disputes.
90046 State arency ruldance and assistance
to applicants: Information requirements.
900.57 Consistency certifications.
93046 Necessary data and information.
930.69 Multiple permit review.
900.60 Commencement of State arency re-
view.
930.61 Public notice.
93042 Public hesrinrs.
•3043 State arency concurrence with a con-
sistency certification.
930.64 State aoncy objection to a consist-
ency certification.
900.65 Pederal permltttnr arency respon-
sibility.
ey>«5 Availability of mediation for
vionsly reviewed activities.
cy.
900J6
B30J97
Guidance provided bj tne State a*en-
Consistency review.
Pederal aailstlnc arency rMponalbll-
Con-
Subport E-CemMwney tor Oul*r
ttnMM Shrtl (OCS) ExptoroHon.
opriMnl and Fraductton AdMNM
•30.10 ObJecUvea.
•30.71 Pederal license or permit activity de-
•cribed la detail.
•30.72 Pereoo.
•30.79 OCS plan,
•90.74 OCS actlviUee «ub)ect to State
cy renew.
•30.75 State arency aaaUtanc* to
Inloraatioo requlrementa.
•30.7* 8abml«ion of as OCS plan and con-
alatracy cMtlfloatlaa.
•30.77 MiciieiiTy data and information.
tOOM Federally aasls«ed activities outside
of tae coastal sone or the described teo-
Craphlcarea.
tOOM Availability of mediation for Federal
assistance disputes.
830.100 Availability of mediation for pre-
viously reviewed activities.
Subport G-Se>er»tarlal M.dJaMon
' — :iO Objecavts.
900J11 Informal negotiations.
990J12 Request for mediation.
B30J13 Public hearinvs.
V30JM Secretarial mediation effort*.
930.115 Termination of mediation.
930.116 Judicial review.
Subport H-SwCfwtortol Rwvtow tolotwd to
m* Ot>Jwcthr*s or PurpotM of Itw Act
and Notional Security MexMts
•30J20 Objectives.
•90J21 Consistent with the objectives or
purposes of toe Act.
930.123 Necessary in tbe Interest of national
secuilUI
•30J23 Appellant.
view: public notice.
930.70 State afwncy ooneorrenee
or objeo-
•9040 KtXect of State areney ooncnrrenoe.
•3041 Pederal
•80JJS Appeals to the Secretary.
•30OJ6 Pederal and State acancy responses
to appeals.
9BOJ2T Public notice: receipt of comments.
Dismissal of appeals.
Public heartaca.
Secretarial review.
Pederal areacy responsibility.
Bsvisw laltlafesd by the Secretary.
Public notice: reoaipt of comment*:
pntillr heariim
Secretarial review: Pederal
nspoaafnttltar.
and ConBnukio towtow of
SUbtoettotw~
185
-------
J
0460
§930.1
Atrrxourr: a*c». am. ae tad an', cout&i
Zea« Maaar«Mnt Act of 1972. Pub. L. 93-SB3.
K SUV 12*0 (16 U.8.C. 1451 «t MQ.). u
UMBOM by Pub. L. 94-310. 90 Sttt. 1013.
BOUECK: 44 FR 37143. JOB* J5. WTO.
Subport A— Objective*
1 930.1 OvmU objectives.
The objective! of these regulations
are:
U) To describe the obligations of all
agencies, individuals and other parties
who are required to comply with the
Federal consistency provisions of the
Coastal Zone Management Act;
(b) To implement the Federal con-
tistency provisions In a manner which
strikes a balance between the need to
ensure consistency for Federal actions
affecting the coastal cone with ap-
proved coastal management and the
need to promote Federal programs;
(c) To provide flexible procedures
which foster Intergovernmental co-
operation and minimize dupllcative ef-
fort and unnecessary delay, while mak-
ing certain that the objectives of the
Federal consistency provisions of the
Act are satisfied;
(d) To Interpret significant terms In
the Federal consistency provisions so
that they can be uniformly understood
and adhered to by all agencies, individ-
uals and other affected parties;
(e) To provide procedures to make
certain that all Federal agency and
State agency consistency decisions are
directly related to the objectives, poli-
cies. standards and other criteria set
forth in. or referenced as part of. ap-
proved coastal """T-T"*** programs;
(0 To provide procedures which the
Secretary, in cooperation with the Ba-
eeutive Office of the President, may
use to mediate serious disagreements
which arise between Federal and State
agencies during the administration of
(t) To provide procedures which •_
ait the Secretary to review Federal U-.
permit activities, or Federal
activities, to determine
they are •*»"•«?**•'* with the
objectives or purpose! of the Act, or
are necessary in the Interest of
tional security;
15 CFB Ch. DC (1-1-94 Edition)
(h) To provide procedures which per-
mit interested parties to notify the As-
sistant Administrator for Coastal Zone
Management of Federal actions be-
lieved to be inconsistent with approved
coastal management programs, or be-
lieved to have been incorrectly deter-
mined to be inconsistent with an ap-
proved management program; and
(1) To provide procedures for the re-
porting of any Federal actions found by
the Assistant Administrator for Coast-
al Zone Management to be inconsistent
with an approved coastal zone manage-
ment program, and for the performance
review of State Implementation of the
Federal consistency provisions.
Subport B—General Definitions
1930.10 Index to definition*.
The following list includes all terms
defined in part 930 of this title keyed to
the section or paragraph in which they
are defined.
no.ii
•JCLIS
00.121
HOLMM
117
|.
the Coastal Zone
186
-------
9
046
Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm.. Commerce
% 930.21
1930.12 Section.
The term Section means a section of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972. as amended.
1*30.13 Secretary.
The term Secretary means the Sec-
retary of the U.S. Department of Com-
merce.
1*30.14 Executive Office of the Preel-
The term Executive Office of the Presi-
dent mean* the office, council, board.
or other entity within the Executive
Office of the President which shall par-
ticipate with the Secretary .in seeking
to mediate serious dlaagreerr'ats
which may arise between a Federal
arency and a coastal State.
1*30.16 OCZM.
The term OCZM means the Office of
Coastal Zone Management. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Commerce.
1*30.16 Aaeistaat Administrator.
The term Attittaat Administrator
means the Assistant Administrator for
Coastal Zone Management. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Commerce.
1*30.17 Federal agency.
The term federal agency tneans any
department, agency, board, commis-
sion, council, independent office or
similar entity within the executive
branch of the Federal government, or
any wholly owned Federal government
corporation.
|*30.U State agency.
(a) The term State agency means the
agency of the State government des-
ignated punuant to section 306(eX6) of
the Act to receive and ad
grants for an approved coastal
WmeMfe MVBWSn\**A M0* SB. srtVtVtA
State agency appointed by the
State agency. Any appointment by the
SOtteXt) state agency of a
; be described In the State's
un. In the absence
of each description, an eoneiatenay
als shall be sent to and reviewed by the
306(cX5) State agency.
(b) The State agency is responsible
• for commenting on Federal agency
consistency determinations (see sirb-
part c of this part), concurring with or
objecting to consistency certifications
for Federal licenses, permits, and Outer
Continental Shelf plans (see •obparts D
and E of this part), and reviewing the
consistency of Federal assistance ac-
tivities proposed by State or local gov-
ernment agencies (see subpart F of this
part). The State agency shall be re-
sponsible for securing necessary review
and comment from other State, re-
gional, or local government agencies.
Thereafter, only the State agency is
authorized tc comment officially on a
Federal consistency determination.
concur with or object to a consistency
certification, or determine the consist-
ency of a proposed Federal assistance
activity.
1*30.1* Management program.
The term management proprom has
the same definition a* provided in sec-
tion 304(11) of the Act. except that for
the purposes of this part the term is
limited to those management programs
adopted by a coastal State In accord-
ance with the provisions of section 306
of the Act. and approved by the Assist-
ant Administrator.
1*30,10 fifrsftf1 aonw.
The term coastal cone has the same
definition ae provided In section 304(1)
of the Act.
tfSOSl Aasoctatedtocamse,
The term anocJated fadUOes describee
all proposed faculties:
(a) Which are spedflcally designed.
located, constructed, operated, adapt-
ed, or otherwise need, in fall or In
major part, to meet'the nssds of a Fed-
eral action (a*., activity, development
project, license, permit, or assistance).
cations and Federal TTTlfj~irr propos-
(b) Without which the Federal action,
ae proposed, oouldnot be oondpoted.
AU farther requirements to tola part
related to the review of and oonalct-
eney for Federal aetivlttea Including
development icojeou (eee aubpart C of
this part). Federal lloenes and permit
activities (eee aubparta D and B of this
187
-------
§930.30
15 CFR Ch. IX (1-1-94 Edition)
pert) and Federal assistance activities
(see subpart F of this part) also apply
to associated facilities related to those
Federal actions. Therefore, the pro-
ponent of a Federal action must con-
aider whether the Federal action and
its associated facilities affect the
coastal cone and. If so. whether these
interrelated activities satisfy the rel-
evant consistency requirement of the
Act.
Subpart C—Consistency for
Federal Activities
IB3&SO Objecth
The provision* of this subpart are
provided to assure that all federally
conducted or supported activities in-
cluding development projects directly
affecting the coastal zone are under-
taken in a manner consistent to the
maximum extent practicable with ap-
proved State rosTtal management pro-
grams.
I93&31 Federal activity.
(a) The term Federal activity means
any functions performed by or on be-
half of a Federal agency in the exercise
of its statutory responsibilities.
(b) A Federal development project is
a Federal activity involving the plan-
ning, construction, modification, or re-
moval of public works, facilities, or
other structures, and the acquisition,
utilization, or disposal of land or water
(o) The term "Federal activity" does
not Include the issuance of a Federal li-
cense or permit to an applicant or per-
son (see subparts D and E of this part)
or the granting of Federal assistance to
an applicant agency (see subpart F of
this part).
to the
(a) The term-consistent to thei
mum extent practicable" describes the
requirement for Federal activities in-
cluding development projects dlrMtiy
mtimttttt^ t»Yt yi«y«^| stun of states
hased upon the requirements of exist-
ing law appMfyM+ to the Federal agen-
cy's operations. If a Federal agency as-
serts that compliance with the man-
agement program is prohibited. It must
clearly describe to the State agency
the statutory provisions, legislative
history, or other legal authority which
limits the Federal agency's discretion
to comply with the provisions of the
management program.
The duty the Act imposes upon Federal
agencies it not set aside by virtue of
section S07(e). The Act was Intended to
cause substantive changes in Federal
agency declsionmaldng within the con-
text of the discretionary powers resid-
ing within such agencies. Accordingly.
when read together, sections 307(c) (1)
an<< t) and 307(e) require Federal agen-
cies, whenever legally permissible, to
consider State-management programs
as supplemental requirements to be ad-
hered to In addition to existing agency
•mandates.
(b) A Federal agency may deviate
from full consistency with an approved
Tn«Ti«y«»frn»Tit program when such devi-
ation Is Justified because of some un-
foreseen circumstances arising after
the approval of the management pro-
gram which present the Federal agency
with a substantial obstacle that pre-
vents complete adherence to the ap-
proved program.
|B3O3S Identifying Federal activities
directly affecting the eoastal sons.
(a) Federal agencies shall determine
which of their activities directly affect
the coastal zone of States with ap-
(b) Federal agencies shall consider all
development projects within the coast-
al zone to be activities directly affect-
ing the fttfltTtl zone. All other types of
activities within the coastal tone are
subject to Federal agency review to de-
termine whether they directly affect
(cXl) Federal activities outside of the
ooastal tone, aa defined in section
XMd) of the Act, are •object to Federal
agency review to determine whether
they directly affect the coastal zone.
O) OOB oil end gse lease sale activl-
Shelf Lands Act (43 TJ,g£
«t MO.) are not Federal activities
which directly affect the coastal
within the meaning of section
188
I
-------
04
O
Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm,. Commerce)
§930.35
of the Act, and. therefore. are not sub-
ject to review under this subpart.
{44 FR mo. JOM 2S. 1979. if am«ttd*d »t 60
FR3sm.Aac.99.UBS)
I MAM Federal agency consistency
determinations.
(a) Federal agencies ahall provide
State agencies with consistency deter-
minations for all Federal activities di-
rectly affecting the coastal zone. The
Federal agency may provide the State
agency with this Information In any
manner it chooses so Ion; as the re-
quirements of this subpart are satis-
fled.
(b) Federal agencies thall provide
State agencies with a consistency de-
termination at the earliest practicable
time in the ple.-aing or reassessment of
the activity. A consistency determina-
tion should be prepared following de-
velopment of sufficient information to
determine reasonably the consistency
of the activity with the State's man-
agement program, bat before the Fed-
eral agency reaches a significant point
of declsionxnaklng in its review proc-
ess. Ifce consistency determination
shall be provided to State agencies at
least 90 days before, final approval of
the Federal activity unless both the
Federal agency and the State agency
agree to an alternative notification
schedule.
•MOSS Federal and State agency eo-
ordiaatlosv
(a) State agenclee should list in their
management programs Federal activi-
ties which, in the opinion of the State
agency, are likely to directly affect the
coastal cone and require a Federal
agency consistency determination.
Lasted Federal activities must be de-
scribed in terms of the specific type of
activity involved (e.g., Federal rec-
lamation projects). In the event the
State agency chooses to describe Fed-
eral activities outside of the coastal
but likely to directly aflect the
. it most also describe the
geographic location of men activities
.. reclamation projects in coastal
fioodplalnsX
(b) State sgendss
listed Federal activities (e*.. by use of
intergovernmental rsvisw process es-
tablished pursuant to B.O. 12312, re-
monitor un- tstmination
view, review of National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA) environ-
mental Impact statements, etc.) and
should notify Federal agencies of un-
listed Federal activities which Federal
agencies have not subjected to a con-
sistency review but which, in the opin-
ion of the State agency, directly affect
the coastal cone and require a Federal
agency consistency determination.
State agencies must notify Federal
agencies within 45 days from receipt of
notice of the unlisted Federal activity.
otherwise the State agency waives its
right to request a consistency deter-
mination. The waiver does not apply in
cases where the State agency does not
receive notice of the Federal activity
(e.g.. for those Federal activities which
are not processed through Intergovern-
mental Review Process established pur-
suant to E.O. 12372. NEPA review or a
similar procedure which permits State
agency monitoring).
(c) The recommended listing and
monitoring procedures described in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
are neither a substitute for nor elimi-
nate Federal agency responsibility
under H830J3O>) and 930.34 to provide
State agencies with consistency deter-
minations for all development projects
in the rftsstal cone and for all other
Federal activities which the Federal
agency finds directly affect the coastal
cons.
(d) If a Federal agency decides that a
consistency determination Is not re-
quired for a Federal activity (1) identi-
fied by a State agency on Its list or
through case by-case monitoring. (2)
which is ths same as or similar to ac-
tivities for which consistency deter-
minations have been prepared in the
past, or (3) for which the Federal agen-
cy undertook a thorough consistency
issBismifit and developed initial find-
ings on ths sflecte of ths activity on
»H^ «n»««»-i ni-t+ $>--. Fsdsral agency
shall provide the State sgeney with a
m?t
-------
046
5930.96
agency agree to an alternative notifi-
cation schedule.
(Ewcttlv* Orter 12372. July M. 1M3 (47 PR
XBM). u smeoded April «. 1883 (48 PR UH7);
sec. 401. IntertQveraBMnttJ Cooperation Act
of !«». •» aaMB«»d (SI U.8.C. 4SOS); sec JO*.
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan De-
velopment Act of 1966 us snM&tod (42 XJA.C.
[44 PR 3T14X JUM JS. WJ». M sm«nd«d it a
PR3B19S.JOMM.1H3)
Availability of mediation for
negative determination disputes.
In the event of a serious disagree-
ment between a Federal agency and a
State agency regarding a determU~»-
Uon related to whether a propoaed ac-
tivity directly affects the eoaatal gone.
either party may seek the Secretarial
mediation services provided for in sub-
pan O.
|>30J7 Consistency determinations
for proposed activities.
(a) Federal agencies shall review
their propoaed Federal activities which
directly affect the coastal cone in order
to develop conaiatency determinations
which indicate whether such activities
win he undertaken in a TTT'TIUTT con-
sistent to the marlmnni extent prac-
ticable with approved State manage-
ment programs. Federal agencies are
encouraged to consult with State agen-
cies during their efforts to assess
whether such activities will be consist-
ent to the ••*•»«"»'?•»' extent practicable
with such programs,
(b) la cases where Federal agencies
will be performing repeated activity
other than a development project (e«..
ongoing maintenance, waste dispoaal.
etc.) which cumulatively haa a direct
effect upon the coastal tone, the agen-
cy may develop a general oonalatenoy
determination thereby avoiding the ne-
cessity of laming separate oonalateney
actioa controlled by the major activ-
ity. A general consistency determlaa-
tion may only be need la
where the tncienieutal actioaa ere re-
petitive or periodic, eabatantlally alini-
lar in natore. end do not directly affect
the eoaatal tone when performed sepa-
rately. If a Federal agency lanea a
general conaiatency determination, it
moat thereafter periodically eonaolt
15 CFR Ch. DC (1-1-94 EcBHon)
with the State agency to diacuaa the
manner in which the incremental ac-
tion* are being undertaken.
(c) In caaea where the Federal agency
haa aufQcient information to deter-
mine the conaiatency of a propoaed de-
velopment project from planning to
completion, only one conaiatency de-
termination will be required. However.
in caaea where major Federal decisions
related to a propoaed development
project will be made in phaaea baaed
upon developing information, with
each subsequent phaae subject to Fed-
eral agency discretion to implement al-
ternative decisions baaed upon aucb in-
formation (e.g.. pluming, siting, and
design decisions), a conaiatency deter-
mination will be required for each
major decision. In caaea of phased deci-
aionmaklng. Federal agencies ahall en-
sure that the development project con-
tinues to be consistent to the maxi-
mum extent practicable with the
State's management program.
1*3038
latency determination*
for activities Initiated prior to aaaa-
agemeat prognutt approval.
(a) A consistency determination will
be required for ongoing Federal activi-
ties other than development projects
(e.g.. waste dispoaal practices) initi-
ated prior to management program ap-
proval, which are governed by statu-
tory authority under which the Federal
agency retains discretion to reassess
aad modify the activity. In these caaea
the oonaiateacy determination must be
made by the Federal agency at the ear-
liest practicable time following man-
agement program approval, aad the
State agency must be provided with a
consistency determination no later
than UO days after management pro-
gram approval for ongoing activities
which the State ngtraiy liata or Identi-
fies through monitoring aa enbject to
with the management pro-
(b) A ooaalataacy determination ahall
be required for major, phsssil Federal
development project dedalons de-
scribed la | laDJfUe) which are made
prove! aad are related to development
projects ialtiated prior to program ap-
proval, la **^v<1»t thsee. new dsdaloaa.
Federal agencies ahall oonaidar eoaatal
190
-------
9
0
46
Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm.. Commerce
§930 JO
zone effects not fully evaluated at the
outset of the project. This provision
shall not apply to phased Federal deci-
sions which were specifically described.
considered and approved prior to man-
agement program approval (e.g.. in a
final environmental impact statement
issued pursuant to the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act).
IB3&39 Content of a consistency de-
termination.
(a) The consistency determination
shall include a brief statement indicat-
ing whether or not the proposed activ-
ity will be undertaken in a manner
consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the management pro-
gram. The statement must be based
upon an evaluation of the relevant pro-
visions of the management program.
The consistency determination shall
also include a detailed description of
the activity, its associated facilities.
and their coastal sone effects, and com-
prehensive data and information suffi-
cient to support the Federal agency's
consistency statement. The amount of
detail in the statement evaluation, ac-
tivity description and supporting infor-
mation shall be commensurate with
the expected effects of the activity on
the coasta] sone.
(b) Federal agencies shall be guided
by the following in making their con-
sistency determinations. The activity
(e.g.. project siting and eonstuetion).
its direct effects (e.g.. air. water, waste
dischargee, etc.). and sssoristed facili-
ties ta1*tinri deter*
(a) most be transmitted to
at least (0 days before
by any of the
final
•otfcrli
of the pro-
»t- to the
prsmlmhU with the
_ At program, and to) must in-
clude information on each proposed ao-
191
-------
046
593041
tlvity sufficient to support the consist-
ency determination.
f M&41 Bute agency response.
(a) A State agency snail Inform the
Federal agency of its agreement or dis-
agreement with the Federal agency's
consistency determination at the earli-
est practicable time. If a final response
has not been developed and issued
within 45 days from receipt of the Fed-
eral agency notification, the State
agency should at that time inform the
Federal agency of the status of the
matter and the basis for further delay.
The Federal agency may presume State
agency agreement if the State agency
falls to provide a response within 45
days from receipt of the Federal agen-
cy notification.
(b) State agency agreement shall not
be presumed in cases where the State
agency, with the 45 day period, re-
quests an extension of time to review
the matter. Federal agencies shall ap-
prove one request for an extension pe-
riod of 15 days or less. In considering
whether a longer or additional exten-
sion period is appropriate, the Federal
agency should consider the magnitude
and complexity of the information con-
tained in the consistency determina-
tion.
(c) Final Federal agency action may
not be taken sooner than 80 days from
the tsstianoe of the consistency deter-
mination to the State agency unless
both the Federal agency and the State
agency agree to an alternative period
(see |0X).M(b)>.
IIMUS State ag«Bcy diMgVMeMU.
(a) In the event the State agency dis-
agrees with the Federal agency's con-
alatenoy determination, the State
the Federal agency with its reasons tor
the disagreement and supporting tofor-
The State
moat describe (I) bow the proposed ac-
tivity wai U inoonsistant with speciflo
and CD alternative ineesnrse (If they
•slat) which. If adopted by the Federal
would allow the activity to
practicable with the
15 CFR Ch. DC (1-1-94 Edition)
(b) If the State agency's disagree-
ment is based upon a finding that the
Federal agency has failed to supply suf-
ficient information (see |930.39
-------
9
0467
Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm., Commerce
posed and. u a result, the activity di-
rectly affects the coastal tone and is
not consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the State's manage-
ment program. The State agency's re-
quest must Include supporting Informa-
tion and a proposal for recommended
remedial action.
(c) If. after a reasonable time follow-
ing a request for remedial action, the
State agency still maintains that a se-
rious disagreement exists, either party
may request the Secretarial mediation
services provided for In subpart G.
Subport D—Consistency (or Activi-
ties Requiring a Federal Li-
cense or Permit
193060 Objectives.
The provisions of this subpart are
provided to assure that Federally li-
censed or permitted activities affecting
the coastal zone are conducted In a
manner consistent with approved man-
agement programs.
1930*1 Federal Ueeaaa or penUt.
(a) The term Federal Uctnte or permit
means any authorization, certification.
approval, or other form of permission
which any Federal agency Is empow-
ered to issue to an applicant.
fb) The term also includes the follow-
ing types of renewals and major
amendments which affect the coastal
zone:
(1) Renewals and major amendments
of Federal license and permit activities
not previously reviewed by the State
agency.
(2) Renewals and major amendments
of Federal license and permit activities
previously reviewed by the State agen-
cy which are filed after and are subject
to management program amendments
not in existence at the ttane of original
States*!
•review, and
O) Renewals and major.
of Federal llosnee and permit activities
previously reviewed by the State i
ear which will
eabatantially different than those
originally reviewed by the Stiate
oy. '
I93OS2 Applicant.
The term applicant means any Indi-
vidual, public or private corporation.
partnership, association, or other en-
tity organized or existing under the
laws of any State, or any State, re-
gional, or local government, who. fol-
lowing management program approval.
flies an application for a Federal li-
cense or permit to conduct an activity
affecting the coastal zone. The term
"applicant" does not include Federal
agencies applying for Federal licenses
or permits. Federal agency "activities"
requiring Federal licenses or permits
are subject to the consistency require-
ments of subpart C of this part.
I83O53 Management program
and pciiiiit jt»»iMy-
(a) During management program de-
velopment, Federal agencies should as-
sist State agencies in Identifying Fed-
eral license and permit activities
which reasonably can be expected to af-
fect the coastal zone.
(b) State agencies shall develop a list
of Federal license and permit activities
which are likely to affect the coastal
zone and which the State agency wish-
es to review for consistency with the
management program. The list shall be
included as part of the management
program, and the Federal license aad
permit activities shall be described In
terms-of the specific licenses or per-
mits Involved area to proceed
without prior State agency review. la
sach CS.BSI. .the State agency most set
forth la the management program 11-
183
-------
U4
§93034
cense and permit list the minor Fed-
eral license and permit activities and
the relevent conditions which are cov-
ered by the general concurrence. Minor
Federal license or permit activities
which satisfy the conditions of the gen-
eral concurrence are not subject to the
consistency certification. requirement
of this subpart. Except in cases where
the State agency indicates otherwise.
copies of Federal license or permit ap-
plications for activities subject to a
general concurrence must be sent by
the applicant to the State-agency to
allow the State agency to monitor ad-
herence to the conditions required by
such concurrence. Confidential and
proprietary material within such appli-
cations may be deleted.
(d) The license and permit list may
be amended by the State agency fol-
lowing consultation with the affected
Federal agency and approval of addi-
tions or deletions by the Assistant Ad-
ministrator. The State agency shall
provide copies of the list and any
amendments to Federal agencies and
shall make the information available
to the public.
(e) Mo Federal license or permit de-
scribed on an approved list shall be to-
sued by a Federal agency until the re-
quirements of this subpart have been
satisfied. Federal agencies shall inform
applicants for listed licenses and per-
mits of the requirements of this sab-
part.
IttOM Unlisted Federal lleeese end
persoit eetMttea.
(a) With the assistance of Federal
agencies. State agencies should mon-
itor unlisted Federal license and per-
mit activities (e-g., by use of Intergov-
ernmental review
pursuant to B.0.12312. review of NXPA
etc.) and shall Immediately notify Fed-
eral agencies and applicants of unlisted
activities •**t******i **tm y*T***' BOBS
which cequlfe State agamy leiiee.
State agencies moat inform the Fed-
oral agency and applicant' within X)
days from int>*l<>t of the lic*ns* or per*
alt eppHflsrlon, otherwise the State
agency waives its right to review the
unlisted activity. The waiver does not
apply lo esses where the State agency
15 CFR Ch. K (1-1-94 Edmon)
does not receive notice of the Federal
license or permit activity.
(b) The State agency must also no-
tify the Assistant Administrator of un-
listed Federal license or permit activi-
ties which the State agency believes
should be subject to State agency re-
view. Following State agency notifica-
tion to the Federal agency, applicant
and the Assistant Administrator, the
Federal agency may not issue the li-
cense or permit until the requirements
of this snbpart have been satisfied, un-
less the Assistant Administrator dis-
approves the State agency decision to
review the activity.
(c) The Federal agency and the appli-
cant have 15 days from receipt of the
State agency notice to provide com-
ments to the Assistant Administrator
regarding the State agency's decision
to review the activity. The sole basis
for the Assistant Administrator's ap-
proval or disapproval of the State
agency's decision will relate to wheth-
er the proposed activity can be reason-
ably expected to affect the coastal sone
of the State. The Assistant Adminis-
trator shall issue a decision, with sup-
porting comments, to the State agen-
cy. Federal agency and applicant with-
in 30 days from receipt of the State
agency notice.
(d) In the event of disapproval by the
Assistant Administrator, the Federal
agency ""^r approve the license or per-
mit application and the applicant need
not comply with the requirements of
tM« mubpart. If *$** Assistant Adminis-
trator approves the State agency's de-
cision, the Federal agency and appli-
cant must *W^T*T with *ft** consistency
certification procedures of this sub-
part.
(e) Following *n approval by the As-
sistant ' • * <**"<»«>«fiii tw. ^*>t apr'l*^***'
•hall amend the Federal application by
including a firmslsteiifly OOT*^^****!***!
and-shall provide-the State agency
with a copy of UMoertifleation along
formation (see BMOuP and MOM). Per
i by the State agency shall be <
clndvely pranmed in the absence «f a
State agency objection within six
months from the original Federal agen-
cy notice to the State agency (see
paragraph (a) of this section) or within
1M
-------
9
Nortlond Oceanic and Atmo»ph*rtc Adm., Commerce
5*30.56
three month* from receipt of the sppll*
cant's consistency certification and ac-
companying information, whichever
period terminate last.
(Executive Order 12172. July 14. IBB (47 FR
MOBS). sa amended April 1.1M3 (4B FR ISSTI);
MC. 401. latarfoveniMBUl CoopmUon Act
of 1M, U amended (XI U.S.C. 6SOS); sec 20k
Draoaitratton C1UN and Metropolitan De-
velopment Act of 19K M amended (42 U.S.C.
33*4)).
[44 PR 37143. Jane 25. U79. u amended »t 48
FR 29136. Jnae 24.19B)
I03OU Availability of mediation for
license or permit dispute*.
In the event of a aerioos disagree-
ment between a Federal and State
agency regarding whether a listed or
unlisted Federal license or permit ac-
tivity is subject to consistency review.
either party may request the Secretar-
ial mediation services provided for In
subpart O: notice ahall be provided to
the applicant. The existence of a aeri-
oos disagreement will not relieve the
Federal agency from the responsibility
for withholding approval of a license or
permit application for an activity on
an approved management program list
(see 1930.83) or individually approved
by the Assistant Administrator (see
1930.64) pending satisfaction of the re-
qairementa of this subpart. Similarly.
the existence of a serious disagreement
will not prevent the Federal agency
from approving a license or permit ac-
tivity which has not received Assistant
Administrator approval.
§V3&06 State agency guidsjses astd es-
slstanoe to applicants; ialansattoa
(a) Aa a preliminary matter, any ap-
plicant for a Federal Uoaaae or permit
selected for review by a State agency
should obtain **>• views >T*i1 aasistancs
of that agency regarding the means for
encoring that the ptoposid activity
will be conducted in a;
eat with the State's
gram. As part of it* i
the State agency ahaU main available
for public Inspection copies of the i
-------
04
§93059
(3) A brief assessment relating the
probable coastal zone effects of the
proposal and It* associated facilities to
the relevant elements of the manage-
ment program.
(4) A brief set of findings, derived
from the assessment, -Indicating that
the proposed activity (e.g.. project
siting and construction), its associated
facilities (e.g.. access road, support
buildings), and their" effects (e.g.. air.
water, waste discharges, erosion, wet-
lands. beach access impacts) are all
consistent with the provisions of the
management program. In developing
findings, the applicant shall give ap-
propriate weight to the various types
of provisions within the management
program. While applicants must be
consistent with the enforceable, man-
datory policies of the management pro-
gram. they need only demonstrate ade-
quate consideration of policies which
are in the nature of recommendations.
Applicants need not make findings
with respect to t""itT«l sone effects for
which the management program does
not contain mandatory or rec-
ommended policies.
(b) At the request of the applicant.
interested parties who have access to
information and data required by sub-
paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section
may provide the State agency with all
or part of the material required. Fur-
thermore. upon request by the appli-
cant, the State agency shall provide as-
sistance for developing the sssnssmsnt
and findings required by paragraphs (a)
(3) aad (4) of this section.
(e) When satisfied that adequate pro-
tection against public disclosure exists.
applicants should provide the State
agency with T**]^***"1*1 and propri-
etary information which the State
age&cy maintains is necessary to
a reasoned decision on the consistency
of the proposal. State agency requests
for such Information mast be related to
the necessity of having such informa-
tion to assess adequately the coastal
» effects of the proposal.
(a) Applicants shall, to the extent
practicable, consolidate related Fed-
eral lioease aad permit activltise af-
fecting the coastal sone for State agen-
cy review. State agencies shall, to the
15 CFR Ch. tX (1-1-94 Edition)
extent practicable, provide applicants
with a "one-stop" multiple permit re-
view for consolidated permits to mini-
mize duplication of effort and to avoid
unnecessary delays.
(b) A State agency objection to one
or more of the license or permit activi-
ties submitted for consolidated review
shall not prevent the applicant from
receiving Federal agency approval for
those license and permit activities
found to be consistent with the man-
agement program.
1830.60 Commencement of State agen-
cy review.
(a) Except as provided in |930.M(e).
State agency review of an applicant's
consistency certification begins at the
time the State agency receives a copy
of the consistency certification, and
the information and data required pur-
suant to moose.
(b) A Suite agency request for Infor-
mation or data in addition to that re-
quired by {930.58 shall not extend the
date of commencement of State agency
review.
1*3041 Public aotlom.
(a) Following receipt of the material
described in 1930.60 the State agency
shall ensure timely public notice of the
proposed activity. At a minimum the
provision of public notice must be in
accordance with State law. In addition.
public notice must be provided in the
Of til* 1*TESStiSl
which is likely to be affected by the
proposed activity. Public notice shall
be Tffr"»^ in proportion to the decree
of likely public interest resulting from
the unique geographic area involved.
if^ 'ni1^!^ of or im-
pact on coastal resources, the complex-
ity or controversy of the proposal, or
for other good eaoav
(b) Public luttiot •*»•<< f«rfHT*tT pub-
of the ineiiossd activity, by announc-
ing the availability for of
the
be submitted to th* State i
pemittad tar State law. art available
to Stats agenda* to satisfy the public
196
-------
Notional Oee>anlc and Atmospheric Adm., Commerce)
047
S 990.64
notice requirements of this subpart.
They Include, but are not limited to:
(1) The State agency .providing the
public notice;
(2) Hie State agency requiring the
applicant to provide the public notice;
or
(3) The State agency relying upon the
public notice provided by the Federal
agency reviewing the application for
the Federal license or permit (e.g.. no-
tice of availability of NEPA environ-
mental impact atatementt) if auch no-
tice aatiaOea the minimum require-
ment* aet forth in paragraph* (a) and
(b) of this aectlon.
(d) Federal and State agencies are en-
couraged to lasue joint public notices
whenever poaalble to Tn<^yp««t duplica-
tion of effort and to avoid unnecessary
delays.
Order 12R2. July 14. ISO (IT PR
30890). ai smendM April •. 1M3 (41 PR 1&SI7);
sec. 401. iBUrgovemmsBtal Cooperation Act
of 1MB. ss amended -"**K*"f to the t«tniimfy»i time
necessary to Inform the public, obtain
sufficient comment, and develop a rea-
sonable decision on the matter. If the
State agency has not issued a decision
within three months following com-
mencement of State agency review, it
shall notify the applicant and the Fed-
eral agency of the status of the matter
and the basis for further delay.
(c) If the State agency issues a con-
currence or is conclusively presumed to
concur with the applicant's consist-
ency certification, the Federal agency
may approve the Federal license or
permit application. Notwithstanding
State agency concurrence with a con-
sistency < rtification. the Federal peiy
mltttng agency may deny approval of
the Federal license or permit applica-
tion. Federal agencies should not delay
processing applications pending receipt
of a State agency's concurrence. In the
event a Federal agency determines
that an application will not be ap-
proved, it i*"11 fiflTT'BdistclT notify the
applicant and the State agency.
agjeBej o^etloa to a
(a) If the State agency objects to the
applicant's consistency certification
within six r"*"^Pa following com-
menoement of review, it shall notify
the applicant. Federal agency and As-
sistant Administrator of the objection.
(b) State agency objections must de-
scribe O) how the proposed activity is
• jTnwM»»i««^»i^ with specific elements) of
the management program, and (2) al-
ternative measures (If they exist)
which, if adopted by the applicant.
wttha
(a) At the earliest practicable time.
•hall notify the Fed-
•fast olffettMOr eUe4 tbel •VBDllttsfit
tb* State agency concurs with or ob-
J90w9 vO ws> C09^sBaVw£fifly 0^e^U^*Os%ittOeft»
Concamnce by the State agency shall
activity to
consistent
which. If mat by the
would permit State agency
The partiee shall
197
-------
9
0472
§930.65
consult with the Federal agency re-
sponsible for approving the Federal li-
cense or permit to ensure* that pro-
posed conditions satisfy Federal as well
as State management program requlre-
mente.
(d) A State agency objection may be
based upon a determination that the
applicant has failed, following a writ-
ten State agency request, to supply the
information required pursuant to
iM3J6. If the State agency objects on
the grounds of insufficient informa-
tion, the objection must describe the
nature of the information requested
and the necessity of having such infor-
mation to determine the consistency of
the activity with the management pro-
gram.
(e) A State agency objection shall in-
clude a statement informing the appli-
cant of a right of appeal to the Sec-
retary on the grounds described in Sub-
part H.
IttOBS Federal permitting agency re-
sponsibility.
Following receipt of a State agency
.objection to a consistency certifi-
cation, the Federal agency shall not
issue the Federal license or permit ex-
cept as provided In snbpart B of this
pert.
IttOM AvaQabCUtyor •edlstlea Cor
praviiOQsUy fWleVWQQ 4)CtftvttMsV. *
(a) Federal and State agencies shall
cooperate In their efforts to monitor
Federally licensed and permitted ac-
tivities in order to make certain that
each activities continue to conform to
both Federal and State requirements.
(b) The State agency shall request
that the Federal agency take appro-
priate remedial action following a seri-
ous disagreement resulting from a
State agency objection to a Federally
licensed or permitted activity which
was: (1) Previously determined to be
with the State's manage-
but which the
later «««•*«»**<«»»
ducted or is having ooartal i
different *!»•«' originally
and. as a result. Is no longer
with the State's maaage-
mm; or (3) previously deter-
mined not to be an activity
the coastal tone, bat which the State
15 CfR Ch. DC (1-1-94 EdWon)
agency later maintains is being con-
ducted or is having coastal effects sub-
stantially different than originally pro-
posed and. as a result, the activity af-
fect* the coastal tone in a manner in-
consistent with the State's manage-
ment program. The State agency's re-
quest must include supporting informa-
tion and a proposal for recommended
remedial action; a copy of the request
must be sent to the applicant.
(c) If. after a reasonable time follow-
ing a request for remedial action, the
State agency still maintains that a se-
rious disagreement exists with the Fed-
eral agency, either party may seek the
Secretarial mediation services pro-
vlded-for in subpart O of this part.
Sub-port E—Consistency (or Outer
Continental Shetf (DCS) Ex-
ploration. Development and
Production AcHvtttes
1*30.70 Objective*.
The provisions of this subpart are
provided to assure that all Federal li-
cense and permit activities described
in detail in OCS plans sad which affect
the coastal sons are conducted in a
manner consistent with approved
coastal sone management programs,
1*30.71 Federal Ueenee or permit ae*
tttvlty daecilbed to detail.
The term Federal Ueeiue or permit oc-
(Mtv descrtted hi detail means any ac-
tivity requiring a Federal license or
permit, as defined in I93&61. which the
Secretary of the Interior determines
mast be described in detail within an
OCS plan.
1*30.71 Person.
The term person means any individ-
ual, corporation, partnership, associa-
tion, or other entity organised or exist-
ing under the laws of any State, the
Federal government, any State, re-
tUy of each Federal. Stats, regional or
who submits tojhe
pravaL, an OCS plan which describes in
detail Federal license or permit activi-
ties.
196
-------
047.-;
S 930.78
impacts) sre all consistent with the
provisions of the management pro-
gram. In developing findings, the per-
son shall give appropriate weight to
the various provisions within the man-
agement program in accordance with
the guidance provided in 1930.5t(aX4).
(c) At the request of the person, in-
terested parties who have access to in-
formation required by paragraphs (a)
and (bXl) of this section may provide
the State agency with all or part of the
material required. Furthermore, upon
request by the person, the State agen-
cy shall provide assistance for develop-
ing the assessment and findings re-
quired by paragraphs (b) (2) aad (3) of
this section.
(d) When satisfied that adequate pro-
tection agaiast public disclosure exists.
persons should provide the State agen-
cy with confidential and proprietary
information which the State agency
maintains is necessary to make a rea-
soned decision on the consistency of
the proposed activities. State agency
requests tor such information must be
related to the necessity of having such
information to SBSBIS adequately the
roestsl tone effects of the proposed ac-
tivities,
1*30.78 CViensieBoesseat of State i
ey review; public notice.
.(a) State agency review of the per-
son's consistency certification begins
at the time the State agency receives a
copy of the OCS plan, consistency cer-
tification, aad required necessary data
aad information. A State agency re-
quest for information and data la addi-
tion to that required by 1*30.11 ahall
aot extend ths date of comoienoeiacat
of State agency review.
(b) Following receipt of the material
described la paragraph (a) of this eeo-
tion. the State agency ahall ensure
timely public notice of the proposed
activities la accordance with the direo-
ttvee withia H 930.61 through ffXjtt.
(a) At the earliest practioaMe One,
the State agency shall notify the per-
the Secretary, of the Interior or
\5CFRCh. DC 0-1-94 EdHtorO
State agencies should restrict the pe-
riod of public notice, receipt of com-
ments, hearing proceedings and final
decision-making to the minimum time
necessary to inform the public, obtain
sufficient comment, and develop a rea-
sonable decision on the matter. If the
State agency has not issued a decision
within three months following com-
mencement of State agency review, it
shall notify the person, the Secretary
of the Interior or designee and the As-
sistant Administrator of the status of
review and the basis for further delay
in issuing a final decision. Notice shall
be in written form and postmarked ao
later than three months following the
State agency's receipt of the certifi-
cation and supporting information.
Concurrence by the State agency shall
be conclusively presumed if the notifi-
cation required by this subparagraph is
not provided.
(b) Concurrence by the State agency
shall be conclusively presumed in the
absence of a State agency objection to
the consistency certification within six
months following commencement of
State agency review.
(c) If the State agency objects to one
or more of the Federal license or per-
mit activities described in detail in the
OCS plan, it must provide a separate
discussion for each objection in accord-
ance with the directives within I930.M
(b) aad (d). The objection ahall also in-
clude a statement informing the person
of a right of appeal to tine Secretary on
the grounds described in aubpart B.
Ifaaao
of State
crater of Its
rence with or objee-
tion to the consistency certification.
(a) If the State agency, issues a con-
currence or is conclusively presumed to
concur with the person's consistency
certification, the' person will not be re-
quired to submit additional consist-
ency certifications aad supporting in-
formation for State ageacy review at
the time Federal applications are actu-
ally filed Cor the Federal licenses aad
permits to which snoh ***">''U'itTiffi+ ap-
pttaa. -
(b)"Oaleae the State agency indicates
otherwise, copies of Federal license aad
permit applioatioaa tar activities de-
ecrlbed la detail la aa OCS plan which
has received State agency concurrence •
shall be Mat by the person to the State
300
-------
Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm., Commerce
§930.84
to allow the State agency to
monitor the activities. Confidential
and proprietary material within such
applications may be deleted.
193041 Federal permitting agency re-
sponsibility.
Following receipt of a State agency
objection to a consistency certification
related to Federal license or permit ac-
tivities described in detail In an OCS
plan, the Federal agency shall not
issue any of such licenses or permits
except as provided In subpart E of this
part.
IMOJS Multiple permit review.
(a) A person submitting a consist-
ency certification for Federal license
or permit activities described In detail
In an OCS plan is strongly encouraged
to work with other Federal agencies in
an effort to Include, for consolidated
State agency review, consistency cer-
tifications and supporting data and In-
formation applicable to OCS-related
Federal license and permit activities
affecting the coastal cone which are
not required to be described in detail in
OCS plans but which are subjected to
State agency consistency review (e«..
Corps of Engineer permits for the
placement of structures en the OCS
and for dredging aad the transpor-
tation of dredged material. Environ-
mental Protection Agency air and
water quality permits for offshore op-
erations and onshore support aad proc-
essing facilities, etc.). In the event the
person does not consolidate such OCS-
related permit activities with the
State agency's review of the OCS plan.
such activities will remain subject to
individual State agency review under
the requirements of subpart Z> of this
part.
(b) A State agency objection to one
or more of the OCS-related Federal 11-
cones or permit activities submitted
Cor consolidated review shall net pre-
vent the person from receiving Federal
agency approval O) for those
lated license or permit aotivltteel
by the State agency to be
plan. Similarly, a State agency objec-
tion to the consistency certification
for an OCS plan shall not prevent the
person from receiving Federal agency
approval for those OCS-related license
or permit activities determined by the
State agency to be consistent with the
management program.
1*3043 Amended or new OCS plan*.
If the State agency objects to the
person's OCS plan consistency certifi-
cation. and If. pursuant to Subpart B.
the Secretary does not determine that
each of the objected to Federal license
or permit activities described in detail
in such plan is consistent with the ob-
jectives or purposes of the Act. or is
necessary In the Interest of national
security, the person shall submit an
amended or new plan to the Secretary
of the Interior or deaignee and to the
State agency along with a consistency
certlflca'. on and data and information
necessary to support the new consist-
ency determination. Tbt data and in-
formation shall specifically describe
modifications made to the original
OCS plan, and the manner In which
snch modifications will ensure that all
of the proposed Federal license or per-
mit activities described in detail In the
nn"""1^ or new plan will be conducted
in a r"»ftrutf consistent with
State's management program.
He»le» of amended or BMW
OCS plane; public nottee.
(a) After receipt of a copy of the
amended or new OCS plan.
tar the license and permit acttvltte» de-
scribed te detail Jn the DOS plea pro-
vided the State agency concurs with
the consistency oer*"***T*1frp far
and aocoi!g
-------
9
047
§93045
(d) If the Stjite agency Issues a con-
currence or is conclusively presumed to
concur with the person's new consist-
ency certification, the person will not
be required to submit additional con-
sistency certifications and supporting
information for State agency review at
the time Federal applications are actu-
ally Died for the Federal licensee and
permit* to which such concurrence ap-
plies.
(e) Unless the State agency indicates
otherwise, copies of Federal license and
permit applications for activities de-
scribed In detail in an amended or new
OCS plan which has received State
agency concurrence shall be sent by
the person to the State agency to allow
the State agency to monitor the activi-
ties. Confidential and proprietary ma-
terial within such applications may be
deleted.
Continuing Bute agency ob-
jection*.
If the State afency objects to the
consistency certification for an amend-
ed or new OCS plan, the prohibition in
IB30J1 against Federal acency approval
of licenses or permits for activities de-
scribed in detail In such a plan applies.
further Secretarial review pursuant to
cubpart E may take place, aad the de-
velopment of aa additional amended or
sew OCS plan and consistency certifi-
cation may be required pursuant to
HB30.V3 through B30J4.
Falter*
tiaUywithaai
(a) The Department of the Interior
and State agencies shall cooperate in
their •fforta to monitor .Federally li-
censed and permitted activities de-
scribed in detail OCS plans to make
certain that such activities continue to
conform to both Federal and State re-
(b) If a State agency claims that' a
flV^+aJiMally £Q OOBk-
ply with an approved OCS plan subject
to the tequiiements of this Snbpart.
and raoh faUora allegedly involves the
.of activities affecting the
utfi* la si ~nim*m*f that is not
consistent with *r*r^ approved manage-
t its claim to the
cal Survey supervisor tor the area in-
15 CFR Ch. IX (1-1-94 EdHion)
vclved. Such claim shall Include: (1) A
description of the specific activity In-
volved and the alleged lack of compli-
ance with the OCS plan, and (2) a re-
quest for appropriate remedial action.
A copy of the claim shall be sent to the
person and the Assistant Adminis-
trator.
(c) If. after a reasonable time follow-
ing a request for remedial action, the
State agency still maintains that the
person Is falling to comply substan-
tially with the OCS plan, the governor
or section 306(cK5) State agency (see
1930.18) may file a written objection
with the Secretary. If the Secretary
finds that the person Is falling to com-
ply substantially with the OCS plan.
the person shall submit an amended or
new OCS plan along with a consistency
certification and supporting informa-
tion to the Secretary of the Interior or
designee and to the State agency. Fol-
lowing such a finding by the Secretary.
the person shall comply with the-origi-
nally approved OCS plan, or with in-
terim orders issued jointly by the Sec-
retary and the U.S. Geological Survey.
pending approval of the amended or
new OCS plan. The directives within
H930J3 through 930.15 shall apply to
further State agency review of the con-
sistency certification for the amended
or new plan.
(d) A person shall be found to have
tailed substantially to comply with an
approved OCS plan if the State agency
*-\*tm* mnA frfr« PoLieisj j fltnl* that'ons
or more of the activities described In
detail In the OCS plan which affects
the coastal cone are being conducted or
are having a .coastal tone effect sub-
stantially different than originally de-
scribed by the person In the plan or ac-
companying *T*T**M*i*tH and* as a re-
sult,-the activities are no longer being
conducted in % QggBsr ooQslste&t with
^a State's management program. The
Secretary
person has failed —*-»-•'**-*y to <
ply with aa
after providing
tonity for the pe
of the Interior
OCS plan only
and the Secreb
Oeologt- meats
ry
to review the State
agency's objection aad to submit com-
for the Secretary's oonsider-
atton.
202
I
-------
Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm., Commorco
§930.95
Subpart F—Consistency for Fed-
eral Assistance to State and
Local Governments
f 93O90 Objectives.
The provisions of this subpart are
provided to assure that Federal assist-
ance to State and local governments
for activities affecting the coastal cone
is granted only when each activities
are consistent .with- approved r^ftttil
zone managements programs.
193091 Federal assistance.
The term Federal assistance means as-
sistance provided under a Federal pro-
gram to an applicant agency through
grant or contractual arrangements.
loans, subsidies, guarantees, insurance.
or other form of financial aid.
193092 Applicant agency.
The term applicant agency means any
unit of State or local government, or
any related public entity such as a spe-
cial purpose district, which, following
management program approval, sub-
mits an application for Federal assist-
ance.
193093 Intergovernmental review
The term "intergovernmental review
process" describes the procedures es-
tablished by states pursuant to E.O.
12372. "Intergovernmental Review of
Federal Programs." aad Implementing
regulations of the review of Federal fi-
nancial assistance to states sad local
lutei iirnenla.
BUve Order USR. July M. UB3 (47 FR
•J98S). as amended April s. UB (4* FR VUttt.
sec. 4ffl. laterieverBmeatal Cooperation Act
of am. as amended « U.S.C. VOtf. see SM.
Ottee sad Metropolitan
velepmeat Act of 1MB as MM**** (43 VAJB.
OMU.
(4tnianawaMtt.ua)
by which states with ap-
ecutlve Order and regulations, states
may use this process to review such ap-
plications for consistency with their
approved coastal management pro-
grams.
(Executive Order 12172. Jn)y 14. 1982 (47 FR
a095»). a* amended April •. ISO (41 FR 1SST7);
eec. 401. Intergovernmental Cooperation Act
of 1961. at amended (31 U.S.C. 6506); tec 304.
DMnoastratlon Cities and Metropolitan De-
velopment Act of 1966 at amended (42 U.8.C.
3334)).
(48 FR 39137. June 24.1963]
193095 Guidance provided by the
State agency.
(a) State agencies should include
within the management program a list-
Ing of specific types of Federal assist-
ance programs subject to a consistency
review. Such a listing, and any amend-
ments, will require prior 306(cXS) state
agency (see 1930.18) consultation with
affected Federal agencies and approval
by the Assistant Administrator.
(b) In-the event the State agency
chooses to review applications for Fed-
eral assistance activities outside of the
coastal cone.but likely to affect the
coastal zone, the State agency most
develop a Federal assistance provision
within the management program gen-
erally describing the geographic area
(e.g. coastal floodplalns) within which
Federal eMitter^r activities will be
subject to review. This provision, and
any refinements, will require prior
SOtXcXS) State agency consultation
with afftfteil Federal agencies and ap-
proval by the Assistant Administrator.
(c) The State agency shall provide
ooplee of any Federal asslstsnoe list or
geographic provision, sad say rnflne
neats. to Federal agencies, units of
State or looal government empowered
to undertake Federally *—«-*~« activi-
ties within the coastal BOD* or de-
scribed geographic area.
ittve Order UR3. Jely 14. 1>B (47 FR
April •, UB m n UMTk
ould b* developed
by each state la accordance with F-i***-
otive Order 12372 sad !"»r>«^*"*«-r
rognlattona. In accordanoe with the fa-
3BOX
U.sVC.1
attes sad Metropolitan
it Act of U9I as sanded (a UAC.
Jose &. UTBX
atefFR3nK.JoneM.lMrj
203
-------
04
§930.96
I83OM Consistency review.
(a) If pursuant to the intergovern-
mental review process, the State agen-
cy does not object to.the proposed ac-
tivity, the Federal agency may grant
the Federal •-tH**""* to the applicant
agency. Notwithstanding State agency
consistency approval for the proposed
project, the Federal agency may deny
assistance to the applicant agency.
Federal agencies should not delay proc-
essing applications pending receipt of a
State agency approval or objection. In
the event a Federal agency determines
that an application will not be ap-
proved, it shall immediately notify the
applicant agency and the State agency.
(b) If pursuant to the Intergovern-
mental review process, the State agen-
cy objects to the proposed project, the
state agency shall notify the applicant
agency. Federal agency and the Assist-
ant Administrator of the objection.
(e) State agency objections must de-
ecribe: (1) Bow the proposed project Is
inconsistent with specific elements of
the •management program, and (2) al-
ternative . measures (if they exist)
which. If adopted by the applicant
agency, would permit the proposed
project to be conducted in a «»•«*«•*
consistent with the management pro-
gram.
(d) A State agency objection may be
based upon a determination that the
applicant agency has failed, following a
written State agency request, to sup-
ply necessary information. If the State
agency object* on the grounds of insuf-
ficient information, the objection must
describe the nature of the Information
requested and the necessity of having
~ i indmiadon to dstsjrmlae tb.^ con-
•latency of the activity with the man-
agement program. :. " . .
(e) Bute ageaey objections shall In-
clude a statement *«»*Tt»<»y **** appli-
cant s«eaey of a right of appeal to .the
Secretary on the grounds described la
•ubpsrtB of this part.
'm r*
15 CFR Ch. DC O-1-94 Edition)
193047 Federal aselstiag agency re-
sponsibility.
Following receipt of a State agency
objection, the Federal arency shall not
approve assistance for the activity ex-
cept as provided in Subpart H of this
part.
|93OM Federally assisted activities
outside of the eoestal sane or the
described geographic i
(a) State agencies should monitor
proposed Federal assistance activities
outside of the coastal zone or the de-
scribed geographic area (e«.. by use of
the Intergovernmental review process.
review of NEPA environmental impact
statements, etc.) and shall Imme-
diately notify applicant agencies. Fed-
eral agencies, and any other agency or
office which may be Identified by the
state In it* intergovernmental review
process pursuant to E.O. 12372 of pro-
posed activities which can reasonably
be expected to affect the coastal tone
and which the State agency Is review-
ing for consistency with the manage-
ment program. Notification shall also
be sent by the State agency to the As-
sistant Administrator. State agencies
must Inform the partiee of objections
within the time period permitted under
the inteigmm mitental tevievi process.
otherwise the State agency waives its
right to object to the proposed activ-
ity.
(b) If within the permitted time pe-
riod the State agency notifies the Fed-
eral agency of It* objection to a pro-
posed Federally assisted activity, the
Federal agency shall not provide as-
sistance to the applicant agency except
a* provided la Bubpart B, nnless 'the
Assistant Administrator disapproves
the State aceaey's decision to renew
activity. TOM- Assistant
trator shall be guided by the provisions
lni«OJM(e)aad(d). . .
tfiFi
(«4 nttno. JUM ». wit. ss i
FRBUI.JoMM.im)
atw)
A0w> OC SMK eM
mta. • •
t«l •» ma. J«M & WI». M
FKmsi.auMM.uni
e* «
-------
Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm., Commerce
§990.112
18304* Availability of mediation for
Federal assistance disputes.
In the event of a serious disagree-
ment between a Federal and State
agency regarding whether a Federal as-
sistance activity Is subject to consist-
ency review, either party may request
the Secretarial mediation services pro-
vided for In subpart G of this part. The
existence of a serious disagreement
will not relieve the Federal agency
from the responsibility for withholding
Federal assistance for the activity
pending satisfaction of the require-
ments of this subpart. except in cases
. where the Assistant Administrator has
disapproved a State agency decision to
review an activity.
1*30.100 Availability of mediation for
previously reviewed activities.
(a) Federal and State agencies shall
cooperate in their efforts to monitor
Federally assisted activities in order to
make certain that such activities con-
tinue to conform to both Federal and
State requirements.
(b) The State agency shall request
that the Federal agency take appro-
priate remedial action following a seri-
ous disagreement resulting from a
State agency objection to a Federally
assisted activity which was: a) Pre-
viously determined to be consistent
with the State's management program,
but which the State agency later main-
tains Is being conducted or is having a
coastal sons effect substantially dif-
ferent than originally proposed and. as
a result, is no longer consistent with
the State management ff"^ or O)
previously determined not to be a
project affecting the coastal tone, bat
which the State agency later main-
tains is being conducted or Is having a
effect substantially dlf-
farent than originally proposed and. as
a result the project affects the coastal
sons In a *****i*Tr <'*<>'"**lrtent with'the
State's management program. The
State
supporting f^TMtlm "*** a
for recommended
eral agency, either party may seek the
Secretarial mediation services pro-
vided for la subpart G of this part.
Subpart G— Secretarial Mediation
1*30.110 Objective*.
The purpose of this snbpart Is to de-
scribe mediation procedures whlcb
Federal and State agencies may use to
attempt to resolve serious disagree-
ments which arise during the adminls-
tratlon of approved management pro-
grams.
I (30.111 Informal negotiations.
The availability of mediation does
not preclude use by the parties of alter-
native means for resolving their dis-
agreement. In the event a serious dis-
agreement arises, the . parties are
strongly encouraged to make every ef-
fort to resolve the disagreement Infor-
mally. OCZM shall be available to as-
sist the parties in these efforts.
inailS Bequest tor mediation.
(a) The Secretary or other bead of a
Federal agency, or the Governor or the
section 30G(eX5) State agency (see
1930.11). may notify the Secretary in
writing of the existence of a serious
disagreement, and may request that
the Secretary seek to mediate the seri-
ous disagreement. A copy of the writ-
ten request must be sent to the agency
with which the requesting agency dis-
agrees. *T"* to th* Assistant Adminis-
trator.
(b) Within 15 days following receipt
of a request, tor mediation the disagree
ing agency shall transmit a written re-
sponse to the Secretary, and to the
agency requesting iny*'**^'*p Indicat-
ing .whether It wishes to participate In
the jneOjIation pvooese. XT the disagree-
ing sgency declines t-^** fffTvr to enter
copy of the request mast be seat to the
applicant agency. • . ••• .-
(e) XT. after a rsssonstils time follow-
ing a request for remedial action, tits
State agency still maintains that a se-
Into mediation tffTts. it
the basis tar Its refusal is its response.
Upon receipt of a refusal to participate
la medlatt
shall seek to
fto meitlatlon effecta. if the die-
agencies do not all agree to
participsts. the Secretary wffl cease ef-
rions disagreement exists with the Fed- torts to provide mediatic
206
r
-------
047:>
§930.113
1980.113 PubUe hearing*.
(a) If the parties agree to the medi-
ation process, the Secretary shall ap-
point a hearing officer who shall ached*
ale a hearing In the local area con*
cerned. The hearing offlcer ehall give
the parties at least 30 days notice of
the time and place set for the hearing
and shall provide timely public notice
of the hearing.
(b) At the time public notice is pro-
Tided, the Federal and State agencies
shall provide the public with conven-
ient access to public data and Informa-
tion related to the serious disagree'
xnent.
(e) Bearings shall be Informal and
shall be conducted by the hearing offl-
cer with the objective of securing in a
timely fashion Information related to
the disagreement. The Federal and
State agencies, as well as other inter-
ested parties, may offer Information at
the hearing subject to the hearing offi-
cer's supervision as to the extent and
manner of presentation. Unduly repeti-
tious oral presentation may be ex-
cluded at the discretion of the *>»«*««y
officer; in the event of such exclusion
the party may provide the M*r1i>g offl-
oer with a written submission of the
proposed oral presentation. Bearings
will be recorded and the hearing offloar
shall provide ttanscrlpte and copies of
written Information offered at the
Bearing to the Federal and State agen-
cy parties. The public may Inspect and
copy the transcripts and written Infor-
mation provided to these agencies. .
I9SO114
(a) Following the dose of the hear-
ing, **** hearing **^mi shall transmit
the t"*^!1*; record te the Secretary.
Upon receipt of the bearing1 leouid, the
Secretary shall schedule a mediation
conference to be attanded'by represent^
ativee from the Office of the Secretory.
the disagreeing Federal .and State
agencies, and any other Interested par-
ties whose participation 1st
eswry by the Secretary.
Shan pro* le the •parties at leaat 10
day* notice of the time and place «et
(b) Secretarial mediation eSorta
shall last only so long as the Federal
and State agenda* agree to partici-
pate. The Secretary ehall confer with
15 C« Ch. DC 0-1-94 Edition)
the Executive Office of the President.
**• necessary, during the mediation
process.
1930.116 Terml&fttlon of mediation.
Mediation shall terminate (a) at any
time the Federal and State agencies
agree to a resolution of the serious dis-
agreement, (b) If one of the agencies
withdraws from mediation, (c) in the
event the agencies tail to reach a reso-
lution of the serious disagreement
within 15 days following Secretarial
conference efforts, and the agencies do
not agree to extend mediation beyond
that period, or (d) for other good cause.
1930.116 Judicial review.
The availability of the mediation
services provided In this subpart Is not
Intended expressly or Implicitly to
limit the parties* use of alternate fo-
rums to resolve disputes. Specifically.
Judicial review where otherwise avail-
able by law may be sought by any
party to a serious disagreement with-
out first having frhfv**^ the medi-
ation process provided tor In this sub-
part.
Subpart H-Secretarial Review Re-
lated to the Objectives or Pur-
poses of the Act and National
Security interests
1930.1*0 Objectives.
The provisions of this subpart pro-
vide procedures by which the Secretary
may find that a Federal license or per-
mit activity. Including those described
In detail In an OCS plan, or a Federal
ssslstsnns activity, which Is Inconsist-
ent with a management program, may
be federally approved because the ao-
ttvltar js consistent with the objectives
or purposes of the Act. or • Is i
In the Interest of national security.
latent with the objeo-
of the-'Aet"
a Federal Uoanee or permit activity, or
a Federal ssrtstaime activity which. al-<
innmnelsteflt with a State's
management progranv. is found by Che
Secretary to be permissible
306
-------
04
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adrru. Commwc*
§930.127
satisfies the following four require-
ments:
(a) The activity furthers one or more
of the competing national objectives or
purposes contained in section 303 or 303
of the Act.
(b) When performed separately or
when its cumulative effect* are consid-
ered, it will not cause advene effect*
on the natural resources of the coastal
zone substantial enough to outweigh
ita contribution to the national inter-
est,
(c) The activity will not violate any
requirements of the Clean Air Act. as
amended, or the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as amended, and
(d) There Is no reasonable alternative
available (e.g.. location design, etc.)
which would permit the activity to be
conducted in a manner consistent with
the management program.
Ittara Nirnssry IB the interest of
national security.
The term '•necessary In the Interest
of national security" describes a Fed-
eral license or permit activity, or a
Federal assistance activity which, al-
thourh Inconsistent with a State's
management program, is found by the
Secretary to be permissible because a
national defense or other "•«*«"«^ se-
curity Interest would be significantly
Impaired If the activity were not per-
mitted to go forward as proposed. Sec-
retarial review of national security Is-
sues shall be aided by Information sub-
mitted by the Department of Defense
or other Interested Federal agencies.
The views of such agencies, while not
binding, shall be given considerable
weight by the Secretary. The Secretary
will seek Information to determine
whether the objected-to activity di-
rectly rapports national defense or
other essential national security objeo-
tii
The term "appellant*' refers to aa ap-
plicant, person or applicant agency
submitting an appeal to the Secretary
pursuant to the provisions of this sob-
put.
IfMUM Internal dtoeooeioM.
In the event the State agency In-
forms the applicant, person or appli-
cant agency that It Intends to object to
the proposed activity, the parties
should consult Informally to attempt
to resolve the matter in a manner
which avoids the necessity of appealing
the Issue to the Secretary. OCZM shall
be available to assist the parties In
these discussions.
1030.115 Appeal* to the Secretary.
(a) An appellant may file a notice of
appeal with the Secretary with SO days
of the appellant's receipt of a State
agency objection. The notice of appeal
shall be accompanied by a statement In
support of the appellant's position,
along with supporting data and infor-
mation. The appellant shall send a
copy of the notice of appeal and accom-
panying documents to the Federal and
State agencies Involved.
(b) No extension of time will be per-
mitted for the filing of a notice of ap-
peal.
(c) The Secretary may approve a rea-
sonable request for an extension of
time to submit supporting Information
so long as the request Is filed with the
Secretary within the 30-day period.
Normally, the Secretary shall limit an
extension period to 15 days.
Federal and State agency re-
(a) Upon receipt of the notice of ap-
peal and supporting Information, the
Federal and State agencies shall have
30 days to submit detailed comments to
the Secretary. Copies of such com-
ments shall be sent to the appellant
and other agency within the same time
period*
(b) Bequests for extensions may be
made pursuant to JMO HS(c).
100017 Public
receipt of <
(a) The Secretary shall provide time-
ly public notice of the appeal within 15
days of receipt of the notice. At a mini-
mum, public notice shall be provided In
the immediate area of the ooastal sons
whleh Is likely to be affected by the
activity. At the time public
to provided, the Federal and
State agencies shall provide the public
with convenient access to copies of the
ills
lot's notice of appeal and.
psayinr public Information, and to the
207
-------
048
$930.128
public information In tbe agencies' de-
tailed comment*.
(to) Interested persons may submit
comments to tbe Secretary within 90
days from tbe date of public notice.
with copies provided to tbe appellant
and to tbe Federal aad State agencies
within tbe same time period.
(c) Request* for extensions may be
made pursuant to f 930.125
-------
048°
Notional Oceanic and Atmospheric Adm., Commerce
§930.143
public comment* In accordance with
the provision* in {930.127.
(b) The Secretory may order a hear-
ing in accordance with the provisions
In 1930.129.
1830.154 Secretarial review; FedenJ
agency responsibility.
(a) Secretarial review shall be under-
taken In accordance with the provl-
aions in 1930.130.
(b) Federal agencies are responsible
for adhering to the provisions In
1930.131 when deciding to approve or
deny an application for an activity ob-
jected to by a State agency and inde-
pendently reviewed by the Secretary.
Subport I—Assistant Administrator
Reporting and Continuing Re-
view of Federal Actions Sub-
ject to the Federal Consist-
ency Requirements
1830.140 Objectives.
The provisions of this snbpart pro-
vide procedure* to permit Interested
parties to notify the Assistant Admin-
istrator of Federal actions (a) believed
to be inconsistent with an approved
manarement program bat which are
not so fooad by the Federal or State
reviewing agency, and (b) believed to
have been incorrectly determined to be
Inconsistent with an approved manage-
ment program. This subpart also pro-
vides for the reporting of any Federal
actions found by the Assistant Admin-
istrator to be inconsistent with aa ap-
proved management program and for
the performance review of State Imple-
mentation of the Federal consistency
provisions of this part.
I8KU41 Nottflcalfafi of Federal ee-
Cioae believed to be
with approved
(a) Interested parties are lavlted to
submit to the Assistant Administrator
detailed comments related to the al-
Iege4 Inconsistency of Federal activi-
ties inoladmg development projects,
Fedei'sj Hones or penult activities, In-
cludlar those described la detail in
have not been found by a Federal agen-
cy or State agency to be inconsistent
with an approved management pro-
gram. Copies of such comments should
be sent to relevant Federal and State
agencies, and to the applicant, person
or applicant agency as appropriate.
(b) Comments need not conform to
any particular form, but should be spe-
cific, substantive and factual, and must
describe how the Federal action is or
would be inconsistent .with an approved
(c) Commentators are encouraged to
recommend modifications or alter-
native* to the existing or proposed ac-
tion which would enable it to be con-
sistent with the management program.
(d) The Assistant Administrator shall
assure »*i»t public information within
such comments is made available for
public inspection.
I830.US Notification of Federal ac-
tions believed to have been Incor-
rectly determined to be ineonslst-
AM* «l*tk MA -*
•&» WuB •& BfrpFOWd
(a) Interested parties are Invited to
submit to the Assistant Administrator
detailed comments related to Federal
license aad permit activities, including
those described la detail la DCS plans.
aad Federal assistance activities which
are believed to have been Incorrectly
determined by a State agency to be in-
consistent .with aa approved manage-
ment program. Copies of such com-
ments should be seat to the relevant
Federal aad State agencies, aad to the
applicant, person, or applicant agency
as appropriate.
(b) Comments need not conform to
any particular form, bat should be spe-
cific, substantive, r **il ff*t""l. and
mast clearly describe the basis for the
belief that the State agency has incor-
rectly objected to the Federal action
on the grounds of it* Inconsistency
Cc) Tbt
assure that public Information withla
tu«h comments It nude available ffrr
tivlttee which are •object to the re-
qalrements of this part, and which
the views of inter-
ttae relevant Federal
agency. State agency, and the aapll-
200
-------
§930.144
15 CFR Ch. IX (1-1-94 Edition)
cant, person, or Applicant agency, as
appropriate, the Assistant Adminis-
trator ahall determine whether the
Federal action will be included In the
annual report listing of inconsistent
Federal action*.
1930.144 Assistant Administrator advi-
sory statements.
Upon request, the Assistant Adminis-
trator may laiue as advisory statement
prior to the issuance of the annual re-
port indicating whether a Federal ac-
tion will be listed within the annual re-
port as being Inconsistent with an ap-
proved management program.
1930.146 Review of the implementa-
tion of Federal consistency provi-
sions.
As part of the responsibility to con-
duct a continuing review of approved
management programs, the Assistant
Administrator shall review the per-
formance of each State's Implementa-
tion of the Federal consistency provi-
sions in this part. The Assistant Ad-
ministrator shall use information re-
ceived pursuant to this subpart to
evaluate instances where a State agen-
cy is believed to have either failed to
object to inconsistent Federal actions.
or Improperly objected to consistent
Federal actions. 710s evaluation shall
be incorporated within the Assistant
Administrator's general efforts to as-
certain instances where a State has not
adhered to its approved management
program and such lack of adherence is
not justified.
PART 931 —COASTAL ENERGY
IMPACT PROGRAM
SubpartA
9SU Causal Ks
impact Ft
era! dsscrtpttea.
Objectives of ths CHF.
Iad*xto«sflnlttoae.
(01.16 Outer Continental Shslf.
931.17 Outer ContlntnuJ Shelf enercrscU*-
Ity.
931.18 Easrry Uelllty.
931.19 Nsw or eipanded •nerrr UclJItj.
931 JO Unit of rsnsnU purpose local fO»«ro-
msnt.
931 Jl Unit of local rovsnimant.
901.23 NOAAsadOCZM.
931 3D Assistant Administrator.
901.34 NEPAsadCXS.
Subpart C-Baste EH0fetty
931 jj Elltlble coastal State.
931 y Satlstactorjr procrsss.
931 XI EllclUUty dtcsnnlnsUon.
Subpart D— Coastal Energy Impocl Granh
931JO OsBSTtl.
931J1 Ob)scUvss.
931.33 EUglblllty tor OnancUl
aadsr this mbpux.
98144 Allowabl* BBSS.
931 JS Section 30s(c) alloonsnt.
9U J6
901 jn Umltattoas on •zpendltarss.
Subpart t—nnonclno rubte Foeime» and
931.40 Oessral.
931.41 Objsctlvss.
931.43 DsflalUoaa
9H.43 BifftbUlty.
•31.44 Allows*!*
931.45 Credit asa
ute* lavsntory.
9K1.4S AUotmsnt fonnala.
93L47 Aitottoeat of crsdlt ssslitsnos.
931.41 BsoaU aad t»Tsralon of allotted crsdlt
9S1.49 Appllcatioa for recalled or rsvsnsd
931JO AppUeattoB tor nnsnclsl ••l«tsnn>
to nrovMs pubUc fseUltlss sad ssrvless.
9SLSJ Bpsdal rsqulrsmsats for sscttaa
SOktdXl) loaas.
9BlJa Special rsqairsnsnts tor section
90*4X3) p«tf«rki roarsjatsM.
93U90 Oeaeral.
of rspaymsat
so- Of
210
-------
048
BEAZER EAST, INC., ONE OXFORD CENTRE, SUITE 3000, PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-6401
May 30, 1997
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Craig Zeller
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region IV
100 Alabama Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Proposed Plan Fact Sheet. Koppers Company. Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL Site
Dear Mr. Zeller:
Beazer East, Inc. ("Beazer") hereby submits these comments in response to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPAV or the "Agency's") Proposed Plan Fact Sheet (the
"Proposed Plan") for the Koppers Company, Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPL Site (the "Site"). In
general, Beazer supports EPA's Proposed Plan and commends EPA's efforts to propose a remedy
which, consistent with the primary goals of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), provides for the overall protection of human health
and the environment, complies with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements ("ARARs")
and is cost-effective and technically practicable.
I. Introduction
To provide context for Bearer's comments, the following paragraphs summarize EPA's
Proposed Plan and activities related to EPA's selection of its preferred alternative. In January 1993,
Beazer agreed to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") for the Site. EPA
and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control ("SCDHEC") provided
oversight on all work conducted during the RI/FS and commented on Beazer's RI and FS reports.
EPA performed both a human health risk assessment and an ecological screening level risk
assessment for the Site. Beazer, however, also performed a human health risk assessment on its
-------
041
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 2
own initiative which was submitted in October, 1994 and an ecological risk assessment which was
submitted as part of the FS for the Site. In response to the potential risks calculated in EPA's
Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment ("BRA")1, Beazer recommended that action be taken to
address the presence of non-aqueous phase liquids ("NAPL") in the Hagood Avenue and Milford
Street drainage ditches. Thereafter, EPA issued a Record of Decision for an Interim Action ("IRM
ROD"). Beazer performed the work pursuant to a "friendly" unilateral order issued by EPA under
§ 9606 of CERCLA. Beazer is in the process of implementing the IRM ROD.
The Proposed Plan comprehensively addresses surface and subsurface soil, drainage ditch
sediments, ground water and NAPL, surface water, constituent transport pathways, and sediments
of the Ashley River, Barge Canal, and North, South and Northwest Tidal Marshes. For the soil and
drainage ditches, EPA has determined that soils which exceed the 5 x 10"5 risk level will be
excavated (i.e., soils exceeding 20 parts per million ("ppm") B(a)P-TE in surface soil and 275 ppm
in subsurface soil). This will result in the removal of an estimated 12,000 tons of soil and ditch
sediment. A cap to eliminate the dermal exposure and ingestion pathways will be placed over
approximately 24.5 acres of remaining soil so that remaining potential risk is equal to 1.1 x 10"6.
The proposed alternative for NAPL and groundwater involves the installation of groundwater and
NAPL extraction wells in the Northeast Corner, the Old Impoundment Area and the Former
Treatment Area. A monitoring program will also be established to gauge the effectiveness of the
system.
EPA has selected enhanced sedimentation as the means to increase the natural sedimentation
process in the Ashley River. For the Barge Canal, the proposed remediation will involve
subaqueous capping using an estimated 28,000 cubic yards of fill. Designated areas within the
North and South Tidal Marshes will be excavated and capped. The remaining soils in the South
Tidal Marsh and the soils in the Northwest Marsh will be bioremediated in place. Lastly, EPA is
proposing that lead-impacted soils located south of the Barge Canal at concentrations exceeding
EPA's cleanup goal of 1,150 mg/kg will be excavated and utilized as a base fill layer for the
capping of the Barge Canal. These soils, as discussed below, are not related to wood treating
operations and are attributed by EPA to operations of the former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer
Works, which was owned and operated by Conoco Inc. ("Conoco") and Agrico Chemical Company
("Agrico").
Beazer did not agree with the methods EPA used to calculate potential risk or the resultant levels of potential
risk represented in the BRA.
-------
0406
Mr. Craig Teller
May 30, 1997
Page 3
II. The Use of Innovative Approaches and Remedial Methodologies Is Consistent With the
Goals of CERCLA
Section I05(a)(10) of CERCLA requires the evaluation of innovative technologies for
inclusion as pan of the remedy and EPA encourages the use of innovative technology. 55 Fed. Reg.
8714 (March 8, 1990). The Proposed Plan incorporates several innovative approaches and remedial
methodologies. Beazer endorses these approaches and technologies as described below.
A. Enhanced Sedimentation
Enhanced sedimentation was selected over capping, or dredging and capping, in the
Proposed Plan for the Ashley River. This remedial alternative provides the most cost-effective
remedial solution to observed toxicity in the Ashley River sediments located adjacent to the Site.
It also provides the same level of ecological risk reduction as the other alternatives evaluated while
greatly reducing, if not eliminating, the short term risks of implementing the alternative. The other
alternatives evaluated (capping, and dredging and capping) are less desirable in that they would
completely eliminate one of the ecological environments (benthic habitat) that this remedy is
designed to protect.
Recommendation:
Beazer supports the use of enhanced sedimentation and recommends that EPA include it as
the Ashley River remedy in the ROD.
B. In-Situ Sediment Bioremediation
In-situ bioremediation was selected in the Proposed Plan for remediation of sediments that
contain concentrations of constituents that were not found to be toxic to benthic organisms. This
innovative technology increases the rate of natural processes that are expected to result in reduction
of organic constituents of concern in tidal marsh sediments. This technology has been developed
by industry in cooperation with the Navy at its experimental station in Pensacola, Florida. By
proposing its use at this Site, EPA is furthering the development of this technique consistent with
its goal of encouraging the use of innovative technologies. Beazer believes that such initiatives will
allow the refinement and development of this and other in-situ technologies for addressing sediments
here and around the country.
- The Proposed Plan states that pilot testing of this approach would be needed to select and
appropriate mix of nutrients and bacteria to optimize performance. Beazer would like to clarify that
the pilot testing would consist of a bench scale test to select this mix and that on-Site pilot testing
would not be performed. On-Site pilot testing would not be practical, because of the high cost of
-------
^9 04 8 7
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 4
monitoring in comparison to the cost of implementing this remedy and the time associated with
conducting a pilot test. It is more practical from both a time and cost standpoint to implement the
remedy in all of the selected areas and then monitor the results.
Because in-situ sediment bioremediation is an emerging technology, the extent of constituent
concentration reduction that may be achieved is unknown. The performance goal established,
therefore, would be that Beazer would implement the technology and monitor the results. This
approach is appropriate because in-situ sediment bioremediation is being used in portions of the
marsh where sediment toxicity to benthic organisms was not observed. Therefore, Beazer's goal
is to improve the condition of the marshes. In areas of the marshes where toxicity to benthic
organisms was observed, other methods of remediation were evaluated in the FS and other types of
performance goals would be appropriate.
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that EPA retain the use of this technology in the ROD.
C. Value Engineering
A value engineering analysis was performed to select the soil cleanup goal that
maximizes the risk reduction per ton of soil remediated. Such an approach not only maximizes the
cost-effectiveness of soil remediation, but also directs the soil remediation towards the areas where
the maximum potential risk exists.
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that EPA retain the soil cleanup goals calculated using the value
engineering analysis.
D. In-Situ Wells
In-situ wells, which collect NAPL and either treat or enhance bioremediation of
dissolved constituents, were included in the FS as an alternative to be evaluated along with
traditional NAPL extraction alternatives. This emerging technology will reduce the NAPL collection
costs while providing the same level of risk reduction as the other more traditional technologies
included in the FS. Additionally, this technology was included in the FS as a contingent alternative
should it be determined by monitoring that the dissolved phase plume is not contained by natural
processes.
-------
1J 9 Q4Gf;
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 5
In addition to this use, Beazer requests that EPA provide flexibility in the ROD by
allowing the use of this technology in place of the more traditional extraction well technology
selected in the Proposed Plan. If pilot testing confirms that the in-situ technology can be applied
at this Site, the cost of NAPL collection will be reduced because of the reduced water treatment
cost.
Recommendations:
Beazer recommends that the ROD provide sufficient flexibility to allow the use of in-situ
wells at the Site. Additionally, Beazer recommends that the use of in-situ wells be retained as a
contingent alternative to be used if monitoring shows that the dissolved phase plume is not being
contained by natural processes.
E. Performance Goals
As an initial matter, Beazer takes exception to EPA's use of the phrase "performance
standards" in the Proposed Plan. Although EPA states that the ground water treatment system will
be operated and maintained to meet certain "treatment standards," Beazer believes that EPA's
description of those "standards" is written as an expectation or "goal" rather than as strict standards.
For example, the first "standard" to be achieved is the treatment or removal of NAPL to the extent
practicable. Clearly, by its own terms, this "standard" recognizes that total NAPL removal may
be impossible. Thus, it is more appropriately characterized as a goal. Because of the nature of the
COPCs at the Site and the proposed use of innovative technologies, Beazer cannot be held to the
attainment of strict standards which would require the use of alternate technologies should the
standard ultimately be unattainable. Beazer cannot be expected to utilize innovative technologies
without some assurance from EPA that once that technology is shown to be effective through bench
studies, EPA will accept the results of its implementation in the field, even if those results fall short
of complete removal or treatment of the COPC.
Other performance goals have been identified by EPA in the Proposed Plan in place of
specifying the details of the proposed remediation. For example, EPA has utilized the measurement
of toxicity to benthic organisms as a cleanup goal instead of specifying a cleanup level for sediments
in the Ashley River and tidal marshes. This performance goal provides an approach to remediating
sediments which utilizes the organisms that EPA is protecting as the measure of the effectiveness
of remediating marsh and river sediments. As a result, Beazer will have greater flexibility in
implementing the ROD. As new information is developed during remedial activities, the approach
to remediation can be adjusted within the scope of the ROD without the delay and administrative
burden of formally amending the ROD. The use of performance goals will enable Beazer to
efficiently and cost-effectively remediate the Site while at the same time provide EPA with control
over the outcome of the remedial action.
-------
9 048?
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 6
Recommendation:
Beazer supports the use of performance goals rather than performance standards and
recommends that EPA utilize performance goals in the ROD.
F. Capping of Additional Areas
EPA has proposed the use of capping in combination with excavation of soil. This
concept provides additional risk reduction at a lesser cost than some of the other remedial
techniques. By combining techniques, EPA will achieve removal of the soils with the highest
potential risk and containment of soils with lower potential risk. This approach cost-effectively
reduces the overall risk at the Site.
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that EPA set forth the concept of combining capping with excavation
of soils in the ROD.
III. Residual Risk Calculations
Residual risk calculations were used to assist in selecting cleanup goals by calculating
the potential risk which would remain following the remediation of soil (i.e., assuming that the tons
of soil which exceed the specific cleanup goal were removed and replaced with soil of an assumed
background concentration). This approach is superior to deriving cleanup goals ("CUGs") directly
from the assumptions used in the baseline risk assessment, where all soils with concentrations
greater than CUGs are remediated. Under the baseline risk assessment approach, the potential risk
associated with the remediated site is less than the allowable risk level used to establish the CUGs.
As a result, the remediation performed is more extensive than required to protect public health.
In contrast, use of the residual risk approach to define the extent of remediation
achieves the stated public health protection goals, which can be demonstrated by re-running the
baseline risk assessment using the post-remediation constituent concentrations. The residual risk
approach calculates the post-remediation risk and therefore, is a better method to calculate cleanup
levels than reliance upon the baseline risk assessment. This approach to post-remediation risk
assessment also focusses the remedial activities on the areas of the greatest potential risk and
maximizes the risk reduction achieved.
-------
0490
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page?
Recommendation:
For these reasons, Beazer supports EPA's use of residual risk in calculating volumes of soil
for excavation and recommends that EPA utilize residual risk methodology in the ROD.
IV. The Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment Overestimates the Potential Risk at the
Site
Although Beazer supports the remedies selected in the Proposed Plan, Beazer believes that
these remedies actually are more protective than the Proposed Plan represents. Contrary to the
position taken by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
("SCDHEC")(See discussion below at Section XII), Beazer believes that EPA's BRA uses unduly
conservative assumptions that result in an overestimation of potential risk at, the Site. Beazer has
commented on EPA's risk assessment in the past and requests that those comments be included in
the Administrative Record for this Site. Beazer has developed additional information on the
potential risks that EPA calculated for the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch and the derivation of the
lead remediation goal for soils. Each of these issues is discussed in more detail below.
A. Potential Risks at the Hagood Avenue Drainage Ditch Are Overestimated in the BRA.
The BRA examined four potential exposure pathways at Hagood Avenue and the
marsh into which it drains (incidental ingestion of surface water and sediment, and dermal contact
with surface water and sediment). Of these pathways, dermal contact with surface water is
responsible for the majority of potential risk. This is also the pathway with which the greatest
uncertainty is associated. Beazer believes that many of the assumptions employed in the BRA are
likely to overestimate potential risk. For example, EPA has based its dose estimation for the surface
water exposure pathway on skin permeability constants (Kp) taken from KPA guidance (1992) and
applied them using total chemical concentration in water (not dissolved chemical concentration).
Two aspects of this method are incorrect: the Kp values themselves and the chemical concentrations
used in the EPA risk assessment. When these are corrected for, the potential exposures and risks
associated with PAH decrease by about 1000-fold. The EPA risk assessment has also used
exposure frequency assumptions that greatly overestimate likely exposures associated with the
Hagood Avenue ditch. When more representative exposure frequencies and exposed surface areas
are employed, potential risks decrease by about 175-fold. The net effect of using more reasonable
dermal permeability and exposure frequency and contact assumptions is a decrease of about 175,000-
fold in the estimated potential risks reported in EPA's risk assessment.
-------
lj 9 049-
Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 8
The remainder of this subsection presents alternative assumptions, the basis for those
assumptions, and the effect the use of those assumptions have on the estimate of potential risk from
dioxin and PAH (the constituents of potential concern to which most of the potential risk is
attributed).
1. EPA's Selection of Dermal Absorption Constants Results in the
Overestimation of the Rate of Absorption
a. General Critique of EPA's Method for Predicting Kp Values
The Kp value for benzo(a)pyrene was applied to benzo(a)pyrene toxic
equivalents, and the Kp value for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was applied to TCDD-toxic equivalents. Neither
of these Kp values is derived from experimental data on the compounds of interest or chemicals with
similar physicochemical properties. They are estimated values derived from a regression equation
that resulted from fitting a curve to a large data set of data of chemicals of different classes. The
parameters in the regression equation are molecular weight and octanol-water partition coefficient
(Kow). These Kp are scientifically incorrect, as discussed in detail in Attachment A.
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that EPA re-evaluate the dermal permeability constants employed in the
assessment of potential risk associated with PAH and dioxins and furans in surface water and
employ permeability constants that are derived from chemicals and data with K^j similar to those
of PAH and dioxins and furans.
2. EPA's Dermal Surface Water Exposure Assumptions Overestimate COPC
Availability
EPA's surface water risk assessment is based on the concentration of total
chemicals in surface water. Dermal risk assessment, however, should be based on dissolved
chemical concentration, because all experimental and predicted Kp data listed in EPA (1992) are
based on aqueous solutions. See Attachment B. The concentrations of PAHs and dioxin and furan
congeners in the surface water drainage pathways exceed their solubilities in water. However, these
chemicals cannot be dissolved in the aqueous phase at levels exceeding their solubilities.
Accordingly, a reasonable approach for risk assessment is to assume that the chemicals are present
as dissolved species at their solubility limits and that the difference between the.measured
concentration and the solubility limit represents either particle-bound chemical or chemical present
in a free organic phase. An aqueous K. value is appropriate for the dissolved fraction. If the
nondissolved fraction is particle-bound, then very little dermal absorption of the nondissolved
fraction would occur. However, if the nondissolved fraction is assumed to be present in a free
-------
049;1
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 9
organic phase, then absorption might occur. A health-protective approach would be to use the most
conservative Kp value from studies with free organic phases.
For the potentially carcinogenic PAHs, EPA applied the highest possible
estimated aqueous Kp for benzo(a)pyrene (0.02 cm/hr) to all benzo(a)pyrene toxic equivalents. The
highest possible organic phase Kp for benzo(a)pyrene is 0.0003 cm/hr based on an experiment with
benzo(a)pyrene in crude oil, Yang et al. (1989) When this approach is used, the resulting estimate
of dermal absorption of potentially carcinogenic PAHs is over 1,000 times less than the dermal
absorption predicted by the EPA risk assessment.
No experimentally determined aqueous Kp is available for any dioxin
congeners. Organic phase Kp values range from 4 x 10~* to 6 x 10"4 cm/hr. The highest possible
organic phase Kp is 0.0006 cm/hr based on an experiment with 2,3,7,8-TCDD in mineral oil.
Weber et al. (1992) It is assumed that the aqueous phase Kp for 2,3,7,8-TCDD is 10 times the
organic phase Kp. It is also assumed that the Kp values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD are applicable to the total
TCDD-Toxic Equivalent concentrations. When this approach is used, the resulting estimate of
dermal absorption dioxin and furan congeners is over 700 times less than the dermal absorption
predicted by the EPA risk assessment.
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that EPA re-evaluate the potential exposure and risks associated with
surface water in the Hagood Avenue ditch and account for the finding that only a fraction of the
total COPC concentration measured in surface water is dissolved. The Kp values derived by EPA
are only applicable to the dissolved fraction.
3. EPA's Hagood Avenue Exposure Assumptions Are Excessive
The BRA assumed that all of the hands, arms, feet and legs of a child (age
1 to 6) would be exposed to surface water in the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch 2.6 hours per day,
24 days per year a total of 62.4 hours per year for six years. These assumptions represent excessive
exposure to surface water and sediments in a drainage ditch with steep banks, low flow and stagnant
waters located immediately adjacent to the road. These characteristics are unlikely to be attractive
to children. Therefore the most likely exposure at this location is zero. A conservative estimate
might assume that hands and feet (total surface area of 872 cm2) come into contact with surface
water and sediment in this ditch for IS minutes per day for no more than six days per year for the
assumed six year period. Use of such assumptions would lead to a reduction in potential exposure
and risk of about 175-fold.
-------
049
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 10
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that EPA re-evaluate its exposure assumptions for the Hagood Avenue
drainage ditch and employ assumptions that are more representative of the drainage ditch.
B. EPA's Derivation of the Lead Remediation Goal for Soils Is Based on Unrealistic
Exposure Assumptions
1. Subsurface Soils.
The Proposed Plan recommends a surface and subsurface remedial goal for
lead of 1150 mg/kg. This goal was derived using the Lead Uptake/Biokinetics Model (Model). The
EPA has modified the Model to protect the developing fetus of a hypothetical future female
industrial worker. The Proposed Plan has recommended application of this remedial goal to both
surface and subsurface soils. Even if one accepts all of the assumptions used to derive this remedial
goal, which Beazer does not (see below), the assumption that any industrial worker, let alone a
pregnant worker, will contact subsurface soil 219 days per year for 25 years (as assumed by EPA)
is unrealistic. The only receptors assumed to contact subsurface soils by the BRA are utility
workers and then only at a frequency of 12 days per year. Beazer believes that the assumption of
12 days per year of contact with subsurface soil is still conservative and likely to overestimate any
actual contact but is far more appropriate to use than 219 days per year. If 12 days per year of
exposure to subsurface soil is assumed, then a subsurface soil remedial goal for lead of 20,987 ppm
can be derived simply by replacing the 219 day per year exposure frequency with a 12 day per year
exposure frequency.
Beazer also recognizes that application of the Model to protection of a fetus
is a departure from past practice and required the derivation and application of new pharmacokinetic
constants. To date, Beazer has not fully evaluated all of these new pharmacokinetic constants, but
reserves the right to provide its analysis of their use to EPA at a future date.
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that EPA re-evaluate its lead exposure assumptions and upwardly adjust
the subsurface soil lead cleanup goal in the ROD to be consistent with exposure assumptions used
for other COPCs.
2. Surface soils
Beazer is not providing detailed comments on the model used by the Technical
Review Workgroup for Lead (TWO) for surface soil at this time. Beazer, however, reserves the
-------
!j 9 049--
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 11
right to comment on the model at a future date. Beazer would like to make clear that the
combination of the pharmacokinetic constants and exposure assumptions used by the TWO has the
potential to result in surface soil cleanup levels that are more stringent than necessary to achieve the
target (protective) blood lead level. The effect of some of these assumptions have been presented
to EPA at the EPA Lead Validation Workshop (Bowers 1996).
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that EPA validate the model and use Site-specific mean background
blood levels and geometric standard deviations when developing surface soil lead cleanup levels.
C. EPA's Use of the H-Statistic to Estimate Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) Is
Flawed
EPA's final human health baseline risk assessment used EPCs based upon a "nearest
neighbor" evaluation of COPC concentrations for surface and subsurface so.;s. Beazer strongly
concurs with this approach and believes it removes some of the bias associated with the approach
typically used at most Superfund sites to estimate EPCs. Specifically it accounts for the bias
associated with directed sampling plans that results from oversampling of areas anticipated to have
elevated COPC concentrations. The flaw in EPA's derivation of EPCs, however, is that the risk
assessment combined this approach with the H-statistic2 to estimate final EPCs. Beazer does not
believe the use of the H-statistic to estimate an upper bound of the arithmetic mean is appropriate,
even when combined with the nearest neighbor evaluation. The H-statistic assumes that the COPC
concentration at each sampling location is independent. It is not. The violation of this fundamental
assumption by the H-statistic leads to EPCs that overestimate the surface and subsurface soil COPC
concentration representative of long-term exposures at the Site.
Recommendations:
Beazer recommends that EPA use geostatistical techniques to derive unbiased EPCs that
account for both the non-random nature of sampling at this Site and account for the spatial
dependance of COPC concentrations in surface and subsurface soils at this Site. Beazer further
recommends that EPA use such geostatistical techniques to develop EPCs for other media, including
surface water and sediment.
The H-statistic is a statistical procedure the EPA utilized to estimate EPCs.
-------
9 049f)
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 12
V. EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Should Be Considered Only As a Screening Level
Risk Assessment
Beazer believes that the EPA Environmental Response Team (EPA-ERT) ecological
assessment ("ERT Assessment") must be considered to be a screening level risk assessment, rather
than a baseline risk assessment, because it does not include Site-specific information and it utilizes
constituent maximum values. In contrast, Beazer's ecological risk assessment, which is included
in the FS, relies on Site-specific information and, therefore, is a more appropriate baseline risk
assessment. The purpose of a baseline ecological risk assessment is to provide the risk manager
with all information including quantitative risk estimates and qualitative assessments to enable the
risk manager to make management decisions. Beazer's baseline ecological risk assessment
("BERA") satisfied these criteria.
Beazer has provided specific comments on the ERT draft assessment which were submitted
to EPA in letters dated August 2, 19S.6 and August 15, 1996. Most of these comments were not
addressed in the final ERT Assessment. Additionally, the Trustees submitted comments on Beazer's
draft BERA. Beazer addressed many of those comments in its final BERA. Beazer has included
responses to the remaining Trustee comments in a letter submitted to EPA on May 27, 1997.
Recommendation:
Beazer commends EPA's use of Beazer's BERA and the available Site-specific information
to make its risk management decisions in the Proposed Plan.
VI. The Remedy for the Drainage Ditches Should Not Require Design to City of Charleston
Future Flow Rates
Beazer agrees with EPA's stated objectives for the drainage ditches: (1) remove all ditch
sediment with concentration greater than the 5 x 10"5 cleanup goal; (2) remove and/or control the
transport of NAPL and/or dissolved phase constituents from the drainage ditch, and (3) reconstruct
the drainage ditch to provide for adequate drainage that is consistent with its future land use. The
Proposed Plan, however, calls for reconstruction of the drainage ditches to handle a 10-year, 24-
hour storm. Beazer is concerned about the practicality of reconstructing existing the drainage
ditches (e.g., the Braswell Street Drainage Ditch) to carry potential future City of Charleston design
flows and believes that the ditches should be reconstructed to carry the flows that the existing ditches
can handle. This concern is raised because there is limited room on the Site to expand the ditches
to cany the capacity required to meet future City of Charleston design flows and the drainage
ditches are located between properties not included within the Superfund Site and roadways and are
collocated with existing utilities such that reconstruction to meet the design flows may not be
possible.
-------
049
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 13
In addition to the physical impracticality associated with expanding the ditches, Beazer
believes that the Agency is without statutory authority to require such expansion. Reconstruction
of the ditches to the extent suggested by EPA would exceed the CERCLA definition of
"remediation." Expanding the ditches to meet the 10 year, 24-hour storm criteria would constitute
a capital improvement outside the realm of response costs for which Beazer is responsible.
Recommendation:
Beazer requests that EPA, at a minimum, either reconsider the need to meet City of
Charleston design flows or include flexibility in the ROD for alternative design criteria.
VII. The Remedy for Soils Should Include the Option for Either On-Site or Off-Site Disposal
The soil remedy discussed in the Proposed Plan includes the excavation of an estimated
12,000 tons of soil (this represents a cleanup level of 20 ppm B(a)P-TE in surface soil and 275 ppm
in subsurface soil). Under the proposed remedy, the soil will be disposed off-Site. The FS,
however, also evaluated the feasibility of on-Site disposal of the excavated soil. As depicted in the
following chart, Options 3A (off-Site disposal) and 3B (on-Site disposal) are rated equally.
Alternative
No.
3A
3B
Alternative
Off-Site Disposal
an estimated
12,000 tons
On-Site Disposal
an estimated
12,000 tons
Cost
$3,313,000
$3,077,000
The current cost differential between these two options is relatively small and the difference in cost
will vary based on the volume of soil and sediments that are remediated. However, the LDRs for
woodtreating wastes were promulgated on May 12, 1997. Although a two-year capacity variance
exists, excavation may not be completed by this deadline. Ac a result, increased disposal costs for
impacted soils due to the LDRs will upset the cost balance between on-Site and off-Site disposal in
favor-of on-Site disposal. As off-Site disposal costs increase, the on-Site landfill may be more cost-
effective while achieving the same level of risk reduction as the off-Site disposal option. Although
EPA has proposed the excavation of an estimated 12,000 tons of soil, Beazer believes that
Alternative 5C described in the FS (excavation of an estimated 5,300 tons of soil and an 11 acre
-------
o 9 0497
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 14
cap) is the most cost-effective, protective and ARAR-compliant alternative. However, as a
compromise to address concerns raised by the State, Beazer agreed to excavate an estimated 12,000
tons of soil and cap 11 acres.3 Because the LDRs have been promulgated, to utilize an on-Site
landfill, the Site must be designated as an Area of Contamination ("AOC") in accordance with the
National Contingency Plan (55 Fed.Reg. 8758-8760, March 8, 1990). Furthermore, Beazer believes
that EPA should retain Alternative 5C as a contingent alternative in the ROD should Beazer be
unable to complete the soil remedy by May 11, 1999 (the end of the LDR capacity variance period).
Recommendation:
EPA has selected Option 3A, "Excavation and Off-Site Disposal." Beazer requests that (1)
EPA broaden this alternative in the ROD to include either off-Site or on-Site disposal; (2) the Site
be designated as an AOC; (3) the selection of the ultimate disposal option be retained for the
remedial design stage; and (4) EPA retain Alternative 5C in the ROD as an option, should Beazer
be unable to complete the soil remedy by May 11, 1999.
VIII. The Groundwater Remedy Presented in the FS Is Protective
The preferred groundwater remedy identified in the FS (Alternative 3) consists of a phased
approach utilizing 14 wells. However, pursuant to discussions with SCDHEC on January 14, 1997,
Beazer, in the spirit of cooperation and compromise, offered to include additional wells as part of
the groundwater remedy to address the concerns expressed by Richard Haynes on behalf of
SCDHEC. Beazer's proposed additions to the groundwater remedy addressed in the FS included
the installation of three shallow and three intermediate water-bearing unit recovery wells and the
recovery of NAPL from two existing recovery wells. Rather than select a groundwater/NAPL
alternative described in the FS, EPA's proposed remedy includes Beazer's January 14, 1997
compromise offer to include additional wells.
It appears from SCDHEC's discussion in the State Acceptance section of the Proposed Plan,
that Beazer's offer to install additional wells is not acceptable to SCDHEC. Because Beazer believes
that Alternative 3 as proposed in the FS is protective and further because Beazer proposed the
additional wells for the sole purpose of compromise with SCDHEC, Beazer believes that
Alternative 3 as proposed in the FS and Alternative 4 (as a contingent alternative) should be adopted
in the ROD. Selection of Alternatives 3 and 4 as the groundwater remedy satisfies EPA's goals
- 3 As discussed below, it is apparent that the SCDHEC has rejected Beazer's proposal. Although Beazer remains
willing to implement Alternative 3A, that willingness is conditioned upon Beazer's ability to complete the soil remedy
prior to end of the LDR capacity variance period on May 11, 1999. If, due to the State's nonconcurrence with the
remedy. Beazer is unable to complete the soil remedy by that date, Beazer believes that EPA should require only that
Alternative 5C be met.
-------
I) 9 ' . 0493
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 15
because these alternatives utilize a mixture of technologies, including emerging in-situ technologies
and a phased approach to implementing the remedy. Because Beazer is committed to collecting
NAPL to the extent possible, this approach allows the most cost-effective implementation of the
remedy.
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that the groundwater remedy be implemented in a phased manner and
that the ROD reflect the 14 wells discussed in the FS as the initial phase of the groundwater remedy.
IX. EPA Must Clearly Differentiate Between Remedial Activities and Restoration Activities
in the Barge Canal
Beazer concurs that capping is the most suitable alternative for the Barge Canal. However,
Beazer would like to correct a misunderstanding regarding this alternative which may stem from the
discussion of the alternative in the FS. The alternative, as set forth in the FS and as currently
described in the Proposed Plan, combines both "response" work encompassed by Sections 107(4)(A)
and (4)(B) of CERCLA and "restoration" which is a form of compensation for natural resource
damages which may be sought by Trustees pursuant to Section 107(4)(c). As specified in the FS,
the habitat enhancements which were included as a component of this remedial alternative were
evaluated to partially satisfy CERCLA requirements related to compensation under Section 122(j)(2)
of CERCLA.
As you know, Beazer has been engaged in discussions with the Natural Resource Trustees
with the goal of developing an acceptable restoration plan which would address the alleged impact(s)
on natural resources of constituents of concern from the woodtreating operations. Based upon
Beazer's analysis of these alleged impacts, establishing a tidally-influenced hydrologic regime in the
Barge Canal would constitute restoration sufficient to compensate for any such alleged damages.
Therefore, in developing the remedial alternative for the Barge Canal, Beazer analyzed more than
the work necessary to remediate the area of potential ecological concern, Beazer analyzed the effort
necessary for the potential restoration project. Thus, the work described in Alternative 2B includes
efforts which go beyond remediation (response work) and which constitute "restoration" of natural
resources. Alternative 2B describes the cubic yards necessary for both response work and
restoration work, but does not break them out individually.
The remediation goal for the Barge Canal is to "contain COC-iinpacted sediments."' As
indicated in the FS, this goal will be accomplished by the placement of a cap over the approximate
3.2 acre Barge Canal. The amount of fill necessary for such a cap is approximately 4700 cubic
yards. As described in the FS, during pre-design, a precondition topographic survey to determine
elevations of existing Spartina alterniflora communities will be performed. That survey will indicate
-------
b 9 0499
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 16
the extra amount of fill necessary to define target and threshold elevations that would ensure the
establishment of a tidally-influenced hydrologic regime. For the FS purpose of estimating the total
amount of fill necessary, the existing topography map of the Barge Canal and areas of established
Spartina were used to estimate required fill volume, resulting in a total estimate of 28,000 cubic
yards. In addition, the design of the proposed cap discussed in this alternative takes into account
the parameters necessary to establish a tidally-influenced hydrologic regime ("two foot top layer
prepared mixture meeting specific requirements for organic content pH and particle size").
Recommendation:
To the extent that the work and costs contained in Alternative 2B are necessary to restore
natural resources rather than to remediate the impact of hazardous substances or remediate the
consequences of implementation of the remedy, they should not be discussed in the ROD as a
component of this remedial alterative. While Beazer remains open to considering implementation
of these restoration measures, Beazer believes that these measures and associated costs should be
removed from the ROD and that Alternative 2B and its costs should be revised to reflect only a
remedial cap.
Thus, any discussion in the ROD relating to the "Capping of Barge Canal Sediments"
alternative should read as follows:
Under this alternative, impacted sediments in the 3.2 acre Barge Canal would be capped.
An estimated 4700 cubic yards of fill is required to meet this objective. Engineering controls would
be needed to control the release of suspended sediments during construction. Total present worth
= $275,000.
X. The Placement of Lead-Impacted Soil in the Barge Canal Mav Not Be the Most
Appropriate Remedy
EPA presented three alternatives in the Proposed Plan for lead-impacted soils. Alternative
1 is the No Action Alternative which consists of deed restrictions to limit future land use. The net
present worth presented for this Alternative is $13,000. Alternative 2 is the Containment
Alternative and it includes capping of soils that exceed the cleanup goal for lead and arsenic. The
net present worth of this Alternative is $1,051,000. Alternative 3 is the Confined Disposal Option.
This Alternative includes excavation of a portion of the lead-impacted soils, placement of the soils
in the Barge Canal and capping of the remaining soils that exceed the capacity of the Barge Canal.
A cost is not provided in the Proposed Plan for this Alternative.
EPA correctly characterized the lead-impacted soil as attributable to Conoco's and Agrico's
former Ashepoo Phosphate/Fertilizer Works, and not related to woodtreating operations.
-------
b 9 0500
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 17
Accordingly, Beazer is not responsible and will not pay for any response costs associated with
remediation of lead-impacted soils in the Barge Canal. As noted in EPA's Proposed Plan, EPA has
not provided cost estimates for the implementation of Alternative 3. EPA has stated that incremental
costs are expected for the design and material handling and will be estimated in the final ROD.
Beazer agrees that there will be increased costs for implementation of Alternative 3. These costs
could include, but would not be limited to, significant costs to design a suitable containment that
would be acceptable to all reviewing regulatory agencies, material handling costs, monitoring costs
and capping costs for the soils that would not be placed in the Barge Canal due to lack of capacity.
In addition to these costs, Alternative 3 presents increased "costs" in terms of risk associated
with the disposal of the lead-impacted soil. For example, under Alternative 3, the disposal of these
soils in the Barge Canal could result in potential future liability should these soils leach or become
exposed due to unanticipated erosion. Beazer is not responsible for the lead-impacted soils and
should not be subjected to increased exposure to liability resulting from the management of these
. soils. Accordingly, Beazer opposes the placement of lead-impacted soil in the Barge Canal absent
receipt of a covenant not to sue from EPA for releases to the Barge Canal of constituents from the
lead-impacted soils and a covenant not to sue from the Natural Resource Trustees for any natural
resource damages related to placement of the lead-impacted soils in the Barge Canal.
Beazer believes that Alternative 2 would provide the same level of risk reduction as
Alternative 3 (which EPA selected in the Proposed Plan), and that Alternative 2 could potentially
be implemented at a lower cost than Alternative 3. Alternative 2 describes the cap as consisting of
a subgrade material, compacted common fill, and a vegetative top. Several types of caps and
capping materials could be utilized that would meet the remedial objectives for these soils. Beazer
suggests, therefore, that the ROD for these soils provide the flexibility to allow for the selection of
capping materials during detail design.
Recommendations:
Beazer recommends that EPA clearly state in the ROD that Conoco and Agrico are
responsible for all response costs associated with the lead-impacted soils. Beazer further
recommends that EPA provide flexibility in the ROD to allow the implementation of Alternative 2
or 3 (provided the above-discussed covenants are provided). Both Alternatives provide equal levels
of risk reduction. Beazer also recommends that the ROD provide flexibility in the design of
Alternative 2 to allow the selection of the cap during detailed design phase.
-------
050
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 18
XI. The Promulgation of Universal Treatment Standards ("UTS") for the Wood Treating
Wastes Will Increase the Costs of the Remedy
The UTS for EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F032, F034 and F035 were promulgated on May
12, 1997 and a two-year capacity variance was established for impacted soil and debris. As
discussed in the FS, the new treatment standards will have a significant impact on the remedial
technologies evaluated. The new standards will result in significantly increased treatment costs
which will correspondingly increase the remedial costs estimated in the Proposed Plan. Under ideal
circumstances, Beazer and EPA could work together to facilitate completion of all portions of the
remedy where costs are impacted by soil disposal (e.g., soils/ditch sediments).4 However, as
discussed below, unless the State concurs with the remedy, rapid initiation of the remedy may be
impossible due to the uncertainty associated with the State's position. As a result, the potential
exists that the foundation for the proposed remedy may be undermined by the promulgation of the
UTS for wood preserving wastes because all cost estimates in the FS for management of soil and
debris will no longer be valid once the LDR capacity variance period ends.
Recommendation:
Beazer recommends that EPA work with Beazer to resolve the State's issues and to facilitate
the implementation of the remedy within the variance period. As a contingent measure, EPA should
designate the Site as an AOC and include an on-Site disposal option in the ROD.
XII. The State of South Carolina Nonconcurrence with the Remedy Poses Significant
Implementation Issues
The Proposed Plan states that the State of South Carolina does not concur with the proposed
remedies and includes a discussion under the section entitled "State Acceptance" drafted by
SCDHEC which sets forth its position. It appears that SCDHEC believes that EPA's remedy could
include more stringent cleanup levels and additional wells for groundwater remediation. Beazer does
not believe that SCDHEC has a valid basis for objecting to the Proposed Plan. Moreover, Beazer
believes that South Carolina's nonconcurrence will create confusion and the likelihood that EPA and
the State might seek inconsistent and/or duplicative action at the Site. The potential wasted
resources and transaction costs which may be expended as a result of these unresolved political
differences cannot be justified.
In the Alternative. EPA could designate the Site as an AOC thereby making the LDRs inapplicable to the
management of Site soils and allow for the use of an on-Site landfill, as discussed above.
-------
lj 9
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 19
At a minimum, it will be difficult to determine how or whether to implement the soil
components of the remedy. For example, Beazer will not be able to cap any areas of the Site unless
it is assured that the State will not require further excavation. Furthermore, selection of the most
cost-effective treatment/disposal option for soils will depend upon the volume of soils involved.
Until the State's position is determined, it would be arbitrary for EPA to require Beazer to utilize
off-Site disposal only to later decide that additional soils require excavation and the added volume,
in hindsight, would have made on-Site disposal more cost-effective. Under the worst case, such a
decision could result in a delay in excavation until the LDR capacity variance expires. In that case,
Beazer would face even higher treatment costs or the construction of an on-Site landfill that could
have contained the soils sent off-Site had it been utilized from the beginning of the project. From
these examples, it is clear that much uncertainty will exist regarding the implementability of the soil
portion of the ROD until the State issues are resolved.
A. EPA and the State of South Carolina Have Not Followed Applicable Guidance and
the NCP
As an initial matter, Beazer believes that the agencies have not followed EPA
guidance to resolve their differences. According to EPA's "Guidance on Preparing Superfund:
Decision Documents, the Proposed Plan, the Record of Decision, Explanation of Significant
Differences, the Record of Decision Amendment," Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
July, 1989 ("Decision Document Guidance"), when a dispute arises between the lead and support
agencies, the dispute resolution process specified in the Memorandum of Understanding or the
process specified in Subpart F of the National Contingency Plan ("NCP") should be utilized.
Decision Document Guidance, p. 3-7. See Attachment C. The MOU between EPA Region IV and
SCDHEC sets forth a dispute resolution protocol. See Attachment D. Under the protocol, the
parties are to confer in good faith to attempt to resolve any disagreements. MOU, p. 31. However,
the parties to the MOU recognize that "honest disagreements in technical evaluations and judgment
occur among professionals and further acknowledge that such disagreements may be unresolvable..."
MOU, p. 32. According to the MOU, in such circumstances, "deference will be given to the lead
agency unless the disagreement is considered by the agencies to be fundamental in the selection of
the remedy." Id. The parties agree that a "disagreement fundamental in nature" is one which
serves to form an essential and necessary component of the remedy selection process, that, without
said component, will render the remedy selection as arbitrary and capricious. Id. In that case, the
parties are to refer to the formal rulemaking procedures of Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedures Act. Id- Beazer does not believe that the disagreement between EPA and SCDHEC can
be characterized as "fundamental in nature" as SCDHEC has acknowledged that EPA's proposed
remedy "will be of benefit in the reduction of risk at the site."
Subpart F of the NCP, "State Involvement in Hazardous Substance Response," (40
C.F.R. Part 300) outlines a dispute resolution process that EPA Regions and States should use to
resolve disputes that arise during the RI/FS and remedy selection process. This approach
-------
9 050:,
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 20
encourages the lead and support agencies' Remedial Project Managers to resolve any disputes
promptly. If this cannot be accomplished, the issue could be referred to their supervisors for further
EPA/State consultation. This supervisory referral and resolution process should continue, if
necessary, to the level of Director of the State Agency and the Regional Administrator, respectively.
If agreement still cannot be reached, the dispute should be referred to the Assistant Administrator
of OSWER who serves as final arbiter.
Beazer understands that officials at the highest level of Region IV and SCDHEC
conferred over the issues presented in the State Acceptance section of the Proposed Plan. Although
Beazer commends EPA for its diligence, to be consistent with Decision Document Guidance, the
dispute should be resolved either in accordance with the MOU or with Subpart F of the NCP. The
Decision Document Guidance clearly states that "the mutual acceptance by EPA and the State is
crucial to effecting cleanup at the Site." Decision Document Guidance, p. 3-8. Enforcement of the
remedy without such acceptance would be arbitrary and capricious..
B. The SCDHEC's Proposed Plan Exceeds EPA's Acceptable Risk Ranee and Is
Unsupported
SCDHEC presents it own Proposed Plan in the State Acceptance section of the EPA
Proposed Plan that is significantly, $8,314,000, more expensive than EPA's. As a threshold issue,
Beazer believes that EPA must respond to the SCDHEC Proposed Plan in its comments and hereby
requests that EPA do so and support the EPA Proposed Plan. A comparison of the costs of the
SCDHEC proposal to the EPA Proposed Plan shows that the only difference between the two is the
cost of the soil and drainage ditch sediments remedy. This is true even though SCDHEC provided
comments on the groundwater/NAPL remedy. The SCDHEC proposed remedy is based upon risk
levels that are more stringent than EPA's acceptable risk range and is therefore, outside EPA's
statutory authority. With respect to the issues raised by SCDHEC in the Proposed Plan, Beazer
provides the following comments:
1. SCDHEC believes that the Proposed Plan departs from EPA's usual method
of selecting remedies at the "more protective" end of the risk range.
Although it is not clear from SCDHEC' s comment, SCDHEC may be referring
to EPA's use of residual risk methodology to establish the soil cleanup levels. The use of residual
risk technology focussed the remedial activities on the areas of greatest potential risk and maximized
the risk reduction achieved. EPA has utilized residual risk methodology at other NPL sites,
including the Texarkana Wood Preserving Company site and the South Calvacade Wood Preserving
site. -
As for the issue of EPA's departure from setting cleanup levels at the 1 X
risk level, the NCP clearly provides that the 1 x 10"6 risk level is a point of departure and that
-------
ii 9 050-i
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 21
has discretion to set cleanup levels anywhere within the 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6 risk range. 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.430. Region IV utilized valued engineering to establish the risk level for the Site. Use of
valued engineering is not new to Region IV. In fact, Region IV has utilized valued engineering to
establish risk levels at the Helena Chemical Company Landfill Site, located in Fairfax, South
Carolina. The SCDHEC concurred in the remedy for the Helena Chemical Company Landfill site.
(See Attachment E)
Region IV has not always established the risk level at the most protective end of the range.
For example, Region IV has utilized the 10"5 risk level at the Golden Strip Septic Tank Service NPL
site and the Palmetto Recycling, Inc. NPL site. (See Attachments F and G) At the Golden Strip
site, FPA selected a target risk of 1 x 10"5 for arsenic even though SCDHEC suggested a risk level
of 1 x 10'6. Although EPA and SCDHEC disagreed on the cleanup level, SCDHEC still concurred
with the remedy. At the Palmetto Recycling, Inc. site, concentrations of arsenic and beryllium
exceeding risks of 6 x 10"6 and 2 x 10'5, respectively, were left in place at the site. SCDHEC also
concurred with this remedy. Other RODs identified for South Carolina sites have stated that cleanup
levels will be within "EPA's risk range," implying that the levels may not all be established at the
1 x 10'6 risk level.
2. SCDHEC suggests that the EPA BRA was not conservative enough.
Beazer strongly disagrees with SCDHEC's assessment of the EPA BRA. As
discussed in great detail above and in several of the attachments, EPA's BRA overestimated
potential risk for several pathways by a factor of 1000 for PAHs and 700 for dioxin and furan
congeners. For the Hagood Avenue drainage ditch, potential risk was overestimated by 175,000
fold.
3. Based on its belief that a risk level of 1 x 10"6 should be utilized, SCDHEC
suggests that an estimated 39,000 tons of soil should be excavated and a 31
acre cap should be installed.
As an initial matter, Beazer believes that Alternative 5C (excavation of an
estimated 5,300 tons of soil and 11 acre cap) is the most cost-effective, protective and ARAR-
compliant alternative proposed in the FS. Again, however, in the spirit of compromise, Beazer has
agreed to excavate an estimated 12,000 tons of soil and cap 11 acres. The soil remedy as proposed
in the Proposed Plan is therefore already more conservative than necessary. Furthermore,
SCDHEC's proposal does not account for the additional risk associated with excavation of greater
volumes of soil.
The Proposed Plan includes a Table entitled "Determination of Soil Excavation
Level" which depicts the residual risk based on the quantity of soil removed. The Table shows (1)
EPA's protective risk range, (2) the B(a)P-TE soil cleanup level surface/subsurface soil ratio, (3)
-------
0505
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 22
the estimated tons of soil to be excavated and (4) the estimated residual risk achieved. Although
the Table suggests that the greatest reduction of residual risk would be realized by excavation of
greater volumes of soil, it does not reflect the added short-term risk, time delay and increased cost
associated with such excavation. For example, the differential in cost between excavating an
estimated 12,000 tons of soil versus an estimated 39,000 tons of soil (the amount suggested by
SCDHEC based on establishing cleanup levels using the BRA) is $5,236,000. Moreover, this
increase in cost does not account for time delays and the added risk to the public of transportation-
related accidents associated with the management of additional soil volumes. EPA must account for
these added "costs" should it consider requiring the excavation of additional soils and revise the
Table in the ROD. By revising the Table to reflect the actual "costs" associated with the excavation
of additional soils, it will become even more evident that the proposed remedy is cost-effective and
protective.
Moreover, SCDHEC's proposal also does not account for the protective value added
by the cap. The following Table shows that once capping is included with excavation (Options 5A
through 5D) the area of the cap determines the level of risk reduction and the volume of soil
excavated has no impact on the risk reduction achieved (e.g., Options 5A and 5C include capping
the same area, but 5C includes excavating a smaller volume). The resulting residual risks are the
same, but Option 5C is approximately $1,200,000 less expensive because a smaller volume of soil
is excavated. SCDHEC's proposal to excavate an estimated 39,000 tons would result in an even
greater cost differential ($5,236,000) with a disproportionately small reduction of risk. Moreover,
the above Table shows that capping 31 acres (Option 5B) (also, the second part of SCDHEC's
proposal for soils) results in a residual risk which is less than EPA's protective range (8.6 x 10"8).
Thus, EPA has no authority to enforce a remedy this stringent. In fact, EPA rejected Option 5B
on that basis.
Alternative
No.
1
2
3A
3B
- 4A
Alternative1
No Action
Containment
6.7 acres capped
Off-Site Disposal
12.000 tons
On-Site Disposal
12,000 tons
On-Site Thermal Desoiption
9.000 tons
Off-Site Incineration
3.000 tons
Residual Risk
Achieved
NA
Ix 1O*
Ix 10"5
lxlO-J
1 x ID"3
Cost
$13.000
SI. 938.000
S3.313.000
$3.077.000
$8.986.000
Comparison
to EPA's
Proposed Plan
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-------
050
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 23
Alternative
No.
4B
4C
5A
5B
5C
Alternative1
On-Site Thermal Desorpiion
9.000 tons
Off-Site Disposal
3.000 tons
Off-Site Incineration
12.000 tons
Excavation
12.000 tons
Cap 11 acres
Excavation
12.000 tons
Cap 31 acres
Excavation
5,300 tons
Cap 1 1 acres
Residual Risk
Achieved
1 x 10'5
1 x 10s
2.4 x IO"6
8.6 x IO4
2.4 x 10*
Cost
S6.436.000
$13.513,000
S4.363.0002
S5.986.0003
S3.173.0002
Comparison
to EPA's
Proposed Plan
N/A
N/A
•SI. 066.000
+ $557.000
-52.256,000
Areas and volunici arc cstinuied.
Tins eiunuie presumes ihai «cavaied soils will be disposed of off-She.
The following alternatives were not included in the FS.
Alternative
No.
EPA Proposal
SCDHEC Proposal
Alternative1
Excavation
12.000 tons
Cap 24.5 acres
Excavation
39.000 tons
Cap 31 acres
Residual Risk
Achieved
1.1 x 10*
8.6 x 10"1
Cost
$5.429,0001
Sll.418.0002
Comparison
to EPA'f
Proposed Plan
0
•I-S5.989.000
I.
2.
Aral tod volumes tn
This canutc prauma tai ozavwed mb wB be disputed of off-Sin.
4. SCDHEC does not agree with EPA's phased approach to groundwater/NAPL
remediation.
Although SCDHEC states that it agrees with EPA's three stated remediation
objectives, and the areas requiring groundwater/NAPL remediation, it does not concur with the
conceptual approach proposed by EPA. The conceptual approach presented by Beazer in the FS and
-------
J 9 0507
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
"Page 24
proposed by EPA in the Proposed Plan is to implement the groundwater/NAPL remedy in a phased
manner. Initially, seven shallow water-bearing unit wells and one intermediate water-bearing unit
well were to be installed as part of the IRA. These wells were to be operated, and based on the
results, recommendations would be made during the detailed design of the groundwater/NAPL
remedy as to the number of wells and the placement of wells to complete the implementation of the
groundwater remedy in .this area. Additionally, Beazer planned to phase in withdrawals from the
intermediate water-bearing unit because of concern that withdrawals from this unit may mobilize
NAPL currently contained on the shallow clay. Operation of the IRA extraction system will provide
data to assist in the evaluation of the potential for mobilization of NAPL. Based on this approach,
the FS included a reasonable number of extraction wells in these areas and the water-bearing units
of potential concern.
In the spirit of cooperation and in an attemm to satisfy SCDHEC concerns,
Beazer offered to include additional wells in the groundwater/NAPL remedy beyond those which
are technically justified. It is this revised groundwater/NAPL remedy that EPA included in the
Proposed Plan and with which SCDHEC does not concur.5 As discussed above, Beazer is not
willing to compromise without the State's concurrence on the remedy.
Beazer firmly believes that a phased approach to the groundwater/NAPL
remedy is the most effective and scientifically sound approach. As data is collected and evaluated,
informed decisions can be made as to the placement and operation of extraction wells. This
approach, as endorsed by EPA, is the most effective approach to this media to meet the three EPA
and SCDHEC agreed upon remediation objectives. Additionally, this approach allows a cautious
evaluation of extraction from the intermediate water-bearing unit that will not mobilize NAPL and
potentially make conditions worse at the Site. This approach is also consistent with EPA's
Presumptive Remedy Strategy on Groundwater Contamination. See Attachment H. Finally, EPA's
phased approach should not be considered novel. Beazer has identified two South Carolina NPL
sites which contemplate a phased approach to groundwater remediation.6 SCDHEC has concurred
with the remedies at both of these sites.
Recommendations:
Beazer recommends that consistent with the MOU, SCDHEC should defer to EPA's selected
remedy. Should SCDHEC not defer to EPA, Beazer recommends that EPA, nonetheless, adopt the
Proposed Plan in the ROD, as modified by Beazer*s comments presented herein.
As discussed above. Beazer believes that since SCDHEC has rejected Beazer's offer in compromise, EPA should
adopt groundwater Alternative 3 as discussed in the FS and Alternative 4 as a contingent alternative.
The two sites are
(See Attachments I and J).
The two sites are the Kalama Specialty site and the Sangamo Weston/Twelve-Mile Creek/Hartwell PCB site.
-------
9 0503
Mr. Craig Zeller
May 30, 1997
Page 26
Recommendation:
To avoid inconsistency, adverse impacts on implementation of the ROD and the potential that
Beazer will not concur with a remedial or removal action that EPA directs Conoco/Agrico to
undertake, Beazer recommends that all proposed work to be undertaken at the Site by
Conoco/Agrico or other responsible entities be reviewed and approved by Beazer.
In addition to the comments presented above, Beazer believes that additional documents
should be included in the Administrative Record for this Site. Accordingly, Beazer has compiled
the list of documents presented at Attachment K and requests that EPA include these documents in
the Administrative Record.
In conclusion, Beazer requests that the Agency give full consideration to the foregoing
comments. We are prepared to discuss any of these issues further with you upon request.
Respectfully submitted,
fo IC^L.
Billie S. Flaherty, Esquire
Manager, Environmental and
Administration
Beazer East, Inc.
cc: Shannon K. Craig
Paul Anderson
Douglas Simmons
-------
JUN-03-97 TUE Cl:22 PM Th» Harmonv Project
803 577 2103
P.Bl
fj 9 0509
P R O J F C
A partnership (or sustainable
FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
Craig Zcllcr
FROM:
FAX NO.:
DATE:
Mel Goodwin
404-562-8788
May 31,1997
NUMBER OF PACES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET):
COMMENTS:
Hi, Craig
Here are our comments on the Proposed Plan for the Koppers Site.
Please let me know if any points need amplifying. Thanks a lot!
P. O. BOX 21655 • CHARLESTON, S.C. Z9413 • 8O3-5T7-21O3
-------
TUE 01:22 PM The Harmon* Project 803 377 2103 P.02
\
$ 9 0510
.THE,
P R O J E C TV^
/I partnership for sustainable communities
May 31, 1997
Mr. Craig Zeller
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Waste Management Division
Atlanta Federal Center
6 IForsyth Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Dear Mr. Zeller
This letter is submitted on behalt or'the hour Mile Hibernian Community Association in
respop.se to the Superfund Proposed Plan Fact Sheet dated March 1997 for the Koppers
Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant) NPLSite.
Residents in the neighborhoods adjacent to the Koppers site wish to offer the following
comments in regard to the Proposed Plan:
1. Residents are not in favor of cleanup strategies that have not been previously shown to
be effective in similar applications. Residents request site-specific documentation of
results achieved at other contaminated sites where these techniques have been used. This
issue is of particular concern with regard to the proposed procedure for remediating
contaminated sediments in the Ashley River and adjacent marsh.
2. Residents request assurance that no further development, use. or re-use of the site is to
take place until cleanup levels specified in the Final Record of Decision have been
achieved, and all mirigarion mrasums am romplfctwi. In particular, remediation objectives
for groundwater/HAPL at source areas on-site must be achieved before cleanup can be
considered complete.
3. Given the uncertainty of assumptions u$ed to calculate cleanup levels for lead,
residents would prefer that the more conservative assumptions used by SCDHEC be used
to calculate the final cleanup level.
4. Insufficient details ore provided to adequately evaluate the ramifications of cleanup
Alternative 5A (additional capping) for contaminated soils. Based on the information
presented in the Proposed Plan, residents object to the use of crushed stone as o capping
material because
(a) Large amounts of dust are likely to be generated which would negatively
impact the adjacent neighborhoods; and
(b) Tlicie is no mention of means to contain the capping material in its intended
location. Without some sort of retention crushed stone is likely to be scattered
aud dunned - paitlcularly if there is heavy vehicle traffic on the site -
reducing the effectiveness of the cap.
P. O. BOX 21655 • CHARLESTON, s.c. zt*4l3 • 803-077-2roa
------- |