United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R03-88/044
March 1988
Super-fund
Record of Decision:
Chisman Creek, VA
-------
SGm -1ft1
REPORT DOCUMENTATION II. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R03-88/044
2.
3. Recipient's Acc..slon No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Chisman Creek, VA
IIItnd Remedial Action - Final
5. RepoffJ)"!J./ 8 7
a.
--
, 7. AuthOr(S)
a. Performin. Orlanization Rept. No.
- -,. Performl"l O,..nlzatton Name and Add,.ss
10. ProJect/Task/Worie Unit No.
.- --
--
II. Contl'8ct(C) or Grant(G) No.
eC)
eG)
12. Sponsori"l O,..nlzatlon Name and Add,..s
U.S. Environmental Protection
-~ 401 M street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report .. Period eov.,.d
---
Agency
800/000
14.
~ 15. Supplementary Notes
I" Ab8t1'8Ct (Umlt: 2GO -rds)
Th~ Chisman Creek site is located near Grafton in York County, Virginia. This ROD
addresses operable unit two, which consists of three ponds (designated A, B, and C), the
freshwater tributary, and the Chisman Creek -estuary. The. site is located within the
watershed of Chisman Creek, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. App~oximately 500 to -
1,000 people live within one mile of the site. Between 1957 and 1974, fly ash fro~ the
V~rginia. Power Yorktown P~wer Ge~erating station was disposed of in four abandoned sand
gravel borrow pits located approximately two miles south of the generating station.
~ fly ash disposal areas, designated Areas A, B, C, and D, became known as the Chisman
Creek Superfund site. Between 1971 and 1973, all fly ash in Area D was removed and
deposited in Area C. Area D was reportedly filled with construction rubble generated
during the construction of public utilities in the area at that time. After a domestic
well showed discolored water in 1980, the Virginia State Water Control Board (SWCB) and
Virginia State Board of Health sampled residential ground water in the vicinity of the
fly ash areas to determine the types and concentrations of contaminants present. The
Virginia Institute of Marine Science and SWCB conducted additional studies to determine
the nature and extent of area contamination. The first operable unit ROD was signed in
September 1986. The remedial action, begun in November 1987, includes: placing a soil
(See Attached Sheet)
-
,
17. Document Analysis a. Oncrtpto,.
Record of Decision
Chisman Creek, VA
Second Remedial Action -
Con tamina ted Media:- sw
Kev Contaminants: metals
b. 1dantlflers/Open-Ended Terms
Final
(arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, vanadium)
c. COSATI Field/Group
1~labllity Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
21. No. 0' Pa...
47
--
20. Security Class (This Pale)
None
22. Price
(5.. ANSI-Z39.11)
See '"structlons on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
~ROD/R03-88/044
....man Creek, VA
~ Second Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
~
cover on two areas and a clay cap on a third area; relocating a portion of the
tributary; providing an alternate water supply for residential areas; and post-closure
monitoring. At the request of EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted the
second operable unit remedial investigation to evaluate the impact of contaminants at
the site on fish and wildlife resources and their habitat. Chemical analysis of the
~ physical environment and biota of the site for operable unit two focused on eight
metals. These were arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and
zinc. The most ubiquitous and abundant metals were nickel and vanadium. Bioassays
. showed the surface water quality in Ponds Band C to be below ARAR levels, and sediment
from the Chisman Creek estuary to have no adverse impacts from the contaminants. Fish
from the freshwater ponds and oysters from Chisman Creek have not been. impacted. Human
health risks from consumption of fish and oysters, or accidental ingestion of surface
water and sediments are all within EPA guidelines for acceptable risks. The primary.
contaminants of concern affecting surface water in Area A include nickel and vanadium.
/
The select~d remedial action for this site includes: diversion of surface" runoff from
Area A (covered with soil in Operable Unit One) into Pond A, and water quality .
monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of both operable units. The estimated present
~h cost for this remedia~ action i~ $137,000. .
-
-------
DB:.'tAMTION FOR THE R!D)R[) or D!X:ISION
SITE NAHI AM) LOCATION
ChiSNin Creek SUperfund Site - Operable tk1it Two
Grafton, 'lork County, Vir9inia
STATEMENt' OF PURPOS!
This decision doc:\D8nt represents the S81ec:ted r..sial action for
this si te developed in acc:ordanc8 with CEtCLA, as 88nded by SARA, and
to the extent prac1:icable, the National Continqenc:y Plan.
'!'he State of Vir9inia has concurred on the S818Ct8d rea8dy.
STATEMENt' OF BASIS
This decision is based upon the ac:Dinistrative. record (index attachad) .
~e attached index identifies the items which ccn~n- the ac:Dinistrative
record upon which the SttJ,ection of a r..sial action is based.
DESCRIPTION or THE SELEX:'1'm REMmY
Operable tk1it TwO consists of three ponds (d8signated A, S, and C) ,
the freshwater tributary, and the Chi,sun Creek estuary. At the request
of EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service conducted the Operable unit
two REmedial Investi9ation to evaluate the impBCt of containants at .
the site on fish and wildlife resources and their habitat.
The Record of oecision for Operable unit one was signed on
September 3a, 1986 and remedial action began in November, 1987. Specific
actions include: placing a soil cover on tWO areas and a clay cap
on a third ar_~ installing a subsurface drain system and treatinq the
ground water; relocating a portion of the tributary~ providing an
alternate water supply for residential ar_~ and post closure IIIOnitor-
in9. Operable t)1i t QW r..sial action is sch8duled to be ~let8
in December, 1988.
't'tw 88l.8c:t8 I " for Operable unit TWo, &\JEface Dl:ainaqe Maclin..
cation -- Pan4 a. ~d8 diverting surface cunoff fraa Area A
into PaDA. *icb di8d\Kc;es to the fr_hwatft tributary at the outlet
of PaId Mi... IftIi8 alt8mative also inc:lud88 a _ter quality -,itodng
pr~- foc 8K'b of the ponds to evaluate the effectiv.... of the
remedial "-If. ilIIpl88'ted by Operable units QW and Two.
The No Action altemative wu cho88ft for the tributary and the
estuary, howver, each alternative inc:1ud88 a _tar quality monitoring .
program. The IIIOnitoring progr- for: the ponr!8, t:h8 tributary, and
.the estuary will be furt:h8r d8ve10ped ~ing the r...sial d8siqn and may
include, but not be limited to, watar quality analysts, sedia8nt quality
analysis, and "tri998r values" for both watar and sedim8nt that will
determine the appropriat:enHS of additi~l bioassays.
-------
- 2 -
Du::tARAftC»
. '1'h8 _lect8c! r8l8dies for Operable tk1its one and 't\oIo ar.
prot:ec:tive of h\Dan health and the envirorment, attain Faral and
State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate,
and are cost-effective. These rEJm8dies satisfy the preferenc8 for
treatment that redur:as toxicity, mobility, or vol\D8 as a principal
element. 1!'inally, it is detemined that ~ r818!ies utilh..
permanent solutions and alternative tm8ftt (or r88OUJ:C'8
tec:hnoloqies 0 the muirm:m extent cable.
Date
ry)
-------
~Of Rlll8dial Alternative Seleetion
iSII8D Creek~ STt:8
Operable un t T\«)
IN'I'Iu.u...-t Ial.
The superfund investigation of the Chisman Creek Site has been separated into
Operable unit one and ~rable unit 'lW. Operable unit One consists of four fly
ash disposal pits (designated Areas A, a, C, and D) and areal ground water.
Operable unit 'tWO consists of three ponds (designated A, B and C), the freshwater
tributary stream that drains the site, and the Chisman Creek estuary. This docunent -
presents a summary of the remedial alternative selection for Operable unit Two. .
SIT! LOCATICII All) DESCRIPl'ICli
The Chisman Creek superfund Site is located in York County, virginia, approxi-
mately one mile north of Grafton. The site is located within the watershed of
Chisman Creek, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. The site location is shown on
Figure 1.
Operable unit one consists of four abandoned sand and gravel borrow pits that .
were filled with fly ash generated at the virginia Power Yorktown Power Generating
Station. The fly ash disposal pits are located adjacent to WOlf trap Roar! (State
Route 630), approx~tely 0.7 miles northeast of the intersection of Route 639 and
u.S. Route 17. The southerrmost pit, Area A, is approx~tely 13.5 acres in area
and is bordered on the west by the former York County municipal landfill and on. the
-"'- east- by Route 630. Area a, approximately 4.5 acres, is 709 feet north of Area A
and is bordered on the east and west by inteanittent streams. Area C, approxi-
mately 12.9 acres, is 500 feet northeast of Area a, and. is bordered by Route 633 to
the west and by Chisman Creek to the northeast. Area 0, approximately 5 acres, is .
150 feet northwest of Area C (see Figures 1 and 2). Parts of Areas A and Care
elevated between 5.and 20 feet above the surrounding land. The relief of Areas a
and D is similar to that of the surrounding land.
Operab~ unit 'lW consists of Ponds A, a, and C, the freshwater tributary
stream, and .the Chisman Creek estuary, as shown in Figure 2. The ponds are located
weSt of WOlf Trap Road imDediately north of area A. The tributary.consists of two
branches in the area of the porms as shown, with the confluence of the branches
near Pond C. !'rem the confluence of the two branches, the tributary flows eastward
under WOlf Trap RD8d. along the north face of Ash pit C, and into the Chisman Creek
estuary.
In tbi. dac::aD8It it is assuned that remedial action will ~ performed in
accordanc8 witb the existing Record of Decision (ROO) for ~rable unit one which
addresses the pits. This work began in November 1981 and is scheduled for
completion in December 1988.
Specific actions performed under ~rable unit One include:
. - Covering Areas A and a wi th a layer of soil over a layer of
soil/fly ash mixture and revegetatingi
- 1 ~
-------
J .
i f
oJ
:I
. .-.-
lit --
f8"" . '-
.
i
.'
./._-._-
V. .' . ,
..." ..~ - ~ :
., .;., -. :-..
. '..
----- ._~
.... '}J)" ~""" .1Cr - '.
. . .". -!818
YORKTOWN POWER ~
ST A TIOH
-
...
Sate
'-
-....... - .
/"
---
./.
.
Zi8acl
,
\ ':
'-,01"
.......,..
..
-.- "
SITI LOCATION MAP
CHISMAN CREEK S~PER'UND SITI
OWN.
_._-~
~~r~
....-.. 0...-' "-
1/1 1. .....
.,. --.. ......,..
--- ~ "'.
.......
rlGURI
1
A-'" ~w OAft 11-'1-'7
8CAL8a te. 1000'
OU..... MUM""
87-2e8-A2
.
. -2..
-------
.
w
.
.------
FLYASH PIT
LJ
~-~
...-- .......... ...--
. " ........
.......... .-..
-.. ....
STUDY AREA
CHISMAN CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
I- c"D~ ZlXS-
rlGoa.
2
APPO. ~ DAft ..~.1
KALa; ... ..00.
DltAW8HG .....-
81-288-A1
6
_v
CIJZ)
~:~
I~. .:~.
.:.'. .
.-..: .
POAJO
-------
- Capping Area C with a low-pez:meabi li ty cover, revegetating,
installing subsurface drains, and providing treatment .of the
collected ..,round water unti 1 the water can be discharged
directly to the freshwater tributary;
- Relocating a portion of the tributary along Area C;
- Providing an alternate water supply for residential areas;
- Obtaining deed restrictions; and
- Post-closure monitoring of surface and ground water quality.
The remedial actions taken umer the Operable unit One have been designed to
minimize the release of contaminants fran the si te by controlling various sources
of contamination. 'n1ese acions will significantly improve quality of the
enviroment of the areas studied during ~rable unit TWO. The alternatives
presented in this doo:rnent complement the remedial action associated wi th Operable
unit one.
ApproxLmately 599 to 1,999 people live within 1 ndle of the Chisman Creek
site. Land use in the imnediate vicinity of the site is mainly for single family
residences.
Chisman Creek supports private and catmercial marinas and n\JDerous private
docks, and is a popular fishing area for both private and catmercial fisheCl81.
Ponds in the area are reportedly used for recreation as well.
SITE HIS'roRY
.
TwO units of the Virginia Power yorktown Power Generating Station began b!IIl
ing coal mixed with petrolel.lU coke in 1957 and 1958. Coke is a dry, canbustible
material produced by the distillation of oil and petroleum products. Most of the
organic consti tuents of coal and coke are reduced to gases and are exhausted to the
atmosphere during canbustion. However, solid residues are also produced during the
canbustion of coal and coke. These residues contain metals and certain inorganic
substances which are present in the coal and coke prior to caabustion. one of the
solid residues produced is fly ash which is removed from the exhaust stream during
canbustion. Fly ash material was produced at the YorktCM\ Power Generating Station
until 1974, when Virginia Power converted the station to bum fuel.
Between 1957 and 1974, virginia Power EI'IIployed a private contractor to haul
the fly ash frCIII the Yorktown Power Generating Station. Large quantities of the
fly ash W8m dlpaeit8rS in four abamoned sand and gravel borrow pits located
approximat:81y two mil. south of the generating station in the Chisman Creek
watershed. on. four fly ash disposal areas bec3a8 designated as,the Chisman
Creek Superfun4 Sit».
Area D was partially filled with fly ash during the same time period as the
other pi ts . However, the owner of Area D reported that all of the fly ash was
removed fran Area D and deposited in Area.C between 1971 and 1973. Area D was
reportedly filled with construction rubble generated during the construction of
public utilities in the area at that time. Soil samples analyzed fran Area D
during the Operable unit one investigation confitm8d the removal of the fly ash.
- 4 -
-------
In 1989, a danestic well west of Area C along WOlf trap Road was reported to
have discolored water. In NovElDber of 1989, the virqinia State Water COntrol
Board (sw:B) and virqinia State Board of Health began sanplinc; qround water' from
residential wells in the vicinity of the fly ash areas to determine tl» tyPes and
concentrations of containants present. Subsequent studies were conducted by the
Virqinia In8tituta of Marine science (VIMS) and the go to detemaine the nature
and extent of contamination in the area. ~ studies found elevated concentra-
tions of trac» III8tals in qround water, surface water and soil in and adjacent to
the' fly ash disposal areas. The data and conclusions of these studies resulted in
the site being incl\D!d on the National Priorities List (NPL) by the EPA in 1983.
Following t:,e listing of the site on the NPL, EP\ conducted the ~rable t1'1it
one Remedial Investiqation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). n. Operable t1'1it One
ROO was issued by EPA in Sept:elti;)er 1986, and a consent decree was siqned by
virqinia Power and EPA in september 1987. A final WOr1c Plan for RllMdial cesiqn/
Remedial Action (RD/RA) \l8S prepared by Virqinia Powr and construction began in
November 1987. Remedial action for Operable t1'1i t One is scheduled for completion
in December 1988.
At the request of EPA, the U.S. Fish and wildlife service (EWS) conducted the
Operable onit TwO RI to evaluate the impact of contaminants at the site on fish and
wildlife resources and their habitat. '1b! final at was suJ::mitted to EPA in
September 1987. GAl COnsultants, Inc. (GAl), a contractor to virqinia Power,
prepared the FS for Operable onit TwO and sutmitted the. final !S in January 1988.
Chemical analyses of the' physical envirorment and biota at the site for
Operable U'\it TwO focused on eiqht metals. 'these wre arsenic, cachi\D, copper,
lead, nickel, seleni\D, vanadi\D and zinc. '
No orqanic contaninants were identified during the Operable t1'1it one RI that
were attributable to the fly ash. The results of the Operable unit Two RI. indicate
that the surface water, sediment, fish and ,aquatic vegetation at the site contain
elevated levels of various metals. '1b! t'II)st ubiquitous and abundant metals wete
nickel and vanadilrn.
'Principle findings of the Operable unit Two investiqation are presented below:
- Bioassays were ~rformed by the EWS on water from Ponds A, B, C and
the tributary using water fleas and fathead minnows as test orqanisus.
Based upon laboratory bioassay tests, Pond A water and tributary
water were observed to exhibi t toxic effects to water fleas. Waters
from Ponds B and C were not toxic to the water fleas. No toxicity.
was observed in any of the fathead minnow tests.
- A sediD8lt biouay fraa the O\isman creek estuary inc1icated a low
level, of sb8cute toxici ty. This is baaed on the adverse impacts
on 10 owgulation and respiration observed in qrass shrimp. No
adver..- ~ were noted at a second location, nor were arty
~t8 notad on a second test orqanism, t1ie blU8 mussel, at
either location.
- 'rhe n\.ltlber of species and the n\Di)er of individuals per specie
in the benthic macrofaunal camnmity of O\isman creek was
essentially the same as that of the control estuary, Bermett
'creek. Results indicate that' the benth,ic canaunity of O\isman
Creek is not being siqnificantly impacted by contaninant:s.
- 5 -
-------
- A histological evaluation of fish from the freshwater ponds
and oysters irem Chisman Creek was cond\X:ted to assess the
impact of contaminants on site organisms. The exanination
conclud8d that neither group's health condition was seriously
impacted by contaDinants at the si te.
- EPA evaluated the hlDan health effects associated with eating
fish fram the ponds and oysters fran the estuary. The data
indicates that the consllltPtion of fish and oysters does not
present a h\mW'l heal th hazard.
- The hl.l'Mn health risks associated with the accidental
ingestion of surface water and sediments at the site were
were found to be wi thin EPA guidelines for acceptable
risks.
section 121 of the Canprehe~ive Environnental RHponse, Canpensation, and
Liability Act (CEICLA), 42 U.S.C. Section 9621, provides that rsnedial action under
CERCLA shall, at a minimun, meet any standards, requirsnents, criteria or limita-
tions under federal envirorrnental statutes and state envirormental and facility
si ting laws which are legally applicable to the hazardous substances or pollutants
or contauinants concerned or are relevant and appropriate under the ci rCUDStances
of the release. Such standards, requirements, criteria or limitations are hereinafter
referred to as "ARARs". The ARARs for the remedial action selected for Operable
Unit 'IW of the O1isman Creek Site, described herein, were identified on 'the basis
of the requirements of section Ul(d) (2) (a) (i) ~,!5. of CEIa.A; the Guidance
on Feasibility Studies under CERCLA (EPA, June 1985, pp. 5-9 to 5-13); and the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) 49 C.F. R. Part 39". Table 1 presents the standards
and criteria for the eight metals (arsenic, cadnium, copper, lead, nickel, sele~,
v~adil.lU, and zinc) that were the focus of the Operable unit 'l\Jo RI and FS.
Table 2 sumnari zes the exceedance of ARARs for such metals. All exceedances
were found in surface water at the site. Table 2 includes the locations and analy-
tical results of the samples and the value of the ARARs that were exceeded. .
The preceding table did not list vanadiun since vanadiun is presently an
inorganic for- which ARARs have not been praaulgated. However, EPA has recently
developed an unpublished Fstimated Advisory Concentration (EAC) for vanadilmt. This
value is 7.7 Parts per billion (ppb) in freshwater systems. A saltwater EAC has
not been established to date.
The Fed8n1 9IgistE states: "nonpranulgated advisories and guidance dOC\m\en~s
issued by ""'~.1 or .tam governnents do not have the status of potential ARARs.
(52 FR 32497,' AIJ;U8C rr, 1987.) Since the EAC for vanadi\D is unpub~ ished, the
public hu DOC bad. the opportunity for C\,A,,,Kn'1t and it appears thft this is the
first site the DC for vanadi\D has been applied. Therefore, canparisons of the
O1isman creek site data with the vanadi\D DC must be made with caution.
The following table presents a s\.JllDary of the results fran the Operable unit
'l\Jo RI fran the analysis of surface water for vanadi\D.
- 6 -
-------
,TABLE 1
CHEMICAL S~IFIC ARARs Fat CDft'MttWfTS ~T THE CHISIIWf CREEK SIft (IN PPB)
....Iat 1011 Ar...te ~ 11...t
..... _I d.. .....1- 9a...l- 11-
-- 8lAL'I'i fItOIiDLYIC8
I. --=L 51 II 51 .1
2. CWA rl... a'"
...ter 1.1122. '1 1111, 51 U... .I ,.,
J. aM ..t.r Oftl, 1.1'258 .1 I,", 51 IS... II '1M,
f. aM rl... Oftl, 1.lln. III
,. ... IEIAJ 'I ' UII 21 fS
I. 9Ir,I.la "rfeee
..t.r 51 II 1'" 'I .1 '1M
AQUAYIC Lira ftOII....IC8
7. aM rre."'at.r
Ac.te JII" J.'. .1. 12. "". 21 121.
I. CWA "re."'at.r
Chlonle I".. ....- U. J.2.- III. ' "I.
,. CW" "',Ine ae.te I'" U J.'. "I n J.I "
I.. CW"""'rlne I
CIII08le JI.. '.J J.'. '.1. I.J. 11 II ,...
II. Vlr,..la Pr.."'ater I"" J.lt JI. It 11.1. 251. n U I
12. VII,I.la Rarl.. JI '.J 2.'. 5.1 7.1. " 51
..1., 1...1 of I I. a .11.1011 I. pr.~t"
'~"80I..tle erlterlOll 8ta.t. .... odOr.
..Crlt.rlo. I. for trl.ala.t for. of ar...le
."r"e.. ba... crt tar 1011. e.Ie.I.t" ..1.. .
-Lower tlta. £itA apprcnr" detaetlon 1I.lt. for
.a... of II' ../1
al...nt a..I,.I.
I. ..f. Orl..l.. ..tar Act. .....- COIIt_I....t "'..1.
a. Claa. ..t., Act. erlt.,la ba... 011 I.....Uon of n... and "at.r.
J. CI.an .ater Act. criteria ba." on 1....tIOll of "ater 0.1,.
t. Clean .ater Act. criteria ba... on 1....tIOll of fl... onl,.
t. "fe Olin".. .ater Act. ....1- Cont_lnant ....el eoal.
I. 9lr,lnla S..faee .ater Standa.d for "bile .at.r S.ppl,.
J. Clean .ater Act. erlterla for ploteetlon of fre."'ater or,anl-- froa a~ta toalett,
effecta.
I. Clean .ater Act. criteria for protection of fre."'ater Ol,a.l... froa chronic to.lelt,
effect..
,., CI.an .ater Act. criteria for protect 1011 01 ..rlne or,a.l... froa ae.t. to.lelt,
effeet..
I'. Clean .ater Act. criteria for proteetlon of ..rlne ol,anl... floa chronic to.elt,
eUeet..
II. 9lr,lnla "ater qu.llt, criteria for ..rfae. "ater. fre."'ater or,a.I....
12. Vlr,lnla "ater q.allt, crlterl. for .urface "atel. ..rlne or,anl....
I '
.
-------
SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF SAMffR THAT CXCCCD AN ARM
Operable Unit I.
Reference Areas
t
nickel
Arsenic
Zinc
av v VM*
Selenium
Lead
%»^& v^w
Pond A
One sarnie
(16 ppb)
exceeded
15.4 and
13.4 ppb
^^^^^^^%«N
1
No
Exceedances
No
Exceedances
No
Exceedances
No
Exceedances
Pond •
No
Exceedances
• i
No
Exceedances
•
No
Exceedances
No
Exceedances
No
Exceedances
Pond C
No
Exceedances
No
Exceedances
No
Exceedances
No
Exceedances
t
No
Exceedances
Tributary
Five samples
(15-30 ppb)
exceeded
13.4 and
15.4 ppb
ARARs
No
Exceedances
,
No
Exceedances
No
Exceedances
One sawple
(tw*)
Estuanr
Three samples
(53-58 ppb)
exceeded 7.1
and 8.3 ppb
ARARs
Two saaples
(11 and
145 ppb)
exceeded 36
and 69 ppb
ARARs
No
Exceedances
No
Cxceedances
Two samples
(8.0 and 10.0
Cadaluai
Copper
exceeded
8.9 ppb ARAR
No No No No
Exceedances Cxceedances Cxceedances Exceedances
No No No No
Exceedances Cxceedances Exceedances Exceedances
5.6 ppb ARAR
Exceedances
Three samples
(39-59 ppb)
exceeded a
?.9ppb
ARAR
NorHey
Pood
Mo
BetveroM
Creek
No
Bennett
Creefc
No
Cxceedances Exceedances Cxceedances
No No No
Exceedances. Exceedances Exceedances
i
a
i
No No No
Cxceedances Exceedances Exceedances
No No No
Cxceedances Exctedances Exceedances
No
E
No
Exceedances
One saafle
(55 ppb)
exceeded a
5.6 ppb
ARAR
No No No
Cxceedantef Exceedances Exceedances
No No No
Cxceedances Exceedances . Cxceedances
-------
'1'abl. 3
Analysis of SUrface .tar for: V8n8:JiU8
Pond A Pond B Pond C :.~ey 'rributuy 98aV8DbI
er88k*
-
68 ppb 8.4 ppb None None 1"4 ppb None
Detected Detected Detected
75 ppb None None None 368 ppb None
Detected Detected Detected Detected
*Reference Area
The EP toxicity test is presently the only MAR that has been developed by EPA
or the State of virginia for sediment quality that applies to t:he metals of concern
studied in this investigation. 'I'\e EP toxicity test is used to deter:mine if a
sol id substance is a hazardous waste and subject to t:he Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. CH2M Hill a contractor for EPA, conducted EP toxicity tests on
sediments and fly ash frcm the 9ite during the Operable ()1it one investigation.
Based on these test results, none of the samples tested, including the ,.sh itself,
may be defined as a tCRA hazardous waste.
Remedial Objectives
. Based on the guidelines for the selection of remedies in CE1CLA Section -121,
the N:P, and the previous objectives for Operable {bit one, five remedial action
objectives have been developed for Operable unit Two.
1. Prevent Direct Contact: Prevent hl.lMn contact with surface water and
sediments containing trace elements which are in excess of ARARs or otherwise may
adversely affect hl.lMn health. .
h~2~n::V~~nI~e:~~~~; ;:=:t~n:r&i::: ~~=~~~h ::v~t
excess of ARARs or otherwise may adversely affect h\J:Dan health.
3. Prot8Ct: WIt1and8: Protect envirorrnent by prev8nting or minimizing disrup-
tion or ddtzuct10n of existing wetlands that might result frcm .the implementation
of remediaL ctiona at the site. .
",
4. Prot.:t: _tar and Sediment: Prevent deg1:adation of surface water and
sediments to levelS tnat are ln excess of ARARs and that may adversely affect h\.Iftan
health or the envi1:orraent.
5. Restore Surface water oual~: Restore the quality of surface water to
levels that attain ARARs or levels t are otherwise necessary to protect h\lMn
heaith and the enviroment.
- 9 -
-------
EYAUJATICII or AL1'E1IfA'rIVa
..
'the r8D8lial alternatives evaluated in the FS are s\J't1'&Uized below. A
separate group of alternatives is pre~ted for each of the three areas of the~
Operable {)tit '1\10 investigation: the ponds, the freshwater tributary, and the
Chfsman Creek estuary (see Table 4).
I.
ponds A, a, and C
The surface water quality in Ponds B and C were doc:\Dented to be below all
MARs and there were no adverse effects observed fran the test organisms that were
exposed to the surface water fran Ponds B and C. 'lberefore, the remedial action
alternatives considered in the Operable Obit Two FS focus prUDarily on Pond A.
Alternative 1: No Action (Ponds A, a, and Ct
The no action alternative is a viable alternative and provides a baseline for
canparison to the other alternatives. Alternative 1 incl\XSes a water quality
~nitoring progrcmt for each of the three ponds. This progr5'll will be designed to
deteenine the effectiveness of the remedial actions associated with the Operable
unit One ROD. '!he estimated present-worth cost of this alternative is $85,9"".
Alternative 2: Fill Pond A
Alternative 2 consists of the complete filling of Pond A. DDplementation of
this action would involve draining the pond and discharging the water to the
tributary; acquiring and placing borrow soil wi thin the dewatered pond; implementa-
tion of a surface drainage system to direct the surface water that previously
discharged into the pond to the downstreau tributary; and a seeding program to
establish a long-teen vegetative stand on top of the new fill. Alternative 2 I
includes a water quali ty ~ni toring progr5'll for Ponds B and C. The estimated
presentworth cost of this alternati.ve is $966,999.
Alternative 3: Land Use Restrictions
Alternative 3, land use restrictions, involves installing a six-feet high
chain link fence around Pond A to prevent unauthorized access to the water. It
also includes obtaining deed restrictions for the property containing Ponds A,B,
and C. Deed restrictions for the adjacent areas would be obtained as part of the
rsnedial action associated with the Operable unit One ROD. 'these additional
restrictiona would be int8nded to prohibit the use of the ponds. Alternative 3
also inclua.e a watac quality monitoring proqr- for each of the ponds. This
program would 1:8 de8ign8d to detemine the effectiveness of' the remedial actions.
The estimat8tpr888nt-worth cost of this alternative is $175,9"".
,
Al temati Y8 4: one-Time Treatment of Pone!. A Water
'ft1is alternative involves one-time treatment of Pond A water to lower the
concentration of nickel in the pond. A mbile treatment unit would be used
to lower the nickel concentration fran approximately 16 to about 9 ppb. water
wou19 be pumped to the plant, the nickel removed, and the effluent returned to the
pond. '!he process would continue until the nickel level is reduced below ARARs.
This is expected to take less than two weeks of treatment; however, mobilization
- 19 -
-------
time would extend the total time required to implement this option. Alternative 4
also incl~s a water quality monitoring proqJ:am for each of the ponds. - 'Ibis program
would be desiqned ~o detexmine the effectiveness of the remedial measUres. The
estimated pr..-t-worth cost of this al ternati ve is $538, ''''',.
. Altemativw 5: Surface Drainage fotx3ifications Near Pond A
This alternative utilizes the technology of the addition of runOff water to
Pond A to reduce the concentration of contaminants. Ttw remedial action associated
with Operable unit one requires covering Area A with a soil cover. Alternative 5
suggests diverting the surface r\U1Off fraa Area A into ~nd A, which discharges to
the freshwater tributary at the outlet of Pond A. This alternative also incl\.J!es a
water quali ty moni toring program for each of the ponds to evaluate the
effectiveness of the rEmedial measures. The estimated present-worth cost of this
alternative' is $137,~99.
Alternative 6: Dredge Pond A Sediments
Alternative 6 cOnsists of dredging the sediments fran Pond A to rEnOve
sediments that may contain ash and trace elements. A hydraulic dredge would be the
most appropriate piece of equi£%nEH1t for implementing this alternative. The material
collected by the dredge would be dewatered, disposed of ~:'I-site, and covered with a
soil layer in accordance with the Operable (kIit one remediation. Alternative 6
also includes a water quality-ltI)nitoring program for each of the ponds to 8'laluate
the effectiveness of the remedial measures. The estimated present-worth cost of
this alternative is $281,999. .
Table 4 smnarizes the canparison of the alternatives for the ~nds with
respect to technical feasibility~ environmental, institutional, and public health
considerations: and cost-effectiveness. Table 5 presents a s\ItIMry of the
technical feasibility and specifically addresses the perfocnance, reliability, and
implementability of each alternative. A S\.ImIary of the CElCWSARA clean-up
standard attainment is presented in Table 6. Table 7 is a final summary
presenting a qualitative and quantitative canparison of the alternatives for the
Ponds.
II.
Freshwater Tributary
Alternative 1: No Action
The No Action alternative is a viable alternative and provides a baseline
for caapariSOft to th8 otb8r alternatives. Alternative 1 includes a strean water
quality monitoring pr:oqr- of the freshwater tributary to evaluate the
effectiVen888 of. the l:8I81ial actions associated with the Operable (kIit One'R)O.
'rhe estimat81t pl'MCt-worth cost of this alternative is $75,~99.
,
- 11 -
-------
SllllMY OF Al T~ IV£S.
Cii£"Jiii1ii1.
fJresent
TKMltl1 (nylrol'8!ntll Inst ttut tona1 M1te Heln.. ~ 1Iort18 It 101
A tternlt lye felslbt11ty (Yllultton Requtrt!llents ~Yl1ulttOft ~scG8ftt..!!!!
Ponds
I. "0 Actton felslb1e. Cr'''11 wlter. qua 1 t t, MMs ac"Ieved "0 apprectl.1e 0 85,000
I""roYe8l!nt In A and now tn Ponds 8 earetflOtente or .
8 Ifter e08p1etion of Ind C. ARMs non-earetnowente
Operlb1e Untt 1 Ittltned In 1 rest ISSOCtitel
rt!lll!dtitton. Pond C Jelr tn Pond A. wtt" ocast...1
not Iffected. ellpOSure to t..
stte. (See !able 7). ,
2. r, 11 Pond A Convent tona1 Aqult te O~8nts8S Ind MMs wI 11 be III!t Pub1tc ...1t" rtst _,000 _,000 ~
~
~thods cln be terrestrtl wt1d1tfe for Pond A. "0 equtYI1ent to bact- ,
used. exposure to trice pe~tts for dls- 9round rt...
e1e111!nts wt11 celse. cIIlrte or ft 11 1"9 ,
E11.lnatlon of ] requtred.
Icres 0' poor to fllr .
open-water W!t1lnd .
It. nit. Pe,..'ss 'on
requt red fr..
propert, owner.
3. land Use ".,..'~s'on Salle 8S 110 Act 'on. S88e IS 180 Act ton. Clsull access SD,OOO 175,000
Restrlcllons required fr.. rtst sl.'1Ir to ..
I'ropp,.ty owner. Act ton.
*ARARs in this Table refer to conta8iRlll1t-epeclflc MM8
-------
TABLE
4
,
(cont t rued)
SUMMARY Of ALTERNATIVES
.. ~s
Present
Techntca1 Envtro.-entl1 Inst ttut tOnll Pub 1t c tlea1th Worth It 101
"1 ternat he Feastbnt~y Eva1uatton Requtrellents Evalultton tuttal Otscount Rate
.
4. One-t llIe Feastb1e. SI.t1ar to Mo ActIon. MMs wl11 be.t Initially, slfGhtly 453,000 538,000
Treat.nt EqulltbrtU8 ntckel tn less than 2 greater rl sk reduc-
of Pond A concentratton wll' weks after the tion than "0 ActiDn
Nater be the Sl. IS treablent pllnt and the saMe as No
.0 Actton, however, ts tn pllce. Action over 10ngte"".
equt11brlU8 wt11 be I'
reached tn 7 years. f")
...
111,000 1
5. Surface FeasIble. Grldull llIprove8ent MMs wt 11 be Very sltght rtsk 33,000
Drainage In Pond A water .t tn 4 8Onths. reduCtton when
Modtftcatton qua1tty. Equn tbrhll cCJllPlred to
for Pond A ntcke1 concentratton 1o Actton.
wIll be reached in
5 years.
6. (lredge Sed tllents can Short-te~ destruc- MARs wt 11 not be Slightly greater 196,000 ~1,000
Pond A Sedt- be placed on- tlon of benthtc .t tnUtal1y. '
lien's s tte. organtsllS, and re- It 811 tlke 8Iny ri sk reductton
lease of trace yelrs to Ittatn than No Actton.
ele8ents to the water. MMs.
Recovery and t t. to
realize iMProveMents
unknown.
-------
;5tllMRY 0" UOfNltAl UASIBIUtY (VALUAU088-PCJmS
R~dlll AIlt!rnltlve
Crt tt!r' on
RMedIII
Alter~ltlvt!s
Pt!,"fot'll8llCt!
leU..Utt,
~Oft ... ~
... 'ntt!nanct! (OM. "ll'8eIIts
(ffectlve..ss
Ust!ful lift!
.
.oss"1e
r.'lu,. IIodn
I . 180 Ac 11 on
1. r I 11 Pond A
J. l.nd USt!
Rt!str'ct'ons
4. 0nP- tt.
1rt!lt8ent of
Pond A "att!r
5. SUrf8Ct! Oralp..g@
Mod" 'catton -
Ohert S Itt! A.
SurflCe Ora'nege
through Pond A
6. OrPdgr. Sedlll8lh
Fr- Pond A
NI11 attaIn ARARs.
N'11 .tt.ln ARARs.
"III attain AlARs
Ind .11 1 redllce
clsual Pond A use.
"III att.'n ARARs.
"111 attetn AltARs.
"t11 I..rove qua.lty
of pond bot tOIl
.ett!r 1.1 and surf ICe
.att!r.
Pt!,...~nt .
Pe,...nent.
Usef.1 life of
f t!nC' ng IPPro..'-
..tt!l, 15 years.
Tellporary.
.
Pertlln@nt .
Per.nent.
. Monltorl.. Is rKl.I'"
'n Ponds A. I. Ind C.
Acct!ss rt!C8'llred.
lID s tte OUt re.. Ired .fter
'"1 e8!ftt.t Ion. otller t....
..n'torl", In Ponds . ... C.
R~ Ilr InSIIKt I.. .... .In-
tt!nlnce of fence :....:
..nl tori.. ree. In
'onds A. I. C.
ItDnttorl.. 1'f!C,.
Ponds A. I. C. .
u"" .t
. OcCIS'onl. InsPKtt_...
.Intt!nlnce of dlvertl.
channeh requIred; "It...",
requIred It Ponds A. I. C.
Monl tor'", recCl8endecl at
Ponds A, 8, C.
* ARMs in this Table refer to contaminant-specific MARs. .
Off-sit..
c_t_tlllt Ion
s.rees .
IIMtllor'zetI
ellC..t Ion of
P'" A.
,
Fenct.. -, dete- ~
r _.te: ., lie cvt. pot .
c11~ over or dut '
..... .
PoI,t'Utt, tile
treat8ent ,lant can
not ,mi.
destr8ble effluent
concentratIon.
PossI.lltt, 01 poor
qual't, sarllCt! .Itt!r
entt!r'''' Pond A ,,,,.
0" -s ttt!.
possn"'l~ I~It!te
relOYal of III sed'-
llents contl'nl",
-------
(contt...ed)
StIIMY OF T[OIIICAl FEASIBilITY EVAUMTlCII-PCMOS
..to
1IIp1811!fttabi 1 Ity
Constructabl11tJ ~
. ft.
Condlttons To see
Site Conditions (.ternal to Site To ..,I_t Des IrM Res.Us
I. 10 Action 10 construction 10 constnICtton '''''ate .... One ,ear.
required. requl red. ~1etlon of Site A
"""at Ion.
2. fl" Pond A Can be constructed by Borrow _terla1 required tan lie ,."Rented Tfree ...ths.
convent lona I _thOds. to provide appro.,..tel, In one ConstnICtion , .
Cont I IIICIUS JIUIIP I", . ]0.000 cubic ,anls to , I 11 season (J to 4 ...ths). 1ft
req8lred during Pond A. Propert, access ....
construct Ion. required.
J. land Use Fencl.. Instlned b, Property Kcess required. tan lie '..1e8!llted One ~Ir.
Restrictions convent lonal _thods. within one construc-
Pond A tton seasan.
4. One- T 1- 1 lip 'ewnted b, us Ing Sludge would need to be less thin "~I 8Dnths. Two weets.
Ireltllent of' 8Obf1e wlter trelb8ent disposed of In 8ft Ipproved
Pond A "Iter unit. facti It,. Property Iccess
required.
.. I
5. Surface Drainage Constructed b, Property access required. Ma,be'.""" Four _nths.
~dlf'catton' conventlolll' _thods. .In one conltr8Ct 'on
.. selson.
6. Dredge Sed IlIent s IlIplewnted b, PIIce8ent 0' dredged ..., be flIP lelleftted "'*IIIMI. cou 1 d be
f r. Pond A convent 101111 _thods. ..terlll on sJte. In one construct ton 8M' ,elrs
'ropert, Kcess required. selSon.
-------
tosa t ! '!'t/A I t ~r~a t t_~~
Ponds
I. 110 Ac:tton
'1. rI" Pond"
tUlllplr.tely
J.
tand 18~e
Restr '.~t tons
4. Ontt- 1t8e lr@atllt!nt
of Pond A Water
SUrf ICe Drainage
Modlflcat Ion --
Divert SUe A
Su'f8Ce Drainage
lhrough Pond ,A
6. Oreclp St!d llIenl ~
Jr08 Pund A.
5.
'l'ABLE
6
. .. .. . - .
A""'AltIeft' Of' CBRCLA CLMNUP
-------
Alternaltve
rond~
.
No Act ton
rt 11 Pond A
Access Restrtetton
one-TiMe TreatMent
Surface Drainage
Modt ftcat Ion
Dredge Pond A
rllW. StJIIMUn' F(K)*
'@rststence. Toxlcttl
Mob" Ity, 8toacCUlU11Uon
r.tr - IItekel Tted Up tn
"tekel Sulftde
Excellent - All Possible
Sed IlIeI'It Mo'eII!nt out of
Pond 1181 ted
r
r.lr - Sa8e IS 110 Action
Good - Te.porlr, Reduetton
In lI'ckel Le,els. Thereb,
Reduc'ng Poss tb Ie T ox tc It,
to Organts8s
Ver, Good - Long Te....
Reduction tn "'del Ind
Vanldh.. Le,e Is
rltr - Dredging Moves
Sedt8ent to Dtfferent
(nvlr~nt. AllowIng
potenttll "'ckel Release
fru. "'ekel Sulf'de
Short~& Long-Te~ Potential
Adverse Effects fr.. ....... (lDOIure
Medlu. - Operlble !?It 2 Alread, his
RIsk Nell Below 10-
low - Prevents Hu8en Contlct 11th
IIIters Ind Sedtllel'lt Contltnt", Trace
(1 elll!nts
Medtu. - $-- IS 110 Act Ion
VerI low to Medlu. - Short Terti letter
than 110 Actton. Long Terti (qull to
110 Act ton
Ver, Low - lower Concentrlt ton 0'
TrICe (1e1et1ts In "ater Lelds to lower
Risk
Low - ..., Release "Ickel fr08
. Sedl8ents Into H,drologlc S,st_. tit
Mould Prevent Hu88n Contact 11th s..t-
8ents ContainIng Trace EIe.ents Greater
than those of the Background
lOllI-Terti _tntenance Costs
Ver, law
~
VerI law
. lledt. - Fence Weeds
Periodic Reconstructton
law to lledt- - Depend'ng
on T". & I80unt of Sludge
Produced .
,
.....
.-4
law - Occlslonll Chlmel
Clelrtng
Medtu. - Dredged SpoIls
IIeed to be Controlled In
~ Factlltl
*'ft1e tenB High, Medign, and Low as used in this table are r-elattve, not 8I:Jeolute
I .
-------
,.ABLE
(Cont I riled)
Potentia' Threat to ...... llean" I ~
Potential for future (nvl....nt Assocllted wit" (ICIYltton. .
"'tematlve I"""Ial Action Costs Trlnsport. ledlspasll. Contat....t Cost (ffecttYellesS
110 Act 1o" VerI low VerI low (lce11ent
fl 11 Pond A VerI low VerI low '00"
Access Restriction VerI low Very low Good
One-TI~ Treat~nt Very low "I,,, - Trelt8!nt MI, Concentrlte Trace fatr
( If!11!nt S In a S Judge (PrMlced f"C8 the
Process) "'Ich May be I IeM IIIzlrdcJus
ills te ,CD
~
Surface Drainage VerI low Ver, low VerI Good
Mod If I cation
Dredge Pond A Very low . "I,h - IUIIns wnl be tn Close ProJIt... fatr
tt, to the Sedl.nts Durt", (unltton
-------
'f.J~ 8 L E 1
ceant I,,,,,", .
,8ft8d I ,... Po''''' 1.1 PCllt4l" C8f' - PaftI " Cer- f'aIt. " Cer- ...... " Cer-
Mld,,1 CGnc8n'reti OIl Po''''' I.' '0 clllOpftlc AI., clllOll8lllc ",. c'....-Ic III" clftCll!l8'llc III.'
Concen'r.' 1011 In I" far ""I ... AcM ewe lewel e" Iellel lewel C.leIIel lewel C....'e lewel C"''''e
-- ~_It~~:t_'_I_~-- - - rOtu' " W.,...- POll' "--"~!~--- Perll8MftC8 ~o~'- MMS * ...!"--"'~tJ- ,,, ..t.., I. "'1_" ,,, _t..,
--- -..... ----- - --- -- ----- --------
10-8 10-1) ~ 10-10 10-1)
tin "ctfOll 'ery GorMI Goof lID' F.lr Goof
e. ppM fll ~b' "HI Ic.bI.
r III POll' " lID' "",'Icehle I8Dt ,,"' Ic"I. heel I.... 'ery Poor 000rI 0 0 '. 0
"cr...., 'er, Goof 0u0I Poor - F.'r 0a04I <10-8 <10-" CIO-I. <10-1)
nn~'r'C"011 e. ppbl el' ..., 'ence ..,
lie ...CI8I...
~n..,,-,... ,-, GoOIt I8Dt F.lr GooI 'er, GoocI <.0-8 ..-I. 1M I8Dt
-'r"e''''''' e. "lib 'n"..-"."'. "'II~I.--- ...... t..., 1.,.1..... (we I.....
, "ph ~hor'- CI8-"
....., "GIll ...., cI-
<10-8 ..-" . <10-" "1
~.r'~n nr"In~ 1M '
Fun' 'ew' (u.II..., ,.,., Goof (JtC8 II.... I: u. II...,
Modi' Ice' 1011 f4 pph' .. "bt r.,.l.....
'trett., p('lfttf " 'er, Good 'ery Good Goof "ocr Goof <10-1 C..-IJ c..-IO <10-"
eSlt.1f lie ShCMIIf lie
<. ""'"
-------
Alternative 2: Tributary Relocation
~
Alternative 2 consists of relocating approximately 21"" feet of the
freshwater tributazy that is located adjacent to Area C and filli1'19 in the old
reach. The p1rpoee of this al ternati ve is to rechannel the surface water drainage
fran the OUsuan Creek site so that it is no longer exposed to tributary sediments
that may contain inorganics above background levels.
Implementation of this action would include the excavation of a new channel
and establishment of vegetation on the banks of the relocated stream. The relocated
channel would be constructed similar to the existi1'19 channel in tetmS of length,
mearxler ratio, channel dimensions and slopes, bed particle size, ana bank vegetation.
Alternative 2 also includes a water quality monitoring program in the tributary to
evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial measures. The estimated present-worth
cost of this alternative is $164,999.
.'
Al ternati ve 3: Dredge Tributary
Alternative 3 consists of dredging the sediments fran the freshwater
tributary located adjacent to Area C (approximately nil feet) in order to remove
sediments containing inorganics above background. Ham-held dredging equipoent may
be used to remove sediments fran the tributary. The collected material would be
dewatered, disposed on site,. and ultimately covered with a layer of soil in
accordance wi th Operable uni t one remediation. Al ternati ve 3 also inclUlSes a
water quality monitoring progriR for the tributary to evaluate the effectivel188S of
the proposed remedial measures. ~e estimated present-worth cost of this
alternative is $127,999.
Table 8 5\.1r1Mrizes the catiparison of the alternatives for the freshwater
tributary with respect to technical feasibility; envirorraental, institutional I and
public health conslderations; arxl cost-effectiveness.. Table g'presents a stmnary
of the technical feasibility arxl specifically addresses the perfocnance, reliability,
and implanentabi li ty of each al ternati ve. A S\.lmlary of the CERCLA cleanup standards
attained is presented in Table 19. Table 11 is a final summary presenti1'19 a quali-
tative and quant~tative comparison of the alternatives for the freshwater tributary.
II 1. ChismaR Creek Estuary
Alternative 1: No Action
The No 14:tion alternative is a viable alternative and provides a baseline for
canparison to tbe othu alternative. Alternative 1 includes a water quality
monitoril1lJ. pc.- of the _tuary to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial
actions .~.ad wi tb the Operable t11i t one ROD. The estimated present-worth
cost of tbia altarnative is $179,111.
. - 29 -
-------
SUMMRY or AITCRNATIVCS*
Cost Analysis
Technical
Alternative Feasibility
f nv I ronuente 1
Evaluation
Institutional
Requirements
Public Health
Evaluation
Present
North at lOf
Capital iltcount Rato
Tributary
I. Mo Action
Feasible
?. Relocate feasible.
tributary
3. Oredfe feasible.
Tributary '
Hater quality In
tributary will 1m-
prove after Operable
Unit 1 Is remediated.
Wetland wildlife and
fish habitat values
will be reduced for
several years;
aquatic life In
existing stream may
be lost; HIS has
requested that no
action beyond the
previously conducted
streaai relocation be
undertaken.
Most aquatic life
will be reawved In
affected reach; vege-
tation will be
disturbed; adverse
effects could last
several years.
MUtts will be oct No appreciable
after Site C of carclnofenlc or
non-carclnofenlc
risk associated with
occasional exposure
to the sltt.
75.000
Operable Unit I
Is remediated.
MUWs will be m
after Site C of
Operable Unit t
Is remediated.
Very illfht health
risk should approach
backfjround*
•1.000
114.000
NIMIs will be an
after Site C of
Operable Unit 1
Is remediated.
Very illfM flit
should _^
background*
44.000
127.000
*ARMto in this Table refer-to contMinant-apecific MUW0.
-------
TA8Lti
OJ
Re8ed'a1 A1ternatlve
SUllWtY OF T(C..ICAl FtASI8111TY EVAlUATIOIt
CHIS~. CREEK TRI8UTARY*
Cr'terton
Relledta1
A 1 temat tves
'erfol'88'8Ce
lIeUaltU It,
djiritlon ...
... tntenlnee (OUt) IteqI t,....ts
Piiime
FaUure Modes
Off -s tte
cont.tnlt ton
sources.
I
, .
~
Effecttveness
Usefu1 life
1. No Acl'on
2. Re10cate
Tributary
J. Dredge Trlbutlry
YI11 Ittatn ARARs.
Per81nent.
Mon'tortng rec.-ndecI 'n
trtbutlry.
Yt11 Ittltn ARARs.
Per81nent .
Monltortng rec08!ndecI 'n
trlbutlry.
Ytll t.,rove qul1tty
0' Wlter and stre-
bot tC8.
Per81nenl.
Monltortng rec08!ndecI 'n
trtbutary.
I .
*ARMs in this Table refer to contaminant-specific ARAR8.
Posstble .tgrltton of
chlme1 to forwer
1ocatton.
Posslb1e 'ncGllP1ete
relGla1 of sedt.ents
contl'ntng trace
e1l!11entS.
-------
'''BtE 9
(Continued)
"'
SlHtMY Of TEC,.nCAl FEASIBILITY EYAlUATlOII
OIISMII OE£K TRIBUTARY
.'
:.
IlIpleRntabt ,t ty
Constructabt1ttJ
fOiiCI1t1 ons
Site Condlttons (Kternal to Stte
ft.
fi"1ee
Des fred les.1ts
To ..,181ent
I. II" I\cl Ion 11o construction 11o construct Ion requIred. lone. x-Jiate ~
requIred. ~letion of ~rab\e
tttit Ole r!lf uHationrJ
1. Re'ocete Can be constructed by Topography prevents Can be tllp1e8!nted .l8edtate1y upon
Trlbutery convent tona' 8I!thocls. construct ton upstre- tn one construction cGIIP1etton 0'
howeyer. wt 1ands .ay 0' Motftrap load brIdge. season. construct ton.
requtre spect., llethods.
]. Dredge TrIbutary Can be tllp' elRftted by "acell!nt of sedlll!nts May 1M! tllp1e8ftted 'l8ed'ate1y upon
convent tona' dredgtng on-s tte ..st be tn one constrvct ton cCIIIP1etton 0'
llethods 'n open areas: cdordlnated wIth pIt season. dredgt",.
uy requIre addft lOnll releCltatton. '
effort In wet'e'"
ereas.
-------
.
,
~lon/A1ternltlve
Trlbutlry
I. 110 Action
2. Re10cate Trlbutar,
.1. Dredge Trll..tary
YA8LB
ATTAIIME.T OF C(tCLA
$ I iii" fe..t and re.......t
lecrelse fn Toatett,.
~f1ft,. or V01u.e 0'
1Iu....s s.stance.
Po ..tIt_t. or tont_fnant
~Iltt, of trace ele8ents
.111 lie l'e8ced "r
.8!dt.t Ion for Operab 1e
unit I (Ash 'Its).
Salle .s .. Act Ion; .1s0.
8Gbl1ft, of trICe e1e8ents
In sedl...t "It 1 be re.cecl.
. ,
S.-e IS 110 Action; 11so,
.obl11t, 0' trice e1e.ents
In sedillent wi 11 be reduced.
..
"tt.t.-nt .f -.Ue"le or
Ie 1eant .... "",..Ilte
....t~t, ("$)
..... CGIIItletton 0'
....tll AcU..
tl
CLI...- STAm.OS (S£CnOl 121)
'rotect Ion of ...... 11M 1th
... the (n'''OI."t
.
"" .., .... Ite.
Ittlt...
...... IIM1th and tile
envtron8!nt .11 1 lie protected
.tt.. tlte re"ct Ion of
...fltt, 0' tr.ce ele1ents.
Slightly great« pEOt8ctlan to
....-. health thin lID Actlan:
howewec, enYl':Qi .t. within at-
located reeda vill be ~.oIl«...il,
dietUIbecJ \81til ~i8t8J In
new reach.
s.. .s . Act Ion.
Slightly CJr8ter pmtectlan to
..-. health thMIlID Actlcn:
however, enyh.~l8Mt withl"
dredged reach vill be -dhA.l,
illlpaCted.
s.. .s .. Action..
I .
,
X
,
-------
TABLE
11
FlML 8tIItU'f 'l'RI8UTAR!"
.
. .~~~!!"~'. '!!.... -'
~!.....
.. Ad....
,.,.tI".... ........,
...~",.. .~4:~'~'-
..... .,. S"'....
q,-"''- Udt8 0. L lie-
t:Jm ..m ndD IdJUity
8d ~_11aI-Vq.
0.-4 at ~I... c:I.
~ Ud.t I - ""In,.
. 'IhI8 alt...u.... kther:
~8d
,
~4 at -«-+t.... c:I.'
~ Udt I J1 1W-1twt.
IbI ..4., this an-..u.
... L.... 1! 1dJUit.y 8d
~_lb.1twt.
~ Stre88
..... ... .. ,....
....... AtU.. C....
.. Ad....
...., ...
w.r, ...
."""1. S'r..
......,. S' "r..
'ft', ...
s....,- , '''''-'~ ..,....,.,
A.hers. (UK" 'r- ...... r.....,.
.... - ...,.....,.... I "re.., .., rest
_II """ ,.. .
I... - ..... IIF~ .... 4:"".' wit.
wi'. ....... «:"''''111 'r.. ...-
.... .. «:""""r.'- pellft' '11M
...".....
1.- - ., rd'lM 'r.. .,.....,
frw ......... '111. """'14: '"''''
... _I. "I."" .... ....., wi..
......, ""'''''' ,..... .......
.. ~"""f'I"" "..,. ,.. ...-
".....
......... 'Ine' ,...... ...". ,
(... 'r ..dido" A... 'e'M wit. (.........
'r"""L ,. ...1...... C8IIt.,-,
'ft', low
'ft', ,-
"'''' - "-'" w", .. '" dew IIF".
"", 18 ,.. ~....., .r'.. """111
1.-.'.... ......... te,..
fer, ...
....,A.
...., ,.
CeI' aff.ct .....,
1J
,
..... ....
....
,.."
'ot","e' (er«: '.......'C (.c '18ftII1c circt.-.c.. Care '.....'c
'01",.1.1 ,. .... l...., "d t...1 I'. ,..,!, "d .....1
for ...,..., ",,,,,,,. (lI'd.' (nld.' c..~. C.",,,,'c
re~. !~~f8!ft~ AIMS** _," .d'~~l. -~. ""!!.L- I... ~ '" ...Ift')
... At "on hlr h'r GeM 10' 10 10.11 10-10 10.10
..10(.1. Sir.. v.r,'" Poor CoIMI c 10.10 10.17 c 10.10 10-10
Iredte Str.. Iiood Poor CoM ell' 10 10.11 «10.1. 10.10
...,. terllS veq' low, high, pnrw:- fair-, good, and very qood 8r-e relative, nOt abeolute.
**conb8inant-specific ARM8.
-------
Al ternati ve 2: Dredge Sediments
Alternativ, 2 consists of dredging approximately 6.7 aeres of the Chisman
Creek estuaty in order to remove sediments containinq elevated levels of
inorganic:s. Sediment removal operations in this area, while technically feasi'"
would be c:aaplu. water depths in the affected part of the estuary ranqe fr~
few inch_- ia the upatre811 area to a few feet in the most doVlStream location.
Conventional. barge-fOOunted dredging operations would thus be impractical, unless an
access channel was also dredged. Portable truck- or pontoon-mounted hydraulic :
dredges would be most appropriate. Mechanical dredges may be required where access
is limited, the water depth too shallow, or water supply for slurry operations
insufficient. Access roads for ingress ana egress to the estuary ana hauling of
dredged spoi 19 would have an adverse impact on adjacent areas.
Disposal would be via hopper trucks, supplemented by small barges where the
draft is sufficient. Due to the large vol\D8 of dredged material, off-site .
disposal would be necessary. TwO general si tee are possible for off-site disposal.
The Craney Island disposal si te, located at Port of Hampton Roads, has ac:cepted
dredged materials of similar canposi tion in the past. ocean disposal may also be ,
permissible, assuming that the materials are found to meet the criteria for this
type of disposal.
Alternative 2 also includes a water quality monitoring progran for the Chisman
Creek estuary to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed remedial measures. 'the
estimated present-worth cost of this alternative is $3,998,9'''. .
Table 12 surrmarizes the canparison of the alternatives for the Chisman Creek
. estuary with respect to technical feasibility; envirormental, institutional, and
public health considerations; ana cost-effectiveness. Table 13 presents a sumna~
of the technical feasibility and specifically addresses the performance, . '.
reliability,. and implenentability of each alternative. A S\IIIDarY of the CERCtA
cleanup standards attairment is presented in Table 14. Table 15 is a final sumnary
presenting a qualitative comparison of the alternatives for the Chisman Creek estuary.
R!aJt4Btl)JI) ALTDta'1'IVB
After careful consideration of the proposed remedial alternatives and in
accordance wfth Section 121 of CElCLA, 42 use Section 9621, and the National
Contingency Plan (~P), 59 Fed. Reg. 47912, NovEmber 29,1985 (codified at 49 CFR
Part 3(9), the recuWlaIded alternative for the ponds is Alternative 5, Surface
Drainage Modification NMr Pond A. The r~~maded alternative for the freshwater
tributary is Altemativ8 1, No Action, and the recu~ alternative for the
Chisman cr... 88tDuy i. Alternative 1, No action.
- 26 -
-------
SUMMMY Of Al,TERMTlVES*
---------
2.llernattve
Estuary
I. "0 Actton
2. Dredge
Sedillents
~s
.resent
llarth It 101
CI,ttl1 Dtscount Rite
T eclwl tel1
rels tbn t~J
. Feastble.
Oredg tng the
estulry wou1d
be I dlfflcu1t
Ind cOIIp 1 e.
o~rltlon,
requtrlng eon-
structton of
Iccess roads
Ind chime 1s,
Ind d tsposll
of In e.ten-
s've quant t t,
of sed'8I!!nt at
I rellOte
locatton.
[nvtrol8entl1
[vl1uaUon
Instttuttonal
Requ'rellents
The vlter qUa1tt, tn
the freshNIter trtb-
utlr, vt11 t.,rove
Ifter Operlb1e Untt I
Is relledlated; other
sources of trace'
e 1Rent S tn the
estulry vt11 re88tn.
MAlts vt 11 be 8I!!t
tn the freshwater
tr tbatlr,. ARMs
tn estHr, ..y be
_t, dependtng on
88DUnts of trace
e1e8eftts dertved
frCJ8 other sources.
Dredgtng end access MAlts vt 11 be _t
chlme1 constructton In the freshwater
vH1 re80ve benth Ic tr lbatary. ARMs
COllUnlttes In In estUlr, .ay be
Iffected area, end 8I!!t .~ndt"' on
wau1d tlke severa1 88DUnts of trice
,ears to re-estlb11sh~ e1e8eftts dertved
re-suspenston of frCJ8 other
trice elRents frCJ8 sources.
sedt8ents ts 1tke1y
durtng dredgIng; eco-
syste8 of sa1t ..rshes
vt11 be Idversely
affected b, ph,stcl1
chlnges; construction
of lecess road would
Idverse I, Iffect the
near shore env t rol1lent.
Pub 11 e Hel1 th
(va1uI~0n ~
IIu88n conSUllft ton
of ft sh Ind
oysters "I ..t
present I hea1th
hllird. .
o
170,000
3.008.000
Stgntflclnt chant! 2,138,000
In tota1 rtsk not
"te1,.
*ARARs in this Table refer to contamina~t specific ARARs.
t
~
t
-------
UlWtY or tEC..ICAl FEASI81L1TY EVALUATION
CHISMM C~ES'UARY
h8l!dla' Alternlthe
Criterion
(n I!C it veness
Usefu' life
lteUa.I Uty
Operanon .... ~
"'Intenlnee (OUt) ~Ir...ts
'oss'ble
r a I Jure Modes
Perfor8811Ce
Rf!8I!dla'
" Ilet"nallves
- ,..
2. Orr.dge Sed llIent s
qua'ity 0' water end
sed....t vi" I...rove
after 'Its A, I, C are
re8edI atetl.
'I" l-.rowe qua'ity
of Wlter and sedl.nt.
'erwanent.
Monl tori", ne.
tributary.
!nded In
0tI8er cont.I..e; Ion
sCllrees .
I. 180 At:tlon
'er8lnent.
Monltorl", rec.
tributary.
nded In
Pos,I'1e IftCOII8I'ete
,..."a' 0' sedl.nts
cont.lnl", trace
e'e8eftt' and other t
C8t.I..Uon :s
s..rees .
...---.. ---..
-.... .- -----. - .
1"'ellenta.I'Ity
. .
S tte Condtt Ions
Constructlbl'Ity
CondItions
Externa' to Site
ft.
to See
Desired ResuUs
,. ..,1t8i1ftt
.
.,
I. 10 AcUon ,
10 construct Ion
rpqulred.
110 construct Ion r@qU'red.
188!tIt.tt.
........ .e to
ot..... trace
e'e8ent sources.
I .
'1. Dredge St"d llients
MI" require 8r.chanlca'
or hydraulic dred~s.
and possl.ly an
excavated channel.
ROids wou Id a I so IJP
rM!Cessary.
orr -slle dlsposI' of
sed I.nt s requ I red due to
VOIU8e. Possible
Inslltutlona' constraints.
"'y be I..,..nted In U'*IIIMI, due to
one constructton othe" trace
season. e 'e8en~ sources.
-------
~ton/ftlternatlve
(slulry
I. 110 Action
2. Oredg@ Sed ,...ts
t'A8L8
14
.
ATTAINMENT OF CERCtA ctIW«JP STANnAROS (SfIrI'laf 121)1t .
St.."teant and re.....ent
lecrelse tn To.'elt,.
. M"U,. or 'olu.e 0'
Huarclous S.stance.
Po 1111\81t. or tont.ln..t
,
~tllt, of trace ele8eftts
.1 I I 1M! nMtIced under
re8edlltlon for Operable
Un't I (Ash 'Its).
:s- - ., Action: aleo,
lang-t.. 8iJility of tr:eoe
e1--u in eedl8nt ., be
furthK nduced, 8hc*t-tem
t8Jbility of tE'808 el-.ts
vill be incnMI8eCI.
Protection 0' ...... IleIUh
8nd the (nwh",_nt
....... hellth and the
ellYlr--nt .n I lie ,rotected
.ltll the redlet Ion of
tUblltt, 0' trice ele8!nts.
a-n health viiI be pI'Ot8ct8J
br the ncb:tion of 8Dbility of
trace el_ts, h--.....t, the
8IWb~ 1it of the .....,
botta8 viI be 81gnifiC8lt1y
d18t~.
itARARe within this Table cefec to contaMinant-specific ARAR8.
,
Att.lnIIftt of ~'Ielb'e or
.. Ie 'nant .... "",.. lite
..,..,..-ts '--5)
...... c., let.. of
....,., Act Ion
ARARs wi11 be attained
IssUMIng no off-site
sources of trace e1ements.
.
s.. IS lID Act ton.
Ja
-------
"1t~r"lt lye
. .
(stulry
180 Action
Dredge (stUlry
S@dl.nts
Ie Act l-
Or t'" (stury
Sed'8Iftt s
180 "ct Ion
Urr.d4F 'slulry
Sr.UlW!nh
r 11't1\18 O\JI"...-.n& \,At..... ..... ,-aYL"""'.~ "-,,,"""'4."'"
Persistence, TORlc'ty
Mobnlty. "oICCU8JIIUon
q,enble ~t 0. E88dla-
tlon viII recJuce 8Dbl11ty
ancJ bi08CC'll~llation.
..,... on effectl.- 8.811
of ~8bl. tttit 1
A8edlatlon. AMltiOnally,
this altematift .,
incn888 8hort-tHII
..,111ty and blO8C08Ula-
tlon.
Potential for Futvre
18IeIla' Action tosts
Yery low
Yer, 1-
Potent II'
for IIlb'tlt
r.~~ant!.!'Ce l~oYelM!nt
Potentl.1
to
Achley@
"MRS
Short- & long-Te~ 'otentlal
Adyerse (ffects fr08 Nu8In [Rposure
lOlll-T.. MI'ntenlnce Costs
low - Operllble,Unlt 2 l1reldy has'r'" ~Very law
wn belaw 10-
low - M8y release treee ele1fnts
fr08 sedt8ents Into """1011c s,st-.
llut would prevent ""n contect .Ith
sedl.nts cont.lnl.. trace e'...s
.t cancentrlt Ions ..eater tll.. 'eet.
,,"ound
Potent I.' ,......t to ..... ....tt. I
[nvlr...nt Associated vIti. (ac.aU..
transport. Ited'WOS.I. tontal_t
.
, .
Very low
"'th . _ns vIII lie In clO1e "..
'8ft, to tile sedlll!ftts "rl.. ~~'...
Very law
Cost (ffeet I WIllIS I
A
...
IIrJ ....
,;IiIIi.n,c
);11 lewel
, ,""Ic
tn ,"I.ntL
CarcInogenic
In s' leye'
(arsenic'
In v.terL
r. 'r ralr Good 10-6 to 10-5 10-6 to ur5
Good Very poor Good lo-6to 10-5 10-6 to 10-5
.Very Low, High, Very POor, Fair and Good are relative, not abSOlute.
10-6 to 10-5 10-6 to 10-5
10-6 to 10-5 . 10-6 to 10-5
Clretnogenlc
Rh. leyel
(nldel
In sedlllentL
Clrcl.....ntc
'Us, leyel
(nlc'el
In vlterL
-------
Rationale for ~
mtion
..
Pond8 A. B. and C
AltamaUV8 5, the surface orainaqe fotX!ification Near Pond A, "88 judged to
bepreferab~ to t:b8 other alternatives proposed in the FS for the following reasons:
- EPA eValuated the h\lftiln health effects associated with eating fish frail the
ponds. The data indicates that the cons\lllPtion of fish frCIII the ponds does not
present a h\.lllan health hazard.
- 'Ihe h\lMl1 health risks associated with the accidental ing_tion of water or ~
sediment while swinming in the ponds ware found to be wi thin EPA guidelines for
acceptable risks.
- A histological evaluation of fish frCIII the ponds concluded that the health
condition of the fish was not seriously impacted by contaminants at the site.
- By diverting surface runoff frCIII Area A into Pond A, concentrations of
inorqanics in ~nd A will significantly decrease. water quality modeling has
predicted Alternative 5 will achieve the lOW8st equilibrium concentration of nickel
and vanadilln. wi thin five years nickel is predicted to d8c:reue frail 16 ppb to
4 ppb and vanadi1.m should be reduced frCIII 72 ppb to 9 ppb <- figures 3 and 4).
. -
- SUrface drainage modifications may be implElt81t~ with essentialIy no
adverse impacts to the envirorment during construction.
- - Erosion of fly ash fran Area A into Pond A will be eliminated by the
capping and revegetation of Area A as required by the Operable C11it One ROD.
- Alternative 5 in conjunction with the remedial action associated with the
Operable unit One ROD, will provide an improved wetland habitat for the freshwater
fish, other aquatic fauna, floating and rooted vegetation, and other organisms that
inhabi t Pond A.
- Alternative 1, No Action, was not chosen because Alternative 5 is more
protective of_the environment. Alternative 5 will lowar the concentration of
vanadium to approximately 19 ppb, less than half of the concentration achieved by
No Action.
- Alternative 2. Pillin; Pond A, poses the greatest envirOl'lll8ntal impact
since it wcu14 elillinata 3 ac:r.. of open water watland habitat.
. "
- Alt...-" \1.. 3, tanI! Ole R8Str1ctions, will not redUC8 the amount of
inorqanica --~ .LM. 1m Rxd A, nor were there any caapelling ~health concerns
that warr8DC"6~tdc:ting aite acatS8.
- Al temati ve 4, cme-time Treatment of Pond 4 water, .. not selected because
available practicable treat:m8nt methods will not reduce the vanadims concentration
below their present levels in Pond A.
. - Alternative 5 will meet all ARARs (see Table 16).
- Alternative 6, DtedC)ing Pond A, will have a significant short-teen impact
on the water quality due to the resuspension of inorganics. Additionally, dredging
would have a severe impact on the benthic carmuni ty of Pond A.
- 31 -
-------
TULI 16
JCl'lCII III) LCCM'IC»-O~lC
!!lit 1IqId.r; 't8 = - .II Altllm8t1~
let! vi ty .
Activity within a
flood plain
Acti vi ty in a W8tland
Acti vi ty affecting a
stream or river
Discharge of
pollutants into
water of the un! ted
States through a point
source
.-
. ~ '''.'':~~';'' .'. .
":,,!!,...,.
AD8 dtadOD
-
El8e'Kive Ordel: 11988,
PEot8Ction of !'load
(41 C.r.R. Pal:t 6,
~ix A).
Executive Ordel: 11991,
PEot8ction of W8tlan:Ja
(41 C.r.R. PaEt 6,
AW. A).
Fish' Wildlife
coomination Act:,
lti a.s.c. S8c:tion 661
~. seq.; 41 C.P.R.
S8c:tion 312.
Clean watel: Act:,
. 33 a.s.c. Section 412 (a) (1)
41 c.r .R. S8c:tion 122
RlQaiI
.t
Take action to avoid adverse
eff8Ct8, minimi. potantial
hum, r_tol:8 ancJ PE-J:V8
natuEal ancJb8a8ficial values
Take action to mntmi- t:h8
destruction, 1088 OJ: de-
gEadation of W8tl.~.
~
Take action to pr:ot8Ct fish
01: wildlife
M88t effiumt limitations
bu8d on b88t professional
judg8D81t. .
*COnt8l1iiiiit-~OI: the .iiCtiirRIID81Uai"'iltaEnative.8 identified
in Table 1. .
- 32 -
-------
MOST STRINGENT ARAR
FOR NICKEL * 13.4 PPB
ALTERNATIVE I
(NO ACTION I
EQUILIBRIUM
CONCENTRATION
»9 PPB
ALTERNATIVE 4
IONE-TIME TREATMENT)
EQUILIBRIUM
CONCENTRATION
ALTERNATIVE 5
(SURFACE DRAINAGE MODIFICATION!
TIME (DAYS)
CONCENTRATION^ tASEO ON
MATE RIAL tAlANiCE MODEL.
PREDICTED NICKEL CONCENTNATION8
IN POND A WATER
CMI6MAN CREEK 8UPERFUND SITE
TIME "O" ASSUMED TO BE
COMPLETION Of REMEDIAL
ACTION.
AS NOTED
FIGURE
DRAWING NUMBER
87-266-A13
-------
If ALTERNATIVE 4
(ONC-TIME TREATMENTI
ALTERNATIVE
(NO ACTION)
ALTERNATIVE 5
(SURFACE DRAINAGE MODIFICATION}
AVAILABLE PRACTICAL TREATMENT METHODS WILL NOT REDUCE THE VANAOHJM
CONCENTRATION BELOW THE EXISTING CONCENTRATION IN THE FONO| THEREFORE
ALTERNATIVE 4 IS THE SAME AS ALTERNATI
EQUILIBRIUM
CONCENTRATION
«2I PPB
EQUILIBRIUM
CONCENTRATION
«»IO PPB
TIME (DAYS)
R&
V* (I
WMBMMMB^VH^Mi^MMMMM^^BiHHB^MAV^MHMtfW^^MHHMBwHIVBVHIMBII^^B^BMl^BI^^HII^BMIB^Ml^B™^^*11
PREDICTED VANADIUM CONCENTRATION!
IN POND A WATER
CHI8MAN CREEK 8OPERFUND 8ITE
ttfct*^ -ti.
^IGORE
OWN.
DRAWING NUMDCft
87-26G-A14
A
-------
Fresm-tB ftibutaEY
.~~ .
Al~l" No Action, was judged to be preferable to the other alternatives
proI?Osed i~~-:rs. for the following reasons:
~. -
.0...#.:'
- 'the h\lD8nhealth risks associated with the accidental ingestion of water or
sediment of the freshwater tributary were found to be within EPA guidelines for
acceptable risks.
- Prior to the tributary relocation, fly uh wa. directly eroded fralt Area C
and into the tributary. 'the relocation of the tributary that has been caapleted
and the capping of Area C will eliminate any additional fly ash fraa being directly ~~
supplied to the tributary.
- 'ftle ground water treatment and the capping of Area C associated with the
Operable unit One ROD should allow ARARs for nickel and lead to be met and vanadil.m
concentrations to be significantly reduced in the tributary.
- Concentrations of inorganics that will exist in the surface water and.
sediments after the ranediation associated with the Oper~le t)\i t one ROO cannot
be precisely quantified; however, the concentration of inorganics should be fully
acceptable for the protection: of human health and the envirorment. As pr8Vioualy
discussed, the No Action al ternati ve includes periodic water quality mani toring of
the tributary in order to quantify the concentration of inorganics present after
the remediation associated with the Operable (hit One ta). In addition, a
canprehensi ve saupling pragran is being conducted by EPA during the present remedial
action at the site. If elevated concentrations of inorganics are determined to
exist during or after remediation, any actions needed to further protect public
health and the envirorment will be taken. I
- Alternative 2, Tributary Relocation was not selected since ggg feet of the
2100 feet proposed for relocation in Alternative 2 has recently been caapletad as
part of the remediation for Operable unit One. 'ftle Fish and Wildlife Service has
requested that no. further actions be undertaken in the tributary. EPA agrees that
further relocation activities are unnecessary and would disturb the fragile wetland
which is pr~ntly recovering fralt the initial remedial action.
- Alternative 3, Dredge Tributary, was not selected because dredging
tributary sedill81ts will have a significant short-terra imp8ct on the water quality
due to the r~lOD of inorganics. Additionally, dredging would have a severe
iq8Ct CII. . ~ie oo--mty in the tributary.
..:.
~. #
.- .
~ 1, No Action, was judged to be preferable to the other
alternatiV8'P~cpC.815 in the FS for the following reuona:
- EPA evaluated the h\Dllft health effects asaociat:8d with eating oysters fran
the Chisman Creek estuary. 'ft\e data indicate that the c:onsauption of oysters fralt
the !!5tuary does not present a h\DaD health hazard. .
- 'ftl8 h\Dan health risks associated wi th the accidental ingestion of water or
sediment fran the estuary were foUR! to be wi thin EPA guidelines for acceptable
risks.
- 35 -
-------
- A histological evaluation of oysters frail the estuary concluded that the
health comitioa qf th8 oysters was not seriously impacted by contaminants at the
site.
. ,: - '.-~~-
. .",... .:~
- ~ ita8hft of specie8 and the mmblr of individuals in the benthic
macrofounU.' ~ - 101.1 ty of Olisman Creek was essentially the saD8 as that of the
control estuaEy'. Bennett creek.
- It is expected that the estuary water quality will improve after Area C
remediation has been ~leted, as both the quali ty of the tributary water is
improved and the sediment load containiri; inorganics is eliminated.
-----
- Alternative 2, Dredge Estuary SecJiments, was not selected because
approximately two acres of high quality salt marsh would be extensively
disturbed by dredging activities. Additionally, re8uspension of trace elements
would occur during dredging, possibly causing impacts on dovagradient areas that
are presently not affected and dredging would have a severe impact on the benthic
ccmnuni ty .
The No Action alternative includes periodic amitoring of water quality in
the uppez:most portion of the estuary. As previously discussed, if elevated
concentrations of inorganics are detemined to exist after the remediation
associated with the ~rable ..t1'1it one ROO, appropriate 1'n88Sur" will be taken.
The monitoring program for the ponds, the tributary, and the estUBy will be
further developed during the remedial design and ~y include, but not be limited
to, water quality analysis, sediment quality analysis, and "trigger values" for
both water and sediment that will detemine the approPriate of additional
bioassays. .
Each r~",.ded al ternati ve for the ponds, the tributary, and the estuat!l
is protective of h\Dal1 health and the envirorment, is cost effective, and utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maxim\lll extent practicable. The canbination of renedies for
~rable units One and 'lW satisfy the preference for treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility, or vol\.1D8 as a principal element.
- 36 -
-------
CHISMAN CREEK SUPE1U'U~D SI'l'E
G~TON, YORK COUNT~, VIaGI~IA
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
MARCH 1988
This community relations responsiveness summary is di"idea
into the following sections:
Section I.
Section II.
Section III.
Section IV.
Overview. This section discusses EPA's preferred
remidIiI action alternative for Operable Unit 2
and public comments on this alternative.
Background of Community Invo~vem.nt and
Concerns. This section briefly describes the
history of community interest and concerns that
arose during remedial planning activities at the
Chisman Creek site.
Summar of Ma'or Comments
Public Comment Period and
these Comments. Comments
and categorized according
Received Durin the
EPA's Responses to
received are summarized
to topics.
Remaining Concerns. Al! remaining concerns tnat
EPA or the State of Virginia should be aware of
d~ring future remedial activities for tnis site
are discussed in tnis section.
In addition to the aoove sections, Attachment A provides a 11st
of the community relations activities EPA has conducted at the
site to this date.
-------
I.
OVERVIEW..
The Cb1s..n Creek site consists of four fly ash disposal
areas, tb~e. man-made ponds, a fresh-water tributary stream
tnat dra1n. the site and flows into Caisman Creek, and tne"
Chisman Creek estuary. EPA has divided the site into two
operable units to facilitate study of and action at the site.
Operable Unit 1 consists of the four fly ash disposai areas and
area ground water. A remedial investigation and feasioi~ity
study (RI/FS) for Operable Unit 1 were performea and a Record
of Decision (ROD) was lssued oy EPA in September 198~.
Operable Unit 2 consists of the three ponds, the freshwater
stream, and the Chisman Creek estuary. Tnis responsiveness
summary focuses on the preferences of and concerns raised by
the community in regard to the remedy for Operable Unit 2, as
recommended in the feasibility study and proposed plan.
A short site history, as well as tne feasibility study
findings and a description of the cleanup options have Deen
provided previously in tne ROD. Tne preferred alternatives for
Operacle Unit 2 consist of surface drainage modification near
Pond A, and no action other than monitoring at the otner ponds,
the fresh water tributary, and the Chisman Creek estuary. In
general, the site community has expressed support for tne .
preferred alternative for Operable Unit 2 recommended by ~PA.
-------
II.
BACKGROUfiO 01' COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AN£) CONCt:IU\1S
Several community groups have been involved at,the Chisman
Creek sit. since it was placed on the National Priorities ~ist
In 1~83. That involvement has been cooroinated by the ~orK
County government and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and nas
grown to include many environmental and academic institutions.
EPA's community relations effort began with a pUDlic meeting to
discuss the RI/FS worKplan for operable Unit 1 in April l~ij~
and has continued with door-to-door visits, small group
meetings, and additional public meetings. A pUDlic comment
period on the FS for Operaole Unit 2 was held from iebruary 16
to March 22, 1988. A public meeting on the is for Operaole
Unit 2 was held March 15, 1988. The level of concern and
interest in the site has varied, as demonstrated 01 attendance
at public meetings for the site. The public meeting on the RI
for Operable Unit 1 in December 1985 arew 120 residents~ the
meeting on the Operable Unit 1 FS drew approximately 40
people. Attendance was somewhat lower for public meetings on
Operable Unit 2. The meetings on the ecological study results
in July 1~87 and the FS in Marcn 1988 had 30 attenaees eacn.
.
.
The primary emphasis of the community has been, and
continues to De, on protecting the ground water, wnicn is
threatened by the site, and improving the overall qua!ity of
Chisman Creek. There is also interest in ensuring that the
site is handled in a manner consistent with its planned
recreational use after remeaial.action t~ere is complete.
. ;......,- ..-
SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED DUaING ~HE PUB~IC
COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA'S RESPONSES TO TdESE CO~~TS
III.
Comments on the proposed alternative for Operao!e Unit 2
received at the public meeting on March 15, 1988 and during tne
public comment period can be grouped into four categorles:
Scope of the remedial investigation
Remedial options for Pond A
Remedial option for the Chisman CreeK
Monitoring and maintenance.
.
.
estuary
.
.
A summary of the comments and EPA's responses to them- is
provided' below.
,
A.
..
SCOg.o~emedjal Investiqation
Commentor: Why wasn't Pond X studied during the remedial
investigation?
Response: There has been no indication tnat Pond X wnich
. is next to Wolf trap Road and set back from the site, has
been affected by erosion of fly ash.
-------
':
Commentor\. There is another pond on the other" side of
Wolf trap RoadJ why wasn't it studied? .
Respon....
fly a.b.
It is not likely that this pond was affected oy
B.
Remedial OPtions
Commentor: Why would filling in Pond A result in the loss
of wetlands?
Response: Pond A covers approximately three acres. fish
and turtles populate it and migrating water fowl use it as
wel~. Filling tne pond in would then r.su~t in the loss of
three acres of an open wetland environment. This is why
EPA is not proposing this remeay.
Commentor: Will the proposed remedy for Pond A require
that pumps will be operating at tne site in the future?
Response: No. Water will be collected through swales,
which are similar to drainage ditches. Tnere wi!l not oe
any pumps at the sfte.
Commentor: A resident wno identified himself as a
professional engineer expressed doubt that the Chismon
CreeK cleanup was being conducted properly. He suggested
clean up options be better justified.
~espo~se: EPA believes the RI/FS nas formed a solid Dasis
or choosing a clean up alternative addressing
contamination of Chisman CreeK, on-site ponds ana streams.
C.
Remedial Action for the Chisman Creek Estuary
CommeAtor: How did EPA come up with the figure of a
six-acre area require~ for dredging?
D.
Response: Tne six-acre figure was determined as a result
of the remedial investigation sampling.
MonitorinG and Maintenance
co~nt~: What will tne frequency of sampling tnd
mon tor nC) be?
Response: The monitoring plan will be worKed out during
remedial design. It will probaoly be somewhat flexiole,
based on the results of the sampiing during tne first few
years.
-4-
-------
IV.
REMAINING CONCERNS
-
Local residents express one primary concern in regard to
Operable Unit 2 that should be addressed in t~e future, as
a@propriate: t~ey would like to be kept informed of t~e
details of the monitoring plan that will be worked out during
remedial design. Once the monitoring is in place, t~e results
should be communicated to the pUblic periodically, perhaps
through the County government or one of tne local organized
groups.
-5-
-------
APPEHDIX A
.
ApriL 23, 1984 -- EPA held a pUblic meeting on the workplan
for the RI/iS for operacle Unie 1.
September 10-13, 1984 -- EPA visited residents and
districuted a fact sneet whicn explained future plans for
the slte.
.
.
December, 1985 -- EPA issued a presa release on the aI for
Operable Unit 1.
.
December, l~85 -- £PA held a PUblic meeting on tne remediai
investigation.
.
August 25, 1986 -- Local officials and resiaenes were
contacted regarding the release of the feasibility study
for Operable Unit 1.
August 26, 1986 -- The FS for Operacle Unit 1 was
distributed to 4 information centers in the community.
A ~ress release was also issued.
.
.
September 11, 1986 -- EPA met with the Stewardsnip
Committee.
.
September 15, 1986 -- Tne comment period was extended to
September 24.
September 22, 1986 -- EPA held a pUblic meeting on the FS
for Operacle Unit 1.
.
.
July 1, 1987 -- EPA ana tne U.S. fish and Wildlife Service
held a public meeting to discuss the ecological study.
March"15, 1988 -- Puolic meeting on tne feasicility studj
for Operable Unit 2.
.
A-i
-6-
-------
cuh~~V~ /~ LP-i. ~~_.
"
,I
------- |